/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/190211.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Monday, February 11, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 30
Headlines
A-S MEDICATION: Maine Automobile Sues Over Carcinogen in Valsartan
ACCOLADE INC: Fulton-Green Class Settlement Has Preliminary OK
ALLIED INTERSTATE: Weinberg Files Class Action Over FDCPA Breach
ALLY FINANCIAL: Feb. 28 SmartLease Claims Filing Deadline Set
ALPHA RECOVERY: Sturman Sues Over Debt Collection Practices
ARCADIA RECOVERY: Rousseau Seeks Damages Under FDCPA
ARSTRAT LLC: Wilson Files Suit Under FDCPA in E.D. New York
ATLANTIC MARINE ELECTRICAL: Thorne Suit Seeks Damages Under ADA
BASSETT YACHT: Violates Disabilities Act,Thorne Suit Asserts
BLUE DIAMOND: Gets Favorable Ruling in Almond Milk Class Action
BMW KOREA: More Vehicle Owners Join Collective Suit Over Fires
CONTINENTAL CENTRAL: Consumer Sues Over Debt Collection Practices
DANSKE BANK: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Securities Fraud Class Action
DANSKE BANK: Levi & Korsinsky Files Securities Fraud Class Actions
DIVERSIFIED CONSULTANTS: Court Dismisses Martinez FDCPA Suit
ENHANCED RECOVERY: Court OK Summary Judgment in Johnson FDCPA Suit
EZCORP INC: Bid for Appointment of Representative & Counsel Pending
FORT SMITH, AK: To Appeal if Lawsuit Plaintiff Gets 2nd Waiver
FREDERICKSBURG HOT AIR: Attendee Threatens Class Action
GOOD SHEPHERD: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Jones FLSA Suit
GOSPEL FOR ASIA: Filed Petition for Writ of Certiorari
HAJ INC: Court Denies Bid to Lift Stay in Ralph Suit
HEALTHPLUS SURGERY: Owner Sued Over HIV, Hepatitis Exposure
HIRERIGHT LLC: Richardson Files Class Action Under FCRA in Maine
HOME DEPOT USA: Munoz Sues Over Methylene Chloride Exposure
JACKSON, MI: Hill Files Petition for Writ of Certiorari
JAMES CRAIG SWAPP: Court Won't Dismissal Suit Over PTCRs
MADDOCKS COLLECTION: Wyche Files FDCPA Suit in New York
MDL 2804: Overton County Joins Opioid Crisis Class Action
MICROSOFT CORP: Canadian Cellphone Class Suit Still Remains Dormant
MICROSOFT CORP: Final Settlement Approved in Canadian Suits
MONSANTO COMPANY: Somerlott Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Whaley Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MR. HUDSON'S: Leon Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Illegal Termination
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Alderman Files Personal Injury Suit in Indiana
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Bartos Suit Alleges Claim for Personal Injury
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Bradwell Suit Asserts Personal Injury Claim
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Butler Files Personal Injury Suit in Indiana
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: C. Moore Files Personal Injury Case
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Crawford Suit Asserts Personal Injury Claim
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Doss Class Suit Asserts Personal Injury Claim
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Dupree Files PI Suit in S.D. Indiana
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Dziuk Suit Asserts Personal Injury Claim
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Ellis Suit Alleges Personal Injury Claim
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Faces Gage Personal Injury Suit in Indiana
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Ferrara Files Personal Injury Suit in Indiana
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Helu Files Personal Injury Suit in Indiana
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: K. Moore Files Personal Injury Lawsuit
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Kaaekuahiwi Files PI Suit in S.D. Indiana
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Kershaw Suit Asserts Claim for Personal Injury
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Lewis Suit Asserts Claim for Personal Injury
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: McGuirl Asserts Claim for Personal Injury
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Mileto Suit Asserts Personal Injury Claim
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Moon Asserts Claim for Personal Injury
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Porras Suit Asserts Personal Injury Claim
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Sawyer Suit Asserts Claim for Personal Injury
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Seals Suit Asserts Personal Injury Claim
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Stowe Files PI Suit in S.D. Indiana
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Swanson Files PI Suit in S.D. Indiana
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Thompson Files PI Suit in S.D. Indiana
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Thornton Files PI Suit in S.D. Indiana
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Vickers Suit Asserts Personal Injury Claim
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Whitehead Files PI Suit in S.D. Indiana
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Wilson Suit Asserts Claim for Personal Injury
NCAA: John Smith Sues over NYIT Student-Athletes' Safety
NCAA: Thomas Sues over Central Arkansas Student-Athletes' Safety
NCAA: Thompson Sues over Rice University Student-Athletes' Safety
NCAA: Thompson Sues over Savannah Student-Athletes' Safety
NCAA: Van Druten Sues over Abilene Student-Athletes' Safety
NCAA: Williams Sues over Northern Iowa Student-Athletes' Safety
NIPPON STEEL: Forced Labor Victims May Claim Assets in Korea
NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Parties Seek Initial Settlement Approval
NVDIA CORP: Several Law Firms Announce Filing of Class Action
OASIS CAFE: $175,000 Settlement Remains Unpaid, Castillo et al. Say
PACIFIC BIOSCIENCES: Acquisition-Related Suits Dismissed
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Faces Gambina Suit Under FDCPA in New Jersey
QUALCOMM INC: Calif. Consumer Action Stayed Pending Appeal
QUALCOMM INC: Has Yet to Answer Canadian Class Suit
QUALCOMM INC: Lead Plaintiff Named in Camp Class Action
QUALCOMM INC: Still Awaits Court OK on Bid to Dismiss Calif. Suit
QUALCOMM INC: Still Defends 3226701 Canada, Inc. Securities Suit
RAS LAVRAR: Faces Deangelis FDCPA Class Action in New York
RCC WESLEY: Ga. App. Dismisses Forrest Class Certification Appeal
SAN DIEGO, CA: Faces ADA Class Action Lawsuit Over Sidewalks
SIRIUS XM: Bid for Class Cert. in Buchanan Suit Still Pending
SOGO INC: Levi & Korsinsky Files Securities Fraud Suit
ST. JUDE: Court Dismisses Defective Cardiac Defibrillators Suit
TD AMERITRADE: 8th Cir. to Hear Appeal in Ford Class Suit
TD AMERITRADE: Discovery Ongoing in Aequitas Securities Suit
TEXAS: Court Dismisses Ortiz Inmates Civil Rights Suit
TROPICAL FANTASY BAR: McPherson Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
UNITED HEALTHCARE: Aug. 1 Fairness Hearing on Class Settlement
UNITED STATES: AFGE Files Class Action Over Government Shutdown
VISA INC: Court Stays Nuts-for-Candy Suit
VITAL PHARMACEUTICALS: Nguyen Files Fraud Class Suit in Fla.
VOESTALPINE TEXAS: Faces Abben Class Action in New York
WALMART INC: Brown Files Fraud Class Action in New York
WEST METRO: Class in Health Trust Case Granted Certification
WISCONSIN HOSPITALITY: Pfundheller Seeks Proper Reimbursements
WV AMERICAN: Women Pregnant During Water Crisis to Get Checks
*********
A-S MEDICATION: Maine Automobile Sues Over Carcinogen in Valsartan
------------------------------------------------------------------
Maine Automobile Dealers Association, Inc. Insurance Trust, On
Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v.
A-S Medication Solutions LLC; Actavis Pharma, Inc.; Aurobindo
Pharma USA, Inc.; AvKare, Inc.; Bryant Ranch Prepack, Inc.; Camber
Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; H. J. Harkins Company, Inc.; Hetero Labs
Ltd.; Huahai U.S. Inc.; Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Northwind
Pharmaceuticals, LLC; NuCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Preferred
Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Prinston Pharmaceuticals Inc.; RemedyRepack
Inc.; Solco Healthcare US, LLC; Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.; The
Harvard Drug Group, LLC; Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and Zhejiang
Huahai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-02431
(D. N.J., January 30, 2019) requests an award of compensatory
damages, punitive damages, interest, attorneys' fees, court costs,
and such other relief as may be just and proper, arising from the
presence of unsafe and illegal levels of N-nitrodimethylamine
("NDMA") and N-Nitrosodiethylamine ("NDEA") in certain lots of
Valsartan, Irbesartan, and Losartan sold in the United States and
paid for in whole or part by Plaintiff and others similarly
situated.
In July of 2018, the Defendant generic drug manufacturers and
repackagers began a recall of millions of dollars of the widely
prescribed generic high blood pressure drug Valsartan because it is
tainted with a potent carcinogen, NDMA. Then, in October 2018, the
Defendants began a recall of the generic high blood pressure drug
Irbesartan because it was tainted with a potent carcinogen, NDEA,
says the complaint.
Plaintiff, Maine Automobile Dealers Association, Inc. Insurance
Trust, is a duly organized and existing tax-exempt trust that
qualifies as a multiple employer welfare benefit plan or
arrangement established or maintained for the purpose of offering
or providing health benefits.
A-S Medication Solutions LLC is a limited liability company
organized under the laws of the State of Nebraska with a principal
place of business at 224 North Park Avenue, Fremont, Nebraska.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Peter D. St. Phillip, Esq.
Uriel Rabinovitz, Esq.
Deborah Rogozinski, Esq.
Jennifer Risener, Esq.
LOWEY DANNENBERG PC
44 South Broadway, Suite 1100
White Plains, NY 10601
Phone: 914-997-0035
Email: urabinovitz@lowey.com
pstphillip@lowey.com
drogozinski@lowey.com
jrisener@lowey.com
- and -
Gregory P. Hansel, Esq.
Sigmund D. Schutz , Esq.
Elizabeth F. Quinby, Esq.
PRETI, FLAHERTY, BELIVEAU & PACHIOS, LLP
P.O. Box 9546
Portland, ME 04112-9546
Phone: 207-791-3000
Email: ghansel@preti.com
sschutz@preti.com
equinby@preti.com
ACCOLADE INC: Fulton-Green Class Settlement Has Preliminary OK
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania issued an Order granting Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion
for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement in the case
captioned TASHICA FULTON-GREEN and DANIEL CREVAK, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
ACCOLADE, INC., Defendant. Civil Action No. 18-274. (E.D. Pa.).
Class Certification for Settlement Purposes Only: For purposes of
settlement only, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a)
and 23(b)(3), the following nationwide class is conditionally
certified:
All current and former Accolade employees whose W-2 data was
compromised as a result of the Data Disclosure which occurred on or
about January 17, 2017.
Settlement Class Representatives and Settlement Class Counsel: The
Class Representatives named in Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint
are appointed to serve as Class Representatives for settlement
purposes only. John A. Yanchunis of Morgan & Morgan Complex
Litigation Group; Bruce Steckler of Steckler Gresham Cochran PLLC;
and Charles E. Schaffer of Levin Sedran & Berman are appointed to
serve as Settlement Counsel;
Preliminary Settlement Approval: The Settlement Agreement,
including all exhibits thereto, is preliminarily approved as fair,
reasonable, and adequate, and within the range of reasonableness,
such that a presumption of fairness is appropriate for the purposes
of preliminary settlement approval;
Final Approval Hearing: A Final Fairness Hearing shall be held on
July 24, 2019 at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 10B to determine whether:
(a) this matter should be finally certified as a class action for
settlement purposes pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(b)(3) and (e); (b) the Settlement should be finally approved as
fair, reasonable, and adequate pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(e); (c) the action should be dismissed with prejudice
pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement; (d) Settlement
Class Members should be bound by the releases set forth in the
Settlement Agreement; (e) the motion of Settlement Class Counsel
for an award of attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses should be
approved pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(h); and (f)
the motion of Settlement Class Representatives for a Service Award
should be approved.
Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of the Settlement, Service
Award Request, and Fee Request shall be filed with the Court at
least 30 Days prior to the Final Approval Hearing. By no later than
14 Days prior to the Final Approval Hearing, the Parties shall file
responses, if any, to any objections, and any replies in support of
final approval of the Settlement and/or the Service Award Request
and Fee Request.
No Settlement Class Member shall be heard, and no papers, briefs,
pleadings, or other documents submitted by any Settlement Class
Member shall be received and considered by the Court, unless the
objection is (a) electronically filed with the Court by the
Objection Deadline; or (b) mailed first-class postage prepaid to
the Clerk of Court, Plaintiffs' Counsel, and Defendant's Counsel,
at the addresses listed in the Notice, and postmarked by no later
than the Objection Deadline, as specified in the Notice. Pursuant
to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(5)(A), the objection must state whether it
applies only to the objector, to a specific subset of the class, or
to the entire class, and also state with specificity the grounds
for the objection.
Any Settlement Class Member, including a Settlement Class Member
who files and serves a written objection, as described above, may
appear at the Final Approval Hearing, either in person or through
counsel hired at the Settlement Class Member's expense, to object
to or comment on the fairness, reasonableness, or adequacy of the
Settlement, the Service Award Request, or the Fee Request. If an
objecting Settlement Class Member intends to appear at the Final
Approval Hearing, either with or without counsel, he or she must
also file a notice of appearance with the Court (as well as serve
on Class Counsel and Accolade's Counsel) by the Objection Deadline.
If the objecting Settlement Class Member intends to appear at the
Final Approval Hearing through counsel, he or she must also
identify the attorney(s) representing the objecting Settlement
Class Member who will appear at the Final Approval Hearing and
include the attorney(s) name, address, phone number, e-mail
address, state bar(s) to which counsel is admitted, as well as
associated state bar numbers, and a list identifying all objections
such counsel has filed to class action settlements from January 1,
2015 to the present, the results of each objection, any court
opinions ruling on the objections, and any sanctions issued by a
court in connection with objections filed by such attorney. If the
objecting Settlement Class Member intends to request the Court for
permission to call witnesses at the Final Approval Hearing, the
objecting Settlement Class Member must provide a list of any such
witnesses together with a brief summary of each witness's expected
testimony at least sixty (60) Days before the Final Approval
Hearing.
Summary of Deadlines: The preliminarily approved Settlement shall
be administered according to its terms pending the Final Approval
Hearing. Deadlines arising under the Settlement Agreement and this
Order include but are not limited to:
Notice Deadline: 30 Days after Preliminary Approval Motion for
Final Approval: 30 Days before Final Approval Hearing Motion for
Service Awards, Attorneys' Fees and Costs: 30 Days before Final
Approval Hearing Opt-Out Deadline: 120 Days after Preliminary
Approval Objection Deadline: 120 Days after Preliminary Approval
Replies in Support of Final Approval, Service Awards and Fee
Requests: 14 Days before Final Approval Hearing Claim Deadline: 360
Days after Notice Deadline Final Approval Hearing: 180 Days after
Preliminary Approval
A full-text copy of the District Court's January 24, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y9njaa4m from Leagle.com.
TASHICA FULTON-GREEN, Plaintiff, represented by BRUCE W. STECKLER
-- bruce@stecklerlaw.com -- STECKLER GRESHAM & COCHRAN, CHARLES E.
SCHAFFER -- cschaffer@lfsblaw.com -- LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN & JOHN
A. YANCHUNIS -- jyanchunis@forthepeople.com -- MORGAN & MORGAN.
DANIEL CREVAK, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, Plaintiff, represented by CHARLES E. SCHAFFER, LEVIN
SEDRAN & BERMAN & JOHN A. YANCHUNIS, MORGAN & MORGAN.
ACCOLADE, INC., Defendant, represented by PAUL G. KARLSGODT --
pkarlsgodt@bakerlaw.com -- BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP & TYSON Y. HERROLD
-- therrold@bakerlaw.com -- BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP.
ALLIED INTERSTATE: Weinberg Files Class Action Over FDCPA Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Allied Interstate
LLC. The case is styled as Alexander J. Weinberg and Anna
Solovyova, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. Allied Interstate LLC, Defendant, Case No.
2:19-cv-00560 (E.D. N.Y., January 29, 2019).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
Allied Interstate, LLC offers development and application of
automated information processing, long-distance data transmission,
massive data collection and storage, automated high-speed
telecommunications, and contributions to the management
professionalism in credit and collection. The company was founded
in 1954 and is based in Minneapolis, Minnesota. As of September
1998, Allied Interstate, LLC operates as a subsidiary of iQor,
Inc.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
Barshay Sanders, PLLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Tel: (516) 203-7600
Fax: (516) 281-7601
Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com
ALLY FINANCIAL: Feb. 28 SmartLease Claims Filing Deadline Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Ducey and Courtney Holmes, writing for ABC15, report that if
you had a SmartLease contract with Ally Financial, GMAC or other
affiliated companies, between June 4, 2009 and June 18, 2018, you
could qualify to get back 100% of the doc fee charge.
They deadline to file a claim is February 28, 2019.
The companies claim no wrongdoing. [GN]
ALPHA RECOVERY: Sturman Sues Over Debt Collection Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alpha Recovery Corp.
The case is styled as Donna A. Sturman, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Alpha Recovery Corp
and Oliphant Financial, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-00556
(E.D. N.Y., January 29, 2019).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
Alpha Recovery Corp. is a financial institution in Centennial,
Colorado.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
Barshay Sanders, PLLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Tel: (516) 203-7600
Fax: (516) 281-7601
Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com
ARCADIA RECOVERY: Rousseau Seeks Damages Under FDCPA
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Arcadia Recovery
Bureau, LLC. The case is styled as Christine N. Rousseau,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Arcadia Recovery Bureau, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-00568 (E.D. N.Y., January 29, 2019).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
Arcadia Recovery Bureau, LLC provides accounts receivable
management solutions to organizations for bridging the gap between
services rendered and payments received. It offers first party or
early stage collection services for the billing, re-billing, and
follow-up of commercial insurance, managed care insurance,
Medicaid, Medicare, self-pay, self-pay residual, automobile
injuries, and worker's compensation in the healthcare sector.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
Barshay Sanders, PLLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Tel: (516) 203-7600
Fax: (516) 281-7601
Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com
ARSTRAT LLC: Wilson Files Suit Under FDCPA in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ARStrat, LLC. The
case is styled as Monique Wilson, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ARStrat, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00565 (E.D. N.Y., January 29, 2019).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
ARstrat is a debt collection agency.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
Barshay Sanders, PLLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Tel: (516) 203-7600
Fax: (516) 281-7601
Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com
ATLANTIC MARINE ELECTRICAL: Thorne Suit Seeks Damages Under ADA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Atlantic Marine Electrical Services, Inc. is facing a class action
lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The
case is styled as Braulio Thorne and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Atlantic Marine Electrical
Services, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00883 (S.D. N.Y.,
January 29, 2019).
Atlantic Marine provides boat lighting solutions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Tel: (212) 228-9795
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: nyjg@aol.com
BASSETT YACHT: Violates Disabilities Act,Thorne Suit Asserts
------------------------------------------------------------
Bassett Yacht & Boat Sales, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit
filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is
styled as Braulio Thorne and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Bassett Yacht & Boat Sales, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00889 (S.D. N.Y., January 29, 2019).
Bassett Yacht & Boat Sales, LLC is a Marine supply store in Old
Saybrook, Connecticut.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Tel: (212) 228-9795
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: nyjg@aol.com
BLUE DIAMOND: Gets Favorable Ruling in Almond Milk Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Susan Bird, writing for Care2, reports that finally, someone's
injected some sanity into the ongoing argument about whether plant
milks can be labeled as "milk."
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a lower
court dismissal of a class action lawsuit against Blue Diamond
Growers, the producers of Blue Diamond almond milk, on December 20,
2018.
In Painter v. Blue Diamond Growers, the plaintiffs alleged that
Blue Diamond's almond milk products should be labeled "imitation
milk" because they "substitute for and resemble dairy milk but are
nutritionally inferior to it."
Not so fast, decided the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California. This lower court didn't agree with these
assertions and booted the case.
Under California's Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law,
and Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the district court dismissed the
case for failing "to state a claim to relief that is plausible on
its face."
The plaintiffs appealed to the 9th Circuit, a federal appeals
court, which determined that under the "reasonable consumer"
standard that governs these claims, the plaintiffs must show that
members of the public are "likely to be deceived" by Blue Diamond's
labeling and advertising practices.
There's the rub, said the court. No reasonable consumer could be
misled by Blue Diamond's "unambiguous labeling or factually
accurate nutritional statements."
Hear that, Big Dairy? FDA, you listen up as well. A federal appeals
court just told you that consumers aren't stupid. We fully
understand when we're buying plant-based milk that we're not buying
cow's milk. We also understand that our plant-based choice isn't
necessarily nutritionally equivalent.
We're reaching for the almond milk, soy milk, oat milk or other
plant-based milk on purpose. We want the type of milk that doesn't
hurt animals, doesn't decimate the environment and is better for
our health. That's plant-based milk, folks.
There's no mislabeling in violation of federal law either,
according to the decision.
"Notwithstanding any resemblance to dairy milk, almond milk is not
a 'substitute' for dairy milk as contemplated by [federal law]
because almond milk does not involve literally substituting
inferior ingredients for those in dairy milk," the 9th Circuit
found.
Earlier this year, the FDA sought input from consumers as to we use
plant-based milk products and how we understand terms such as
"milk" or "yogurt" when included in the names of plant-based
products. The FDA also wanted to learn whether consumers are aware
of and understand differences between the basic nature,
characteristics, ingredients, and nutritional content of
plant-based products and their dairy counterparts.
All this information will inform the FDA's decision as to whether
plant-based milk products need special labeling rules. I don't know
about you, but I'm pretty clear on which products come from cows
and which don't. I'm also quite aware of any nutritional
differences.
This federal appeals court decision is a huge win for plant-based
milks. The only downside is that this particular opinion is
considered by the 9th Circuit to be "unpublished" and not to be
cited as precedent except in limited ways.
Nevertheless, Painter v. Blue Diamond Growers is out there now.
Litigants can find it and refer to it in legal argument, though its
final outcome isn't precedential. The fact that this outcome
exists, however, is huge -- and persuasive.
This case is the first domino to fall, Big Dairy -- but it will not
be the last. These ridiculous challenges to the ability to call
these products "milk" will now begin to fail, one by one. It's
about time, too. [GN]
BMW KOREA: More Vehicle Owners Join Collective Suit Over Fires
--------------------------------------------------------------
Seong Seung-hoon and Kim Hyo-jin, writing for Pulse, report that
BMW faces a potentially costly legal battle in South Korea as more
owners join the collective suit demanding compensation for driving
fire-prone cars even if they did not directly catch fire.
More than 3,000 BMW car owners have signed up for damage suits
against the German automaker demanding 10 million won ($8,956) to
50 million won.
The lawsuits come after a number of BMW engines caught fire in the
summer, leading to a recall of some 172,000 vehicles of 65 models
in July and October.
Heon, a local law firm, said it has filed a class-action suit
against BMW Korea, rounding up 1,200 plaintiffs in August, 800 in
October and 300 last month. Another 1,000 are said to have signed
up to the suit arranged by law firm Bareun.
Owners of burned-out cars are seeking 50 million won in damages but
their number is small. A greater number are claiming indirect harm,
such as financial loss from the potential markdown in the used-car
market and emotional distress over the fire scare. These plaintiffs
are demanding compensation of about 10 million won.
"If there are no other factors that could drive down the vehicles'
market value and the fire risk is well established in the market,
car owners are theoretically entitled to compensation (for indirect
damages)," said Sa Bong-kwan, a lawyer at law firm Jipyong.
This is also backed by past Supreme Court decisions. In May 2018,
Korea's top court ruled in favor of a charter bus company that
sought damages from its insurance firm for cutting the valuation of
its used buses despite an auto fix-up. The bus company was entitled
to the damages, the court said, even if the market value of the
vehicles was rendered low from the lack of a proper repair.
Last month, a public-private investigation team led by Korea's
transport ministry imposed a fine of 11.2 billion won against BMW,
claiming the company had concealed the auto defect and delayed
recalls of its fire-prone cars despite being aware of the problem
since 2015. [GN]
CONTINENTAL CENTRAL: Consumer Sues Over Debt Collection Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Continental Central
Credit, Inc. The case is styled as Nieysha White, individually and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Continental Central
Credit, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-00213-LAB-JLB (S.D. Cal.,
January 30, 2019).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
Continental Central Credit, Inc. offers debt collection services.
The company's clientele include Vacation Resorts International,
Tricom Management, and Pioneer Memorial Hospital. Continental
Central Credit, Inc. was founded in 1981 and is based in Carlsbad,
California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew M. Loker, Esq.
Kazerouni Law Group, APC
245 Fischer Avenue
Unit D1
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Tel: (800) 400-6808
Fax: (800) 520-5523
Email: ml@kazlg.com
DANSKE BANK: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Securities Fraud Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against Danske Bank A/S ("Danske" or
the "Company") (OTCMKT: DNKEY) and certain of its officers, on
behalf of shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired Danske
American Depositary Receipts ("ADRs") during the period between
January 9, 2014 and October 23, 2018 (the "Class Period"). Such
investors are encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's
site: www.bgandg.com/dnkey.
This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) Danske Bank's Estonian branch was facilitating
money laundering through at least March 2016; (2) that a
whistleblower had reported the Estonian money laundering to the
Company in 2013; (3) that Denmark's Financial Supervisory Authority
(the "DFSA") had been investigating the Estonian money laundering
since 2014; (4) that Danske Bank had concealed the results of its
own internal investigation from the DFSA, further exposing it to
regulatory action and fines; (5) that Danske Bank had been
overstating its historical profits by including the profits derived
from its illicit Estonian operations; and (6) that Danske Bank
lacked effective internal and reporting controls.
On October 24, 2018, the Wall Street Journal reported that the U.S.
Department of Justice, Treasury Department, and the SEC, are
investigating Danske's small Estonian branch for allegedly
processing about $234 billion from 2007 through 2015 from foreign
countries, and the CEO's resignation. The Wall Street Journal also
mentioned that Danske's management was informed that the Estonian
branch could not isolate the issue and "therefore acts against
[anti-money-laundering] legislator principles." As a result of the
abovementioned, Danske ADRs and U.S. bonds have dropped this year.
A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/dnkey or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or
his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz
& Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss in Danske
you have until March 11, 2019 to request that the Court appoint you
as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't
require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.
Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
Yael Hurwitz, Esq.
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
Email: peretz@bgandg.com [GN]
DANSKE BANK: Levi & Korsinsky Files Securities Fraud Class Actions
------------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP disclosed that class action lawsuits have
commenced on behalf of shareholders of the following
publicly-traded companies. Shareholders interested in serving as
lead plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to petition the
court and further details about the cases can be found at the links
provided. There is no cost or obligation to you.
Danske Bank A/S (OTCMKTS: DNKEY)
Class Period: Purchasers of American Depositary Receipts between
January 9, 2014 and October 23, 2018
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: March 11, 2019
Join the action:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/danske-bank-a-s-loss-form?wire=3
The lawsuit alleges: Danske Bank A/S made materially false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Danske
Bank's Estonian branch was facilitating money laundering through at
least March 2016; (ii) that a whistleblower had reported the
Estonian money laundering to the Company in 2013; (iii) that
Denmark's Financial Supervisory Authority (the "DFSA") had been
investigating the Estonian money laundering since 2014; (iv) that
Danske Bank had concealed the results of its own internal
investigation from the DFSA, further exposing it to regulatory
action and fines; (v) that Danske Bank had been overstating its
historical profits by including the profits derived from its
illicit Estonian operations; and (vi) that Danske Bank lacked
effective internal and reporting controls.
To learn more about the Danske Bank A/S class action contact
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com.
Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
55 Broadway, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10006
Telephone: (212) 363-7500
Toll Free: (877) 363-5972
Fax: (212) 363-7171
Website: www.zlk.com
Email: jlevi@levikorsinsky.com [GN]
DIVERSIFIED CONSULTANTS: Court Dismisses Martinez FDCPA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
issued an Opinion granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss in the
case captioned WALESKA MARTINEZ, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. DIVERSIFIED CONSULTANTS,
INC. and JOHN DOES 1-25, Defendants. Civil Action No. 17-11923 (ES)
(JAD). (D.N.J.).
Before the Court is Defendant Diversified Consultants, Inc.'s
motion to dismiss Plaintiff Waleska Martinez's Complaint under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
This putative class action arises from alleged violations of the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). The Plaintiff incurred
a financial obligation to Verizon. The Plaintiff's account with
Verizon became past due and entered default. To collect on that
debt, Verizon referred the financial obligation to Defendant. In an
attempt to collect on the debt, Defendant sent a collection letter
(Collection Letter) to the Plaintiff.
Count I: 15 U.S.C. Section 1692g
The Defendant's primary conclusion is that the Collection Letter
complies with Section 1692g of the FDCPA and, under the
least-sophisticated debtor standard, did not overshadow or mislead
the Plaintiff regarding her right to dispute the debt in writing.
More specifically, the Collection Letter merely provided the
consumer with the Defendant's telephone number and disclosed that
calls to or from the company may be monitored or recorded but did
not ask the consumer to call the Defendant whatsoever.
The Plaintiff's primary response emphasizes the placement of the
Defendant's telephone number three times on the Collection Letter
and the language Calls to or from this company may be monitored or
recorded. The Plaintiff also argues that the Defendant
inappropriately shifts the burden in complying with the FDCPA
apparently because the Collection Letter offers debtors the option
to dispute their debts in writing what the Plaintiff calls a
fictitious condition precedent that would require the Plaintiff to
dispute the debt, or demand verification, to have a successful
FDCPA claim against Defendant.
With respect to the form of the Collection Letter, the Court
observes that none of the factors that informed the Caprio court's
decision are present here: neither an exhortation to call nor
Defendant's telephone number is printed in bold on the Collection
Letter; Defendant's telephone number does not appear anywhere on
the Collection letter in relatively larger font. Defendant's
mailing address does not only appear in the letterhead of the
Collection Letter and the validation notice is not relegated to the
back side of the Collection Letter.
For those reasons, the Collection Letter ultimately does not
overshadow or contradict, even when viewed from the perspective of
the least sophisticated debtor.
The Court also rejects the Plaintiff's argument that apparently
because the Collection Letter offers debtors the option to dispute
their debts in writing Defendant inappropriately shifted the burden
in complying with the FDCPA.
Count II: 15 U.S.C. Section 1692e(10)
The Plaintiff's Section 1692e(10) claim is premised on the same
allegations as her Section 1692g claim. But when allegations under
15 U.S.C. Section 1692e(10) are based on the same language or
theories as allegations under 15 U.S.C. Section 1692g, the analysis
of the Section 1692g claim is usually dispositive. Because
Plaintiff cannot prevail on her claim under Section 1692g,
Plaintiff likewise cannot proceed under Section 1692e(10).
Accordingly, the Court grants the Defendant's motion to dismiss.
The Compliant is dismissed without prejudice. To the extent the
Plaintiff can cure any deficiencies identified in the Court's
Opinion, the Plaintiff may do so within thirty days in an amended
complaint. But application for dismissal may be made if a timely
amendment is not forthcoming within that time. And a failure to
amend within thirty days or to cure the deficiencies identified in
the Court's Opinion will result in a dismissal with prejudice.
A full-text copy of the District Court's January 24, 2018 Opinion
is available at https://tinyurl.com/ya5n3ell from Leagle.com.
WALESKA MARTINEZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by BENJAMIN JARRET WOLF, Jones,
Wolf & Kapasi, LLC & JOSEPH K. JONES, Jones, Wolf & Kapasi, LLC.
DIVERSIFIED CONSULTANTS, INC., Defendant, represented by AARON
RAPHAEL EASLEY -- aeasley@sessions.legal -- SESSIONS, FISHMAN,
NATHAN & ISRAEL, LLC.
ENHANCED RECOVERY: Court OK Summary Judgment in Johnson FDCPA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Indiana, Hammond Division, issued an Opinion and Order granting
Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment in the case captioned ERIN
JOHNSON, on behalf of plaintiff and a class, Plaintiff, v. ENHANCED
RECOVERY COMPANY, LLC, Defendant. No. 2:16CV330-PPS. (N.D. Ind.)
In this certified class action, the plaintiff class alleges that a
dunning letter sent by defendant Enhanced Recovery Company, LLC
(ERC) was false, misleading or confusing in violation of the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act. The parties have filed cross-motions
for summary judgment, putting before me the question whether the
claim can be decided as a matter of law based on undisputed facts,
without a trial.
The claim arises under 15 U.S.C. Section1692(e), which prohibits
false or misleading representations in connection with debt
collection, and offers a non-exhaustive list of more than a dozen
examples of impermissible conduct. A plaintiff bringing a Section
1692(e) claim is not required to prove that she was misled to her
detriment or that she suffered actual damages.
The determination whether a representation is false or misleading
is made from the perspective of what the Seventh Circuit calls an
unsophisticated consumer. Our test for determining whether a debt
collector violated Section 1692e is objective, turning not on the
question of what the debt collector knew but on whether the debt
collector's communication would deceive or mislead an
unsophisticated, but reasonable, consumer. This hypothetical person
can be uninformed, naive and trusting but has basic knowledge about
the financial world and the ability to draw logical inferences and
conclusions.
The Seventh Circuit has grouped FDCPA cases alleging deceptive or
misleading statements into three categories. The first category of
cases involve statements that on their face are plainly not
misleading or deceptive.
The second category of cases involves statements that are not
plainly misleading or deceptive but might possibly mislead or
deceive the unsophisticated consumer.
The third type of case described in Ruth is a lay down win for the
plaintiff. Ruth v. Triumph Partnerships, 577 F.3d 790, 800 (7th
Cir. 2009). In that sort of case, dismissal or summary judgment is
granted to the defendant without the need for extrinsic evidence of
consumer confusion, because even without such evidence the court
can determine that the statement complied with the law. These are
the cases where the collection letter includes plainly deceptive
language.
When confronted with such a letter, a court can grant summary
judgment to the plaintiff without requiring them to prove what is
already clear.
Recall that Johnson's claim is based on letter that she received
from ERC dated April 21 and which she received in early May. This
was the second of three letters that she received from ERC. Johnson
argues that this letter falls into the third category of claims as
discussed in Ruth that the letter is plainly misleading on its face
because it falsely suggested that credit reporting could be
prevented by timely payment of an offered settlement amount.
The argument depends on Johnson's interpretation of the phrase may
be in the notification that your delinquent account may be reported
to the national credit bureaus and her interpretation of the
subsequent sentence advising that payment of the offered settlement
amount will stop collection activity on this matter. ERC contends
that the notice is not plainly deceptive or misleading. Instead,
ERC argues this is a category 2 case as described in Ruth in which
Johnson can only prevent summary judgment in ERC's favor by
offering extrinsic evidence of consumer confusion or deception,
which Johnson admittedly does not have.
In the second sentence of the challenged language, the phrase stop
collection activity cannot reasonably be read to mean prevent
collection activity when the language appears in a letter that is
itself collection activity. Like the sentence about credit
reporting, this statement about stopping collection activity is
accurate in all three letters if understood to mean that resolution
of the debt will stop further collection activity, which for a debt
already reported means an updated report reflecting that the debt
has been resolved. With respect to a debt already reported, because
the word stop connotes bring to a halt rather than delete or
reverse, reasonable interpretation includes action taken to reflect
the satisfaction of the previously reported debt.
To the contrary, ERC expressly acknowledges that extrinsic evidence
of consumer confusion is required only in the one category of cases
involving language that is not confusing or misleading on its face
but might be so to a significant fraction of the population.
Johnson's efforts to avoid an adverse summary judgment depend on
her misinterpretation of the standard for the second category of
cases. The first and third categories involve statements that are,
on the one hand, plainly not deceptive, or, on the other, plainly
are deceptive, leaving the middle category as the broader one
encompassing statements that are only possibly deceptive. But
Johnson argues that the 7th Circuit has held that extrinsic
evidence is not required of a consumerdebtor where a collection
representation is "susceptible to two different constructions, one
of which is inaccurate.
Given the parties' rival analyses, the case turns on whether the
second category of cases requiring extrinsic evidence encompasses
those in which a collection representation is ambiguous and one
interpretation is accurate and the other false. Ruling on the
previous motion to dismiss, I noted that the word may has two
different possible meanings in its context here either can or might
in future. The former interpretation is espoused by ERC and, as a
statement of the debt's eligibility for credit reporting, was true
each time it was used in the three collection letters. Johnson
points out that if the word may is read as might in future then the
statement, when interpreted in conjunction with the next sentence
about payment stopping collection activity, might suggest that
timely payment could prevent credit reporting.
In short, it appears that the Seventh Circuit is out of step with
four other circuits in the standard it uses in Section 1692(e)
cases. But that is neither here nor there for present purposes. In
a hierarchical system of courts, my job is to follow what my
superiors tell me, and the Seventh Circuit has made it abundantly
clear that the unsophisticated debtor standard is an objective one
and is not the same as the rejected least sophisticated-debtor
standard.
In sum, ERC is correct when it argues that the two possible
interpretations require extrinsic evidence to establish that a
significant fraction of the population would be misled by the
letter's language. Because the language is not plainly deceptive,
the plaintiff must come forward with evidence beyond the letter and
beyond her own self-ser assertions that the letter is confusing in
order to create a genuine issue of material fact. This extrinsic
evidence can take the form of an appropriately designed and
conducted consumer survey or an appropriate expert witness.
Plaintiff lacks any such objective evidence, banking instead on her
assertion that the letter is deceptive on its face.
Plaintiff Erin Johnson's motion for summary judgment is denied.
Defendant Enhanced Recovery Company, LLC's motion for summary
judgment is granted.
A full-text copy of the District Court’s January 24, 2018 Opinion
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yb4gs7jc from
Leagle.com
Erin Johnson, on behalf of plaintiff and a class, Plaintiff,
represented by Cassandra P. Miller -- cmiller@edcombs.com --
Edelman Combs Latturner & Goodwin LLC, Cathleen M. Combs --
ccombs@edcombs.com -- Edelman Combs Latturner & Goodwin LLC, James
O. Latturner -- jlatturner@edcombs.com -- Edelman Combs Latturner &
Goodwin LLC & Daniel A. Edelman -- courtecl@edcombs.com -- Edelman
Combs Latturner & Goodwin LLC
Enhanced Recovery Company LLC, Defendant, represented by Patrick B.
Healy -- Patrick.Healy@lewisbrisbois.com -- Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard
& Smith LLP & Scott S. Gallagher -- ssgallagher@sgrlaw.com -- Smith
Gambrell & Russell, pro hac vice.
EZCORP INC: Bid for Appointment of Representative & Counsel Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------------
EZCORP, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on January 30, 2019, for the quarterly
period ended December 31, 2018, that the motion for appointment of
class representative and class counsel is still pending.
On July 20, 2015, Wu Winfred Huang, a purported holder of Class A
Common Stock, for himself and on behalf of other similarly situated
holders of Class A Common Stock, filed a lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Texas styled
Huang v. EZCORP, Inc., et al. (Case No. 1:15-cv-00608-SS).
The complaint names as defendants EZCORP, Inc., Stuart I. Grimshaw
(the company's chief executive officer) and Mark E. Kuchenrither
(the company's former chief financial officer) and asserts
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
The original complaint related to the Company's announcement on
July 17, 2015 that it will restate the financial statements for
fiscal 2014 and the first quarter of fiscal 2015, and alleged
generally that the Company issued materially false or misleading
statements concerning the Company, its finances, business
operations and prospects and that the Company misrepresented the
financial performance of the Grupo Finmart business.
On August 14, 2015, a substantially identical lawsuit, styled
Rooney v. EZCORP, Inc., et al. (Case No. 1:15-cv-00700-SS) was also
filed in the United States District Court for the Western District
of Texas. On September 28, 2015, the plaintiffs in these two
lawsuits filed an agreed stipulation to be appointed co-lead
plaintiffs and agreed that their two actions should be
consolidated. On November 3, 2015, the Court entered an order
consolidating the two actions under the caption In re EZCORP, Inc.
Securities
Litigation (Master File No. 1:15-cv-00608-SS), and appointed the
two plaintiffs as co-lead plaintiffs, with their respective counsel
appointed as co-lead counsel.
On January 11, 2016, the plaintiffs filed an Amended Class Action
Complaint (the "Amended Complaint"). In the Amended Complaint, the
plaintiffs seek to represent a class of purchasers of the company's
Class A Common Stock between November 6, 2012 and October 20, 2015.
The Amended Complaint asserts that the Company and Mr. Kuchenrither
violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule
10b-5, issued materially false or misleading statements throughout
the proposed class period concerning the Company and its internal
controls, specifically regarding the financial performance of Grupo
Finmart.
The plaintiffs also allege that Mr. Kuchenrither, as a controlling
person of the Company, violated Section 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act. The Amended Complaint does not assert any claims
against Mr. Grimshaw. On February 25, 2016, defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the lawsuit. The plaintiff filed an opposition to
the motion to dismiss on April 11, 2016, and the defendants filed
their reply on May 11, 2016. The Court held a hearing on the motion
to dismiss on June 22, 2016.
On October 18, 2016, the Court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss and dismissed the Amended Complaint without prejudice. The
Court gave the plaintiffs 20 days (until November 7, 2016) to file
a further amended complaint. On November 4, 2016, the plaintiffs
filed a Second Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint ("Second
Amended Complaint"). The Second Amended Complaint raises the same
claims dismissed by the Court on October 18, 2016, except
plaintiffs now seek to represent a class of purchasers of EZCORP's
Class A Common Stock between November 7, 2013 and October 20, 2015
(instead of between November 6, 2012 and October 20, 2015). On
December 5, 2016, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Second
Amended Compliant. The plaintiffs filed their opposition to the
motion to dismiss on January 6, 2017, and the defendants filed
their reply brief on January 20, 2017.
On May 8, 2017, the Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss
with regard to claims related to accounting errors relating to
Grupo Finmart's bad debt reserve calculations for "nonperforming"
loans, but denied the motion to dismiss with regard to claims
relating to accounting errors related to certain sales of loan
portfolios to third parties.
Following discovery on the surviving claims, the plaintiff filed a
Motion for Leave to File a Third Amended Complaint, seeking to
revive the "nonperforming" loan claims that the Court previously
dismissed. The company opposed that motion, and on May 14, 2018,
the Court heard oral arguments on the motion, as well as
plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification and Appointment of Class
Representative and Class Counsel, which was also pending.
On July 26, 2018, the Court granted the plaintiff's motion for
leave to amend, thus accepting the Third Amended Consolidated Class
Action Complaint, and the company filed its answer on August 3,
2018. On August 31, 2018, the plaintiff filed an Amended Motion for
Class Certification and Appointment of Class Representative and
Class Counsel, and the company filed its opposition on September
28, 2018. The Court held a hearing on that motion on November 15,
2018, and the motion is pending decision of the Court.
EZCORP said, "We cannot predict the outcome of the litigation, but
we intend to continue to defend vigorously against all allegations
and claims."
EZCORP, Inc. lends or provides credit services to people who lack
the cash or access to credit to meet short-term needs. The company
offers non-recourse loans with personal property—jewelry,
consumer electronics, tools, sporting goods, and musical
instruments—as collateral. ezcorp also sells merchandise,
primarily collateral forfeited from its pawn-lending operations.
And it provides payday loans or fee-based credit services to
customers seeking loans. The company, founded in 1989, is
headquartered in Austin, Texas.
FORT SMITH, AK: To Appeal if Lawsuit Plaintiff Gets 2nd Waiver
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jadyn Watson-Fisher, writing for Times Record, reports that the
city of Fort Smith will appeal if a judge rules the plaintiff
doesn't bear notification responsibility if its recycling lawsuit
goes to trial, City Attorney Jerry Canfield, Esq. --
jcanfield@dailywoods.com -- confirmed on Jan. 9.
Sebastian County Judge Stephen Tabor issued a notification waiver
on the claim of unjust enrichment for Jennifer Merriott in
December, releasing her from a demand by the city to notify its
citizens individually in the class action lawsuit.
Whitfield Hyman, Esq. -- email@arkansalawking.com -- one of
Merriott's attorneys, previously told the Times Record it would
have been a "huge expense" for his client to notify 33,000
residents in the class.
A hearing is scheduled for Jan.14 to determine if a waiver will be
granted on the claim of illegal exaction. Hyman said in an email on
Jan.9 there was a supplemental order issued Jan. 3 clarifying that
unjust enrichment was the only claim included in the original
waiver.
Unjust enrichment is when one party receives certain benefits it is
not entitled to and requires the restoration of what was taken.
Hyman previously said there must be an "operative act, intent or
situation" for the benefits to be considered unjust.
Illegal extraction occurs when there is any "invalid spending or
expenditure" by a member of government, Hyman said.
When Tabor issued the first notification waiver, he ruled the city
gave up its right to demand notification when it "tried to win the
case through a summary judgement motion," Hyman said.
Hyman said the supplemental order issued determined the court would
discuss "the manner and timing of notice to class members" for
illegal extraction, which he believes will occur, at least in part,
at the hearing.
It is unclear if notification will be Fort Smith's responsibility
if a second waiver is granted.
Canfield said the justification for the potential appeal is that
citizens have a right to know if the case is going to trial.
Merriott is suing Fort Smith for the alleged cost to run recycling
trucks and containers while discarding the materials at the
landfill.
According to an email sent to Colby Roe of Daily and Woods, the
city's legal counsel, Merriott demands $1.15 million to be given to
sanitation customers from October 2014 to May 2017.
The figure is an estimated cost to run the program under the
assumption that recyclables were being processed properly,
according to legal documents. Roe previously said the city
estimates the cost was less than $571,000. He said the amount is
based on the monthly recycling program operating cost multiplied by
32 months.
Merriott made a settlement offer in October, but the Fort Smith
Board of Directors refused at the end of November to accept it.
Canfield said when the directors received a lawsuit update he did
not believe either idea -- unjust enrichment or illegal exaction --
applies to the case, because there were no tax dollars involved.
All money spent on the services comes from sanitation fees
collected from residents. Canfield also said at the meeting he does
not believe the court has the authority to determine how the city
uses its assets.
"Just a reminder, there's a contractual agreement for the city of
Fort Smith to provide sanitation services to the residents, which
is what they're paying for," Ward 3 Director Mike Lorenz said at
the study session. "We have fulfilled that contract by picking up
the refuse from the houses, regardless of what truck it was in or
where it went afterwards. We fulfilled our obligation to our
citizens by picking up the trash every week."
Fort Smith is involved with three additional lawsuits, including an
appeal to the River Valley Sports Complex case.
When asked if another appeal would be a good use of city resources,
Canfield said it is, though to be the most effective, "litigation
should be dismissed by the plaintiff." He noted Merriott has no
intention of dropping the case.
Canfield also said he would not predict the city's likelihood of
winning the notification appeal and trial.
"I'm not in the business of prognosticating results," Canfield
said. He said his job is to "advise on the best course of action."
The next hearing is scheduled for 11 a.m. Jan. 14 in Room 202 of
the Sebastian County Courthouse. [GN]
FREDERICKSBURG HOT AIR: Attendee Threatens Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
S. M. Chavey, writing for mySA.com, reports that nearly 200,000
people expressed interest on Facebook in attending the
Fredericksburg Hot Air Balloon Festival and Victory Cup Polo Match
over the weekend, but many of the 1,900 who made it were less than
thrilled with what they saw.
Only two of the advertised 20 hot balloons were out, and neither of
them made it into the sky -- a problem caused entirely by windy
weather conditions that could not be prevented, Victory Cup Manager
Joe Bachmeier said in a message.
Mr. Bachmeier's response did little to comfort disgruntled
attendees, who took to Facebook to gripe about the lack of tethered
balloon rides and launchings, to say the parking system was poorly
managed and to complain about minimal organization and
lackadaisical staff. Many said they wasted hundreds of dollars. At
least one talked about filing a lawsuit.
Mr. Bachmeier expressed regret that the balloons couldn't be
launched, but said the polo match and other parts of the festival
ran as scheduled.
"The pilots, crews and balloons were on site as scheduled but
simply could not inflate due to dangerous winds," Mr. Bachmeier
said in a message. "The expense to house 20 pilots and (their)
crews was formidable. Nobody wanted the balloons to launch more
than us, for sure."
Given the deadly 2016 hot air balloon crash in Lockhart,
Mr. Bachmeier said, it especially wasn't worth the risk.
"Friday was cut short due to dangerous winds," Mr. Bachmeier said
in a message. "Had we launched balloons in that weather the
implications would have (not could have) been fatal. (Our) safety
protocols require safeguarding lives first. Balloons are beautiful,
but can be dangerous."
The rest of the event, Mr. Bachmeier said, was "phenomenal,"
drawing 1,900 people, dozens of vendors and musicians, and food to
satisfy the disgruntled crowds.
The picture he painted was vastly different picture than the one
attendees described in a Facebook group about the event.
"8 of us came from Houston, San Antonio, NY and Seattle with high
expectations. This didn't last long as we experienced this sorry
event," one man posted in the group. "To the event organizers -
shame on you. Worst run event I have ever been to."
Many said they had been looking forward to the event for months and
had spent hundreds of dollars in event fees and travel expenses.
One person threatened a class action lawsuit and said many people
expressed their support to him. Victory Cup's complimentary dinner
Saturday and its offer to guarantee free attendance to a future
event were too little, too late, according to Facebook posts.
"I just love ending a great week with getting scammed," Anthony
Bernardelli said on Facebook. "I understand that there was probably
a lot they couldn't control like mud covering the "parking lot" (a
horse pasture) and winds that made hot air balloons unable to
activate, but they CAN control how they treat the 2000+ people who
made the drive…What a freaking waste."
Ryan Vestil told mySA.com in a message that he and his girlfriend
planned to attend the event as a romantic getaway. They arrived and
purchased $60 worth of food and drink tickets, but were so
unimpressed with the few options that they returned to the check-in
booth to file a complaint.
They eventually spoke to former New York State Sen. Greg Ball, a
partner of the company that organized the event, but Mr. Vestil
said Sen. Ball was "very dismissive and condescending" and
ultimately asked security to escort Mr. Vestil and his girlfriend
out -- less than 45 minutes after arriving on the property,
Mr. Vestil said.
"The moment we jumped in shuttle along with a few other patrons the
bus driver asked how it was," Mr. Vestil said. "All 8 passengers in
the bus responded with 'well that was a waste of money.'"
Guests complained about a parking lot covered in mud, tents too
cold, and no warning that the hot air balloon launch might be
canceled. Mr. Bachmeier said they did everything they could to warn
guests to dress for cold and wet grounds. He said they added roads,
additional staff and a complimentary shuttle.
Attendees said the meal was unimpressive for the price.
Mr. Bachmeier said three chefs on site were making full steaks,
chicken, mussels, vegetables and more.
"This event was not only disappointing, poorly managed, and a waste
of money, but ultimately turned out to be a true scam," Isaiah
Manning said on Facebook. He was there with a group of 20 people to
celebrate his recent engagement. "Here's what our $135 VIP tickets
provided us: A table outside in the cold with no view of the polo
field, a school cafeteria level meal, no included beverages, and a
slew of angry people trying to steal our table. This event truly
was a scam and everyone needs to be aware of the lies and empty
promises supplied by the Victory Cup."
None of their comments, however, were on the event page itself.
Negative comments there were deleted, attendees said. So they
started their own Facebook group instead, which quickly garnered
hundreds of members.
When asked for more information about their experiences, multiple
people declined to comment, saying event organizers had threatened
legal action. Mr. Bachmeier said the organization would take action
if necessary to defend themselves from "scurrilous claims."
"We run a professional operation and will deal with respectable
complaints properly," Mr. Bachmeier said in a message. "There were
foul and profanity saturated posts that will not be tolerated. We
are monitoring slanderous and libelous activity and will take
action against lies, and personal attacks." [GN]
GOOD SHEPHERD: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Jones FLSA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Kentucky, Louisville Division, issued a Memorandum Opinion and
Order in the case captioned CASSANDRA JONES, Plaintiff, v. GOOD
SHEPHERD HEALTHCARE SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendant. Civil Action No.
3:17-cv-411-DJH. (W.D. Ky.).
Plaintiff Cassandra Jones filed this action against Defendant Good
Shepherd Healthcare Solutions, Inc., alleging violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act with respect to unpaid overtime.
Cassandra Jones worked for Good Shepherd as a home healthcare aide,
providing services such as dressing, feeding, transportation, and
housekeeping to Good Shepherd's patients. Good Shepherd allegedly
stopped paying its employees for overtime. Thus, Jones initiated
the present action seeking unpaid overtime for herself and her
coworkers under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION
Good Shepherd asks the Court to compel arbitration. But arbitration
is already underway: the parties have selected an arbitrator and
set a final arbitration date. Accordingly, Good Shepherd's motion
to compel arbitration will be denied as moot.
MOTION TO DISMISS
Good Shepherd moves to dismiss Jones's claims because the parties
entered into an arbitration agreement. Generally, proceedings
brought before the Court that are covered by valid arbitration
agreements are stayed pending the arbitration. However, the Court
has the authority to dismiss a suit pending arbitration if all of
the claims are subject to arbitration.
In determining whether to stay or dismiss proceedings, the Court
considers whether the parties agreed to arbitrate; the scope of the
agreement; whether any federal, non-arbitrable claims have been
asserted; and, if any of the claims are not subject to arbitration,
whether to stay the remainder of the proceedings.
Here, the parties agreed to arbitrate, and Jones does not dispute
the agreement's applicability to her claims or allege that the
claims are not arbitrable. In fact, the parties have already
started the arbitration process and set a final arbitration date.
Finally, arbitration will address all of Jones's claims. Thus, all
of the factors outlined above weigh in favor of dismissing the
action.
Jones contends, however, that the case should not be dismissed
because the arbitration agreement is unenforceable under Northern
Kentucky Area Development District v. Snyder, No.
2017-SC-000277-DG, 2018 WL 4628143 (Ky. Sept. 27, 2018). In Snyder,
the Kentucky Supreme Court held that, pursuant to Ky. Rev. Stat.
Section 336.700(2), arbitration agreements conditioning employment
upon their execution are unenforceable.
The court explained that Ky. Rev. Stat. Section 336.700(2) is not
preempted by federal law because it does not impede arbitration
agreements, but rather merely prohibits conditioning employment on
execution of an arbitration agreement. Id. Snyder, though, is
inapplicable here, as there is no evidence that Jones's employment
with Good Shepherd was conditioned on the arbitration agreement.
The arbitration agreement states that the mutual obligations
contained within constitute the consideration for the agreement; it
does not say that its execution is a condition precedent to Jones's
employment. Because the parties have an enforceable arbitration
agreement that encompasses all of Jones's claims, dismissal is
appropriate.
Good Shepherd's motion is granted.
A full-text copy of the District Court's January 24, 2018
Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y83kehgj from Leagle.com.
Cassandra Jones, individually & on behalf of all similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Bernard R. Mazaheri --
bmazaheri@forthepeople.com -- Morgan & Morgan & Christina T.
Mazaheri, Morgan & Morgan.
Good Shepherd Healthcare Solutions, Inc., Defendant, represented by
J. Andrew Inman -- jinman@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, PC &
LaToi D. Mayo -- lmayo@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, PC.
GOSPEL FOR ASIA: Filed Petition for Writ of Certiorari
------------------------------------------------------
Gospel for Asia, Inc., et al., the Petitioners vs. Garland D.
Murphy, III, et al., the Respondents, Case No. 18-969 (U.S.), is an
appeal filed in the Supreme Court of United States on Jan. 25, 2019
from a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth
Circuit.
The Petitioner filed for a writ of certiorari petition. Response is
due Feb. 25, 2019.
On Oct. 16, 2018, the Eighth Circuit denied a petition for
permission to appeal. The Petitioners' motion to seal portions of
the appendix and motion to file a reply were denied as moot. The
appellate case is captioned as Garland Murphy, III, et al. v.
Gospel for ASIA, Inc., et al., Case No. 18-8012 (8th Cir.). On
Nov. 14, 2018, the Eighth Circuit denied a petition for rehearing
en banc. The petition for rehearing by the panel was also denied.
As reported by the Class Action Reporter, David Carroll, Pat
Emerick, Gospel for ASIA-International, Gospel for ASIA, Inc.,
Daniel Punnose, Gisela Punnose and K.P. Yohannan filed an appeal
from a district court ruling in the lawsuit styled Garland Murphy,
III, et al. v. Gospel for ASIA, Inc., et al., Case No.
5:17-cv-05035-TLB (W.D. Ark.). The U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Arkansas in Fayetteville granted, in part, and
denied, in part, the Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class Action.
GFA is a Christian missionary organization operating in South Asia,
mainly in India. To fulfill its charitable purposes, GFA solicits
donations from donors across the world. Each year, according to
the Complaint, over one million unique donations are made to GFA
from tens of thousands of donors in the United States alone.
The lawsuit centers on the Plaintiffs' claims that, despite these
numerous representations, GFA did not, in fact, spend the donated
and designated money in accordance with the donors' wishes or with
GFA's representations. All told throughout the proposed class
period, the parties agree that approximately $375 million in
donations are at issue. The Plaintiffs have asserted a number of
causes of action against GFA, including Civil Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act, fraud, unjust enrichment, and an
Arkansas-specific claim under the Arkansas Deceptive Trade
Practices Act. [BN]
Attorneys for Gospel for Asia, Inc., et al.:
Carter G. Phillips, Esq.
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
1501 K Street,
N.W. Washington, DC 20005
HAJ INC: Court Denies Bid to Lift Stay in Ralph Suit
----------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Sothern District of
California issued an Order denying Defendant's Motion to Lift Stay
in the case captioned JOHN RALPH, Plaintiff, v. HAJ, INC.; D.O.S.
PIZZA, INC.; NORTH COUNTY PIZZA, INC.; PIZZAFELLA, LLC.; SLAMMED
PIZZA, INC.; and SLAMMED PIZZA JR., INC., Defendants. Case No.
17cv1332 JM(JMA). (S.D. Cal.).
Defendants D. O. S. Pizza, Inc. (DOS) and HAJ, Inc. (HAJ) move to
temporarily lift the stay imposed in this case and to enjoin a
related action filed by Plaintiff John Ralph in the Los Angeles
Superior Court (State Court Action).
Plaintiff John Ralph filed the First Amended Complaint (FAC) in
this federal question collective action by alleging four claims for
relief: (1) violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) (2)
violation of Cal. Labor Code Section 2802 (3) violation of Cal.
Labor Code Sections 1194, 1194.2, 1197, 1197.1, and IWC Minimum
Wage Order and Wage Order No. 5 and (4) Cal. Bus & Prof Code
Section 17200 et seq. Even though Plaintiff is directly employed by
DOS, he alleges that Defendants, collectively, operate about 74
Domino's Pizza stores in Southern California, and operate as a
single integrated enterprise and jointly operate the Domino's
restaurants as they maintain interrelated operations, centralized
control of labor relations, common management and common ownership
and financial control.
The following non-exhaustive factors are instructive in determining
whether a stay should be granted or lifted: (1) whether the movant
has made a strong showing of a likelihood of success on the merits
(2) whether the movant will be irreparably injured absent a stay
(3) whether the issuance of a stay will substantially injure other
interested parties and (4) whether the public interest supports a
stay. movant is acting in good faith.
According to moving Defendants, in order to prevent Plaintiff from
circumventing this court's orders compelling arbitration of all of
Plaintiff's claims, (Mtn. at p.1:6), the Court should grant this
motion to enjoin the Los Angeles Class Action pending the outcome
of the arbitration ordered by this Court.
The Defendants argue that the Plaintiff contravened this court's
orders and is engaging in a classic example of forum-shopping, by
commencing the State Court Action and, therefore, the State Court
Action must be enjoined to enforce this court's prior orders.
Unfortunately, the Defendants' arguments omit material
information.
Pursuant to the arbitration provision in the parties' employment
contract, this court compelled arbitration of all state and federal
claims. The Plaintiff complied with this court's orders, bringing
all claims before the arbitrator, including the Private Attorney
General Act (PAGA). However, the Defendants absolutely refused to
arbitrate the PAGA claims. Pursuant to the parties' Alternative
Dispute Resolution Agreement, the Arbitrator Harvey Berger
concluded that he did not have the authority to entertain a PAGA
representative action without the stipulation of the parties. As
Defendants expressly and repeatedly refused to arbitrate the PAGA
claims, contrary to their earlier claims to this court in its
motion to compel arbitration that all claims were subject to
arbitration,
Here, the Defendants fail to raise sufficient grounds to lift the
stay. The purpose of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) is to allow
parties to avoid the expense and delays of litigation and to place
arbitration agreements on the same footing as other contracts.
Instead of using the FAA as a means to obtain the speedy, just, and
inexpensive determination of the Plaintiff's claims, Defendants
seek to use the FAA as a dagger to extinguish the PAGA claims by
depriving Plaintiff of any competent forum to address Plaintiff's
claims. The court does not condone Defendants' efforts to duplicate
this proceeding, delay resolution of the Plaintiff's claims, and
increase the costs to all parties.
Moreover, the court will not sanction a legal strategy designed to
deprive a party from accessing competent forums for resolving legal
disputes. Under these circumstances, Defendants fail to establish
any cause for lifting the stay in order to enjoin the State Court
Action from proceeding.
In sum, the court denies the motion to lift the stay and denies the
motion to enjoin the State Court Action.
A full-text copy of the District Court's January 24, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y7xmojqv from Leagle.com.
John Ralph, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons, Plaintiff, represented by Malcolm Roberts --
roberts@landayroberts.com -- Landay Roberts LLP, Mark Alan
Potashnick -- markp@wp-attorneys.com -- Weinhaus & Potashnick, pro
hac vice & Richard M. Paul, III, Paul McInnes LLP, pro hac vice.
North County Pizza, Inc., Defendant, represented by Anthony J.
Zaller -- azaller@zallerlaw.com -- Zaller Law Group, PC, Lisa J.
Borodkin -- lisa@lisaborodkin.com -- Zaller Law Group, PC & Hanna
G. Shafran -- hshafran@zallerlaw.com -- Zaller Law Group, PC.
Slammed Pizza, Inc. & Slammed Pizza Jr. Inc., Defendants,
represented by Chad Daniel Bernard -- chad.bernard@jacksonlewis.com
-- Jackson Lewis P.C., Aimee E. Axelrod Parker --
aaparker@cozen.com -- Cozen O Connor & Matthew Thomas Drenan --
matthew.drenan@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis, P.C.
HAJ, Inc. & D.O.S Pizza, Inc., Defendants, represented by Lisa J.
Borodkin , Zaller Law Group, PC & Hanna G. Shafran , Zaller Law
Group, PC.
HEALTHPLUS SURGERY: Owner Sued Over HIV, Hepatitis Exposure
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sergio Bichao, writing for New Jersey 101.5, reports that a real
estate developer and medical executive is being personally sued by
a patient of a surgery center where state health officials said
thousands of people were potentially exposed to viruses such as HIV
and hepatitis.
The lawsuit filed on Dec. 31 in Superior Court in Hackensack is at
least the second to target HealthPlus Surgery Center in Saddle
Brook, which is owned by Yan Moshe, whose portfolio includes Hudson
Regional Hospital in Secaucus. The hospital, which previously went
by the name Meadowlands Hospital Medical Center, was not faulted in
the state Department of Health investigation in December, which
found that the Saddle Brook facility failed to follow cleaning and
sterilization procedures.
The facility is recommending blood testing to the 3,700 patients
who received treatment there between Jan. 1 and Sept. 7, 2018, when
the state ordered the facility to temporarily shut down. HealthPlus
is paying for any testing done at LabCorp or at Hudson Regional
Hospital.
The center has blamed the lapses on two fired employees. As part of
a corrective plan, HealthPlus must conduct quarterly infection
control audits and sterilization audits every six months.
So far, at least one patient has tested positive for hepatitis, but
HealthPlus attorney Mark Manigan said preliminary results suggest a
pre-existing condition of chronic hepatitis. Health officials say
the risk for actual infection is low.
A Passaic County woman who had received treatment at the facility
joined her husband in suing the center. The lawsuit filed by of the
Fort Lee firm Maggiano, DiGirolamo & Lizzi seeks to represent all
patients who may have been affected.
On Dec. 31, another woman also filed suit, charging the facility
with negligence, battery, and malice. The lawsuit filed by Rochelle
Park attorney Michael J. Epstein also seeks class-action status on
behalf of all patients and their spouses or sexual partners.
The lawsuit also names administrator Betty McCabe as a defendant.
The center's nursing director resigned a day before the facility
was closed in September. [GN]
HIRERIGHT LLC: Richardson Files Class Action Under FCRA in Maine
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hireright LLC. The
case is styled as David K Richardson, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Hireright LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-00052-GZS (D. Me., January 29, 2019).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
HireRight, Inc. provides on-demand employment background checks,
drug and health screening, and electronic Form I-9 and E-Verify
solutions that help employers to automate, manage, and control
background screening and related programs. The company offers
HireRight Enterprise, an integrated enterprise screening management
solution that enables communication and collaboration among various
team members, including human resources, recruiting, security, and
hiring managers at multiple locations; and HireRight Professional
that helps users to identify the right person for each job, and
maintain control over the entire background checking and drug
testing process through a screening dashboard.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew A. Schmidt, Esq.
Andrew Schmidt Law PLLC
97 India Street
Portland, ME 04101
Tel: (207) 619-0320
Email: andy@maineworkerjustice.com
HOME DEPOT USA: Munoz Sues Over Methylene Chloride Exposure
------------------------------------------------------------
George Munoz, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Home Depot USA, Inc., a Delaware
corporation, Defendant, Case No. 8:19-cv-00251-WFJ-SPF (M.D. Fla.,
January 30, 2019) seeks to represent a proposed class that may be
generally defined as all persons in the United States who purchased
Premium Stripper and such other paint stripping products containing
methylene chloride, at a Home Depot store.
As part of its suite of products, Home Depot sells various paint
stripper products, many of which manufactured by W.M. Barr &
Company. Premium Stripper and such other W.M. Barr/Klean Strip
products sold at Home Depot stores contain the chemical, methylene
chloride. The Obama administration, in its final days, concluded
that this chemical represented unreasonable risks and moved to ban
its use in paint strippers.
According to the complaint, Home Depot was incredibly late to
remove these products from stores. Worse, the phase out approach by
Home Depot was an obvious measure to ensure that revenue would not
be lost from existing merchandise.
An unfortunate pawn in the slow moving phase out process by Home
Depot, on October 22, 2018, months after the industry decision to
remove these products, Plaintiff purchased Premium Stripper from a
Home Depot store. Despite religiously following label directions,
including utilizing the product outdoors and with an appropriate
face mask, Plaintiff developed a significant lung infection from
the product which caused him to be hospitalized, says the
complaint.
Plaintiff was and is a resident of Tampa, Florida.
Home Depot is a massive, Fortune 50 corporation, with over 2,200
big-box, home improvement stores scattered throughout the United
States, Canada, and Mexico.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James P. Gitkin, Esq.
SALPETER GITKIN, LLP
One East Broward Boulevard, Suite 1500
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: (954) 467-8622
Facsimile: (954) 467-8623
JACKSON, MI: Hill Files Petition for Writ of Certiorari
-------------------------------------------------------
Terrence Hill, the Petitioner vs. City of Jackson, Michigan, et
al., the Respondents, Case No. 18-963 (U.S.), is an appeal filed in
the Supreme Court of United States on Jan. 25, 2019, from a lower
court decision dated Oct. 22, 2018, in Case No. 17-1386 (6th Cir.)
The Petitioner filed a petition for writ of certiorari. Response
is due February 25, 2019.
The case concerns the demolition of a home at 1010 Maple Avenue in
Jackson, Michigan, as a part of the efforts of the City and County
of Jackson to remove blight. Terrence Hill purchased 1010 Maple
Avenue via quitclaim deed at a public auction held by the County,
but he did not receive the required seller's notice that the
property was condemned. The City then demolished the home subject
to an existing demolition order that had been issued while the
County was the property owner. Hill argues that this unnoticed
demolition was without due process of law and violated his equal
protection rights. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
concluded that the district court correctly held for the City and
the County on Hill's claims.
Attorneys for Petitioner:
John H. DeYampert Jr., Esq.
THE DEYAMPERT LAW COMPANY, PLLC 25240
Lahser Road, Suite No. 1
Southfield, MI 48033
E-mail: jdeyampert@deyampertlawco.com
JAMES CRAIG SWAPP: Court Won't Dismissal Suit Over PTCRs
--------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for Eastern District of Washington
issued an Order denying Defendants' Motion to Dismiss in the case
captioned JADE WILCOX on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situation, Plaintiff, v. JAMES CRAIG SWAPP, individually; and SWAPP
LAW, PLLC, doing business as Craig Swapp and Associates,
Defendants. No. 2:17-CV-275-RMP. (E.D. Wash.).
Before the Court is Defendants James Craig Swapp and Swapp Law,
PLLC's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint.
The complaint alleges that following car accidents in Washington,
the Washington State Patrol ("WSP") prepares Police Traffic
Collision Reports ("PTCRs") using a standardized collision report
form. Before the Court issued a preliminary injunction in the
Batiste case requiring the WSP to institute procedures to redact
personal information, the WSP would sell these unredacted records
to any third party that would ask and pay for them.
Ms. Wilcox claims that the PTCRs are prepared using a software
called SECTOR. SECTOR allows officers to scan the bar code on a
driver's license or a vehicle registration to auto-populate the
PTCR form with a driver's personal information. The data are
placed on the bar codes by the Washington State Department of
Licensing ("DOL") when the DOL creates the licenses and
registrations. The information scanned from a driver's license's
bar code includes a driver's name, address, license number, and
date of birth, among other things.
The information scanned from a motor vehicle registration's bar
code includes a driver's name and home address, as well as
information about the driver's vehicle.
Ms. Wilcox alleges that the Defendants purchased more than 10,000
of these PTCRs from the WSP. The Defendants would then use the
personal information on the PTCRs to send letters and pamphlets to
the persons involved in the accidents to solicit clients for
Defendants' automobile personal injury practice. The letters would
contain Defendant Craig Swapp's signature. Ms. Wilcox claims that
she was involved in two separate car accidents. She alleges that
Defendants purchased the PTCRs created as a result of these
accidents.
Wilcox alleges that Defendants sent her a letter advertising their
services, using Plaintiff's personal information gleaned from her
Collision Reports. The letter was signed by Defendant Craig Swapp.
The Defendants argue that Ms. Wilcox fails to allege facts that
establish a DPPA claim. The DPPA sets forth the three elements
giving rise to liability, i.e., that a defendant (1) knowingly
obtained, disclosed or used personal information (2) from a motor
vehicle record (3) for a purpose not permitted.
Knowingly Obtaining, Disclosing, or Using Personal Information
The first element of a DPPA claim is that the defendant knowingly
obtained, disclosed, or used personal information. The parties
dispute whether the complaint sufficiently alleges that Defendant
Craig Swapp knowingly used personal information.
The DPPA defines personal information as information that
identifies an individual, including an individual's photograph,
social security number, driver identification number, name, address
but not the 5-digit zip code, telephone number, and medical or
disability information, but does not include information on
vehicular accidents, driving violations, and driver's status.
Ms. Wilcox alleges that the solicitation letters Defendants would
send out contained Mr. Swapp's signature. She claims the
solicitation letter that she received contained Mr. Swapp's
signature as well. Construing the first amended complaint in the
light most favorable to Ms. Wilcox, Mr. Swapp's personal signature
on the letter to Ms. Wilcox sufficiently supports Ms. Wilcox's
plausible allegation that Mr. Swapp put the personal information
from the PTCRs into action or service, carried out a purpose or
action with Ms. Wilcox's personal information, and employed her
personal information for the accomplishment of a purpose by placing
his signature on the solicitation letters. Mr. Swapp's signature
gave the solicitation letters legitimacy in Defendants' offering of
legal services. Accordingly, the complaint adequately alleges that
Mr. Swapp used"personal information within the meaning of the
DPPA.
In their reply brief and at oral argument, the Defendants argue
that the complaint fails to allege that Mr. Swapp personally penned
his signature on the solicitation letters, and that the lack of
that allegation shows that Mr. Swapp did not personally use the
personal information within the meaning of the DPPA. Essentially,
Defendants argue that because there is no allegation that Mr. Swapp
signed the letters himself, rather than someone else putting his
signature on the letter for him, Mr. Swapp cannot be liable under
the DPPA.
The idea that Mr. Swapp cannot be liable for his own signature on a
document because someone else placed it there is flawed. An
attorney's signature represents the attorney's endorsement of the
content within the document and the purpose for which the document
was used. An attorney would not be absolved from Rule 11 misconduct
by alleging he or she did not personally sign a document submitted
to the Court. The Court finds that Mr. Swapp, an attorney, should
understand the significance of having his personal signature
attached to the letter to Ms. Wilcox and others.
Therefore, Mr. Swapp's argument is not persuasive.
The Court finds that the first amended complaint sufficiently
alleges that Mr. Swapp used personal information within the meaning
of the DPPA.
From a Motor Vehicle Record
The second element of a DPPA claim is that the personal information
used, obtained, or disclosed was from a motor vehicle record. The
parties dispute whether a driver's license or motor vehicle
registration is a motor vehicle record for the purposes of DPPA
liability.
The DPPA defines a motor vehicle record as any record that pertains
to a motor vehicle operator's permit, motor vehicle title, motor
vehicle registration, or identification card issued by a department
of motor vehicles.
When presented with these potential readings of the statute at oral
argument, Defendants argued that it was not the intent of Congress
to potentially criminalize certain uses of a driver's license by
businesses that hold driver's licenses as collateral for renting or
using a business's services, such as reserving or renting a locker
at a gym. According to Defendants, the personal information must
come directly from a motor vehicle record kept by the state's DOL
to receive DPPA protection.
In response, Ms. Wilcox argued that personal information is
protected by the DPPA even if it is found in a location other than
a state DOL record if that information is originally sourced to the
state licensing department. She argued that it makes no difference
where the personal information is found; if its original source is
a motor vehicle record from the state licensing department, Ms.
Wilcox argues that the DPPA protects that information.
The Court turns to the plain text of the statute. Starting with the
definition of a motor vehicle record, Ms. Wilcox has provided
several different interpretations that would satisfy the pertains
definition from Lake while also applying to Defendants' conduct in
this case. First, the information on the driver's license or motor
vehicle registration itself is a part of the motor vehicle
operator's permit or registration, showing that the information may
pertain to the motor vehicle's operator permit or registration.
Second, the first amended complaint alleges that PTCRs are created
with the SECTOR system, which requires police officers to scan the
bar code on the back of a driver's license or registration card. A
bar code is at least a part of, if not also a member, accessory, or
product of, a motor vehicle operator's permit or registration.
The plain language of the statute is also devoid of the requirement
that the personal information come directly from a state's
licensing department, as Defendants argue. The statute only says
that the personal information comes from a motor vehicle record.
The statute does not say that the personal information must be
copied directly from a motor vehicle record, or that the
information loses its protected status if it is first put on
another object, like a driver's license; rather, the statute states
that the personal information is protected if it comes from a motor
vehicle record.
Therefore, the Court concludes that the DPPA protects the
information on driver's licenses and motor vehicle registrations,
because the information on those items come from a motor vehicle
record at the state DOL. The Court finds that Ms. Wilcox has
sufficiently alleged that the personal information received by
Defendants on PTCRs came from a motor vehicle record.
For the same reasons, the Court also rejects Defendants' argument
that Ms. Wilcox cannot allege DPPA violations because she provided
her driver's license and registration to the police officer, who
used them to create the PTCRs. The Court will not rule on this
issue, and instead finds that Ms. Wilcox's complaint against
Defendants sufficiently alleges that the information obtained and
used by Defendants was from a motor vehicle record.
For a Purpose Not Permitted
The third element of a DPPA claim is that the personal information
from a motor vehicle record was obtained, disclosed, or used for a
purpose not permitted under the statute. The parties do not dispute
that using DPPA-protected information for the solicitation of legal
services is a purpose not permitted by the DPPA.
Therefore, the Court finds that Ms. Wilcox's complaint sufficiently
alleges that Defendants obtained and used DPPA-protected personal
information for a purpose not permitted.
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, is denied.
A full-text copy of the District Court's January 24, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ybhph2px from Leagle.com.
Jade Wilcox, on behalf of herself, and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by James Richard Sweetser,
Sweetser Law Office, Jason M. Leviton -- jason@blockesq.com --
Block & Leviton LLP, pro hac vice, Robert Joseph Barton --
jbarton@blockesq.com -- Block & Leviton LLP, pro hac vice, Thomas
G. Jarrard, Law Office of Thomas G. Jarrard & Marcus Sweetser,
Sweetser Law Office.
James Craig Swapp, individually & Swapp Law PLLC, doing business as
Craig Swapp and Associates, Defendants, represented by Barbara J.
Duffy -- duffyb@lanepowell.com -- Lane Powell PC, Ryan P. McBride
-- mcbrider@lanepowell.com -- Lane Powell PC & Taylor Washburn,
Lane Powell PC.
James R Sweetser & Sweetser Law Office, Interested Partys,
represented by Michael Bradley Love, Michael Love Law Firm PLLC.
MADDOCKS COLLECTION: Wyche Files FDCPA Suit in New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Maddocks Collection
Services, LLC. The case is styled as James J. Wyche, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Maddocks Collection Services, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
2:19-cv-00559 (E.D. N.Y., January 29, 2019).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
Maddocks Collection Services is a nationwide collection agency
specializing in debt collection and receivables management
services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
Barshay Sanders, PLLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Tel: (516) 203-7600
Fax: (516) 281-7601
Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com
MDL 2804: Overton County Joins Opioid Crisis Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Livingston Enterprise reports that Overton County is part of a
legion of state and local governments across the United States that
have filed a class action lawsuit against a handful of
pharmaceutical companies on a slew of allegations.
The civil action was brought about to eliminate the hazard to
public health and safety caused by a national epidemic of opioid
deaths and addictions. [GN]
MICROSOFT CORP: Canadian Cellphone Class Suit Still Remains Dormant
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Microsoft Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 30, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2018, that the purported class
action suit filed in the Supreme Court of British Columbia still
remains dormant.
Microsoft Mobile Oy, along with other handset manufacturers and
network operators, is a defendant in a 2013 class action lawsuit
filed in the Supreme Court of British Columbia by a purported class
of Canadians who have used cellular phones for at least 1,600
hours, including a subclass of users with brain tumors, alleging
adverse health effects from cellular phone use.
Microsoft was served with the complaint in June 2014 and has been
substituted for the Nokia defendants. The litigation has been
dormant for more than three years.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Microsoft Corporation develops, licenses, and supports software,
services, devices, and solutions worldwide. The company was founded
in 1975 and is headquartered in Redmond, Washington.
MICROSOFT CORP: Final Settlement Approved in Canadian Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Microsoft Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 30, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2018, that the final settlement
of class action lawsuits in Canada has been approved by the courts
in British Columbia, Ontario, and Quebec, and the claims
administration process will commence.
Antitrust and unfair competition class action lawsuits were filed
against the company in British Columbia, Ontario, and Quebec,
Canada. All three have been certified on behalf of Canadian
indirect purchasers who acquired licenses for Microsoft operating
system software and/or productivity application software between
1998 and 2010.
The trial of the British Columbia action commenced in May 2016.
Following a mediation, the parties agreed to a global settlement of
all three Canadian actions, and submitted the proposed settlement
agreement to the courts in all three jurisdictions for approval.
The final settlement has been approved by the courts in British
Columbia, Ontario, and Quebec, and the claims administration
process will commence.
Microsoft Corporation develops, licenses, and supports software,
services, devices, and solutions worldwide. The company was founded
in 1975 and is headquartered in Redmond, Washington.
MONSANTO COMPANY: Somerlott Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
---------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD SOMERLOTT, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the
Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-00103-CDP (E.D. Mo., Jan. 25, 2019),
seeks to recover damages suffered by the Plaintiff, as a direct and
proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct
in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing,
packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution,
labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the
active ingredient glyphosate.
The Plaintiffs say that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is
defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be
marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and
directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The
Plaintiffs' injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly
situated victims across the country, were avoidable.
The Plaintiffs bring this action for personal injuries sustained by
exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient
glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA).
As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the
Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma.
Roundup refers to all formulations of the Defendant's Roundup
products, including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison
Ivy and Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup
D-Pak Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide,
Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass
Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup
Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro
Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kirk J. Goza, Esq.
GOZA & HONNOLD LLC
9500 Nall Ave. Suite 400
Overland Park, KS 66207
Telephone: (913) 451-3433
Facsimile: (913) 839-0567
E-mail: kgoza@gohonlaw.com
MONSANTO COMPANY: Whaley Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
------------------------------------------------------------
PEGGY WHALEY, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant,
Case No. 4:19-cv-00101-JAR (E.D. Mo., Jan. 25, 2019), seeks to
recover damages suffered by the Plaintiff, as a direct and
proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct
in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing,
packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution,
labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the
active ingredient glyphosate.
The Plaintiffs say that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is
defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be
marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and
directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The
Plaintiffs' injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly
situated victims across the country, were avoidable.
The Plaintiffs bring this action for personal injuries sustained by
exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient
glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA).
As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the
Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma.
Roundup refers to all formulations of the Defendant's Roundup
products, including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison
Ivy and Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup
D-Pak Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide,
Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass
Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup
Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro
Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kirk J. Goza, Esq.
GOZA & HONNOLD LLC
9500 Nall Ave. Suite 400
Overland Park, KS 66207
Telephone: (913) 451-3433
Facsimile: (913) 839-0567
E-mail: kgoza@gohonlaw.com
MR. HUDSON'S: Leon Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Illegal Termination
--------------------------------------------------------------
Emilio Leon, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Mr. Hudson's Cleaning Service, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00935 (S.D. N.Y., January 30, 2019)
seeks to recover maximum liquidated damages and attorneys' fees
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the New York
Minimum Wage Act ("NYMWA") and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL").
The Defendant willfully failed to pay Plaintiff an overtime rate of
at least 1.5 times his regular rate of pay for each and all hours
worked in excess of 40 hours in a week, for each week in which such
overtime was worked, says the complaint.
Plaintiff also complains that he was terminated, discharged, and
discriminated, in retaliation by Defendant because, in good faith,
he complained of and opposed Defendant's failure to pay his
required overtime wages. Such retaliatory termination violates the
FLSA and NYLL, notes the complaint.
Plaintiff Emilio Leon is an adult residing in Kings County in the
State of New York.
Mr. Hudson's Cleaning Service, LLC was a New York for-profit
Limited Liability Company with a place of business located at 1375
Broadway, 3rd Floor, New York, NY 10018.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Abdul K. Hassan, Esq.
Abdul Hassan Law Group, PLLC
215-28 Hillside Avenue
Queens Village, NY 11427
Phone: 718-740-1000
Fax: 718-355-9668
Email: abdul@abdulhassan.com
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Alderman Files Personal Injury Suit in Indiana
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as Christopher Alderman,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association and
Mississippi College, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00367-SEB-MJD
(S.D. Ind., January 27, 2019).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as personal
injury.
The National Collegiate Athletic Association is a non-profit
organization which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American
institutions and conferences.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey L. Raizner, Esq.
RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
2402 Dunlavy Street
Houston, TX 77006
Tel: (713) 554-9099
Fax: (713) 554-9098
Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Bartos Suit Alleges Claim for Personal Injury
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as John Bartos,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00290-JRS-MPB (S.D. Ind., January 25, 2019).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as personal
injury.
The National Collegiate Athletic Association is a non-profit
organization which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American
institutions and conferences.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey L. Raizner, Esq.
RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
2402 Dunlavy Street
Houston, TX 77006
Tel: (713) 554-9099
Fax: (713) 554-9098
Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Bradwell Suit Asserts Personal Injury Claim
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as Edward Bradwell,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00375-JRS-TAB (S.D. Ind., January 27, 2019).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as personal
injury.
The National Collegiate Athletic Association is a non-profit
organization which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American
institutions and conferences.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey L. Raizner, Esq.
RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
2402 Dunlavy Street
Houston, TX 77006
Tel: (713) 554-9099
Fax: (713) 554-9098
Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Butler Files Personal Injury Suit in Indiana
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as Quinto Butler,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00304-JPH-TAB (S.D. Ind., January 25, 2019).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as personal
injury.
The National Collegiate Athletic Association is a non-profit
organization which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American
institutions and conferences.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey L. Raizner, Esq.
RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
2402 Dunlavy Street
Houston, TX 77006
Tel: (713) 554-9099
Fax: (713) 554-9098
Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: C. Moore Files Personal Injury Case
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as Cornell Moore,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00369-JRS-TAB (S.D. Ind., January 27, 2019).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as personal
injury.
The National Collegiate Athletic Association is a non-profit
organization which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American
institutions and conferences.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey L. Raizner, Esq.
RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
2402 Dunlavy Street
Houston, TX 77006
Tel: (713) 554-9099
Fax: (713) 554-9098
Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Crawford Suit Asserts Personal Injury Claim
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as David Crawford,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association and Wagner
College, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00373-JRS-DML (S.D. Ind.,
January 27, 2019).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as personal
injury.
The National Collegiate Athletic Association is a non-profit
organization which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American
institutions and conferences.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey L. Raizner, Esq.
RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
2402 Dunlavy Street
Houston, TX 77006
Tel: (713) 554-9099
Fax: (713) 554-9098
Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Doss Class Suit Asserts Personal Injury Claim
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as Christopher Doss,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00368-JMS-MPB (S.D. Ind., January 27, 2019).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as personal
injury.
The National Collegiate Athletic Association is a non-profit
organization which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American
institutions and conferences.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey L. Raizner, Esq.
RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
2402 Dunlavy Street
Houston, TX 77006
Tel: (713) 554-9099
Fax: (713) 554-9098
Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Dupree Files PI Suit in S.D. Indiana
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as Leandre Dupree,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00298-JMS-MPB (S.D. Ind., January 25, 2019).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as personal
injury.
The National Collegiate Athletic Association is a non-profit
organization which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American
institutions and conferences.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey L. Raizner, Esq.
RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
2402 Dunlavy Street
Houston, TX 77006
Tel: (713) 554-9099
Fax: (713) 554-9098
Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Dziuk Suit Asserts Personal Injury Claim
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as Dustin Dziuk,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00278-JMS-TAB (S.D. Ind., January 25, 2019).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as personal
injury.
The National Collegiate Athletic Association is a non-profit
organization which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American
institutions and conferences.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey L. Raizner, Esq.
RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
2402 Dunlavy Street
Houston, TX 77006
Tel: (713) 554-9099
Fax: (713) 554-9098
Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Ellis Suit Alleges Personal Injury Claim
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as Kai Ellis, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-00296-JRS-DLP (S.D. Ind., January 25, 2019).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as personal
injury.
The National Collegiate Athletic Association is a non-profit
organization which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American
institutions and conferences.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey L. Raizner, Esq.
RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
2402 Dunlavy Street
Houston, TX 77006
Tel: (713) 554-9099
Fax: (713) 554-9098
Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Faces Gage Personal Injury Suit in Indiana
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as Justin Gage,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00295-RLY-MPB (S.D. Ind., January 25, 2019).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as personal
injury.
The National Collegiate Athletic Association is a non-profit
organization which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American
institutions and conferences.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey L. Raizner, Esq.
RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
2402 Dunlavy Street
Houston, TX 77006
Tel: (713) 554-9099
Fax: (713) 554-9098
Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Ferrara Files Personal Injury Suit in Indiana
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as Robert Ferrara,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00307-JMS-MJD (S.D. Ind., January 25, 2019).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as personal
injury.
The National Collegiate Athletic Association is a non-profit
organization which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American
institutions and conferences.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey L. Raizner, Esq.
RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
2402 Dunlavy Street
Houston, TX 77006
Tel: (713) 554-9099
Fax: (713) 554-9098
Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Helu Files Personal Injury Suit in Indiana
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as Soma Helu, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-00310-RLY-MJD (S.D. Ind., January 25, 2019).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as personal
injury.
The National Collegiate Athletic Association is a non-profit
organization which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American
institutions and conferences.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey L. Raizner, Esq.
RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
2402 Dunlavy Street
Houston, TX 77006
Tel: (713) 554-9099
Fax: (713) 554-9098
Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: K. Moore Files Personal Injury Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as Kevin Moore,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00388 (S.D. Ind., January 27, 2019).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as personal
injury.
The National Collegiate Athletic Association is a non-profit
organization which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American
institutions and conferences.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Kaaekuahiwi Files PI Suit in S.D. Indiana
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as Joseph Kaaekuahiwi,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00292-JRS-MJD (S.D. Ind., January 25, 2019).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as personal
injury.
The National Collegiate Athletic Association is a non-profit
organization which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American
institutions and conferences.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey L. Raizner, Esq.
RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
2402 Dunlavy Street
Houston, TX 77006
Tel: (713) 554-9099
Fax: (713) 554-9098
Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Kershaw Suit Asserts Claim for Personal Injury
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as Kris Kershaw,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00274-RLY-TAB (S.D. Ind., January 25, 2019).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as personal
injury.
The National Collegiate Athletic Association is a non-profit
organization which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American
institutions and conferences.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey L. Raizner, Esq.
RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
2402 Dunlavy Street
Houston, TX 77006
Tel: (713) 554-9099
Fax: (713) 554-9098
Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Lewis Suit Asserts Claim for Personal Injury
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as Michael Lewis,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00302-SEB-TAB (S.D. Ind., January 25, 2019).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as personal
injury.
The National Collegiate Athletic Association is a non-profit
organization which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American
institutions and conferences.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey L. Raizner, Esq.
RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
2402 Dunlavy Street
Houston, TX 77006
Tel: (713) 554-9099
Fax: (713) 554-9098
Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: McGuirl Asserts Claim for Personal Injury
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as Kevin McGuirl,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00297-JRS-MJD (S.D. Ind., January 25, 2019).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as personal
injury.
The National Collegiate Athletic Association is a non-profit
organization which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American
institutions and conferences.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey L. Raizner, Esq.
RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
2402 Dunlavy Street
Houston, TX 77006
Tel: (713) 554-9099
Fax: (713) 554-9098
Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Mileto Suit Asserts Personal Injury Claim
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as Stephen Mileto,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00311-JMS-DLP (S.D. Ind., January 25, 2019).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as personal
injury.
The National Collegiate Athletic Association is a non-profit
organization which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American
institutions and conferences.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey L. Raizner, Esq.
RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
2402 Dunlavy Street
Houston, TX 77006
Tel: (713) 554-9099
Fax: (713) 554-9098
Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Moon Asserts Claim for Personal Injury
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as Marvin Moon, Jr.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00299-TWP-TAB (S.D. Ind., January 25, 2019).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as personal
injury.
The National Collegiate Athletic Association is a non-profit
organization which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American
institutions and conferences.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey L. Raizner, Esq.
RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
2402 Dunlavy Street
Houston, TX 77006
Tel: (713) 554-9099
Fax: (713) 554-9098
Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Porras Suit Asserts Personal Injury Claim
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as Roberto Porras,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00309-JPH-DML (S.D. Ind., January 25, 2019).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as personal
injury.
The National Collegiate Athletic Association is a non-profit
organization which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American
institutions and conferences.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey L. Raizner, Esq.
RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
2402 Dunlavy Street
Houston, TX 77006
Tel: (713) 554-9099
Fax: (713) 554-9098
Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Sawyer Suit Asserts Claim for Personal Injury
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as Rhondell Sawyer,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00306-JRS-DML (S.D. Ind., January 25, 2019).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as personal
injury.
The National Collegiate Athletic Association is a non-profit
organization which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American
institutions and conferences.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey L. Raizner, Esq.
RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
2402 Dunlavy Street
Houston, TX 77006
Tel: (713) 554-9099
Fax: (713) 554-9098
Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Seals Suit Asserts Personal Injury Claim
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as Ray Ezell Seals,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00305-TWP-TAB (S.D. Ind., January 25, 2019).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as personal
injury.
The National Collegiate Athletic Association is a non-profit
organization which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American
institutions and conferences.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey L. Raizner, Esq.
RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
2402 Dunlavy Street
Houston, TX 77006
Tel: (713) 554-9099
Fax: (713) 554-9098
Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Stowe Files PI Suit in S.D. Indiana
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as Andrew Stowe,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association and Austin
College, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00365-JPH-DLP (S.D. Ind.,
January 27, 2019).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as personal
injury.
The National Collegiate Athletic Association is a non-profit
organization which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American
institutions and conferences.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey L. Raizner, Esq.
RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
2402 Dunlavy Street
Houston, TX 77006
Tel: (713) 554-9099
Fax: (713) 554-9098
Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Swanson Files PI Suit in S.D. Indiana
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as Daniel Swanson,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00370-TWP-MPB (S.D. Ind., January 27, 2019).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as personal
injury.
The National Collegiate Athletic Association is a non-profit
organization which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American
institutions and conferences.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey L. Raizner, Esq.
RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
2402 Dunlavy Street
Houston, TX 77006
Tel: (713) 554-9099
Fax: (713) 554-9098
Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Thompson Files PI Suit in S.D. Indiana
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as Dean Thompson,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00372-JRS-MPB (S.D. Ind., January 27, 2019).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as personal
injury.
The National Collegiate Athletic Association is a non-profit
organization which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American
institutions and conferences.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey L. Raizner, Esq.
RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
2402 Dunlavy Street
Houston, TX 77006
Tel: (713) 554-9099
Fax: (713) 554-9098
Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Thornton Files PI Suit in S.D. Indiana
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as Joseph Thornton,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00293-JPH-TAB (S.D. Ind., January 25, 2019).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as personal
injury.
The National Collegiate Athletic Association is a non-profit
organization which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American
institutions and conferences.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey L. Raizner, Esq.
RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
2402 Dunlavy Street
Houston, TX 77006
Tel: (713) 554-9099
Fax: (713) 554-9098
Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Vickers Suit Asserts Personal Injury Claim
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as Maxalan Vickers,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00300-TWP-TAB (S.D. Ind., January 25, 2019).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as personal
injury.
The National Collegiate Athletic Association is a non-profit
organization which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American
institutions and conferences.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey L. Raizner, Esq.
RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
2402 Dunlavy Street
Houston, TX 77006
Tel: (713) 554-9099
Fax: (713) 554-9098
Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Whitehead Files PI Suit in S.D. Indiana
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as Eddie Whitehead,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00374-JPH-MPB (S.D. Ind., January 27, 2019).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as personal
injury.
The National Collegiate Athletic Association is a non-profit
organization which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American
institutions and conferences.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey L. Raizner, Esq.
RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
2402 Dunlavy Street
Houston, TX 77006
Tel: (713) 554-9099
Fax: (713) 554-9098
Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Wilson Suit Asserts Claim for Personal Injury
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as Jesse Wilson,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00289-JMS-MPB (S.D. Ind., January 25, 2019).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as personal
injury.
The National Collegiate Athletic Association is a non-profit
organization which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American
institutions and conferences.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey L. Raizner, Esq.
RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
2402 Dunlavy Street
Houston, TX 77006
Tel: (713) 554-9099
Fax: (713) 554-9098
Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com
NCAA: John Smith Sues over NYIT Student-Athletes' Safety
--------------------------------------------------------
JOHN SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION and NEW YORK INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, the Defendants,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00327-TWP-DML (S.D. Ind. Jan. 26, 2019), seeks
redress for injuries sustained a result of Defendant's reckless
disregard for the health and safety of generations of New York
Institute of Technology ("NYIT') student-athletes.
According to the complaint, nearly 100,000 student-athletes sign up
to compete in college football each year, and it's no surprise why.
Football is America's sport and Plaintiff and a Class of football
players were raised to live and breathe the game. During football
season, there are entire days of the week that millions of
Americans dedicate to watching the game. On game days, hundreds of
thousands of fans fill stadium seats and even more watch around the
world. Before each game, these players -- often mere teenagers --
are riled up and told to do whatever it takes to win and, when
playing, are motivated to do whatever it takes to keep going.
But up until 2010, NCAA kept players and the public in the dark
about an epidemic that was slowly killing college athletes. During
the course of a college football season, athletes absorb more than
1,000 impacts greater than 10 Gs (gravitational force) and, worse
yet, the majority of football-related hits to the head exceed 20
Gs, with some approaching 100 Gs. To put this in perspective, if
you drove your car into a wall at 25 miles per hour and weren't
wearing a seatbelt, the force of you hitting the windshield would
be around 100 Gs. Thus, each season these 18, 19, 20, and
21-year-old student-athletes are subjected to repeated car
accidents.
Over time, the repetitive and violent impacts to players' heads led
to repeated concussions that severely increased their risks of
long-term brain injuries, including memory loss, dementia,
depression, Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy ("CTE"), Parkinson's
disease, and other related symptoms. Meaning, long after they
played their last game, they are left with a series of neurological
events that could slowly strangle their brains. For decades, NCAA
knew about the debilitating long-term dangers of concussions,
concussion-related injuries, and sub-concussive injuries (referred
to as "traumatic brain injuries" or "TBIs") that resulted from
playing college football, but recklessly disregarded this
information to protect the very profitable business of "amateur"
college football.
While in school, NYIT football players were under Defendant's care.
Unfortunately, Defendant did not care about the off-field
consequences that would haunt students for the rest of their lives.
Despite knowing for decades of a vast body of scientific research
describing the danger of traumatic brain injuries ("TBIs") like
those Plaintiff experienced, Defendant failed to implement adequate
procedures to protect Plaintiff and other NYIT football players
from the long-term dangers associated with them. They did so
knowingly and for profit.
As a direct result of Defendant's acts and omissions, Plaintiff and
countless former NYIT football players suffered brain and other
neurocognitive injuries from playing NCAA football. As such,
Plaintiff brings this Class Action Complaint in order to vindicate
those players' rights and hold the NCAA accountable, the lawsuit
says.
NCAA is a non-profit organization which regulates athletes of 1,268
North American institutions and conferences.[BN]
Counsel for Plaintiff and the Putative Class:
Jeff Raizner, Esq.
RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
2402 Dunlavy Street
Houston, TX 77006
Telephone: (713) 554 9099
Facsimile: (713) 554 9098
E-mail: efile@raiznerlaw.com
- and -
Jay Edelson, Esq.
Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
EDELSON PC
350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
Chicago, IL 60654
Telephone: (312) 589 6370
Facsimile: (312) 589 6378
E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com
jedelson@edelson.com
brichman@edelson.com
NCAA: Thomas Sues over Central Arkansas Student-Athletes' Safety
----------------------------------------------------------------
CARL THOMAS, JR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No.: 1:19-cv-00264-TWP-DLP (S.D.
Ind. Jan. 25, 2019), seeks redress for injuries sustained a result
of Defendant's reckless disregard for the health and safety of
generations of University of Central Arkansas ("UCA")
student-athletes.
According to the complaint, nearly 100,000 student-athletes sign up
to compete in college football each year, and it's no surprise why.
Football is America's sport and Plaintiff and a Class of football
players were raised to live and breathe the game. During football
season, there are entire days of the week that millions of
Americans dedicate to watching the game. On game days, hundreds of
thousands of fans fill stadium seats and even more watch around the
world. Before each game, these players -- often mere teenagers --
are riled up and told to do whatever it takes to win and, when
playing, are motivated to do whatever it takes to keep going.
But up until 2010, NCAA kept players and the public in the dark
about an epidemic that was slowly killing college athletes. During
the course of a college football season, athletes absorb more than
1,000 impacts greater than 10 Gs (gravitational force) and, worse
yet, the majority of football-related hits to the head exceed 20
Gs, with some approaching 100 Gs. To put this in perspective, if
you drove your car into a wall at 25 miles per hour and weren't
wearing a seatbelt, the force of you hitting the windshield would
be around 100 Gs. Thus, each season these 18, 19, 20, and
21-year-old student-athletes are subjected to repeated car
accidents.
Over time, the repetitive and violent impacts to players' heads led
to repeated concussions that severely increased their risks of
long-term brain injuries, including memory loss, dementia,
depression, Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy ("CTE"), Parkinson's
disease, and other related symptoms. Meaning, long after they
played their last game, they are left with a series of neurological
events that could slowly strangle their brains. For decades, NCAA
knew about the debilitating long-term dangers of concussions,
concussion-related injuries, and sub-concussive injuries (referred
to as "traumatic brain injuries" or "TBIs") that resulted from
playing college football, but recklessly disregarded this
information to protect the very profitable business of "amateur"
college football.
While in school, UCA football players were under Defendant's care.
Unfortunately, Defendant did not care about the off-field
consequences that would haunt students for the rest of their lives.
Despite knowing for decades of a vast body of scientific research
describing the danger of traumatic brain injuries ("TBIs") like
those Plaintiff experienced, Defendant failed to implement adequate
procedures to protect Plaintiff and other UCA football players from
the long-term dangers associated with them. They did so knowingly
and for profit.
As a direct result of Defendant's acts and omissions, Plaintiff and
countless former UCA football players suffered brain and other
neurocognitive injuries from playing NCAA football. As such,
Plaintiff brings this Class Action Complaint in order to vindicate
those players' rights and hold the NCAA accountable, the lawsuit
says.
NCAA is a non-profit organization which regulates athletes of 1,268
North American institutions and conferences.[BN]
Counsel for Plaintiff and the Putative Class:
Jeff Raizner, Esq.
RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
2402 Dunlavy Street
Houston, TX 77006
Telephone: (713) 554 9099
Facsimile: (713) 554 9098
E-mail: efile@raiznerlaw.com
- and -
Jay Edelson, Esq.
Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
EDELSON PC
350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
Chicago, IL 60654
Telephone: (312) 589 6370
Facsimile: (312) 589 6378
E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com
jedelson@edelson.com
brichman@edelson.com
NCAA: Thompson Sues over Rice University Student-Athletes' Safety
-----------------------------------------------------------------
STEPHEN THOMPSON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION and WILLIAM MARSH RICE UNIVERSITY, the Defendants, Case
No. 1:19-cv-00340-RLY-MPB (S.D. Ind. Jan. 26, 2019), seeks redress
for injuries sustained a result of Defendant's reckless disregard
for the health and safety of generations of William Marsh Rice
University ("Rice") student-athletes.
According to the complaint, nearly 100,000 student-athletes sign up
to compete in college football each year, and it's no surprise why.
Football is America's sport and Plaintiff and a Class of football
players were raised to live and breathe the game. During football
season, there are entire days of the week that millions of
Americans dedicate to watching the game. On game days, hundreds of
thousands of fans fill stadium seats and even more watch around the
world. Before each game, these players -- often mere teenagers --
are riled up and told to do whatever it takes to win and, when
playing, are motivated to do whatever it takes to keep going.
But up until 2010, NCAA kept players and the public in the dark
about an epidemic that was slowly killing college athletes. During
the course of a college football season, athletes absorb more than
1,000 impacts greater than 10 Gs (gravitational force) and, worse
yet, the majority of football-related hits to the head exceed 20
Gs, with some approaching 100 Gs. To put this in perspective, if
you drove your car into a wall at twenty-five miles per hour and
weren't wearing a seatbelt, the force of you hitting the windshield
would be around 100 Gs. Thus, each season these 18, 19, 20, and
21-year-old student-athletes are subjected to repeated car
accidents.
Over time, the repetitive and violent impacts to players' heads led
to repeated concussions that severely increased their risks of
long-term brain injuries, including memory loss, dementia,
depression, Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy ("CTE"), Parkinson's
disease, and other related symptoms. Meaning, long after they
played their last game, they are left with a series of neurological
events that could slowly strangle their brains. For decades, NCAA
knew about the debilitating long-term dangers of concussions,
concussion-related injuries, and sub-concussive injuries (referred
to as "traumatic brain injuries" or "TBIs") that resulted from
playing college football, but recklessly disregarded this
information to protect the very profitable business of "amateur"
college football.
While in school, Rice football players were under Defendant's care.
Unfortunately, Defendant did not care about the off-field
consequences that would haunt students for the rest of their lives.
Despite knowing for decades of a vast body of scientific research
describing the danger of traumatic brain injuries ("TBIs") like
those Plaintiff experienced, Defendant failed to implement adequate
procedures to protect Plaintiff and other Rice football players
from the long-term dangers associated with them. They did so
knowingly and for profit.
As a direct result of Defendant's acts and omissions, Plaintiff and
countless former Rice football players suffered brain and other
neurocognitive injuries from playing NCAA football. As such,
Plaintiff brings this Class Action Complaint in order to vindicate
those players' rights and hold the NCAA accountable, the lawsuit
says.
NCAA is a non-profit organization which regulates athletes of 1,268
North American institutions and conferences.[BN]
Counsel for Plaintiff and the Putative Class:
Jeff Raizner, Esq.
RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
2402 Dunlavy Street
Houston, TX 77006
Telephone: (713) 554 9099
Facsimile: (713) 554 9098
E-mail: efile@raiznerlaw.com
- and -
Jay Edelson, Esq.
Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
EDELSON PC
350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
Chicago, IL 60654
Telephone: (312) 589 6370
Facsimile: (312) 589 6378
E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com
jedelson@edelson.com
brichman@edelson.com
NCAA: Thompson Sues over Savannah Student-Athletes' Safety
----------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN THOMPSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00261-TWP-DLP (S.D.
Ind. Jan. 25, 2019), seeks redress for injuries sustained a result
of Defendant's reckless disregard for the health and safety of
generations of Savannah State University ("SSU") student-athletes.
According to the complaint, nearly 100,000 student-athletes sign up
to compete in college football each year, and it's no surprise why.
Football is America's sport and Plaintiff and a Class of football
players were raised to live and breathe the game. During football
season, there are entire days of the week that millions of
Americans dedicate to watching the game. On game days, hundreds of
thousands of fans fill stadium seats and even more watch around the
world. Before each game, these players -- often mere teenagers --
are riled up and told to do whatever it takes to win and, when
playing, are motivated to do whatever it takes to keep going.
But up until 2010, NCAA kept players and the public in the dark
about an epidemic that was slowly killing college athletes. During
the course of a college football season, athletes absorb more than
1,000 impacts greater than 10 Gs (gravitational force) and, worse
yet, the majority of football-related hits to the head exceed 20
Gs, with some approaching 100 Gs. To put this in perspective, if
you drove your car into a wall at 25 miles per hour and weren't
wearing a seatbelt, the force of you hitting the windshield would
be around 100 Gs. Thus, each season these 18, 19, 20, and
21-year-old student-athletes are subjected to repeated car
accidents.
Over time, the repetitive and violent impacts to players' heads led
to repeated concussions that severely increased their risks of
long-term brain injuries, including memory loss, dementia,
depression, Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy ("CTE"), Parkinson's
disease, and other related symptoms. Meaning, long after they
played their last game, they are left with a series of neurological
events that could slowly strangle their brains. For decades, NCAA
knew about the debilitating long-term dangers of concussions,
concussion-related injuries, and sub-concussive injuries (referred
to as "traumatic brain injuries" or "TBIs") that resulted from
playing college football, but recklessly disregarded this
information to protect the very profitable business of "amateur"
college football.
While in school, SSU football players were under Defendant's care.
Unfortunately, Defendant did not care about the off-field
consequences that would haunt students for the rest of their lives.
Despite knowing for decades of a vast body of scientific research
describing the danger of traumatic brain injuries ("TBIs") like
those Plaintiff experienced, Defendant failed to implement adequate
procedures to protect Plaintiff and other SSU football players from
the long-term dangers associated with them. They did so knowingly
and for profit.
As a direct result of Defendant's acts and omissions, Plaintiff and
countless former SSU football players suffered brain and other
neurocognitive injuries from playing NCAA football. As such,
Plaintiff brings this Class Action Complaint in order to vindicate
those players' rights and hold the NCAA accountable, the lawsuit
says.
NCAA is a non-profit organization which regulates athletes of 1,268
North American institutions and conferences.[BN]
Counsel for Plaintiff and the Putative Class:
Jeff Raizner, Esq.
RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
2402 Dunlavy Street
Houston, TX 77006
Telephone: (713) 554 9099
Facsimile: (713) 554 9098
E-mail: efile@raiznerlaw.com
- and -
Jay Edelson, Esq.
Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
EDELSON PC
350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
Chicago, IL 60654
Telephone: (312) 589 6370
Facsimile: (312) 589 6378
E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com
jedelson@edelson.com
brichman@edelson.com
NCAA: Van Druten Sues over Abilene Student-Athletes' Safety
-----------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD VAN DRUTEN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00336-TWP-DML (S.D.
Ind. Jan. 26, 2019), seeks redress for injuries sustained a result
of Defendant's reckless disregard for the health and safety of
generations of Abilene Christian University ("ACU")
student-athletes.
According to the complaint, nearly 100,000 student-athletes sign up
to compete in college football each year, and it's no surprise why.
Football is America's sport and Plaintiff and a Class of football
players were raised to live and breathe the game. During football
season, there are entire days of the week that millions of
Americans dedicate to watching the game. On game days, hundreds of
thousands of fans fill stadium seats and even more watch around the
world. Before each game, these players -- often mere teenagers --
are riled up and told to do whatever it takes to win and, when
playing, are motivated to do whatever it takes to keep going.
But up until 2010, NCAA kept players and the public in the dark
about an epidemic that was slowly killing college athletes. During
the course of a college football season, athletes absorb more than
1,000 impacts greater than 10 Gs (gravitational force) and, worse
yet, the majority of football-related hits to the head exceed 20
Gs, with some approaching 100 Gs. To put this in perspective, if
you drove your car into a wall at 25 miles per hour and weren't
wearing a seatbelt, the force of you hitting the windshield would
be around 100 Gs. Thus, each season these 18, 19, 20, and
21-year-old student-athletes are subjected to repeated car
accidents.
Over time, the repetitive and violent impacts to players' heads led
to repeated concussions that severely increased their risks of
long-term brain injuries, including memory loss, dementia,
depression, Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy ("CTE"), Parkinson's
disease, and other related symptoms. Meaning, long after they
played their last game, they are left with a series of neurological
events that could slowly strangle their brains. For decades, NCAA
knew about the debilitating long-term dangers of concussions,
concussion-related injuries, and sub-concussive injuries (referred
to as "traumatic brain injuries" or "TBIs") that resulted from
playing college football, but recklessly disregarded this
information to protect the very profitable business of "amateur"
college football.
While in school, ACU football players were under Defendant's care.
Unfortunately, Defendant did not care about the off-field
consequences that would haunt students for the rest of their lives.
Despite knowing for decades of a vast body of scientific research
describing the danger of traumatic brain injuries ("TBIs") like
those Plaintiff experienced, Defendant failed to implement adequate
procedures to protect Plaintiff and other ACU football players from
the long-term dangers associated with them. They did so knowingly
and for profit.
As a direct result of Defendant's acts and omissions, Plaintiff and
countless former ACU football players suffered brain and other
neurocognitive injuries from playing NCAA football. As such,
Plaintiff brings this Class Action Complaint in order to vindicate
those players' rights and hold the NCAA accountable, the lawsuit
says.
NCAA is a non-profit organization which regulates athletes of 1,268
North American institutions and conferences.[BN]
Counsel for Plaintiff and the Putative Class:
Jeff Raizner, Esq.
RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
2402 Dunlavy Street
Houston, TX 77006
Telephone: (713) 554 9099
Facsimile: (713) 554 9098
E-mail: efile@raiznerlaw.com
- and -
Jay Edelson, Esq.
Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
EDELSON PC
350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
Chicago, IL 60654
Telephone: (312) 589 6370
Facsimile: (312) 589 6378
E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com
jedelson@edelson.com
brichman@edelson.com
NCAA: Williams Sues over Northern Iowa Student-Athletes' Safety
---------------------------------------------------------------
BOBBIE WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00259-JRS-DLP (S.D.
Ind. Jan. 25, 2019), seeks redress for injuries sustained a result
of Defendant's reckless disregard for the health and safety of
generations of University of Northern Iowa ("UNI")
student-athletes.
According to the complaint, nearly 100,000 student-athletes sign up
to compete in college football each year, and it's no surprise why.
Football is America's sport and Plaintiff and a Class of football
players were raised to live and breathe the game. During football
season, there are entire days of the week that millions of
Americans dedicate to watching the game. On game days, hundreds of
thousands of fans fill stadium seats and even more watch around the
world. Before each game, these players -- often mere teenagers --
are riled up and told to do whatever it takes to win and, when
playing, are motivated to do whatever it takes to keep going.
But up until 2010, NCAA kept players and the public in the dark
about an epidemic that was slowly killing college athletes. During
the course of a college football season, athletes absorb more than
1,000 impacts greater than 10 Gs (gravitational force) and, worse
yet, the majority of football-related hits to the head exceed 20
Gs, with some approaching 100 Gs. To put this in perspective, if
you drove your car into a wall at 25 miles per hour and weren't
wearing a seatbelt, the force of you hitting the windshield would
be around 100 Gs. Thus, each season these 18, 19, 20, and
21-year-old student-athletes are subjected to repeated car
accidents.
Over time, the repetitive and violent impacts to players' heads led
to repeated concussions that severely increased their risks of
long-term brain injuries, including memory loss, dementia,
depression, Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy ("CTE"), Parkinson's
disease, and other related symptoms. Meaning, long after they
played their last game, they are left with a series of neurological
events that could slowly strangle their brains. For decades, NCAA
knew about the debilitating long-term dangers of concussions,
concussion-related injuries, and sub-concussive injuries (referred
to as "traumatic brain injuries" or "TBIs") that resulted from
playing college football, but recklessly disregarded this
information to protect the very profitable business of "amateur"
college football.
While in school, UNI football players were under Defendant's care.
Unfortunately, Defendant did not care about the off-field
consequences that would haunt students for the rest of their lives.
Despite knowing for decades of a vast body of scientific research
describing the danger of traumatic brain injuries ("TBIs") like
those Plaintiff experienced, Defendant failed to implement adequate
procedures to protect Plaintiff and other UNI football players from
the long-term dangers associated with them. They did so knowingly
and for profit.
As a direct result of Defendant's acts and omissions, Plaintiff and
countless former UNI football players suffered brain and other
neurocognitive injuries from playing NCAA football. As such,
Plaintiff brings this Class Action Complaint in order to vindicate
those players' rights and hold the NCAA accountable, the lawsuit
says.
NCAA is a non-profit organization which regulates athletes of 1,268
North American institutions and conferences.[BN]
Counsel for Plaintiff and the Putative Class:
Jeff Raizner, Esq.
RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
2402 Dunlavy Street
Houston, TX 77006
Telephone: (713) 554 9099
Facsimile: (713) 554 9098
E-mail: efile@raiznerlaw.com
- and -
Jay Edelson, Esq.
Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
EDELSON PC
350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
Chicago, IL 60654
Telephone: (312) 589 6370
Facsimile: (312) 589 6378
E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com
jedelson@edelson.com
brichman@edelson.com
NIPPON STEEL: Forced Labor Victims May Claim Assets in Korea
------------------------------------------------------------
ChosunMedia reports that when the Supreme Court here last October
ordered Nippon Steel & Sumitomo Metal to pay W100 million each to
four Korean forced labor victims, many predicted that there would
be no way to force the company to pay up (US$1=W1,114).
But lawyers for the victims have tracked down Nippon Steel's
property in Korea and asked a court to seize it based on the
Supreme Court ruling.
Earlier, the Japanese government threatened to seize Korean
property in Japan if the Japanese company's property was seized
here. Diplomatic friction is therefore expected to continue over
the matter.
Nippon Steel's property in Korea includes its share of POSCO-Nippon
Steel RHF (PNR), a joint-venture recycling business established in
2008. Nippon Steel holds about 2.34 million stocks worth about W11
billion.
Lawyers for the victims visited Nippon Steel headquarters in Tokyo
twice last year to ask them to comply with the Supreme Court
ruling, but executives refused to see them. A recent meeting
between bureau chiefs of the two countries' foreign ministries also
failed to narrow the gap.
Nippon Steel also has a 3.32 percent stake or 2.89 million stocks
in POSCO, but they take the form of American depositary receipts
issued by a U.S. bank and their seizure would require U.S. court
approval.
"Nothing can prevent the victims from asking a court to seize
Nippon Steel's property in Korea," said Prof. Lee Won-duk of
Kookmin University. "But it creates a huge diplomatic burden for
the government here because there could be a string of further
class action suits by victims." [GN]
NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Parties Seek Initial Settlement Approval
----------------------------------------------------------
Northrop Grumman Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on January 31,
2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the parties
in the case, Steven Knurr, et al. v. Orbital ATK, Inc. submitted a
joint motion for preliminary settlement approval.
On August 12, 2016, a putative class action complaint, naming
Orbital ATK and two of its then-officers as defendants, Steven
Knurr, et al. v. Orbital ATK, Inc., No. 16-cv-01031 (TSE-MSN), was
filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of Virginia.
The complaint asserts claims on behalf of purchasers of Orbital ATK
securities for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, allegedly arising out of false and
misleading statements and the failure to disclose that: (i) Orbital
ATK lacked effective control over financial reporting; and (ii) as
a result, it failed to record an anticipated loss on a long-term
contract with the U.S. Army to manufacture and supply small caliber
ammunition at the U.S. Army's Lake City Army Ammunition Plant.
On April 24, 2017 and October 10, 2017, the plaintiffs filed
amended complaints naming additional defendants and asserting
claims for alleged violations of additional sections of the
Exchange Act and alleged false and misleading statements in Orbital
ATK's Form S-4 filed in connection with the Orbital-ATK Merger. The
complaint seeks damages, reasonable costs and expenses at trial,
including counsel and expert fees, and such other relief as deemed
appropriate by the Court.
On August 8, 2018, plaintiffs sought leave to file an additional
amended complaint; defendants filed an opposition. The parties
engaged in mediation on November 6, 2018.
On December 27, 2018, the parties reached a preliminary agreement
to resolve the litigation for $108 million, subject to agreement on
additional terms and to court approval. On January 15, 2019, the
court issued an order setting a schedule for final settlement
approval proceedings.
Consistent with that order, on January 30, 2019, the parties
submitted a joint motion for preliminary settlement approval, with
supporting documents. The schedule suggests a final approval
settlement hearing in the second quarter of 2019.
Northrop Grumman said, "The company is also negotiating with and
pursuing coverage litigation against various of its insurance
carriers. The company intends vigorously to defend itself in
connection with these matters."
Northrop Grumman Corporation operates as a security company for
government and commercial customers worldwide. It provides
products, systems, and solutions in autonomous systems; cyber;
command, control, communications and computers, intelligence,
surveillance, and reconnaissance (C4ISR); strike; and logistics and
modernization. Northrop Grumman Corporation was founded in 1939 and
is based in Falls Church, Virginia.
NVDIA CORP: Several Law Firms Announce Filing of Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Paul How, writing for CoinGeek, reports that several law firms
announced the filing of a class-action lawsuit against chipmaker
Nvidia Corporation, alleging they mislead investors regarding the
company's ability to cope with weaker demand for cryptocurrencies.
Rosen Law Firm, the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, the Schall Law
Firm, and Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP (GPM), in separate press
releases, announced the filing of a complaint against Nvidia, whose
stock price has fallen about 50% since the beginning of October.
The law firms' complaint was filed on behalf of those who purchased
Nvidia shares from August 10, 2017 to November 15, 2018. Investors
interested in participating were encouraged to get in contact with
either of the law firms.
According to the press statements, Nvidia had allegedly made "false
and/or misleading statements" assuring investors of the company's
ability to adjust to changes in the cryptocurrency markets, and
that demand for graphics processing units (GPUs) among the customer
base of computer gamers would be enough to avoid a negative
impact.
"[A]s cryptocurrency prices began to plummet, NVIDIA masked slowing
growth by continuing to push mid-range GPUs into the channel, which
caused inventory levels to skyrocket and ultimately left NVIDIA
with over three months of excess inventory in its channel," Howard
G. Smith and GPM said.
The two law firms also noted that Nvidia had told investors last
November 15 that it expected revenue to drop 7% in the fourth
quarter, "a significant departure from the 17% growth investors had
been led to expect."
In August, Nvidia announced it would discontinue with
cryptocurrency-specific products due to a lack of profits. Not only
has the company had to deal with plummeting cryptocurrency prices,
which have made mining operations less lucrative, but it faces
competition from ASIC chipmakers, some of whom have been developing
chips more efficient than those in the market today.
While the company has shifted its attention to other ventures such
as artificial intelligence (AI), it has had to factor in a buildup
of inventory in connection with its cryptocurrency business.
Nvidia's revenue for the third quarter of 2018 was $3.18 billion,
21% higher year on year, yet still below analysts' expectations.
Net income was $1.23 billion, 47% higher year on year.
Note: Tokens on the Bitcoin Core (SegWit) chain are referenced as
BTC coins; tokens on the Bitcoin Cash ABC chain are referenced as
BCH, BCH-ABC or BAB coins.
Bitcoin Satoshi Vision (BSV) is today the only Bitcoin project that
follows the original Satoshi Nakamoto whitepaper, and that follows
the original Satoshi protocol and design. BSV is the only public
blockchain that maintains the original vision for Bitcoin and will
massively scale to become the world's new money and enterprise
blockchain. [GN]
OASIS CAFE: $175,000 Settlement Remains Unpaid, Castillo et al. Say
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned RAYMUNDO CASTILLO, ISRAEL
SOLANO, LEONIDES RIVERA, MIROSLAVA LOPEZ, ABRAHAM ROMERO and JOSE
AGUILAR, the Plaintiffs, vs. NIKOLAOS AMVROSIATOS BAKERY INC. d/b/a
THE OASIS CAFE & BAKERY, AGEN REALTY LLC, NIKOLAOS AMVROSIATOS,
GERASIMO AMVROSIATOS and EVANGELOS "ANGELO" AMVROSIATOS, Jointly
and Severally, the Defendants, Case No. 701391/2019 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.,
Jan. 24, 2019), the Plaintiffs will move the Court for an Order on
March 15, 2019, directing the entry of summary judgment in their
favor and against the Defendants for amounts including $175,000 of
principal due as of September 25, 2018, plus costs and
disbursements, plus interest which continues to accrue at the rate
of 9% per annum.
The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants have failed to pay the
$175,000 the Defendants pledged to settle the Plaintiffs' class
action against them.
In 2016, the Plaintiffs commenced an action, Raymundo Castillo, et
al. v. Nikolaos Amvrosiatos Bakery, Inc., et al., Index. No.
710590/2016 in the Supreme Court of New York, Queens County,
against the Defendants asserting claims for unpaid minimum wage,
unpaid overtime premiums, unpaid spread-of-hours premiums,
unlawfully withheld gratuities, and failure to provide wage notices
and wage. The Plaintiffs also sought liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees, costs and prejudgment interest. On October 12, 2016, the
Defendants filed an Answer to the pleadings in the Wage and Hour
Action, denying all material allegations. The parties exchanged
discovery requests, written discovery responses and document
discovery. Subsequently, the parties engaged in settlement
negotiations to reach a resolution of the Wage and Hour Action on
behalf of Plaintiffs Castillo, Solano, Rivera, Lopez, Romero and
Aguilar.
On June 26, 2018, the parties entered into an agreement settle the
Wage and Hour Action. The Settlement Agreement required payment by
Defendants of a total amount of $150,000 by no later than August
20, 2018. In connection with the Settlement Agreement, Defendants
signed and executed an Affidavit of Confession of Judgment to
secure their payment obligations to Plaintiffs. The Confession
provided that, "in the event of a default that is not cured
pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, the Plaintiffs shall be
entitled to file this Affidavit of Confession of Judgment" and that
in such event, "Defendants, jointly and severally, hereby confess
judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and authorize entry thereof in the
sum of $175,000.00, less any monies paid by Defendants pursuant to
the Settlement Agreement." At no time before the August 20, 2018
deadline for payment or since that time have Defendants made any
portion of the payment to Plaintiffs required by the Settlement
Agreement, the lawsuit says.
Oasis Cafe is in the cafe business.[BN]
Attorneys for Plaintiffs:
Brent E. Pelton, Esq.
Taylor B. Graham, Esq.
PELTON GRAHAM LLC
111 Broadway, Suite 1503
New York, NY 10006
Telephone: (212) 385-9700
Facsimile: (212) 385-0800
PACIFIC BIOSCIENCES: Acquisition-Related Suits Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------
Pacific Biosciences of California, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed on January
31, 2019, that the plaintiffs in the class action suits related to
the proposed acquisition of the company by Illumina, Inc.,
voluntarily dismissed their lawsuits.
In connection with the proposed acquisition of Pacific Biosciences
of California, Inc. by Illumina, Inc., five lawsuits were filed,
with each lawsuit naming Pacific Biosciences and its directors as
defendants.
Three putative class action complaints, captioned Wang v. Pacific
Biosciences of California, Inc., et al., No. 3:18-cv-7450 (N.D.
Cal.), Morrison v. Pacific Biosciences of California, Inc., et al.,
No. 3:18-cv-7654 (N.D. Cal.), and Speiser v. Pacific Biosciences of
California, Inc., et al., No. 3:19-cv-0072 (N.D. Cal.), were filed
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on December 11, 2018, December 20, 2018, and January 4,
2019, respectively.
A fourth putative class action complaint, captioned Rosenblatt v.
Pacific Biosciences of California, Inc., et al., No. 1:18-cv-2005
(D. Del.), was filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware on December 18, 2018. An individual complaint,
captioned Washington v. Pacific Biosciences of California, Inc., et
al., No. 5:18-cv-7614 (N.D. Cal.), was filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California on December
19, 2018.
Each of the lawsuits asserted claims under Section 14(a) and
Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection
with the disclosures contained in Pacific Biosciences' preliminary
proxy statement on Schedule 14A, filed with the Securities Exchange
Commission (the "SEC") on December 5, 2018, Pacific Biosciences'
definitive proxy statement on Schedule 14A, filed with the SEC on
December 18, 2018, or both.
The complaints sought a variety of equitable and injunctive relief
including, among other things, enjoining the consummation of the
acquisition and awarding the plaintiffs costs and attorneys' fees.
Although Pacific Biosciences management believed that the claims
were without merit, Pacific Biosciences agreed to make supplemental
disclosures in exchange for plaintiffs' agreement that the
supplemental disclosures would moot their claims. Pacific
Biosciences made these supplemental disclosures in a proxy
statement amendment on Schedule 14A, filed with the SEC on January
18, 2019.
On January 29, 2019, all parties to each of the lawsuits reached an
agreement pursuant to which Pacific Biosciences would pay a total
of $300,000 in attorneys' fees to the plaintiffs. On January 29,
2019, each plaintiff filed a voluntary dismissal of his or her
lawsuit.
Pacific Biosciences of California, Inc. designs, develops, and
manufactures sequencing systems to resolve genetically complex
problems. The company was formerly known as Nanofluidics, Inc.
Pacific Biosciences of California, Inc. was founded in 2000 and is
headquartered in Menlo Park, California.
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Faces Gambina Suit Under FDCPA in New Jersey
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Portfolio Recovery
Associates, LLC. The case is styled as Carmen Gambina, individually
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Portfolio Recovery
Associates, LLC and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-02400 (D. N.J., January 30, 2019).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, also known as Anchor
Receivables Management, manages past-due accounts. It serves
customers through account representatives. The company was
incorporated in 1996 and is based in Norfolk, Virginia. Portfolio
Recovery Associates, LLC operates as a subsidiary of PRA Group,
Inc.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
YAAKOV SAKS, Esq.
Stein Saks, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Tel: (201) 282-6500 ext 101
Fax: (201) 282-6501
Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com
QUALCOMM INC: Calif. Consumer Action Stayed Pending Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------
QUALCOMM Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 30, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended December 30, 2018, that a California court
has stayed a consumer class action lawsuit pending the company's
appeal.
Since January 18, 2017, a number of consumer class action
complaints have been filed against the company in the United States
District Courts for the Southern and Northern Districts of
California, each on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of
cellular phones and other cellular devices. Twenty-two such cases
remain outstanding.
In April 2017, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
transferred the cases that had been filed in the Southern District
of California to the Northern District of California. On May 15,
2017, the court entered an order appointing the plaintiffs' co-lead
counsel.
On July 11, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint alleging that the company violated California and federal
antitrust and unfair competition laws by, among other things,
refusing to license standard-essential patents to the company's
competitors, conditioning the supply of certain of the company's
baseband chipsets on the purchaser first agreeing to license the
company's entire patent portfolio, entering into exclusive deals
with companies, including Apple Inc., and charging unreasonably
high royalties that do not comply with the company's commitments to
standard setting organizations.
The complaint seeks unspecified damages and disgorgement and/or
restitution, as well as an order that the company be enjoined from
further unlawful conduct. On August 11, 2017, the company filed a
motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint.
On November 10, 2017, the court denied the company's motion, except
to the extent that certain claims seek damages under the Sherman
Antitrust Act. On July 5, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a motion for
class certification, and the court granted that motion on September
27, 2018.
On January 23, 2019, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals granted the
company permission to appeal the court's class certification order.
On January 24, 2019, the court stayed the case pending the
company's appeal.
QUALCOMM said, "We believe the plaintiffs' claims are without
merit."
QUALCOMM Incorporated designs, develops, manufactures, and markets
digital communication products worldwide. It operates through three
segments: Qualcomm CDMA Technologies (QCT); Qualcomm Technology
Licensing (QTL); and Qualcomm Strategic Initiatives (QSI). QUALCOMM
Incorporated was founded in 1985 and is headquartered in San Diego,
California.
QUALCOMM INC: Has Yet to Answer Canadian Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------
QUALCOMM Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 30, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended December 30, 2018, that the company has not
yet answered any of the consumer class action complaints filed in
Canada.
Since November 9, 2017, six consumer class action complaints have
been filed against the company in Canada (in the Ontario Superior
Court of Justice, the Supreme Court of British Columbia, and the
Quebec Superior Court), each on behalf of a putative class of
purchasers of cellular phones and other cellular devices, alleging
various violations of Canadian competition and consumer protection
laws.
The claims are similar to those in the FTC and U.S. consumer class
action complaints. The complaints seek unspecified damages.
QUALCOMM said, "We have not yet answered the complaints."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
QUALCOMM Incorporated designs, develops, manufactures, and markets
digital communication products worldwide. It operates through three
segments: Qualcomm CDMA Technologies (QCT); Qualcomm Technology
Licensing (QTL); and Qualcomm Strategic Initiatives (QSI). QUALCOMM
Incorporated was founded in 1985 and is headquartered in San Diego,
California.
QUALCOMM INC: Lead Plaintiff Named in Camp Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
QUALCOMM Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 30, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended December 30, 2018, that the Court appointed
a lead plaintiff in the Camp v. Qualcomm Incorporated et al action
and designated that the case be captioned "In re Qualcomm/Broadcom
Merger Securities Litigation."
On June 8, 2018 and June 26, 2018, securities class action
complaints were filed by purported stockholders of the company in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
California against the company and two of its current officers.
The complaints allege, among other things, that the company
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, by failing to disclose that the
company had submitted a notice to the Committee on Foreign
Investment in the United States (CFIUS) in January 2018. The
complaints seek unspecified damages, interest, fees and costs.
On January 22, 2019, the Court appointed the lead plaintiff in the
action and designated that the case be captioned "In re
Qualcomm/Broadcom Merger Securities Litigation."
QUALCOMM said, "Upon the filing of a consolidated complaint in the
action, we anticipate filing a motion to dismiss the complaint, as
we believe the plaintiffs' claims are without merit."
QUALCOMM Incorporated designs, develops, manufactures, and markets
digital communication products worldwide. It operates through three
segments: Qualcomm CDMA Technologies (QCT); Qualcomm Technology
Licensing (QTL); and Qualcomm Strategic Initiatives (QSI). QUALCOMM
Incorporated was founded in 1985 and is headquartered in San Diego,
California.
QUALCOMM INC: Still Awaits Court OK on Bid to Dismiss Calif. Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
QUALCOMM Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 30, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended December 30, 2018, that the company still
awaits a court decision on its motion to dismiss a consolidated
class action suit pending before the the United States District
Court for the Southern District of California.
On January 23, 2017 and January 26, 2017, securities class action
complaints were filed by purported stockholders of the company in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
California against the company and certain of its current and
former officers and directors.
The complaints alleged, among other things, that we violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, by making false and misleading
statements and omissions of material fact in connection with
certain allegations that the company are or were engaged in
anticompetitive conduct. The complaints sought unspecified damages,
interest, fees and costs.
On May 4, 2017, the court consolidated the two actions and
appointed lead plaintiffs. On July 3, 2017, the lead plaintiffs
filed a consolidated amended complaint asserting the same basic
theories of liability and requesting the same basic relief. On
September 1, 2017, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint. The court has not yet ruled on the
company's motion to dismiss.
QUALCOMM said, "We believe the plaintiffs' claims are without
merit."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
QUALCOMM Incorporated designs, develops, manufactures, and markets
digital communication products worldwide. It operates through three
segments: Qualcomm CDMA Technologies (QCT); Qualcomm Technology
Licensing (QTL); and Qualcomm Strategic Initiatives (QSI). QUALCOMM
Incorporated was founded in 1985 and is headquartered in San Diego,
California.
QUALCOMM INC: Still Defends 3226701 Canada, Inc. Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
QUALCOMM Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 30, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended December 30, 2018, that the company
continues to defend itself against a securities class action suit
entitled, 3226701 Canada, Inc. v. QUALCOMM Incorporated et al.
On November 30, 2015, a securities class action complaint was filed
by purported stockholders of the company in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of California against the
company and certain of its current and former officers. On April
29, 2016, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. On January 27,
2017, the court dismissed the amended complaint in its entirety,
granting leave to amend.
On March 17, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint,
alleging that the company and certain of its current and former
officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, by making false and misleading
statements regarding the company's business outlook and product
development between November 19, 2014 and July 22, 2015.
The second amended complaint sought unspecified damages, interest,
attorneys' fees and other costs. On May 8, 2017, the company filed
a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. On October 20,
2017, the court entered an order granting in part the company's
motion to dismiss, and on November 29, 2017, the court entered an
order granting the remaining portions of the company's motion to
dismiss.
On December 28, 2017, the plaintiffs filed an appeal to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. No hearing date has
been set.
QUALCOMM said, "We believe the plaintiffs' claims are without
merit.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
QUALCOMM Incorporated designs, develops, manufactures, and markets
digital communication products worldwide. It operates through three
segments: Qualcomm CDMA Technologies (QCT); Qualcomm Technology
Licensing (QTL); and Qualcomm Strategic Initiatives (QSI). QUALCOMM
Incorporated was founded in 1985 and is headquartered in San Diego,
California.
RAS LAVRAR: Faces Deangelis FDCPA Class Action in New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against RAS LaVrar, LLC. The
case is styled as Debra A. Deangelis, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RAS LaVrar, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-00558 (E.D. N.Y., January 29, 2019).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
RAS LaVrar is a full-service creditors' rights law firm.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
Barshay Sanders, PLLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Tel: (516) 203-7600
Fax: (516) 281-7601
Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com
RCC WESLEY: Ga. App. Dismisses Forrest Class Certification Appeal
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Georgia issued an Opinion dismissing the
Defendant’s Appeal for Lack of Jurisdiction in the case captioned
RCC WESLEY CHAPEL CROSSING, LLC et al., v. ALLEN. A18A2124. (Ga.
App.).
RCC Wesley Chapel Crossing, LLC, et al. appeal from the trial
court's order provisionally granting class certification.
After Forrest Allen paid $650 to remove a boot from his car, he
sued numerous entities affiliated with the shopping center where he
had parked. Allen alleged claims of negligence, negligence per se,
premises liability, imputed negligence, and false imprisonment, and
he requested compensatory damages, attorney fees, and punitive
damages. He also requested class certification under OCGA Section
9-11-23, identifying two classes of plaintiffs, and alleging that
the defendants had booted at least 20 other vehicles.
The defendants answered the complaint and opposed class
certification. In its order, the trial court determined that Allen
satisfied the adequacy, typicality, commonality, and predominance
requirements for class certification under OCGA Section 9-11-23
(a). It did not, however, address superiority. As to numerosity,
the trial court granted leave to conduct discovery in order to
satisfy the numerosity prerequisite. The trial court stated in its
order that discovery for purposes of class certification would
begin as of the date of the order and continue for 90 days.
The defendants filed the instant appeal, and Allen filed a motion
to dismiss the appeal on the grounds that the trial court's order
is not immediately appealable under OCGA Section 9-11-23 (g).
The question of whether the Court have appellate jurisdiction to
address the merits of the trial court's order involves the
interpretation of a statute, and therefore, our review is de novo.
The fact that the statute contemplates conditional certification
does not confer jurisdiction over every conditional order. There is
no dispute that class certifications are inherently conditional.
Nevertheless, a plaintiff bringing a class action suit must make a
threshold showing of, among other elements, numerosity. Instead,
the plaintiff must proffer evidence to establish that they have met
the threshold requirements. Indeed, as part of its order, the trial
court required Allen to present evidence regarding the number of
class members so as to satisfy numerosity.
Here, Allen presented no evidence and put forth nothing other than
his own allegations in his complaint to establish the numerosity
threshold. In the absence of such a showing there simply is not an
order that certifies a class. Moreover, we note that, although the
trial court made findings as to the other criteria under OCGA
Section 9-11-23 (a), it addressed only predominance under OCGA
Section 9-11-23 (b) (3) and did not mention superiority.
Therefore, the Court concludes that the trial court's provisional
order is not an order certifying a class, and the Court lack
jurisdiction over the appeal.
A full-text copy of the Ga. App.'s January 24, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ybdbms2a from Leagle.com.
Walter J. Bibbins, for Appellant.
John E. Hall, Jr. -- jhall@hallboothsmith.com -- for Appellant.
James Theodore Hankins, III -- jhankins@GM-LLP.com -- for
Appellant.
Matthew Quinn Wetherington, for Appellee.
Bruce Robert Millar, for Appellee.
ROBERT NEIL FRIEDMAN -- Robert@WernerLaw.com -- for Appellee.
SAN DIEGO, CA: Faces ADA Class Action Lawsuit Over Sidewalks
------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Racusin, writing for ABC 10News San Diego, reports that The
City of San Diego and dockless scooter companies are facing a class
action lawsuit.
The complaint alleged that the City of San Diego and private
companies failed to maintain the accessibility of the city's public
sidewalks for people with disabilities.
"My life has changed since the scooters invaded San Diego," said
San Diego resident Philip Pressel.
Pressel, who is a plaintiff in the lawsuit, needs a wheelchair to
get around. He said he shouldn't have to worry about being hit or
moving a scooter in his way every time he leaves his home.
"Almost every single day there's a scooter somehow one or more in
the way," Pressel said.
The lawsuit claimed, "The City of San Diego has failed to
adequately maintain the system of sidewalk, crosswalks, curb ramps,
transit stops, pedestrian crossings and other walkways, by allowing
dockless scooters and used primarily for recreational purposes to
proliferate unchecked throughout San Diego and to block safe and
equal access for people with disabilities who live in or visit the
city."
It also alleged that scooters cause barriers in paths of travel
when they are operated.
The lawsuit said, "The scooter defendants have used and
appropriated varying portions of the City's public sidewalks,
crosswalks, transit stops, curb ramps, pedestrian crossings and
walkways with impunity for their own private profit -- effectively
turning them into their private retail stores showrooms, highways,
and storage facilities -- in abject disregard for the safety and
access rights of San Diego residents of visitors with
disabilities."
Disability rights advocates said that for blind people and people
with mobility impairments, the presence and use of dockless
scooters deny them access to public walkways.
"For other people, it's a nuisance, it's an eyesore; but for people
with disabilities, it means they can't use the sidewalks," said Ann
Menasche, Esq. -- ann.menasche@disabilityrightsca.org -- from
Disability Rights California, one of the attorneys for the
Plaintiffs.
A spokesperson for the San Diego City Attorney's office told 10News
they will review the complaint and respond through the courts.
In a statement to 10News, a Lime spokesperson wrote:
While Lime does not comment on pending litigation, public safety
has always been at the very core of everything we do at Lime. From
Lime's "Respect the Ride" campaign -- which is focused on educating
riders on responsible riding, to our development of built-in sensor
technology to detect if a rider is abiding by local riding laws, we
are committed to keeping our communities safe for everyone.
10News requested comment from Bird and Razor and not yet heard
back. [GN]
SIRIUS XM: Bid for Class Cert. in Buchanan Suit Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sirius XM Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on January 30, 2019, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the motion for class
certification filed by Thomas Buchanan is still pending.
On March 13, 2017, Thomas Buchanan, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, filed a class action complaint
against the company in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division. The plaintiff in this
action alleges that the company violated the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act of 1991 (the "TCPA") by, among other things, making
telephone solicitations to persons on the National Do-Not-Call
registry, a database established to allow consumers to exclude
themselves from telemarketing calls unless they consent to receive
the calls in a signed, written agreement, and making calls to
consumers in violation of our internal Do-Not-Call registry.
The plaintiff is seeking various forms of relief, including
statutory damages of $500 for each violation of the TCPA or, in the
alternative, treble damages of up to $1,500 for each knowing and
willful violation of the TCPA and a permanent injunction
prohibiting us from making, or having made, any calls to land lines
that are listed on the National Do-Not-Call registry or the
company's internal Do-Not-Call registry. The plaintiff has filed a
motion seeking class certification, and that motion is pending.
Sirius XM said, "We believe we have substantial defenses to the
claims asserted in this action, and we intend to defend this action
vigorously."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Sirius XM Holdings Inc. provides satellite radio services in the
United States. The company broadcasts music plus sports,
entertainment, comedy, talk, news, traffic, and weather programs,
including various music genres ranging from rock, pop and hip-hop
to country, dance, jazz, Latin, and classical; live play-by-play
sports from principal leagues and colleges; multitude of talk and
entertainment channels for various audiences; national,
international, and financial news; and limited run channels. The
company was founded in 1990 and is headquartered in New York, New
York. Sirius XM Holdings Inc. is a subsidiary of Liberty Media
Corporation.
SOGO INC: Levi & Korsinsky Files Securities Fraud Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
commenced on behalf of shareholders of Sogu Inc. Shareholders
interested in serving as lead plaintiff have until the deadlines
listed to petition the court and further details about the cases
can be found at the links provided. There is no cost or obligation
to you.
Sogou Inc. (NYSE: SOGO)
Class Period: Purchasers of American Depositary Shares pursuant
and/or traceable to Sogou's false and misleading Registration
Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with the Company's
initial public offering on November 9, 2017
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: March 11, 2019
Join the action:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/sogou-inc-loss-form?wire=3
The lawsuit alleges that, during the class period, Sogou Inc. made
materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) Chinese regulators were analyzing Sogou for
regulatory action because of an increase in Sogou merchants' sales
of counterfeit goods; (ii) Chinese regulators were analyzing Sogou
for regulatory action because Sogou's existing software,
advertising procedures, personnel, and audit procedures were
insufficient to safeguard against compliance violations with
governing Chinese regulations, and would need to be updated,
enhanced, and strengthened, thus resulting in increased expenses;
(iii) Sogou's cost of revenues were skyrocketing primarily because
of significant increases in Traffic Acquisition Cost, which is a
primary driver of Sogou's cost of revenues, as Sogou was dealing
with significant price inflation from increased competition; (iv)
Sogou was going to alter its strategy concerning smart hardware and
push the Company's AI capabilities to increase product
competitiveness; (v) as a result of altering its smart hardware
strategy, Sogou had already decided to phase out non-AI-enabled
hardware products, such as legacy models of Teemo Smart Watch, and
transition to use products integrating AI technologies, which Sogou
hoped would reduce its hardware revenue in the second half of 2018;
and (vi) as a result of the foregoing, Sogou's public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
To learn more about the Sogou Inc. class action contact
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com.
You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request the court
appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.
Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
55 Broadway, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10006
Telephone: (212) 363-7500
Toll Free: (877) 363-5972
Fax: (212) 363-7171
Website: www.zlk.com
Email: jlevi@levikorsinsky.com [GN]
ST. JUDE: Court Dismisses Defective Cardiac Defibrillators Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota
issued an Order granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss in the case
captioned ASEA/AFSCME Local 52 Health Benefits Trust, individually
and on behalf of a class of similarly situated third party payors,
Plaintiff, v. St. Jude Medical, LLC, a Delaware corporation, and
Abbott Laboratories, an Illinois corporation, Defendants. Civil No.
18-2124 (DSD/HB). (D. Minn.).
This putative class action arises out of the Food and Drug
Administration's (FDA) October 2016 recall of certain models1 of
St. Jude's cardiac defibrillators due to a battery defect which can
cause the device's lithium batteries to deplete suddenly and
prematurely. The devices are designed to provide pacing therapy to
support slow heart rhythms, and electrical shock or pacing therapy
to treat fast heart rhythms. The Plaintiff alleges that in 2014,
St. Jude knew that at least one patient had died following
premature battery depletion in an ICD. The Plaintiff further
alleges that St. Jude actively concealed information about the
defect from its management boards, the FDA, and the public.
Standing
The Defendants first argue that this action should be dismissed
because the plaintiff, as a TPP, lacks standing to recover for its
plan participants' injuries. Article III of the United States
Constitution limits the jurisdiction of federal courts to
justiciable cases and controversies.
To satisfy Article III standing requirements, a plaintiff must
demonstrate:
(1) it has suffered an injury in fact that is (a) concrete and
particularized and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or
hypothetical (2) the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged
action of the defendant and (3) it is likely, as opposed to merely
speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable
decision.
Causal Connection
The Defendants argue that the plaintiff lacks standing because the
plaintiff's alleged injury is not fairly traceable to the
defendants' conduct. The Defendants assert that the causal chain is
too attenuated because there is a multi-step winding sequence of
intervening events. Specifically, the defendants argue that the
plaintiff's causal chain hinges on the following hypothetical
events: (1) St. Jude disclosed the defect right away (2) physicians
and the public would have learned about the defect (3) the FDA
would have investigated the defect and issued a recall, (4)
physicians would have stopped implanting devices in the proposed
class members' plan participants and (5) plaintiff would not have
incurred costs associated with the defective devices.
But the connection between the wrongdoing and the injury is in fact
straightforward: St. Jude put a defective product on the market
that the plaintiff paid for and must pay to replace. Even
acknowledging that certain interim steps occurred before the
plaintiff paid for the defective devices, the fact is that the
plaintiff did pay for them and will pay for costs associated with
replacing them. In other words, the plaintiff has been directly
harmed by St. Jude's alleged misconduct.
Injury
To establish injury in fact, a plaintiff must show that he or she
suffered an invasion of a legally protected interest that is
concrete and particularized and actual or imminent, not conjectural
or hypothetical. An injury is particularized when it affects the
plaintiff in a personal and individual way. An injury is concrete
when it actually exists.
The Defendants argue that the plaintiff has not suffered an injury
to a legally protected interest because they did not deal directly
with plaintiff. The court disagrees. The fact that there were
interim steps between the defendants' conduct and the plaintiff's
injury does not sever the connection between the two occurrences.
The Plaintiff alleges that it has been financially harmed due to
the defendants' concealment of the battery defect, and that harm
reflects the economic reality of our health insurance system.
Ripeness
The Defendants next argue that the plaintiff's claims should be
dismissed as premature because there has been no determination that
their conduct harmed any patients or, by extension, the plaintiff.
A court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over an action if the
action is not ripe for resolution.
The ripeness doctrine derives from Article III's cases and
controversies requirement and prudential considerations for
refusing to exercise jurisdiction.
Here, the plaintiff alleges that it paid for defective devices and
will pay for removal and replacement of those devices. The claim is
unquestionably ripe.
Preemption
The Defendants argue that all of the plaintiff's claims are
preempted under the Medical Device Amendments to the Federal Food,
Drug and Cosmetic Act (MDA), because the plaintiff is challenging
the safety and effectiveness of pre-market approved (PMA) devices.
The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has explained the preemption of
state-law claims relating to Class III medical devices:
"The MDA contains an express preemption provision: no State may
establish or continue in effect with respect to a device any
requirement (1) which is different from, or in addition to, any
requirement applicable under this chapter to the device and (2)
which relates to the safety or effectiveness of the device or to
any other matter included in a requirement applicable to the
device."
With respect to the failure-to-warn claim, the court held that
because the plaintiffs sought to impose disclosure requirements
beyond FDA-approved warnings, the claim was not parallel and
therefore preempted. As to negligence based in part on the
allegation that Medtronic continued to sell the defective lead
after it received approval to sell a modified lead the court held
that the claim was preempted because the FDA allowed Medtronic to
sell the unmodified lead and, thus, any obligation to discontinue
those sales would impose a state requirement that would be
`different from or in addition to' the federal requirement.Further,
to the extent the negligence claim was based on Medtronic's failure
to timely file adverse events reports with the FDA, the court
determined that the claim was impliedly preempted under Section
337(a) as a private party's attempt to enforce the MDA.
Likewise, in Kinetic Co., Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc., No. 08-6062,
2011 WL 1485601 (D. Minn. Apr. 19, 2011), the court dismissed
Kinetic's state-law claims, relevant here, violation of Minnesota's
consumer fraud act, unjust enrichment, breach of express warranty,
breach of implied warranty, and misrepresentation by omission) as
preempted. Kinetic alleged, as plaintiff does here, that Medtronic
manufactured and sold ICDs with defective batteries. Relying
heavily on Sprint Fidelis, the court concluded that all but one of
the claims, which were based on allegations that Medtronic failed
to disclose the defects in the devices and that Medtronic
affirmatively misrepresented the safety and effectiveness of the
devices, were preempted.
The court is unpersuaded that this case is factually or legally
distinct from the above cases so as to require a different result.
Because the claims are preempted, the court will not address
whether the complaint is adequately pleaded. Nor will the court
consider the jurisdictional arguments raised by Abbott.
The motion to dismiss is granted.
A full-text copy of the District Court's January 24, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ybcnobzu from Leagle.com.
ASEA/AFSCME Local 52 Health Benefits Trust, individually and on
behalf of a class of similarly situated third party payors,
Plaintiff, represented by Adam J. Levitt -- alevitt@dlcfirm.com --
Dicello Levitt & Casey LLC, pro hac vice, Adam Michael Prom --
aprom@dlcfirm.com -- DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC, pro hac vice, Amy
Elisabeth Keller -- akeller@dlcfirm.com -- DiCello Levitt & Casey
LLC, pro hac vice, Bryan L. Bleichner --
bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com -- Chestnut Cambronne PA, Cecily
Shiel, Tousley Brain Stephens PLLC, pro hac vice, Jason T. Dennett,
Tousley Brain Stephens PLLC, Jeffrey D. Bores --
jbores@chestnutcambronne.com -- Chestnut Cambronne, PA, Karl L.
Cambronne, Kim D. Stephens -- kstephens@tousley.com -- Tousley
Brain Stephens PLLC, Rebecca A. Peterson -- rapeterson@locklaw.com
-- Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP & Robert K. Shelquist --
rkshelquist@locklaw.com -- Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP.
St. Jude Medical, LLC, a Delaware corporation & Abbott
Laboratories, an Illinois corporation, Defendants, represented by
Adine S. Momoh, Stinson Leonard Street LLP, Andrew A. Kassof --
Andrew.kassof@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis LLP, pro hac vice,
Barry Fields -- barry.fields@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis LLP,
pro hac vice, Daniel L. Scott -- dan.scott@stinson.com -- Stinson
Leonard Street LLP, James Hileman -- james.hileman@kirkland.com
-Kirkland & Ellis LLP, pro hac vice, Lariss Maldonado --
lariss.maldonado@stinson.com -- Stinson Leonard Street LLP, Thomas
F. Nelson -- tom.nelson@stinson.com -- Stinson Leonard Street LLP &
Whitney Becker -- whitney.becker@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis
LLP, pro hac vice.
TD AMERITRADE: 8th Cir. to Hear Appeal in Ford Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 31,
2019, for the quarterly period ended December 30, 2018, that the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit granted the
defendants' petition for immediate appeal of the District Court's
class certification decision in Roderick Ford (replacing Gerald
Klein) v. TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation, et al.
In 2014, five putative class action complaints were filed regarding
TD Ameritrade, Inc.'s routing of client orders and one putative
class action was filed regarding Scottrade, Inc.'s routing of
client orders.
Five of the six cases were dismissed and the United States Court of
Appeals, 8th Circuit, affirmed the dismissals in those cases that
were appealed. The one remaining case is Roderick Ford (replacing
Gerald Klein) v. TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation, et al., Case
No. 8:14CV396 (U.S. District Court, District of Nebraska).
Plaintiff alleges that, when routing client orders to various
market centers, defendants did not seek best execution, and instead
routed clients' orders to market venues that paid TD Ameritrade,
Inc. the most money for order flow. Plaintiff alleges that
defendants made misrepresentations and omissions regarding the
Company's order routing practices.
The complaint asserts claims of violations of Section 10(b) and 20
of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5. The complaint seeks
damages, injunctive relief, and other relief.
Plaintiff filed a motion for class certification, which defendants
opposed. On July 12, 2018, the Magistrate Judge issued findings and
a recommendation that plaintiff's motion for class certification be
denied. Plaintiff filed objections to the Magistrate Judge's
findings and recommendation, which defendants opposed.
On September 14, 2018, the District Judge sustained plaintiff's
objections, rejected the Magistrate Judge's recommendation and
granted plaintiff's motion for class certification. On September
28, 2018, defendants filed a petition requesting that the U.S.
Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, grant an immediate appeal of the
District Court's class certification decision.
The Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association and the
U.S. Chamber of Commerce filed amicus curiae briefs in support of
the petition together with motions for permission to file the
briefs. On October 9, 2018, plaintiff filed an opposition to the
petition.
On December 18, 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit,
granted defendants' petition and set a briefing schedule.
The Company intends to vigorously defend against this lawsuit and
is unable to predict the outcome or the timing of the ultimate
resolution of the lawsuit, or the potential loss, if any, that may
result.
TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation provides securities brokerage and
related technology-based financial services to retail investors and
traders, and independent registered investment advisors (RIAs) in
the United States. The company was founded in 1971 and is
headquartered in Omaha, Nebraska.
TD AMERITRADE: Discovery Ongoing in Aequitas Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 31,
2019, for the quarterly period ended December 30, 2018, that
discovery is ongoing in the Aequitas Securities Litigation.
An amended putative class action complaint was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Oregon in Lawrence Ciuffitelli
et al. v. Deloitte & Touche LLP, EisnerAmper LLP, Sidley Austin
LLP, Tonkon Torp LLP, TD Ameritrade, Inc., and Integrity Bank &
Trust, Case No. 3:16CV580, on May 19, 2016.
A second amended putative class action complaint was filed on
September 8, 2017, in which Duff & Phelps was added as a defendant.
The putative class includes all persons who purchased securities of
Aequitas Commercial Finance, LLC and its affiliates on or after
June 9, 2010.
Other groups of plaintiffs have filed five non-class action
lawsuits in Oregon Circuit Court, Multnomah County, against these
and other defendants: Walter Wurster, et al. v. Deloitte & Touche
et al., Case No. 16CV25920 (filed Aug. 11, 2016), Kenneth Pommier,
et al. v. Deloitte & Touche et al., Case No. 16CV36439 (filed Nov.
3, 2016), Charles Ramsdell, et al. v. Deloitte & Touche et al.,
Case No. 16CV40659 (filed Dec. 2, 2016), Charles Layton, et al. v.
Deloitte & Touche et al., Case No. 17CV42915 (filed October 2,
2017) and John Cavanagh, et al. v. Deloitte & Touche et al., Case
No. 18CV09052 (filed March 7, 2018).
FINRA arbitrations have also been filed against TD Ameritrade, Inc.
The claims in these actions include allegations that the sales of
Aequitas securities were unlawful, the defendants participated and
materially aided in such sales in violation of the Oregon
securities laws, and material misstatements and omissions were
made.
While the factual allegations differ in various respects among the
cases, plaintiffs' allegations include assertions that: TD
Ameritrade customers purchased more than $140 million of Aequitas
securities; TD Ameritrade served as custodian for Aequitas
securities; recommended and referred investors to financial
advisors as part of its advisor referral program for the purpose of
purchasing Aequitas securities; participated in marketing the
securities; recommended the securities; provided assurances to
investors about the safety of the securities; and developed a
market for the securities.
In the Ciuffitelli putative class action, plaintiffs allege that
more than 1,500 investors were owed more than $600 million on the
Aequitas securities they purchased. On August 1, 2018, the
Magistrate Judge in that case issued findings and a recommendation
that defendants' motions to dismiss the pending complaint be denied
with limited exceptions not applicable to the Company.
TD Ameritrade and other defendants filed objections to the
Magistrate Judge's findings and recommendation, which plaintiffs
opposed. On September 24, 2018, the District Judge issued an
opinion and order adopting the Magistrate Judge's findings and
recommendation. Discovery is ongoing.
In the five non-class action lawsuits, approximately 200 named
plaintiffs collectively allege a total of approximately $125
million in losses plus other damages. In the Wurster and Pommier
cases, the Court, on TD Ameritrade's motion, dismissed the claims
by those plaintiffs who were TD Ameritrade customers, in favor of
arbitration. Discovery is ongoing.
The Court in the Wurster and Pommier cases denied TD Ameritrade's
motion to dismiss the claims by the plaintiffs who were not TD
Ameritrade customers.
Plaintiffs in the Ramsdell case have filed a second amended
complaint in which TD Ameritrade is not named as a defendant.
On September 24, 2018, plaintiffs in the Cavanagh case dismissed
their claims against TD Ameritrade. On July 17, 2018, plaintiffs in
the Ciuffitelli case filed a motion for preliminary approval of an
$18.5 million settlement with the defendant Tonkon Torp law firm of
the claims against it in all the pending cases.
On September 24, 2018, defendants filed a response requesting the
Court to defer considering the plaintiffs' motion or to deny it as
presented.
The Company intends to vigorously defend against this litigation.
The Company is unable to predict the outcome or the timing of the
ultimate resolution of this litigation, or the potential losses, if
any, that may result.
TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation provides securities brokerage and
related technology-based financial services to retail investors and
traders, and independent registered investment advisors (RIAs) in
the United States. The company was founded in 1971 and is
headquartered in Omaha, Nebraska.
TEXAS: Court Dismisses Ortiz Inmates Civil Rights Suit
------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Texas, Houston Division, issued a Memorandum and Opinion dismissing
the Complaint with Prejudice in the case captioned ANTHONY ORTIZ,
(TDCJ-CID #753367), Plaintiff, v. LORIE DAVIS, et al., Defendants.
Civil Action No. H-16-3555. (S.D. Tex.).
Anthony Ortiz, an inmate of the Texas Department of Criminal
Justice Correctional Institutions Division, sued in December 2016,
alleging civil rights violations resulting from a denial of due
process and exposure to extreme heat. Ortiz, proceeding pro se and
in forma pauperis, sues Lorie Davis, Director of the TDCJ-CID;
Robert Herrera, Warden of the Pack I Unit; Donald J. Bilnoski,
Assistant Warden of the Pack I Unit; and Sharon M. Boniaby, officer
at the Pack I Unit.
Ortiz's Allegations
Ortiz explains that a storm damaged the exhaust fans, causing the
inadequate ventilation. Ortiz asserts that the inadequate
ventilation is adversely affecting the health of the inmates and
the sanitation of the prison. Ortiz states that he is a Type I
diabetic. He also suffers from hypertension, high cholesterol, and
acid reflux. Ortiz explains that his diabetes prevents him from
regulating his body temperature because he is unable to sweat.
Ortiz states that he is sixty-five years old, and since 2010, the
extreme heat in the Pack I Unit places him at risk of heat stroke
or death.
Ortiz seeks:
(1) a declaration that the acts and omissions described herein
violated Ortiz's rights under the Constitution and laws of the
United States;
(2) a preliminary and permanent injunction prohibiting them from
violating his civil rights; and
(3) punitive damages in the amount of $250,000.00 against each
defendant.
A federal court has the authority to dismiss an action in which the
plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis before service if the
court determines that the action is frivolous or malicious. A
complaint is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis in law or
fact. A complaint lacks an arguable basis in law if it is based on
an indisputably meritless legal theory, such as if the complaint
alleges the violation of a legal interest which clearly does not
exist.
The Due Process Claims
The Claim of Improper Disciplinary Violations
Prison discipline proceedings are not a part of a criminal
prosecution, and the full panoply of rights due a criminal
defendant does not apply. When punishment for a prison disciplinary
cause does not present the type of atypical, significant
deprivation in which a state might conceivably create a liberty
interest, there is no protected liberty interest that would entitle
the inmate to procedural due process rights. Prisoners charged
with rule infractions are entitled to certain due process rights
under the Fourteenth Amendment when disciplinary action may result
in a sanction that impinges upon a liberty interest.
Ortiz does not indicate whether he is eligible for release to
mandatory supervision. Ortiz did not lose good time credit;
instead, he lost 30 days of commissary privileges and 30 days of
recreation privileges. Ortiz's due process claims against the
defendants, therefore, are not cognizable because he does not have
a liberty interest in the punishment assessed for the disciplinary
violation that would implicate due process.
Additionally, Ortiz's due process claims against the defendants are
subject to dismissal. To recover damages for an allegedly
unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm
caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or
sentence invalid, Section Section 1983 plaintiff must prove that
the conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal,
expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal
authorized to make such determinations, or called into question by
a federal court's issuance of a writ of habeas corpus under 28
U.S.C. 2254. A claim for damages that bears a relationship to a
conviction or sentence that has not been so invalidated is not
cognizable under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. If a judgment in favor of
the plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity of his
conviction or sentence, then the complaint must be dismissed unless
the plaintiff can demonstrate that the conviction or sentence has
already been invalidated.
Ortiz does not allege, and the record does not show, that his
disciplinary conviction has been invalidated. A favorable judgment
on Ortiz's claims would necessarily imply the invalidity of Ortiz's
disciplinary conviction. Even if Ortiz seeks redress for the
deprivation afforded to him in the context of the disciplinary
hearing, his due process claim would fail. Ortiz does not explain
how his disciplinary hearing was deficient. Ortiz states that he
did attend, but he was not allowed to call any of his requested
witnesses. If the omission of the witness or document would not
have brought about a different result at the disciplinary hearing,
thereby calling into question the validity of his conviction, the
omission of that witness or evidence is harmless. Absent a showing
of harm or that his proceeding was rendered fundamentally unfair,
Ortiz has no due process claim.
The disciplinary hearing officer, Lieutenant Houston, conducted the
disciplinary hearing on August 14, 2016. From his own pleadings, it
appears that Ortiz had notice of the charges and the opportunity to
make a statement at the hearing. The disciplinary record shows that
Ortiz was charged with a minor offense, and for this reason, it
appears that Ortiz was not allowed to call witnesses. Ortiz has not
shown a due process violation that would support the relief he
seeks.
In reviewing a prison disciplinary decision, the standard to be
applied is whether or not actions of the disciplinary committee
were arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion. The
findings of a prison disciplinary hearing will not be disturbed
unless they are arbitrary and capricious. The requirements of due
process are satisfied if some evidence supports the decision of the
prison disciplinary board to revoke good time credits.
The finding of guilt was based on the charging officer's report.
Ortiz's due process claim based on illegal disciplinary proceedings
is dismissed as legally frivolous.
The Claim of an Inadequate Grievance System
Ortiz alleges that the defendants violated his civil rights by
failing to resolve the complaints presented in his grievances. A
prisoner has a liberty interest only in freedoms from restraint
imposing atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in
relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life. An inmate does
not have a constitutionally protected liberty interest in having
grievances resolved to his satisfaction. There is no due process
violation when prison officials fail to do so. The defendants'
alleged failure to address the grievances to Ortiz's satisfaction
did not violate his constitutional rights.
Ortiz filed a Step One Grievance, and Warden Herrera responded as
follows: Grievance Response: Minor disciplinary case #20160373907
has been reviewed. There was sufficient evidence to support guilty
finding and the punishment imposed was within agency guidelines. No
due process or procedural errors were noted. No further action is
warranted.
The excerpts from the grievance responses submitted by Ortiz show
that the defendants investigated his grievances and provided timely
responses. Ortiz's due process claim based on an inadequate
grievance procedure lacks merit.
The action filed by Anthony Ortiz, TDCJ-CID Inmate #753367, lacks
an arguable basis in law. His claims are DISMISSED with prejudice
under 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). Ortiz's Motion for
Summary Judgment, is denied.
A full-text copy of the District Court's January 24, 2018
Memorandum and Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/ych8camg
from Leagle.com.
Anthony Ortiz, Plaintiff, pro se.
TROPICAL FANTASY BAR: McPherson Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
April McPherson, on behalf of herself, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly-situated, Plaintiff, v. Tropical Fantasy
Bar & Lounge Inc. and Mukesh Persaud, individually, Defendants,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00599 (E.D. N.Y., January 30, 2019) is a civil
action for damages and equitable relief based upon Defendants'
violations of the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards
Act ("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL").
The Defendants routinely required Plaintiff to work, and Plaintiff
did in fact work, beyond 40 hours in a workweek, but Plaintiff was
paid a flat daily rate for each day worked regardless of how many
hours she worked per day or per week. Thus, Defendant failed to
compensate Plaintiff at the statutorily-required overtime rate for
any hours that she worked per week in excess of 40, in violation of
the FLSA's and the NYLL's overtime provisions, asserts the
complaint.
The Defendants further failed to compensate Plaintiff at the
statutorily required minimum wage rate for all hours that she
worked each week under the FLSA or the NYLL, the complaint notes.
Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a bartender and waitress from
September 2015 to September 2017.
Tropical Fantasy was and is a New York corporation with its
principal place of business located at 173-02 Jamaica Avenue,
Jamaica, New York 11433.
Persaud was and is the owner of Tropical Fantasy.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey R. Maguire, Esq.
Alexander T. Coleman, Esq.
Michael J. Borrelli, Esq.
BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C.
655 Third Avenue, Suite 1821
New York, NY 10017
Phone: (212)679-5000
UNITED HEALTHCARE: Aug. 1 Fairness Hearing on Class Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned Spinedex Physical Therapy USA Incorporated,
et al., Plaintiffs, v. United Healthcare of Arizona Incorporated,
et al., Defendants. No. CV-08-00457-PHX-ROS. (D. Ariz.), the United
States District Court for the District of Arizona has reviewed and
considered the Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval, dated
December 21, 2018, and the terms and conditions of the Settlement
Agreement, dated December 20, 2018, a corrected copy of which has
been submitted as exhibit in the Joint Notice of Errata filed on
January 15, 2019.
After consideration of the Settlement Agreement and the Joint
Motion, together with the other submissions by the Parties in
support of the Joint Motion, the Court finds that the Joint Motion
should be granted.
The Court preliminarily approves the terms of the Settlement
Agreement, subject to further consideration at the Final Settlement
Hearing. The Court concludes that the Settlement is fair,
reasonable, and adequate within the meaning of Rule 23 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, free of collusion to the
detriment of the Settlement Class and is sufficiently within the
range of reasonableness to warrant the conditional certification of
the Settlement Class, the scheduling of the Final Settlement
Hearing, and the circulation of the Mailed and Published Notices to
members of the Settlement Class, each as provided for in this
Order.
Pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, the Court conditionally certifies a class composed of:
(i) all Decompression Therapy service providers that provided
Out-of-Network Decompression Therapy Services to a Plan Member,
submitted a claim for reimbursement of those Decompression Therapy
Services pursuant to an assignment of benefits received from that
Plan Member, and received a Complete Claim Denial from any of the
Released Parties during the period from March 7, 2002 through April
24, 2019; and
(ii) all Plan Members who received Out-of-Network Decompression
Therapy Services, submitted a claim for reimbursement of those
Decompression Therapy Services (including, but not limited to,
through an authorized representative), and received a Complete
Claim Denial from any of the Released Parties during the period
from March 7, 2002 through April 24, 2019.
A hearing will be held before the Court on August 1, 2019, at 10:00
a.m., in the United States Courthouse, United States District Court
for the District of Arizona, 401 W. Washington St., Phoenix,
Arizona.
With the consent of Defendants, Settlement Class Counsel has
designated Heffler Claims Group as Settlement Administrator, and
such Settlement Administrator shall perform the functions described
in the Settlement Agreement, except as otherwise set forth herein.
Prior to the Final Settlement Hearing, the Settlement Administrator
and/or KCC shall attest to compliance with Paragraph 11 of this
Order. Costs of providing the notice to the Settlement Class that
is specified in this Order shall be paid as set forth in the
Settlement Agreement.
The Notices are found to be the best means of notice to Settlement
Class Members that is practicable under the circumstances and are
reasonably calculated, under the circumstances, to apprise
Settlement Class Members of the pendency of the Litigation and
their right to object to or exclude themselves from the proposed
Settlement. When completed, the Notices shall constitute due and
sufficient notice of the Settlement, the Settlement Agreement, the
Final Settlement Hearing and all other matters set forth in the
Notices to all persons affected by and/or entitled to participate
in the Settlement or the Final Settlement Hearing, in full
compliance with the requirements of due process, the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure, and CAFA.
All members of the Settlement Class who wish to opt-out of the
Settlement Class must do so by sending timely, written notice of
their election to opt-out to the Settlement Administrator at the
address set forth in the Mailed Notice to be provided pursuant to
Paragraph 11 of this Order. To be considered timely, and thereby
effectively exclude a person from the Settlement Class, the
envelope delivering a completed opt-out request for such person
must be postmarked by no later than May 24, 2019. Prior to the
Final Settlement Hearing, Settlement Class Counsel or their
designee, including, but not limited to, the Settlement
Administrator, shall submit to the Court a statement setting forth
the names and addresses of each member of the Settlement Class who
has timely elected to opt-out from the Settlement Class.
Out-Of-Network provider groups, as distinct legal entities, and
their individual Out-Of-Network provider members, partners,
shareholders, owners, or employees, must separately request
exclusion from the Settlement Class in order to opt out.
Any Settlement Class Member who does not properly opt out shall be
included in such Settlement Class and, if the Settlement is
approved and becomes effective, shall be bound by all the terms and
provisions of the Settlement Agreement, including, but not limited
to, the releases, waivers, and covenants not to sue described
therein, whether or not such Settlement Class Member shall have
objected to the Settlement and whether or not such Settlement Class
Member makes a claim upon, or participates in, the Settlement Fund
or the other benefits to the Settlement Class provided by the
Settlement Agreement.
A full-text copy of the District Court's January 24, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ycop5gno from Leagle.com.
Spinedex Physical Therapy USA Incorporated, on behalf of itself as
assignee of plan participants, and on behalf of all other similarly
situated participants, Claude Aragon, an individual, on his behalf
and on behalf of all other similarly situated plan participants and
beneficiaries, Jack Adams, an individual, on his behalf and on
behalf of all other similarly situated plan participants and
beneficiaries & Arizona Chiropractic Society, an Arizona non-profit
association, on behalf of its members, their patients, and all
other similarly situated health service providers, assignees, and
plan participants and beneficiaries, Plaintiffs, represented by
Joseph A. Creitz -- joe@creitzserebin.com -- Creitz & Serebin LLP,
Joseph A. Garofolo -- jgarofolo@garofololaw.com -- Garofolo &
Ramsdell LLP, Jennifer Lynn Kroll, Martin & Bonnett PLLC, Jon F.
Doyle, Garofolo & Ramsdell LLP & Susan Joan Martin, Martin &
Bonnett PLLC.
United Healthcare of Arizona Incorporated, an Arizona corporation
and an employee welfare benefit plan, United Health Group
Incorporated, a Minnesota corporation and an employee welfare
benefit plan, Abbott Laboratories Group Health Plan, an employee
welfare benefit plan assigned United Group No. 0704077, Acoustic
Technologies Incorporated Group Health Plan, an employee welfare
benefit plan assigned United Group No. 0296833, Adobe Drywall
Incorporated Group Health Pan, an employee welfare benefit plan
assigned United Group No. 0706107, Affiliated Cardiologists of
Arizona PC Group Health Plan, an employee welfare benefit plan
assigned United Group No. 60623, Art In Metal U.S.A. Group Health
Plan, an employee welfare benefit plan assigned United Group No.
0298866, Discount Tire Company Incorporated Group Health Plan, an
employee welfare benefit plan assigned United Group No. 0702649,
Downtown Tempe Community Incorporated Group Health Plan, an
employee welfare benefit plan assigned United Group No. 83172,
Faxwatch Incorporated Group Health Plan, an employee welfare
benefit plan assigned United Group No. 63545, General Motors
Corporation Group Health Plan, an employee welfare benefit plan
assigned United Group No. 0003200, Genuine Parts Company Group
Health Plan, an employee welfare benefit plan assigned United Group
No. 0184109, Home Depot USA Incorporated Group Health Plan, Medical
and Dental Plan, an employee welfare benefit plan assigned United
Group No. 0241714, Insight Enterprises Incorporated Group Health
Plan, an employee welfare benefit plan assigned United Group No.
0704208, ITC Manufacturing and Powder Coating Group Health Plan, an
employee welfare benefit plan assigned United Group No. 0303821,
Martz Agency Group Health Plan, an employee welfare benefit plan
assigned United Group No. 0704217, MetLife Securities Incorporated
Group Health Plan, an employee welfare benefit plan assigned United
Group No. 0193843, OldCastle Glass Incorporated Group Health Plan,
an employee welfare benefit plan assigned United Group No. 0702842,
Pfizer Incorporated Group Health Plan, an employee welfare benefit
plan assigned United Group No. 0183644, Qualex Incorporated Group
Health Plan, an employee welfare benefit plan assigned United Group
No. 0213294, Quest Communications International Incorporated Group
Health Plan, an employee welfare benefit plan assigned United Group
No. 0197313 and 0229050, Revlon Consumer Products Corporation Group
Health Plan, an employee welfare benefit plan assigned United Group
No. 0193160, Richard A. Bietz D.D.S. PC Group Health Plan, an
employee welfare benefit plan assigned United Group No. 83534,
Shamrock Foods Company Group Health Plan, an employee welfare
benefit plan assigned United Group No. 700560, Shasta Industries
Incorporated Group Health Plan, an employee welfare benefit plan
assigned United Group No. 22354, Sumco USA Corporation Group Health
Plan, an employee welfare benefit plan assigned United Group No.
0703691, Temcon Concrete Construction Company Group Health Plan, an
employee welfare benefit plan assigned United Group No. 0705175,
URS Corporation Group Health Plan, an employee welfare benefit plan
assigned United Group No. 122841, Watson Williams Freight Agency
Incorporated Group Health Plan, an employee welfare benefit plan
assigned United Group No. 0313749, Wells Fargo & Company Group
Health Plan, an employee welfare benefit plan assigned United Group
No. 0108000, United Healthcare Incorporated, a Delaware
corporation, United Healthcare Insurance Company, a Connecticut
corporation, United Healthcare Services Incorporated, a Minnesota
corporation & Pinnacle Engineering Incorporated, group health plan,
an employee welfare benefit plan assigned United Group No. 321475,
Defendants, represented by Christopher R.J. Pace --
crjpace@jonesday.com -- Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, Jared R.
Friedmann -- jared.friedman@weil.com -- Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP,
Jeffrey S. Klein -- Jeffrey.klein@weil.com -- Weil Gotshal & Manges
LLP, Nicholas James Pappas, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, Reed
Lawrence Collins -- reed.collins@weil.com -- Weil Gotshal & Manges
LLP -- jwest@lrrc.com -- Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP.
UNITED STATES: AFGE Files Class Action Over Government Shutdown
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ian Smith, writing for FedSmith.com, reports that the American
Federation of Government Employees has filed lawsuit against the
government over the partial government shutdown, saying that it is
illegal to force federal employees to work without pay.
"Our members put their lives on the line to keep our country safe,"
said J. David Cox Sr., the union's national president. "Positions
that are considered 'essential' during a government shutdown are
some of the most dangerous jobs in the federal government. Our
intent is to force the government and the administration to make
all federal employees whole."
The Office of Personnel Management says that "excepted" federal
employees are those who must work during a partial government
shutdown. According to OPM, these employees will be paid after the
shutdown concludes and a new appropriations bill is signed into
law.
AFGE's lawsuit is in reference to these employees deemed "excepted"
or "essential." Although OPM notes that they will get paid
eventually, the lawsuit is seeking damages regarding overtime pay.
Part of the suit states:
These Excepted Employees were not paid for overtime work performed
after the commencement of the shutdown on their regularly scheduled
payday ("Scheduled Payday") for biweekly pay period 25, which
includes December 9, 2018 through December 22, 2018 ("Pay Period
25"). As a result, Excepted Employees who are classified as
non-exempt from the overtime requirements of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. ("FLSA"), were not paid on
their Scheduled Payday for work performed after the commencement of
the shutdown in excess of the applicable overtime thresholds.
Plaintiffs seek liquidated damages under the FLSA for themselves
and all other FLSA non-exempt Excepted Employees in the amount of
any overtime payments to which they were entitled on the Scheduled
Payday.
This scenario was recently outlined as a possibility for a lawsuit
in which federal employees could potentially get double pay
resulting from the current shutdown. A class action lawsuit
regarding the 2013 shutdown ultimately awarded back pay to roughly
25,000 federal workers. Although these employees are apparently
still waiting to get the money, it was awarded to them in the suit.
It appears that AFGE's lawsuit is seeking damages along the same
lines. [GN]
VISA INC: Court Stays Nuts-for-Candy Suit
-----------------------------------------
Visa Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on January 31, 2019, for the quarterly
period ended December 31, 2018, that the court has stayed the Nuts
for Candy case pending the district court's decision on preliminary
approval of an Amended Settlement Agreement in the Interchange
Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) Putative Class Actions, and pending
final approval of that agreement if preliminary approval is
granted. The stay order was entered October 18, 2018.
Visa Inc. operates as a payments technology company worldwide. The
company facilitates commerce through the transfer of value and
information among consumers, merchants, financial institutions,
businesses, strategic partners, and government entities. Visa Inc.
was incorporated in 2007 and is headquartered in San Francisco,
California.
VITAL PHARMACEUTICALS: Nguyen Files Fraud Class Suit in Fla.
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Vital
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. The case is styled as Tiffany Nguyen and
William Muscara, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. Vital Pharmaceuticals, Inc. doing business
as: VPX Sports, Defendant, Case No. 0:19-cv-60261-DPG (S.D. Fla.,
January 30, 2019).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as other-fraud.
Vital Pharmaceuticals, Inc., which manufactures and distributes
sports supplements under the brand name VPX, is a corporation
located in United States, Florida founded in 1993 by Jack Owoc. Its
market consists principally of fitness enthusiasts.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Kristy Marie Johnson, Esq.
The Alderman Law Firm
9999 NE 2nd Avenue, Suite 211
Miami Shores, FL 33138
Tel: (305) 200-5473
Fax: (305) 200-5474
Email: kjohnson@thealdermanlawfirm.com
- and -
Troy Anthony Tolentino, Esq.
The Alderman Law Firm
9999 NE 2nd Ave, Suite 211
Miami Shores, FL 33138
Tel: (305) 200-5473
Email: ttolentino@thealdermanlawfirm.com
- and -
Jason R. Alderman, Esq.
The Alderman Law Firm
9999 NE 2nd Ave, Suite 211
Miami Shores, FL 33138
Tel: (305) 200-5473
Fax: (305) 200-5474
Email: jalderman@thealdermanlawfirm.com
VOESTALPINE TEXAS: Faces Abben Class Action in New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Voestalpine Texas
Holding LLC. The case is styled as Robert Abben, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Voestalpine Texas Holding LLC and Voestalpine Texas LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-00032 (S.D. Tex., January 29, 2019).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as torts to land
filed over Personal Injury.
The Defendants are industrial area in Texas.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William Clifton Alexander, Esq.
Anderson Alexander,PLLC
819 N Upper Broadway
Corpus Christi, TX 78401
Tel: (361) 452-1279
Fax: (361) 452-1284
Email: clif@a2xlaw.com
WALMART INC: Brown Files Fraud Class Action in New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Walmart Inc. The case
is styled as Jasmine Brown, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Walmart Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 2:19-cv-00569 (E.D. N.Y., January 29, 2019).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Fraud or
Truth-In-Lending.
Walmart Inc. is an American multinational retail corporation that
operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and
grocery stores. Headquartered in Bentonville, Arkansas, the company
was founded by Sam Walton in 1962 and incorporated on October 31,
1969.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Spencer I. Sheehan, Esq.
Sheehan & Associates, P.C.
505 Northern Boulevard, Suite 311
Great Neck, NY 11021
Tel: (516) 303-0552
Fax: (516) 234-7800
Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com
WEST METRO: Class in Health Trust Case Granted Certification
------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Rios, writing for Wheat Ridge Transcript, reports that after
an approval of certification of class from a Jefferson County
District judge, at least 74 former West Metro Fire District
employees will join a lawsuit against the fire district.
Tim O'Hayre and Ruth Brienza filed a lawsuit against West Metro
Fire District, alleging that the Executive Committee of IAFF Local
1309, a union for current employees of West Metro Fire District and
the district itself gave funds from a health trust to current
employees as it was being closed down.
The funds were contributed to current employees' retirement health
savings accounts -- something West Metro Fire says was an
appropriate action. However, Mr. O'Hayre and Ms. Brienza believe
that they and other retirees and dependents from West Metro Fire
were entitled to money that remained in the health trust.
The two plaintiffs asked the judge to turn the lawsuit into a class
action, to make it on behalf of all retired firefighters and their
dependents that were allegedly wronged by the money transfer.
"I'm very pleased with the (certification of class) ruling. It
gives a clear legal path to have representation for all of the
retirees effected," said Mr. O'Hayre in a statement to the Lakewood
Sentinel.
West Metro Fire declined to comment on the latest judicial ruling.
In a previous statement regarding the case, the department stated
"West Metro felt that those active employees who had been paying in
the Retiree Health Account were entitled to a portion of those
funds since they would no longer be receiving the health benefit
they had been paying for." The fire department also added that its
move to reimburse current employees fit the mission of the Retiree
Health Account.
The health trust was created by West Metro Fire in 1996 to provide
health benefits to both active employees, and qualified retirees
until they turned 65 and could apply for Medicare.
Part of that health trust included the Retiree Health Account, an
account created to hold funds for retiree health benefits and their
beneficiaries. Both current and retired employees contributed to
the health trust before the fire district and the trustees of the
trust agreed to start closing it down in March of 2015. It was
officially closed on Dec. 31, 2017.
Ronda Scholting, a spokesperson for West Metro Fire, said the
health trust was closed, because it was projected to fall behind by
$15 million in funding. If the health trust continued, West Metro
Fire says it would've left the district with "little, or no
operating budget."
The fire district agreed to provide retired firefighters with
health-care benefits between 2015 and the end of 2017 as it was
being terminated. The Executive Committee of IAFF Local 1309 was
responsible for managing the health trust during the shut-down
period. There was about $1.7 million remaining in the health trust
as of Dec. 31, 2015, according to court documents.
The joint resolution to end the health trust read "any assets
remaining in the health trust fund, after satisfaction of all
liabilities, shall not revert to either the employees, or the
employer, but shall instead be transferred to such other entity, or
entities that will utilize them for similar purposes as the health
trust."
West Metro Fire's agreement for coverage of retirees read that
assets in the Retiree Health Trust will never revert to the benefit
of the District.
Mr. O'Hayre, a former firefighter for West Metro Fire and Ms.
Brienza, the wife of another West Metro Fire fighter, are seeking
an accounting and restitution for all money that was in the health
trust as of March 10, 2015 and any money that was added later.
The trial was scheduled to begin on Feb. 5, 2019 in a Jefferson
County District Court. West Metro Fire District is a full-service
fire department that serves over 250,000 residents in Jefferson
County and Douglas County. [GN]
WISCONSIN HOSPITALITY: Pfundheller Seeks Proper Reimbursements
--------------------------------------------------------------
Christine Pfundheller, individually and on behalf of similarly
situated persons, Plaintiff, v. Wisconsin Hospitality Group, LLC
d/b/a Pizza Hut and Timothy Randall, Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-00158 (E.D. Wis., January 30, 2019) is a collective action
under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and a class action for
violations under the Wisconsin Minimum Wage Law, and common law to
recover unpaid minimum wages for Plaintiff and similarly situated
delivery drivers employed by Defendants at its Pizza Hut stores.
The Defendants employ delivery drivers who use their own
automobiles to deliver pizza and other food items to their
customers. However, instead of reimbursing delivery drivers for the
reasonably approximate costs of the business use of their vehicles,
the Defendants use a flawed method to determine reimbursement rates
that provides such an unreasonably low rate beneath any reasonable
approximation of the expenses they incur that the drivers'
unreimbursed expenses cause their wages to fall below the federal
minimum wage during some or all workweeks, says the complaint.
Plaintiff Christina Pfundheller was employed by Defendants from
2016 to 2017 as a delivery driver at Defendants' Pizza Hut stores
located in the Marshfield, Wisconsin area.
Defendants operate numerous Pizza Hut pizza franchise stores.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew Haynie, Esq.
Jay Forester, Esq.
FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC
1701 N. Market Street, Suite 210
Dallas, TX 75202
Phone: (214) 210-2100
Fax: (214) 346-5909
Email: matthew@foresterhaynie.com
jay@foresterhaynie.com
- and -
J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
Joe P. Leniski, Jr., Esq.
BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC
223 Rosa Parks Ave. Suite 200
Nashville, TN 37203
Phone: 615/254-8801
Facsimile: 615/255-5419
Email: gerards@bsjfirm.com
joeyl@bsjfirm.com
WV AMERICAN: Women Pregnant During Water Crisis to Get Checks
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury, writing for West Virginia Record, reports that
individual review claims and claims for women who were pregnant
during the water contamination crisis nearly five years ago will
receive payment.
An application for approval to pay approved uncontested individual
review option claims was filed on Dec. 31 in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of West Virginia at Charleston.
"We finally got clearance from Medicare to pay the pregnancy
claims, so we filed on Dec. 31 an application to have the court
approve those payments," Anthony Majestro, an attorney for the
class, said in an interview with The West Virginia Record.
The class counsel is seeking to remit payment for 1,154 individual
review option pregnancy claims, according to the application.
All of the pregnancy claimants were submitted to The Centers for
Medicare and Medicaid for verification of enrollment and nine of
the claimants had Medicare Part A and/or Part B entitlement during
the exposure period, according to the application. Those claims
total $135 and none of the other individual review option pregnancy
claimants included in the application matched enrollment records in
the Medicare and Medicaid systems.
The application states that the individual review option claims
total $2,885,151.56. The settlement administration fees for the
individual review option claims total $236,240.
Mr. Majestro said along with the individual claims and pregnancy
claims, they're also asking for approval of payment to one business
claim.
"These are all of the individual review claims that had to be
approved," Mr. Majestro said. "We're waiting on the judge to sign
that order, which shouldn't take too long because it's not
contested."
Mr. Majestro said once the judge approves the application, checks
can be sent out within a week or so.
The 2014 chemical spill affected more than 300,000 people in nine
West Virginia counties.
District Judge John Copenhaver signed the final order in June and
checks for simple claims went out in September.
The class-action lawsuit alleged West Virginia American Water
(WVAW) did not adequately prepare for or respond to the chemical
spill and that Eastman Chemical, the maker of the chemical MCHM,
did not properly warn Freedom Industries of the dangers of its
chemical or take any action when officials learned the Freedom
facility along the Elk River in Charleston was in disrepair.
WVAW and Eastman both deny any liability and blame the crisis on
Freedom Industries.
The total claims filed in the class action totaled more $162
million, meaning the settlements were lowered from approximately a
$550 flat payment to $440.
Judge Copenhaver also lowered the amount assessed in attorney fees
from 25 percent to 22 percent so that more money will go to the
claimants.
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia Case
number: 2:14-cv-01374 [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 ***