/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/181206.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, December 6, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 244 Headlines ABBOTT HOME: Files Joint Bid for FLSA Class Cert. in Wilson Suit ACTION COLLECTION: McDaniel Sues over Debt Collection Practices AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS: Appeal Underway in Williams Class Suit AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS: Bid to Dismiss Pension Fund Suit Due Dec. 6 AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS: Suit by Medicine Pharmacy Settled AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS: Vana & Stone Suit Out of Court's Docket ANADARKO BASIN: $6.9MM Deal in Antitrust Suit Gets Prelim. OK ANSAFONE CONTACT: Brown Seeks Cert. of Call Center Workers Class ASPEN INSURANCE: Kent Sues Over Highlands Holdings Merger BENEFICIAL BANCORP: Faces Parshall Class Suit over Merger Deal BETTER PLUMBING: Underpays Plumbers, Gonzalez and Abreu Allege BREG INC: Hearron Seeks Unpaid Overtime under Labor Code BRIGHTHOUSE LIFE: Brighthouse Financial Dropped from Roycroft Suit BRUCE HORNSTEIN: Meneghetti Sues over Debt Collection Practices BRUNSWICK CORPORATION: Robles Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA CA INC: Broadcom Acquisition-Related Suits Closed CAMPING WORLD: Faces Ronge and Strougo Class Suits CDK GLOBAL: Bid for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Underway CDK GLOBAL: Bid to Drop Autoloop's Class Action Still Ongoing CHARLES SCHWAB: Continues to Defend Crago Order Routing Class Suit CHARLES SCHWAB: Dismissal in Total Bond Market Fund Suit Upheld CLEVELAND, NC: Conner Moves to Certify 2 Classes of EMS Personnel COOK COUNTY, IL: Hayes' Bid to Certify Class Continued to Dec. 18 CPI CARD: Settlement Hearing in N.Y. Suit Set for Feb. 5 DARTMOUTH COLLEGE: Trustees Sued over Sexual Harassment DELICIOUS HOSPITALITY: Sued for Disabilities Act Breach DIPLOMAT PHARMACY: Continues to Defend Michigan Class Suit ENCORE RECEIVABLE: Kanehl Moves for Class Certification ESTATE INFORMATION: Class Certification Sought in Thomas Suit EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Sues over Alleged Inaccurate Reporting FACEBOOK INC: Sylwia Komorska Sues over Data Breach FAMOUS FAMIGLIA: Rodriguez Seeks Minimum Wages & OT under FLSA FGL HOLDINGS: Still Defends Brokerage Insurance Partners Suit FINANCIAL RECOVERY: Certification of Class Sought in Voeks Suit FLEETCOR TECHNOLOGIES: Still Defends Georgia Class Action FORD MOTOR: Van Moves to Certify Class in Sexual Harassment Suit FRONTIER AIRLINES: Ridgell's Bid to Certify Two Classes Denied FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS: Still Defends Consolidated Suit in Conn. FUELCO ENERGY: Segovia Renews Bid to Certify Class of Drivers FULTON COUNTY, GA: Court Certifies Inmates' Overdetention Suit GC SERVICES: Beaufrand Seeks Class Certification Under FDCPA GC SERVICES: Jaber Seeks to Certify Class of Michigan Consumers GCA EDUCATIONAL: Taylors Seek Minimum Wages and OT under FLSA GEORGIA POWER: Bid to Stay Franchise Fee Suit Underway GLOBAL TRUST: Fote Seeks Certification of Class Under "Damasco" GLOBALSCAPE INC: Dec. 18 Final Approval Hearing in Giovagnoli Deal GREENSKY INC: Dobek Sues over Misleading Financial Report GREYHOUND LINES: Sued over Discriminatory Immigration Raids GYM CONSULTING: Livingstone Suit Alleges TCPA Violations HORIZON FREIGHT: Court Dismisses Ayyash Wage & Hour Suit HUNTER ALLIED: Court Narrows Claims in Izaguirre Suit HY'S LIVERY: Belgada Moves to Certify Class of Limousine Drivers HYATT CORPORATION: Removed Insixiengmay Case to E.D. California IMMUNOMEDICS INC: Oral Argument in Fergus Suit Not Yet Scheduled JELD-WEN HOLDING: Faces Grubb Lumber Class Action JMR LANDSCAPING: Lazcon Files Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages KERYX BIOPHARMA: Discovery Ongoing in Consolidated Karth Suit LANE BRYANT: Meo Seeks Overtime Pay for Store Managers LYFT, INC: Removed Tecson Case to Northern District of California MACA REST: Workers File Suit Alleging FLSA and NYLL Violations MDL 2743: Cantu-Guerrero Appeals Ruling in Flooring Durability Suit METLIFE INC: Appeal in Martin Class Suit Still Pending METLIFE INC: Continues to Defend Roycroft Class Suit METLIFE INC: Miller Class Suit v. MLIC in New York Ongoing METLIFE INC: Non-Certification of Sales Practices Claims Affirmed METLIFE INC: Still Defends Julian & McKinney Class Suit METLIFE INC: Still Defends Newman Class Action Suit in Illinois METLIFE INC: Still Defends Parchmann Class Suit METLIFE INC: Still Defends Voshall Class Suit in California MICHAEL KORS: Lucas Appeals C.D. Calif. Ruling to 9th Cir. NCB MANAGEMENT: Class Certification Sought in Rodriguez Suit NELSON TREE: Neville Seeks Wages & Overtime under FLSA NEW YORK: Guadagna Moves to Certify Class of GuildNet Enrollees NORTH AMERICAN MIDWAY: Underpays Carnival Workers, Brits Says OCLARO INC: Karri Suit over Lumentum Merger Deal Underway OHIO NATIONAL: Veritas Seeks Trail Commissions for Dealers PACIFIC BELL: Cal. App. Affirms Summary Judgment in Hernandez PANDORA MEDIA: Sciabacucchi Balks at Sirius XM Merger PFIZER INC: Amendment to Suit over Intravenous Solution Filed POPULAR INC: Discovery Ongoing in Diaz Class Action PRIME COMMUNICATIONS: 4th Cir. Appeal Filed in Lorenzo Suit PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Ruling in PICA v. DB under Appeal PVH CORP: Website not Accessible to Blind, Figueroa Says RAJ MANUFACTURING: Cantoran Seeks Wages & OT under Labor Code RENT-A-CENTER INC: Settlement Reached in Consolidated Hall Suit SAFEGUARD PROPERTIES: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in Bund Suit SELECT INCOME: Sinkula Balks at GOV MS REIT Merger Deal SKC ENTERPRISES: Davis' Bid for Conditional Certification Denied SKC ENTERPRISES: Davis's Bid to Certify Class Denied as Premature SMYTHE CRAMER: Ohio App. Affirms Class Certification in Cantlin SONUS NETWORKS: Miller Sues over Falsified Financial Report SOUTHERN CONNECTIONS: Tyree Seeks Overtime Wages under FLSA SUNOPTA INC: Full Payment Made in De Jesus Settlement TESARO INC: LSI Files Securities Class Suit Over False Co. Reports THESY, LLC: Tyksinski Sues over Cybersecurity Breach TORCHMARK CORP: Arbitration Ongoing in Bruce Class Suit TORCHMARK CORP: Faces Golz Class Action in California TORCHMARK CORP: Unit Faces Joh Class Action in California TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Violates FDCPA, Thompson Suit Alleges UNITED STATES: Class of Veterans Certified in Manker Suit UNITED STATES: Court Certifies Navy, Marine Corps Veterans' Suit UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Inflates Prescription Drug Prices, Sohmer Says WAL-MART ASSOCIATES: Loses Bid to Decertify Meal Period Class WESTPAC BANKING: Australian Class Action Still Stayed WORLD WRESTLING: Haynes Appeals Ruling in Retired Wrestlers' Suit YAHOO! INC: Court Grants Final Approval of Wahl Settlement ********* ABBOTT HOME: Files Joint Bid for FLSA Class Cert. in Wilson Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Zoe Wilson and Stefanie Wilson and Defendants Abbott Home Care Plus LLC, Abbott Home Care, Inc. and Paulette Klaiber jointly seek conditional certification of the matter entitled Wilson, et al. v. Abbott Home Care, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-00743-GCS-EPD (S.D. Ohio), as a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act and to provide notice to the putative class members. The Parties will provide notice to the putative class members on December 5, 2018, in accordance to their agreed schedule. The Defendants shall provide to the Plaintiffs a list (in Microsoft Office Excel format) containing the names, last known addresses (including zip code), and employment dates of all current and former home health aides of the Defendants, who worked over 40 hours in any workweek since July 31, 2015. The Plaintiffs' counsel shall mail the proposed notice and consent to join to the individuals appearing on the list via First Class U.S. Mail on December 5, 2018. The opt-in period will close as to the potential opt-in plaintiffs on February 4, 2019 ("Notice Period"). The Parties also agree that nothing in the stipulated agreement or the Defendants' subsequent cooperation with the conditional certification constitutes a waiver of the Defendants' rights to later oppose certification of a collective action or class action. The Defendants reserve all rights to move to decertify this collective action before or after the close of discovery. The Defendants do not concede the merits of any of the Plaintiffs' claims and fully reserves the right to contest the liability relating thereto.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq. COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC 1550 Old Henderson Rd., Suite 126 Columbus, OH 43220 Telephone: (614) 949-1181 Facsimile: (614) 386-9964 E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com - and - Peter A. Contreras, Esq. CONTRERAS LAW, LLC PO Box 215 Amlin, OH 43002 Telephone: (614) 787-4878 Facsimile: (614) 923-7369 E-mail: peter.contreras@contrerasfirm.com The Defendants are represented by: Stacy V. Pollock, Esq. MAZANEC, RASKIN & RYDER CO., L.P.A. 175 South Third Street, Suite 1000 Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 228-5931 Facsimile: (614) 228-5934 E-mail: spollock@mrrlaw.com ACTION COLLECTION: McDaniel Sues over Debt Collection Practices --------------------------------------------------------------- TANYA MCDANIEL, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. ACTION COLLECTION AGENCIES, INC., a Massachusetts incorporated company, d/b/a ACTION COLLECTION AGENCY OF BOSTON, the Defendant, Case 2:18-cv-14459-KAM (S.D. Fla.), alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant is a Massachusetts company doing business as Action Collection Agency of Boston, and is engaged in the business of collecting consumer debts. The Defendant operates from offices located at 16 Commerce Boulevard, Middleboro, Massachusetts 02346. The Defendant regularly uses the United States Postal Service and telephone in the collection of consumer debts. Defendant sought to collect a consumer debt from Plaintiff arising from an alleged delinquency on a medical debt. The Defendant sought to collect from Plaintiff an alleged debt incurred by Plaintiff for personal, family, or household purposes. On or about August 28, 2018, Defendant mailed or caused to be mailed to Plaintiff a letter seeking payment of the alleged debt. Pursuant to the FDCPA, Plaintiff is entitled to be free from the use of false, deceptive or misleading means in Defendant's attempts to collect a debt from Plaintiff. Defendant's Demand Letter falsely and misleadingly pronounces Plaintiff's rights as it pertains to whether the Defendant may contact her at her place of employment regarding the debt, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Leo W. Desmond, Esq. Sovathary K. Jacobson, Esq. DESMOND LAW FIRM, P.C. 5070 Highway A1A, Suite D Vero Beach, FL 32963 Telephone: (772) 231 9600 Facsimile: (772) 231 0300 E-mail: lwd@desmondlawfirm.com jacobson@desmondlawfirm.com AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS: Appeal Underway in Williams Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that an appeal by class action plaintiff Emielou Williams to the California State Court of Appeal is ongoing. On August 3, 2017, Plaintiff Emielou Williams filed a class action complaint in the Superior Court for the State of California in the County of Alameda on behalf of herself and others similarly situated against Impax alleging violation of California Business and Professions Code section 17200 by violating various California wage and hour laws. On October 10, 2017, Impax filed a Demurrer and Motion to Strike Class Allegations. On December 12, 2017, the Court overruled Impax's Demurrer to Plaintiff's individual claims, however, it struck all of Plaintiff's class allegations. On March 13, 2018, Plaintiff filed her First Amended Complaint once again including the same class allegations. The Company filed a Demurrer and Motion to Strike Class Allegations on April 12, 2018, and oral argument concerning the motion was heard on August 24, 2018. On September 20, 2018, the Court again struck Plaintiff's class allegations; Plaintiff has appealed this most recent order to the California State Court of Appeal. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a specialty pharmaceutical company, develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic pharmaceutical products for various dosage forms and therapeutic areas. It operates through Generic and Specialty Pharma divisions. The company has operations in North America, Asia, and Europe. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was founded in 2002 and is headquartered in Bridgewater, New Jersey. AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS: Bid to Dismiss Pension Fund Suit Due Dec. 6 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that Impax Laboratories, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the class action suit filed by New York Hotel Trades Council & Hotel Association of New York City, Inc. Pension Fund, is due December 6, 2018. On April 17, 2017, Lead Plaintiff New York Hotel Trades Council & Hotel Association of New York City, Inc. Pension Fund filed an amended class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of itself and others similarly situated against Impax alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5. On June 1, 2017, Impax filed its motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On September 7, 2018, the Court granted Impax's motion, dismissing plaintiffs' claims without prejudice and with leave to amend their complaint. On September 18, 2018, the Court entered a Scheduling Order, providing that: plaintiffs' second amended complaint is due to be filed October 26, 2018; Impax's motion to dismiss is due December 6, 2018; plaintiffs' opposition thereto is due January 17, 2019; and Impax's reply in support of its motion to dismiss is due February 7, 2019. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a specialty pharmaceutical company, develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic pharmaceutical products for various dosage forms and therapeutic areas. It operates through Generic and Specialty Pharma divisions. The company has operations in North America, Asia, and Europe. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was founded in 2002 and is headquartered in Bridgewater, New Jersey. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc., formerly known as Atlas Holdings, Inc. (the "Company"), was formed along with its wholly owned subsidiary, K2 Merger Sub Corporation, a Delaware corporation ("Merger Sub"), on October 4, 2017, for the purpose of facilitating the combination of Impax Laboratories, Inc. (now Impax Laboratories, LLC), a Delaware corporation then listed on the Nasdaq Stock Market ("Impax") and Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC, a Delaware limited liability company ("Amneal"). AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS: Suit by Medicine Pharmacy Settled --------------------------------------------------------- Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the company has settled with the individual plaintiff in the class action suit initiated by Medicine To Go Pharmacies, Inc., for a nominal amount. On January 31, 2017, Plaintiff Family Medicine Pharmacy LLC filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama on behalf of itself and others similarly situated against Impax alleging violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, as amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005 (the "Telephone Consumer Protection Act"). On March 27, 2017, Impax filed a motion to dismiss the complaint and plaintiff filed an amended complaint on April 10, 2017. On July 18, 2017, the parties reached an agreement in principle regarding the class settlement. On September 29, 2017, the District Court preliminarily approved the proposed class settlement. The Court held a hearing on March 6, 2018 and issued an order with final approval of the proposed class settlement. On February 14, 2017, Plaintiff Medicine To Go Pharmacies, Inc. filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf of itself and others similarly situated against Impax alleging violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. On April 17, 2017, Impax filed a motion to dismiss, transfer, or stay this case in light of the first-filed case. This case was transferred to the Southern District of Alabama. On September 15, 2017, the Court stayed this matter pending the final approval of the class settlement. In October 2018, the Company settled with the individual plaintiff (whose class claims were subsumed by and released in connection with the settlement reached in the earlier-filed Alabama action discussed above) for a nominal amount. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a specialty pharmaceutical company, develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic pharmaceutical products for various dosage forms and therapeutic areas. It operates through Generic and Specialty Pharma divisions. The company has operations in North America, Asia, and Europe. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was founded in 2002 and is headquartered in Bridgewater, New Jersey. AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS: Vana & Stone Suit Out of Court's Docket --------------------------------------------------------------- Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that a court has terminated the class action lawsuit filed by Susan Vana and David Stone on its docket. On December 12, 2017 and December 14, 2017, Plaintiffs Susan Vana and David Stone, respectively, filed class action complaints in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated against Amneal and Impax alleging violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 generally alleging that the Registration Statement on Form S-4 related to the Combination contains false and misleading statements and/or omissions concerning the financial projections of Impax, Amneal, and the combined company; Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC's valuation analyses and Fairness Opinions relating to Impax and Amneal; potential conflicts of interest associated with one of Impax's financial advisors and the Combination with Amneal; and background information of the proposed business combination, including confidentiality agreements entered into by Impax in connection with the Combination. On April 4, 2018, plaintiffs filed a Stipulation and Proposed Order voluntarily dismissing the actions and on April 5, 2018, the court issued an order to dismiss the actions. Plaintiffs did not file any petition for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses by the court-ordered deadline of June 1, 2018. The Court has now terminated the case on its docket. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a specialty pharmaceutical company, develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic pharmaceutical products for various dosage forms and therapeutic areas. It operates through Generic and Specialty Pharma divisions. The company has operations in North America, Asia, and Europe. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was founded in 2002 and is headquartered in Bridgewater, New Jersey. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc., formerly known as Atlas Holdings, Inc. (the "Company"), was formed along with its wholly owned subsidiary, K2 Merger Sub Corporation, a Delaware corporation ("Merger Sub"), on October 4, 2017, for the purpose of facilitating the combination of Impax Laboratories, Inc. (now Impax Laboratories, LLC), a Delaware corporation then listed on the Nasdaq Stock Market ("Impax") and Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC, a Delaware limited liability company ("Amneal"). ANADARKO BASIN: $6.9MM Deal in Antitrust Suit Gets Prelim. OK -------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Joe Heaton grants the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement and class certification for settlement purposes in the matter titled IN RE ANADARKO BASIN OIL AND GAS LEASE ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Case No. 5:16-cv-00209-HE (W.D. Okla.). The litigation is a class action lawsuit brought by Plaintiffs Edward Clark, Inc., Curtis Crandall, Amy Herzog, Mahony-Killian, Inc., Ida Powers, and Brian Thieme, individually and on behalf of the proposed class of mineral lessors, against Chesapeake Energy Corp., Chesapeake Exploration, L.L.C., and Tom L. Ward for alleged violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act by conspiring to fix, raise, maintain or stabilize lease bonuses in the Mississippi Lime Play of the Anadarko Basin Region, as described in Plaintiffs' Amended Class Action Complaint. The Plaintiffs and Defendants have reached an agreement to settle this Litigation through the creation of a Settlement Fund in the amount of $6,950,000. On September 4, 2018, the Plaintiffs and Defendants exchanged executed counterparts of the Settlement Agreement dated as of September 4, 2018 memorializing the terms of a proposed class settlement. The Settlement Class is certified for settlement purposes only. The certified Settlement Class is defined as: All persons and entities who sold, leased or otherwise assigned or transferred to Chesapeake or SandRidge, or any of their respective predecessors, subsidiaries, agents (such as landmen) or affiliates, mineral rights and/or working interests on lands within the Mississippi Lime Play, at any time between December 27, 2007 and April 1, 2013. For purposes of this Settlement Class, the Mississippi Lime Play includes all depths and formations within the Oklahoma counties of Alfalfa, Blaine, Creek, Dewey, Ellis, Garfield, Grant, Harper, Kay, Kingfisher, Logan, Lincoln, Major, Noble, Osage, Pawnee, Payne, Tulsa, Washington, Woods, and Woodward, and the Kansas counties of Barber, Butler, Chase, Chautauqua, Cheyenne, Clark, Coffey, Comanche, Cowley, Dickinson, Edwards, Elk, Finney, Ford, Gove, Grant, Gray, Greenwood, Harper, Harvey, Haskell, Hodgeman, Kearny, Kingman, Kiowa, Lane, Logan, Lyon, Marion, McPherson, Meade, Montgomery, Morris, Ness, Pawnee, Pratt, Rawlins, Reno, Rice, Rush, Saline, Scott, Sedgwick, Seward, Sheridan, Sherman, Stafford, Stevens, Sumner, Thomas, Trego, Wallace, Wichita, Wilson, and Woodson. Excluded from the Class are Defendants, SandRidge, any parent, subsidiary, agent or affiliate thereof, their officers, directors, employees, and immediate families, federal and state governmental entities and instrumentalities of federal and state governments, and any individuals or entities from whom Chesapeake has already settled. Judge Heaton appoints the Plaintiffs as Class Representatives and appoints their Counsel as Class Counsel. The Court appoints Markham Sherwood of KCC, LLC, as Claims Administrator. The Court further preliminarily approves the form and content of the proposed Notice and the proposed Summary Notice. A Final Fairness Hearing will be held on March 25, 2019, at 9:30 a.m.[CC] ANSAFONE CONTACT: Brown Seeks Cert. of Call Center Workers Class ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled LLOYD BROWN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. ANSAFONE CONTACT CENTERS, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company, Case No. 5:18-cv-00490-JSM-PRL (M.D. Fla.), seeks entry of an order permitting, under Court supervision, notice to this class of similarly situated employees: All persons employed as hourly paid call center employees for Defendant for the past three years (plus any applicable tolling) from the date of the Complaint to the present who were not paid full and proper overtime compensation for all hours worked due to Defendant's timekeeping practices. The Complaint was originally filed on March 16, 2018. See Lloyd Brown, et al. v. Ansafone contact Centers, LLC, Case No. 5:18-cv-00126-JSM-PRL. The Original Complaint was dismissed on May 24, 2018, pending the completion of mediation, and pursuant to the parties' agreement, the statute of limitations was tolled through the filing of the instant action, Case No. 5:18-cv-00490-JSM-PRL. As such, the statute of limitations relates back three years prior to the date of filing of the Original Complaint, namely, March 16, 2015.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Noah E. Storch, Esq. RICHARD CELLER LEGAL, P.A. 7450 Griffin Road, Suite 230 Davie, FL 33314 Telephone: (866) 344-9243 Facsimile: (954) 337-2771 E-mail: noah@floridaovertimelawyer.com ASPEN INSURANCE: Kent Sues Over Highlands Holdings Merger --------------------------------------------------------- Michael Kent, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Aspen Insurance Holdings Limited, et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-10430 (S.D. N.Y., November 9, 2018), is brought against the Defendants for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. This action stems from a proposed transaction announced on August 28, 2018, pursuant to which Aspen Insurance Holdings Limited will be acquired by affiliates of Apollo Global Management, LLC. On August 28, 2018, Aspen's Board of Directors (the "Board" or "Individual Defendants") caused the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with Highlands Holdings, Ltd. and Highlands Merger Sub, Ltd. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, shareholders of Aspen will receive $42.75 in cash for each share of Aspen common stock. On November 6, 2018, the Defendants filed a proxy statement with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the Proposed Transaction. The Plaintiff alleges that the Proxy Statement, which scheduled a stockholder vote on the Proposed Transaction for December 10, 2018, omits material information with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the Proxy Statement false and misleading. The Plaintiff owns Aspen common stock. The Defendant Aspen is a Bermuda exempted company with offices located at 590 Madison Avenue, 7th Floor, New York, NY 10022. Aspen's common stock is traded on the NYSE under the ticker symbol "AHL". Aspen was founded in 2002 and is a global specialty insurance and reinsurance company. The Individual Defendants are directors of Aspen. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy J. MacFall, Esq. RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 825 East Gate Boulevard, Ste. 300 Garden City, NY 11530 Tel: (516) 683-3516 E-mail: tjm@rl-legal.com BENEFICIAL BANCORP: Faces Parshall Class Suit over Merger Deal -------------------------------------------------------------- Beneficial Bancorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the company has been named as defendant in a class action suit entitled, Parshall v. Farnesi et al. On August 7, 2018, Beneficial and WSFS entered into an Agreement and Plan of Reorganization (the "Merger Agreement"), pursuant to which Beneficial will merge with and into WSFS, with WSFS continuing as the surviving corporation (the "Proposed Transaction"). Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, each share of Beneficial common stock issued and outstanding will be converted into the right to receive (i) 0.3013 shares of WSFS common stock and (ii) $2.93 in cash (the "Merger Consideration"). On October 19, 2018, a purported Beneficial stockholder filed a putative derivative and class action lawsuit against Beneficial, the members of the Beneficial board of directors and WSFS Bank in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland, on behalf of himself and similarly situated Beneficial stockholders, and derivatively on behalf of Beneficial, captioned Parshall v. Farnesi et al., Case No. The plaintiff generally alleges that the Beneficial board of directors breached its fiduciary obligations by approving the terms of the merger, including allegedly inadequate merger consideration and certain deal protection devices, and making materially incomplete disclosures about the merger to Beneficial stockholders. The plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, unspecified damages, and an award of attorneys' fees and expenses. Beneficial Bancorp, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provides consumer and commercial banking services to individuals, businesses, and nonprofit organizations in Philadelphia and Southern New Jersey area. The company was founded in 1853 and is headquartered in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. BETTER PLUMBING: Underpays Plumbers, Gonzalez and Abreu Allege -------------------------------------------------------------- JOSE R. GONZALEZ, and JOSE O. ABREU, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. A BETTER PLUMBING SERVICE INC.; and DAVID WEEKLEY, Defendants, Case No. 0:18-cv-62615-DPG (S.D. Fla., Oct. 30, 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 Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as plumbers. A Better Plumbing Service Inc. offers professional plumbing repairs and installations, drain cleaning, leak detection, water heater work and other general plumbing services for residential and commercial properties.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com BREG INC: Hearron Seeks Unpaid Overtime under Labor Code -------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL HEARRON, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. THREDUP INC., an unknown business; and DOES 1 through I 00, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No.: RG18928054 (Cal. Super. Ct., Nov. 8, 2018), alleges that the Defendants failed to pay overtime and failed to pay meal period premiums; and failed to pay minimum wages pursuant to the California Labor Code. According to the complaint, the Defendants directly hired and paid wages and benefits to Plaintiff and the other class members. The Defendants continue to employ hourly-paid or non-exempt employees within the State of California. The Plaintiff and the other class members worked over 8 hours in a day, and/or 40 hours in a week during their employment with Defendants. The Defendants engaged in a pattern and practice of wage abuse against their hourly-paid or non-exempt employees within the State of California. This pattern and practice involved, inter alia, failing to pay them for all regular and/or overtime wages earned and for missed meal periods and rest breaks in violation of California law, the lawsuit says. Breg, Inc. manufactures and markets sports medicine products and services for orthopedic patient care.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Edwin Aiwazian, Esq. LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC 410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 265 1020 Facsimile: (818) 265 1021 - and - Amir Nayebdadash, Esq. Heather Davis, Esq. PROTECTION LAW GROUP LLP 136 Main Street, Suite A El Segundo, CA 90245 BRIGHTHOUSE LIFE: Brighthouse Financial Dropped from Roycroft Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Brighthouse Life Insurance Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that Brighthouse Financial, Inc. has been dismissed from the case entitled, Edward Roycroft v. Brighthouse Financial, Inc., et al. (U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, filed June 18, 2018), without prejudice. Edward Roycroft filed a purported class action against Brighthouse Financial, Inc., MetLife, Inc., and Metropolitan Life Insurance Company. The complaint alleges plaintiff is a beneficiary of a Martindale-Hubbell group annuity contract and did not receive payments plaintiff claims he was entitled to upon his retirement in 1999. Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of all beneficiaries who were due annuity benefits pursuant to group annuity contracts and whose annuity benefits were released from reserves. Plaintiff's causes of action are for conversion, unjust enrichment, an accounting and for a constructive trust. Plaintiff seeks damages, attorneys' fees, declaratory and injunctive relief and other equitable remedies. In September 2018, plaintiff dismissed Brighthouse Financial, Inc. from the action without prejudice. Brighthouse Life Insurance Company, together with its subsidiaries, provides individual annuities and life insurance products in the United States and internationally. It operates through three segments: Annuities, Life, and Run-off. The company was incorporated in 1863 and is headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. Brighthouse Life Insurance Company is a subsidiary of Brighthouse Holdings, LLC. BRUCE HORNSTEIN: Meneghetti Sues over Debt Collection Practices --------------------------------------------------------------- SONIA MENEGHETTI, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. BRUCE HORNSTEIN, P.A., a Florida Corporation, and BRUCE HORNSTEIN, individually, the Defendants, Case 1:18-cv-24704-FAM (S.D. Fla., Nov. 9, 2018), alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices. According to the complaint, Bbruce Hornstein, P.A. is a Florida Corporation and law firm engaged in the business of collecting consumer debts, which operates from offices located at 6961 Indian Creek Drive, Miami Beach, Florida 33141. The Defendants regularly use the United States Postal Service and telephone in the collection of consumer debt. The Defendants regularly collect or attempt to collect consumer debts for other parties. Defendants are "debt collectors" as defined in the FDCPA. Defendants sought to collect a debt from Plaintiff arising from an alleged debt incurred by Plaintiff for personal, family, or household purposes; more specifically, the debt at issue was allegedly incurred to Plaintiff's homeowner's association. On or about August 14, 2018, Defendants sent a demand letter to Plaintiff seeking to collect an alleged debt due to Plaintiff's homeowner's association. The demand letter was on Defendant Law Firm's letterhead signed by Defendant Hornstein.The Demand Letter was the initial communication between Defendants and Plaintiff regarding the amount of debt alleged to be owed as of August 14, 2018. The Defendants' Demand Letter demanded Plaintiff pay maintenance/assessments due to her homeowner's association. The Demand Letter requested payment be sent to Defendant Law Firm's office. The Defendants' Demand Letter falsely and misleadingly states that Plaintiff must dispute the debt in writing despite the clear wording of 15 U.S.C. section 1692g(a)(3) which contains no writing requirement in order for the consumer to dispute the debt, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Leo W. Desmond, Esq. Sovathary K. Jacobson, Esq. DESMOND LAW FIRM, P.C. 5070 Highway A1A, Suite D Vero Beach, Florida 32963 Telephone: 772 231 9600 Facsimile: 772 231 0300 E-mail: lwd@desmondlawfirm.com jacobson@desmondlawfirm.com - and - Simona Burshteyn, Esq. FIRST LEGAL, P.A. 1930 Harrison Street, Suite 209 Hollywood, FL 33020 Telephone: 954 998 1488 Facsimile: 954 703 6577 E-mail: sburshteyn@firstlegalpa.com BRUNSWICK CORPORATION: Robles Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------- SANDY ROBLES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. BRUNSWICK CORPORATION d/b/a MERCURY MARINE, the Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-1809 (E.D. Wisc., Nov. 15, 2018), seeks overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and Wisconsin wage and hour laws. Specifically, Mercury Marine has a common policy and practice of impermissibly rounding the start and end times of its hourly employees' work hours so as to deny such employees for compensation for all hours worked. As a result, Mercury Marine has denied Plaintiff Sandy Robles and the putative class members overtime pay in violation of the FLSA, as amended as well as overtime pay and agreed-upon wages in violation of Wisconsin law, the lawsuit says. The Brunswick Corporation, formerly known as the Brunswick-Balke-Collender Company, is an American corporation that has been active in developing, manufacturing and marketing a wide variety of products since 1845.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Larry A. Johnson, Esq. Timothy Maynard, Esq. Hawks Quindel, S.C. 222 East Erie, Suite 210 P.O. Box 442 Milwaukee, WI 53201-0442 Telephone: 414-271-8650 Facsimile: 414-271-8442 E-mail: ljohnson@hq-law.com smurshid@hq-law.com tmaynard@hq-law.con CA INC: Broadcom Acquisition-Related Suits Closed ------------------------------------------------- CA, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the Broadcom Acquisition-Related suits have been closed. Beginning on August 3, 2018, subsequent to the Company's announcement of the Merger Agreement with Broadcom, four (4) purported class action complaints were filed on behalf of the Company's stockholders (the "Broadcom Acquisition-Related Litigation"). These included: (i) Kelli Harvey v. Michael Gregoire, Jens Alder, Raymond Bromark, Jean Hobby, Rohit Kapoor, Jeffrey Katz, Kay Koplovitz, Christopher Lofgren, Richard Sulpizio, Laura Unger, Arthur Weinbach, Collie Acquisition Corp., and Broadcom Inc., United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (1:18-cv-06996-JGK) (filed August 3, 2018); (ii) Vladimir Guzinsky Rev. Trust v. Michael P. Gregoire, Jens Alder, Raymond J. Bromark, Jean M. Hobby, Rohit Kapoor, Jeffrey G. Katz, Kay Koplovitz, Christopher B. Lofgren, Richard Sulpizio, Laura S. Unger, and Arthur Weinbach, U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (1:18-cv-01221-LPS) (filed August 9, 2018); (iii) Jacob Scheiner Retirement Account v. CA, Inc. Michael Gregoire, Jens Alder, Raymond Bromark, Jean Hobby, Rohit Kapoor, Jeffrey Katz, Kay Koplovitz, Christopher Lofgren, and Richard Sulpizio, United States District Court for the District of Delaware (1:18-cv-01251-LPS) (filed August 15, 2018); and (iv) Kenneth Gilley v. CA, Inc. Michael Gregoire, Jens Alder, Raymond Bromark, Jean Hobby, Rohit Kapoor, Jeffrey Katz, Kay Koplovitz, Christopher Lofgren, and Richard Sulpizio, U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (1:18-cv-01286-LPS) (filed August 22, 2018), (collectively, the "Stockholder Actions"). The plaintiffs sought to enjoin the defendants from consummating the proposed transaction, or, if the transaction was consummated, the plaintiffs alternatively sought rescission and/or damages. The plaintiffs also sought costs and fees associated with the suits. CA, Inc. said, "To avoid the risk of the Stockholder Actions delaying or adversely affecting the merger and to minimize the expense of defending the Broadcom Acquisition-Related Litigation, and without admitting any liability or wrongdoing, on September 5, 2018, the Company made certain disclosures that supplemented and revised those contained in the definitive proxy statement on Schedule 14A filed by the Company with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on August 10, 2018. On September 24, 2018, each of the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal, and each of the four (4) cases is now closed." CA, Inc., doing business as CA technologies, develops, markets, delivers, and licenses software products and services in the United States and internationally. CA, Inc. was incorporated in 1974 and is headquartered in New York, New York. As of November 5, 2018, CA, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Broadcom Inc. CAMPING WORLD: Faces Ronge and Strougo Class Suits -------------------------------------------------- said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the company has been named as defendant in two class action suits entitled, Ronge v. Camping World Holdings, Inc. et al. and Strougo v. Camping World Holdings, Inc. et al. On October 19, 2018, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a putative class action lawsuit, captioned Ronge v. Camping World Holdings, Inc. et al., in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against the company, certain of its officers and directors, and Crestview Partners II GP, L.P. and Crestview Advisors, L.L.C. On October 25, 2018, a different putative stockholder of the Company filed a putative class action lawsuit, captioned Strougo v. Camping World Holdings, Inc. et al., in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against the company, certain of its officers and directors, and Crestview Partners II GP, L.P. and Crestview Advisors, L.L.C. Both complaints allege that the company violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and rule 10b-5 thereunder, by making allegedly materially misleading statements or omitting material facts necessary to make certain statements not misleading related to the business, operations, and management of the Company. Both lawsuits allege that certain of the company's officers and directors violated Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, by allegedly acting as controlling persons of the Company. The lawsuits bring claims on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of the company's class A common stock between March 8, 2017 and August 7, 2018, and seek compensatory damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and any equitable or injunctive relief the court deems just and proper. The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the claims of the plaintiffs and members of the putative class, and any liability for the alleged claims is not currently probable or reasonably estimable. Camping World Holdings, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides a portfolio of services, protection plans, products, and resources for recreational vehicle (RV) owners and camping enthusiasts. Camping World Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1966 and is headquartered in Lincolnshire, Illinois. CDK GLOBAL: Bid for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Underway --------------------------------------------------------------- CDK Global, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the putative Dealership Class Plaintiffs and Reynolds and Reynolds filed a Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement and for Conditional Certification of the Proposed Settlement Class. Teterboro Automall, Inc. d/b/a Teterboro Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ram ("Teterboro") brought a putative class-action suit against CDK Global, LLC and Reynolds and Reynolds. Teterboro's suit was originally filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on October 19, 2017. Since that time, several more putative class actions have been filed in a variety of Federal District Courts, with substantively similar allegations; all of them have been consolidated with the MDL proceeding. On June 4, 2018, a Consolidated Class Action Complaint was filed on behalf of a putative class made up of all dealerships in the United States that directly or indirectly purchase DMS or data integration services from CDK or Reynolds and Reynolds. The Company has moved to dismiss the complaint, or in the alternative, compel arbitration of certain of the cases while staying the remainder pending the outcome of those arbitration proceedings. On October 23, 2018, the putative Dealership Class Plaintiffs and Reynolds and Reynolds filed a Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement and for Conditional Certification of the Proposed Settlement Class. Reynolds concurrently withdrew its previously filed motion to compel arbitration of the Dealership class action (or, in the alternative, to dismiss) as moot. CDK Global, Inc. provides software and technology solutions for automotive retailers in the United States and internationally. The company operates through Retail Solutions North America, Advertising North America, and CDK International segments. CDK Global, Inc. is headquartered in Hoffman Estates, Illinois. CDK GLOBAL: Bid to Drop Autoloop's Class Action Still Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------------- CDK Global, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the motion to dismiss filed by CDK Global LLC in the putative class action suit filed by Loop LLC d/b/a Autoloop, is currently under consideration by the court. Loop LLC d/b/a Autoloop ("Autoloop") brought suit against CDK Global, LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on April 9, 2018, but reserved its rights with respect to remand to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin at the conclusion of the MDL proceedings. On June 5, 2018, Autoloop amended its complaint as a putative class action on behalf of itself and all other similarly situated vendors. CDK Global, LLC has moved to dismiss Autoloop's claims; that motion is currently under consideration by the court. CDK Global, Inc. provides software and technology solutions for automotive retailers in the United States and internationally. The company operates through Retail Solutions North America, Advertising North America, and CDK International segments. CDK Global, Inc. is headquartered in Hoffman Estates, Illinois. CHARLES SCHWAB: Continues to Defend Crago Order Routing Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Charles Schwab Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the company continues to defend the Crago Order Routing Litigation. On July 13, 2016, a securities class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of a putative class of customers executing equity orders through CS&Co. The lawsuit names CS&Co and The Charles Schwab Corporation (CSC) as defendants and alleges that an agreement under which CS&Co routed orders to UBS Securities LLC between July 13, 2011 and December 31, 2014 violated CS&Co's duty to seek best execution. Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, interest, injunctive and equitable relief, and attorneys' fees and costs. After a first amended complaint was dismissed with leave to amend, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on August 14, 2017. Defendants again moved to dismiss, and in a decision issued December 5, 2017, the court denied the motion. Defendants have answered the complaint to deny all allegations, and intend to vigorously contest the lawsuit. The Charles Schwab Corporation, through its subsidiaries, provides wealth management, securities brokerage, banking, asset management, custody, and financial advisory services. The company operates through two segments, Investor Services and Advisor Services. The Charles Schwab Corporation was founded in 1971 and is headquartered in San Francisco, California. CHARLES SCHWAB: Dismissal in Total Bond Market Fund Suit Upheld --------------------------------------------------------------- The Charles Schwab Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that a three-judge panel upheld dismissal in the Total Bond Market Fund litigation, with leave for plaintiff to pursue the claims in its individual capacity. On August 28, 2008, a class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of investors in the Schwab Total Bond Market Fund(TM). Plaintiff's fourth amended complaint, filed on June 25, 2015, asserts state law breach of contract and fiduciary duty claims and names Charles Schwab Investment Management, Inc. (CSIM), Schwab Investments (registrant and issuer of the fund's shares), and certain current and former fund trustees as defendants. Allegations include that the fund improperly deviated from its stated investment objectives by investing in collateralized mortgage obligations (CMOs) and investing more than 25% of fund assets in CMOs and mortgage-backed securities without obtaining a fundholder vote. Plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory and rescission damages, unspecified equitable and injunctive relief, costs, and attorneys' fees on behalf of a putative class of investors who held shares as of August 31, 2007, and a putative class of investors who purchased the shares between September 1, 2017 and February 27, 2009. In decisions issued October 6, 2015 and February 23, 2016, the court dismissed all claims with prejudice, holding that federal securities law precluded plaintiff from pursuing such claims as a class action. Plaintiff appealed to the Ninth Circuit, and on September 14, 2018, a 3-judge panel upheld dismissal, with leave for plaintiff to pursue the claims in its individual capacity. Action by plaintiff, including further appeal, remains pending. The Charles Schwab Corporation, through its subsidiaries, provides wealth management, securities brokerage, banking, asset management, custody, and financial advisory services. The company operates through two segments, Investor Services and Advisor Services. The Charles Schwab Corporation was founded in 1971 and is headquartered in San Francisco, California. CLEVELAND, NC: Conner Moves to Certify 2 Classes of EMS Personnel ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled SARA B. CONNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CLEVELAND COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA a/k/a CLEVELAND COUNTY EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES, Case No. 1:18-cv-00002-MR-WCM (W.D.N.C.), seeks conditional certification of this collective action and authorization to send an initial and a reminder Court-supervised Notice to all current and former full-time EMS personnel, who work or have worked a 24-hours on/48-hours off hour schedule for Defendant anytime during the period of January 2, 2015, to December 31, 2017. (The proposed collective class members are hereinafter referred to as "Potential Opt-In Plaintiffs"). Ms. Conner also seeks certification of a class of similarly situated "24-hours on/48-hours off" personnel for a North Carolina state law breach of contract claim under Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (The proposed class members are hereinafter referred to as "Putative Class Members"). Ms. Conner further asks that the Court grant these reliefs: A. Order the Defendant to produce a computer-readable data file containing the names, addresses, e-mail addresses, telephone numbers, and dates of employment for all Potential Opt-In Plaintiffs within seven days of the Court's Order; B. Authorize Notice under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) to Potential Opt-in Plaintiffs; C. Certify Conner's North Carolina state law breach of contract claim under Rule 23(b)(3); D. Appoint Plaintiff's Counsel as Class Counsel; E. Approve the proposed Notice forms under the provisions of 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) and Rule 23; F. Authorize Plaintiff to send initial and reminder Notice forms, at her expense, by First Class U.S. Mail and e-mail to all Potential Opt-In Plaintiffs to inform them of their rights and options regarding this lawsuit; G. Order the posting of the Notice forms by Defendant at a location in each of Defendant's local CCEMS offices where Potential Opt-In Plaintiffs and Putative Class Members are likely to view it; and H. Provide Potential Opt-In Plaintiffs with forty-five (45) days after the date Notice forms are mailed to return a Consent to Join form opting in to this litigation and/or for Putative Class Members to notify Class Counsel of the decision to opt-out of the North Carolina state law class, unless the Parties agree to permit late filings or good cause can be shown as to why the form and/or opt-out notification was not returned prior to the deadline.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip J. Gibbons, Jr., Esq. Craig L. Leis, Esq. GIBBONS LEIS, PLLC 14045 Ballantyne Corporate Place, Suite 325 Charlotte, NC 28277 Telephone: (704) 612-0038 E-mail: phil@gibbonsleis.com craig@gibbonsleis.com COOK COUNTY, IL: Hayes' Bid to Certify Class Continued to Dec. 18 ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Honorable Robert W. Gettleman entered and continued to December 18, 2018, at 9:00 a.m., the Plaintiff's motion for class certification in the lawsuit captioned Michael Hayes v. Thomas Dart, et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-04657 (N.D. Ill.). Thomas Dart is the Sheriff of Cook County, Illinois.[CC] CPI CARD: Settlement Hearing in N.Y. Suit Set for Feb. 5 -------------------------------------------------------- CPI Card Group Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the court has scheduled a settlement hearing in the case entitled, In Re CPI Card Group Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:16-CV-04531 (S.D.N.Y.), for February 5, 2019. On June 15, 2016, two purported CPI stockholders filed putative class action lawsuits captioned Vance, et al. v. CPI Card Group Inc., et al. and Chipman, et al. v. CPI Card Group Inc. in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the "Court") against CPI, certain of its former officers and current and former directors, along with the sponsors of and the financial institutions who served as underwriters for CPI’s October 2015 initial public offering ("IPO"). The complaints, purportedly brought on behalf of all purchasers of CPI common stock pursuant to the October 8, 2015 Registration Statement filed in connection with the IPO, assert claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act") and seek, among other things, damages and costs. In particular, the complaints allege that the Registration Statement contained false or misleading statements or omissions regarding CPI's customers' (i) purchases of Europay, MasterCard and VISA chip cards (collectively, "EMV(R) cards") during the first half of fiscal year 2015 and resulting EMV(R) card inventory levels; and (ii) capacity to purchase additional EMV(R) cards in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2015, and the remainder of the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015. The complaints allege that these actions artificially inflated the price of CPI common stock issued pursuant to the IPO. On August 30, 2016, the Court consolidated the Vance and Chipman actions and appointed lead plaintiff and lead counsel pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. On October 17, 2016, lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint, asserting the same claims for violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act. The amended complaint is based principally on the same theories as the original complaints, but adds allegations that the Registration Statement contained inadequate risk disclosures and failed to disclose (i) small and mid-size issuers' slower-than-anticipated conversion to EMV(R) technology and (ii) increased pricing pressure and competition CPI faced in the EMV(R) market. On November 16, 2016, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which was denied by the Court on October 30, 2017. On January 12, 2018, the Company filed an answer to the amended complaint. On March 23, 2018, lead plaintiff filed his motion for class certification. On June 11, 2018, the Company filed an opposition to lead plaintiff's motion for class certification. On July 31, 2018, the parties notified the Court that they had reached an agreement in principle to settle the Class Action. On September 21, 2018, the parties executed a stipulation and agreement of settlement ("Stipulation") and lead plaintiff filed with the Court his unopposed motion for authorization to notify the settlement class of the proposed settlement. On October 1, 2018, the Court provisionally denied lead plaintiff's motion without prejudice to renew subject to certain revisions to the proposed form of class notice. On October 15, 2018, lead plaintiff filed a renewed unopposed motion for authorization to notify the class of the proposed settlement and to schedule a hearing, with an amended proposed form of notice. On October 22, 2018, the Court granted lead plaintiff's renewed motion and approved amended form of notice to the class of the proposed settlement. The Court scheduled the settlement hearing for February 5, 2019. The Company had a liability recorded as of September 30, 2018, which is not material to the financial statements, and reflects the Company’s estimate of the probable loss pursuant to an allocation of the total agreed settlement amount. There was no liability recorded as of December 31, 2017. CPI Card Group Inc., together with its subsidiaries, engages in the design, production, data personalization, packaging, and fulfillment of financial payment cards. It operates through U.S. Debit and Credit, U.S. Prepaid Debit, and U.K. Limited segments. CPI Card Group Inc. was founded in 2007 and is headquartered in Littleton, Colorado. DARTMOUTH COLLEGE: Trustees Sued over Sexual Harassment ------------------------------------------------------- KRISTINA RAPUANO, VASSIKI CHAUHAN, SASHA BRIETZKE, ANNEMARIE BROWN, ANDREA COURTNEY, and MARISSA EVANS c/o DOUGLAS, LEONARD & GARVEY, P.C. 14 South Street, Suite 5 Concord, NH 03301 and JANE DOE c/o DOUGLAS, LEONARD & GARVEY, P.C. 14 South Street, Suite 5 Concord, NH 03301, the Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, vs. TRUSTEES OF DARTMOUTH COLLEGE 63 South Main Street, Suite 301 Hanover, NH 03755, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-01070 (Nov. 15, 2018), sues Trustees of Dartmouth College pursuant to New Hampshire law to remedy the gender discrimination, sexual assaults, and harassment they suffered. In October 2017, Dartmouth was forced to publicly disclose the existence of the investigation for the very first time after the news was leaked to the media. Days later, on October 31, the New Hampshire Attorney General opened a criminal investigation into the allegations against the three professors. Dartmouth eventually hired an outside attorney to conduct an "independent investigation" in which Plaintiffs were told they would have a voice. Instead, Dartmouth unilaterally stopped the investigation and allowed the three professors to retire and/or resign in July 2018, more than 15 months after Plaintiffs filed their initial complaints. According to the complaint, the seven Plaintiffs, each an exemplary female scientist at the start of her career, came to Dartmouth to contribute to a crucial and burgeoning field of academic study. Plaintiffs were instead sexually harassed and sexually assaulted by the Department's tenured professors and expected to tolerate increasing levels of sexual predation. Plaintiffs want Dartmouth College to enact meaningful reforms that will permit women to engage in rigorous scientific study without fear of being sexually harassed and sexually assaulted, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class: Charles G. Douglas, III, Esq. DOUGLAS, LEONARD & GARVEY, P.C. 14 South Street, Suite 5 Concord, NH 03301 Telephone: (603) 224-1988 Facsimile: (603) 229-1988 E-mail: chuck@nhlawoffice.com - and - David Sanford, Esq. Nicole Wiitala, Esq. SANFORD HEISLER SHARP, LLP 1350 Avenue of the Americas, 31 st Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 402-5650 Facsimile: (646) 402-5651 E-mail: dsanford@sanfordheisler.com nwiitala@sanfordheisler.com - and - Deborah K. Marcuse, Esq. Steven J. Kelley, Esq. SANFORD HEISLER SHARP, LLP 400 Pratt Street, 8th Floor Baltimore, MD 21202 Telephone: (410) 834-7415 Facsimile: (410) 834-7425 E-mail: dmarcuse@sanfordheisler.com skelly@sanfordheisler.com DELICIOUS HOSPITALITY: Sued for Disabilities Act Breach ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Delicious Hospitality, LLC. The case is styled as Brian Fischler individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Delicious Hospitality, LLC doing business as: Pasquale Jones, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10971 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 24, 2018). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Pasquale Jones is a small, wood-fired restaurant on Kenmare and Mulberry Street. It offers a la carte dining for up to 7 guests. The majority of the dining room is held for walk-ins, though they offer a limited number of reservations.[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 DIPLOMAT PHARMACY: Continues to Defend Michigan Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Diplomat Pharmacy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the company continues to defend itself from a putative class action suit currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. On November 10, 2016, a putative class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan against Diplomat Pharmacy, Inc. and certain officers of the Company. Following the appointment of lead plaintiffs and lead counsel, an amended complaint was filed on April 11, 2017. The amended complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with public filings made between February 29, 2016 and November 2, 2016 (the "potential class period"). The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of shareholders who purchased stock in the potential class period. The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on May 24, 2017. The court issued orders denying the Company's motion to dismiss on January 19, 2018 and the Company's motion for reconsideration of its motion to dismiss on August 9, 2018. The Company believes the complaint and allegations to be without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself against the action. The Company is unable at this time to determine whether the outcome of the litigation would have a material impact on its results of operations, financial condition or cash flows. Diplomat Pharmacy, Inc. operates as an independent specialty pharmacy in the United States. The company stocks, dispenses, and distributes prescriptions for various biotechnology and specialty pharmaceutical manufacturers. The company was founded in 1975 and is headquartered in Flint, Michigan. ENCORE RECEIVABLE: Kanehl Moves for Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------- Marlene Kanehl and Patrick Bills move the Court to certify the class described in the complaint of the lawsuit entitled MARLENE KANEHL and PATRICK BILLS, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. ENCORE RECEIVABLE MANAGEMENT INC., Case No. 2:18-cv-01784-NJ (E.D. Wisc.), and further ask that the Court both stay the motion for class certification and to grant them (and the Defendant) relief from the Local Rules setting automatic briefing schedules and requiring briefs and supporting material to be filed with the Motion. Dicta in the Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, left open the possibility that a defendant facing a class action complaint could moot a class representative's case by depositing funds equal to or in excess of the maximum value of the plaintiff's individual claim with the court and having the court enter judgment in the plaintiff's favor prior to the filing of a class certification motion, the Plaintiffs assert, citing Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016). To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the certification motion. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) ("The pendency of that motion [for class certification] protects a putative class from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs."). While the Seventh Circuit has held that the specific procedure described in Campbell-Ewald cannot force the individual settlement of a class representative's claims, the same decision cautions that other methods may prevent a plaintiff from representing a class, the Plaintiffs tell the Court, citing Fulton Dental, LLC v. Bisco, Inc., No. 16-3574, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 10839 *9-10 (7th Cir. June 20, 2017). The Plaintiffs assert that one defendant has attempted a similar tactic by sending a certified check to the proposed class representative. Bonin v. CBS Radio, Inc., No. 16-cv-674-CNC (E.D. Wis.); see also Severns v. Eastern Account Systems of Connecticut, Inc., Case No. 15-cv-1168, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23164 (E.D. Wis. Feb. 24, 2016). The Plaintiffs are obligated to move for class certification to protect the interests of the putative class, the Plaintiffs contend. As the Motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when short motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended motion is filed, the Plaintiffs argue. The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint them as class representatives, and to appoint Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP, as class counsel. [CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: John D. Blythin, Esq. Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. Jesse Fruchter, Esq. Ben J. Slatky, Esq. ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482-8000 Facsimile: (414) 482-8001 E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com meldridge@ademilaw.com jfruchter@ademilaw.com bslatky@ademilaw.com ESTATE INFORMATION: Class Certification Sought in Thomas Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Brandi Thomas moves the court to certify the class described in the complaint of the lawsuit entitled BRANDI THOMAS, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. ESTATE INFORMATION SERVICES LLC, d/b/a EIS COLLECTIONS, Case No. 2:18-cv-01779-LA (E.D. Wisc.), and further asks that the Court both stay the motion for class certification and to grant the Plaintiff (and the Defendant) relief from the Local Rules setting automatic briefing schedules and requiring briefs and supporting material to be filed with the Motion. Dicta in the Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, left open the possibility that a defendant facing a class action complaint could moot a class representative's case by depositing funds equal to or in excess of the maximum value of the plaintiff's individual claim with the court and having the court enter judgment in the plaintiff's favor prior to the filing of a class certification motion, the Plaintiff asserts, citing Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016). To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the certification motion. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) ("The pendency of that motion [for class certification] protects a putative class from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs."). While the Seventh Circuit has held that the specific procedure described in Campbell-Ewald cannot force the individual settlement of a class representative's claims, the same decision cautions that other methods may prevent a plaintiff from representing a class, the Plaintiff tells the Court, citing Fulton Dental, LLC v. Bisco, Inc., No. 16-3574, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 10839 *9-10 (7th Cir. June 20, 2017). The Plaintiff asserts that one defendant has attempted a similar tactic by sending a certified check to the proposed class representative. Bonin v. CBS Radio, Inc., No. 16-cv-674-CNC (E.D. Wis.); see also Severns v. Eastern Account Systems of Connecticut, Inc., Case No. 15-cv-1168, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23164 (E.D. Wis. Feb. 24, 2016). The Plaintiff is obligated to move for class certification to protect the interests of the putative class, the Plaintiff contends. As the Motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when short motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended motion is filed, the Plaintiff contends. The Plaintiff also asks to be appointed as class representative, and for the appointment of Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP, as class counsel.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: John D. Blythin, Esq. Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. Jesse Fruchter, Esq. Ben J. Slatky, Esq. ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482-8000 Facsimile: (414) 482-8001 E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com meldridge@ademilaw.com jfruchter@ademilaw.com bslatky@ademilaw.com EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Sues over Alleged Inaccurate Reporting ------------------------------------------------------------ MORDECHAI PALACE on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiff, vs. EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-06372-KAM-SJB (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 8, 2018), seeks redress for illegal practices of Experian Information Solutions, Inc. in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff is a consumer who is the victim of inaccurate reporting by Defendant Experian Information Solutions, Inc., and has suffered particularized and concrete harm. In January of 2015, USAA Savings Bank provided forgiveness of debt and issued 1099-C tax forms, "Cancellation of Debt", for Plaintiff's USAA Savings Bank accounts. The 1099-C tax forms canceled the principal balances owed, excluding interest and fees. Subsequently, USAA Savings Bank submitted the 1099-C tax forms to the Internal Revenue Service, reporting the debts as cancelled by USAA Savings Bank and as income attributable to Plaintiff. As a result, the Plaintiff was obligated to pay taxes on the cancelled debts. The Defendant failed to delete information found to be inaccurate, reinserted the information without following the NY FCRA, or failed to properly investigate Plaintiff's disputes. The Defendant Experian failed to promptly re-investigate and record the current status of the disputed information and failed to promptly notify the consumer of the result of its investigation, its decision on the status of the information, and his rights pursuant to this section in violation of NY FCRA, N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law section 380-f(a). The Defendant failed to clearly note in all subsequent consumer reports that the account in question is disputed by the consumer in violation of NY FCRA, N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law section 380-f(c)(3), the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorney for Plaintiff: Adam J. Fishbein, P.C. 735 Central Avenue Woodmere, NY 11598 Telephone: (516) 668-6945 E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com FACEBOOK INC: Sylwia Komorska Sues over Data Breach --------------------------------------------------- SYLWIA KOMORSKA, individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, vs. UIGGY, a currently unidentified business entity, and FACEBOOK, INC., a Delaware corporation, Respondent in Discovery, the Defendant, Case No.: 2018CH14219 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty, Nov. 14, 2018), alleges that Defendant failed to implement a reasonably adequate cybersecurity prevention, detection, and response protocol. According to the complaint, on or around June 2016, the Facebook application Uiggy was the target of a Data Hack on its information technology systems. This Data Breach resulted in unauthorized outside parties gaining access to Uiggy users' sensitive and confidential personal information, including their names, email addresses, genders, Facebook social connections, & website activity ("PII"). Even though Uiggy was storing sensitive information that it knew was of value to, and vulnerable to, cyber attackers, Uiggy failed to take basic security precautions that could have prevented the disclosure of its customers' PII. Uiggy's lax cybersecurity procedures allowed hackers to obtain access to Plaintiff's and other customers' PII. This PII should have been secured by adequate levels of protection and should not have been susceptible to unauthorized access. After accessing Uiggy's IT systems, hackers were able to extract the PII for over 4.3 million Uiggy account holders. To this day, Defendant has failed to notify Plaintiff that her PII was compromised in the Data Breach. The Defendant has failed to implement any reasonable breach notification process following the Data Breach.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative Classes: Myles McGuire, Esq. Jad Sheikali, Esq. McGUIRE LAW, P.C. 55 W. Wacker Dr., 9th Fl. Chicago, IL 60601: Telephone: (312) 893 7002 E-mail: mmcguire@mcgpc.com jsheikali@mcgpc.com FAMOUS FAMIGLIA: Rodriguez Seeks Minimum Wages & OT under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------------- JORGE ROJAS RODRIGUEZ and RAUL PABLO CANTU, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. FAMOUS FAMIGLIA 169ST LLC, MOZA CORP., FAMIGLIA 43ST LLC, AFRIM "GINO" IDRIZI and FRANK IDRIZI, Jointly and Severally, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-10520 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 13, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime premium pay owed to them pursuant to both the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs are former delivery, cleaning, porter and food prep employees at Defendants' pizzerias located in Manhattan, New York. The Plaintiffs were not paid minimum wages for all hours worked and were not paid overtime premiums for hours worked over 40 in a given workweek.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the putative FLSA Collective and Class: Brent E. Pelton, Esq. Taylor B. Graham, Esq. PELTON GRAHAM LLC www.peltongraham.com 111 Broadway, Suite 1503 New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 385-9700 FGL HOLDINGS: Still Defends Brokerage Insurance Partners Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- FGL Holdings said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that Brokerage Insurance Partners has not filed any document in response to the Court's August 17, 2018 order as to whether the BIP Litigation will be consolidated into related litigation, captioned Fidelity & Guaranty Life Insurance Company v. Network Partners, et al., Case No. 17-cv-1508. On June 30, 2017, a putative class action complaint was filed against FGL Insurance, FGL, and FS Holdco II Ltd in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, captioned Brokerage Insurance Partners v. Fidelity & Guaranty Life Insurance Company, Fidelity & Guaranty Life, FS Holdco II Ltd, and John Doe, No. 17-cv-1815. The complaint alleges that FGL Insurance breached the terms of its agency agreement with Brokerage Insurance Partners ("BIP") and other agents by changing certain compensation terms. The complaint asserts, among other causes of action, breach of contract, defamation, tortious interference with contract, negligent misrepresentation, and violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"). The complaint seeks to certify a class composed of all persons who entered into an agreement with FGL Insurance to sell life insurance and who sold at least one life insurance policy between January 1, 2015 and January 1, 2017. The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory, consequential, and punitive damages in an amount not presently determinable, among other forms of relief. On September 1, 2017, FGL Insurance filed a counterclaim against BIP and John and Jane Does 1-10, asserting, among other causes of action, breach of contract, fraud, civil conspiracy and violations of RICO. On September 22, 2017, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint, and on October 16, 2017, FGL Insurance filed an Amended Counterclaim against BIP, Agent Does 1-10, and Other Person Does 1-10. The parties also filed cross-Motions to Dismiss in Part. On August 17, 2018, the Court in the BIP Litigation denied all pending Motions to Dismiss filed by all parties without prejudice, pending a decision as to whether the BIP Litigation will be consolidated into related litigation, captioned Fidelity & Guaranty Life Insurance Company v. Network Partners, et al., Case No. 17-cv-1508. On August 31, 2018, FGL filed its Answer to BIP's Amended Complaint. Also on that date, FGL Insurance filed its Answer to Amended Complaint, Affirmative Defenses, and Counterclaim, Filed Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(4)(A). As of September 30, 2018, BIP has not filed any document in response to the Court's August 17, 2018 Order or to FGL Insurance's filing. FGL Holdings said, "As of the date of this report, the Company does not have sufficient information to determine whether it has exposure to any losses that would be either probable or reasonably estimable." FGL Holdings, through its subsidiaries, sells individual life insurance products and annuities in the United States. The company offers deferred annuities, including fixed indexed annuity contracts and fixed rate annuity contracts; immediate annuities; and life insurance products. FGL Holdings is based in Grand Cayman, the Cayman Islands. FINANCIAL RECOVERY: Certification of Class Sought in Voeks Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Julie Voeks moves the Court to certify the class described in the complaint of the lawsuit styled JULIE VOEKS, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. FINANCIAL RECOVERY SERVICES INC., Case No. 2:18-cv-01781-JPS (E.D. Wisc.), and further asks that the Court both stay the motion for class certification and to grant the Plaintiff (and the Defendant) relief from the Local Rules setting automatic briefing schedules and requiring briefs and supporting material to be filed with the Motion. Dicta in the Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, left open the possibility that a defendant facing a class action complaint could moot a class representative's case by depositing funds equal to or in excess of the maximum value of the plaintiff's individual claim with the court and having the court enter judgment in the plaintiff's favor prior to the filing of a class certification motion, the Plaintiff asserts, citing Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016). To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the certification motion. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) ("The pendency of that motion [for class certification] protects a putative class from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs."). While the Seventh Circuit has held that the specific procedure described in Campbell-Ewald cannot force the individual settlement of a class representative's claims, the same decision cautions that other methods may prevent a plaintiff from representing a class, the Plaintiff tells the Court, citing Fulton Dental, LLC v. Bisco, Inc., No. 16-3574, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 10839 *9-10 (7th Cir. June 20, 2017). The Plaintiff asserts that one defendant has attempted a similar tactic by sending a certified check to the proposed class representative. Bonin v. CBS Radio, Inc., No. 16-cv-674-CNC (E.D. Wis.); see also Severns v. Eastern Account Systems of Connecticut, Inc., Case No. 15-cv-1168, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23164 (E.D. Wis. Feb. 24, 2016). The Plaintiff is obligated to move for class certification to protect the interests of the putative class, the Plaintiff contends. As the Motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when short motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended motion is filed, the Plaintiff contends. The Plaintiff also asks to be appointed as class representative, and for the appointment of Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP, as class counsel.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: John D. Blythin, Esq. Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. Jesse Fruchter, Esq. Ben J. Slatky, Esq. ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482-8000 Facsimile: (414) 482-8001 E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com meldridge@ademilaw.com jfruchter@ademilaw.com bslatky@ademilaw.com FLEETCOR TECHNOLOGIES: Still Defends Georgia Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- FleetCor Technologies, 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 class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. On June 14, 2017, a shareholder filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia against the Company and certain of its officers and directors on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's stock between February 5, 2016 and May 2, 2017. On October 13, 2017, the shareholder filed an amended complaint asserting claims on behalf of a putative class of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock between February 4, 2016 and May 3, 2017. The complaint alleges that the defendants made false or misleading statements regarding fee charges and the reasons for its earnings and growth in certain press releases and other public statements in violation of the federal securities laws. Plaintiff seeks class certification, unspecified monetary damages, costs, and attorneys' fees. FleetCor Technologies said, "The Company disputes the allegations in the complaint and intends to vigorously defend against the claims." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. FleetCor Technologies, Inc. provides commercial payment solutions in North America, Latin America, Europe, and Australasia. The company offers fuel payment solutions to businesses and government entities that operate vehicle fleets, as well as to oil and leasing companies, and fuel marketers. FleetCor Technologies, Inc. was founded in 1986 and is headquartered in Peachtree Corners, Georgia. FORD MOTOR: Van Moves to Certify Class in Sexual Harassment Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned CHRISTIE VAN, et al. v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Case No. 1:14-cv-08708 (N.D. Ill.), renew their motion for class certification of this class: All women working at the Ford Chicago Assembly Plant and Chicago Stamping Plant from January 2012 to present. The Plaintiffs include 31 women, who work or worked at one or both of Ford Motor Company's Chicago Assembly Plant and/or Chicago Stamping Plant (the "Plants") between 2012 and the present. As female employees at the Stamping and Assembly plants, the Plaintiffs allege that they experienced blatant, egregious, severe and pervasive sexual harassment and gender based discrimination that characterizes the work environment to which women are and have been subjected for many years. The Plaintiffs have filed claims alleging Violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in that they have been sexually harassed and subjected to a hostile workplace environment based on their gender. The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint one or more of them as Class Representatives, and to appoint Hunt & Associates, P.C., and Romanucci & Blandin, LLC, as Class Counsel.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Keith L. Hunt, Esq. Bradley E. Faber, Esq. HUNT & ASSOCIATES, P.C. Three First National Plaza 70 W. Madison St., Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 558-1300 E-mail: khunt@huntassoclaw.com bfaber@huntassoclaw.com - and - Antonio M. Romanucci, Esq. Bhavani K. Raveendran, Esq. Nicolette A. Ward, Esq. ROMANUCCI & BLANDIN, LLC 321 N. Clark Street, Suite 900 Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 458-1000 E-mail: aromanucci@rblaw.net The Defendant is represented by: Eugene Scalia, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 1050 Connecticut Ave., NW Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 955-8500 E-mail: escalia@gibsondunn.com - and - Kathleen M. Nemechek, Esq. Timothy Millman, Esq. BERKOWITZ OLIVER WILLIAMS SHAW & EISENBRANDT LLP 2600 Grand Boulevard, Suite 1200 Kansas City, MO 64108 Telephone: (816) 561-7007 E-mail: knemechek@berkowitzoliver.com tmillman@berkowitzoliver.com - and - Karen Kies DeGrand, Esq. DONOHUE BROWN MATHEWSON & SMYTH LLC 140 South Dearborn Street, Suite # 800 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 422-0900 E-mail: karen.degrand@dbmslaw.com FRONTIER AIRLINES: Ridgell's Bid to Certify Two Classes Denied -------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Percy Anderson denies the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification in the lawsuit entitled Andrea Ridgell v. Frontier Airlines, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-04916-PA-AFM (C.D. Cal.). Judge Anderson concludes that the Plaintiff has not satisfied Rule 23's requirements for either the Nationwide or Flight 1630 classes she seeks the certify. The Court, therefore, denies Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification. The Plaintiff's operative First Amended Complaint ("1st AC") asserts claims against Defendants Frontier Airlines, Inc. ("Frontier") and Airbus S.A.S. ("Airbus") arising out of a "fume" or "bleed air" event occurring on her flight that she alleges exposed her and her fellow passengers to toxic fumes. The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated. The classes which the Plaintiff seeks to represent are defined as: * Nationwide Class: All persons in the United States who have flown in one of Defendants' aircraft that have experienced a bleed air event. Specifically excluded from this Class are Defendants, the officers, directors, or employees of Defendants, any entity in which Defendants have a controlling interest; and any affiliate, legal representative, heir, or assign of Defendants. Also excluded any federal, state, or local governmental entities, any judicial officer presiding over this action and the members of his/her immediate family and judicial staff, and any juror assigned to this action. * Flight 1630 Class: All passengers in the United States who were on Frontier Airlines Flight 1630 on June 2, 2017.[CC] FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS: Still Defends Consolidated Suit in Conn. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Frontier Communications Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the company continues to defend itself in an amended consolidated class action suit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. On April 30, 2018, an amended consolidated class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut on behalf of certain purported stockholders against Frontier, certain of its current and former directors and officers and the underwriters of certain Frontier securities offerings. The complaint is brought on behalf of all persons who (1) acquired Frontier common stock between February 6, 2015 and February 28, 2018, inclusive, and/or (2) acquired Frontier common stock or Mandatory Convertible Preferred Stock either in or traceable to Frontier's offerings of common and preferred stock conducted on or about June 2, 2015 and June 8, 2015. The complaint asserts, among other things, violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, in connection with certain disclosures relating to the CTF Acquisition. The complaint seeks, among other things, damages and equitable and injunctive relief. Frontier Communications said, "The company disputes the allegations in the complaint and intends to vigorously defend against such claims. Given that all of these matters are in the early stages of litigation, we are unable to estimate a reasonably possible range of loss, if any, that may result." Frontier Communications Corporation provides communications services to consumer, commercial, and wholesale customers in the United States. It offers broadband, video, voice, and other services and products through a combination of fiber and copper based networks to consumer customers. The company was formerly known as Citizens Communications Company and changed its name to Frontier Communications Corporation in July 2008. Frontier Communications Corporation was founded in 1927 and is based in Norwalk, Connecticut. FUELCO ENERGY: Segovia Renews Bid to Certify Class of Drivers ------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled JUAN SEGOVIA and VICTOR FLORES, Each Individually and on behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. FUELCO ENERGY LLC, Case No. 5:17-cv-01246-FB-HJB (W.D. Tex.), renews their motion for conditional certification of this class: All Drivers and/or Operators/Frack Fuel Technicians since December 8, 2014. Juan Segovia and Victor Flores brought this suit on behalf of certain former and current Drivers and Operators of Fuelco Energy LLC, to recover overtime wages and other damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. In another motion, the Plaintiffs also moves for approval and distribution of notice and for disclosure of contact information. They ask, among other things, for a period of 90 days to distribute the Notice and file Consent forms with the Court, and ask the Court to direct the Defendant to provide the names, last known home and work addresses, cell phone numbers, and e-mail addresses of potential opt-in Plaintiffs no later than seven days after the date of the entry of the Order granting the motion.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC One Financial Center 650 South Shackleford Road, Suite 411 Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: (501) 221-0088 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com The Defendant is represented by: W. Craig Stokley, Esq. STOKLEY PLLC Campbell Centre II 8150 N. Central Expressway, Suite 550 Dallas, TX 75206 Telephone: (214) 295-6414 E-mail: cstokley@stokleypllc.com FULTON COUNTY, GA: Court Certifies Inmates' Overdetention Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, issued an Opinion and Order granting Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class in the case captioned Oswald Thompson, Jr., et al., Plaintiffs, v. Sheriff Theodore Jackson and Mark Adger, Defendants. Case No. 1:16-cv-04217. (N.D. Ga.). The Plaintiffs in this putative class action are former inmates at the jail. They allege that Fulton County Sheriff Theodore Jackson and Fulton County Chief Jailer Mark Adger violated their constitutional rights by detaining them in the jail after they were eligible for release. The Plaintiffs seek certification of a class of: All persons who were inmates at the Fulton County Jail between November 13 and November 21, 2014, who were detained for more than 24 hours past the time at which employees of the Fulton County Jail knew or should have known that the inmate was to be released, and whose over detentions were caused by the jail policy not to release inmates without running GCIC checks, even when the GCIC system was experiencing an outage. Ascertainability The Plaintiffs have shown that the proposed class is sufficiently ascertainable. First, the Plaintiffs have pointed to objective criteria by which to identify class members. The objective criteria are whether an inmate was detained in the jail (during the relevant time) for more than 24 hours after the inmate became eligible for release. Those who meet these criteria are in the class. Those who do not are out. Second, the Plaintiffs have shown an administratively feasible basis for identifying membership in the class. Plaintiffs propose a two-step process: (1) identify any inmate released more than 24 hours after the jail received notice that the inmate was eligible for release during the GCIC outage and (2) remove any inmate from the list whose release was not delayed by the GCIC outage. The Plaintiffs have shown that they can reliably identify class members by using the jail's own records. The Plaintiffs deposed Felecia Ivey, who has worked at the Fulton Sheriff's Office for twenty-five years, is the jail's current Criminal Information Systems Supervisor, and was a Records and Document Specialist. She has extensive knowledge of and involvement in the jail's process for releasing inmates, was involved in the process in 2014, and helped train other employees in how to process inmates for release. She explained that, when a court enters an order granting bond, sentencing a defendant to time served, or otherwise ordering an inmate's release, a release-triggering document is sent to a records and document specialist at the jail. The document indicates the time and date that the inmate became eligible for release. Based on the Plaintiffs' rigorous efforts thus far and a review of the undisputed evidence, the Court is satisfied that members of the proposed class can be identified by reference to objective criteria and an administratively feasible process. In other words, the proposed class is adequately defined and clearly ascertainable. Numerosity To satisfy Rule 23(a)'s numerosity requirement, the class must be so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. The Plaintiffs initially argued that the proposed class satisfies the numerosity requirement because the class is as large as 108 inmates. The Plaintiffs and the Defendants have now agreed that the proposed class includes at least 256 inmates, with the Plaintiffs claiming even more. The Defendants, therefore, concede numerosity, and the Court agrees. Because joinder of 256 or more class members would be impracticable under the circumstances presented here, the Plaintiffs have satisfied the numerosity requirement of Rule 23(a)(1). Commonality Rule 23(a)(2) requires that the Plaintiffs show questions of law or fact common to the class. The Plaintiffs do not claim that their overdetentions were unreasonable given their particularized (or individual) circumstances, so that each class member's circumstances become relevant. Instead, the Plaintiffs allege that they were all intentionally detained for the same reason and by the same event: the Defendants' decision to detain inmates eligible for release during the November 2014 outage simply because they wanted to run GCIC checks, and the GCIC system was down. The Eleventh Circuit has recognized the constitutional right to be free from continued detention after it was or should have been known that the detainee was entitled to release. This right exists for an inmate who is eligible for release regardless of the individual inmate's criminal background, nature of the current charges, or duration of incarceration. Those individual facts may be relevant to a bond determination. But, once bond is granted and posted, those considerations are irrelevant. Put another way, once a judge decides that an inmate is eligible for release and any conditions, such as the posting of a bond, are met, the jail is obligated to release that inmate without any reasonableness determination by the jail. Here, the Plaintiffs have alleged that the Defendants intentionally detained them and others after their scheduled releases in violation of the Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments. Because the same practice and policy allegedly injured the Plaintiffs, the causation elements of their Section 1983 claims are common to all the Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have satisfied Rule 23(a)'s commonality requirement. Typicality Rule 23(a)(3) requires that the claims or defenses of the representative parties be typical of the claims or defenses of the class. The class representative's claims are typical if the claims or defenses of the class and the class representative arise from the same event or pattern or practice and are based on the same legal theory. The Plaintiffs have also alleged that they suffered the same injury. The Plaintiff Oswald Thompson, for example, alleges that he received and posted a bond on November 14, 2014 thus becoming eligible for release on that day. He also alleges that the Defendants caused his detention for another four days because the GCIC system was out. The Defendants still contend that typicality fails because, while named the Plaintiffs allege that they were overdetained for three or more days, most other class members were released within 48 hours of the time they became eligible for release. They all allege that the Defendants violated their constitutional rights during the same eight-day period by detaining them after they were eligible for release because of the GCIC system outage and the Defendants' policy of holding inmates pending a GCIC check. The factual difference in the length of the detention cannot render the Plaintiffs atypical of the class. The Court is satisfied that the Plaintiffs' claims typify those of the class as a whole. The Plaintiffs have thus satisfied the typicality requirement of Rule 23(a)(3). Adequacy Rule 23(a)(4) requires that that the class representatives show that they have common interests with unnamed class members and will vigorously prosecute the interests of the class through qualified counsel. The Defendants concede that no substantial conflicts of interest exist between the representatives and the class. The Court agrees. The Defendants, however, challenge the qualifications of the Plaintiffs' counsel to prosecute this action. Essentially, the Defendants argue that they can find no evidence that one of the Plaintiffs' lawyers has litigated in federal court and that the other, while he has significant litigation experience, has not handled a class action as lead counsel from start to finish. To establish adequacy of representation, class counsel must be qualified, experienced, and generally able to conduct the litigation. The Plaintiffs' counsel submitted affidavits establishing their litigation experience in civil-rights actions and claims against the government. Ms. Stern has handled many criminal jury trials, argued appeals to the Eleventh Circuit, been involved in civil-rights lawsuits, and run her own law firm for the past five years. Mr. Begnaud has been practicing for more than ten years, worked at a well-respected law firm, served as a public defender where he tried many cases, and since opening his own firm has litigated at least thirty civil-rights cases in federal court, many of which involved prisoner claims. His partner, Mr. Horsley, has similar experience as a public defender and has represented plaintiffs in more than twenty civil-rights cases in federal court. The Court has also reviewed counsels' conduct here, including their briefs and arguments at hearings. The Court finds with no doubt whatsoever that Plaintiffs' counsel is qualified to litigate this action on behalf of the class. Rule 23(b)(3) Predominance In addition to satisfying the Rule 23(a) requirements, Plaintiffs must also satisfy at least one of Rule 23(b)'s requirements. The Plaintiffs contend that the proposed class satisfies Rule 23(b)(3), which requires that the Court find that the questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and that a class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy. All the class members were injured by the same event, Defendants' refusal to release inmates otherwise eligible for release during the eight-day GCIC outage in November 2014. And Plaintiffs allege that Defendants violated their constitutional rights in the same way, with a common course of conduct and intent. Whether there was an intent to confine and an act of confinement will be susceptible to class-wide proof. This will include evidence that Defendants required GCIC searches before releasing inmates, were aware of the outage on November 2014, and knew the combination of the outage and their policy would result in the overdetention of some inmates. The Defendants ignore the Plaintiffs' core allegation that the Defendants refused to release them not because of the administrative process but because they adopted a policy of deliberately detaining people eligible for release during GCIC outages. A jail supervisor may not knowingly detain someone past the point at which he or she knows the person is eligible for release. The liability of Defendants here, therefore, turns on whether they adopted an unconstitutional policy that caused the over detention, not administrative delays. There is no reason to believe that an assessment of the reasonableness of administrative delays apart from the decision to wait for the GCIC check will be any part of this matter. The Court finds that under these circumstances, a class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy. The class members' claims here likely involve relatively small damages amounts. And it is unlikely that class members would pursue these claims on their own. The Court thus finds that the class action mechanism provides the most efficient method of resolving Plaintiffs' claims here. A full-text copy of the District Court's November 15, 2018 Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y93fhdu4 from Leagle.com. Oswald Thompson, Jr., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Donna Wright, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Bridget Machovec, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Twan Trammell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Sterling Palmer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Oluseus Adeniyi Oshinowo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Joseph Singleton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Tommie Douglas, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Daeja Mitchell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated & Darrion Tripp, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Jessica Katherine Stern , Stern Law, LLC, Mark Andrew Begnaud , Horsley Begnaud, LLC & Nathanael A. Horsley, Horsley Begnaud, LLC. Sheriff Theodore Jackson, Defendant, represented by Ashley Jenell Moore Palmer , Fulton County Attorney's Office, Kaye Woodard Burwell , Office of the Fulton County Attorney, Nancy Ladson Rowan , Office of the County Attorney, Patrise M. Perkins-Hooker , Fulton County Attorney's Office & Walter B. Yarbrough , Nall & Miller, LLP. GC SERVICES: Beaufrand Seeks Class Certification Under FDCPA ------------------------------------------------------------ Carlos Beaufrand asks the Court to enter an order determining that the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act action titled CARLOS BEAUFRAND, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. GC SERVICES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Case No. 2:18-cv-00242-LA (E.D. Wisc.), may proceed as a class action against the Defendant. The class is defined as: All natural persons in the State of Wisconsin, to whom GCS sent one or more collection letters, seeking to collect a credit card debt, which account the creditor had previously charged off, where the letter was mailed between February 15, 2017 and February 15, 2018, inclusive, and where the letter represented that the account at issue was subject to "interest, late fees, and other charges," and which was not returned by the postal service. Excluded from the class are persons whose accounts were designated by the creditor(s) as business accounts and any person who previously released their claims against GCS, up to and including the class period. The case concerns the legality of standard form collection letters used by Defendant GCS to collect consumer debts owed to third parties. The Plaintiff also seeks appointment as class representative, and for the appointment of Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP, as class counsel.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: John D. Blythin, Esq. Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. Jesse Fruchter, Esq. Ben J. Slatky, Esq. ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482-8000 Facsimile: (414) 482-8001 E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com meldridge@ademilaw.com jfruchter@ademilaw.com bslatky@ademilaw.com GC SERVICES: Jaber Seeks to Certify Class of Michigan Consumers --------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled SABAH JABER, individually, and as representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. GC SERVICES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a Delaware limited partnership, Case No. 2:17-cv-13971-VAR-SDD (E.D. Mich.), asks the Court to grant her motion for class certification, appoint her as class representative, and appoint her counsel as class counsel. The action arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and a proposed class of Michigan consumers, alleges that the Defendant, a debt collector, sent collections communications (dunning letters) to her and other Michigan consumers in an attempt to collect a debt, threatening the imposition of interest, late charges, and other (unspecified) charges Defendant could not lawfully impose, in violation of the FDCPA.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rex C. Anderson, Esq. REX ANDERSON, P.C. 9459 Lapeer Rd., Suite 101 Davison, MI 48423 Telephone: (810) 653-3300 E-mail: rex@rexandersonpc.net - and - Nemer N. Hadous, Esq. HADOUS CO. PLLC 1 Parklane Blvd., Suite 729 East Dearborn, MI 48126 Telephone: (313) 415-5559 E-mail: nhadous@hadousco.com - and - Michael Jaafar, Esq. FAIRMAX LAW, PLLC 1 Parklane Blvd., Suite 729 East Dearborn, MI 48126 Telephone: (313) 801-8809 E-mail: mike@fairmaxlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Marcus R. Sanborn, Esq. BLEVINS SANBORN, JEZDIMIR ZASCK, PLC 1842 Michigan Avenue Detroit, MI 48126 Telephone: (313) 338-9500 E-mail: msanborn@bsjzlaw.com GCA EDUCATIONAL: Taylors Seek Minimum Wages and OT under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------- MARCUS TAYLOR and TRAVIS TAYLOR, Individually, and on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated current and former employees, the Plaintiffs, vs. GCA EDUCATIONAL SERVICES, INC., GCA SERVICES GROUP, INC., ABM INDUSTRY GROUPS, LLC ABM BUILDING SOLUTIONS, LLC, and ABM JANITORIAL SERVICES, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-01225 (W.D. Tenn.), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime compensation owed to Plaintiffs and other similarly situated current and former janitorial employees currently or previously employed by the Defendants under the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants provide (and have provided) janitorial and related services to schools, businesses, and institutions throughout the United States -- primarily through the labor of their employees, such as Plaintiffs and class members within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. section 203. The Defendants have employed Plaintiffs and class members and were responsible for establishing and administering wage and compensation policies related to them during all times relevant to this action. The Plaintiffs and the class are current or former hourly-paid, non-exempt janitorial employees of Defendants. The Defendants have had a timekeeping system for the purpose of recording and accounting for the compensable work time of Plaintiffs and the class. The Plaintiffs and members of the class have suffered, and will continue to suffer, irreparable damages from the unlawful policies, practices, and procedures implemented by Defendants, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for the Named Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated current and former employees: Gordon E. Jackson, Esq. J. Russ Bryant, Esq. Robert E. Turner, Esq. Nathan A. Bishop, Esq. JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER & HOLT 262 German Oak Drive Memphis, TN 38018 Telephone: (901) 754-8001 Facsimile: (901) 759-1745 E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com rbryant@jsyc.com rturner@jsyc.com nbishop@jsyc.com GEORGIA POWER: Bid to Stay Franchise Fee Suit Underway ------------------------------------------------------ Georgia Power Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the Company has filed a motion to stay the case and requested the trial court refer the case to the Georgia PSC for a declaratory ruling. In 2011, plaintiffs filed a putative class action against Georgia Power in the Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia alleging that Georgia Power's collection in rates of municipal franchise fees (all of which are remitted to municipalities) exceeded the amounts allowed in orders of the Georgia PSC and alleging certain state tort law claims. In 2016, the Georgia Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's previous dismissal of the case and remanded the case to the trial court. Georgia Power filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the Georgia Supreme Court, which was granted in August 2017. On June 18, 2018, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Georgia Court of Appeals and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings. On August 27, 2018, Georgia Power filed a motion to stay the case and requested the trial court refer the case to the Georgia PSC for a declaratory ruling. Georgia Power believes the plaintiffs' claims have no merit and will continue to vigorously defend itself in this matter. Georgia Power said, "The amount of any possible losses cannot be calculated at this time because, among other factors, it is unknown whether any class will ultimately be certified; the scope of such a class, if certified; and whether any losses would be subject to recovery from any municipalities. The ultimate outcome of this matter cannot be determined at this time." Georgia Power Company engages in generation, transmission, distribution, purchases, and sells electric service in Georgia. It generates electricity from coal, nuclear, and natural gas sources, as well as renewable sources, such as solar, hydroelectric, and wind. The company was founded in 1927 and is based in Atlanta, Georgia. Georgia Power Company is a subsidiary of The Southern Company. GLOBAL TRUST: Fote Seeks Certification of Class Under "Damasco" --------------------------------------------------------------- Joseph Fote moves the Court to certify the class described in the complaint of the lawsuit captioned JOSEPH FOTE, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. GLOBAL TRUST MANAGEMENT, LLC, Case No. 2:18-cv-01778-NJ (E.D. Wisc.), and further asks that the Court both stay the motion for class certification and to grant the Plaintiff (and the Defendant) relief from the Local Rules setting automatic briefing schedules and requiring briefs and supporting material to be filed with the Motion. Dicta in the Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, left open the possibility that a defendant facing a class action complaint could moot a class representative's case by depositing funds equal to or in excess of the maximum value of the plaintiff's individual claim with the court and having the court enter judgment in the plaintiff's favor prior to the filing of a class certification motion, the Plaintiff asserts, citing Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016). To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the certification motion. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) ("The pendency of that motion [for class certification] protects a putative class from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs."). While the Seventh Circuit has held that the specific procedure described in Campbell-Ewald cannot force the individual settlement of a class representative's claims, the same decision cautions that other methods may prevent a plaintiff from representing a class, the Plaintiff tells the Court, citing Fulton Dental, LLC v. Bisco, Inc., No. 16-3574, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 10839 *9-10 (7th Cir. June 20, 2017). The Plaintiff asserts that one defendant has attempted a similar tactic by sending a certified check to the proposed class representative. Bonin v. CBS Radio, Inc., No. 16-cv-674-CNC (E.D. Wis.); see also Severns v. Eastern Account Systems of Connecticut, Inc., Case No. 15-cv-1168, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23164 (E.D. Wis. Feb. 24, 2016). The Plaintiff is obligated to move for class certification to protect the interests of the putative class, the Plaintiff contends. As the Motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when short motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended motion is filed, the Plaintiff contends. The Plaintiff also asks to be appointed as class representative, and for the appointment of Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP, as class counsel.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: John D. Blythin, Esq. Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. Jesse Fruchter, Esq. Ben J. Slatky, Esq. ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482-8000 Facsimile: (414) 482-8001 E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com meldridge@ademilaw.com jfruchter@ademilaw.com bslatky@ademilaw.com GLOBALSCAPE INC: Dec. 18 Final Approval Hearing in Giovagnoli Deal ------------------------------------------------------------------ GlobalSCAPE, 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 court in Anthony Giovagnoli v. GlobalSCAPE, Inc., et al., has scheduled a hearing on December 18, 2018 to determine whether an Order and Final Judgment of the settlement should be entered. On November 15, 2017, on August 9, 2017, a securities class action complaint, Anthony Giovagnoli v. GlobalSCAPE, Inc., et. al., Case No. 5:17-cv-00753, was filed against the Company in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. On November 6, 2017, the Court appointed Irfan Rahman as lead plaintiff, and he filed the First Amended Complaint on July 26, 2018. The Amended Complaint names the Company, Matthew Goulet, James Albrecht, Thomas Brown, David Mann, Frank Morgan, and Thomas Hicks as defendants for allegedly making materially false and misleading statements regarding, inter alia, the Company's previously reported financial statements. The Amended Complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The Amended Complaint seeks unspecified damages, costs, attorneys' fees, and equitable relief. The parties reached a settlement and submitted a Stipulation of Settlement to the Court on September 13, 2018. Under this settlement, the Company's and Individual Defendants' insurance carrier will provide the Class with a cash payment of $1,400,000, which includes the cash amount of any attorney's fees or litigation expenses that the Court may award Lead Plaintiff's counsel and costs Lead Plaintiff may incur in administering and providing notice of the settlement. In exchange, Lead Plaintiff has agreed that the settlement will include a dismissal of the Class Action with prejudice and a release of all claims against the Company and the Individual Defendants by the Class. This settlement was preliminarily approved by the Court on October 2, 2018. The Court has scheduled a hearing on December 18, 2018 to determine whether an Order and Final Judgment of the settlement should be entered. GlobalSCAPE said, "The settlement will not become effective until finally approved by the Court. The Company has accrued the $1,400,000 expense in the third quarter of 2018 and has also accrued a receivable of $1,400,000 as this settlement will be funded by our insurance carrier." GlobalSCAPE, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, develops and distributes software, delivers managed and hosted solutions, and provides associated services for secure information exchange, and data transfer and sharing for enterprises and consumers worldwide. The company primarily serves the finance, health care, energy, retail, manufacturing, and engineering markets. GlobalSCAPE, Inc. was founded in 1996 and is based in San Antonio, Texas. GREENSKY INC: Dobek Sues over Misleading Financial Report --------------------------------------------------------- RAFAL DOBEK, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. GREENSKY, INC., DAVID ZALIK, ROBERT PARTLOW, JOEL BABBIT, GERALD BENJAMIN, JOHN FLYNN, GREGG FREISHTAT, NIGEL MORRIS, ROBERT SHEFT, GOLDMAN SACHS & CO. LLC, J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC, CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES (USA) LLC, MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INCORPORATED, SUNTRUST ROBINSON HUMPHREY, INC., RAYMOND JAMES & ASSOCIATES, INC., SANDLER O’NEILL & PARTNERS, L.P., FIFTH THIRD SECURITIES, INC., and GUGGENHEIM SECURITIES, LLC, the Defendants, Case No.: 655707/2018, (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nov. 15, 2018), seeks to pursue remedies under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. The case is a class action on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired the Class A common stock of GreenSky pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's false and/or misleading registration statement and prospectus issued in connection with the Company's May 24, 2018 initial public offering . GreenSky purports to be a technology company that powers commerce through point of sale. The Company’s platform purports to facilitate merchant sales, while reducing the friction and improving the economics associated with consumer purchases and bank financing of those purchases. On May 25, 2018, the Company filed with the SEC its IPO prospectus, which forms part of the IPO Registration Statement. In the IPO, the Company sold 38,000,000 shares of Class A common stock at a price of $23.00 per share. The Company received proceeds of approximately $830.3 million from the IPO, net of underwriting discounts and commissions. The proceeds from the IPO were purportedly to be used to purchase common units of GreenSky Holdings, LLC and to redeem the Company's Class A common stock issued upon exercise of options by certain option holders. On November 6, 2018, GreenSky lowered its full year 2018 transaction volume guidance from between $5.1 and $5.3 billion to between $4.9 and $5.1 billion, and lowered its full year 2018 Adjusted EBITDA guidance from between $192 and $199 million to between $165 and $175 million. GreenSky attributed the reduction to a general labor shortage and unfavorable shifts in its loan mix. On that day, GreenSky's stock price closed at $9.28 per share, which was a decline of $13.72, or approximately 60%, from the IPO price of $23.00 per share. The Registration Statement was materially false and misleading and omitted to state: that the Company's transaction fee rates did not reasonably account for higher interest rates; that the solar panel merchants paid a higher average transaction fee rate than the elective healthcare merchants; that, as a result, the Company's expansion into elective healthcare would materially impact the average transaction fee rate; and that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' statements in the Registration Statement regarding GreenSky's business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and/or misleading, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP Lesley Portnoy, Esq. Daniella Quitt, Esq. 712 Fifth Avenue, 31st floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212)935-7400 Facsimile: (212)753-3630 - and - Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq. Robert V. Prongay, Esq. Charles H. Linehan, Esq. 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 GREYHOUND LINES: Sued over Discriminatory Immigration Raids ----------------------------------------------------------- ROCIO CORDOVA, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, vs. GREYHOUND LINES, INC., and DOES 1-100, the Defendants, Case No. RG18928028 (Cal. Super. Ct., Nov. 8, 2018), alleges that the Defendants violated the Unruh Act by denying, aiding in the denial of, and/or inciting a denial of Greyhound passengers of the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, and services in Defendants' business establishments based on, inter alia, their actual or perceived race, color, ancestry, national origin, and/or primary language. Greyhound Lines, Inc. is a private intercity bus company that operates throughout the State of California. Greyhound has adopted a policy or practice of voluntarily opening its doors to armed and uniformed U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents in order to allow discriminatory immigration raids to be conducted in the passenger cabins of domestic buses without a warrant, probable cause, or reasonable suspicion. Greyhound's policy has and continues to impact thousands, if not tens of thousands, of consumers in California. Greyhound's voluntary policy or practice also includes delaying buses while agents interrogate passengers and providing CBP agents with access to Greyhound's private staff break rooms and back office areas at bus stations for secondary questioning. Greyhound station managers have prevented dissenters from videotaping such raids and defended Greyhound's policy, with one manager reportedly proclaiming: "Greyhound will always welcome Border Patrol here.", the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Darren J. Robbins, Esq. Rachell Jensen, Esq. Juan Carlos Sanchez, Esq. Aelish M. Baig, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: 619/231-1058 E-mail: darrenr@rgrdlaw.com rjensen@rgrdlaw.com jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com aelishm@rgrdlaw.com GYM CONSULTING: Livingstone Suit Alleges TCPA Violations -------------------------------------------------------- Amy Livingstone, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Gym Consulting, Inc. dba My Gym Enterprises, Case No. 0:18-cv-62734 (S.D. Fla., November 9, 2018), is brought against the Defendant for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff brings this class action complaint for damages, injunctive relief, and any other available legal or equitable remedies, resulting from the illegal actions of the Defendant in negligently or willfully contacting Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular telephone, in violation of the TCPA, thereby invading Plaintiff's privacy. The Plaintiff's domicile is in Broward County, Florida. Plaintiff is a citizen of the state of Florida. The Defendant, My Gym, is a California company and is a citizen of California. The Defendant is an international corporation which operates the number one children's program worldwide in more than 550 locations in over 30 countries. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth M. Lehrman, Esq. EDWARDS POTTINGER, LLC 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Tel: (954) 524-2820 Fax: (954) 524-2822 E-mail: seth@epllc.com HORIZON FREIGHT: Court Dismisses Ayyash Wage & Hour Suit -------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case captioned MOHAMMED AYYASH and FADI HAFEZ, Plaintiffs, v. HORIZON FREIGHT SYSTEM, INC., et al., Defendants. No. 15-cv-10296. (N.D. Ill.) pursuant to the doctrine of forum non conveniens. Plaintiffs Mohammed Ayyash and Fadi Hafez worked as drivers for Defendant Horizon Freight System, Inc. (Horizon). They have brought this putative class action alleging that Horizon, its president David Ferrante, and its terminal manager and owner Trent Fairbanks (Defendants) incorrectly classified drivers as independent contractors rather than employees, made unlawful deductions from drivers' paychecks, failed to pay drivers for all work performed, and paid drivers less than minimum wage. Ayyash and Hafez, both residents of Illinois, worked as drivers for Horizon. Their agreements with Horizon specify that they were independent contractors even though, according to Ayyash and Hafez, they were actually Horizon's employees. Ayyash and Hafez also allege that Defendants deducted certain operating expenses from their pay without authorization. The doctrine of forum non conveniens permits a court, in its discretion, to dismiss an action over which it would normally have jurisdiction when there is an adequate alternative forum in which the case may be more conveniently heard. Forum-Selection Clause in Hafez's Agreement with Horizon Turning to the forum-section clause in Hafez's agreement with Horizon, the relevant provision is found in Section 18 of the agreement. It provides: "Governing Law, Consent to Jurisdiction -- All questions concerning the validity, intention, or meaning of this Agreement, or relating to performance or breach under the Agreement shall be construed and resolved in accordance with the laws of the State of Ohio and applicable federal law. Each party hereby designates the Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga County, Ohio as the court of proper jurisdiction and venue of and for any and all legal proceedings relating to this Agreement, hereby unequivocally consents to such designation, jurisdiction and venue, hereby waives any objections or defenses relating to the jurisdiction or venue with respect to any legal proceedings initiated in, or transferred to, the Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga County, Ohio." The parties disagree on what law governs the validity of this forum-selection clause. Defendants argue that its validity must be determined according to Ohio law, i.e., the law designated in the choice of law clause of Hafez's agreement. Plaintiffs, on the other hand, argue that the choice-of-law provision in Hafez's agreement with Horizon is invalid and therefore Illinois law applies. A third option would be to determine the validity of the forum-selection clause according to federal common law. This Court need not resolve the choice-of-law issue for present purposes, however. As explained below, the forum-selection clause is valid regardless of whether federal, Ohio, or Illinois law applies. Validity of Forum-Selection Clauses under Federal, Illinois, and Ohio Law Under federal law, a forum-selection clause is presumed to be valid to overcome this presumption, the opposing party must show that the clause is unreasonable under the circumstances. Courts construe this unreasonable under the circumstances exception narrowly. A clause is unreasonable if its incorporation into a contract was the result of fraud, undue influence, or overwhelming bargaining power, if the selected forum is so gravely inconvenient that the opposing party will be deprived of its day in court, or if enforcement of the clause contravenes a strong public policy of the forum. Illinois courts analyze forum-selection clauses in a similar manner. To determine whether a forum-selection clause is unreasonable, Illinois courts look at the following factors: (1) the law governing the formation and construction of the contract; (2) the residency of the parties; (3) the place of execution and performance of the contract; (4) the location of the parties and witnesses; (5) the inconvenience to the parties of any particular location; and (6) whether the clause was equally bargained for. Under Ohio law, a forum-selection clause in a commercial contract between business entities is upheld, so long as its enforcement does not deprive litigants of their day in court. Thus, absent evidence of fraud or overreaching, a forum-selection clause contained in a commercial contract between business entities is valid and enforceable, unless it can be clearly shown that enforcement of the clause would be unreasonable and unjust. However, when it comes to a forum-selection clause in an employment contract, the law is less settled. Like Illinois courts, Ohio courts look at the following factors to determine if a forum is unreasonable: (1) the law controlling the contractual dispute (2) the residency of the parties; (3) where the contract was executed (4) where the witnesses and parties are located; and (5) whether the forum clause's designated location is inconvenient to the parties. Whether the Forum-Selection Clause Violates Public Policy The Plaintiffs argue that the choice-of-law clause in Hafez's agreement with Horizon is unenforceable as against Illinois public policy because the clause essentially waives Hafez's rights under the IWPCA. Hence, according to Plaintiffs, the forum-selection clause in Hafez's agreement is unenforceable because it is part of the same non-severable contract as the allegedly unenforceable choice-of-law clause. To the contrary, several courts have upheld choice-of-law clauses in suits arising under the IWPCA. For example, in Cornell v. BP America Inc., No. 14 C 2123, 2015 WL 5766931, at *4 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 30, 2015), the plaintiff argued that the choice-of-law provision in his benefits agreement, which designated English law, could not apply because an employee could not waive or release his rights under the IWCPA. The Cornell court rejected that argument, distinguishing the case from O'Brien and Ladegaard as there was no express waiver involved in the case and the plaintiff had provided no basis for the court to conclude that English law would not allow the plaintiff to bring an IWPCA claim. Moreover, the Illinois Department of Labor appears to view choice-of-law clauses designating non-Illinois law as enforceable the Department's web-site informs visitors that an employee may not have a claim if the employment contract has a `choice of law' clause requiring [the employee] to bring all claims in a state other than Illinois. Hence, the Plaintiffs' argument that the forum-selection clause is invalid because the choice of law clause violates public policy must fail. Unequal Bargaining Power and Lack of Ties to Ohio The Plaintiffs next argue that regardless of the validity of the choice-of-law clause, the Court should not enforce the forum-selection clause because he had no bargaining power to negotiate it and because the present case has no ties to Ohio with respect to the IWPCA claims, except for the location of Horizon's headquarters. But a mere lack of bargaining power on the part of one party to a contract does not make a forum-selection clause invalid. Likewise, mere inconvenience to the opposing party is not sufficient to invalidate a forum-selection clause as unreasonable. The Plaintiffs' argument that Ohio constitutes an unreasonable forum also fails. Looking at the factors that both Ohio and Illinois courts weigh when determining unreasonableness, this Court cannot conclude that Plaintiffs have met their burden of showing that Hafez's forum-selection clause is invalid. First, the controlling law factor does not weigh in favor of the Plaintiffs, as Hafez's agreement has a choice of law provision designating Ohio law. Second, the parties' residency does not weigh heavily in favor of the Plaintiffs. Third, while the agreement's place of performance appears to weigh in favor of the Plaintiffs, it is unclear that the same could be said for the agreement's execution. Fourth, while the Plaintiffs claim that most of the evidence is located in Illinois and that Hafez and other class members are in Illinois, Plaintiffs have not provided any specific physical or financial reason why he cannot travel to or litigate in Ohio, the forum convenient for Defendants. In sum, the Plaintiffs have failed to meet his burden of establishing that Ohio is a gravely inconvenient forum such as to effectively deprive him of a meaningful day in court. As a result, Plaintiffs' argument that the forum-selection clause in his agreement is unenforceable fails. Atlantic Marine Factors Having concluded that the forum-selection clause in Hafez's agreement is valid, the Court proceeds with the forum non conveniens analysis under Atlantic Marine. If the Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga County, Ohio is an adequate alternative forum, then this Court need only weigh the public interest factors. Atl. Marine Const. Co., 134 S. Ct. at 582. Hafez's choice of forum merits no weight, and the Court deems factors relating to the parties' private interests as weighing entirely in favor of the Ohio court. A forum meets the adequate alternative forum requirement if the forum is both available and adequate. An alternative forum is available if all parties are amenable to process and are within the forum's jurisdiction. A forum is adequate when the parties will not be deprived of all remedies or treated unfairly. Here, the Plaintiffs do not dispute that the Ohio court is an available forum. Rather, the Plaintiffs argue that the Ohio court is not an adequate forum because Ohio judges are unfamiliar with the IWPCA and, if Ohio law applies, he would improperly be stripped of rights provided under the IWPCA. But federal and state courts routinely apply the law of states other than the state in which they sit. Moreover, the fact that Ohio courts might subject Hafez to laws and remedies different or less favorable than those available in Illinois is not alone sufficient to deny enforcement of a forum-selection clause. And the Court is not aware of any other reason why the designated Ohio forum would arguably treat Hafez unfairly or deprive him of remedies. Therefore, the Plaintiffs have failed to convince this Court that the designated Ohio forum is inadequate. Accordingly, the Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted. A full-text copy of the District Court's November 15, 2018 Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y7j32whb from Leagle.com. Mohammed Ayyash & Fadi Hafez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Alejandro Caffarelli , Caffarelli & Associates Ltd., Alexis D. Martin, Caffarelli & Associates Ltd., Lorraine Teraldico Peeters, Caffarelli & Associates Ltd. & Madeline K. Engel, Caffarelli & Associates Ltd. Horizon Freight System, Inc., Trent Fairbanks, individually & David Ferrante, Defendants, represented by Alan L. Rupe -- Alan.Rupe@lewisbrisbois.com -- Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, pro hac vice, Jason David Stitt -- Jason.Stitt@lewisbrisbois.com -- Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, pro hac vice, John J. Michels, Jr. -- John.Michels@lewisbrisbois.com -- Lewis Brisbois, Bisgaard & Smith, Johner Taylor Wilson, III -- Johner.Wilson@lewisbrisbois.com -- Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP & Todd Allen Gray -- Todd.Gray@lewisbrisbois.com -- Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP, pro hac vice. HUNTER ALLIED: Court Narrows Claims in Izaguirre Suit ------------------------------------------------------ The Hon. Dabney L. Friedrich granted in part and denied in part the Motion to Conditionally Certify a Collective Action and for Approval of and Facilitation of Notice to Potential Class Members in the lawsuit entitled FERNANDO M. IZAGUIRRE v. HUNTER ALLIED OF MARYLAND, INC., et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-00965-DLF (D.D.C.). According to the Court's memorandum opinion and order, conditional certification is granted only for hourly construction workers, who worked for the Defendants from April 24, 2015, to the present and were paid overtime at their regular hourly rate as an "expense reimbursement." Mr. Izaguirre's request to approve the proposed notice is denied without prejudice. He shall refile a proposed notice that substantially conforms with the formatting of the notice that was approved in Stephens v. Farmers Restaurant Group, No. 17-cv-1087 (TJK), Judge Friedrich ruled. Judge Friedrich also ruled that: -- Mr. Izaguirre's request to notify potential plaintiffs by U.S. mail is approved; -- the request that the Defendants include the notice in employees' paychecks is denied; -- the proposed duration of 45 days for potential plaintiffs to opt in to the collective action and the proposed opt-in form are approved; and -- the Motion to Permit Pre-Certification Discovery is denied without prejudice. Mr. Izaguirre alleges that the Defendants -- Hunter Allied of Maryland and its president and owner, Bradford Q. Ott -- unlawfully failed to pay employees overtime for construction work.[CC] HY'S LIVERY: Belgada Moves to Certify Class of Limousine Drivers ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs and approximately 70 Opt-In plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled MEHDI BELGADA, HORMOZ AKHUNDZADEH, and DANIEL DZIEKAN, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals v. HY'S LIVERY SERVICE, INC., ROBERT LEVINE, MATTHEW LEVINE, and SHELLEY LEVINE, Case No. 3:18-cv-00177-VAB (D. Conn.), move for certification of a class pursuant to Rules 23(a) and 23(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The proposed class consists of: All persons who have worked for Defendant Hy's Livery Service, Inc. as full-time limousine drivers at any time between December 30, 2015 and the date of final judgment in this matter. The Plaintiffs also move the Court to designate them as Class Representatives; and to designate their counsel, The Hayber Law Firm, LLC, as class counsel.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael T. Petela, Jr., Esq. Richard E. Hayber, Esq. THE HAYBER LAW FIRM, LLC 900 Chapel St, 11th Floor New Haven, CT 06510 Telephone: (860) 522-8888 Facsimile: (860) 218-9555 E-mail: mpetela@hayberlawfirm.com rhayber@hayberlawfirm.com HYATT CORPORATION: Removed Insixiengmay Case to E.D. California --------------------------------------------------------------- The Defendant removed the case captioned Janice Insixiengmay, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Hyatt Corporation, a Delaware Corporation; Hyatt Corporation dba Hyatt Regency Sacramento, an 20 unknown association; and Does 1 to 21 100, inclusive, Case No. 34-2018-00241994, from the Sacramento County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on Nov. 15, 2018. The Eastern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:18-cv-02993-TLN-DB to the proceeding. The Plaintiff sought recovery for alleged failure to pay overtime wages, alleged failure to provide meal and rest periods, alleged failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, alleged failure to pay final wages upon resignation and/or discharge, and alleged violations of California Business and Professions Code.[BN] Attorneys for Defendant: J. Scott Carr, Esq. Kristapor Vartanian, Esq. Abigail Stecker Romero, Esq. KABAT CHAPMAN & OZMER LLP 515 S. Flower Street, 18th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 493-3980 Facsimile: (404) 400-7333 E-mail: scarr@kcozlaw.com kvartanian@kcozlaw.com aromero@kcozlaw.com IMMUNOMEDICS INC: Oral Argument in Fergus Suit Not Yet Scheduled ---------------------------------------------------------------- said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that oral arguments on the company's motion to dismiss the consolidated class action suit entitled, Fergus v. Immunomedics, Inc., has not been scheduled. Two purported class action cases were filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey; namely, Fergus v. Immunomedics, Inc., et al., No. 2:16-cv-03335, filed June 9, 2016; and Becker v. Immunomedics, Inc., et al., No. 2:16-cv-03374, filed June 10, 2016. These cases arise from the same alleged facts and circumstances, and seek class certification on behalf of purchasers of the company's common stock between April 20, 2016 and June 2, 2016 (with respect to the Fergus matter) and between April 20, 2016 and June 3, 2016 (with respect to the Becker matter). These cases concern the Company's statements in press releases, investor conference calls, and SEC filings beginning in April 2016 that the Company would present updated information regarding its IMMU-132 breast cancer drug at the 2016 American Society of Clinical Oncology ("ASCO") conference in Chicago, Illinois. The complaints allege that these statements were false and misleading in light of June 2, 2016 reports that ASCO had canceled the presentation because it contained previously reported information. The complaints further allege that these statements resulted in artificially inflated prices for the company's common stock, and that the Company and certain of its officers are thus liable under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. An order of voluntary dismissal without prejudice was entered on November 10, 2016 in the Becker matter. An order granting motion to consolidate cases, appoint lead plaintiff, and approve lead and liaison counsel was entered on February 7, 2017 in the Fergus matter. A consolidated complaint was filed on October 4, 2017. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint on January 26, 2018 and the motion was fully briefed as of April 4, 2018. Oral arguments have not yet been scheduled. Immunomedics, Inc., a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company, develops monoclonal antibody-based products for the targeted treatment of cancer. Its advanced antibody-drug conjugates are sacituzumab govitecan and labetuzumab govitecan, which are in advanced trials for various solid tumors and metastatic colorectal cancer, respectively. he company was founded in 1982 and is headquartered in Morris Plains, New Jersey. JELD-WEN HOLDING: Faces Grubb Lumber Class Action ------------------------------------------------- JELD-WEN Holding, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 29, 2018, that the company is facing a putative class action suit entitled, Grubb Lumber Company, Inc. v. Masonite Corporation and JELD-WEN, Inc. On October 19, 2018, Grubb Lumber Company, on behalf of itself and others similarly situated, filed a putative class action lawsuit against the company and one of its competitors in the doors market, Masonite Corporation ("Masonite") in the Eastern District of Virginia. The suit alleges that Masonite and the company violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act by engaging in a scheme to artificially raise, fix, maintain, or stabilize the prices of interior molded doors in the United States. The suit further alleges that the company's acquisition of CraftMaster Manufacturing, Inc. (CMI) violated Section 7 of the Clayton Act by substantially lessening competition in the molded doors market. The complaint seeks unquantified ordinary and treble damages, declaratory relief, interest, costs and attorneys' fees. The Company believes the claims lack merit and intends to vigorously defend against the action. JELD-WEN Holding said, "At this early stage of the proceedings, we are unable to conclude that a loss is probable or to estimate the potential magnitude of any loss in this matter, although a loss could have a material adverse effect on our operating results, consolidated financial position or cash flows." JELD-WEN Holding, Inc. manufactures and sells doors and windows primarily in North America, Europe, and Australasia. The company offers a line of residential interior and exterior door products, including patio doors, and folding or sliding wall systems; non-residential doors; and wood, vinyl, and aluminum windows. The company was founded in 1960 and is based in Charlotte, North Carolina. JMR LANDSCAPING: Lazcon Files Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Sergio Armando Lazcon Zuniga, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated v. JMR Landscaping LLC, and Joey Rossa, Case No. 1:18-cv-07470 (N.D. Ill., November 10, 2018), is brought against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants failed and refused to pay overtime compensation. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a landscaper and laborer. The Defendants provide landscaping maintenance, lawn care, landscape design and build, and snow removal services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Schorsch, Esq. DESPRES, SCHWARTZ & GEOGHEGAN LTD. 77 W. Washington St., Suite 711 Chicago, IL 60602 Tel: (312) 372-2511 E-mail: mschorsch@dsgchicago.com - and - Alexandria Santistevan, Esq. FARMWORKER & LANDSCAPER ADVOCACY PROJECT 33 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 900 Chicago, IL, 60602 Tel: (312) 784-3541 E-mail: litigation@flapillinois.org KERYX BIOPHARMA: Discovery Ongoing in Consolidated Karth Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, 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 parties in Tim Karth v. Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., are presently engaged in discovery. Four purported class action lawsuits have been filed against the company and certain of its current and former officers (Gregory P. Madison, Scott A. Holmes, Ron Bentsur, and James Oliviero). Three of these actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned respectively Terrell Jackson v. Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. 1:16-cv-06131, filed on August 2, 2016, Richard J. Erickson v. Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. No. 1:16-cv-06218, filed on August 4, 2016, and Richard King v. Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. 1:16-cv-06233, filed on August 5, 2016. The Jackson complaint purports to be brought on behalf of stockholders who purchased the company's common stock between February 25, 2016 and August 1, 2016, the Erickson complaint purports to be brought on behalf of stockholders who purchased the company's common stock between March 2, 2016 and July 29, 2016, and the King complaint purports to be brought on behalf of stockholders who purchased the company's common stock between February 25, 2016 and July 29, 2016. On August 26, 2016, the fourth complaint, captioned Tim Karth v. Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. 1:16-cv-11745, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, which complaint was subsequently amended. The Karth complaint purports to be brought on behalf of stockholders who purchased the company's common stock between May 8, 2013 and August 1, 2016. The Jackson, Erickson and King matters were transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on April 5, 2017 and subsequently consolidated with the Karth action. Each complaint generally alleges that the company and certain of its current and former officers violated Sections 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making allegedly false and/or misleading statements concerning the company's and its business operations and future prospects in light of the August 1, 2016 announcement of an interruption in the company's supply of Auryxia. By order dated July 19, 2018, the Court granted in part and denied in part Defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint. The parties are presently engaged in discovery. Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., a commercial stage biopharmaceutical company, focuses on providing medicines for patients with kidney disease in the United States. Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. was founded in 1997 and is headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts. LANE BRYANT: Meo Seeks Overtime Pay for Store Managers ------------------------------------------------------ AMANDA MEO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. LANE BRYANT, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-06360 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 8, 2018), seeks to recover overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the New York Labor Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant willfully violated the FLSA and applicable state laws by failing to pay its non-exempt hourly Store Managers, including Plaintiff and all other similarly situated employees, for all of the overtime hours worked based upon its unlawful policies and practices. While Defendant required Store Managers to work overtime hours, it required them to clock out and work off the clock, as well as working without clocking in on their scheduled days off. The Defendant failed to credit -- and therefore compensate -- Plaintiff and Store Managers for all of their hours worked in violation of the FLSA. Moreover, as a result of this policy, Defendant failed to pay its New York Store Managers, such as Plaintiff, for their non-overtime hours and accurately report their hours worked on their paystubs, in violation of the NYLL, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff and the proposed FLSA Collective: Michael J. Palitz, Esq. Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq. Logan Pardell, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. 830 3rd Avenue, 5th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (800) 616-4000 Facsimile: (561) 447-8831 E-mail mpalitz@shavitzlaw.com gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com lpardell@shavitzlaw.com - and - Troy L. Kessler, Esq. Garrett Kaske, Esq. SHULMAN KESSLER LLP 534 Broadhollow Road, Suite 275 Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: (631) 499-9100 Facsimile:(631) 499-9120 E-mail: tkessler@shulmankessler.com gkaske@shulmankessler.com LYFT, INC: Removed Tecson Case to Northern District of California ----------------------------------------------------------------- Lyft, Inc. removed case captioned Antonio Tecson, individual on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. LYFT, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 12 CGC-18-570125 (filed Sep. 26, 2018), from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Francisco, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on Nov. 8, 2018. The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-06782 to the proceeding. In the Tecson's complaint, the Plaintiff alleges one cause of action for violation of the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act.[BN] Attorneys for Lyft, Inc.: Archis A. Parasharami, Esq. Daniel E. Jones, Esq. MAYER BROWN LLP 1999 K Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006 Telephone: (202) 263-3000 E-mail: aparasharami@mayerbrown.com djones@mayerbrown.com MACA REST: Workers File Suit Alleging FLSA and NYLL Violations -------------------------------------------------------------- Antonio Martinez and Antonio Romero-Gonzalez, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Maca Rest. Corp. dba Firenze Restaurant, and Manuel Caisaguano, Case No. 1:18-cv-10436 (S.D. N.Y., November 8, 2018), is brought against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiffs sought to remedy the Defendants' violations of the wage and hour provisions of the FLSA and the NYLL. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as bussers, runners, porters, food preps, line cooks, dishwashers and delivery employees. The Defendants own and operate an Italian restaurant in the Upper East Side section of Manhattan. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Amit Kumar, Esq. Law Offices of William Cafaro 108 West 39th Street, Suite 602 New York, NY 10018 Tel: (212) 583-7400 E-mail: AKumar@CafaroEsq.com MDL 2743: Cantu-Guerrero Appeals Ruling in Flooring Durability Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Party-in-Interest Diana Cantu-Guerrero filed an appeal from a court ruling in the multidistrict litigation titled In re: Lumber Liquidators Chinese-Manufactured Flooring Durability Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, MDL No. 1:16-md-02743-AJT-TRJ, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia at Alexandria. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on October 4, 2016. The cases in the litigation concern the sale and marketing of Chinese-manufactured laminate flooring sold by Defendant Lumber Liquidators, Inc. Despite being marketed as sufficiently durable for residential use, the Plaintiffs allege that their laminate flooring scratches too easily and fails to meet the advertised industry standard. The appellate case is captioned as Diana Cantu-Guerrero v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., Case No. 18-2351, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.[BN] Party-in-Interest-Appellant DIANA CANTU-GUERRERO is represented by: Robert William Clore, Esq. BANDAS LAW FIRM, PC 500 North Shoreline Boulevard Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Telephone: (361) 698-5200 Facsimile: (361) 698-5222 E-mail: robertclorerclore@bandaslawfirm.com Defendant-Appellee LUMBER LIQUIDATORS, INC., a Delaware corporation, is represented by: Robert Eric Bilik, Esq. Kimberly Tolland Mydock, Esq. Emily Yandle Rottmann, Esq. MCGUIREWOODS, LLP Barnett Center 50 North Laura Street Jacksonville, FL 32202-3635 Telephone: (904) 798-3200 E-mail: ebilik@mcguirewoods.com kmydock@mcguirewoods.com erottmann@mcguirewoods.com - and - Joan S. Dinsmore, Esq. Kevin Knox Nunnally, Esq. MCGUIREWOODS, LLP P. O. Box 27507 Raleigh, NC 27611-7507 Telephone: (919) 755-6693 E-mail: jdinsmore@mcguirewoods.com knunnally@mcguirewoods.com - and - Diane Pulley Flannery, Esq. MCGUIREWOODS, LLP 800 East Canal Street P. O. Box 3916 Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: (804) 775-1015 E-mail: dflannery@mcguirewoods.com - and - Philip A. Goldstein, Esq. MCGUIREWOODS, LLP 1251 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 548-2167 E-mail: pagoldstein@mcguirewoods.com - and - Bethany Gayle Lukitsch, Esq. MCGUIREWOODS, LLP Wells Fargo Center 355 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (804) 775-1000 E-mail: blukitsch@mcguirewoods.com - and - Tamara Danielle Stiner Toomer, Esq. MCGUIREWOODS, LLP 1230 Peachtree Street, NE Atlanta, GA 30309-0000 Telephone: (404) 443-5500 E-mail: tstinertoomer@mcguirewoods.com - and - Elizabeth Camille Christen, Esq. DONOHUE BROWN MATHEWSON & SMYTH 140 South Dearborn Hinsdale, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 422-4908 E-mail: christen@dbmslaw.com - and - David A. Eberly, Esq. EBERLY MCMAHON LLC 2321 Kemper Lane Cincinnati, OH 45206 Telephone: (513) 533-9898 E-mail: deberly@emclawyers.com - and - Michael English, Esq. DOERNER SAUNDERS DANIEL & ANDERSON Two West Second Street Tulsa, OK 74103 Telephone: (918) 591-5249 E-mail: menglish@dsda.com - and - Kimberly W. Geisler, Esq. SCOTT DUKES & GEISLER PC 211 22nd Street North Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 251-2300 E-mail: kgeisler@scottdukeslaw.com - and - Karen Elizabeth Kahle, Esq. STEPTOE & JOHNSON PLLC 1233 Main Street P. O. Box 751 Wheeling, WV 26003-0751 Telephone: (304) 231-0441 E-mail: karen.kahle@steptoe-johnson.com - and - Andrew John Martone, Esq. Matthew Robinson, Esq. HESSE MARTONE, P.C. 13354 Manchester Road St. Louis, MO 63131 Telephone: (314) 862-0300 E-mail: andymartone@hessemartone.com mattrobinson@hessemartone.com - and - Donna Marie Meehan, Esq. COSMICH, SIMMONS & BROWN, PLLC One Eastover Center 100 Vision Drive Jackson, MS 39211 Telephone: (601) 519-0324 E-mail: donna@cs-law.com - and - Joshua L. Solomon, Esq. POLLACK SOLOMON DUFFY LLP 133 Federal Street Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 439-9800 E-mail: jsolomon@psdfirm.com - and - David B. Sudzus, Esq. DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP 191 North Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 569-1000 E-mail: david.sudzus@dbr.com - and - Whitney Welch, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 3773 Howard Hughes Parkway Las Vegas, NV 89169 Telephone: (702) 792-3773 E-mail: welchw@gtlaw.com METLIFE INC: Appeal in Martin Class Suit Still Pending ------------------------------------------------------ MetLife, 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 plaintiffs appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on the court's decision granting Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's motion to dismiss in the case, Martin v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, (Superior Court of the State of California, County of Contra Costa, filed December 17, 2015), is still pending. Plaintiffs filed this putative class action lawsuit on behalf of themselves and all California persons who have been charged compound interest by Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (MLIC) in life insurance policy and/or premium loan balances within the last four years. Plaintiffs allege that MLIC has engaged in a pattern and practice of charging compound interest on life insurance policy and premium loans without the borrower authorizing such compounding, and that this constitutes an unlawful business practice under California law. Plaintiffs assert causes of action for declaratory relief, violation of California's Unfair Competition Law and Usury Law, and unjust enrichment. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief, restitution of interest, and damages in an unspecified amount. On April 12, 2016, the court granted MLIC's motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs have appealed this ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Company intends to defend this action vigorously. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. MetLife, Inc. engages in the insurance, annuities, employee benefits, and asset management businesses. It operates through five segments: U.S.; Asia; Latin America; Europe, the Middle East and Africa; and MetLife Holdings. MetLife, Inc. was founded in 1863 and is headquartered in New York, New York. METLIFE INC: Continues to Defend Roycroft Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------- MetLife, 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 entitled, Roycroft v. MetLife, Inc., et al. (S.D.N.Y., filed June 18, 2018). Plaintiff filed this putative class action on behalf of all persons due benefits under group annuity contracts but who did not receive the entire amount to which they were entitled. Plaintiff asserts claims for unjust enrichment, accounting, and restitution based on allegations that the Company failed to timely pay annuity benefits to certain group annuitants. Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, and other relief. MetLife said, "The Company intends to defend this action vigorously." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. MetLife, Inc. engages in the insurance, annuities, employee benefits, and asset management businesses. It operates through five segments: U.S.; Asia; Latin America; Europe, the Middle East and Africa; and MetLife Holdings. MetLife, Inc. was founded in 1863 and is headquartered in New York, New York. METLIFE INC: Miller Class Suit v. MLIC in New York Ongoing ---------------------------------------------------------- MetLife, 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 Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (MLIC), continues to defend itself from a class action suit entitled, Miller, et al. v. MetLife, Inc., et al. (C.D. Cal., filed April 7, 2017). Plaintiff filed this putative class action against MetLife, Inc. and Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (MLIC) in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, purporting to assert claims on behalf of all persons who replaced their MetLife Optional Term Life or Group Universal Life policy with a Group Variable Universal Life policy wherein MetLife allegedly charged smoker rates for certain non-smokers. Plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, as well as other relief. On September 25, 2017, plaintiff dismissed the action and refiled the complaint in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. On November 9, 2017, plaintiff dismissed MetLife, Inc. without prejudice from the action. MetLife said, "MLIC intends to defend this action vigorously." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. MetLife, Inc. engages in the insurance, annuities, employee benefits, and asset management businesses. It operates through five segments: U.S.; Asia; Latin America; Europe, the Middle East and Africa; and MetLife Holdings. MetLife, Inc. was founded in 1863 and is headquartered in New York, New York. METLIFE INC: Non-Certification of Sales Practices Claims Affirmed ----------------------------------------------------------------- MetLife, 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 Court of Appeal for Ontario has affirmed the lower court's decision to not certify the sales practices claims in the Ontario Litigation in relation to Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada Indemnity Claim. In 2006, Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada ("Sun Life"), as successor to the purchaser of Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's (MLIC's) Canadian operations, filed a lawsuit in Toronto, seeking a declaration that MLIC remains liable for "market conduct claims" related to certain individual life insurance policies sold by MLIC that were subsequently transferred to Sun Life. In January 2010, the court found that Sun Life had given timely notice of its claim for indemnification but, because it found that Sun Life had not yet incurred an indemnifiable loss, granted MLIC's motion for summary judgment. In September 2010, Sun Life notified MLIC that a purported class action lawsuit was filed against Sun Life in Toronto alleging sales practices claims regarding the policies sold by MLIC and transferred to Sun Life (the "Ontario Litigation"). On August 30, 2011, Sun Life notified MLIC that another purported class action lawsuit was filed against Sun Life in Vancouver, BC alleging sales practices claims regarding certain of the same policies sold by MLIC and transferred to Sun Life. Sun Life contends that MLIC is obligated to indemnify Sun Life for some or all of the claims in these lawsuits. In September 2018, the Court of Appeal for Ontario affirmed the lower court's decision to not certify the sales practices claims in the Ontario Litigation. MetLife said, "These sales practices cases against Sun Life are ongoing, and the Company is unable to estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss arising from this litigation." MetLife, Inc. engages in the insurance, annuities, employee benefits, and asset management businesses. It operates through five segments: U.S.; Asia; Latin America; Europe, the Middle East and Africa; and MetLife Holdings. MetLife, Inc. was founded in 1863 and is headquartered in New York, New York. METLIFE INC: Still Defends Julian & McKinney Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------- MetLife, 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 Metropolitan Life Insurance Company still defends against the case, Julian & McKinney v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (S.D.N.Y., filed February 9, 2017). Plaintiffs filed this putative class and collective action on behalf of themselves and all current and former long-term disability ("LTD") claims specialists between February 2011 and the present for alleged wage and hour violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and the Connecticut Minimum Wage Act. The suit alleges that MetLife improperly reclassified the plaintiffs and similarly situated LTD claims specialists from non-exempt to exempt from overtime pay in November 2013. As a result, they and members of the putative class were no longer eligible for overtime pay even though they allege they continued to work more than 40 hours per week. On March 22, 2018, the Court conditionally certified the case as a collective action, requiring that notice be mailed to LTD claims specialists who worked for the Company from February 8, 2014 to the present. The Company intends to defend this action vigorously. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. MetLife, Inc. engages in the insurance, annuities, employee benefits, and asset management businesses. It operates through five segments: U.S.; Asia; Latin America; Europe, the Middle East and Africa; and MetLife Holdings. MetLife, Inc. was founded in 1863 and is headquartered in New York, New York. METLIFE INC: Still Defends Newman Class Action Suit in Illinois --------------------------------------------------------------- MetLife, 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 still defends a putative class action suit in Illinois entitled, Newman v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (N.D. Ill., filed March 23, 2016). Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging causes of action for breach of contract, fraud, and violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, based on Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's (MLIC's) class-wide increase in premiums charged for long-term care insurance policies. Plaintiff alleges a class consisting of herself and all persons over age 65 who selected a Reduced Pay at Age 65 payment feature and whose premium rates were increased after age 65. Plaintiff asserts that premiums could not be increased for these class members and/or that marketing material was misleading as to MLIC's right to increase premiums. Plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory, statutory and punitive damages, as well as recessionary and injunctive relief. On April 12, 2017, the court granted MLIC's motion, dismissing the action with prejudice. Plaintiff appealed this ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (the "Seventh Circuit") and on February 6, 2018, the Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded for further proceedings, ruling that Plaintiff is entitled to relief on her contract claim. Following MLIC's petition for rehearing, the Seventh Circuit issued an amended opinion on March 22, 2018, holding that plaintiff's claim survived MLIC's motion to dismiss but finding that the policy is ambiguous as to MLIC's right to raise plaintiff's premiums. The Seventh Circuit held that on remand to the district court, the parties may introduce evidence to try to resolve this ambiguity. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. MetLife, Inc. engages in the insurance, annuities, employee benefits, and asset management businesses. It operates through five segments: U.S.; Asia; Latin America; Europe, the Middle East and Africa; and MetLife Holdings. MetLife, Inc. was founded in 1863 and is headquartered in New York, New York. METLIFE INC: Still Defends Parchmann Class Suit ----------------------------------------------- MetLife, 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 Parchmann v. MetLife, Inc., et al. (E.D.N.Y., filed February 5, 2018). Seeking to represent a class of persons who purchased MetLife, Inc. common stock from February 27, 2013 through January 29, 2018, the plaintiff alleges that MetLife, Inc., its Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board, and its CFO violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by issuing materially false and/or misleading statements because the defendants failed to disclose that MetLife's practices and procedures used to estimate its reserves set aside for annuity and pension payments were inadequate, and that MetLife had inadequate internal control over financial reporting. The plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory damages and other relief. The defendants intend to defend this action vigorously. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. MetLife, Inc. engages in the insurance, annuities, employee benefits, and asset management businesses. It operates through five segments: U.S.; Asia; Latin America; Europe, the Middle East and Africa; and MetLife Holdings. MetLife, Inc. was founded in 1863 and is headquartered in New York, New York. METLIFE INC: Still Defends Voshall Class Suit in California ----------------------------------------------------------- MetLife, 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 entitled, Voshall v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, April 8, 2015). Plaintiff filed this putative class action lawsuit on behalf of himself and all persons covered under a long-term group disability income insurance policy issued by MLIC to public entities in California between April 8, 2011 and April 8, 2015. Plaintiff alleges that Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (MLIC) improperly reduced benefits by including cost of living adjustments and employee paid contributions in the employer retirement benefits and other income that reduces the benefit payable under such policies. Plaintiff asserts causes of action for declaratory relief, violation of the California Business & Professions Code, breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The Company intends to defend this action vigorously. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. MetLife, Inc. engages in the insurance, annuities, employee benefits, and asset management businesses. It operates through five segments: U.S.; Asia; Latin America; Europe, the Middle East and Africa; and MetLife Holdings. MetLife, Inc. was founded in 1863 and is headquartered in New York, New York. MICHAEL KORS: Lucas Appeals C.D. Calif. Ruling to 9th Cir. ---------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Victoria E. Lucas filed an appeal from a court ruling in her lawsuit titled Victoria Lucas v. Michael Kors (USA), Inc., et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-01608-MWF-MRW, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Los Angeles. The appellate case is captioned as Victoria Lucas v. USDC-CALA, Case No. 18-73027, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Respondent is the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Los Angeles. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Oct. 8, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an appeal from a court ruling in her lawsuit. That appellate case is entitled Victoria Lucas v. Michael Kors (USA), Inc., et al., Case No. 18-56240. The District Court previously ruled that Michael Kors USA Inc. and a staffing company can send to individual arbitration a woman's putative class action alleging the companies stiff workers on overtime and withhold rest and meal breaks.[BN] Plaintiff-Petitioner VICTORIA E. LUCAS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, is represented by: Michael Nourmand, Esq. THE NOURMAND LAW FIRM, APC 1801 Century Park East Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 553-3600 Facsimile: (310) 553-3603 E-mail: mnourmand@nourmand.com - and - Christie Webb, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF CHRISTIE E. WEBB 5901 W. Century Boulevard, Suite 412 Los Angeles, CA 90045 Telephone: (323) 686-1947 E-mail: Christie@cwebblaw.com - and - Judith K. Williams, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JUDITH K. WILLIAMS 3940 Laurel Canyon Boulevard, Suite 1023 Studio City, CA 91604 Telephone: (818) 343-9230 E-mail: jkwesq@gmail.com Defendant-Real Party in Interest MICHAEL KORS (USA), INC., a Delaware corporation, is represented by: Elizabeth M. Levy, Esq. Jon D. Meer, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW, LLP 2029 Century Park East Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021 Telephone: (310) 277-7200 E-mail: elevy@seyfarth.com jmeer@seyfarth.com Defendants-Real Parties in Interest DECTON, INC., a California corporation, and DECTON STAFFING SERVICES, a business entity form unknown, are represented by: Daniel Joseph Kessler, Esq. BURKHALTER KESSLER CLEMENT AND GEORGE LLP 2020 Main Street, Suite 600 Irvine, CA 92614 Telephone: (949) 975-7500 E-mail: dkessler@bkcglaw.com NCB MANAGEMENT: Class Certification Sought in Rodriguez Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Josie Rodriguez moves the Court to certify the class described in the complaint of the lawsuit captioned JOSIE RODRIGUEZ, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. NCB MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., and CAPITAL ONE BANK (USA), N.A., Case No. 2:18-cv-01783-LA (E.D. Wisc.), and further asks that the Court both stay the motion for class certification and to grant the Plaintiff (and the Defendants) relief from the Local Rules setting automatic briefing schedules and requiring briefs and supporting material to be filed with the Motion. Dicta in the Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, left open the possibility that a defendant facing a class action complaint could moot a class representative's case by depositing funds equal to or in excess of the maximum value of the plaintiff's individual claim with the court and having the court enter judgment in the plaintiff's favor prior to the filing of a class certification motion, the Plaintiff asserts, citing Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016). To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the certification motion. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) ("The pendency of that motion [for class certification] protects a putative class from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs."). While the Seventh Circuit has held that the specific procedure described in Campbell-Ewald cannot force the individual settlement of a class representative's claims, the same decision cautions that other methods may prevent a plaintiff from representing a class, the Plaintiff tells the Court, citing Fulton Dental, LLC v. Bisco, Inc., No. 16-3574, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 10839 *9-10 (7th Cir. June 20, 2017). The Plaintiff asserts that one defendant has attempted a similar tactic by sending a certified check to the proposed class representative. Bonin v. CBS Radio, Inc., No. 16-cv-674-CNC (E.D. Wis.); see also Severns v. Eastern Account Systems of Connecticut, Inc., Case No. 15-cv-1168, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23164 (E.D. Wis. Feb. 24, 2016). The Plaintiff is obligated to move for class certification to protect the interests of the putative class, the Plaintiff contends. As the Motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when short motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended motion is filed, the Plaintiff contends. The Plaintiff also asks to be appointed as class representative, and for the appointment of Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP, as class counsel.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: John D. Blythin, Esq. Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. Jesse Fruchter, Esq. Ben J. Slatky, Esq. ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482-8000 Facsimile: (414) 482-8001 E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com meldridge@ademilaw.com jfruchter@ademilaw.com bslatky@ademilaw.com NELSON TREE: Neville Seeks Wages & Overtime under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------ JOSEPH NEVILLE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NELSON TREE SERVICE, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-00368-WHR (S.D. Ohio, Nov. 8, 2018), seeks unpaid wages, including overtime wages, and all other available relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees regularly worked more than 40 hours per workweek. The Defendant is in the business of providing utility companies with line clearance services, including trimming trees. The Defendant employed Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals as non-exempt laborers. Laborers performed the manual tasks associated with Defendant's line clearance services. The Defendant paid and pays laborers on an hourly basis. Laborers were required to report to jobsites to perform Defendant's line clearance services in various states. These jobsites were frequently located hundreds of miles away from laborers' home communities. Laborers typically work at least 40 hours per workweek. Laborers typically worked multiple-day shifts away from their home communities. Because the worksites were away from their home communities, laborers typically stayed overnight in hotels during the scheduled work shifts. Laborers spent most of the day before and after their shifts driving hundreds of miles to and from the jobsites. This travel cut across laborers' normal working hours during both regular working days and nonworking days. The identity of all laborers is unknown at this time but is known to Defendant and is contained in Defendant's records. Defendant did not count time spent traveling as hours worked for purposes of determining overtime eligibility. Consequently, Defendant failed to pay proper wages, including overtime wages to Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals. Defendant willfully deprived laborers of proper wages, including overtime wages. Defendant knew that laborers were working overtime hours and hours for which they were not compensated at an overtime rate when they traveled to jobsites, the lawsuit says.[BN] Counsel for Plaintiff: Hans A. Nilges, Esq. Shannon M. Draher, Esq. NILGES DRAHER LLC 7266 Portage Street, NW, Suite D Massillon, OH 44646 Telephone: (330) 470-4428 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 E-mail: hans@ohlaborlaw.com sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com NEW YORK: Guadagna Moves to Certify Class of GuildNet Enrollees --------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled SALVATORE GUADAGNA, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. HOWARD ZUCKER, as Commissioner of the New York State Department of Health, Case No. 17-CV-3397 (ADS)(AKT) (E.D.N.Y.), files with the Court his Renewed Amended Motion for Class Certification. The class is defined as: All Medicaid recipients who were enrolled in the GuildNet MLTCP in Suffolk, Nassau, or Westchester County as of March 1, 2017 and who suffered reductions in care without constitutionally and statutorily mandated prior notice and opportunity to be heard when they transferred to new MLTCPs as a result of GuildNet's closure in their counties of residence.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Beth Goldman, Esq. Jane Greengold Stevens, Esq. Elizabeth Jois, Esq. Ben Taylor, Esq. Julia Russell, Esq. NEW YORK LEGAL ASSISTANCE GROUP 7 Hanover Square, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 613-5000 Facsimile: (212) 750-0820 E-mail: bgoldman@nylag.org jstevens@nylag.org ejois@nylag.org btaylor@nylag.org jrussell@nylag.org NORTH AMERICAN MIDWAY: Underpays Carnival Workers, Brits Says ------------------------------------------------------------- ANTON BRITS, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. NORTH AMERICAN MIDWAY ENTERTAINMENT - ALL STAR AMUSEMENT, INC., an Illinois corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 2018CH14259 (Ill Cir. Ct. Cook Cty., Nov. 15, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid contract wages pursuant to Illinois law. According to the complaint, NAME is a traveling carnival company that provides food, rides, and games for carnivals and fairs around the country. In 2009 and 2010, NAME frequently required its employees to work 50 or more hours per week without paying them their agreed contract wages. Instead, NAME often paid the workers about six to eight dollars per hour, including for hours worked in excess of forty in a workweek. Brits worked for NAME as a ride operator from 2009 - 2011 and in 2013. When Brits worked for NAME in Illinois, the company never paid him time-and-a-half for hours worked in excess of forty in a workweek, and the company never paid him the prevailing wage for all hours worked, as required by federal regulation, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Matthew J. Piers, Esq. Christopher J. Wilmes, Esq. HUGHES SOCOL PIERS RESNICK & DYM, LTD. 70 W. Madison St., Suite 4000 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: 312 580-0100 OCLARO INC: Karri Suit over Lumentum Merger Deal Underway --------------------------------------------------------- Oclaro, 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 plaintiff in Saisravan Bharadwaj Karri v. Oclaro, Inc., et al., No. 3:18-cv-03435-JD, renewed his public notice of filing of the lawsuit, but has taken no further action. On March 11, 2018, Lumentum Holdings Inc., a Delaware corporation ("Lumentum"), Oclaro, Prota Merger Sub, Inc., a Delaware corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of Lumentum ("Merger Sub"), and Prota Merger, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company and a wholly owned subsidiary of Lumentum ("Merger Sub LLC"), entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement"). Following announcement of the execution of the Merger Agreement on March 12, 2018, seven lawsuits were filed by purported stockholders of Oclaro challenging its proposed acquisition by Lumentum, Inc. The first suit, a putative class action styled as Nicholas Neinast v. Oclaro, Inc., et al., No. 3:18-cv-03112-VC, was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on May 24, 2018, and was against Oclaro, its directors, Lumentum, Merger Sub, and Merger Sub LLC (the "Neinast Lawsuit"). Five additional suits, styled as Gerald F. Wordehoff v. Oclaro, Inc., et al., No. 5:18-cv-03148-NC (the "Wordehoff Lawsuit"), Walter Ryan v. Oclaro, Inc., et al., No. 3:18-cv-03174-VC (the "Ryan Lawsuit"), and Jayme Walker v. Oclaro, Inc., et al., No. 3:18-cv-03203 (the "Walker Lawsuit"), Kevin Garcia v. Oclaro, Inc., et al., No. 5:18-cv-03262-VKD (the "Garcia Lawsuit"), and Saisravan Bharadwaj Karri v. Oclaro, Inc., et al., No. 3:18-cv-03435-JD (the "Karri Lawsuit") were also filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on, respectively, May 25, 2018, May 29, 2018, May 30, 2018, May 31, 2018 and June 9, 2018. Each of the lawsuits name Oclaro and its directors as defendants. The Ryan Lawsuit and the Karri Lawsuit, like the Neinast Lawsuit, were putative class actions. A seventh suit, a putative class action styled as Adam Franchi v. Oclaro, Inc., et al., Case 1:18-cv-00817-GMS, was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware on May 30, 2018, and was against Oclaro, its directors, Lumentum, Merger Sub, and Merger Sub LLC (the "Franchi Lawsuit" and, with the Neinast Lawsuit, the Wordehoff Lawsuit, the Ryan Lawsuit, the Walker Lawsuit, the Garcia Lawsuit, and the Karri Lawsuit, the "Lawsuits"). The Lawsuits alleged that Oclaro and its directors violated Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder because the Proxy Statement/Prospectus was incomplete and misleading. The Lawsuits further alleged that Oclaro's directors violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by failing to exercise proper control over the person(s) who violated Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act. The Neinast Lawsuit additionally alleged that Oclaro's directors breached fiduciary duties by entering into the Merger, and also names Lumentum, Merger Sub, and Merger Sub LLC as violators of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder. The Franchi Lawsuit additionally named Lumentum, Merger Sub, and Merger Sub LLC as violators of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The Lawsuits sought, among other things, injunctive relief preventing the parties from consummating the merger, rescission of the transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement should they be consummated, and litigation costs, including attorneys' fees. The Lawsuits also sought damages to be awarded to the plaintiff and any class if the Merger were consummated. In addition, the Wordehoff Lawsuit sought injunctive relief directing defendants to disseminate a true and complete proxy statement/prospectus and declaratory relief that defendants violated Sections 14(a) and/or 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder. To avoid the risk of the Lawsuits delaying or adversely affecting the Merger and to minimize the costs, risks and uncertainties inherent in litigation, and without admitting any liability or wrongdoing and believing that the initial Proxy Statement/Prospectus disclosed all material information concerning the Merger and no supplemental disclosure was required under applicable law, Oclaro voluntarily filed with the SEC a supplement to the Proxy Statement/Prospectus on June 29, 2018. Thereafter, on July 25, 2018, the plaintiff in the Garcia Lawsuit dismissed his action, with prejudice as to the individual plaintiff. The plaintiffs in the Neinast, Franchi, Wordehoff, and Ryan Lawsuits dismissed these actions, with prejudice as to the respective individual plaintiffs, on July 27, 2018. The plaintiff in the Walker Lawsuit dismissed her action, with prejudice as to the individual plaintiff, on August 14, 2018. At the time the other complaints were being dismissed, counsel for plaintiff in the remaining lawsuit, the Karri Lawsuit, stated his intention to file an amended complaint. On September 27, 2018, the Court rejected, without hearing, the Karri plaintiff's motion to be appointed lead counsel because plaintiff failed to follow the required notice procedure. Following this order, plaintiff renewed his public notice of filing of the lawsuit, but has taken no further action. Oclaro said, "If the Karri Lawsuit proceeds, Oclaro intends to defend the action vigorously." Oclaro, Inc. designs, manufactures, and markets optical components, modules, and subsystems for the long-haul, metro, and data center markets worldwide. The company's products generate, detect, combine, and separate light signals in optical communications networks. Oclaro, Inc. was founded in 1988 and is headquartered in San Jose, California. OHIO NATIONAL: Veritas Seeks Trail Commissions for Dealers ---------------------------------------------------------- VERITAS INDEPENDENT PARTNERS, LLC, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. THE OHIO NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY; OHIO NATIONAL LIFE ASSURANCE CORPORATION; OHIO NATIONAL EQUITIES, INC.; and OHIO NATIONAL FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., the Defendants, Case: 1:18-cv-00769-MRB (S.D. Ohio, Nov. 8, 2018), sues Defendants' class-wide and unlawful decision to stop paying contractually agreed-upon trail commissions due to independent broker/dealers. Veritas Independent Partners, LLC is an Arkansas limited liability company with a principal place of business at 2201 Washington Avenue, Suite 2, Conway, Arkansas 72034. Veritas is an independent broker dealer registered with the FINRA. Veritas offers investment and advisory products and services directly to retail customers through representatives who are licensed and registered with FINRA, with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission and with state insurance agencies. Some of the financial products selected by Veritas to be available to its representatives for sale and servicing to clients are created by third parties such Ohio National, with whom Veritas enters into selling and/or servicing agreements. In those circumstances, the revenue Veritas receives is based on the commissions paid by those third parties, including Ohio National, on the financial products sold through Veritas. The Ohio National Life Insurance Company is a corporation organized under the laws of Ohio, with a principal place of business at One Financial Way, Cincinnati, Ohio 45242. Defendants' actions constitute a breach of the express terms of the contract and the duty of good faith and fair dealing implied in every contract. As a direct and proximate result of Ohio National’s breach and unlawful conduct, Veritas and the Class will be damaged, and Ohio National is therefore liable to Plaintiff in an amount to be determined by the Court, together with costs, interest and attorneys’ fees as allowable by law. In addition, Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to specific enforcement of the terms of the Selling Agreement by way of declaratory judgment and injunctive relief, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: James B. Hadden, Esq. Geoffrey J. Moul, Esq. Brian K. Murphy, Esq. 1114 Dublin Road Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: 614 488 0400 Facsimile: 614 488 0401 E-mail: hadden@mmmb.com moul@mmmb.com murphy@mmmb.com murray@mmmb.com PACIFIC BELL: Cal. App. Affirms Summary Judgment in Hernandez ------------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Appeals of California, Third District, Sacramento, issued an Opinion affirming the District Court's judgment granting Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment in the case captioned ISREAL HERNANDEZ et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. PACIFIC BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY, Defendant and Respondent. No. C084350. (Cal. App.). They appeal a judgment in favor of defendant following cross-motions for summary judgment or summary adjudication. The Plaintiffs are class representatives of current and former employees of defendant Pacific Bell Telephone Company who install and repair video and internet services in customers' homes. The Plaintiffs sought compensation for the time they spent traveling in an employer-provided vehicle loaded with equipment and tools between their homes and a customer's residence, the worksite, under an optional and voluntary Home Dispatch Program. The trial court granted Pacific Bell's motion for summary judgment and denied the plaintiffs' motion. In a subsequent order, the court modified its ruling to grant only summary adjudication on the class claims as the individual claims remained. The parties stipulated to dismiss the individual claims. The court entered judgment for Pacific Bell. Hours Worked The Plaintiffs contend the time a Pacific Bell technician who participates in the HDP spends traveling from that technician's home to a worksite in a company vehicle, carrying equipment and tools, and the time traveling home from the final appointment at the end of the work day is compensable hours worked. The two phrases of the definition time during which an employee is subject to the control of an employer and time the employee is suffered or permitted to work, whether or not required to do so establish independent factors that each define hours worked. Thus, an employee who is subject to an employer's control does not have to be working during that time to be compensated under the applicable wage order. The time an employee is suffered or permitted to work, whether or not required to do so, includes time the employee is working but not under the employer's control, such as unauthorized overtime, provided the employer has knowledge of it. The Plaintiffs contend the travel time between home and the customer's residence meets both of these tests. Because the facts are not in dispute, this is a question of law the Court review de novo. The Control Test The Plaintiffs contend this level of control is similar to that found sufficient to satisfy the control test in Morillion, supra, 22 Cal.4th 575. There, Royal, the employer of agricultural employees, required [them] to meet for work each day at specified parking lots or assembly areas. After the employees met at these departure points, Royal transported them, in buses that Royal provided and paid for, to the fields where the employees actually worked. At the end of each day, Royal transported the employees back to the departure points on its buses. Royal's rules prohibited employees from using their own transportation to get to and from the fields. If an employee drove to the fields rather than riding Royal's bus, the employee would be warned the first time and sent home with loss of a day's pay the second time. The issue before the Supreme Court was whether the time the employees spent traveling on Royal's buses constituted hours worked under the governing IWC wage order. That wage order defined hours worked as set forth ante: the time during which an employee is subject to the control of an employer, and includes all the time the employee is suffered or permitted to work, whether or not required to do so. Our high court rejected an argument that to constitute hours worked the time must be spent actually working. Instead, the court held that as long as the employee is subject to the control of an employer, the time is considered compensable hours worked. The Plaintiffs distort Pacific Bell's argument that commute time under the HDP is not compensable because participation in the program is voluntary, arguing that they cannot think of any situation since the abolition of slavery where work is performed without agreement to do so, reasoning that all work is voluntary. They assert an employee may not volunteer to work without pay. But plaintiffs fail to address or even acknowledge authority to the contrary. They do not address the emphasis in Morillion on the compulsory nature of the transportation by bus or the court's observation that employers do not risk paying employees for their travel time merely by providing them transportation. Time employees spend traveling on transportation that an employer provides but does not require its employees to use may not be compensable as hours worked. Commute time under the HDP is not compensable as hours worked under the control test. The Suffer or Permit to Work Test The Plaintiffs contend the disputed commute time is also compensable as hours worked under the suffered or permitted to work definition. They argue they were working while driving to and from home because they were transporting tools and equipment that were necessary for them to do their job. At oral argument they emphasized their theory that transporting equipment was distinguishable from merely transporting tools, as in their case some of the equipment (e.g., modems, cable boxes, and DVRs) was slated for delivery to the jobsite rather than merely designated for use at the site and meant to remain in the vehicles before and after use. The phrase suffered or permitted to work, whether or not required to do so encompasses a meaning distinct from merely working. Our high court explained an employee is suffered or permitted to work when the employee is working, but not subject to the employer's control, such as unauthorized overtime when an employee voluntarily continues to work at the end of a shift with the employer's knowledge. In arguing that transporting equipment and tools in the Pacific Bell vehicle to customers' homes under the HDP constitutes hours worked, plaintiffs rely on the Cadell letter of April 22, 2003, that the trial court judicially noticed. The letter stated: If the travel involved the employee being required to deliver any equipment, goods or materials for the employer, the travel, no matter how extended, would be compensable. The Cadell letter addressed whether an employee who alternated between two different worksites in Bakersfield and Palmdale was entitled to compensation for the time spent traveling to the more distant worksite. The letter did not explain what constituted delivery of equipment within its analysis, nor did it detail whether the delivery of equipment would include an employee using a company vehicle stocked with equipment pursuant to a voluntary commute program like the HDP. While the quoted language of the letter is broad, read in context it does not indicate any and all transportation of tools or equipment is compensable time. For example, the letter also says a finish carpenter would not expect to be paid for the time he commutes to a jobsite. However, it appears to us that a finish carpenter would likely carry tools on his commute in order to adequately perform his job once reaching a worksite. Further, here the record reflects that the parties stipulated that techs on HDP are to be at the first customer appointment of the day at 8 a.m., and they begin to be paid at 8 a.m. They are not paid for the time before 8 a.m. that they spend driving to the first appointment with tools and equipment. This stipulation fairly permits us to infer that plaintiffs here are paid for delivery and installation of any transported products beginning when they arrive at the jobsite, despite plaintiffs' suggestion at oral argument that they may be actually delivering equipment (rather than merely transporting tools and equipment to and from jobsites) without being paid to do so. The cases cited by plaintiffs here do not involve mere commuting with necessary tools in tow, instead they involve the delivery of heavy, specialized equipment to the jobsite. The latter requires a far greater effort. Although here certain items may be slated for delivery at the end of the commute and the corresponding beginning of the workday, as the Court have explained, here it also appears plaintiffs are indeed paid for the acts of delivering and installing the equipment. Further, carrying the items necessary to establish service in the situation seen here is simply not a comparable effort. There is a significant difference between transporting heavy equipment for servicing oil wells and the incidental transporting of equipment and tools seen here. The Court agree with this observation by a federal district court: To the extent that some of these cases state broadly that travel time is compensable if employees are transporting equipment without which their jobs could not be done, e.g., Crenshaw, 798 F.2d at 1350, the Court reads these statements as implying that the transportation involves some degree of effort. Otherwise, as observed earlier, the commutes of police officers who carry guns, or indeed, employees who carry badges, would always be compensable. As Pacific Bell argues, if carrying equipment necessary for the job were always compensable, every employee who carries a briefcase of work documents or an electronic device to access work emails to and from work would need to be compensated for commute time. Commute time under the HDP is not compensable as hours worked under the suffer or permit to worktest. The trial court did not err in granting summary judgment to Pacific Bell. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. A full-text copy of the Cal. App.'s November 15, 2018 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/yccazy8u from Leagle.com. Righetti Glugoski, Matthew Righetti -- matt@righettilaw.com -- and John Glugoski -- jglugoski@righettilaw.com -- for Plaintiffs and Appellants. Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, Thomas R. Kaufman -- tkaufman@sheppardmullin.com -- Paul Berkowitz -- pberkowitz@sheppardmullin.com -- Mayer Brown,Donald M. Falk -- dfalk@mayerbrown.com -- AT&T Services and Laurie E. Barnes -- laurie.barnes@att.com -- for Defendant and Respondent. Jones Day, George S. Howard, Jr. -- gshoward@jonesday.com -- Cindi L. Ritchey -- critchey@jonesday.com -- and Victoria E. Cho for Employers Group and California Employment Law Council as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Respondent. PANDORA MEDIA: Sciabacucchi Balks at Sirius XM Merger ----------------------------------------------------- The case, MATTHEW SCIABACUCCHI, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. PANDORA MEDIA, INC., GREGORY B. MAFFEI, ROGER CONANT FAXON, DAVID J. FREAR, JASON HIRSCHHORN, TIMOTHY LEIWEKE, ROGER J. LYNCH, MICHAEL M. LYNTON, JAMES E. MEYER, MICKIE ROSEN, SIRIUS XM HOLDINGS INC., and WHITE OAKS ACQUISITION CORP., the Defendants, Case 1:18-cv-01807-UNA (D. Del., Nov. 16, 2018), stems from a proposed transaction announced on September 24, 2018, pursuant to which Pandora Media, Inc. will be acquired by Sirius XM Holdings Inc. and White Oaks Acquisition Corp. On September 23, 2018, Pandora's Board of Directors caused the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with Sirius. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Pandora's stockholders will receive 1.44 shares of Parent common stock for each share of Pandora they own. On October 31, 2018, defendants filed a Form S-4 Registration Statement with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the Proposed Transaction. The Registration Statement omits material information with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the Registration Statement false and misleading. Accordingly, Plaintiff alleges that defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the Registration Statement. The Registration Statement omits material information regarding the Company's and Siruis's financial projections as well as the analyses performed by the Company's financial advisors in connection with the Proposed Transaction, Centerview Partners LLC and LionTree Advisors LLC. Additionally, the Registration Statement fails to disclose the terms of the engagement agreement entered into by the Company and its additional financial advisor, Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC. Among other things, the Registration Statement fails to disclose the amount of compensation Morgan Stanley received or will receive in connection with its engagement. The Registration Statement also fails to disclose whether Morgan Stanley has performed past services for any parties to the Merger Agreement or their affiliates, and the timing and nature of such services and the amount of compensation received by Morgan Stanley for such services, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Gina M. Serra, Esq. Brian D. Long, Esq. RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 295-5310 Facsimile: (302) 654-7530 E-mail: bdl@rl-legal.com - and - Richard A. Maniskas, Esq. RM LAW, P.C. 1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300 Berwyn, PA 19312 Telephone: (484) 324-6800 Facsimile: (484) 631-1305 E-mail: rm@maniskas.com PFIZER INC: Amendment to Suit over Intravenous Solution Filed ------------------------------------------------------------- Pfizer 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 plaintiffs in the consolidated class action suit related to intravenous saline solution have filed a second amended complaint. Beginning in November 2016, purported class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against Hospira, Hospira Worldwide, Inc. and certain other defendants relating to intravenous saline solution. Plaintiffs seek to represent a class consisting of all persons and entities in the U.S. who directly purchased intravenous saline solution sold by any of the defendants from January 1, 2013 until the time the defendants' allegedly unlawful conduct ceases. Plaintiffs allege that the defendants' conduct restricts output and artificially fixes, raises, maintains and/or stabilizes the prices of intravenous saline solution sold throughout the U.S. in violation of federal antitrust laws. Plaintiffs seek treble damages (for themselves and on behalf of the putative classes) and an injunction against defendants for alleged price overcharges for intravenous saline solution in the U.S. since January 1, 2013. All of these actions have been consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. In July 2018, the District Court granted defendants' motions to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint without prejudice. Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint in September 2018. On February 3, 2017, the company completed the sale of its global infusion systems net assets, HIS, which includes intravenous saline solution, to ICU Medical. The litigation is the subject of cross-claims for indemnification by both Pfizer and ICU Medical under the purchase agreement. Separately, in April 2017, Pfizer, Hospira and two employees of Pfizer received grand jury subpoenas issued by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, in connection with an investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division. The subpoenas seek documents related to the sale, manufacture, pricing and shortages of intravenous solutions, including saline, as well as communications among industry participants regarding these issues. The Department of Justice investigation is also the subject of cross-claims for indemnification by both Pfizer and ICU Medical under the purchase agreement. In addition, in August 2015, the New York Attorney General issued a subpoena to Hospira for similar information. Hospira has produced records to the New York Attorney General and coordinated with ICU Medical to produce records to the U.S. Department of Justice. Pfizer Inc. discovers, develops, manufactures, and sells healthcare products worldwide. It operates in two segments, Pfizer Innovative Health (IH) and Pfizer Essential Health (EH). The company was founded in 1849 and is headquartered in New York, New York. POPULAR INC: Discovery Ongoing in Diaz Class Action --------------------------------------------------- Popular, 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 entitled, Perez Diaz v. Popular, Inc., et al, is in discovery stage. Popular, Inc., Banco Popular de Puerto Rico (BPPR) and Popular Insurance, LLC (the "Popular Defendants") have been named defendants in a putative class action complaint captioned Perez Diaz v. Popular, Inc., et al, filed before the Court of First Instance, Arecibo Part. The complaint seeks damages and preliminary and permanent injunctive relief on behalf of the purported class against the Popular Defendants, as well as Antilles Insurance Company and MAPFRE-PRAICO Insurance Company (the "Defendant Insurance Companies"). Plaintiffs allege that the Popular Defendants have been unjustly enriched by failing to reimburse them for commissions paid by the Defendant Insurance Companies to the insurance agent and/or mortgagee for policy years when no claims were filed against their hazard insurance policies. They demand the reimbursement to the purported "class" of an estimated $400 million plus legal interest, for the "good experience" commissions allegedly paid by the Defendant Insurance Companies during the relevant time period, as well as injunctive relief seeking to enjoin the Defendant Insurance Companies from paying commissions to the insurance agent/mortgagee and ordering them to pay those fees directly to the insured. A hearing on the request for preliminary injunction and other matters was held on February 15, 2017, as a result of which plaintiffs withdrew their request for preliminary injunctive relief. A motion for dismissal on the merits, which the Defendant Insurance Companies filed shortly before hearing, was denied with a right to replead following limited targeted discovery. On March 24, 2017, the Popular Defendants filed a certiorari petition with the Puerto Rico Court of Appeals seeking a review of the lower court's denial of the motion to dismiss. The Court of Appeals denied the Popular Defendants request, and the Popular Defendants appealed this determination to the Puerto Rico Supreme Court, which declined review. On December 21, 2017, plaintiffs sought to amend the complaint and, on January 2018, defendants filed an answer thereto. Separately, on October 26, 2017, the Court entered an order whereby it broadly certified the class; the Popular Defendants filed a certiorari petition before the Puerto Rico Court of Appeals in relation to the class certification, but on March 4, 2018, the Court of Appeals declined to entertain such petition. At a hearing held on November 2, 2017, the Court encouraged the parties to reach agreement on discovery and class notification procedures. Popular said, "Although the case is still in discovery stage, the parties have not yet reached an agreement as to the class notification procedures." Popular, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides various retail, mortgage, and commercial banking products and services primarily to institutional and retail customers. The company accepts various deposit products. Popular, Inc. was founded in 1893 and is headquartered in Hato Rey, Puerto Rico. PRIME COMMUNICATIONS: 4th Cir. Appeal Filed in Lorenzo Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Rose Lorenzo filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Rose Lorenzo v. Prime Communications, L.P., Case No. 5:12-cv-00069-H-KS, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina at Raleigh. The appellate case is captioned as Rose Lorenzo v. Prime Communications, L.P., Case No. 18-2348, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Nov. 27, 2018, the Defendant filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit. That appellate case is styled Rose Lorenzo v. Prime Communications, L.P., Case No. 18-2297. The District Court previously denied the Defendant's Motion to Decertify Class and granted the Defendant's Alternative Motion to Amend Class Definition. The certified Fair Labor Standards Act class is defined as: All natural persons employed by Prime Communications, L.P., in retail stores and kiosks in the State of North Carolina from May 4, 2010 to November 30, 2013 who were paid commissions or bonuses during that same period based on point of sales transactions. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Cross-Appeal Appellant Prime Communications, L.P.'s Opening Brief and Appendix are due on December 26, 2018; -- Opening/Response Brief is due on January 22, 2019; and -- Response/Reply Brief is due on February 21, 2019.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant ROSE LORENZO, and all others similarly situated, is represented by: Zev H. Antell, Esq. Harris D. Butler, Esq. BUTLER ROYALS, PLC 140 Virginia Street Richmond, VA 23219-0000 Telephone: (804) 648-4848 E-mail: zev.antell@butlerroyals.com harris.butler@butlerroyals.com - and - S. Michael Dunn, Esq. Stephen A. Dunn, Esq. EMANUEL & DUNN 130 South Salisbury Street P. O. Box 426 Raleigh, NC 27602-0000 Telephone: (919) 832-0329 E-mail: mdunn@emanuelanddunn.com sdunn@emanuelanddunn.com Defendant-Appellee PRIME COMMUNICATIONS, L.P., a Texas General Partnership, is represented by: Thomas M. Miller, Esq. John W. Smith, Esq. BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS, LLP 1819 5th Avenue, N Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 521-8243 E-mail: mmiler@bradley.com jsmitht@bradley.com - and - Amy Elizabeth Puckett, Esq. Avery A. Simmons, Esq. BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP 214 North Tryon Street Charlotte, NC 28202 Telephone: (704) 332-6000 E-mail: agarber@bradley.com asimmons@bradley.com - and - Scott Burnett Smith, Esq. BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS, LLP 200 Clintion Avenue West Huntsville, AL 35801-0000 Telephone: (256) 517-5100 E-mail: ssmith@bradley.com PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Ruling in PICA v. DB under Appeal ------------------------------------------------------- Prudential Financial, 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 in the Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities ("RMBS") Trustee Litigation filed against Deutsche Bank, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the California Court of Appeal of the denial of their class certification motion in the case entitled, PICA et al. v. Deutsche Bank, et al. In May 2018, plaintiffs motion for class certification was denied in the state court action. In June 2018, plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the California Court of Appeal of the denial of their class certification motion. Prudential Financial, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides insurance, investment management, and other financial products and services in the United States and internationally. It operates through U.S. Individual Solutions, U.S. Workplace Solutions, Investment Management, and International Insurance divisions. The company offers its products and services to individual and institutional customers through its proprietary and third-party distribution networks. Prudential Financial, Inc. was founded in 1875 and is headquartered in Newark, New Jersey. PVH CORP: Website not Accessible to Blind, Figueroa Says -------------------------------------------------------- JOSE FIGUEROA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. PVH CORP. d/b/a IZOD, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10676 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 15, 2018), alleges that Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its goods and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using his computer. Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or "visually-impaired" to refer to all people with visual impairments who meet the legal definition of blindness in that they have a visual acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200. Some blind people who meet this definition have limited vision. Others have no vision. Based on a 2010 U.S. Census Bureau report, approximately 8.1 million people in the United States are visually impaired, including 2.0 million who are blind, and according to the American Foundation for the Blind's 2015 report, approximately 400,000 visually impaired persons live in the State of New York. Because Defendant's website, www.hesstoytruck.com, is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq. COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12 Fl. Brooklyn, N.Y. 11201 Telephone: (929) 575-4175 Facsimile: (929) 575-4195 E-mail: Joseph@cml.legal - and - Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, N.Y. 10003-2461 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 E-mail: nyjg@aol.com danalgottlieb@aol.com RAJ MANUFACTURING: Cantoran Seeks Wages & OT under Labor Code ------------------------------------------------------------- OBDULIA C. CANTORAN on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. RAJ MANUFACTURING, INC. a California corporation and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No.: 30-2018-01032424-CU-OE-CXC (Cal. Super. Ct., Nov. 15, 2018), seeks unpaid wages and overtime compensation, unpaid rest and meal period compensation, penalties and other equitable relief, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under the California Labor Code. According to the complaint, the Defendants enforced shift shedules, employment policies and practices, and workload requirements wherein Plaintiff and all other Non Exempt Employees were not paid proper wages they earned for all hours they worked including overtime compensation and/or minimum wage; were not permitted to take their full statutorily authorized rest and meal periods due to the scheduling and work load and time requirements placed upon them by Defendants. The Defendants failed to pay the employees one hour of pay at the employees regular rate of compensation for each workday that the meal period and/or rest period that was not properly provided. The Defendants have also failed to maintain accurate itemized records reflecting total hours worked and have failed to provide Non Exempt Employees with accurate, itemized wage statements reflecting total hours worked and appropriate rates of pay for those hours worked. The Defendants have also failed to reimburse Class Members for the sewing tools they bought and utilized in the performance of their job duties. The Defendants have also failed to pay all wages owed to discharged or resigned employees in a timely manner, the lawsuit says. RAJ Manufacturing designs, manufactures, and markets designer and private label swimwear and cover-ups for women and children.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: James R. Hawkins, Esq. Isandra Fernandez, Esq. JAMES HAWKINS APLC 9880 Research Drive, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92618 Telephone: (949) 387-7200 Facsimile: (949) 387-6676 RENT-A-CENTER INC: Settlement Reached in Consolidated Hall Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Rent-A-Center, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that parties in the consolidated Hall and DePalma class action suit have subsequently agreed to settle and settlement is in the documentation process and is subject to approval by the court. On December 23, 2016, a putative class action was filed against the company and certain of its former officers by Alan Hall in Federal court in Sherman, Texas. The complaint alleges that the defendants violated Section 10(b) and/or Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by issuing false and misleading statements and omitting material facts regarding the company's business, including implementation of the company's point-of-sale system, operations and prospects during the period covered by the complaint. The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of all purchasers of the company's common stock from July 27, 2015 through October 10, 2016, and seeks damages in unspecified amounts and costs, fees, and expenses. A complaint filed by James DePalma also in Sherman, Texas alleging similar claims was consolidated by the court into the Hall matter. On October 19, 2017, the magistrate judge entered a recommendation to deny the company's motion to dismiss the complaint to the district judge who will decide the issue. The company filed its objections to the magistrate's recommendation on November 2, 2017. On December 14, 2017, the district judge issued an order adopting the magistrate's report and denying the company's motion to dismiss the complaint. The parties have subsequently agreed to settle this matter for $11 million pursuant to a Settlement Term Sheet dated October 8, 2018. The settlement is in the documentation process and is subject to approval by the court. The settlement will be fully funded by insurance. Rent-A-Center, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, leases household durable goods to customers on a rent-to-own basis. The company operates through four segments: Core U.S., Acceptance Now, Mexico, and Franchising. Rent-A-Center, Inc. was founded in 1986 and is headquartered in Plano, Texas. SAFEGUARD PROPERTIES: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in Bund Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs John R. Bund II, Noel L. James and S. Scott James filed an appeal from a court ruling in their lawsuit styled John Bund, II, et al. v. Safeguard Properties LLC, Case No. 2:16-cv-00920-MJP, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Western Washington, Seattle. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Nov. 19, 2018, Judge Marsha J. Pechman (i) granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs' Surreply and Motion to Strike Portions of Defendant's Reply in Support of Its Motion to Decertify Class; and (ii) granted the Defendant's Motion to Decertify Class and Dismiss the Action. The case is a putative class action challenging the legality of the Defendant's "property preservation services" on homes which have gone into default but not yet been foreclosed. The Defendant's services run the gamut from winterization to lawn care, but it is the practice of removing and replacing locks on the homes that is the focus of this litigation. The case alleges causes of action for trespass (statutory and common law) and Consumer Protection Act violations, and is one of a related series of cases in the State of Washington brought against mortgage holders and their agents regarding these post-default, pre-foreclosure practices. The appellate case is captioned as John Bund, II, et al. v. Safeguard Properties LLC, Case No. 18-35953, 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 7, 2018; -- Transcript is due on January 7, 2019; -- Appellants John R. Bund II, Noel L. James and S. Scott James' opening brief is due on February 15, 2019; -- Appellee Safeguard Properties LLC's answering brief is due on March 18, 2019; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants JOHN R. BUND II, personally, as Executor of the Estate of Richard C. Bund, deceased, and on behalf of others similarly situated; S. SCOTT JAMES; and NOEL L. JAMES, a married couple, and on behalf of others similarly situated, are represented by: Blythe H. Chandler, Esq. Beth Ellen Terrell, Esq. TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC 936 North 34th Street, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98103 Telephone: (206) 816-6603 E-mail: bchandler@terrellmarshall.com bterrell@terrellmarshall.com - and - Michael Duane Daudt, Esq. DAUDT LAW PLLC 200 W Thomas Street, Suite 420 Seattle, WA 98119 Telephone: (206) 445-7733 E-mail: mike@daudtlaw.com - and - Clay M. Gatens, Esq. JEFFERS DANIELSON SONN & AYLWARD, P.S. 2600 Chester Kimm Road P.O. Box 1688 Wenatchee, WA 98801 Telephone: (509) 662-3685 E-mail: clayg@jdsalaw.com Defendant-Appellee SAFEGUARD PROPERTIES LLC, a Delaware corporation, is represented by: Mark Nelson Bartlett, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 2200 Seattle, WA 98101-3045 Telephone: (206) 757-8298 E-mail: markbartlett@dwt.com - and - Leonid Feller, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 300 North LaSalle Street Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 862-2954 E-mail: leonid.feller@kirkland.com SELECT INCOME: Sinkula Balks at GOV MS REIT Merger Deal ------------------------------------------------------- FRANK SINKULA, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. SELECT INCOME REIT, DONNA D. FRAICHE, WILLIAM A. LAMKIN, JEFFREY P. SOMERS, ADAM D. PORTNOY, and DAVID M. BLACKMAN, the Defendants, Case 1:18-cv-12389-DJC (D. Mass., Nov. 15, 2018), seeks to enjoin vote on a proposed transaction, pursuant to which SIR will be acquired by Government Properties Income Trust through GOV's wholly-owned subsidiary GOV MS REIT in violation of the Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On September 17, 2018, SIR and GOV issued a joint press release announcing they had entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger. Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, SIR stockholders will be entitled to receive 1.04 shares of GOV common stock per SIR common share. Under the Merger Agreement, the Merger Consideration is fixed and will not be adjusted to reflect changes in the market price of the GOV common shares or the SIR common shares prior to the effective time. Based on the $16.98 closing price of GOV common shares on September 14, 2018, the exchange ratio represented approximately $17.57 for each SIR common share. As of November 8, 2018, the closing price of GOV common shares had declined to $9.25, with the Merger Consideration valued at approximately $9.62 per SIR common share. On October 1, 2018, GOV and SIR filed a joint proxy statement/prospectus on Form S-4 (as amended on October 26, 2018, November 9, 2018, and November 15, 2018, the "Registration Statement") with the SEC. The Registration Statement, which recommends that SIR stockholders vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction, omits or misrepresents material information concerning, among other things: (i) SIR's and GOV's financial projections, relied upon by the Company's financial advisor, UBS Securities LLC ("UBS") in its financial analyses; (ii) the data and inputs underlying the financial valuation analyses that support the fairness opinion provided by UBS; (iii) the background process leading to the Proposed Transaction; and (iv) UBS's potential conflicts of interest. The failure to adequately disclose such material information constitutes a violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act as SIR stockholders need such information in order to cast a fully-informed vote in connection with the Proposed Transaction. In short, unless remedied, SIR's public stockholders will be forced to make a voting decision on the Proposed Transaction without full disclosure of all material information concerning the Proposed Transaction being provided to them. Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the December 20, 2018 stockholder vote on the Proposed Transaction unless and until such Exchange Act violations are cured, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Mitchell J. Matorin, Esq. MATORIN LAW OFFICE, LLC 18 Grove Street, Suite 5 Wellesley, MA 02482 Telephone: (781) 453-0100 E-mail: mmatorin@matorinlaw.com - and - Richard A. Acocelli, Esq. Michael A. Rogovin, Esq. Kelly K. Moran, Esq. WEISSLAW LLP 1500 Broadway, 16th Floor New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 682-3025 Facsimile: (212) 682-3010 - and - Melissa A. Fortunato, Esq. BRAGAR EAGEL & SQUIRE, P.C. 885 Third Avenue, Suite 3040 New York, New York 10022 Telephone: (212) 308-5858 Facsimile: (212) 486-0462 E-mail: fortunato@bespc.com SKC ENTERPRISES: Davis' Bid for Conditional Certification Denied ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. D.P. Marshall, Jr., denied without prejudice as premature the Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification in the lawsuit titled CINDY DAVIS, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. SKC ENTERPRISES INC, d/b/a RENT ONE, Case No. 3:18-cv-00036-DPM (E.D. Ark.). "Please cooperate in some targeted discovery during the next ninety days to see if any more evidence of a forty-five hour cap exists and, if so, whether it was company-wide, regional, or store-driven," Judge Marshall said.[CC] SKC ENTERPRISES: Davis's Bid to Certify Class Denied as Premature ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. D.P. Marshall, Jr., denied without prejudice as premature the Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification in the lawsuit titled CINDY DAVIS, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. SKC ENTERPRISES INC, d/b/a RENT ONE, Case No. 3:18-cv-00036-DPM (E.D. Ark.). "Please cooperate in some targeted discovery during the next ninety days to see if any more evidence of a forty-five hour cap exists and, if so, whether it was company-wide, regional, or store-driven," Judge Marshall notes.[CC] SMYTHE CRAMER: Ohio App. Affirms Class Certification in Cantlin --------------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga County, issued an Opinion affirming the District Court's judgment granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification in the case captioned PATRICK W. CANTLIN, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. SMYTHE CRAMER CO., Defendant-Appellant. No. 106697. (Ohio App.). Smythe Cramer Co., d.b.a. Howard Hanna Smythe Cramer (HHSC), appeals from the trial court's granting plaintiffs Rita Noall, Cindy Miller, Patrick Cantlin, and Elizabeth Hong's (Plaintiffs) motion for class certification. This lawsuit is a proposed class action, the heart of which concerns a $225 fee (the Fee), which HHSC charged putative class members allegedly as compensation for services performed in real estate transactions. The gist of Plaintiffs' argument is that the Fee is essentially unearned,1 because HHSC offered no services in exchange for the Fee, other than the services already offered to its customers prior to charging the Fee. The trial court granted class certification. HHSC appealed, and this court reversed the trial court's decision, finding that as the class is currently defined, this action does not satisfy the predominance requirement of Civ.R. 23(B)(3) to certify a class action. Upon remand, the Plaintiffs filed a new motion for class certification and redefined the class into two groups. The trial court granted class certification, finding that the redefined class met the Civ.R. 23 threshold, including subsection (B)(3)'s predominance requirement, because all the elements of fraud and unjust enrichment can be proved or disproved by common proof and the questions of law and fact on both causes of action which are common to the class members predominate over questions which might affect only individual members. It is from this order that HHSC appeals, arguing that the Plaintiffs fail to meet the Civ.R. 23(B) requirements of identifiability, typicality, and predominance in the redefined subclasses. Identifiability Civ.R. 23(A) requires that the class definition be unambiguous and the class identifiable. On appeal, HHSC argues that the trial court failed to consider the evidence it submitted regarding whether class members could be identified with reasonable effort. According to HHSC, there would be no way to determine class membership without a file-by-file review and individual analysis of each transaction. HHSC offers three reasons to support its argument. First, its agents used different versions of the HHSC forms, some of which may have referenced the $225 fee and some of which may have described the hybrid commission was inconsistent with the claims alleged in plaintiffs' complaint. Second, there are major defects in terms of identifying allegedly injured buyers. Third, whether a putative class member actually paid the Fee could not be ascertained without individualized inquiry. A careful reading of HHSC's argument that the class is allegedly not identifiable reveals that all three reasons HHSC set forth are essentially the same — that individualized fact-finding would be required to determine membership in the class. While individualized fact-finding may defeat class certification, this is true only when the cause of the problem is plaintiff's overly broad class definition. HHSC's arguments under this factor of the class certification analysis are not well taken. In finding that the class members in the instant case are identifiable, the trial court stated that HHSC can reasonable identify its transactions for buyers and sellers using the noted form documents containing the Fee. Specifically, the court concluded that it is essentially a clerical task to weed out those who did not actually pay the fee or paid a negotiated amount. The court also stated that class members should be able to identify themselves by looking at lines 704 and 705 of their HUD-1 settlement statements to see if a fee was paid to HHSC. Upon review, the Ohio App. finds that the trial court conducted a rigorous analysis of the class members' identifiability and acted within its discretion when determining that this requirement was met. Typicality HHSC's arguments on appeal concerning typicality are focused on the named-plaintiff Noall. Noall signed a General Release of All Claims against HHSC in exchange for her real estate agent paying $200 to the sellers of the property at issue to cover late fees from the lender. HHSC argues that this release shows that Ms. Noall cannot receive redress from this case and, thus, lacks standing. Without standing, Ms. Noall is not a typical representative. The Plaintiffs, on the other hand, argue that Noall meets the typicality requirement because she was charged the same sham administrative fee as the rest of the members of the Administrative Fee Class. Plaintiffs further argue that Noall has not asserted any claims with respect to the property, therefore, the release does not apply to this case. The requirement for typicality is met where there is no express conflict between the class representatives and the class. Similarly, a representative is deemed adequate so long as his or her interest is not antagonistic to that of other class members. Furthermore, a unique defense will not destroy typicality or adequacy of representation unless it is `so central to the litigation that it threatens to preoccupy the class representative to the detriment of the other class members. Upon review, the Ohio App. finds that Noall's claim meets the typicality requirement of class certification, because there is no express conflict between her claim and the class-wide claim. HHSC's affirmative defense of release of claims goes to the merits of Noall's allegations of fraud and unjust enrichment, and should not defeat class certification. Predominance Civ.R. 23(B)(3) states that a class action may be maintained if the court finds that the questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and that a class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy. The trial court found that the central issue in this case is whether the fee charged by HHSC is redundant of a commission already earned and paid and thus a sham fee that must be disgorged and returned to those who paid it. Since the misrepresentations are alleged to be in the contract and settlement statements, and those documents are the same for each of the two classes, answering this question once will answer the question for the whole class. The court further found that inferences or presumptions of inducement and reliance are permitted to establish the elements of fraud in class actions. To properly analyze whether questions of fact or law common to class members predominate over individual questions, we must consider what Plaintiffs will have to prove at trial to succeed on their fraud and unjust enrichment claims. HHSC argues that even under the redefined subclasses, not all class members necessarily understood the Fee in the same way. For example, HHSC argues that evidence in the record showed that many consumers received written and oral information that the Fee was part of the overall brokerage commission. The redefined subclasses do not include HHSC customers who were charged a hybrid commission, as evidenced by HHSC documents. Rather, the subclasses include HHSC customers who were charged a separate fee, and reliance that the fee was earned may be presumed for the sake of class certification. HHSC also argues that the case at hand is directly in line with cases rejecting class treatment for lack of predominance. To support this argument, HHSC cites Young v. FirstMerit Bank, N.A., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 94913, 2011-Ohio-614. Young involved a proposed class of over 700 investors who purchased promissory notes from Joanne Schneider, who was later convicted of running a $60.5 million Ponzi scheme. The trial court certified the class, and this court reversed, finding that the Plaintiffs failed to meet the predominance requirement of Civ.R. 23(B)(3). In Young, unlike in the case at hand, the fraud alleged was not contained in the standard promissory notes that the defendant used. Rather, the Young plaintiffs alleged that the fraud occurred in how Schneider sold these notes. These elements are specific to each individual investor, i.e., amount invested, number of investments, return on the investment, external inducements, and representations made by Schneider. The Young court further found that each plaintiff stated different reasons for investing their funds with Schneider. The court concluded that reliance cannot be presumed when the alleged misrepresentations are so varied. Each fraud perpetrated by Schneider varied in its misrepresentations, reliance, inducement, and injury. The instant case is distinguishable from Young in that the alleged fraud can be found in four HHSC standard forms. Plaintiffs allege that the misrepresentation or concealment regarding the Fee is specific, in writing, and the same for all class members. In Young, the entire investment scheme was alleged to be fraudulent, and the material misrepresentations were different for each plaintiff. For example, some of the initial investors did in fact see high returns on their investments. In the case at hand, every putative class member was charged the Fee as part of a real estate transaction, and the Fee is alleged to be fraudulent for all who paid it. Upon review, the Court finds that common issues predominate over questions affecting individual plaintiffs. Under Civ.R. 23(B)(3)(a), the class members' interests in individually controlling the prosecution or defense of separate actions do not outweigh the class members' common issues. Under Civ.R. 23(B)(3)(b), evidence in the record shows that Plaintiffs previously filed a similar suit in federal court, but that case was dismissed. The Ohio Supreme Court has held that the lack of parallel lawsuits tends to weigh in favor of certification. Under Civ.R. 23(B)(3)(c), concentrating this litigation as a single case in state court appears to be efficient, because common issues predominate, the real estate transactions at issue took place in Ohio, and violations of Ohio law are alleged. The Court finds that the trial court acted within its discretion by certifying this redefined class action, and HHSC's sole assigned error is overruled. A full-text copy of the Ohio App.'s November 15, 2018 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/ycc5mze8 from Leagle.com. Anthony J. Coyne, Jeffrey M. Embleton, Tracey S. McGurk, Mansour Gavin L.P.A.; Jennifer M. Keas, Jay N. Varon, Foley & Lardner, L.L.P., Attorneys for Appellant. Patrick J. Perotti, Nicole T. Fiorelli, James S. Timmerberg, Dworken & Bernstein Co., L.P.A.; James A. Deroche, Garson Johnson, L.L.C.; Glenn D. Feagan, Law Offices of Glenn D. Feagan, Attorneys for Appellees. SONUS NETWORKS: Miller Sues over Falsified Financial Report ----------------------------------------------------------- RON MILLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. SONUS NETWORKS, INC., RAYMOND P. SECURITIES LAWS DOLAN, MARK T. GREENQUIST, AND MICHAEL SWADE, Case No. 1:18-cv-12344 (D. Mass., Nov. 8, 2018), seeks to recover compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, against the Company and certain of its officers and/or directors and various persons who issued knowingly false statements during the Class Period. According to the complaint, the case is a federal securities class action on behalf of all persons and entities, other than Defendants, who purchased the securities of Sonus during the period of January 8, 2015 and March 24, 2015, both dates inclusive. Sonus provides communication solutions that allow businesses large and small to secure their communications infrastructures. Sonus's early products were hardware-based. As newer, cloud-based software solutions proliferated, however, Sonus fell behind its competitors. In addition, longer purchasing decision cycles exacerbated the Company's troubles, as revenue expected in a particular quarter was pushed into the future and often reduced. In mid-2014, Sonus hired Michael Swade as its new vice president of worldwide sales, replacing, but not firing, the former head of worldwide sales. Sonus immediately changed the way it forecasted revenue. Where before the Company had included in its revenue forecast each salesperson's "commit number," a conservative estimate of total sales from that employee in a particular time period, rather than their "stretch number," an aspirational figure rarely reached, Swade now demanded that sales employees use "stretch numbers" as their minimum target. On October 23, 2014, Sonus, including those "stretch numbers" in its forecast, projected $74 million in revenue in the first quarter of 2015 ("Q1 2015"). Concurrently, senior sales personnel were informing their superiors in weekly meetings, relayed to Defendants Raymond P. Dolan and Mark T. Greenquist, that the Company would not reach $74 million in revenue in Q1 2015. Internal communications documented in the SEC Order show that Defendants were aware, long before the turn of the calendar to 2015, that the Company would not achieve $74 million in revenue in Q1 2015. The Company forced sales personnel to list as attainable deals whose chances of closing in Q1 2015 were "fictitious." Defendants convinced employees to relist these potential deals by threatening to fire them. Nevertheless, on January 8, 2015, Sonus reaffirmed its comfort with analysts' estimates of $74 million in revenue in Q1 2015. On February 18, 2015, Sonus inexplicably projected $74 million in revenue for Q1 2015. As they reaffirmed the projection, Defendants knew that the Company would fall materially short of the $74 million revenue forecast. Defendants knew that the unrealistic "stretch numbers" remained aspirational and largely unreachable, a fact that senior sales personnel regularly communicated to Defendants. Defendants also knew that a number of 2015 sales had been "pulled forward" to buoy sales numbers in Q4 2014, at management’s express direction, and that the "backlog" of sales expected to be recognized in early 2015 was significantly lower than usual. As Q1 2015 progressed, Defendants received continuing updates confirming that the Company would fall materially short of its sales revenue forecast. All of these facts are proven by internal, contemporaneous Sonus communications. Sonus could not avoid the reckoning it put off in late 2014 and early 2015. On March 24, 2015, Sonus was forced to reveal its dismal Q1 2015 results. The Company had missed its forecast by a massive amount, taking in only $50 million in revenue. It further emerged that Defendants lied in January and February about the deals they expected to close. The market reacted immediately to the $24 million revenue miss. On this news, the price of Sonus's stock plummeted $4.46 per share, over 33%, to close at $8.70 per share on March 24, 2018, on unusually high trading volume. On August 7, 2018, the SEC issued a press release and the SEC Order, stating that the SEC had charged Ribbon, Greenquist, and Swade with making material misstatements on January 8, 2015 and February 18, 2015 concerning Sonus’s quarterly revenue estimates and guidance for Q1 2015. The Company, Greenquist, and Swade agreed to pay civil penalties totaling $1.97 million to settle the charges. 2 The SEC Order contained detailed findings of fact, concluding that Sonus, Greenquist, and Swade violated Section 17(a)(2) of the Securities Act and Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Glen DeValerio, Esq. Daryl Andrews, Esq. ANDREWS DEVALERIO LLP 265 Franklin Street, Suite 1702 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: 617 936-2796 E-mail: glen@andrewsdevalerio.com daryl@andrewsdevalerio.com - and - Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq. Robert V. Prongay, Esq. Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq. Charles H. Linehan, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 SOUTHERN CONNECTIONS: Tyree Seeks Overtime Wages under FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------- JOSHUA TYREE, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. SOUTHERN CONNECTIONS & SERVICES, INC., the Defendant, Case 7:18-cv-00199 (W.D. Tex., Nov. 8, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. According to the complaint, Southern Connections violated the FLSA by employing Plaintiff and other similarly situated nonexempt employees "for a workweek longer than 40 hours but refusing to compensate them for their employment in excess of 40 hours at a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular rate at which they are or were employed. During Plaintiff's employment with Southern Connections, he worked in the field running casing, i.e. pipe or tubing at the well site as part of drilling operations, working 12 hours or more each shift, until the job was done. Plaintiff's primary duties did not include office or nonmanual work. Plaintiff's primary duties were not directly related to the management or general business operations of Defendant or its customers, the lawsuit says. Southern Connections is a drilling and completions servicing company for the oil and gas industry.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Melissa Moore, Esq. Curt Hesse, Esq. Bridget Davidson, Esq. MOORE & ASSOCIATES Lyric Center 440 Louisiana Street, Suite 675 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 222-6775 Facsimile: (713) 222-6739 SUNOPTA INC: Full Payment Made in De Jesus Settlement ----------------------------------------------------- SunOpta Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 29, 2018, that full payment of the settlement amount was made in the case titled De Jesus, et al. v. Frozsun, Inc. d/b/a Frozsun Foods, to the third-party settlement administrator in October 2018. On April 19, 2013, a class-action complaint, in the case titled De Jesus, et al. v. Frozsun, Inc. d/b/a Frozsun Foods, was filed against Sunrise Growers, Inc. ("Sunrise") (then named Frozsun, Inc.) in California Superior Court, Santa Barbara County seeking damages, equitable relief and reasonable attorneys' fees for alleged wage and hour violations. This case includes claims for failure to pay all hours worked, failure to pay overtime wages, meal and rest period violations, waiting-time penalties, improper wage statements and unfair business practices. The putative class includes 10,611 non-exempt hourly employees from Sunrise's production facilities in Santa Maria and Oxnard, California. The parties attended mediation on October 12, 2017 and reached a general agreement to resolve the matter on a class-wide basis for $5.0 million. After negotiating the remaining details of the settlement, the parties obtained preliminary approval of the class action settlement on May 14, 2018. Settlement class members had until August 20, 2018, to opt out or object to the settlement terms. A final fairness hearing with the Court was held on September 17, 2018 and the settlement was granted final approval. Full payment of the settlement amount was made to the third-party settlement administrator in October 2018. The settlement amount was recorded in accounts payable and accrued liabilities on the consolidated balance sheet as at September 29, 2018. The Company recovered the full amount paid under the settlement through insurance coverage and an escrow account established in connection with the Company's acquisition of Sunrise. SunOpta Inc. sources non-genetically modified (non-GMO) and organic ingredients; and manufactures food and beverage products in the United States, Canada, Europe, Mexico, and Ethiopia. The company operates through Global Ingredients and Consumer Products segments. The company was formerly known as Stake Technology Ltd. and changed its name to SunOpta Inc. in October 2003. SunOpta Inc. was founded in 1973 and is headquartered in Mississauga, Canada. TESARO INC: LSI Files Securities Class Suit Over False Co. Reports ------------------------------------------------------------------ LSI Design and Integration Corp., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Tesaro, Inc., Leon O. Moulder, Jr., and Timothy R. Pearson, Case No. 1:18-cv-12352 (D. Mass., November 9, 2018), seeks to recover damages caused by the Defendants' violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. This is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class consisting of all persons other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired Tesaro securities between November 4, 2016 through November 14, 2016, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). The Plaintiff alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance policies. The Plaintiff acquired Tesaro's securities at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period and was damaged upon the revelation of the alleged corrective disclosures, notes the complaint. The Defendant Tesaro is an oncology-focused biopharmaceutical company that identifies, acquires, develops, and commercializes cancer therapeutics and oncology supportive care products in the U.S. The Defendant Leon O. Moulder has served at all relevant times as the Company's Chief Executive Officer and Director. The Defendant Timothy R. Pearson has served at all relevant times as the Company's Chief Financial Officer and Executive Vice President. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Glen DeValerio, Esq. Daryl Andrews, Esq. ANDREWS DEVALERIO LLP 265 Franklin Street, Suite 1702 Boston, MA 02110 Tel: (617) 936-2796 E-mail: glen@andrewsdevalerio.com daryl@andrewsdevalerio.com - and - Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. Jonathan Lindenfeld, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 661-1100 Fax: (212) 661-8665 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com jlindenfeld@pomlaw.com THESY, LLC: Tyksinski Sues over Cybersecurity Breach ---------------------------------------------------- ARTUR TYKSINSKI, individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, vs. THESY, LLC, a California limited liability corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 2018CH14318 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Nov. 15, 2018), alleges that Defendant failed to implement a reasonably adequate cybersecurity prevention, detection, and response protocol which led to his private personal information, and that of other members of the putative class, being compromised and exposed over an extended period of time in a cyber security attack. The Defendant was the target of a Cyber Attack on its information technology ("IT") systems this year. This Cyber Attack resulted in unauthorized outside parties gaining access to the Defendant's customers' sensitive and confidential personal information, including their names, dates of birth, home and business addresses, credit card numbers and associated payment account information, phone numbers, email addresses, and account passwords, known as Personal Identifying Information ("PII"). Even though the Defendant knew that it was storing sensitive PII which was valuable and vulnerable to cyber attackers, particularly credit card and payment information, the Defendant nonetheless failed to take basic security precautions that could have prevented, and certainly at least mitigated, the ramifications of the disclosure of its customers' PII. The Defendant's lax cybersecurity policies and procedures allowed hackers to obtain access to Plaintiff's and other customers' PII. This PII should have been secured by adequate levels of cybersecurity protection and should not have been susceptible to unauthorized access via the malware attack employed in the Cyber Attack. In a malware attack, hackers exploit vulnerabilities in an organization's administrative, technical, and physical cybersecurity safeguards to install damaging software, known generally as malware, onto the organization's IT systems, in order to extract valuable data, such as credit card information, social security numbers, and home addresses, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative Classes: Myles McGuire, Esq. David Gerbie, Esq. Jad Sheikali, Esq. MCGUIRE LAW, P.C. 55 W. Wacker Dr., 9th Fl. Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 893-7002 E-mail: mmcguire@mcgpc.com dgerbie@mcgpc.com jsheikali@mcgpc.com TORCHMARK CORP: Arbitration Ongoing in Bruce Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------- Torchmark Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that arbitration is ongoing in the putative class action suit entitled Bruce v. American Income Life Insurance Company, et al. On February 1, 2018, putative class action litigation was filed against American Income Life Insurance Company in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division (Bruce v. American Income Life Insurance Company, et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-00258-G). The plaintiff, a former insurance sales agent of American Income who is suing on behalf of all current and former American Income sales agents contracted through State General Agent Stephen Jubrey's agency office at any time since January 31, 2015 through the final disposition of this matter, asserts that such agents are employees rather than independent contractors as they are classified by American Income. He alleges failure to pay minimum wages, overtime wages and other applicable monies in accordance with the Fair Labor Standards Act. The plaintiff seeks, in a jury trial, actual and punitive damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, attorney fees, costs and other relief, including injunctive relief. On February 27, 2018, the Company filed a motion to compel arbitration of this matter and on July 27, 2018, the Court granted the Company's motion. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Torchmark Corporation, through its subsidiaries, provides various life and health insurance products, and annuities in the United States, Canada, and New Zealand. It operates through four segments: Life Insurance, Supplemental Health Insurance, Annuities, and Investments. Torchmark Corporation was founded in 1900 and is headquartered in McKinney, Texas. TORCHMARK CORP: Faces Golz Class Action in California ----------------------------------------------------- Torchmark Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the company is facing a class action lawsuit entitled, Golz v. American Income Life Insurance Company, et al Case No. 18STCV01354). On October 18, 2018, putative class action litigation was filed against Torchmark Corporation and American Income Life Insurance Company in California's Los Angeles County Superior Court (Golz v. American Income Life Insurance Company, et al Case No. 18STCV01354). The complaint alleges that the putative class members are employees and asserts claims under the California Labor Code, California Business and Professions Code, and the Fair Labor Standards Act. The complaint alleges that plaintiff was an American Income insurance agent trainee in California who seeks to represent classes of individuals whom American Income classified as independent contractors during the class periods alleged. One class period based on California Labor Code claims is alleged to begin four years prior to the complaint's filing. Another class period, which is based on the Fair Labor Standards Act claim, is alleged to begin three years prior to the complaint's filing and is pleaded as a national class. The complaint seeks compensatory damages, penalties, and attorney fees on claims for failure to pay wages due, failure to appropriately pay wages at termination, failure to provide itemized wage statements, and unfair business practices. The Company continues to assess the amount and thus does not have a reasonable estimate of any potential liability. Torchmark Corporation, through its subsidiaries, provides various life and health insurance products, and annuities in the United States, Canada, and New Zealand. It operates through four segments: Life Insurance, Supplemental Health Insurance, Annuities, and Investments. Torchmark Corporation was founded in 1900 and is headquartered in McKinney, Texas. TORCHMARK CORP: Unit Faces Joh Class Action in California --------------------------------------------------------- Torchmark Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the company's subsidiary American Income Life Insurance Company, faces a class action suit entitled, Joh v. American Income Life Insurance Company, Case No. C18-01863). On September 12, 2018, putative class action litigation was filed against American Income Life Insurance Company in California's Contra Costa County Superior Court (Joh v. American Income Life Insurance Company, Case No. C18-01863). The plaintiff, a former insurance sales agent of American Income, is suing on behalf of all current and former sales agents who sold insurance for American Income in the state of California for the last four years prior to the filing of the complaint. The complaint alleges that sales agents are employees and asserts claims under the California Labor Code and California Business and Professions Code. The complaint seeks compensatory damages, penalties and attorney fees on claims for failure to pay wages/commissions, failure to appropriately pay agents at termination, failure to provide itemized wage statements, failure to reimburse expenses and unfair business practices. The Company continues to assess the amount and thus does not have a reasonable estimate of any potential liability. Torchmark Corporation, through its subsidiaries, provides various life and health insurance products, and annuities in the United States, Canada, and New Zealand. It operates through four segments: Life Insurance, Supplemental Health Insurance, Annuities, and Investments. Torchmark Corporation was founded in 1900 and is headquartered in McKinney, Texas. TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Violates FDCPA, Thompson Suit Alleges --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Transworld Systems Inc., et al. The case is styled as Julia Thompson individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Transworld Systems Inc., John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-16401 (D. N.J., Nov. 23, 2018). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Transworld Systems Inc. provides accounts receivable, debt recovery, and past due accounts services for businesses, medical companies, dental companies, education facilities, Fortune 500 companies, and small businesses in the United States and internationally.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. Stein Saks, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 ext 101 Fax: (201) 282-6501 Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com UNITED STATES: Class of Veterans Certified in Manker Suit --------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Charles S. Haight, Jr., granted the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the lawsuit styled TYSON MANKER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, and NATIONAL VETERANS COUNCIL FOR LEGAL REDRESS, on behalf of itself, its members, and all others similarly situated v. RICHARD V. SPENCER, Secretary of the Navy, Case No. 3:18-cv-00372-CSH (D. Conn.). In accordance with Rule 23(c)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court certifies this class: Veterans who served during the Iraq and Afghanistan Era -- defined as the period between October 7, 2001, and the present -- who: (a) were discharged from the Navy, Navy Reserves, Marine Corps, or Marine Corps Reserve with less-than-Honorable statuses, including General and Other-than-Honorable discharges but excluding Bad Conduct or Dishonorable discharges; (b) have not received upgrades of their discharge statuses to Honorable from the NDRB; and (c) have diagnoses of PTSD, TBI, or other related mental health conditions, or records documenting one or more symptoms of PTSD, TBI, or other related mental health conditions at the time of discharge, attributable to their military service under the Hagel Memo standards of liberal or special consideration. The representatives of the class will be all Named Plaintiffs, and class counsel will be the Yale Law School's Veterans Legal Services Clinic and Jenner & Block LLP. The Court also reminds parties of its previous order, directing the Defendant to file a responsive pleading within 30 days of this decision and parties to exchange initial disclosures and file a proposed schedule for remaining deadlines within 45 days of this decision. A proposed interim schedule is due within 30 days if either party appeals this decision.[CC] UNITED STATES: Court Certifies Navy, Marine Corps Veterans' Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut issued a Ruling granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification in the case captioned CTYSON MANKER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, and NATIONAL VETERANS COUNCIL FOR LEGAL REDRESS, on behalf of itself, its members, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. RICHARD V. SPENCER, Secretary of the Navy, Defendant. Civil Action No. 3:18-cv-372 (CSH). (D. Conn.). The Plaintiffs bring this class action on behalf of Navy and Marine Corps veterans who were allegedly denied discharge upgrades by the Naval Discharge Review Board in a manner violative of the Administrative Procedure Act and the Fifth Amendment. Specifically, the Plaintiffs move this Court to certify a proposed class consisting of all Navy, Navy Reserve, Marine Corps, and Marine Corps Reserve veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan Era who: (a) were discharged with less than honorable discharges, (b) have not received discharge upgrades to Honorable, and (c) have diagnoses of PTSD, TBI, or PTSD-related conditions, or records documenting one or more symptoms of PTSD, TBI, or PTSD-related conditions at the time of discharge, attributable to their military service. Numerosity The Defendant does not appear to contest that the Plaintiffs' proposed class satisfies the numerosity requirement. However, it is the the Plaintiffs' affirmative burden to demonstrate all class action factors, and so the Court will examine the Plaintiffs' arguments. The Plaintiffs submit that the NDRB has denied more than 85 percent of applications from hundreds of veterans with PTSD since issuance of the Hagel Memo. These applications were improperly subjected to the presumption of regularity in governmental affairs, which unfairly disadvantaged them. The Plaintiffs also cite additional statistics concerning the number of Navy and Marine Corps veterans with less-than-Honorable discharges and those with PTSD, TBI, or related diagnoses. The Second Circuit presumption for numerosity has been met. Even if the NDRB denied 85 percent of only a hundred PTSD-affected Navy and Marine Corps veterans' applications, there would be at least eighty-five applicants who may have a claim. Commonality The Plaintiffs offer five potential common questions. These questions concern, in brief, whether the Defendant acted arbitrarily and capriciously without supporting evidence, frustrated class members' ability to prepare successful applications, failed to maintain important records, improperly practiced a policy of presuming regularity in government affairs, and demonstrated a systemic institutional bias against class members. The Defendant maintains the answer to all these questions is no. He asserts that the Plaintiffs have provided no evidence establishing commonality or typicality about the claims in this case that would make class certification appropriate. On the basis of the limited facts known to the Court so far, the Plaintiffs have demonstrated an injury in fact that is a concrete and particularized harm to a legally protected interest. The proposed class of veterans appears to have suffered an injury, a denied upgrade of their discharge certification which, in turn, affected their eligibility for benefits like the GI Bill program, and, ironically, PTSD treatment from the Department of Veterans Affairs. Moreover, their injury seems traceable to the Department of the Navy's alleged misapplication of the Hagel Memo and related policy. Defendant acknowledges that the NDRB referenced the Hagel Memo without indicating how or to what extent it was applying the memo's guidance. Defendant also acknowledges that the NDRB began applying the liberal consideration standard after Congress codified the standard in December 2016, but Under Secretary Andrew Kurta had to issue clarifying guidance in August 2017. The Defendant also points out that there are varying due process rights that apply to the different ways a service member can separate from the Navy or Marine Corps. For example, a Sailor or Marine who meets requisite service requirements or is recommended for an other than honorable discharge will go through an administrative separation board or a Board of Inquiry. Plaintiffs do not appear to argue this point, and indeed, their grievances are aimed at the NDRB, not any other adjudicatory board. This can be remedied by narrowing the proposed class definition. Accordingly, the Court will revise the proposed class definition, in part, to limit the class to those who have not received upgrades of their discharge statuses to Honorable from the NDRB only, to avoid a blanket inclusion of those denied upgrades to Honorable from all Navy records-correction boards. With this limitation in place, the proposed class of members fulfill the requirements of the commonality prong. They share the same injury of being subject to the NDRB's purportedly unfair review process for characterization upgrade applications. A single lawsuit on their behalf would answer the questions raised by Plaintiffs, and likely other questions, common to all members' individual claims and conclude with a result appropriate for all members. Typicality The Plaintiffs present two veterans' experiences as representative of the NDRB's general treatment of certification upgrade applications from those with PTSD, TBI, or PTSD-related conditions. Named Plaintiff Manker had presented evidence to the NDRB of his PTSD diagnosis, but the NDRB's rejection of his application purportedly failed to apply the liberal consideration standard. Doe, a member of Named Plaintiff NVCLR, also developed PTSD from his military service, but was denied an upgrade from the NDRB for each of his three applications. The two NDRB explanations for denying Doe's applications, attached as exhibits to the Complaint, also include the same or similar lines about how, despite the applicant's belief, PTSD did not excuse his willful misconduct. Along with other similarities between Manker and Doe's experiences, this suggests that the NDRB may have used the same standard to decide on applications for certification upgrades, but it was likely not the liberal consideration standard that Plaintiffs allege should have been used instead. This is also the chief contention of this class action suit. Manker and Doe both allegedly suffered the same injury of having been subject to the NDRB's usage of an incorrect standard, which is also the injury that they allege applies to proposed class members. Resolution of their claims would seem to resolve class members' claims because all of the claims arise from the NDRB's general policies and practices. Hence, the Plaintiffs' claims are typical of the class. For this reason too, the Court rejects the Defendant's argument that review of certification upgrades is too individualized for a class-wide resolution. Plaintiffs' claims challenge the general policies allegedly disadvantaging both Named Plaintiffs' and the proposed class members' applications, regardless of their applications' individual merits. The Court is satisfied that the legal arguments Named Plaintiffs would be making are those that other proposed class members would be making as well because they have suffered the same injury from the NDRB, and thus finds that Plaintiffs have satisfied the requirements of the typicality prong. Fair and Adequate Representation Named Plaintiffs appear to have adequate incentive to pursue claims on behalf of the class, fulfilling the vigorous prosecution requirement. They seek fairer adjudication procedures, under which they believe they would qualify for certification upgrades. A change in procedures would benefit both Named Plaintiffs and proposed class members by at least affording them the belief that their applications will be held up to the correct standards. The Defendant's arguments with respect to the adequate representation prong are mainly aimed at the second requirement of having no antagonistic fundamental interests. He claims that Plaintiffs, by seeking judicial intervention, delay proposed class members from receiving relief because they would otherwise get relief from immediately re-applying to the NDRB. This claim has two fatal weaknesses. First, this assumes that the NDRB has already remedied its review process, a fact that the parties dispute. Second, even if it were true the NDRB process was already fixed, Defendant has not explained how Plaintiffs' and proposed class members' interests are fundamentally antagonistic to one another. Plaintiffs seek relief in the form of having the NDRB adhere to the proper procedures and standards a fundamental interest of both Plaintiffs and class members. In this regard, the interests of the class members are identical. The Court fails to see how interests would be in conflict here. If the Plaintiffs ultimately prevail, then class members will benefit from a properly reformed NDRB review process. If the Defendant prevails, then class members will have confidence that their upgrade applications are being reviewed fully and fairly. As for the qualifications of counsel, the Court is satisfied. Plaintiffs' attorneys, Yale Law School's Veterans Legal Services Clinic and Jenner & Block LLP, have had significant experience litigating class actions, some on behalf of veterans, and litigating individual veterans' claims against military review boards. The Court finds that Plaintiffs have adequately fulfilled the fair and adequate representation requirement. Accordingly, Plaintiffs have met the prerequisites for class certification under Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 23(b)(2) Requirements Rule 23(b)(2) applies only when a single injunction or declaratory judgment would provide relief to each member of the class. The Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, asking the Court on behalf of the class to direct measures sufficient to ensure that Defendant establishes constitutionally and statutorily compliant adjudication procedures and measures sufficient to ensure that Defendant meaningfully and consistently applies its own procedural standards in considering the effects of class members' PTSD when determining whether to upgrade their discharge statutes. Defendant contends that such injunctive relief is unneeded because the NDRB is already following the proper policy, and, in any case, class-wide relief is inappropriate for the individualized nature of the NDRB review process. The Court agrees with the Plaintiffs that while the outcome of any single NDRB proceeding may depend to some extent on individual facts, Defendant's alleged systemic failure to apply its own official standards is a general course of conduct uniting the proposed class. The injunctions sought would provide relief to each member of the class because, although they would not guarantee each member an upgrade to an Honorable disposition, they would ensure that their applications are being reviewed under the standard that both Plaintiffs and Defendant say applies to the NDRB. Accordingly, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs have met the threshold for a class action under Rule 23(b)(2). A full-text copy of the District Court's November 15, 2018 Ruling is available at https://tinyurl.com/yalnhmbj from Leagle.com. Tyson Manker, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated & National Veterans Council for Legal Redress, on behalf of itself, its members, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Jessica A. Martinez -- jmartinez@jenner.com -- Jenner & Block LLP, Michael J. Wishnie, Jerome N. Frank Legal Services, Jeremy M. Creelan -- jcreelan@jenner.com -- Jenner & Block, LLP, Jeremy H. Ershow -- jershow@jenner.com -- Jenner & Block LLP & Susan J. Kohlmann -- skohlmann@jenner.com -- Jenner & Block LLP. Richard V Spencer, Secretary of the Navy, Defendant, represented by David Christopher Nelson , U.S. Attorney's Office. UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Inflates Prescription Drug Prices, Sohmer Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ SAMANTHA SOHMER and KATHY L. FELLGREN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INC., UNITED HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC., UNITED HEALTHCARE INSURANCE COMPANY, OPTUM, INC., and OPTUMRX, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 0:18-cv-03191 (D. Minn., Nov. 15, 2018), alleges that Defendants caused Plaintiffs to be overcharged for medically necessary prescription drugs. The Plaintiffs bring this action, on behalf of themselves and two Classes of similarly situated persons, to remedy Defendants' common scheme to artificially inflate prescription drug costs. The Plaintiff alleges violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The Plaintiff, on behalf of the Non-ERISA Class, alleges state law claims for breach of contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, violations of the Minnesota Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and unjust enrichment. According to the complaint, About 90 percent of all United States citizens are now enrolled in private or public health plans that cover some, or all, of the costs of medical and prescription drug benefits. A feature of most of these plans is the shared cost of prescription drugs. Normally, when a patient fills a prescription for a medically necessary prescription drug under his or her health care plan, the plan/insurer pays a portion of the cost and the patient pays the remaining portion of the cost directly to the pharmacy in the form of a copayment (often a set dollar amount), coinsurance (often a percentage of the contracted rate), or deductible payment. Defendants directed the pharmacies to collect these cost-sharing payments on Defendants' behalf from patients at the time the prescription is filled. Pharmacies are not allowed to waive or reduce the amount collected under the plans. The Defendants administer health and pharmacy benefits provided to patients. Defendant OptumRx, a wholly owned subsidiary of UnitedHealth Group, serves as the prescription benefits manager to UnitedHealthcare members. PBM services include, inter alia: participating in managing a network of pharmacies that will serve as participating pharmacies at which Defendants' patients obtain prescriptions; working with the other Defendants to set and dictate co-payment amounts, coinsurance amounts, and deductibles (if applicable) to pharmacies; and processing prescription drug claims and interfacing with patients and pharmacies regarding applicable prescription drug coverage. The Defendants have engaged in a scheme to overcharge patients for the cost of medically necessary prescription drugs. Patients, including Plaintiffs and the members of the Classes, paid excessive charges to participating pharmacies for prescription drugs. Under their Plans, Plaintiffs' and the Class Members' cost-sharing amounts were limited to the amount paid to the pharmacy for prescription drugs. Unbeknownst to Plaintiffs and the Class Members, Defendants forced the pharmacies to misrepresent the cost-sharing amounts for prescription drugs and charge Plaintiffs and Class Members excessive amounts and forced patients to pay excessive cost-sharing amounts. Plaintiffs paid co-payments and co-insurance in excess of the cash price for their prescriptions. These excessive payments by patients were then collected by the pharmacies and "clawed back" from the pharmacies by Defendants, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq. Amanda M. Williams, Esq. David A. Goodwin, Esq. GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC Canadian Pacific Plaza 120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 333-8844 E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com awilliams@gustafsongluek.com dgoodwin@gustafsongluek.com - and - Robert A. Izard, Esq. Craig A. Raabe, Esq. Christopher M. Barrett, Esq. IZARD, KINDALL & RAABE, LLP 29 South Main Street, Suite 305 West Hartford, CT 06107 Telephone: 860-493-6292 Facsimile: 860-493-6290 E-mail: rizard@ikrlaw.com craabe@ikrlaw.com cbarrett@ikrlaw.com - and - William H. Narwold, Esq. Mathew Jasinski, Esq. MOTLEY RICE LLC One Corporate Center 20 Church Street, 17th Floor Hartford, CT 06103 Telephone: 860-882-1681 Facsimile: 860-882-1682 E-mail: bnarwold@motleyrice.com mjasinski@motleyrice.com - and - Derek W. Loeser, Esq. Gretchen S. Obrist, Esq. Matthew Gerend, Esq. Garrett Heilma, Esq.n KELLER ROHRBACK, LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98101-3052 Telephone: 206-623-1900 Facsimile: 206-623-3384 E-mail: dloeser@kellerrohrback.com gobrist@kellerrohrback.com mgerend@kellerrohrback.com gheilman@kellerrohrback.com - and - Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq. Carey Alexander, Esq. Erin Green Comite, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP The Helmsley Building 230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor New York, NY 10169 Telephone: 212-223-6444 Facsimile: 212-223-6334 E-mail: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com calexander@scott-scott.com ecomite@scott-scott.com - and - Ronen Sarraf, Esq. Joseph Gentile, Esq. SARRAF GENTILE LLP 14 Bond Street, Suite 212 Great Neck, NY 11021 Telephone: 516-699-8890 Facsimile: 516-699-8968 ronen@sarrafgentile.com E-mail: joseph@sarrafgentile.com WAL-MART ASSOCIATES: Loses Bid to Decertify Meal Period Class ------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Lucy H. Koh denies Wal-Mart's motion to decertify the meal period class certified in the lawsuit captioned RODERICK MAGADIA v. WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC., et al., Case No. 5:17-cv-00062-LHK (N.D. Cal.). Roderick Magadia brings a class action against Defendants Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and Wal-Mart Associates, Inc., that alleges that Wal-Mart denies its employees adequate meal period premiums in violation of California Labor Code Section 226.7. In January 2018, the Court certified three classes: the meal period class, the OVERTIME/INCT wage statement class, and the final wage statement class. Now, Wal-Mart moves to decertify the meal period class. Having considered the parties' submissions, the relevant law, and the record in this case, the Court denies Wal-Mart's motion to decertify the meal period class. The Court determined in its class certification order that with respect to Wal-Mart's liability to class members, common questions predominated over individualized inquiries because Wal-Mart's own records "document why each meal exception happened." "The evidence submitted with the instant motion continues to demonstrate that Wal-Mart's own records -- specifically, the EMS codes generated after a meal period exception investigation -- enable the Court to evaluate Wal-Mart's liability to class members 'on a class-wide basis,' which warrants certification," Judge Koh opines.[CC] WESTPAC BANKING: Australian Class Action Still Stayed ----------------------------------------------------- Westpac Banking Corporation said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2018, for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2018, that the class action suit filed before the Federal Court of Australia has been stayed. On October 12, 2017, a class action was filed in the Federal Court of Australia on behalf of customers who, since October 2011, obtained insurance issued by Westpac Life Insurance Services Limited (WLIS) on the recommendation of financial advisers employed within the Westpac Group. The plaintiffs have alleged that aspects of the financial advice provided by those advisers breached fiduciary and statutory duties owed to the advisers' clients, including the duty to act in the best interests of the client, and that WLIS was knowingly involved in those alleged breaches. Westpac and WLIS are defending the proceedings. These proceedings are currently stayed by order of the Court, pending the outcome of an appeal concerning a procedural issue unrelated to the substantive claims made in the class action. Westpac Banking Corporation provides various banking and financial services in Australia, New Zealand, Asia, the Pacific region, and internationally. It operates through five divisions: Consumer Bank, Business Bank, BT Financial Group, Westpac Institutional Bank, and Westpac New Zealand. The company was formerly known as Bank of New South Wales and changed its name to Westpac Banking Corporation in October 1982. The company was founded in 1817 and is headquartered in Sydney, Australia. WORLD WRESTLING: Haynes Appeals Ruling in Retired Wrestlers' Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff William Albert Haynes, III, filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit styled Russ McCullough, et al. v. World Wrestling Entertainment, et al., Case No. 15-cv-1074, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut (New Haven). As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Oct. 5, 2018, the District Court issued a Memorandum granting the Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings in the case captioned RUSS McCULLOUGH, et al. Plaintiffs, v. WORLD WRESTLING ENTERTAINMENT, INC., Defendant, WORLD WRESTLING ENTERTAINMENT, INC., Plaintiff, v. ROBERT WINDHAM, THOMAS BILLINGTON, JAMES WARE, and OREALPERRAS, Defendants, JOSEPH M. LAURINAITIS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. WORLD WRESTLING ENTERTAINMENT, INC. and VINCENT K. McMAHON Defendants, Civil Action Nos. 3:15-CV-1074 (VLB) Lead Case, 3:15-CV-994 (VLB) Consolidated Case, Civil ACTION No. 3:16-CV-1209 (VLB) Consolidated Case. (D. Conn.). The Plaintiff's counsel, Konstantine Kyros, filed the first of six lawsuits on behalf of former WWE wrestlers, alleging they are either suffering from symptoms of permanent degenerative neurological conditions resulting from traumatic brain injuries sustained during their employment, or are at increased risk of developing such conditions. The appellate case is captioned as Russ McCullough, et al. v. World Wrestling Entertainment, et al., Case No. 18-3278, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant William Albert Haynes, III, is represented by: Charles Joseph LaDuca, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP 8120 Woodmont Avenue Bethesda, MD 20814 Telephone: (240) 483-4301 E-mail: charlesl@cuneolaw.com - and - Michael J. Flannery, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP 7733 Forsyth Boulevard St. Louis, MO 63105 Telephone: (314) 226-1015 E-mail: mflannery@cuneolaw.com - and - William M. Bloss, Esq. KOSKOFF KOSKOFF & BIEDER, P.C. 350 Fairfield Avenue Bridgeport, CT 06604 Telephone: (203) 336-4421 E-mail: bbloss@koskoff.com - and - Konstantine W. Kyros, Esq. KYROS LAW OFFICES 17 Miles Road Hingham, MA 02043 Telephone: (800) 934-2921 E-mail: kon@kyroslaw.com - and - Erica Mirabella, Esq. MIRABELLA LAW, LLC 132 Boylston Street Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 580-8270 E-mail: Erica@mirabellaLLC.com - and - Harris L. Pogust, Esq. POGUST BRASLOW & MILLROOD, LLC Eight Tower Bridge 161 Washington Street Conshohocken, PA 19428 Telephone: (610) 941-4204 E-mail: hpogust@pbmattorneys.com - and - Robert K. Shelquist, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P. 100 Washington Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-6900 E-mail: rkshelquist@locklaw.com Defendant-Appellee World Wrestling Entertainment, Incorporated, is represented by: Curtis B. Krasik, Esq. K&L GATES LLP K&L Gates Center 210 6th Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 355-6500 E-mail: curtis.krasik@klgates.com - and - Jeffrey Mueller, Esq. DAY PITNEY LLP 242 Trumbull Street Hartford, CT 06103 Telephone: (860) 275-0164 E-mail: jmueller@daypitney.com YAHOO! INC: Court Grants Final Approval of Wahl Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, issued a Judgment granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval to the Class Action Settlement Agreement in the case captioned ANDREW WAHL, Plaintiff, v. YAHOO! INC., a Delaware corporation dba RIVALS.COM; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants. Case No. 5:17-cv-02745-BLF. (N.D. Cal.). The Court certifies the following class for purposes of settlement: all customers in California who were charged on a recurring basis by Rivals.com for auto-renewal subscriptions entered into between March 31, 2013 and the present. Certification of this Settlement Class meets all requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The Settlement Class was provided with adequate notice of the settlement and an opportunity to object or opt out. The notice satisfied all applicable legal requirements, including those under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and the United States Constitution. The Defendant served on the appropriate government officials a notice of proposed settlement that complies with the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. Section 1715 et seq. The Settlement Agreement is fundamentally fair, adequate, and reasonable. The Court specifically approves the terms of the Settlement Agreement providing that class members who do nothing in response to the class notice will receive either 5 months (annual subscribers) or 3 months (monthly subscribers) of free subscription services to Rivals.com, and that class members may elect to receive either $20 in cash (annual subscribers) or $10 in cash (monthly subscribers) in lieu of free subscription services. The Court approves Defendant's agreement to modify the subscription page for Rivals.com. The Court also approves the release language set forth in the Settlement Agreement. Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the Defendant shall pay the Settlement Administrator's reasonable fees and expenses. Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, Plaintiff Yuan Guo is granted an incentive award in the amount of $5,000, to be paid by Defendant. Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the Plaintiff is awarded attorneys' fees in the amount of $285,313.66 and expenses in the amount of $14,686.34, to be paid by the Defendant. No class members having opted out of the class, all members of the Settlement Class are enjoined from asserting, or attempting to assert, any of the claims released by the Settlement Agreement. All class claims against Defendant are dismissed with prejudice and without costs, with the exception of the award of attorneys' fees and expenses herein. Without affecting the finality of the dismissal or of this Judgment, the Court retains jurisdiction over all parties to this action and all Settlement Class members for the purpose of implementing and enforcing the Settlement Agreement. A full-text copy of the District Court's November 15, 2018 Judgment is available at https://tinyurl.com/ybxfu68l from Leagle.com. Juan Guo, Plaintiff, represented by Robert Allen Horn -- rhorn@hab-law.com -- Horn Aylward and Bandy, LLC, pro hac vice & Joseph Kronawitter -- jkronawitter@hab-law.com -- Horn Aylward and Bandy. Yahoo! Inc., Yahoo! Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, represented by Timothy William Loose -- tloose@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Matthew Stewart Kahn -- mkahn@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Perlette Michele Jura -- pjura@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn Crutcher LLP & Peter C. Squeri -- psqueri@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher 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 ***