/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/190103.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, January 3, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 3 Headlines ACOSTA SALES: Settles Overtime Pay Class Action for $3MM ACTELION PHARMACEUTICALS: Sued over Monopoly of Bosentan Drug ALABAMA: Suit Challenges Rule on Suspension of Driver's License ALEX'S AUTO: Freddy Macas Seeks Overtime Pay ALEXANDRE FINE: Faces Tucker Suit Alleging ADA Violation ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Faces Romonoyske Suit in E.D. New York ALLURA USA: Removes Lowe et al. Suit to D. South Carolina ALPHABET INC: El Mawardy Suit Moved to N.D. California AMERICAN BOARD: Internists File Antitrust Class Action AMERICAS BEST: Faces Honeywell Suit in N.D. Ohio AMP: Judge Reserves Ruling in Bid for Lead Counsel in Class Action ANTHEM BLUE: Must Still Face Eating Disorder Coverage Lawsuit APHRIA: Faces Shareholder Class Actions ARTEX RISK: Faces Class Action Over Captive Insurance Tax Shelter AUSTRALIA: Sued Over Crimes Against Manus, Nauru Asylum Seekers BAD BOY: Martinez Case Moved to Southern District of Florida BETHESDA: Legal Situation Over Fallout 76 Still Uncertain BITMAIN INC: Gevorkyan Sues over Use of Crypto Currency Devices BLUM & POE: Tucker Files Suit under ADA in S.D. New York BOEING: Appeals Court Overturns Injunction to Stop Embraer Tie-Up BOERS WEI GALLERIES: Tucker Files Suit under ADA in S.D. New York BRADLE COUNTY, TN: Sued Over Inadequate Health Care at Jail C.C.M. CORPORATION: Faces Rambeau Suit in Sacramento California CALIFORNIA FACULTY: Professor Files Class Action Over Union Fees CALIFORNIA MARINE: Marin Seeks Overtime Pay under Labor Code CANADA: 60s Scoop Survivors Eligible for Compensation CANADA: Halifax Orphanage Ill-Equipped to Meet Children's Needs CANADA: Settlement Reached in Indian Day Schools Lawsuit CASTELLI GALLERY: Tucker Suit Asserts Disabilities Act Breach CAT5 RESOURCES: Louviere Seeks Overtime Compensation CHEMOURS: Consent Order Insufficient to Rectify Damage CONAGRA FOODS: Must Face Parkay Spray Class Action COSMETIC INSTITUTE: Class Action Over Botched Surgery Promising CPP ENTERPRISES: Rivera Seeks Unpaid Overtime Premium CRAIG F. STARR: Tucker Files Suit under ADA in New York CUMBERLAND EXCAVATION: Underpays Construction Workers, Gill Says D. WIGMORE FINE: Faces ADA Class Action in S.D. New York DAVID TUNICK: Tucker Files ADA Class Action in NY DAVID ZWIRNER GALLERY: Violates Disabilities Act, Tucker Suit Says DENMARK, SC: Citizens File Class Action Over Use of HaloSan DI DONNA GALLERIES: Tucker Files Suit in New York under ADA DICKINSON ROUNDELL: Gallery Hit With ADA Class Suit DIDIER AARON: Violates ADA, Tucker Suit Says DIRECT ENERGY: Voussefi Seeks Lost Wages for Sales Representatives DYNAMIC PRESENCE: Kelley Macey Seeks Overtime Premium EDWARD TYLER NAHEM: Tucker Files Suit under ADA in New York ENCORE HEALTH: Pierce Suit Transferred to Southern Dist. of Texas EQT CORP: Royalty Owners' Class Action Nears Conclusion ERIK THOMSEN LLC: Violates Disabilities Act, Tucker Suit Asserts EVANS TIRE: Sanchez et al. Seek Minimum & Overtime Wages FACEBOOK INC: ICA Imposes Fine Amid Personal Data Class Action FIFTH THIRD: Unlawfully Deducts Funds from Bank Account, Suit Says FIG & OLIVE: Vazquez et al. Seek Minimum Wage & Overtime Pay FINA: Class Action Mulled in Australia Over Monopoly of Swimming FIORELLA INSURANCE: Hackett Files Consumer Credit Class Suit FORUM GALLERY: Violates ADA, Tucker Suit Says FRANCIS M. NAUMANN: Faces ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York FRANKLIN PARRASCH: Tucker Files Suit Under Disabilities Act FRANKLIN TEMPLETON: Settles Proprietary Fund Lawsuit GAGOSIAN GALLERY: Faces Tucker Class Action Under ADA GALERIE ST. ETIENNE: Violates ADA, Tucker Suit Says GALVESTON COUNTY, TX: Class Action Challenges Bail System GENERAL DYNAMICS: Freeman Seeks Certification of FLSA Collective GENERAL MOTORS: Sued Over Diesel Fuel Injection Pumps GITTERMAN GALLERY: Tucker Files Suit under ADA in New York GREEN DESK: Workspace Firm Faces Class Suit GREENSKY INC: Coombs Sues over Misleading Financial Report HANS P. KRAUS: Faces Tucker Suit Alleging ADA Violation HAWAII: ACLU Files School Athletics Discrimination Class Action HELENA AGRI-ENTERPRISES: Proctor Suit Moved to S.D. California HELLY NAHMAN GALLERY: Tucker Files Suit under Disabilities Act HOMESTREET BANK: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Parseghian et al. Say HOTELQUICKLY: Class Action Mulled Over Booking Cancellations INVESTMENT TECHNOLOGY: Feb. 21 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set IOOF: Class Action Lawyers Circling in Wake of APRA Action IPASS INC: Rosenblatt Balks at Merger Deal with Pareteum Corp. ISLE OF CAPRI CASINOS: Wins Bid for Summary Judgment in Larson JARDINE LLOYD: Bathurst Regional Council Won't Join Class Action JARDINE LLOYD: Law Firms Invite More Councils to Join Class Suit JARDINE LLOYD: Orange City Council Joins Insurance Class Action JARIWALA & CO: Lambert Seeks Overtime Pay JC TREE: Berger Seeks Overtime Wages under FLSA JELD-WEN INC: Faces Antitrust Class Action Over Price-Fixing JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Must Face Antitrust Class Action JPMORGAN CHASE: Faces Kristel-Papp Suit in New York KB HOME: Sued over Breach of Contract KELLER LENKNER: Faces Brown Suit in the District of Massachusetts KELLOG CO: 2nd Cir. Revives Cheez-Its "Whole Grain" Class Action KIMBERLY-CLARK: Supreme Court Won't Hear Flushable Wipes Dispute LINCOLN PROPERTY: Sandoval Seeks Overtime Pay MARQUETTE, MI: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Collins et al. Say MARRIOTT INT'L: Koskie Minsky Commences Data Breach Class Action MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Mendez et al. Sue over Data Breach MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Vapnek Sues over Data Breach MDL 2873: Grande vs. 3M Company over AFFF Products Consolidated MEC GENERAL: Oscar Londono Seeks Overtime Wages MERCANTILE ADJUSTMENT: Vedernikov Files FDCPA Suit in New Jersey MINEBEAMITSUMI: Jan. 22 Bearings Settlement Fairness Hearing Set MISSION TRAIL: Fails to Pay Proper OT to Drivers, Villareal Says NET2SOURCE INC: Removes Johns Suit to C.D. California NEW JERSEY: 2 Teachers Sue Over Involuntary Union Payments NISEN SUSHI: Yu Peng Lu Seeks Overtime Pay NISSAN MOTOR: Robbins Geller Files Class Action in Tennessee NISSAN N.A.: Turner Sues over Defective Emergency Braking System NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Rite Aid Suit in S.D. New York OHIO NATIONAL: Faces Class Action Over Trailing Commissions OVASCIENCE, INC: Faces Aubets Suit over Proposed Merger PRIORITY PAYMENT: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Fabricant Claims QUICKEN LOANS: Hackett Asserts Consumer Credit Suit in Fla. REED'S INC: Mason Sues over Sale of Mislabeled Soda Products REGIS CORP: Receipt Disclosed Credit Card Number, Cone Claims RGS FINANCIAL: Vedernikov Files Suit in D. New Jersey RIPPLE LABS: Class Action Over XRP Ongoing RIPPLE LABS: Plaintiffs Wants Class Action Moved to State Court SAKS FIFTH: Rice Sues over Unlawful Text Messaging SETERUS INC: Wenger Files Suit for Breach of Contract STATEWIDE TRANSPORT: Randle Seeks Overtime Pay for Drivers SUNRISE CREDIT: Vedernikov Files FDCPA Suit in New Jersey SURNAIK HOLDINGS: Court Narrows Claims in Callihan Suit TELADOC HEALTH: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims TELLTALE: Launches Final Walking Dead Episode Amid Class Action TIGER BRANDS: First Listeriosis Claims Payout Expected in 2020 TRADER JOE'S: Lima Sues over Deceptive Branding of Honey Nut O's TRUSTMARK NATIONAL: Sued for Improperly Charging Overdraft Fees UBER TECHNOLOGIES: 12,501 Drivers Sue Over Arbitration Agreement UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Lawyers File More Arbitration Demands at JAM UNITED STATES: ACLU Sues ICE Over Asylum-Seekers' Detention UNITED STATES: Judge to Likely Advance Travel Ban Waiver Case VICTORIA'S SECRET: Lambey Seeks Overtime Wages WAL-MART STORES: Mays Moves to Certify Wage Statement Classes WALT DISNEY: Home-Video Distributors File Class Action WELLMONT HEALTH: Class Action Jury Trial Expected to Wrap Up WILLIAMSBURG LAUNDROMAT: Viano et al. Seek Overtime Pay WINMILL & CO: Appeals Delaware Court Ruling in Ravenswood Case WORKPAC: Adero Prepares to File Suit Over "Double Dipping" ********* ACOSTA SALES: Settles Overtime Pay Class Action for $3MM -------------------------------------------------------- Braden Campbell, writing for Law360, reports that an Acosta Sales & Marketing unit has agreed to pay $3 million to end a class action alleging it stiffed thousands of workers on overtime pay. [GN] 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-03571-CCB (D. Md., Nov. 20, 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: E. David Hoskins, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF E. DAVID HOSKINS, LLC 16 East Lombard Street, Suite 400 Baltimore, MD 21202 Telephone: (410) 662-6500 Facsimile: (410) 662-7800 E-mail: davidhoskins@hoskinslaw.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@rawlingsandassociates.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 ALABAMA: Suit Challenges Rule on Suspension of Driver's License --------------------------------------------------------------- LAKENDRA COOK; CHRISTOPHER GRAY; and SHARON MOTLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HAL TAYLOR, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Alabama Law Enforcement Agency, Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-977-WKW-SRW (M.D. Ala., Nov. 19, 2018) seeks to challenge the constitutionality of Alabama Rule of Criminal Procedure 26.11(i)(3) which authorizes the suspension of an individual's driver's license for nonpayment of traffic tickets. The complaint seeks the following: a declaration that Alabama Rule of Criminal Procedure 26.11(i)(3) which authorizes the suspension of an individual's driver's license for nonpayment of traffic tickets, is unconstitutional; an injunction preventing Alabama Law Enforcement Agency from effectuating any driver's license suspension pursuant to Alabama Rule of Criminal Procedure 26.11(i)(3); an injunction requiring Alabama Law Enforcement Agency to reinstate any driver's license previously suspended under Alabama Rule of Criminal Procedure 26.11(i)(3) without requiring a reinstatement fee, if there are no other independent reasons for suspension; and an injunction requiring Alabama Law Enforcement Agency to provide notice of reinstatement to individuals with suspended driver's licenses for nonpayment. The Alabama Law Enforcement Agency, abbreviated as "ALEA", is a law enforcement agency serving the U.S. state of Alabama. It exists within the Executive Branch of State Government to coordinate public safety in Alabama. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Micah West, Esq. Sara Zampieren, Esq. SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER 400 Washington Avenue Montgomery, AL 36104 Telephone: (334) 956-8200 Facsimile: (334) 956-8481 E-mail: samuel.brooke@splcenter.org micah.west@splcenter.org sara.zampierin@splcenter.org - and – Danielle Davis, Esq. SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER 201 St. Charles Avenue, Suite 2000 New Orleans, LA 70170 Telephone: (504) 526-8982 Facsimile: (504) 486-8947 E-mail: danielle.davis@splcenter.org ALEX'S AUTO: Freddy Macas Seeks Overtime Pay -------------------------------------------- FREDDY V. MACAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. ALEX'S AUTO BODY I, INC.; and ALEXANDER KHAIMOV, individually and as officer, director, and or principal of ALEX'S AUTO BODY I, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-07184 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 17, 2018), seeks to recover damages and other legal and equitable relief against Defendants, for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, the Wage Theft Prevention Act. The Plaintiff also brings this action for Defendants' conduct, which amounts to the tort of conversion. According to the complaint, the case is a putative collective and class action brought by Plaintiff challenging acts committed by the Defendants against Plaintiff and those similarly situated, which amount to violations of federal and state wage and hour laws. The Defendants employed Plaintiff and all others similarly situated as mechanics, which includes the positions of assembly workers, painters, painters' assistants, alignment workers, bodywork workers, and electrical workers, to repair automobiles at their Brooklyn, New York facility. Mechanics often rotated what position they were in (e.g., one week they performed electrical work while the next they performed auto body work). Plaintiff was employed by Defendants primarily as an alignment workers. brings this action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b), on behalf of himself and a collective of persons who are and were employed by Defendants as Mechanics during the past three years through the final date of the disposition of this action who were not paid the proper statutorily required rate of one and a half times their hourly rate for all hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek and are entitled to recover: (i) unpaid and incorrectly paid wages for all hours worked in a workweek, as required by law, (ii) unpaid overtime, (iii) liquidated damages, (iv) interest, (v) attorneys' fees and costs, and (vi) such other and further relief as this Court finds necessary and proper. Plaintiff also brings this action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, on behalf of himself and two classes of persons who are and were employed by Defendants as Mechanics during the past six years through the final date of the disposition of this action who were: (I) not paid the statutorily required rate of 1-1/2 times their hourly rate for all hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek; and (ii) not issued the proper wage statements and notices pursuant to the WTPA, which violates the NYLL and are entitled to recover: (i) unpaid and incorrectly paid wages for all hours worked in a workweek, as required by law, (ii) unpaid overtime, (iii) liquidated damages, (iv) penalties, (v) interest, (vi) attorneys' fees and costs, and (vii) such other and further relief as this Court finds necessary and proper. Plaintiff also brings this action for Defendants' unauthorized exclusive dominion over Plaintiff's equipment and tools, which amounts to the tort of conversion and seeks to recover: (i) the value of the property at the time of its conversion, (ii) lost profits, (iii) interest, (iv) punitive damages, and (v) such other and further relief as this Court finds necessary and proper, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Robert R. Barravecchio, Esq. Alexander M. White, Esq. VALLI KANE & VAGNINI LLP 600 Old Country Road, Suite 519 Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: (516) 203-7180 Facsimile: (516) 706-0248 ALEXANDRE FINE: Faces Tucker Suit Alleging ADA Violation -------------------------------------------------------- Alexandre Fine Art Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Henry Tucker, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Alexandre Fine Art Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-11725 (S.D. N.Y., December 14, 2018). Alexandre Fine Art Inc. is an art Gallery located in New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq. Cohen & Mizrahi LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Tel: (917) 299-6612 Fax: (929) 575-4195 Email: joseph@cml.legal ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Faces Romonoyske Suit in E.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alltran Financial, LP. The case is styled as Sharon Romonoyske, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Alltran Financial, LP, Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-07138 (E.D. N.Y., December 14, 2018). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices 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 is represented by: David M. Barshay, Esq. Barshay Sanders PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Tel: (516) 741-4799 Fax: (516) 706-5055 Email: dbarshay@barshaysanders.com - and - Craig B. Sanders, Esq. Sanders Law, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Tel: (516) 203-7600 Fax: (516) 281-7601 Email: csanders@sanderslawpllc.com ALLURA USA: Removes Lowe et al. Suit to D. South Carolina --------------------------------------------------------- The Defendant in the case of DOMINIC LOWE, and AMANDA LOWE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALLURA USA LLC; PLYCEM USA LLC doing business as: ALLURA; PLYCEM USA INC.; ELEMENTIA USA INC.; and ELEMENTIA SA DE CV, Defendants, filed a notice of removal of the lawsuit from the Court of Common Pleas of the State of South Carolina, County of Berkeley (Case No. 2018-CP-08-01578) to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, and assigned Case No. 2:18-cv-03160-DCN. The case is assigned to Honorable David C Norton. Plycem USA, Inc. manufactures and sells fiber cement exterior trims for construction projects in the United States and Costa Rica. Its projects include sustainable concept houses, single family homes and attached villas, and condominiums. The company serves contractors. It offers its products through distributors. The company was founded in 2008 and is based in Alpharetta, Georgia. Plycem USA, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Elementia, S.A. de C.V. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Amanda Morgan Blundy, Esq. Phillip W Segui , Jr., Esq. SEGUI LAW FIRM 864 Lowcountry Blvd, Suite A Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464 Telephone: (843) 884-1865 Facsimile: (843) 884-1465 E-mail: ablundy@seguilawfirm.com psegui@seguilawfirm.com The Defendants are represented by: Edward D Buckley , Jr., Esq. YOUNG CLEMENT RIVERS PO Box 993 Charleston, SC 29402 Telephone: (843) 724-6686 Facsimile: (843) 724-6600 E-mail: ebuckley@ycrlaw.com ALPHABET INC: El Mawardy Suit Moved to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit titled KHALED EL MAWARDY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALPHABET, INC.; LAWRENCE PAGE; and RUTH PORAT, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-05704, was removed from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on November 19, 2018. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:18-cv-07018 to the proceeding. Alphabet Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides online advertising services in the United States and internationally. Alphabet Inc. was founded in 1998 and is headquartered in Mountain View, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Phillip Kim, Esq. Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 686-1060 Facsimile: (212) 202-3827 Email: pkim@rosenlegal.com lrosen@rosenlegal.com AMERICAN BOARD: Internists File Antitrust Class Action ------------------------------------------------------ Ken Terry, writing for Medscape, reports that four internists from around the country recently filed a class-action antitrust suit on behalf of over 100,000 internal medicine physicians against the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM), alleging that the ABIM illegally ties its initial board certification to maintenance of certification (MOC) exams that internists and internal-medicine subspecialists must pay for in order to keep their certification. Filed in the federal court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the suit claims that ABIM has tied its MOC product to initial board certification to prevent competition. [GN] AMERICAS BEST: Faces Honeywell Suit in N.D. Ohio ------------------------------------------------ CHERI HONEYWELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAS BEST VALUE INN CLEVELAND AIRPORT, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-02697-DAP (N.D. Ohio, Nov. 20, 2018) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is assigned to Judge Dan Aaron Polster. Americas Best Value Inn operates a chain of hotels, inns, and suites in North America. It also offers family vacation, weekend getaway, sports, business travel, and group packages. The company is based in Westlake Village, California. Americas Best Value Inn operates as a subsidiary of Vantage Hospitality Group, Inc. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marc E. Dann, Esq. Emily C. White, Esq. DANN LAW FIRM P.O. Box 6031040 Cleveland, OH 44103 Telephone: (216) 373-0539 Facsimile: (216) 373-0536 E-mail: mdann@dannlaw.com ewhite@dannlaw.com AMP: Judge Reserves Ruling in Bid for Lead Counsel in Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------------ Misa Han, writing Australian Financial Review, reports that on May 9, a day before AMP's annual general meeting, boutique class-action specialist Quinn Emanuel filed the first class action against the wealth giant in the NSW Supreme Court. Less than a month prior, AMP had had a spectacular blow-up at the banking royal commission which saw its market value fall by $2 billion. It had the potential to be one of Australia's largest shareholder claims, Quinn Emanuel said in a media release, less than two hours after filing the court documents. It turns out Quinn Emanuel wasn't the only law firm working towards a tight deadline. At 10.56 that night, another boutique class-action firm, Phi Finney McDonald, electronically filed its class action against AMP, this time in the Federal Court. After that a flurry of filings followed. By June 7 there were three more law firms -- Maurice Blackburn, Slater & Gordon and Shine Lawyers -- in the Federal Court, all wanting not just a slice but the whole cake that is the AMP class action. "We've seen competing class actions before but we haven't seen this sort of frenzy," Chris Pagent, head of class actions at law firm Corrs Chambers Westgarth, says. AMP represents the perfect storm of opportunities for class-action lawyers and litigation funders. The hard work that precedes a shareholder class action -- preliminary discovery of documents -- has already been done by the Hayne royal commission. And the sworn evidence of AMP's star witness, the wealth giant's departed head of advice Jack Regan, and AMP's documents are available on the banking royal commission website for all to see. Even though AMP has previously said it will defend the class actions, has filed a defence to that effect and has not set aside an amount for settlement, the expectation is the matter will settle before it goes to court. As much was said by Phi Finney McDonald's barrister Alec Leopold, SC, who said AMP's admissions at the royal commission were "explicit", "damning" and "extensive" and the case had a good prospect of settling at an early mediation because there was no need to wait for discovery. 'IMF and daylight' There are external factors at play too. There are more global litigation funders than ever before circling around the Australian class-action scene. One source close to the case said that two years ago "it was IMF [ASX-listed litigation funder] and daylight", but that had changed. The contest over the GetSwift shareholder class action was a prime example. In that case three law firms -- Phi Finney McDonald, Squire Patton Boggs and Corrs Chambers Westgarth -- all competed in a so-called "beauty parade" for the prize of running the class action. Each of these firms were backed by global funders Therium, International Litigation Partners and Vannin Capital respectively. Phi Finney McDonald eventually won the contest, but not before it went all the way to the full bench of the Federal Court. There is another beauty contest in the Quintis action too, with law firms Piper Alderman, Gadens and Bannister Law all fighting for the prize. But the stakes for the AMP action are much higher and the competition more fierce. The two-day "beauty contest" in room 8A of the NSW Supreme Court was so well attended by lawyers on Dec. 6 and Dec. 7 that Justice Julie Ward had to adjourn the hearing briefly to bring in more chairs. The beauty parade took an ugly turn when Justice Ward interrupted Maurice Blackburn's shopping list of its past achievements to ask: Wasn't Quinn Emanuel's lead partner in this case, Damian Scattini, also involved in some of these actions as a former partner at Maurice Blackburn? His experience was "on any view more limited and not as extensive as Mr Watson's [Maurice Blackburn's head of class actions Andrew Watson]," Maurice Blackburn's barrister Cameron Moore, SC, said, prompting Quinn Emanuel's barrister Richard Lancaster, SC, to respond: "Mr Scattini and Quinn Emanuel also have vast experience with class actions." Meanwhile, Phi Finney McDonald in its submission argued its funder IMF is a superior funder to Shine's funder Augusta and barrister Alec Leopold, SC, boasted the other firms would be "jealous of our number [of 4600 investors it has already signed up]". Price war It is not just each other's reputation the law firms are intent on cutting. They are engaging in a serious price war. Typically a funder lays a claim to about 25 to 35 per cent of a settlement or court-ordered compensation, but in the case of AMP the beauty parade is driving down commissions, to the benefit of shareholders. In this case Quinn Emanuel's funder Burford Capital will take a 10 per cent commission if the case is settled before June 2020, and is offering to waive $300,000 in legal fees that have already been incurred to fight the beauty parade. Phi Finney McDonald's funder IMF will take a 10 per cent cut or $2.50 for every dollar IMF spends. Shine Lawyer's funder Augusta has capped its commission at 8 per cent, which Shine's barrister Ian Pike, SC, says is the "lowest rate that have been offered in class actions in Australia". Maurice Blackburn, which has now formed an alliance with Slater & Gordon, has cut the funder out of the equation altogether and is running the case on a no-win, no-fee basis. "My learned friend, Mr Pike, said [Shine's funder IMF] has the lowest funding commission rate in history. We point out that we have a zero rate," Maurice Blackburn's barrister Mr Moore said. "Well, perhaps arithmetic wasn't Mr Pike's strong form," Justice Ward quipped. "Clearly not, Your Honour," Mr Moore said. Justice Ward has reserved the decision. [GN] ANTHEM BLUE: Must Still Face Eating Disorder Coverage Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------- Jacklyn Wille, writing for BloombergLaw, reports that Anthem Blue Cross Life & Health Insurance Co. notched a victory in a proposed class action seeking coverage for eating disorder treatments, but the lawsuit is moving forward. A federal judge Dec. 7 dismissed the original plaintiff -- who claimed more than $75,000 in wrongfully denied medical bills --after finding she was no longer covered by an Anthem health plan. This meant she lacked standing to seek forward-looking relief, including a court order forcing Anthem to change its claims processing guidelines. [GN] APHRIA: Faces Shareholder Class Actions --------------------------------------- Sean Williams, writing for Fool.com, reports that in just a little over three weeks, the marijuana industry will wrap up its most impressive year ever. Even without pot stocks soaring into the stratosphere, as they did in 2016 and 2017, investors have to be pretty happy. That's because Canada gave the industry long-term validation by becoming the first industrialized country in the world to legalize recreational marijuana. This potentially paves a path for other industrialized countries to follow suit, and could open the door to billions in added annual sales for the legal cannabis industry. Lawyers are licking their chops But there are two sides to every coin, and investors have learned in recent months that the marijuana space can have a dark side, too. The cannabis industry, like every high-growth industry before it, has all the makings of a bubble. We've witnessed similar share-price gains and volatility in the past from the likes of internet stocks, business-to-business commerce companies, genomics stocks, 3D-printing stocks, and even blockchain businesses. And what each of these bubbles had in common was the desire of opportunistic law firms to pounce on any instance where a company's management team was perceived as not having operated in the best interests of investors. In some cases, something as simple as a bad earnings report has been enough to draw a class-action lawsuit. With marijuana stocks highly volatile and investors expecting the world from the weed industry, it was only a matter of time before pot stocks began to contend with the legal side of being publicly traded companies. Aphria becomes an all-too-easy class-action target Ontario-based Aphria (NYSE:APHA) shed 43% of its value in a span of two days after noted short-seller Gabriel Grego, the founder of Quintessential Capital Management, referred to the company as a "black hole" and implied it was worth "zero." According to Bloomberg, which broke the news, Quintessential released a damning report that suggested Aphria grossly overpaid for three Latin American and Caribbean assets purchased from SOL Global Investments, which in turn had purchased the assets for very little from three separate Canadian shell companies. The chairman of SOL Global Investments is Andy DeFrancesco, who also happens to be an Aphria advisor. As truly pointed out following this report, this isn't the only time that an Aphria acquisition has been called into question. Back in March, Aphria acquired Nuuvera for 425 million Canadian dollars, which seemed like a steep price to pay for a company that didn't add any production capacity. Rather, Aphria purchased Nuuvera to gain access to its infrastructure in eight new markets. But the red flag was that CEO Vic Neufeld and other members of Aphria's management team disclosed stakes in Nuuvera just a day prior to the deal closing. Though not unheard of for the management team of one company to have a vested interest in a company being acquired, investors would like to know about it more than one day prior to the deal closing. On Dec. 4, a slew of class-action lawsuits were filed against Aphria on behalf of shareholders that concerned Aphria's recent acquisitions, Quintessential's subsequent report, and the huge share-price decline. It could take a long time for Aphria to regain the trust of investors, and it'll be a costly process to do so. But wait -- there's more And Aphria certainly isn't the only pot stock to draw the ire of lawyers. Before Aphria had a bull's-eye on its back, Las Vegas, Nev.-based CV Sciences (NASDAQOTH:CVSI) was a go-to for class-action law firms. CV Sciences has two means of generating sales. First, it produces and sells consumer products containing cannabidiol (CBD) oil. Cannabidiol is the nonpsychoactive cannabinoid best known for its perceived medical benefits. With the global CBD market expected to grow by 147% per year through 2022, it's not hard to understand why investors are a bit excited about this company. And second, CV Sciences is attempting to create a drug that combines CBD and nicotine as a smokeless tobacco-cessation solution. This initial drug candidate is where those lawsuits have originated. You see, back in August, noted short-seller Citron Research released a report showing that patent application requests for this CBD-nicotine combo had been rejected by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Yet, per the lawsuits and Citron, this rejection was never disclosed to shareholders. Oddly enough, shares of CV Sciences have held up relatively well despite the allegations. In fact, shares are up more than 630% on a year-to-date basis through Dec. 4. Nevertheless, CV Sciences could be facing extensive legal fees to save face moving forward. The reality of every fast-growing, volatile industry over the past quarter century has been the presence of class-action lawsuits, and it's unlikely that the marijuana movement will be any different. [GN] ARTEX RISK: Faces Class Action Over Captive Insurance Tax Shelter ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jay Adkisson, writing for Forbes, reports that a class action lawsuit for selling abusive tax shelters has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, captioned as Shivkov v. Artex Risk Solutions, Inc., Case No. 18-CV-4514. You can read the Complaint here. The class action has numerous representative plaintiffs, which are the former clients of Arthur G. Gallagher & Co.'s subsidiary, Artex Risk Solutions, Inc., and its predecessor, Tribeca Strategic Advisors, LLC. Gallagher, Artex and Tribeca are named as defendants in the lawsuit. Also named in the lawsuit are TBS LLC, the Huish brothers Karl and Jeremy who were involved with Tribeca and later Artex, Debbie Inman, Epsilon Actuarial Solutions, LLC, Julie A. Ekdom, AmeRisk Consulting, LLC and Provincial Insurance, PCC. The Complaint alleges that Tribeca was formed in 1999, and then Gallagher's Artex acquired Tribeca's assets in 2010. Under the Gallagher/Artex scheme, abusive tax shelters disguised as legitimate 831(b) captive insurance companies were sold to wealthy individuals across the United States. Essentially, Artex formed the captive insurance companies and charged management fees to the clients. In an attempt to create the facade of risk distribution, the Artex clients would purchase insurance policies from Provincial Insurance, PCC, which is claimed to have been indirectly owned by Karl Huish and a family member. From Provincial, the clients' premium dollars would then flow by way of a reinsurance agreement back into the clients' respective captives, less any losses -- of which there were in many years none, and in other years next to none. In other words, the Complaint suggests, the use of Provincial as a risk pool was a complete sham. Ultimately, says the Complaint, the IRS concluded that the myriad insurance transactions involving Artex's clients lacked economic substance and were not insurance for tax purposes, in addition to other defects. The IRS thus concluded that the moneys paid to the Artex clients' captives were not deductible to the same clients' businesses that paid them. Many of the Artex clients were then assessed back taxes, penalties, and interest, according to the Complaint, in addition to being charged in the neighborhood of $40,000 to form the captive and around $30,000 per year for each year of the tax shelter. The Complaint alleges a conspiracy involving the named defendants and "Other Participants", being other professionals such as tax attorneys, CPAs, and financial advisors who steered their clients into the Artex scheme in exchange for referral fees paid by Artex or another defendant. These other professionals either knew the Artex captive shelter would not pass IRS muster, the Complaint says, or were willfully ignorant of the glaring defects to the Artex program. Think of these folks as the "players to be sued later". The Class of plaintiff includes all those clients who had captives through either Tribeca or Artex beginning in 2005, and are alleged to have common damages, including their formation and management fees paid to Tribeca or Artex, other fees such as those for actuarial services of dubious benefit, and of course the penalties and fees paid to the IRS. Allegations are made that the acts of the named defendants violate both the federal and Arizona RICO statutes. According to the Complaint, all the defendants and "Other Participants" colluded and conspired for the purpose of extracting substantial moneys from their clients by way of selling them a bogus tax shelter arrangement masquerading as a legitimate 831(b) captive insurance company. Of all the defendants, the largest is Gallagher. According to the Complaint: Gallagher is the parent company of Artex. Gallagher established Artex for the purpose of, among other things, expanding its captive insurance business. Artex was therefore directed by its parent Gallagher to focus on the captive insurance industry and, in furtherance of these efforts, Artex acquired Tribeca. Gallagher also steered its existing clients to Artex. In connection with these efforts, individuals employed by Gallagher could and did receive referral bonuses or commissions when they referred existing Gallagher clients to Artex. Also sued as defendants are the underwriters, actuaries, and their firms who are alleged to have simply targeted the premium price desired by the client for a tax deduction, rather than act as anything like a true neutral and do what they should have done, which was to apply ordinary underwriting and actuarial principles to facts before them. In addition to RICO claims, the Complaint also alleges breach of fiduciary duty, professional negligence, negligent misrepresentation by the defendants, breach of contract, fraud, aiding and abetting, and civil conspiracy by and between the defendants. The Complaint also seeks disgorgement by the defendants of all the fees they received from their clients. This class action is being brought by Dallas attorney David Deary. ANALYSIS Buying Love Canal I remember when I heard that Gallagher via Artex had acquired Tribeca, and thought at the time, "What were the folks at Gallagher smoking?" At least among some folks in the captive sector at the time, Tribeca was thought of as little more than a tax shelter captive shop with very aggressive marketing practices -- for Gallagher to purchase Tribeca was like Gallagher acquiring the captive insurance version of Love Canal. [For folks who don't recall Love Canal, it was a notorious toxic chemical disaster area near Niagara Falls.] In my opinion, somebody at Gallagher made a really bad decision to purchase Tribeca, and then a bunch of other somebodies at Gallagher failed horrendously at due diligence. Then, at the very least, Gallagher should have figured out a way to cut loose of Artex by at least 2014 when the heavy storm clouds were starting to form for the tax shelter captive business. As it is, Gallagher has senselessly ridden the Artex deal over the cliff to where Gallagher itself now faces serious liability exposure. Presumably, smarter folks at Gallagher will soon make the decision to terminate or at least cut loose Artex -- which, amazingly, reportedly still continues to aggressively market 831(b) risk-pooled captives -- and at least Gallagher can then start cutting its losses. For a company like Gallagher, any monetary loss that it will suffer probably pales in comparison to the potential for reputational loss, since no otherwise reputable and profitable insurance broker wants to be viewed as a purveyor of aggressive if not evasive tax schemes. Again, what were the Gallagher folks smoking when they decided to acquire Tribeca via Artex? When Tax Shelters Die Otherwise, the class action lawsuits represent just another phase in what happens when a tax shelter implodes. The class action lawsuits are the next-to-the-last phase, with very last phase being the bankruptcies of the promoters and those clients who can't afford to pay the back taxes, interest and penalties. This is an old movie that is perpetually re-run: From the corporate shelters (BLIPS, CARDS, SON OF BOSS, etc.) of the 1997-2002 period, to the 412(i), 419A(f)(6) and 419(e) welfare benefit plans of the mid-2000s, to the syndicated conservation easements and 831(b) risk-pooled captives of today, the outcome is always about the same: Pain and misery for all involved, except the litigators. The IRS Takes A Hard Line On Penalties Speaking of the penalties, the IRS now seems to be adopting a rule-of-thumb in assessments, where tax years up to and including 2010 are being hit with 20% penalties, and those after 2010 are being assessed penalties at the 40% rate. This position is quite understandable since the IRS is currently batting 1.000 after the two major U.S. Tax Court wins in the Avrahami and Reserve Mechanical cases. So, let's say that a business owner was talked into an abusive 831(b) captive shelter in 2008 and paid $1 million in premiums through 2016, when good sense finally prevailed and the business owner thereafter shut down the captive. In that case, the captive owner would get hit with $200,000 in penalties for each of 2008, 2009 and 2010, and then $400,000 in penalties for each of the six years of 2011 through 2016. This would amount to a $3 million in penalties ($600,000 plus $2.4 million) for the life of the captive. Ouch! The class action lawsuits (whether this one or numerous other ones certainly to follow) would sue the promoter for the return of this $3 million, plus management fees and other costs expended during this same timeframe, which would tack on at least another half-million. Then consider that some of the captive managers were managing hundreds of captives and one can get a handle on the magnitude of the liability involved -- although the numbers and years may vary, the odds are poor that a captive manager who gets hit with a successful class action lawsuit will be able financially survive. Caveat: Not Every 831(b) Captive Is Bad So who is being targeted by the IRS, and thus by extension the class action lawsuits? The answer is not every captive insurance manager, or anything like that. The vast majority of legitimate captive managers and their clients are completely unaffected by any of this. Instead, the IRS is currently conducting so-called "promoter audits" of only a dozen or so captive managers that were perceived to be the most abusive in their marketing and sales of 831(b) risk-pooled captives as tax shelters. A promoter audit is a very serious thing, since it inherently includes a determination by the IRS that the group selling the deal is a bad actor. Usually, before the IRS engages in a promoter audit, the IRS will have accumulated substantial evidence (enough to make their case in court) that the promoter has engaged in the selling of unregistered tax shelters. Here, Artex has been under an IRS promoter audit, they have seen their clients have their premium deductions be denied by the IRS and assessed penalties, and so Artex was a natural and easy target for a class action lawsuit. Again, there are about a dozen or so similarly-situated captive managers under promoter audit who will find themselves on the wrong side of a class action lawsuit just like Artex and Gallagher. At least Artex did the right thing and advised its clients upon receiving notice that it was under promoter audit. Some other high-profile captive managers who are under a promoter audit have engaged in nothing short of fraud and deceit in telling their clients the falsehood that they are not under a promoter audit. Their clients are renewing their captive management contracts and issuing insurance policies and taking deductions, blissfully aware that their captives are D.O.A. as to not just their past years in the deal but their future years too. But, so long as their clients' checks keep cashing, these promoters have a powerful financial incentive not to let their clients know that their train ran off the tracks a long time ago. Which is to say that some of the captive managers in desperation have started to openly deceive and defraud their clients to the true state of affairs -- and to try to hold on to the client's management fees and moneys stuck in the captive or the risk pool as long as possible. These managers have figure out that the 831(b) tax shelter days are over and are simply trying to extract as much money out of their clients as they can before they are forced to shut down. Some of these same managers are also holding up their client's from getting back their moneys from the risk pools for no other real reason than that they want to soak their clients for fees as long as they can. As anytime a major tax shelter collapses, it is gets ugly out there. Clients want to put this bad experience behind them, wind up their captive and get their money back, and get compensated for their losses. But the captive managers who are under promoter audits have different ideas entirely. since they want to generate fees until the last second so as to build their own war chest for when the IRS assesses very likely massive promoter penalties against them. It is a classic conflict of interest, and why captive owners should be represented by truly independent counsel, and not just merely rely upon the captive manager to do right or the professionals who got them into the deal in the first place. In the meantime, clients should be careful not to waive their rights to sue the promoters by way or releases, indemnification agreements, or to enter into arbitration agreements with the promoter, etc. Underwriters And Actuaries Get Sued Too To a very substantial degree, the 831(b) risk-pooled captive industry exists only because there are insurance underwriters and actuaries out there who will, for a fee, fabricate absurd risks and make bizarre calculations of future losses so as to artificially increase the premiums the captive clients will pay and thus correspondingly increase the deductions taken by those clients' operating businesses. Then, when the odorous excrement hits the fan, the captive manager steps back and says, "We relied upon their underwriting estimates and actuarial studies," no matter how far detached from reality they may be. This class action complaint illustrates that these supporting professionals should not expect to escape liability for the clients' losses. Named in the complaint are the underwriters and actuaries who came up with these bogus risks and premium numbers upon which the clients relied. These are not large firms, and very likely they will not be able to come up with enough dough to pay their legal defense in what portends to be protracted litigation, and so themselves will have to find a way to come up with money to fund an early settlement or else take bankruptcy. [Whether these sorts of claims are even dischargeable in bankruptcy is another matter entirely, and probably not.] At the very least, this class action should substantially chill industry wide those underwriters and actuaries of the "What premium numbers do you want?" varietal and make them start to think about their own liability when it comes to making pie-in-the-sky projections. This Is Only The Beginning Of The Class Actions This case is remarkable because it is the first in what will likely be a long series of class actions brought against each and every captive manager who is under a promoter audit and their related professionals, and who have had a captive client suffered the denial of deductions and penalties. Very simply, once class actions begin, they take on a life of their own with certain class action law firms smelling the blood (really, money) in the water, and aggressively started rounding up clients so that they get a bigger share of the fees. Think of it as a piranha attack -- one piranha will take a single bite, and then 200 other piranhas will start biting until all the subject has disappeared. If what happened with the firms that marketed the welfare benefit shelters is replayed here, it ends with all the promoters' companies taking bankruptcy and their principals dodging debtor exams for the next decade. [GN] AUSTRALIA: Sued Over Crimes Against Manus, Nauru Asylum Seekers --------------------------------------------------------------- James Elton-Pym, writing for SBS, reports that a legal advocacy group has launched two class actions in the High Court on behalf of the roughly 1,200 remaining refugees and asylum seekers in offshore processing centres on Manus Island and Nauru. George Newhouse, director of the National Justice Project, told SBS News the legal team led by well-known QC Julian Burnside had lodged court documents on Dec. 7. The case will be brought against the Commonwealth of Australia, rather than the Home Affairs Department or the minister specifically. The group will claim they have been subjected to "torture, crimes against humanity and the intentional infliction of harm by the Australian government," Mr Newhouse said. SBS News has contacted the Home Affairs Department for a response. Legal challenges on behalf of individual asylum seekers are relatively common, but not class actions of this scale. [GN] BAD BOY: Martinez Case Moved to Southern District of Florida ------------------------------------------------------------ A case, Ernesto F. Martinez and other similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, vs. Bad Boy, Inc., doing business as: Bad Boy Mowers, Inc., a Foreign Profit Corporation, the Defendant, vs. Phillip Pulley, the Defendant, Case No. 18-038932-CA-01, was removed from the 11th Judicial Circuit Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami) on Dec. 17, 2018. The Southern District of Florida assigned Case No. 1:18-cv-25273-UU to the proceeding. The suit alleges Fair Labor Standards Act. The case is assigned to the Judge Ursula Ungaro. Bad Boy, Inc. manufactures and sells commercial lawn mowers and accessories. It engineers, fabricates, finishes, and assembles lawn mowers.[BN] Attorneys for Ernesto F. Martinez: Brody Max Shulman, Esq. Jason Saul Remer, Esq. Miriam Brooks, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC Courthouse Tower 44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 416-5000 Facsimile: (305) 416-5005 E-mail: bshulman@rgpattorneys.com jremer@rgpattorneys.com mcolmenarez@rgpattorneys.com Attorneys for Defendants: Barbara Cabrera Lewis, Esq. HARKE CLASBY, BUSHMAN LLP 9699 NE 2nd Avenue Miami Shores, FL 33138 Telephone: (305) 536-8220 Facsimile: (305) 536-8229 E-mail: blewis@harkelaw.com - and - Craig Salner, Esq. CLARKE SILVERGLATE P.A. 799 Brickell Plaza, 9th Floor Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 377-0700 Facsimile: (305) 377-3001 E-mail: csalner@cspalaw.com - and - Francisco Ramos, Jr., Esq. CLARKE SILVERGLATE WILLIAMS & MONTGOMERY 799 Brickell Plaza, 9th Floor Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 377-0700 Facsimile: (305) 377-3001 E-mail: framos@csclawfirm.com BETHESDA: Legal Situation Over Fallout 76 Still Uncertain --------------------------------------------------------- Austin Suther, writing for TechRaptor, reports that Fallout 76 launched and received heavy criticism from gamers and shortly thereafter game journalists. Gamers were so discontent that a law firm launched an investigation and a class action lawsuit against Bethesda. Migliaccio & Rathod LLC is the law firm suing Bethesda for deceptive trade practices, which has gained the attention of gamers and journalists alike. When the news came out that Bethesda bait and switched a nylon bag in place for the canvas bag that was supposed to be included in the $200 Power Armor Edition of Fallout 76, they expanded their investigation to now include that issue. Now many are left wondering what route the investigation could take. The legal issue regarding the bags is less clear after Bethesda announced plans to manufacture it. Bruno Ortega-Toledo, paralegal for M&R told me "'Replacement canvas bags' does not necessarily equate to the bag that they originally advertised, so we'll have to see what they actually deliver—and when, since there is no mention of a delivery date, only a cut-off date to file claims." The original case, however, remains relatively unchanged. The primary plaintiffs of the case are still to be decided, according to Bruno Ortega-Toledo: "For the moment we are sifting through responses that we have received to our online questionnaire, so no word yet on the primary plaintiffs. As we mentioned in your last set of questions, we are looking to achieve what consumers want: a refund. We continue to receive calls and emails, build a client list, and research the issue." When TechRaptor's Suther asked Orega-Toledo about the process of a class action lawsuit, he said: ". . . we will reach out to Bethesda to see if they're interested in reaching an informal resolution. If not, we'll move forward with the class action. In layman's terms, that means putting together a complaint with named plaintiffs, summarizing the issues with the game, detailing the potential legal violations, and filing it in court." To determine the viability of this case, Mr. Suther reached out to several law firms. Ryan Morrison, known in the gaming community as the Video Game Lawyer, talked with me over the phone so he could get his opinion on the case. Mr. Suther also talked with Zachary Strebeck of Strebeck Law, who provides legal services for game developers and tech companies. Mr. Suther had informed Morrison about the bag issue, which at the time was breaking news, and he said "If you're doing a switch like that, that's much more egregious." Although, we know now that this will likely not be actionable any longer. Mr. Suther asked both lawyers if there were any other cases similar to the Fallout 76 situation. The case that came to both of their minds was the Sega and Gearbox case pertaining to Aliens: Colonial Marines. Mr. Morrison said: "That game was advertised everywhere with the caption at the bottom that said, 'actual gameplay footage,' and then when they bought the game none of that gameplay existed. It was a different interface, the levels didn't exist, different game entirely. And that's very different than a game putting up a trailer promo and then saying 'actual gameplay may vary.'" Mr. Morrison himself had not played Fallout 76 at that point (although he is a fan of the series), so he could not speak from experience how poor a shape the game might be in. ". . . but I would imagine everyone in the industry learned from that Sega and Gearbox case," said Morrison, "so I would have a hard time believing they have an easy case here by any means." Mr. Strebeck, however, had some thoughts on the game's state on release. He said: "There's always a delicate balance of what's going to be an acceptable state for releasing a game. Given the difficulties of QA with such a huge, online game, there are always going to be problems. In this case, it appears that the problems were more than the general gaming public could handle." He told me he understood the gaming community's anger, but also that the fact that Bethesda is making efforts to patch the issues (see the "Inside the Vault" blog posts) counts for something. This is, of course, one of the reasons why there is a lawsuit. Morrison says it's important to remember that in a class action lawsuit, you go in as an injured party. It will depend on how the judge defines the class in the Fallout 76 case. In the Sega and Gearbox case, the judge defined the class as anyone who purchased the game day one or prior, since there were no review copies shipped. While Bethesda didn't send review copies, the pre-order B.E.T.A., among other things, complicates matters. Mr. Morrison continued: ". . . when you're in a class like this, you're suing someone, you're going after damages to be made whole again. So that's basically your 60 dollars that you paid whole on the game, that's the most you're getting here. There's not going to be extra damages, it would be nearly impossible to imagine a scenario where you're getting money for time loss or emotional damages or anything like that, you're just going to get your money for the game back, except the lawyer is going to take their cut out of it. Mr. Morrison also cited an "age-old saying" that the only person who wins a class action lawsuit is the lawyer. Another complication in this case that differs from the Aliens one is a matter of objectivity and subjectivity. Not only did Gearbox and Sega fail to deliver their promise of advertised gameplay footage, missions, and UI elements that were seen before release, but the game was just bad. Mr. Morrison said he has seen a lot of people both hating and defending Fallout 76 on the internet. "I see a lot of people defending the game too, which worries me for the case as well because if this is subjectively bad, not objectively bad, that's different. If it's completely different than what they advertised, that's different than the game's not fun or there's a couple bugs in it, you know?" M&R included the denial of refunds in their blog post outlining their investigation. Mr. Strebeck told Mr. Sutherit would hinge on three elements: whether there was misleading advertisement about the product, if buyers relied on said misleading advertisements, and lastly, if the consumer was damaged or injured. Mr. Strebeck said: "I guess that last one is where we might run into problems. If they purchased the game, and it was patched very quickly and continuously improved, have they really been injured? I understand the need for gamers to get into the game right away and play, but I'm not sure courts or federal agencies would see such a need for immediacy as damaging enough to impose liability." Morrison told me he does not see this case as being a great remedy for the player, but rather profit for the law firm. The law firm takes a cut of the money in a case like this if they win. "99.9 percent of cases settle, or never see actual judgement," said Mr. Morrison, 'so I would expect this to be dismissed almost immediately or settled eventually." This is how legal procedures often go in cases like this, and it isn't accusing M&R of anything either. In fact, most have had a very positive reception towards M&R for "holding Bethesda accountable." Mr. Strebeck left Mr. Suther with a few valuable nuggets. First, if there is truly an issue of false advertising, this can be reported to the FTC. He also said that legal relief from small purchases (like Fallout 76) is an uphill battle. Small claims courts are another option for litigation, but usually the cost of the game is not worth the legal trouble. "Ultimately," said Mr. Strebeck, it's a "caveat emptor" situation – make smart purchases and wait for reviews before buying. Don't pre-order games. Be a smart consumer and you can hopefully avoid a lot of this." It's a long process and there won't likely be a verdict any time soon. The case is changing near daily, with the developments of the collector's edition bag issue and patches to fix the game. For now, stay tuned to TechRaptor when more details come to light. [GN] BITMAIN INC: Gevorkyan Sues over Use of Crypto Currency Devices --------------------------------------------------------------- GOR GEVORKYAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BITMAIN, INC.; BITMAIN TECHNOLOGIES, LTD. and DOES 1 to 10, Defendants, Case No. 5:18-cv-07004-VKD (N.D. Cal., Nov. 19, 2018) is a class action against the Defendants in connection with the marketing and sale of the crypto currency mining devices known as Application Specific Integrated Circuits or the "ASIC devices." According to the complaint, in the past, Bitmain ASIC devices could be configured and initialized in low-power mode that did not mine crypto currency for Bitmain. However, after Bitmain established itself as one of the world's largest crypto currency miners in the last several years, the Defendants redesigned their ASIC devices to mine crypto currency for the benefit of itself rather than its customers who purchase the Products. Conveniently, Bitmain cashes in on every second it takes to get the ASIC configured with the customers' specifications and lays the substantial costs of operating the ASIC devices at the feet of its customers. Bitmain Technologies Limited develops and markets computing chips, server equipment, and parallel computing software. The company was founded in 2013 and is based in Beijing, China. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Karo Karapetyan, Esq. Robert Starr, Esq. Adam Rose, Esq. FRONTIER LAW CENTER 23901 Calabasas Rd, Suite 2074 Calabasas, CA 91302 Telephone: (818) 914-3433 Facsimile: (818) 914-3433 E-mail: robert@frontierlawcenter.com adam@frontierlawcenter.com karo@frontierlawcenter.com BLUM & POE: Tucker Files Suit under ADA in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- Blum & Poe New York, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Henry Tucker, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Blum & Poe New York, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-11843 (S.D. N.Y., December 17, 2018). Blum & Poe New York, LLC is a Contemporary art gallery with a minimal space showcasing sculpture, paintings & photography.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq. Cohen & Mizrahi LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Tel: (917) 299-6612 Fax: (929) 575-4195 Email: joseph@cml.legal BOEING: Appeals Court Overturns Injunction to Stop Embraer Tie-Up ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ghim-Lay Yeo, writing for FlightGlobal, reports that a Brazilian federal appeals court has overturned the injunction issued to stop the commercial aviation tie-up between Embraer and Boeing. Embraer says the "provisional measure" was revoked by a panel of a federal appeals court. "The company will keep its shareholders and the market informed on any material developments related to the class action," it adds. A federal court in Brazil issued an injunction to block the proposed commercial aviation joint venture between the two companies, following a class action lawsuit brought against the planned deal by a group of Brazilian lawmakers in July. Boeing and Embraer have yet to finalise a deal, which requires approval from Brazil's government and company shareholders. Embraer had said it planned to secure Brazil government approval for the partnership within the current administration of Brazil president Michel Temer, whose term ends on 31 December. Incoming president Jair Bolsonaro is reportedly supportive of the planned partnership between the two companies. The two companies plan to close the deal by end-2019. Under the proposed tie-up, Boeing will purchase an 80% share of Embraer's commercial aircraft business for $3.8 billion, leaving Embraer with the remaining 20%.[GN] BOERS WEI GALLERIES: Tucker Files Suit under ADA in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------------- Boers Wei Galleries, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Henry Tucker, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Boers Wei Galleries, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-11844 (S.D. N.Y., December 17, 2018). Boers Wei Galleries, Inc. is an art gallery in New York City, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq. Cohen & Mizrahi LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Tel: (917) 299-6612 Fax: (929) 575-4195 Email: joseph@cml.legal BRADLE COUNTY, TN: Sued Over Inadequate Health Care at Jail ----------------------------------------------------------- Autumn Hughes, writing for Cleveland Banner, reports that a local attorney is using billboards in an effort to find potential participants for a class action lawsuit centering on alleged inadequate healthcare at the Bradley County Jail. J. Allen Murphy Jr. said he has heard from several people, who have called based on seeing the billboards and hearing radio ads. "I'm fielding phone calls every day," he said, adding he would like to see at least 20 participants to ensure the class certification. "We're still trying to get as many individual cases as possible." The lawsuit was filed on Sept. 18 in Chattanooga's U.S. District Court on behalf of Darrell Eden "and all others similarly situated." The plaintiff and members of the putative class "are current and former inmates or pretrial detainees of the Bradley County Justice Center, who were or could be denied constitutionally adequate medical care by the BCSO specifically, and Bradley County more generally." The defendants in the suit are Bradley County, former Sheriff Eric Watson, BCSO Support Services Division Capt. Gabe Thomas, an unidentified male BSCO officer and an unidentified BCSO female officer. Watson, Thomas, "John Doe" and "Jane Doe" are all named in both their official and individual capacities. The complaint centers on medical care offered to inmates at the jail, as well as claims related to prisoner deaths, jail overcrowding, failure of jail inspections and funding for medical care, among others. Calling medical care offered to inmates at the jail as "woefully inadequate," the legal filing noted "numerous prisoner deaths and dozens of lawsuits, many of which have resulted in settlements"; the "repeated failure of state jail certification inspections" for reasons including overcrowding and the provision of medical care; and county leaders, including the county mayor and Bradley County Commission, failing "to take corrective action" to address deficiencies and permitted the deficiencies to continue. The lawsuit claims Mr. Eden "was unconstitutionally denied medical care at the jail . . ." In the legal filing, Eden is listed as a Chattanooga resident who is a former pretrial detainee booked into the jail on or about Sept. 20, 2017, on a charge of driving under the influence, in connection with a car accident. The charge was subsequently dismissed. In Mr. Eden's case, Mr. Murphy said "he was just completely denied medical care," but added there are other classes, like medical indifference, that could be included. "We're going to see how the classes divide up," he said, adding he has heard from people who were denied medication or weren't taken for treatment. Mr. Murphy said he assumes there are hundreds of people who have been denied healthcare and medication while inmates at the jail. Among the claims, Murphy said he has heard of people not given colostomy bags or diabetes medication. "We know there's been four deaths" as well as drug overdoses, Mr. Murphy added. "We know that the quality of care is abysmal," Mr. Murphy said. "We've been contacted by ex-employees, by at least two dozen people who have had issues with healthcare while incarcerated." Mr. Murphy said he has from one year before the filing date and "it goes on perpetually" to find additional plaintiffs. There are 12 to 16 billboards throughout Bradley County and Mr. Murphy is also running radio ads. He believes "people will be identified through discovery" during inspection of jail records, and those people will be contacted later. No dollar amount was listed in the legal filing, but relief in the form of "an award to each plaintiff class member of compensatory damages in an amount to be proved at trial," as well as punitive damages, attorney's fees, and other costs, including "an award to plaintiff and Inmate Class members of all such further relief as the Court may deem just and proper." At the time of the legal filing, Bradley County Attorney Crystal Freiberg said she could not confirm if this is the first-class action lawsuit filed against Bradley County, the former sheriff, or BCSO. [GN] C.C.M. CORPORATION: Faces Rambeau Suit in Sacramento California --------------------------------------------------------------- An employment-related class action lawsuit has been filed against C.C.M. Corporation. The case is captioned as JEREMY RAMBEAU, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. C.C.M. CORPORATION; and DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 34-2018-00244842-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., Nov. 19, 2018). CCM Corporation doing business as Meek's Building Center; operates as a lumber company. The company was founded in 1919 and is based in Sacramento, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by Kenneth S Gaines, Esq. CALIFORNIA FACULTY: Professor Files Class Action Over Union Fees ---------------------------------------------------------------- National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys have filed a federal class action lawsuit for a California professor to reclaim union fees California Faculty Association (CFA) officials unconstitutionally seized from him and similarly situated employees. The class action complaint potentially includes thousands of affected individuals and seeks to enforce the Foundation-won U.S. Supreme Court Janus v. AFSCME decision, which held that the First Amendment prohibits mandatory union fees for public sector employees. William D. Brice, a professor at California State University Dominguez Hills (CSU), filed the complaint against the CFA. The complaint, filed at the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, claims that by forcing Brice and other public sector workers under the monopoly bargaining representation of CFA to pay union fees without their affirmative consent, CFA union officials violated their First Amendment rights as protected by the Janus precedent. Mr. Brice exercised his right to resign his membership in CFA around November 2014. However, he and other union nonmembers were forced to pay union fees as a condition of employment under state law. California's law requires CSU to deduct union fees from nonmembers' wages and transfer them to CFA. In the Foundation-won Supreme Court Janus v. AFSCME decision on June 27, 2018, the Court ruled that it is unconstitutional to require government workers to pay any union dues and fees as a condition of employment. Additionally, the Court clarified that no union dues or fees can be taken from workers without their affirmative consent and knowing waiver of their First Amendment right not to financially support a labor union. In the class action lawsuit, Mr. Brice claims that CFA union officials violated his and other nonmembers' rights under the Janus decision by compelling them to subsidize the union and automatically seizing fees without their clear consent. He asks that the statutes that compelled nonmembers to pay union fees to CFA as a condition of employment be declared unconstitutional. The complaint requests that the court certify a class that includes all individuals who at any time within the applicable limitations period were forced to pay union fees to CFA without their affirmative consent and knowing waiver of their First Amendment rights, so they can all receive refunds of the money taken from them in violation of their constitutional rights. "Independent-minded workers are standing up for their rights," said National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. "In the Foundation-won Janus decision, the Supreme Court finally upheld public sector workers' First Amendment right to choose whether or not to support a union without the threat of being fired. Further, the High Court made it clear that fees cannot be collected without a clear waiver of First Amendment rights, something the CFA never received from Professor Brice and his colleagues, which is why the complaint seeks refunds of millions of dollars of fees seized in recent years." The Foundation has created a special website, MyJanusRights.org, to assist public employees in exercising their rights under Janus, which was successfully argued by National Right to Work Foundation staff attorney William Messenger. The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation is a nonprofit, charitable organization providing free legal aid to employees whose human or civil rights have been violated by compulsory unionism abuses. The Foundation, which can be contacted toll-free at 1-800-336-3600, assists thousands of employees in more than 250 cases nationwide per year. [GN] CALIFORNIA MARINE: Marin Seeks Overtime Pay under Labor Code ------------------------------------------------------------ LUZ MARIN, an individual, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. CALIFORNIA MARINE CLEANING, INC., a California Corporation; and DOES 1-50 Inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 37-2018-00063483-CU-OE-CTL (Cal. Super. Ct., Dec. 17, 2018), seeks to recover overtime compensation under the California Labor Code. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant in California as a non-exempt employee entitled to overtime pay and meal and rest periods from March of 2007 to August of 12 2017. The Plaintiff was classified by the Defendant as a non-exempt employee paid in whole or in part on an hourly basis. Pursuant to the Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders, the Defendant required to pay Plaintiff and the California Class members for all their time worked, meaning the time during which an employee is subject to the control of an employer, including all the time the employee is suffered or permitted to work. The Defendant required Plaintiff to work while clocked out during what was supposed to be Plaintiff's off-duty meal break. As a result, the Plaintiff and other California class members forfeited minimum wage and overtime compensation by the Defendant, the lawsuit says. The Defendant provides the military, MARAD, Cruise Lines and industrial/commercial businesses with services of tank cleaning, mechanical cleaning, and oil flushing & hydro-blasting.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Shani O. Zakay, Esq. ZAKAY LAW GROUP, APLC 5850 Oberlin Drive, Suite 230A San Diego, CA 92121 Telephone: (619)255-9047 Facsimile: (858) 404-9203 Website: www.zakaylaw.com - and - Jean-Claude Lapuyade, Esq. JCL LAW FIRM, A.P.C. 3990 Old Town Avenue, Suite C204 San Diego, CA 92110 Telephone: (619) 559-8292 Facsimile: (619) 599-8291 Website: www.icl-lawfirm.com CANADA: 60s Scoop Survivors Eligible for Compensation ----------------------------------------------------- Randy Shore, writing for Vancouver Sun, reports that First Nations and Inuit people who were placed in the care of non-Indigenous foster or adoptive parents between 1951 and 1991 may be eligible for compensation between $25,000 and $50,000. Michael Sadler was just an infant when he was taken from his teenage mother. Half Native, he was adopted by a Caucasian couple who knew next to nothing of his First Nations heritage. "My parents told me I was part First Nations, but they said Indian back in those days," he said. Mr. Sadler's biological mother was considered white, but her family shipped her off to live with her great aunt to separate her from her First Nations boyfriend. She soon discovered she was pregnant. After she gave birth, her mother gave Mr. Sadler to children's services. There, he was caught up in a government-sanctioned program that removed First Nations children from their homes and placed them with white foster families for adoption, now called the Sixties Scoop. At least 20,000 First Nations children across Canada were stripped of their family names, their language and their culture under provincial child welfare policies beginning in the 1950s and persisting in some cases all the way up to 1991. Mr. Sadler's adoptive family lived in Vancouver and Prince George until his parents split up. He would eventually finish high school while living with his father in southern Alberta. At no time did he have meaningful contact with other First Nations people. "I felt different," he recalled. "I was dark, they were light. My sister was white. There was a lot of stigma, so I wasn't proud of being an Indian kid. "Mostly people associated First Nations with what they saw downtown, where people were struggling with alcohol addiction and looking down and out. I would lie to people and tell them I was Hawaiian or something like that because I was ashamed." Mr. Sadler reconnected with his heritage as an adult, while pursuing a career in teaching and then First Nations social development. He holds a Master's degree in education from Simon Fraser University. "At my first teaching job at the Native Education Centre, people would ask me where I was from and I couldn't tell them," he said. "People would ask me if I was a Status Indian and I didn't even know what that meant." He found his biological family with a single phone call to the Gitxsan reconnection society. "The lady I spoke with said, 'We know all of our lost children and I know your story. We've been waiting for you to call,'" he recalled. "It was really overwhelming." He met his parents a month later and talks to them and his biological siblings regularly. Mr. Sadler is also rediscovering his culture. "My work path took me into First Nations communities working in education, housing, health, all with our people," he said. Today, Mr. Sadler is a member of the Kispiox First Nation. He has three daughters and works hard to be active in their lives, but Mr. Sadler has struggled with relationships and trust. "I've had trouble maintaining relationships with my partners and I think being adopted and then seeing my parents divorced contributed to that," he said. "I ended up living with my dad, so I learned not to make close relationships." Those are hard lessons to unlearn, he said. For Scoop survivors, reconnecting with family can mean dredging up hurt feelings and even re-experiencing trauma in cases where their adoptive upbringing was abusive. "People get into fostering kids for a whole variety of reasons, they aren't always the right reasons and the vetting process wasn't that great," he said "Some kids had a really shitty experience." "That might be physical and sexual abuse and if they take off, they are in another home and lack any kind of stability," he said. "Those kids end up on the street and it's a terrible cycle." Last year, the federal government set aside $750 million in a class action settlement to compensate children apprehended in the Sixties Scoop, along with $50 million for healing services and $75 million for legal fees. Like the residential school system, the Scoop has been denounced by First Nations leaders as an attempt to blend Natives into the Canadian mainstream and as organized "cultural eradication." First Nations and Inuit people who were placed in the care of non-Indigenous foster or adoptive parents between 1951 and 1991 may be eligible for compensation between $25,000 and $50,000, depending on how many people register. An information session for potential registrants will be held Dec. 17 in Vancouver. Check sixtiesscoopsettlement.info for details. You do not need to have documentation to register, the administrators will seek necessary records if they are needed. [GN] CANADA: Halifax Orphanage Ill-Equipped to Meet Children's Needs --------------------------------------------------------------- Keith Doucette, writing for The Canadian Press, reports that a new report from an ongoing public inquiry into decades of abuse at a Halifax-area orphanage says a fragmented system of care wasn't equipped to address the needs of children who were vulnerable. The interim report, released on Dec. 7 by the Nova Scotia Home for Colored Children Restorative Inquiry, says the story of the home illustrates a social system that works in isolation. "Across the many sessions of the inquiry, participants acknowledged that social systems failed to provide the support and care that children and young people in the home required and deserved," says the report. "This included the failure to properly protect former residents and respond to experiences of abuse and neglect. They recognized that current systems and structures remain ill-equipped to fully respond to people's needs." Inquiry co-chairwoman Pamela Williams, who is chief judge of the provincial and family courts, said people's experiences that pointed to shortcomings within the system consistently emerged as the inquiry conducted its work over the past three years. "There is an absolute need to build stronger trusting relationships as we move forward and make better and lasting changes for the future," she said. The report also says the system's inability to connect with the black community complicated a relationship that was already overlaid with overt and systemic racism. The Nova Scotia Home for Colored Children opened in 1921 and was initially seen as a "significant achievement" by the African Nova Scotian Community. The institution looked after children who weren't accepted by the Protestant and Roman Catholic orphanages of the time. More than 3,000 people turned out to celebrate the opening of a home that would eventually see more than 1,000 children live there over its lifespan. "This is not a simple story of bad individuals or bad intentions," said Jennifer Llewellyn, a member of the inquiry council and a professor at Dalhousie University's Schulich School of Law. "This home was created out of an incredible act of care, and yet resulted in a failure of care for those who lived there," said Llewellyn. The report said economic disparity that limited opportunities in the African Nova Scotian community also played a role in what happened at the home. During its early period, many female staff took jobs to support their families, placing them in a vulnerable position "were they to lose their income by reporting abuse," the report says. Economic inequality also led to children being placed in the home by families who couldn't afford to raise them. Inquiry co-chairman Tony Smith, a former resident of the home, said overt racism also effected how the system dealt with children like him. As a "fair complected kid," Smith said he went to the home at the age of five and was told after a few weeks that he was white, not black. "So they put me into a white orphanage and after being there for a few weeks they said you're not white, you're black, and you have to go back to a colored home," he said. "It was very clear that racism played a major role." A report released by the inquiry in January also pointed to a culture of silence and shame that contributed to the abuse at the home. The Dec. 7 interim report precedes the inquiry's final report, which is expected in March. That report is expected to focus on planning and action for the current care system. The restorative inquiry is made up of former residents of the orphanage, community members and the provincial government. Launched in late 2015, it has a mandate to examine the experiences of former residents and systemic discrimination and racism throughout the province. Premier Stephen McNeil issued a formal apology to the residents of the orphanage in 2014 for physical, psychological, and sexual abuse up until the 1980s. Class action lawsuits against the home and the province ended in settlements totalling $34 million. [GN] CANADA: Settlement Reached in Indian Day Schools Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------- CBC News reports that the federal government announced a deal has been reached on a potentially multibillion-dollar settlement for former students of Indian Day Schools. About 200,000 Indigenous children attended the federally-operated schools across the country beginning in the 1920s. The agreement in principle includes individual compensation in an amount that has not yet been made public, as well as $200 million for healing, wellness, language, culture and commemoration, and funding for legal fees. [GN] CASTELLI GALLERY: Tucker Suit Asserts Disabilities Act Breach ------------------------------------------------------------- Castelli Gallery, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Henry Tucker, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Castelli Gallery, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-11845 (S.D. N.Y., December 17, 2018). Leo Castelli is an owner of Castelli Gallery, Inc. (born Leo Krausz; September 4, 1907 – August 21, 1999) was an Italian-American art dealer. His gallery showcased contemporary art for five decades. Among the movements which Castelli showed were Surrealism, Abstract Expressionism, Neo-Dada, Pop Art, Op Art, Color field painting, Hard-edge painting, Lyrical Abstraction, Minimal Art, Conceptual Art, and Neo-expressionism.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq. Cohen & Mizrahi LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Tel: (917) 299-6612 Fax: (929) 575-4195 Email: joseph@cml.legal CAT5 RESOURCES: Louviere Seeks Overtime Compensation ---------------------------------------------------- DELLA JEAN LOUVIERE, INDIVIDUALLY, AND, ON BEHALF OF THOSE SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiffs, vs. CAT5 RESOURCES, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00625 (E.D. Tex., Dec. 17, 2018), seeks to recover overtime compensation, liquidated damages, interest, reasonable attorney's fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. The Plaintiff brings this claim individually and as part of a collective action under the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) on behalf of those individuals who were non-exempt hourly workers of the Defendant and who were suffered or permitted to work in excess of 40 hours per workweek without payment of overtime wages in compliance with the FLSA, the lawsuit says. According to the complaint, the Defendant negligently and willfully failed to pay the Plaintiff and Class Members wages for all hours worked over 40 at the compensation rate of one and one-half times their appropriate hourly rate in violation of the FLSA. The Defendant failed to keep adequate records of actual hours worked by the Plaintiff and Class Members, also in violation of the FLSA. The Defendant is in the business of providing labor and services related to disaster recovery services, and including preparation and planning for disasters that cause interruptions in various industries and utilities -- including but not limited to fuel services, electrical services, communications (cell phone providers), transportation and logistics.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Mark Frasher, Esq. John Werner, Esq. REAUD, MORGAN & QUINN, L.L.P. 801 Laurel Street P. O. Box 26005 Beaumont, TX 77720-6005 Telephone: (409) 838-1000 Facsimile: (409) 833-8236 E-mail: jwerner@rmqlawfirm.com mfrasher@rmqlawfirm.com CHEMOURS: Consent Order Insufficient to Rectify Damage ------------------------------------------------------ In an opinion posted at Star News Online, Kathleen D.H. Pawlowski a Wilmington attorney and Dr. James T. Pawlowski, a Wilmington physician, stated "As 25-year residents of Wilmington who have raised two children here, we are concerned that the proposed Chemours Consent Order is woefully insufficient to rectify the damage to the Wilmington area and community from Chemours' knowing contamination of the area's water supply for the past 30 years. Chemours is a $6.1 billion/yr company, with a profit of $765 million last year, $682 million from GenX, and is a recent spin-off of DuPont, a $48.1 billion/yr company. Penalties such as the proposed $13 million penalty for GenX contamination are determined based on the company's ability to pay. Even using Chemours' revenues and profits alone to determine the penalty for its corporate misconduct, $13 million is nowhere near sufficient to deter Chemours from continued contamination of the Wilmington area's water supply. The $13 million penalty is grossly below the amount of $46 million needed by New Hanover County and the more than $100 million needed by Brunswick County to upgrade their respective water-treatment plants to provide safe water in the wake of Chemours' contamination. Nor is the amount of the proposed Consent Order anywhere close to the $671 million paid by Chemours and DuPont last year to settle a class-action lawsuit related to discharges into the water at its Parkersburg, West Virginia, plant. The chemical at question was C-8, the predecessor to GenX. For Chemours and DuPont to have profited so handsomely for so long at the expense of the safety of the Wilmington water supply, endangering the health of its residents, particularly those without the resources to purchase water from elsewhere, Chemours, with much greater resources, should bear the cost of the remediation required by its pollution of the Wilmington water supply. Clean water for the Wilmington area is imperative for the vitality of its residents, educational and health care institutions, varied businesses, tourist trade and many visitors. But for Chemours, Wilmington could provide clean water to its residents with confidence and at a reasonable price. What Chemours polluted, Chemours must be required to clean up, completely, and be required to pay a penalty sufficient to deter it from further wrongdoing. At this point, it is too early to know the extent of possible medical costs that may be incurred by Wilmington area residents, particularly those raised on contaminated water. For that reason alone, it is premature to approve a Consent Order that does not fully account for the myriad of damages caused by Chemours' contamination of the area's water supply. Not until a penalty in line with the damage caused by Chemours, its ability to pay and much closer to the real costs to make our water safe again, as well as funds available for related medical expenses, should a Consent Order be approved. The current proposed Consent Order fails on all those counts and is unacceptable. It's time to speak up. [GN] CONAGRA FOODS: Must Face Parkay Spray Class Action -------------------------------------------------- Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a federal judge refused to dismiss a class action accusing ConAgra Foods of deceptively marketing its Parkay Spray by using artificially small serving sizes to claim servings contain zero calories and zero fat, though each bottle allegedly contains 832 calories and 93 grams of fat. The case is Allen, et al. v. Conagra Foods, Inc. (Case No. 3:13-cv-01279 (N.D. Cal.). A copy of the Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is available at https://is.gd/vChUcA COSMETIC INSTITUTE: Class Action Over Botched Surgery Promising --------------------------------------------------------------- Sarah Berry, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports that the use of "cosmetic surgeon" to describe providers of a range of procedures should be discontinued, according to the Australasian Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgeons, who have warned "cosmetic surgery sweatshops" have become "rampant". The society's president, Dr Naveen Somia, said some providers of invasive cosmetic procedures, including breast augmentation, have chosen to "misrepresent their abilities", putting consumers at risk. The Supreme Court granted permission for up to 1000 women claiming botched breast surgery to take on The Cosmetic Institute in a class action. The case begins on December 14. Dr Somia said the lawsuit against one of Australia's biggest cosmetic surgery "sweatshops" is promising and he hopes tighter regulation of the cosmetic enhancement industry will follow. The industry -- which spans minimally invasive injectables to more invasive treatments including breast augmentation -- is still not as well regulated as other forms of medicine, Dr Somia said, partly because it has grown fast in the last two decades. He put the rapid expansion down to newer technologies making procedures accessible to a wider number of people, increasing affluence and social media growth boosting demand as "influencers" promote products and treatments. "This emerging market allowed commoditisation and non-medical entrepreneurs to have a go. Underqualified and unqualified practitioners saw a career opportunity and started to misrepresent their abilities and qualifications on social media platforms," he said. "The Regulatory oversight has not kept up with the pace of growth and has failed to regulate the practitioners use of the fabricated title 'cosmetic surgeon'." Dr Somia said that since cosmetic procedures are not covered by Medicare or private health insurance, "they have escaped two additional levels of scrutiny that the rest of the medical industry has". This has meant the proliferation of what ASAPS calls "sweatshops" which, Dr Somia warns, are not required to adhere to safety standards, employ registered surgeons or practice ethical marketing. "Social media platforms do not verify or check what the accreditations are," he adds. "It's up to your ethics what you call yourself or how you represent yourself. Patients will be misled. "We don't know how many [sweatshops] there are at present. Sadly the growth is exponential. The volume of demand means the number of people catering to demand has increased." The American Society of Plastic Surgeons Report estimates about 17.5 million cosmetic procedures in the past year, and Australians usage is higher per capita. Lower prices are the only determinant for sweatshops, Dr Somia says, adding that costs in the industry vary greatly, but he "guesstimates" the average saving is about $3000 for breast implants. While cut prices may be tempting to the consumer, they are paying the price for discount surgery. In recent years complications from procedures performed in sweatshops are happening with "alarming frequency", Dr Somia says, and include cardiac arrest, seizures, lung punctures, blindness, physical deformities and ongoing psychological distress. The cost of complications from breast augmentation alone in Australia was over $10 million between 2001 and 2014. Along with a lack of government regulation is consumer confusion about medical titles and qualifications. Dr Somia explains that the title "cosmetic surgeon" is not an official Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA) title. Choosing a practitioner with an AHPRA registered title is a "guarantee" to the public that the person is legally registered as a specialist. "With a 'cosmetic surgeon' that guarantee and accreditation is not there," Dr Somia says. The Council of Australian Governments' (COAG) is currently reviewing submissions on how to better regulate the industry including one from ASAPS calling for tighter regulations and requesting that the title "cosmetic surgeon" be banned so that patients being treated by an unqualified doctor are no longer misled. In the meantime, he advises consumers to look for the title "specialist plastic surgeon" and the letters FRACS after their name. These letters mean they are a Fellows of the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons and, Dr Somia adds, it is "like a safety rating before you buy a car". For less invasive procedures, Dr Somia warns against "mobile freelancers" and instead advises choosing a reputable clinic and asking questions. [GN] CPP ENTERPRISES: Rivera Seeks Unpaid Overtime Premium ----------------------------------------------------- MAGDALENO RIVERA, Individually and on Behalf of All Those Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. CPP ENTERPRISES, INC. d/b/a VILLA ROSA PIZZA and THOMAS J. PIEPRZYCA, Jointly and Severally, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-08266 (N.D. Ill., Dec. 17, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime premium pay pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants operate a pizza restaurant doing business as Villa Rosa Pizza in Chicago, Illinois. Mr. Rivera was employed as a dishwasher and prep cook for the Defendants. The Plaintiff was paid straight-time for all hours worked, despite working in excess of 40 hours per week throughout his employment. The exact number of employees who have suffered the same unpaid overtime wage injury as Plaintiff, and have yet to receive redress is unknown at this time.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Brandon A. Thomas, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF BRANDON A. THOMAS, PC 1 Glenlake Parkway, N.E., Suite 650 Atlanta, GA 30328 Telephone: (678) 330-2909 Facsimile: (678) 638-6201 E-mail: brandon@overtimeclaimslawyer.com CRAIG F. STARR: Tucker Files Suit under ADA in New York ------------------------------------------------------- Craig F. Starr Associates, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Henry Tucker, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Craig F. Starr Associates, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-11848 (S.D. N.Y., December 17, 2018). Craig F. Starr Gallery specializes in 19th- and 20th-Century American and European fine art, paintings, prints, drawings, lithographs, screenprints, etchings.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq. Cohen & Mizrahi LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Tel: (917) 299-6612 Fax: (929) 575-4195 Email: joseph@cml.legal CUMBERLAND EXCAVATION: Underpays Construction Workers, Gill Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL GILL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CUMBERLAND EXCAVATION, LLC; BRYAN KRABOUSANOS; and FRANK BELCHER, Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-01302 (M.D. Tenn., Nov. 20, 2018) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid overtime compensation, prejudgment interest, maximum liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Mr. Gill was employed by the Defendants as construction worker. The Defendant is a limited liability company which engages in the construction, grading, and demolition business in the Middle Tennessee area and maintains its principal place of business in Nashville, Tennessee. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Trevor Howell, Esq. HOWELL LAW, PLLC P.O. Box 158511 Nashville, TN 37205 Telephone: (615) 406.1416 E-mail: Trevor@howelllawfirmllc.com - and - Autumn Gentry, Esq. Peter F. Klett, Esq. DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC Fifth Third Center 424 Church Street, Suite 800 Nashville, TN 37219-2392 Telephone: (615) 244.6538 E-mail: agentry@dickinsonwright.com pklett@dickinsonwright.com D. WIGMORE FINE: Faces ADA Class Action in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- D. Wigmore Fine Art Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Henry Tucker, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. D. Wigmore Fine Art Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-11850 (S.D. N.Y., December 17, 2018). D. Wigmore Fine Art, Inc. is an American art gallery located in Midtown Manhattan.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq. Cohen & Mizrahi LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Tel: (917) 299-6612 Fax: (929) 575-4195 Email: joseph@cml.legal DAVID TUNICK: Tucker Files ADA Class Action in NY ------------------------------------------------- David Tunick, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Henry Tucker, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. David Tunick, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-11858 (S.D. N.Y., December 17, 2018). David Tunick, Inc. offers a wide selection of artworks by leading artists.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq. Cohen & Mizrahi LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Tel: (917) 299-6612 Fax: (929) 575-4195 Email: joseph@cml.legal DAVID ZWIRNER GALLERY: Violates Disabilities Act, Tucker Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ David Zwirner Gallery, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Henry Tucker, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. David Zwirner Gallery, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-11859 (S.D. N.Y., December 17, 2018). David Zwirner, Inc. owns and operates art galleries. It features various artists who work in a range of media, including drawing, painting, photography, sculpture, videos, and installation. The company is based in New York, New York. It has locations in New York, New York; and London, United Kingdom.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq. Cohen & Mizrahi LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Tel: (917) 299-6612 Fax: (929) 575-4195 Email: joseph@cml.legal DENMARK, SC: Citizens File Class Action Over Use of HaloSan ----------------------------------------------------------- Ron Baxley Jr., writing for Times and Democrat, reports that volunteers with Denmark Citizens for Safe Water, with the help of the Orangeburg and Barnwell Walmart stores, have distributed nearly 2,000 cases of donated bottled water to residents worried about the quality of the city's water in the past two weeks. Residents had complained about the discolored water coming from their spigots for years, many of them showing up seeking answers at Denmark City Council meetings with bottles of the nasty-looking brown water. The S.C. Department of Health and Environmental Control had repeatedly assured Denmark officials and citizens that the water was safe to drink. However, a CNN report, following a year-long investigation, recently revealed that the chemical HaloSan was used in one of Denmark's wells for a decade even though it is not approved for such usage by the Environmental Protection Agency. Rep. Justin Bamberg, D-Bamberg, has said he and Sen. Brad Hutto, D-Orangeburg, met with DHEC officials to determine how the decision was made to use the non-EPA approved product in drinking water. A group of Denmark citizens has filed a class-action lawsuit against the city over the use of HaloSan. Activist Deanna Berry, who helped organize Denmark Citizens for Safe Water, said the volunteers distributed more than 900 cases of bottled water to 510 residents on Nov. 23. The tractor-trailer-load of water was donated by the Barnwell and Orangeburg Walmart stores, she said. In addition, Ms. Berry said the volunteers distributed another 1,000 cases of bottled water to Denmark residents on Nov. 28. That truckload of water was purchased by Bakari Sellers of the Columbia-based Strom Law Firm and Wilson & Luginbill of Bamberg, two of the law firms representing the Denmark citizens who filed the class-action lawsuit against the City of Denmark. Also assisting with the distribution was the Denmark-Olar High School basketball team, Berry said. Denmark residents were grateful for the donated water, "but concerned as to how long we would be able to provide safe drinking water," she said. "You have to think these citizens have been poisoned for 10 years by our local government and our state officials. So they don't trust them at all. How can you blame them?" Ms. Berry said. " . . . People are afraid of what will happen if we aren't able to get any more donations and if they would be forced to use water that's still not being treated properly," she added. "We can't afford to fight the way other cities have," Berry said. "We need people's help. Send us water. We are not collecting or asking for money. We are asking for water ... " Ms. Berry said she is working with disaster relief agencies from Georgia, New Jersey and surrounding areas to provide water distribution in Denmark at least once a week, " . . . at least enough where citizens can use that water to cook and drink. Especially those new mothers who have to fix a bottle in the middle of the night and not have to worry about what's coming out of her faucet," Ms. Berry said. She said it is her "prayer" that major businesses and corporations from neighboring cities, counties and states will come to the aid of the citizens of Denmark. "I can provide them with the costs on what a truckload of water will cost from Walmart or our local Piggly Wiggly in Denmark," Ms. Berry said. [GN] DI DONNA GALLERIES: Tucker Files Suit in New York under ADA ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Di Donna Galleries, LLC. The case is styled as Henry Tucker, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Di Donna Galleries, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-11861 (S.D. N.Y., December 17, 2018). The lawsuit arises under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Di Donna Galleries is an American art gallery in New York City. It specializes in Modern and Surrealist art. The gallery was initially located on the second floor of The Carlyle Hotel at 981 Madison Avenue, New York City, the former home of Ursus Books.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq. Cohen & Mizrahi LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Tel: (917) 299-6612 Fax: (929) 575-4195 Email: joseph@cml.legal DICKINSON ROUNDELL: Gallery Hit With ADA Class Suit --------------------------------------------------- Dickinson Roundell, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Henry Tucker, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Dickinson Roundell, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-11863 (S.D. N.Y., December 17, 2018). Dickinson Roundell, Inc. is an art gallery in New York City, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq. Cohen & Mizrahi LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Tel: (917) 299-6612 Fax: (929) 575-4195 Email: joseph@cml.legal DIDIER AARON: Violates ADA, Tucker Suit Says --------------------------------------------- Didier Aaron, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Henry Tucker, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Didier Aaron, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-11865 (S.D. N.Y., December 17, 2018). Didier Aaron, Inc. is an art gallery in New York City, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq. Cohen & Mizrahi LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Tel: (917) 299-6612 Fax: (929) 575-4195 Email: joseph@cml.legal DIRECT ENERGY: Voussefi Seeks Lost Wages for Sales Representatives ------------------------------------------------------------------ ALEX VOUSSEFI; on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs DIRECT ENERGY BUSINESS, LLC; and DIRECT ENERGY SERVICES, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 18-3809 (Dec. 10, 2018, Mass. Super. Ct., Suffolk Cty.) seeks lost wages, treble damages, interest, costs, and attorneys' fees as result of Defendants' violations of the Massachusetts Wage Act and the Massachusetts Minimum Wage Law. The Plaintiff brings this claim on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, namely all individuals who provided services to Defendants as sales representatives. The Defendants use various means to sell electricity to their customers. The Defendants sell electricity directly to customers through a website they jointly operate, and over the telephone. The Defendants obtain the services of its door-to-door sales representatives by entering partnerships with third parties. The Defendants did not pay Plaintiff and other sales representatives all of the wages owed to them. The Defendants did not pay Plaintiff and other sales representatives an hourly rate equal to minimum wage for all of the hours that they performed services for Defendants, the lawsuit says. Direct Energy, a retail energy supplier, provides energy and energy-related services in North America.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Brook S. Lane, 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: brook@fairworklaw.com hillary@fairworklaw.com DYNAMIC PRESENCE: Kelley Macey Seeks Overtime Premium ----------------------------------------------------- Kelley Macey, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Dynamic Presence, Inc. and Presence Marketing, Inc., doing business as "Presence Marketing/Dynamic Presence," the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-08263 (N.D. Ill., Dec. 17, 2018), seeks to recover overtime compensation and other relief relating to violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants employ "sales representatives" who are responsible for calling on chain natural grocery accounts. The Plaintiff and the sales representatives routinely worked more than 40 hours in a workweek without receiving an overtime premium for hours worked over 40. As sales representatives, the Plaintiff and the similarly situated individuals were responsible for calling on chain natural grocery accounts and performing duties including presenting new product introductions, presenting promotional opportunities through the retailers' advertising vehicles on/or off shelf, stocking shelves/cold boxes, tweaking shelf sets and displays or building displays and performing resets, checking for accurate shelf tags, rotating stock, applying POS and coupons, participating in trade shows/table top shows, and conducting retail audits. The Defendants suffered and permitted Plaintiff and the similarly situated individuals to work more than 40 hours per week without overtime pay, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Jason T. Brown, Esq. Nicholas Conlon, Esq. BROWN, LLC 500 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 600 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (877) 561-0000 Facsimile: (855) 582-5297 E-mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com EDWARD TYLER NAHEM: Tucker Files Suit under ADA in New York ----------------------------------------------------------- Edward Tyler Nahem Fine Art, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Henry Tucker, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Edward Tyler Nahem Fine Art, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-11952 (S.D. N.Y., December 18, 2018). Edward Tyler Nahem Fine Art, LLC is an art gallery in New York City, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq. Cohen & Mizrahi LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Tel: (917) 299-6612 Fax: (929) 575-4195 Email: joseph@cml.legal ENCORE HEALTH: Pierce Suit Transferred to Southern Dist. of Texas ----------------------------------------------------------------- A case, NANCY PIERCE, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public and all persons similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. ENCORE HEALTH RESOURCES, LLC, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-04097, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas (Houston) on Dec. 17, 2018. The Southern District of Texas Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:18-cv-04736 to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Sim Lake. The Plaintiff and Class members sought restitution of their unpaid wages, unpaid overtime, itemized wage statement penalties, and waiting time penalties, in addition to interest, attorneys' fees, and costs, as necessary and according to proof. The Plaintiff seeks the appointment of a receiver, as necessary, to establish the total monetary relief sought from Defendants.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Andrew Christopher Ficzko, Esq. Catherine Mitchell, Esq. James Zouras, Esq. Ryan F. Stephan, Esq. STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP 205 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 2560 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 233-1550 Facsimile: (312) 233-1560 - and - Eric M. Epstein, Esq. ERIC M. EPSTEIN, APC 1901 Ave. of the Stars, Suite 1100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 552-5366 Facsimile: (310) 556-8021 - and - Joshua David Buck, Esq. THIERMAN BUCK, LLP 7287 Lakeside Drive Reno, NV 89511 Telephone: (775) 284-1500 Facsimile: (775) 703-5027 - and - Mark R. Thierman, Esq. THIERMAN BUCK, LLP 7287 Lakeside Drive Reno, NV 89511 Telephone: (775) 284-1500 Facsimile: (775) 703-5029 Attorneys for Defendant: Paul James Hall, Esq. Kevin David Harlow, Esq. DLA PIPER LLP (US) 555 Mission Street, Suite 2500 San Francisco, CA 94105-2933 Telephone: (415) 836-2531 Facsimile: (415) 659-7431 - and - Damien Paul DeLaney, Esq. JeeHyun Yoon, Esq. Joy Gowoon Kim, Esq. Shannon Bettis Nakabayashi, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 725 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 2500 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 630-8252 Facsimile: (213) 689-0430 EQT CORP: Royalty Owners' Class Action Nears Conclusion ------------------------------------------------------- David Beard, writing for The Dominion Post, reports that an oil and gas class-action lawsuit that will affect the way many West Virginia royalty owners are paid is nearing its conclusion in federal court. The Kay case, as it's called, challenges how producer EQT deducts various post-production charges and severance taxes from royalty checks. It's set to go to trial Dec. 17. But a status conference on a motion to dismiss the case has been held and people familiar with the case said settlement talks are in process. Attorneys for EQT were not at liberty to comment on the case and attorneys for the plaintiffs did not respond to requests for comment. Valerie Antonette, local chapter president of the National Association of Royalty Owners (NARO), gave an update on the case at a recent NARO town hall. Asked if she had any insight into the progress of the talks, she said in an email, "As we are not a class member I am not privy to all of the settlement negotiations and I have no new info at this time." The case is in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, before Judge John P. Bailey, Here are some case highlights and recent developments. It was first filed in Jan 2013. The plaintiffs -- the Kay Co. and individual royalty owners H. Dotson Cather and James E. Hamric III, on behalf of a class of royalty owners -- amended the complaint in 2014. The defendants are EQT Corp. and five of its subsidiaries. The plaintiffs signed leases that entitled them to 12.5 percent royalties. They allege that EQT and its midstream and downstream chain of subsidiaries wrongly take deduct post-production expenses and severance taxes form their checks, and do not report the sale of natural gas liquids. They charge breach of contract and fiduciary duty, fraud, and that EQT used its subsidiaries to sell gas to itself at reduced value, thereby depriving them of their full due royalty. In a series of November rulings, Judge Bailey dealt EQT a series of setbacks. He denied EQTs motion for judgment on it deducting of severance taxes. He said that state law is clear that EQT, as the entity severing the gas from the ground, is subject to the tax, not the royalty owners, unless the lease expressly provides for the deduction. He also denied EQT's motion for judgment on fraud and punitive damage claims. He said EQT had the duty to inform the lessors of sales, revenues and deductions and determine what deductions are permissible. He wrote that evidence provided by the plaintiffs shows EQT "decided that it was taking whatever it wanted to take and was not going to provides its lessors with enough information tat they could tell what they were taking, and then, refused to provide sufficient information that anyone could ever determine what all they were taking. The conduct was intentional." Perhaps most significant is a ruling connected to recent action by the Legislature and the state Supreme Court. Royalty owners familiar with the case said this could affect an EQT court challenge to a pro-royalty owner bill, SB 360, passed during the last session. SB 360 was a response to the state Supreme Court's about-face in a case called Leggett. In answering a question form a federal court, the Supreme Court in 2016 determined in "Leggett 1" that EQT could not deduct post-production expenses from royalties on leases converted from flat rate to 12.5 percent. Then in 2017, with a new justice on bard, in changed its answer in "Leggett 2" and said that's OK. The court also urged the legislature to clarify the law on that matter, and SB 360 resulted, prohibiting those deductions. In Kay, EQT wanted to rely on Leggett 2 for the trial but Bailey said that SB 360 served as an amendment to existing law and was therefore retroactive, effectively nullifying Leggett 2. SB 360 "confirms that the law all along was that post-production costs could not be deducted" from the leases in question. NARO and other royalty owners speculate that this could have a bearing on EQT's lawsuit against the state Department of Environmental Protection that challenges SB 360 in order to allow deductions. EQT was not at liberty to comment on this speculation. Judge Bailey did grant EQT one boon in one ruling. He denied a motion by the plaintiffs to require EQT to pay royalties on unsold gas -- meaning gas lost somewhere in the pipeline between extraction and sale: "Lessees have no general duty to pay for lost volumes." However, if plaintiffs believe the producer is negligently losing gas, they are free to sue for damages on that matter. [GN] ERIK THOMSEN LLC: Violates Disabilities Act, Tucker Suit Asserts ---------------------------------------------------------------- Erik Thomsen LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Henry Tucker, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Erik Thomsen LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-11953 (S.D. N.Y., December 18, 2018). Erik Thomsen Gallery specializes in Japanese paintings and screens, early tea ceramics, Japanese gold lacquers, and signed ikebana bamboo baskets.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq. Cohen & Mizrahi LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Tel: (917) 299-6612 Fax: (929) 575-4195 Email: joseph@cml.legal EVANS TIRE: Sanchez et al. Seek Minimum & Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------- MARCO SANCHEZ AND CARLOS VEAL, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated employees of Defendants in the State of California, the Plaintiffs, vs. EVANS TIRE AND SERVICE CENTERS, INC., and DOES 1 THROUGH 50, inclusive, Case No. 37-2018-00063516-CU-0E-CTL (Cal. Super. Ct., Dec. 17, 2018), alleges that Defendants decreased Plaintiffs' employment-related costs by systematically violating California wage and hour laws and engaging in unlawful and unfair business practices. According to the complaint, Defendants' systematic pattern of Labor Code and IWC Wage Order violations toward Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees in California include, but are not limited to: -- Failure to provide a first off-duty meal period of at least 30-minutes before the commencement of the sixth hour of work; -- Failure to provide a first off-duty meal period of at least 30-minutes before the commencement of the tenth hour of work; -- Failure to authorize and permit off-duty paid rest periods; -- Failure to pay all minimum and regular wages for all hours worked; -- Failure to pay all overtime wages; -- Failure to reimburse for all business expenses; -- Failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements; and -- Failure to timely pay all wages due upon separation of employment. Evans Tire & Service Centers, Inc. retails automotive parts and accessories. The Company offers tires, wheels, brakes, shocks, struts, and batteries.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiffs Marco Sanchez and Carlos Veal, individually and on behalf of similarly situated employees of Defendants in the State of California: Graham S.P. Hollis, Esq. Vilmarie Cordero, Esq. Hali M. Anderson, Esq. GRAHAMHOLLIS APC 3555 Fifth Avenue Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92103 Telephone: (619) 692 0800 Facsimile: (619) 692 0822 E-mail: ghollis@grahamhollis.com vcordero@grahamhollis.com handerson@grahamhollis.com FACEBOOK INC: ICA Imposes Fine Amid Personal Data Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Xinhua News Agency reports that the Italian Competition Authority (ICA) has fined Facebook with two penalties worth 10 million euros (11.3 million U.S. dollars) overall for improper use of its subscribers' personal data, the authority said in a statement on Dec. 7. After an investigation was launched in April and closed on November 29, the ICA concluded that Facebook used subscribers' data in a way that breached the country's consumer code. The first fine was imposed because Facebook "deceptively persuades users to register on the platform" without informing them properly and immediately in the signup phase that their data would be collected for commercial purposes. The authority explained the information provided by the company in that phase were "generic and incomplete" since they did not adequately distinguish between the use of data needed to personalize the service, and that made to carry out targeted advertising campaigns. The second financial penalty was due to the fact the social media giant passed users' data to third parties. According to the ICA, the network uses "an aggressive practice, since it exerts an undue influence on registered consumers, who suffer without explicit and prior consensus... the transmission of their data for commercial purposes from Facebook to third-party apps and websites." In addition to the fines, Facebook would now be required to publish a corrective statement on its website and app to inform consumers, the Italian antitrust specified. The investigation had been open after a class action lawsuit against the company for alleged improper use of personal data was filed by three Italian consumer advocacy groups. [GN] FIFTH THIRD: Unlawfully Deducts Funds from Bank Account, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ MARTIN STARACE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff vs. FIFTH THIRD BANK; and DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-01602-AWI-EPG (E.D. Cal., Nov. 19, 2018) alleges violation of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act. In or around December 2017, the Plaintiff contacted the Defendant in an attempt to make payments for a car that the Plaintiff purchased for his daughter. The Defendant's agent informed the Plaintiff that he could initiate service with the Defendant by providing his routing and checking account information. The Plaintiff provided the Defendant's agent with his routing and checking account information. However, due to a miscommunication, the payments that the Plaintiff agreed to make were never made. When the Defendant's agent tried to notify the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff did not respond due to the fact that his cell phone was lost. When the Plaintiff did learn of the late payments, he immediately overnighted payment in the form of personal checks to the Defendant. The Plaintiff tried vigorously to contact the Defendant and explain the situation of why he could not be contacted, however, the Defendant refused to accept his excuse and the Defendant reported a late payment on his credit score. However, without the Plaintiff's knowledge or consent, the Defendant continued to deduct funds from the Plaintiff's account multiple times on a reoccurring basis, without providing the Plaintiff a written authorization to do so. The Plaintiff never provided Defendant with any authorization to deduct these sums of money on a regular recurring basis from the Plaintiff's banking account. Fifth Third Bank provides banking products and services for personal and business needs. Fifth Third Bank was formerly known as Fifth Third Union Trust Company and changed its name to Fifth Third Bank in March 1969. The company was founded in 1927 and is headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio with locations in Ohio, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Missouri, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and West Virginia. Fifth Third Bank operates as a subsidiary of Fifth Third Financial Corporation. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Meghan E. George, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: (877) 206-4741 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com mgeorge@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com FIG & OLIVE: Vazquez et al. Seek Minimum Wage & Overtime Pay ------------------------------------------------------------ ALBERTO VAZQUEZ, ROGELIO RAMOS, and FRANCISCO CORTE, on behalf of themselves, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class, the Plaintiffs, vs. FIG & OLIVE FOUNDERS LLC, FIG & OLIVE USA INC., FIG & OLIVE HOLDING LLC, FIG & OLIVE FIFTH AVENUE LLC d/b/a FIG & OLIVE FIFTH AVENUE, FIG & OLIVE THIRTEEN STREET LLC d/b/a FIG & OLIVE MEATPACKING, and FIG & OLIVE INC. d/b/a FIG & OLIVE UPTOWN, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-11846 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 17, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wage and overtime, and liquidated damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class were paid below the minimum wage at an invalid "tip credit" minimum wage. The Defendants were not entitled to claim any tip credit allowance under the FLSA or NYLL because Defendants (i) failed to properly provide tip credit notice in violation of the FLSA; (ii) failed to inform them that the tip credit claimed by Defendants cannot exceed the amount of tips actually received by them in violation of the FLSA; (iii) failed to inform that all tips received by them are to be retained by them except pursuant to a valid tip pooling arrangement in violation of the FLSA; (iv) failed to inform that tip credit will not apply unless they have been informed of the foregoing tip credit notice requirement in violation of the FLSA, (v) claimed tip credit for all hours worked despite having caused tipped employees to engage in non-tipped duties for hours exceeding 20% of the total hours worked each workweek in violation of the FLSA and NYLL, (vi) failed to accurately track daily tips earned or maintain records thereof, (vii) failed to properly provide tip credit notice at hiring and annually thereafter in violation of the NYLL, (viii) failed to provide a proper wage statement with every payment of wages informing Plaintiffs and other tipped employees of the amount of tip credit deducted for each payment period, in violation of the NYLL, and (ix) illegally retained gratuities. Fig & Olive Holding LLC owns and operates restaurants. The company was incorporated in 2013 and is based in New York, New York.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiffs, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class: C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 30 East 39th Street, Second Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: 212 465-1188 Facsimile: 212 465-1181 FINA: Class Action Mulled in Australia Over Monopoly of Swimming ---------------------------------------------------------------- Craig Lord, writing for The Times, reports that the billionaire behind a planned revolution in swimming has launched a legal challenge to end Fina's monopoly of sport and also plans to turn track and field on its head with a promise to ensure athletes receive proper financial rewards for their efforts. It comes as Australian Olympic swimming champion Kyle Chalmers revealed he plans to quit the sport because he receives an annual grant of just GBP14,700. Hungarian triple Olympic champion Katinka Hosszu, world champion Michael Andrew and USA teammate Tom Shields are among plaintiffs in a proposed class action in which the International Swimming League (ISL) run by Ukraine power-sector tycoon Konstantin Grigorishin intends to test Fina under anti-trust laws in the United States. Similar action is planned in Europe. [GN] FIORELLA INSURANCE: Hackett Files Consumer Credit Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fiorella Insurance Agency, Inc. The case is styled as Bradley Hackett, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Fiorella Insurance Agency, Inc. and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No6:18-cv-02150-PGB-GJK (M.D. Fla., December 17, 2018). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit over Restrictions on Use of Telephone Equipment. Fiorella Insurance Agency, Inc. is an Insurance agency in Stuart, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin Zeig, Esq. Zeig Law Firm, LLC 3475 Sheridan Street, Suite 310 Hollywood, FL 33024 Tel: (754) 217-3084 Fax: (754) 217-3084 Email: justin@zeiglawfirm.com FORUM GALLERY: Violates ADA, Tucker Suit Says --------------------------------------------- Forum Gallery Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Henry Tucker, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Forum Gallery Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-11955 (S.D. N.Y., December 18, 2018). Forum Gallery Inc. offers a wide selection of artworks by leading artists.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq. Cohen & Mizrahi LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Tel: (917) 299-6612 Fax: (929) 575-4195 Email: joseph@cml.legal FRANCIS M. NAUMANN: Faces ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- Francis M. Naumann Fine Art, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Henry Tucker, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Francis M. Naumann Fine Art, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-11954 (S.D. N.Y., December 18, 2018). Francis M. Naumann Fine Art specializes in American Art of the 20th Century, as well as European Art from the Dada and Surrealist periods.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq. Cohen & Mizrahi LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Tel: (917) 299-6612 Fax: (929) 575-4195 Email: joseph@cml.legal FRANKLIN PARRASCH: Tucker Files Suit Under Disabilities Act ----------------------------------------------------------- Franklin Parrasch Gallery, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Henry Tucker, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Franklin Parrasch Gallery, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-11957 (S.D. N.Y., December 18, 2018). Franklin Parrasch Gallery, Inc. is an art gallery in New York City, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq. Cohen & Mizrahi LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Tel: (917) 299-6612 Fax: (929) 575-4195 Email: joseph@cml.legal FRANKLIN TEMPLETON: Settles Proprietary Fund Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------- Nevin E. Adams, JD, writing for NAPA, reports that with a trial date looming, Franklin Templeton has settled a proprietary fund suit brought by participants in the firm's own 401(k) plan. Both parties had just had their respective attempts to obtain summary judgment without going to court largely rebuffed by Judge Claudia Wilken of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, who find that triable issues of fact remained. The one item in which she had ruled -- that plaintiffs had failed to show that a $70 per-participant fee wasn't reasonable and not comparable to similar plans. The case was set to go to trial in January. The suit was actually two separate suits brought by participants in Franklin Templeton's 401(k) plan that were combined earlier this year. Lead plaintiffs Nelly Fernandez and Marlon H. Cryer had alleged similar fiduciary breach claims (and claims similar to those common to the recent wave of proprietary fund suits), including claims that the plan invested in funds offered and managed by Franklin Templeton, when "better-performing and lower-cost funds were available," motivated to do so by the benefits to Franklin Templeton's investment management business. The suits had also alleged that the plan fiduciaries decided to replace allocation funds of the plan with target date funds shortly before or during 2014, at which time they chose the "untested, expensive Proprietary Target Date Funds" and criticized the plan for offering a proprietary money market fund rather than a stable value fund. For all its similarities with other proprietary fund suits, this one presented a unique argument by the defendants: that since one of the plaintiffs had signed a class action waiver in favor of arbitration after leaving employment (rather than as a condition of that employment), he was barred from bringing a class action. However, in October 2017, Judge Wilken ruled that the plaintiffs here were bringing the class action not as employees, but in their position as participants in the 401(k) plan, and thus the class action was not barred by that waiver. Franklin Templeton is the latest financial company to agree to settle such claims, joining BB&T ($24 million), Deutsche Bank ($21.9 million), American Airlines Group Inc. ($22 million), Allianz SE ($12 million) and TIAA ($5 million). As for the terms of the Franklin Templeton settlement, those are not yet known. The filing indicates the parties anticipate needing 60 days to file a motion for preliminary approval. [GN] GAGOSIAN GALLERY: Faces Tucker Class Action Under ADA ----------------------------------------------------- Gagosian Gallery, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Henry Tucker, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Gagosian Gallery, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-11958 (S.D. N.Y., December 18, 2018). Gagosian is a contemporary art gallery owned and directed by Larry Gagosian. The gallery exhibits some of the most influential artists of the 20th and 21st centuries.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq. Cohen & Mizrahi LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Tel: (917) 299-6612 Fax: (929) 575-4195 Email: joseph@cml.legal GALERIE ST. ETIENNE: Violates ADA, Tucker Suit Says --------------------------------------------------- The Galerie St. Etienne, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Henry Tucker, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. The Galerie St. Etienne, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-11959 (S.D. N.Y., December 18, 2018). Galerie St. Etienne is a Expressionism art gallery operating in the United States, founded in Vienna in 1923 by Otto Kallir (originally Otto Nirenstein) as the Neue Galerie.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq. Cohen & Mizrahi LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Tel: (917) 299-6612 Fax: (929) 575-4195 Email: joseph@cml.legal GALVESTON COUNTY, TX: Class Action Challenges Bail System --------------------------------------------------------- Cameron Langford, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that a class action challenging Galveston County's bail system as rigged to keep poor arrestees in jail has the same legitimate due process claims as litigation that transformed pretrial detention in Houston, a federal magistrate ruled on Dec. 10. Police arrested Aaron Booth, 37, in the early morning of April 8 on felony drug possession charges, set his bail at $20,000 on the recommendation of a prosecutor and booked him into Galveston County Jail. Without asking if Mr. Booth could afford it, a magistrate judge rubberstamped the bail amount at a hearing later that morning after Mr. Booth asked for a court-appointed attorney and signed a pauper's oath stating he could not pay for one. Mr. Booth went back to a jail cell and the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas immediately took his case and ran with it to federal court. The ACLU claims Galveston County's use of a schedule to set bail based on the charges and failure to provide defense counsel for arrestees at bail hearings is an unconstitutional "wealth-based imprisonment" system. Unless they plead guilty, the ACLU says, poor Galveston County inmates spend at least a week in jail before they have a hearing before a judge where they can lobby for lower bail. And a week in jail can be disastrous as inmates cannot work and are at risk of being fired from their jobs, can miss rent payments and be evicted, or lose custody of their children, the ACLU argues in court filings. The arguments are not novel. The ACLU is piggy-backing on a similar class action that led to a landmark ruling in April 2017 in which U.S. District Judge Lee Rosenthal held that the bail system of Harris County, home to Houston, unconstitutionally favors people who can afford to pay their way out jail. The ACLU is also leading a court challenge of Dallas County's bail-setting practices. U.S. Magistrate Judge Andrew Edison refused on Dec. 10 to dismiss Mr. Booth's first amended lawsuit, which named as defendants Galveston County, its District Attorney Jack Roady, six state judges who preside over felony courts, three county criminal judges with jurisdiction over misdemeanor cases, and three magistrates. In a motion to dismiss, the county said changes it made after Mr. Booth sued moot his claims. Galveston County says arrestees now have the option of filling out an affidavit about their finances that magistrates must review before setting their bail; those still in custody 48 hours after their arrests are appointed an attorney to help them make their case for reduced bail; and magistrates must also write statements, or make them on the record, about why they declined to lower the bail. But Judge Edison was not convinced the reforms are in place. "Although the county contends that 'steps have been taken to put in place additional procedural safeguards to ensure an arrestee's ability to pay is taken into consideration,' the record is not altogether clear as to what actual changes have been made to the county's bail setting process," he wrote in a 45-page order. He wrote it's unclear from deposition testimony from a local magistrate -- who said she doesn't believe that "anybody is ordering me to follow [the new procedures]" -- whether all the judges and magistrates are following the new procedures. Asked on Dec. 10 if the new bail guidelines are being applied uniformly, the county's outside counsel, Joseph Nixon -- joseph.nixon@akerman.com -- with Akerman LLP in Houston, said, "I know that they are. They are, absolutely." Mr. Nixon said Judge Edison's 45-page memorandum and recommendation is not the last word on the dismissal motions, as U.S. District Judge George Hanks will make that call. Mr. Booth pleaded guilty to felony drug possession in August and was sentenced to 100 days in jail. A judge credited the 56 days he had already spent in jail, court records show. His defense attorney declined to say what kind of drugs were involved. Judge Edison also brushed aside the county's argument that Booth's release from jail mooted the class action because he now has no personal stake in the outcome. "The Supreme Court has expressly held on several occasions that, in a class action challenging procedures for pretrial detention, the release of the named plaintiff from jail does not moot the action," he wrote. ACLU of Texas Attorney Trisha Trigilio praised the order and said the county needs to prove its bail reforms are for real. "We're pleased with this thoughtful report and recommendation, which carefully evaluates the way each defendant contributes to Galveston County's wealth-based pretrial detention system. While the county claims that it has adopted new procedures, it has filed almost no evidence to demonstrate how things have changed on the ground," she said. [GN] GENERAL DYNAMICS: Freeman Seeks Certification of FLSA Collective ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled CHRISTI FREEMAN and KIMBERLEY SHOCKEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GENERAL DYNAMICS INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, INC., Case No. 8:18-cv-00855-CEH-TGW (M.D. Fla.), renew their motion to conditionally certify an FLSA collective action and authorize notice to putative opt-in plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs seek entry of an order conditionally certifying a Fair Labor Standards Act collective of, and permitting Court-supervised notice to, all similarly situated current and former Customer Service Representatives ("CSRs") throughout the United States who worked for Defendant General Dynamics Information Technology, Inc. ("General Dynamics") from three years preceding the filing of this action (April 10, 2015) to July 31, 2017 (the "Material Period"), regarding their opt-in rights (the "FLSA Collective"). The Motion also moves the Court to enter an order: (a) requiring General Dynamics to produce in an electronic or computer-readable format the full name, address(es), and e-mail address(es) for each of the collective members; and (b) authorizing notice to the members of the FLSA Collective.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq. Logan A. Pardell, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. 951 Yamato Road, Suite 285 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Telephone: (561) 447-8888 Facsimile: (561) 447-8831 E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com lpardell@shavitzlaw.com - and - Michael J. Palitz, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. 830 3rd Avenue, 5th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (800) 616-4000 Facsimile: (561) 447-8831 E-mail: mpalitz@shavitzlaw.com - and - Troy Kessle, Esq. Garrett Kaske, Esq. Tana Forrester, Esq. SHULMAN KESSLER LLP 534 Broadhollow Road, Suite 275 Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: (631) 499-9100 Facsimile: (631) 499-9120 E-mail: tkessler@shulmankessler.com gkaske@shulmankessler.com Tforrester@shulmankessler.com The Defendant is represented by: Gregory W. Kehoe, Esq. Catherine H. Molloy, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A. 101 E. Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 1900 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 318-5700 Facsimile: (813) 318-5900 E-mail: kehoeg@gtlaw.com molloyk@gtlaw.com - and - Christine E. Howard, Esq. FISHER PHILLIPS LLP 101 E. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 2350 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 769-7500 Facsimile: (813) 769-7501 E-mail: choward@laborlawyers.com GENERAL MOTORS: Sued Over Diesel Fuel Injection Pumps ----------------------------------------------------- Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a federal class action claims General Motors' high-pressure diesel fuel injection pumps are "ticking time bombs" because they run dry and send metal shavings and debris through the fuel system, causing catastrophic failure. The case is Ginebra, et al. v. General Motors, LLC, Case No. 1:18-cv-25209 (S.D. Fla). A copy of the Complaint is available at https://is.gd/PWbs3P GITTERMAN GALLERY: Tucker Files Suit under ADA in New York ---------------------------------------------------------- Gitterman Gallery, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Henry Tucker, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Gitterman Gallery, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-11960 (S.D. N.Y., December 18, 2018). Gitterman Gallery LLC is in the Art Gallery business.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq. Cohen & Mizrahi LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Tel: (917) 299-6612 Fax: (929) 575-4195 Email: joseph@cml.legal GREEN DESK: Workspace Firm Faces Class Suit -------------------------------------------- Green Desk LLC is facing a class action lawsuit pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Thomas Olsen, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Green Desk LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-07193 (E.D. N.Y., December 17, 2018). Green Desk offers workspace for entrepreneurs and local businesses in Brooklyn.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq. Lipsky Lowe LLP 630 Third Avenue Fifth Floor New York, NY 10017 Tel: (212) 392-4772 Fax: (212) 444-1030 Email: doug@lipskylowe.com GREENSKY INC: Coombs Sues over Misleading Financial Report ---------------------------------------------------------- A securities class action lawsuit has been filed against GreenSky, Inc., on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased GreenSky Class A common stock on or traceable to the Company's May 25, 2018 initial public offering (the "IPO"). On April 27, 2018, GreenSky filed a registration statement for the IPO on Form S-1 which, after two amendments on May 7, 2018 and on May 14, 2018, was declared effective on May 23, 2018. On May 25, 2018, GreenSky filed a prospectus for the IPO on Form 424B4, which incorporated and formed part of the Registration Statement. By means of the Offering Documents, GreenSky offered and sold 43.7 million Class A common shares (including the underwriters' greenshoe option to purchase up to an additional 5,700,000 shares) at $23.00 per share for over $1 billion in gross proceeds. The Offering Documents contained false and misleading statements and/or omitted to disclose material information. The Defendants have violated Sections 11 and 15 of the 1933 Act, the lawsuit says. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff purchased GreenSky shares traceable to the IPO and has been damaged thereby. The Defendant GreenSky is a financial technology company that provides merchants and banks with technology to facilitate financed consumer sales transactions in several market segments. Its Class A common shares trade on the NASDAQ under the ticker symbol "GSKY." Specifically, the Registration Statement failed to disclose that GreenSky had substantially changed its business mix such that its transaction fee percentage had substantially declined at the time of the IPO and that GreenSky would not only continue this business mix shift but was in the process of accelerating it. The case is captioned as William Coombs, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. GREENSKY, INC., DAVID ZALIK, ROBERT PARTLOW, JOEL BABBIT, GERALD BENJAMIN, JOHN FLYNN, GREGG FREISHTAT, NIGEL MORRIS, ROBERT SHEFT, GOLDMAN SACHS & CO. LLC, J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC, SUNTRUST ROBINSON HUMPHREY, INC., MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INCORPORATED, CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES USA LLC, RAYMOND JAMES & ASSOCIATES, INC., GUGGENHEIM SECURITIES, LLC, SANDLER O'NEILL & PARTNERS, L.P., FIFTH THIRD SECURITIES, INC. and DOES 1-25, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 656134/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Dec. 10, 2018). Attorneys for Plaintiff: Melissa A. Fortunato, Esq. Lawrence P. Eagel, Esq. Marion C. Passmore, Esq. Melissa A. Fortunato, Esq. BRAGAR EAGEL & SQUIRE, P.C. 885 Third Avenue, Suite 3040 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: 212-308-5858 Facsimile: 212-486-0462 E-mail: eagel@bespc.com passmore@bespc.com fortunato@bespc.com - and - Albert Y. Chang, Esq. BOTTTINI & BOTTINI, INC. 7817 Ivanhoe Avenue, Suite 102 La Jolla, CA 92037 Telephone: (858) 914-2001 Facsimile: (858) 914-2002 E-mail: achang@bottinilaw.com HANS P. KRAUS: Faces Tucker Suit Alleging ADA Violation ------------------------------------------------------- Hans P. Kraus, Jr., Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Henry Tucker, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Hans P. Kraus, Jr., Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-11962 (S.D. N.Y., December 18, 2018). Hans P. Kraus, Jr., Inc. is an art gallery in New York City, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq. Cohen & Mizrahi LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Tel: (917) 299-6612 Fax: (929) 575-4195 Email: joseph@cml.legal HAWAII: ACLU Files School Athletics Discrimination Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Trudy Ring, writing for Advocate, reports that the state of Hawaii is violating federal law by discriminating against girls in athletics, a new class action lawsuit contends. The American Civil Liberties Union of Hawaii, representing female athletes in the state's public schools, filed suit on Dec. 6 against the state's Department of Education and the Oahu Interscholastic Association, saying the girls receive "grossly unequal treatment" compared to male athletes, in violation of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which prohibits sex discrimination in education. The suit was filed in U.S. District Court in Honolulu. The named plaintiffs are students as James Campbell High School in Honolulu, but they represent all similarly situated students, according to the suit. Female athletes at the school face numerous inequities and indignities, the ACLU contends. The school has a boys-only locker room for student athletes, the suit says, so girls have to "lug their athletic gear around all day" and find other places to change clothes, with some changing on the field or at a nearby Burger King. Also, the nearest girls' restrooms are much farther away than the boys' rooms. The school's pool is reserved for the boys' water polo team, so the girls' team must practice on an ocean beach or dry land, neither of which prepares them appropriately for pool competition. The inequities continue across the state, according to the suit. The best time slots for games – usually Friday nights – are reserved for boys' sports. So are the best facilities. Boys' sports receive a disproportionate share of travel funds, and money intended for coaches of girls' sports has been diverted to increase the pay of the boys' coaches, the ACLU says. The Department of Education has promised to address the disparities but has failed to do so, the suit says. "Litigation is always our last resort," ACLU of Hawaii executive director Joshua Wisch said at a press conference on Dec. 6, local station KITV reports. "But unfortunately, nearly half a century after Title IX was passed and after almost 10 months of trying to work with the DOE, it still failed to produce a substantive plan to comply with the law. And unfortunately, some schools have doubled down on violating Title IX. As noted in our complaint, after the plaintiffs complained formally to Campbell's administrators, the school retaliated by threatening to 'cancel' the girls' water polo program and even withheld funding and other support from it. This is unacceptable." The press conference was held in Honolulu near a statue of the late U.S. Rep. Patsy Mink, the author of Title IX. The Department of Education and the Oahu Interscholastic Association have so far declined comment on the suit. [GN] HELENA AGRI-ENTERPRISES: Proctor Suit Moved to S.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- A case, Jorge Proctor, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Helena Agri-Enterprises, LLC doing business as: Helena Chemical Company, a Delaware company, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No.: 37-02018-00057894-CU-OE-CTL, was removed from the Cal. Super. Ct., County of San Diego, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California (San Diego) on Dec. 17, 2018. The Southern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-02833-JLS-NLS. The suit alleges labor-related violation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Janis L. Sammartino. Helena Chemical Company distributes of crop protection and crop production inputs and services for agricultural, turf and ornamental, forestry, and aquatics.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Douglas Han, Esq. JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION 411 North Central Avenue, Suite 500 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 230-7502 Facsimile: (818) 230-7259 E-mail: dhan@justicelawcorp.com Attorneys for Helena Agri-Enterprises, LLC: John E Fitzsimmons, Esq. DLA Piper LLP (US) 401 B Street, Suite 1700 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 699-2972 Facsimile: (619) 699-2701 E-mail: john.fitzsimmons@dlapiper.com HELLY NAHMAN GALLERY: Tucker Files Suit under Disabilities Act -------------------------------------------------------------- Helly Nahman Gallery Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Henry Tucker, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Helly Nahman Gallery Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-11963 (S.D. N.Y., December 18, 2018). Helly Nahmad Gallery is a Modern and Impressionist art gallery founded by Helly Nahmad in 2001 and is located at 975 Madison Avenue, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq. Cohen & Mizrahi LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Tel: (917) 299-6612 Fax: (929) 575-4195 Email: joseph@cml.legal HOMESTREET BANK: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Parseghian et al. Say ----------------------------------------------------------------- ARAZ PARSEGHIAN; and DARLENE DRAVIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. HOMESTREET BANK, and DOES 1 through 100, Defendants, Case No. 18STCV05776 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Nov. 20, 2018) is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, and reimburse necessary business expenses. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as hourly-paid, non-exempt employees. HomeStreet Bank, Inc. provides consumer and commercial banking products and services to customers on the West Coast and Hawaii. HomeStreet Bank, Inc. was formerly known as Continental Savings Bank and changed its name to HomeStreet Bank, Inc. in May 2000. The company was founded in 1921 and is based in Seattle, Washington with deposit branches and lending centers in the Western United States and Hawaii. HomeStreet Bank, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of HomeStreet, Inc. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas Han, Esq. Shunt Tatavos-Gharajeh, Esq. Arsine Grigoryan, Esq. JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION 411 North Central Avenue, Suite 500 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 230-7502 Facsimile: (818) 230-7259 HOTELQUICKLY: Class Action Mulled Over Booking Cancellations ------------------------------------------------------------ Sean O'Neill, writing for Skift, reports that it's a matter of probability that some companies will face cash crunches. It appears HotelQuickly has. But global travel search companies need to detect problems sooner. They must quickly put a pause on referring consumers to troubled companies before too many victims pile up. Paul Katsen of New York was set to begin a trip to South Africa when he received a message from HotelQuickly saying his hotel bookings were canceled. The online travel agency gave him a voucher for a future HotelQuickly purchase. When Mr. Katsen contacted the hotel, it said an agency had canceled his reservation on December 5. Mr. Katsen wasn't alone. Social media and consumer forums lit up in recent days with hundreds of complaints as HotelQuickly left hundreds of travelers stranded Rakeesha Chetty of South Africa was a week away from her trip to Zambia with friends and family when she received a notice from HotelQuickly that her booking had been canceled. Again, she received a voucher for future travel. But she questioned the value of the voucher. The Skift Daily newsletter puts you ahead of everyone about the future of travel. Subscribe now. As of Dec. 8 and Dec. 9, Skift's random test searches on HotelQuickly were not turning up any availability for properties in various cities, suggesting the site had suspended operations. Company officials failed to answer reporters late last week at The Straits Times in Singapore, where HotelQuickly's parent company is registered. Update: The Travel Industry Council of Hong Kong says that HotelQuickly's travel agent license expired on November 12, 2018, according to an email forwarded by a customer to Skift. That news makes this potentially a criminal matter, as it may be illegal to sell travel and fail to deliver the reservations without proper licensing. The parent company of HotelQuickly, Rising Sun Merchant Services, was slow to respond. But on Monday December 10 CEO Jerôme Cle, who has doubled as executive chairman of HotelQuickly since he finalized the transition of the startup mid-last year, provided a statement: "I have reached out to HQ management, and I was informed that due to an unforeseen issue with their main provider which has affected many reservations, many bookings have been canceled," Mr. Cle said. "This had nothing to do with the financial situation of the company," Mr. Cle said. "But while multiplying the revenue by 5 times this year, compared to last year. The company did suffer huge losses since the beginning of this year with one of their main supplier, and it took them 8 months to get to the table and negotiate the losses and the damages." "HQ spent an enormous amount of money and energy to build its brand but couldn't work anymore with this supplier until all issues were dealt with," Cle said. "Abruptly the supplier did put pressure on HQ to terminate the relationship while HQ was negotiating the damages with them hence HQ had no other choices to sadly cancel a lots of their customer's booking until it could fix this." "HQ had offered to each client a voucher for the same amount booked originally and is doing everything to return to normal as soon as possible," Cle said. "HQ is already renegotiating new agreements which will bring stability and better services to its clients and is deeply sorry for any inconvenience caused." SNOWBALLING COMPLAINTS In the past week, complaints about HotelQuickly snowballed on user-generated review platform Trustpilot and TripAdvisor's budget travel forum. QUESTIONS FOR THE TRAVEL SEARCH GIANTS HotelQuickly was the second online travel player to collapse in the past six months. This summer, Greek online travel agency Tripsta, which also operated as Air Tickets, faced a liquidity problem that forced it to suspend its business indefinitely. In both cases, many travelers had been referred to the small, little-marketed brands by doing searches on major price-comparison search engines, such as TripAdvisor and Trivago, according to their online complaints. The consumer stories raise questions about how rapidly those global tech companies respond to problems at advertising partners. In HotelQuickly's case, the response seems to have been too slow. Over the weekend, consumers added new complaints about HotelQuickly to Trustpilot every half hour, on average. In recent days, someone even found the time to set up a website trying to spark class action litigation. But as long ago as January, complaints had been piling up in forums like TripAdvisor. More backchannel communication among companies might have helped. Other companies that did business with HotelQuickly appeared to have discovered a problem recently. Rather than book directly with hotels, HotelQuickly often sourced rooms from booking agents, such as third-party wholesalers. Several emails angry travelers forwarded to us for review suggest that third-party companies suspended HotelQuickly for non-payment, though we were unable to reach those companies for confirmation by the publication deadline. HOTEL TONIGHT CLONES STRUGGLE HotelQuickly, founded in 2012 and based in Bangkok, had raised $10 million, with German startup incubator and now public company Rocket Internet as one of its major backers. But it apparently faced difficulties in sustaining itself. In early 2016, the company had slimmed down to try to become profitable, and it also rebranded. But profits proved elusive. In August 2017, the backers finalized a sale of HotelQuickly to Rising Sun Merchant Services, and the founders departed. Terms of the deal weren't disclosed. HotelQuickly's content blog promoting travel stopped producing new posts at the end of November. A side note: Years ago, one of the critiques against last-minute mobile booking pioneer Hotel Tonight was that its model would be too easy for companies like Rocket Internet to build copycats of. In hindsight, competitors large and small to Hotel Tonight, which continues to thrive, had misguided priorities and many have either flat-lined or crashed. [GN] INVESTMENT TECHNOLOGY: Feb. 21 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set -------------------------------------------------------------- The following statement is being issued by Motley Rice LLC regarding the class action In re Investment Technology Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 15 Civ. 6369 (JFK) (S.D.N.Y.) TO: ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED ANY INVESTMENT TECHNOLOGY GROUP, INC. ("ITG" OR THE "COMPANY") COMMON STOCK FROM FEBRUARY 28, 2011, THROUGH AND INCLUDING AUGUST 3, 2015 (THE "CLASS PERIOD"), AND WHO WERE DAMAGED THEREBY (THE "CLASS") YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, that the above-captioned action has been certified as a class action for purposes of settlement only and that a settlement for $18,000,000 has been proposed. A hearing will be held on February 21, 2019 at 11:00 a.m., before the Honorable John F. Keenan at the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Daniel Patrick Moynihan U.S. Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, Courtroom 20C, New York, NY 10007 for the purpose of determining: (1) whether the proposed Settlement should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether the Final Judgment Approving Class Action Settlement should be entered by the Court dismissing the Action with prejudice, and the releases specified and described in the Amended Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated October 26, 2018, should be granted; (3) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation is fair, reasonable, and adequate and should be approved; and (4) whether the application of Lead Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and litigation expenses in connection with this Action should be approved. The Court has reserved the right to reschedule the hearing without further notice. If you are a member of the Class described above, your rights may be affected by this Action and the proposed Settlement thereof. If you have not received the detailed Notice of (i) Pendency of Class Action, Certification of Class, and Proposed Settlement; (ii) Settlement Fairness Hearing; and (iii) Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses (the "Notice") or the Claim and Release Form ("Claim Form"), you may obtain them by contacting the Claims Administrator: ITG SECURITIES SETTLEMENT c/o GCG P.O. Box 10602 Dublin, OH 43017-9202 Info@ITGSecuritiesSettlement.com ITGSecuritiesSettlement.com (888) 312-0818 Inquiries, other than requests for information about the status of a claim, also may be made to Lead Counsel: MOTLEY RICE LLC Gregg S. Levin, Esq. Lance V. Oliver, Esq. 28 Bridgeside Boulevard Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464 (843) 216-9000 www.motleyrice.com Further information may also be obtained by directing your inquiry in writing to the Claims Administrator, GCG, at the address listed above. If you are a member of the Class and wish to share in the Settlement proceeds, you must submit a Claim Form postmarked no later than April 4, 2019, establishing that you are entitled to recovery. As further described in the Notice, you will be bound by any judgment entered in the Action, regardless of whether you submit a Claim Form, unless you exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Notice, no later than January 31, 2019. Any objections to the Settlement, Plan of Allocation, or Lead Counsel's request for attorney's fees and litigation expenses must be filed and served, in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Notice, such that they are received no later than January 31, 2019. PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE ABOUT THIS NOTICE. DATED: December 10, 2018 BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK [GN] IOOF: Class Action Lawyers Circling in Wake of APRA Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Sydney Morning Herald reports that the superannuation and banking regulator has been sharpening its knives to take IOOF to court for months, after chief executive Chris Kelaher's combative appearance at the Hayne royal commission and new evidence emerged that IOOF has allegedly lied to the regulator. Late on Dec. 6 the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority took IOOF, chief executive Chris Kelaher, chairman George Venardos and three executives to court, causing a market value wipeout of $900 million on Dec. 7 and triggering a major fund manager to call for a renewed board and management team. Class action lawyers are circling around IOOF in the wake of the APRA action, while the corporate regulator ASIC is understood to be pursuing its own investigation into the wealth company. Meanwhile the action has thrown into doubt ANZ's divestment plan of its OnePath superannuation business via a sale to IOOF. [GN] IPASS INC: Rosenblatt Balks at Merger Deal with Pareteum Corp. -------------------------------------------------------------- JORDAN ROSENBLATT, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. IPASS INC., MICHAEL J. TEDESCO, GARY A. GRIFFITHS, DAVID PANOS, JUSTIN R. SPENCER, NEAL I. GOLDMAN, PARETEUM CORPORATION, and TBR, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-02004-UNA (D. Del., Dec. 18, 2018), stems from a proposed transaction announced on November 12, 2018, pursuant to which iPass Inc. will be acquired by Pareteum Corporation and TBR, Inc. On November 12, iPass's Board of Directors caused the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with Pareteum. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub commenced an exchange offer to acquire all of iPass's outstanding common stock for 1.17 shares of Parent common stock for each share of iPass. The Exchange Offer is set to expire on January 3, 2019. On December 4, 2018, the Defendants filed a Solicitation/Recommendation Statement with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the Proposed Transaction. The Solicitation Statement omits material information with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the Solicitation Statement false and misleading, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Gina M. Serra, Esq. Brian D. Long, Esq. RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 295-5310 Facsimile: (302) 654-7530 E-mail: bdl@rl-legal.com gms@rl-legal.com - and - Richard A. Maniskas, Esq. RM LAW, P.C. 1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300 Berwyn, PA 19312 Telephone: (484) 324-6800 Facsimile: (484) 631-1305 E-mail: rm@maniskas.com ISLE OF CAPRI CASINOS: Wins Bid for Summary Judgment in Larson -------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Ortrie D. Smith entered an order and opinion in the lawsuit entitled CYNTHIA D. LARSON v. ISLE OF CAPRI CASINOS, INC., et al., Case No. 4:16-cv-00902-ODS (W.D. Mo.), ruling that: -- IOC's Motion for Summary Judgment is granted with regard to all of Plaintiff's claims against IOC; -- Defendants' four Motions to Strike declarations submitted in support of Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional and Class Certification are granted in part and denied in part; -- Plaintiff's motion to conditionally certify collective actions is granted in part and denied in part; -- Plaintiff's motion to certify a class action is denied; -- pursuant the Interim Scheduling Order, the parties shall submit a joint proposed scheduling order within twenty-one days of the date of this Order. In August 2016, the Plaintiff filed this matter on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, alleging IOC and IOC-KC violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Missouri Minimum Wage Law, and IOC and IOC-KC were unjustly enriched by receiving the benefit of unpaid work. The Plaintiff moves to conditionally certify two collective actions: (1) Nationwide Timekeeping Policy Collective Action: All hourly employees who worked at IOC or IOC's subsidiary properties or casinos in the United States at any time from three years prior to the filing of the Complaint, who clocked-in and clocked-out on an automated timeclock; and (2) Nationwide Tip Credit Notice Policy Collective Action: All hourly employees who worked at IOC or IOC's subsidiary properties or casinos in the United States at any time from three years prior to the filing of the Complaint, and who were paid a direct hourly wage that was less than the federal minimum wage at that time. According to the Order and Opinion, while her burden is not onerous at this stage, the Court finds the Plaintiff has not demonstrated all hourly employees at all IOC subsidiaries are similar in important respects. Specifically, she has not shown all hourly employees at all IOC subsidiaries were subjected to similar policies or circumstances. The same is true with regard to all table games dealers at all IOC subsidiaries, Judge Smith added.[CC] JARDINE LLOYD: Bathurst Regional Council Won't Join Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Nadine Morton, writing for Western Advocate, reports that Bathurst Regional Council will not be joining a class action by other Central West councils who are attempting to recoup millions of dollars due to alleged excessive insurance premiums. The class action was filed against multinational insurance broker Jardine Lloyd Thompson (JLT) who was acting on behalf of many of the state's 128 local councils through Statewide Mutual. Some councils, including Orange, Parkes and Mid-Western, have joined the class action and claim that since leaving JLT they have saved hundreds of thousands of dollars each year in insurance costs. Parkes council has saved around $230,000 a year on insurance since leaving JLT while Mid-Western saved around $300,000 on the first year alone. Bathurst council general manager David Sherley said council had utilised JLT as a broker for more than 14 years. "Council is aware of the class action but has no intention to take part," he said. Law firm Quinn Emanuel Urquhart and Sullivan (QE) lodged the class action on behalf of all local councils and managing partner Michael Mills said many of them were still with Statewide Mutual. "They've been overpaying for many years," he said of the mutual's member councils. Mr Mills said it was not uncommon or large corporations and businesses to seek out a broker to secure competitively-priced insurance policies due to the complex nature of the premiums needed. He alleges that JLT did not "shop around" for better priced insurance policies for councils and that it may have had a "conflict of interest" in selecting higher cost premiums that led to commissions for JLT. Mid-Western Regional Council director community Simon Jones confirmed on Dec. 7 that they had joined the class action against JLT. "In 2016, Mid-Western Regional Council began the process of tendering for its insurance brokerage services," he said. "This resulted in savings of around 30 per cent on the insurance premiums that we had been paying previously. "It is estimated that there was a saving of around $300,000 for the first year alone as a result of going through the tender process, leaving Statewide Mutual and changing brokers. "Mid-Western believes we may have been overpaying for insurance premiums for many years based on the advice of JLT." Cabonne, Cowra and Dubbo councils have confirmed to Fairfax Media that they will also not be joining the class action. [GN] JARDINE LLOYD: Law Firms Invite More Councils to Join Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Insurancenews.com.au reports that law firm Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan has invited more councils to join a class action it filed against Jardine Lloyd Thompson. The NSW Supreme Court action, supported by litigation funder Harbour, is led by Richmond Valley Council, while the law firm says six other local governments have also expressed interest. But JLT says it will "vigorously defend" the action, which is open to councils provided with broking services from January 1 2009 to December 3 this year and which obtained cover through membership of the NSW mutual liability scheme. Leo Demer, JLT's Global Head Public Sector, says claims in the Quinn Emanuel action are "utter and absolute nonsense". "It has absolutely no merit and we will be vigorously defending the action," he told insuranceNEWS.com.au. JLT provides insurance services to more than 500 councils across Australia and has highlighted its strong track record in providing cover through mutual schemes. "Every scheme produces an audited set of accounts that clearly define the significant surpluses sitting in those schemes for the benefit of members," Mr Demer said earlier this year. "Mutual schemes were created because councils in Australia could not buy any cover in the open market. The suggestion that councils have paid excessive premiums is not supported by the facts." The class action alleges JLT breached general law and contractual obligations, plus fiduciary duties, in its provision of insurance broking and advisory services. "We believe a vast majority of NSW councils have used JLT's services and, as a result, may have overpaid on their insurance premiums, some for a number of years," Quinn Emanuel Managing Partner Michael Mills said. Mr Mills alleges many councils have made substantial premium savings since leaving JLT, often about 30-50%, indicating the company may not have acted in councils and ratepayers' best interests. The law firm has flagged the potential for similar class actions in other states. Richmond Valley GM Vaughan Macdonald says the council last year put its insurance out to tender and obtained a saving of 53% on the premium it had been paying. "For that year alone, the saving was $300,000, and this has been going on for many years," he said. [GN] JARDINE LLOYD: Orange City Council Joins Insurance Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Central Western Daily reports that Orange City Council has joined a class action following what it claimed is a loss of "several hundred thousand dollars" due to alleged excessive premiums charged for insurance policies. The class action was filed against multinational insurance broker Jardine Lloyd Thompson who was acting on behalf of many of the state's 128 local councils through Statewide Mutual. The council's communications officer Allan Reeder confirmed the council had joined the class action against JLT. "Along with councils across the state, Orange City Council received insurance services through JLT as the broker for 16 years, which ended in 2018," he said. Orange City Council put its insurance requirements out to tender, and during the first year with a new firm there were significant savings of several hundred thousand dollars. Orange City Council's communications officer Allan Reeder "Orange City Council put its insurance requirements out to tender, and during the first year with a new firm there were significant savings of several hundred thousand dollars." Mr Reeder said council had joined the class action on a no-win-no-fee basis, and there would be no direct cost to ratepayers. Meanwhile, Cabonne Council spokesperson Dale Jones said it had a "long-standing relationship with Statewide Mutual" which it said was an insurance group that was "specifically tailored for local government and underwritten by Jardine Lloyd Thompson". "Council has enjoyed a good relationship with Statewide and is happy with the cover we currently have," he said. "Cabonne is aware of the class action, but does not have any plans to join that class action at this stage." However Mr Jones said that while the council was happy with its current arrangement, it was still possible that it might undertake "market testing when the current premiums are to be renewed". Law firm Quinn Emanuel Urquhart and Sullivan lodged the class action on behalf of all local councils, and managing partner Michael Mills said many of them were still with Statewide Mutual. "They've been overpaying for many years," he said of the mutual's member councils. Mr Mills said it was not uncommon for large corporations and businesses to seek out a broker to secure competitively-priced insurance policies due to the complex nature of the premiums needed. He alleged that JLT did not "shop around" for better priced insurance policies for councils and that it may have had a "conflict of interest" in selecting higher cost premiums that led to commissions for JLT. Orange council was not the only one to have paid excessive fees, with Parkes Shire Council also joining the action to try and claw back the estimated $2 million it paid in excessive premium charges during a 10-year period. Parkes council director of corporate services Les Finn said it was only when council left Statewide Mutual and put their insurance costs out to tender that they realised money could be saved. "In the first year we received a 42 per cent decrease in our insurance policy [cost], this was equivalent to $230,000," Mr Finn said. "We estimate it's been around $230,000 a year for 10 years that we paid too much." [GN] JARIWALA & CO: Lambert Seeks Overtime Pay ----------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit against Jariwala & Co., LLC, challenges the policies and practices of Defendants that violate the Fair Labor Standards Act and concerns the non-payment of overtime to non-exempt employees. The Plaintiff and those similarly-situated routinely worked more than 40 hours in a workweek, often working 60 or more hours, and sometimes more than 100 hours in a workweek. Though Plaintiff and other similarly-situated employees routinely worked more than 40 hours in a workweek, they were not paid by Defendants at least one and one-half their regular rates for hours worked in excess of 40, the lawsuit says. The case is captioned as CARLA LAMBERT 2503 Pinehurst Estates Lakehurst, NJ 08733, on behalf of herself and all others similarly-situated, the Plaintiff, vs. JARIWALA & CO., LLC, d/b/a J & CO. HOTELS GROUP 1600 Matso Drive Toms River, NJ 08753; G MATSS, LLC 1406 Vincenzo Drive, Toms River, NJ 08753; RHR 121, LLC 1211 Boulevard Seaside Heights, NJ 08751; BOARDWALK SEAPORT INN 1119 Ocean Terrace Seaside Heights, NJ 08751; C Z GABHERAJ LLC 1406 Vicenzo Dr. Toms River, NJ 08753; CGABHERAJ LLC, 133 Carteret Ave., Seaside Heights, NJ 08751; RAJ JARIWALA, a/k/a RAJAN JARIWALA 27 Nelson Ave., Jersey City, NJ 07307; GAURANG JARIWALA, a/k/a GREG JARIWALA 1600 Matso Drive Toms River, NJ 08753; REX JARIWALA 1600 Matso Drive Toms River, NJ 08753; RAM PAL 150 Carlton Ave. Apt 2F Jersey City, NJ 07306; and AHMED AL HADDAD 413 E 51 st St. New York, NY 10022, the Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-17295 (D.N.J., Dec. 17, 2018). Jariwala & Co. LLC (trade name J & Co Business Management) is in the real estate investment industry.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly-situated: Ravi Sattiraju, Esq. THE SATTIRAJU LAW FIRM, P.C. Princeton, New Jersey 116 Village Blvd #200 Princeton, NJ 08540 Telephone: (609) 216-7042 Facsimile: (609) 799-1267 E-mail: rsattiraju@sattirajulawfirm.com - and - Robi J. Baishnab, Esq. Hans A. Nilges, Esq. Shannon M. Draher, Esq. NILGES.DRAHER.LLC 7266 Portage Street, N.W., Suite D Massillon, OH 44646 Telephone: (330) 470-4428 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 E-mail: rbaishnab@ohlaborlaw.com hans@ohlaborlaw.com sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com JC TREE: Berger Seeks Overtime Wages under FLSA ----------------------------------------------- ANTHONY LAMAR MARTE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. JC TREE CARE NY CORP., MARTHA VELASCO, and JUAN CARLOS, the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-07165 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 17, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff alleges that he is entitled to recover from Defendants overtime compensation for all hours in excess of 40 hours per week; any and all relief due and owing to Plaintiff for Defendants' failure to maintain employment records; interest all compensation Defendants withheld; an award of $5,000.00, the maximum penalty for violations of NYLL; liquidated damages; and attorneys fees and cost where available by stature. JC Tree Care offers safe tree removal and trimming in Albuquerque, New Mexico.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Christopher K. Cellotta, Esq. ZABELL & COLLOTTA, P.C. 1 Corporate Drive, Suite 103 Bohemia, NY 11716 Telephone: (631) 589 7242 Facsimile: (631) 563 7475 E-mail: Ccollotta@laborlawsny.com JELD-WEN INC: Faces Antitrust Class Action Over Price-Fixing ------------------------------------------------------------ Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that Sawbill Companies claims in a federal antitrust complaint that Jeld-Wen and Masonite, which dominate the interior molded door market, conspire to fix prices and have already lost a $56 million antitrust lawsuit because of it. The case is Knight, et al. v. Jeld-Wen Inc., et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-00850 (E.D. Va.). A copy of the Complaint is available at https://is.gd/v0uCkH JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Must Face Antitrust Class Action --------------------------------------------------- Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a federal judge refused to dismiss the Rochester Drug Cooperative's claim that Johnson & Johnson violated more than a dozen states' consumer-protection laws by monopolizing the market for Remicade, an arthritis drug, via exclusive agreements and coercive bundled rebates. The case is In Re Remicade Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 2:18-cv-00303, (E.D. Pa.). A copy of the Memorandum is available at: https://is.gd/vtvTlN JPMORGAN CHASE: Faces Kristel-Papp Suit in New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. The case is captioned as KRISTINE KRISTEL-PAPP, individually and on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., Defendant, Case No. 655788/2018 (N.Y. Sup., Nov. 19, 2018). JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association provides various banking and other financial services to corporate, institutional, and governmental clients in the United States and internationally. JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association is a subsidiary of JPMorgan Chase & Co. [BN] KB HOME: Sued over Breach of Contract ------------------------------------- AIIRAM LLC and MARIIA KRAVCHUK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. KB HOME, a Delaware corporation, and DOES 1-10, Inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 18CV339557 (Cal. Super. Ct., Dec. 17, 2018), asserts breach of contract; breach of implied covenant of fair dealing; intentional interference of economic advantage; negligence interference of economic advantage; and bad faith denial of contract. According to the complaint, on or about July 26, 2017, Plaintiff Kravchuk and an individual named Artem Koshkalda electronically signed a Purchase Agreement and Escrow instructions with the Defendant for Tract 10377, Lot/Unit 8, at 1035 Giacomo Lane No. 7, San Jose, California 95130, for a total purchase price of $943,367.00 (the "Lot 8 Contract"). The Plaintiffs are informed and believe that Defendant KB Home South Bay Inc. executed the Lot 8 Contract on or about August 3, 2017. On or about August 4, 2017, $27,240 was deposited into escrow for the purchase of Lot 8. The Lot 8 Contract set forth an estimated closing date of November 27, 2017. On or about July 27, 2017, Artem Koshkalda and an individual named Vladimir Westbrook electronically signed a Purchase Agreement and Escrow instructions with Defendant for Tract 10377, Lot/Unit 11, at 1035 Giacomo Lane No. 4, San Jose, California 95130, for a total purchase price of $876,427.00 (the "Lot 11 Contract"), and that Defendant KB Home South Bay Inc. executed the Lot 11 Contract on or about August 4, 2017. On or about August 4, 2017, $25,440 was deposited into escrow for the purchase of Lot 11. The Lot 11 Contract set forth an estimated closing date of November 30, 20 2017. On or about July 28, 2017, AIIRAM LLC, through its sole owner Plaintiff Kravchuk, electronically signed a Purchase Agreement and Escrow instructions with Defendant for Tract 10377, Lot/Unit 14, at 1035 Giacomo Lane No. 1, San Jose, California 95130, for a total purchase price of $932,028.00 ("Lot 14 Contract"). The Plaintiffs are informed that Defendant KB Home South Bay Inc. executed the Lot 14 Contract on or about August 26 3, 2017. On or about August 4, 2017, $27,240 was deposited into escrow for the purchase of Lot 14. The Lot 14 Contract set forth an estimated closing date of November 30, 2017. Lot 8, Lot 11 and Lot 14 are referred to as the "Properties." The Plaintiffs' loans were approved prior to November 30, 2017, and Plaintiff Kravchuk made arrangements to fly into California on November 30 to sign the escrow papers and to deposit the balance of the funds required to purchase the Properties. Kravchuk flew to California on November 30, 2017, and went to First American Title, which was handling the escrow, to sign the final paperwork. Plaintiffs were advised by the escrow officer that the final paperwork had to be corrected. While escrow worked on correcting the closing papers, Plaintiffs went to the bank to obtain cashier's checks for the purchase of the Properties. While Plaintiffs were at the bank, the escrow officer spoke with Plaintiff Kravchuk by phone and advised her that "there is no point to get the checks because the contracts were canceled by KB Home." Even though at that time -- on November 30, 2017 -- Plaintiffs' lender and Plaintiffs were ready, willing and able to transfer all funds necessary into escrow to purchase the Properties, and even though the escrow officer confirmed that if the funds were deposited into escrow on November 30 then escrow would close on December 1, 2017, KB Home had instructed the escrow company not to allow Plaintiffs to sign the closing documents. That evening, on November 30, 2017 at approximately 7 p.m., only two hours after instructing escrow not to allow Plaintiffs to sign the closing papers and to cancel the escrows, Defendant left a voicemail for Westbrook as the real estate agent for Plaintiffs advising him that the Properties were available for purchase at "market prices". The Plaintiffs are informed that Defendant's then-market prices for the Properties was as follows: Lot 8 - $1,166,669; Lot 11 – $1,095,760; Lot 14 - $1,155,448. The Plaintiffs and other class members were ready, willing and able to deposit all funds into escrow within 3 business days of delivery of Defendant’s default letters. The Defendant refused to allow Plaintiffs and other class members to close escrow on the real properties and represented that they had no contractual obligation to allow Plaintiffs and other class members to purchase the real properties. The Defendant thus denied of the existence of their Contracts with Plaintiffs and other class members in bad faith and without probable cause. The Defendant's bad faith denial of the existence of a contract caused harm to Plaintiffs and other class members. The Plaintiffs and other class members have suffered damages in an amount to be proven at trial.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiffs AIIRAM LLC and MARIIA KRAVCHUK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated: Michael J. Hassen, Esq. REALLAW, APC 1981 N. Broadway, Suite 280 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 359-7500 Facsimile: (925) 557-7690 E-mail: mjhassen@reallaw.us KELLER LENKNER: Faces Brown Suit in the District of Massachusetts ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Keller Lenkner LLC. The case is captioned as DERRICK BROWN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KELLER LENKNER LLC; and THE DAMPIER LAW FIRM PC, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-12423 (D. Mass., Nov. 20, 2018). The case is assigned to Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton. Keller Lenkner LLC is a national law firm that represents a broad array of clients as plaintiffs in complex litigation at the trial and appellate levels. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Borrelli, Esq. BORRELI, COLLERAN & WILLIAMS, PA 376 Trapelo Road Belmont, MA 02478 Telephone: (617) 484-7031 Facsimile: (617) 484-7032 E-mail: Lawyer2@earthlink.net KELLOG CO: 2nd Cir. Revives Cheez-Its "Whole Grain" Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Emilee Larkin, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that reviving a federal class action over healthful branding that appears on boxes of Cheez-Its, the Second Circuit found on Dec. 11 that the "whole grain" slogan could mislead consumers. While Cheez-Its usually come in a package that says either "Whole Grain" or "Made with Whole Grain," the ingredients list puts enriched white flour at the top. Because the snack contains just 5 to 8 grams of whole grain, lead plaintiffs Kristen Mantikas, Kristin Burns and Linda Castle claimed in a 2016 lawsuit that the labeling was deliberately deceptive. U.S. District Judge Sandra Feuerstein dismissed the case last year for failure to state a claim, but a three-judge panel of the Second Circuit decided on Dec. 11 that the case should go to trial. "The representation that a cracker is ‘made with whole grain' would thus plausible lead a reasonable consumer to conclude that the grain ingredient was entirely, or at least predominantly, whole grain," U.S. Circuit Judge Pierre Leval wrote for the court. Kellogg, which makes Cheez-Its, failed to sway the court that the cracker's mere inclusion of at least some whole grain means that the labeling is not misleading, "Such a rule would permit Defendant to lead consumers to believe its Cheez-Its were made of whole grain so long as the crackers contained an iota of whole grain, along with 99.999 percent white flour," the 16-page opinion states. Michael Reese, who represents the consumers, applauded the Dec. 11 reversal. "This is a very important decision for consumers," Mr. Reese said in an email. "It holds you cannot promise consumers something on the front of a package, and then try to disclaim that on the back. It requires truth in labeling." Kenneth Lee -- klee@jenner.com -- an attorney for Kellogg with the firm Jenner & Block, did not respond to email seeking comment. The case is Mantikas, et al. v. Kellogg Company, Case No. 17-2011 (2nd Cir.). A copy of the ruling is available at https://is.gd/HdGIOK KIMBERLY-CLARK: Supreme Court Won't Hear Flushable Wipes Dispute ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lydia Wheeler, writing for The Hill, reports that the Supreme Court on Dec. 10 declined to hear an appeal from a lower court ruling that allows a customer to sue the manufacture of flushable wipes over false advertising. The case stems from a class-action lawsuit brought by Jennifer Davidson after she purchased Scott Naturals Flushable Moist Wipes in 2013 and noticed they "felt sturdy and thick" and "did not break up in the toilet like toilet paper," according to court documents. Though the wipes did not clog Davidson's home plumbing, she argued the manufacturer's use of the term "flushable" in its marketing was deceptive and claimed the company had violated California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, its False Advertising Law and the Unfair Competition Law. A district court granted a motion from the manufacturer -- Kimberly-Clark Corp. -- to dismiss the case, ruling that Davidson lacked standing to sue for relief because she clearly will not purchase the product again, so there's no future harm or risk. The 9th Circuit reversed that ruling, saying a consumer may suffer an "actual and imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical" threat of future harm because "knowledge that the advertisement or label was false in the past does not equate to knowledge that it will remain false in the future." The manufacturer appealed to the Supreme Court, but the justices declined to take the case. They did not provide any explanation for their decision, as is customary. At least four of the nine justices need to agree to hear an appeal in order for it to be taken up. Kimberly-Clark manufactures an array of consumer products which it sells under some of the most recognized names in America, including Huggies diapers, Cottonelle toilet paper, Scott paper towels and Kleenex tissues. [GN] LINCOLN PROPERTY: Sandoval Seeks Overtime Pay --------------------------------------------- Michael Sandoval, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Lincoln Property Company Commercial, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 7:18-cv-11796 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 17, 2018), seeks unpaid wages including overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff alleges on behalf of himself, and other similarly situated current and former hourly employees who worked for the Defendant and who elect to opt into this action pursuant to the FLSA, that he and the other employees are (i) entitled to unpaid wages from Defendant for working more than 40 hours in a week and not being paid an overtime rate of at least 1.5 times the regular rate for each and all such hours over forty in a week, and (ii) entitled to maximum liquidated damages and attorneys' fees pursuant to the FLSA. Lincoln Property Company develops, operates, and manages residential community apartments and commercial real estates.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Abdul K. Hassan, Esq. ABDUL HASSAN LAW GROUP, PLLC 215-28 Hillside Avenue Queens Village, NY 11427 Telephone: 718 740-1000 Facsimile: 718 740-2000 E-mail: abdul@abdulhassan.com MARQUETTE, MI: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Collins et al. Say ------------------------------------------------------------ TODD COLLINS; and MATHIAS MUNGER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CITY OF MARQUETTE, Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-206 (W.D. Mich., Nov. 20, 2018) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid overtime compensation, prejudgment interest, maximum liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as law enforcement officer in the K-9 Unit. Marquette is a city in the U.S. state of Michigan and the county seat of Marquette County. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Wendy E. Leukuma, Esq. PENCE LAW 102 W. Washington Street, Suite 217 Marquette, MI 49855 Telephone: (906) 273-2261 MARRIOTT INT'L: Koskie Minsky Commences Data Breach Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Koskie Minsky LLP has commenced a $450 million class action against Marriott International, Inc. The claim alleges that Marriott failed to adequately protect its customer's data and failed to discover the breach at an earlier date. Marriott's failures have jeopardized the personal information of millions of Marriott's customers and have left them exposed to abuse or other misuse of their personal information, including identity theft. On November 30, 2018 Marriott announced that approximately 500 million hotel guests who made reservations at Marriott's Starwood properties may have had their information stolen. According to Marriott, Starwood brands include: W Hotels, St. Regis, Sheraton Hotels & Resorts, Westin Hotels & Resorts, Element Hotels, Aloft Hotels, The Luxury Collection, Tribute Portfolio, Le Méridien Hotels & Resorts, Four Points by Sheraton and Design Hotels, and Starwood branded timeshare properties. The claim is brought on behalf of all Canadian residents whose personal information was improperly accessed as a result of the Marriott Data Breach. "All companies have a duty to safeguard and protect their customer's information. This obligation is not limited to just financial institutions or social media companies" says Kirk Baert counsel at Koskie Minsky LLP. "The Marriott data breach is the second largest breach of its kind in history and one that would likely not have occurred if Marriott had taken adequate steps to protect its customer's information." A Notice of Action was issued in this case on December 7, 2018 If you are a class member: Website: https://kmlaw.ca/cases/marriott-data-breach-class-action/ [GN] MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Mendez et al. Sue over Data Breach ---------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL MENDEZ and TOBIAS HINSCH, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC., and STARWOOD HOTELS & RESORTS WORLDWIDE, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-25292-RNS (S.D. Fla., Dec. 17, 2018), assert claims for breach of implied contract and negligence, and seek monetary damages, statutory damages, and all other relief as authorized in equity or by law, in relation to a data breach. According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of a proposed class of approximately 500 million travelers from around the world who stayed at Marriott properties between January 1, 2014, and September 10, 2018. For nearly four years, Marriott failed to secure and safeguard its customers' credit and debit card numbers and other payment card data ("PCD"), and other personally identifiable information ("PII"), which Marriott collected at the time Plaintiffs and Class members made hotel reservations at its properties. On November 30, 2018, Marriott made a public announcement that it had "determined that there was unauthorized access to" its guest reservation and database system on or before September 10, 2018, and that there may have been unauthorized access as early as 2014 (the "Data Breach"). This unauthorized access was designed to retrieve PCD and PII from Marriott guests. The Plaintiffs' and Class members' PCD and PII was stolen by hackers after Plaintiffs and Class members stayed at the affected Marriott branded hotels, or created Starwood loyalty program accounts, during this period. Marriott's security failures enabled the hackers to steal Plaintiffs' and Class members' PCD and PII from within Marriott's guest reservation and database system, and to subsequently make unauthorized purchases on Plaintiffs' credit and debit cards. The failures also put Plaintiffs' financial information and interests at serious, immediate, and ongoing risk and, additionally, caused costs and expenses to Plaintiffs attributable to responding, identifying, and correcting damages that were reasonably foreseeable as a result of Marriott's willful and negligent conduct. The hackers continue to use the information they obtained as a result of Marriott's inadequate security to exploit and injure Plaintiffs and Class members around the world. The Data Breach was caused and enabled by Marriott's knowing violation of its obligations to abide by best practices and industry standards concerning the security of payment systems. Marriott failed to comply with security standards and allowed its customers' financial information to be compromised by cutting corners on security measures that could have prevented or mitigated the Data Breach that occurred. The Data Breach was the inevitable result of Marriott's inadequate approach to data security. The deficiencies in Marriott's data security were so significant that the malware installed by the hackers remained undetected and intact for years. Marriott disregarded the rights of Plaintiffs and Class members by intentionally, willfully, recklessly, or negligently failing to take adequate and reasonable measures to ensure its data systems were protected, failing to take available steps to prevent and stop the breach from ever happening, and failing to disclose to its customers the material fact that it did not have adequate security practices that could protect customers' data. Marriott International is an American multinational diversified hospitality company that manages and franchises a broad portfolio of hotels and related lodging facilities.[BN] Counsel for Plaintiffs: Benjamin J. Widlanski, Esq. Javier A. Lopez, Esq. Evan J. Stroman, Esq. KOZYAK TROPIN & THROCKMORTON, LLP 2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., 9th Floor Miami, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 372-1800 Facsimile: (305) 372-3508 E-mail: bwidlanski@kttlaw.com jal@kttlaw.com estroman@kttlaw.com - and - Brad R. Sohn, Esq. THE BRAD SOHN LAW FIRM, PLLC 2600 S. Douglas Rd., Ste. 1007 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (786) 708-9750 Facsimile: (305) 397-0650 E-mail: brad@sohn.com MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Vapnek Sues over Data Breach ---------------------------------------------------- BARI VAPNEK 5535 North Military Trail Boca Raton, Florida 33496, On behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff. vs. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL INC. (a Montgomery County, Maryland Resident) 10400 Fernwood Road Bethesda, Maryland 20817, Case No.: 8:18-cv-03889-PX (D. Md., Dec. 17, 2018), seeks equitable relief enjoining Marriott from engaging in wrongful conduct pertaining to the misuse and/or disclosure of Plaintiff and Class members' Personally Identifiable Information, and from refusing to issue prompt, complete, and accurate disclosures to the Plaintiff and Class members. According to the complaint, Marriott is a global lodging company with more than 6,700 properties across 130 countries and territories, reporting revenues of more than $22 billion in the fiscal year 2017. Marriott also operates and franchises hotels and licenses vacation ownership. In 2016, Marriott acquired Starwood Hotels & Resorts (SPG), creating the resorts. To book reservations for an SPG property, customers are required to provide Marriott with "Personally Identifiable Information" or "PII," which can include a combination of: guest names, addresses (both postal and email), credit card information and/or debit card and/or payment information, date and place of birth, nationality, passport, visa, or other government-issued identification data, travel itinerary, social media account information. PII can be used on its own or with other information to identify, contact, or locate a single person, or to identify an individual in context. On November 30, 2018, Marriott announced that a breach of the company's Starwood computer network resulted in hackers obtaining access to over 500 million accounts, and all of the information accessible in and through those accounts (the "Data Breach"). The Plaintiff brings this class action against Marriott for its failure to secure its customers' PII. Marriott failed to maintain reasonable and adequate data security, thereby allowing the Data Breach affecting at least 500 million customers worldwide. Numerous hacks targeting consumers' PII have put Marriott on notice that identity thieves target PII and that hackers will go to great lengths to attain PII. Recent large-sale data breaches have targeted PII held by Equifax, Yahoo, Anthem, Premera, Target, and many other companies. According to Statista, there were 169 million records exposed in 2015 -- more than double the number exposed in 2014 (85,610,000), many of them pertaining to the compromise of PII.[BN] Counsel for Plaintiff: Hassan Zavareei, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 1828 L Street, NW, Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 417-3658 Facsimile: (202) 973-0950 - and - Ariana J. Tadler, Esq. Henry J. Kelston, Esq. Andrei V. Rado, Esq. Jennifer Czeisler, Esq. MILBERG TADLER PHILLIPS GROSSMAN LLP One Pennsylvania Plaza, Suite 1920 New York, NY 10119 Telephone: (212) 594-5300 Facsimile: (212) 868-1229 MDL 2873: Grande vs. 3M Company over AFFF Products Consolidated --------------------------------------------------------------- A case, Leonard Grande, Keith Clerkin, Dina Clerkin, Paul Lutz, Darlene Lutz, James Seacrease, Valarie Seacrease, Patrick D. Enwright, Barbara Ann Garcia, Jeffrey Smith, Gloria Smith, and Kathleen M. Clapp, the Plaintiffs, vs. The 3M Company formerly known as: Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing, Co., The Ansul Company; Buckeye Fire Protection Co.; Chemguard; National Foam; and Angus Fire, the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-05380 (Filed Oct. 13, 2016), was transferred from U.S. District Court for the Eastern District Pennsylvania, to the the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina (Charleston) on Dec. 17, 2018. The District of South Carolina Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:18-cv-03477-RMG to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Honorable Richard M Gergel. The lead case is Case No. 2:18-mn-02873-RMG. The Plaintiffs bring this cause of action for medical monitoring and property damage as a result of their exposure to water contaminated with toxic chemicals resulting from Defendants' harmful and defective products, aqueous firefighting foams ("AFFF") and other materials containing perfluorochemicals (PFCs) including perfluorooctanesulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related fluorochemicals that can degrade to perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") or PFOS, which were released onto the ground, into the environment and infiltrated the groundwater and Plaintiffs' drinking/potable water. The Grande case is being cosolidated with MDL 2873 in RE: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams (AFFF) Products Liability Litigation. 3M Company, is an American multinational conglomerate corporation operating in the fields of industry, health care, and consumer goods.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Heather Anne Thomas, Esq. Joseph L. Feliciani, Esq. CREEDON & FELICIANI PC 29 E Marshall St. Norristown, PA 19401 Telephone: (610) 239-9630 E-mail: hthomas@cflawpc.com jfeliciani@cflawpc.com Attorneys for 3M Company: Basil A Disipio, Esq. LAVIN O'NEIL CEDRONE & DISIPIO 190 N. Independence Mall West, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 627-0303 Facsimile: (215) 627-2551 E-mail: bad@lavin-law.com Attorneys for Ansul Chemical Company and Chemguard: Erin P. Loucks, Esq. Joseph Blum, Esq. SHOOK HARDY & BACON LLP Two Commerce Square 2001 Market Street, Suite 3000 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 278-2555 Facsimile: (215) 278-2594 E-mail: eleffler@shb.com jblum@shb.com Attorneys for Buckeye Fire Protection Company: Philip M. Colicchio, Esq. TAYLOR COLICCHIO LLP 100 Canal Pointe Blvd., Suite 210 Princeton, NJ 08540 Telephone: (609) 987-0022 Facsimile: (609) 987-0070 E-mail: pcolicchio@tcslawyers.com Attorneys for National Foam: Keith Edward Smith, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 2700 Two Commerce Square 2001 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 988-7843 Facsimile: (215) 717-5225 E-mail: smithkei@gtlaw.com MEC GENERAL: Oscar Londono Seeks Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------- OSCAR LONDONO, individually and on behalf of all other employees similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. MEC GENERAL CONSTRUCTION CORP., MEC General Development Corporation, MEC General, Inc., MEC General Dry Wall Corp., Edmilson Delima a/k/a Eddie, Roselia Delima, and Marcos Benigno, the Defendants, Case No. 712944/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Dec. 18, 2018), seeks to recover overtime wages, damages for failure to provide wage statements, damages for failure to provide wage notice at the time of hiring, liquidated damages, interest, costs, and attorneys' fees for violations of the New York Labor Law. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate compensation for the hours worked over 40 per week that he worked. The Defendants failed to maintain accurate records of the hours Plaintiff worked, failed to pay the Plaintiff appropriately for any hours worked over 40, whether at the straight rate of pay, or for any additional premium, the lawsuit says. The Defendants own, operate and/or control construction companies that provide construction services throughout the State of New York.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Lorena P. Duarte, Esq. HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 136-20 30th Avenue, Suite 10G Telephone: (718) 353 8588 Facsimile: (718) 353 6288 Attorneys for Defendants: RABINOWITZ & GALINA 94 Willis Ave Mineola, NY 11501 Telephone: (516) 739-8222 MERCANTILE ADJUSTMENT: Vedernikov Files FDCPA Suit in New Jersey ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mercantile Adjustment Bureau LLC. The case is styled as Igor Vedernikov, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Mercantile Adjustment Bureau LLC and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-17364 (D. N.J., December 18, 2018). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Mercantile Adjustment Bureau, LLC provides collection and accounts receivable management services to lenders, debt purchasers, and universities in the United States. The company offers services in the areas of dismissed bankruptcy, pre legal and legal, and other collection; call center, legal and compliance, client policy and procedures certification, skip tracing, and reminder dunning notice, and more; confidentiality, ongoing, and other training, as well as client services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. Stein Saks, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Tel: (201) 282-6500 ext 101 Fax: (201) 282-6501 Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com MINEBEAMITSUMI: Jan. 22 Bearings Settlement Fairness Hearing Set ---------------------------------------------------------------- Did you purchase small-size ball bearings or products equipped with small-size ball bearings between June 1, 2003 and October 31, 2011 in Canada? If so, your legal rights could be affected. A settlement has been reached in the small-size ball bearings class actions Class action lawsuits have been commenced in Quebec, British Columbia and Ontario ("Class Actions"). Small-size ball bearings ("Bearings") are notably used in communication devices, household appliances, video cameras, personal computers, printers, air conditioning units, vacuum cleaners, fishing reels and power tools. The plaintiffs allege that the manufacturers of Bearings and their related entities conspired to fix prices in the Bearings market, causing buyers to overpay for Bearings and the products equipped with Bearings bought in Canada. Settlement A settlement has been reached with the defendants MinebeaMitsumi Inc. (formerly Minebea Co. Ltd.), NMB Korea Co., Ltd., NMB (USA) Inc., and NMB Technologies Corporation (the "Settling Defendants"). The settlement class members are defined as any persons in Canada who purchased Bearings and/or products equipped with Bearings, between June 1, 2003 and October 31, 2011 (the "Settlement Class Members"). As a condition of the settlement, the Ontario and British Columbia plaintiffs and the Settling Defendants have agreed to have this action dismissed as against New Hampshire Ball Bearings Inc., concurrently with the settlement approval motion. The Class Actions are continuing against NSK Ltd. and NSK Canada Inc. (the "Non-Settling Defendants"). The Settling Defendants agreed to settle the Class Actions by paying CDN $1,500,000 for the benefit of Settlement Class Members and agreed to provide co-operation to the plaintiffs in the Class Actions against the Non-Settling Defendants (the "Settlement"). In exchange, the Settling Defendants will be provided with a full release of the claims against them relating to the alleged price-fixing of Bearings. The Settlement is a resolution of contested claims, and the Settling Defendants do not admit any liability, wrongdoing or fault. Settlement Approval Hearings The settlement approval hearings will take place in the Quebec Superior Court, in Montreal, on January 22, 2019 at 10h00, the British Columbia Supreme Court, in Vancouver, on March 7, 2019 at 10h00 and the Ontario Superior Court, in Goderich, on February 25, 2019 at 3h30. The Courts will then decide if the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and in the best interest of the Settlement Class Members. At the settlement approval hearings, the lawyers for the class will ask the Courts to approve payment of legal fees to them valued at up to 25% of the funds from the Settlement, plus disbursements and applicable taxes. Any approved legal fees will be paid out of the settlement funds. Settlement Class Members who do not oppose the proposed Settlement do not need to appear at the settlement approval hearing or take any other action at this time. If you want to make an objection to the Settlement or if you want to intervene and speak to the Courts at the hearings, you must send your written submission to class counsel representing the members of your province received no later than January 7, 2019. Distribution of Settlement Funds At this stage of the proceedings, the settlement funds (the "Settlement Funds") (minus Court approved fees and expenses) will be held in an interest-bearing trust account. At a later date, the Courts will decide how the Settlement Funds will be distributed and how you can apply to receive money from the Settlement. Opting Out If you do not want to be a member of the Class Actions and participate in the Settlement, you can opt-out. If you opt-out, you will not be eligible to participate in the Settlement, or receive money from the Class Actions, but you may be able to start or continue your own case regarding the claims at issue against the defendants. Applicable limitation periods concerning your claim will resume running against you. If you do nothing, you will be eligible to participate in the Settlement, and may receive money from the Class Actions, but you will not be able to start or continue your own case regarding the claims at issue against the defendants. If you wish to opt-out of the Class Actions, you must submit a notice to opt-out received no later than February 6, 2019. For Quebec class members and Settlement Class members domiciled in Quebec, you must send your exclusion notice to the clerk of the Superior Court. For others, please contact one of the law firms listed below. This is your only chance to exclude yourself from the Class Actions in Quebec, Ontario or British Columbia. The certification orders and the associated opt-out process outside of Quebec are only valid if the Settlement is approved. If the Settlement is not approved or if it otherwise fails to take effect, the certification orders will not stand and any opt-out notice submitted by any person outside of Quebec will be set aside, and the litigation will continue against the Settling Defendants. If certification orders outside of Quebec are granted by the court in the future, an opt-out process will take place at that time. Lawyers Belleau Lapointe, s.e.n.c.r.l. (Attention: Maxime Nasr) represents Quebec class members and Settlement Class Members domiciled in Quebec. (info@belleaulapointe.com) Camp Fiorante Matthews Mogerman LLP (Attention: David G.A. Jones) represents Settlement Class Members in British Columbia. (smallbearings@cfmlawyers.ca) Harrison Pensa LLP (Attention: Jonathan Foreman) represents Settlement Class Members in Ontario, and in provinces other than British Columbia or Quebec. (smallbearings@harrisonpensa.com) [GN] MISSION TRAIL: Fails to Pay Proper OT to Drivers, Villareal Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- THOMAS VILLAREAL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MISSION TRAIL WASTE SYSTEMS, INC., and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 18CV338479 (Cal. Super., Santa Clara Cty., Nov. 19, 2018) is an action against the Defendants for unpaid regular hours, overtime hours, minimum wages, wages for missed meal and rest periods. Mr. Villareal was employed by the Defendants as driver. Mission Trail Waste Systems, Inc., a franchised hauling company, provides garbage, recycling, and organics collection services for residential, commercial, and industrial customers. It serves general public and other jurisdictions in Santa Clara and Los Altos, California. Mission Trail Waste Systems, Inc. was founded in 1986 and is based in Santa Clara, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robin G. Workman, Esq. Rachel E. Davey, Esq. WORKMAN LAW FIRM, PC 177 Post Street, Suite 800 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 782-3660 Facsimile: (415) 788-1028 E-mail: robin@workmanlawpc.com rachel@workmanlawpc.com NET2SOURCE INC: Removes Johns Suit to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------- The Defendants in the case of JEFFREY JOHNS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NET2SOURCE INC.; DCR WORKFORCE, INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; and DOES 1 THROUGH 50, INCLUSIVE, Defendants, filed a notice of removal of the lawsuit from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles (Case No. BC722124) to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on November 20, 2018, 2018. The clerk of court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 2:18-cv-09761-ODW-MRW. The case is assigned to Judge Otis D. Wright, II and referred to Magistrate Judge Michael R. Wilner. Net2Source Inc. operates as a global workforce management solutions company that provides IT consulting and staffing solutions. The company was founded in 2007 and is based in New Brunswick, New Jersey with additional offices in Toronto, Canada; Burj Khalifa, Dubai; Singapore; Noida, India; London, United Kingdom; Mexico City, Mexico; Bangkok, Thailand; and Cyberjaya, Malaysia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexandria R Kachadoorian, Esq. Anthony J Orshansky, Esq. Justin K Kachadoorian, Esq. COUNSELONE PC 9301 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 650 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (310) 277-9945 Facsimile: (424) 277-3727 E-mail: alexandria@counselonegroup.com anthony@counselonegroup.com justin@counselonegroup.com The Defendants are represented by: Yitz E Weiss, Esq. KAPLAN WEISS LLP 355 S Grand Avenue Suite 2450 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 553-4550 Facsimile: (213) 553-4590 E-mail: yweiss@kaplanweiss.com - and - Anton Nasri Handal, Esq. GREENSPOON MARDER LLP 401 West A Street Suite 1150 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 544-6400 Facsimile: (619) 696-0323 E-mail: tony.handal@gmlaw.com NEW JERSEY: 2 Teachers Sue Over Involuntary Union Payments ---------------------------------------------------------- Laura Waters, writing for the74, reports that Susan G. Fischer teaches Italian in New Jersey public schools. All in all, she calculates that she's involuntarily ceded about $30,000 of hard-earned salary to union dues during her 30-year teaching career. Mandatory payments increase annually; her tab last year was $1,222. While she harbors no resentment toward the $25 a year she pays to her local bargaining unit at Ocean Township Public Schools and the $50 per year she pays to the Monmouth County unit, praising the collegial relationships and professional development opportunities, she's always resented the $200 per year she pays to the National Education Association and, most adamantly, the $800 per year -- Ms. Fischer calls it "highway robbery" -- that goes to the state union, the New Jersey Education Association. This system of involuntary payments to support lobbying that she mostly disagrees with was supposed to end with the Supreme Court's ruling this past June in Janus v. AFSCME, which bars union shops from mandating membership and dues payments. Mandatory union membership, said SCOTUS, is a violation of the Constitution's First Amendment right to free speech. But this system didn't end in New Jersey, because legislators, with a heavy assist from NJEA sycophant Gov. Phil Murphy, preemptively circumvented the Janus ruling through a law called the Workplace Democracy Enhancement Act. Now, Fischer and her colleague Jeanette Speck have filed a class-action lawsuit in federal court against Murphy, NJEA, and the Township of Ocean Education Association. Ms. Fischer told me, "I grew up in Italy. There, we call this 'extortion.' Pay if you join, pay if you don't join. There's no choice." This conflict is bigger than a lawsuit filed by two teachers, and the law has nothing to do with enhancing "workplace democracy." On the contrary, it's about the political cudgel NJEA wields over Murphy, as well as a fairly large contingent of state legislators. (The New Jersey Globe just named NJEA president Marie Blistan the 13th most powerful person in the state.) Politics, after all, is an enterprise that seeks power, not righteousness. How this case is resolved will tell us a lot about whether an organization accustomed to controlling the Legislature in particularly child-unfriendly ways can be tamed. Or even compelled to abide by the U.S. Constitution. According to the lawsuit, Ms. Fischer and Ms. Speck are suing because: "The State of New Jersey is defying Janus by maintaining and enforcing a law that compels public employees who previously signed dues deduction authorizations to pay union dues as a condition of their employment unless and until the employee provides written notice of revocation during an annual ten (10) day window period. In other words, New Jersey law prohibits many employees from exercising their First Amendment rights under Janus for 355-56 days of the year." Case in point: Ms. Fischer and Ms. Speck tried to resign from NJEA in early July, right after the June 27 Janus ruling, but they couldn't because NJEA said the 10-day window created by the new law doesn't start until September, when they both (in different years) were first hired. In September, they both again attempted to revoke their membership. NJEA said they had to wait, according to the lawsuit, until the "30th day after the anniversary date of employment." Seriously? A union with 203,520 members and $125.1 million in annual dues (2017), in which last year the collective salaries of the president, vice president, and secretary-treasurer were $1.44 million, plus another $1.2 million in deferred compensation, is nickel-and-diming two veteran teachers who have been forced to contribute to a cause they've rejected for 30-odd years? Ms. Fischer and Ms. Speck are asking that the court issue a "declaratory judgment that New Jersey's revocation law is unconstitutional under the First Amendment," that the court rule that NJEA violated their constitutional rights by forcing them to pay dues post-Janus, and that the defendants pay them back the dues that have been collected post-Janus, plus pay their attorneys' fees. (The teachers are represented by the same law group that represented Mark Janus, the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.) The law itself is shaky on a number of grounds. Mr. Murphy, in his May 18 signing statement, noted that Bill 3686 may "conflict in some manner with the legal parameters anticipated to be set forth" in Janus, and "I will work closely with the sponsors to enact any required changes," with particular attention paid to "the privacy concerns of our public employees." The New Jersey School Boards Association has multiple concerns: "A3686, in its current form, constitutes an overreach into matters that have traditionally been addressed through the collective negotiations process"; the bill "does not include sufficient assurances that district operations will not be adversely impacted by union activity on school property"; and the bill "violates employee privacy rights." Ms. Wates said "I'm not a lawyer. I am a lifelong Democrat, as well as the daughter of two members of the United Federation of Teachers (the New York City arm of the American Federation of Teachers), and it troubles me that Mr. Murphy appears in thrall to rich lobbyists. Sure, he's relatively new at this, and sure, this is the way the world works. But the new state law, which is all about protecting union coffers, reveals NJEA's and the governor's coordinated scripts in other educational areas that are unfurling in particularly child-unfriendly ways." Consider NJEA's insistence that the governor institute a moratorium on the expansion of charter schools, despite waiting lists of 35,000 students and parent pleas for more seats. (Indeed, no charters were approved in the most recent round, and the state Department of Education failed to follow its own process of authorization.) Consider the way NJEA pressure and legislature cowardice have turned a widely heralded tenure and teacher evaluation reform law into a nothing-burger. (Last year, 98.9 percent of teachers were rated effective or highly effective.) Consider the way Mr. Murphy and his political appointee Education Commissioner Lamont Repollet are kowtowing to NJEA's insistence that they radically reduce standardized tests ("I'll eliminate PARCC Day One," Murphy promised NJEA members) and undermine accountability. This politically calculated sop will primarily hurt low-income families, mostly of color, whose children, once again, won't count because their academic growth won't be carefully monitored. Consider the $5 million in union dues NJEA spent (unsuccessfully) to unseat state Senate President Steve Sweeney, a union man himself and one of New Jersey's most educationally literate legislators, because he publicly acknowledges that the teacher pension system is broken. It's one thing to parcel out political favors to supporters. It's another thing entirely when those political favors harm New Jersey teachers and the children they educate, especially those with the odds stacked against them. Ms. Fischer told me, "I'm proud to be an American. This is so un-American." [GN] NISEN SUSHI: Yu Peng Lu Seeks Overtime Pay ------------------------------------------ Yu Peng Lu, individually and on behalf of all other employees similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NISEN SUSHI OF COMMACK, LLC d/b/a Nisen Sushi, TOM LAM, and ROBERT BEER, the Defendants, Case No.: 1:18-cv-07177 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 17, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest; and/or attorneys' fees and costs, under the Federal Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. According to the complaint, the Defendants have willfully and intentionally committed widespread violations of the FLSA and NYLL by engaging in a pattern and practice of failing to pay their employees, including Plaintiffs, compensation for all hours worked, overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 each workweek and spread of hours, as well failing to provide their employees, including Plaintiff, with wage notice at the time of hiring and wage statements.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Xiaoxi Liu, Esq. HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 136-20 38th Ave., Suite 10G Flushing, NY 11354 Telephone: (718) 353 8588 E-mail: xliu@hanglaw.com NISSAN MOTOR: Robbins Geller Files Class Action in Tennessee ------------------------------------------------------------ Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on Dec. 10 disclosed that a class action has been commenced by an institutional investor on behalf of purchasers of Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. (OTC:NSANY) American Depositary Receipts ("ADRs") during the period between December 10, 2013 and November 16, 2018 (the "Class Period"). This action was filed in the Middle District of Tennessee and is captioned Jackson County Employees' Retirement System v. Ghosn, et al. The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased Nissan ADRs during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing the litigation. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from December 10, 2018. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Samuel H. Rudman or David A. Rosenfeld of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com. You can view a copy of the complaint as filed at http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/nissan/. The complaint charges Nissan and certain of its current and former officers and/or directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Nissan is an automobile manufacturer with its U.S. headquarters located in Smyrna, Tennessee. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants made false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose adverse information regarding Nissan's business and financial condition. Specifically, according to the complaint, Nissan has been materially understating its expenses -- and overstating profits -- by concealing half of the annual executive compensation it was obligated to pay its former Chief Executive Officer ("CEO") and Chairman of its Board of Directors ("Board"), defendant Carlos Ghosn ("Ghosn"), in order to avoid shareholder scrutiny of Ghosn's inordinately high executive compensation. Over the past decade, Nissan reported paying defendant Ghosn ¥1 billion per year in compensation. In truth, Nissan paid defendant Ghosn an additional ¥1 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 decade by an estimated ¥10 billion. The Company also concealed from investors the significant defects in its corporate governance and internal controls that facilitated this false financial reporting, and 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. As a result of defendants' false statements and/or omissions, the price of Nissan ADRs was artificially inflated to more than $22 per share during the Class Period. Then on November 19, 2018, investors learned that defendants Ghosn and Greg Kelly, a former member of the Board and Senior Vice President of Nissan, had been arrested by Japanese law enforcement. A statement from Tokyo prosecutors said defendant Ghosn was being held for violating a Japanese law that prohibits false financial filings. Defendants Ghosn and Kelly were reportedly arrested as a result of information provided by an unidentified non-Japanese executive in Nissan's legal department acting as a whistleblower. It was later disclosed that an internal investigation at Nissan found that defendant Ghosn had also improperly filed expenses and used Company assets for his private use for many years. On news of these arrests, the price of Nissan ADRs declined precipitously, closing down more than more than 5% on November 19, 2018. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of Nissan ADRs during the Class Period (the "Class"). The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has extensive experience in prosecuting investor class actions including actions involving financial fraud. Robbins Geller -- http://www.rgrdlaw.com-- represents investors in securities litigation. With 200 lawyers in 10 offices, Robbins Geller has obtained many of the largest securities class action recoveries in history. For five consecutive years, ISS Securities Class Action Services has ranked the Firm in its annual SCAS Top 50 Report as one of the top law firms in both amount recovered for shareholders and total number of class action settlements. Robbins Geller attorneys have helped shape the securities laws and recovered tens of billions of dollars on behalf of aggrieved victims. Beyond securing financial recoveries for defrauded investors, Robbins Geller also specializes in implementing corporate governance reforms, helping to improve the financial markets for investors worldwide. [GN] NISSAN N.A.: Turner Sues over Defective Emergency Braking System ---------------------------------------------------------------- DAVID TURNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC. and NISSAN MOTOR CO., LTD., the Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-01361 (M.D. Tenn., Dec. 10, 2018), seeks damages and equitable relief over alleged defective emergency braking system. According to the complaint, as advertised by Nissan, its Forward Emergency Braking/Automatic Emergency Braking technology ("Emergency Braking System") uses radar to detect the possibility of a collision with vehicles or pedestrians. In its intended functionality, the Emergency Braking System will apply an emergency brake, causing the vehicle to decelerate and stop, in the event that an imminent collision is detected. Nissan first offered Forward Emergency Braking technology on the model year 2015 Nissan Murano. In recent years, in an effort to appear at the forefront of emerging autonomous driving technology, it has expanded the application of that technology to other models, and has re-branded this same technology as Automatic Emergency Braking technology. Beginning with model year 2018 vehicles, Nissan made what is now called Automatic Emergency Braking a standard feature on its Rogue, Rogue Sport, Murano, Altima, Maxima, Armada, Pathfinder, Leaf and Sentra vehicles. Nissan's Emergency Braking System, however, is not road ready. It suffers from a serious defect, wherein the Emergency Braking System engages suddenly and unexpectedly when no collision is imminent and a driver has no intention of stopping her vehicle. This defect is referred to herein as the Emergency Braking Defect. Due to the Emergency Braking Defect, owners and lessees of Class Vehicles have experienced sudden and unexpected braking on railroad tracks, on bridges, in intersections, and other driving situations that have placed them at serious and unreasonable risk of side-on or rear-end collision. The Emergency Braking Defect is a uniform defect, existing within all Class Vehicles, and is often experienced at extremely low mileages, within Nissan's 36,000 mile limited warranty period. Nissan knew of the Emergency Braking Defect prior to the sale or lease of the Class Vehicles. This is evidenced by the reports of owners and lessees complaining about the Emergency Braking Defect to Nissan and Nissan dealers, as well as the multitude of consumer complaints collected by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s ("NHTSA") Office of Defects Investigation ("ODI"). Despite this knowledge, Nissan failed to disclose and actively concealed the Emergency Braking Defect from Class members and the public, and continued to market and advertise the Class Vehicles. Nissan sold hundreds of thousands of Class Vehicles despite knowing that the Emergency Braking System engages suddenly and unexpectedly, posing a safety hazard to Plaintiff, the other Class members, and others sharing the road with Class Vehicles. Purchasers and lessees who have complained to Nissan about the Emergency Braking Defect have been told that their vehicle is fine and have been refused repair or other adequate remedy. The Emergency Braking Defect inhibits Plaintiff’s and the other Class members' expected, comfortable, and safe use of their Class Vehicles, and exposes them to the risk of serious injury resulting from sudden brake failure. As a result of Nissan's selling and leasing vehicles with the Emergency Braking Defect, Plaintiff and the other Class members were damaged in that they purchased Class Vehicles that they would not have purchased, or at least paid more for their Class Vehicles than they would have paid, had they known about the Emergency Braking Defect, the lawsuit says. Nissan NA is a California corporation with its principal place of business in Franklin, Tennessee. Nissan NA engages in the design, manufacturing, advertising, and marketing of Nissan automobiles, including the Class Vehicles. It markets and sells the Class Vehicles nationwide, including in Texas and Massachusetts.[BN] Counsel for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class: J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Benjamin A. Gastel, Esq. Tricia Herzfeld, Esq. BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS PLLC 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 E-mail: gerards@bsjfirm.com beng@bsjfirm.com triciah@bsjfirm.com - and - W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Esq. H. Clay Barnett, III, Esq. BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C. 272 Commerce Street Montgomery, AL 36104 Telephone: (334) 269-2343 E-mail: dee.miles@beasleyallen.com clay.barnett@beasleyallen.com - and - Adam J. Levitt, Esq. John E. Tangren, Esq. Daniel R. Ferri, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT & CASEY LLC Ten North Dearborn Street, Eleventh Floor Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 214-7900 E-mail: alevitt@dlcfirm.com jtangren@dlcfirm.com dferri@dlcfirm.com - and - Benjamin L. Bailey, Esq. Jonathan D. Boggs, Esq. Michael L. Murphy, Esq. BAILEY GLASSER LLP 209 Capitol Street Charleston, WV 25301 Telephone: (304) 345-6555 E-mail: bbailey@baileyglasser.com jboggs@baileyglasser.com mmurphy@baileyglasser.com - and - Daniel A. Schlanger, Esq. SCHLANGER LAW GROUP, LLP 9 East 40th Street, Suite 1300 New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 250-6114 E-mail: dschlanger@consumerprotection.net - and - Kim E. Richman, Esq. RICHMAN LAW GROUP 81 Prospect Street Brooklyn, NY 11201 Telephone: (212) 687-8291 E-mail: krichman@richmanlawgroup.com - and - Jeffrey Kaliel, Esq. KALIEL PLLC 1875 Connecticut Avenue NW, Tenth Floor Washington DC 20009 Telephone: (202) 350-4783 E-mail: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Rite Aid Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit is filed against Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation. The case is captioned as Rite Aid Corporation and Rite Aid Hdqtrs. Corp., the Plaintiff, vs. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, Novartis AG, Novartis Corporation, Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., Endo International plc, and Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-11835 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 17, 2018). The Rite Aid case is related to the earlier filed case titled DROGUERIA BETANCES, LLC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, Novartis AG, Novartis Corporation, Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., Endo International plc, Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc., the Defendant, Case No.: 1:18-cv-04361-AKH. Novartis researches, develops, manufactures & markets innovative prescription drug treatments for diseases and conditions.[BN] OHIO NATIONAL: Faces Class Action Over Trailing Commissions ----------------------------------------------------------- Meyer Wilson on Dec. 10 disclosed that come December 13, 2018, thousands of advisors will be out tens of millions of dollars as a result of Ohio National Life Insurance Company's termination of trailing commission payments on its variable annuities with guaranteed minimum income benefit (GMIB) riders. Many advisors seeking accountability are turning to a recently filed class action lawsuit by Meyer Wilson to recover what they claim they are rightfully owed. The uproar stems from Ohio National's September 28th announcement that it is terminating trailing commissions to broker-dealers and securities representatives for variable annuity policies with (GMIB) riders, with December 12th marked as the date the company will officially stop paying commissions on sold and existing policies. In recent years, Ohio National has issued billions of dollars' worth of GMIB variable annuity policies through a network of numerous broker-dealer representatives across the country, thousands of whom will be out tens of millions of dollars due to Ohio National's actions. The announcement hasn't just been tough for those advisors. It's also impacting policyholders who see no reduction in expenses, despite their annual fees including costs of ongoing advice. Those customers, many of whom are retirement-aged investors, may be cut-off from expert advice by their trusted advisors about their next steps, whether that means managing existing contracts, annuitizing, or analyzing buyout offers for values they may not be able to calculate. Those harms are what led to the filing of a federal class action lawsuit by securities attorneys Attorneys David Meyer and Dennis Concilla on behalf of Lance Browning, a financial advisor from Texas, and other similarly situated advisors. Shortly after the lawsuit was filed, Ohio National announced its Chief Distribution Officer had been laid off, and that its President and Chief Operating Officer would be stepping down. The class-action, filed on November 6, 2018 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio (Case No. 1:18-cv-00763), claims that Ohio National is "trying to change the rules after the game has already started," and that the Cincinnati-based mutual insurance company does not have the right to unilaterally terminate its contractual obligation to pay trailing commissions on existing policies. In addition to other causes of action, it also claims unjust enrichment in regard to Ohio National pocketing the proceeds. Advisors affected by Ohio National's decision, many of whom are small business owners, are now leveraging the power of the civil justice system to make their voices heard and to pursue the recovery of their monetary damages. The lawsuit is currently pending and can be viewed here. David Meyer and Dennis Concilla are Ohio securities lawyers recognized nationally as leaders in the field of securities recruiting law and investment-related matters. The two attorneys filed the first class action lawsuit against Ohio National on behalf of advisors who are owed trialing commissions from Ohio National Life for its existing GMIB variable annuities. For more information about the lawsuit, visit: www.ohiocommissions.com. [GN] OVASCIENCE, INC: Faces Aubets Suit over Proposed Merger ------------------------------------------------------- JORDI CUENCA AUBETS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OVASCIENCE, INC.; CHRISTOPHER KROEGER; RICHARD ALDRICH; JEFFREY CAPELLO; MARY FISHER; JONATHAN HOWE; MARC KOZIN; and JOHN SEXTON, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-10882 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 20, 2018) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated public stockholders of OvaScience, Inc. against OvaScience and the members of the Company's board of directors for their violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the acquisition of OvaScience by Millendo Therapeutics, Inc. According to the complaint, to convince OvaScience's public common stockholders to vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction, the Defendants on November 6, 2018, authorized the filing of a materially incomplete and misleading Schedule 14A Definitive Proxy Statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission. In particular, the Proxy contains materially incomplete and misleading information concerning: (i) the valuation analyses prepared by the Company's financial advisor, Ladenburg Thalmann & Co. Inc., 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. As of December 7, 2018, OvaScience was acquired by Millendo Therapeutics, Inc., in a reverse merger transaction. OvaScience, Inc., a fertility company, discovers, develops, and commercializes fertility treatment options for women and families struggling with infertility worldwide. The company was formerly known as Ovastem, Inc. and changed its name to OvaScience, Inc. in May 2011. OvaScience, Inc. was founded in 2011 and is headquartered in Waltham, Massachusetts. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Miles D. Schreiner, Esq. Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC 350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4405 New York, NY 10118 Telephone: (212) 971-1341 Facsimile: (212) 202-7880 Email: mschreiner@monteverdelaw.com jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com PRIORITY PAYMENT: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Fabricant Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- TERRY FABRICANT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PRIORITY PAYMENT SYSTEMS HOLDINGS, LLC; PRIORITY PAYMENT SYSTEMS, LLC; BRIAN JENKINS; and ASSISTED ALTERNATIVE MERCHANT STRATEGIES LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-05336-SCJ (N.D. Ga., Nov. 20, 2018) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls. Priority Payment System Holdings, LLC provides payment solutions in the United States. The company is based in Georgia. Priority Payment System operates as a subsidiary of Priority Technology Holdings, Inc. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven H. Koval THE KOVAL FIRM, LLC 3575 Piedmont Road Building 15, Suite 120 Atlanta, GA 30305 Telephone: (404) 513-6651 Facsimile: (404) 549-4654 E-mail: shkoval@aol.com QUICKEN LOANS: Hackett Asserts Consumer Credit Suit in Fla. ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Quicken Loans, Inc. The case is styled as Bradley Hackett, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. D. Quicken Loans, Inc. and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 6:18-cv-02151-PGB-DCI (M.D. Fla., December 17, 2018). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit over Restrictions on Use of Telephone Equipment. Quicken Loans Inc., is a mortgage lending company headquartered in the One Campus Martius building in the heart of the financial district of downtown Detroit, Michigan.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin Zeig, Esq. Zeig Law Firm, LLC 3475 Sheridan Street, Suite 310 Hollywood, FL 33024 Tel: (754) 217-3084 Fax: (754) 217-3084 Email: justin@zeiglawfirm.com REED'S INC: Mason Sues over Sale of Mislabeled Soda Products ------------------------------------------------------------ DENIS MASON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. REED'S INC. d/b/a VIRGIL'S SODAS, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10826 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 19, 2018) is an action seeking redress to stop the Defendant's unfair and deceptive practice of advertising and marketing its line of soda products as "Made Naturally," "Made with Natural Ingredients," "Brewed with 100% Natural Ingredients" and having "No Preservatives." The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's representations are false, deceptive and misleading because the products contain the preservative, citric acid. The labeling deceives consumers into believing that they are receiving healthier preservative-free soda even though these products cannot live up to these claims. Reed's, Inc. develops, manufactures, markets, and sells natural hand-crafted beverages and candies in the United States, Canada, Asia, Europe, Australia, and South America. The company was formerly known as Original Beverage Corporation and changed its name to Reed's, Inc. in 2001. Reed's, Inc. was founded in 1987 and is based in Norwalk, Connecticut. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael J. Gabrielli, Esq. GABRIELLI LEVITT LLP 2426 Eastchester Road, Suite 103 Bronx, NY 10469 Telephone: (718) 708-5322 Facsimile: (718) 708-5966 E-mail: michael@gabriellilaw.com REGIS CORP: Receipt Disclosed Credit Card Number, Cone Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- LESLIE CONE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. REGIS CORPORATION d/b/a SUPERCUTS, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-05329-TCB-JFK (N.D. Ga., Nov. 26, 2018) alleges violation of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act ("FACTA"). According to the complaint, on October 9, 2018, the Plaintiff made a purchase with her personal credit/debit card at the Supercuts store located in Smyrna, Georgia. The Defendant provided the Plaintiff with a paper receipt at the point of sale which displayed the first four and last four digits of the Plaintiff's personal credit/debit card, in violation of FACTA's requirements. Regis Corporation owns, operates, and franchises hairstyling and hair care salons. Regis Corporation was founded in 1954 and is headquartered in Edina, Minnesota. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas A. Withers, Esq. GILLEN WITHERS & LAKE, LLC 8 E. Liberty Street Savannah, GA 31401 Telephone: (912) 447.8400 Facsimile: (912) 629-6347 E-mail: twithers@gwllawfirm.com - and - Anthony C. Lake, Esq. GILLEN WITHERS & LAKE, LLC 3490 Piedmont Road, N.E. Atlanta, GA 30305 Telephone: (404) 842.9700 Facsimile: (404) 842.9750 E-mail: aclake@gwllawfirm.com - and - T. Christopher Tuck, Esq. Robert S. Wood, Esq. T.A.C. Hargrove, II, Esq. RICHARDSON, PATRICK, WESTBROOK & BRICKMAN, LLC 1037 Chuck Dawley Blvd., Bldg. A Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464 Telephone: (843) 727-6500 Facsimile: (843) 216-6509 - and - Gary F. Lynch, Esq. Kelly K. Iverson, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 Facsimile: (412) 231-0246 RGS FINANCIAL: Vedernikov Files Suit in D. New Jersey ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against RGS Financial Inc. The case is styled as Igor Vedernikov, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RGS Financial Inc. and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-17353 (D. N.J., December 18, 2018). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. RGS Financial, Inc. provides financial services. The Company offers business process outsourcing, third party debt collection, asset location, consulting, and data security services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. Stein Saks, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Tel: (201) 282-6500 ext 101 Fax: (201) 282-6501 Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com RIPPLE LABS: Class Action Over XRP Ongoing ------------------------------------------ Ronald Tichenor, writing for Crypto.IQ, reports that with the recent SEC announcement, fear has spread through an already weak market, fear that many ICO's of the last few years will meet an end at the hands of the SEC as each is deemed an unregistered security. Ripple Labs, the creators of XRP, has been staving off that accusation for some time, swatting it away like an annoying bug. But alas, the SEC has cast its encircling net, and XRP lies somewhere within it awaiting agency scrutiny. How Ripple is handling that reality leaves something to be desired. In 2018, Ripple Labs started trying to co-opt the narrative around the creation of XRP and the relationship between Ripple and XRP to defuse the idea that XRP is a security. Investors ought to be concerned about this because Ripple Labs' attempts sound less like cooperation with the SEC and more like misdirection and denial. In June, CEO Brad Garlinghouse specifically made these arguments regarding whether XRP is a security: "If Ripple the company shuts down tomorrow, the XRP ledger would continue to operate. It's open-source, decentralized technology that exists independent of Ripple." Yes, if Ripple shut down, XRP would still exist. But the same could be said of any coin or token with even a single motivated proponent with a computer. Decentralized? The fact that Ripple still owns 60 percent of all the XRP it created disputes that claim. "The people buying XRP, they don't think they're buying shares of Ripple. There's a company called Ripple. We are a private company. We have investors, . . . but buying XRP doesn't give you ownership of Ripple. It doesn't give you access to dividends or profits that come from Ripple." I'm pretty sure that making a blanket statement about what people "think they're buying" isn't going to convince the SEC of anything. More importantly, he's also making a fundamental mistake in thinking that how the coin functions (whether investors retain rights of ownership, dividends, or profits) is the only thing that may make it a security. Nobody has made this case against XRP. In fact, the SEC has specifically stated that it is more concerned with how money is raised. "XRP is solving a problem. There's no utility in a security." Is his argument that securities don't solve problems? That if a coin has utility it can't then be a security? That's not how this works. He should have consulted a securities lawyer before talking. There is a very large and very vocal Ripple community who will come out en masse to defend it. They will repeat these arguments and more, but their repetitive arguments always leave questions unanswered. "Ripple Labs didn't create XRP. It was gifted to them." Sure, it was gifted to them by themselves. The founders of XRP created it then gifted it to themselves as Ripple Labs. Back in the day, Ripple's founders proudly claimed they created XRP. Then, years later, they disavowed it after realizing they'd put themselves in jeopardy. The distinction between the creation and "gifting" of billions of dollars of XRP will be lost on the SEC. "Ripple Labs and XRP are not the same thing." Yes, but then why has Ripple Labs continuously promoted XRP since the beginning? Because they have something to gain from its rise in value. But that would make it a security, so they won't say it that way. If they have to be careful how they answer that question, it's because they have a problem. "XRP didn't have an ICO." Perhaps. But the SEC doesn't have any language in its regulations about the term ICO. It doesn't care what you want to call a coin. The SEC only cares about what investment you're selling and how. There are other arguments, but they are all either incomplete or irrelevant. What it comes down to is the Howey Test. Is it an investment of money? Yes. Is there an expectation of profit? Duh. Is it a common enterprise? Yes. Does the investment rely on the efforts of a promoter or third party? Yes — Ripple Labs. They've developed it, and they're promoting it. The XRP defenders will repeat ad nauseum how many banks are trying out Ripple's protocol and why that will make the price of XRP moon. Doesn't that sound like the investment depends on the efforts of Ripple Labs? How about Ripple's own words on this: "Ripple Labs is the creator of Ripple. We developed the protocol and its distributed payment network, and we now work to support and promote its growth." "The company will retain a portion with the hope of creating a robust and liquid marketplace in order to monetize its only asset sometime in the future." Ripple created the coin and then sold it to build its platform and fund its operations. That's a security by the SEC's definition. It's a security according to the Howey Test. Ripple's attempts to distort or otherwise obfuscate this truth betrays the fact that they know it should be a security. If the bulk of these transgressions ended back in 2014 or 2015 then it might be a moot point and not a security anymore, like Ethereum. But the fact that they currently own the majority of XRP, and they continue to promote it, and they still sell it to fund their operations (to the tune of $163M last quarter), is a big problem. If the SEC does determine XRP is a security, it will require compliance, including registering with the agency as a security and paying a fine. Ripple should be able to do all that without too much difficulty. However, the SEC is also requiring issuers to pay back investors. Ripple may have a much harder time with that, depending on how the SEC wants to handle it. And the optics of this process would be bad for the price of XRP. For its own sake, Ripple Labs better be in close contact with the SEC about this. If they are waiting for the SEC to make the first move, it might end up far more costly for them. For investors in XRP, be prepared for a price shock if the SEC issues an enforcement ruling against Ripple. The market is shaky and is likely to over react to anything negative right now. Investors should also be concerned with how Ripple is handling this publicly. There is an ongoing class action lawsuit by XRP investors against Ripple Labs over whether XRP is a security. Ripple should be openly acknowledging the perception of a problem rather than being dismissive of it. Ripple should be proactively engaged with the SEC, and the public needs to see that. There are too many ways Ripple could lose right now. This is the narrative it needs to control. It could lose in court or lose to the SEC, and XRP could still survive. If Ripple loses public opinion, instead of the moon, Ripple Labs' "only asset," XRP, goes to the abyss. [GN] RIPPLE LABS: Plaintiffs Wants Class Action Moved to State Court --------------------------------------------------------------- Priyamvada Singh, writing for AMBCrypto, reports that on 8th December, Jake Chervinsky -- jake.chervinsky@kobrekim.com -- Lawyer at Kobre & Kim LLP, tweeted about a development in the previously filed class-action lawsuit against Ripple. Here, he informed his followers that the plaintiffs claiming XRP as a security, have filed a motion to remand in federal court, asking to go back to state court. He added: "They also say Ripple should pay their legal fees, saying the removal to federal court was "frivolous" & had "no basis in law or fact"." A few weeks back, the lawsuit was removed to the Federal Court as the attorneys at Ripple defended the company stating: "Plaintiffs do not allege that they lacked information about the nature of these transactions. Nevertheless, Plaintiffs claim that they were somehow injured because the Defendants were allegedly required to register XRP as a 'security' with the Securities & Exchange Commission ('SEC') but failed to do so." In a series of previous tweets, Mr. Chervinsky explained in detail, the legal situation that is being faced by the leading blockchain fintech firm. In August, the lawyer mentioned that Ripple is defending four cases in California courts -- two of them were in state courts [San Mateo County, filed by Zakinov and Oconer] while the other two were being fought in the apex court [Northern District of California, filed by Coffey & Greenwald]. Furthermore, all of the mentioned cases are based on securities. He continued the explanation in his third tweet, stating that all the allegations pointed to a common case: XRP is a security wherein Ripple violated State and Federal law by failing to register the digital asset before offering, promoting and selling it to retail investors. Mr. Chervinsky also speculated the expected scenarios, one of them being the case if the plaintiffs lose. Regarding this, he wrote: "If the plaintiffs lose, the SEC will have saved a lot of time & money. Keep in mind that they have limited resources for the #crypto space, and they have their hands full prosecuting ponzi schemes and outright frauds. Staying quiet now may simply be good resource management." As the combined Ripple lawsuit keeps dodging between the State and Federal Court, a decision on the same is yet to be heard by the authorities. [GN] SAKS FIFTH: Rice Sues over Unlawful Text Messaging -------------------------------------------------- LENORA RICE, on behalf of herself and other persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. SAKS FIFTH AVENUE LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-08255 (N.D. Ill., Dec. 17, 2018), seeks an injunction requiring Defendant to cease all unlawful text messaging activities. According to the complaint, the Defendant is the company behind the popular chain of retail clothing stores named "Saks Fifth Avenue." In order to solicit more business, Defendant sends unlawful telemarketing and/or advertising text messages to thousands of consumers’ cellular telephones nationwide. The Defendant does not obtain the required consent from such consumers to make such text message calls and, therefore, repeatedly violates the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Defendant also violates the TCPA by failing to provide in every text message advertisement an automated mechanism to opt out of receiving such messages. In order to make the unauthorized phone calls at issue in this case, the Defendant duped consumers into agreeing to receive those calls. In so doing, Defendant made material misrepresentations to consumers and intended consumers to rely on those misrepresentations. Because these misrepresentations caused the Plaintiff and class members actual harm, the Defendant violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff Lenora Rice and the Proposed Class: Roberto Luis Costales, Esq. William H. Beaumont, Esq. Jonathan Mille Kirkland, Esq. BEAUMONT COSTALES LLC 3151 W. 26th Street, Second Floor Chicago, IL 60623 Telephone: (773) 831-8000 SETERUS INC: Wenger Files Suit for Breach of Contract ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Seterus, Inc. asserting breach of contract. The case is styled as Kay Wenger, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Seterus, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-02393-MWB (M.D. Penn., December 18, 2018). Seterus, Inc., is a fully integrated loan servicing company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin F. Johns, Esq. Chimicles & Tikellis LLP One Haverford Centre 361 W. Lancaster Avenue Haverford, PA 19041 Tel: (610) 642-8500 Email: bfj@chimicles.com - and - Asa C. Edwards, Esq. Maginnis Law, PLLC 4801 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 310 Raleigh, NC 27612 Tel: (919) 526-0450 - and - Edward H. Maginnis, Esq. Maginnis Law, PLLC 4801 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 310 Raleigh, NC 27612 Tel: (919) 526-0450 - and - Scott C Harris,Esq. Whitfield Bryson & Mason LLP 900 West Morgan Street Raleigh, NC 27603 Tel: (919) 600-5000 Email: scott@wbmllp.com STATEWIDE TRANSPORT: Randle Seeks Overtime Pay for Drivers ----------------------------------------------------------- ROY JOSEPH RANDLE, Sr., and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. STATEWIDE TRANSPORT, INC., Case No. 6:18-cv-01627 (W.D. La., Dec. 18, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, Statewide Transport failed to pay Randle and other workers like him overtime as required by federal law. Instead, Statewide Transport paid them the same hourly rate for all hours worked, including those in excess of 40 in a workweek, the lawsuit says. Statewide Transport is a motor carrier located in Hammond, Louisiana. Randle began working for Statewide Transport in 2017. Randle was employed as a driver for Statewide Transport.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff Kenneth St. Pe, Esq. ST. PE LAW 311 West University Ave., Ste. A Lafayette, LA 70506 Telephone: (337) 534-4043 Telecopier: (337) 534-8379 E-mail: kds@sptpelaw.com - and - Matthew S. Parmet, Esq. PARMET PC 800 Sawyer St. Houston, TX 77007 Telephone: 713 999 5228 Facsimile: 713 999 1187 E-mail: matt@parmet.law SUNRISE CREDIT: Vedernikov Files FDCPA Suit in New Jersey --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sunrise Credit Services Inc. The case is styled as Igor Vedernikov, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Sunrise Credit Services Inc. and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-17363 (D. N.J., December 18, 2018). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Sunrise Credit Services, Inc. provides credit and accounts receivables management services for credit grantors in the United States. It offers third party accounts receivable management programs; cash flow early out/cure programs; account receivables billing programs; skip tracing solutions; over-the-limit calls and reminder solutions; attorney network solutions; and credit and collections training services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. Stein Saks, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Tel: (201) 282-6500 ext 101 Fax: (201) 282-6501 Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com SURNAIK HOLDINGS: Court Narrows Claims in Callihan Suit ------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, Charleston Division, issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order granting Defendant SABIC Innovative Plastics US LLC's Motion to Dismiss the case captioned TIMOTHY CALLIHAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SURNAIK HOLDINGS OF WV, LLC, et al., Defendants. Civil Action No. 2:17-cv-04386. (S.D.W.V.). The Plaintiffs allege that the Surnaik Defendants owned, operated, occupied, and/or managed the warehouse as a dump site for hazardous waste. They assert that in the weeks and months leading up to the fire, SABIC and Kuraray shipped hazardous materials to the warehouse but did not instruct Surnaik Defendants about proper storage of such substances. SABIC's motion to dismiss is granted; Surnaik Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in part; and Kuraray's motion to dismiss is granted. The Plaintiffs' claims for gross negligence against SABIC, private nuisance, public nuisance, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and medical monitoring are dismissed without prejudice. The Plaintiffs' claims for trespass, failure to warn, unjust enrichment, and veil-piercing are dismissed with prejudice. The Plaintiffs' claims for negligence against Surnaik Defendants and gross negligence against Kuraray remain. If Plaintiffs desire to file an amended complaint in order to address the claims this Court has dismissed without prejudice, the Plaintiffs can do so. As the new complaint will be Plaintiffs' fourth amended complaint in this action, no further amendments will be permitted absent compelling circumstances. Negligence and Gross Negligence (Counts I and IX) The Defendants SABIC contends that it did not own or operate the warehouse where the fire occurred, nor was it engaged in a joint venture with Surnaik Defendants to do so. The Plaintiffs allege that Surnaik Defendants not SABIC owned, operated, occupied, and/or managed the warehouse. Plaintiffs further allege that Surnaik Defendants were engaged in a joint venture with the remaining Defendants, including SABIC, allowing them to improperly house, store, and/or improperly dispose of their hazardous waste. The Plaintiffs' assertion that SABIC was in a joint venture with Surnaik Defendants, is a legal conclusion that this Court is not required to accept as true for purposes of ruling on the motion to dismiss. Instead, to establish a joint venture, Plaintiffs must plead facts showing that Surnaik Defendants and SABIC entered into a contractual relationship to carry out a single business enterprise for profit, for which purpose they combined their property, money, effects, skill, and knowledge. Plaintiffs allege that SABIC shipped materials to the warehouse. There are no facts in the complaint from which this Court may infer that Surnaik Defendants and SABIC agreed to share profits and losses with regard to the transfer of these materials or exercised equal active management or control over the operations at the warehouse. Plaintiffs have not adequately pled the existence of a joint venture between SABIC and Surnaik Defendants. A full-text copy of the District Court's December 3, 2018 Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y95afpxr from Leagle.com. Timothy Callihan, Thomas Dent, Marcus Drake, John Jackson, Gloria Hall, Jan Drake Robinson, Thelma Barnett-Guinn, Doris Satterfield & Wonetta Rose, Plaintiffs, represented by David A. Sims, LAW OFFICES OF DAVID A. SIMS. Surnaik Holdings of WV, LLC, a West Virginia limited liability company, Sirnaik, LLC, a West Virginia limited liability company, Polymer Alliance Services, LLC, a West Virginia limited liability company, Green Sustainable Solutions LLC, a West Virginia limited liability company & Intercontinental Export Import, Inc., a Maryland corporation, Defendants, represented by Bradley K. Shafer -- bshafer@defensecounsel.com -- MINTZER SAROWITZ ZERIS LEDVA & MEYERS, Isaac Ralston Forman, HISSAM FORMAN DONOVAN RITCHIE, Jason G. Wehrle -- jwehrle@defensecounsel.com -- MINTZER SAROWITZ ZERIS LEDVA & MEYERS, Jennings L. Hart, III -- jhart@defensecounsel.com -- MINTZER SAROWITZ ZERIS LEDVA & MEYERS, Jonathan Zak Ritchie, HISSAM FORMAN DONOVAN RITCHIE, Michael B. Hissam, HISSAM FORMAN DONOVAN RITCHIE & Ryan McCune Donovan, HISSAM FORMAN DONOVAN RITCHIE. TELADOC HEALTH: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Dec. 8 disclosed that it is investigating potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of Teladoc Health Inc. (NYSE: TDOC) resulting from allegations that Teladoc Health may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. On December 5, 2018, the Southern Investigative Research Foundation ("SIRF") published an article reporting that Teladoc Health's chief financial officer, Mark Hirschhorn, had engaged "in an affair with . . . an employee many levels below him on the company's organizational chart." The SIRF article continued that "during their relationship, [the employee] received a series of promotions over colleagues with either more industry experience or better credentials that stunned her former colleagues." In addition, the SIRF article reported that the employee and Hirschhorn "liked to trade Teladoc Health's stock together," with Hirschhorn "tell[ing] her when he thought there were good opportunities to sell some shares." Following this news, Teledoc Health's stock price fell $6.40 per share or approximately 10.7% over the next two trading days to close at $53.41 per share on December 7, 2018. Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action lawsuit to recover losses suffered by Teledoc Health investors. If you purchased shares of Teledoc Health please visit the firm's website at https://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1469.html to join the class action. You may also contact Phillip Kim or Zachary Halper of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via email at pkim@rosenlegal.com or zhalper@rosenlegal.com. Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 3 each year since 2013. [GN] TELLTALE: Launches Final Walking Dead Episode Amid Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Alex Levine, writing for mxdwn.com, reports that there is no doubt that one of the saddest and most controversial stories of 2018 was the closure of Telltale studios, which resulted in over 250 employees losing their jobs back in September. Then, the company laid off the remaining staff as a full liquidation was underway. Things got ugly very quickly, as most of those employees who were now without employment launched a class-action lawsuit against Telltale, for not receiving any severance pay, and only had health insurance till the end of that month. While the livelihood of those affected by this was the most important thing, let's not forget that all of the games that were in development were essentially canceled, including The Walking Dead: The Final Season, which had already released two episodes. Luckily, Skybound Entertainment, which is run by The Walking Dead's creator, Robert Kirkman, came in to save the series, and as of last month, began producing the final episodes for the season. Finally, there seems to be some light at the end of this dark tunnel, as the company has announced that the next installment of the series, Episode 3: Broken Toys, will launch for all platforms on January 15, 2019. The announcement came with a brand new trailer, narrated by Season 1's beloved main protagonist, Lee. While it doesn't go into any details of the stories plot, it paints a somber picture of the state of Clementine, AJ, and the rest of the group, while also gives us hope that they might end up surviving in the end. In the blog post, Skybound's Social Media Manager, Johnny O'Dell, stated that "We're extremely thankful to the team working on this game to make sure the season is finished with the quality the game and the fans deserve. We are #stillnotbitten." Still not bitten referring to Clementine being one of the few people in the series to not be bitten by a Walker. O'Dell goes on to mention that The Walking Dead: The Final Season's previous episodes, Done Running and Suffer the Children, are back on "almost all platforms", as they were removed from all digital storefronts following Telltales liquidation. There was no information given on the Final Episode, but we can safely assume that Skybound will work on that once Episode 3 is released. The Walking Dead: The Final Season Episode 3 launches on January 15, 2019 for the PlayStation 4, Xbox One, and PC. [GN] TIGER BRANDS: First Listeriosis Claims Payout Expected in 2020 -------------------------------------------------------------- Justin Brown, writing for City Press, reports that the first claims associated with the listeriosis class action could be paid out in mid to late 2020 at the earliest. So said Richard Spoor Attorneys lawyer Thami Malusi on Dec. 7. If Tiger Brands settled the matter rather than going to court, that would shorten the process, he added. The listeriosis outbreak killed 216 people, according to the National Institute for Communicable Diseases. Earlier, the listeriosis class action was certified by Deputy Judge President Phineas Mojapelo in the Johannesburg High Court. The action is being brought by three law firms: Richard Spoor Attorneys, LHL Attorneys and Marler Clark LLP. The three law firms have agreed to take 20% of the total claims paid out to class members as their fee, Mr. Malusi said. The two respondents to the class action are Tiger Brands Consumer Foods and Enterprise Foods, a Tiger Brands subsidiary. Mr. Malusi said that in terms of the class action certification, complainants had until March 3 2019 to opt out of being represented by the three law firms that have brought the action. The next step was for summons to be issued against the two respondents, and this was expected to happen in January. Thereafter, the respondents would have 20 days to reply, Malusi said. The two respondents would also be subpoenaed to provide information, including on testing done at the Enterprise Foods factory in Polokwane, to see what went wrong, he added. Tiger Brands has agreed to co-fund the communication campaign that will notify prospective claimants of their rights in the class action. "Tiger Brands reiterates that no liability has been established against the company for the listeriosis outbreak. The legal process of the class action must still take its course," said Tiger Brands in a statement. It coincided with the reopening of the Enterprise Foods facility in Polokwane, which was determined as the source of the listeriosis outbreak. This means that Enterprise ready-to-eat chilled processed meats, such as polony and viennas, will again be on sale. Capricorn Municipality's environmental health department provided the company with an official Certificate of Acceptability for the Polokwane factory after "rigorous assessments were completed, giving the company licence to resume production", Tiger Brands said. "This certificate endorses the factory's standards and operating procedures for the safe production of food products," the company added. [GN] TRADER JOE'S: Lima Sues over Deceptive Branding of Honey Nut O's ---------------------------------------------------------------- ANITA S. LIMA, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. TRADER JOE'S COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-12591-ADB (D. Mass., Dec. 18, 2018), seeks to recover compensatory damages, restitution, punitive and special damages (including but not limited to treble damages), reasonable attorneys' fees and costs and injunctive or declaratory relief. The Plaintiff sues on behalf of herself and persons similarly situated who purchased one or more boxes of "Trader Joe's Honey Nut O's," a breakfast cereal manufactured and marketed by Defendant. By making false, deceptive, and misleading representations, and by omitting material information, Defendant's branding and packaging of "Trader Joe's Honey Nut O's" convey that honey -- and not sugar -- is its primary sweetener. In truth, however, sugar (also referred to as white sugar) and brown sugar are the most prevalent sweeteners, and on information and belief the product contains only a miniscule amount of honey. The Plaintiff and all members were harmed by paying more to purchase the product than they would have been willing to pay had its honey content not been misrepresented by the Defendant. Trader Joe's is an American chain of grocery stores based in Monrovia, California. By 2015, it was a competitor in "fresh format" grocery stores in the United States. As of October 12, 2017, Trader Joe's had 474 stores nationwide in 43 states and in Washington, D.C.[BN] Counsel for Plaintiff and the Proposed Classes: Kenneth D. Quat, Esq. QUAT LAW OFFICES 929 Worcester Rd. Framingham, MA 01701 508-872-1261 E-mail: ken@quatlaw.com - and - Michael R. Reese, Esq. Carlos F. Ramirez, Esq. REESE LLP 100 West 93 rd St., 16 th Floor New York, NY 10025 212-643-0500 E-mail: mreese@reesellp.com cramirez@reesellp.com TRUSTMARK NATIONAL: Sued for Improperly Charging Overdraft Fees --------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a federal class action claims Trustmark National Bank bilked customers for millions of dollars by improperly charging overdraft fees on transactions that did not overdraw the account, sometimes twice or three times, including for a mere balance inquiry. The case is Tabas, et al. v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., et al., (Case No. 3:18-cv-07129-LB (N.D. Cal.). A copy of the Complaint is available at: https://is.gd/TJKovL UBER TECHNOLOGIES: 12,501 Drivers Sue Over Arbitration Agreement ---------------------------------------------------------------- Graham Rapier and Michael Selby-Green, writing for Business Insider, report that like thousands of other companies, Uber requires most drivers to sign an arbitration agreement that requires disputes to be resolved directly with the company, and not through a court. There is an option to opt-out of the clause, as outlined in the company's 21-page terms and conditions, but it must be done in writing within 30 days of signing the agreement. Now, fed up with falling pay and their status as contractors rather than employees, 12,501 drivers have filed a lawsuit in California accusing Uber of ignoring their requests for arbitration. The suit was first reported by Motherboard. Of the 300 pages of partners requesting arbitration, the plaintiffs claim only 47 have been appointed arbiters and only six have seen the process move forward. "They're not using what they used as a shield as a sword," Stephen Larson, an attorney for the petitioners, told Business Insider. "We're essentially calling their bluff. This has been the trend for corporations for decades across the country, of inserting this clause specifically to block class action lawsuits." An Uber spokesperson declined to comment. The case was originally brought as a class action lawsuit in multiple states regarding drivers status as contractors. Their complaints in five states range from failure to pay minimum wage, lack of overtime compensation, no paid sick leave, and other things that would be required if drivers were considered employees. "The essential issue is whether they're employees or contractors," said Larson, representing the drivers. "They're all making the same complaint." In order for a request for arbitration to proceed, Uber is responsible for paying a fee to JAMS -- one of the largest alternative dispute resolution (ADR) providers in the country. "It has been more than three-and-a-half months since the first Petitioners served their individual arbitration demands," the suit reads. "Yet Uber has refused to pay the necessary fees to commence and administer arbitration in all but a handful of cases." At this rate, the plaintiffs estimate in filings that "it would take approximately 10 years before the last Petitioners' arbitration even commenced." Uber has previously touted the benefits of arbitration. "The entire purpose of arbitration is to provide an inexpensive and expeditious means of resolving disputes," the company argued in a separate case in 2015, citing a court decision from 1985. Even if drivers were considered employees, they could still be subject to strict arbitration rules. Some 60 million American employees are now barred from using the courts for an array of claims against their employers, including race discrimination, short pay, workplace safety, and class-action litigation, according to research by the Economic Policy Institute. The number of US employees covered by mandatory arbitration agreements now exceeds 55%, up from 2% in 1992, and 80% of Fortune 100 companies have used arbitration since 2010, including Amazon, Nike, and Exxon Mobil. On Dec. 7, the case was moved to The US District Court in San Francisco from San Jose. Uber has 21 days from its receipt of the original summons to respond. [GN] UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Lawyers File More Arbitration Demands at JAM --------------------------------------------------------------- Boingboing reports that binding arbitration agreements were formalized in 1925, allowing two corporate entities of roughly equal size to resolve their disputes outside of a court, saving both parties a lot of money, but since then, the primary use of arbitration is to force employees, customers, patients and other comparatively weak parties to surrender their right to sue (or join class actions) as a condition of going to work, seeking care, or simply shopping. Instead, people who have been crammed into binding arbitration "agreements" are forced to argue their cases one at a time in a privatized courtroom, where the "judge" is often a contractor for the corporation whose conduct gave rise to the complaint. A notorious example of this is the gig economy, where employees are turned into "contractors" through a legal fiction and then deprived of their right to join class action suits over unfair treatment thanks to the arbitration clauses in the farcically long license agreement they click through when they sign up (Uber drivers can technically opt out within 30 days, but they'd have to read thousands of words of impenetrable legalese to discover this). As is so often the case, Uber is the granddaddy of the worst practices of the gig economy. When the company went to the court to argue that its employees weren't employees, it defended its binding arbitration, saying that the company would of course pay for the arbitration fees in the states that required it. 12,501 Uber drivers took the company at its word and filed arbitration claims in California. Under the terms of the contract that Uber crammed down these drivers' throats, it must now pay $1,500 per driver to JAMS, the arbitration service it uses -- a total of $18.7m. But Uber has only paid the filing fees for 296 of these drivers; and of those, only 47 have had arbitrators appointed to them. Uber has paid the retainers for only six of those arbitrators. As Larson O'Brien, a lawyer for the drivers, wrote in a motion, "At this point, it is fair to ask whether Uber's previous statements to the 9th Circuit about its desire to facilitate arbitration with its drivers were nothing more than empty promises to avoid litigating a class action. Uber's actions make clear it does not actually support arbitration; rather, it supports avoiding any method of dispute resolution, no matter the venue." On the one hand, fuck Uber, which is in the midst of an IPO that will make the people who designed this system unfathomably rich. On the other hand, these drivers are amazing and inspiring: having been stripped of their right to work as a group to seek justice from Uber and having been corralled into a narrow chute with no options, they rushed the chute and filled it, overflowed it, and forced Uber to reckon with them anyway: as human beings with legal rights, not as squishy, inconvenient stopgaps that the company grudgingly pays for while it races to perfect self-driving cars. The drivers' lawyers said in their filings that they proposed an alternative to arbitrating thousands of individual cases at a cost of no less than $1,500 apiece. After filing an initial batch of 400 arbitration demands in August, the drivers' lawyers suggested a bellwether process in which the two sides would select nine cases to be arbitrated, with mediation to follow. According to the drivers, Uber rejected that proposal and instead suggested four representative arbitrations and no mediation. Larson O'Brien said that plan was unworkable and proceeded to file more than 12,000 additional arbitration demands at JAMS. "At bottom, our clients are entitled to a resolution of their disputes," said drivers' lawyer Stephen Larson in an email. "By robbing its drivers of a forum to resolve their disputes, I believe Uber is charting a dangerous course, and if its strategy is successful, it would have significant repercussions for all workers in the gig economy." In addition to an order compelling Uber to pay the arbitration fees, the drivers are seeking a sanction against the company under the court's equitable powers. Uber declined to comment on the drivers' filings, which are before U.S. Magistrate Judge Kandis Westmore of Oakland. (The drivers have asked for the case to be deemed related to previous litigation before U.S. District Judge Edward Chen of San Francisco.) [GN] UNITED STATES: ACLU Sues ICE Over Asylum-Seekers' Detention ----------------------------------------------------------- Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that in a concise history of U.S. immigration-detention policies, the ACLU claims in a federal complaint that Immigration and Customs Enforcement is detaining thousands of asylum-seekers in violation of its own directives. The case is American Civil Liberties Union Immigrants' Rights Project & Center for Gender & Refugee Studies at the University of California Hastings College of the Law v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Case No. 3:18-cv-07449 (N.D. Cal.). A copy of the Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief is available at https://is.gd/3NVMsl UNITED STATES: Judge to Likely Advance Travel Ban Waiver Case ------------------------------------------------------------- Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a federal judge hinted on Dec. 13 that he will likely advance a lawsuit claiming the U.S. government uses a "sham" process to deny waivers to nearly every immigrant coming from five Muslim-majority nations under President Donald Trump's travel ban. "A citizen has the right to say the government is putting up a sham policy," U.S. District Judge James Donato said during a motion-to-dismiss hearing. Thirty-six plaintiffs filed a class action against the Trump administration in March, claiming the government failed to create proper guidelines and procedures for reviewing travel ban waiver requests as required by law. According to the suit, the waiver denials have prevented parents from attending their children's weddings and being present for the births of grandchildren. They have also separated sick and dying parents from children in the U.S., blocked scientists from working and doing research at U.S. universities, and made those who invested $500,000 or more in U.S. businesses ineligible for visas under the EB-5 immigrant investor program. According to data cited in the lawsuit, the State Department granted only two waivers for 6,500 applicants as of Jan. 8, 2018. In March, the State Department said it had granted 100 waivers, but the rejection rate remained higher than 98 percent. Despite those statistics, a U.S. government lawyer argued in court on Dec. 13 that the lawsuit should be thrown out because courts lack the power to review case-by-case visa determinations. "They are envisioning a kind of micromanagement of those consular decisions," Justice Department attorney August Flentje said. Judge Donato disagreed, noting that the lawsuit alleges a "sham" policy and guidelines that create the illusion of fairness while giving the government cover to reject nearly every waiver request. "I don't see why I'd have to look at any specific waiver decisions," Judge Donato said. To obtain a waiver, applicants must show they do not pose a national security threat, that a waiver denial would cause "undue hardship," and that their entry into the U.S. would "be in the national interest." According to the lawsuit, several plaintiffs submitted documents showing they meet the requirements, including scientists with special expertise whose research at U.S. universities would "be in the national interest." But the government rejected all of their waiver requests. Class attorney Sirine Shebaya of the Washington, D.C.-based group Muslim Advocates said the government has failed to make clear how one can apply for a waiver, submit supporting documentation and prove that one meets the requirements. "They haven't given you any clue about what the [eligibility criteria] definitions are, but it's your burden to show that you meet those definitions," Ms. Shebaya said. Mr. Flentje countered the U.S. does follow clear guidelines for meeting the requirements, but some of those guidelines are hidden from the public for national security reasons. "The [presidential] proclamation for issuing guidance doesn't say it's all outward facing, and a lot would need to be confidential to avoid manipulation of the process," Mr. Flentje said. Trump's third version of the travel ban was introduced in September 2017 and upheld by the Supreme Court in a 5-4 vote in June. On Dec. 13, Judge Donato cited Justice Stephen Breyer's dissent in that decision, which focused on whether the waiver program is being administered as stated in the president's proclamation. Judge Breyer noted that if the government was not granting waivers to those that meet the three requirements, then arguments in favor of the travel ban would be "significantly weaker." "Denying visas to Muslims who meet the proclamation's own security terms would support the view that the government excludes them for reasons based upon their religion," Judge Breyer wrote in an 8-page dissent. Judge Donato recalled a footnote in Chief Justice John Roberts' opinion upholding the travel ban, which cited a lack of evidence to support Breyer's concern that the government was categorically denying waiver requests. "Frankly, he's skeptical that it's a sham, but we have to see the evidence," Judge Donato said. "Why isn't that the case here? Why shouldn't this go to an evidentiary hearing?" Before ending the hearing, Judge Donato said he would issue a written ruling "fairly soon," and that he will let the plaintiffs amend their complaint if any claims are dismissed. After the hearing, opponents of the travel ban gathered outside the courthouse. Farhana Khera, executive director of Muslim Advocates, encouraged people to contact their congressional representatives and urge them to use their oversight powers to investigate the travel ban waiver system. Countries subject to the travel ban include Iran, Libya, North Korea, Somalia, Syria, Venezuela and Yemen. The case is Emami, et al. v. Nielsen, et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-01587 (N.D. Cal.). A copy of the Defendants' Notice Of Motion, Motion To Dismiss, And Memorandum In Support is available at: https://is.gd/DCdQcZ VICTORIA'S SECRET: Lambey Seeks Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------- Tiffany Lambey, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Victoria's Secret Stores, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 719284/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Dec. 17, 2018), seeks maximum liquidated damages and interest for being paid overtime wages and non-overtime wages later than weekly, pursuant to the New York Labor Law. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff complains on behalf of herself and a class of other similarly-situated current and former employees were employed by Defendant within the State of New York as manual workers. The Defendant had a policy and practice of failing to pay the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees for all time spent attending required training sessions and courses – the Plaintiff was required to attend training sessions and courses of about 2-4 hrs. per month and was not paid for such time in violation of NYLL, the lawsuit says. Victoria's Secret Stores, LLC retails apparel, lingerie, and personal care products for women. It also sells products online. The company was founded in 1977 and is based in Reynoldsburg, Ohio. Victoria's Secret operates as a subsidiary of L Brands, Inc.[BN] Counsel for Plaintiff: Abdul K. Hassan, Esq. ABDUL HASSAN LAW GROUP, PLLC 215-28 Hillside Avenue Queens Village, NY 11427 Telephone: 718 740-1000 Facsimile: 718 740-2000 E-mail: abdul@abdulhassan.com WAL-MART STORES: Mays Moves to Certify Wage Statement Classes ------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled LERNA MAYS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. WAL-MART STORES, INC., a Delaware Corporation and DOE ONE through and including DOE ONE-HUNDRED, Case No. 2:18-cv-02318-AB-KK (C.D. Cal.), asks the Court to certify these Class and Subclass defined as: * The Wage Statement Class: All Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. California workers who received one or more wage payments during the period from Friday, December 16, 2016, to the date on which this Motion may be decided. * Final Wage Statement Subclass: All former non-exempt employees who worked for Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. in California and whose employment terminated (whether voluntarily or involuntarily) at any time from January 10, 2018, to the date on which this Motion may be decided. Ms. Mays also asks the Court to appoint her as class representative, to appoint Harris & Ruble as class counsel, and to order the parties to meet and confer with respect to the form of notice. The Court will commence a hearing on February 8, 2019, at 10:00 a.m., to consider the Motion.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alan Harris, Esq. Priya Mohan, Esq. HARRIS & RUBLE 655 N. Central Ave., 17th Floor Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (323) 962-3777 Facsimile: (323) 962-3004 E-mail: aharris@harrisandruble.com pmohan@harrisandruble.com WALT DISNEY: Home-Video Distributors File Class Action ------------------------------------------------------ Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that Neversink Productions claims in a class action that Walt Disney Pictures cheats home-video distributors by including only 20 percent of its home-video revenue when calculating royalties for profit participants, in L.A. Superior Court. WELLMONT HEALTH: Class Action Jury Trial Expected to Wrap Up ------------------------------------------------------------ Lurah Spell, writing for Bristol Herald Courier, reports that the third week of a jury trial over a $83 million class-action lawsuit filed against Wellmont Health System was set to begins Dec. 10. The suit was filed in 2016 by Highlands Physicians Inc. and 2,100 people, including at least 1,500 doctors. It alleges that Wellmont breached contract, fiduciary duty, and a network access agreement and owes payments to providers. The jury trial is being presided over by Sullivan County Chancery Court Judge E.G. Moody in Bristol Law Court. It began on Nov. 27 and was scheduled to wrap up on Dec. 14. In 1993, Bristol's hospital -- Wellmont's predecessor -- and Highlands Physicians formed what is now called Highlands Wellmont Health Network. Both own 50 percent of the network with the power to elect half of the network's directors, according to the suit. The suit also accuses Wellmont of deceiving, defaming and lying to HPI; failing to disclose decisions intended to harm the network and HPI; tortious interference with business advantages and contracts; and intentional misrepresentation and fraudulent concealment that caused HPI to suffer damages. In court on Dec. 7, Judge Moody compared the case to a divorce proceeding. He said an "amicable resolution" is needed so Ballad Health can maintain good relationships with HPI's medical providers. Ballad was formed earlier this year through the merger of Wellmont and Mountain States Health Alliance. "This is like having a family feud that will never end," he said. Judge Moody added that patients are the ones who will suffer if a resolution isn't found because doctors will be "against" Ballad Health. A jury verdict, he said, may not even resolve the issues. Judge Moody ordered attorneys to mediate toward a settlement on Dec. 11. Ballad Health, Wellmont Health System's attorneys and Highlands Physicians' attorneys declined comment on the lawsuit. In addition to seeking millions in punitive and compensatory damages, attorney fees, costs and interest, the suit asks that judicial rulings be made to clarify Wellmont and Highlands Physicians' mutual contractual and fiduciary obligations. [GN] WILLIAMSBURG LAUNDROMAT: Viano et al. Seek Overtime Pay ------------------------------------------------------- Lidia Viano and Adriana Viano individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. Williamsburg Laundromat LLC, (d/b/a The Laundry Taxi) and Salvatore Occhipinti (a/k/s Sal Occhipinti), Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-07187 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 17, 2018), seeks to recover overtime compensation, spread-of-hours pay, unlawful deductions and breach-of-contract and quantum meruit damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and the Wage Theft Prevention Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs are former employees of Defendants who were employed to wash, fold, iron at The Laundry Taxi, in Brooklyn. The Defendants have intentionally, willfully and repeatedly engaged in a pattern, practice and/or policy of violating the FLSA with respect to Plaintiffs and the FLSA Collective. This policy and pattern or practice includes, but is not limited to willfully failing to pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week; willfully failing to keep records that satisfy statutory requirements; and making unlawful deductions, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Lina Stillman, Esq. 42 Broadway, Suite 12-126 New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212)-203-2417 www.FightForUrRights.com WINMILL & CO: Appeals Delaware Court Ruling in Ravenswood Case -------------------------------------------------------------- Winmill & Co. Incorporated and other defendants in a lawsuit by The Ravenswood Investment Company, L.P., have taken an appeal from a Delaware state court ruling in that case. The appellate case is pending before the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware and captioned, The Ravenswood Investment Company, L.P., individually, derivatively and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons, the Plaintiff, Appellant/Cross-Appellee, vs The Estate of Bassett S. Winmill, Thomas B. Winmill, and Mark C. Winmill, and Winmill & Co. Incorporated, Defendants, Appellees/Cross-Appellants, Case No. 496,2018 (Del.). Specifically, the defendants are taking an appeal from the final judgment order of the Court of Chancery, in and for New Castle County, by the Honorable Joseph R. Slights, III, dated August 29, 2018, which incorporates all prior rulings of the Court of Chancery, including its transcript ruling dated April 27, 2017 on Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, the Court of Chancery's post-trial Memorandum Opinion dated March 21, 2018 (revised March 22, 2018) and the Court of Chancery's transcript ruling dated August 15, 2018.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff, Appellant/Cross-Appellee: R. Bruce McNew, Esq. COOCH AND TAYLOR P.A. The Brandywine Building, 10th Floor 1000 West Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Attorneys for Defendants, Appellees/Cross-Appellants: David A. Jenkins, Esq. Kelly A. Green, Esq. SMITH, KATZENSTEIN & JENKINS LLP 1000 West Street, Suite 1501 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 652 8400 E-mail: djenkins@skjlaw.com kag@skjlaw.com WORKPAC: Adero Prepares to File Suit Over "Double Dipping" ---------------------------------------------------------- Dana McCauley, writing for Sydney Morning Herald, reports that Industrial Relations Minister Kelly O'Dwyer is under pressure to fix casual worker "double dipping" before Christmas, as lawyers prepare to file a massive class-action suit and employers fear they could be exposed to liabilities of up to $8 billion across the economy. Ms O'Dwyer is understood to be considering a bold solution to the situation created by the Federal Court when it ruled that Paul Skene, a casual truck driver employed at a Rio Tinto mine through labour hire firm WorkPac, was entitled to annual leave and sick pay. Under the plan being considered, the minister would use her executive powers to create a regulation to ensure that employers are not hit twice by having to pay entitlements on top of the casual loadings designed to compensate for them. It comes as class-action law firm Adero prepares to file suits against WorkPac and fellow mining industry labour hire firms Hays recruitment, Programmed and One Key Resources, on behalf of thousands of workers who say they are in the same position as Mr Skene. Employer groups have been lobbying the minister to fix what she has described as an "absurd" situation, but with slim prospects of getting legislation through a hostile Senate, an alternative has emerged. Employment lawyer Luis Izzo said dealing with the issue by way of a regulation would be easier than getting legislation through -- although it could be challenged once Parliament resumes in February, when "either house has the ability to overrule it". "The process is the regulation is made, and it's binding -- it takes effect -- but an MP or senator can object to it," Mr Izzo said. "If there's a majority in the Senate or House to overrule it, the regulation is dead." But, he said, the government could gain a political advantage as, "from an optics perspective, it might take a little bit more momentum to overturn something that's already in place". Once rubber stamped by the Governor-General, the regulation would take effect and the government could use the summer break to sell it as a sensible fix. Opposition Leader Bill Shorten has promised legislation to ensure workers employed through labour hire firms get the same pay and conditions as workers hired directly, if Labor wins government. Sydney University constitutional law professor Anne Twomey said the rules in the Senate -- where most disallowance motions took place -- provided that a regulation could be challenged within 15 sitting days of being tabled. Mr Izzo said the regulation would be "a step in the right direction" for the government to clarify the position of casual workers. "It would then take a significant counter-manoeuvre by MPs in the Senate or House of Representatives to overturn it," he said. Third parties, such as trade unions, would also be able to challenge the regulation in court if they could argue its creation was beyond the power of the executive and constitutionally invalid. Mr Izzo said the risk of this happening would likely be greater if the regulation attempted to insert a definition of a casual worker into the act. The minister has the power to make regulations for any purpose "necessary or convenient" to carry out or give effect to the provisions of the Fair Work Act, but not to modify the act. "I think the pressing desire is to at least address the double dipping, because that's where there is a particular level of outrage," he said. Ms O'Dwyer has intervened on behalf of the Commonwealth in a test case that seeks to clarify the double dipping issue, but an outcome is not expected before the election, due by May next year. The Federal Court case, brought by WorkPac against a former worker called Robert Rossato, is expected to end up in the High Court. Workplace law expert Andrew Stewart, a professor at the University of Adelaide, said the double dipping issue needed "a legislative fix" -- but that this was unlikely. "If they introduce a bill to deal with this issue, they would have to face an immediate set of amendments," Professor Stewart said. "And that might not only produce effects very different from the one they wanted, but would almost certainly also involve Labour trying to reverse last year's penalty rate cuts." He said there was "a desperate need" for a resolution as "the situation that we've got at the moment is completely unsustainable". "You've got potentially more than a million Australian employees who have casual status but arguably are not true casuals ... and therefore would be entitled to annual leave, sick leave etc. "That clearly is a situation that cannot be allowed to continue; it has to be sorted out one way or the other." Professor Stewart said it was unclear whether it would possible to address the issue retrospectively. ACTU Secretary Sally McManus said workers were finding themselves "stuck for years in casual roles while they do the same work as a full time or part time employee" and that employers should pay a price for "decades of abusing loopholes in our broken system to rip off workers". "The Minister should be more concerned with ensuring that workers who are forced into casual work have access simple and effective recourse so that they can claim their correct entitlements," Ms McManus said. A spokesman for Ms O'Dwyer said the government "is concerned about the potential impact of double dipping on small business and the cost to jobs, and continues to consider options to address these concerns".[GN] ********* 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 ***