/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/190102.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, January 2, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 2 Headlines 3M COMPANY: Singer Suit Transferred to South Carolina ACCESS NATIONAL: Parshall Balks at Merger Deal with Union ACTELION PHARMACEUTICALS: Sued over Monopoly of Bosentan Drug ADVANCED CALL: Untershine Seeks Class Certification Under FDCPA ADVANCED DISPOSAL: Class of Applicants Certified in Gross Suit ADVOCATE HEALTH: Ciskowski Sues Over Illegal Pay Deductions ALAMEDA HEALTH: Court Junks 2nd Amended Complaint in Soman Suit ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Appeal Filed in Thompson Case ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Alarimo Files Suit in New York AMAZON.COM LLC: Fails to Pay Delivery Drivers' OT, Faucett Claims AMERICA'S TRUST: Missry Files TCPA Suit in New York AMERICAN OSTEOPATHIC: Court OKs $84MM Settlement in Talone Suit ANSAFONE CONTACT: Brown's Customer Service Reps Class Certified APHRIA INC: Curkan Hits Share Drop from Operational Flaws APHRIA INC: Gloschat Hits Share Drop from Operational Flaws APPLE INC: Phone's Pixel Count Misleading, Sponchiado et al. Claim ARAMARK CAMPUS: Buchanan Seeks Minimum Wages & Overtime Pay ARKANSAS: Raytheon Co. Moves for Certification of Taxpayers Class ARS NATIONAL: Helmuth Moves for Class Certification Under FDCPA AUTOREMIND INC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Ward Family Claims BEEWAKE CORP: Olsen Suit Asserts ADA Violation BES INDUSTRIES: Gorss Motels Seeks to Certify Class Under TCPA BIRD RIDES: Removes Borgia et al. Suit to C.D. California BONIMA OIL CORP: Espinosa to Recover Minimum, Overtime Pay BOXBOROUGH REGENCY: Morin Seeks Unpaid Wages for Wait Staff BROOKLYN CORNER: Delivery Staff Hit Tip Credit, Claim Overtime CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Spady Sues over Debt Collection Practices CHAPTERS HEALTH SYSTEM: Diaz Sues Over FACTA and FCRA Violation CHARLOTTE PALM: Autry FLSA Suit Settlement Has Final Approval CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Macleod Suit Moved to District of New Jersey CLEANNET USA: Can't Compel Arbitration in Castillo Suit CLEAR WATER: $350K Settlement in Aragon Suit Has Final Approval CLEVELAND AVE: Hogan Moves to Certify Bartenders Class Under FLSA CLEVELAND AVE: Hogan Seeks to Certify Class of Exotic Dancers COMPREHENSIVE HEALTHCARE: Pitkivitch Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA COTTON BAYOU: Certification of FLSA Class Sought in King Suit CSO SYSTEMS: Underpays Graphic Designers, Kaifos Alleges DENNYS INC: Rosales Suit Moved to Central District of California DERREL'S MINI: Court Partly Okays Bid to Invalidate in Kutzman Suit DISH NETWORK: Court Grants $20.4MM Attorney's Fees in Krakauer DOVER DOWNS: Raul Balks at Merger Deal with Twin River EJR ENTERPRISES: Borozny Files Suit under ADA in Florida EMTS INC: Ruem Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages & OT under Labor Code EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Faces Lawrence Suit over Violation of FCRA ESA MANAGEMENT: Court Issues Show Cause Order in Beasley Suit FARMLAND PARTNERS: Bernstein Liebhard to Lead in Mariconda Suit FEDEX CORPORATION: Overpeck Seeks Unpaid Wages for Drivers FORD MOTOR: Faces Farlow et al. Suit in N.D. California GENERAL MOTORS: Duffy Sues Over Vehicle Transmission Defect GLADSTONE GALLERY: Tucker Sues Over ADA Violation GLOBAL RECEIVABLES: Lasky Sues over Debt Collection Practices GOOGLE LLC: Removed Roley Case to Northern Dist. of California GREENSKY INC: Faces Zou Suit over Drop in Share Price GULFVIEW LODGING: Faces Borozny Suit in Middle District of Florida HAKU TEN: Ramales Seeks Ovetime Pay for Delivery Workers HARIHAR INC: Court Won't Junk C. Honeywell's Amended ADA Complaint HELENA-WEST HELENA, AR: Summary Judgment Bid in Green Suit Granted HIGH IMPACT MARKETING: Duggan Suit to Recover Unpaid Minimum Wages HOSPITALITY VENTURES: Tom State Law Claims Dismissed with Prejudice HOWARD E. FRIEDMAN: Leade Removed Teamster Case to Maryland Dist. HOYT LIVERY: Court Moots Bid to Enforce Settlement in Lassen Suit HUMANADENTAL INSURANCE: 7th Cir. Affirmed Certification Denial IMMEDIATE CREDIT: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Hovermale FDCPA Suit INUVO INC: D'Arcy Sues Over Sale to ConversionPoint J R PUTMAN INC: Faces Scarano Suit in Sacramento KAISER FOUNDATION: Court Narrows Claims in Gamble Suit KANE FURNITURE: Scharrer Sues over Deceptive Trade Practices KANSAS CITY: Faces Suit over Foster Care Practices KENTUCKY: Rule 23 Class Certification Sought in Carver Suit KLONDEX MINES: Court Consolidates Lawon, Gunderson, and Baker Suits L'OREAL USA: Bid to Certify Class in Carter Suit Filed LA FOX: Martinez Supports Claim for Damages in FLSA Suit LE BERNARDIN: Ramos Seeks Minimum Wage LEMONLEAF THAI: Underpays Deliverymen, Gu Suit Alleges LIBERTY MUTUAL: Court Dismisses R. Yates' Class Allegations LINE LLC: Website not Accessible to Blind, Dennis Says LMB MORTGAGE: Cunningham Sues Over TCPA Violation LUMILEDS LLC: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Chaudri's NJCFA Suit LYONS DOUGHTY: NJ Court Dismisses G. Gross's FDCPA Suit MACADO'S INC: Spencer Asks to Certify Servers & Bartenders Class MAGNOLIA FLOORING: Ross et al Seek Overtime Pay under FLSA MARRIOTT INT'L: Faces Rapak Suit Over Data Breach at Starwood MARRIOTT INT'L: Golin Files Tort Class Suit in Connecticut MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: DeMarco Sues Over Data Breach MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Erlbaum Sues Over Data Breach MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Grady, Kleiman Sue Over Data Breach MENARD INC: FLSA Class of Workers Certified in Astarita Suit MIAMI PERFECT TRAVEL: De Armas Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages MIDLAND CREDIT: Certification of Class Sought in Adkins Suit MIDLAND FUNDING: Dotson Sues over Debt Collection Practices MONINI NORTH: 2nd Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Jessani Suit MULLOOLY & JEFFREY: Final Certification of Settlement Class Sought MUTUAL HOUSING: Rivera Seeks to Recover Overtime Under FLSA, CMWA MYLAN NV: Certification of Consumer Classes Sought in EpiPen MDL NATIONAL RESPONSE: Faces Sullivan Suit in Sacramento NISSAN MOTOR: Hid Payments to CEO Ghosn, Retirement System Claims NOBILIS HEALTH: Van 'T Hoofd Sues over Misleading Financial Report OCWEN FINANCIAL: Bid to Quash Subpoena under Advisement OHIO MULCH: Wolfe & Bailey Seek Overtime Pay PALM PAVILION: Borozny Files Suit under ADA in M.D. Florida PRONAI THERAPEUTICS: 2nd Cir. Affirms Securities Suit Dismissal RACK ROOM: Court Refuses to Stay Peralta's TCPA Suit RECKITT BENCKISER: Yamagata Moves to Certify 3 Purchaser Classes RISING SUN: Construction Workers Seek Unpaid Overtime Pay SABER HEALTHCARE: M. Mullen's Suit Remanded to N.C. State Court SCIENTIFIC GAMES: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Fife Suit SIGNATURE RESOURCES: Staples et al. Seek Overtime Pay SONNY-N-SON'S PAINTING: Underpays Painters & Carpenters, Suit Says SPRINT/UNITED MANAGEMENT: Court Certifies 3 Classes in Caudle Suit STAND UP: Townsend et al. Seek Payment of OT & Minimum Wages SYNERGY ENTERPRISES: Rodriguez et al. Seek Overtime Wages TAMPA BAY RAYS: Certification of Class Sought in Fernandez Suit TARGET ENTERPRISE: First Circuit Appeal Filed in Carlson Suit TARTE, INC: Products Contain Synthetic Ingredients, Patora Says TEACHERS FEDERAL: Dixon Suit Alleges Civil Rights Act Violation TONY'S FINER: Figueroa Sues Over Unlawful Use of Biometric Data TRAININGWHEEL: Consultants Hit Misclassification, Seek Overtime Pay TRES DIAMANTE: Restaurant Staff Seek Unpaid Overtime Wages U.S. BANCORP: Sued over Excessive Reductions to Pension Plan UNITED TRANZACTIONS: Lake Suit Asserts FDCPA Breach VANEGAS INT'L: Salazar Seeks to Recover Overtime & Minimum Wages VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Roper Sues Over Unpaid Off-the-Clock Work WELLS FARGO: $480MM Settlement in Hefler Suit Has Final Approval WELLS FARGO: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Garr Suit Claims WOLF APPLIANCE: Certification of Classes Sought in Kail Suit YELP INC: Spiegelman Sues over Unauthorized Use of Private Data ********* 3M COMPANY: Singer Suit Transferred to South Carolina ----------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Diane Singer, Brian Valentin and Kelly Valentin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. The 3M Company formerly known as: Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing, Co., Tyco Fire Products LP successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, National Foam, Buckeye Fire Protection Co., Chemguard and County of Suffolk, Defendants, Case No 2:17-cv-06962, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina on December 11, 2018, and assigned Case No. 2:18-cv-03336-RMG. The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Tort Product Liability. The 3M Company, formerly known as the Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company, is an American multinational conglomerate corporation operating in the fields of industry, health care, and consumer goods.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Paul J. Napoli, Esq. Napoli Shkolnik PLLC 1301 Avenue Of The Americas 10th Floor New York, NY 10019 Tel: (212) 397-1000 Fax: (646) 843-7603 Email: pnapoli@napolilaw.com - and - Tate J Kunkle, Esq. Napoli Shkolnik PLLC 400 Broadhollow Road, Suite 305 Mellville, NY 11747 Tel: (212) 397-1000 Fax: (646) 843-7603 Email: tkunkle@napolilaw.com The Defendant 3M Company is represented by: Andrew Jonathan Calica, Esq. Mayer Brown 1675 Broadway New York, NY 10019 Tel: (212) 506-2500 Fax: (212) 262-1910 Email: acalica@mayerbrown.com - and - Jordan David Sagalowsky, Esq. Mayer Brown LLP 1221 Avenue Of The Americas New York, NY 10020 Tel: (212) 506-2500 Fax: (212) 262-1910 Email: jsagalowsky@mayerbrown.com - and - Michael A. Olsen, Esq. Mayer Brown LLP 71 S Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60606 Tel: (312) 701-7120 Fax: (312) 701-8742 Email: molsen@mayerbrown.com - and - Richard F. Bulger, Esq. Mayer Brown LLP 71 S Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60606 Tel: (312) 701-7318 Fax: (312) 706-8789 Email: rbulger@mayerbrown.com - and - Timothy H. Birnbaum, Esq. DLA Piper LLP (US) 1251 Avenue Of The Americas New York, NY 10020 Tel: (212) 335-4618 Fax: (917) 778-8618 Email: timothy.birnbaum@dlapiper.com The Defendant Tyco Fire Products LP and Chemguard are represented by: David S Weinraub, Esq. Quinn Emanuel Urquhart and Sullivan 51 Madison Avenue 22nd Floor New York, NY 10010 Tel: (212) 849-7000 Fax: (212) 849-7100 Email: davidweinraub@quinnemanuel.com - and - Douglas E Fleming , III, Esq. Quinn Emanuel Urquhart and Sullivan 51 Madison Avenue 22nd Floor New York, NY 10010 Tel: (212) 849-7000 Email: douglasfleming@quinnemanuel.com - and - Katherine Armstrong, Esq. Skadden Arps Slate Meagher and Flom 4 Times Square New York, NY 10036 Tel: (212) 735-3000 Email: katherine.armstrong@dechert.com The Defendant National Foam is represented by: Keith Edward Smith, Esq. Greenberg Traurig, LLP 2700 Two Commerce Square 2001 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Tel: (215) 988-7843 Fax: (215) 717-5225 Email: smithkei@gtlaw.com The Defendant Buckeye Fire Protection Co. is represented by: Ellen Nunno Corbo, Esq. Taylor Colicchio LLP 100 Canal Pointe Blvd, Suite 210 Princeton, NJ 08540 Tel: (609) 987-0022 Fax: (609) 987-0070 Email: ecorbo@tcslawyers.com - and - Michael Carpenter, Esq. 516 South New Hope Road Gastonia, NC 28054 Tel: (704) 865-4400 Email: mcarpenter@gastonlegal.com The Defendant County of Suffolk is represented by: Andrew Scott Kazin, Esq. Stagg, Terenzi, Confusione & Wabnik LLP 401 Franklin Avenue, Suite 300 Garden City, NY 11530 Tel: (516) 812-4500 Fax: (516) 812-4600 Email: akazin@stcwlaw.com - and - Brian A. Lacoff, Esq. Stagg, Terenzi, Confusione & Wabnik, LLP 401 Franklin Avenue, Suite 300 Garden City, NY 11530 Tel: (516) 812-4500 Fax: (516) 812-4600 Email: blacoff@stcwlaw.com - and - David R. Ehrlich, Esq. Stagg Terenzi Confusione & Wabnik, LLP 401 Franklin Avenue, Suite 300 Garden City, NY 11530 Tel: (516) 812-4500 Fax: (516) 812-4600 Email: dehrlich@stcwlaw.com - and - Thomas Edward Stagg, Esq. Stagg, Terenzi, Confusione & Wabnik, LLP 401 Franklin Avenue, Suite 300 Garden City, NY 11530 Tel: (516) 812-4500 Fax: (516) 812-4600 Email: tstagg@stcwlaw.com ACCESS NATIONAL: Parshall Balks at Merger Deal with Union --------------------------------------------------------- PAUL PARSHALL, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. ACCESS NATIONAL CORPORATION, JOHN C. LEE IV, MICHAEL G. ANZILOTTI, J. RANDOLPH BABBITT, CHILDS F. BURDEN, MICHAEL W. CLARKE, JOHN W. EDGEMOND, MARTIN S. FRIEDMAN, THOMAS M. KODY, GARY D. LECLAIR, MARY LEIGH MCDANIEL, JANET A. NEUHARTH, ROBERT C. SHOEMAKER, and UNION BANKSHARES CORPORATION, the Defendants, Case No.: 3:18-cv-00862-REP (E.D. Va., Dec. 14, 2018), alleges that Defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with a registration statement. The action stems from a proposed transaction announced on October 5, 2018, pursuant to which Access National Corporation will be acquired by Union Bankshares Corporation. On October 4, 2018, Access' Board of Directors caused the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with Union. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, shareholders of Access will receive 0.75 shares of Union common stock for each share of Access stock they own. On December 10, 2018, the defendants filed a Form S-4 Registration Statement with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the Proposed Transaction. The registration statement, which scheduled a stockholder vote on the Proposed Transaction for January 15, 2019, omits material information with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the Registration Statement false and misleading, the lawsuit says. Access National Corporation operates as the bank holding company for Access National Bank that provides credit, deposit, mortgage, and wealth management.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: David G. Browne, Esq. SPIRO & BROWNE, PLC 6802 Paragon Place, Suite 410 Richmond, VA 23230 Telephone: (804) 573-9220 Facsimile: (804) 836-1855 E-mail: dbrowne@sblawva.com - and - RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 295-5310 - and - RM LAW, P.C. 1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300 Berwyn, PA 19312 Telephone: (484) 324-6800 ACTELION PHARMACEUTICALS: Sued over Monopoly of Bosentan Drug ------------------------------------------------------------- GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES HEALTH ASSOCIATION, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ACTELION PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.; ACTELION PHARMACEUTICALS US, INC; and ACTELION CLINICAL RESEARCH, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-02682(D. Colo., Nov. 19, 2018) is an action against the Defendants' illegal scheme to maintain their monopoly over the prescription drug bosentan. Bosentan is a dual endothelin receptor antagonist that Actelion sells as a treatment for pulmonary artery hypertension ("PAH") under the brand name "Tracleer." According to the complaint, the Defendants blocked would-be generic bosentan manufacturers from obtaining samples of Tracleer. To obtain FDA approval of a generic drug application, a generic manufacturer must run comparison tests to establish that the brand and the generic are bioequivalent -- that is, that the generic is absorbed in the body at the same rate and to the same extent as the brand. Doing so requires samples of the brand product. Without these samples, generic manufacturers cannot complete the regulatory process and cannot bring a competing generic to market. The Defendants prevented would-be generic bosentan competitors from purchasing samples of Tracleer by forbidding its distributors from selling Tracleer to those generic manufacturers and refusing to sell Tracleer directly to the manufacturers as well. By doing both, the Defendants blocked every path generic manufacturers had to obtain samples of Tracleer. Actelion Pharmaceuticals Ltd develops drugs and therapies for pulmonary arterial hypertension. The company was founded in 1997 and is based in Allschwil, Switzerland. Actelion Pharmaceuticals Ltd operates as a subsidiary of Actelion Ltd. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jennifer Connolly, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1701 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 200 Washington, DC Telephone: (202) 248-5403 Facsimile: (202) 580-6559 E-mail: jenniferc@hbsslaw.com - and - Thomas M. Sobol, Esq. Kristen A. Johnson, Esq. Gregory T. Arnold, Esq. Hannah Schwarzschild, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 55 Cambridge Parkway, Suite 301 Cambridge, MA 02142 Telephone: (617) 482-3700 Facsimile: (617) 482-3003 E-mail: tom@hbsslaw.com kristenj@hbsslaw.com grega@hbsslaw.com hannahs@hbsslaw.com - and – Mark Fischer, Esq. Jeffrey Swann, Esq. Robert C. Griffith, Esq. RAWLINGS & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 1 Eden Pkwy La Grange, KY 40031 Telephone: (502) 814-2139 E-mail: mdf@rawlingsandassociates.com js5@rawlingsandassociates.co rg1@rawslingsandassociates.co - and – John D. Radice, Esq. RADICE LAW FIRM, P.C. 34 Sunset Blvd., Long Beach, NJ 08008 Telephone: (919) 749-3980 E-mail: jradice@radicelawfirm.com ADVANCED CALL: Untershine Seeks Class Certification Under FDCPA --------------------------------------------------------------- Wendy Untershine asks the Court to enter an order determining that the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act action styled WENDY UNTERSHINE, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. ADVANCED CALL CENTER TECHNOLOGIES LLC, Case No. 2:18-cv-00077-NJ (E.D. Wisc.), may proceed as a class action against the Defendant. The class is defined as (a) all natural persons in the State of Wisconsin, (b) who were sent an initial collection letter in the form represented by Exhibit D to the complaint in this action, (c) seeking to collect a credit card account debt owed to Synchrony Bank, (d) which debt was incurred for personal, family, or household purposes (e) between January 16, 2017 and January 16, 2018, inclusive, (f) that was not returned by the postal service. This case concerns the legality of standard form collection letters used by the Defendant to collect consumer debts owed to third parties. Specifically, the Plaintiff contends, the Defendant's form debt collection letter at issue violates the FDCPA because it misstates the amount due to the creditor as of the date of the letter. Ms. Untershine also asks the Court to appoint her as class representative, and to appoint 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 ADVANCED DISPOSAL: Class of Applicants Certified in Gross Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Charlene Edwards Honeywell grants the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification in the lawsuit styled THOMAS GROSS v. ADVANCED DISPOSAL SERVICES, INC., Case No. 8:17-cv-01920-CEH-TGW (M.D. Fla.). The Court certifies this Background Check Class: Applicants for employment at Advance Disposal Services, Inc. that applied between August 14, 2015 and March 17, 2017 upon whom Advance Disposal Services, Inc. procured a consumer report for employment purposes, without first providing a stand alone disclosure in violation of 15 U.S.C Section 1681b(b)(2), who did not execute an agreement to arbitrate employment related claims. Judge Honeywell approves Thomas Gross as Class Representative and his counsel, Andrew Ross Frisch, Esq., C. Ryan Morgan, Esq., and Marc Reed Edelman, Esq., as Class Counsel. The parties are provided 30 days from the date of the Order to confer regarding issues that may arise associated with the administration of the class, including the form and content of the notice, and the establishment of an opt-out period and procedure, and shall advise the Court on these efforts and whether there are issues that require the Court's resolution. In his complaint, Mr. Gross, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, sued the Defendant for alleged violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. He alleges that the Defendant, in violation of the FCRA, failed to make proper disclosure, to obtain proper authorization and to provide notice.[CC] ADVOCATE HEALTH: Ciskowski Sues Over Illegal Pay Deductions ----------------------------------------------------------- Robert T. Ciskowski, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, and Christopher Blood, Jessica Corona, James Blackwood, Christopher Pumala, Gary Joy, Oleh Prodan, Joel Ramos, Colleen Galvicius, Benjamin Friel, Edmund Haras, and Vincent Garduno, Plaintiffs, v. Advocate Health and Hospitals Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-08302 (N.D. Ill., December 18, 2018) is a lawsuit that arises under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act, for Defendant's failure to pay Plaintiffs and other similarly situated persons all earned overtime wages, and failure to compensate Plaintiffs for all time worked. According to the complaint, Plaintiffs worked as Public Safety Officers at Advocate Condell Medical Center. For each shift Plaintiffs worked, Defendant deducted 30 minutes from Plaintiffs' hours worked to account for an unpaid meal period despite knowing that Plaintiffs and other similarly situated Public Safety Officers were not relieved of their work duties and were not able to take 30 minute meal breaks. The Defendant also failed to keep an accurate record of all the hours Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees worked. For weeks Plaintiffs and similarly situated persons worked over 40 hours a week. Under the FLSA and the IMWL, the unpaid time is owed at a rate that is one and a half times their regular hourly rate, says the complaint. Plaintiff Ciskowski resides in and is domiciled in Woodstock, Illinois. Plaintiff Ciskowski began working as a Public Safety Officer at Advocate Condell Medical Center in approximately February 2013, and he is presently employed by Defendant as a Public Safety Officer. Plaintiff Blood resides in and is domiciled in Fox Lake, Illinois. Plaintiff Blood began working as a Public Safety Officer at Advocate Condell Medical Center in approximately 2012, and he is presently employed by Defendant as a Public Safety Officer. Plaintiff Corona resides in and is domiciled in Chicago, Illinois. Plaintiff Corona began working as a Public Safety Officer at Advocate Condell Medical Center in approximately 2013, and she is presently employed by Defendant as a Public Safety Officer. Plaintiff Blackwood resides in and is domiciled in Trevor, Wisconsin. Plaintiff Blackwood began working as a Public Safety Officer at Advocate Condell Medical Center in approximately 2011, and he is presently employed by Defendant as a Public Safety Officer. Plaintiff Pumala resides in and is domiciled in Burlington, Wisconsin. Plaintiff Pumala began working as a Public Safety Officer at Advocate Condell Medical Center in approximately March 2015, and he ceased working there in approximately March 2017. Plaintiff Joy resides in and is domiciled in Pleasant Prairie, Wisconsin. Plaintiff Joy began working as a Public Safety Officer at Advocate Condell Medical Center in approximately December of 2014, and he is presently employed by Defendant as a Public Safety Officer. Plaintiff Prodan resides in and is domiciled in Palatine, Illinois. Plaintiff Prodan began working as a Public Safety Officer at Advocate Condell Medical Center in approximately October 2015, and he is presently employed by Defendant as a Public Safety Officer. Plaintiff Ramos resides in and is domiciled in Kenosha, Wisconsin. Plaintiff Ramos began working as a Public Safety Officer at Advocate Condell Medical Center in approximately 2010, and he is presently employed by Defendant as a Public Safety Officer. Plaintiff Galvicius resides in and is domiciled in McHenry, Illinois. Plaintiff Galvicius began working as a Public Safety Officer at Advocate Condell Medical Center in approximately 2011, and she ceased working there in approximately September 2017. Plaintiff Friel resides in and is domiciled in Franksville, Wisconsin. Plaintiff Friel worked as a Public Safety Officer at Advocate Condell Medical Center between approximately 2009 and September 2016. Plaintiff Edmund Haras resides in and is domiciled in Cape Coral, Florida. Plaintiff Haras began working as a Public Safety Officer for Defendant in approximately June 2015 and ceased working for Defendant in approximately March 2018. Plaintiff Garduno resides in and is domiciled in Wildwood, Illinois. Plaintiff Garduno began working as a Public Safety Officer at Advocate Condell Medical Center in approximately 2008, and he is presently employed by Defendant as a Public Safety Officer. Advocate Health and Hospitals Corporation is an Illinois not-for-profit corporation. Advocate owns and operates Advocate Condell Medical Center, located at 801 S. Milwaukee Avenue, Libertyville, IL 60048.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Douglas M. Werman, Esq. Maureen A. Salas, Esq. Sarah J. Arendt, Esq. Zachary C. Flowerree, Esq. Werman Salas P.C. 77 W. Washington, Suite 1402 Chicago, IL 60602 Phone: (312) 419-1008 Email: dwerman@flsalaw.com msalas@flsalaw.com sarendt@flsalaw.com zflowerree@flsalaw.com ALAMEDA HEALTH: Court Junks 2nd Amended Complaint in Soman Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Northern District of California issued an Order granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the second amended complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) in the case captioned JAS SOMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ALAMEDA HEALTH SYSTEM, Defendant. Case No.17-cv-06076-JD. (N.D. Cal.). In this putative class action, plaintiff Jas Soman alleges claims against her former employer, defendant Alameda Health System (AHS), under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and the California Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act (ICRAA). The SAC is Soman's third effort at stating a plausible FCRA claim. The Court dismissed the prior amended complaint because it did not provide enough non-conclusory facts to allege a plausible claim, and did not include a statement of the Court's jurisdiction. The question now is whether Soman has a viable claim under the FCRA in light of the actual FCRA disclosure she received and signed, and which is incorporated into the SAC. AHS argues that the text boxes advising residents of certain states that they have accretive rights under state law could not possibly make the FCRA disclosure non-compliant for saying more than what was solely required, or making the disclosures unclear. AHS approaches the issue as a matter of Article III standing under Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S.Ct. 1540 (2016) and Rule 12(b)(1). In effect, AHS contends that even if the text boxes might, for the sake of discussion, be deemed superfluous, they amount to a bare procedural violation of the FCRA divorced from any concrete harm sufficient to confer standing under Article III for an injury-in-fact. The point is well taken. The argument could also be cast under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a plausible claim, but other courts have approached the analysis as an Article III standing problem. Either way, it is hard to see how Soman's complaint is actionable. The three state-law boxes are not of a sort that would make the notice in the FCRA disclosure less than clear and conspicuous in any meaningful way, or violate the intent of being solely disclosures. Visually, they are easy to read because they are distinguished from the main text by a box featuring bold print to catch the eye of residents in the relevant states. The text within each box is short and to the point, and in the same font as the rest of the document. Content-wise, they are wholly consistent with Congress's intent to protect applicants' rights by advising them in plain words of state-law rights that enhance the FCRA's disclosure requirements. These rights are wholly consistent with the goals and policies embodied in the FCRA. The boxes are not at all akin to the extraneous language found improper in Syed, a case Soman relies on heavily. There, a broad liability waiver was combined with the disclosure about obtaining consumer reports. No waiver language is present in the FCRA disclosure here. To the contrary, the liability waiver Soman signed was in the separate Application form and not in the FCRA disclosure. Soman is unclear about why this was not adequate. She appears to contend that AHS should have included similar information in the Application document but she does not point to any such requirement in the FCRA, or explain why the actual notice in the FCRA disclosure might be deficient for not being repeated in the Application. She takes issue with one missing digit in the zip code of the AHS vendor, but that minor typo is the quintessence of a procedural misstep that could not cause an injury and in any event Soman received the ICRAA disclosure with the vendor's full and accurate address. Consequently, the FCRA claims are dismissed with prejudice. A full-text copy of the District Court's December 3, 2018 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yb9f4lla from Leagle.com. Jas Soman, Plaintiff, represented by Chaim Shaun Setareh -- shaun@setarehlaw.com -- Setareh Law Group, Thomas Alistair Segal -- thomas@setarehlaw.com -- Setareh Law Group & Howard Scott Leviant -- scott@setarehlaw.com -- Setareh Law Group. Alameda Health System, Defendant, represented by Fletcher C. Alford -- falford@grsm.com -- Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani LLP, Edward Romero -- eromero@grsm.com -- Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP & Kevin Liu -- kliu@grsm.com -- Gordon & Rees Scully Mansukhani LLP. ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Appeal Filed in Thompson Case ------------------------------------------------- Danny L. Thompson filed an appeal from a court decision in the case captioned, DANNY L. THOMPSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-01620-KOB (N.D. Ala., Sep. 30, 2016). The appeal was filed on November 14, 2018 before the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, and captioned as DANNY L. THOMPSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 18-14761 (11th Cir.). Allstate Insurance Company provides personal lines property and casualty products. The company was founded in 1931 and is based in Northbrook, Illinois with additional offices in Liverpool, New York and Gainesville, Florida. Allstate Insurance Company operates as a subsidiary of Allstate Insurance Holdings, LLC. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Garrett Parker Dennis, Esq. 221 Longwood Dr. SW Huntsville, AL 35801 The Defendant is represented by: Felicia A. Long, Esq. HILL HILL CARTER FRANCO COLE & BLACK, PC 425 S Perry St. Montgomery, AL 36104 Telephone: (334) 834-7600 (334) 834-7600 ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Alarimo Files Suit in New York ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alltran Financial, LP. The case is styled as Joseph Alarimo, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Alltran Financial, LP, Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-07223 (E.D. N.Y., December 19, 2018). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit filed pursuant to Fair Debt Collection Act. Alltran Financial, LP specializes in revenue cycle, accounts receivable, and contact center solutions within healthcare, financial services, higher education, and government industries in the Unites States.[BN] The Plaintiff appears PRO SE. AMAZON.COM LLC: Fails to Pay Delivery Drivers' OT, Faucett Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- PRIESTLEY FAUCETT, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. AMAZON.COM, LLC, AMAZON LOGISTICS, INC., and SHEARD-LOMAN TRANSPORT, LLC, Case No. 1:18-cv-08066 (N.D. Ill., December 7, 2018), alleges that the Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay overtime premium to the Plaintiff and other Delivery Associates. The case is about the Amazon Defendants' alleged unlawful scheme to attempt to avoid responsibility for paying its Delivery Associates in accordance with federal wage and hour laws by attempting to contract out that responsibility to third-party Delivery Service Providers, such as Defendant Sheard-Loman Transport, LLC. Delivery Associates deliver Amazon's packages but are paid through Defendant Sheard-Loman. Amazon.com, LLC, is a limited liability company with principal offices in Seattle, Washington, which operates throughout the United States. Amazon Logistics, Inc., a subsidiary of Defendant Amazon.com, LLC, is a corporation with principal offices in Seattle, Washington, which operates throughout the United States. Sheard-Loman Transport, LLC, is a limited liability company organized under the laws of Illinois with principal offices in Chicago, Illinois. Sheard-Loman provides Delivery Associates to Amazon as a Delivery Service Provider. Sheard-Loman operates a carrier and logistics business in providing vehicles and drivers to deliver goods on behalf of Amazon.com and its affiliates.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq. Camille Fundora Rodriguez, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 Facsimile: (215) 875-4620 E-mail: sschalman-bergen@bm.net crodriguez@bm.net - and - Ryan Allen Hancock, Esq. WILLIG, WILLIAMS & DAVIDSON 1845 Walnut Street, 24th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 656-3600 Facsimile: (215) 567-2310 E-mail: rhancock@wwdlaw.com - and - John Bielski, Esq. WILLIG, WILLIAMS & DAVIDSON 77 W. Washington St., Suite 2120 Chicago, IL 60602 E-mail: jbielski@wwdlaw.com AMERICA'S TRUST: Missry Files TCPA Suit in New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against America's Trust Insurance. The case is styled as Carol Missry and Hyman Missry, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Samuel Messinger, America's Trust Insurance and ATI Agency, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-07226 (E.D. N.Y., December 19, 2018). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Fraud or Truth-In-Lending filed pursuant to Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991. Americas Trust Inc. is an insurance company.[Bn] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Adam Richard Gonnelli, Esq. The Sultzer Law Group 85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 104 Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 Tel: (845) 483-7100 Fax: (888) 749-7747 Email: agonnelli@thesultzerlawgroup.com AMERICAN OSTEOPATHIC: Court OKs $84MM Settlement in Talone Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey issued an Opinion granting Parties' Joint Motion for Final Approval of Certification of Settlement Class and Sub-Classes and Class Settlement in the case captioned ALBERT TALONE, D.O., CRAIG WAX, D.O., RICHARD RENZA, D.O., ROY STOLLER, D.O., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. THE AMERICAN OSTEOPATHIC ASSOCIATION, Defendant. No. 1:16-cv-04644-NLH-JS. (D.N.J.). This case concerns antitrust and fraud claims brought by osteopathic physicians against the American Osteopathic Association for its alleged unlawful tying of board certification with membership in a professional association. Plaintiffs are osteopathic physicians (DOs) who have been board certified as medical specialists by the American Osteopathic Association (AOA), and who have also purchased membership in the AOA. Plaintiffs claim that in order to avoid the loss of their board certification, Plaintiffs and AOA board certified DOs have been forced to purchase AOA membership even though it serves no purpose with respect to, and has no actual connection with, AOA board certification or their practice as physicians (Challenged Rule). The Settlement Class is defined as: All persons who were members of the AOA (regardless of membership category) and all persons or entities who paid dues on behalf of anyone who was a member of the AOA at any time since August 1, 2012. The Settlement Sub-Classes are comprised of: (i) an AOA Board-Certified Sub-Class comprised of all members of the Settlement Class that have held AOA Board certifications since August 1, 2012 and (ii) a Lifetime Sub-Class comprised of all members of the Settlement Class who received lifetime board certification (Settlement Class and Sub-Classes). The parties represent that there are approximately 48,000 members of the AOA, 32,000 AOA Board certified DOs, and thousands of lifetime certificate holders. It is evident that joinder of the members of the Settlement Class and Sub-Classes would be impractical, and the numerosity requirement of Rule 23(a)(1) is satisfied. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs' claims present the following issues common to the proposed Settlement Class and Sub-Classes. The answers to these common questions are the same for all the Settlement Class and Sub-Class, respectively. Thus, the commonality prong of Rule 23(a) has been met. The representative Plaintiffs purchased AOA memberships, have AOA Board certifications, and two of the Plaintiffs Dr. Talone and Dr. Renza have lifetime certification. Thus, Plaintiffs assert legal claims on behalf of themselves that are sufficiently typical of the claims of all members of the Settlement Class and Sub-Classes. These similarities satisfy Rule 23(a)(3)'s typicality requirement. The Court finds that there has been no showing that any conflicts exist between the Class Representatives and the proposed Settlement Class and Sub-Classes. There also has been no reasons presented to doubt that Class Counsel are experienced class action litigators familiar with the legal and factual issues involved in this action, and each is highly qualified. Thus, the adequacy prong of Rule 23(a)(4) has been met. The Court finds that the settlement satisfies the relevant Girsh factors. This is a nationwide, antitrust case involving over 48,000 class members. Cases of this magnitude and subject matter easily meet this first Girsh factor. None of the class members has objected to the settlement. This litigation has proceeded for two years, the Plaintiffs retained an expert economist, the parties engaged in core discovery, and interrogatories have been served, litigated over, and answered. It is evident that both sides appreciate the merits of the case and the benefits of settling the matter rather than continuing to litigate, thus satisfying the third Girshfactor. Antitrust actions are complex to prosecute. Previously in resolving AOA's motion to dismiss, the Court articulated AOA's challenges to Plaintiffs' claims and the elements necessary to prove Plaintiffs' claims. The Court found that Plaintiffs sufficiently pleaded their claims to proceed, but noted the type of substantiated proof Plaintiffs would be required to produce to support their claims. It is clear that the risks to Plaintiffs in establishing liability and damages support their desire to settle their claims, and satisfy the fourth and fifth Girsh factors. In regard to the seventh factor, the AOA states: The AOA cannot afford to settle this case if opt outs are permitted. The reason is that, under the antitrust laws, a successful plaintiff is entitled to its full attorneys' fees. So it is foreseeable that enterprising attorneys may attempt to persuade members of the class to bring individual antitrust actions based on the Rule at issue in this case seeking four years of alleged dues overpayment, trebled plus attorneys' fees. The AOA is not prepared to risk the scenario of numerous follow-on lawsuits. There is no evidence in the record regarding AOA's financial wherewithal, but even if AOA could afford to pay more does not mean that it is obligated to pay any more than what the class members are entitled to under the theories of liability that existed at the time the settlement was reached. The Court, therefore, finds this factor to support the fairness of the settlement. The present value of the damages plaintiffs would likely recover if successful, appropriately discounted for the risk of not prevailing, should be compared with the amount of the proposed settlement. Above, the Court presented the parties' calculation of the total net present value of the settlement from years one to three: $31,388,060, $59,922,660 and $84,210,312. The value to each class member is at least $1,750. The non-monetary terms of the settlement also provide meaningful benefits to the Settlement Class and Sub-Classes, including several terms that will save the members of the Settlement Class and Sub-Classes significant time and money. Even if the members of the Settlement Class and Sub-Classes were willing to assume all of the litigation risks, the passage of time would introduce still more risks in terms of appeals and possible changes in the law that would likely make a future recovery less beneficial than a recovery today. This settlement represents a resolution that approaches the best possible recovery. The Court agrees with the parties' position and finds that the eighth and ninth Girsh factors favor settlement. The analysis of the Girsh factors confirms that the proposed settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate. The Court therefore approves the settlement agreed to by the parties. Accordingly, the settlement of the Plaintiffs' class action claims against the AOA meets the requirements of Rule 23(a), is appropriately certifiable under Rule 23(b)(2), and overall is fair, reasonable, and adequate under Rule 23(e). A full-text copy of the District Court's December 3, 2018 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/yacbgpgy from Leagle.com. ALBERT TALONE, D.O., CRAIG WAX, D.O., RICHARD RENZA, D.O. & ROY STOLLER, D.O., INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs, represented by JAMES GREENBERG -- jgreenberg@duanemorris.com -- DUANE MORRIS LLP, SARAH O'LAUGHLIN KULIK -- sckulik@duanemorris.com -- DUANE MORRIS LLP, SETH A. GOLDBERG -- SAGoldberg@duanemorris.com -- DUANE MORRIS LLP & SEAN PATRICK MCCONNELL -- spmcconnell@duanemorris.com -- DUANE MORRIS LLP. THE AMERICAN OSTEOPATHIC ASSOCIATION, Defendant, represented by JEFFREY WARREN LORELL -- jlorell@saiber.com -- SAIBER LLC, GERI L. ALBIN -- galbin@saiber.com -- SAIBER LLC & JEFFREY S. SOOS , SAIBER LLC. ANSAFONE CONTACT: Brown's Customer Service Reps Class Certified --------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. James S. Moody, Jr., granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiff's "Amended Motion to Conditionally Certify Collective Action and Facilitate Notice to Potential Class Members" in the lawsuit titled LLOYD BROWN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. ANSAFONE CONTACT CENTERS, LLC, Case No. 5:18-cv-00490-JSM-PRL (M.D. Fla.). The Court conditionally certifies a class of all current and former customer service representatives employed by Ansafone Contact Centers, LLC at its call center in Ocala, Florida, who were employed at any time during the period from March 16, 2015, to present, and who were not paid full and proper overtime compensation for all hours worked due to Ansafone Contact Centers, LLC's timekeeping practices. Judge Moody directs the parties to confer with respect to any remaining objections to certain provisions of the notice (to the extent not already addressed by the Court) and file a joint proposed notice within 14 days of this Order. If the parties are unable to agree on the details of the notice, they shall individually file a proposed notice for the Court's review during that same period of time. The Plaintiff sued his former employer, Ansafone Contact Centers, LLC, on behalf of himself and similarly situated Ansafone employees for alleged unpaid overtime in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.[CC] APHRIA INC: Curkan Hits Share Drop from Operational Flaws --------------------------------------------------------- John Curkan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Aphria Inc., Victor Neufeld and Carl Merton, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-11428, (S.D. N.Y., December 6, 2018) seeks to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Aphria is a Canadian firm that produces and sells medical cannabis. Its recent acquisitions in Latin America allegedly lacked adequate licenses to operate and were overvalued. On this news, the company share price fell $1.85 per share, or over 23%, to close at $6.05 per share on December 3, 2018, on unusually heavy trading volume. Curkan purchased Aphria securities and lost during corrective disclosures, notes the complaint. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: (631) 367-7100 Fax: (631) 367-1173 Email: SRudman@rgrdlaw.com - and - Brian E. Cochran, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101-8498 Tel: (619) 231-1058 Fax: (619) 231-7423 Email: bcochran@rgrdlaw.com - and - W. Scott Holleman, Esq. JOHNSON FISTEL, LLP 99 Madison Avenue, 5th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 292-5690 Fax: (212) 602-1592 scotth@johnsonfistel.com APHRIA INC: Gloschat Hits Share Drop from Operational Flaws ----------------------------------------------------------- Anthony V. Gloschat, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Aphria Inc., Victor Neufeld and Carl Merton, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-11427, (S.D. N.Y., December 6, 2018), Defendants, seeks to recover damages caused by violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Aphria is a Canadian firm that produces and sells medical cannabis. Its recent acquisitions in Latin America allegedly lacked adequate licenses to operate and were overvalued. On this news, the company share price fell $1.85 per share, or over 23%, to close at $6.05 per share on December 3, 2018, on unusually heavy trading volume. Gloschat purchased Aphria securities and lost during corrective disclosures. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. Jonathan Lindenfeld, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com jlindenfeld@pomlaw.com - and - Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 377-1181 Facsimile: (312) 377-1184 Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com - and - Peretz Bronstein, Esq. BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 697-6484 Facsimile (212) 697-7296 Email: peretz@bgandg.com APPLE INC: Phone's Pixel Count Misleading, Sponchiado et al. Claim ------------------------------------------------------------------ CHRISTIAN SPONCHIADO and COURTNEY DAVIS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. APPLE INC., the Defendant, Case No.: 5:18-cv-07533 (N.D. Cal., Dec. 14, 2018), alleges that Apple advertises its phones by touting their display size and screen quality as major selling points. Apple makes two types of claims about its screens: first, that that its screens have specific high resolutions, i.e. that they have a high pixel count as tallied by multiplying the screen height in pixels by the screen width in pixels. Secondly, that the phones' surface area is large, as calculated by measuring the diagonal length of the screen from corner to corner. However, Apple's iPhone X, iPhone XS, and iPhone XS Max 2 phones do not have the advertised screen resolution because they do not have the advertised number of screen pixels (2436×1125 in the iPhone X and XS, and 14 2688×1242 in the iPhone XS Max). Furthermore, it does not have the advertised screen size as measured in inches. The pixel deception is rooted in the misrepresentation of the Products' screens, which do not use true screen pixels. Defendant's nominal screen pixel resolution counts misleadingly count false pixels as if they were true pixels. This is in contrast to every other iPhone -- phones whose screens Defendant directly compares to the iPhone X screen in its effort to mislead consumers into believing that the iPhone X has more pixels (and better screen resolution) than it really does. The screen size deception is simply based on Apple cutting corners – the Defendant rounds off the corners of the Products' screens and the Products have notches without pixels at the top of their screens, but Defendant calculates the screen size of the Products by including non-screen areas such as the corners and the cut-out notch at the top of the screen. The missing screen areas also reduce the false pixel counts of the Products' screens below their advertised pixel counts, the lawsuit says. Apple Inc. is an American multinational technology company headquartered in Cupertino, California, that designs, develops, and sells consumer electronics, computer software, and online services.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class: C.K. Lee, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 30 East 39th Street, Second Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: 212-465-1188 Facsimile: 212-465-1181 E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com - and - David Makman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF DAVID A. MAKMAN 655 Mariner's Island, Suite 306 San Mateo, CA 94404 Telephone: 650 242-1560 Facsimile: 650 242-1547 E-mail: david@makmanlaw.com ARAMARK CAMPUS: Buchanan Seeks Minimum Wages & Overtime Pay ----------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT BUCHANAN, an individual, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. ARAMARK CAMPUS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; ARAMARK SPORTS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability, the Defendants, Case No. 18CV339719 (Cal. Super. Ct., Dec. 10, 2018), seeks minimum wages and overtime pay under the California Labor Code. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the other similarly situated concession supervisor Employees of Defendants worked in the food and support services sector and in connection with Defendants' concessions operations at various venues and sports and entertainment facilities throughout California at Defendants' behest without being paid all wages due. More specifically, Defendants employed the Plaintiff and the other similarly situated hourly, non-exempt concessions supervisors with assigned responsibilities for managing the services provided by concessions staff workers, including cooks and cashiers, at the multiple concession stands assigned to them within their assigned facilities. Employees were required to remain under Defendant's control and were not provided with the opportunity to take full uninterrupted and duty-free rest periods and meal breaks, as required by the Labor Code and the applicable paragraphs of the IWC Wage Orders. The Defendants did not record actual meal period start times and end times for Plaintiff and the Class members, or else inaccurately recorded them, and required concessions supervisors to remain under Defendants' control during breaks to respond to radio calls and other management directives and customer and concession worker requirements. Defendants have therefore also either failed to maintain timekeeping records for Plaintiff that would permit the Plaintiff to discover the nature and extent of Defendants' unlawful rounding and the actual hours the Plaintiff worked, or has otherwise declined to produce them to Plaintiff in response to a timely and lawful request, the lawsuit says. Aramark Campus, LLC, together with its division, provides on-campus dining and food service for colleges and universities in the United States. It serves students, faculty, and administrators. The company is headquartered in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Aramark Campus, LLC operates as a subsidiary of Aramark Corporation.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Yuet Lai, Esq. David Yeremian, Esq. Alvin B. Lindsay, Esq. DAVID YEREMIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. 535 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 705 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 230-8380 Facsimile: (818) 230-0308 E-mail: david@yeremianlaw.com alvin@yeremianlaw.com - and - Walter Haines, Esq. UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP, PC 5500 Bolsa Ave., Suite 201 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Telephone: (310) 652-2242 E-mail: whaines@uelg.com ARKANSAS: Raytheon Co. Moves for Certification of Taxpayers Class ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled RAYTHEON COMPANY, and its Subsidiaries, JPS Communications Inc., Raytheon Exchange Holdings, Inc., Raytheon Exchange Holdings II, Inc., Raytheon Exchange Holdings III, Inc., Raytheon Exchange Holdings IV, Inc., Raytheon Exchange Holdings V, Inc., and Raytheon Oakley Systems, LLC f/k/a Raytheon Oakley Systems Inc. v. LARRY WALTHER, in his official capacity as DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS, Case No. 1:18-cv-01030-SOH (W.D. Ark.), move to certify a class of all Arkansas taxpayers as to Count 7 of their complaint. Count 7 of Raytheon's complaint is an illegal-exaction claim brought under Ark. Const. art. 16 Section 13. Claims brought under this provision of the Arkansas Constitution are, as a matter of law, class actions brought on behalf of all Arkansas taxpayers and, in Arkansas state court, are exempt from the certification requirements of the Arkansas counterpart to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Plaintiffs assert.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: John R. Tisdale, Esq. Rodney P. Moore, Esq. Michael A. Thompson, Esq. WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2300 Little Rock, AR 72201-3699 Telephone: (501) 371-0808 Facsimile: (501) 376-9442 E-mail: jtisdale@wlj.com rpmoore@wlj.com mthompson@wlj.com The Defendant is represented by: Alicia Austin Smith, Esq. Amanda D. Land, Esq. Michael Wehrle, Esq. OFFICE OF REVENUE LEGAL COUNSEL P.O. Box 1272, Room 2380 Little Rock, AR 72203 Telephone: (501) 683-2255 E-mail: Alicia.Austin.Smith@dfa.arkansas.gov Amanda.Land@dfa.arkansas.gov Mike.Wehrle@dfa.arkansas.gov ARS NATIONAL: Helmuth Moves for Class Certification Under FDCPA --------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned BERNADETTE M. HELMUTH, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. ARS NATIONAL SERVICES, INC., Case No. 9:11-cv-81044-KAM (S.D. Fla.), asks the Court to enter an order certifying this case to proceed as a class action. The class is defined as: a) all Florida residents for whom Defendant left a pre-recorded telephone message in which it failed to disclose that the communication was from a debt collector; b) in an attempt to collect a debt incurred for personal, family, or household purposes; c) then due Dell Financial; d) during the one-year period prior to the filing of the complaint in this matter through August 19, 2011. The purported class action is filed alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff alleges that the policy and practice of the Defendant was to leave telephone messages, which violate the FDCPA by failing to indicate that the call is from a debt collector. Ms. Helmuth also asks the Court to appoint her as class representative, and to appoint Donald A. Yarbrough, Esq., as class counsel.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Donald A. Yarbrough, Esq. DONALD A. YARBROUGH, ESQ. Post Office Box 11842 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33339 Telephone: (954) 537-2000 Facsimile: (954) 566-2235 E-mail: don@donyarbrough.com AUTOREMIND INC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Ward Family Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- WARD FAMILY CHIROPRACTOR, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AUTOREMIND, INC.; and JBS OF CENTRAL FLORIDA, Defendants, Case No. 4:18-cv-00251-HLM (N.D. Ga., Nov. 16, 2019) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls. Autoremind, Inc. is a healthcare communication service provider. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher B. Hall, Esq. Andrew Lampros, Esq. Gordon Van Remmen, Esq. HALL & LAMPROS, LLP 400 Galleria Parkway Suite 1150 Atlanta, GA 30339 Telephone: (404) 876-8100 Facsimile: (404) 876-3477 E-mail: chall@hallandlampros.com alampros@hallandlampros.com gordon@hallandlampros.com - and - Jacob Philllips, Esq. Edmund A. Normand, Esq. NORMAND PLLC 3165 McCrory Place Suite 109 Orlando, FL 32814 Telephone: (407) 603-6031 E-mail: jacob@ednormand.com ed@ednormand.com BEEWAKE CORP: Olsen Suit Asserts ADA Violation ---------------------------------------------- Beewake Corp. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Thomas J. Olsen, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Beewake Corp., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-11974 (S.D. N.Y., December 19, 2018). Beewake Corp. developed a mobile application that allows users to find and book hotel rooms, meeting rooms, co-working or office spaces, and neighborhood coffee shops. The company was incorporated in 2015 and is based in New York, New York.[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 BES INDUSTRIES: Gorss Motels Seeks to Certify Class Under TCPA -------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled GORSS MOTELS, INC., a Connecticut corporation, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons v. BES INDUSTRIES, INC., Case No. 3:17-cv-00447-BJD-PDB (M.D. Fla.), seeks an order certifying this class: All persons or entities who were successfully sent a facsimile on or about May 17-23, 2013, and March 27-April 4, 2014, from BES Industries, Inc., which states "BES - The Preferred Source," that mentions "Thru-The Wall Air Conditioners" or "Commercial Lodging LED Televisions," and which contained an opt-out notice as follows: "If you would prefer to be removed from our customer database please call or 888-527-6288 or Fax 888-201-7631. Gorss also seeks an order appointing it as class representative and appointing Ryan M. Kelly, Esq., of Anderson + Wanca as class counsel. The case arises out of the Defendant's alleged fax broadcasting campaigns wherein facsimile advertisements were sent to the Plaintiff and the proposed Class on May 17 - 23, 2013, and on March 27 – April 4, 2014. The Plaintiff received both Faxes and brought this lawsuit alleging the Faxes violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan M. Kelly, Esq. ANDERSON + WANCA 3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500 Rolling Meadows, IL 60008 Telephone: (847) 368-1500 Facsimile: (847) 368-1501 E-mail: rkelly@andersonwanca.com BIRD RIDES: Removes Borgia et al. Suit to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- The Defendant in the case of DANIELLE BORGIA; TINA OGATA; JOAN HOWELL; ALEX BULE; KEITH FINKELSTEIN; NATASA KOJIC; REBECCA MARTINEZ; DAVID PETERSEN; and ANDREA ROSENTHAL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BIRD RIDES, INC., d/b/a BIRD; NEUTRON HOLDINGS, INC., d/b/a LIME; XIAOMI USA, INC.; SEGWAY INC.; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles (Case No. 18STCV01416) to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on November 16, 2018. The clerk of court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 2:18-cv-09685-DMG-FFM. The case is assigned to Judge Dolly M. Gee and referred to Magistrate Frederick F. Mumm. Bird Rides, Inc. operates as an electric vehicle sharing company. The company provides a fleet of electric, shared scooters that can be accessed through smartphones. The company was incorporated in 2017 and is based in Santa Monica, California. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Kent J. Schmidt, Esq. Navdeep k. Singh, Esq. DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP 600 Anton Boulevard, Suite 2000 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (714) 800-1400 Facsimile: (714) 800-1499 E-mail: schmidt.kent@dorsey.com singh.navdeep@dorsey.com - and - Bryon Benevento, Esq. DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP 111 South Main Street, Suite 2100 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Telephone: (801) 933-8958 Facsimile: (801) 933-7373 E-mail: benevento.bryon@dorsey.com BONIMA OIL CORP: Espinosa to Recover Minimum, Overtime Pay ---------------------------------------------------------- Gloria Patricia Nakamura Espinosa and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(b), Plaintiff, vs. Bonima Oil Corp. and Ricardo Echeverria, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-25128 (S.D. Fla., December 6, 2018), requests double damages and reasonable attorneys' fees, jointly and severally, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act for all overtime wages still owing along with court costs, interest and any other relief. Bonima is a Shell retail gas station owned by Echeverria where Espinosa worked as a cashier/attendant from on or about October 5, 2017, through on or about November 22, 2018. She claims to be denied overtime and/or minimum wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J.H. Zidell, Esq. J.H. ZIDELL, P.A. 300 71st Street, Suite 605 Miami Beach, FL 33141 Tel: (305) 865-6766 Fax: (305) 865-7167 Email: zabogado@aol.com BOXBOROUGH REGENCY: Morin Seeks Unpaid Wages for Wait Staff ----------------------------------------------------------- MARY ANN MORIN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs BOXBOROUGH REGENCY, LLC, EMPIRE REGENCY HOSPITALITY, LLC, and LAWRENCE GORDON, the Defendants, Case No. 18-3514 (Dec. 10, 2018, Mass. Super. Ct., Middlesex Cty.), alleges that the Defendants have improperly distributed a portion of banquet service charges to outside vendors who supply temporary banquet workers, rather than remitting the full proceeds of those service charges to eligible wait staff employees who work at the Regency Hotels in violation of the Massachusetts Tips Act Wage Act and the Massachusetts Minimum Wage Law. In addition, Morin alleges that Defendants have improperly paid the wait staff employees at the Regency Hotels less than the basic minimum wage while also failing to comply with the Tips Act, the lawsuit says. The Defendants own and operate the Regency Hotels – nameley, the Boxboro Regency Hotel & Conference Center located at 242 Adams Place in Boxborough, Massachusetts and the Westford Regency Inn & Conference Center located at 219 Littleton Road in Westford, Massachussetts .[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Brant Casavant, Esq. Hillary Schwab, Esq. FAIR WORK, P.C. 192 South Street, Suite 450 Boston, MA 02111 Telephone: (617) 607-3261 Facsimile: (617)488-2261 E-mail: brant@fairworklaw.com hillary@fairworklaw.com BROOKLYN CORNER: Delivery Staff Hit Tip Credit, Claim Overtime -------------------------------------------------------------- Ali H. Gurocak and Nicholas Gurdial Singh, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Brooklyn Corner, Corp., MIS Restaurant Inc., Inventa Group Inc., Green Bay Enterprise Partners LLC, Sam Kaya, Ekrem Kaya and Gokmen Leventeli, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-06943, (E.D. N.Y., December 6, 2018) seeks to recover unpaid minimum, overtime and spread-of-hours wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and New York Labor Law, including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. Defendants owned, operated, or controlled two Turkish restaurants, located at 332 5th Ave, Brooklyn, NY 11215 under the name "Cafe Mistral," and at 370 5th Ave., Brooklyn, NY 11215 under the name "Park Terrace Grill." Plaintiffs are former employees of Defendants who ostensibly were employed as construction workers and then as delivery workers and waiters. They was required to spend a considerable part of their work day performing non-tipped duties, thus Defendants were not entitled to take a tip credit because their non-tipped duties exceeded 20% of each workday. They worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage and overtime compensation for the hours that they worked. Defendants also failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked, says the complaint. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Tel: (212) 317-1200 Email: Faillace@employmentcompliance.com CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Spady Sues over Debt Collection Practices ------------------------------------------------------------ JOSHUA SPADY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CAVALRY PORTFOLIO SERVICES, LLC; CAVALRY SPV I, LLC; and JOHN DOES 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-16259-RMB-KMW (D.N.J., Nov. 18, 2018) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. The case is assigned to Judge Renee Marie Bumb and referred to Magistrate Judge Karen M. Williams. Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC provides financial resolution services. Its services cover various areas, such as collection account and debt control. The company was founded in 1991 and is based in Valhalla, New York. Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC operates as a subsidiary of Cavalry Investments, LLC. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph K. Jones, Esq. JONES, WOLF & KAPASI, LLC 375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100 Fairfield, NJ 07004 Telephone: (973) 227-5900 Facsimile: (973) 244-0019 E-mail: jkj@legaljones.com CHAPTERS HEALTH SYSTEM: Diaz Sues Over FACTA and FCRA Violation --------------------------------------------------------------- John A. Diaz, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Chapters Health System, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 8:18-cv-03052-CEH-SPF (M.D. Fla., December 19, 2018) alleges that the Defendant violated the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act ("FACTA") amendment to the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"). The Plaintiff says the Defendant knowingly or recklessly violated the law by providing Plaintiff and putative class members with electronically printed receipts bearing ten of the sixteen digits comprising their credit card numbers. Consequently, Plaintiff and the putative class members, all of whom conducted business with Defendant during the time frame relevant to this complaint, and paid for goods using a credit or debit card, have been harmed by Defendant's conduct and are entitled to an award of statutory damages, asserts the complaint. By printing of the first six and last four digits of his credit card account number(s) Defendant not only placed him at risk for identity theft, Defendant breached Plaintiff's confidence, says the complaint. Defendant is liable to Plaintiff and members of the class for statutory damages, punitive damages, attorney's fees and costs, the complaint assrtes. Plaintiff John A. Diaz is a natural person who resides in Hillsborough County, Florida. Chapters Health System, Inc. is a Florida not for-profit corporation whose principal address is 12470 Telecom Drive, Suite 300 West, Temple Terrace, FL 33637.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James S. Giardina, Esq. The Consumer Rights Law Group, PLLC 3104 W. Waters Avenue, Suite 200 Tampa, FL 33614-2877 Phone: (813) 435-5055 ext. 101 Fax: (866) 535-7199 Email: James@ConsumerRightsLawGroup.com CHARLOTTE PALM: Autry FLSA Suit Settlement Has Final Approval ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, CHARIE AUTRY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CHARLOTTE PALM CORP., Defendant, Civil Action No. 3:16-cv-00797-GCM (W.D. N.C.), Judge Graham C. Mullen of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, Charlotte Division, granted the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for final approval of Class Action Settlement Agreement and approval of attorneys' fees and costs. The Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendant failed to pay her and similarly situated employees promised and earned wages for all hours worked, proper minimum wage, and proper overtime premium compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act ("NCWHA"). The Defendant denies any liability or wrongdoing of any kind under the FLSA and NCWHA and pled various defenses. The Court preliminarily approved the Parties' Agreement on Sept. 10, 2018. Notice was provided to the Class Members. There were no objections to the settlement, and no Class Members excluded themselves from the settlement. There are disputes between the Parties as to the underlying facts and the controlling law. Nonetheless, the Parties believe the settlement reached and agreed upon to be a fair and reasonable settlement of their dispute, given the uncertainty as to liability and damages and the estimated future costs of litigation. The Final Fairness and Approval Hearing was held on Nov. 14, 2018. After due consideration and inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the proposed settlement of the Plaintiffs' collective FLSA claims and Rule 23 class claims under the NCWHA against Defendant, and review of the Agreement, Judge Mullen finds and concludes that the proposed settlement in the case meets the standard for approval as it reflects a reasonable compromise of a bona fide dispute. He granted the Plaintiff's unopposed motion for final approval of Class Action Settlement Agreement and approval of attorneys' fees and costs. For settlement purposes only, he finally certified pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 and 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) the Settlement Class of every individual employed by the Defendant as a server, server assistant, runner and/or bartender during any workweek between Nov. 18, 2013 and Aug. of 2017. The Judge approved (i) Plaintiff Charie Autry as the Representative of the Settlement Class, and the proposed service award as outlined in the Agreement to Plaintiff Autry for her service to the Settlement Class; (ii) Gibbons Leis, PLLC and Stephan Zouras, LLP as the Class Counsel to the Settlement Class and the Plaintiff's unopposed request for attorneys' fees and costs as outlined in the Agreement; and (iii) RG2 Claims Administration, LLC as the Settlement Administrator and the costs of the settlement administration will be paid by the Defendant. The Judge directed the settlement funds be distributed in accordance with the terms of the Class Action Settlement Agreement. He further directed the entry of final judgment in the case and dismissed the action with prejudice in its entirety in accordance with the terms of the Class Action Settlement Agreement. The Clerk of the Court is ordered to enter Final Judgment in the action adjudicating all the claims and all the Parties' rights and liabilities pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 18, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/hvngMz from Leagle.com. Charie Autry, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew C. Ficzko -- aficzko@stephanzouras.com -- Stephan Zouras, LLP, pro hac vice, James B. Zouras -- jzouras@stephanzouras.com -- Stephan Zouras, LLP, pro hac vice, Philip J. Gibbons, Jr. -- phil@gibbonsleis -- Gibbons Leis, PLLC & Craig Lorne Leis, Gibbons Leis, PLLC. Charlotte Palm Corporation, Defendant, represented by Jerry Howard Walters, Jr. -- jwalters@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C. & Molly M. Shah -- mmshah@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, PC. CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Macleod Suit Moved to District of New Jersey -------------------------------------------------------------- A case, ALYSSA MACLEOD, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL, INC., and CHIPOTLE SERVICES, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 55-00018, was removed from the New Jersey Superior Court, Bergen County, to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (Newark) on Dec. 10, 2018. The District of New Jersey Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:18-cv-17042-SDW-LDW to the proceeding. The suit alleges labor-related violation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Susan D. Wigenton. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. is an American chain of fast casual restaurants in the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Germany, and France, specializing in tacos and Mission-style burritos. Its name derives from chipotle, the Nahuatl name for a smoked and dried jalapeño chili pepper.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Carl J. Mayer, Esq. MAYER LAW GROUP 66 Witherspoons Street, Suite 414 Princeton, NJ 08542 Telephone: (609) 921-0253 E-mail: carlmayer@aol.com Attorneys for Defendants: Abigail Nitka, Esq. Lena Brinjikji, Esq. MESSNER REEVES,LLP 805 Third Avenue-18th Fl New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (646) 663-1860 Facsimile: (646) 663-1895 E-mail: anitka@messner.com lbrinjikji@messner.com CLEANNET USA: Can't Compel Arbitration in Castillo Suit ------------------------------------------------------- In the case, LUIS CASTILLO, Plaintiff, v. CLEANNET USA, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-07277-JCS (N.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California denied the Defendants bring a Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay the Proceeding. Castillo brings a putative class action against Defendants CleanNet and D&G Enterprises, Inc., doing business as CleanNet of the Bay Area and CleanNet of San Jose ("D&G"), asserting claims under the federal Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act ("TVPRA"), and the California Trafficking Victims Protection Act ("CTVPA"). Castillo entered into a Franchise Agreement with D&G on Sept. 26, 2011. D&G is an area operator licensed by CleanNet USA to sell franchises and to operate a franchising business using the CleanNet USA® registered marks and proprietary system in the San Francisco Bay area. To purchase the franchise, Castillo made a down payment of $8,500 and signed a promissory note for $5,000 on the day he signed the Franchise Agreement. The Franchise Agreement contains a section entitled "Dispute Resolution." Section XXII of the Agreement provides for waiver of punitive damages. The Franchise Agreement also contains a provision addressing the use of English language. Castillo does not dispute that he signed the Franchise Agreement and also initialed each page of it, including the pages containing the dispute resolution provision. However, there are factual disputes about the circumstances under which he signed the Franchise Agreement and whether he understood what he was agreeing to. Castillo received a copy of the Franchise Disclosure Documents, including the Franchise Agreement, in June 2011 and therefore had time to get it translated before signing it. With respect to Castillo's ability to speak English, Defendants have offered a declaration by Andrew Kaska, who was employed by D&G and accompanied Castillo to meetings with customers who did not speak Spanish to discuss the work he was performing. The Defendants also imply that Castillo is more sophisticated -- and perhaps more financially well-off -- than his declaration suggests. Finally, Defendants introduce evidence, in the form of a signed receipt and a subsequent acknowledgment of receipt, they contend shows that Castillo received a packet of Franchise Disclosure Documents on June 14, 2011. The Defendants bring a Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay the Proceeding based on an arbitration provision in the Aranchise Agreement between D&G and Castillo. A hearing on the motion was held on Dec. 7, 2018 at 9:30 a.m. Judge Spero finds that Castillo did not have an opportunity to review the Franchise Agreement or other Franchise Disclosure Documents at home before signing the Franchise Agreement. Instead, he was presented with these documents for the first time at the meeting that he and Vega had set up to finalize the agreement and make a down-payment, on Sept. 26, 2011. Vega did not encourage Castillo to consult an attorney or obtain English language assistance so that he could fully understand the terms of the documents he was signing; instead, she encouraged him to rely on her translation of the documents. Under these circumstances, the Judge concludes that Castillo has demonstrated that he reasonably relied on Vega's translation and was unaware that he was entering into an arbitration agreement, giving rise to fraud in the inception and rendering the arbitration agreement void. Castillo argues that even if the Court does not find fraud in the inception, it should not enforce the arbitration agreement because it contains numerous provisions that are unconscionable or violate public policy under Armendariz and the agreement cannot be fixed by severing them. The Judge concludes that the Plaintiff is correct. Among other things, he finds that (i) the CTVPA, under which Castillo asserts his state law trafficking claim, was enacted for a public purpose and therefore, that the rights afforded under that statute are unwaivable; (ii) Castillo has made a strong showing of procedural unconscionability; (iii) at least these four requirements of the arbitration agreement are substantively unconscionable; and (iv) because the arbitration agreement contains at least four illegal provisions, the Judgeconcludes that it is permeated by unconscionability and is unenforceable as a whole. For the reasons stated, Judge Spero denied the Defendant's Motion to Compel. A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 18, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/TpnW84 from Leagle.com. Luis Castillo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Carole Vigne -- cvigne@legalaidatwork.org -- Legal Aid at Work, Henry Sanford Hewitt -- hhewitt@legalaidatwork.org -- Legal Aid at Work, Mana Barari -- mbarari@legalaidatwork.org -- Legal Aid at Work & Monique Olivier -- monique@dplolaw.com -- Olivier Schreiber & Chao LLP. CleanNet USA, Inc., a Virginia corporation, Defendant, represented by Laura Emily Hayward -- lhayward@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C., Joshua Eric Elefant, Littler Mendelson, P.C. & R. Brian Dixon -- bdixon@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, PC. D&G Enterprises, Inc., a California corporation, Defendant, represented by Charles Godfrey Miller -- cmiller@bzbm.com -- Bartko Zankel Bunzel & Miller, Charles Griffith Towle -- gtowle@bzbm.com -- Bartko Zankel Bunzel & Miller & Sony Broto Barari -- sbarari@bzbm.com -- Bartko, Zankel, Bunzel & Miller CLEAR WATER: $350K Settlement in Aragon Suit Has Final Approval --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, THOMAS ARAGON, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, v. CLEAR WATER PRODUCTS LLC, MILLS SOLIDS CONTROL CONSULTING, LLC, AQUA CLEAR SOLUTIONS LLC, BRODY HANSEN, SCOTT FORKNER, WAYNE JEFFREY HUBBARD, JAY GARRETT MILLS, and DANIELLE MILLS, Defendants, Civil Action No. 15-cv-02821-PAB-STV (D. Colo.), Judge Philip A. Brimmer of the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado granted (i) the aprties' Joint Motion for Final Approval of Settlement Agreement, and (ii) the Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Approval of Attorney's Fees and Costs. The case arises out of a wage dispute. The Plaintiff, a solids control technician, claims that he and other similarly situated employees of the Defendants were not paid full compensation for overtime hours worked and were instead paid a "day rate with no overtime premium pay." The Plaintiff also alleges that he was not paid for all his hours worked and rest breaks as mandated by Colorado law. The Plaintiff filed a class action complaint on Dec. 28, 2015. He asserts claims for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the Colorado Wage Claim Act, the Colorado Minimum Wage Act, and breach of contract. On May 5, 2017, the parties filed a joint motion for preliminary approval of a class action settlement. The Court granted the motion on March 5, 2018 and approved the parties' plan to disseminate notice of the settlement to the class members. On May 14, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a motion requesting an award of attorney's fees and costs. On June 28, 2018, the parties moved for final approval of the class action settlement. The Court held a final fairness hearing regarding the proposed settlement on Dec. 13, 2018. The proposed settlement agreement defines the settlement class as all persons who worked for Clear Water as solids control technicians and were paid a day rate at any time from Dec. 28, 2013 through the date that the Court enters an order preliminarily approving the Agreement. Under the proposed settlement agreement, the Defendants agree to pay a total of $350,000 as well as the settlement administrator's fees. The settlement funds are to be distributed as follows: (1) service awards of $7,000 to the Plaintiff and $2,750 each to opt-in Plaintiffs Michael Aragon, Raymond Romero, Kevin Shay, and David Yoho; (2) payments to the class counsel of up to $116,666 for attorneys' fees and costs; (3) payment of the class members' payroll taxes; and (4) pro rata payments to the settlement class members of all remaining funds based on the number of weeks they were paid a day rate since Dec. 28, 2013. Judge Brimmer is satisfied that the notice provided to the class members met the requirements of Rule 23(e) and Due Process. He concludes that the settlement is "fair, reasonable, and adequate," and will grant final approval of the settlement agreement. The Judge also finds that the number of hours expended on the case to be reasonable given that the litigation has been ongoing since 2015 and has involved multiple motions, extensive discovery, and settlement negotiations. The hourly rate charged by the class counsel of $600 per hour is also generally consistent with the rates charged in other cases in this district. Even if the rate is slightly higher than the rates customarily charged in the area, the 1.15 multiplier is lower than the lodestar multipliers that have been approved in other class action cases in this District. Accordingly, the lodestar crosscheck supports the reasonableness of the requested fee. The class counsel's requested fee award includes $2,070 in out-of-pocket litigation expenses. The Judge finds that there have been no objections to the counsel's request for costs and that the costs are reasonable given the nature and duration of thelawsuit. The settlement provides for an "enhancement payment" of $7,000 for the class representative, as well as an enhancement of $2,750 for each of four opt-in Plaintiffs. The Judge finds that no member of the settlement class has objected to the payments, which were disclosed in both the settlement agreement and the notice sent to class members. Based on the information provided by the class counsel and the fact that the case has been pending for almost three years, he concludes that the enhancement payments are reasonable compensation for the named Plaintiff and the opt-in Plaintiffs' participation in the lawsuit. For the foregoing reasons, Judge Brimmer granted the Joint Motion for Final Approval of Settlement Agreement, and the Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Approval of Attorney's Fees and Costs. He will issue a separate order setting forth the terms of the judgment. A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 18, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/oQuGz9 from Leagle.com. Thomas Aragon, on behalf of himself and all similarlysituated persons, Plaintiff, represented by Brian David Gonzales -- BGonzales@ColoradoWageLaw.com -- Brian D. Gonzales, PLLC. Clear Water Products LLC, Mills Solids Control Consulting, LLC, Aqua Clear Solutions LLC, Brody Hansen, Scott Forkner, Wayne Jeffrey Hubbard, Jay Garrett Mills & Danielle Mills, Defendants, represented by Joshua B. Kirkpatrick -- jkirkpatrick@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, PC & Michelle Lynn Gomez -- mgomez@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, PC. CLEVELAND AVE: Hogan Moves to Certify Bartenders Class Under FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------------- Pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio Constitution, the Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned Jessica Hogan, On behalf of herself and those similarly situated v. Cleveland Ave. Restaurant, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-02883-ALM-EPD (S.D. Ohio) moves the Court to authorize her to send notice of this action to these similarly situated employees: All non-owner, non-employer bartenders who were paid tipped minimum wage and who worked at Sirens at any time from October 6, 2012 to present. Jessica Hogan brings this lawsuit on behalf of herself and two groups of workers -- exotic dancers and Sirens' bartenders. She worked at Sirens, a Columbus-area strip club, as both a bartender and dancer. This motion deals with the bartenders' claims and seeks to send notice of this lawsuit to Ms. Hogan's fellow bartenders so that they can choose whether and how to proceed with their own claims. Ms. Hogan also asks the Court to (1) approve her proposed notices and method of disseminating notice, (2) order the Defendants to provide name and contact information for all potential class members within 15 days of the Court's order, (3) authorize her to send the notices via regular U.S. mail and e-mail, (4) require the Defendants to post the notice in a conspicuous place at Sirens, and (5) authorize a 90-day opt-in/out period.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul De Marco, Esq. Andrew R. Biller, Esq. Andrew P. Kimble, Esq. Philip J. Krzeski, Esq. MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC 3825 Edwards Road, Suite 650 Cincinnati, OH 45209 Telephone: (513) 651-3700 Facsimile: (513) 665-0219 E-mail: pdemarco@msdlegal.com abiller@msdlegal.com akimble@msdlegal.com pkrzeski@msdlegal.com CLEVELAND AVE: Hogan Seeks to Certify Class of Exotic Dancers ------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned Jessica Hogan, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated v. Cleveland Ave. Restaurant, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-02883-ALM-EPD (S.D. Ohio), pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio Constitution asks the Court to authorize her to send notice of this action to these similarly situated employees: All non-owner, non-employer exotic dancers who worked at Sirens at any time from October 6, 2012 to present and to whom Sirens did not pay any wages. Jessica Hogan brings this lawsuit on behalf of herself and two groups of workers -- exotic dancers and Sirens' bartenders. She worked at Sirens, a Columbus-area strip club, as both a bartender and dancer. This motion deals with the bartenders' claims and seeks to send notice of this lawsuit to Ms. Hogan's fellow bartenders so that they can choose whether and how to proceed with their own claims. Ms. Hogan also asks the Court to (1) approve her proposed notices and method of disseminating notice, (2) order the Defendants to provide name and contact information for all potential class members within 15 days of the Court's order, (3) authorize her to send the notices via regular U.S. mail and e-mail, (4) require the Defendants to post the notice in a conspicuous place at Sirens, and (5) authorize a 90-day opt-in/out period.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul De Marco, Esq. Andrew R. Biller, Esq. Andrew P. Kimble, Esq. Philip J. Krzeski, Esq. MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC 3825 Edwards Road, Suite 650 Cincinnati, OH 45209 Telephone: (513) 651-3700 Facsimile: (513) 665-0219 E-mail: pdemarco@msdlegal.com abiller@msdlegal.com akimble@msdlegal.com pkrzeski@msdlegal.com COMPREHENSIVE HEALTHCARE: Pitkivitch Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------------ VALERIE PITKIVITCH, on behalf of herself and similarly situated employees, the Plaintiff, vs. COMPREHENSIVE HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC; CHMS GROUP, LLC; SAMUEL HALPER; AND, EPHRAM LAHASKY, the Defendants, Case No.: 2:18-cv-01667-PJP (W.D. Pa., Dec. 14, 2018), seeks to recover damages for non-payment of wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act. According to complaint, the Plaintiff has regularly performed work within the state of Pennsylvania paid hourly for $22. The Plaintiff has clocked in and clocked out using a time-recording system used by Defendants. The Plaintiff is entitled to overtime pay (1-1⁄2 the regular rate of pay) when working more than 40 hours in a workweek. The Plaintiff regularly works more than 40 hours in workweeks and has frequently worked in excess of 50 hours per workweek. The Defendants consistently fail to pay Plaintiff all of the overtime hours, or straight time hours, worked, the lawsuit says. Comprehensive Healthcare Management Services, LLC owns and operates over 40 long-term-care facilities providing rehabilitation and nursing care throughout Pennsylvania and the United States and maintains its headquarters at 147 Reist Street, Williamsville, NY 14221. CHMS, LLC, manages and controls time and payroll policies for the 40+ facilities from its base in Williamsville, New York, and/or from offices in Lynbrook, New York. CHMS Group, LLC owns and operates over 40 long-term-care facilities providing rehabilitation and nursing care throughout Pennsylvania and the United States and maintains its headquarters at 600 Broadway, Suite E, Lynbrook, New York 11563. CHMS Group, LLC, manages and controls time and payroll policies for the 40+ facilities from its base in Lynbrook, New York, and/or from offices in Williamsville, New York.[BN] Counsel for Plaintiff and all others similarly situated: Joseph H. Chivers, Esq. The Employment Rights Group, LLC First & Market Building, Suite 650 100 First Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 227-0763 Facsimile: (412) 774-1994 E-mail: jchivers@employmentrightsgroup.com - and - John R. Linkosky, Esq. 715 Washington Avenue Carnegie, PA 15106-4107 Telephone: (412) 278-1280 Facsimile: (412) 278-1282 E-mail: linklaw@comcast.net COTTON BAYOU: Certification of FLSA Class Sought in King Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- The Parties in the lawsuit captioned NANCY KING & KATHERINE CAIN on behalf of themselves and similarly situated employees v. COTTON BAYOU MARINA, INC., et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-00314-WS-B (S.D. Ala.), move the Court to approve conditional certification of a collective action class pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act and issuance of notice to putative class members. On July 16, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed this collective action lawsuit pursuant to the FLSA. Counsel for the Parties conferred by telephone and agreed that jointly moving for conditional certification and issuance of notice served the interests of parties and judicial economy. Counsel for parties have agreed to these: (1) A collective action shall be conditionally certified covering all current and former servers and bartenders who have worked as servers and/or bartender at Tacky Jacks at any time between July 16, 2015 through October 1, 2018; (2) Putative class members will have sixty days from the issuance of notice to join this case by sending a signed consent to counsel for Plaintiffs; (3) For any notices that are returned to sender, then Plaintiffs' counsel shall search for better contact information and mail the notice to such address; (4) For purposes of determining whether an individual has met the opt-in deadline, the earlier of the post-mark date, the fax transmittal date, e-mail date, or the date a consent is received by Plaintiffs' counsel shall control; and (5) Defendants shall provide Plaintiffs' counsel with contact information for putative class members within 15 days of the Court entering an order on this motion. The Defendants have agreed to produce a Microsoft Excel workbook with the following information in separate columns: (1) last name; (2) first name; (3) middle name; (4) last known street number name, unit or apartment number; (5) city; (6) state; (7) zip code; and (8) and last four digits of their social security number. Within 10 days following the close of the notice period, the Parties will submit a status report for the Court, which shall include whether the Parties will enter the mediation process or move forward with filing a report of parties planning meeting pursuant to Rule 26(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Daniel E. Arciniegas, Esq. ARCINIEGAS LAW, PLLC 501 Union Street Nashville, TN 37219 Telephone: (629) 777-5339 E-mail: daniel@attorneydaniel.com The Defendants are represented by: Joseph J. Minus, Jr., Esq. J. Day Peake III, Esq. PHELPS DUNBAR LLP 101 Dauphin Street Mobile, AL 36602 P. O. Box 2727 Mobile, AL 36652 Telephone: (251) 432-4481 Facsimile: (251) 433-1820 E-mail: jay.minus@phelps.com day.peake@phelps.com CSO SYSTEMS: Underpays Graphic Designers, Kaifos Alleges -------------------------------------------------------- ANTHONY KAIFOS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CSO SYSTEMS, INC. d/b/a SIGN ZOO; and WILLIAM T. STUART, Defendants, Case No. 8:18-cv-02837 (M.D. Fla., Nov. 19, 2018) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Mr. Kaifos was employed by the Defendants as graphic designer. CSO Systems, Inc., doing business as SignZoo.Com, designs, manufactures, and installs graphics on fleet vehicles, boats, and buildings in the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mitchell L. Fraley, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 201 N. Franklin Street, Suite 600 Tampa, FL 33602 E-mail: Mfraley@forthepeople.com DENNYS INC: Rosales Suit Moved to Central District of California ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case, Jose Ricardo Huepa Rosales, individually and on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Dennys, Inc., a Florida corporation and Does 1 through 20, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC717352, was removed from the Los Angeles Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Western Division - Los Angeles) on Dec. 10, 2018. The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:18-cv-10236-DMG-SK to the proceeding. The suit alleges employment discrimination. The case is ssigned to the Hon. Judge Dolly M. Gee.[BN] Attorneys for Jose Ricardo Huepa Rosales: Ramin R Younessi, Esq. RAMIN YOUNESSI LAW OFFICES APLC 3435 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 2200 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 480-6200 Facsimile: (213) 480-6201 E-mail: ryounessi@younessilaw.com Attorneys for Dennys, Inc.: Timothy Taejoon Kim, Esq. Adam Ryan Rosenthal, Esq. Nancy E Pritikin, Esq. SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER AND HAMPTON LLP 333 South Hope Street 43rd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-1422 Telephone: (213) 455-7672 E-mail: tkim@sheppardmullin.com arosenthal@sheppardmullin.com npritikin@sheppardmullin.com DERREL'S MINI: Court Partly Okays Bid to Invalidate in Kutzman Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, RICK KUTZMAN and JAMIE LEONARDO, individuals, and on behalf of themselves, and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. DERREL'S MINI STORAGE, INC., a California corporation Defendant, Case No. 1:18-CV-755 AWI-JLT (E.D. Cal.), Judge Anthony W. Ishii of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California grantd in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs' Motion to Invalidate the Settlement Agreements, Send Curative Notice to Class Members, and Bar Communications. In the fall of 2018, the Defendant sent letters to and hosted voluntary informational sessions for their current and former employees -- all putative class members in Rick Kutzman and Jamie Leonardo's wage-and-hour class action suit. The Defendant's ultimate purpose was to obtain a settlement and release with these individual putative class members. The Plaintiffs contend the communications were coercive, arguing they contained factual inaccuracies, omitted material facts, disparaged named Plaintiffs and their counsel, and were otherwise misleading. Plaintiffs Kutzman and Leonardo worked for Derrel's Mini Storage from October 2017 to February 2018. They allege that during this time, the Defendant required employees to sign a background check authorization that included an unlawful credit check provision, and failed to provide the required rest breaks, accurately pay overtime, compensate them for business expenses, or provide them with complete and accurate wage statements. The Plaintiffs filed a class-action complaint in California state court, and the Defendant removed to the Court. The Plaintiffs sought remand, which the Court denied on July 31, 2018. On Aug. 21, 2018, the parties informed Magistrate Judge Thurston of their intent to mediate, set for Dec. 13, 2018. The day prior, the Defendant sent a letter to its current employees, as the putative class members, generally notifying them of the existence of the class lawsuit and the possibility that the Plaintiffs' counsel may contact them. The letter stated the Defendant was open to speaking with any concerned employees, would not retaliate against any employees who choose to speak with the Plaintiffs, and otherwise generally disputed the claims. It also referred to Kutzman and Leonardo as employees that worked for the company for less than six months, misstated the name of the Plaintiffs' counsel's firm, failed to include a copy of the complaint, and omitted the case number, the Court's information, and any details about the scheduled mediation. On Sept. 12, 2018, the current employees were invited to a "voluntary" meeting in Bakersfield, CA to update them on the status of the case. There, a paralegal for the defense counsel read a prepared statement that included the case name and number, the correct name of the Plaintiffs' counsel, a detailed list of the Plaintiffs' claims, the Company's general disagreement with the claims, and the employees right to an independent counsel. Before employees left, the Defendant collected the settlement papers. Additionally, in mid-October, the Defendant mailed a letter (similar to the Letter to Current Employees) entitled "Offer to Employees to Settle Individual Wage and Hour Claims" to those former employees it deemed members of the putative class. Included with the letter was a copy of the settlement agreement and release form, but not the operative complaint. The Plaintiffs now requests the Court order a notice be sent to all putative class members curing the defects and invalidating any executed settlement agreements. They also request a prophylactic order barring the Defendant from communicating with the class about the case, arguing its communications demonstrate an intent to mislead and coerce. The Defendant objects to any such relief, contending their communications are allowed and acceptable. Judge Ishii finds that the Defendant made no overt threats to its employees, did discuss some aspects of the case at various times with the putative members, and advised them to seek outside counsel before agreeing to settle. However, the standard is one requiring the facts be examined in totality; as such, he finds that the Plaintiffs have met their burden to show misleading and coercive conduct on the Defendant's part. The Judge believes a complete communications ban is unnecessary, given the finding that the Defendant's misleading and coercive acts are merely a number of slights, omissions, and misstatement. He finds the Defendant's errant acts can mostly be cured via a notice to the class. As to a blanket invalidation of all settlement agreements, the Judge will make all settlement agreements and release of claims voidable, at the election of each individual putative class member. When the parties meet and confer, they will draft a separate statement to be included with the reformed notice, deliverable to all putative class members that accepted Defendant's offer to settle and signed the release. This notice of voidability should be submitted to the Court for approval, along with the reformed notice. Further, the Judge will require Defendant to shoulder the cost of notice to all the putative class members, since it is because of its actions that the Court has had to intervene. Finally, the Judge cannot countenance the Defense counsel's actions in attempting to mislead and coerce the Defendant's current and former employees into settling prior to certification, possibly adverse to their interests. He will therefore entertain a supplemental motion for sanctions under Rule 11, 28 U.S.C. Section 1927, or the Court's inherent power, for the time and energy the Plaintiffs' counsel expended to bring this motion and to correct for the errant communications. He reminded the Plaintiffs' counsel that a request for fees should be supported by credible evidence, and that the Court bases any award of attorney fees on the prevailing rate for the Eastern District of California. Based on the foregoing, Judge Ishii granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs' Motion to Invalidate the Settlement Agreements, Send Curative Notice to Class Members, and Bar Communications. The parties are to meet and confer on language for a reformed notice to putative class members, as well as language notifying any settling parties of their right to void the settlement agreement and release, and submit proposed language on each notice to the Court within 24 days of service of the Prder. The Defendant is ordered to show cause why sanctions should not be issued on the following briefing schedule: (i) within 24 days of service of the Order, the Defendant will serve its brief to the Court; (ii) the Plaintiffs are granted 10 days thereafter to respond; and (iii) the Defendants may issue a reply within seven days after any response from the Plaintiffs. The remainder of the case, including the Plaintiffs' motion to amend the complaint, is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings. A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 18, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/6y6LXv from Leagle.com. Rick Kutzman, individuals, on behalf of themselves, and on behalf of all persons similarly situated & Jamie Leonardo, individuals, on behalf of themselves, and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Aparajit Bhowmik -- aj@bamlawlj.com -- Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik, Kyle R. Nordrehaug -- kyle@bamlawca.com -- Blumenthal Nordrehaug and Bhowmik, Molly Ann DeSario, Blumenthal Nordrehaug & Bhowmik, Norman Blumenthal -- norm@bamlawca.com -- Blumenthal Nordrehaug & Bhowmik, LLP, Ruchira Piya Mukherjee -- piya@bamlawlj.com -- Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik & Victoria Bree Rivapalacio , Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik. Derrel's Mini Storage, Inc., a California Corporation, Defendant, represented by Charles Paul Hamamjian, Sagaser Watkins Wieland PC, Howard A. Sagaser, Sagaser, Watkins & Wieland, PC & Ian Blade Wieland -- ian@sw2law.com -- Sagaser, Watkins & Wieland, PC. DISH NETWORK: Court Grants $20.4MM Attorney's Fees in Krakauer -------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina granted Class Counsel's motion in part to award Class Counsel's fees and expenses but will deny the motion to the extent it seeks a class representative award in the case captioned THOMAS H. KRAKAUER, on behalf of a class of persons, Plaintiff, v. DISH NETWORK, L.L.C., Defendant. No. 1:14-CV-333. (D.N.C.). Class Counsel for plaintiff's seek attorney's fees, nontaxable costs, and compensation for the class representative from a common fund created following a jury trial and final judgment of $61 million against defendant Dish Network, LLC for its willful violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Court has reviewed Class Counsel's request and supporting evidence, as well as attorney's fees and class representative awards from similar cases. Dr. Thomas Krakauer, the plaintiff and class representative, sued Dish under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, alleging that he and others on the Do Not Call Registry received more than one telephone call within a 12-month period in violation of the TCPA and that the calls were made on behalf of Dish. To determine the reasonableness of the fee award, the Court begins by considering the twelve factors identified in Barber v. Kimbrell's, Inc.: (1) the time and labor expended (2) the novelty and difficulty of the questions raised (3) the skill required to properly perform the legal services rendered (4) the attorney's opportunity costs in pressing the instant litigation (5) the customary fee for like work (6) the attorney's expectations at the outset of the litigation (7) the time limitations imposed by the client or circumstances (8) the amount in controversy and the results obtained (9) the experience, reputation and ability of the attorney; (10) the undesirability of the case within the legal community in which the suit arose (11) the nature and length of the professional relationship between attorney and client and (12) attorney's fees awards in similar cases. 577 F.2d 216, 226 & n.28 (4th Cir. 1978) Barber Factors Class Counsel request attorney's fees of 33.33% of the total judgment amount at the time of distribution, including interest; as of the date of the motion, the requested fee would be $20,445,555, Doc. 460, and would increase as interest accrues. Contingent fees of up to one-third are common in this circuit in similar cases. In this complex case with numerous contested issues, there is more than sufficient reason to support a one-third contingent fee. Regardless of the subject matter, it takes skilled counsel to successfully manage an 18,000-plus member class action. It takes a different set of highly developed skills to successfully achieve a jury verdict. Class Counsel here is particularly experienced and skilled in TCPA litigation, having settled numerous TCPA class actions including acting as co-lead counsel in a multidistrict TCPA case. Against this backdrop, Class Counsel achieved an excellent result on behalf of the class. The $61 million judgment results in an average payout of more than $3,000 per class member. The judgment applies to the entire class and does not exclude any trial class members. While certain claims were dropped along the way, those claims were largely duplicative of the claims that went to trial. The excellent result obtained is the most critical factor in determining the reasonableness of a fee award" and further supports finding the requested fee reasonable. Class members and their counsel were hardly assured the successful outcome achieved here at the outset of the case. While a jury may award between $0-500 per violative call on a TCPA claim, Dish raised several defenses and recovery was not assured. Even with a win before the jury, courts have discretion on whether to treble damages after finding willful or knowing violations. § 227(c)(5). Class Counsel assumed significant risk in representing the plaintiff and the class and will continue to face that risk as it litigates issues on appeal. The Court finds that attorney's fees equal to one-third of the common fund amount when the Court entered judgment, $20,447,600, are reasonable based on the time and labor Class Counsel expended, the value of counsel's work and the results obtained, the risks and obstacles counsel faced, and the customary fee for TCPA cases and awards in similar cases. Lodestar Cross-check Courts often use the lodestar method to cross-check the reasonableness of a percentage fee. To determine the lodestar, courts multiply the reasonable hourly rate for each attorney by the number of hours reasonably expended. When the lodestar method is used only as a cross-check, however, courts need not exhaustively scrutinize the hours documented by counsel and the reasonableness of the claimed lodestar can be tested by the court's familiarity with the case. The Court has reviewed Class Counsel's time summaries, which cover more than 8,000 hours. Class Counsel testified that they strived to work efficiently and perform only the work necessary for an outstanding result for the class. This testimony is consistent with the Court's observation on the number of attorneys appearing before the Court. The Court finds that the time Class Counsel spent on the case is reasonable considering the complexity and number of issues they addressed and considering that the case was tried before a jury. An award of one-third of the judgment amount at the time of entry, $20,447,600, represents a lodestar multiplier of just under 4.39, i.e., 4.39 times the $4,659,761.80 lodestar amount for work through April 17, 2018. This does not take into account hours Class counsel will spend on appeal and during the remainder of the claims process. Thus, the lodestar will ultimately be smaller. In sum, a 4.39 multiplier is reasonable for this case. Accordingly, Class counsel's motion for attorney's fees, expenses, and a class representative award is granted in part and denied in part. The Court awards Class Counsel an attorney's fee of $20,447,600, to be paid from the final judgment awarded to the class. A full-text copy of the District Court's December 3, 2018 Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y9c9fo3j from Leagle.com. THOMAS H. KRAKAUER, on behalf of a class of persons, Plaintiff, represented by ANTHONY I. PARONICH -- anthony@broderick-law.com -- BRODERICK & PARONICH, P.C., BRIAN A. GLASSER -- bglasser@baileyglasser.com -- BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP, EDWARD A. BRODERICK, BRODERICK LAW, P.C., JOHN W. BARRETT -- jbarrett@baileyglasser.com -- BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP, JOHN J. RODDY -- jroddy@baileyglasser.com -- BAILEY & GLASSER LLP, MATTHEW P. MCCUE, LAW OFFICE OF MATHEW P. MCCUE, PATRICK MUENCH -- jbarrett@baileyglasser.com -- BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP, RYAN M. DONOVAN -- rdonovan@baileyglasser.com -- BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP & JACOB MATTHEW NORRIS , Norris Law Firm, PLLC. DISH NETWORK L.L.C., Defendant, represented by BENJAMEN E. KERN -- bkern@beneschlaw.com -- BENESCH, FRIEDLANDER, COPLAN & ARONOFF, LLP, DAVID M. KRUEGER -- dkrueger@beneschlaw.com -- BENESCH, FRIEDLANDER, COPLAN & ARONOFF, LLP, DAVID LITTERINE-KAUFMAN -- dlitterinekaufman@orrick.com -- ORRICK HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP, ELYSE D. ECHTMAN -- eechtman@orrick.com -- ORRICK HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP, ERIC L. ZALUD -- ezalud@beneschlaw.com -- BENESCH, FRIEDLANDER, COPLAN & ARONOFF, LLP, JOHN L. EWALD, ORRICK HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP, JULIE GORCHKOVA, ORRICK HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP. DOVER DOWNS: Raul Balks at Merger Deal with Twin River ------------------------------------------------------ Tammy Raul, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. DOVER DOWNS GAMING & ENTERTAINMENT, INC., HENRY B. TIPPIE, DENIS MCGLYNN, TIMOTHY R. HORNE, R. RANDALL ROLLINS, PATRICK J. BAGLEY, and JEFFREY W. ROLLINS, the Defendants, Case 1:18-cv-11506 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 10, 2018), seeks to enjoin the Defendants from taking any steps to consummate a proposed transaction unless and until material information is disclosed to Dover Downs stockholders before the vote on the proposed transaction or, in the event the proposed transaction is consummated, recover damages resulting from the Defendants' violations of the Securities Exchange Act. The Plaintiff brings this class action on behalf of the public shareholders of Dover Downs against the Company's Board of Directors for their violations of Section 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, in connection with the proposed merger of the Company in a stock-for-stock transaction with Twin River Worldwide Holdings, Inc. According to the complaint, on July 22, 2018, Dover Downs entered into a Transaction Agreement with Twin River and Double Acquisition Corp., an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Parent, pursuant to which, among other things and subject to the conditions set forth therein, Merger Sub will merge with and into the Company with the Company continuing as the surviving corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of Parent. Pursuant to the terms of the Agreement, each share of the Company's common stock, par value $0.10 per share, and Class A common stock, par value $0.10 per share, issued and outstanding immediately prior to the effective time will be cancelled and converted into the right to receive a number of shares of validly issued, fully paid and non-assessable shares of common stock of Parent, equal to the quotient obtained by dividing (A) the aggregate number of shares of Parent Common Stock issued and outstanding immediately prior to the effective time, on a fully diluted, as-converted basis, multiplied by 0.07787658, by (B) the aggregate number of shares of Company Common Stock issued and outstanding immediately prior to the effective time, on a fully diluted, as-converted basis, plus cash in lieu of any fractional shares. The aggregate number of shares of Parent Common Stock issued as Merger Consideration in the transaction is intended to represent 7.225% of the outstanding equity of Parent immediately after giving effect to the Merger. The consummation of the Proposed Transaction is subject to certain closing conditions, including the approval of the stockholders of Dover Downs. The Company expects the Proposed Transaction to close in the second half of 2019. On November 5, 2018, in order to convince Dover Downs' stockholders to vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction, the Board, jointly with Twin River, authorized the filing of a materially incomplete and misleading preliminary proxy statement with the SEC by Granite, in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, the lawsuit says. Dover Downs is a hotel, casino, and racetrack complex in Dover, Delaware. It has a .625-mile harness horse racing track, which is surrounded by Dover International Speedway, a 1-mile concrete track used for NASCAR motor racing events. The speedway is owned and operated by Dover Motorsports.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Joshua M. Lifshitz, Esq. LIFSHITZ & MILLER LLP 821 Franklin Avenue, Suite 209 Garden City, New York 11530 Telephone: (516) 493-9780 Facsimile: (516) 280-7376 EJR ENTERPRISES: Borozny Files Suit under ADA in Florida -------------------------------------------------------- EJR Enterprises LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Austin Borozny, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EJR Enterprises LLC, a Florida limited liability company, Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-01495 (M.D. Fla., December 19, 2018). EJR Enterprises, L.L.C. was founded in 2004. The Company's line of business includes providing oil and gas services.[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 EMTS INC: Ruem Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages & OT under Labor Code --------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL RUEM, an individual, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. EMTS, INC., a California corporation; ELITE LANDSCAPE CONSTRUCTION, INC.; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 18CECG04441 (Cal. Super. Ct., Fresno Cty., Dec. 10, 2018), seeks to recover minimum wages and overtime pay under the California Labor Code. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants providing landscaping, general construction, and maintenance of properties out of Defendants facilities located in Fresno. The Plaintiff and other Class members consistently worked at Defendants' behest without being paid all wages due. As a result of Defendants' unlawful policies and practices, Plaintiff and Class members incurred overtime hours worked for which they were not adequately and completely compensated, in addition to the hours they were required to work off the clock. To the extent applicable, the Defendants also failed to pay Plaintiff and the Class members at an overtime rate of 1.5 times the regular rate for the first eight hours of the seventh consecutive work day in a week and overtime payments at the rate of two times the regular rate for hours worked over eight on the seventh consecutive work day, as required under the Labor Code and applicable IWC Wage Orders, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff Michael Ruem, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated: David Yeremian, Esq. Jason Rothman, Esq. DAVID YEREMIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. 535 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 705 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 230-8380 Facsimile: (818) 230-0308 E-mail: David@yeremianlaw.com Jason@yeremianlaw.com - and - Walter Haines, Esq. UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP, PC 5500 Bolsa Ave., Suite 201 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Telephone: (310) 652-2242 E-mail: whaines@uelg.com EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Faces Lawrence Suit over Violation of FCRA --------------------------------------------------------------- SEAN LAWRENCE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-00800-JAG (E.D. Va., Nov. 16, 2018) alleges violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The case is assigned to District Judge John A. Gibney, Jr. Equifax Information Services LLC collects and reports consumer information to financial institutions. The company was formerly known as Equifax Credit Information Services Inc. and changed its name to Equifax Information Services LLC in June 2004. The company was incorporated in 1937 and is based in Atlanta, Georgia. Equifax Information Services LLC operates as a subsidiary of Equifax Inc. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Joseph Guzzo, Esq. KELLY & CRANDALL PLC 3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202 Fairfax, VA 22030 Telephone: (703) 424-7576 Facsimile: (703) 591-0167 E-mail: aguzzo@kellyandcrandall.com - and - Casey Shannon Nash, Esq. KELLY & CRANDALL PLC 3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202 Fairfax, VA 22030 Telephone: (703) 640-3334 Facsimile: (703) 591-9285 E-mail: casey@kellyandcrandall.com - and - Kristi Cahoon Kelly, Esq. KELLY & CRANDALL PLC 3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202 Fairfax, VA 22030 Telephone: (703) 424-7570 Facsimile: (703) 591-9285 E-mail: kkelly@kellyandcrandall.com ESA MANAGEMENT: Court Issues Show Cause Order in Beasley Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Northern District of California issued an Order to Show Cause in the case captioned FRANISHA BEASLEY, Plaintiff, v. ESA MANAGEMENT LLC, and DOES 1-100, Defendants. Case No. 18-cv-06304-JSW. (N.D. Cal.). Defendant ESA Management LLC has removed this action under the Class Action Fairness Act. CAFA requires diversity of citizenship between any member of a class of plaintiffs and any defendant. In its notice of removal, Defendant ESA Management LLC states that it is organized under the laws of Delaware and that its principal officers are located in North Carolina. Under Ninth Circuit law, an LLC is a citizen of every state of which its owners/members are citizens. Accordingly, the Defendant is ordered to show cause why this matter should not be remanded to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. A full-text copy of the District Court's December 3, 2018 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y7p989yw from Leagle.com. Franisha Beasley, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Farzad Rastegar -- farzad@rastegarlawgroup.com -- Rastegar Law Group, APC & Amir H. Seyedfarshi -- amir@rastegarlawgroup.com -- Rastegar Law Group APC. ESA Management LLC, a Delaware Cmporation, Defendant, represented by Ebunoluwa O. Olaleye -- dolaleye@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson PC, Kurt R. Bockes -- kbockes@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson & Lindbergh Porter, Jr. -- lporter@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, PC. FARMLAND PARTNERS: Bernstein Liebhard to Lead in Mariconda Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Nina Y. Wang of the United States District Court for the District of Colorado issued an Order granting in part Turner Insurance Agency, Inc. and Cecilia Turner's Motion for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff in the case captioned MIKE MARICONDA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. FARMLAND PARTNERS INC., PAUL A. PITTMAN, and LUCA FABBRI, Defendants. Civil Action No. 18-cv-02104-DME-NYW. (D. Colo.). This is a class action alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) the 1934 Securities Exchange Act, brought pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA). This action alleges that the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the extent and nature of Farmland Partners's related party transactions in making quarterly and yearly filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The Magistrate Judge concluded that oral argument would not materially assist in the resolution of these matters. Upon careful review of the motions and associated briefing, the applicable case law, and the entire case file, this court grants the Turner Family Motion in part, appointing the Turner Family as Lead Plaintiff and their counsel, Bernstein Liebhard LLP, as Lead Counsel with Berens Law LLC serving as Liaison Counsel. The Turner Motion is denied as moot to the extent it seeks consolidation with the now-dismissed Kachmar Action, and the Farmland Investor Group Motion is denied. The court agrees that the Globe Newswire is an adequate widely circulated national business-oriented publication or wire service under the PSLRA early notice provision. Additionally, upon review of the Notice, the court finds that it meets the requirements of Section 78u-4(a)(3)(A)(i). Therefore, potential Lead Plaintiffs had sixty days from July 11, until September 10, to file their Motions for Appointment. Both the Turner Motion and the Farmland Investor Motion were filed on September 10, within the sixty-day limit triggered by the Early Notice. Thus, both Motions are properly before the court and both parties have satisfied the initial requirement of filing a timely motion for appointment under Section 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(I)(aa). Neither the Turner Family nor Farmland Investor Group dispute the generally accepted proposition that a group of persons may aggregate their losses in calculating a plaintiff's financial interest in the litigation, subject to certain practical limitations not implicated here. The Turner Family claims that it suffered a loss of $104,253.30 in connection with the Defendants' alleged violations. Specifically, Cecilia Turner alleges that she bought 1000 shares of Farmland Partners on February 2, 2017 for $11.20/share and sold those shares on July 20, 2018 for $6.5067/share for a loss of $4,693.30. The Farmland Investor Group claims a financial interest of $88,514.88. Albert G. Driver, Jr. purchased 15,000 shares in six installments between November 10, 2016 and January 30, 2017 for prices between $10.20/share and $11.31/share. In this case it appears that the Turner Family used a simple LIFO/FIFO computation of damages (because all the stock was sold at once, there is no distinction between the two methods), representing their realized loss on the sale of the Farmland Partners stock as their financial interest. The court finds this is an appropriate and reasonable measure of financial interest and accepts the Turner Family's claimed financial interest of $104,253.30. The Farmland Investor Group has sold almost none of its stock, only 450 shares, leaving just over 20,673 shares unsold. Rather than setting forth their realized losses, the Farmland Investor Group relies on Section 78u-4(e)(1) and claims that the Turner Family calculations should be made pursuant to the same formula. The court rejects Farmland Investor Group's reliance on Section 78u-4(e)(1). Here, the source of the Farmland Investor Group's proposed financial interest is therefore not clear. The court also notes that while the Farmland Investor Group used the Section 78u-4(e)(1) formula for its unsold securities, the Group used a simple LIFO/FIFO analysis for the realized losses in the 450 shares it did sell, and thus has at least implicitly conceded that the Turner Family's similar calculations based on their realized losses are proper. The court need not resolve the proper measure of the Farmland Investor Group's financial interest because it is not disputed that the Turner Family has the largest financial interest even applying the Section 78u-4(e)(1) formula, the Farmland Investor Group concedes as much. The court therefore finds that the Turner Family has the largest financial interest in this case pursuant to Section 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(I)(bb). The Turner Family has met its prima facie burden of establishing both the typicality and adequacy requirements. The Turner Family and the lead Plaintiff in this case, Mr. Mariconda, are represented by the same counsel, Bernstein Liebhard LLP and Berens Law LLC. There does not appear to be any discernable difference between Mr. Mariconda's and the Turner Family's theory of the case, allegations regarding the Defendants' violations of the securities laws, or damages, and the Farmland Investor Group does not claim as such. The Turner Family's claims therefore appear to be entirely typical of the class. Likewise, the court is satisfied that the Turner Family is an adequate representative; there are no apparent or claimed conflicts of interest, and the Turner Family's choice of counsel appears to be reasonable and appropriate as set forth below. The Turner Family is thus the presumptive Lead Plaintiff. In sum, the court is persuaded that the Turner Family has established that it is the presumptive Lead Plaintiff and the Farmland Investor Group has not adequately rebutted that presumption. Accordingly, the Turner Family is appointed Lead Plaintiff. A full-text copy of the District Court's December 3, 2018 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yaqvlwr8 from Leagle.com. Mike Mariconda, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Laurence Jesse Hasson, Bernstein Liebhard LLP & Jeffrey Allen Berens, Berens Law LLC. Farmland Partners Inc., Paul A. Pittman & Luca Fabbri, Defendants, represented by James Joseph Beha, II, Morrison & Foerster, LLP, Michael D. Birnbaum, Morrison & Foerster, LLP & Rhiannon N. Batchelder, Morrison & Foerster, LLP. Malcolm Jones, Movant, represented by Rusty Evan Glenn, Shuman Law Firm. Albert G. Driver, Jr., Annette Driver Forry & Douglas Barber, Movants, represented by Jacob Allen Walker, Block & Leviton LLP. FEDEX CORPORATION: Overpeck Seeks Unpaid Wages for Drivers ---------------------------------------------------------- HERMAN OVERPECK and KEVIN STERLING, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and as a proxy of the State of California on behalf of aggrieved employees, the Plaintiffs, vs. FEDEX CORPORATION and FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC., the Defendants, Case No.: 4:18-cv-07553-DMR (N.D. Cal., Dec. 14, 2018), seeks unpaid wages under the California Labor Code and the Unfair Competition Law. According to the complaint, FedEx operates a freight transportation system with long-haul and local delivery components. Plaintiff Herman Overpeck worked for Defendants as a long-haul team truck driver for Defendants in California. Mr. Kevin Sterling worked for Defendants as a local delivery driver in California. The Defendants have employed and/or jointly employed numerous long-haul team drivers and local delivery Drivers in California, like Mr. Overpeck and Mr. Sterling in California, who work the long hours necessary to carry out Defendants' transportation business. The long-haul team Drivers work day and night, typically transporting loads up to and often over a thousand miles, overnight, five days per week, hauling freight as part of a two driver team. For example, Mr. Overpeck worked with another Driver hauling freight along a dedicated route back and forth between Tracy, CA and Palm Springs, CA, for a 20-22 hour day (including driving, riding in a moving truck, fueling, truck inspections, hooking and unhooking trailers, coordinating with the recipient of the freight, and waiting for freight to be available, among other tasks). Mr. Overpeck ran this route 5 times per week, pushing his hours worked to 100 or more per week. He was paid for only a fraction of this work. The local delivery drivers similarly work long hours, in the range of 60-70 per week or more. For example, Mr. Sterling delivered packages to homes and businesses throughout Northern California for 12 or more hours per day, 5-6 days per week (including loading, driving, vehicle inspections, coordinating with customers, scanning packages and communicating with FedEx's managers, among other tasks). While FedEx takes the benefit of these long work hours that it requires and oversees, it attempts to offload responsibility onto its purported "independent service providers". Nonetheless, FedEx does not take responsibility for: (1) providing the Drivers with the same employee benefit pension and welfare plans it already provides to the rest of its employees, as required by California Law; or (2) paying the Drivers the wages they are owed and providing them with the other work protections to which they are entitled under the California Labor Code, the lawsuit says. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. provides business-to-business package shipping and ground delivery services.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Joshua Konecky, Esq. Nathan Piller, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP 2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400 Emeryville, CA 94608 Telephone: (415) 421-7100 Facsimile: (415) 421-7105 E-mail: jkonecky@schneiderwallace.com npiller@schneiderwallace.com - and - Jeremy Pasternak, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JEREMY PASTERNAK A Professional Corporation 445 Bush St., Sixth Floor San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: 415.693.0300 Facsimile: 415.693.0393 E-mail: jdp@pasternaklaw.com FORD MOTOR: Faces Farlow et al. Suit in N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ford Motor Company. The case is captioned as ZACHARY J. FARLOW; MATTHEW H. CLOUGH; CURTIS MCNEAL MERTZ; WILLIAM TSUMPES; JAMES HIGDON; DARYL ALEJANDRO; GARY O. PEDERSON; BOBBY J. GRIFFITH; BARRY R. GONSALVES; JOSEPH SAWICKI; ALLEN J. FOWLER; JAMES CROWELL, JR.; KELLY ARNOLD; ROBERT C. HAUS; and WARREN STORY, Plaintiff v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-06967-JSC (N.D. Cal., Nov. 16, 2018). The case is assigned to Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley. Ford Motor Company designs, manufactures, markets, and services a range of Ford cars, trucks, sport utility vehicles, and electrified vehicles; and Lincoln luxury vehicles worldwide. The company has a strategic collaboration with Panasonic Corporation of North America and Qualcomm Technologies. Ford Motor Company was founded in 1903 and is based in Dearborn, Michigan. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeff D Friedman, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202 Berkeley, CA 94710 Telephone: (510) 725-3000 Facsimile: (510) 725-3001 E-mail: jefff@hbsslaw.com - and - Steve W. Berman, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com GENERAL MOTORS: Duffy Sues Over Vehicle Transmission Defect ----------------------------------------------------------- Dennis Duffy, Richard Sullivan, Daniel Baptist, Dennis Speerly, Michael Plafker, John Iasiello, and Benjy Tompkins individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. General Motors, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 9:18-cv-81726-RLR (S.D. N.Y., December 18, 2018) seeks six statewide classes on behalf of purchasers and lessees of GM vehicles equipped with GM 8L90 or GM 8L45 transmissions purchased within the applicable statute of limitations of the respective state. These states include Florida, California, Illinois, New York, Oklahoma, and Texas. Plaintiffs bring claims under each state's consumer protection statutes, and express and implied warranty law of their respective states of purchase or lease. According to the complaint, these transmissions have a common defect. Drivers attempting to accelerate or decelerate their cars feel a hesitation, followed by a significant shake, shudder, jerk, clunk, or "hard shift" when the vehicle's automatic transmission changes gears. Said shudder, shake and hesitation also occurs while the subject vehicles are accelerated in a single gear, and not actively shifting gears. Drivers have reported that the shift is sometimes so violent, they feel as though they have been hit by another vehicle. In fact, one purchaser reported that the transmission shifted from "reverse" to "drive" so harshly that he almost drove through his garage door. The problem does not merely result in an uncomfortable driving condition. The shuddering, shaking, jerking and hesitation is related to internal issues within the transmission and/or torque converter causing friction surfaces, hydraulic systems, and gears to not function properly, and resulting in metal shavings being circulated throughout the transmission, the complaint asserts. As such, the Transmission Defect endangers the drivers and passengers of the vehicles, and diminishes the value of the vehicles. GM's deliberate non-disclosure of these defects artificially inflated the purchase and lease price for these vehicles as well, notes the complaint. GM has not disclosed the Transmission Defect to purchasers or lessees like Plaintiffs at the point of purchase or through advertisements. Such disclosures would have impacted purchase decisions and purchase price. GM's omissions artificially inflated the market price for the Subject Vehicles equipped with defective transmissions. GM could have and should have warned consumers about the Transmission Defect through advertisements, on its website, and through communications from its authorized dealers. However, GM failed to do so, the complaint alleges. The GM 8L90 and GM 8L45 transmission defect is a latent defect that presents a safety risk to riders, causes damage to components over time, and makes vehicles equipped with the defective transmissions dangerous and uncomfortable to ride. It makes the Subject Vehicles unfit for their ordinary use. As such, the Transmission Defect presents a breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, says the complaint. Plaintiff Dennis Duffy is a citizen and resident of Florida, over the age of eighteen years. Plaintiff purchased a new 2016 Yukon Denali, manufactured by GM and containing an 8L90 transmission, on or about August 10, 2016. Plaintiff Richard Sullivan is a citizen and resident of Florida, over the age of eighteen years. Plaintiff Sullivan purchased a new 2015 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray, manufactured by GM and containing an 8L90 transmission, on or about November 1, 2015. Plaintiff Daniel Baptist is a citizen and resident of California, over the age of eighteen years. Plaintiff purchased a used 2015 Chevrolet Silverado, manufactured by GM and containing an 8L90 transmission, on or about August 26, 2018. Plaintiff Dennis Speerly is a citizen and resident of Illinois, over the age of eighteen years. Plaintiff Speerly purchased a new 2017 GMC Canyon, manufactured by GM and containing an 8L45 transmission, on or about April 14, 2017. Plaintiff Michael Plafker is a citizen and resident of New York, over the age of eighteen years. Plaintiff Plafker leased a 2017 GMC Sierra Denali, manufactured by GM and containing an 8L90 transmission, on or about September 8, 2017. Plaintiff John Iasiello is a citizen and resident of Oklahoma, over the age of eighteen years. Plaintiff Iasiello purchased a new 2017 GMC Sierra, manufactured by GM and containing an 8L90 transmission, on August 15, 2017. Plaintiff Benjy Tompkins is a citizen and resident of Texas, over the age of eighteen years. Plaintiff Tompkins bought a used 2016 Chevrolet Camaro SS, manufactured by GM and containing an 8L90 transmission, in November 2017. General Motors Inc., ("GM") is a citizen and resident of Michigan which regularly does business in Florida and all over the United States. GM is headquartered in Delaware, and its principal office is located at 300 Renaissance Center, Detroit, Michigan 48265.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Theodore J. Leopold, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200 Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 Phone: (561) 515-1400 Facsimile: (561) 515-1401 - and - Andrew N. Friedman, Esq. Douglas J. McNamara, Esq. Julia A. Horwitz, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 1100 New York Ave. NW East Tower, 5th Floor Washington, DC 20005 Phone: (202) 408-4600 Facsimile: (202) 408-4699 - and - Robert Gordon, Esq Steven Calamusa, Esq. GORDON & PARTNERS, P.A. 4114 Northlake Blvd., Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 Phone: (561) 799-5070 Facsimile: (561) 799-4050 GLADSTONE GALLERY: Tucker Sues Over ADA Violation ------------------------------------------------- Henry Tucker, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Gladstone Gallery LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-11961 (S.D. N.Y., December 18, 2018) is a civil rights action against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its goods and services offered thereby and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), notes the complaint. Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using his computer. Defendant's website, www.gladstonegallery.com, is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, violating the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and the procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers, says the complaint. Plaintiff Henry Tucker, at all relevant times, is a resident of New York, New York. Plaintiff is a blind, visually-impaired handicapped person and a member of member of a protected class of individuals under the ADA. Gladstone Gallery, is and was, at all relevant times a New York Limited Liability Company doing business in New York. It operates the Gladstone Gallery as well as the www.gladstonegallery.com website and advertises, markets, and operates in the State of New York and throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq. COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Fl. Brooklyn, NY 11201 Phone: (929) 575-4175 Fax: (929) 575-4195 Email: Joseph@cml.legal - and - Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003-2461 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Email: nyjg@aol.com danalgottlieb@aol.com GLOBAL RECEIVABLES: Lasky Sues over Debt Collection Practices ------------------------------------------------------------- HOWARD LASKY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GLOBAL RECEIVABLES SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-06537-JS-GRB (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 16, 2018) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. The case is assigned to Judge Joanna Seybert and referred to Magistrate Judge Gary R. Brown. Global Receivables Solutions, Inc. provides customer management solutions for business-to-consumer and business-to-business (B2B) sectors in the United States and internationally. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Abraham Kleinman, Esq. KLEINMAN LLC 626 RXR Plaza Uniondale, NY 11556-0626 Telephone: (516) 522-2621 Facsimile: (888) 522-1692 E-mail: akleinman@kleinmanllc.com GOOGLE LLC: Removed Roley Case to Northern Dist. of California -------------------------------------------------------------- Google LLC removes class action lawsuit captioned ANDREW ROLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. GOOGLE LLC and DOES 1-50, the Defendants, (Case No. 18CV336773, Filed Oct. 25, 2018), from the Superior Court of the State of California County of Santa Clara, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on Dec. 14, 2018. The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:18-cv-07537 to the proceeding. In Mr. Roley's complaint, He states he brought this class action on behalf of "all individuals 10 residing in the United States who attained 'Level 4' as a Google Local Guide." He goes on to claim that “there are millions of Local Guides around the world, and the United States has the largest number of Local Guides." Google LLC is an American multinational technology company that specializes in Internet-related services and products, which include online advertising technologies, search engine, cloud computing, software, and hardware.[BN] Attorneys for Defendant: Michael G. Rhodes, esq. Whitty Somvichian, esq. Maxwell E. Alderman, esq. COOLEY LLP 101 California Street, 5th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-5800 Telephone: (415) 693-2000 Facsimile: (415) 693-2222 E-mail: rhodesmg@cooley.com wsomvichian@cooley.com malderman@cooley.com GREENSKY INC: Faces Zou Suit over Drop in Share Price ----------------------------------------------------- LILI ZOU, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GREENSKY, INC.; DAVID ZALIK; ROBERT PARTLOW; JOEL BABBIT; GERALD BENJAMIN; JOHN FLYNN; GREGG FREISHTAT; NIGEL MORRIS; ROBERT SHEFT; GOLDMAN SACHS & CO. LLC; J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC; MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC; SUNTRUST ROBINSON HUMPHREY, INC.; MERRILL LYNCH; PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INC.; CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC.; CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES (USA) LLC; RAYMOND JAMES & ASSOCIATES, INC.; GUGGENHEIM SECURITIES, LLC; SANDLER O’NEILL & PARTNERS, L.P.; and FIFTH THIRD SECURITIES, INC. Defendants, Case No. 655744/2018 (N.Y. Sup., New York County, Nov. 16, 2018) is a securities class action on behalf of all persons who purchased GreenSky common stock pursuant and traceable to GreenSky's initial public stock offering on May 24, 2018, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Act of 1933. According to the complaint, on November 6, 2018, the Company released disappointing third quarter financial results that caused the stock to lose more than a third of its value. Specifically, the Company tumbled as much as 42 % (closing at $9.28 per share) after slashing its full-year forecasts for earnings and transaction volume due to "seasonal headwinds" and a much "steeper yield curve" than management initially expected. GreenSky slashed its full year 2018 guidance on Adjusted EBITDA from growth of 20-25% to 4-10% or between $165 million and $175 million. The Company also cut its full year 2018 guidance on transaction volume from an increase of 35%-41% down to between 30% 35%. In light of the precipitous decline from its post-Offering high of $26.77 per share, the Company stated that its Board of Directors had approved the repurchase of up to $150 million of the Company's Class A common stock at management's discretion from time to time on the open market or through privately negotiated transactions. Accordingly, the Company was now going back to the market to repurchase its shares below $10 when only in May its executives and initial shareholders sold the same shares into the market at $23 per share. Given that the IPO occurred nearly two months after the close of the first quarter of 2018, the Defendants were aware of the Company's pricing failures in response to rising interest rates and inherent delay before remedial pricing measures would be effective. Rather than disclose these known issues that occurred in the first quarter of 2018, the Defendants opted to conceal this information leading up to the IPO. The Defendants concealed this information until before the insider lock-up is lifted. As a result, the Individual Defendants can buy back the shares for less than half what the investing public paid at $23 per share, and receive a further windfall from the IPO. GreenSky, Inc., a technology company, provides point-of-sale financing and payment solutions to merchants, consumers, and banks. It offers a proprietary technology infrastructure that support the full transaction lifecycle, including credit application, underwriting, real-time allocation to bank partners, document distribution, funding, settlement, and servicing functions. The company was incorporated in 2017 and is based in Atlanta, Georgia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory M. Nespole, Esq. Herman Cahn, Esq. Matthew M. Guiney, Esq. Patrick Donovan, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP 270 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 545-4600 E-mail: gmn@whafh.com GULFVIEW LODGING: Faces Borozny Suit in Middle District of Florida ------------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gulfview Lodging LLP. The lawsuit captioned Austin Borozny, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Gulfview Lodging LLP, a Tennessee limited liability company, the Defendant, Case No. 8:18-cv-02983-SCB-AEP (M.D. Fla., Dec. 10, 2018). The suit alleges Americans with Disabilities Act violation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Susan C. Bucklew.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Jessica Lynn Kerr, Esq. THE ADVOCACY GROUP, LLC 200 SE 6th St Ste 504 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301-3424 Telephone: (954) 282-1858 Facsimile: (844) 786-3694 E-mail: jkerr@advocacypa.com HAKU TEN: Ramales Seeks Ovetime Pay for Delivery Workers -------------------------------------------------------- Sergio Ramales, Raul Solano and Severo Ramales individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. Haku Ten Inc., (d/b/a Amami Sushi), Ako Restaurant Inc., (d/b/a Ako Sushi ) Qi Wang Zhang (a/k/a “Nick Wang"), the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-07143 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 15, 2018), seeks to recover overtime compensation, spread-of-hours pay, unlawful deductions and breach-of-contract and quantum meruit damages for Plaintiffs and similarly situated co-workers who have been employed by Defendants as delivery workers, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and Wage Theft Prevention Act. Acccording to the complaint, the Plaintiffs regularly work for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without receiving appropriate overtime compensation for any of the hours that they worked. The Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs the required "spread of hours" pay for any day in which they had to work over 10 hours a day. The Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping as required by the FLSA and the NYLL, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Lina Franco, Esq. STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C. www.FightForUrRights.com 42 Broadway, 12th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 203-2417 HARIHAR INC: Court Won't Junk C. Honeywell's Amended ADA Complaint ------------------------------------------------------------------ The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Fort Myers Division, issued an Opinion and Order denying Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Amended Class Action Complaint in the case captioned CHERI HONEYWELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. HARIHAR INC, a Florida corporation, Defendant. Case No. 2:18-cv-618-FtM-29MRM. (M.D. Fla.). Plaintiff, Cheri Honeywell, is a resident of Fort Lauderdale who travels annually to the Fort Myers area. Because she suffers from a mobility disability and is dependent upon mobility devices and aids, plaintiff requires an accessible hotel and hotel room. To that end, plaintiff visited the website of the Palm City Motel, which is located in Fort Myers and owned, managed, and/or operated by defendant, HARIHAR, INC. The website, however, failed to provide information about the accessible features of the motel and its rooms for persons with disabilities. The Defendant filed its Motion to Dismiss the Amended Class Action Complaint, arguing (1) the plaintiff lacks standing to bring a claim as an individual or as the representative of the class, and (2) the Amended Class Action Complaint fails to satisfy Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for class certification. Title III of the ADA provides the following general rule: "No individual shall be discriminated against on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation by any person who owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a place of public accommodation." A plaintiff alleging Title III ADA discrimination must initially prove that (1) he is a disabled individual; (2) the defendants own, lease, or operate a place of public accommodation and (3) the defendants discriminated against the plaintiff within the meaning of the ADA. The Defendant's motion challenges the plaintiff's standing to bring this action. Motions to dismiss based on lack of standing attack the court's subject matter jurisdiction, and are therefore considered pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1). In order to establish standing, a plaintiff must adequately allege and ultimately prove three elements: (1) that he or she has suffered an injury-in-fact (2) a causal connection between the asserted injury-in-fact and the challenged conduct of the defendant; and (3) that the injury likely will be redressed by a favorable decision. The Defendant first argues the plaintiff has not sufficiently alleged a past injury for standing purposes. The Court disagrees. In the Amended Complaint, the plaintiff alleges she visited the website several times, including on July 16, 2018, to determine whether the motel and its rooms met her accessibility needs. She was unable to independently ascertain the accessible features and, as a result, was deterred from patronizing the motel. These allegations are sufficient to demonstrate an injury for purposes of standing. The Defendant also argues the plaintiff has not sufficiently alleged she will be harmed in the future by the motel's failure to maintain an ADA compliant website. In the Amended Complaint, the plaintiff states she initially planned to visit friends in the Fort Myers area during August of 2018 but had to reschedule. The Plaintiff has attempted to reschedule her trip but has been unable to find a hotel (including defendant's) with sufficient accessibility information to make a reservation via online reservation systems. THe Plaintiff also states she is planning a trip to the area within the next six months and intends to return to the motel and the website for the dual purpose of availing herself of goods and services offered by the motel, and to ensure defendant ceases evading its responsibilities under federal law. The Defendant argues the plaintiff's allegations are insufficient to demonstrate a real and immediate threat of injury, as required for injunctive relief. The Defendant notes that the plaintiff has failed to provide any specific anticipated dates of travel to the Fort Myers area, and does not allege she intends to travel to the motel or when she plans to reserve a room in the future. The Defendant's argument misses the mark. The Plaintiff's ADA claim is based upon the Palm City Motel's website failing to identify the accessible features of the motel and its rooms, in violation of 28 C.F.R. Section 36.302(e)(1)(ii). Therefore, the relevant future injury inquiry relates to the motel's website and reservation system, rather than the motel's physical property. Here, the plaintiff states she intends to make a trip to the Fort Myers area within the next six months and also intends to return to the website to both avail herself of the goods and services offered by the motel and ensure its compliance with the ADA. She further alleges she is currently being deterred from patronizing the motel and will be until the website is corrected. The Court finds these allegations are sufficient to create an inference plaintiff will suffer injury in the future. Therefore, the defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of standing is denied. A full-text copy of the District Court's December 3, 2018 Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yam68c4t from Leagle.com. Cheri Honeywell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jessica Lynn Kerr, The Advocacy Group, LLC. HARIHAR INC, a Florida corporation, Defendant, represented by Gordon R. Duncan, Duncan & Tardif, PA. HELENA-WEST HELENA, AR: Summary Judgment Bid in Green Suit Granted ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, DEANDRE GREEN, Plaintiff, v. CHARLES BYRD, individually and in his official capacity as a police officer of the City of Helena-West Helena, Arkansas, Defendant, Case No. 2:17CV00033 JLH (E.D. Ark.), Judge J. Leon Holmes of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Helena Division, (i) granted the City's motion for summary judgment, and (ii) denied Green's motion for summary judgment. Green claims under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 that the City of Helena-West Helena, Arkansas, violated his constitutional right to a prompt first appearance after his arrest. Byrd, a Helena-West Helena police officer, arrested Green on June 28, 2013, shortly before 8:00 p.m. On the next day, a City officer swore an affidavit of probable cause and obtained an arrest warrant. Green was transported to the Ashley County jail. He did not receive a first appearance before July 1, 2018. The parties dispute whether he received a first appearance on that at all, but the City says that Judge Reid Harrod, an Ashley County District Court judge, presided over Green's first appearance on Monday. After several months, the charges were dismissed and Green was released. Green sued Byrd in his individual capacity and official capacity. Helena-West Helena is located in Phillips County. Green also sued the Phillips County Sheriff in his official capacity. He claimed among other things that his constitutional right to a timely first appearance was violated. Green also initially asserted a claim that he was arrested without probable cause. He has now abandoned that claim. The City argued and provided evidence that Helena-West Helena officers arrested Green based on probable cause, but Green did not respond to that argument. Any probable-cause claim is therefore waived. Remaining is Green's Section 1983 claim that Byrd, in his official capacity, violated Green's constitutional right to a timely first appearance. The City conceded for years that Green did not have a first appearance hearing. That concession was made not only in the case but also in a previous class action in which Green opted out of a class comprised in relevant part by all those arrested in Phillips County, Arkansas between Oct. 9, 2012 and Nov. 10, 2016 who did not receive a Rule 8 appearance within 72 hours of arrestt. In preparing for trial in the case, however, the City's lawyers uncovered, for the first time, in the Ashley County records, a "Record of First Judicial Appearance" for Green. The document records that Green received a first appearance before Ashley County District Court Judge Reid Harrod on July 1, 2013. Both Judge Harrod's and Green's signatures appear on the document. The City contends, among other things, that the record shows that Green received a first appearance on July 1, 2013, within three days of his Friday evening arrest. The City argues that, as a matter of law, the delay from Friday evening to Monday did not violate Green's rights. Green asserts that he did not receive a first appearance that Monday. He also contends that, even if he did have a first appearance, Judge Harrod had no jurisdiction to conduct it because Judge Harrod is an Ashley County District Court judge whereas Green was arrested and charged in Phillips County. Green argues, therefore, that the first appearance was void. Finally, Green maintains that the City should be estopped from now contending that he received a first appearance when it has previously conceded that he did not have one. Judge Holmes finds that under the circumstance, where a court record that not only is presumed to be correct, but also is signed by the Defendant, shows that the first appearance took place, that the Defendant cannot create a genuine dispute of material fact merely by signing an affidavit contradicting his own signature. In the face of the objective evidence that the City has provided, and against the backdrop of the presumption of regularity accorded the court records, Green's affidavit does not create a genuine issue of fact. Based on the plain language of Rules 8.1 and 1.6, the plain language of Section 16-88-101, the Arkansas cases interpreting parallel provisions governing the issuance of search warrants, and the repeal of Sections 16-88-201 through 203, an Arkansas district court judge is "a judicial officer" who may conduct the arrestee's first appearance even if the arrestee was arrested and charged in a different county. That Green's first appearance was conducted in Ashley County rather than Phillips County did not invalidate that first appearance. In his final argument, Green argues that the City should be estopped from changing its earlier position that he did not receive a first appearance. The Judge finds that the City did not change positions because its interests had changed; rather, it discovered new evidence -- evidence that had been in the control of Ashley County, not the City. It was no advantage to the City to wait until the late stage to reveal these records. The City has not intentionally contradicted itself, deliberately changed positions according to the needs of the moment, or played "fast and loose with the courts" -- all ways the Supreme Court has described the actions of a party against whom judicial estoppel may apply. Green also invokes the doctrine of equitable estoppel. That doctrine has no application in the case. Finally, turning to the facts, the Judge finds that Green was arrested without a warrant on Friday, June 28, 2013, in the evening. On the next day, a judge found probable cause and issued an arrest warrant. The probable cause determination was made within 48 hours of Green's arrest. It was not delayed unreasonably. That Green was not present for the probable cause determination did not violate his constitutional rights. Based on the foregoing, Judge Holmes (i) denied Green's motion for summary judgment, and (ii) granted the City's motion for summary judgment. A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 18, 2018 Opinion and Order is available at https://is.gd/cum2Kx from Leagle.com. Deandre Green, Plaintiff, represented by Lucien Ramseur Gillham, Sutter & Gillham, PLLC & Luther Oneal Sutter, Sutter & Gillham, PLLC. Charles Byrd, Individually and in his Official Capacity as a Police Officer of the City of Helena-West Helena, Arkansas, Defendant, represented by Jenna Adams, Arkansas Municipal League, Ralph C. Ohm, Attorney at Law, C. Burt Newell, C. Burt Newell, Attorney at Law & Christian Campbell Michaels -- cmichaels@catlaw.com -- Catlett Law Firm. HIGH IMPACT MARKETING: Duggan Suit to Recover Unpaid Minimum Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------ Michael Duggan, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. High Impact Marketing, LLC and Carl Miletello, Individually, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-00209 (S.D. Miss., December 6, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendants own and operate furniture stores located in both Columbia and Hattiesburg, Mississippi where Duggan worked as a commission only salesperson and was classified as an independent contractor in that sense. However, his job duties included selling furniture, loading and unloading delivery vans, writing up invoices, moving and/or rearranging merchandise around the store and occasionally personally delivering furniture to customers wherein he was not paid minimum wage for all those hours. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher W. Espy, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, PLLC 4450 Old Canton Road, Suite 200 Jackson, MS 39211 Telephone: (601) 718-2087 Facsimile: (601) 718-2102 Email: cespy@forthepeople.com HOSPITALITY VENTURES: Tom State Law Claims Dismissed with Prejudice ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, WAI MAN TOM on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. HOSPITALITY VENTURES LLC doing business as Umstead Hotel and Spa, SAS INSTITUTE INC., and NC CULINARY VENTURES LLC doing business as An Asian Cuisine, Defendants, Case No. 5:17-CV-98-FL (E.D. N.C.), Judge Louise W. Flanagan of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, Western Division, (i) denied as moot the Plaintiff's motion for conditional and class certification; (ii) denied the Plaintiff's motion to seal, and (iii) granted in part the Defendants' motion for summary judgment; and denied the Defendants' motion for hearing. Former named Plaintiff Brandon Kelly commenced the action on Feb. 21, 2017, asserting claims on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated against the Defendants, under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act ("NCWHA"), based upon their alleged failure to pay adequate wages and overtime compensation, as well as alleged acts of retaliation, while operating a restaurant in Cary, North Carolina named Ãn Asian Cuisine, between 2014 and January 2017. Kelly sought damages for unpaid minimum wages; overtime compensation; liquidated and statutory damages; further damages and other relief for retaliation; as well as fees, costs, and interest. On Feb. 22, 2017, Kelly filed a consent to join the suit as a "named Plaintiff," and he filed a consent to join the suit by current Plaintiff Tom as an opt-in Plaintiff. Between May 9 and May 15, 2017, Kelly filed six additional consents to join the suit by the following individuals as opt-in Plaintiffs: Shelley Thorne, Elaina Tanski, Evelyn Hunter, Gregory J. Evenson II, Deion Dorsey, and Anne-Yael Okale-Weeks. On Sept. 5, 2017, the Court allowed in part Kelly's motion to amend the complaint to substitute Tom for Kelly as the named Plaintiff and to add new factual allegations. In the first amended complaint, filed Sept. 8, 2017, which is the operative complaint in the action, Plaintiff Tom asserts claims on behalf of himself and the opt-in Plaintiffs, as follows: In his first claim for relief ("Count One"), the Plaintiff asserts the Defendants improperly took a "tip credit" by using an invalid tip pool comprised of employees who did not customarily and regularly receive tips, and thus failed to the pay party Plaintiffs the required minimum wage of $7.25 per hour, in violation of the FLSA. He asserts that the Defendants' failure to pay minimum wage was willful, because the Defendants previously internally investigated a similar practice and were subject to a similar lawsuit pertaining, in part, to alleged improper tip credit practices. In his second claim for relief ("Count Two"), plaintiff asserts defendants failed to pay the party Plaintiffs overtime wages of $10.88 per hour for all hours worked over 40 in a single workweek, in violation of FLSA, on the same basis as Count One, where he asserts the Defendants willfully used an invalid "tip credit" practice. In his third claim for relief ("Count Three"), the Plaintiff asserts the Defendants willfully took invalid or unauthorized deductions from wages, in violation of the NCWHA, based upon the invalid "tip pool" as asserted in Counts One and Two. The Plaintiff also asserts that the Defendants failed to pay the party Plaintiffs for all paid time off ("PTO") hours due as part of their final paycheck, upon closure of the restaurant, and failed to continue insurance benefits for the final pay period, following closure of the restaurant, in violation of the NCWHA. In his fourth claim for relief ("Count Four"), he asserts the Defendants retaliated against him and party Plaintiff Kelly after they complained of the aforementioned minimum wage, overtime, and tip pool issues, by reducing the amount of hours they were permitted to work; by reducing the number of customers they served; and by informing other prospective employers of the Plaintiff's and party Plaintiff Kelly's complaints. On Oct. 10, 2017, the Court entered case management order providing for bifurcated discovery, with a Phase I of bifurcated discovery addressing issues of conditional certification of class and collective actions, with some expansion to accommodate discovery regarding whether the Plaintiff and any potential party Plaintiffs are subject to an exemption from overtime pay set forth in 29 U.S.C. Section 207(i). The court set a Feb. 28, 2018, deadline for Phase I discovery, and a deadline of March 31, 2018, for the Plaintiff to file a motion for conditional certification of class or collective action. The court did not set any separate deadline for dispositive motions. The Plaintiff filed the instant motion for certification on March 15, 2018, seeking conditional certification of an FLSA collective action and certification of a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 for NCWHA claims. He seeks an order directing the Defendants to provide an updated listing of the names, last known addresses, alternate addresses, telephone numbers, email addresses, last four digits of their Social Security of all the former putative Plaintiffs and Rule 23 class members who worked for all the Defendants at any time during the period from Feb. 22, 2014 to Jan. 30, 2017 consistent with the Plaintiff's proposed class notice definition. The Plaintiff's propose the following class notice definition: All former employees of Defendants Hospitality Ventures, LLC, doing business as Umstead Hotel and Spa; NC Culinary Ventures, LLC, doing business as An Asian Cuisine; and Sas Institute, Inc., who performed work that involved direct interaction with customers as a captain, server, server assistants, runner, and/or bartender whom the named Plaintiff alleges jointly employed him and all of those similarly situated employees as hourly-paid and customarily tipped employees, and who suffered or permitted the named Plaintiff and all similarly situated employees to be required to participate in an illegal mandatory tip pool, illegally withholding their tips, not being paid their appropriate minimum wage, straight-time, overtime compensation for all hours worked, and who were not compensated all of their promised, earned, and accrued earnings and benefits, including paid time off (PTO) on their regular pay date or as part of their final pay check, and at any time from Feb. 22, 2014, until the closure of the restaurant, or until approximately Jan. 30, 2017. In the instant motion, the Plaintiff further seeks to be designated as the class representative and that the Law Offices of Gilda A. Hernandez, PLLC, attorneys of record, for the said named Plaintiff, be authorized to serve as the counsel for the classes in the action. He also requests to be able to email and send via text message class notices. The Defendants filed the instant motion for summary judgment on May 1, 2018,6 asserting that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the Defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law on all of the Plaintiffs claims. On the same date, the Defendants filed response in opposition to the Plaintiff's motion for certification, relying upon a declaration of Clore. Upon review thereof, the Court denied the Plaintiff's oral motion at prior hearing to hold in abeyance briefing on the motion for summary judgment pending ruling on the motion for certification. The Plaintiff filed a response to the motion for summary judgment and a reply in support of the motion for certification on May 31, 2018. The Defendants filed the instant motion for hearing and reply in support of summary judgment on June 21, 2018. The Plaintiff filed a notice of supplemental authority on Sept. 7, 2018. As to the Defendant's motion for summary judgment, among other things, Judge Flanagan finds (i) that the Plaintiff has not demonstrated a genuine issue of material facts as to his retaliation claim; (ii) the Plaintiff's FLSA claims for minimum wage and overtime pay fail as a matter of law for all of those workweeks where the Plaintiffs atisfy the requirements for the Section 7(i) exemption and they were paid above the minimum wage rate; (iii) the Plaintiff has not demonstrated a genuine issue of material fact regarding the validity of the AN PM Tip Pool, under 29 U.S.C. Section 203(m); and (iv) neither party cites controlling Fourth Circuit or North Carolina law regarding the interpretation of the scope of the NCWHA in comparison to the FLSA. Having determined that the Defendants' motion for summary judgment should be granted with respect to the Plaintiff's federal law claims and that the Plaintiff's state law claims will be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1367(c), the Plaintiff's motion for conditional and class certification will be denied as moot. Based on the foregoing, Judge Flanagan granted the Defendants' motion for summary judgment with respect to the Plaintiff's federal law claims. She dismissed without prejudice the Plaintiff's state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1367(c). She denied as moot the Plaintiff's motion for conditional and class certification, and denied the Plaintiff's motion to seal. The Judge dispensed with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process. Accordingly, she denied the Defendants' motion for hearing. She directed the Clerk to close the case. A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 18, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/wiRfSL from Leagle.com. Wai Man Tom, Plaintiff, represented by Gilda A. Hernandez , The Law Offices of Gilda A. Hernandez, PLLC, Emma J. Smiley , The Law Office of Gilda A. Hernandez, PLLC, Jimmy D. Braziel , Lee & Braziel, LLP & Travis Andrew Gasper, Lee & Braziel, LLP. Hospitality Ventures LLC, doing business as Umstead Hotel and Spa, SAS Institute Inc. & NC Culinary Ventures LLC, doing business as An Asian Cuisine, Defendants, represented by Arch Y. Stokes -- astokes@stokeswagner.com -- Stokes Wagner, ALC, Kevin Michael Ceglowski -- kceglowski@poynerspruill.com -- Poyner Spruill LLP, John R. Hunt -- jhunt@stokeswagner.com -- Stokes Wagner, ALC, Jordan Danielle Arkin -- jfishman@stokeswagner.com -- Stokes Wagner, ALC & Susanna K. Gibbons -- sgibbons@poynerspruill.com -- Poyner Spruill LLP. HOWARD E. FRIEDMAN: Leade Removed Teamster Case to Maryland Dist. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Martin R. Leade removes the action entitled Teamsters Local 677 Health Services & Insurance Plan, the Plaintiff, v. Howard E. Friedman, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 03-c-18-12119, from the Circuit Court of Maryland for Baltimore County, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. The District of Maryland Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:18-cv-03868-DKC to the proceeding. On November 29, 2018, Fire and Police Retiree Health Care Fund-San Antonio filed in this Court a Verified Stockholder Derivative Complaint ("Federal Complaint") alleging breaches of fiduciary duty on the part of the Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc. ("Sinclair") Board of Directors and chief executive officer. The Federal Complaint named as defendants David D. Smith, Frederick G. Smith, J. Duncan Smith and Robert E. Smith, Howard E. Friedman, Daniel C. Keith, Martin R. Leader, Lawrence E. McCanna, and Christopher S. Ripley (collectively, the "Individual Defendants"), and Sinclair, as a nominal defendant. A week later, on December 6, 2018, Teamsters Local 677 Health Services & Insurance Plan ("Plaintiff") filed a Shareholder Derivative Complaint ("State Complaint") alleging breaches of fiduciary duties and unjust enrichment on the part of the Individual Defendants. The State Complaint also names Sinclair as a nominal defendant. The State Complaint was filed in the Circuit Court of Maryland for Baltimore County. In the State Complaint, which is substantially similar to the Federal Complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that the Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the Company in connection with the Sinclair Board of Directors' conduct relating to an attempted merger with Tribune Media Co. ("Tribune"). The Plaintiff alleges that as a direct and proximate result of the Individual Defendants' failure to perform their fiduciary obligations, Sinclair has sustained damages, both financially and to its corporate goodwill and image. Plaintiff further claims that the Individual Defendants were unjustly enriched at the expense of and to the detriment of Sinclair. The Plaintiff seeks an order disgorging all profits, benefits, and other compensation obtained by the Individual Defendants, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for Martin R. Leader: Philip M. Andrews, Esq. Allison M. Midei, Esq. K RAMON & G RAHAM , P.A. One South Street, Suite 2600 Baltimore, MD 21202 Telephone: (410) 752-6030 Facsimile: (410) 539-1269 E-mail: pandrews@kg-law.com amidei@kg-law.com - and - Aaron R. Marcu, Esq. Kimberly H. Zelnick, Esq. David Y. Livshiz, Esq. 601 Lexington Avenue, 31st Floor New York, NY Telephone: 212 277-4000 E-mail: aaron.marcu@freshfields.com kimberly.zelnick@freshfields.com david.livshiz@freshfields.com HOYT LIVERY: Court Moots Bid to Enforce Settlement in Lassen Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut issued an Order mooting Plaintiff's Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement in the case captioned ROGER LASSEN JR., individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals, v. HOYT LIVERY, INC., et. al. No. 3:13-cv-1529 (VAB). (D. Conn.). Roger Lassen, Jr., on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, brought this action against Hoyt Livery, Inc. (Hoyt Livery), Santo Silvestro, and Lynda Silvestro (Defendants), asserting claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the Connecticut Minimum Wage Act (CMWA). Mr. Lassen seeks to enforce the settlement agreement and attorney's fees for overdue payment. In dispute is whether $200,000 of the $400,000 in attorneys' fees became due on January 15, 2018, a date before court approval of the settlement under Section 8(b) of the Settlement Agreement. The parties failed to amend the Settlement Agreement to address this timing of the payment issue, even though the Court urged the parties to change the terms before the Court issued its final approval. The Court ordered the Defendants to pay no more than $400,000 in attorneys' fees and costs to the Plaintiffs' Counsel. Of the $400,000, the Defendants were to pay $200,000 within thirty days of Final Approval of the settlement under the plain language of Section 8(b) of the Settlement Agreement. Both parties have interpreted the due date for the other $200,000 payment differently. Mr. Lassen argues that the Settlement Agreement set the payment date as January 15, 2018 in Section 8(b), and Section 8(d) converted the sum into a judgment that was untimely when Defendants failed to pay by that date or by the time of the entering of the Settlement Agreement. Mr. Lassen then argues that the Court should award post-judgment attorney's fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act, which authorizes attorney's fees and costs to prevailing plaintiffs. Mr. Lassen asserts that, while the Court encouraged the parties to amend the provisions of the Settlement Agreement, the parties never amended the agreement. So, under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the January 15, 2018 deadline in the Settlement Agreement must stand. In response, the Defendants argue that, while Connecticut law allows the Court to summarily enter judgment against a party that fails to comply with the settlement agreement, the Court's power is limited to those situations where the terms are clear and unambiguous. Here, the settlement terms are ambiguous. While Mr. Lassen contends that the payment was due January 15, 2018, the Court did not approve the settlement until March 16, 2018. Under Mr. Lassen's interpretation of the contract, the Defendants were already two months late on their payments on the date of settlement approval. That position makes little sense. It would require the Court to interpret the settlement agreement as imposing a penalty for failure to do something before the settlement agreement took effect. Connecticut law limits the ability of the court to bind the parties to the undisputed terms of the agreement. Here, the term in question is not undisputed, therefore, the parties cannot be bound to the purported January 15, 2018 deadline to the Hayber law firm. Regardless of the Court's ability to bind the parties to the agreement, the issue is moot. As the parties agreed at the November 28, 2018 hearing, the Defendants paid the disputed $200,000 in attorney's fees to the Hayber Law Firm on November 19, 2018. For these reasons, the Court thus finds Mr. Lassen's motion to be moot. A full-text copy of the District Court's December 3, 2018 Ruling and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y9mgbk94 from Leagle.com. Roger Lassen, Jr., individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, represented by Richard Eugene Hayber, Hayber Law Firm LLC, Deborah L. McKenna, The Hayber Law Firm, LLC & John J. Radshaw, III. Francisco Sanchez, Petitioner, represented by Peter D. Goselin, The Law Office of Peter Goselin. Hoyt Livery Inc, Santo Silvestro & Lynda Silvestro, Defendants, represented by Jan A. Marcus, Keidel, Weldon & Cunningham, LLP & Candace Veronica Fay, Candace V. Fay - Attorney & Counselor at Law, PC. HUMANADENTAL INSURANCE: 7th Cir. Affirmed Certification Denial -------------------------------------------------------------- The United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, issued an Opinion affirming the judgment of the District Court denying Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification in the cases captioned LAWRENCE S. BRODSKY, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HUMANADENTAL INSURANCE CO. d/b/a HUMANA SPECIALTY BENEFITS, Defendant-Appellee. ALPHA TECH PET, INC., et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ESSENDANT CO., ESSENDANT INC., and ESSENDANT MANAGEMENT SERVICES LLC, Defendants-Appellees. Nos. 17-3067 & 17-3506. (7th Cir.). In each case, the district court refused to certify the proposed class, largely on the authority of the D.C. Circuit's decision in Bais Yaakov of Spring Valley v. FCC, 852 F.3d 1078 (D.C. Cir. 2017). Despite the decline and fall of the fax machine, litigation continues between fax advertisers and unwilling recipients of their messages. Behind all this is the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), as amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005 and as implemented through FCC regulations. The lead plaintiffs in our cases, Lawrence Brodsky and Alpha Tech Pet, Inc., received faxed advertisements that did not comply with the TCPA and the FCC's Solicited Fax Rule. Because it sits at center stage in these controversies, the Court begin by setting out the critical parts of the Solicited Fax Rule: "(a) No person or entity may: (4) Use a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send an unsolicited advertisement to a telephone facsimile machine, unless (i) The unsolicited advertisement is from a sender with an established business relationship with the recipient and(ii) The sender obtained the number of the telephone facsimile machine through (A) The voluntary communication of such number by the recipient directly to the sender, within the context of such established business relationship (iii) The advertisement contains a notice that informs the recipient of the ability and means to avoid future unsolicited advertisements. A notice contained in an advertisement complies with the requirements under this paragraph only if certain criteria are met (iv) A facsimile advertisement that is sent to a recipient that has provided prior express invitation or permission to the sender must include an opt-out notice that complies with the requirements in paragraph (a)(4)(iii) of this section." The parties have engaged in a lengthy debate over the question whether Bais Yaakov is formally binding on this court, or if our obligation is only to give it that respectful consideration we would accord to any of our sister circuits' decisions. The Court hold that the FCC's 2006 Solicited Fax Rule is unlawful to the extent that it requires opt-out notices on solicited faxes. The FCC's Order in this case interpreted and applied that 2006 Rule. We vacate that Order and remand for further proceedings. If the Court's decision turned on the ultimate binding impact of the D.C. Circuit's decision with respect to the 2006 Order, the Court would pursue this matter further. But it does not, and thus we do not need to decide whether we would read Bais Yaakov as broadly as our sister circuits have done. There is no doubt that the D.C. Circuit vacated the order before it (i.e. the 2014 Anda Order) and held that the 2014 application of the 2006 Order was unlawful. In the end, therefore, this was an as applied decision, not an untimely attack on the 2006 Order. The Court can therefore assume that the 2006 Order is still in effect though drained of a great deal of force, it seems, but that it must be construed consistently with the D.C. Circuit's decision on the 2014 Order, because that decision is binding on all courts of appeals through the Hobbs Act. And the question in our case is even narrower, because we are not reviewing the merits of either order. Instead, we must determine only whether, against the backdrop of these orders, the district courts here abused their discretion in finding class treatment inappropriate. For purposes of the class certification decision, this history tells us that the legality of the defendants' actions may end up depending on whether the fax was sent with permission legal or not illegal and it may also turn on the adequacy of the opt-out notices on the faxes in question. The consequences for a firm that violates the TCPA can be dire when it is facing not just a single aggrieved person, but a class. The statute provides a private right of action to collect either actual damages or $500 per violation in statutory damages. Whether that means $500 per fax, or $500 per transmission, the dollars roll up quickly. The stakes for the defendants in our cases are substantial. The final questions are whether the waivers have any effect on the availability of a private right of action and whether that issue is better handled through individual litigation or a class. The TCPA allows a person or entity to bring an action based on a violation of this subsection or the regulations prescribed under this subsection for injunctive relief, actual damages, or statutory damages. The alleged violation in our case is regulatory. The Court rejects the plaintiffs' argument that the statute itself requires opt-out notice on solicited faxes; it does not, and nothing in Holtzman, Holtzman v. Turza, 728 F.3d 682 (7th Cir. 2013), supports engrafting such language on the statute. As the opening sentence of that opinion signals, the issue there had to do with unsolicited faxes that had no opt-out language, not faxes sent with advance permission that did include some opt-out language. In addition, Holtzman arose at a time before the Solicited Fax Rule was challenged. It thus has no bearing on the issues now before us. As a regulatory matter, the Solicited Fax Rule is subject to the general rule regarding suspension, amendment, or waiver of rules. That provides, in relevant part, that any provision of the rules may be waived by the Commission on its own motion or on petition if good cause therefore is shown. Concerned about the confusion that the Rule had caused, the FCC invoked this authority when it issued the Humana and United Stationers waivers. But once again, even if the district court were eventually to conclude that the waivers are invalid, that is just one question: issues concerning solicitation, permission, pre-existing relationships, and the like, would remain as obstacles to class treatment. The Court does not rule out the possibility that some of the recipients of Humana's or Essendant's faxes were the victims of the practices prohibited by the TCPA as amended. Some may not have had pre-existing contractual arrangements, some may not have signaled their consent to receiving faxes, and some senders of faxes may not have received waivers of the Solicited Fax Rule from the FCC or the waivers might be flawed. The Court, thus express no opinion on the ability of individual plaintiffs to go forward with these suits. The Court holds only that neither of the district courts in these cases abused its discretion when it concluded that the criteria for a class action under Rule 23(b)(3) are not met. The Court therefore affirms the orders of the district courts in both Case No. 17-3067 and in Case No. 17-3506, denying class certification. A full-text copy of the Seventh Circuit's December 3, 2018 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/y7xp5dva from Leagle.com. David J. Novotny -- dnovotny@cmn-law.com -- for Defendant-Appellee. William A. Chittenden, III -- wchittenden@cmn-law.com -- for Defendant-Appellee. Phillip Andrew Bock -- phil@classlawyers.com -- for Plaintiff-Appellant. Joseph Robert Jeffery -- jjeffery@cmn-law.com -- for Defendant-Appellee. David Max Oppenheim -- david@classlawyers.com -- for Plaintiff-Appellant. Glenn L. Hara -- ghara@andersonwanca.com -- for Plaintiff-Appellant. IMMEDIATE CREDIT: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Hovermale FDCPA Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey issued an Opinion denying Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for lack of Article III standing the case captioned JENNIFER D. HOVERMALE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. IMMEDIATE CREDIT RECOVERY, INC., Defendant. Civil No. 15-05646 (RBK/JS). (D.N.J.). Plaintiff Jennifer Hovermale, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, brings claims against Defendant Immediate Credit Recovery Inc. (ICR), for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). Hovermale sued debt collector ICR after ICR sent her a letter about her defaulted federal Perkins student loan, which helped finance Hovermale's education at Rider University. Claiming that Hovermale lacks standing, ICR moves to dismiss Hovermale's claims under 15 U.S.C. Swection 1692e, which prohibits the use of any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt and provides a nonexhaustive list of behavior that violates the prohibition. An injury in fact is an invasion of a legally protected interest that is concrete and particularized and actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical. Here, the parties initially dispute the harm at issue. According to ICR, the injury that results from use of the letter's language only occurs if the balance stated in a letter will not change, as the language creates a false sense of urgency for the obligor to pay the balance. Thus, ICR argues, Hovermale has suffered no concrete and particularized injury from the letter's late charges language because Hovermale's balance changed daily given the loan's accruing interest. Hovermale, by contrast, argues that the letter's late charges language caused her to suffer a concrete and particularized harm because its inclusion violated her substantive right to receive truthful, non-misleading, and non-deceptive information from ICR. The Court agrees with Hovermale as to the framing of the harm at issue because as courts have noted, the injury, for standing purposes, is framed as a right to receive accurate and nonmisleading information from ICR under Section 1692e of the FDCPA. ICR argues that Hovermale's reliance on the late charges language alleges only a bare procedural violation of the FDCPA divorced from any concrete harm, which is insufficient to satisfy Article III's injury in fact requirement. Hovermale argues that the letter's late charges language caused her to suffer a concrete informational harm because its inclusion violated her substantive right to receive truthful, nonmisleading, and non-deceptive information from ICR. Like the many other courts in this district, the Court agrees with Hovermale. When a debt collector violates Section 1692e by providing false or misleading information, the informational injury that results, i.e., receipt of that false or misleading information constitutes a concrete harm under Spokeo, which directs courts assessing intangible injuries to ask if the injury resembles harm traditionally recognized in English or American courts and if Congress elevated it to a legally cognizable injury. Section 1692e's prohibition on providing false statements to induce a person to part with money bears a family resemblance to traditional causes of action for fraud and deceit, and protects interests previously recognized at law. Accordingly, an overwhelming majority of the courts in this district have found that various types of violations under Section 1692e give rise to concrete, substantive injuries sufficient to establish Article III standing. Thus, Hovermale's claim that ICR violated her substantive FDCPA rights by sending her a letter including the materially misleading late charges language when ICR had no lawful right to assess late charges constitutes a concrete injury in fact. Hovermale's injury is also particularized because she received the debt collection communication. Hovermale has thus shown a concrete and particularized injury as required to satisfy the injury in fact requirement of Article III standing. In the end, ICR ignores what courts in this district overwhelmingly recognize that Section 1692e of the FDCPA provides a substantive, statutory right to be free from false or deceptive information in connection with the collection of a debt. Yet instead of acknowledging let alone attempting to distinguish this and the many other in-district FDCPA standing cases, counsel doubles down on rejected positions. These recycled arguments are neither persuasive nor forthcoming. Accordingly, ICR's motion to dismiss is denied. A full-text copy of the District Court's December 3, 2018 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/y8ymbkxt from Leagle.com. JENNIFER D. HOVERMALE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by ANDREW T. THOMASSON, Stern Thomasson LLP, DANIEL ADAM FRISCHBERG, LAW OFFICE OF ANDREW B. FINBERG, LLC & PHILIP D. STERN, STERN THOMASSON LLP. IMMEDIATE CREDIT RECOVERY INC., Defendant, represented by MONICA M. LITTMAN -- mlittman@finemanlawfirm.com -- FINEMAN, KREKSTEIN & HARRIS, PC & RICHARD J. PERR -- rperr@finemanlawfirm.com -- FINEMAN KREKSTEIN & HARRIS, PC. INUVO INC: D'Arcy Sues Over Sale to ConversionPoint --------------------------------------------------- Peter D'Arcy, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Inuvo, Inc., Richard Howe, G. Kent Burnett, Gordon Cameron, Charles Morgan, Patrick Terrell, ConversionPoint Technologies, Inc., ConversionPoint Holdings, Inc., CPT Merger Sub, Inc., and CPT Cigar Merger Sub, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-02023-UNA (D. Del., December 19, 2018) is a class action brought by Plaintiff on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated public stockholders of Inuvo, Inc. against the above-captioned Defendants, including Inuvo and the members of the Company's board of directors for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and United States Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the acquisition of Inuvo by ConversionPoint Technologies, Inc. ("CPT"). On November 2, 2018, Inuvo Inc., ConversionPoint Technologies, Inc., ConversionPoint Holdings, Inc., CPT Merger Sub, Inc., and CPT Cigar Merger Sub, Inc., entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger. On December 17, 2018, in order to convince Inuvo's public common stockholders to vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction, the parties filed a materially incomplete and misleading Form S-4 Registration Statement with the SEC, in violation of the Exchange Act, asserts the complaint. The Proxy contains materially incomplete and misleading information concerning: (i) the valuation analyses prepared by the Company's financial advisor, Canaccord Genuity LLC, in support of their fairness opinion and (ii) the potential conflicts of interest faced by the Board during the sales process leading up to the Proposed Transaction, notes the complaint. Additionally, although the Proxy does not yet set the date for the special meeting of Inuvo's stockholders to vote on the Proposed Transaction, the Proxy does state the merger parties' intention to conclude this merger during the first quarter of 2019. It is therefore imperative that the material information that has been omitted from the Proxy is disclosed prior to the Stockholder Vote so Inuvo stockholders can properly exercise their corporate suffrage rights, the complaint asserts. Plaintiff Peter D'Arcy is, and at all relevant times, has been an Inuvo stockholder. Inuvo, Inc., a Nevada corporation, is an Internet advertising technology and digital publishing company. Inuvo common stock is traded under the ticker symbol "INUV". Defendant Richard Howe is, and has been at all relevant times, a director of the Company, and currently serves as the Company's Chairman and Chief Executive Officer ("CEO"). Defendant G. Kent Burnett is, and has been at all relevant times, a director of the Company. Defendant Gordon Cameron is, and has been at all relevant times, a director of the Company. Defendant Charles Morgan is, and has been at all relevant times, a director of the Company. Defendant Patrick Terrell is, and has been at all relevant times, a director of the Company. ConversionPoint Technologies, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal executive offices located at 840 Newport Center Drive, Newport Beach, CA 92660, and is a party to the Merger Agreement. ConversionPoint Holdings, Inc. is a Delaware corporation and a direct wholly-owned subsidiary of CPT, and a party to the Merger Agreement. CPT Merger Sub, Inc., is a Delaware corporation and a direct wholly-owned Subsidiary of Parent, and a party to the Merger Agreement. CPT Cigar Merger Sub, Inc., is a Nevada corporation and a direct wholly-owned subsidiary of Parent, and a party to the Merger Agreement.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan M. Ernst, Esq. O'KELLY ERNST & JOYCE, LLC 901 N. Market Street, Suite 1000 Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone (302) 778-4000 Facsimile: (302) 295-2873 Email: rernst@oelegal.com - and - Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. GAINEY McKENNA & EGLESTON 440 Park Avenue South New York, NY 10016 Phone: (212) 983-1300 Facsimile: (212) 983-0380 Email: tjmckenna@gme-law.com gegleston@gme-law.com J R PUTMAN INC: Faces Scarano Suit in Sacramento ------------------------------------------------ An employment-related class action lawsuit has been filed against J R Putman Inc. The case is captioned as ANTHONY SCARANO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. J R PUTMAN INC.; JEFF WERTENS; and DOES 1-100, Defendants, Case No. 34-2018-00244753-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., Nov. 16, 2018). J R Putman Inc. provides home heating repair and maintenance. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by Galen T Shimoda, Esq. KAISER FOUNDATION: Court Narrows Claims in Gamble Suit ------------------------------------------------------ In the case, LUNELL GAMBLE AND SHEILA KENNEDY, Plaintiffs, v. KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN, INC., ET AL., Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-06621-YGR (N.D. Cal.), Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (1) granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' motion dismiss the complaint; (2) granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' motion to strike allegations therein; and (iii) denied Plaintiff Gamble's motion for Rule 11 Sanctions. Gamble filed her complaint alleging claims of employment discrimination under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act ("FEHA"), in the Superior Court of Alameda County, California. With a demurrer pending, Gamble filed a First Amended Complaint. When a demurrer to the First Amended Complaint was sustained with leave to amend, Gamble was permitted to file a Second Amended Complaint which added claims under 42 U.S.C. section 1981. Gamble's Second Amended Complaint was then removed to the Court on Nov. 16, 2017 by Defendants Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. ("Health Plan"), Kaiser Foundation Hospitals ("Hospitals"); and The Permanente Medical Group. Gamble then filed a new amended complaint on Jan. 12, 2018, in the Court. The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss and a motion to strike. Gamble filed a motion for Sanctions under Rule 11 against the Defendants. Thereafter, in April 2018 and before the Court ruled on the pending motions, Gamble sought and was granted leave to file a new iteration of the complaint, styled as a Second Amended Complaint, adding new claims and a new Plaintiff, Sheila Kennedy. Gamble and Kennedy allege that they worked for the Defendants which they allege act as a single employer, "Kaiser." The Plaintiffs are African-American women over the age of 40 who allege they were denied promotions and involuntarily terminated by Kaiser. The Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of African-Americans, and subclasses of female African-Americans and older African-Americans, who were employed at Kaiser in the northern California region, and (1) were denied promotion, (2) were terminated, or (3) complained internally or to a governmental entity regarding race or age discrimination. The SAC alleges that, beginning in 1997, Gamble worked in Kaiser's Human Resources department. Gamble alleges that she was denied promotions and subjected to a pattern and practice of discrimination, despite her qualifications and excellent performance. She alleges she also was subjected to harassment and unreasonable scrutiny by the person who began supervising her in July 2012, Rosa Grajeda. Gamble asserts that Grajeda and Kaiser determined to terminate her under false pretenses, and ultimately terminated her on July 29, 2014. Kennedy began working at Kaiser in October of 1997, and worked in various positions in the Chemical Dependency and Rehabilitation Program. Kennedy alleges she was denied promotions, transfers, pay raises, and other benefits that were given to non-African-American employees, even though her performance and qualifications were equal to or better than those employees. She further alleges that she was threatened, retaliated against, and ultimately terminated because of her race and because she made complaints regarding Kaiser's non-compliance with civil rights laws. Ultimately, Kennedy alleges that she was subjected to disciplinary proceedings based on false information and was terminated in February 2016. Presently pending before the Court are three motions: (1) the Defendants' motion dismiss the complaint under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6); (2) the Defendants' motion to strike allegations therein under the California anti-SLAPP statute, Cal. Code of Civil Proc. section 425.16 and Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; and (3) Plaintiff Gamble's motion for Rule 11 Sanctions. Among other things, Judge Rogers finds that (i) the SAC alleges exhaustion, and factual questions as to the truth of that allegation are not resolved properly at this juncture; (ii) the Plaintiffs' allegations of common management and centralized control of labor relations among the Defendants are sufficient at the pleading stage to allege that the administrative charges sufficiently named all three Defendants; (iii) the allegations of the SAC do not foreclose a discrete act concerning denial of a promotion within the proper time frame for a claim under the FEHA, Title VII, or the ADEA; and (iv) the Defendants have not established that Kennedy failed to exhaust promotion claims timely. The Defendants seek to dismiss certain claims brought by Gamble and Kennedy on the grounds of: (a) failure to exhaust their administrative remedies; (b) untimeliness of the charge or suit; and (c) failure to allege the claim sufficiently. The Defendants move for an order striking paragraph 51, and the FEHA claims that incorporate it, pursuant to California's anti-SLAPP law. Pursuant to Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, they also seek to strike the Plaintiffs' litigation tactics claim (Fifth Cause of Action), portions of the SAC concerning litigation and settlement conduct, and all allegations in the claims as to which Kaiser is moving to dismiss. The motion to strike is redundant as to the matters covered in the motion to dismiss, and will be denied as to those allegations. The Plaintiffs separately moved for award of sanctions against the Defendants in connection with their filing of the anti-SLAPP motion, pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Plaintiff argues the Defendants' motion to strike is frivolous because: (1) because the California anti-SLAPP statute applies only to state law claims, not federal claims; (2) it is untimely; and (3) Gamble's claims under FEHA do not arise from petitioning activity. For the reasons stated in the Court's Order on the anti-SLAPP motion, supra section III, the Judge finds that the motion to strike, while not entirely successful, was not frivolous. The Rule 11 Motion therefore be denied. For the foregoing reasons, Judge Rogers granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss. On the First Cause of Action, insofar as it alleges a violation of section 1981, the Judge granted the unopposed motion to dismiss. To the extent that the all the causes of action in the SAC are alleged under Title VII and/or the ADEA, those claims are time-barred as to Gamble, and the motion to dismiss on those grounds is granted with leave to amend. The Plaintiffs are granted leave to amend to allege facts to avoid the time bar on these claims. She denied the motion to dismiss on all other grounds. The Judge granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' motion to strike. It is denied pursuant to the California anti-SLAPP statute for failure to demonstrate that the claims are directed to protected activity. The motion to strike under Rule 12(f) is granted with leave to amend as to paragraphs 22a-c, 40, 53, and 90, and the Fifth Cause of Action; and granted without leave to amend as to paragraph 51. The Judge denied the Plaintiff's motion for Rule 11 sanctions (Dkt. No. 35) in connection with the anti-SLAPP motion. The Plaintiffs shall file any amended complaint no later than Jan. 15, 2019. The Defendants shall file any response within 21 days thereafter. A full-text copy of the Order dated Dec. 18, 2018, is available at https://tinyurl.com/yc92g7tm for Leagle.com. Lunell Gamble & Sheila Kennedy, Plaintiffs, represented by Jeremy L. Friedman , Law Offices of Jeremy L. Friedman. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, Inc. & The Permanente Medical Group, doing business as Kaiser Permanente Medical Care Program, Defendants, represented by Claire A. Hoffmann , GBG LLP, Heather Ann Morgan , GBG LLP & Amanda Bolliger Crespo , GBG LLP. KANE FURNITURE: Scharrer Sues over Deceptive Trade Practices ------------------------------------------------------------ LEE SCHARRER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KANE FURNITURE CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 80908808 (Fla. Cir., Hillsborough Cty., Nov. 16, 2018) is an action against the Defendant for deceptive and unfair business practices in violation of the Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practice Act. In 2014, the Plaintiff purchased three items of furniture, a power reclining sofa, a power reclining love seat, and a power console) from Defendant. At that time, the Plaintiff signed the Defendant’s Sales Contract, paying a total of $3,019.65. Within a few months, the Plaintiff’s furniture began to peel, flake, and deteriorate rapidly and he promptly notified the Defendant. Thereafter, in late November 2014, Defendant inspected the Plaintiff's furniture and failed and refused to honor its lifetime guarantee. Kane Furniture Corporation operates furniture retail stores. The company provides furniture for living rooms, bedrooms, and dining rooms; mattresses; home office furniture, such as bookcases, desks, filing/storage cabinets, and office chairs; lamps and accessories; display cabinets, curios, fireplaces, and other accent furniture; and TV consoles and wall units. The company was founded in 1948 and is based in Pinellas Park, Florida. It has store locations in St. Petersburg, Sarasota, Port Charlotte, Melbourne, Ft. Myers, Naples, Ocala, and Orlando, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Daniel Clark, Esq. CLARK & MARTINO, P.A. W. Kennedy Boulevard Tampa, FL 33609 Telephone: (813) 879-0700 Facsimile: (813) 879-5498 E-mail: dclark@clarkmartino.com - and - V. Stephen Cohen, Esq. Pedro F. Bajo, Jr., Esq. BAJO CUVA COHEN & TURKEL, P.A. 100 N. Tampa Street, Suite 1900 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 443-2199 Facsimile: (813) 443-2193 E-mail: scohen@bajocuva.com - and - Ricardo A. Roig, Esq. RICARDO A. ROIG, P.L. 2803 Safe Harbor Dr. Tampa, FL 33618 Telephone: (813) 964-7530 Facsimile: (813) 441-6889 E-mail: roiglawgmail.com - and - Matthew A. Crist, Esq. CRIST LEGAL PA 606 East Madison Street Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 575-5200 Facsimile: (813) 575-2520 E-mail: cristm@cristlegal.com KANSAS CITY: Faces Suit over Foster Care Practices -------------------------------------------------- M.B. and S.E. through their next friend Katharyn McIntyre; V.A. through his next friend Kathryn Ashburn; J.M. through his next friend Ed Bigus; M.J. through his next friend Ed Bigus; R.M. through his next friend Allan Hazlett; C.A. through his next friend Allan Hazlett; Z.Z. through her next friend Ashley Thorne; B.B. through her next friend Ashley Thorne; and M.L. through her next friend Ashley Thorne, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. JEFF COLYER in his official capacity as Kansas Governor; GINA MEIER-HUMMEL in her official capacity as Kansas Department for Children and Families Secretary; JEFF ANDERSEN in his official capacity as Kansas Department of Health and Environment Secretary; and TIM KECK in his official capacity as Kansas Department for Aging and Disability Services Secretary, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-02617 (D. Kan., Nov. 16, 2018) seeks declarative and injunctive relief compelling the Defendants to remedy known dangerous practices and specific structural deficiencies in the Kansas foster care system. The Plaintiffs further seek to end violations of their federal rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and under the Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnostic, and Treatment provisions of the federal Medicaid Act, and the resulting harms, and risks of harm, to foster children in DCF custody. According to the complaint, the Defendants maintain the dangerous practice of subjecting children in foster care to extreme housing disruption, also known as churning. Children in the Kansas Department for Children and Families (DCF) custody needlessly move from placement to placement more than 15 or 20 times, and some children even move more than 50 or 100 times. Alarmingly, DCF frequently subjects children to "night-to-night" or short-term placements. In a repetitive, destabilizing cycle, children are regularly forced to sleep for a night or several nights anywhere a bed, couch, office conference room, shelter or hospital can be found. For days, weeks, or even months at time, they spend their nights in these short-term placements and their days in agency offices waiting to find out where they will sleep next, only to repeat the same cycle again. DCF's practice of extreme housing disruption inherently deprives children of basic shelter and effectively renders them homeless while in state custody. Kansas City sits on Missouri's western edge, straddling the border with Kansas. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Larry R. Rute, Esq. Benet Magnuson, Esq. KANSAS APPLESEED CENTER FOR LAW & JUSTICE, INC. 211 East 8th Street, Suite D Lawrence, KS 66044 Telephone: (785) 856-0917 E-mail: larry@adrmediate.com bmagnuson@kansasappleseed.org - and - Loretta Burns-Bucklew, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF LORETTA BURNS-BUCKLEW 401 West 89th Street Kansas City, MO 64114 Tel: (816) 384-1198 E-mail: loribblawkc@gmail.com - and - Leecia Welch, Esq. Freya Pitts, Esq. NATIONAL CENTER FOR YOUTH LAW 405 14th Street, 15th Floor Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 835-8098 Facsimile: (510) 835-8099 E-mail: lwelch@youthlaw.org fpitts@youthlaw.org - and - Ira Lustbader, Esq. Marissa C. Nardi, Esq. Jonathan M. King, Esq. Stephen A. Dixon, Esq. CHILDREN’S RIGHTS, INC. 88 Pine Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 683-2210 Facsimile: (212) 683-4015 E-mail: ilustbader@childrensrights.org mnardi@childrensrights.org jking@childrensrights.org sdixon@childrensrights.org KENTUCKY: Rule 23 Class Certification Sought in Carver Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled Roy Anderson Carver, Jr. v. The Commonwealth of Kentucky, et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-00164-JHM (W.D. Ky.), moves for class certification pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Mr. Carver of Bowling Green, Kentucky, appears pro se.[CC] KLONDEX MINES: Court Consolidates Lawon, Gunderson, and Baker Suits ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the cases, DAVID GUNDERSON, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. KLONDEX MINES LTD., RICHARD J. HALL, BLAIR SCHULTZ, RODNEY COOPER, MARK DANIEL, JAMIE HAGGARTY, PAUL ANDRE HUET, WILLIAM MATLACK, CHARLES OLIVER, HECLA MINING COMPANY, and 1156291 B.C. UNLIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, Defendants, JOHN D. LAWSON, Plaintiff, v. KLONDEX MINES LTD., RODNEY COOPER, MARK DANIEL, JAMIE HAGGARTY, RICHARD J. HALL, PAUL ANDRE HUET, WILLIAM MATLACK, CHARLES OLIVER, and BLAIR SCHULTZ, Defendants, NELSON BAKER, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. KLONDEX MINES LTD., RICHARD J. HALL, PAUL HUET, WILLIAM MATLACK, CHARLES OLIVER, BLAIR SCHULTZ, RODNEY COOPER, MARK DANIEL, and JAMES HAGGARTY, Defendants, Case Nos. 3:18-cv-00256-LRH-CBC, 3:18-cv-00284-LRH-CBC, 3:18-cv-00288-LRH-CBC (D. Nev.), Judge Larry R. Hicks of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada granted Plaintiff Lawson's motion to consolidate, be appointed the lead Plaintiff, and appoint the lead and the liaison counsel. The case is a federal securities class action filed by and on behalf of investors of Klondex who allege violations of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Rules based on the then proposed merger of Klondex with Hecla and 1156291 B.C. Unlimited Liability Company. The Plaintiffs allege the Definitive Proxy Statement filed by Klondex was materially deficient and misleading and that it did not provide stockholders with the necessary information to make an informed vote on the merger. As a result of the proposed sale, five different federal securities class actions were filed against the Defendants in the federal court between May and June, 2018. Baker filed a motion to enjoin the vote on the proposed merger on June 20, 2018. Following oral argument, the Court found that Baker had not demonstrated that he would suffer irreparable harm if the preliminary injunction was not issued and declined to enjoin the shareholder vote. Baker now moves the Court to (1) consolidate the matter with the two related cases before the court; (2) appoint him the Lead Plaintiff; and (3) appoint his chosen counsel, Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC and Monteverde & Associates PC, as co-lead counsel and Muckleroy Lunt, LLC as the liaison counsel. Plaintiff Lawson also moves the Court to consolidate these three cases but moves to appoint himself the lead Plaintiff and his chosen counsel Levi & Korsinsky, LLP ("LK") as the class counsel and Aldrich Law as the liaison counsel. Judge Hicks finds that consolidation is proper because the three matters all allege the same or similar shareholder class action claims against the Defendants for violations stemming from the same proposed transaction. Additionally, as none of these cases have yet to begin discovery, consolidation at this stage will reduce duplication and minimize expenditures for all parties. Further, neither the Plaintiffs nor the Defendants oppose consolidation. The Judge therefore will consolidate the three matters based on the overlapping questions of law and of fact and in the interests of judicial economy and efficiency under Rule 42(a). Undisputed by Baker, the Judge holds that the Plaintiff with the largest financial interest is Lawson: he owns 28,325 shares, Baker owns 12,014 shares, and Gunderson owns 1,905 shares of Klondex stock. He also finds that Lawson fits the requirements of typicality and adequacy. Finally, the Jude is not persuaded that Lawson will not adequately protect the interests of the class or is subject to a unique defense. Accordingly, he will grant Lawson's motion and appoint him the lead Plaintiff. Lawson seeks to appoint LK as the lead counsel and Aldrich Law as the liaison counsel. The Judge finds no reason that Lawson's choice of LK as class counsel and Aldrich Law as liaison counsel will not fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class, and therefore will approve both as motioned. Based on thet foregoing, Judge Hicks granted Plaintiff Lawson's motion to consolidate, be appointed the lead Plaintiff, and appoint the lead and the liaison counsel. He instructed the clerk of the Court to consolidate the matter with Gunderson v. Klondex Mine LTD. et al, case number 3:18-cv-00256-LRH-CBC, and Baker v. Klondex Mines LTD., et al., case number 3:18-cv-00288-LRH-CBC. All parties will file any actions pertaining to the class action in Lawson, No: 3:18-cv-00284. Lawson is to properly serve notice on all defendants within 60 days of the Order. The Judge denied Baker's motion to consolidate, be appointed the lead Plaintiff, and appoint the lead and the liaison counsel. The court's additional holdings are described below: In Gunderson and Baker, the Judge granted Plaintiff Lawson's motion, and denied Baker's motion. A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 18, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/vKcA5r from Leagle.com. David Gunderson, individually and obo similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Marc L. Ackerman -- mackerman@brodsky-smith.com -- Brodsky & Smith, LLC, pro hac vice, Evan Smith -- esmith@brodsky-smith.com -- Brodsk & Smith. LLC, pro hac vice & John P. Aldrich -- jaldrich@aldrichlawfirm.com -- Aldrich Law Firm, Ltd. John D. Lawson, Movant, represented by John P. Aldrich, Aldrich Law Firm, Ltd. Nelson Baker, Movant, represented by Martin Muckleroy & Michael J. Palestina -- michael.palestina@ksfcounsel.com -- Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC. L'OREAL USA: Bid to Certify Class in Carter Suit Filed ------------------------------------------------------ The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled ANGELA CARTER, ELLA VALRIE, and DORA BLACKMON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. L'OREAL USA, INC., and SOFT SHEEN-CARSON, LLC, Case No. 2:16-cv-00508-TFM-B (S.D. Ala.), move for certification of a class defined as: All resident citizens of the United States and its territories, except those of the State of New York, who purchased Soft Sheen-Carson Optimum Salon Haircare(R) brand Amla Legend "No-Mix, No-Lye" Rejuvenating Ritual Hair Relaxer for personal, family, or household use from December 1, 2012, to the present day. Excluded from the class are (i) any person who purchased Soft Sheen-Carson Optimum Salon Haircare(R) brand Amla Legend "No-Mix, No-Lye" Rejuvenating Ritual Hair Relaxer for resale and not personal, family, or household use, (ii) any person who signed a release of any Defendant in exchange for consideration, (iii) any officers, directors, or employees, or immediate family members of the officers, directors, or employees of any Defendant or any entity in which any Defendant has a controlling interest, (iv) any legal counsel of employee of legal counsel for any Defendant, and (v) the presiding Judges in this legal action, as well as the Judges' staff and their immediate family members. In their complaint, the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants breached their legal duties by misbranding their Optimum Salon Haircare(R) brand Amla Legend "No-Mix, No-Lye" Rejuvenating Ritual Hair Relaxer (hereinafter "Amla Relaxer" or "the Product"): misrepresenting the Product (1) contains "No-Lye" when its packaging reflects Sodium Hydroxide (i.e., Lye) as a listed ingredient, and (2) can "undo 2 years of [hair] damage in just 2 weeks", "rejuvenate" damaged hair and/or "reverse [hair] damage" when it cannot and does not bestow such extraordinary benefits to the foreseeable user. The Product at issue is a cosmetic hair relaxer intended to be used in one, single application to improve an individual's appearance by altering their hair shape from curly to straight.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: W. Lewis Garrison, Jr., Esq. William L. Bross, Esq. Brandy Lee Robertson, Esq. Honza J. Prchal, Esq. HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS, LLC 2224 First Avenue North Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 326-3336 Facsimile: (205) 380-8072 E-mail: wlgarrison@hgdlawfirm.com william@ghdlawfirm.com brandy@hgdlawfirm.com honza@hgdlawfirm.com - and - K. Stephen Jackson, Esq. Joseph L. "Josh" Tucker, Esq. JACKSON & TUCKER, P.C. 2229 First Avenue North Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 252-3535 Facsimile: (205) 252-3536 E-mail: steve@jacksonandtucker.com josh@jacksonandtucker.com LA FOX: Martinez Supports Claim for Damages in FLSA Suit -------------------------------------------------------- In the case, CLAUDIA MARTINEZ, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. LA FOX BP, INC and WAQAR QURESHI individually, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-299 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff submitted with Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, in support of her claim for damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and Illinois Minimum Wage Law. Martinez submits that she has executed a declaration detailing the amount of wages owing and due to her. She is owed $4,644 in unpaid overtime wages by the Defendants. The wages are owed to her since April of 2017. The Plaintiff also attaches to this filing a spread sheet which totals the amounts of unpaid wages, liquidated damages in an amount equal to the unpaid wages, and 2% interest per month for the time the wages have gone unpaid. The total damages which she seek the Court to award her is $11,474 jointly and severally by the Defendants. Additionally, the Plaintiffs request that the Court enters an award of attorneys' fees of $6162.5 which equals 14.5 hours of attorney time spent by her counsel at a rate of $425/hour. She attaches to this motion as Exhibit C a declaration and supporting exhibits to which go to the determination of the Counsel's hourly rate. Finally, the Plaintiffs request that the Court issues an order finding the Defendants liable for a total of $17.636.5 representing $11,474 damages, penalties and interest to the Plaintiff and $6162.5 in attorneys' fees. A full-text copy of the Plaintiff's Dec. 18, 2018 Declaration is available at https://is.gd/Piacfd from Leagle.com. Claudia Martinez, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jorge Sanchez -- jsanchez@lopezsanchezlaw.com -- Lopez & Sanchez, LLP. LE BERNARDIN: Ramos Seeks Minimum Wage -------------------------------------- PEDRO RAMOS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff(s), vs. LE BERNARDIN, INC., the Defendant(s), Case No. 525195/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Dec. 14, 2018), seeks to recover minimum wage under New York Labor Law. According to the complaint, Mr. Pedro Ramos worked for Defendants as a busser from 2011 through February 2015. The Defendant paid Plaintiff the tip credit minimum wage, which was less than the New York minimum wage. The Defendant was not entitled to pay Plaintiff pursuant to a tip credit because they did not give him proper notice of the minimum wage and tip credit each time the minimum wage changed. The Plaintiff occasionally worked more than 40 hours per week, as is reflected on his paystubs for the period covered by this lawsuit. Because Defendant incorrectly used the tip credit to determine the Plaintiffs regular rate, Plaintiffs overtime rate was also incorrect, the lawsuit says. Le Bernardin, Inc. was founded in 1986. The company's line of business includes the retail sale of prepared foods and drinks for on-premise consumption.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff and putative Class Members: Denise A. Schulman, Esq. Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq. JOSEPH & KIRSCHENBAUM LLP 32 Broadway, Suite 601 New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 688-5640 LEMONLEAF THAI: Underpays Deliverymen, Gu Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------ GUOPING GU, individually and on his own behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LEMONLEAF THAI RESTAURANT MINEOLA CORPORATION d/b/a LEMON LEAF THAI RESTAURANT; JIN HUI HE; and HENG LIN Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-06614 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 19, 2018) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff Gu was employed by the Defendants as deliveryman. Lemonleaf Thai Restaurant Mineola Corporation d/b/a Lemon Leaf Thai Restaurant owns and operates a Thai restaurant. The company also offers outside catering services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John Troy, Esq. TROY LAW, PLLC 41-25 Kissena Boulevard Suite 119 Flushing, NY 11355 Telephone: (718) 762-1324 LIBERTY MUTUAL: Court Dismisses R. Yates' Class Allegations ----------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, San Antonio Division, issued a Report and Recommendation granting Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings in the case captioned RICHARD YATES, DANIEL YATES, Plaintiffs, v. LIBERTY MUTUAL GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. No. SA-18-CV-01120-FB. (W.D. Tex.). The Defendant asks the Court to dismiss the Plaintiffs' class allegations as insufficient under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The Plaintiffs' Petition alleges that they were in an automobile accident with an underinsured motorist, Chase Gallagher, and as a result suffered serious and permanent injuries. The Plaintiffs claim Gallagher was 100% at fault and yet their recovery from Mr. Gallagher was insufficient to compensate them for their injuries. The Plaintiffs sue the Defendant for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, and for violations of the Texas Insurance Code and Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act. A court may dismiss class allegations where it is facially apparent from the pleadings that there is no ascertainable class. Rule 23 requires four elements for class certification: (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs fail to allege any of these elements and do not sufficiently define the proposed class of insured individuals. The extent of the Plaintiffs' class allegations are that the Defendant violated unspecified provisions of the Texas Insurance Code by misrepresenting the provisions of an insurance policy. The Plaintiffs do not identify the proposed class aside from stating that the Defendant may be liable to other members of the buying public for these violations. The Plaintiffs' summary allegations are inadequate to sustain a class action under Rule 23 as the pleadings contain no ascertainable class. Nor have the Plaintiffs attempted to clarify their allegations through the filing of a response to the Defendant's motion. Accordingly, the Court should grant the Defendant's motion for partial judgment on the pleadings. Having considered the Plaintiffs' Original Petition in light of the arguments in the Defendant's motion, as well as the lack of any response by the Plaintiff, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the Defendant's Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings be granted. A full-text copy of the District Court's December 3, 2018 Report and Recommendation is available at https://tinyurl.com/y7u8whja from Leagle.com. Richard Yates & Daniel Yates, Plaintiffs, represented by Sean M. Luchnick, Luchnick Law Firm. Liberty Mutual General Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Carrie D. Holloway, Lindow Stephens Treat LLP & David R. Stephens, Lindow Stephens Treat, LLP. LINE LLC: Website not Accessible to Blind, Dennis Says ------------------------------------------------------ DERRICK U DENNIS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. THE LINE LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-07151 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 16, 2018), seeks to put an end to systemic civil rights violations committed by Defendant against sight-impaired, disabled individuals pursuant to Title III of the Americans with Disability Act, within the State of New York and across the United States. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to access and read website content using his computer. The Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or "visually-impaired" to refer to all individuals with visual impairments who meet the legal definition of blindness in that they have a visual acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20/200. Some blind individuals who meet this definition have limited vision. Others have no vision. Based on a 2010 U.S. Census Bureau report, approximately 8.1 million individuals in the United States are visually impaired, including 2.0 million who are blind, and according to the American Foundation for the Blind's 2015 report, approximately 400,000 visually impaired persons live in the State of New York. The Plaintiff commences this civil rights action against the Defendant for the Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other similarly situated blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby and in conjunction with its physical location, is a violation of the Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Because the Defendant's website is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired individuals, it violates the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will thus become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired persons, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Jonathan Shalom, Esq. SHALOM LAW, PLLC E-mail: Jshalom@jonathanshalomlaw.com 124-04 Metropolitan Avenue Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Telephone: (718) 971-9474 Facsimile: (718) 865-0943 LMB MORTGAGE: Cunningham Sues Over TCPA Violation ------------------------------------------------- John Cunningham, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. LMB Mortgage Services, Inc. d/b/a LowerMyBills.com, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-25323-DPG (S.D. Fla., December 19, 2018) seeks damages and other equitable and legal remedies resulting from the unlawful conduct of LowerMyBills.com in sending telemarketing messages to the cellular telephones of Plaintiff and Class members without their prior express written consent, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. On November 28, 2018, Plaintiff received a text message from LowerMyBills.com encouraging Plaintiff to refinance his mortgage with LowerMyBills.com. Plaintiff has never been a customer of LowerMyBills.com and never consented to receive telemarketing text messages from LowerMyBills.com. Plaintiff brings this class action on behalf of himself and others who received Defendant's telemarketing text messages without consenting to receive such messages. LowerMyBills.com is aware of the TCPA's prohibitions against the use of automatic dialing systems and the use of artificial or prerecorded voices to make calls to cellular phones without the prior express consent of the called party. Yet, it intentionally or willfully caused autodialed, telemarketing messages to be sent to the cellular phones of Plaintiff and other consumers without their prior express written consent, says the complaint. Plaintiff John Cunningham resides in Miami Springs, Florida. LMB Mortgage Services, Inc. is a Delaware corporation. The LowerMyBills.com website identifies LMB Mortgage Services, Inc., a Delaware corporation, as its owner. LMB Mortgage Services, Inc.'s principal place of business is located at 12181 Bluff Creek Drive, Suite 250, Playa Vista, California, 90094. The NMLS Consumer Access website (to which consumers are directed by the LowerMyBills.com website) includes "LowerMyBills" and "LowerMyBills.com" as "Other Trade Names" for LMB Mortgage Services, Inc., and designates the website for LMB Mortgage Services, Inc. as "www.lowermybills.com".[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam M. Moskowitz, Esq. Howard M. Bushman, Esq. Adam A. Schwartzb, Esq.aum, Esq. THE MOSKOWITZ LAW FIRM, PLLC 2 Alhambra Plaza, Suite 601 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Phone: (305) 740-1423 Email: adam@moskowitz-law.com howard@moskowitz-law.com adams@moskowitz-law.com - and - Allan A. Joseph, Esq. Jeffrey J. Molinaro, Esq. Fuerst Ittleman David & Joseph SunTrust International Tower One Southeast Third Avenue, Suite 1800 Miami, FL 33131 Phone: (305) 350-5690 Email: jmolinaro@fidjlaw.com ajoseph@fidjlaw.com - and - Daniel C. Girard, Esq. Simon S. Grille, Esq. GIRARD GIBBS LLP 601 California Street, 14th Floor San Francisco, CA 94108 Phone: (415) 981-4800 Email: dcg@girardgibbs.com sg@girardgibbs.com LUMILEDS LLC: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Chaudri's NJCFA Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey issued an Opinion denying Defendant's Motion to Dismiss plaintiff Imran Chaudhri's complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), 12(b)(2), 12(b)(6), and 12(f) in the putative class action styled IMRAN CHAUDHRI, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. LUMILEDS LLC, Defendant. Civ. No. 18-2167 (KM) (CLW). (D.N.J.). Chaudhri has brought various claims sounding in fraud pertaining to certain advertising of an automotive headlamp bulb that is manufactured by Lumileds. The plaintiff, when he read the packaging for defendant's X-TremeVision headlamp bulb, hoped it would satisfy his Goethesque quest for more light. The question here is whether the bulb's packaging represented that the X-tremeVision headlamp bulb would project its beams (a) more brightly in all directions, as measured by a laboratory luminous flux test; or (b) farther, e.g., as measured from the front of a car when the bulb is installed in the headlight lens/reflector assembly. Lumileds moves to dismiss Chaudhri's complaint on several grounds. First, Lumileds moves to dismiss the fraud claims for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and for failure to plead fraud with specificity under Rule 9(b). Lumileds further claims that Chaudhri has insufficiently pled reliance, a causal link between the misrepresentation and a purported loss, and damages. As to the claims of negligent misrepresentation and common law fraud, Lumileds asserts that the complaint fails to plead Lumileds's knowledge of falsity. Lumileds also moves to dismiss Chaudhri's complaint under Rule 12(b)(1), claiming that Chaudhri lacks standing to sue. Chaudhri, says Lumileds, is a serial litigant whose claimed injuries are self-inflicted, solely for the purpose of litigation. Lumileds moves to dismiss Chaudhri's New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (NJCFA) claim on the basis that he has insufficiently pled (1) unlawful conduct on the part of defendants (2) a causal connection between Lumileds's unlawful conduct and an ascertainable loss and (3) damages. To state a claim under the NJCFA, a plaintiff must allege the following three elements: (1) unlawful conduct by the defendants (2) an ascertainable loss on the part of the plaintiff and (3) a causal relationship between the defendants' unlawful conduct and the plaintiff's ascertainable loss. Lumileds focuses on the representation in the middle of the package card. It consists of an image of a car with its beams shining to the right, well past a vertical line marked standard, leading the eye to the message +100%. The message conveyed, says Lumileds, is that its X-tremeVision bulbs, when installed, project light farther down the road when compared to standard bulbs. In contrast, Chaudhri focuses on the written, unillustrated representation of +100% more light at the top of the package card. The Court finds that Chaudhri has sufficiently pled a claim under the NJCFA. He alleges that the +100% more light claim on the package is a form of unlawful conduct specifically, an affirmative act of misrepresentation. Lumileds knew the representation was false, he says, the bulbs had to conform with federal regulations, which would not have permitted them to be twice as bright. Luminous flux measurement, like that conducted by Calcoast, would have revealed that the number of Lumens produced by the bulbs is not 100% more than that of standard bulbs. The representation allegedly was intended to, and did, induce consumers to buy. Chaudhri paid approximately $59.99 for two Phillips X-tremeVision headlamp bulbs, as opposed to $10.99 for a single standard bulb. He alleges that he bought the more expensive X-tremeVision product based on the representation that it would produce 100% more light. A full-text copy of the District Court's December 3, 2018 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/yaafppeo from Leagle.com. IMRAN CHAUDHRI, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by BARRY R. EICHEN, Eichen Crutchlow Zaslow & McElroy, LLP, EVAN J. ROSENBERG, EICHEN CRUTCHLOW ZASLOW, LLC, THOMAS PACIORKOWSKI & JONATHAN DAVID SINGER, Eichen Crutchlow Zaslow, LLP. LUMILEDS, LLC., Defendant, represented by JEFFREY J. GREENBAUM -- jgreenbaum@sillscummis.com -- SILLS CUMMIS & GROSS P.C. & PATRICK CHRISTOPHER GILMARTIN -- pgilmartin@sillscummis.com -- SILLS CUMMIS & GROSS P.C. LYONS DOUGHTY: NJ Court Dismisses G. Gross's FDCPA Suit ------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey issued an Opinion granting Defendant Lyons, Doughty & Veldhuis, P.C.'s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Glenn D. Gross's putative class action Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) in the case captioned GLENN D. GROSS, Plaintiff, v. LYONS, DOUGHTY & VELDHUIS, P.C., Defendant. Civil No. 18-07963 (RBK/AMD). (D.N.J.). The Defendant sent Plaintiff a written communication (Defendant's letter) in connection with the collection of the alleged credit card debt. The Defendant's letter was the first communication the Plaintiff received from the Defendant, and the Plaintiff did not receive any other communication from the Defendant within five days of this letter. The Plaintiff argues that Defendant's letter violates the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). The Plaintiff specifically charges that the letter violated the validated notices requirement under Section 1692g(a)(2) for failing to specify the name of the creditor to whom the Plaintiff's debt was owed. The Defendant argues that the Plaintiff has read Section 1692g(a)(2) too narrowly and that the letter contains the requisite information pursuant to the FDCPA. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) allows a court to dismiss an action for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. When evaluating a motion to dismiss, courts accept all factual allegations as true, construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and determine whether, under any reasonable reading of the complaint, the plaintiff may be entitled to relief. To prevail on an FDCPA claim, a plaintiff must prove that (1) the plaintiff is a consumer (2) the defendant is a debt collector (3) the challenged conduct involves the defendant's attempt to collect a debt as statutorily defined and (4) the defendant has violated a provision of the FDCPA in attempting to collect the debt. Section 1692g(a)(2) describes the written notice requirement. Specifically, within five days after the initial communication with a consumer in connection with the collection of any debt, a debt collector shall send the consumer a written notice containing the name of the creditor to whom the debt is owed. The statute also requires debt collectors to furnish a statement that, upon the consumer's written request within the thirty-day period, the debt collector will provide the consumer with the name and address of the original creditor, if different from the current creditor. The Plaintiff argues that the letter does not effectively convey the name of the creditor because the Defendant included the chain of title of the debt rather than providing the name of the current creditor alone. The thrust of the Plaintiff's argument focuses on the letter's use of the word assignee and mention of more than two entities. Here, the Defendant's letter is sufficiently clear and complies with 1692g(a)(2). First, the letter states at the beginning, Please be advised that this office represents Capital One Bank (USA), N.A. The letter also says, "THIS FIRM LYONS, DOUGHTY AND VELDHUIS, P.C. IS A DEBT COLLECTOR. THIS LETTER IS AN ATTEMPT TO COLLECT A DEBT." The Defendant's letter specifies the relationship between the Defendant, the debt collector, and Capital One Bank (USA), N.A. as assignee of the debt, the Defendant's client. The Plaintiff here was therefore not left to guess who owned the debt because Defendant's letter clearly indicated that Defendant was the debt collector, whose office represents Capital One Bank (USA), N.A. In addition, the letter here specifies the name of the creditor in both the subject line and the body of the letter and distinguishes the creditor's name from the chain of title of the debt by differentiating the capitalization. While this specification is not itself dispositive, such clear declarations support a finding that the content is fair notice, readable, and obviously relating to an outstanding debt owed to the creditor and whose recovery is sought by a debt collector. Put simply, the letter complies with 1692g(a)(2) in that it provides the consumer a written notice clearly indicating "the name of the creditor to whom the debt is owed. A sister court in our circuit reached a similar conclusion when considering a seemingly identical letter to the one before the Court. In Davis v. Lyons, Doughty & Veldhuis, P.A., the United States District Court for the District of Delaware found that the defendants the same Defendants in the instant case sufficiently identified the current creditor. 855 F.Supp.2d 279, 284 (D. Del. 2012). That letter, virtually indistinguishable from the one here, included the creditor's name in the subject line and began the letter with Please be advised that this office represents Midland Funding LLC in connection with your account. The Davis court, noting how the subject line highlighted the relationship of the parties, specifically found that this language was not deceptive. The Court noted further that hold differently would improperly make all defendants liable for bizarre or idiosyncratic interpretations of collection notices. Because the Defendant's debt collection letter clearly identifies the current creditor, and the Plaintiff does not allege that Defendant's letter violates any other provision of the FDCPA, the Plaintiff's complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. A full-text copy of the District Court's December 3, 2018 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/ycuzskzt from Leagle.com. GLENN D. GROSS, Plaintiff, represented by SETH ASHER NADLER -- seth@lawicm.com -- IMBESI LAW P.C. LYONS, DOUGHTY & VELDHUIS, P.C., Defendant, represented by LAURIE H. LYONS, LYONS, DOUGHTY & VELDHUIS, P.C. MACADO'S INC: Spencer Asks to Certify Servers & Bartenders Class ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled Jeffery Spencer, Jr., Travis E. Hostetter, and Cheyenne Williams, Individually, and on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated current and former employees v. Macado's, Inc., Case No. 6:18-cv-00005-NKM-RSB (W.D. Va.), move the Court to issue an order: (1) authorizing this case to proceed as a collective action against the Defendant to recover unpaid wages, unpaid minimum wage compensation, liquidated damages, unlawfully withheld wages, statutory penalties, attorneys' fees and costs, and other damages owed, for minimum wage violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act on behalf of Hourly-Paid Tipped Employees (servers and bartenders) of Defendant during the last three years; (2) directing the Defendant to immediately provide a list of names, last known addresses, and last known telephone numbers for all putative class members within the last three years; (3) providing that notice be prominently posted at each of the Defendant's restaurants in the Eastern United States where putative class members work, be attached to its current Hourly-Paid Tipped Employees' next scheduled pay check, and be mailed and emailed to each such current and former Hourly-Paid Tipped Employee who was so employed during the last three years so each can assess their claims on a timely basis as part of this litigation; (4) issue an order tolling the statute of limitations for the putative class as of the date this motion is granted (excluding those already have opted into this action); and (5) requiring that the opt in Plaintiffs' Consent Forms be deemed "filed" on the date they are postmarked.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gordon E. Jackson, Esq. J. Russ Bryant, Esq. JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER & HOLT 262 German Oak Drive Memphis, TN 38018 Telephone: (901) 754-8001 Facsimile: (901) 754-8524 E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com rbryant@jsyc.com - and - Johneal Moore White, Esq. GLENN ROBINSON CATHEY MEMMER & SKAFF, PLC 400 Salem Avenue, S.W., Suite 100 Roanoke, VA 24016 Telephone: (540) 767-2206 Facsimile: (540) 767-2220 E-mail: jwhite@glennrob.com MAGNOLIA FLOORING: Ross et al Seek Overtime Pay under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------- VINCENT ROSS, JUSTIN JACKSON and DEVANTE FRANKLIN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the PLAINTIFFS, vs. MAGNOLIA FLOORING MILL, LLC, the DEFENDANT, Case No. 1:18-cv-01075-SOH (W.D. Ark., Dec. 14, 2018), seeks declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs as a result of Defendant's failure to pay Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated overtime compensation for all hours that Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated worked in excess of 40 per workweek, under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act. According to the complaint, each Plaintiff worked more than 40 hours in at least one week in which they also earned a bonus, and their bonuses were not included in the calculation of their overtime pay rate. Other hourly-paid employees also worked more than 40 hours in at least one week during the time period relevant to this Complaint in which they also earned a bonus, and their bonuses were not included in the calculation of their overtime pay rate. The Defendant violated the FLSA and AMWA by not including Plaintiffs' bonuses in their regular rates when calculating their overtime pay, the lawsuit says. The Plaintiffs were originally opt-in plaintiffs in Franklin v. Magnolia Flooring Mill, Inc., No. 1:17-cv-1073 (W.D. Ark.) under Section 216(b), which requires the consent of the opt-in to prosecute. Plaintiffs have withdrawn their consents in that case, as they were only FLSA opt-ins, which meant that they did not have the benefit of the AMWA's automatic three year statute of limitations. The Plaintiffs have filed this case, seeking to preserve their automatic three year statute of limitations, in addition to a three year statute for the members of the Rule 23 class. Defendant conducts business within the State of Arkansas, operating and/or managing a flooring manufacturing and installation company.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Joshua West, Esq. Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC One Financial Center 650 South Shackleford Road, Suite 411 Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: (501) 221-0088 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 E-mail: west@sanfordlawfirm.com josh@sanfordlawfirm.com MARRIOTT INT'L: Faces Rapak Suit Over Data Breach at Starwood ------------------------------------------------------------- THOMAS J. RAPAK, individually and on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL INC., and STARWOOD HOTELS & RESORTS WORLDWIDE LLC, Case No. 3:18-cv-02005 (D. Conn., December 7, 2018), is brought on behalf of a class of persons, who have suffered, and continue to suffer, financial losses and increased data security risks as a direct result of the Defendants' alleged failure to safeguard and protect their customers' highly sensitive personally identifiable information, including names, mailing addresses, phone numbers, e-mail addresses, passport numbers, and Starwood Preferred Guest ("SPG") account information. On November 30, 2018, Marriott issued a press release announcing that since 2014 unauthorized third parties had access to Marriott's Starwood Guest Reservation database ("SGR Database"), and that up to 500 million guests could be affected by the breach. Marriott International Inc. is a publicly traded Delaware corporation having its principal executive offices located at in Bethesda, Maryland. Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, LLC, is an indirect, wholly-owned subsidiary of MII. Marriott owns and manages hotel properties located in various states throughout the United States. Marriott has more than 6,700 properties in 127 countries and territories, under 30 hotel brands, including 3,150 lodging properties located in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Vincent Briganti, Esq. Christian Levis, Esq. Johnathan P. Seredynski, Esq. Anthony M. Christina, Esq. LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C. 44 South Broadway, Suite 1100 White Plains, NY 10601-2310 Telephone: (914) 997-0500 E-mail: vbriganti@lowey.com clevis@lowey.com jseredynski@lowey.com achristina@lowey.com MARRIOTT INT'L: Golin Files Tort Class Suit in Connecticut ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Marriott International, Inc. The case is styled as Barry Golin and Laura Gononian, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Marriott International, Inc. and Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-02080-AVC (D. Conn., December 19, 2018). The docket of the case states the cause of action as Tort Action. Marriott International, Inc. operates, franchises, and licenses hotel, residential, and timeshare properties worldwide. The company operates through three segments: North American Full-Service, North American Limited-Service, and Asia Pacific.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David R. Schaefer, Esq. Brenner, Saltzman & Wallman 271 Whitney Ave. New Haven, CT 06511-1746 Tel: (203) 772-2600 Fax: (203) 562-2098 Email: dschaefer@bswlaw.com - and - Sean M. Fisher, Esq. Brenner, Saltzman & Wallman 271 Whitney Avenue New Haven, CT 06511-1746 Tel: (203) 772-2600 Fax: (203) 562-2098 Email: sfisher@bswlaw.com MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: DeMarco Sues Over Data Breach ----------------------------------------------------- Sean DeMarco and David Johnson III, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. Marriott International, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-10490 (C.D. Cal., December 18, 2018) seek for themselves and the Class, injunctive relief, actual and other economic damages, consequential damages, nominal damages or statutory damages, punitive damages, and attorneys' fees, litigation expenses and costs of suit. On November 30, 2018, Marriott announced one of the largest data breaches in history. The Marriott data breach, which was not announced until at least four years after it first began, involves some of the most sensitive and private information from approximately 500 million consumers whose information was on Marriott's Starwood guest reservation database. As the result of Marriott's inadequate cybersecurity, the Data Breach occurred and Plaintiffs' and the other Class members' personal information was compromised and stolen, placing them at an increased risk of fraud and identity theft, and causing direct financial expenses associated with credit monitoring, replacement of passports, compromised credit, debit and bank card numbers, and other measures needed to protect against fraud arising from the Data Breach, says the complaint. Plaintiff Sean DeMarco resides in Torrance, California. Mr. DeMarco provided Marriott with his confidential and highly sensitive personal and private information in connection with making reservations at Marriott's Starwood hotels. Plaintiff David Johnson III resides in Port Richey, Florida. Mr. Johnson provided Marriott with his confidential and highly sensitive personal and private information in connection with making reservations at Marriott's Starwood hotels. Marriott, International, Inc. is a Delaware corporation, with its headquarters and principal place of business located at 10400 Fernwood Road, Bethesda, Maryland 20817.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Leslie E. Hurst, Esq. Paula R. Brown, Esq. BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON, LLP 501 West Broadway, Suite 1490 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: 619/338-1100 Fax: 619/338-1101 Email: lhurst@bholaw.com pbrown@bholaw.com - and - Matthew Taylor Ernst, Esq. ERNST LAW GROUP 1020 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Phone: 805/541-0300 Fax: 805/541-5168 Email: TE@ErnstLawGroup.com MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Erlbaum Sues Over Data Breach ----------------------------------------------------- Jeffrey Erlbaum, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Marriott International, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-03764 (D. Md., December 6, 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 Maryland's Consumer Protection 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. Erlbaum is a Marriott customer who used the Starwood reservation system. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 1828 L Street, NW, Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 973-0900 Facsimile: (202) 973-0950 Email: hzavareei@tzlegal.com - and - Stephen R. Basser, Esq. Jeffrey W. Golan, Esq. Julie B. Palley, Esq. BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE One America Plaza 600 West Broadway, Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92101 Tel: (619) 230-0800 Fax: (619) 230-1874 Email: jgolan@barrack.com sbasser@barrack.com jpalley@barrack.com MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Grady, Kleiman Sue Over Data Breach ----------------------------------------------------------- Brian Grady and Mark Kleiman, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Marriott International, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-07358 (N.D. Cal., December 6, 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 violation of Maryland's Consumer Protection 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. Grady and Kleiman are Marriott customers who used the Starwood reservation system. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Eric A. Grover, Esq. Alexander S. Vahdat, Esq. KELLER GROVER LLP 1965 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94103 Telephone: (415) 543-1305 Facsimile: (415) 543-7861 Email: eagrover@kellergrover.com avahdat@kellergrover.com MENARD INC: FLSA Class of Workers Certified in Astarita Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ The Hon. Roseann A. Ketchmark issued an order in the lawsuit titled ALBERT J. ASTARITA, DIANA M. OWENS v. MENARD, INC., Case No. 5:17-cv-06151-RK (W.D. Mo.), conditionally certifying this class under Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act: All present and former hourly employees who worked or are working at Menard's retail home improvement stores and/or distribution centers throughout the United States at any time from December 21, 2014 to the present, and participated in the In-Home Training Program without compensation, who worked 40 or more hours per workweek including any time spent in in-home training, and whose employment agreement does not contain a class or collective action waiver. Judge Ketchmark appointed Diana M. Owens as class representative and McClelland Law Firm, P.C., as class counsel. Judge Ketchmark also ruled that: -- within three days of this Order, Defendant Menard, Inc. will provide Plaintiff Diana M. Owens with the last known contact information for each member of the approximately 12,837 putative class members in a Microsoft Excel document. This list is identical to the list provided to the class counsel in Griffith, et al. v. Menard, Inc., Case No. 3:18-cv-02074, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Ohio, Western Division; -- within 21 days of this Order, the Notice of Collective Action and Consent Form shall be mailed via first-class mail to all putative class members by Analytics Consulting, LLC, a third-party class action administrator retained by Plaintiff Diana M. Owens' counsel; and -- all Consent Forms must be returned by putative class members pursuant to the Notice of Collective Action within 45 days of the mailing date in order for them to participate in this action.[CC] MIAMI PERFECT TRAVEL: De Armas Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Reinaldo De Aarmas, and all others similarly situated Plaintiff, v. Miami Perfect Travel, Corp., a Florida Corporation, and Roberto Vasquez, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-25341-MGC (S.D. Fla., December 19, 2018) is an action seeking to recover monetary damages, liquidated damages, interests, costs and attorney's fees for willful violations of overtime wages under the laws of the United States, and the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff was employed from on or about June 3, 2014 through April 30, 2018. Plaintiff worked approximately 88 hours per week. Plaintiff was not paid overtime wages when he worked more than 40 hours per week. Accordingly, Plaintiff claims the halftime rate for each hour worked over 40 hours weekly. The complaint says the Defendants knew and/or showed reckless disregard of the provisions of the FLSA concerning the payment of overtime wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendants were aware of Plaintiff's work schedule and further aware that Plaintiff was working more than 40 hours per week. Defendants were aware of Plaintiff's pay records and the rate that he was being paid for his hours. Defendants were aware of their obligation to pay overtime and/or failed to conduct a reasonable investigation as to whether they were obligated to pay overtime wages. Despite the obligation to pay overtime and that Plaintiff was working overtime, Defendants continued to fail to pay overtime wages, says the complaint. Plaintiff is a resident of Miami-Dade County, Florida. Miami Perfect Travel is a Florida corporation which regularly conducted business within the Southern District of Florida as a company that provided local transportation services. Individual Defendant, Roberto Vasquez, is the "employer".[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Isaac Mamane, Esq. Mamane Law LLC 10800 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 350A Miami, FL 33161 Phone (305) 773 - 6661 Email: mamane@gmail.com MIDLAND CREDIT: Certification of Class Sought in Adkins Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled STEPHANIE ADKINS and, DOUGLAS SHORT, on behalf of themselves And all others similarly situated v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., Case No. 5:17-cv-04107 (S.D.W. Va.), ask the Court to certify this class of similarly situated persons: All persons with West Virginia addresses to whom Midland sent a debt collection letter on or after July 4, 2017 seeking to collect debt that Midland's records indicated had passed its statute of limitations, which letter failed to provide the following disclosure: "The law limits how long you can be sued on a debt. Because of the age of your debt, [Midland] cannot sue you for it."[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Patricia M. Kipnis, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER LLP 923 Haddonfield Road, Suite 300 Cherry Hill, NJ 08002 Telephone: (856) 324-8219 E-mail: pkipnis@baileyglasser.com - and - Jonathan R. Marshall, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER LLP 209 Capitol Street Charleston, WV 25301 Telephone: (304) 345-6555 E-mail: jmarshall@baileyglasser.com - and - Steven R. Broadwater, Jr., Esq. HAMILTON, BURGESS, YOUNG & POLLARD, P.L.L.C. P.O. Box 959 Fayetteville, WV 25840 Telephone: (304) 574-2727 E-mail: sbroadwater@hamiltonburgess.com The Defendant is represented by: Jason E. Manning, Esq. Megan E. Burns, Esq. TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP 222 Central Park Avenue, Suite 2000 Virginia Beach, VA 23462 Telephone: (757) 687-7500 E-mail: jason.manning@troutman.com megan.burns@troutman.com MIDLAND FUNDING: Dotson Sues over Debt Collection Practices ----------------------------------------------------------- LUIS DOTSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MIDLAND FUNDING, LLC; MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC.; and JOHN DOES 1 to 10, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-16253-JLL-JAD (D.N.J., Nov. 16, 2018) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. The case is assigned to Chief Judge Jose L. Linares and referred to Magistrate Judge Joseph A. Dickson. Midland Funding LLC provides debt collection services. The company was incorporated in 2005 and is based in San Diego, California. Midland Funding LLC operates as a subsidiary of Midland Portfolio Services, Inc. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yongmoon Kim, Esq. KIM LAW FIRM LLC 411 Hackensack Ave Ste 701 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 273-7117 Facsimile: (201) 273-7117 E-mail: ykim@kimlf.com MONINI NORTH: 2nd Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Jessani Suit -------------------------------------------------------- The United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, issued an Order affirming the judgment of the District Court granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case captioned VINAY JESSANI and WENDY BURNETT, individually, and on behalf of all others similarity situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. MONINI NORTH AMERICA, INC., Defendant-Appellee. No. 17-2504-cv. (2nd Cir.). The Plaintiffs in this putative class action, Vinay Jessani and Wendy Burnett, appeal from a judgment entered in favor of defendant Monini North America, Inc. (Monini). The Plaintiffs argue that whether a reasonable consumer is likely to be misled by a labeling claim is almost always an issue of fact that is inappropriate for decision on a motion to dismiss. But it is well settled that a court may determine as a matter of law that an allegedly deceptive advertisement would not have misled a reasonable consumer. Accordingly, the plaintiffs must do more than plausibly allege that a label might conceivably be misunderstood by some few consumers. According to the plaintiffs, truffles are the most expensive food in the world. Unlike artificial truffle flavorin which the plaintiffs describe as a distant cry from real truffles actual truffles cost hundreds or even thousands of dollars per ounce. In this context, representations that otherwise might be ambiguous and misleading are not: it is simply not plausible that a significant portion of the general consuming public acting reasonably would conclude that Monini's mass produced, modestly-priced olive oil was made with the most expensive food in the world. This is particularly so given that the product's ingredient list contains no reference to the word truffle and the primary label describes the product only as being Truffle Flavored. Accordingly, the plaintiffs' state law consumer protection claims fail. Thus, the judgment of the district court is affirmed. A full-text copy of the Second Circuit's December 3, 2018 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ybwtj8m2 from Leagle.com. JOSHUA D. ARISOHN -- jarisohn@bursor.com -- Bursor & Fisher, P.A., New York, NY, for Plaintiffs-Appellants. JEFFREY WARSHAFSKY -- jwarshafsky@proskauer.com -- Lawrence I. Weinstein -- lweistein@proskauer.com -- on the brief), Proskauer Rose LLP, New York, NY, for Defendant-Appellee. MULLOOLY & JEFFREY: Final Certification of Settlement Class Sought ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as NILGUN GADIME, an individual; on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. LAW OFFICE MULLOOLY, JEFFREY, ROONEY & FLYNN, LLP, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00777-JMA-AKT (E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff will move the Court on January 3, 2019, for an Order: 1. granting final approval of settlement on the terms and conditions set forth in the parties' settlement agreement and the Court's Order granting preliminary approval; 2. finally certifying a class, for settlement purposes only: "all persons with addresses in the State of New York, to whom The Law Office Mullooly, Jeffrey, Rooney & Flynn, LLP mailed a written communication between February 10, 2016, and March 2, 2017, which sought to collect a medical debt from the parent of an adult child"; 3. releasing MJRF from all claims and dismissing with prejudice all claims of Class Members who did not timely exclude themselves from the Settlement; 4. approving payments to Plaintiff, Class Members, and Class Counsel; 5. retaining continuing jurisdictionover the settlement proceedings, to ensure the effectuation thereof in accor dance with the agreement and final approval order; and 6. granting related orders and findings as are set forth in the Proposed Final Approval Order, to be submitted by the Parties.[CC] Attorney for Plaintiff, Nilgun Gadime, and the certified class: Abraham Kleinman, Esq. K LEINMAN LLC 626 RXR Plaza Uniondale, NY 11556-0626 Telephone: (516) 522-2621 Facsimile: (888) 522-1692 E-Mail: akleinman@kleinmanllc.com MUTUAL HOUSING: Rivera Seeks to Recover Overtime Under FLSA, CMWA ----------------------------------------------------------------- PATRICIA RIVERA, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. MUTUAL HOUSING ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHWESTERN CONNECTICUT, INC. d/b/a CONNECTICUT HOUSING PARTNERS and CREATIVE FINANCIAL STAFFING, INC., Case No. 3:18-cv-02006 (D. Conn., December 7, 2018), seeks to recover alleged unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs as a result of the Defendants' willful violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Connecticut Minimum Wage Act. Mutual Housing Association of Southwestern Connecticut, Inc., doing business as Connecticut Housing Partners, is an entity created and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the state of Connecticut and maintains a principal place of business in Bridgeport, Connecticut. Mutual Housing operates affordable housing for approximately "508 units in 15 developments" in areas, such as Bridgepoint, Fairfield, Trumbull, Norwalk, Stamford and Wilton in the state of Connecticut. Creative Financial Staffing, Inc., is an entity created and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the state of Delaware and maintains a principal place of business in Boston, Massachusetts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew C. Sorokin, Esq. THE SOROKIN LAW FIRM 9 Lewis Street Hartford, CT 06103 Telephone: (860) 776-6017 E-mail: mat@sorokinlaw.com - and - Jason T. Brown, Esq. BROWN, LLC 111 Town Square Place, Suite 400 Jersey City, NJ 07310 Telephone: (877) 561-0000 Facsimile: (855) 582-5297 E-mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com MYLAN NV: Certification of Consumer Classes Sought in EpiPen MDL ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Class Plaintiffs in the Consumer Class Cases in the multidistrict litigation entitled In re EPIPEN (EPINEPHRINE INJECTION, USP) MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES AND ANTITRUST LITIGATION, MDL No. 2:17-md-02785-DDC-TJJ (D. Kan.), move to certify five classes: 1. Nationwide RICO Damages Class: All persons and entities in the United States who paid or provided reimbursement for some or all of the purchase price of Branded or AB-rated generic EpiPens for the purpose of consumption, and not resale, by themselves, their family member(s), insureds, plan participants, employees, or beneficiaries, at any time from August 24, 2011, until the effects of Defendants' unlawful conduct cease; 2. State Antitrust Damages Class: All persons and entities in the Antitrust States who paid or provided reimbursement for some or all of the purchase price of Branded EpiPens at any time from January 28, 2013, until the effects of Defendants' unlawful conduct cease, for the purpose of consumption, and not resale, by themselves, their family member(s), insureds, plan participants, employees, or beneficiaries; 3. Consumer Protection Damages Class: All persons and entities in the Consumer Protection States who paid or provided reimbursement for some or all of the purchase price of Branded EpiPens at any time from August 24, 2011, until the effects of Defendants' unlawful conduct cease, for the purpose of consumption, and not resale, by themselves, their family member(s), insureds, plan participants, employees, or beneficiaries; 4. Unjust Enrichment Class: All persons and entities in the Unjust Enrichment States who paid or provided reimbursement for some or all of the purchase price of Branded or AB-rated generic EpiPens for the purpose of consumption, and not resale, by themselves, their family member(s), insureds, plan participants, employees, or beneficiaries, at any time from August 24, 2011, until the effects of Defendants' unlawful conduct cease; and 5. Nationwide Injunctive Relief Class: All persons and entities in the United States who paid or provided reimbursement for some or all of the purchase price of Branded or AB-rated generic EpiPens for the purpose of consumption, and not resale, by themselves, their family member(s), insureds, plan participants, employees, or beneficiaries, at any time from August 24, 2011, until the effects of Defendants' unlawful conduct cease. These groups are excluded from all Classes: (a) Defendants and their officers, directors, management, employees, subsidiaries, and affiliates; (b) Government entities, other than government-funded employee benefit plans; (c) Fully insured health plans (i.e., plans that purchased insurance that covered 100% of the plan's reimbursement obligations to all of its members); (d) "Single flat co-pay" consumers who purchased EpiPens or generic EpiPens only via a fixed dollar co-payment that is the same for all covered devices, whether branded or generic (e.g., $20 for all branded and generic devices); (e) Consumers who purchased or received EpiPens or AB-rated generic equivalents through a Medicaid program only; (f) All persons or entities who purchased branded or generic EpiPens directly from Defendants; and (g) The Judges in this case and members of their immediate families. The Class Plaintiffs are Local 282 Welfare Trust Fund, Rosetta Serrano, Lesley Huston, Kenneth Evans, Christopher Rippy, Nikitia Marshall, Elizabeth Huelsman, Stacee Svites, Raymond Buchta III, Lee Seltzer, Linda Wagner, Vishal Aggarwal, Joy Shepard, Lorraine Wight, Teia Amell, Todd Beaulieu, Anastasia Johnston, Annette Sutorik, Heather DeStefano, Elizabeth Williamson, Shannon Clements, Mark Kovarik, Laura Chapin, Michael Gill, Suzanne Harwood, Donna Wemple, Sonya North, Jennifer Walton, April Sumner, Meredith Krimmel, Landon Ipson, Kenneth Steinhauser, Donna Anne Dvorak, Angie Nordstrum, and Carly Bowersock. The Class Plaintiffs also move the Court for an order appointing them as class representatives, and appointing as Class Counsel the attorneys previously appointed by the Court in its Order Appointing Counsel as Class Counsel, ECF No. 40 (with the respectful exception of Eric Hochstradt, Counsel for Sanofi).[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Paul J. Geller, Esq. Stuart A. Davidson, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Telephone: (561) 750-3000 Facsimile: (561) 750-3364 E-mail: pgeller@rgrdlaw.com sdavidson@rgrdlaw.com - and - Brian O. O'Mara, Esq. Arthur L. Shingler, III, Esq. Lea Malani Bays, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101-8498 Telephone: (619) 231-1058 Facsimile: (619) 231-7423 E-mail: bomara@rgrdlaw.com ashingler@rgrdlaw.com lbays@rggrdlaw.com - and - Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Esq. Derek W. Loeser, Esq. Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq. Gretchen S. Obrist, Esq. KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-1900 Facsimile: (206) 623-3384 E-mail: lsarko@kellerrohrback.com dloeser@kellerrohrback.com gcappio@kellerrohrback.com gobrist@kellerrohrback.com - and - Warren T. Burns, Esq. Spencer Cox, Esq. BURNS CHAREST LLP 900 Jackson Street, Suite 500 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (469) 904-4550 Facsimile: (469) 444-5002 E-mail: wburns@burnscharest.com scox@burnscharest.com - and - Rex A. Sharp, Esq. Ryan C. Hudson, Esq. REX A. SHARP, P.A. 5301 West 75th Street Prairie Village, KS 66208 Telephone: (913) 901-0505 Facsimile: (913) 901-0419 E-mail: rsharp@midwest-law.com rhudson@midwest-law.com - and - Elizabeth C. Pritzker, Esq. PRITZKER LEVINE LLP 180 Grand Avenue, Suite 1390 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (415) 692-0772 Facsimile: (415) 366-6110 E-mail: ecp@pritzkerlevine.com - and - Sharon Almonrode, Esq. THE MILLER LAW FIRM 950 West University Drive, Suite 300 Rochester, MI 48307 Telephone: (248) 841-2200 Facsimile: (248) 652-2852 E-mail: ssa@millerlawpc.com - and - W. Mark Lanier, Esq. Regan E. Bradford, Esq. Cristina Delise, Esq. THE LANIER LAW FIRM 6810 FM 1960 West Houston, TX 77069 Telephone: (713) 659-5200 E-mail: wml@lanierlawfirm.com Reagan.Bradford@lanierlawfirm.com cristina.delise@lanierlawfirm.com - and - Damien J. Marshall, Esq. Duane L. Loft, Esq. BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP 575 Lexington Avenue, 7th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 446-2300 Facsimile: (212) 446-2350 E-mail: dmarshall@bsfllp.com dloft@bsfllp.com - and - Rosemary M. Rivas, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP 30 Broad Street, 24th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 E-mail: rrivas@zlk.com - and - Steven N. Williams, Esq. Jiamie Chen, Esq. JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, INC 601 California Street, Suite 1000 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 500-6800 Facsimile: (415) 395-9940 E-mail: swilliams@saverilawfirm.com jchen@saverilawfirm.com NATIONAL RESPONSE: Faces Sullivan Suit in Sacramento ---------------------------------------------------- An employment-related class action lawsuit has been filed against National Response Corporation. The case is captioned as KEVIN SULLIVAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NATIONAL RESPONSE CORPORATION; NRC ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES INC.; PAUL TAVEIRA; and DOES 1-100, Defendants, Case No. 34-2018-00244757-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., Nov. 16, 2018). National Response Corporation provides environmental, industrial, and emergency response solutions worldwideNational Response Corporation was incorporated in 1991 and is based in Great River, New York with an additional headquarter in Milton Keynes, United Kingdom. It has operations in the United States, Europe, the Middle East, the Caspian and Black Sea, the Mediterranean and North Africa, Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa, and the Caribbean. National Response Corporation is a former subsidiary of SEACOR Environmental Services, Inc. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by Galen T Shimoda, Esq. NISSAN MOTOR: Hid Payments to CEO Ghosn, Retirement System Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- JACKSON COUNTY EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. CARLOS GHOSN, GREG KELLY, NISSAN MOTOR CO., LTD., HIROTO SAIKAWA, HIROSHI KARUBE and JOSEPH G. PETER, the Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-01368 (M.D. Tenn., Dec. 10, 2018), is a securities fraud class action on behalf of all purchasers of Nissan American Depositary Receipts between December 10, 2013 and November 16, 2018, inclusive. Nissan is an automobile manufacturer with its U.S. headquarters located in Smyrna, Tennessee. The Company sells vehicles under the Nissan, Infiniti and Datsun brands. Nissan sponsors its U.S. ADR program and issues press releases to investors from its U.S. headquarters in Tennessee. Unbeknownst to investors, Nissan has been materially understating its expenses -- and overstating profits -- by concealing half of the annual executive compensation it was obligated to pay to its former Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of its Board of Directors, Carlos Ghosn. Over the past decade, Nissan reported paying defendant Ghosn JPY1 billion per year in compensation. In truth and in fact, Nissan paid defendant Ghosn an additional JPY1 billion per year in the form of deferred compensation I.O.U.s, but failed to disclose these payments in the Company's publicly filed financial reports. As a result, Nissan underreported defendant Ghosn's true pay over the last decade by an estimated JPY10 billion. The Company also concealed from investors the significant defects in its corporate governance and internal controls that facilitated this false financial reporting, notably while affirmatively emphasizing the Company's "strong ethics" and "high transparency." In so doing, Nissan affirmatively failed to heed the express direction of its outside auditors dating back to at least 2013 to accurately report its executive compensation. Not only did the underreporting deceive Nissan's investors, it violated the pay cap Nissan shareholders approved, and so Nissan ordinary shares are now under threat of being delisted. The scheme to understate defendant Ghosn's executive compensation was reportedly masterminded by former Nissan Board member defendant Greg Kelly, a former Tennessee-based Senior Vice President of Nissan. Defendants expressly undertook to underreport Ghosn's pay in order to avoid shareholder scrutiny of Ghosn's inordinately high executive compensation. Even still, shareholders consistently chafed over just the disclosed portion of Ghosn's exorbitant executive compensation. Beyond avoiding the scrutiny of Nissan's shareholders over Ghosn's pay from Nissan, defendants were further motivated to conceal the full extent of what Ghosn was being paid by Nissan in order to avoid the scrutiny of the investors in France-based Renault SA -- which includes the French government. Ghosn was simultaneously serving as CEO and Chairman of Renault -- which owns 43% of Nissan's equity -- and the French government had been viewing Ghosn's Nissan and Renault pay collectively in its attempts to lower his Renault compensation, the lawsuit says. Nissan Motor, usually shortened to Nissan, is a Japanese multinational automobile manufacturer headquartered in Nishi-ku, Yokohama. The company sells its cars under the Nissan, Infiniti, and Datsun brands with in-house performance tuning products labeled Nismo.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Jerry E. Martin, Esq. Christopher M. Wood, Esq. Darren J. Robbins, Esq. Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. Mary K. Blasy, esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 414 Union Street, Suite 900 Nashville, TN 37219 Telephone: 615 244-2203 Facsimile: 615 252-3798 E-mail: jmartin@rgrdlaw.com cwood@rgrdlaw.com darrenr@rgrdlaw.com srudman@rgrdlaw.com mblasy@rgrdlaw.com - and - Thomas C. Michaud, Esq. VANOVERBEKE, MICHAUD & TIMMONY, P.C. 79 Alfred Street Detroit, MI 48201 Telephone: 313 578-1200 Facsimile: 313 578-1201 E-mail: tmichaud@vmtlaw.com NOBILIS HEALTH: Van 'T Hoofd Sues over Misleading Financial Report ------------------------------------------------------------------ LEO VAN 'T HOOFD, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. NOBILIS HEALTH CORP., HARRY FLEMING, DAVID YOUNG, and KENNETH J. KLEIN, the Defendants, Case No. 4:18-cv-04727 (S.D. Tex., Dec. 14, 2018), seeks to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The case is a class action on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Nobilis securities between May 8, 2018 and Novembe 15, 2018, inclusive. Nobilis purports to own and to manage specialty surgical hospitals, ambulatory surgery centers, and multispecialty clinics. On August 2, 2018, the Company reported that its revenue for the second quarter 2018 was reduced due, in part, to a $2.4 million adjustment to its accounts receivable. On this news, the Company's share price fell $0.20 per share, more than 17%, to close at $0.95 per share on August 2, 2018, on unusually heavy trading volume. On November 9, 2018, the Company reported that it is "re-evaluating the Net Realizable Value on its Accounts Receivable and intends to make a significant adjustment to the carrying value of accounts receivable, primarily on out of network claims greater than 365 days old." The Company filed for additional time to file its 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2018 while the Company and the auditor completed their review of the financial statements. On this news, the Company's share price fell $0.18 per share, more than 25%, to close at $0.52 per share on November 12, 2018, on unusually heavy trading volume. On November 15, 2018, the Company announced that it had received notice from the NYSE that it is not in compliance with the NYSE's continued listing requirements due to its failure to timely file its 10-Q. On this news, the Company's share price fell $0.07 per share, more than 12%, to close at $0.48 per share on November 16, 2018, on usually heavy trading volume. The Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that the Company's accounts receivable was overstated; (2) that, as a result, the Company's revenue was overstated; (3) that, as a result of the required adjustments, the Company's quarterly report would not be timely filed; (4) that, as a result, the Company would not be in compliance with NYSE listing requirements; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, the lawsuit says. Nobilis Health is a full-service healthcare development and management company, with more than 30 locations across Texas.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Joe Kendall, Esq. Jamie J. Mckey, Esq. KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC 3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 1450 Dallas, TX 75219 Telephone: (214) 744-3000 Facsimile: (214) 744-3015 E-mail: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com jmckey@kendalllawgroup.com - and - Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq. Robert V. Prongay, Esq. Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq. Charles H. Linehan, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 - and - Howard G. Smith, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD G. SMITH 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112 Bensalem, PA 19020 Telephone: (215) 638-4847 Facsimile: (215) 638-4867 OCWEN FINANCIAL: Bid to Quash Subpoena under Advisement ------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as DAVID WEINER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OCWEN FINANCIAL CORPORATION; OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC; and ALTISOURCE SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-05303-TWT-AJB (N.D. Ga., Nov. 16, 2018), Magistrate Judge Alan J. Baverman conducted a telephone conference on Dec. 20, 2018, and heard oral argument of counsel for the parties on Altisource Solutions, Inc.'s motion to quash subpoena. The Court requested that the parties submit the deposition of Jim Weld to the Court for review, and the deposition will be filed by the Court under seal in this case. The Motion to Quash was taken under advisement. The case is assigned to Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. and referred to Magistrate Judge Alan J. Baverman. Ocwen Financial Corporation, a financial services holding company, originates and services loans in the United States, the U.S. Virgin Islands, India, and Philippines. Ocwen Financial Corporation was founded in 1988 and is headquartered in West Palm Beach, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James B. Matthews , III, Esq. BLASINGAME, BURCH, GARRARD & ASHLEY, P.C. 440 College Ave., Suite 320 Athens, GA 30601 Telephone: (706) 354-4000 Facsimile: (706) 453-7842 E-mail: jmatthews@bbga.com The Defendants are represented by: Mark Adam Silver, Esq. Nathan Lewis Garroway, Esq. DENTONS US, LLP 303 Peachtree St., N.E., Suite 5300 Atlanta, GA 30308 Telephone: (404) 527-4000 Facsimile: (404) 527-4198 E-mail: mark.silver@dentons.com nathan.garroway@dentons.com OHIO MULCH: Wolfe & Bailey Seek Overtime Pay -------------------------------------------- Jordan Wolfe and Shawn Bailey, On behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. Ohio Mulch Supply, Inc., 1600 Universal Rd. Columbus, Ohio 43207, and Jim Weber, II, 1600 Universal Rd., Columbus, Ohio 43207, the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-01698-GCS-CMV (S.D. Ohio, Dec. 14, 2018), alleges that Defendants failed to pay employees overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act. According to the complaint, Plaintiff Wolfe was jointly employed by Defendants beginning in April 2018 until July 2018. Plaintiff Wolfe primarily worked as an hourly, non-exempt delivery driver and was also responsible for loading the delivery trucks with mulch and assisting with Defendants' mulch yard operations. Plaintiff worked out of Defendants' retail location at 5380 Riverside Dr., Columbus, Ohio 43220 ("OMS – Riverside"). Ohio Mulch sells high quality mulch soil and stone products.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiffs and those similarly situated: Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq. COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC 1550 Old Henderson Rd., Suite 126 Columbus, OH 43220 Telephone: 614 949-1181 Facsimile: 614 386-9964 E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com - and - Peter A. Contreras, Esq. CONTRERAS LAW , LLC 1550 Old Henderson Rd., Suite 126 Columbus, OH 43220 Telephone: 614 787-4878 Facsimile: 614 923-7369 E-mail: peter.contreras@contrerasfirm.com PALM PAVILION: Borozny Files Suit under ADA in M.D. Florida ----------------------------------------------------------- Palm Pavilion, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Austin Borozny, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Palm Pavilion, Inc., a Florida limited liability company, Defendant, Case No. 8:18-cv-03045 (M.D. Fla., December 19, 2018). Palm Pavilion, Inc. is a beachfront boutique hotel located in Clearwater Beach, Florida. 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 PRONAI THERAPEUTICS: 2nd Cir. Affirms Securities Suit Dismissal --------------------------------------------------------------- The United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, issued an Opinion affirming the District Court's judgment granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case captioned MICHAEL GREGORY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, YESHAN JAGROO, MINDY FROST, Plaintiffs-Appellants, PRONAI INVESTOR GROUP, SHANNON LEE HOPKINS, Plaintiffs, v. PRONAI THERAPEUTICS INC., NICK GLOVER, SUKHI JAGPAL, Defendants-Appellees. No. 18-1061-cv. (2nd Cir.). Michael Gregory, Yeshan Jagroo, and Mindy Frost, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated bring this securities class action lawsuit against ProNAi Therapeutics Inc. (ProNAi), its CEO and President Nick Glover, and its CFO Sukhi Jagpal (Defendants). First, the plaintiffs argue that the district court erroneously concluded that ProNAi had not materially misled its investors by failing to disclose amendments to its clinical trial protocols. The district court held that defendants' disclosure of those amendments on a government website made them public for purposes of the federal securities laws, precluding the plaintiffs' nondisclosure claim. But even assuming that the district court erred and that the protocol amendments were not public information for purposes of the securities laws, plaintiffs still fail to adequately allege scienter. The Defendants warned investors that these protocols may need to be revised based on unexpected early results and then posted revisions on a public government website that tracked protocols for clinical trials. Second, the plaintiffs argue that the defendants violated their alleged duty to update investors when two of the final three patients in the Pilot Phase II study (pilot) stopped treatment by the end of 2015. The Court disagrees. The company announced results of the pilot in December 2014. In July, the company released updated results, disclosing the number and severity of adverse events and the fact that ten of the thirteen patients had discontinued treatment. In January 2016, with the full Phase II trials well underway, the company again updated investors on the pilot. The update showed that the patient who had stable disease and remained under treatment as of July 2015 still had stable disease and still remained under treatment while the other two patients who had remained under treatment as of July 2015 were no longer receiving treatment. On the facts alleged, defendants' failure to disclose the status of these patients prior to January 2016 was not misleading, much less fraudulent. Third, the plaintiffs argue that the company fraudulently failed to disclose that eight of ten patients from the pilot who had discontinued treatment by November 2015 experienced faster disease progression on PNT2258. But the defendants had no duty to disclose information about disease progression because it never made any affirmative representations that a patient's duration of response on PNT2258 should be or was greater than his or her duration of response on other therapies. The company at most stated that it sought to enroll patients with prior therapy regimens, a statement that expresses no view as to how patients should fare relative to those prior regimens. Fourth, the plaintiffs argue that they sufficiently alleged that defendants knowingly, or at a minimum recklessly, misrepresented the likelihood that DNAi and PNT2258 would succeed, given the results of the company's internal studies, which failed to validate DNAi's mechanism of action. But the complaint includes no allegations suggesting that anyone at the company thought that the failure to confirm PNT2258's mechanism of action by the end of 2015 was dispositive of the drug's efficacy. Even plaintiffs' confidential witness continued working to validate the drug's mechanism of action until July 2016. Plaintiffs also overstate the severity of the negative, undisclosed information available to Glover when he publicly expressed optimism about DNAi and PNT2258. On the facts alleged, then, the complaint does not plead that the defendants acted with a knowing falseness or recklessly. Last, the plaintiffs argue that the district court erred in denying them leave to amend. Although the plaintiffs sought leave to amend in a footnote at the end of their opposition to defendants' motion to dismiss, they included no proposed amendments. And although the plaintiffs proposed several amendments on appeal, they do not explain how these amendments would cure the shortcomings that resulted in dismissal or why they did not include these proposed amendments previously. The Court therefore concludes that the district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing plaintiffs' complaint with prejudice. A full-text copy of the Second Circuit's December 3, 2018 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yac73q5s from Leagle.com. SHANNON L. HOPKINS, (James Grohsgal -- jgrohsgal@zlk.com -- Stephanie A. Bartone -- sbartone@zlk.com -- on the brief), Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, Stamford, CT, for Plaintiffs-Appellants. PETER A. STOKES, (Robin D. Adelstein -- robin.adelstein@nortonrosefulbright.com -- on the brief), Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP, Austin, TX and New York, NY, for Defendants-Appellees. RACK ROOM: Court Refuses to Stay Peralta's TCPA Suit ---------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana issued an Order and Reasons denying defendant Rack Room Shoes, Inc.'s Motion to Stay the case captioned CESAR PERALTA, v. RACK ROOM SHOES, INC., SECTION: M (2). Civil Action No. 18-3738. (E.D. La.). This case is a putative class action alleging claims arising under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Peralta filed this action against RRS alleging that RRS sent an unauthorized text message advertisement to Peralta's cellular telephone using an automated telephone dialing system (ATDS) in violation of the TCPA. Peralta also alleges that RRS's actions violated the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act, (LUTPA). RSS brings its motion to stay against this statutory, regulatory, and jurisprudential backdrop, arguing that the FCC will soon rule on what constitutes an ATDS, and that the FCC's guidance will determine issues relevant in this case pertaining to the equipment RSS used to send text message advertisements. RRS argues that this guidance is critical to the resolution of this case because it contends that it did not use an ATDS, as it is properly defined, to send the allegedly offending text messages. RRS argues that a stay is appropriate under either the primary jurisdiction doctrine or this Court's inherent authority to manage its docket. Peralta opposes the motion to stay arguing that a stay is not warranted because the FCC's guidance will not change the applicable law, which the Court can apply without such guidance. Peralta also argues that there is no guarantee that the FCC will issue its guidance in the near future; thus a stay could be indefinite. Further, Peralta points out that most of the courts that have considered whether to stay similar cases in anticipation of the FCC's guidance have denied the motions to stay. The primary jurisdiction doctrine is aimed at maintaining proper relationships between the courts and administrative agencies' by suspending judicial process pending the referral of certain issues to an administrative agency for its views. The doctrine is not related to the district court's subject-matter jurisdiction over an action, but rather it presumes original federal subject-matter jurisdiction. A district court has the power to stay proceedings to manage its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants. The party moving for a stay bears a heavy burden to demonstrate that it is appropriate. Where a discretionary stay is proposed, something close to genuine necessity should be the mother of its invocation. In the wake of ACA International, several district courts have considered whether to stay similar proceedings pursuant to their inherent authority, and nearly all of them of which this Court is aware have declined to do so. Similarly, this Court declines to exercise its inherent authority to stay these proceedings pending the FCC's guidance for the same reasons that it finds that a stay is not warranted under the primary jurisdiction doctrine. Accordingly, RRS's motion to stay is denied. A full-text copy of the District Court's December 3, 2018 Order and Reasons is available at https://tinyurl.com/ydzcbodx from Leagle.com. Cesar Peralta, Plaintiff, represented by Roberto L. Costales, Costales Law Office, Jonathan Mille Kirkland, Beaumont Costales LLC, & William Henry Beaumont, William H. Beaumont Law. Rack Room Shoes, Inc., Defendant, represented by Sidney W. Degan, III -- sdegan@degan.com -- Degan, Blanchard & Nash, Jena W. Smith -- jsmith@degan.com -- Degan, Blanchard & Nash, Keith A. Kornman -- kkornman@degan.com -- Degan, Blanchard & Nash & Matthew F. Morgan -- mmorgan@degan.com -- Degan, Blanchard & Nash. RECKITT BENCKISER: Yamagata Moves to Certify 3 Purchaser Classes ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled GORDON NOBORU YAMAGATA and STAMATIS F. PELARDIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. RECKITT BENCKISER LLC, Case No. 3:17-cv-03529-VC (N.D. Cal.), move for an order certifying these classes: * California Class: All persons who purchased in the state of California Move Free Advanced, Move Free Advanced Plus MSM or Move Free Advanced Plus MSM & Vitamin D between May 28, 2015 and the date notice is disseminated; * California Senior Class: All persons who at the time of purchase were 65 years or older who purchased in the state of California Move Free Advanced, Move Free Advanced Plus MSM or Move Free Advanced Plus MSM & Vitamin D between May 28, 2015 and the date notice is disseminated; and * New York Class: All persons who purchased in the state of New York Move Free Advanced, Move Free Advanced Plus MSM or Move Free Advanced Plus MSM & Vitamin D between May 28, 2015 and the date notice is disseminated. Excluded from each proposed Class are Reckitt Benckiser LLC, its officers, directors and employees, and those who purchased Move Free Advanced, Move Free Advanced Plus MSM or Move Free Advanced Plus MSM & Vitamin D for the purpose of resale. This lawsuit is a prototypical false advertising class action. Move Free Advanced ("MFA") is a glucosamine and chondroitin dietary supplement manufactured by the Defendant. MFA is advertised as providing a singular health benefit -- improving joint health. The Plaintiffs contend that the active ingredients in Move Free cannot -- and do not -- provide the advertised benefit and, thus, RB's statements on MFA labels and packaging are false and misleading in violation of California and New York consumer protection statutes. The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint Plaintiff Yamagata as Class Representative for the California Class and California Senior Class, and Plaintiff Pelardis as Class Representative for the New York Class. The Plaintiffs further ask the Court to appoint Timothy G. Blood, Esq., and Thomas J. O'Reardon II, Esq., of Blood Hurst & O'Reardon, LLP, as Class Counsel in this action. The Court will commence a hearing on February 28, 2019, at 10:00 a.m., to consider the Motion.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Timothy G. Blood, Esq. Thomas J. O'Reardon, II, Esq. BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON, LLP 501 West Broadway, Suite 1490 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 338-1100 Facsimile: (619) 338-1101 E-mail: tblood@bholaw.com toreardon@bholaw.com - and - Todd D. Carpenter, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER, LLP 1350 Columbia Street, Suite 603 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 762-1910 Facsimile: (619) 756-6991 E-mail: tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com - and - Edwin J. Kilpela, Jr., Esq. CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER, LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 Facsimile: (412) 231-0246 E-mail: ekilpela@carlsonlynch.com RISING SUN: Construction Workers Seek Unpaid Overtime Pay --------------------------------------------------------- Moises Dominici, Jose Manuel Polanco Pujols, Renny Rivera Ramirez, Eddy Garcia, Manuel Arriola Alvarez, Ismael Hernandez Milian, Juan Marquez and Angel Alvarado, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Rising Sun Construction LLC and Brett Steinberg, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-11383 (S.D. N.Y., December 6, 2018) seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, overtime wages, and statutory damages under the New York Labor Law and the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendants operate a New Jersey based construction company licensed to do business in New York where Plaintiffs work as construction workers. They claim to have rendered in excess of 40 hour per work week but were not paid the appropriate overtime premiums. Rising Sun also failed to provide them accurate wage statements, says the complaint. [BN] Plaintiffs are represented by: Lawrence Spasojevich, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JAMES F. SULLIVAN PC 52 Duane St., 7th Floor New York, NY 11702 Tel. (212) 374-0009 Fax: (212) 374-9931 Email: ls@jfslaw.net SABER HEALTHCARE: M. Mullen's Suit Remanded to N.C. State Court --------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, Western Division, issued an Order granting Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand the case captioned MICHELLE MULLEN, Executrix of the ESTATE OF CLAIRE M. MURPHY on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SABER HEALTHCARE GROUP, LLC, and FRANKLIN OPERATIONS, LLC d/b/a Franklin Manor Assisted Living Center, Defendants. No. 5:18-CV-317-BO. (E.D.N.C.) to Franklin County Superior Court. The Plaintiff alleges that the defendants' facilities have failed and continue to fail to provide sufficient services to meet the basic needs of their residents, including adequate bathing and timely provision of medication, and that the defendants consistently understaff the facilities to the detriment of the residents and in violation of North Carolina law. The Plaintiff brings claims for breach of contract arid unfair trade practices. THe Plaintiff originally brought her claims in Franklin County Superior Court alongside several other plaintiffs. That case, Bartels v. Saber Healthcare Group, LLC, 5:16-CV-283-BO, was removed to this Court and, on October 25, 2016, remanded to Franklin County. On October 25, 2016, plaintiff voluntarily dismissed her claims in Franklin County Superior Court. The question before this Court is the same question that was before the Court in Bartels v. Saber Healthcare Group, LLC, 5:16-CV-283-BO, 2018 WL 5410921, at *1 (Oct. 29, 2018): whether plaintiff has demonstrated that defendants are bound to litigate in Franklin County by a forum-selection clause such that the action must be remanded. The Court concludes that plaintiff has carried her burden and the motion to remand must be granted. When a plaintiff seeks to establish that one of the statutory exceptions to jurisdiction under CAFA applies, and thus that the court should decline to exercise removal jurisdiction over the case, the plaintiff must establish that the exception applies by a preponderance of the evidence. Here, however, plaintiffs burden is instead to show that the forum-selection clause contained in her contract with Franklin Manor should apply not only to defendant Franklin Operations, LLC (Franklin Operations), a party to the contract, but also to Saber Healthcare Group, LLC (Saber). CAFA provides that only one defendant need consent to removal, and thus if one defendant is not bound by the forum-selection clause, then removal to this Court was proper and remand should be denied. Because whether a forum-selection clause applies does not implicate the Court's subject-matter jurisdiction and because a forum-selection clause merely determines in what court or court system liability should be decided, the inquiry required here should follow the standard for challenging venue under Rule 12. In this circuit, consideration of evidence outside the pleadings is permitted when deciding a venue challenge and to survive a motion to dismiss for improper venue when no evidentiary hearing is held, the plaintiff need only make a prima facie showing of venue. If an evidentiary hearing is held, a plaintiff must demonstrate proper venue by a preponderance of the evidence. No evidentiary hearing has been granted, but the Court will consider matters outside the pleadings-including exhibits attached to the remand motion which were developed in Bartels,the companion action-to determine whether plaintiff has made a prima facie showing that venue in Franklin County Superior Court is proper. In making that determination, the Court will view the facts in the light most favorable to plaintiff. There are two defendants in this action: Saber and Franklin Operations. Plaintiff brings claims arising from her stays at the Franklin Manor facility and the Gabriel Manor facility. Saber is the managing member of Franklin Operations, which in turn operates Franklin Manor. Unlike in Bartels, in this case, plaintiff does not need to establish that each of the three Saber facilities and their operating companies are all alter egos of one another. Rather, plaintiff need only establish that Franklin Operations and Saber are alter egos of each other. Defendants concede that plaintiff and Franklin Operations signed a contract containing the forum-selection clause, so the only question is whether the non-signatory Saber is also bound by that forum-selection clause. Saber and Franklin Operations, the only remaining defendants, are alter egos of each other. Franklin Operations signed a contract with plaintiff that contained a forum-selection clause requiring litigation to take place in Franklin County Superior Court. Saber must also be bound by that forum-selection clause. As venue is appropriate in Franklin County, plaintiffs motion to remand must be granted. A full-text copy of the District Court's December 3, 2018 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yawpkcwo from Leagle.com. Michele Mullen, Executrix of the Estate of Claire M. Murphy, Plaintiff, represented by Jeremy Richard Williams -- jeremy@wbmllp.com -- Whitfield, Bryson & Mason, LLP & Matthew E. Lee -- matt@wbmllp.com -- Whitfield, Bryson & Mason, LLP. Saber Healthcare Group, LLC & Franklin Operations, LLC, doing business as Franklin Manor Assisted Living Center, Defendants, represented by Robert A. Leandro -- robbleandro@parkerpoe.com -- Parker, Poe, Adams & Bernstein, LLP, Stephen V. Carey -- stevecarey@parkerpoe.com -- Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP & Scott Elliot Bayzle -- scottbayzle@parkerpoe.com -- Parker Poe Adams & Berstein, LLP. SCIENTIFIC GAMES: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Fife Suit ------------------------------------------------------- In the case, SHERYL FIFE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SCIENTIFIC GAMES CORP., Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-00565-RBL (W.D. Wash.), Judge Ronald B. Leighton of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Tacoma, granted in part the Defendant's Request for Judicial Notice and denied its Motion to Dismiss. The underlying dispute is a class action to recover money lost playing electronic gambling games available through mobile apps. Scientific argues that the Complaint should be dismissed for failure to state a claim. Specifically, it contends that its apps do not allow users to gamble for a "thing of value" and qualify for the statutory exemption for bona fide business transactions. The Defendant markets apps that allow players to partake in popular gambling games, such as slot machine, on a phone or tablet. The apps allow users to play these games with "virtual coins" that may be won or purchased in the app after users run out of the initial free allotment. Fife purchased $4.99 worth of coins that he subsequently lost playing Scientific's Jackpot Party Casino app. Despite the fact that these coins cannot be redeemed for actual money, Fife alleges that they are nonetheless valuable because they can be used to continue playing. Therefore, Fife alleges that the games on High 5's apps constitute gambling as defined by RCW 9.46.0285 in violation of RCW 4.24.070. Fife also alleges two derivative claims for violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act, RCW 19.86.010, and unjust enrichment. Scientific requests that the Court take judicial notice of several forms of evidence regarding the gameplay in Jackpot Casino. Specifically, it has supplied the Court with a copy of the game itself, a video of someone playing the game, screenshots depicting the gameplay, and screenshots of the Frequently Asked Questions page from Scientific's website. Scientific argues that these documents are analogous to similar forms of electronic external documents that courts have considered at the motion to dismiss stage. According to Scientific, Fife's entire Complaint relies on the functionality and design of Scientific's apps, which allows the Court to take judicial notice of these documents. Judge Leighton finds that while Fife's Complaint may necessarily rely on Scientific's game, it does not rely on second-hand descriptions of it from the defendant's own website. Such documents thus are not incorporated by reference. Judicial notice is also inappropriate because the FAQ page's assertions do not derive from a source whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned. The Court may take judicial notice of the existence of the FAQ page, but not the truth of the statements found therein. Consequently, the Judge will consider Scientific's game, video, and screenshots, but not the FAQ page. Scientific also asks the Court to take judicial notice of several documents from the Washington State Gambling Commission, including a brochure, meeting minutes, a PowerPoint presentation, and two press releases. Fife does not object to the Court taking judicial notice of these documents and they are public records whose authenticity cannot reasonably be disputed. The Judge will therefore consider these documents. Turning to the Motion to Dismiss, the Judge considers whether Scientific's virtual coins are a "thing of value" under washington law and whether its in-app purchases are "bona fide business transactions." He finds that the various Gambling Commission materials submitted by Scientific are unpersuasive. While the pamphlet offered by Scientific does state that social gaming is not gambling if there is no prize, it also purports to provide only "general guidance" to consumers. They do not express any specific position with respect to the underlying issues. He also finds that Scientific misconstrues the nature of the "transaction" at issue in the case. Whereas traditional gambling consists of a single transaction (money for a chance to win), he says Scientific's app divvies up this process between two connected transactions. Although the first transaction allows a user to obtain the virtual coins, the second transaction of spending them in Scientific's games is what fits the statutory definition of gambling. Consequently, regardless of whether purchasing coins from Scientific is similar to buying securities or tickets to a baseball game, buying coins and then using them to play Scientific's games is not a "bona fide business transaction." For the foregoing reasons, Judge Leighton denied Defendant Scientific's Motion to Dismiss. A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 18, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/bug24R from Leagle.com. Sheryl Fife, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin H. Richman -- brichman@edelson.com -- EDELSON PC, pro hac vice, Cecily C. Shiel -- cshiel@tousley.com -- TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS, Eve-Lynn Rapp -- erapp@edelson.com -- EDELSON PC, pro hac vice, Janissa Ann Strabuk -- jstrabuk@tousley.com -- TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS, Rafey S. Balabanian -- rbalabanian@edelson.com -- EDELSON PC, pro hac vice & Todd Logan -- tlogan@edelson.com -- EDELSON PC, pro hac vice. Scientific Games Corp, a Nevada corporation, Defendant, represented by Kathleen M. O'Sullivan -- KOSullivan@perkinscoie.com -- PERKINS COIE, Nicola Menaldo -- NMenaldo@perkinscoie.com -- PERKINS COIE & Tyler S. Roberts -- TRoberts@perkinscoie.com -- PERKINS COIE. SIGNATURE RESOURCES: Staples et al. Seek Overtime Pay ----------------------------------------------------- ANDREW STAPLES and ELGENE CRESCINI, as individuals, on behalf of themselves and proposed class members, the PLAINTIFFS, v. SIGNATURE RESOURCES, INC.; MASSMUTUAL PACIFIC, INC.; and DOES 1 thru 50, inclusive, the DEFENDANTS, Case No. 37-2018-00062296-CU-0E-CTL (Cal. Super. Ct., Dec. 10, 2018), seeks to recover minimum wages and overtime pay under the California Labor Code. According to the complaint, the Defendants have had a consistent policy of failing to pay wages and/or overtime to all Proposed Class Members when they work more than eight hours in a day or 40 hours in a week. The Plaintiffs and other Proposed Class Members were not properly compensated for overtime at the appropriate rate of pay. The Plaintiffs and all Proposed Class Members were regularly required to work without being compensated at the minimum wage rate, and work without being compensated for all hours worked at the proper overtime rate for all overtime hours worked. The Defendants willfully misclassified them and they were actually employees of Defendants; and work without being reimbursed for expenses. The Defendants willfully failed to compensate Plaintiffs and all Proposed Class Members for wages at the termination of their employment with Defendants. As a result of this conduct, Defendants have engaged in unfair competition and unlawful business practices, the lawsuit says. Signature Resources operates as a mining exploration company in Canada. It seeks base metal and gold projects in China, North America and Africa.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class: Eric B. Kingsley, Esq. Liane Katzenstein Ly, Esq. KINGSLEY & KINGSLEY, APC 16133 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1200 Encino, CA 91436 Telephone: (818) 990-8300 Facsimile: (818) 990-2903 E-mail: eric@kingsleykingsley.com liane@kingsleykingsley.com - and - Emil Davtyan, Esq. DAVTYAN PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION 5959 Topanga Canyon Blvd., Suite 130 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: (818) 875-2008 Facsimile: (818) 722-3974 E-mail: support@davtyanlaw.com SONNY-N-SON'S PAINTING: Underpays Painters & Carpenters, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ JOSE R. HERNANDEZ CACERES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SONNY-N-SON'S PAINTING, LLC; and WILLIAM T. COGSWELL, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-01427-TSE-MSN (E.D. Va., Nov. 19, 2018) is an action against the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. The Plaintiff Hernandez Caceres was employed by the Defendants as painter and carpenter. Sonny-N-Son's Painting, LLC is a limited liability company under the laws of the State of Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew T. Sutter, Esq. Sutter & Terpak, PLLC 7540 A Little River Turnpike, First Floor Annandale, VA 22003 Telephone: (703) 256-1800 Facsimile: (703) 991-6116 E-mail: matt@sutterandterpak.com SPRINT/UNITED MANAGEMENT: Court Certifies 3 Classes in Caudle Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, JOSHUA CAUDLE and KRYSTLE WHITE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SPRINT/UNITED MANAGEMENT COMPANY, a Kansas corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, Defendants, Case No. C 17-06874 WHA (N.D. Cal.), Judge William Alsup of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted the Plaintiff's motion to certify three separate classes. The Defendant sells mobile phone devices and services to retail customers. In February 2016, Sprint instituted a redesigned incentive compensation plan called the Sprint Promoter Score Adjustment program. This program centered on calculating a monthly "Sprint Promoter Score" for each Sprint retail store location. Sprint based the Sprint Promoter Score -- which was designed to improve customer service and calculated on a store-wide level -- on the aggregated results of customer surveys given after a customer's interaction with the store. Sprint also calculated "target" Sprint Promoter Scores for each retail location, which were calculated monthly at a national level based on store type. Under the program at issue, if a Sprint retail store location's Sprint Promoter Score met or exceeded the target score for that month, then the individual commissions of that store's employees remained unaffected. If, however, the store's Sprint Promoter Score fell below the target score, then Sprint decreased the individual commissions of that store's employees by 10%. In March 2017, Sprint eliminated the Sprint Promoter Score Adjustment program due to negative feedback from employees and the program's overall lack of impact. Plaintiffs Caudle and White -- a former store manager and lead retail consultant, respectively -- worked in various northern California Sprint retail store locations. They assert that the 10% "across-the-board deduction from employees' individual earned commission" was based on factors outside the individual employees' control and unrelated to any individual employees' efforts regarding a particular sale or transaction. Thus, according to them, these 10% deductions from employees' commissions under the Sprint Promoter Score Adjustment program (in effect from February 2016 to March 2017) were unlawful deductions from earned wages under California Labor Code Sections 221-23. Based on this theory, the operative complaint asserted the following five claims for relief: (1) unlawful deductions from wages; (2) wage statement violations; (3) waiting time penalties; (4) unfair competition practices; and (5) PAGA civil penalties. The Plaintiffs now seek to represent current and former Sprint employees in California and certify these three classes pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3): a. Class 1 (Unlawful Deductions - SPS Class): All current and former employees of Sprint who worked at Sprint's retail store location(s) in California and whose compensation was based in full or in part on incentive compensation (also called commissions), and whose commissions were reduced by a Sprint Promoter Score Adjustment, at any time from February 2016 to March 2017. b. Class 2 (Wage Statement Class): All members of the Unlawful Deductions - SPS Class whose commissions were reduced by a Sprint Promoter Score Adjustment at any time from Sept. 29, 2016 through March 2017. c. Class 3 (Waiting Time Class): All members of the Unlawful Deductions - SPS Class who separated their employment from Sprint at any time from Sept. 29, 2014 through the present. The first class Plaintiffs seek to certify is directly based on Sprint's policy at issue (i.e., the Sprint Promoter Score Adjustment program). The latter two classes the Plaintiffs seek to certify are derivative of the first class. Judge Alsup finds that the Plaintiffs have satisfied the requirements of common questions and their predominance under Rule 23(a)(2) and (b)(3) for all three proposed classes. He also finds that the Plaintiffs have standing to bring the wage statement and waiting time claims and satisfied the typicality requirement as to all three proposed classes, and that a class action would be superior to individual actions for the adjudication of the Plaintiffs' claims. Both sides request judicial notice of various documents previously filed in three other cases involving class action settlements with Sprint. Neither side opposes. Accordingly, the requests for judicial notice of documents are granted. Sprint also objects to several items of evidence submitted with the Plainitffs' motion. Because consideration of the objected-to materials does not impact the outcome of the order, the Judge overruled Sprint's objections as moot. For the foregoing reasons, Judge Alsup granted the Plaintiff's motion for class certification, and vertified these classes: a. Class 1 (Unlawful Deductions - SPS Class): All current and former employees of Sprint who worked at Sprint's retail store location(s) in California and whose compensation was based in full or in part on incentive compensation (also called commissions), and whose commissions were reduced by a Sprint Promoter Score Adjustment, at any time from February 2016 to March 2017. b. Class 2 (Wage Statement Class): All members of the Unlawful Deductions - SPS Class whose commissions were reduced by a Sprint Promoter Score Adjustment at any time from September 29, 2016 through March 2017. c. Class 3 (Waiting Time Class): All members of the Unlawful Deductions - SPS Class who separated their employment from Sprint at any time from September 29, 2014 through the present. These class definitions will apply for all purposes, including settlement. The Judge appointed Plaintiffs Joshua Caudle and Krystle White as the class representatives; and the Plaintiffs' counsel from the Haines Law Group, APC, as the class counsel. By Jan. 4, 2019 at noon, the parties will jointly submit a proposal for class notification with a plan to distribute notice, including by first-class mail. In crafting their joint proposal, the counsel will please keep in mind the undersigned judge's guidelines for notice to class members in the "Notice and Order Regarding Factors to be Evaluated for Any Proposed Class Settlement." The Judge further reminded tbe counsel of the Plaintiffs' intention of notifying class members of the tolling issue in connection with the removed deactivation theory of liability. A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 18, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/vqZebw from Leagle.com. Joshua Caudle & Krystle White, Plaintiffs, represented by Paul Haines -- phaines@haineslawgroup.com -- Haines Law Group, APC, Tuvia Korobkin -- tkorobkin@haineslawgroup.com -- Haines Law Group, APC & Stacey Min Ha Shim -- sshim@haineslawgroup.com -- Haines Law Group, APC. Sprint/United Management Company, Defendant, represented by Lisa K. Horgan -- lhorgan@littler.com --, Littler Mendelson, P.C. & Elisa Nadeau -- enadeau@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, PC. STAND UP: Townsend et al. Seek Payment of OT & Minimum Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ JAMES TOWNSEND, FLORZELL PIPPEN, and DIONE CHRISTIAN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly-situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. STAND UP MANAGEMENT, INC., DePERE CONCEPTS, INC., EXELON GENERATION COMPANY, LLC, d/b/a CONSTELLATION ENERGY, BRIAN TIDWELL, and COLE HEEG, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-02884 (N.D. Ohio, Dec. 14, 2018), challenges policies and practices of Defendants that violate the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, and the Ohio Wage Laws, concerning underpayment of overtime and/or minimum wages to non-exempt employees. According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs and others similarly-situated are typically required to check in with Defendants regularly. The Plaintiffs and others similarly-situated regularly work approximately 10 or more hours per day for approximately five to six days a week, thereby regularly working more than 40 hours in a workweek. The Plaintiffs and others similarly-situated are not paid at least one and one-half times their regular rates for hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek. The Plaintiffs and others similarly-situated do not make actual sales. Their duties only involve gathering information from customers and/or potential customers, and providing that information to Defendants, usually by sheets or computer tablet. After Plaintiffs and others similarly-situated perform their assigned and scripted tasks, the customer or potential customer must contact another entity not within the control of Plaintiffs or others similarly-situated before the customer is actually approved for services. This subsequent contact by the customer or potential customer to Defendants is typically by phone, and Plaintiffs and others similarly-situated do not participate in the phone call or control the results of the phone call, the lawsuit says. Stand Up Management is a company that thrives on building relationships for clients looking to expand.[BN] Counsel for Plaintiff: Robi J. Baishnab, Esq. Hans A. Nilges, Esq. Shannon M. Draher, Esq. NILGES DRAHER LLC 34 N. High St., Ste. 502 Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 824-5770 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 E-mail: rbaishnab@ohlaborlaw.com hans@ohlaborlaw.com sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com SYNERGY ENTERPRISES: Rodriguez et al. Seek Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------- JOSE RODRIGUEZ and JOSE VEGA VILLALOBOS, as indiviuals, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs SYNERGY ENTERPRISES, INC., a California Corporation; EAGLE SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL, INC., DBA SYNERGY COMPANIES, a Utah Corporation; STEVEN R. SHALLENBERGER, an individual; DAVID CLARK, an individual; and DOES 1 to 100, in inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2018-15374 (Cal. Super. Ct., Dec. 1, 2018), alleges that the Defendants failed to pay overtime wages, minimum wages, provide meal periods and rest periods, failed to provide reimbursements, and failed to provide accurate wage statements, under California Labor Code. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked for the Defendants during 2015 to May 2018 as an hourly, non-exempt hourly employees. The Defendants provide energy efficiency services to homeowners in California. Similarly situated employees also worked for Defendants as non-exempt hourly employees. The Plaintiffs and similarly situated employees regularly worked 10 hours a day or more. However, the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs and similarly situated employees for all hours worked, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Galen Tadashi Shimoda, Esq. Justin P. Rodriquez, Esq. SHIMODA LAW CORP. 9401 E Stockton Blvd Ste 200 Elk Grove, CA 95624 Telephone: (916) 525-0716 Facsimile: (916) 760-3733 E-mail: attorney@shimodalaw.com TAMPA BAY RAYS: Certification of Class Sought in Fernandez Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned CHAD FERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TAMPA BAY RAYS BASEBALL LTD., a Florida limited partnership, Case No. 8:18-cv-02251-EAK-SPF (M.D. Fla.), seeks to certify a class of: all persons who, without having provided the required prior express written consent, were sent a text message from or on behalf of the Defendant Tampa Bay Rays Baseball, Ltd. or an affiliate, subsidiary, or agent thereof from the shortcode telephone number 420-86 (the "Class"). The Class excludes the Defendant, any entity in which Defendant has a controlling interest or which has a controlling interest in the Defendant, and any of Defendant's legal representatives, assigns or successors, the judge presiding over this case and any member of the Judge's immediate family. The Plaintiff filed this putative class action lawsuit in response to the Defendant's alleged continuous practice of sending advertisement and telemarketing text messages to his cell phone, and the cell phones of many others, without their prior express written consent in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Mr. Fernandez also asks the Court to appoint David P. Milian, Esq., and Ruben Conitzer, Esq., of Carey Rodriguez Milian Gonya, LLP, as Class counsel.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: David P. Milian, Esq. Ruben Conitzer, Esq. CAREY RODRIGUEZ MILIAN GONYA LLP 1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 700 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 372-7474 Facsimile: (305) 372-7475 E-mail: dmilian@careyrodriguez.com rconitzer@careyrodriguez.com TARGET ENTERPRISE: First Circuit Appeal Filed in Carlson Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Gabrielle Carlson filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit titled Carlson v. Target Enterprise, Inc., Case No. 4:18-cv-40139-TSH, in the U.S. District Court for the District Court of Massachusetts, Boston. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit was filed on August 16, 2018. The suit alleges consumer credit violation. Target Enterprises manufactures and distributes plastic pipes and fittings. The appellate case is captioned as Carlson v. Target Enterprise, Inc., Case No. 18-8025, in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Petitioner GABRIELLE CARLSON, on behalf or herself and all others similarly situated, is represented by: Sergei Lemberg, Esq. LEMBERG LAW LLC 43 Danbury Rd. Wilton, CT 06897 Telephone: (203) 653-2250 Facsimile: (203) 653-3424 E-mail: slemberg@lemberglaw.com Defendant-Respondent TARGET ENTERPRISE, INC., is represented by: Brian Melendez, Esq. BARNES & THORNBURG LLP 225 S 6th St., Suite 2800 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 367-8734 E-mail: brian.melendez@btlaw.com - and - Jordan S. O'Donnell, Esq. HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP 53 State Street, 27th Floor Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: (617) 213 7000 E-mail: jodonnell@hinshawlaw.com TARTE, INC: Products Contain Synthetic Ingredients, Patora Says --------------------------------------------------------------- Jeannie Patora, individually on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. Tarte, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 7:18-cv-11760 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 14, 2018), seeks to remedy the company's deceptive and misleading business practices with respect to the marketing, labeling and sales of all products from Tarte's "high-performance naturals" product line throughout the State of New York and throughout the country, in violation of the New York General Business Law, the consumer protection statutes of all 50 states, and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant manufactures, sells, and distributes the Products using a marketing and advertising campaign centered around claims that appeal to health-conscious consumers, i.e., that their Products are natural. Moreover, Defendant's website states that, "We believe in high performance AND natural. We never compromise when it comes to what we put on our skin and neither should you... It's time to rethink Natural." However, Defendant's advertising and marketing campaign is false, deceptive, and misleading because the Products contain synthetic ingredients. The Plaintiff and those similarly situated relied on Defendant's misrepresentations that the Products natural when purchasing the Products. The Plaintiff and Class Members paid a premium for the Products over and above comparable products that did not purport to be natural. Given that Plaintiff and Class Members paid a premium for the Products based on Defendant's misrepresentations that they are natural, Plaintiff and Class Members suffered an injury in the amount of the premium paid. The Defendant breached and continues to breach their express and implied warranties regarding the Products. The Defendant has been and continues to be unjustly enriched, the lawsuit says.[BN] Counsel for Plaintiff and the Class: Jason P. Sultzer, Esq. Joseph Lipari, Esq. Adam Gonnelli, Esq. THE SULTZER LAW GROUP P.C. 85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 200 Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 Telephone: (845) 483-7100 Facsimile: (888) 749-7747 E-mail: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com TEACHERS FEDERAL: Dixon Suit Alleges Civil Rights Act Violation --------------------------------------------------------------- Florence Dixon and Pauline Barbera, on behalf of themselves, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Teachers Federal Credit Union, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-7203 (E.D. N.Y., December 18, 2018) seeks to redress discrimination against Plaintiffs and a class of similarly situated job applicants against Teachers Federal Credit Union ("TFCU"), alleging violations of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the Civil Rights Act of 1866, as amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991. The complaint says TFCU has been a leading employer of Long Islanders since its founding and is "one of the country's largest credit unions and one of the largest employers on Long Island". TFCU encourages prospective employees to apply for employment positions if they "enjoy collaborating in a team atmosphere in an organization that promotes growth and stability". However, what TFCU's website does not say, is that it provides the benefits of employment in an unequal manner -- systematically discriminating against Black individuals in the hiring and promotion to its coveted branch manager position known as Financial Services Manager ("FSM"). TFCU has systematically circumvented and excluded Black individuals from promotion and hiring opportunities to the FSM position, the complaint asserts. The resultant underrepresentation of Black individuals in TFCU's FSM ranks is stark. TFCU never hired or promoted a Black woman to the FSM position until after Plaintiffs filed their Charges of Discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") in March 2018. Despite repeatedly applying for the FSM position, and despite having superior qualifications compared to the non-Black applicants TFCU promoted and/or hired for the position, Plaintiffs were rejected by TFCU for the FSM position, the complaint says. In light of Plaintiffs' individual experiences and TFCU's pattern and practice of disproportionately favoring non-Black applicants for the FSM position, Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated FSM applicants in order to end TFCU's discriminatory policies and/or practices and to make themselves and the Class whole. Plaintiff Dixon is a resident of the County of Suffolk, State of New York. Plaintiff Dixon is a Black woman. Plaintiff Dixon was employed by TFCU as a Financial Services Assistant Manager ("AM") from September 2013 until April 2018. Plaintiff Barbera is a resident of the County of Suffolk, State of New York. Plaintiff Barbera is a Black woman. Plaintiff Barbera was employed by TFCU as an AM from August 2006 until March 2016. TFCU is a federally chartered credit union, with its principal place of business in the County of Suffolk, State of New York. TFCU maintains control, oversight, and direction over the operation of its facilities, including its employment practices. TFCU's headquarters is located at 102 Motor Parkway, Hauppauge, New York 11788.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Troy L. Kessler, Esq. Garrett Kaske, Esq. SHULMAN KESSLER LLP 534 Broadhollow Road, Suite 275 Melville, NY 11747 Phone: (631) 499-9100 Email: tkessler@shulmankessler.com gkaske@shulmankessler.com - and - Hope Pordy, Esq. SPIVAK LIPTON LLP 1700 Broadway New York, NY 10019 Phone: (212) 765-2100 Email: hpordy@spivaklipton.com TONY'S FINER: Figueroa Sues Over Unlawful Use of Biometric Data --------------------------------------------------------------- Charlene Figueroa, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Tony's Finer Foods Enterprises, Inc., Tony's Finer Foods No. 6, Inc., and Tony's Finer Foods No. 9 Inc., d/b/a Tony's Fresh Market a/k/a Super Tony's Finer Foods, Defendants, Case No. 2018CH15728 (Circuit Ct., Cook Cty., Ill., December 19, 2018) seeks to redress and curtail Defendants' unlawful collection, use, storage, and disclosure of Plaintiff's sensitive biometric data. When Defendants hire an employee, he or she is enrolled in their Kronos employee database using a scan of his or her fingerprint. Defendants use the Kronos employee database to monitor the time worked by their hourly employees. While many employers use conventional methods for time tracking (such as ID badge or punch clocks), Defendants' employees are required to have their fingerprints scanned by a biometric timekeeping device. The Defendants improperly disclose their employees' fingerprint data to at least one third-party, Kronos, and likely others, asserts the complaint. Plaintiff and other similarly-situated individuals are aggrieved because they were not: (1) informed in writing of the purpose and length of time for which their fingerprints were being collected, stored, disseminated and used; (2) provided a publicly available retention schedule or guidelines for permanent destruction of the biometric data; and (3) provided (nor did they execute) a written release, as required by the Biometric Information Privacy Act. Defendant also failed to destroy the biometric data when the initial purpose for collecting or obtaining such data has been satisfied or within three years of the employee's last interactions with the company, says the complaint. These violations have raised a material risk that Plaintiffs and other similarly-situated individuals' biometric data will be unlawfully accessed by third parties. Plaintiff, on behalf of herself as well as the putative Class, seeks an Order: (1) declaring that each Defendant's conduct violates BIPA; (2) requiring each Defendant to cease the unlawful activities discussed herein; and (3) awarding statutory damages to Plaintiff and the proposed Class. Plaintiff Charlene Figueroa is a natural person and a citizen in the State of Illinois. Tony's Finer Foods Enterprises, Inc. is an Illinois corporation that is registered with the Illinois Secretary of State and conducts business in the State of Illinois, including Cook County. Tony's Fresh Market No. 6., Inc. is an Illinois corporation that is registered with the Illinois Secretary of State and conducts business in the State of Illinois, including Cook County. Tony's Fresh Market No. 9., Inc. is an Illinois corporation that is registered with the Illinois Secretary of State and conducts business in the State of Illinois, including Cook County.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James B. Zouras, Esq. Andrew C. Ficzko, Esq. Haley R. Jenkins, Esq. STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP 100 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 2150 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: 312.233.1550 Fax: 312.233.1560 Email: jzouras@stephanzouras.com aficzko@stephanzouras.com hjenkins@stephanzouras.com TRAININGWHEEL: Consultants Hit Misclassification, Seek Overtime Pay ------------------------------------------------------------------- Katrina Freeman and Aireanne Clark, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. TrainingWheel Corporation, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-01932 (D. Del., December 6, 2018), seeks all available relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. TrainingWheel provides training and support to medical facilities in connection with the implementation of new electronic recordkeeping systems. Freeman and Clark are consultants who provide training and support services to their clients throughout the United States. Plaintiffs allege that they were improperly classified as independent contractors, and, as a result, did not receive overtime pay for hours worked in excess of forty in a workweek. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shanon J. Carson, Esq. Daniel R. Miller, Esq. Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq. Alexandra K. Piazza, Esq. BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C. 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 Facsimile: (215) 875-4604 Email: scarson@bm.net sschalman-bergen@bm.net apiazza@bm.net dmiller@bm.net - and - David M. Blanchard, Esq. BLANCHARD & WALKER, PLLC 221 N. Main Street, Suite 300 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 Telephone: (734) 929-4313 Email: blanchard@bwlawonline.com - and - Harold Lichten, Esq. Olena Savytska, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston St., Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 Facsimile: (617) 994-5801 Email: hlichten@llrlaw.com osavytska@llrlaw.com TRES DIAMANTE: Restaurant Staff Seek Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- Elsy Flores, Emma Garcia, Jonatan Orellana, Bernarda Martinez, Erika Morales, Ingrid Sagastume, And Yolanda Martinez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Tres Diamante Restaurant Inc., Rosabel Calderon and Jose Alfredo Mancia, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-06949, (E.D. N.Y., December 6, 2018) seeks to recover overtime compensation for work in excess of forty hours per week, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, costs, and such other legal an and New York Labor Law. Defendants operate as "Tres Diamantes" and "La Jolla" restaurants serving Latin American cuisine where Plaintiffs worked as restaurant staff. They claim overtime for hours rendered in excess of 40 hours per week. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Adam Sackowitz, Esq. KATZ MELINGER PLLC 280 Madison Avenue, Suite 600 New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 460-0047 Email: ajsackowitz@katzmelinger.com U.S. BANCORP: Sued over Excessive Reductions to Pension Plan ------------------------------------------------------------ Janet Smith, Debra Thorne, Sonja Lindley and Pamela Kaberline, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. U.S. Bancorp, the Employee Benefits Committee and John/Jane Does 1-5, the Defendant, Case No. 0:18-cv-03405 (D. Minn., Dec. 14, 2018), is a class action under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 concerning the unreasonable, excessive reductions to the pension benefits that Plaintiffs earned under the U.S. Bank Pension Plan's final average pay formula when they retired before age 65. The Plan is the combination of numerous defined benefit plans sponsored by U.S. Bank and its predecessors, some of which used different formulae to calculate the accrual of benefits. Beginning in 2002 for most, and by 2003 for all, participants began accruing benefits under a new final average pay formula ("Final Average Pay Formula"). The Plan's normal retirement age is 65, and the Plan's normal retirement benefit assumes retirement at that age. Participants who accrued benefits under the Final Average Pay Formula can retire as early as age 55. When a participant retires before age 65, the participant's benefits are reduced by a prescribed early commencement factor ("ECF"), which represents the percentage of that participant's normal retirement benefit that the participant will receive when retiring early. For example, an ECF of .90 means that participants receive 90% of the normal retirement benefit they would have been entitled to at age 65. ERISA section 204(c)(3), 29 U.S.C. section 1054(c)(3), provides that an early retirement benefit must be actuarially equivalent to the normal retirement benefit the participant would receive at age 65 under the terms of the plan based on reasonable actuarial assumptions about future interest rates and life expectancies. The ECFs applicable to the Final Average Pay Formula egregiously violate this requirement. They are unreasonable, excessive and incongruent with the interest rates and life expectancies that existed throughout the Class Period. For example, the ECFs improperly reduce participants' retirement benefits by as much as 22 percent compared to the current actuarial assumptions that the Plan uses to calculate the "actuarial equivalent" of other benefits and by as much as 32 percent compared to the ECFs that apply to the Plan's other benefit accrual formulae. By reducing Plaintiffs' benefits in greater amounts than are actuarially reasonable to account for Plaintiffs' retirements before age 65, Defendants caused Plaintiffs to forfeit part of their vested retirement benefits in violation of ERISA Sections 203 and 204, 29 U.S.C. sections 1053 and 204. The Plan is an "employee pension benefit plan" within the meaning of ERISA. The Plan covers eligible employees of U.S. Bancorp and its subsidiaries. U.S. Bancorp is the Plan's sponsor. The Plan is the result of the merger on January 1, 2002 of the U.S. Bancorp Cash Balance Pension Plan (the "Old Cash Balance Plan") and the Firstar Corporation Employees Pension Plan (the "Firstar Plan"). U.S. Bancorp is a financial services company headquartered in Minneapolis, Minnesota that provides a full range of financial services, including lending and depository services, cash management, capital markets services, investment management, credit card services and mortgage banking. U.S. Bancorp's banking subsidiary is U.S. Bank, National Association, which has over $357 billion in deposits.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq. Amanda M. Williams, Esq. GUSTAFSON GLUEK LLP Canadian Pacific Plaza 120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: 612 333-8844 Facsimile: 612 339-6622 E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com awilliams@gustafsongluek.com - and - Robert A. Izard, Esq. Mark P. Kindall, Esq. Douglas Needham, Esq. Seth R. Klein, Esq. IZARD, KINDALL & RAABE LLP 29 South Main Street, Suite 305 West Hartford, CT 06107 Telephone: 860-493-6292 Facsimile: 860-493-6290 Email: rizard@ikrlaw.com mkindall@ikrlaw.com dneedham@ikrlaw.com sklein@ikrlaw.com - and - BAILEY & GLASSER LLP Gregory Y. Porter, Esq. Mark G. Boyko, Esq. 1054 31st Street, NW, Suite 230 Washington, DC 20007 Telephone: (202) 463-2101 Facsimile: (202) 463-2103 E-mail: gporter@baileyglasser.com mboyko@baileyglasser.com UNITED TRANZACTIONS: Lake Suit Asserts FDCPA Breach --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against United Tranzactions, LLC. The case is styled as Joshua Lake, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. United Tranzactions, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 6:18-cv-01469-BKS-ATB (N.D. N.Y., December 19, 2018). The lawsuit arises under the Fair Debt Collection Act. United TranzActions, LLC provides payment solutions for automotive, furniture, building materials and supplies, equipment sales and rentals, trucking, retail, manufacturing, healthcare and hospitality, and distribution industries. It offers payment processing, electronic bill presentment and payment, credit card merchant, ACH processing-guaranteed, check guarantee, and credit card payment solutions, as well as customized financial services to fit various platforms and integrated payment systems.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yitzchak Zelman, Esq. Marcus & Zelman, LLC 701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300 Asbury Park, NJ 07712 Tel: (845) 367-7146 Fax: (732) 298-6256 Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com VANEGAS INT'L: Salazar Seeks to Recover Overtime & Minimum Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- LUIS EDUARDO SALAZAR, and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(b) v. VANEGAS INTERNATIONAL GROUP LLC, MATELO ENTERPRISES, INC., MONICA VANEGAS, ANASTACIO LORENTE, Case No. 1:18-cv-25143-KMM (S.D. Fla., December 7, 2018), seeks to recover alleged unpaid overtime and minimum wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Vanegas International Group LLC is a corporation that regularly transacts business within Dade County, Florida. Matelo Enterprises, Inc., is a corporation that regularly transacts business within Dade County. The Defendant Corporations are Florida Profit Corporations headquartered in Key Biscayne, Florida. The Individual Defendants are corporate officers, owners or managers of the Defendant Corporations.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J.H. Zidell, Esq. J.H. ZIDELL, P.A. 300 71st Street, Suite 605 Miami Beach, FL 33141 Telephone: (305) 865-6766 Facsimile: (305) 865-7167 E-mail: zabogado@aol.com VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Roper Sues Over Unpaid Off-the-Clock Work ----------------------------------------------------------------- ANGELA ROPER and RENEE JOHNSON, for themselves and all others similarly situated v. VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS, INC. and CELLCO PARTNERSHIP d/b/a VERIZON WIRELESS, Case No. 5:18-cv-05270-EGS (E.D. Pa., December 7, 2018), accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act of 1968 and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law by knowingly suffering or permitting certain full-time, hourly employees to: * perform approximately 15 minutes of off-the-clock pre-shift work; * approximately 30 minutes of off-the-clock meal break work; and * approximately 15 minutes of off-the-clock post-shift work each day without paying any wages for this work. Verizon Communications, Inc., is a Delaware company with a corporate headquarters in New York City, an operations headquarters in Basking Ridge, New Jersey, and more than 150,000 employees worldwide. Verizon designs, builds and operates telecommunications networks, information systems and mobile technologies and provides a wide array of customer help, information and support services relating to its various products and services from dozens of call centers and offices in more than 20 states. Cellco Partnership, doing business as Verizon Wireless, is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Verizon with a corporate headquarters in Basking Ridge. Verizon Wireless provides wireless, residential, and business telecommunications products and services to over 150 million subscribers in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David J. Cohen, Esq. STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP 604 Spruce Street Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 873-4836 E-mail: dcohen@stephanzouras.com - and - James B. Zouras, Esq. Ryan F. Stephan, Esq. STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP 100 North Riverside, Suite 2150 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 233-1550 E-mail: jzouras@stephanzouras.com rstephan@stephanzouras.com WELLS FARGO: $480MM Settlement in Hefler Suit Has Final Approval ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, GARY HEFLER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. WELLS FARGO & COMPANY, et al., Defendants, Case No. 16-cv-05479-JST (N.D. Cal.), Judge Jon S. Tigar of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted both (i) Union's motion for final approval of the class action settlement and the plan of allocation; and (ii) the Class Counsel's motion for an award of attorneys' fees and litigation expenses. The Plaintiffs bring the federal securities class action against Wells Fargo and several of its officers and directors for violations of sections 10(b), 20(a), and 20A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Securities and Exchange Commission's Rule 10b-5. Lead Plaintiff Union Asset Management Holding, AG brings these claims on behalf of all persons who purchased Wells Fargo common stock between Feb. 26, 2014 and Sept. 20, 2016, inclusive. The substance of Union's claims is set forth in greater detail in the Court's prior order granting in part and denying in part the Defendants' motions to dismiss. In short, Union alleges that the Defendants made repeated misrepresentations and omissions about a core element of Wells Fargo's business: its acclaimed 'cross-selling' business model, artificially inflating Wells Fargo's stock price. Union seeks damages related to this inflation of Wells Fargo's stock price and its subsequent decline when the truth about Wells Fargo's practices came to light through a series of disclosures in September 2016. On July 31, 2018, Union filed an unopposed motion to certify a settlement class and for preliminary approval of a settlement. On Sept. 4, 2018, the Court granted the motion for preliminary approval, conditionally certified the class, and appointed BLB&G as the Class Counsel. Union has now filed a motion for final approval of the class action settlement and the plan of allocation and Class Counsel has filed a motion for an award of attorneys' fees and litigation expenses. The Court held a fairness hearing on Dec. 18, 2018. The proposed settlement agreement resolves claims between Wells Fargo and the class, which the Court conditionally certified as all persons and entities who purchased Wells Fargo common stock from Feb. 26, 2014 through Sept. 20, 2016, inclusive. Under the Settlement, Wells Fargo has paid $480 million into the Settlement Fund. The following amounts will be subtracted from the Settlement Amount: (1) taxes; (2) notice costs; and (3) attorneys' fees and expenses. Pursuant to the proposed plan of allocation, the class members who submit timely claims will receive payments on a pro rata basis based on the date(s) the class members purchased and sold Wells Fargo common stock, as well as the total number and amount of claims filed. To calculate the amount that will be paid to each class member, the Claims Administrator will determine each claim's share of the Settlement Fund proceeds based upon the claimant's recognized loss. Before deducting any costs or attorneys' fees, the Settlement represents an average recovery of $0.44 per eligible share. After deductions, the recovery will be approximately $0.35 per share. No distribution will be made to Authorized Claimants who would otherwise receive a distribution of less than $10; instead, those funds will be included in the distribution to other Authorized Claimants. Nine months after the initial distribution, the Claims Administrator will make additional re-distributions to class members if it is cost effective to do so. Any Settlement Funds not distributed to the class will be paid to a cy pres recipient: the Investor Protection Trust. Wells Fargo reserves the right to terminate the Settlement in the event that Settlement Class Members timely and validly requesting exclusion from the Settlement Class meet the conditions set forth in Wells Fargo's confidential supplemental agreement with the Lead Plaintiff. The Plaintiffs' Counsel moves the Court for 20% of the overall $480 million Settlement Amount. This represents an award of approximately $95.9 million in attorneys' fees. Although the Notice Packet informed the class members that the Plaintiffs' Counsel would seek reimbursement of up to $750,000 in expenses, the counsel are now seeking reimbursement of $469,795.22 in expenses. Judge finds (i) that the counsel's requested fees and expenses are reasonable; (ii) the class representatives and the class counsel have adequately represented the class; and (iii) the Settlement was the product of arm's length negotiations. For these reasons, he confirmed the certification of the class for settlement purposes only, and the appointment of Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman LP as the Class Counsel. He granted (i) final approval of the proposed settlement and the plan of allocation; (ii) the 253 requests to be excluded from the class; and (iii) the motion for attorneys' fees and litigation expenses. WELLS FARGO: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Garr Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------- ANGELA GARR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-06997-DMR (N.D. Cal., Nov. 19, 2018) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls. Wells Fargo Bank, National Association operates as a bank. The Bank offers online and mobile banking, home mortgage, loans and credit, investment and retirement, wealth management, and insurance services. Wells Fargo Bank serves commercial, retail, and institutional customers in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Simon S. Grille, Esq. Daniel C. Girard, Esq. Angelica M. Ornelas, Esq. GIRARD SHARP LLP 601 California Street, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 981-4800 Facsimile: (415) 981-4846 E-mail: dgirard@girardsharp.com aornelas@girardsharp.com sgrille@girardsharp.com WOLF APPLIANCE: Certification of Classes Sought in Kail Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ The Plaintiffs in the lawsuits captioned IVAN and MELANIE KAIL, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. WOLF APPLIANCE, INC., Case No. 2:15-cv-03513-JS-GRB (E.D.N.Y.); BARRY GARFINKLE, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. WOLF APPLIANCE, INC., Case No. 2:17-cv-03753-JS-GRB (E.D.N.Y.); and FREDERICK I. SHARP, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. WOLF APPLIANCE, INC., Case No. 2:18-cv-01723-JS-GRB (E.D.N.Y.), move the Court for an order: (a) certifying the Plaintiffs' claims as a class action, under Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(2)-(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; (b) appointing the Plaintiffs as Class Representatives for their respective classes; (c) appointing the Plaintiffs' counsel, the law firm of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, as Class Counsel under Rule 23(g); and (d) ordering the Plaintiffs to provide the Court with a proposed form and manner of notice to the certified classes under Rule 23(c).[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. Mark S. Reich, Esq. Vincent M. Serra, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: (631) 367-7100 Facsimile: (631) 367-1173 E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com mreich@rgrdlaw.com vserra@rgrdlaw.com YELP INC: Spiegelman Sues over Unauthorized Use of Private Data --------------------------------------------------------------- KATHLEEN SPIEGELMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. YELP INC.; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 18STCV05378 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Nov. 16, 2018) is a class action against the Defendant for unlawfully using the Plaintiff's personal data, names, photographs, and private information for profit, without her prior consent. Yelp Inc. operates a platform that connects people with local businesses in the United States, Canada, and internationally. Yelp Inc. was founded in 2004 and is headquartered in San Francisco, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Talin V. Yacoubian, Esq. Stewart J. Powell, Esq. YACOUBIAN & POWELL LLP 725 South Figueroa St., Suite 1750 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 955-7145 Facsimile: (213) 955-7146 ********* 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 2019. 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 ***