/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/181220.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Thursday, December 20, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 254
Headlines
2158 RESTAURANT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Velasquez Alleges
ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: $9.6 Million Settlement Wins Final Approval
ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Ohio Class Action Settlement Wins Final OK
ABR RECOVERY: Ephraim Files Suit under FDCA in New York
ADF MIDATLANTIC: Court Certifies Class Under TCPA in Keim Suit
ALFRED UNIVERSITY: Faces Camacho ADA Suit in S.D. New York
AMERICAN MUSICAL: Faces Camacho ADA Suit in S.D. New York
APPTIO INC: Faces Bushansky Class Action
ARROWHEAD PHARMA: Appeal Still Pending in Drug Research Suit
ARROWHEAD PHARMA: Backus Case Parties Ask Court to Stay Suit
ATKINS NUTRITIONALS: J. Colella OK'd to Replead NYGBL Claims
AVIS BUDGET: Court Denies Summary Judgment Bid in Bacon Suit
BISON LOGISTICS: Stoute Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
BRIDGESTONE AMERICAS: Sigmon Files Suit Under ADA
BRITISH AMERICAN: N.C. Supreme Court Affirms Dismissal of Corwin
CALDWELL UNIVERSITY: Faces Camacho ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CALIFORNIA FACULTY: Brice Seeks Refund of Union Fees
CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE: Faces Camacho ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CANON USA: Class Certification Sought in Startnet Business Suit
CCR REALTY INVESTMENTS: Faces Honeywell Suit in S.D. Florida
CENTRAL CREDIT: Betner Files Suit under FDCA in New Jersey
CEPHALON INC: PHI Appeals E.D. Pennsylvania Ruling to 3rd Cir.
CIRCLE K STORES: Faces Limon FCRA Suit in Calif.
COLLECTIONWORKS INC: Tenorio Disputes Debt Collection Letter
COLUMBUS COLLEGE: Faces Camacho ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CONVERGEONE HOLDINGS: Curtis Suit Challenges Sale to CVC Fund
CREDIT SYSTEMS: Certification of Class Sought in Whalen Suit
CREIG NORTHROP: Summary Judgment Bid in Baehr RESPA Suit Granted
DAVIDSON COLLEGE: Camacho Says Website Not Accessible to Blind
DMITRY SHCHUKIN: Soho Sues over Fraudulent Art Deal
EDGEWELL PERSONAL CARE: Court Narrows Claims in Anglin Suit
ELECTRIC BEACH: Mitchell Moves for Class Certification Under FLSA
EMM ENTERPRISES: Faces Vizcaino FLSA Suit in S.D. Florida
ESSA BANCORP: Oral Argument in RESPA-Related Suit Set this Dec.
FANNIE MAY CONFECTIONS: Crosson Files Suit Under Disabilities Act
FIFTH THIRD BANK: Faces Howards Suit for Breach of Contract
FIRSTCOLLECT INC: Seeks Final OK of $2.3K Foerster Suit Settlement
FLINT, MI: Wyant Appeals Decision in Waid Suit to Sixth Circuit
FORNOS RESTAURANT: Prado Seeks to Recoup Unpaid Overtime Wages
FORZA GROUP: Fayo Seeks Overtime Pay, Hits Lack of Pay Slips
FRED'S INC: Oral Argument in Taylor Case Appeal in Jan. 2019
FRED'S INC: Settlement Reached in Eddington and Hudson Class Suit
FRED'S INC: Whitley Class Action in Ohio Still Ongoing
GENESCO INC: Continues to Defend Stewart Class Suit
GENESCO INC: Settlement Reached in Chen & Salas Suit
GENESCO INC: Ward Suit Transferred to S.D. Indiana
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Cook Amends Bid to Certify Two Classes
GREENWELL ENERGY: Medina Suit Seeks to Recover OT Under FLSA
HALLMARK AVIATION: Faces Glover Suit for Failure to Pay Overtime
HANK'S FURNITURE: Faces Pollard FLSA Suit in Arkansas
HOME BOY RESTAURANT: Faces Fischler Suit in S.D. New York
HOUDINI INC: Faces Martinez Class Action Under ADA
HP INC: Continues to Defend Jackson Class Suit
HP INC: Forsyth Class Suit Returned to Federal Court
HP INC: Settlement in Printer Firmware Update Litigation Underway
HYLAND SOFTWARE: Sullivan Files Suit under ADA in New York
J JILL INC: Pension Trust Suit in Massachusetts Still Ongoing
KEITH S SHINDLER: Certification of Class Sought in Thomas Suit
KERRY NAILS: Underpays Nail Technicians, Gao Suit Alleges
LAKEMOOR, IL: Wins Bid to Dismiss Knutson's Amended Complaint
MADISON PARK: Vega Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Elliot Sues Over Data Breach
MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Fox Sues Over Data Breach
MARRIOTT: Nouri Sues Over Data Breach
MCKESSON CORP: True Health Renews Bid for Certification of Class
MDL 2591: $1.51-Bil. Deal in MIR 162 Corn Case Has Final Approval
MDL 2626: Four Classes Certified in Contact Lens Antitrust Suit
MERCY HEALTH: Eighth Circuit Appeal Filed in Sanzone ERISA Suit
MICHELIN NORTH: Nixon Files Suit under ADA in New York
MORNING STAR: Seeks Prelim. OK of $246K McClain Suit Settlement
NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Accused by Dotson Suit of Violating FDCPA
NEVINS REALTY LLC: Fischler Files Suit under ADA in E.D. New York
NEW YORK, NY: Court Approves Class Settlement in Parker Suit
NISSAN EXTENDED: Arkliss Appeals D.N.J. Ruling to Third Circuit
NIXON ENGINEERING: Peery Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
NURSING CARE: Smith Moves for Certification of Class Under FLSA
OHIO: Mann Moves to Certify Class of Prisoners With Hepatitis C
OLIVER ADJUSTMENT: Class Certification Sought in Olbinski Suit
PARAGON SPORTS: Delacruz Says Website Not Accessible to Blind
PELLA CORP: Faces Nixon ADA Class Action
PILOT CORPORATION: Seeks 6th Cir. Review of Decision in "Taylor"
PORTARO GROUP: Fails to Properly Pay Sales Agents, Griffin Claims
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Marsh Seeks Prelim. Nod of Class Settlement
PROFESSIONAL RECOVERY: Thillen Files Suit under FDCA in Wisconsin
QUANTUM ELECTRONIC: Fabricant Hits Illegal Telemarketing Calls
QUICKSILVER CAPITAL: Forget Me Not Alleges RICO Act Violations
RECOVERY SOLUTIONS: Not a Licensed Debt Collector, Giles Says
SAMSONITE CO: Rattanawong Files Suit in Calif. Super. Ct.
SAULSBURY INDUSTRIES: Bryer Moves for Certification of FLSA Class
SHEPHARD'S BEACH: Borozny Files Suit under ADA in Florida
SKC ENTERPRISES: Davis' Bid to Certify Class Denied as Premature
STAGE STORES: Class of Employees Certified in Crosby FLSA Suit
SUBARU OF AMERICA: Faces Amato et al. Suit in New Jersey
SUPERIOR HAULING: North Suit Asserts Calif. Labor Code Violation
TAILORED BRANDS: Continues to Defend Twin Hill Suit Underway
TAILORED BRANDS: Settlement Reached in Oliver Class Suit
TANGER FACTORY: Violates ADA, Sigmon Suit Asserts
TESLA ENGINEERING: Garcia Seeks to Recover Overtime Under FLSA
TICC INVESTMENTS: Honeywell Suit Asserts Disabilities Act
TICKETMASTER LLC: Niedbalski Sues Over Inflated Ticket Prices
TIPS INC: Delivery Driver Seeks Expense Reimbursement
TOYOTA MOTOR: Weinreich Files Product Liability Suit in S.C.
UNITED STATES: Fourth Circuit Appeal Filed in Sanchez-Acosta Suit
UNIVERSITY OF BRIDGEPORT: Faces Camacho Suit in S.D. New York
VERU INC: Discovery Underway in Suit over Aspen Park Acquisition
WELLS FARGO: Fowler Seeks Final Approval of $30-Mil. Settlement
WESTSIDE TOMATO: Failed to Pay Workers' Wages, Sarit Asserts
YARDLEY CAR CO: Carnevali Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
*********
2158 RESTAURANT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Velasquez Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
ALEX VELASQUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 2158 RESTAURANT CORP. d/b/a MANNINO'S;
GUISEPPE MANNINO; GINACARLO MANNINO; and FRANCESCO MANNINO,
Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-06465 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 13, 2018) seeks
to recover from the Defendants unpaid minimum wages, overtime
wages, spread of hours pay, and damages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
The Plaintiff Velasquez was employed by the Defendants as
non-exempt employee.
2158 Restaurant Corp. d/b/a Mannino's is a corporation organized
and existing under the laws of the State of New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Peter A. Romero, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF PETER A. ROMERO PLLC
825 Veterans Highway-Ste. B
Hauppauge, NY 11788
Telephone: (631) 257-5588
E-mail: promero@romerolawny.com
ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: $9.6 Million Settlement Wins Final Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
Abercrombie & Fitch Co. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on December 12, 2018, for
the fiscal year ended November 3, 2018, that the $9.6 million
settlement of a class action lawsuit has been granted final
approval by a district court in California.
The Company was a defendant in certain other class action lawsuits
filed by former associates of the Company. These lawsuits, assigned
to the same judge in a U.S. District Court of California, alleged
non-exempt hourly associates of the Company were not properly
compensated, in violation of federal and California law, for
call-in practices requiring associates to engage in certain
pre-shift activities in order to determine whether they should
report to work and the Company's alleged failure to pay reporting
time pay and all wages earned at termination.
In addition, these lawsuits included derivative claims alleging
inaccurate wage statements and unfair competition under California
state law on behalf of non-exempt hourly associates.
One of these lawsuits was mediated and the parties involved have
signed a $9.6 million settlement agreement, which was preliminary
approved by a U.S. District Court of California.
On November 20, 2018 the U.S. District Court of California granted
final approval of the proposed settlement, which will result in a
full and final settlement of all claims made therein for an
ultimate settlement amount of $9.6 million, to be paid by the
Company in the fourth quarter of Fiscal 2018.
Abercrombie said, "The ultimate settlement amount could be subject
to appeal from class members. As of November 3, 2018, the Company
had accrued charges for this legal contingency of $9.6 million,
classified within accrued expenses on the accompanying Condensed
Consolidated Balance Sheet. There can be no absolute assurance of
the ultimate outcome of this litigation."
Abercrombie & Fitch Co., through its subsidiaries, operates as a
specialty retailer. The Company operates in two segments, Hollister
and Abercrombie. Abercrombie & Fitch Co. was founded in 1892 and is
headquartered in New Albany, Ohio.
ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Ohio Class Action Settlement Wins Final OK
---------------------------------------------------------------
Abercrombie & Fitch Co. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on December 12, 2018, for
the fiscal year ended November 3, 2018, that a district court in
Ohio has granted final approval of the settlement of class action
lawsuits, which will result in a full and final settlement of all
claims in both class action suits initiated by the former
associates of the company.
The Company was a defendant in two separate class action lawsuits
filed by former associates of the Company who are represented by
the same counsel.
The first lawsuit, filed in 2013, alleged failure to indemnify
business expenses and a series of derivative claims for compelled
patronization, inaccurate wage statements, waiting time penalties,
minimum wage violations and unfair competition under California
state law on behalf of all non-exempt hourly associates at
Abercrombie & Fitch, abercrombie kids, Hollister and Gilly Hicks
stores in California. Four subclasses of associates were certified,
and the matter was before a U.S. District Court of California.
The second lawsuit, filed in 2015, alleged that associates were
required to purchase uniforms without reimbursement in violation of
federal law, and laws of the states of New York, Florida and
Massachusetts, as well as derivative putative state law claims and
sought to pursue such claims on a class and collective basis.
On December 12, 2017, a U.S. District Court of California granted
the parties' stipulation to transfer and combine the first-filed
lawsuit with the second-filed lawsuit then pending before a U.S.
District Court of Ohio.
Both matters were mediated and the parties signed a settlement with
a maximum potential payment of $25.0 million subject to a claim
process.
On February 16, 2018, a U.S. District Court of Ohio granted
preliminary approval of the proposed settlement and ordered that
notice of the proposed settlement be given to the absent members of
the settlement class.
On November 7, 2018, the U.S. District Court of Ohio granted final
approval of the proposed settlement, which will result in a full
and final settlement of all claims in both lawsuits on a class-wide
basis for an ultimate settlement amount of approximately $10.1
million, to be paid by the Company in the fourth quarter of Fiscal
2018, based on the actual claims made by members of the class.
As of November 3, 2018, the Company had accrued charges for this
payment obligation of $10.1 million, classified within accrued
expenses on the accompanying Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet.
Abercrombie & Fitch Co., through its subsidiaries, operates as a
specialty retailer. The Company operates in two segments, Hollister
and Abercrombie. Abercrombie & Fitch Co. was founded in 1892 and is
headquartered in New Albany, Ohio.
ABR RECOVERY: Ephraim Files Suit under FDCA in New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ABR Recovery
Services, LLC. The case is styled as Troy Ephraim, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ABR
Recovery Services, LLC and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-07021 (E.D. N.Y., December 10, 2018).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
ABR Recovery Services LLC is a debt collection agency located at
2915 Astoria Blvd, Astoria, NY 11102.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel Harris Kohn, Esq.
Stein Saks PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Tel: (201) 282-6500
Fax: (201) 282-6501
Email: dkohn@steinsakslegal.com
ADF MIDATLANTIC: Court Certifies Class Under TCPA in Keim Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Kenneth A. Marra granted the Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification in the lawsuit captioned BRIAN KEIM, an individual,
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. ADF
MIDATLANTIC, LLC, a foreign limited liability company; AMERICAN
HUTS INC., a foreign corporation; ADF PIZZA I, LLC, a foreign
limited liability company; ADF PA, LLC, a foreign limited liability
company; and PIZZA HUT, INC., a foreign corporation, Case No.
9:12-cv-80577-KAM (S.D. Fla.).
The certified class consists of:
all persons in the United States who received a text message
from Defendants wherein their cellular telephone number was
provided by a third party and said text messages were sent
using hardware and software owned or licensed to Songwhale
or Cellit between November 2012 and January 2013. Excluded
from the class are all persons who received a text message
from Defendants wherein their cellular telephone number was
provided by a subscriber of the calling plan.
The Plaintiff is appointed class representative, and his counsel is
appointed counsel for the class.
The action is based upon asserted violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff proposes certification of a
class of individuals numbering over 13,000, who began receiving
text messages from the Defendants after third parties texted the
cellular telephone numbers of the putative class members to the
Defendants.
In his order, Judge Marra rules that the Plaintiff's counsel shall
revise the representation agreement to remove the offensive
language in the "Exception for Individual Settlement Against
Attorney's Advice." Judge Marra grants the Plaintiff's Unopposed
Motion to Seal and directs the Clerk of the Court to correct the
docket to reflect that the document located at ECF No. 221, which
shall remain sealed, is not a motion and should not pending as such
on the docket.
The Motion to Strike is denied, and Motion to Supplement is denied
as moot. Within 14 days of the entry date of this Order, the
parties shall confer and file with the Court a joint proposed
schedule consistent with the dictates of this Order.[CC]
ALFRED UNIVERSITY: Faces Camacho ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alfred University.
The case is captioned as JASON CAMACHO, individually and on behalf
of all other similarly situated, ALFRED UNIVERSITY, Defendant, Case
No. 1:18-cv-10533-AJN (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 13, 2018) alleges violation
of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is assigned to
Judge Alison J. Nathan and referred to Magistrate Judge Barbara C.
Moses.
Alfred University is an educational and research institution. The
university's colleges and schools include the College of Business,
College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, College of Engineering and
Professional Studies, College of Ceramics, School of Art and
Design, School of Ceramic Engineering and Materials Science, and
the Graduate School. Alfred University was founded in 1836 and is
based in Alfred, New York.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18 St. Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
E-mail: nyjg@aol.com
AMERICAN MUSICAL: Faces Camacho ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
JASON CAMACHO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE AMERICAN MUSICAL AND DRAMATIC ACADEMY,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10535-PAE-KHP (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 13, 2018)
alleges violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case
is assigned to Judge Paul A. Engelmayer and referred to Magistrate
Judge Katharine H. Parker.
The American Musical & Dramatic Academy operates as a educational
facility. The University specializes in providing a curriculum that
focuses on acting and music. The American Musical & Dramatic
Academy offers an array of programs for its students to choose from
such as acting, dance theatre, musical theatre, and performing
arts. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18 St. Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
E-mail: nyjg@aol.com
APPTIO INC: Faces Bushansky Class Action
----------------------------------------
Apptio, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission filed on December 13, 2018, that the
company is facing a purported class action suit entitled, Bushansky
v. Apptio, Inc., et al.
On November 9, 2018, Apptio, Inc., a Delaware corporation ("Apptio"
or the "Company"), entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger
(the "Merger Agreement") with Bellevue Parent, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company ("Parent"), and Bellevue Merger Sub,
Inc., a Delaware corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of Parent
("Merger Sub"), providing for the merger of Merger Sub with and
into the Company (the "Merger"), with the Company surviving the
Merger as a wholly owned subsidiary of Parent.
On December 11, 2018, a purported stockholder class action lawsuit
captioned Bushansky v. Apptio, Inc. et. al., Case No.
1:18-cv-01954, was filed in the United States District Court for
the District of Delaware against the Company and its directors.
The lawsuit alleges, generally, that the Company and its directors
violated Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act"), and Rule 14a-9 thereunder by purportedly omitting
material information from the proxy statement issued in connection
with the Merger.
The lawsuit also purports to allege violations of Section 20(a) of
the Exchange Act against the Company's directors. The lawsuit
seeks, among other things, equitable relief that would enjoin the
consummation of the proposed Merger, rescission of the proposed
Merger to the extent it is consummated, and attorneys' fees and
costs. Additional similar lawsuits may be filed in the future.
The Company believes that the plaintiff's allegations lack merit
and will vigorously defend against this and any subsequently filed
similar actions.
Apptio, Inc. provides cloud-based technology business management
(TBM) solutions to enterprises. The company operates in the United
States, the United Kingdom, Germany, Denmark, the Netherlands,
Australia, Canada, France, Singapore, and Italy. Apptio, Inc. was
founded in 2007 and is headquartered in Bellevue, Washington.
ARROWHEAD PHARMA: Appeal Still Pending in Drug Research Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on December 11,
2018, for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2018, that the appeal
in the consolidated class action suit related to the company's drug
research program is still pending.
The Company and certain executive officers were named as defendants
in a putative consolidated class action in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California regarding
certain public statements in connection with the Company's drug
research programs.
The consolidated class action, initially filed as Meller v.
Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. 2:16-cv-08505 (C.D.
Cal, filed Nov. 15, 2016 ), Siegel v. Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., et al., No. 2:16-cv-8954 (C.D. Cal., filed Dec. 2, 2016), and
Unz v. Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No.2:17-cv-00310
(C.D. Cal., filed Jan. 13, 2017) asserts claims under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 regarding
certain public statements in connection with the Company's drug
research programs and seek damages in an unspecified amount.
Additionally, a putative stockholder derivative action captioned
Johnson v. Anzalone, et al., (Los Angeles County Superior Court,
filed January 19, 2017) asserting substantially similar claims is
pending in Los Angeles County Superior Court and is stayed pending
the related consolidated class action.
Two additional putative stockholder derivative actions, captioned
Lucas v. Anzalone, et al., No. 2:17-cv-03207 (C.D. Cal., filed
April 28, 2017), and Singh v. Anzalone, et al., No. 2:17-cv-03160
(C.D. Cal., filed April 27, 2017), alleging breach of fiduciary
duty by the Company's Board of Directors in connection with the
alleged facts underlying the securities claims, are pending in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California. The Lucas and Singh actions have been consolidated.
On December 21, 2017, the federal district court dismissed the
consolidated class action with prejudice. On December 27, 2017 the
plaintiffs appealed the dismissal to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Lucas and Singh actions are
stayed pending resolution of the Ninth Circuit appeal.
The Company believes it has meritorious defenses and intends to
vigorously defend itself in these matters. The Company makes
provisions for liabilities when it is both probable that a
liability has been incurred and the amount can be reasonably
estimated. No such liability has been recorded related to these
matters. The Company cannot predict the ultimate outcome of this
matter and cannot accurately estimate any potential liability the
Company may incur or the impact of the results of this matter on
the Company.
Arrowhead said, "With regard to legal fees, such as attorney fees
related to these matters or any other legal matters, the Company
recognizes such costs as incurred."
Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Inc. develops medicines for the
treatment of intractable diseases in the United States. Arrowhead
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was incorporated in 1989 and is headquartered
in Pasadena, California.
ARROWHEAD PHARMA: Backus Case Parties Ask Court to Stay Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on December 11,
2018, for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2018, that the
parties to the Bernstein (Backus) v. Anzalone, et al., No.
2:14-cv-09247 action, filed a stipulation to continue the stay of
the action pending resolution of the Ninth Circuit appeal in Meller
v. Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
The Company and certain of its officers and directors were named as
defendants in a putative consolidated class action in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California
regarding certain public statements in connection with the
Company's hepatitis B drug research.
The consolidated class action, initially filed as Wang v. Arrowhead
Research Corp., et al., No. 2:14-cv-07890 (C.D. Cal., filed Oct.
10, 2014), and Eskinazi v. Arrowhead Research Corp., et al., No.
2:14-cv-07911 (C.D. Cal., filed Oct. 13, 2014), asserted claims
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and sought damages in an unspecified amount.
Additionally, three putative stockholder derivative actions
captioned Weisman v. Anzalone et al., No. 2:14-cv-08982 (C.D. Cal.,
filed Nov. 20, 2014), Bernstein (Backus) v. Anzalone, et al., No.
2:14-cv-09247 (C.D. Cal., filed Dec. 2, 2014); and Johnson v.
Anzalone, et al., No. 2:15-cv-00446 (C.D. Cal., filed Jan. 22,
2015), were filed in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California, alleging breach of fiduciary duty
by the Company's Board of Directors in connection with the alleged
facts underlying the securities claims.
An additional consolidated derivative action asserting similar
claims was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court, initially
filed as Bacchus v. Anzalone, et al., (L.A. Super., filed Mar. 5,
2015); and Jackson v. Anzalone, et al. (L.A. Super., filed Mar. 16,
2015).
Each of these suits seeks damages in unspecified amounts and some
seek various forms of injunctive relief.
On October 7, 2016, the federal district court dismissed the
consolidated class action with prejudice. Following the dismissal
of the consolidated class action, the parties for the Weisman and
Johnson actions jointly stipulated to dismiss the actions, with the
parties bearing their own fees and costs. The parties to the
Bernstein and consolidated derivative action agreed to stay the
matters pending the resolution of the Ninth Circuit appeal of the
dismissal of the consolidated class action.
On February 15, 2018, the Ninth Circuit issued a memorandum
affirming the district court's dismissal of all claims. Plaintiffs
in the consolidated derivative action voluntarily dismissed their
case. The parties to the Bernstein action filed a stipulation to
continue the stay of the action pending resolution of the Ninth
Circuit appeal in Meller v. Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Case
No. 2:16-cv-08505 (C.D. Cal.).
The Company believes it has meritorious defenses and intends to
vigorously defend itself in each of these matters. The Company
makes provisions for liabilities when it is both probable that a
liability has been incurred and the amount can be reasonably
estimated. No such liability has been recorded related to these
matters. The Company does not expect these matters to have a
material effect on its Consolidated Financial Statements.
Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Inc. develops medicines for the
treatment of intractable diseases in the United States. Arrowhead
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was incorporated in 1989 and is headquartered
in Pasadena, California.
ATKINS NUTRITIONALS: J. Colella OK'd to Replead NYGBL Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOSEPH COLELLA, individually and on behalf of other
similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, v. ATKINS NUTRITIONALS,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-5867 (KAM) (E.D. N.Y.), Judge Kiyo
A. Matsumoto of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
New York granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's Motion
to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint.
Colella brings the action against Atkins Nutritionals alleging
violations of N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law ("NYGBL"), Sections 349 and 350,
in connection with the Defendant's alleged misleading labeling of
its Atkins line of food products. The Plaintiff's counsel has
filed putative class action lawsuits in federal courts in New York,
California and Missouri. In the putative class actions, the
Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants misleadingly labeled their
products as having low or no Net Carbs, despite the presence of
sugar alcohols, which the Plaintiff alleges affect blood sugar
levels, contrary to the claims on the Atkins Nutritionals products
packaging.ws
On Oct. 6, 2017, the Plaintiff filed his putative class action
Complaint. On Feb. 8, 2018, after a pretrial conference, the
Plaintiff amended the complaint. The Plaintiff's Amended Complaint
asserts three claims:(1) violation of NYGBL Section 349; (2)
violation of NYGBL Section 350; and (3) breach of express warranty.
The Plaintiff alleges that by including misleading statements in
its labeling, Atkins Nutritionals violated NYGBL Section 349 which
prohibits deceptive and unfair trade practices, and NYGBL Section
350, which prohibits false advertising. He seeks an injunction to
enjoin the Defendant's alleged deceptive practices in connection
with Defendant's alleged violation of NYGBL Section 349. Further,
the Plaintiff alleges that Atkins Nutritionals breached its express
warranty that its products would conform to Atkins Nutritionals'
written promises on it labels that its products contained minimal
'net carbs' and sugar alcohols contained therein had minimal and
effectively no impact on blood sugar, when its products did not
have the qualities promised.
On April 9, 2018, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss pursuant
to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 12(b)(6) on the bases that
(1) the Plaintiff's state law claims related to Atkin Nutritionals'
quantitative Net Carbs claims and calculation method are preempted
by federal law, (2) the Plaintiff's claims should be dismissed
pursuant to the primary jurisdiction doctrine, (3) the Plaintiff'
claims should be dismissed for failure to satisfy the pleading
requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8, (4) the Plaintiff fails to
adequately allege injury for his NY General Business Law claims,
(5) the Plaintiff's breach of warranty claims should be dismissed
as the Plaintiff failed to provide defendant with notice, and (6)
the Plaintiff lacks standing to seek injunctive relief. By letters
filed Oct. 12, 2018 and Nov. 2, 2018, the Defendant provided the
Court with supplemental authority supporting its Motion to
Dismiss.
Judge Matsumoto granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint as follows: (i) the
Plaintiff's NYGBL claims are dismissed with prejudice insofar as
they relate to the use of the phrase "Xg Net Carbs" while excluding
sugar alcohols and the calculation method for determining the
amount of Net Carbs; (ii) the Plaintiff's claim for breach of
warranty is also dismissed with prejudice; and (3) the Plaintiff's
NYGBL claims are dismissed without prejudice insofar as they relate
to the use of the phrase "Only Xg Net Carbs," and the portion of
the Atkins Nutritionals "Counting Carbs" label that states that
sugar alcohols "minimally impact blood sugar."
Among other things, the Judge finds that the Plaintiff's NYGBL and
breach of warranty claims regarding the Dfendant's use of the
phrase "Xg Net Carbs," and the Defendant's explanation of the
calculation method for Net Carbs that subtracts sugar alcohols and
fiber from total carbohydrates are preempted. He further finds
that the Plaintiff's claims regarding the "Only Xg Net Carbs"
statement on labels and the portion of the "Counting Carbs"
information box on the label of the Atkins Nutritionals products
that discuss the impact of sugar alcohols on blood sugar, are not
preempted.
The Plaintiff is granted leave to amend the complaint to replead
his NYGBL claims as specified. He will file the amended complaint
no later than Dec. 28, 2018.
A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 7, 2018 Memorandum and Order
is available at https://is.gd/34A7Re from Leagle.com.
Joseph Colella, Plaintiff, represented by Jason Barnes, Barnes &
Associates, pro hac vice, Matthew L. Dameron --
matt@williamsdirks.com -- Williams Dirks Dameron LLP, pro hac vice
& David Anthony Straite -- dstraite@kaplanfox.com -- Kaplan Fox &
Kilsheimer.
Atkins Nutritionals, Inc., Defendant, represented by Sandra Denise
Hauser -- sandra.hauser@dentons.com -- Dentons US LLP, Grant J.
Ankrom -- grant.ankrom@dentons.com -- Dentons US LLP, pro hac vice,
Gregory T. Wolf -- gregory.wolf@dentons.com -- Dentons US LLP, pro
hac vice & Michael J. Duvall -- michael.duvall@dentons.com --
Dentons US LLP, pro hac vice.
AVIS BUDGET: Court Denies Summary Judgment Bid in Bacon Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ABIGAIL BACON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. AVIS BUDGET
GROUP, INC., and PAYLESS CAR RENTAL, INC., Defendants, Civ. No.
16-5939 (KM) (JBC) (D. N.J.), Judge Kevin McNulty of the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey (i) denied the
Defendants' motion for summary judgment to compel arbitration; and
(ii) granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs' cross
motion for summary judgment denying arbitration.
The Plaintiffs have filed a putative class action against car
rental companies Avis and its subsidiary, Payless. The Complaint
alleges that the Defendant rent-a-car companies routinely charged
customers' credit and debit cards for ancillary products and
services that the customers had not authorized, or even had
declined. The Plaintiffs, car rental customers who allegedly
incurred such unauthorized charges, assert claims for damages under
New Jersey, Florida, and Nevada consumer protection and unfair
trade practices statutes, for unjust enrichment, and for
conversion. They also seek injunctive relief. The Plaintiffs
propose to certify a nationwide class action comprising five
subclasses.
The Plaintiffs filed their Complaint on Sept. 26, 2016. The
Defendants initially moved to dismiss the Complaint and compel
arbitration. Because the Defendants' motions to dismiss presented
issues of fact, Judge McNulty denied those motions as offered and
ordered limited discovery on the issue of arbitrability. In that
Opinion, the Judge described how discovery was necessary to develop
the record on the question of whether the parties agreed to
arbitrate so that the motion to compel could be decided on a
summary judgment standard pursuant to the framework outlined in
Guidotti v. Legal Helpers Debt Resolution, L.L.C.
Once discovery on the question of arbitrability was completed, the
Defendants filed the present motion for summary judgment to compel
arbitration. The Plaintiffs' cross-moved for summary judgment on
the same issue.
The Defendants' motion seeks an order compelling the plaintiffs to
arbitrate their claims on an individual basis. The Plaintiffs
oppose that motion and cross move for summary judgment that the
claims not be arbitrated, but proceed in the Court.
Judge McNulty denied the Defendants' motion for summary judgment to
compel arbitration; and (ii) granted in part and denied in part the
Plaintiffs' cross motion for summary judgment denying arbitration.
More specifically, the Judge denied outright the Defendants' motion
for summary judgment to the extent it rests on the agreements
signed in person by the Plaintiffs when they rented their cars in
the United States, and he granted the Plaintiffs' corresponding
cross motion to the same extent.
The Judge denied both the Defendant's motion and the Plaintiffs'
cross motion to the extent that they rest on the agreement signed
in person by the Plaintiff who rented her car in Costa Rica,
because factual issues remain.
To the extent the motions rest on the terms of service on booking
websites, the Judge finds that the record is not sufficiently
developed. After appropriate discovery, the issue may be resolved
on summary judgment or tried.
A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 7, 2018 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/9HgxsK from Leagle.com.
ABIGAIL BACON, ARCADIA LEE, JEANNINE DEVRIES, LISA GEARY, RICHARD
ALEXANDER, YVONNE WHEELER & GEORGE DAVIDSON, and on behalf of
themselves and the putative class, Plaintiffs, represented by Bruce
Heller Nagel -- bnagel@nagelrice.com -- Nagel Rice, LLP, David J.
Disabato -- ddisabato@disabatolaw.com -- Disabato & Bouckennooghe
LLC, Greg Michael Kohn -- gkohn@nagelrice.com -- Nagel Rice, LLP &
Lisa R. Bouckenooghe -- lbouckenooghe@disabatolaw.com -- Disabato &
Bouckennooghe LLC.
AVIS BUDGET GROUP, INC. & PAYLESS CAR RENTAL, INC., Defendants,
represented by Kellie A. Lavery -- klavery@reedsmith.com -- Reed
Smith, LLP, LAURA KATERI CONROY, REED SMITH LLP & SIOBHAN ANNE
NOLAN -- snolan@reedsmith.com -- REED SMITH LLP.
BISON LOGISTICS: Stoute Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------
Dillian Stoute, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated Plaintiff, v. Bison Logistics, LLC d/b/a Source Energy
Solutions, Defendant, Case No. 7:18-cv-00228 (W.D. Tex., December
10, 2018) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages
from Bison Logistics, LLC d/b/a Source Energy Solutions under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.
During the relevant period, Source utilized the services of
oilfield personnel like Stoute to work on its behalf. Many of the
oilfield workers Source employed, including Stoute, were staffed by
Source to third-party entities. Stoute, and the other oilfield
personnel like him who worked for, or on behalf of Source,
regularly worked more than 40 hours a week. But Stoute and the
other oilfield workers like him were not paid overtime, says the
complaint.
Stoute worked for Source providing water transfer services.
Bison Logistics, LLC d/b/a Source Energy Solutions is an Oklahoma
limited liability corporation doing business in Texas.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew Dunlap, Esq.
Richard M. Schreiber, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Phone: 713-352-1100
Facsimile: 713-352-3300
Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
rschreiber@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
Houston, TX 77046
Phone: 713-877-8788
Facsimile: 713-877-8065
Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com
BRIDGESTONE AMERICAS: Sigmon Files Suit Under ADA
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bridgestone Americas
Inc. The case is styled as Ted Sigmon, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Bridgestone Americas
Inc and Bridgestone Retail Operations LLC, doing business as:
Firestone Complete Auto Care, Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-03324-DCN
(D. S.C., December 10, 2018).
The lawsuit arises under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Bridgestone Americas, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
develops, manufactures, and markets tires and rubber products. It
offers passenger, light truck, commercial truck and bus,
agricultural, motorcycle, kart, aircraft, and motorsports and
racing tires; off-the-road tires for heavy duty applications for
construction, mining, aggregates, and industrial operations; tubes,
retreads, air springs, and rubber tracks; and medium and heavy duty
truck tires for the original equipment and replacement
markets.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory A DeLuca, Esq.
DeLuca and Maucher
PO Box 9
Goose Creek, SC 29445
Tel: (943) 572-1711
Fax: (843) 572-1285
Email: greg@delucamaucher.com
- and –
James L Ward , Jr, Esq.
McGowan Hood and Felder LLC
321 Wingo Way, Suite 103
Mt Pleasant, SC 29464
Tel: (843) 388-7202
Fax: (843) 388-3194
Email: jward@mcgowanhood.com
BRITISH AMERICAN: N.C. Supreme Court Affirms Dismissal of Corwin
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DR. ROBERT CORWIN AS TRUSTEE FOR THE BEATRICE CORWIN
LIVING IRREVOCABLE TRUST, on Behalf of a Class of Those Similarly
Situated, v. BRITISH AMERICAN TOBACCO PLC, REYNOLDS AMERICAN, INC.,
SUSAN M. CAMERON, JOHN P. DALY, NEIL R. WITHINGTON, LUC JOBIN, SIR
NICHOLAS SCHEELE, MARTIN D. FEINSTEIN, RONALD S. ROLFE, RICHARD E.
THORNBURGH, HOLLY K. KOEPPEL, NANA MENSAH, LIONEL L. NOWELL, III,
JOHN J. ZILLMER, and THOMAS C. WAJNERT, Case No. 56PA17 (N.C.),
Judge Mark Martin of the Supreme Court of North Carolina held that
the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the Business Court's
dismissal of the Plaintiff's claims against BAT.
The appeal arises from the agreement of Reynolds to purchase
Lorillard, Inc. Defendant BAT owned 42% of the stock in Reynolds
and agreed to fund part of the Lorillard transaction by purchasing
enough of the newly acquired shares to maintain that 42% ownership
interest. The terms of the agreement diluted the voting power of
Reynolds' other minority shareholders, including Plaintiff Dr.
Robert Corwin.
Plaintiff Corwin filed a class action complaint against BAT,
Reynolds, and a group of Reynolds' directors, in his capacity as
trustee for the Beatrice Corwin Living Irrevocable Trust and on
behalf of other stockholders similarly situated. The case was
designated as a mandatory complex business case to be heard by the
Business Court.
The Complaint (which, again, is the operative pleading) alleges,
among other things, that BAT was a controlling stockholder of
Reynolds, that BAT therefore owed fiduciary duties to the
Plaintiff, and that BAT breached those fiduciary duties through its
conduct in connection with the Lorillard transaction. Although BAT
was not a majority stockholder of Reynolds, the Plaintiff bases his
claim that BAT was nevertheless a controlling stockholder on
various aspects of the Reynolds-BAT Governance Agreement and BAT's
involvement in the Lorillard transaction. The Plaintiff claims
that BAT's control over Reynolds allowed BAT to negotiate benefits
for itself that were not shared with other Reynolds stockholders.
BAT, Reynolds, and the director Defendants moved to dismiss the
Plaintiff's Complaint. BAT argued that it was not a controlling
stockholder of Reynolds and did not owe fiduciary duties to the
Plaintiff under North Carolina law because it owned less than a
majority of Reynolds stock. It also argued that the Plaintiff's
claim was derivative and that the Plaintiff therefore lacked
standing because he had not made a pre-suit demand on the Reynolds
board, as North Carolina law requires before a plaintiff files a
derivative suit.
The Plaintiff, on the other hand, urged the Business Court to adopt
the standard that Delaware uses to determine whether a stockholder
is a controlling stockholder, which would impose fiduciary duties
on a minority stockholder who is found to be controlling.
The Business Court granted all of the Defendants' motions to
dismiss. Regarding BAT, the Business Court concluded that, even if
the Delaware standard applied, the Complaint failed to allege that
BAT exercised actual control over the Reynolds board regarding the
transaction. In reaching this conclusion, the Business Court noted
the "extraordinary" limitations that the Governance Agreement
placed on BAT's ability to control the Reynolds board.
The Plaintiff appealed the dismissal of his claims to the Court of
Appeals. In a unanimous opinion, the Court of Appeals reversed the
Business Court's dismissal of the Plaintiff's claims against BAT
but affirmed the dismissal of the Plaintiff's claims against
Reynolds and the director Defendants. The Court of Appeals used
the Delaware approach to determine whether BAT was a controlling
stockholder and concluded that the Plaintiff alleged enough facts
to support a reasonable inference that BAT was a controlling
stockholder. It also concluded that the Plaintiff had standing to
bring a direct claim against BAT because he sufficiently pleaded
that BAT owed him a special duty.
BAT petitioned the Court for discretionary review on various issues
related to whether a minority stockholder could owe fiduciary
duties to other stockholders under North Carolina law and whether
the Court of Appeals correctly found that a controlling stockholder
necessarily owes a special duty to other stockholders for standing
purposes. The Court allowed BAT's petition.
Considering the restrictions in the Governance Agreement, and
considering the absence of allegations of coercive or otherwise
controlling actions on the part of BAT, Judge Martin finds that the
Plaintiff has failed to allege that BAT exercised such domination
and control over the Reynolds board that BAT was indistinguishable
from a majority stockholder. Under the Delaware
controlling-stockholder standard, therefore, the Plaintiff's
Complaint on its face reveals the absence of facts sufficient to
make a good claim that BAT owed the Plaintiff fiduciary duties
because it controlled the Reynold's board, and it also discloses
some facts that necessarily defeat his claim that BAT could even
exercise such control.
Based on the foregoing, Judge Martin holds that Court of Appeals
erred in concluding that the Plaintiff's allegations, if true,
would satisfy the actual control test as that test is elucidated in
Delaware case law. Because BAT was not a majority or controlling
stockholder, it did not owe fiduciary duties to the other Reynolds
stockholders, and the Business Court properly dismissed the
Plaintiff's breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim against BAT.
The Judge accordingly reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals
on this issue. The Plaintiff has not appealed the dismissal of his
claims against the Defendant directors or Reynolds to the Court.
The dismissal of those claims is therefore not before the Court,
and the decision of the Court of Appeals as to those claims remains
undisturbed.
A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 7, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/SgB0Kv from Leagle.com.
Mullins Duncan Harrell & Russell PLLC, by Alan W. Duncan and
Stephen M. Russell, Jr. -- srussell@turningpointlit.com; and Block
& Leviton LLP, by Jason M. Leviton -- jason@blockesq.com -- pro hac
vice, for plaintiff-appellee.
Robinson & Lawing, LLP, by H. Brent Helms --
bhelms@robinsonlawing.com; and Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, by Gary
A. Bornstein -- gbornstein@cravath.com -- pro hac vice, for
defendant-appellant British American Tobacco PLC.
Bell Davis & Pitt, P.A., by Alan M. Ruley --
aruley@belldavispitt.com -- and William K. Davis --
wdavis@belldavispitt.com -- for North Carolina Association of
Defense Attorneys, amicus curiae.
CALDWELL UNIVERSITY: Faces Camacho ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Caldwell University
Inc. The case is captioned as JASON CAMACHO, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CALDWELL
UNIVERSITY INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-10563-AT (S.D.N.Y.,
Nov. 13, 2018) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities
Act. The case is assigned to Judge Analisa Torres.
Caldwell University (formerly Caldwell College and originally
Caldwell College for Women) is a Catholic liberal arts university
in Caldwell, New Jersey, United States. Founded in 1939 by the
Sisters of St. Dominic, the University is accredited by the Middle
States Association of Colleges and Schools, chartered by the State
of New Jersey and registered with the Regents of the University of
the State of New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18 St. Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
E-mail: nyjg@aol.com
CALIFORNIA FACULTY: Brice Seeks Refund of Union Fees
----------------------------------------------------
William D. Brice, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. California Faculty Association, Defendant,
Case No. 18-at-01792 (E.D. Cal., November 30, 2018), seeks the
return of union fees that the California Faculty Association
collected in violation of his First Amendment rights.
Brice worked for California State University (CSU) - Dominguez
Hills since August 1, 2014, where the California Faculty
Association (CFA) has acted as the exclusive representative of
Brice's bargaining unit in collective bargaining with CSU. Brice
resigned his membership in CFA around November 2014. Despite this,
he was still required to pay union fees as a condition of
employment. CSU automatically deducted these union fees from his
wages and pay them to CFA without his consent. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Steven L. Burlingham, Esq.
Gary, Till, Burlingham, & Lynch Law Partnership
1380 Lead Hill Blvd. Suite 200
Roseville, CA 95661
Tel: (916) 900-1336
Website: www.gtblaw.com
- and -
Milton L. Chappell, Esq.
Jeffrey D. Jennings, Esq.
National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, Inc.
8001 Braddock Road, Suite 600
Springfield, VA 22160
Telephone: (703) 321-8510
CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE: Faces Camacho ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against California Institute
of the Arts. The case is captioned as JASON CAMACHO, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF THE ARTS, Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-10575-GBD (Nov. 13, 2018, S.D.N.Y.) alleges violation of
the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is assigned to Judge
George B. Daniels.
California Institute of the Arts (CalArts) is an art institute
offering undergraduate and graduate degrees in visual and
performing arts. It offers programs in academic disciplines of art,
critical studies, dance, film and video, music, and theater. The
institute was incorporated in 1961 and is based in Valencia,
California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18 St. Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
E-mail: nyjg@aol.com
CANON USA: Class Certification Sought in Startnet Business Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff asks the Court to certify its lawsuit titled STARTNET
BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, INC. v. CANON USA, INC., CANON BUSINESS
SOLUTIONS, INC., CANON SOLUTIONS, INC., CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES,
INC., TOYOTSUGU KUWAMURA, PETER KOWALCZUK, ARTHUR McGINN, CHARLES
BRUSCHI, ELAINE LOUISE DeANGELO, BRIAN SAMUEL WALKER, ROBERT
LINDSEY, "JOHN DOE #l", "JOHN DOE #2", "JOHN DOE 3" AND "JOHN DOE
#4", Case No. 18-CV 2158 (NGG-vms) (E.D.N.Y.), as a class action
pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Startnet also seeks an order appointing a class counsel pursuant to
Rule 23(g).[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard E. Schrier, Esq.
SCHRIER SHAYNE KOENIG SAMBERG & RYNE, P.C.
825 East Gate Boulevard, Suite 320
Garden City, NY 11530
Telephone: (516) 739-8000
Facsimile: (516) 743-9375
E-mail: rschrier@schriershayne.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Richard H. Silberberg, Esq.
Joshua Colangelo-Bryan, Esq.
DORSEY & WHITNEY, LLP
51 West 52nd Street
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (212) 415-9200
E-mail: silberberg.richard@dorsey.com
colangelo.joshua@dorsey.com
CCR REALTY INVESTMENTS: Faces Honeywell Suit in S.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against CCR Realty
Investments, Inc. The case is styled as Cheri Honeywell,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. CCR Realty Investments, Inc., a Florida corporation,
Defendant, Case No. 0:18-cv-62996-DPG (S.D. Fla., December 7,
2018).
The lawsuit arises under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
CCR Realty Investments, Inc. is in the Security Brokers, Dealers
and Flotation Companies industry in Fort Lauderdale, FL.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jessica Lynn Kerr, Esq.
Jessica L. Kerr, P.A. dba The Advocacy Group
200 S.E. 6th Street, Suite 504
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Tel: (954) 282-1858
Fax: (844) 786-3694
Email: service@advocacypa.com
CENTRAL CREDIT: Betner Files Suit under FDCA in New Jersey
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Central Credit
Services LLC. The case is styled as Chandra Betner, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Central Credit Services LLC and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case
No. 1:18-cv-17064 (D. N.J., December 11, 2018).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
Central Credit Services, Inc. operates as an accounts receivable
management company. It specializes in the collection of primary,
auto, mortgage, commercial, credit card, installment loan, and
retail debt, as well as other types of accounts receivables. The
company was founded in 1987 and is based in Jacksonville, Florida
with additional facilities and call centers in St. Louis, Missouri;
Jacksonville, Florida; and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Central
Credit Services, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Central Credit
Holdings, Inc.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
YAAKOV SAKS, Esq.
Stein Saks, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Tel: (201) 282-6500 ext 101
Fax: (201) 282-6501
Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com
CEPHALON INC: PHI Appeals E.D. Pennsylvania Ruling to 3rd Cir.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Physicians Healthsource Inc. filed an appeal from a court
ruling in its lawsuit entitled Physicians Healthsource Inc. v.
Cephalon Inc., et al., Case No. 2-12-cv-03753, in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Nov. 16, 2018, the
District Court issued a Memorandum granting the Defendant's Motion
for Summary Judgment.
Physicians Healthsource, Inc., brought this putative class action
pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA),
as amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act (JFPA), asserting that it
was damaged by its receipt of two unsolicited advertisements sent
to it by facsimile transmission on behalf of Cephalon in 2009.
The appellate case is captioned as Physicians Healthsource Inc. v.
Cephalon Inc., et al., Case No. 18-3609, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Third Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant PHYSICIANS HEALTHSOURCE INC, individually and
as the Representative of a Class of Similarly-Situated Persons, is
represented by:
Ann M. Caldwell, Esq.
CALDWELL LAW OFFICE LLC
108 West Willow Grove Avenue
Philadelphia, PA 19118
Telephone: (215) 248-2030
E-mail: acaldwell@classactlaw.com
- and -
Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
Brian J. Wanca, Esq.
ANDERSON & WANCA
3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500
Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
Telephone: (847) 368-1500
E-mail: rkelly@andersonwanca.com
bwanca@andersonwanca.com
Defendants-Appellees CEPHALON INC., CEPHALON CLINICAL PARTNERS LP
and CEPHALON DEVELOPMENT CORP are represented by:
Nicholas H. Pennington, Esq.
Jason A. Risk, Esq.
Joseph E. Wolfson, Esq.
STEVENS & LEE
620 Freedom Business Center, Suite 200
King of Prussia, PA 19406
Telephone: (610) 205-6352
E-mail: nhp@stevenslee.com
jar@stevenslee.com
jwo@stevenslee.com
Defendants-Appellees SCIMEDICA GROUP LLC and SCIMEDICA GROUP
MARKETING RESEARCH AND CONSULTING LLC are represented by:
Jeffrey S. Downs, Esq.
76 South Main Street
Mullica Hill, NJ 08062
Telephone: (267) 468-0613
- and -
Carmen M. Finegan, Esq.
MCDONNELL & ASSOCIATES
500 Route 70 West
Cherry Hill, NJ 08002
Telephone: (856) 429-5300
- and -
Mark S. Halpern, Esq.
Sheryl S. Levy, Esq.
HALPERN & LEVY PC
1204 Township Line Road
Drexel Hill, PA 19026
Telephone: (610) 668-5460
E-mail: mark@halpernlevy.com
Third Party-Appellee BLITZ RESEARCH, INC., is represented by:
George A. Bochetto, Esq.
Tricia D. Clark, Esq.
Jeffrey W. Ogren, Esq.
BOCHETTO & LENTZ
1524 Locust Street
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Telephone: (215) 735-3900
E-mail: gbochetto@bochettoandlentz.com
jogren@bochettoandlentz.com
CIRCLE K STORES: Faces Limon FCRA Suit in Calif.
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Circle K Stores Inc.
The case is styled as Ernesto Limon, an individual, on behalf of
himself and other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Circle K Stores
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-01689-LJO-SKO (E.D. Cal.,
December 11, 2018).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to Fair Credit Reporting Act.
Circle K Stores Inc. is a Canadian-owned American multinational
chain of convenience stores. Founded in 1951 in El Paso, Texas, the
company filed for bankruptcy protection in 1990 and went through
several owners, before being acquired by its current owner,
Alimentation Couche-Tard, in 2003.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Emil Davtyan, Esq.
Davtyan Professional Law Corporation
5959 Topanga Canyon Blvd., Suite 130
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Tel: (818) 875-2008
Fax: (818) 722-3974
Email: emil@davtyanlaw.com
- and -
Kelsey M. Peterson-More, Esq.
Kingsley & Kingsley
16133 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1200
Encino, CA 91436
Tel: (818) 990-8300
Fax: (818) 990-2903
Email: kelsey@kingsleykingsley.com
- and -
Eric Bryce Kingsley, Esq.
Kingsley & Kingsley APC
16133 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1200
Encino, CA 91436
Tel: (818) 990-3800
Fax: (818) 990-2903
Email: eric@kingsleykingsley.com
COLLECTIONWORKS INC: Tenorio Disputes Debt Collection Letter
------------------------------------------------------------
David Tenorio, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. CollectionWorks, Inc., d/b/a CW Account
Services, a Georgia corporation, Defendant, Case No.
2:18-cv-02028-TMP (N.D. Ala., December 10, 2018) is an action under
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act for a finding that
Defendant's form debt collection letter violated the FDCPA, and to
recover damages.
Defendant CW sent Mr. Tenorio an initial form collection letter,
dated May 10, 2018, demanding payment of a defaulted consumer debt
he allegedly owed for medical services. Nowhere in Defendant's
letter did they advise Mr. Tenorio that a dispute as to the
validity of the debt had to be in writing to be effective, and so
that he could require Defendant CW to provide validation of the
debt.
The FDCPA requires that, within 5 days of Defendant's first
communication to a consumer, they had to provide the consumer with
an effective validation notice, containing, among other
disclosures, "a statement that if the consumer notifies the debt
collector in writing within the thirty-day period that the debt, or
any portion thereof, is disputed, the debt collector will obtain
verification of the debt". Nowhere in Defendant CW's May 10, 2018
initial collection letter to Plaintiff does it state that
Plaintiff's dispute to Defendant CW had to be in writing to protect
his right to obtain validation of the debt. Defendant CW's
violation of the FDCPA renders it liable for statutory damages,
costs, and reasonable attorneys' fees, says the complaint.
Plaintiff, David Tenorio is a citizen of the State of Alabama,
residing in the Northern District of Alabama, from whom Defendant
attempted to collect a defaulted consumer debt, which he allegedly
owed for medical services.
CollectionWorks, Inc., d/b/a CW Account Services ("CW"), is Georgia
corporation that acts as a debt collector, as defined by the FDCPA,
because it regularly uses the mails and/or the telephone to
collect, or attempt to collect, defaulted consumer debts. Defendant
CW operates a debt collection business and attempts to collect
debts from consumers in virtually every state, including consumers
in the State of Alabama.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David J. Philipps, Esq.
Mary E. Philipps, Esq.
Philipps & Philipps, Ltd.
9760 S. Roberts Road, Suite One
Palos Hills, IL 60465
Phone: (708) 974-2900
Fax: (708) 974-2907
Email: davephilipps@aol.com
mephilipps@aol.com
- and -
Bradford W. Botes, Esq.
Bond, Botes, Reese & Shinn, P.C.
15 Southlake Lane, Suite 140
Birmingham, AL 35244
Phone: (205) 802-2200
Facsimile: (205) 870-3698
Email: bbotes@bondnbotes.com
COLUMBUS COLLEGE: Faces Camacho ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Columbus College of
Art & Design. The case is captioned as JASON CAMACHO, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
COLUMBUS COLLEGE OF ART & DESIGN, Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-10571-GBD (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 13, 2018) alleges violation of
the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is assigned to Judge
George B. Daniels.
Columbus College of Art & Design (CCAD) is a private college of art
and design located in downtown Columbus, Ohio. Founded in 1879 as
the Columbus Art School, CCAD is one of the oldest private art and
design colleges in the United States. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18 St. Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
E-mail: nyjg@aol.com
CONVERGEONE HOLDINGS: Curtis Suit Challenges Sale to CVC Fund
-------------------------------------------------------------
MARCY C. CURTIS, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. CONVERGEONE HOLDINGS, INC., JOHN A. MCKENNA JR., KEITH
W.F. BRADLEY, BEHDAD EGHBALI, JOSE E. FELICIANO, CHRISTOPHER
JURASEK, PRASHANT MEHROTRA, JAMES PADE, TIMOTHY J. PAWLENTY, DAVID
BORIS, RICHARD KATZMAN, PVKG INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS INC., and PVKG
MERGER SUB, INC., Case No. 1:18-cv-01911-UNA (D. Del., December 3,
2018), stems from a proposed transaction, pursuant to which
ConvergeOne will be acquired by affiliates of CVC Fund VII.
On November 6, 2018, ConvergeOne's Board of Directors caused the
Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with PVKG
Intermediate Holdings Inc. ("Parent") and PVKG Merger Sub, Inc.
("Merger Sub," and together with Parent and CVC Fund VII, "CVC").
Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub commenced
a tender offer to acquire all of ConvergeOne's outstanding common
stock for $12.50 per share in cash. The Tender Offer was set to
expire on December 19, 2018.
The Defendants filed a Solicitation/Recommendation Statement in
connection with the Proposed Transaction. The Plaintiff contends
that the Solicitation Statement omits material information with
respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the Solicitation
Statement false and misleading. Accordingly, the Plaintiff
alleges that the Defendants violated Sections 14(e), 14(d), and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the
Solicitation Statement.
ConvergeOne is a Delaware corporation and maintains its principal
executive offices in Eagan, Minnesota. The Individual Defendants
are directors and officers of the Company.
Founded in 1993, ConvergeOne is a global IT services provider of
collaboration and technology solutions for large and medium
enterprises with decades of experience assisting customers to
transform their digital infrastructure and realize a return on
investment.
Parent is a Delaware corporation and a party to the Merger
Agreement. Merger Sub is a Delaware corporation, a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Parent, and a party to the Merger Agreement.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian D. Long, Esq.
Gina M. Serra, 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
gms@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
CREDIT SYSTEMS: Certification of Class Sought in Whalen Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Whalen moves the Court to certify the class described in the
complaint of the lawsuit entitled THOMAS WHALEN, Individually and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. CREDIT SYSTEMS OF THE
FOX VALLEY, INC., Case No. 2:18-cv-01914 (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
asserts.
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
CREIG NORTHROP: Summary Judgment Bid in Baehr RESPA Suit Granted
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PATRICK BAEHR, et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE CREIG
NORTHROP TEAM, P.C., et al., Defendants, Civil Action No.
RDB-13-0933 (D. Md.), Judge Ricahrd D. Bennett of the U.S. District
Court for the District of Maryland granted the Defendants' Joint
Motion for Summary Judgment.
Plaintiffs Patrick and Christine Baehr, individually and on behalf
of a class of consumers, bring the single-count class action
against the Defendants The Creig Northrop Team, Creighton Edward
Northrop, III, Lakeview Title Co., and Lindell Eagan, alleging that
the Defendants violated the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act
of 1974, as amended ("RESPA") through an illegal kickback scheme
whereby The Northrop Team received unearned fees from Lakeview
Title in exchange for referring clients to Lakeview Title for
settlement.
In 2008, the Baehrs retained Long & Foster Real Estate, Inc. as
their real estate broker to assist them in finding a new home.
Maija Dykstra, at the time a Long & Foster agent and member of the
Defendant The Northrop Team, led by the Creig Northrop, referred
the Plaintiffs to the Defendant Lakeview Title, run by its
President Defendant Eagan, for settlement. The Baehrs closed on
the purchase of the home on July 25, 2008.
On March 27, 2013, more than four and a half years after they
settled on their home, the Plaintiffs filed the instant suit on
behalf of themselves and a putative class, claiming that the
Defendants violated Section 8(a) of RESPA by using a "sham"
marketing agreement between The Northrop Team and Lakeview Title to
disguise an illegal kickback scheme whereby The Northrop Team
received unearned fees by referring the Plaintiffs and the putative
class to Lakeview Title for settlement.
On April 10, 2008, Creig Northrop and The Northrop Team entered
into a Marketing and Services Agreement. The Agreement provided
that, among other things, Northrop agreed to designate Lakeview
Title as its exclusive preferred settlement and title company and
to provide certain marketing services. In exchange, Lakeview would
pay The Northrop Team a flat fee of $6,000 per month, not
predicated on the volume of applications received by Lakeview from
Northrop customers for settlement and title services. Finally, the
parties agreed that the terms of the transaction described herein
is of a confidential nature and will not be disclosed except to
consultants, advisors and Affiliates, or as required by law.
Neither the parties will make any public disclosure of the specific
terms of this Agreement, except as required by law.
The Complaint alleged that Creig Northrop, Carla Northrop, and The
Northrop Team -- acting as agents on behalf of Long & Foster --
referred the Plaintiffs and members of the Class exclusively to
Defendant Lakeview Title for real estate settlement services as a
quid pro quo for compensation by Lakeview Title and Lindell Eagan,
President of Lakeview. They alleged that the Defendants concealed
this quid pro quo or kickback relationship first through a "sham"
employment agreement between Carla Northrop and Lakeview Title from
around 2001 through 2008, and then through the Marketing and
Services Agreement described above from 2008 through 2013.
With respect to the Marketing Agreement, the Plaintiffs' Complaint
alleged that rather than Creig Northrop and The Northrop Team
receiving a flat fee for marketing services of $6,000 per month
from Lakeview Title, the payments they received actually fluctuated
from $6,000 to $12,000 based on how many clients The Northrop Team
referred to Lakeview. Therefore, the Plaintiffs alleged that the
Marketing Agreement was a sham, designed to hide illegal kickback
fees under Section 8(a) of RESPA.
On June 9, 2015, the Defendants filed a Joint Motion for Summary
Judgment. The Motion argues that the Defendants are entitled to
judgment as a matter of law on two grounds: (1) the Plaintiffs do
not have Article III standing to bring their Section 8(a) RESPA
claim because they do not satisfied the injury in fact requirement;
and (2) discovery has shown that the Plaintiffs failed to file the
action within RESPA's one year statute of limitations, and their
claim is not entitled to equitable tolling.
The Court reviewed the parties' submissions and held a motions
hearing on Nov. 20, 2018.
Judge Bennett finds that there is no genuine dispute of material
fact that the Plaintiffs assert only a bare procedural violation,
divorced from any concrete harm and do not satisfy the
injury-in-fact requirement of Article III Standing. Accordingly,
the Plaintiffs do not have standing to bring their claim, and for
this reason alone the Defendants' Joint Motion for Summary Judgment
is granted.
The Judge next finds that when enacting RESPA, Congress
specifically provided that the statute of limitations period would
begin to run on the date of the occurrence of the violation. The
courts cannot toll indefinitely the limitations period for claims
under RESPA until a lawyer can find the right plaintiff to join a
lawsuit and notify other putative plaintiffs because doing so would
effectively write the statute of limitations out of RESPA.
The Judge holds that the Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that
their case presents the "rare instance" where enforcing RESPA's
statute of limitations would be unconscionable. Therefore, even if
the Plaintiffs had standing to bring their claim, the claim would
be barred by the statute of limitations and equitable tolling does
not apply.
For the reasons he stated, Judge Bennett granted the Defendants'
Joint Motion for Summary Judgment and entered Judgment in favor of
the Defendants. A separate order follows.
A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 7, 2018 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/OedcHk from Leagle.com.
Patrick Baehr & Christine Baehr, Plaintiffs, represented by Gregory
Todd Lawrence -- greg@lawcfl.com -- Conti Fenn and Lawrence LLC,
Glenn Russell Donaldson , Law Offices of G Russell Donaldson PC,
Michael James Silvestri -- michael@lawcfl.com -- Conti Fenn and
Lawrence LLC & Rachael Elaine Breen, Law Offices of G Russell
Donaldon PC.
The Creig Northrop Team, P.C. & Creighton Edward Northrop, III,
Defendants, represented by Jay N. Varon -- jvaron@foley.com --
Foley and Lardner LLP, Timothy G. Casey, Law Office of Timothy G.
Casey PA, Jennifer M. Keas -- jkeas@foley.com -- Foley and Lardner
LLP & John Augustine Bourgeois , Kramon and Graham PA.
Lindell C. Eagan & Lakeview Title Company, Inc., Defendants,
represented by Andrew C. White -- awhite@mdattorney.com --
Silverman Thompson Slutkin and White LLC, William Nelson Sinclair ,
Silverman Thompson Slutkin and White LLC, Jennifer M. Keas, Foley
and Lardner LLP & John Augustine Bourgeois -- jbourgeois@kg-law.com
-- Kramon and Graham PA.
Long & Foster Real Estate, Inc., Defendant, represented by John
Augustine Bourgeois, Kramon and Graham PA, Jennifer M. Keas, Foley
and Lardner LLP & Stuart M.G. Seraina, Kramon and Graham PA.
DAVIDSON COLLEGE: Camacho Says Website Not Accessible to Blind
--------------------------------------------------------------
JASON CAMACHO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DAVIDSON COLLEGE, Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-10587-ALC (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 13, 2018) is an action against
the Defendant for failure to design, construct, maintain, and
operate its website, WWW.DAVIDSON.EDU, to be fully accessible to
and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people in violation of the Plaintiff's rights
under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Davidson College is a private liberal arts college in Davidson,
North Carolina with a historic 665-acre main campus and a 110-acre
lake campus on Lake Norman. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 879-0240
Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
E-mail: nyjg@aol.com
danalgottlieb@aol.com
DMITRY SHCHUKIN: Soho Sues over Fraudulent Art Deal
---------------------------------------------------
SOHO CONTEMPORARY ART, the Plaintiff, vs. DMITRY SHCHUKIN, the
Defendant, Case No. 656191/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Dec. 12, 2018),
seeks judgment finding that Defendant has breached his contract
with Soho; converted Soho's property without right; committed fraud
with respect to the so-called "Ernok" transaction; and breached his
nondelegable duty of good faith and fair dealing with respect to
the transaction.
Soho brings this action to address the unlawful taking of $45,000
by Defendant in connection with the alleged sale of the "Ernok"
limited edition reproduction, an artistic work by Jean-Michel
Basquiat. In December 2016, Soho contracted with Defendant to
purchase the "Ernok" in order to resell it to a ready, willing, and
able buyer. Defendant took possession of Soho's $45,000 and,
thereafter, failed to remit the promised artwork. As a direct,
proximate result of Defendant's conduct, the Plaintiff has been
damaged insofar as it has not only lost $45,000 to Shchukin, but
also the lost profits it reasonably expected to receive in
compensation for the sale of the "Ernok" to its ultimate buyer.
Soho seeks monetary damages award equal to its loss plus its
anticipated profits, as well as pre- and post-judgment interest,
costs of suit, and reasonable counsel fees for bringing this
action. In addition, Soho asks the Court award punitive damages to
deter further conduct of this egregious nature. Soho, on behalf of
itself and all others similarly situated, demands a trial by jury
for all issues so triable in this action.[BN]
Attorneys for Plaintiff:
Justin M. Klein, Esq.
MARKS & KLEIN, LLP
63 Riverside Avenue
Red Bank, NJ 07701
Telephone: (732) 747-7100
Facsimile: (732) 219-0625
EDGEWELL PERSONAL CARE: Court Narrows Claims in Anglin Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, INGRID ANGLIN, COLLEEN GORMAN, PAUL LAMBRAKIS, ELIJAH
NATAL, MATTHEW NELSON, COURTNEY PARKER, and SHAYAN TARI,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiffs, v. EDGEWELL PERSONAL CARE COMPANY; EDGEWELL PERSONAL
CARE BRANDS, LLC; EDGEWELL PERSONAL CARE LLC; PLAYTEX PRODUCTS,
LLC; and SUN PHARMACEUTICALS, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
4:18-CV-00639-NCC (E.D. Mo.), Magistrate Judge Noelle C. Collins of
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri,
Eastern Division, granted in part and denied in part the
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss or Stay Plaintiffs' Complaint, or, in
the Alternative, Strike the Nationwide Class Allegations.
The Plaintiffs bring the putative class action mislabeling lawsuit
against the Defendants, on behalf of themselves and all other
similarly situated persons who purchased Banana Boat Kids Tear-Free
Sting-Free Continuous Spray Sunscreen, Banana Boat Baby Tear-Free
Sting-Free Continuous Spray Sunscreen, and Banana Boat Baby
Tear-Free Sting-Free Lotion Sunscreen, labeled as "SPF 50" or "SPF
50+."
The individual Plaintiffs allege they each purchased one or more of
these Products and allege that the Products were labeled as having
an "SPF 50" or "SPF 50+" but, in fact, had a lower SPF. The
Plaintiffs allege that in actuality, rigorous scientific testing
has revealed that the Products do not provide an SPF of 50, much
less "50+."
Specifically, the Plaintiffs allege that Consumer Reports magazine
reported in May 2016 that its own testing had revealed that Banana
Boat Kids SPF 50 sunscreen lotion had an SPF of only 8. In
addition, they allege that they conducted their own independent
testing utilizing FDA methods and that such tests demonstrated the
Products had SPFs lower than listed on the label. The Plaintiffs
allege that Defendants knew or should have known, based on testing,
that these Products have a lower SPF than stated on the label. Had
they known the Products contained less UV protection than
advertised, the Plaintiffs and the putative class members would not
have purchased the sunscreen, relied on it to protect them, or paid
as much for the product. As a result of the Defendants' false,
misleading, deceptive, and reckless labeling and marketing of the
Products, the Plaintiffs claim they and putative class members have
suffered economic injury by paying for a falsely advertised product
and being deprived of the full intended use of their purchased
sunscreen.
Based on these allegations, the Plaintiffs seek damages and
equitable remedies as set out in the following eleven counts:
Breach of Warranty (Count I), Breach of Implied Contract (Count
II), Unjust Enrichment (Count III), Illinois Consumer Fraud &
Deceptive Business Practices Act (Count IV), New York General
Business Law Section 349 (Count V), New York General Business Law
Section 350 (Count VI), New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (Count VII),
New Jersey Truth in Consumer Contract, Warranty, and Notice Act
(Count VIII), Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act
(Count IX), California Unfair Competition Law (Count X), and
California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, (Count XI).
The Defendants moved to dismiss or stay the case or, in the
alternative, strike the nationwide class allegations. They argue
that the Plaintiffs' claims fall under the primary jurisdiction of
the U.S. Food & Drug Administration ("FDA"), and, as a result, the
primary jurisdiction doctrine compels dismissal or a stay of the
case. The Defendants argue the Complaint should also be dismissed
because the Plaintiffs' claims are preempted in their entirety by
federal law.
In the alternative, the Defendants argue several of the state law
claims should be dismissed because the Plaintiffs have not pleaded
essential elements of their state law claims, and thus fail to
state a claim for relief. Finally, and also in the alternative,
the Defendants move the Court to enter an order striking the
Plaintiffs' nationwide class allegations, arguing that individual
issues predominate.
Magistrate Judge Collins explains that primary jurisdiction is a
common law doctrine used to coordinate judicial and administrative
decision making. There is no "fixed formula" for deciding whether
an agency has primary jurisdiction over a case. The doctrine is to
be invoked sparingly, as it often results in added expense and
delay. Considering the reasons for applying the doctrine, and in
light of the Eighth Circuit's caution that the doctrine should be
invoked sparingly, she declines to apply the primary jurisdiction
doctrine in the case.
Next, in the interests of justice and given the early stage of the
litigation, the Magistrate finds it prudent to allow the Plaintiffs
to amend their Complaint to address the Defendants' concerns about
their independent testing, consistent with other courts
interpreting FDA testing requirements at the pleading stage. In
fact, in another Banana Boat sunscreen SPF mislabeling case
involving almost identical allegations and parallel preemption
arguments, the court in the Eastern District of New York ordered
the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint addressing concerns
regarding their compliance with FDA testing results. For these
reasons, the Magistrate will grant the Defendants' motion to
dismiss based on preemption in part, allowing the Plaintiffs leave
to amend their Complaint.
Finally, she holds that the Court will exercise its discretion and
decline to strike the nationwide class allegations at this time.
She finds that the Plaintiffs may likely have difficulty satisfying
the predominance requirements on these nationwide claims based on
the case law cited by the Defendants. At this point in the
proceeding, however, she finds it proper to allow the Plaintiffs to
conduct discovery or to motion the Court and provide additional
briefing to determine whether the prerequisites of Rule 23 can be
satisfied.
Accordingly, Magistrate Judge Collins granted in part and denied in
part the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss or Stay Plaintiff's
Complaint, or, in the Alternative, Strike the Nationwide Class
Allegations. She denied without prejudice the Defendants' motion
to dismiss or stay the proceedings based on the primary
jurisdiction doctrine, and granted in part their motion to dismiss
based on federal preemption.
The Magistrate denied as moot the Defendants' motion to dismiss
Counts V, VI, VII, VIII, X, and XI. She denied without prejudice
the Defendants' motion to strike the Plaintiffs' nationwide class
allegations.
The Plaintiffs will file a first amended complaint no later than 30
days from the date of the Order.
A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 7, 2018 Memorandum and Order
is available at https://is.gd/Ps4Guw from Leagle.com.
Ingrid Anglin, Colleen Gorman, Paul Lambrakis, Elijah Natal,
Matthew Nelson, Courtney Parker & Shayan Tari, Individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by
Carl V. Malmstrom -- malmstrom@whafh.com -- WOLF AND HALDENSTEIN
LLC, Stephen Patrick DeNittis -- sdenittis@denittislaw.com --
DENITTIS AND OSEFCHEN, P.C., pro hac vice & Janine Lee Pollack, THE
SULTZER LAW GROUP, PC.
Edgewell Personal Care Company, Edgewell Personal Care Brands, LLC,
Edgewell Personal Care LLC, Playtex Products, LLC & Sun
Pharmaceuticals, LLC, Defendants, represented by Jon A. Santangelo
-- jon.santangelo@stinson.com -- STINSON AND LEONARD LLP, Armando
Cordoves, Jr. -- acordoves@HuntonAK.com -- HUNTON ANDREWS LLP,
Samuel Alberto Danon -- sdanon@HuntonAK.com -- HUNTON ANDREWS LLP &
Thomas Richard Waskom -- twaskom@HuntonAK.com -- HUNTON ANDREWS
LLP.
ELECTRIC BEACH: Mitchell Moves for Class Certification Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned Angelica Mitchell,
individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated as
class representative under Illinois Law and/or as members of the
Collective as permitted under the Fair Labor Standards Act v.
Electric Beach Tanning Salon Ltd., V F V Inc., Ultramax Industries,
Inc and MICHAEL A VOJACK as an individual under the FLSA and
Illinois Wage Laws, Case No. 1:18-cv-07475 (N.D. Ill.), asks the
Court for certification of a FLSA Collective Action, for Disclosure
of Potential Opt-In Plaintiffs' Contact Information, and for
Court-Approved Notice.
Ms. Mitchell asks the Court to order the Defendants to produce the
full names, aliases, addresses, phone numbers, e-mail addresses and
last date(s) of performance of all potential putative class
members, who worked for Defendants, and the last known work and
home physical and e-mail addresses and phone numbers of the
employees, who worked for the Defendants from November 12, 2015, to
the present.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John C. Ireland, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF JOHN C. IRELAND
636 Spruce Street
South Elgin, IL 60177
Telephone: (630) 464-9675
Facsimile: (630) 206-0889
E-mail: attorneyireland@gmail.com
EMM ENTERPRISES: Faces Vizcaino FLSA Suit in S.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against EMM Enterprises, Inc.
The case is styled as Lisa Vizcaino and other similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiff v. EMM Enterprises, Inc., a Florida Profit
Corporation and Ernesto Vega, individually, Defendants, Case No.
0:18-cv-63002-RNS (S.D. Fla., December 7, 2018).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Fair Labor
Standards Violation.
Emm Enterprises is a privately held company in Weston, FL and is a
Single Location. It was established in 2007 and incorporated in
FL.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brody Max Shulman, Esq.
Remer & Georges-Pierre, PLLC
Courthouse Tower
44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
Miami, FL 33130
Tel: (305) 416-5000
Fax: (305) 416-5005
Email: bshulman@rgpattorneys.com
- and -
Jason Saul Remer, Esq.
Remer & Georges-Pierre, PLLC
Court House Tower
44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
Miami, Fl 33130
Tel: (305) 416-5000
Fax: (305) 416-5005
Email: jremer@rgpattorneys.com
- and -
Miriam Brooks, Esq.
Remer and Georges-Pierre, PLLC
732 NW 134 PL
Miami, FL 33182
Tel: (786) 318-8430
Email: mcolmenarez@rgpattorneys.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Giselle Gutierrez, Esq.
Stearns Weaver Miller WeisslerAlhadeffSitterson, P.A.
150 W Flagler Street, Suite 2200
Miami, FL 33130
Tel: (305) 789-3200
Email: ggutierrez@stearnsweaver.com
- and -
Bayardo E. Aleman, Esq.
Stearns Weaver Miller WeisslerAlhadeff&Sitterson
Museum Tower
150 W Flagler Street, Suite 2200
Miami, FL 33130
Tel: (305) 789-3506
Fax: (305) 789-4146
Email: baleman@stearnsweaver.com
ESSA BANCORP: Oral Argument in RESPA-Related Suit Set this Dec.
---------------------------------------------------------------
ESSA Bancorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 14, 2018, for the
fiscal year ended September 30, 2018, that the appellate court has
scheduled oral arguments for December 2018 in a class action
appeal.
The Bank was named as a defendant in an action commenced on
December 8, 2016 by one plaintiff who will also seek to pursue this
action as a class action on behalf of the entire class of people
similarly situated. The plaintiff alleges that a bank previously
acquired by ESSA Bancorp in the process of making loans, received
unearned fees and kickbacks in violation of the Real Estate
Settlement Procedures Act.
In an order dated January 29, 2018, the court granted the Bank's
motion to dismiss the case. The plaintiff appealed the court's
ruling. The plaintiff submitted her brief in support of her appeal
in May 2018, and the Bank submitted its opposition brief in July
2018. The appellate court has scheduled oral arguments for December
2018.
ESSA Bancorp said, "To the extent that pending or threatened
litigation could result in exposure to the Bank, the amount of such
exposure is not currently estimable."
ESSA Bancorp, Inc. operates as the holding company for ESSA Bank &
Trust that provides a range of financial services to individuals,
families, and businesses in Pennsylvania. ESSA Bancorp, Inc. was
founded in 1916 and is based in Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania.
FANNIE MAY CONFECTIONS: Crosson Files Suit Under Disabilities Act
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fannie May
Confections Brands, Inc. The case is styled as Aretha Crosson,
individually and as the representative of a class of similarly
situated persons, Plaintiff v. Fannie May Confections Brands, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-06983 (E.D. N.Y., December 7, 2018).
The lawsuit arises under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Fannie May Confections Brands, Inc. produces gourmet chocolates,
fudges, and candies. It offers boxed chocolates, cheesecake,
chocolate and cookie cards, chocolate strawberries, chocolate bars
and squares, coffee and hot chocolate, dipped apples, gift baskets
and towers, truffles, and snacking; occasion gifts for everyday
gifting, anniversary, birthday, congratulations, get well soon,
just because, thank you, and Valentine's day occasions; and
business gifts. The company offers its products through its stores
in Illinois, Iowa, Indiana, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, Wisconsin,
and Canada; and online around the continental United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
Shaked Law Group, P.C.
44 Court Street, Suite 1217
Brooklyn, NY 11217
Tel: (917) 373-9128
Fax: (718) 504-7555
Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com
FIFTH THIRD BANK: Faces Howards Suit for Breach of Contract
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fifth Third Bank. The
case is styled as Troy Howards, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Fifth Third Bank, Defendant, Case
No. 1:18-cv-00869-MRB (S.D. Ohio, December 10, 2018).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as breach of
contract.
Fifth Third Bank is a bank headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio, at
Fifth Third Center. It is the principal subsidiary of Fifth Third
Bancorp, a bank holding company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sophia Goren Gold, Esq.
Kaliel PLLC
1875 Connecticut Ave NW 10th Floor
Washington, DC 20009
Tel: (202) 350-4783
Email: sgold@kalielpllc.com
FIRSTCOLLECT INC: Seeks Final OK of $2.3K Foerster Suit Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the lawsuit styled as TAMRA FOERSTER, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FIRSTCOLLECT,
INC., Case No. 1:17-cv-01337-JEJ (D. Del.), jointly move for final
approval of their Class Settlement Agreement and Release.
The Agreement, which the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into
on July 2, 2018, received preliminarily approval by the Court on
July 12, 2018. The Agreement provides that FCI will create a class
settlement fund of $2,354 ("Class Recovery"), which the Class
Administrator, First Class, Inc., will distribute pro rata among
those Settlement Class Members, who do not exclude themselves. FCI
will pay $1,000 to the Plaintiff for her statutory damages, plus
$500 in recognition for her services to the Settlement Class.
In total, 178 Settlement Class members received actual notice of
the settlement. No Settlement Class members objected to the
settlement or requested exclusion from the settlement. Thus,
pursuant to the Agreement and subject to the Court's approval, each
Settlement Class member will receive $13.22, which represents their
share of the monetary benefits under the Agreement, and any
remaining funds will be donated as a cy pres award to company
approved of by the Court. The parties propose Community Legal Aid
Society, Inc.
The preliminarily certified class is defined as:
All Delaware consumers who were sent collection letters
and/or notices from Defendant, during the period of
September 21, 2016 to present, attempting to collect a
consumer debt owed to or allegedly owed to Kent Foot & Ankle
Center which stated "all partial payment accounts will be
charged a $4.00 partial payment fee for each payment
received."
The lawsuit alleges that FCI violated the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act by sending consumers written collection
communications that charged consumers $4 for each partial payment
received.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ari H. Marcus, Esq.
MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC
701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
Asbury Park, NJ 07712
Telephone: (732) 695-3282
Facsimile: (732) 298-6256
E-mail: Ari@MarcusZelman.com
- and -
Antranig Garibian, Esq.
GARIBIAN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
1010 N. Bancroft Parkway, Suite 22
Wilmington, DE 19805
Telephone: (302) 722-6885
E-mail: ag@garibianlaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Josiah R. Wolcott, Esq.
CONNOLLY GALLAGHER, LLP
267 East Main Street
Newark, DE 19711
Telephone: (302) 888-6271
E-mail: jwolcott@connollygallagher.com
FLINT, MI: Wyant Appeals Decision in Waid Suit to Sixth Circuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Daniel Wyant filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit titled Luke Waid, et al. v. Rick Snyder, et al., Case No.
5:16-cv-10444, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Michigan at Ann Arbor.
The appellate case is captioned as Luke Waid, et al. v. Rick
Snyder, et al., Case No. 18-2386, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, several
parties have filed appeals from various decisions issued in the
lawsuit.
Richard Dale Snyder is sued in his official capacity as Governor of
the state of Michigan. The state of Michigan is sued in its
capacity of operating the Michigan Department of Environmental
Quality.
The lawsuit is one of the eight cases consolidated for all
purposes, including trial, in the case captioned In re Flint Water
Cases, Case No. 5:16-cv-10444-JEL-MKM (E.D. Mich.).
The Plaintiffs seek recovery from the Defendants for alleged
injuries, damages and losses suffered by the Plaintiffs as a result
of exposure to the introduction of lead and other toxic substances
from the Defendants' ownership, use, management, supervision,
storage, maintenance, disposal and release of highly corrosive
water from the Flint River into the drinking water of Flint,
Michigan.[BN]
The Plaintiffs-Appellees are represented by:
Jordan W. Connors, Esq.
SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3800
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 516-3814
E-mail: jconnors@susmangodfrey.com
- and -
Diana Gjonaj, Esq.
Paul Francis Novak, Esq.
Gregory Stamatopoulos, Esq.
WEITZ & LUXENBERG PC
719 Griswold, Suite 620
Detroit, MI 48226
Telephone: (313) 800-4167
E-mail: dgjonaj@weitzlux.com
pnovak@weitzlux.com
gstamatopoulos@weitzlux.com
- and -
Julie H. Hurwitz, Esq.
Kathryn Bruner James, Esq.
GOODMAN & HURWITZ, P.C.
1394 E. Jefferson Avenue
Detroit, MI 48207
Telephone: (313) 567-6170
E-mail: jhurwitz@goodmanhurwitz.com
kjames@goodmanhurwitz.com
- and -
Deborah A. LaBelle, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF DEBORAH A. LABELLE
221 N. Main Street, Suite 300
Ann Arbor, MI 48104-0000
Telephone: (734) 996-5620
E-mail: deblabelle@aol.com
- and -
Emmy L. Levens, Esq.
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS AND TOLL PLLC
1100 New York Avenue, N.W., Suite 500-W
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 408-4600
E-mail: elevens@cohenmilstein.com
- and -
Cary S. McGehee, Esq.
Michael L. Pitt, Esq.
Beth M. Rivers, Esq.
PITT, MCGEHEE, PALMER & RIVERS
117 W. Fourth Street, Suite 200
Royal Oak, MI 48067
Telephone: (248) 398-9800
E-mail: cmcgehee@pittlawpc.com
mpitt@pittlawpc.com
brivers@pittlawpc.com
- and -
David J. Shea, Esq.
SHEA, AIELLO & DOXSIE
26200 American Drive, Third Floor
Southfield, MI 48034
Telephone: (248) 354-0224
E-mail: david.shea@sadplaw.com
Plaintiffs-Appellees RHONDA KELSO, individually and as next friend
of K.E.K., a minor child; DARRELL DAVIS; MARILYN BRYSON; TIANTHA
WILLIAMS, individually and as next of friend of T.W., a minor
child; and EPCO SALES, LLC, are represented by:
Keith L. Altman, Esq.
EXCOLO LAW, PLLC
26700 Lahser Road, Suite 401
Southfield, MI 48033
Telephone: (516) 456-5885
E-mail: kaltman@lawampmmt.com
- and -
Conrad J. Benedetto, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF CONRAD J. BENEDETTO
1615 South Broad Street
Philadelphia, PA 19148
Telephone: (215) 389-1900
E-mail: cjbenedetto@benedettolaw.com
- and -
Esther Berezofsky, Esq.
BEREZOFSKY LAW GROUP, LLC
210 Lake Drive East, Suite 101
Cherry Hill, NJ 08002
Telephone: (856) 667-0500
E-mail: eberezofsky@wcblegal.com
- and -
Jayson Edward Blake, Esq.
MCALPINE LAW OFFICE
3201 University Drive, Suite 100
Auburn Hills, MI 48326
Telephone: (248) 373-3700
E-mail: jeblake@mcalpinepc.com
- and -
Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN LLC
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 697-6484
E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com
- and -
Elliot M. Schaktman, Esq.
MARC J. BERN & PARTNERS LLP
60 E. 42nd Street
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 702-5000
E-mail: eschaktman@bernllp.com
- and -
Hunter J. Shkolnik, Esq.
NAPOLI SHKOLNIK PLLC
400 Broadhollow Road, Suite 305
Melville, NY 11747
Telephone: (212) 397-1000
E-mail: hunter@napolilaw.com
Plaintiffs-Appellees DAVID MUNOZ and ANGELO'S CONEY ISLAND PALACE,
INC., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
are represented by:
Andrew Patrick Abood, Esq.
ABOOD LAW FIRM
246 E. Saginaw Street, Suite 100
East Lansing, MI 48823
Telephone: (517) 332-5900
E-mail: andrew@aboodlaw.com
- and -
Teresa Ann Caine Bingman, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TERESA A. BINGMAN
1425 Ambassador Drive
Okemos, MI 48864
Telephone: (877) 957-7077
- and -
Cynthia M. Lindsey, Esq.
STROBL & SHARP PC
300 E. Long Lake Road, Suite 200
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304
Telephone: (248) 540-2300
Defendant-Appellant DANIEL WYANT is represented by:
Jay M. Berger, Esq.
CLARK HILL, PLC
500 Woodward Avenue, Suite 3500
Detroit, MI 48226
Telephone: (313) 965-8415
E-mail: jberger@clarkhill.com
- and -
Jordan Seth Bolton, Esq.
CLARK HILL, PLC
151 S. Old Woodward Avenue, Suite 200
Birmingham, MI 48009
Telephone: (248) 642-9692
E-mail: jbolton@clarkhill.com
- and -
Christopher Bradley Clare, Esq.
CLARK HILL, PLC
1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 1300, S.
Washington, DC 27713
Telephone: (202) 572-8671
E-mail: cclare@clarkhill.com
- and -
Michael John Pattwell, Esq.
CLARK HILL, PLC
212 E. Cesar E. Chavez Avenue
Lansing, MI 48906
Telephone: (517) 318-3043
E-mail: mpattwell@clarkhill.com
FORNOS RESTAURANT: Prado Seeks to Recoup Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mario Prado, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Fornos Restaurant Inc., a/k/a Fornos of
Spain, and Camilo Rodriguez, Individually, and Dario Lopez,
Individually, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-17033 (D. N.J., December
10, 2018) seeks recovery against Defendants for Defendants'
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the New Jersey State
Wage and Hour Law.
Beginning in approximately July, 2017, and continuing until
approximately early July, 2018, Defendants engaged in a policy and
practice of requiring Plaintiff and members of the putative
collective to regularly work in excess of 40 hours per week,
without providing overtime compensation as required by applicable
federal and New Jersey state law, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff has initiated this action on behalf of himself and
similarly situated employees to recover the overtime compensation
that Plaintiff and similarly situated employees were deprived of,
wages, attorneys' fees, and costs.
Plaintiff Prado is an adult individual who is a resident of
Elizabeth, New Jersey. Plaintiff Prado was employed by Defendants
full time as a restaurant worker performing duties in furtherance
of Defendants' business, specifically, pouring waters, bussing
tables, taking orders, setting dessert/coffee tableware, polishing
silverware, and setting tables, from in or about July 2017, until
in or about July, 2018.
Fornos is a New Jersey corporation, formed in or about 1976, with
its principal offices located at 47 Ferry Street, Newark, NJ,
07105.
Dario Lopez is a New Jersey state resident. Dario Lopez has been an
owner, partner, officer and/or manager of the Defendant Fornos.
Camilo Rodriguez is a New Jersey state resident. Camilo Rodriguez
has been an owner, partner, officer and/or manager of the Defendant
Fornos.[BN]
The Plaintiffs is represented by:
Andrew I. Glenn, Esq.
Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq.
JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A.
301 N. Harrison Street, Suite 9F, #306
Princeton, NJ 08540
Phone: (201) 687-9977
Facsimile: (201) 595-0308
Email: Jjaffe@JaffeGlenn.com
Aglenn@JaffeGlenn.com
FORZA GROUP: Fayo Seeks Overtime Pay, Hits Lack of Pay Slips
------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Fayo and Josh Mutschler, an individual, Plaintiff, v. Forza
Pipeline Services, Inc., Forza Safety, LLC and Albert Bernal,
Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00216, (W.D. Tex., November 30, 2018),
seeks unpaid regular hourly wages, unpaid overtime, liquidated
damages, attorney's fees and costs of suit and such other relief
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Forza provides roll-off dumpsters, portable restrooms, portable
hand-washing stations, potable water, above-ground septic tanks,
forklifts and manlifts and generators for the oil industry. Fayo
and Mutschler worked as Safety Coordinator and Safety Technician
respectively. Aside from failing to pay overtime pay, Forza also
failed to provide accurate wage statements, the complaint asserts.
[BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
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
FRED'S INC: Oral Argument in Taylor Case Appeal in Jan. 2019
------------------------------------------------------------
Fred's, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on December 13, 2018, for the quarterly
period ended November 3, 2018, that oral argument for the appeal in
the case entitled, Tiffany Taylor, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, v. Fred's Inc. and Fred's Stores of
Tennessee, Inc., has been set with the Court of Appeals for the
11th Circuit at the end of January 2019.
On March 30, 2017, a lawsuit entitled Tiffany Taylor, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. Fred's Inc. and
Fred's Stores of Tennessee, Inc. was filed in the United Stated
District Court for the Northern District of Alabama Southern
Division. The complaint alleges that the Company wrongfully and
willfully violated the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act
("FACTA").
On April 11, 2017, a lawsuit entitled Melanie Wallace, Sascha
Feliciano, and Heather Tyler, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, v. Fred's Stores of Tennessee, Inc. was
filed in the Superior Court of Fulton County in the state of
Georgia. The complaint alleges that the Company wrongfully and
willfully violated FACTA.
On April 13, 2017, a lawsuit entitled Lillie Williams and Cussetta
Journey, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
v. Fred"s Stores of Tennessee, Inc. was filed in the Superior Court
of Fulton County in the state of Georgia. The complaint also
alleges that the Company wrongfully and willfully violated FACTA.
The complaints are filed as Class Actions, with the class being
open for five (5) years before the date the complaint was filed.
The complaint seeks statutory damages, attorney's fees, punitive
damages, an injunctive order, and other such relief that the court
may deem just and equitable.
The Company filed a Motion to Dismiss the Taylor complaint, and
this Motion has been granted by the Court. Plaintiff's counsel has
appealed the Taylor complaint, which appeal is pending before the
11th Circuit Court of Appeals.
The Company filed, and the Court granted Motions to Remove and
Motions to Transfer the Williams and Wallace matters to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. Since the
Williams and Wallace matters were removed and transferred to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, the
Company has filed a Motion to Consolidate the Williams and Wallace
matters.
When the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss in the
Taylor case, the court simultaneously denied the Motion to
Consolidate, in light of the dismissal in Taylor. In the Wallace
and Williams actions, the District Court entered an order staying
both cases until the U.S Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit
decides on the appeal.
Oral argument for the appeal has been set with the Court of Appeals
for the 11th Circuit at the end of January 2019.
The company said, "Future costs and liabilities related to this
case may have a material adverse effect on the Company; however,
the Company has not made an accrual for future losses related to
these claims as future losses are not considered probable and an
estimate is unavailable."
Fred's, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, sells general
merchandise through its retail discount stores and full service
pharmacies. Fred's, Inc. was founded in 1947 and is headquartered
in Memphis, Tennessee.
FRED'S INC: Settlement Reached in Eddington and Hudson Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Fred's, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on December 13, 2018, for the quarterly
period ended November 3, 2018, that the Company and the named
plaintiffs in the case entitled, Abel Eddington and Judy Hudson,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
Fred's Inc., and Fred's Stores of Tennessee, Inc., have reached an
agreement in principle to settle the case for $250,000, including
plaintiffs' attorneys' fees, and the Court has accepted the
parties' notice of settlement and cancelled all pending deadlines.
On March 3, 2018, a lawsuit entitled Abel Eddington and Judy
Hudson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. Fred's Inc., and Fred's Stores of Tennessee, Inc. was
filed in the United States District Court Eastern District of
Texas, Marshall Division.
The complaint alleges that the Company committed various Federal
and state wage and hours violations. The complaint is filed as
Class Action and seeks back wages, attorneys' fees, and all other
damages allowable by law.
The Company denies these allegations and believes it acted
appropriately in its wage and hour calculations and payments. The
Company and the named plaintiffs have reached an agreement in
principle to settle the case for $250,000, including plaintiffs'
attorneys' fees, and the Court has accepted the parties' notice of
settlement and cancelled all pending deadlines.
The parties are currently negotiating the formal settlement
agreement and preparing the related court filings.
Fred's, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, sells general
merchandise through its retail discount stores and full service
pharmacies. Fred's, Inc. was founded in 1947 and is headquartered
in Memphis, Tennessee.
FRED'S INC: Whitley Class Action in Ohio Still Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------
Fred's, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on December 13, 2018, for the quarterly
period ended November 3, 2018, that the company continues to defend
itself against a class action suit initiated by Roxie Whitley.
On March 16, 2018, a lawsuit entitled Roxie Whitley, individually
and as next friend of Baby Z.B.D., and Chris and Diane Denson,
individually and as next friends of Baby L.D.L., on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, v. Purdue Pharma
L.P.; Purdue Pharma, Inc.; The Purdue Frederick Company, Inc.;
McKesson Corporation; Cardinal Health, Inc.; AmeriSourceBergen
Corporation; Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd.; Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.; Cephalon, Inc.; Johnson & Johnson;
Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Ortho-McNeil-Janssen
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. n/k/a Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Janssen
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. n/k/a Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Endo
Health Solutions Inc.; Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc; Allergan PLC;
Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. n/k/a Actavis, Inc.; Watson
Laboratories, Inc.; Actavis LLC; Actavis Pharma, Inc. f/k/a Watson
Pharma, Inc.; and Fred’s Stores of Tennessee, Inc. was filed in
the Circuit Court of Fayette County, Tennessee for the 25th
Judicial District at Somerville.
The complaint fails to allege any wrong-doing by the Company. The
Complaint is filed as a class action seeking various remedies
allowed under Federal and state laws. The Company denies any
purported wrong-doing.
On May 9, 2018, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of
Standing, a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Product Liability
Causes of Action, a Motion to Dismiss for Statute of Limitations,
and a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim on which
Relief may be Sought (collectively, the "May 9, 2018 Motions"). The
Court has not ruled on the May 9, 2018 Motions.
On May 9, 2018 this matter was transferred to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio as part of the
National Prescription Opiate Litigation Multidistrict Litigation.
Future costs and liabilities related to this case may have a
material adverse effect on the Company; however, the Company has
not made an accrual for future losses related to these claims as
future losses are not considered probable, and an estimate is
unavailable.
The Company has multiple insurance policies which the Company
believes will limit its potential exposure.
Fred's, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, sells general
merchandise through its retail discount stores and full service
pharmacies. Fred's, Inc. was founded in 1947 and is headquartered
in Memphis, Tennessee.
GENESCO INC: Continues to Defend Stewart Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------
Genesco Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on December 13, 2018, for the quarterly
period ended November 3, 2018, that the company continues to defend
itself against a class action suit entitled, Stewart v. Hat World,
Inc., et al.
On April 30, 2015, an employee of a subsidiary of the Company filed
an action, Stewart v. Hat World, Inc., et al., under the California
Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act on behalf of herself, the
State of California, and other non-exempt, hourly-paid employees of
the subsidiary in California, seeking unspecified damages and
penalties for various alleged violations of the California Labor
Code, including failure to pay for all hours worked, minimum wage
and overtime violations, failure to provide required meal and rest
periods, failure to timely pay wages, failure to provide complete
and accurate wage statements, and failure to provide full
reimbursement of business-related costs and expenses incurred in
the course of employment.
On April 17, 2018, the court issued a statement of decision in the
first phase of the case, finding that the plaintiff is an
"aggrieved employee" with regard to meal period and rest break
claims only, and not with respect to any other violations alleged
in the complaint and that she can represent other employees only
with respect to meal and rest break claims.
The Company intends to continue defending the matter.
Genesco Inc. sell shoes and hats. It operates Journeys, Journeys
Kidz, and Shi by Journeys stores that offer footwear for young men,
women, and children. It also operates Underground Station, Jarman,
Hat World, Lids, Hat Shack, Hat Zone, Head Quarters, Cap
Connection, Lids Kids, and Johnston & Murphy. The company was
founded in 1925 and is based in Nashville.
GENESCO INC: Settlement Reached in Chen & Salas Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Genesco Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on December 13, 2018, for the quarterly
period ended November 3, 2018, that Company has reached an
agreement in principle to settle the Chen and Salas and
Massachusetts suits.
On May 19, 2017, two former employees of the same subsidiary filed
a putative class and collective action, Chen and Salas v. Genesco
Inc., et al., in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA) and certain Illinois and New York wages and hours laws,
including, among others, failure to pay overtime to store managers,
and also seeking back pay, damages, statutory penalties, and
declaratory and injunctive relief.
On March 8, 2018, the court granted the Company's motion to
transfer venue to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Indiana. On March 9, 2018, a former employee of the same
subsidiary filed a putative class action in the Superior Court of
the Commonwealth of Massachusetts claiming violations of the
Massachusetts Overtime Law, M.G.L.C. 151 Section 1A, by failing to
pay overtime to employees classified as store managers, and seeking
restitution, an incentive award, treble damages, interest,
attorneys' fees and costs.
The Company has reached an agreement in principle to settle the
Chen and Salas and Massachusetts matters for payment of attorneys'
fees and administrative costs totaling $410,000 plus total payments
to members of the plaintiff class who opt to participate in the
settlement of up to $790,000. The proposed settlement is subject to
documentation and approval by the court.
The Company does not expect that the proposed settlement will have
a material adverse effect on its financial condition or results of
operations.
Genesco Inc. sell shoes and hats. It operates Journeys, Journeys
Kidz, and Shi by Journeys stores that offer footwear for young men,
women, and children. It also operates Underground Station, Jarman,
Hat World, Lids, Hat Shack, Hat Zone, Head Quarters, Cap
Connection, Lids Kids, and Johnston & Murphy. The company was
founded in 1925 and is based in Nashville.
GENESCO INC: Ward Suit Transferred to S.D. Indiana
--------------------------------------------------
Genesco Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on December 13, 2018, for the quarterly
period ended November 3, 2018, that the Ward v. Hat World, Inc.,
has been transferred to to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Indiana.
On February 22, 2017, a former employee of a subsidiary of the
Company filed a putative class and collective action, Shumate v.
Genesco, Inc., et al., in the U.S District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio, alleging violations of the federal Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA") and Ohio wages and hours law including
failure to pay minimum wages and overtime to the subsidiary's store
managers and seeking back pay, damages, penalties, and declaratory
and injunctive relief.
On April 21, 2017, a former employee of the same subsidiary filed a
putative class and collective action, Ward v. Hat World, Inc., in
the Superior Court for the State of Washington, alleging violations
of the FLSA and certain Washington wages and hours laws, including,
among others, failure to pay overtime to certain loss prevention
investigators, and seeking back pay, damages, attorneys' fees and
other relief.
A total of seven loss prevention investigators elected to join the
suit at the expiration of the opt-in period.
The Company has removed the case to federal court and the court has
approved its transfer to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Indiana.
The Company disputes the material allegations in each of these
complaints and intends to defend the matters.
Genesco Inc. sell shoes and hats. It operates Journeys, Journeys
Kidz, and Shi by Journeys stores that offer footwear for young men,
women, and children. It also operates Underground Station, Jarman,
Hat World, Lids, Hat Shack, Hat Zone, Head Quarters, Cap
Connection, Lids Kids, and Johnston & Murphy. The company was
founded in 1925 and is based in Nashville.
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Cook Amends Bid to Certify Two Classes
------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuits titled ANTHONY COOK, MICAH BELLAMY,
and MAURICE JONES, as Personal Representative and on behalf of the
Estate of Kailyn Jones, each individually and on behalf of all
other similarly situated v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY,
a foreign corporation, and GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a
foreign corporation, Case No. 6:17-cv-00891-PGB-KRS (M.D. Fla.),
and ANTHONY LORENTI and ASHLEY BARRETT, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. GEICO INDEMNITY COMPANY, Case
No. 6:17-cv-01755-PGB-KRS (M.D. Fla.), file their amended motion
for class certification.
The Lorenti case is the sister putative class action to the Roth v.
GEICO class action (the "Roth" case). Earlier this year, the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida in the Roth
case granted plaintiff's motion for class certification, and
granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the merits.
Both cases involve a straightforward breach of contract claim
arising out of uniform insurance policy language contained within
identical "form" policies for Plaintiffs and for each member of the
class. In short, the Plaintiffs allege, the GEICO Defendants
breached their uniform private passenger auto ("PPA") insurance
policies covering "total loss claims" for vehicles -- which require
GEICO to pay the full "replacement cost" to insureds suffering a
total loss of their vehicles.
Named Plaintiffs Anthony Cook, William Santos, Maurice Jones,
Anthony Lorenti, and Ashley Barrett are collectively referred to as
"Plaintiffs." The Cook and Jones case (Case No.:
6:17-cv-891-Orl-40KRS) and the Lorenti and Barrett case (Case No.:
6:17-cv-01755-PGB-KRS) have been consolidated.
In this Amended Motion, the Plaintiffs seek certification two
classes:
1. Based on GEICO's uniform breach of a "form" contract, the
Plaintiffs seek to recover damages on a class-wide basis
and seek certification of the Florida Class:
All Florida residents insured for PPA physical damage
coverage by Government Employees Insurance Company, GEICO
General Insurance Company, and GEICO Indemnity Company who
suffered a first-party loss of a covered owned (i.e., not
leased) vehicle at any time during the five (5) years prior
to the filing of this lawsuit through the date of class
certification, whose claims were adjusted by a Defendant as
a total loss claim, whose claims resulted in payment by a
Defendant of a covered claim, and who were not paid title
fees and/or license plate transfer fees; and
2. Based on GEICO's uniform breach of contract, the Plaintiffs
also seek certification of this Nationwide, or, in the
alternative, Multi-State, Class(es) pursuant to Rules
23(a), 23(b)(3), and 23(c)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure:
All non-Florida residents of the United States insured for
PPA physical damage coverage by Government Employees
Insurance Company, GEICO General Insurance Company, and
GEICO Indemnity Company who suffered a first-party loss of
a covered vehicle at any time during the applicable statute
of limitations through the date of class certification,
whose claims were adjusted by a Defendant as a total loss
claim, whose claims resulted in payment by a Defendant of a
covered claim, and who were not paid title fees and/or
license plate transfer fees.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Bradley W. Pratt, Esq.
PRATT CLAY, LLC
4401 Northside Parkway, Suite 520
Atlanta, GA 30327
Telephone: (404) 949-8118
Facsimile: (404) 949-8159
E-mail: bradley@prattclay.com
- and -
Tracy L. Markham, Esq.
AVOLIO & HANLON, P.C.
2800 N 5th Street, Suite 302
St. Augustine, FL 32084
Telephone: (904) 794 7005
Facsimile: (904) 794 7007
E-mail: tlm@avoliohanlonfl.com
- and -
Christopher Hall, Esq.
HALL & LAMPROS, LLP
600 Galleria Parkway, Suite 990
Atlanta, GA 30309
Telephone: (404) 876-8100
E-mail: chall@hallandlampros.omc
- and -
Andrew Lampros, Esq.
HALL & LAMPROS, LLP
1230 Peachtree St. NE, Suite 950
Atlanta, GA 30309
Telephone: (404) 876-8100
E-mail: alampros@hallandlampros.com
- and -
Christopher J. Lynch, Esq.
CHRISTOPHER J. LYNCH, P.A.
6915 Red Road, Suite 208
Coral Gables, FL 33143
Telephone: (305) 443-6200
Facsimile: (305) 443-6204
E-mail: clynch@hunterlynchlaw.com
- and -
Edmund A. Normand, Esq.
Jacob L. Phillips, Esq.
NORMAND LAW PLLC
P.O. Box 140036
Orlando, FL 32814
Telephone: (407) 603-6031
Facsimile: (509) 267-6468
E-mail: Ed@EdNormand.com
jacob@ednormand.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Kymberly Kochis, Esq.
Alexander Fuchs, Esq.
EVERSHEDS SUTHERLAND (US) LLP
The Grace Building, 40th Floor
1114 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036
Telephone: (212) 389-5068
Facsimile: (212) 389-5099
E-mail: kymberlykockis@eversheds-sutherland.com
alexfuchs@eversheds-sutherland.com
- and -
Susan B. Harwood, Esq.
KAPLAN ZEENA LLP
2 South Biscayne Boulevard
One Biscayne Tower, Suite 3050
Miami, FL 33131-1806
Telephone: (305) 530-0800
Facsimile: (305) 530-0801
E-mail: SusanHarwood@kaplanzeena.com
GREENWELL ENERGY: Medina Suit Seeks to Recover OT Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
MANUEL MEDINA, Individually and On Behalf of All Similarly Situated
Persons v. GREENWELL ENERGY SOLUTIONS, LLC, Case No. 5:18-cv-01254
(W.D. Tex., December 3, 2018), seeks to recover alleged unpaid
overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and attorney's fees owed
to the Plaintiff and all other similarly situated employees.
Greenwell Energy Solutions, LLC, is a Texas limited liability
company. Greenwell supplies specialty chemicals for drilling,
completion, and production phases in the upstream oil and gas
industry. The Company offers friction reducers, inhibitors,
lubricants, mud additives, and viscosifiers; and environmental
remediation and protection, and well stimulation solutions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Josef F. Buenker, Esq.
Thomas H. Padgett, Jr.
THE BUENKER LAW FIRM
2060 North Loop West, Suite 215
Houston, TX 77018
Telephone: (713) 868-3388
Facsimile: (713) 683-9940
E-mail: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com
tpadgettlaw@gmail.com
HALLMARK AVIATION: Faces Glover Suit for Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hallmark Aviation
Services. The case is styled as Christion Glover, Tiffany Gomez,
Melinda Soriano and Maria Vicedor, on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Hallmark Aviation Services and
Does 1 to 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. CGC18571984 (Cal.
Super. Ct., December 10, 2018).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as failure to pay
overtime pay for all hours worked.
Hallmark Aviation Services LP offers ground handling services
including load and flight control, crew administration, check-in
and ticketing, centralized baggage, and training services.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Arlo Garcia Uriarte, Esq.
Liberation Law Group, P.C.
2760 Mission Street
San Francisco, CA 94110
Tel: 415-695-1000
Fax: 415-695-1006
Email: info@liberationlawgroup.com
HANK'S FURNITURE: Faces Pollard FLSA Suit in Arkansas
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hank's Furniture Inc.
The case is styled as Dickie Pollard, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Hank's Furniture Inc
and Hank Browne, Defendants, Case No. 4:18-cv-00907-KGB (E.D. Ark.,
December 7, 2018).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Fair Labor
Standards Violation.
Hank's Furniture, Inc. retails furniture. The Company offers
products such as mattress, bedroom furniture, sofas, recliners,
dining room furniture, entertainment furniture, desks, dressers,
and cabinets. Hank's Furniture serves customers in the United
States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Allison Elizabeth Ann Koile, Esq.
Sanford Law Firm
Post Office Box 39
Russellville, AR 72811
Tel: (479) 880-0088
Fax: (888) 787-2040
Email: allison@sanfordlawfirm.com
- and –
Christopher Wesley Burks, Esq.
Sanford Law Firm
One Financial Center
650 South Shackleford, Suite 411
Little Rock, AR 72211
Tel: (501) 221-0088
Fax: (888) 787-2040
Email: chris@sanfordlawfirm.com
- and -
Joshua Sanford, Esq.
Sanford Law Firm
One Financial Center
650 South Shackleford, Suite 411
Little Rock, AR 72211
Tel: (501) 221-0088
Fax: (888) 787-2040
Email: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
HOME BOY RESTAURANT: Faces Fischler Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Home Boy Restaurant
Inc. The case is styled as Brian Fischler, individually and on
behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Home
Boy Restaurant Inc. doing business as: Batard, Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-11380 (S.D. N.Y., December 6, 2018).
The lawsuit arises under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Home Boy Restaurant Inc. is a diner located at 90012, Los Angeles
CA, 200 N Spring St.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq.
Lipsky Lowe LLP
630 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10017-6705
Tel: (212) 392-4772
Fax: (212) 444-1030
Email: chris@lipskylowe.com
HOUDINI INC: Faces Martinez Class Action Under ADA
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Houdini, Inc. The
case is styled as Pedro Martinez, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff
v. Houdini, Inc. doing business as: Wine Country Gift Baskets,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-06956 (E.D. N.Y., December 6, 2018).
The lawsuit arises under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Houdini, Inc., doing business as Wine Country Gift Baskets,
provides gourmet food, wine, fruit and spa gifts through its
catalog and Website. The company offers handcrafted gift baskets
and gift towers, including corporate, business, anniversary,
birthday, gourmet, chocolate, holiday, Valentine's gift, coffee,
and tea gift baskets. It also provides wine and personalized gifts,
and premium gift cards. Houdini, Inc. was founded in 1984 and is
based in Fullerton, California. It operates distribution centers in
the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
Shaked Law Group, P.C.
44 Court Street, Suite 1217
Brooklyn, NY 11217
Tel: (917) 373-9128
Fax: (718) 504-7555
Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com
HP INC: Continues to Defend Jackson Class Suit
----------------------------------------------
HP Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission on December 13, 2018, for the fiscal year
ended October 31, 2018, that a Georgia court granted the
plaintiffs' unopposed motion to stay and administratively close the
Georgia action until the appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit is decided in the case, Jackson, et al. v. HP
Inc. and Hewlett Packard Enterprise.
This putative nationwide class action was filed on July 24, 2017 in
federal district court in San Jose, California. The plaintiffs
purport to bring the lawsuit on behalf of themselves and other
similarly situated African-Americans and individuals over the age
of forty.
The plaintiffs allege that the defendants engaged in a pattern and
practice of racial and age discrimination in lay-offs and
promotions. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on September
29, 2017.
On January 12, 2018, the defendants moved to transfer the matter to
the federal district court in the Northern District of Georgia. The
defendants also moved to dismiss the claims on various grounds and
to strike certain aspects of the proposed class definition. The
Court dismissed the action on the basis of improper venue.
On July 23, 2018, the plaintiffs refiled the case in the Northern
District of Georgia. On August 9, 2018, the plaintiffs also filed a
notice of appeal of the dismissal order with the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
On October 1, 2018, the Georgia court granted the plaintiffs'
unopposed motion to stay and administratively close the Georgia
action until the Ninth Circuit appeal is decided.
HP Inc. provides personal computing and other access devices,
imaging and printing products, and related technologies, solutions,
and services in the United States and internationally. The company
operates through three segments: Personal Systems, Printing, and
Corporate Investments. The company was formerly known as
Hewlett-Packard Company and changed its name to HP Inc. in October
2015. HP Inc. was founded in 1939 and is headquartered in Palo
Alto, California.
HP INC: Forsyth Class Suit Returned to Federal Court
----------------------------------------------------
HP Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission on December 13, 2018, for the fiscal year
ended October 31, 2018, that the case entitled Forsyth, et al. vs.
HP Inc. and Hewlett Packard Enterprise, will now return to federal
court for the remaining named and opt-in plaintiffs.
This is a purported class and collective action filed on August 18,
2016 in the United States District Court, Northern District of
California, against HP and Hewlett Packard Enterprise alleging the
defendants violated the Federal Age Discrimination in Employment
Act ("ADEA"), the California Fair Employment and Housing Act,
California public policy and the California Business and
Professions Code by terminating older workers and replacing them
with younger workers.
Plaintiffs seek to certify a nationwide collective class action
under the ADEA comprised of all U.S. residents employed by
defendants who had their employment terminated pursuant to a
workforce reduction ("WFR") plan on or after May 23, 2012 and who
were 40 years of age or older.
Plaintiffs also seek to represent a Rule 23 class under California
law comprised of all persons 40 years or older employed by
defendants in the state of California and terminated pursuant to a
WFR plan on or after May 23, 2012.
Following a partial motion to dismiss, a motion to strike and a
motion to compel arbitration that the defendants filed in November
2016, the plaintiffs amended their complaint.
New plaintiffs were added, but the plaintiffs agreed that the class
period for the nationwide collective action should be shortened and
now starts on December 9, 2014. On January 30, 2017, the defendants
filed another partial motion to dismiss and motions to compel
arbitration as to several of the plaintiffs.
On March 20, 2017, the defendants filed additional motions to
compel arbitration as to a number of the opt-in plaintiffs. On
September 20, 2017, the Court granted the motions to compel
arbitration as to the plaintiffs and opt-ins who signed WFR release
agreements, and also stayed the entire case until the arbitrations
are completed. On November 30, 2017, three named plaintiffs and
twelve opt-in plaintiffs filed a single arbitration demand.
An additional arbitration claimant was added later by stipulation.
On December 22, 2017, the defendants filed a motion to (1) stay the
case pending arbitrations and (2) enjoin the demanded arbitration
and require each plaintiff to file a separate arbitration demand.
On February 6, 2018, the Court granted the motion to stay and
denied the motion to enjoin. Pre-arbitration mediation proceedings
took place on October 4 and 5, 2018, and the claims of all 16
arbitration claimants were resolved.
The case will now return to federal court for the remaining named
and opt-in plaintiffs.
HP Inc. provides personal computing and other access devices,
imaging and printing products, and related technologies, solutions,
and services in the United States and internationally. The company
operates through three segments: Personal Systems, Printing, and
Corporate Investments. The company was formerly known as
Hewlett-Packard Company and changed its name to HP Inc. in October
2015. HP Inc. was founded in 1939 and is headquartered in Palo
Alto, California.
HP INC: Settlement in Printer Firmware Update Litigation Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------------
HP Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission on December 13, 2018, for the fiscal year
ended October 31, 2018, that notice of the settlement in the case
entitled In re HP Printer Firmware Update Litigation will be given
to the class beginning on January 7, 2019.
Five purported consumer class actions were filed against HP,
arising out of the supplies authentication protocol in certain
OfficeJet printers. This authentication protocol rejects some
third-party ink cartridges that use non-HP security chips.
Two of the cases were dismissed, and the remaining cases have been
consolidated in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, captioned In re HP Printer Firmware Update
Litigation.
The remaining plaintiffs' consolidated amended complaint was filed
on February 15, 2018, alleging eleven causes of action: (1) unfair
and unlawful business practices in violation of the Unfair
Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200, et seq.; (2)
fraudulent business practices in violation of the Unfair
Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200, et seq.; (3)
violations of the False Advertising Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code
Section 17500, et seq.; (4) violations of the Consumer Legal
Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code Section 1750, et seq.; (5) violations
of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices -- Consumer Protection Act,
Tex. Bus. & Com. Code Ann. Section 17.01, et seq.; (6) violations
of the Washington Consumer Protection Act, Wash. Rev. Code Ann.
Section 19.86.010, et seq.; (7) violations of the New Jersey
Consumer Fraud Act, New Jersey Statutes Ann. 56:8-1, et seq.; (8)
violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. Section
1030, et seq.; (9) violations of the California Computer Data
Access and Fraud Act, Cal. Penal Code Section 502; (10) Trespass to
Chattels; and (11) Tortious Interference with Contractual Relations
and/or Prospective Economic Advantage.
On February 7, 2018, the plaintiffs moved to certify an injunctive
relief class of "all persons in California who own a Class Printer"
under the "unfair" prong of the California unfair competition
statute and a class of "all persons in the United States who
purchased a Class Printer and experienced a print failure while
using a non-HP aftermarket cartridge during the period between
March 1, 2015 and December 31, 2017" under the Computer Fraud and
Abuse Act and common law trespass to chattels.
On March 29, 2018, the court granted in part and denied in part
HP's motion to dismiss. The court dismissed the plaintiffs' claim
under the "unfair" prong of the California unfair competition
statute, claims under the non-California consumer protection
statutes, and claim for tortious interference with contractual
relations and/or prospective economic advantage. The court also
dismissed in part the plaintiffs' fraud-based claims under the
California consumer protection statutes and computer hacking claims
under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and California Computer Data
Access and Fraud Act.
The court denied HP's motion to dismiss with respect to the
plaintiffs' claim for trespass to chattels and claim under the
"unlawful" prong of the California unfair competition statute.
The court granted the plaintiffs leave to amend on all of the
dismissed claims, except the California Computer Data Access and
Fraud Act claim to the extent it was based on two specific
subsections of that statute. On September 18, 2018, the parties
entered into a Settlement Agreement and Release pursuant to which
the plaintiffs agreed to dismiss all claims against HP in exchange
for a $1.5 million payment to the class and an agreement that HP
would not reinstall the authentication protocol on the printers at
issue.
The settlement is subject to the approval of the court. The
plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of the
settlement, which was granted by the court on November 19, 2018.
Notice of the settlement will be given to the class beginning on
January 7, 2019, and class members will have 120 days in which to
opt out of or object to the settlement. A final approval hearing is
scheduled for April 25, 2019.
HP Inc. provides personal computing and other access devices,
imaging and printing products, and related technologies, solutions,
and services in the United States and internationally. The company
operates through three segments: Personal Systems, Printing, and
Corporate Investments. The company was formerly known as
Hewlett-Packard Company and changed its name to HP Inc. in October
2015. HP Inc. was founded in 1939 and is headquartered in Palo
Alto, California.
HYLAND SOFTWARE: Sullivan Files Suit under ADA in New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hyland Software, Inc.
The case is styled as Phillip Sullivan, Jr., on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Hyland Software,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-11450 (S.D. N.Y., December 7,
2018).
The lawsuit arises under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Hyland Software is the developer of the enterprise content
management and process management software suite called OnBase.
Applications of the suite are used in healthcare, financial
institutions, insurance, government, higher education and
manufacturing.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
Lee Litigation Group, PLLC
30 East 39th Street
2nd Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 465-1188
Fax: (212) 465-1181
Email: cklee@leelitigation.com
J JILL INC: Pension Trust Suit in Massachusetts Still Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
J.Jill, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on December 13, 2018, for the quarterly
period ended November 3, 2018, that the company continues to defend
itself from a consolidated class action suit entitled, the Pension
Trust v. J.Jill, Inc., et al.
On October 13, 2017, a securities lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts against the
Company, several members of the company's Board of Directors and
its Chief Financial Officer, among others.
The complaint was brought under the Securities Act of 1933 and
sought certification of a class of plaintiffs comprised of all
shareholders that acquired stock issued by the Company in its
initial public offering in March 2017. The plaintiffs sought
compensation for losses they incurred since purchasing the stock.
Following the filing of this lawsuit, two additional, similar
actions were brought in the same court. The three matters were
eventually consolidated, and a lead plaintiff was appointed by the
court. On March 9, 2018, an amended complaint captioned The Pension
Trust v. J.Jill, Inc., et al. was filed. The Company filed a motion
to dismiss on May 14, 2018, which was opposed by the plaintiffs on
July 17, 2018.
The Company believes the claims in the case are without merit and
intends to defend the matter vigorously. No material amount has
been accrued.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
J.Jill, Inc. operates as an Omni channel retailer women's apparel
under the J.Jill brand name in the United States. The company
offers knit and woven tops, bottoms, and dresses, as well as
sweaters and outerwear; and complementary footwear and accessories,
including scarves, jewelry, and hosiery for misses, petites, and
women. Its customers comprise women in 40-65 age range. The company
markets its products through retail stores, Website, and catalogs.
J.Jill, Inc. is headquartered in Quincy, Massachusetts.
KEITH S SHINDLER: Certification of Class 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. LAW OFFICE OF KEITH
S. SHINDLER, LTD. d/b/a SHINDLER & JOYCE, CAVALRY PORTFOLIO
SERVICES, LLC, and CAVALRY SPV I, LLC, Case No. 2:18-cv-01916 (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
KERRY NAILS: Underpays Nail Technicians, Gao Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------
LEI GAO, individually on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. KERRY NAILS SALON CORPORATION d/b/a KERRY NAIL SPA;
XUE GOU; and TIE MING XU, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-10448
(S.D.N.Y., Nov. 9, 2018) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid
overtime compensation, prejudgment interest, maximum liquidated
damages, reasonable attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
The Plaintiff Gao was employed by the Defendants as nail
technician.
Kerry Nails Salon Corporation d/b/a Kerry Nail Spa is a domestic
business corporation organized under the laws of the State of New
York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Xiaoxi Liu, Esq.
HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
136-20 38 th Ave. Suite 10G
Flushing, NY 11354
Telephone: (718) 353-8588
Facsimile: (718) 353-6288
E-mail: xliu@hanglaw.com
LAKEMOOR, IL: Wins Bid to Dismiss Knutson's Amended Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Marvin E. Aspen issued a memorandum opinion and order in
the lawsuit entitled BRIAN KNUTSON, et al. v. VILLAGE OF LAKEMOOR,
Case No. 1:18-cv-01804 (N.D. Ill.), granting the Defendant's motion
to dismiss all counts of the Plaintiffs' amended complaint under
Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure
to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Plaintiffs Brian Knutson, Heather Bendl, Thomas Davis, Kevin
Kennedy, Stephanie Warner, and Robert Kujawa, on behalf of a
putative class, allege that red-light camera violation notices
issued by the Village of Lakemoor, Illinois, are void under
municipal law. The Plaintiffs ask federal declaratory relief,
injunctive relief, and a remedy for unjust enrichment, alleging
that the violation notices are void and unenforceable.
The Plaintiffs also allege that Lakemoor's ordinance deprives them
of procedural due process by prohibiting them from challenging the
violation notices as void before local administrative hearings that
adjudicate red-light camera violations.[CC]
MADISON PARK: Vega Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ruben Mendez Vega, Jesus Mendez, and Fortino Garcia, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
Madison Park Acquisitions, LLC, John Doherty and Thomas Struzzieri,
Defendants, Case No. 524768/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Kings Cty.,
December 10, 2018) seeks to recover minimum wages, overtime
compensation, misappropriated tips, call-in pay, spread of hours
pay, and other damages for Plaintiffs and their similarly situated
co-workers -- servers, bartenders, bussers, back waiters, food
runners, and other similarly situated non-managerial employees --
who work or have worked at Black Barn located in New York.
The Defendants have paid Plaintiffs and similarly situated Tipped
Employees at the "tipped" minimum wage rate -- less than the full
minimum wage rate for non-tipped employees. The Defendants,
however, have not satisfied the strict requirements under the New
York Labor Law ("NYLL") or the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA")
that would allow them to apply a "tip credit" to Tipped Employees'
wages. In this regard, Defendants failed to provide Tipped
Employees with notification of the tipped minimum wage rate or tip
credit provisions of the NYLL of their intent to apply a tip credit
to Tipped Employees' wages. The Defendants also maintain a policy
and practice whereby Tipped Employees are required to spend more
than 20% of their shift and/or 2 hours performing non-tip producing
side work.
Throughout Plaintiffs' employment, Defendants also maintained (i) a
policy and practice whereby Tipped Employees were not paid the
appropriate premium overtime pay for hours worked in excess of 40
per workweek, and (ii) a policy and practice whereby Tipped
Employees were not properly compensated "call-in pay" as required
by the NYLL. Furthermore, Defendants failed to properly pay spread
of hours pay as required by the NYLL and made unlawful deductions
from Tipped Employees' wages for meal allowances.
Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and all
similarly situated current and former Tipped Employees pursuant to
Civil Practice Law and Rule ("CPLR") 901 to remedy violations of
the NYLL, and the supporting New York State Department of Labor
Regulations, says the complaint.
Ruben Mendez Vega was employed by Defendants as a busser -- a
Tipped Employee -- at Black Barn from in or around April 24, 2017
through June 2017.
Jesus Mendez was employed by Defendants as a busser -- a Tipped
Employee -- at Black Barn from in or around March 27, 2017 through
June 2017.
Fortino Garcia was employed by Defendants as a food runner -- a
Tipped Employee -- at Black Barn from in or around September 2015
through June 2017.
Madison Park is a domestic business limited liability company
organized and existing under the laws of New York.
John Doherty is a resident of the State of New York. Doherty has
been an owner of Black Barn. Doherty has had power over personnel
decisions at Black Bam, including the power to hire and fire
employees, set their wages, and otherwise control the terms and
conditions of their employment.
Thomas Struzzieri is a resident of the State of New York.
Struzzieri has been an owner of Black Bam. Struzzieri has had power
over personnel decisions at Black Bam, including the power to hire
and fire employees, set their wages, and otherwise control the
terms and conditions of their employment.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Brian S. Schaffer, Esq.
Armando A. Ortiz, Esq.
FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor
New York, NY 10005
Phone: (212) 300-0375
- and -
Carolyn D. Richmond, Esq.
Jordan E. Pace, Esq.
FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP
101 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10178
Phone: (212) 878-7983
Email: crichmond@foxrothschild.com
jpace@foxrothschild.com
MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Elliot Sues Over Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------
Todd Joseph Elliot, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Marriott International, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-03700 (D. Md., November 30, 2018), seeks
actual, statutory, punitive, exemplary and/or multiple damages,
disgorgement, restitution, preliminary or other equitable or
declaratory relief, prejudgment and post-judgment interest,
reasonable attorneys' fees, costs and expenses and such other and
favorable relief resulting from negligence and for violation of the
Maryland Consumer Protection Act, Maryland Personal Information
Privacy Act and Maryland Social Security Number Privacy Act.
Marriott's Starwood guest reservation database suffered a massive
security breach that began in or around 2014, compromising personal
and financial information belonging to up to 500 million
customers.
Marriott operates Starwood Hotels and Resorts Worldwide. Elliot is
a Marriott customer who has used the Starwood reservation system.
[BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph Musso, Esq.
Drew LaFramboise, Esq.
Michelle Parfitt, Esq.
ASHCRAFT & GEREL LLP
4900 Seminary Road, Suite 650
Alexandria, VA 22311
Telephone: (703) 931-5501
Facsimile: (703) 824-4758
Email: jmusso@ashcraftlaw.com
dlaframboise@ashcraftlaw.com
mparfitt@ashcraftlaw.com
- and -
Korey A. Nelson, Esq.
Amanda K. Klevorn, Esq.
C. Jacob Gower, Esq.
BURNS CHAREST LLP
365 Canal Street, Suite 1170
New Orleans, LA 70130
Telephone: (504) 799-2845
Facsimile: (504) 881-1765
Email: knelson@burnscharest.com
aklevorn@burnscharest.com
jgower@burnscharest.com
- and -
Warren T. Burns, Esq.
Daniel H. Charest, Esq.
BURNS CHAREST LLP
900 Jackson Street, Suite 500
Dallas, TX 75202
Telephone: (469) 904-4550
Facsimile: (469) 444-5002
Email: wburns@burnscharest.com
dcharest@burnscharest.com
MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Fox Sues Over Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------
Michael J. Fox, Anthony Martin, Monica Ogawa, Norbert Hennrich and
Samuel Mangano, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Marriott International, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 18-cv-07936 (N.D. Ill., December 1, 2018), seeks actual,
statutory, punitive, exemplary and/or multiple damages,
disgorgement, restitution, preliminary or other equitable or
declaratory relief, prejudgment and post-judgment interest,
reasonable attorneys' fees, costs and expenses and such other and
favorable relief resulting from negligence and for violation of the
Maryland Consumer Protection Act, Maryland Personal Information
Privacy Act and Maryland Social Security Number Privacy Act.
Marriott's Starwood guest reservation database suffered a massive
security breach that began in or around 2014, compromising personal
and financial information belonging to up to 500 million customers,
notes the complaint.
Marriott operates Starwood Hotels and Resorts Worldwide. Plaintiffs
are customers who have used the Starwood reservation system. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
James C. Vlahakis, Esq.
SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.
2500 South Highland Avenue, Suite 200
Lombard, IL 60148
Tel: (630) 581-5456
Email: jvlahakis@sulaimanlaw.com
MARRIOTT: Nouri Sues Over Data Breach
-------------------------------------
Cina Nouri, an individual, and Ricardo Zepedia, an individual, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v. Marriott International, Inc., a Delaware corporation, and DOES 1
to 100, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-10234 (C.D. Cal., December 10,
2018) was filed following a massive data breach.
Defendant Marriott International, Inc. disclosed one of the largest
data security breaches in United States history last month. Cyber
criminals stole the personal information, including in some cases
passport information, of roughly 500 million customers. However,
Marriott failed to disclose the Data Breach to the public for three
months. It claims to have first discovered the full nature and
extent of the Data Breach in September 2018, but sat on the
information for three months while letting the thieves to pilfer
more sensitive data. Because Marriott failed to provide even
minimally adequate computer systems and data security practices,
Plaintiffs and the Class are forced to suffer the consequences.
This Court must hold Marriott accountable, says the complaint.
Plaintiff Cina Nouri is a citizen of California and resides in Los
Angeles County.
Plaintiff Ricardo Zepedia is a citizen of California and resides in
Los Angeles County.
Marriott is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
business in Bethesda, Maryland.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
RAHUL RAVIPUDI, Esq.
JESSE CREED, Esq.
PANISH SHEA & BOYLE LLP
11111 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 700
Los Angeles, CA 90025
Phone: 310.477.1700
Facsimile: 310.477.1699
Email: ravipudi@psblaw.com
creed@psb.law
- and -
Damon Rogers, Esq.
Andy Beltran, Esq.
ROGERS BELTRAN LLP
1801 Century Park East, 24th Floor
Century City, CA 90067
Phone: (310) 556-9648
Fax: (714) 464-4646
Email: Damon@RogersBeltran.com
Andy@RogersBeltran.com
MCKESSON CORP: True Health Renews Bid for Certification of Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled TRUE HEALTH CHIROPRACTIC,
INC., and MCLAUGHLIN CHIROPRACTIC ASSOCIATES, INC., individually
and as the representatives of a class of similarly-situated persons
v. MCKESSON CORPORATION, MCKESSON TECHNOLOGIES INC., and JOHN DOES
1-10, Case No. 4:13-cv-02219-HSG (N.D. Cal.), renew their motion
for an order certifying this class pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:
All persons or entities who received faxes from "McKesson"
from September 2, 2009, to May 11, 2010, offering
"Medisoft," "Lytec," "Practice Partner," or "Revenue
Management Advanced" software or "BillFlash Patient
Statement Service," where the faxes do not inform the
recipient of the right to "opt out" of a future faxes, and
whose fax numbers are listed in Exhibit A to McKesson's
Supplemental Response to Interrogatory Regarding Prior
Express Invitation or Permission, but not in Exhibit B or
Exhibit C to McKesson's Response to Interrogatory Regarding
Prior Express Invitation or Permission.
In 2015, the Plaintiffs in this action under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act of 1991 moved to certify a single class of all
persons or entities who received faxes advertising Defendants'
goods or services from September 2, 2009, to May 11, 2010. The
broad class proposed in the Plaintiffs' initial motion covered all
11,979 fax numbers listed on Exhibits A, B, and C to the
Defendants' interrogatory responses identifying each fax
"recipient" according to the Defendants' claim of "prior express
invitation or permission." On August 22, 2016, the Court denied
class certification, holding the issue of whether the Defendants
obtained prior express permission to send fax advertisements to
each individual class member "predominated" over questions common
to the single class covering Exhibits A, B, and C.
The Plaintiffs also seek entry of an order appointing Plaintiff
McLaughlin as class representative and appointing their counsel as
class counsel.
The Court will commence a hearing on February 14, 2018, at 2:00
p.m., to consider the Motion.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Robert C. Schubert, Esq.
Willem F. Jonckheer, Esq.
SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP
Three Embarcadero Center, Suite 1650
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 788-4220
Facsimile: (415) 788-0161
E-mail: rschubert@schubertlawfirm.com
wjonckheer@schubertlawfirm.com
- and -
Brian J. Wanca, Esq.
Glenn L. Hara, Esq.
Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
Ross M. Good, Esq.
ANDERSON & WANCA
3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500
Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
Telephone: (847) 368-1500
Facsimile: (847) 368-1501
E-mail: bwanca@andersonwanca.com
ghara@andersonwanca.com
rkelly@andersonwanca.com
rgood@andersonwanca.com
- and -
George D. Jonson, Esq.
Matthew Stubbs, Esq.
MONTGOMERY, RENNIE & JONSON
36 East Seventh Street
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Telephone: (513) 768-5220
Facsimile: (513) 768-9220
E-mail: gjonson@mrjlaw.com
mstubbs@mrjlaw.com
MDL 2591: $1.51-Bil. Deal in MIR 162 Corn Case Has Final Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: SYNGENTA AG MIR 162 CORN LITIGATION, This
Document Relates to All Cases Except: Louis Dreyfus Co. Grains
Merchandising LLC v. Syngenta AG, et al., No. 16-2788, Trans
Coastal Supply Co., Inc. v. Syngenta AG, et al., No. 14-2637, The
Delong Co., Inc. v. Syngenta AG, et al., No. 17-2614, Agribase
Int'l Inc. v. Syngenta AG, et al., No. 15-2279, MDL No. 2591, No.
14-md-2591-JWL (D. Kan.), Judge John W. Lungstrum of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Kansas granted the Plaintiffs'
motion for final settlement approval and other relief.
In the multi-district litigation, the Court provisionally certified
a settlement class and preliminarily approved a settlement
agreement resolving claims against Syngenta. The Plaintiffs now
seek final settlement approval pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e).
Beginning in 2014, corn farmers and others in the corn industry
filed thousands of similar suits against Syngenta in various
jurisdictions, including class actions. The suits generally
related to Syngenta's commercialization of genetically-modified
corn seed products, Viptera and Duracade, which contained the trait
MIR 162, without approval of that trait by China, an export market.
The Plaintiffs alleged that Syngenta's commercialization of its
products caused the genetically-modified corn to be commingled
throughout the corn supply in the United States; that China
rejected imports of all corn from the United States because of the
presence of MIR 162; that such rejection caused corn prices to drop
in the United States; and that corn farmers and others in the
industry were harmed by that market effect.
In December 2014, the MDL was created, and it encompasses hundreds
of suits brought by corn producers and non-producers. The Court
appointed the co-lead Plaintiffs' counsel, who filed master
consolidated class action producer and non-producer complaints in
March 2015.
In March 2016, the Court and several others with related cases
appointed a special master for purposes of settlement. In August
2017, the Court appointed a Plaintiffs' Settlement Negotiation
Committee ("PNC") to work towards a settlement with Syngenta. On
Sept. 25, 2017, the PNC executed a term sheet with Syngenta
providing for a total settlement amount of $1.51 billion. Over the
next several months, with the help of the special master and with
oversight by the various courts, the PNC negotiated with Syngenta
the terms of a final settlement agreement, which the parties
executed on Feb. 26, 2018.
The Agreement's terms include the following: In exchange for
releases of claims based on the sale and marketing of Viptera and
Duracade, Syngenta will pay a total of $1.51 billion, with two
initial deposits totaling $400 million and the remainder deposited
within 30 days after final court approval. Syngenta has no right
of reversion of any of that amount.
The Agreement is contingent on certification of a nationwide
settlement class, divided into four subclasses generally consisting
of corn producers who did not purchase Viptera or Duracade; corn
producers who did purchase one of those products; grain handling
facilities (except for certain excluded exporters); and ethanol
producers. The Agreement sets out the allocation of the settlement
fund among the members of the four subclasses; a claims procedure;
an opt-out procedure; and a notice plan.
After execution of the Agreement and with leave of the Court, the
Plaintiffs filed a fourth amended master class action complaint.
By that complaint, they seek certification of the same nationwide
class and subclasses, asserting class claims based on the federal
Lanham Act and certain Minnesota statutes.
On April 10, 2018, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion for
preliminary approval of the Agreement. Specifically, the Court
preliminarily approved the settlement; provisionally certified the
settlement class and subclasses as set forth in the fourth amended
complaint; appointed the representative Plaintiffs for the
subclasses; appointed the class counsel; approved the claims
procedure, opt-out procedure, and notice plan; appointed the notice
and claims administrator; appointed the special masters to oversee
the settlement and claims procedures; and imposed particular
deadlines and set the hearing on final approval of the settlement.
Judge Lunstrum granted the Plaintiffs' motion for final settlement
approval and other relief, and issued a separate order setting
forth the granted relief as requested by the laintiffs. Moreover,
the Judge approved the withdrawal of two objections, and overruled
all other objections to the settlement or to the total fee award.
He awarded the total attorney fees in the amount of one third of
the settlement fund, or $503,333,333.33; and granted the petition
for attorney fees filed by the MDL co-lead counsel and the
settlement class counsel to that extent (and otherwise remains
pending).
Finally, the Judge granted the special master's pending motion for
mediation expenses as unopposed, and the special master is awarded
$205,720.10 from the settlement fund.
A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 7, 2018 Memorandum and Order
is available at https://is.gd/E8SLmp from Leagle.com.
All Plaintiffs, represented by Don M. Downing -- ddowning@grgpc.com
-- Gray, Ritter & Graham, PC, pro hac vice, Patrick J. Stueve --
stueve@stuevesiegel.com -- Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP, Richard L.
Coffman, The Coffman Law Firm, Scott A. Powell -- scott@hwnn.com --
Hare Wynn Newell & Newton, pro hac vice & William B. Chaney --
wchaney@grayreed.com -- Gray Reed & McGraw, LLP, pro hac vice.
All Defendants, represented by Michael D. Jones --
michael.jones@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis, pro hac vice &
Thomas P. Schult -- tschult@berkowitzoliver.com -- Berkowitz Oliver
Williams Shaw & Eisenbrandt, LLP.
Ellen K. Reisman, Special Master, represented by Ellen K. Reisman
-- tschult@berkowitzoliver.com -- Reisman Karron Greene LLP.
Stracener Farming Company, Plaintiff, represented by Clark W. Mason
-- clark@clarkmason.com -- Clark Mason Attorneys, pro hac vice,
James J. Thompson, Jr. -- JT@JimThompsonLaw.com -- pro hac vice,
Jerry Obe Kelly, Kelly Law Firm, PA, pro hac vice, John Paul Byrd
-- wwinfo@paulbyrdlawfirm.com -- Paul Byrd Law Firm, PLLC, pro hac
vice, Martin J. Phipps -- mphipps@phippscavazos.com -- Phipps
Anderson Deacon LLP, Mikal C. Watts -- mcwatts@wattsguerra.com --
Watts Guerra, LLP & Nolan E. Awbrey, Riley Jackson, PC, pro hac
vice.
David Stracener, Plaintiff, represented by Clark W. Mason, Clark
Mason Attorneys, pro hac vice, James J. Thompson, Jr., pro hac
vice, Jerry Obe Kelly, Kelly Law Firm, PA, pro hac vice, John Paul
Byrd, Paul Byrd Law Firm, PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin J. Phipps,
Phipps Anderson Deacon LLP, Mikal C. Watts, Watts Guerra, LLP &
Nolan E. Awbrey, Riley Jackson, PC, pro hac vice.
Larry Petit, Plaintiff, represented by Clark W. Mason, Clark Mason
Attorneys, pro hac vice, James J. Thompson, Jr., pro hac vice,
Jerry Obe Kelly, Kelly Law Firm, PA, pro hac vice, John Paul Byrd,
Paul Byrd Law Firm, PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin J. Phipps, Phipps
Anderson Deacon LLP, Mikal C. Watts, Watts Guerra, LLP & Nolan E.
Awbrey, Riley Jackson, PC, pro hac vice.
Trans Coastal Supply Company Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Jayne
Conroy -- JConroy@simmonsfirm.com -- Simmons Hanly Conroy, Martin
J. Phipps, Phipps Anderson Deacon LLP, Mikal C. Watts, Watts
Guerra, LLP, Patrick J. Stueve, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP, Paul J.
Hanly -- phanly@simmonsfirm.com -- Jr., Simmons Hanly Conroy, Sarah
Burns, Simmons Hanly Conroy & William B. Chaney --
wchaney@grayreed.com -- Gray Reed & McGraw, LLP.
Luke Claas, Plaintiff, represented by Adam J. Levitt --
wchaney@grayreed.com -- Grant & Eisenhofer, PA, pro hac vice,
Edmund S. Aronowitz, Grant & Eisenhofer, PA, pro hac vice, J. Brett
Milbourn -- BMILBOURN@WBSVLAW.COM -- Walters Bender Strohbehn &
Vaughan, PC, James J. Pizzirusso, Hausfeld LLP, pro hac vice,
Martin J. Phipps, Phipps Anderson Deacon LLP, Mikal C. Watts, Watts
Guerra, LLP, Paul D. Lundberg -- paul@lundberglawfirm.com --
Lundberg Law Firm, PLC, pro hac vice & Thomas V. Bender --
TBENDER@WBSVLAW.COM -- Walters Bender Strohbehn & Vaughan, PC.
Meinke Farms, Plaintiff, represented by Adam J. Levitt, Grant &
Eisenhofer, PA, pro hac vice, Edmund S. Aronowitz, Grant &
Eisenhofer, PA, pro hac vice, J. Brett Milbourn, Walters Bender
Strohbehn & Vaughan, PC, James J. Pizzirusso, Hausfeld LLP, pro hac
vice, Martin J. Phipps, Phipps Anderson Deacon LLP, Mikal C. Watts,
Watts Guerra, LLP, Paul D. Lundberg, Lundberg Law Firm, PLC, pro
hac vice & Thomas V. Bender, Walters Bender Strohbehn & Vaughan,
PC.
Cargill International SA, Defendant, represented by Clifford M.
Greene -- cgreene@greeneespel.com -- Greene Espel PLLP, Erin
Sindberg Porter -- esindbergporter@greeneespel.com -- Greene Espel
PLLP, Janine W. Kimble, Greene Espel PLLP, John W. Ursu --
jursu@greeneespel.com -- Greene Espel PLLP, Martin J. Phipps,
Phipps Anderson Deacon LLP, Mikal C. Watts, Watts Guerra, LLP & X.
Kevin Zhao -- kzhao@greeneespel.com -- Greene Espel PLLP.
Syngenta Biotechnology, Inc., Third Party Plaintiff, represented by
D. Scott Aberson -- scott.aberson@maslon.com -- Maslon Edelman
Borman & Brand, LLP, David S. Chipman, CASA of Shawnee County, pro
hac vice, Edwin J.U. -- edwin.u@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis,
Michael D. Jones -- michael.jones@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis,
Patrick F. Philbin -- patrick.philbin@kirkland.com -- Kirkland &
Ellis & Thomas P. Schult -- tschult@berkowitzoliver.com --
Berkowitz Oliver Williams Shaw & Eisenbrandt, LLP.
Syngenta Corporation, Third Party Plaintiff, represented by David
S. Chipman, CASA of Shawnee County, pro hac vice.
Syngenta Seeds, Inc., Third Party Plaintiff, represented by David
S. Chipman, CASA of Shawnee County, pro hac vice.
Cargill International SA, Defendant, represented by Clifford M.
Greene, Greene Espel PLLP, Erin Sindberg Porter, Greene Espel PLLP,
Janine W. Kimble, Greene Espel PLLP, John W. Ursu, Greene Espel
PLLP, Martin J. Phipps, Phipps Anderson Deacon LLP, Mikal C. Watts,
Watts Guerra, LLP & X. Kevin Zhao, Greene Espel PLLP.
MDL 2626: Four Classes Certified in Contact Lens Antitrust Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Harvey E. Schlesinger grants the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Class Certification in the matter titled In Re: Disposable Contact
Lens Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 3:15-md-02626-HES-JRK (M.D.
Fla.).
The Court certifies these classes as to the Plaintiffs' claims
brought in Plaintiffs' Interlineation to Corrected Consolidated
Class Action Complaint:
* Horizontal Class:
All persons and entities residing in the United States who
made retail purchases of disposable contact lenses
manufactured by Alcon, JJVC, or B&L from June 1, 2013 to the
present (the "Class Period") for their own use and not for
resale, where the prices for such contact lenses were
subject to a "Unilateral Pricing Policy" and the purchase
occurred during the period when the Unilateral Pricing
Policy was in effect. Excluded from the Class are any
purchases from 1-800 Contacts of disposable contact lenses
subject to B&L's Unilateral Pricing Policy, where the
purchase occurred on or after July 1, 2015. Also excluded
from the Class are Defendants, their parent companies,
subsidiaries and affiliates, any coconspirators, all
governmental entities, and any judges or justices assigned
to hear any aspect of this action.
The Horizontal Class consists of these subclasses:
(1) Maryland Subclass:
All persons and entities residing in Maryland who made
retail purchases of disposable contact lenses manufactured
by Alcon, JJVC, or B&L from June 1, 2013 to the date the
Court certifies the Class for their own use and not for
resale, where the prices for such contact lenses were
subject to a "Unilateral Pricing Policy" and the purchase
occurred during the period when the Unilateral Pricing
Policy was in effect. Excluded from the Class are any
purchases from 1-800 Contacts of disposable contact lenses
subject to B&L's Unilateral Pricing Policy, where the
purchase occurred on or after July 1, 2015. Also excluded
from the Class are Defendants, their parent companies,
subsidiaries and affiliates, any coconspirators, all
governmental entities, and any judges or justices assigned
to hear any aspect of this action.
(2) California Subclass:
All persons and entities residing in California who made
retail purchases of disposable contact lenses manufactured
by Alcon, JJVC, or B&L from June 1, 2013 to the date the
Court certifies the Class for their own use and not for
resale, where the prices for such contact lenses were
subject to a "Unilateral Pricing Policy" and the purchase
occurred during the period when the Unilateral Pricing
Policy was in effect. Excluded from the Class are any
purchases from 1-800 Contacts of disposable contact lenses
subject to B&L's Unilateral Pricing Policy, where the
purchase occurred on or afler July 1, 2015. Also excluded
from the Class are Defendants, their parent companies,
subsidiaries and affiliates, any coconspirators, all
governmental entities, and any judges or justices assigned
to hear any aspect of this action.
* Vertical Classes:
(1) The JJVC Class:
All persons and entities residing in the United States
who made retail purchases of disposable contact lenses
manufactured by JJVC from June 1, 2013 to the date the
Court certifies the Class for their own use and not for
resale, where the prices for such contact lenses were
subject to a "Unilateral Pricing Policy" and the
purchase occurred during the period when the Unilateral
Pricing Policy was in effect. Excluded from the Class
are Defendants, their parent companies, subsidiaries,
and affiliates, any co-conspirators, all governmental
entities, and any judges, justices, or jurors assigned
to hear any aspect of this action.
(2) The Alcon Class:
All persons and entities residing in the United States
who made retail purchases of disposable contact lenses
manufactured by Alcon from June 1, 2013' to the date the
Court certifies the Class for their own use and not for
resale, where the prices for such contact lenses were
subject to a "Unilateral Pricing Policy" and the
purchase occurred during the period when the Unilateral
Pricing Policy was in effect. Excluded from the Class
are Defendants, their parent companies, subsidiaries,
and affiliates, any co-conspirators, all governmental
entities, and any judges, justices, or jurors assigned
to hear any aspect of this action.
(3) The B&L Class:
All persons and entities residing in the United States
who made retail purchases of disposable contact lenses
manufactured by B&L from June 1, 2013 to the date the
Court certifies the Class for their own use and not for
resale, where the prices for such contact lenses were
subject to a "Unilateral Pricing Policy" and the
purchase occurred during the period when the Unilateral
Pricing Policy was in effect. Excluded from the Class
are any purchases from 1-800 Contacts of disposable
contact lenses subject to B&L's Unilateral Pricing
Policy, where the purchase occurred on or after July 1,
2015. Also excluded from the Class are Defendants,
their parent companies, subsidiaries and affiliates, any
co-conspirators, all governmental entities, and any
judges or justices assigned to hear any aspect of this
action.
Judge Schlesinger notes that the determination of the definition of
the Classes is conditional and may be amended or modified prior to
any decision on the merits and final judgment.
The multidistrict litigation antitrust case arises from alleged
unfair pricing of disposable contact lenses. The Defendants are
contact lens manufacturers Alcon Laboratories, Inc., Johnson &
Johnson Vision Care, Inc., Bausch & Lomb Inc. and CooperVision,
Inc.; and distributor ABB Concise Optical Group, LLC.
Judge Schlesinger also rules that:
1. Defendants' Motion to Strike Portions of the Expert Report
of Dr. John L. Solow and Preclude Testimony Regarding
Purported Collusion Between the Defendants, Pursuant to
Fed. R. Evid. 702 and Daubert is denied;
2. Defendants' Motion to Exclude or Strike the Expert Report
of Dr. Michael A. Williams Under Fed. R. Evid. 702 and Fed.
R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1) is denied;
3. Defendants' Motion to Exclude the Supplemental Report of
Dr. Michael A. Williams Under Fed. R. Evid. 702 and Daubert
is denied;
4. Hausfeld LLP, Robins Kaplan LLP, and Scott + Scott LLP
remain appointed as class counsel.
5. These Plaintiffs are appointed as class representatives:
Rachel Berg, Alexis Ito, Miriam Pardoll, Jennifer Sineni,
Pamela Mazzarella, Joseph Felson, Tamara O'Brien, Susan
Gordon, Catherine Dingle, Elyse Ulino, Amanda Cunha, Sheryl
Marean, Brett Watson, Kathleen Schirf, Cora Beth Smith and
John Machikawa;
6. Pursuant to Rule 23(c)(2)(B) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, the parties shall confer and submit to the
Court, on or before January 16, 2019, a joint proposed
class notice plan and form of notice. If the parties are
unable to agree on a class notice plan and form of notice,
the parties shall each submit one on or before January 30,
2019, accompanied by a memorandum explaining that party's
position. Each party shall respond to the other's proposed
notice plan and form of notice no later than February 13,
2019;
7. Plaintiffs' "Motion for Spoliation Sanctions Against
Defendants Johnson Johnson Vision Care, Inc. and Alcon
Laboratories, Inc." is taken under advisement; and
8. Discovery shall be reopened, for 45 days, with respect to
Defendants B&L and ABB for the limited purpose of
investigating whether any connection exists between those
Defendants and Dr. Glazier and the UPP Violations
group.[CC]
MERCY HEALTH: Eighth Circuit Appeal Filed in Sanzone ERISA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Sally Sanzone and Gene Grasle filed an appeal from a
court ruling entered in their lawsuit styled Sally Sanzone, et al.
v. Mercy Health, et al., Case No. 4:16-cv-00923-CDP, in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the District
Court granted the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs'
Consolidated Second Amended Class Action Complaint.
Plaintiffs Sally Sanzone and Gene Grasle worked at different health
care facilities operated by Defendant Mercy Health. The Plaintiffs
bring this action against Mercy Health, the Mercy Health Benefits
Committee, and the Mercy Health Stewardship Committee. The
Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants have underfunded the Plan and
have violated various provisions of the Employment Retirement
Income Security Act (ERISA), including their duties under ERISA as
fiduciaries or sponsors of the Plan.
The Plaintiffs contend that the Mercy Plan does not qualify for
ERISA's church plan exemption because is it not maintained by an
organization whose principal purpose is providing benefits for
employees of a church.
The appellate case is captioned as Sally Sanzone, et al. v. Mercy
Health, et al., Case No. 18-3574, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:
-- Appendix is due on January 14, 2019;
-- Brief of Appellant Gene Grasle and Sally Sanzone is due on
January 14, 2019;
-- Appellees' brief is due 30 days from the date the court
issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of
appellant; and
-- Appellant reply brief is due 14 days from the date the
court issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the
appellee brief.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants Sally Sanzone, individually and behalf of all
others similarly situated, and Gene Grasle are represented by:
Laura R. Gerber, Esq.
KELLER ROHRBACK LLP
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 623-1900
E-mail: lgerber@kellerrohrback.com
- and -
Karen L. Handorf, Esq.
Scott M. Lempert, Esq.
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
West Tower, Suite 500
1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20005-3934
Telephone: (202) 408-4600
E-mail: khandorf@cohenmilstein.com
slempert@cohenmilstein.com
Plaintiff-Appellant Sally Sanzone, individually and behalf of all
others similarly situated, is represented by:
Ron Kilgard, Esq.
KELLER ROHRBACK LLP
3101 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1400
Phoenix, AZ 85012
Telephone: (602) 248-0088
E-mail: rkilgard@kellerrohrback.com
- and -
Rhona Lyons, Esq.
James Singer, Esq.
SCHUCHAT, COOK & WERNER
250 Shell Building
1221 Locust Street
Saint Louis, MO 63103-2364
Telephone: (314) 621-2626
E-mail: rsl@schuchatcw.com
jis@schuchatcw.com
Defendants-Appellees Mercy Health, Mercy Health Benefits Committee
and Mercy Health Stewardship Committee are represented by:
Allen D. Allred, Esq.
Jeffrey Richard Fink, Esq.
Richard Joseph Pautler, Esq.
THOMPSON COBURN, LLP
One US Bank Plaza
505 N. Seventh Street
Saint Louis, MO 63101-1693
Telephone: (314) 552-6000
E-mail: aallred@thompsoncoburn.com
jfink@thompsoncoburn.com
rpautler@thompsoncoburn.com
MICHELIN NORTH: Nixon Files Suit under ADA in New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Michelin North
America, Inc. The case is styled as Donald Nixon, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Michelin
North America, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-07007 (E.D. N.Y.,
December 10, 2018).
The lawsuit arises under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Michelin North America Inc. designs, manufactures, and sells tires.
The company offers airplane, car, truck and bus, earthmover,
agriculture, aircraft, passenger and light truck, heavy duty truck,
recreational vehicle, motorcycle, bicycle, and other vehicle tires.
It additionally publishes travel guides, hotel, and restaurant
guides, maps, and road atlases for various cities in North America.
The company offers its products through dealers worldwide. The
company was formerly known as Michelin Tire Corporation and changed
its name to Michelin North America Inc. in May 1995.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan Shalom, Esq.
Shalom Law, PLLC.
124-04 Metropolitan Avenue
Kew Gardens, NY 11374
Tel: (718) 971-9474
Email: jshalom@jonathanshalomlaw.com
MORNING STAR: Seeks Prelim. OK of $246K McClain Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the lawsuits entitled IAFREEDRE MCCLAIN, MONTRELL
DAVIS, and others similarly situated v. MORNING STAR, LLC a/k/a
MORNING STAR NC, LLC, d/b/a HARDEE'S, Case No.
3:18-cv-00419-FDW-DCK (W.D.N.C.), and E.P. and S.F., individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated v. CKE RESTAURANTS
HOLDINGS, INC., a Delaware Corporation; HARDEE'S FOOD SYSTEMS LLC,
a North Carolina Corporation; HARDEE'S RESTAURANTS LLC, a Delaware
Corporation; and MORNING STAR, LLC a/k/a MORNING STAR NC, LLC, a
Florida Corporation, Case No. 3:18-cv-00483-FDW-DCK (W.D.N.C.),
jointly ask the Court to preliminarily approve their settlement.
The Plaintiffs have made claims against the Defendants and
originally filed the class action complaints against the Defendants
in the General Court of Justice, Superior Court Division,
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, identified as Civil Action Nos.
18-CVS-12752 (June 21, 2018) and 18-CVS-14007 (July 16, 2018). The
Defendants removed both actions to the District Court ("the
litigation"). The Plaintiffs dismissed without prejudice CKE
Restaurant Holdings, Inc., Hardee's Food Systems LLC, and Hardee's
Restaurants LLC from Civil Action No. 3:18-cv-00483.
The damages sought are the cost of Hepatitis A Virus ("HAV") blood
testing and/or HAV vaccines or immune globulin ("IG") shots and an
amount for the inconvenience for being warned and encouraged to
receive the treatment.
For purposes of this settlement, the Parties agree that the class
shall be defined as:
All individuals who were (a) potentially exposed to the
Hepatitis-A Virus ("HAV") at the Hardee's Restaurant, 2604
Little Rock Road, Charlotte, North Carolina ("Charlotte
Hardee's"), between June 13, 2018, and June 23, 2018
("Potential Exposure Period"), and (b) who, as a result of
such potential exposure to HAV, obtained preventive medical
treatment, including the administration of IG, HAV vaccine
shots, or blood tests within 14 days after their exposure,
and in no event any later than July 7, 2018.
Excluded from the Class are (1) all persons, if any, who
developed HAV infections as a result of consuming food or
beverage at the Charlotte Hardee's during the Potential
Exposure Period, (2) anyone receiving their first IG shot,
HAV vaccine, or blood test after July 7, 2018, and (3)
employees at the Charlotte Hardee's during the Potential
Exposure Period.
The General Damages Settlement provides for payment of general
damages to each Class Member, who submits a timely, qualified
claim, for general damages. Each Claimant will receive as general
damages a pro-rata share of the aggregate class amount of $246,000
paid by Morning Star's insurance carrier, Nationwide Insurance
Company.
Class Plaintiffs, McClain, Davis, E.P. and S.F., will each receive
an additional $1,000 in compensation paid by Nationwide Insurance.
The Plaintiffs' reasonable attorneys' fees and costs will be capped
at 25% of the amount paid to the Class for general damages, or what
is awarded by the Court, whichever is less. In no event shall the
insurer be obligated to pay more than $61,500 for the Plaintiffs'
attorneys' fees and costs. This amount is in addition to the
General Damages paid to Qualified Claimants.[CC]
Plaintiffs Iafreedre McClain and Montrell Davis are represented
by:
Brett Dressler, Esq.
SELLERS, AYERS, DORTCH & LYONS, PA
301 S. McDowell St., Suite 410
Charlotte, NC 28204
Telephone: (704) 377-5050
Facsimile: (704) 339-0172
E-mail: bdressler@sellersayers.com
- and -
William D. Marler, Esq.
MARLER CLARK, L.L.P., P.S.
1012 First Avenue, Fifth Floor
Seattle, WA 98104
Toll Free: (800) 884-9840
Telephone: (206) 346-1888
Facsimile: (206) 346-1898
E-mail: bmarler@marlerclark.com
Plaintiffs E.P. and S.F. are represented by:
Daniel K. Bryson, Esq.
Scott C. Harris, Esq.
WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP
900 W. Morgan Street
Raleigh, NC 27603
Telephone: (919) 600-5000
Facsimile: (919) 600-5035
E-mail: dan@wbmllp.com
scott@wbmllp.com
- and -
Joseph G. Sauder, Esq.
SAUDER SCHELKOPF LLC
555 Lancaster Avenue
Berwyn, PA 19312
Telephone: (888) 711-9975
Facsimile: (610) 421-1326
E-mail: info@sauderschelkopf.com
Defendant Morning Star LLC is represented by:
Shawn D. Scott, Esq.
Alan M. Maxwell, Esq.
Nicholas P. Panayotopoulos, Esq.
Jennifer Adler, Esq.
WEINBERG, WHEELER, HUDGINS, GUNN & DIAL, LLC
3344 Peachtree Road, N.E., Suite 2400
Atlanta, GA 30326
Telephone: (404) 876-2700
Facsimile: (404) 875-9433
E-mail: sscott@wwhgd.com
amaxwell@wwhgd.com
npanayo@wwhgd.com
jadler@wwhgd.com
NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Accused by Dotson Suit of Violating FDCPA
------------------------------------------------------------
LUIS DOTSON, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated
v. NATIONWIDE CREDIT, INC.; and JOHN DOES 1 to 10, Case No.
2:18-cv-16779 (D.N.J., December 3, 2018), arises from the
Defendants' alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.
Nationwide Credit, Inc., is a collection agency with its principal
place of address located in Atlanta, Georgia. The true names of
the Doe Defendants are presently unknown to the Plaintiff.
Nationwide Credit regularly collects and attempts to collect
defaulted consumer debts allegedly owed to others which were
incurred primarily for personal, family or household purposes.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yongmoon Kim, Esq.
KIM LAW FIRM LLC
411 Hackensack Avenue, Suite 701
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 273-7117
E-mail: ykim@kimlf.com
- and -
Ronald I. LeVine, Esq.
Eileen L. Linarducci, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF RONALD I. LEVINE, ESQ.
210 River Street, Suite 11
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 489-7900
Facsimile: (201) 489-1395
E-mail: ron@ronlevinelaw.com
elinarducci@ronlevinelaw.com
NEVINS REALTY LLC: Fischler Files Suit under ADA in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nevins Realty LLC.
The case is styled as Brian Fischler, individually and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Nevins Realty
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-07000 (E.D. N.Y., December 9,
2018).
The lawsuit arises under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Nevins Realty LLC is a real estate agency in New York City, New
York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq.
Lipsky Lowe LLP
630 Third Avenue
Fifth Floor
New York, NY 10017
Tel: (212) 392-4772
Fax: (212) 444-1030
Email: doug@lipskylowe.com
- and –
Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq.
Lipsky Lowe LLP
630 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10017
Tel: (212) 392-4772
Fax: (212) 444-1030
Email: chris@lipskylowe.com
NEW YORK, NY: Court Approves Class Settlement in Parker Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Magistrate Judge Cheryl L. Pollak grants final approval of the
proposed Class Settlement in the lawsuit styled ROY PARKER, et al.,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. CITY
OF NEW YORK, Case No. 15 CV 6733 (CLP) (E.D.N.Y.).
The Court also certifies the Settlement Class, and approves of the
Plaintiffs' counsel as Class Counsel.
On November 23, 2015, Roy Parker, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, filed a class action Complaint against
the City of New York, claiming that the New York City Department of
Corrections ("NYCDOC") had violated the Constitution by holding
pretrial detainees in solitary confinement or punitive segregation
("PSEG") without providing them with due process and for no
legitimate purpose. The Plaintiffs allege that for many years,
NYCDOC pretrial detainees had been placed in PSEG for no reason
except for the fact that the detainee had previously been found to
have violated a disciplinary rule while incarcerated on another
occasion, but had been released from custody prior to serving the
entirety of the disciplinary sentence.
The Plaintiffs allege that if the detainee were later returned to
NYCDOC custody, the City would require the detainee to serve the
remainder of his "old" solitary confinement time. The Plaintiffs
allege that this explicit policy of the City, referred to as the
"Old Time Policy," violated the Plaintiffs' constitutional rights
because the Defendant never provided these detainees with a hearing
or any other process.
The Settlement Agreement provides compensation of $175 for each day
that most Class Members were held in solitary confinement as a
result of the Old Time Policy, with compensation of $200 per day
for those Class Members who were juveniles or were diagnosed with a
serious mental illness at the time of their confinement.
The Court notes that, unlike some settlements, in which the
defendant makes a fixed payment into a common fund marked for
distribution to the class, the Stipulation provides for direct
payments to each Class Member by the Defendant based on claim forms
submitted to the Claims Administrator. Moreover, unlike some class
settlements where the plaintiffs' counsel takes a percentage of the
total fund regardless of how many class members participate, here,
the Class Members who participate in the Settlement will receive
the full value of their claims, as the Plaintiffs' counsel have
agreed to seek fees in a separate motion brought before the Court
with no prior agreement with the Defendant.[CC]
NISSAN EXTENDED: Arkliss Appeals D.N.J. Ruling to Third Circuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Fabian Arkliss filed an appeal from a court ruling issued
in the lawsuit titled Fabian Arkliss v. Nissan Extended Services
North, et al., Case No. 2-18-cv-05681, in the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Jersey.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
was filed in the Court of New Jersey, Bergen County Division (Case
No. 2018 L 001227), and was later removed to the District Court.
The appellate case is captioned as Fabian Arkliss v. Nissan
Extended Services North, et al., Case No. 18-3584, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant FABIAN ARKLISS, for himself and all others
similarly situated, is represented by:
Ari H. Marcus, Esq.
MARCUS AND ZELMAN LLC
701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
Asbury Park, NJ 07712
Telephone: (732) 695-3282
E-mail: Ari@MarcusZelman.com
- and -
Gabriel Y. Posner, Esq.
POSNER LAW PLLC
270 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (646) 546-5022
E-mail: gabe@posnerlawpllc.com
Defendant-Appellee NISSAN EXTENDED SERVICES NORTH AMERICA is
represented by:
Jeremy H. Ershow, Esq.
JENNER & BLOCK LLP
919 Third Avenue, 38th Floor
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 891-1651
E-mail: jershow@jenner.com
Defendant-Appellee DIFEO NISSAN PARTNERSHIP, DBA Hudson Nissan, is
represented by:
Debra M. Albanese, Esq.
Stephen G. Traflet, Esq.
TRAFLET & FABIAN
264 South Street
Carriage Court Two
Morristown, NJ 07960
Telephone: (973) 631-6222
E-mail: dalbanese@trafletfabian.com
straflet@trafletfabian.com
NIXON ENGINEERING: Peery Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
Jayme Peery, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Nixon Engineering, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
6:18-cv-00358 (W.D. Tex., December 10, 2018) seeks to recover
compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs,
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.
The complaint relates that Nixon has enforced a uniform
company-wide policy wherein it improperly required its non-exempt
hourly employees -- Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members -- to
perform work off-the-clock and without pay. Although Plaintiff and
the Putative Class Members routinely worked in excess of 40 hours
per workweek, Plaintiffs and the Putative Class Members have not
been paid overtime of at least one and one-half their regular rates
for all hours worked.
Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members did not and currently do
not perform work that meets the definition of exempt work under the
FLSA or Texas law. Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members seek to
recover all unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, and other damages
owed under the FLSA, and to recover all damages owed under their
Texas state-law claim as a class action. Plaintiff also prays that
all similarly situated workers (Putative Class Members) be notified
of the pendency of this action to apprise them of their rights and
provide them an opportunity to opt-in to this lawsuit, says the
complaint.
Plaintiff Jayme Peery was employed by Nixon during the relevant
time period.
The Putative Class Members are those current and former workers who
were employed by Nixon at any time during the relevant time
period.
Nixon Engineering, LLC is a Texas limited liability company,
licensed to and doing business in Texas, and may be served through
its registered agent for service of process: Tina Tiner Nixon, 508
Pecan Street, Bastrop, Texas, 78602.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Clif Alexander, Esq.
Lauren E. Braddy, Esq.
Alan Clifton Gordon, Esq.
Carter T. Hastings, Esq.
George Schimmel, Esq.
ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC
819 N. Upper Broadway
Corpus Christi, TX 78401
Phone: (361) 452-1279
Facsimile: (361) 452-1284
Email: clif@a2xlaw.com
lauren@a2xlaw.com
cgordon@a2xlaw.com
carter@a2xlaw.com
geordie@a2xlaw.com
NURSING CARE: Smith Moves for Certification of Class Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kianya Smith moves the Court to conditionally certify the matter
titled KIANYA SMITH, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. NURSING CARE SERVICES, INC., Case No.
2:18-cv-04075-CFK (E.D. Pa.), as a collective action under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff also seeks approval of the proposed notice.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Philip Bohrer, Esq.
Scott E. Brady, Esq.
BOHRER BRADY LLC
8712 Jefferson Highway, Suite B
Baton Rouge, LA 70809
Telephone: (225) 925-5297
Facsimile: (225) 231-7000
E-mail: Phil@bohrerbrady.com
Scott@bohrerbrady.com
- and -
Kevin I. Lovitz, Esq.
LOVITZ LAW FIRM
One Liberty Place, 36th Floor
1650 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 735-1996
Facsimile: (267) 319-7943
E-mail: kevin@lovitzlaw.com
OHIO: Mann Moves to Certify Class of Prisoners With Hepatitis C
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey D. Mann, John T. Bragg and Eric Pastrano ask the Court to
certify the claims set forth in the complaint of their lawsuit
styled JEFFREY D. MANN, et al. v. OHIO DEPT. OF REHAB. & CORR., et
al., Case No. 2:18-cv-01565-GCS-EPD (S.D. Ohio), as a class
action.
The Plaintiffs seek class certification for a class defined in the
Complaint as:
Ohio prisoners who have been diagnosed with Hepatitis C
Virus (HCV) and who have either been unsuccessfully treated
with obsolete drug therapy that has been supplanted by drug
therapy with 90-100%; efficacy, as compared with the 50%
efficacy of the treatment provided, and/or those Ohio
prisoners with HCV who have been refused treatment.
The Plaintiffs, who are currently incarcerated at the Grafton
Correctional Institution, in Grafton, Ohio, appear pro se.[CC]
OLIVER ADJUSTMENT: Class Certification Sought in Olbinski Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Duane Olbinski moves the Court to certify the class described in
the complaint of the lawsuit styled DUANE OLBINSKI, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. OLIVER ADJUSTMENT
COMPANY, INC., Case No. 2:18-cv-01917 (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 says.
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
PARAGON SPORTS: Delacruz Says Website Not Accessible to Blind
-------------------------------------------------------------
EMANUEL DELACRUZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PARAGON SPORTS LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:18-cv-10582-ALC (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 13, 2018) is an action
against the Defendant for failure to design, construct, maintain,
and operate its website, www.paragonsports.com, to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other
blind or visually-impaired people in violation of the Plaintiff's
rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Paragon Sports Co. LLC operates a sports specialty store that
provides sports equipment and clothing for men, women, and kids
sports enthusiasts worldwide. Paragon Sports Co. LLC was founded in
1908 and is based in New York, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 879-0240
Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
E-mail: nyjg@aol.com
danalgottlieb@aol.com
PELLA CORP: Faces Nixon ADA Class Action
----------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pella Corporation.
The case is styled as Donald Nixon, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Pella Corporation,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-07006 (E.D. N.Y., December 10, 2018).
The lawsuit arises under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Pella Corporation is a privately held window and door
manufacturing company headquartered in Pella, Iowa, and with
manufacturing and sales operations in a number of locations in the
United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan Shalom, Esq.
Shalom Law, PLLC.
124-04 Metropolitan Avenue
Kew Gardens, NY 11374
Tel: (718) 971-9474
Email: jshalom@jonathanshalomlaw.com
PILOT CORPORATION: Seeks 6th Cir. Review of Decision in "Taylor"
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Pilot Corporation and Pilot Travel Centers, LLC, filed
an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit styled Arvion Taylor
v. Pilot Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-02294, in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Tennessee at Memphis.
The appellate case is captioned as Arvion Taylor v. Pilot
Corporation, et al., Case No. 18-6270, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Pilot operates
a large, nationwide chain of truck stops. Some locations house
both a convenience store and a fast food restaurant. As a result,
Pilot employs tens of thousands of workers to man cash registers,
stock shelves, and make sandwiches, many positions are on hourly
rate basis.
Plaintiff Arvion Taylor worked at a Pilot truck stop for about two
years. She says that during such time her managers routinely
altered her time sheets to avoid paying her overtime. According to
her, Pilot's managers rolled back workers' hours at locations
across the country as a matter of policy. She sought to recover
from Pilot for such alleged overtime violations by bringing a
collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellee ARVION TAYLOR, on her own behalf and others
similarly situated, is represented by:
Justin Scott Gilbert, Esq.
GILBERT RUSSELL MCWHERTER SCOTT BOBBITT
200 W. Martin Luther King Boulevard, Suite 1067
Chattanooga, TN 37402
Telephone: (423) 499-3044
E-mail: jgilbert@gilbertfirm.com
- and -
Adam W. Hansen, Esq.
APOLLO LAW
3217 Hennepin Avenue, S., Suite 7
Minneapolis, MN 55408
Telephone: (612) 927-2969
E-mail: adam@apollo-law.com
- and -
Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, PA
1515 S. Federal Highway, Suite 404
Boca Raton, FL 33432
Telephone: (561) 447-8888
E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com
- and -
Keith Michael Stern, Esq.
SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, PA
14 N.E. First Avenue, Suite 800
Miami, FL 33132
Telephone: (305) 901-1379
E-mail: kstern@shavitzlaw.com
Defendants-Appellants PILOT CORPORATION, a Tennessee Corporation;
and PILOT TRAVEL CENTERS, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability
Company, are represented by:
Zachary B. Busey, Esq.
BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ
165 Madison Avenue, Suite 2000
Memphis, TN 38103
Telephone: (901) 526-2000
E-mail: zbusey@bakerdonelson.com
PORTARO GROUP: Fails to Properly Pay Sales Agents, Griffin Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SATONJA GRIFFIN and BIANCA MINOR, individually, and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. THE PORTARO GROUP INC., an Ohio
corporation, Case No. 1:18-cv-02786 (N.D. Ohio, December 3, 2018),
alleges that the Defendant's compensation scheme results in its
sales agents not being properly paid for all time worked, including
overtime.
The Portaro Group Inc. is an Ohio corporation. The Defendant is in
the business of call center services and marketing for companies to
consumers via inbound and outbound calls.
The Defendant is an AT&T Solution Provider that markets and sells
telecommunications products and services from third-party vendors
including AT&T, Comcast, Charter, Verizon, CenturyLink, Qwest,
Frontier and others.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Robert E. DeRose, Esq.
Jessica R. Doogan, Esq.
BARKAN MEIZLISH DEROSE WENTZ MCINERNEY PEIFER, LLP
250 E. Broad Street, 10th Floor
Columbus, OH 43215
Telephone: (800) 274-5297
Facsimile: (614) 744-2300
E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com
jdoogan@barkanmeizlish.com
- and -
Jason J. Thompson, Esq.
Rod M. Johnston, Esq.
SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
One Towne Square, 17th Floor
Southfield, MI 48076
Telephone: (248) 355-0300
E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com
rjohnston@sommerspc.com
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Marsh Seeks Prelim. Nod of Class Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned CASSIDY MARSH, on behalf of
himself, and all others similarly situated and as an "aggrieved
employee" on behalf of other "aggrieved employees" under the Labor
Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 v. THE PROCTER & GAMBLE
PAPER PRODUCTS COMPANY, an Ohio corporation; and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, Case No. 2:18-cv-04944-R-E (C.D. Cal.), moves the Court
for an order:
(1) preliminarily approving the Stipulation and Class Action
Settlement Agreement;
(2) preliminarily granting class certification of the Classes
solely for settlement purposes pursuant to Rule 23 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;
(3) preliminarily appointing David Spivak, Esq., and Caroline
Tahmassian, Esq., of The Spivak Law Firm and Walter
Haines, Esq., of the United Employees Law Group as Class
Counsel;
(4) preliminarily appointing Plaintiff Cassidy Marsh as class
representative;
(5) approving the use of the proposed Notice procedures;
(6) directing that Notice be mailed to the proposed Classes
via first class U.S. mail; and
(7) scheduling a date for the Final Approval Hearing, pursuant
to Plaintiff's the motion for final approval of class
action settlement.
The Court will commence a hearing on February 4, 2019, at 10:00
a.m., to consider the Motion.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Spivak, Esq.
Caroline Tahmassian, Esq.
THE SPIVAK LAW FIRM
16530 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 312
Encino, CA 91436
Telephone: (818) 582-3086
Facsimile: (818) 582-2561
E-mail: david@spivaklaw.com
caroline@spivaklaw.com
- and -
Walter Haines, Esq.
UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP
5500 Bolsa Ave., Suite 201
Huntington Beach, CA 92649
Telephone: (562) 256-1047
Facsimile: (562) 256-1006
E-mail: whaines@uelglaw.com
PROFESSIONAL RECOVERY: Thillen Files Suit under FDCA in Wisconsin
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Professional Recovery
Personnel, Inc. The case is styled as Autumn Thillen, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Professional Recovery Personnel, Inc., a Minnesota corporation,
Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-01022-jdp (W.D. Wis., December 10,
2018).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
Professional Recovery Personnel, Inc. is a Credit reporting agency
in Champlin, Minnesota.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Joseph Philipps, Esq.
Philipps & Philipps, Ltd.
9760 South Roberts Road, Suite One
Palos Hills, IL 60465
Tel: (708) 974-2900
Fax: (708) 974-2900
Email: davephilipps@aol.com
QUANTUM ELECTRONIC: Fabricant Hits Illegal Telemarketing Calls
--------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Fabricant, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Quantum Electronic Payments, LLC
and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-10035
(C.D. Cal., November 30, 2018), seeks injunctive relief, statutory
damages, treble damages and all other relief for violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act,
Quantum Electronic Payments, a marketer and seller of electronic
payment processing services and related products, attempted to
contact Fabricant on his mobile phone using an automatic telephone
dialing system offering its services. Fabricant incurred a charge
for incoming calls. His phone is also registered in the National
Do-Not-Call registry. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
Meghan E. George, Esq.
Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
Tom E. Wheeler, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
21550 Oxnard St. Suite 780,
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Phone: (877) 206-4741
Fax: (866) 633-0228
Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
mgeorge@toddflaw.com
abacon@toddflaw.com
twheeler@toddflaw.com
QUICKSILVER CAPITAL: Forget Me Not Alleges RICO Act Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
FORGET ME NOT FASHIONS, LLC; DOMINIKA J. MACIEJKA; and GARY S.
HUBAND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. QUICKSILVER CAPITAL, LLC; BUSINESS CAPITAL,
LLC; UNITED BUSINESS FUNDING, LLC; MICHEAL PUDERBEUTEL; JOHN
MCCORMICK; NOLAN RYAN; and JOHN AND JANE DOE INVESTORS, Defendants,
Case No. 1:18-cv-10532-VM (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 13, 2018) alleges
violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act. The case is assigned to Judge Victor Marrero.
Quicksilver Capital, LLC provides a full line of innovative
financing solutions that help small businesses in the United
States. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shane R. Heskin, Esq.
WHITE & WILLIAMS, LLP
1650 Market Street, Suite 1800
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 864-6329
Facsimile: (215) 399-9603
E-mail: heskins@whiteandwilliams.com
RECOVERY SOLUTIONS: Not a Licensed Debt Collector, Giles Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Frank Giles, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Recovery Solutions Group LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 18-cv-00375, (E.D. Wash., November 30, 2018), Defendants,
seeks damages and remedies pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act, Washington Collection Agency Act and Washington's
Consumer Protection Act.
Recovery alleges that Giles owes ServiceMaster for cleaning,
restoration and repairs to his home following a house fire wherein
a dispute arose between ServiceMaster and Giles regarding the
billed charges. Recovery was not a licensed collection agency as
required by Washington State Law, says the complaint. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kirk D. Miller, Esq.
KIRK D. MILLER, P.S.
421 W. Riverside Avenue, Ste. 660
Spokane, WA 99201
Tel: (509) 413-1494
Fax: (509) 413-1724
- and -
Shayne Sutherland, Esq.
Brian Cameron, Esq.
CAMERON SUTHERLAND, PLLC
421 W. Riverside Ave., Ste. 660
Spokane, WA 99201
Tel: (509) 315-4507
Fax: (509) 315-4585
SAMSONITE CO: Rattanawong Files Suit in Calif. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Samsonite Company
Stores, LLC. The case is styled as Sathapon Rattanawong,
individually and on behalf of other members of the general public
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Samsonite Company Stores, LLC an
unknown business entity and Does 1 to 100, Defendants, Case No.
CGC18571877 (Cal. Super. Ct., December 6, 2018).
Samsonite Company Stores, LLC, manufactures luggage, casual bags,
backpacks, electronics carriers, laptop bags, messenger bags,
duffle and sport bags, and travel accessories. It offers its
products through its stores in the United States; dealers; and
online. The company was incorporated in 1985 and is based in
Mansfield, Massachusetts. Samsonite Company Stores, LLC operates as
a subsidiary of Samsonite International S.A.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
410 Arden Avenue, Suite 203
Glendale, CA 91203
Tel: (818) 265-1020
Fax: (818) 265-1021
Email: edwin@lfjpc.com
SAULSBURY INDUSTRIES: Bryer Moves for Certification of FLSA Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned JAMES BRYER, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SAULSBURY
INDUSTRIES, INC., Case No. 7:18-cv-00105-DC (W.D. Tex.), asks the
Court to conditionally certify this class:
All hourly employees of Saulsbury Industries, Inc. who were,
at any point in the past three (3) years, paid straight time
for overtime. (the "Putative Class Members").
James Bryer filed this collective action lawsuit pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Section216(b) (FLSA) to recover
alleged unpaid overtime wages owed to hourly employees of
Saulsbury, who were paid straight time for overtime.
Mr. Bryer asks that the Court grant his Motion and (1)
conditionally certify this action for purposes of notice and
discovery; (2) order that a judicially approved notice be sent to
all Putative Class Members by mail and e-mail; (3) approve the form
and content of Plaintiff's proposed judicial notice and reminder
notice; (4) order Saulsbury to produce to his Counsel the last
known name, address, phone number, e-mail address and dates of
employment for each of the Putative Class Members in a usable
electronic format; (5) authorize his Counsel to send by mail and
e-mail to the Putative Class Members reminding them of the deadline
for the submission of the Consent forms; (6) authorize his Counsel
to follow up with all those Putative Class Members whose mail
and/or e-mail Notice and Consent Forms came back undeliverable with
a phone call to ensure receipt of the Notice packet; and (7)
authorize a 60-day notice period for the Putative Class Members to
join this case.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Richard M. Schreiber, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77005
Telephone: (713) 352-1100
Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
rschreiber@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 877-8788
Facsimile: (710) 877-8065
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
SHEPHARD'S BEACH: Borozny Files Suit under ADA in Florida
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Shephard's Beach
Resort, Inc. The case is styled as Austin Borozny, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Shephard's
Beach Resort, Inc., a Florida corporation, Defendant, Case No.
8:18-cv-02984-SDM-CPT (M.D. Fla., December 10, 2018).
The lawsuit arises under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Shephard's Beach Resort, Inc. is a beachfront Clearwater Beach
hotel offering two restaurants, including the oceanfront Ocean
Flame restaurant, and an expansive semi-private beach.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jessica Lynn Kerr, Esq.
The Advocacy Group, LLC
200 SE 6th St Ste 504
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301-3424
Tel: (954) 282-1858
Fax: (844) 786-3694
Email: jkerr@advocacypa.com
SKC ENTERPRISES: Davis' 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 filed in the
lawsuit entitled 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 says.[CC]
STAGE STORES: Class of Employees Certified in Crosby FLSA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr., grants the Plaintiff's Motion
For Court-Authorized Notice Pursuant to Section 216(b) of the Fair
Labor Standards Act in the lawsuit captioned MAYA CROSBY and DENEED
PATTON, on behalf of themselves and all those similarly situated v.
STAGE STORES, INC., Case No. 3:18-cv-00503 (M.D. Tenn.).
The Court Conditionally Certifies a collective class consisting of
all past and present employees of Stage, for the three years prior
to the date of the entry of this Order, whose titles included,
without limitation, Sales Associates, Visual Associates, eCommerce
Fulfillment Associates, Custodian Freight Associates, Counter
Managers, Cosmetic Sales Mangers, Beauty Advisors, and Assistant
Store Managers, in Stage Stores, Inc.'s United States locations
that operate under the brand names Stage, Peebles, Goody's, Bealls,
and Palais Royal.
In his order, Judge Crenshaw directs counsel to confer in an effort
to arrive at an agreeable proposed Notice and Consent Form, and any
such agreed forms shall be filed within 14 days of the Order.
Within 21 days of this Order, the Defendant shall provide the
Plaintiffs' counsel with a list of approved contact information for
putative class members.[CC]
SUBARU OF AMERICA: Faces Amato et al. Suit in New Jersey
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Subaru of America,
Inc. The case is captioned as JOSEPH AMATO; JAMES B. MOORE; CHRIS
LALL; and GEORGE SANDOVAL, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SUBARU OF AMERICA, INC.; and
SUBARU CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-16118-JHR-KMW
(D.N.J., Nov. 13, 2018). The case is assigned to Judge Joseph H.
Rodriguez and referred to Magistrate Judge Karen M. Williams.
Subaru of America, Inc. markets, distributes, sells, and services
Subaru vehicles, parts, and accessories through a network of
retailers in the United States. The company was founded in 1968 and
is based in Cherry Hill, New Jersey with additional offices in
Denver, Colorado; Cherry Hill, New Jersey; and Itasca, Illinois. It
also has zone offices in various cities in the United States. In
addition, the company has warehouses in Florence, New Jersey;
Douglasville, Georgia; Whitestown, Indiana; Aurora, Colorado; and
Portland, Oregon. As of August 31, 1990, Subaru of America, Inc.
operates as a subsidiary of Fuji Heavy Industries Ltd. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary S. Graifman, Esq.
KANTROWITZ GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN, ESQS.
210 Summit Avenue
Montvale, NJ 07645
Telephone: (201) 391-7000
E-mail: ggraifman@kgglaw.com
SUPERIOR HAULING: North Suit Asserts Calif. Labor Code Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Superior Hauling And
Fast Transit, Inc. The case is styled as Robert North, an
individual, for himself and those similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Superior Hauling And Fast Transit, Inc. doing business as: Redbird
Carriers, a Missouri corporation, Intermodal Drayage Services,
Inc., a Missouri corporation and Does 1 to 10, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 5:18-cv-02564-JGB-KK (C.D. Cal., December 6,
2018).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as violation of
Labor Code.
Superior Hauling and Fast Transit, Inc., doing business as Redbird
Carriers, offers freight transportation services. It provides
intermodal and over the road services. The company was founded in
1981 and is based in St. Louis, Missouri.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Aris Edmund Karakalos, Esq.
Strauss and Strauss APC
121 North Fir Street Suite F
Ventura, CA 93001
Tel: (805) 641-9992
Fax: (805) 641-9993
Email: aris@strausslawyers.com
- and –
Michael Anthony Strauss, Esq.
Strauss and Strauss APC
121 North Fir Street Suite F
Ventura, CA 93001
Tel: (805) 641-6600
Fax: (805) 641-6607
Email: mike@strausslawyers.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Christopher Chad McNatt , Jr, Esq.
Scopelitis Garvin Light Hanson and Feary LLP
2 North Lake Avenue Suite 560
Pasadena, CA 91101
Tel: (626) 795-4700
Fax: (626) 795-4790
Email: cmcnatt@scopelitis.com
- and –
Megan Emslie Ross, Esq.
Scopelitis Garvin Light Hanson and Feary LLP
2 North Lake Avenue Suite 560
Pasadena, CA 91101
Tel: (626) 795-4700
Fax: (626) 795-4790
Email: mross@scopelitis.com
TAILORED BRANDS: Continues to Defend Twin Hill Suit Underway
------------------------------------------------------------
Tailored Brands, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 13, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended November 3, 2018, that the Twin Hill, a
company subsidiary, continues to defend itself against a class
action suit related to defective uniforms.
On August 2, 2017, two American Airlines employees, Thor Zurbriggen
and Dena Catan, filed a putative class action lawsuit against the
company's Twin Hill subsidiary in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois (Case No. 1:17-cv-05648).
The complaint alleged claims for strict liability, negligence, and
medical monitoring based on allegedly defective uniforms Twin Hill
supplied to American Airlines for its employees.
On September 28, 2017, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
adding nine additional named plaintiffs, adding American Airlines,
Inc. as a defendant, and adding claims for civil battery and
intentional infliction of emotional distress. Plaintiffs filed a
Seconded Amended Complaint on October 4, 2018 on behalf of 39 named
plaintiffs, adding PSA Airlines, Inc. and Envoy Air Inc. as
defendants, adding new factual allegations and adding a new claim
of fraud against American.
The Second Amended Complaint included plaintiffs from the Onody
(Case No. 1:18-cv-02303) and Joy (Case No. 1:18-cv-05808) matters
the company reported in prior filings.
As a result, on October 16, 2018, the judge dismissed the separate
Onody and Joy matters.
Tailored Brands said, "We have timely answered the Second Amended
Complaint and the matter will proceed in due course. We believe
that any lawsuit filed on the basis of the safety of the Twin Hill
uniforms supplied to American Airlines is without merit, and we
intend to contest this action vigorously. Twin Hill has substantial
and convincing evidence of the uniforms' safety and fitness for
their intended purpose, and we believe that there is no evidence
linking any of the plaintiffs' alleged injuries to our uniforms.
The range of loss, if any, is not reasonably estimable at this
time. We do not currently believe, however, that it will have a
material adverse effect on our financial position, results of
operations or cash flows."
Tailored Brands, Inc. operates as a specialty apparel retailer the
United States, Puerto Rico, and Canada. It operates through two
segments, Retail and Corporate Apparel. The company was formerly
known as The Men's Wearhouse, Inc. and changed its name to Tailored
Brands, Inc. in February 2016. Tailored Brands, Inc. was founded in
1973 and is based in Houston, Texas.
TAILORED BRANDS: Settlement Reached in Oliver Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Tailored Brands, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 13, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended November 3, 2018, that the company entered
into a settlement agreement with Anthony Oliver.
On February 17, 2016, Anthony Oliver filed a putative class action
lawsuit against the company's Men's Wearhouse subsidiary in the
United States District Court for the Central District of California
(Case No. 2:16-cv-01100).
The complaint attempts to allege claims under the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act. In particular the complaint alleges that
the Company sent unsolicited text messages to cellular telephones
beginning October 1, 2013 to the present day.
After the company demonstrated that the Company had the plaintiff's
permission to send him texts, the plaintiff filed an amended
complaint alleging the Company sent text messages exceeding the
number plaintiff had agreed to receive each week. The parties filed
cross-motions for summary judgment on what constitutes a "week" and
the Court recently issued an order granting the plaintiff's motion
and denying our motion on what period constitutes a "week."
On or about August 17, 2018, the company entered into a settlement
agreement for an immaterial amount consisting of a combination of
cash and coupons.
Tailored Brands said, "The settlement agreement, which is subject
to preliminary and final approval of the Court, will not have a
material adverse effect on our financial position, results of
operations or cash flows."
Tailored Brands, Inc. operates as a specialty apparel retailer the
United States, Puerto Rico, and Canada. It operates through two
segments, Retail and Corporate Apparel. The company was formerly
known as The Men's Wearhouse, Inc. and changed its name to Tailored
Brands, Inc. in February 2016. Tailored Brands, Inc. was founded in
1973 and is based in Houston, Texas.
TANGER FACTORY: Violates ADA, Sigmon Suit Asserts
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tanger Factory Outlet
Centers Inc. under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is
styled as Ted Sigmon, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Tanger Factory Outlet Centers Inc,
Tanger Properties Limited Partnership, Tanger GP Trust and Tanger
LP Trust, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-03325-DCN (D. S.C., December
10, 2018).
Tanger Factory Outlet Centers, Inc. is a real estate investment
trust headquartered in Greensboro, North Carolina that invests in
shopping centers containing outlet stores. As of December 31, 2017,
the company owned 36 shopping centers comprising 12.9 million
square feet and over 2,600 stores.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory A DeLuca, Esq.
DeLuca and Maucher
PO Box 9
Goose Creek, SC 29445
Tel: (943) 572-1711
Fax: (843) 572-1285
Email: greg@delucamaucher.com
- and -
James L Ward , Jr, Esq.
McGowan Hood and Felder LLC
321 Wingo Way, Suite 103
Mt Pleasant, SC 29464
Tel: (843) 388-7202
Fax: (843) 388-3194
Email: jward@mcgowanhood.com
TESLA ENGINEERING: Garcia Seeks to Recover Overtime Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERTO GARCIA, and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C
206(B) v. TESLA ENGINEERING, INC., a Florida Corporation, and
JOSEPH T. PADRON, individually, Case No. 1:18-cv-25045-MGC (S.D.
Fla., December 3, 2018), seeks to recover alleged unpaid overtime
wage compensation, as well as an additional amount as liquidated
damages, costs and reasonable attorney's fees pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act.
Tesla is a Florida Profit Corporation, authorized to conduct and
conducting business in Miami, Florida. Joseph T. Padron is an
officer/director of Tesla.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Monica Espino, Esq.
ESPINO LAW
2655 S. Le Jeune Road, Suite 802
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Telephone: (305) 704-3172
Facsimile: (305) 722-7378
E-mail: me@espino-law.com
TICC INVESTMENTS: Honeywell Suit Asserts Disabilities Act
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against TICC Investments,
LLC. The case is styled as Cheri Honeywell, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TICC
Investments, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, Defendant,
Case No. 2:18-cv-00804-JES-CM (M.D. Fla., December 10, 2018).
The lawsuit arises under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
TICC Management, LLC operates as an investment advisor. The company
was incorporated in 2003 and is based in Greenwich, Connecticut.
TICC Management, LLC operates as a subsidiary of TICC Capital
Corp.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jessica Lynn Kerr, Esq.
The Advocacy Group, LLC
200 SE 6th St Ste 504
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301-3424
Tel: (954) 282-1858
Fax: (844) 786-3694
Email: jkerr@advocacypa.com
TICKETMASTER LLC: Niedbalski Sues Over Inflated Ticket Prices
-------------------------------------------------------------
Stanley Niedbalski, an individual, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Ticketmaster L.L.C., a
Virginia corporation; and Live Nation Entertainment, Inc., a
Delaware corporation, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-10241 (C.D.
Cal., December 10, 2018) brings this case and asserts claims on
behalf of himself and a Class of similarly-situated consumers for
violations of the Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code, and the Ohio Rev. Code
Ann. and for unjust enrichment.
In recent years, consumers have experienced a shortage of tickets
on the primary market, namely, ticketmaster.com, but only to find
them on the secondary reseller market priced at far more than the
original value of the tickets, including higher fees. Ticketmaster
has expanded into the secondary ticketing market of reselling
tickets through its "verified resale" program. Through its
"verified resale" program, scalpers sell directly on Ticketmaster's
site, including Ticketmaster's resale sites such as ticketsnow.com,
ticketexchangebyticketmaster.com, and ticketmaster.com/verified.
Although Ticketmaster claims they are offering a marketplace that
provides a "safe and fair place" for fans to buy resale tickets,4
its "verified resale" program is simply another way for
Ticketmaster to generate additional revenue by collecting more fees
and getting a second cut on tickets, which is even more than the
original cut it receives on the first sale, asserts the complaint.
Ticketmaster's resale ticketing practice of allowing scalpers to
disregard the rules set by Ticketmaster and laws prohibiting the
use of ticket bots is unfair and unlawful resulting in harm to
consumers, the complaint says. This practice creates a shortage of
tickets in the primary market, encourages inflated prices, and
increase in fees in the secondary market, all for the benefit of
Ticketmaster and at the expense of consumers. The Consumers are
then left with no choice but to purchase tickets on the secondary
market, adds the complaint.
Plaintiff Stanley Niedbalski is a resident and citizen of Bellevue,
Ohio. Plaintiff purchased tickets on August 21, 2018, originally
sold by Ticketmaster, on the secondary market, specifically at
ticketsnow.com, for a concert event to be held in October 2019.
Ticketmaster L.L.C., is a Virginia corporation headquartered in
Beverly Hills, California. Ticketmaster is the live-event ticket
sales and distribution subsidiary of Live Nation Entertainment,
Inc.
Live Nation Entertainment, Inc., is a Delaware corporation
headquartered in Beverly Hills, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rosemary M. Rivas, Esq.
Rosanne L. Mah, Esq.
LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
44 Montgomery Street, Suite 650
San Francisco, CA 94104
Phone: (415) 373-1671
Facsimile: (415) 484-1294
Email: rmah@zlk.com
rrivas@zlk.com
TIPS INC: Delivery Driver Seeks Expense Reimbursement
-----------------------------------------------------
Sheretta Murray, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons, Plaintiff, v. Tips, Inc., and Steve Austermann d/b/a
"Domino's Pizza", Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-03160 (D. Colo.,
December 10, 2018) is a collective action under the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the Colorado Wage Claim Act, and the Colorado
Minimum Wage Act, as implemented by the Colorado Minimum Wage Order
to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime hours owed to herself
and similarly situated delivery drivers employed by Defendants at
their Domino's stores.
The Defendants operate numerous Domino's Pizza franchise stores.
Defendants employ delivery drivers who use their own automobiles to
deliver pizza and other food items to their customers. However,
instead of reimbursing delivery drivers for the reasonably
approximate costs of the business use of their vehicles, Defendants
use a flawed method to determine reimbursement rates that provides
such an unreasonably low rate beneath any reasonable approximation
of the expenses they incur that the drivers' unreimbursed expenses
cause their wages to fall below the federal minimum wage during
some or all workweeks, says the complaint.
The Defendants' systematic failure to adequately reimburse
automobile expenses constitutes a "kickback" to Defendants such
that the hourly wages it pays to Plaintiff and Defendants' other
delivery drivers are not paid free and clear of all outstanding
obligations to Defendants. The Defendants fail to reasonably
approximate the amount of their drivers' automobile expenses to
such an extent that its drivers' net wages are diminished beneath
the federal minimum wage requirements, adds the complaint.
Plaintiff was employed by Defendants during the statutory period
and last three years as a delivery driver at Defendants' Domino's
store located within this District.
Steve Austermann is individually liable because, during the
relevant times, he was an owner of substantial interests in
defendant, served as officer of the entity, and held managerial
responsibilities and substantial control over terms and conditions
of drivers' work as they held the power to hire and fire,
supervised and controlled work schedules and/or conditions of
employment, determined rates and methods of pay and/or expense
reimbursements, and maintained employment records and/or held
control over employment records.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J. Forester, Esq.
FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC
1701 N. Market Street, Suite 210
Dallas, TX 75202
Phone: (214) 210-2100
Fax: (214) 346-5909
Web: www.foresterhaynie.com
TOYOTA MOTOR: Weinreich Files Product Liability Suit in S.C.
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Toyota Motor Sales
USA Inc. The case is styled as Gary Weinreich, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Toyota Motor
Sales USA Inc, a California corporation, Toyota Motor Corporation,
a Japanese corporation and Toyota Motor Engineering and
Manufacturing North America Inc, Defendants, Case No.
2:18-cv-03294-RMG (D. S.C., December 6, 2018).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Product
Liability filed pursuant to the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.
Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. manufactures and sells vehicles.
It offers cars, trucks, sports utility vehicles, crossovers,
hybrids and electric vehicles, hybrid cars, hybrid sports utility
vehicles, concept vehicles, and accessories. The company also sells
used vehicles. It provides its products through dealers in the
United States and internationally. The company was founded in 1957
and is based in Torrance, California with design, research, and
development facilities, as well as regional offices in the United
States. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. operates as a subsidiary
of Toyota Motor Corporation.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq.
Bell Legal Group
PO Box 2590
Georgetown, SC 29442
Tel: (843) 546-2408
Email: gsulpizio@edbelllaw.com
- and –
James Edward Bell , III, Esq.
Bell Legal Group
219 N Ridge Street
Georgetown, SC 29440
Tel: (843) 546-2408
Fax: (843) 546-9604
Email: ebell@edbelllaw.com
UNITED STATES: Fourth Circuit Appeal Filed in Sanchez-Acosta Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Julio Cesar Sanchez-Acosta, Khaled Hassan Najjar and
Minase Tesfateon filed an appeal from a court ruling in their
lawsuit entitled Julio Sanchez-Acosta, et al. v. Jefferson
Sessions, III, et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-00872-LO-IDD, in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia at Alexandria.
The nature of suit is stated as habeas corpus - alien detainees.
The appellate case is captioned as Julio Sanchez-Acosta, et al. v.
Jefferson Sessions, III, et al., Case No. 18-7465, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.[BN]
Petitioners-Appellants JULIO CESAR SANCHEZ-ACOSTA, KHALED HASSAN
and NAJJAR MINASE TESFATEON, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, are represented by:
Adina Bassin Appelbaum, Esq.
Claudia Raquel Cubas, Esq.
CAPITAL AREA IMMIGRANTS' RIGHTS COALITION
1612 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006-0000
Telephone: (202) 331-3320
E-mail: adina@caircoalition.org
claudia.cubas@caircoalition.org
- and -
Rachel Colleen McFarland, Esq.
SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER
1000 Preston Avenue
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Telephone: (703) 778-3450
E-mail: rmcfarland@justice4all.org
- and -
Simon Yehuda Sandoval-Moshenberg, Esq.
LEGAL AID JUSTICE CENTER
6066 Leesburg Pike
Falls Church, VA 22041
Telephone: (703) 720-5605
E-mail: simon@justice4all.org
- and -
Sirine Shebaya, Esq.
Johnathan James Smith, Esq.
MUSLIM ADVOCATES
P. O. Box 66408
Washington, DC 20035
Telephone: (202) 897-2622
E-mail: sirine@muslimadvocates.org
johnathan@muslimadvocates.org
Respondents-Appellees JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, in his official
capacity as the Attorney General; KIRSTJEN M. NIELSEN, in her
official capacity as the Secretary, Department of Homeland
Security; THOMAS HOMAN, in his official capacity as the Acting
Director, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; RUSSELL HOTT,
in his official capacity as the Field Office Director, Washington
Field Office Director, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement;
and JEFFREY CRAWFORD, in his official capacity as Warden, Farmville
Detention Center, Immigration Centers of America-Farmville, are
represented by:
John Coghlan, Esq.
ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
2100 Jamieson Avenue
Alexandria, VA 22314-5194
Telephone: (609) 828-3819
UNIVERSITY OF BRIDGEPORT: Faces Camacho Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against University of
Bridgeport. The case is captioned as JASON CAMACHO, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
UNIVERSITY OF BRIDGEPORT, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10555-JMF
(S.D.N.Y., Nov. 13, 2018) alleges violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act. The case is assigned to Judge Jesse M. Furman.
University of Bridgeport provides degrees in both undergraduate and
graduate level curriculum. The University offers programs including
undergraduate degree programs in accounting, biology, business
administration, computer science, and finance, as well as graduate
degree programs in biomedical engineering, chinese herbology,
computer engineering, and design management. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
150 E. 18 St. Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
E-mail: nyjg@aol.com
VERU INC: Discovery Underway in Suit over Aspen Park Acquisition
----------------------------------------------------------------
Veru Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 13, 2018, for the
fiscal year ended September 30, 2018, that parties in the
consolidated class action lawsuit related to the Aspen Park
Pharmaceutical Inc.'s acquisition are currently completing
discovery.
In response to the Aspen Park Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (APP)
Acquisition, two purported derivative and class action lawsuits
were filed against the Company and certain of its officers and
directors in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, captioned
Glotzer v. The Female Health Company, et al., Case No.
2016-CH-13815, and Schartz v. Parrish, et al., Case No.
2016-CH-14488.
These lawsuits were originally filed on or about October 21, 2016
and November 7, 2016, respectively. On January 9, 2017, these two
lawsuits were consolidated. On March 31, 2017, the plaintiffs filed
a consolidated complaint.
The consolidated complaint named as defendants Veru, the members of
the company's board of directors prior to the closing of the APP
Acquisition and the members of the company's board of directors
after the closing of the APP Acquisition.
The consolidated complaint alleged, among other things, that the
directors breached their fiduciary duties, or aided and abetted
such breaches, by consummating the APP Acquisition in violation of
the Wisconsin Business Corporation Law and NASDAQ voting
requirements and by causing us to issue the shares of our common
stock and Series 4 Preferred Stock to the former stockholders of
APP pursuant to the APP Acquisition in order to evade the voting
requirements of the Wisconsin Business Corporation Law.
The consolidated complaint also alleged that Dr. Steiner, a
director and the Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of
Veru and a co-founder of APP, and Dr. Fisch, a director and Vice
Chairman of Veru and a co-founder of APP, were unjustly enriched in
receiving shares of our common stock and Series 4 Preferred Stock
in the APP Acquisition.
On May 5, 2017, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint. On August 15, 2017, the court entered an
order dismissing without prejudice the claims that the
post-acquisition directors aided and abetted the alleged breaches
of fiduciary duties by the pre-acquisition directors and that Dr.
Steiner and Dr. Fisch were unjustly enriched.
The court did not dismiss the claims that the company's directors
prior to the closing of the APP Acquisition breached their
fiduciary duties and the claims that Veru consummated the APP
Acquisition in violation of the Wisconsin Business Corporation Law
and NASDAQ voting requirements.
On November 30, 2018, plaintiffs filed an Amended Consolidated
Complaint. The Amended Consolidated Complaint makes allegations
similar to those in the original consolidated complaint as to the
claims that were not dismissed and names as defendants Veru and the
members of our board of directors prior to the closing of the APP
Acquisition.
The Amended Consolidated Complaint also makes claims against Dr.
Steiner for allegedly aiding and abetting the pre-acquisition
directors’ breach of fiduciary duty and for unjust enrichment.
Like the original consolidated complaint, the Amended Consolidated
Complaint seeks equitable relief, including rescission of the APP
Acquisition, money damages, disgorgement of the shares of our
common stock and Series 4 Preferred Stock issued to Dr. Steiner,
and costs and expenses of the litigation, including attorneys'
fees. The parties are currently completing discovery.
Veru believes that this action is without merit and is vigorously
defending itself. No amount has been accrued for possible losses
relating to this litigation as any such losses are not both
probable and reasonably estimable.
Veru Inc. operates as a urology and oncology biopharmaceutical
company. The company operates through two segments, Commercial; and
Research and Development. The company was formerly known as The
Female Health Company and changed its name to Veru Inc. in July
2017. Veru Inc. was founded in 1896 and is headquartered in Miami,
Florida.
WELLS FARGO: Fowler Seeks Final Approval of $30-Mil. Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled VANA FOWLER and MICHAEL
PETERS v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Case No. 4:17-cv-02092-HSG (N.D.
Cal.), seek final approval of their class action settlement with
Wells Fargo.
Vana Fowler filed this action against Wells Fargo on March 9, 2017,
in San Francisco County Superior Court alleging that Wells violated
California's Unfair Competition Law by collecting post-payment
interest in violation of the terms of the parties' contract and 24
C.F.R. Section 203.558. Wells Fargo removed the case to this Court
on April 14, 2017.
The Settlement arises from Wells Fargo's practices related to the
collection of post-payment interest on FHA-insured mortgages. The
Settlement provides for Class members to receive two rounds of
direct mailed checks for a pro rata share of the $30 million
settlement fund (after payment of fees, costs, and expenses)
without requiring a claim form or other action. The total payouts
are expected to average $25 to $33.
The Plaintiffs also seek an order certifying a Settlement Class,
which is defined as the collective group of all persons nationwide
who had an FHA-Insured Loan that originated between June 1, 1996
and January 20, 2015, where (i) Wells Fargo, its agent, or its
predecessor was the mortgagee as of the date the total amount due
on the FHA-Insured Loan was brought to zero, (ii) Wells Fargo
collected Post-Payment Interest on the FHA-Insured Loan during the
applicable Limitations Period, and (iii) the borrower made a
prepayment inquiry, request for payoff figures, or tender of
prepayment but did not receive a Payoff Statement containing the
verbatim Post-Payment Interest disclosure language in Housing
Handbook, 4330.1 REV-5 Appendix 8(c) or the verbatim language
contained in the "Payoff Disclosure" referenced in the Housing
Handbook 4000.1. Excluded from the Class are Wells Fargo, all
officers, directors, and employees of Wells Fargo, and their legal
representatives, heirs, or assigns, and any Judges to whom the
Action is assigned, their staffs, and their immediate families.
The parties also agreed that Class Counsel would apply for a fee
award of up to 25% of the common fund ($7.5 million) and for
service awards of $7,500 to Plaintiff Vana Fowler, $5,000 to
Plaintiff Michael Peters, and $500 each to Gerald Braxmeyer, Henry
Yrlas, Russell Reece, Seth Hawk, Sandra McKenzie, and Dane Yetzer,
to be paid out of any fee award to Class Counsel.
The Court will commence a hearing today, December 20, 2018, at 2:00
p.m., to consider the Motion.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael F. Ram, Esq.
Susan S. Brown, Esq.
ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
2440 West El Camino Real, Suite 100
Mountain View, CA 94040
Telephone: 650 784-4040
Facsimile: 650 784-4041
E-mail: mram@robinskaplan.com
sbrown@robinskaplan.com
- and -
Kevin E. Epps, Esq.
Adam L. Hoipkemier, Esq.
EPPS, HOLLOWAY, DELOACH & HOIPKEMIER, LLC
1220 Langford Drive, Bldg. 200
Watkinsville, GA 30677
Telephone: (706) 508-4000
E-mail: kevin@ehdhlaw.com
adam@ehdhlaw.com
- and -
Samuel Strauss, Esq.
TURKE & STRAUSS LLP
613 Williamson Street, Suite 209
Madison, WI 53703-3515
Telephone: (608) 237-1774
E-mail: sam@turkestrauss.com
The Defendant is represented by:
David Reidy, Esq.
K. Isaac deVyver, Esq.
Karla Johnson, Esq.
Sara F. Holladay-Tobias, Esq.
MCGUIREWOODS LLP
Two Embarcadero Center, Suite 1300
San Francisco, CA 94111-3821
Telephone: (415) 844-9944
Facsimile: (415) 844-9922
E-mail: DReidy@mcguirewoods.com
KdeVyver@mcguirewoods.com
KJohnson@mcguirewoods.com
STobias@mcguirewoods.com
WESTSIDE TOMATO: Failed to Pay Workers' Wages, Sarit Asserts
------------------------------------------------------------
Ruth Sarit, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Westside Tomato, Inc. d/b/a Arte Cafe, Robert Malta,
Marc [LNU]; Ernesto Matais Lopez, John Does 1-50, Business Entities
A-J (corporations or other business entities that are principals,
owners or holders of controlling interests of Arte Cafe),
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-11524-PKC (S.D. N.Y., December 10,
2018) seeks to right the wrongs by the Defendant in its failure to
pay all wages earned, when earned, and which remain unpaid to this
day.
This is a matter related to discrimination in the workplace and
retaliation as a result of exercising a protected activity, being
terminated after advising the employer of discrimination,
harassment and assault by another employee due to Plaintiff's
national origin and gender. Further, this matter relates to a
willful scheme on behalf of the business defendant to fail to pay
employees all wages earned in violation of State and Federal Law.
According to the complaint, Arte Cafe lacked sufficient funds to
make payroll in full to their employees and failed to take any
actions to reimburse the Plaintiff or those similarly situated for
their unpaid wages. Notwithstanding the failure to pay, taxes were
withheld from Plaintiff from the cash tips received. Similarly,
around this same time frame, and shortly after failing to pay all
wages due and owing Arte Cafe verbally advised its employees that
it was switching its pay cycle from a weekly payroll to a biweekly
payroll. However, this was not apparently done. Rather, payments
were simply deferred, some weeks were missed, payroll records were
not reflective of date or times worked, and payment was made as
much as 12 days after the work was performed. Similarly, the
payroll records was not reflective of any change to the wage notice
as required under the New York Wage Theft Act when a change is made
without providing of a new wage statement, says the complaint.
Plaintiff Ruth Sarit is an individual and former employee of
Defendants and resides in Bergen County, New Jersey.
Westside Tomato, Inc. d/b/a Arte Cafe is, upon information and
belief, a New York for-profit domestic corporation with its
principal address being 73rd located at 106 West Street, New York,
New York.
Robert Malta is a natural person, the principal of Arte Cafe, 73rd
and is servable at 106 West Street, New York, New York and has
supervisory control over Arte Cafe and is regularly engaged in its
business operations.
Marc [LNU] (last name unknown) is a natural person and an 73rd
employee of Arte Cafe as the restaurant's manager.
Ernesto Matais Lopez is a natural person, an employee of 73rd Arte
Cafe.
The John Doe and Business Entity Defendants are fictitious
entities, named herein as they are currently unknown (if they exist
at all) and are other people or entities that may be liable to
Plaintiff for the injuries set forth in this complaint and to which
an amended complaint may be necessary.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua M. Lurie, Esq.
Lurie Strupinsky, LLP
147 74th Street
Brooklyn, NY 11209
Phone: (201) 831-1086
Email: jmlurie@luriestrupinsky.com
YARDLEY CAR CO: Carnevali Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brittany Carnevali, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Yardley Car Company, Defendant,
Case No. 18-cv-62908 (S.D. Fla., November 30, 2018), seeks
injunctive relief, statutory damages and any other available legal
or equitable remedies for violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.
Yardley Car Company operates Massey Yardley Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ram
FIAT, an automotive dealership. It used a pre-recorded voice
message calls to consumers in order to promote its cars without
consent, notes the complaint. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Avi R. Kaufman, Esq.
KAUFMAN P.A.
400 NW 26TH Street
Miami, Florida 33127
Tel: (305) 469-5881
Email: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.
Copyright 2018. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.
This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.
Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.
The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.
*** End of Transmission ***