/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/190212.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, February 12, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 31 Headlines ACE & W INVESTMENT: Class Certification Bid Denied as Moot AIDING HEARTS: Wolcott Seeks Minimum and Overtime Wages ALLIANCE PROPERTY: Heinrich Files Labor Suit in Georgia AMERICAN AIRLINES: L. Graham's Suit Transferred to N.D. Tex. AMERICAN HOTEL: Damasco Bid for Class Certification Withdrawn APPLE INC: Law Firm Mulls Securities Fraud Class Action AT&T TELEHOLDINGS: Sued over Unsolicited Advertisement Messages AUTOMATIC DATA: Still Defends Suits over Use of Biometric Info AXOGEN INC: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Securities Class Action BEACON ROOFING: Failed to Reimburse Delivery Drivers' Expenses BOJANGLES' INC: Monteverde & Associates Files Class Action BRETT A. OSBORN: McLean Seeks to Certify TCPA Class BRINKER INTERNATIONAL: Cyber Security Breach Suit Still Ongoing CLEVELAND PUBLIC: Court Dismisses Class Action CONNECTICUT: Medicaid Recipients Sue DSS Over Transportation DANSKE BANK: Vincent Wong Files Securities Class Action DEJA VU SERVICES: Strip Club Workers' Suit Moved to S.D. Calif. DELAWARE: Inmate Acquitted in Vaughn Prison Riot to Join Lawsuit ENHANCED RECOVERY: Court Stays L. Fraley's FDCPA Suit ENHANCED RECOVERY: Simmons Files Suit Under FDCPA in NJ EXPEDIA GROUP: Hagens Berman Files Class-Action Lawsuit EXPEDIA GROUP: Krause Seeks Overtime Pay for Travel Consultants FCI LENDER: Christopher Tabick Seeks to Certify Class FIAT CHRYSLER: Agrees to Pay $800MM to Settle Ecodiesel Scandal FITCHBURG GAS: Bellermann Class Action Concluded FIVE STARS: Quinones Seeks Minimum Wage and Overtime Pay FLIGHT CLUB: Faces Traynor ADA Suit in S.D. New York G4S SECURE: Young et al. Seek OT Pay for Security Service Workers GMA INVESTMENTS: Court Grants Joint Bid to Dismiss Pendleton Suit GRANGE INSURANCE: Failed to Reimburse Conditional Medicare Payment HEALTHPLUS SURGERY: More Patients Expected to Join Class Action HEALTHPLUS SURGERY: Patients Wait for Results Amid Class Action HOCKEY CANADA: Faces Class-Action Concussion Lawsuit HOUZZ INC: Underpays Account Coordinators, Merritt Alleges HUD HOSPITALITY: Leible Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wage for Servers INTEL CORP: Settlement Reached in Suit over McAfee Acquisition INTERNATIONAL EXCHANGE: Inks $65.5MM Proposed Settlement Deal JACKSON HANDS: Williams Seeks Unpaid Wages & Overtime Pay JETBLUE AIRWAYS: Challenges Donoff Subpoena Bid JETBLUE AIRWAYS: Seeks to Quash Subpoena in Dolan Suit JOHNSON AND JOHNSON: Sued over Damaging Retirement Savings Plan KEMET CORP: 4th Payment in Capacitors Antitrust Suit Due May 15 KEMET CORP: Inductors Antitrust Still Ongoing KICKS USA: Faces Traynor ADA Suit in S.D. New York LEGACY HEALTH: Former Nurse Sues Over Breaks, Overtime LEXICON PHARMA: Sued over Misleading Report on Sotagliflozin LLOYD'S OF LONDON: Hit With Federal Class Action LOANCARE, LLC: Hamilton Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois LYONDELLBASELL ACETYLS: McDevitt Seeks Overtime Wages MARRIOTT INT'L: Class Action Powerhouses Sue Over Data Breach MCKESSON CORP: Plaintiffs Seek to Lead Evanston Police Fund Case MDL 1566: Suggestion to Remand Suit to JPML Granted MDL 2323: Ex-Wife Can't Intervene in Concussion Suit MDL 2848: Court Lifts Conditional Transfer Order Stay for 89 Cases MEDLEY CAPITAL: Khan & Dicristino Balk at Sierra Income Merger MISSOURI: Court Denies Bid for Counsel Appointment in Postawko MUNCHERY, INC: Joshua Philips Sues over Mass Layoffs MUTUAL OF OMAHA: Workers Pursue Class Action Over 401(k) Plan NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Abdulrahman Asserts Personal Injury Claim NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Ashby Suit Asserts Claim for Personal Injury NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Booker Files Personal Injury Case in Indiana NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Campbell Files PI Suit in S.D. Indiana NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Caylor Files Personal Injury Suit in Ind. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Chuinard Files PI Suit in S.D. Indiana NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Cooke Files PI Suit in S.D. Indiana NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Elliott Asserts Personal Injury Claim NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Faces Fox Personal Injury Suit in Indiana NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Faces Markham Personal Injury Class Action NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Fahy Asserts Claim for Personal Injury NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Fontaine Asserts Claim for Personal Injury NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Freeman Asserts Claim for Personal Injury NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Hurst Suit Claim for Personal Injury NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Johnson Files Personal Injury Class Action NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Jones Suit Alleges Personal Injury Claim NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Kidd Files PI Suit in S.D. Indiana NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Kuehne Asserts Claim for Personal Injury NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Lauback Asserts Claim for Personal Injury NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: MacLellan Suit Asserts Personal Injury Claim NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Martin Brings Personal Injury Suit in Indiana NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: McMonigle Files PI Suit in S.D. Indiana NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Merchant Asserts Claim for Personal Injury NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Montgomery Files PI Suit in Indiana NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Moravec Asserts Personal Injury Class Suit NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Robert Suit Asserts Claim for Personal Injury NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Sepanski Asserts Claim for Personal Injury NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Smith Files PI Suit in S.D. Indiana NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Staten Asserts Claim for Personal Injury NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Stinyard Suit Alleges Personal Injury Claim NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Udovich Suit Asserts Personal Injury Claim NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Watts Brings Personal Injury Suit in Indiana NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Willis Asserts Claim for Personal Injury NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Wilson Suit Asserts Claim for Personal Injury NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Young Files Personal Injury Suit in Indiana NATIONWIDE BUSINESS: Court Grants Joint Bid to Dismiss Cunningham NAVIENT SOLUTIONS: Hill Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages NCAA: Disregards WNEU Student-Athletes' Safety, Hurd Says NCAA: McCormick Sues over Johns Hopkins Student-Athletes' Safety NCAA: Newbern Sues over Safety of Lehigh Student-Athletes NH STATE EMPLOYEES' ASSOCIATION: Non-union Members Hit Illegal Fees NORTHWESTERN MEDICINE: Bars Patients From Bringing Class-Action NOVA LIFESTYLE: Responds to Research Report, To Defend Lawsuits OAKWOOD, OH: Plaintiffs to Receive $200K in Checks from Lawsuit OYSHI TABLE: De Jesus et al. Seek Unpaid Wages and Overtime P.A.M. TRANSPORT: Bid to Decertify FLSA Collective Action Denied PORANIA LLC: Robinson Files Class Action in Arizona PORTAGE COUNTY, WI: Court Won't Strike B. Lieberman's Suit POST HOLDINGS: Opt-Out Plaintiffs' Antitrust Claims v. Unit Ongoing PUBLIC STORAGE: Underpays Sales Agents, Arakelian Suit Alleges REDROCK TRAVEL: Ramos-Rivera Seeks Minimum Wage Compensation REDROCK TRAVEL: Tibolla Suit Seeks Minimum Wage Compensation REDROCK TRAVEL: Wilder Seeks Minimum Wage Compensation RIOT BLOCKCHAIN: Settles SEC Fraud Case Amid Class Action SAFE HAVEN: Martin et al. Seek to Certify Salespeople Class SAFE HAVEN: Martin et al. Seek Unpaid Overtime Compensation SAGORA SENIOR: Mickle Seeks Unpaid Wages & Overtime Pay SALAS CONCRETE: Denied Break Periods, Wage Statements, Cavazos Says SARAH JONES: White et al. Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages & Overtime SEALIFT HOLDINGS: Faces Baduria Suit in E.D. New York ST. LOUIS, MO: Class Action Prompts Warrantless Arrest Changes STADION MONEY: Sued over Underperformance of Retirement Plan STANFORD UNIVERSITY: Lawsuit Disputes Background Check Practices TIDAL BASIN: Gonzalez Seeks Unpaid Wages for Workers TRANSAMERICA CORP: Faces ERISA Class Action Over 401(k) Plan TRIDENT ASSET: Green Files Case Under FDCPA in New York TRILLIANT FOOD: Mitchell Seeks OT Pay for Production Employees TSYS BUSINESS: Court Grants Final Approval of Gardiner Settlement UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Drivers' Class Action Can Go Ahead UNITED STATES: Can't Pause Suit Over Migrant Teens' Detention UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN: Workers Oppose Supreme Court Review Bid VISA INC: Amended Deal with Damages Class Wins Initial Approval VISTA ACQUISITION: Stell Seeks Unpaid 60 Days' Pay & Benefits WAYFAIR INC: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action Suit WELLS FARGO: Court Approves $1,300,000 Settlement in Fowler Suit XPO LOGISTICS: Hagens Berman Files Securities Fraud Class Suit YIN WALL: Court Grants Final Approval of Ginseng Growers' Deal YOGAWORKS INC: Mirza Sues over 89% Drop in Share Price [*] McGuireWoods Attorneys Discuss 2 Class Action Rulings ********* ACE & W INVESTMENT: Class Certification Bid Denied as Moot ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned ANGELA PIPES, the Plaintiff, vs. ACE & W INVESTMENT, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 6:18-cv-01328-PGB-GJK (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Gregory J. Kelly entered an order on Jan. 25, 2019: 1. denying as moot Plaintiff's motion for class certification; and 2. directing Parties to file a joint motion for approval of the settlement agreement on or before February 15, 2019, including all documentation and information the Court needs to determine the reasonableness of the agreement and any attorney's fees provided. On January 11, 2019, the Plaintiff filed a motion for class certification, and on January 24, the Plaintiff filed a notice of settlement, stating that the action has been settled, the Court says.[CC] AIDING HEARTS: Wolcott Seeks Minimum and Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------- REBECCA WOLCOTT on behalf of herself and other persons similarly situated, known and unknown, the Plaintiff, vs. AIDING HEARTS LLC; and LISA HERRGUTH; jointly and severally, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00062 (W.D. Mich., Jan. 25, 2019), seeks to recover minimum wage and overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Michigan Minimum Wage Law of 1964. According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and similarly situated persons, for all hours worked and regularly paid her less than the amount of wages she earned. During and after Plaintiff's employment with the Defendants, the Plaintiff requested that she be paid for all hours worked. Despite her requests, the Defendants refused to compensate Plaintiff for all hours worked. Throughout the time of her employment, the Defendants failed to maintain proper records of their employees' work time and had a policy or practice, which applied to all employees, of not investigating disputed hours and not paying employees' for those hours. As a result of not paying employees' for all hours worked, the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and similarly situated persons at the federal or state minimum wage rates, the lawsuit says. Aiding Hearts provides in-home care that makes a difference in the lives of seniors and other adults.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: John Philo, Esq. Tony Paris, Esq. MAURICE & JANE SUGAR LAW CENTER FOR ECONOMIC & SOCIAL JUSTICE 4605 Cass Avenue, Second Floor Detroit, MI 48201 Telephone: 313-993-4505 Facsimile: 313-887-8470 E-mail: jphilo@sugarlaw.org tparis@sugarlaw.org ALLIANCE PROPERTY: Heinrich Files Labor Suit in Georgia ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alliance Property Services of Georgia. The case is styled as Michael Heinrich, Jr., on his own behalf and those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Alliance Property Services of Georgia, a Domestic Profit Corporation and Matthew J. Meyers, Sr., Individually, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-00022-RWS (N.D. Ga., January 30, 2019). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as filed under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Alliance Property Services of Georgia provides nationwide property maintenance services, with corporate offices located in New Jersey and Georgia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew R. Frisch, Esq. Morgan & Morgan, P. FL 600 N. Pine Island Road, Suite 400 Plantation, FL 33324 Tel: (954) 318-0268 Fax: (954) 333-3515 AMERICAN AIRLINES: L. Graham's Suit Transferred to N.D. Tex. ------------------------------------------------------------ The United States District Court for the District of Arizona issued an Order granting Defendant's Motion to Transfer Case the case captioned Lorie Grabham, Plaintiff, v. American Airlines Incorporated, Defendant. No. CV-17-03741-PHX-DWL. (D. Ariz.) to the Northern District of Texas. Initially, the Plaintiff, an Arizona resident, asserted only individual federal and state-law claims against her employer, American Airlines, Inc. (American), for gender-based wage discrimination. However, in September 2018, the Plaintiff filed an amended complaint in which she dropped her state-law claim and asserted federal claims on behalf of a nationwide class of over 8,000 current and former American employees. Under 1404(a), the district court has discretion to adjudicate motions for transfer according to an individualized, case-by-case consideration of convenience and fairness. In making this determination, the district court may consider a variety of factors, including: the convenience of the parties, the relative financial burdens, the convenience of witnesses, the availability of compulsory process to compel unwilling witness attendance, the availability of witnesses and their live testimony at trial, the ease of access to sources of proof, the differences in the costs of litigation in the two forums, contacts with the chosen forum, jurisdiction over the parties, the state most familiar with the governing law, the relevant public policy of the forum state, the existence of any forum selection clause, and the relative docket congestion of the court. Location of Relevant Events Although both parties urge the Court to consider where the relevant events happened as part of the transfer calculus, they disagree as to how this factor should be applied. American contends the relevant events here are American's internal system of compensating employees and that these decisions primarily took place in Texas. Plaintiff contends the relevant events were the delivery of discriminatory paychecks, not where the policies and practices that are being challenged were developed. Plaintiff also notes that, during a portion of the proposed class period, American's predecessor-in-interest (US Airways) was based in Arizona. This factor cuts in favor of a transfer to Texas. Convenience of Parties American is headquartered in Texas. In addition, American has submitted evidence in support of its motion showing that about 80% of the 8,377 potential class members 6,720 reside closer to Texas than Arizona and that while over half of the potential class members 4,591 reside in Texas, only 1,364 reside in Arizona. hese figures suggest Texas would be a much more convenient forum than Arizona from American's perspective. The Plaintiff, in contrast, resides in Arizona, so transferring the case to Texas will inconvenience her and her California-based attorney, who may need to associate with local counsel to comply with the Northern District of Texas's local rules. However, because this case is a nationwide class action, Plaintiff's initial choice to file suit in Arizona is entitled to less deference than usual. The Plaintiff also argues that Arizona wouldn't be a particularly inconvenient forum for American because it "has multiple commercial offices in the Phoenix-area, and Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport is Defendant's sixth-largest hub. This argument is unavailing. Many companies, including airlines, have operations in an array of different cities. That doesn't mean that each such city would be an equally convenient forum for litigation as the city where the company is headquartered. Finally, the Plaintiff states that she wishes to avoid a transfer to Texas because the Fifth Circuit is well known to be a more employer-friendly circuit when compared to the Ninth Circuit. Plaintiff does not, however, identify any case law suggesting this sort of raw tactical consideration may be legitimately considered as part of the Section 1404(a) transfer analysis. The Court thus concludes that the convenience-to-parties factor tips slightly in favor of a transfer to Texas. Convenience of Witnesses/Location of Evidence American has submitted evidence showing that all American employees who are potential witnesses and whose testimony will be essential to resolving this litigation are based in Fort Worth. Multiple employees in the Human Resources Division, Finance Division, Compensation Department, and Executive Compensation Department, which are headquartered in Fort Worth, are likely to have relevant information due to the nature of their positions and responsibilities, including Chris Ducey (Managing Director, Compensation and Retirement), Patricia Herrera. Indeed, American's entire Executive Compensation team is based in Fort Worth. Any of these witnesses, who all work at American's headquarters in Fort Worth, would be inconvenienced by having to appear at trial in Arizona. American further argues that most of the key documents in this case, including any hard copy notes or records related to compensation policies, are likely maintained by the Compensation Department in Fort Worth, a department with responsibility for administration of the policies. The Plaintiff responds to these arguments by noting that American's initial discovery disclosures in this case didn't identify any Texas-based witnesses or Texas-based documents. She thus argues that American's belated identification of those witnesses and documents, after her amended complaint was filed, should be regarded with suspicion. Plaintiff further contends that, even if most of the documents are located in Texas, advancements in electronic discovery and modern trends in litigation" have reduced the inconvenience associated with out-of-state document production. The Court concludes this factor weighs in favor of a transfer to Texas. State Most Familiar With Governing Law In its motion, American argues this factor is neutral because neither jurisdiction is more familiar with the facts or governing law of this case. In her response, Plaintiff acknowledges that both districts are sufficiently familiar with the governing law but argues this factor still cuts against transfer because Ninth Circuit law concerning wage discrimination is more developed than Fifth Circuit law. In its reply, American contends that Plaintiff's arguments on this point smack of forum shopping, long deemed impermissible in the federal system. The familiarity-with-governing-law factor is meant to apply in cases involving state-law claims it reflects a presumption that a federal court will know more about the substantive law of its home state (having derived this wisdom from handling diversity suits) than a federal court located in a different state. Here, the amended complaint doesn't assert any state-law claims. Thus, the Court concludes this factor is neutral. Other Factors The Plaintiff argues that Arizona's participation in the Mandatory Initial Discovery Pilot (MIDP) program counsels against a transfer because the MIDP results in reduced litigation costs and the speedy resolution of cases. In its reply, American asserts that Plaintiff's invocation of the MIDP is a smokescreen of an irrelevant argument that has no place in the well-established transfer analysis. The Court disagrees with American's contention that the MIDP is irrelevant. One factor that courts may consider under Section 1404(a) is the differences in the costs of litigation in the two forums. Here, Plaintiff has made a credible argument that Arizona's participation in the MIDP program may, in general, render it a less-costly litigation forum than the Northern District of Texas. Balancing The location-of-events, convenience-to-parties, convenience-to-witnesses, and cost-of-litigation factors all suggest this matter should be transferred to the Northern District of Texas, while the familiarity-with-law factor is neutral. These considerations, on balance, lead the Court to conclude that American's motion to transfer should be granted. A full-text copy of the District Court's January 24, 2018 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y93ntwzf from Leagle.com. Lorie Grabham, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Eric David Zard -- ezard@carlsonlynch.com -- Carlson Lynch Sweet & Kipela & Carpenter & Todd David Carpenter -- tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com -- Carlson Lynch Sweet Kipela & Carpenter LLP. American Airlines Incorporated, a Delaware corporation, Defendant, represented by Michael A. Cordier -- michael@mcattorneys.com -- Murphy Karber Cordier PLC, Daniel E. Farrington, Farrington Law Firm LLC, Jeffrey I. Kohn -- kohn@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Lauren G. Goetzl, Farrington Law Firm LLC, Richard B. Murphy -- rich@mcattorneys.com -- Murphy Karber Cordier PLC & Sloane Ackerman -- sackerman@omm.com -- OMelveny & Myers LLP. AMERICAN HOTEL: Damasco Bid for Class Certification Withdrawn ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned Gorss Motels, Inc., et al., the Plaintiff, vs. American Hotel Register Company, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-01011 (N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Jorge L. Alonso entered an order withdrawing the amended "Damasco" motion for class certification. According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on Jan. 25, 2019, pursuant to the parties' joint stipulation to withdraw first amended "Damasco" motion for class certification, Plaintiff's first amended "Damasco" motion for class certification is withdrawn. The Motion hearing date set for Jan. 30, 2019 is stricken.[CC] APPLE INC: Law Firm Mulls Securities Fraud Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- Mikey Campbell, writing for Apple Insider, reports that Bernstein Liebhard announced -- and advertised -- the potential class action in a post to its website shortly after Apple lowered earnings guidance for its first fiscal quarter of 2019. In a letter to investors, Apple CEO Tim Cook said the company is expecting to end the quarter with $84 billion in revenue, a figure down more than 7 percent from an anticipated $89 billion to $93 billion forecast issued at the end of fiscal 2018. Mr. Cook blamed the cut on weak iPhone demand in Greater China and "other emerging markets." The statement is at odds with an appraisal of Apple's Chinese business Mr. Cook offered during an investor conference call in September, Bernstein Liebhard said. Specifically, the law firm takes umbrage with Cook's characterization of Chinese iPhone demand over the trailing quarter. "Our business in China was very strong last quarter. We grew 16 percent, which we're very happy with. iPhone in particular was very strong, very strong double-digit growth there," Cook said at the time. The law firm in its press release claims the statement amounts to "materially misleading business information" issued by an Apple executive. How, exactly, Bernstein Liebhard intends to correlate two statements taken from two different time periods, and each pertaining to a respective fiscal quarter, is unclear. Following Mr. Cook's letter on Jan. 2, Apple's stock price dipped nearly $12, or or over 7.5 percent, in after-hours trading. [GN] AT&T TELEHOLDINGS: Sued over Unsolicited Advertisement Messages --------------------------------------------------------------- A case, VAHE MESSERLIAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. AT&T TELEHOLDINGS, INC.; DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, the Defendant(s), Case No. 2:19-cv-00645 (C.D. Cal., Jan. 28, 2019), seeks damages and any other available legal or equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of Defendant, in negligently, knowingly, and/or willfully contacting Plaintiff via "telephone facsimile machine" in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, thereby allegedly causing Plaintiff and all others similarly situated to incur the costs of receiving unsolicited advertisement messages via "telephone facsimile machines" and invading their privacy. According to the complaint, beginning on or around November 14, 2018, Defendant contacted Plaintiff on his telephone facsimile numbers ending in -8480, in an effort to sell or solicit its services. The Defendant contacted Plaintiff, by sending a facsimile transmission, between on or around November 14, 2018 in an effort to solicit its customer's business. The Defendant's messages constituted "telephone solicitation" as defined by the TCPA, and "unsolicited advertisement" as defined by the TCPA. The Defendant's calls constituted calls that were not for emergency purposes. The Defendant's calls were placed to telephone facsimile numbers assigned to a telephone service for which Plaintiff incurs a charge for incoming messages. The Plaintiff is not a customer of Defendant's services and has never provided any personal information, including his telephone facsimile number(s), to Defendant for any purpose whatsoever. Accordingly, Defendant never received Plaintiff's "prior express consent" to receive calls using a telephone facsimile machine pursuant to 47 U.S.C. section 227(b)(1)C), the lawsuit says. AT&T Teleholdings, Inc., formerly known as Ameritech Corporation, is an American telecommunications company that arose out of the 1984 AT&T divestiture. Ameritech was one of the seven Regional Bell Operating Companies that was created following the breakup of the Bell System. Attorneys for Plaintiff: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Meghan E. George, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: 877 206-4741 Facsimile: 866 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com mgeorge@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com AUTOMATIC DATA: Still Defends Suits over Use of Biometric Info -------------------------------------------------------------- Automatic Data Processing, 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 company still defends class suits over alleged violations of the Illinois Biometric Privacy Act. In June 2018, a potential class action complaint was filed against Automatic Data Processing, Inc. (ADP) in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois. The complaint asserts that ADP violated the Illinois Biometric Privacy Act, was negligent and unjustly enriched itself in connection with its collection, use and storage of biometric data of employees of its clients who are residents of Illinois in connection with certain services provided by ADP to clients in Illinois. The complaint seeks statutory and other unspecified monetary damages, injunctive relief and attorney's fees. In addition, similar potential class action complaints have been filed in Illinois state courts against ADP and/or certain of its clients with respect to the collection, use and storage of biometric data of the employees of these clients. All of these claims are still in their earliest stages and the Company is unable to estimate any reasonably possible loss, or range of loss, with respect to these matters. The Company intends to vigorously defend against these lawsuits. Automatic Data Processing, Inc. provides business process outsourcing services worldwide. It operates through two segments, Employer Services and Professional Employer Organization (PEO) Services. The company was founded in 1949 and is headquartered in Roseland, New Jersey. AXOGEN INC: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Securities Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed against AxoGen, Inc. ("AxoGen" or the "Company") ( AXGN) and certain of its officers, on behalf of shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired AxoGen securities pursuant and/or traceable to (1) the Company's registration statement and prospectus (collectively, the "November 2017 Registration Statement") issued in connection with its November 2017 secondary public offering ("November SPO"); and/or (2) the Company's false and/or misleading registration statement and prospectus (collectively, the "May 2018 Registration Statement") issued in connection with the Company's May 2018 secondary public offering ("May SPO"); and/or (3) between August 7, 2017 and December 18, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Such investors are encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's site: www.bgandg.com/axgn. This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1933 and 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) AxoGen aggressively increased prices to mask lower sales; (2) AxoGen's pricing alienated customers and threatened the Company's future growth; (3) ambulatory surgery centers form a significant part of the market for the Company's products; (4) such centers were especially sensitive to price increases; (5) the Company was dependent on a small number of surgeons whom the Company paid to generate sales; (6) AxoGen's consignment model for inventory was reasonably likely to lead to channel stuffing; (7) the Company offered purchase incentives to sales representatives to encourage channel stuffing; (8) the Company's sales representatives were encouraged to backdate revenue to artificially inflate metrics; (9) the Company lacked adequate internal controls to prevent such channel stuffing and backdating of revenue; (10) the Company's key operating metrics, such as number of active accounts, were overstated; and (11) consequently, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. On December 18, 2018, Seligman Investments reported that "[a] number of former [AxoGen] employees allege channel stuffing [at AxoGen], given that the company's consignment model creates potential for abuse, as well as alleging questionable revenue recognition practices." The article continued to state that "allegations additionally include misleading operating metrics, with one former rep implying that the company's definition of ‘active accounts' may overstate the actual number by a factor of ten." Following this news, AxoGen stock dropped $6.17 per share, or roughly 22%, to close at $21.36 on December 18, 2018. 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/axgn 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 AxoGen 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 Telephone: 212-697-6484 Email: peretz@bgandg.com [GN] BEACON ROOFING: Failed to Reimburse Delivery Drivers' Expenses -------------------------------------------------------------- A case, ALAN MORENO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly 15 situated, the Plaintiff, vs. BEACON ROOFING SUPPLY, INC., a Virginia Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-00185-GPC-LL (S.D. Cal., Jan. 28, 2019), alleges that the Defendant failed to reimburse business expenses under the California Labor Code. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and similarly situated Delivery Drivers employed by the Defendant during the Class Period are delivery drivers who paid out-of-pocket business expenses reasonably necessary for the performance of their jobs, for which they were not reimbursed. These deliveries required Class Members to use their personal cell phones for among, other things calling the Defendant's clients, using navigation, and using the smart phone application to record their time. The Plaintiff and similarly situated Delivery Drivers are expected by the Defendant to pay, and have personally paid, expenses incurred using their personal cell phones. The Defendant has willfully failed and refused to timely and fully reimburse Plaintiff and other present and former Delivery Drivers for these business expenses that were incurred in the regular course of their duties as the Defendant's Delivery Drivers, as required by Labor Code section 2802, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Class: Alisa A. Martin, Esq. AMARTIN LAW 600 West Broadway, Suite 700 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 308-6880 Facsimile: (619) 308-6881 - and - Lindsay David, Esq. BRENNAN & DAVID LAW GROUP 2888 Loker Avenue East, Suite 302 Carlsbad, CA 92010 Telephone: (760) 730-9408 Facsimile: (760) 888-3575 BOJANGLES' INC: Monteverde & Associates Files Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Monteverde & Associates PC on Jan. 2 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Case No. 1:18-cv-11649-VM on behalf of public common shareholders Bojangles' Inc. ("Bojangles" or the "Company") (NasdaqGS: BOJA) who held Bojangles securities on the record date December 6, 2018 (the "Class Period"), and have been harmed by Bojangles and its board of directors' (the "Board") alleged violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") in connection with the sale of the Company to Durational Capital Management LP and The Jordan Company, L.P (the "Proposed Merger"). Under the terms of the Proposed Merger, Bojangles shareholders are only anticipated to receive $16.10 in cash for each share of Bojangles common stock they own (the "Merger Consideration"). The complaint alleges that the Merger Consideration is inadequate and that the proxy statement regarding the Proposed Merger (the "Proxy") provides shareholders with materially incomplete and misleading information regarding the Proposed Merger, in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Specifically, the Proxy contains materially incomplete and misleading information concerning: (i) the valuation analyses performed by the Company's financial advisors, Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated and Houlihan Lokey Capital, Inc., in support of their fairness opinions; and (ii) the background of the Proposed Merger. The special meeting of Bojangles shareholders to vote on the Proposed Merger is currently scheduled for January 10, 2019. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than March 4, 2019. Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. Click here for more information: https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/bojangles-inc.It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. Monteverde & Associates PC -- http://www.monteverdelaw.com-- is a national class action securities and consumer litigation law firm committed that has recovered millions of dollars and is committed to protecting shareholders and consumers from corporate wrongdoing. Monteverde & Associates PC lawyers have significant experience litigating mergers & acquisitions and securities class actions, whereby they protect investors by recovering money and remedying corporate misconduct. Mr. Monteverde, who leads the legal team at the firm, has been recognized by Super Lawyers as a Rising Star in Securities Litigation in 2013, 2017, and 2018, an award given to less than 2.5% of attorneys in a particular field. He has also been selected by Martindale-Hubbell as a 2017 and 2018 Top Rated Lawyer. [GN] BRETT A. OSBORN: McLean Seeks to Certify TCPA Class --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned MARY MCLEAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. BRETT A. OSBORN, D.O., PLLC, a professional limited liability company, the Defendant, Case No. 9:18-cv-81222-DMM (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order on Jan. 25, 2019: 1. granting Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act; 2. certifying putative Class; "all persons within the United States who, within the four years prior to the filing of this Complaint, were sent a text message using the ActiveCampaign platform by Jupiter SEO Experts on behalf of Defendant, to said person's cellular telephone number, advertising Defendant’s services and/or discounts" Excluded from the Class are the Judge presiding over this case and his staff; Brett A. Osborn, individually, and his immediate family members; the staff at Brett A. Osborn, D.O. PLLC, and their immediate family members; and the legal representatives, agents, affiliates, heirs, successors-in- interests, and assignees of any such excluded person. 3. appointing Plaintiff as representative of the Class; 4. appointing Edelsberg Law, P.A., Hiraldo P.A., and Shamis & Gentile, P.A. as Class counsel; 5. establishing a deadline for submission of the proposed Class notice and notice plan.[CC] Counsel for Plaintiff and the Class: Scott Edelsberg, Esq. Jordan D. Utanski, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, P.A. 19495 Biscayne Blvd., #607 Aventura, FL 33180 Tel: (305) 975-3320 E-mail: utanski@edelsberglaw.com scott@edelsberglaw.com - and - Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1400 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 400-4713 E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com - and - Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 N.E. 1st Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 Facsimile: (786) 623-0915 E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com BRINKER INTERNATIONAL: Cyber Security Breach Suit Still Ongoing --------------------------------------------------------------- Brinker International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 1, 2019, for the quarterly period ended December 26, 2018, that the company continues to defend itself against a class action suit related to cyber security breach. On May 12, 2018, the Company issued a public statement that malware had been discovered at certain Chili's restaurants that resulted in unauthorized access or acquisition of customer payment card data. The Company engaged third-party forensic firms and cooperated with law enforcement to investigate the matter. Based on the investigation of the third-party forensic experts, the Company believes most Company-owned Chili's restaurants were impacted by the malware during time frames that vary by restaurant, but the Company believes in each case beginning no earlier than March 21, 2018 and ending no later than April 22, 2018. The Company was named as a defendant in putative class action lawsuits in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, and two in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, filed on May 24, 2018, May 30, 2018, June 14, 2018, and June 28, 2018, respectively (collectively, the "Litigation") relating to the cyber security incident. In the Litigation, plaintiffs assert various claims stemming from the cyber security incident at the Company's Chili's restaurants involving customer payment card information and seek monetary damages in excess of $5.0 million, injunctive and declaratory relief and attorney's fees and costs. Since the initial filing of these cases, the Nevada plaintiff voluntarily dismissed this case and joined the Florida lawsuit. Counsel for all parties subsequently agreed to the transfer of the California cases to Florida, and they have been consolidated into a single matter with the case already pending there. Brinker International said, "We believe we have defenses and intend to defend the Litigation. As such, as of December 26, 2018, we have concluded that a loss from this matter is not determinable, therefore, we have not recorded a liability related to the Litigation. We will continue to evaluate this matter based on new information as it becomes available." Brinker International, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, owns, develops, operates, and franchises casual dining restaurants in the United States and internationally. As of June 27, 2018, it owned, operated, or franchised 1,686 restaurants comprising 997 company-owned restaurants and 689 franchised restaurants under the Chili's Grill & Bar and Maggiano's Little Italy brand names. The company was founded in 1975 and is based in Dallas, Texas. CLEVELAND PUBLIC: Court Dismisses Class Action ---------------------------------------------- The Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas dismissed a class action lawsuit against Cleveland Public Power (CPP), holding that certain utility charges totaling more than $188 million were not unlawful. The crux of the lawsuit was Environmental and Ecological Adjustment (EEA) charges that CCP charged customers in addition to base rates. Unlike base rates, EEA charges do not need approval from city council. The EEA charges were collected by CPP from 1984 into 2013. And although CPP stopped assessing these fees in 2013, it began charging customers again in 2017. The plaintiffs claimed that CPP was not allowed to charge the EEA charges under the terms of CPP's electric service contract with its customers, because these charges did not relate to compliance with environmental laws or regulations. To examine the plaintiffs' breach of contract claim, the court analyzed the City of Cleveland's ordinances, which incorporate the terms of the electric service contract. After analyzing the ordinances establishing the EEA, the court rejected the plaintiffs' arguments. The court found that the language of the ordinances (and, thus, the electric service contract) did not limit the scope of EEA charges to costs related to environmental laws or regulations. The court's decision is likely to be appealed, but it closes the first chapter in a contentious legal battle regarding CPP's utility charges. The decision is also noteworthy due to the court's in-depth analysis of the applicable standard of review for Ohio courts that are asked to consider the lawfulness of municipal utilities' rates. Devin D. Parram, Esq. Bricker & Eckler LLP Associate Email: dparram@bricker.com [GN] CONNECTICUT: Medicaid Recipients Sue DSS Over Transportation ------------------------------------------------------------ Christine Stuart, writing for CT News Junkie, reports that six Medicaid recipients filed a class action lawsuit on Jan. 8 against the state Department of Social Services for failing to provide them with timely transportation to their doctor appointments. For over a year, with little improvement, the DSS, according to the complaint, has been failing to provide disabled residents with necessary transportation to their medical treatment appointments. The Medicaid program, which is a federal- and state-based program, provides transportation for all Medicaid covered services, including emergency services and pre-scheduled medical appointments. Last January, DSS inked a three-year, $140-million contract with Veyo to provide transportation for the state's more than 800,000 Medicaid patients. Veyo is not named as a defendant in the lawsuit. The complaint says that DSS has been unable to give their clients answers about why their rides were canceled. A spokesman for DSS said the agency has received the lawsuit and is reviewing it. Problems with the transportation of Medicaid patients has been a topic of discussion for the Medicaid Managed Care Council, but there have been no solutions to all the problems. "This is unacceptable," Kristen Noelle Hatcher, Esq. managing attorney of the public benefits unit at Connecticut Legal Services said. "The state needs to answer to the thousands of people whose health is suffering because they are not getting to the doctor, while the company who is supposed to be helping them is getting paid and not being held accountable." Connecticut Legal Services filed the class action on behalf of all of the individuals who have been left stranded and in the dark, unable to get to their medical treatment. One of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, Terrilynne Trudeau, is a 56-year-old resident of Terryville who requires treatment for lymphedema, and numerous other serious conditions. "Ms. Trudeau had eight appointments scheduled to receive this treatment and her transportation cancelled for seven of them," the complaint states. Then there's Ida Davidson, 90, of Norwalk. She is disabled due to atrial fibrillation, and the effects of a stroke. Because of her disabilities, she is bedridden, cannot walk, and is unable to use a wheelchair. Davidson requires an ambulance with a stretcher to transport her to medical appointments where her primary care physician and cardiologist monitor her condition. Davidson confirmed her transportation Nov. 16, 2018, and on Nov. 17, 2018, the transportation did not arrive. "Veyo representatives told Mrs. Moorer (Davidson's daughter) that they were denying her ride because no transportation providers were able to accommodate her," the complaint states. The complaint states that in some cases the wrong mode of transportation arrives for the clients. Sometimes when a client needs a wheelchair van, a taxicab arrives. "Even in cases in which an individual's transportation error has been corrected for an appointment or two, the individual has a high likelihood of experiencing that problem again," the complaint states. The failure to provide the service is compounded by the agency's lack of guidance for how to complain if their transportation doesn't arrive. Matthew Ibrahim, another plaintiff named in the case, has several disabling health conditions. He uses a wheelchair and needs a wheelchair van to transport him to appointments. He routinely sees a cardiologist, pulmonologist and primary care doctor to monitor him and keep him healthy and out of the hospital or nursing home. Without regular visits, he may develop infections in his severely swollen legs, or fluid may build up around his heart and lungs, causing either to fail. Several times he has expected a ride to take him to one of these doctors, but he was told minutes before the scheduled appointment that the ride would not be coming. "Connecticut residents have seen their rights under the Constitution and the Americans with Disabilities Act ignored by DSS for too long," James S. Haslam, Esq. a veteran Social Security Disability and Public Benefits attorney at CLS, said. "It is time to take this to the courts to get those protections back." [GN] DANSKE BANK: Vincent Wong Files Securities Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announce that a class action has commenced on behalf of shareholders of Danske Bank A/S. If you suffered a loss you have until the lead plaintiff deadline to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Danske Bank A/S (OTCMKTS: DNKEY) Lead Plaintiff Deadline: March 11, 2019 Class Period: Purchasers of American Depositary Receipts between January 9, 2014 and October 23, 2018 Get additional information about DNKEY: http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/danske-bank-a-s-loss-submission-form?wire=3 Vincent Wong, Esq. 39 East Broadway Suite 304 New York, NY 10002 Telephone: 212.425.1140 Fax: 866.699.3880 Email: vw@wongesq.com [GN] DEJA VU SERVICES: Strip Club Workers' Suit Moved to S.D. Calif. --------------------------------------------------------------- A case, Jane Roe No. 1 and 2, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, and Elana Pera, Penny Nunez, Sarah Murphy, Poohrawn Mehraban, Nicole Hughes, Angelynn Hermes, Gypsy Vidal, the Rashele Hamren, the Intervenor Plaintiffs, vs. Deja Vu Services, Inc., Harry Mohney, The Deja Vu Affiliated Nightclubs, and Does 1-200, jointly and severally, the Defendants, Case No. 37-02018-00028044-CU-OE-CTL, was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California (San Diego) on Jan. 28, 2019. The Southern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-00196-JM-KSC to the proceeding. The suit alleges Fair Labor Standards Act violation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Jeffrey T. Miller. Deja Vu Services, Inc. is an American company that (as of 2017) operates about 132 strip clubs in 41 U.S. states, as well as multiple clubs in the United Kingdom.[BN] Attorneys for Jane Roe No. 1 and 2, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated: Jeffrey R. Krinsk, Esq. FINKELSTEIN AND KRINSK 550 W. C Street, Suite 1760 San Diego, CA 92101-3593 Telephone: (619) 238-1333 Facsimile: (619) 238-5425 E-mail: jrk@classactionlaw.com Attorneys for Intervenor Plaintiffs: Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 100 Cambridge Street, 20th Floor Boston, MA 02114 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 Facsimile: (617) 994-5801 E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com Attorneys for Defendants: Tammara N Bokmuller, Esq. MORRIS POLICH & PURDY LLP 501 W. Broadway, Suite 500 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 557-0404 Facsimile: (619) 557-0460 E-mai: tbokmuller@clarkhill.com DELAWARE: Inmate Acquitted in Vaughn Prison Riot to Join Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Amy Cherry, writing for The Courier-Express, reports that an inmate who was cleared by jury of any wrongdoing in the fatal Vaughn prison riot is joining a class-action lawsuit alleging abuse in Delaware's prisons. Deric Forney, who was among the first three inmates tried in the case -- and the only one to be acquitted of all charges -- has contacted Dover attorney Steve Hampton, Esq. -- sahampton@gradyhampton.com -- who's leading the charge. The lawsuit includes more than 100 inmates, who claimed they were beaten and tortured in the wake of the riot -- and well before it -- in what the complaint called "systematic torture." Inmates also alleged that they've been denied medical care. WDEL received dozens of letters, detailing what they alleged to be abuse following the Feb. 1-2, 2016 riot, telling their story to both WDEL and Hampton. Hampton, along with lawyers Zachary A. George, Esq. and James J. Woods Jr., Esq. filed the class-action lawsuit amid the first Vaughn trial, which seeks compensatory and punitive damages and injunctive relief from future recurrences" of abuse. The state, the Delaware Department of Correction, and the prison's medical provider, Connections, have all repeatedly denied comment, citing pending litigation. Forney, 29, who's serving an 11-year prison sentence on gun charges, is scheduled to be released from prison in 2023. The second trial in the Vaughn prison riot is scheduled to begin on Jan. 14, 2019.[GN] ENHANCED RECOVERY: Court Stays L. Fraley's FDCPA Suit ----------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California issued an Order granting Defendant's Motion for Stay in the case captioned LATRICE FRALEY, Plaintiff, v. ENHANCED RECOVERY COMPANY, LLC, Defendants. Case No. 2:18-cv-02606-KJM-EFB. (E.D. Cal.). Defendant Enhanced Recovery Company, LLC, moves to stay proceedings pending a decision by the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on defendant's motion to transfer this action for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. This putative class action is one of six class action matters pending in federal district courts throughout the country arising from defendant's alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). The Defendant cites lack of prejudice to plaintiff, the prospect of substantial hardship to defendant and the conservation of judicial resources as justifications for the requested stay. Having reviewed the defendant's motion, and after considering the plaintiff's endorsement of the defendant's motion, the court finds a temporary stay is indeed appropriate and will best serve the interests of the parties and the court. A full-text copy of the District Court's January 24, 2018 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yc8twjxt from Leagle.com. Latrice Fraley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jonathan Aaron Stieglitz -- jstieglitz@nelsonhardiman.com -- Law Office of Jonathan A. Stieglitz. Enhanced Recovery Company, LLC, Doing business as ERC, Defendant, represented by Larissa G. Nefulda -- larissa.nefulda@lewisbrisbois.com -- Lewis Bribois Bisgaard & Smith LLP & Stephen H. Turner -- Stephen.Turner@lewisbrisbois.com -- Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP. ENHANCED RECOVERY: Simmons Files Suit Under FDCPA in NJ ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Enhanced Recovery Company LLC. The case is styled as Katyana Simmons, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Enhanced Recovery Company LLC and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02526 (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. Enhanced Recovery Company LLC provides business process outsourcing services that include recovery, outsourcing, and market research primarily for Fortune 500 companies in the United States and internationally.[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 EXPEDIA GROUP: Hagens Berman Files Class-Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------- A Washington state consumer is suing Expedia and its subsidiaries for operating what attorneys say amounts to "highway robbery" according to consumer-rights law firm Hagens Berman. The sneaky scheme detailed in the lawsuit filed Jan. 11, 2019 in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington centers on what Reservations.com calls "Tax Recovery Charges and Fees," that actually have nothing to do with taxes, according to the filing. According to the lawsuit, these additional fees are tacked on by Expedia, who pockets the excess charge. Consumers are told the "tax recovery charges and fees" are "monies that the hotels must pay to the government." However, the "taxes and fees" are not actual taxes and exceed the real amount of taxes and fees owed on the hotel room. If you booked and paid for a hotel room via Reservations.com -- not Expedia.com -- since 2014, find out your rights to potential compensation. "Simply put, this kind of fleecing is illegal," said Steve Berman, managing partner of Hagens Berman representing consumers in the class action. "Consumers are being told that these excessive fees are related somehow to taxes, but when we ran the numbers, Expedia's math was full of holes. These amounts are higher than local hotel taxes, and Expedia is profiting from its falsehoods." Escalated Fraud Attorneys say Expedia and its subsidiaries have actually escalated their fraud since they filed the first lawsuit about the "tax" overcharges in December: "Defendants have continued their unlawful scheme, even after the filing of a related case challenging this practice. For example, if one got online today and booked a room for the Grand Hyatt in Seattle for January 14-15, the following charges are listed . . . ." The suit shows a screenshot of online "Tax Recovery Charges & Fees" listed as $140.09. But as the complaint shows, under local hotel taxes, the correct "Tax Recovery Charges & Fees" should have been a total of $72.28, meaning this particular booking would have defrauded a consumer by $67.81. "These are brazen lies," Berman said. "And the fact that defendants in this case have only increased their underhanded scheme since we filed our original case is shameful." The lawsuit goes on to list other examples: Reservations.com showed a room rate of $159 and "Tax Recovery Charges & Fees" of $50.88 for a reservation at the W Hotel in Seattle for Nov. 22-24, 2018. The real total state and local Seattle tax for a Seattle hotel room is 15.6 percent, plus $2 per night. Therefore, the total "Taxes & Fees" on this room should have been $27 -- not $50.88 as listed. According to the lawsuit, Expedia then keeps the "tax" overcharge of $23.88. Reservations.com states that 4 million rooms have been booked through its website. If one takes the overcharge of $23.88 on the room at the W hotel and multiplies it by 4 million, Defendants have collected over $95 million dollars in unlawful "tax" charges. "We consider this attempting to get away with highway robbery to the tune of potentially $95 million," Berman added. The lawsuit states that testing based on information on the Reservations.com website reveals that the tax overcharge practice is widespread and violates the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. Expedia, Inc. and its subsidiaries, together with Reservations.com, "operated an association-in-fact enterprise engaged in interstate and foreign commerce, which was formed for the purpose of obtaining money from consumers for inflated ‘Taxes & Fees' payments, through which they conducted a pattern of racketeering activity" in violation of RICO, the suit states. The lawsuit seeks to collect and return to consumers the secret overpayment of taxes made by unwitting consumers, nationwide. In addition to federal RICO allegations, the suit alleges violations of state laws against conversion and unjust enrichment. Ashley Klann, Esq. Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP Telephone: 206-268-9363 Email: ashleyk@hbsslaw.com [GN] EXPEDIA GROUP: Krause Seeks Overtime Pay for Travel Consultants --------------------------------------------------------------- A case, LAURIE KRAUSE, on Behalf of Herself and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff(s), vs. EXPEDIA GROUP, INC. and EGENCIA, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-00123 (W.D. Wash., Jan. 28, 2019), concerns a potential collective action against Defendants for misclassifying their workers as independent contractors instead of as employees. In particular, the Defendants misclassify their customer service representatives, also known as "travel consultants," as independent contractors instead of as employees and enforced this illegal policy throughout the United States. In doing so, the Defendants deny those workers the overtime they are entitled under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants operate an online travel management company. The Defendants provide booking services for businesses and individuals. That is, individuals and business can purchase tickets, hotel reservations, and vehicle reservations directly through Defendants' website and customer portal. To perform these services, Defendants employ "travel consultants but classifies them as independent contractors. The travel consultants work across the country for Defendants. Travel consultants communicate with the customers of Defendants and answer questions regarding booking reservations. The travel consultants communicate by chat, email, inbound phone, and outbound phone. According to the complaint, the travel consultants work from home. They are required to use Defendants' computer software and follow Defendants' policies and procedures. They are required to work a minimum number of hours per week. They are told that they must handle at least four customer calls per hour with an average handle time that Defendants establish. They are required to undergo a background check by Defendants and must meet Defendants' required qualifications to get a job. The Defendants provide training to the travel consultants in how they are to perform their duties for Defendants. The Defendants pay the travel consultants a set amount per minute worked. The travel consults regularly work more than 40 hours per week but are not paid overtime, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff and Class Members: Don J. Foty, Esq. KENNEDY HODGES, L.L.P. 4409 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200 Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (713) 523-0001 Facsimile: (713) 523-1116 E-mail: dfoty@kennedyhodges.com FCI LENDER: Christopher Tabick Seeks to Certify Class ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned, CHRISTOPHER TABICK on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiff, vs. FCI LENDER SERVICES, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-04577-RJD-SMG (E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff will move the Court on April 4, 2019, for an Order granting his motion for class certification, and such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.[CC] Attorney for the Plaintiff: Adam J. Fishbein, Esq. ADAM J. FISHBEIN, P.C. 735 Central Avenue Woodmere, NY 11598 Telephone (516) 668-6945 FIAT CHRYSLER: Agrees to Pay $800MM to Settle Ecodiesel Scandal --------------------------------------------------------------- Amanda Bronstad, writing for Law.Com, reports that Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V. has agreed to pay $800 million to settle class actions and governmental investigations over its "EcoDiesel" vehicles. The deal, announced on Jan. 10, resolved claims that Fiat Chrysler installed software in 100,000 vehicles nationwide that cheated emissions tests. It included a $307 million class action settlement and $400 million in civil penalties to federal and state regulators. A hearing for preliminary approval of the class action settlement is set for Jan. 23 in San Francisco federal court. "We're very pleased to present to the federal court today a class action agreement that will provide substantial cash compensation to the owners and lessees of Fiat Chrysler EcoDiesel vehicles while giving them back the car they were promised -- a car that delivers on high performance and low emissions," said Elizabeth Cabraser, Esq. -- ecabraser@lchb.com -- of San Francisco's Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, in a conference call with the media on Jan. 10. Cabraser was lead counsel in the multidistrict litigation against Fiat Chrysler over its EcoDiesel vehicles. "Importantly," she noted, "this class consumer agreement will aid our environment by assuring these EcoDiesels become true EcoDiesel vehicles and no longer pollute the environment." The agreements were similar to those carved out in a $14.7 billion settlement with Volkswagen in 2016 over its vehicles' fuel emissions. Cabraser also was lead plaintiffs counsel in that case, and Robert Giuffra, Esq. -- giuffrar@sullcrom.com -- of Sullivan & Cromwell represented both Volkswagen and Fiat Chrysler in their separate agreements. But Cabraser noted some "key differences" between the settlements. The Chrysler settlement involved fewer than the 475,000 vehicles featured in that of Volkswagen. Further, Fiat Chrysler consumers will be able to keep driving their cars after a software fix that is available for two years following the settlement's final approval. Volkswagen's deal, in contrast, included buybacks for many of its "clean diesel" vehicles.And unlike Volkswagen, Fiat Chrysler did not admit liability. "We acknowledge that this has created uncertainty for our customers, and we believe this resolution will maintain their trust in us," said Mark Chernoby, Fiat Chrysler's head of North American safety and regulatory compliance, in a statement on Jan. 10. Fiat Chrysler was responsible for $280 million of the class action settlement, with software maker Robert Bosch GmbH contributing $27.5 million. In a separate deal announced on Jan. 10, Bosch agreed to pay $98 million to attorneys general actions in 49 states and U.S. jurisdictions, including the District of Columbia, plus $5 million to the National Association of Attorneys General, to resolve emissions investigations involving both Volkswagen and Fiat Chrysler. That deal excluded California and West Virginia. And Texas, according to a Bosch spokeswoman, "supports the settlement in principle, but is not joining at this point for some state-specific issues." "Legal disputes would have resulted in lengthy and costly proceedings in numerous U.S. states and with a large number of different claimants," said Stefan Hartung, chairman of Bosch's Mobility Solutions business sector, in a statement. "As an innovation leader, we want to devote our attention and resources to developing our businesses and to intensifying our efforts to shape the future in our areas of activity." The government portion of the Fiat Chrysler deal included about $400 million in civil penalties, of which $86 million went to attorneys general in 50 states. New York Attorney General Letitia James, Esq. estimated that both the Fiat Chrysler and Bosch deals would give the state $171 million. "Fiat Chrysler and Bosch attempted to pull the wool over the eyes of American consumers, and pollute their way to the bank, but the Office of Attorney General will not stand for that type of behavior from any company," she said on Jan. 10. New York and Connecticut, which will receive $4.3 million from both companies, were part of a leadership team of nine states. "Vehicle emission standards exist as a way to protect the air we all breathe, and companies that knowingly seek to circumvent those standards will be held accountable," said Connecticut Attorney General William Tong, Esq. -- William.Tong@cga.ct.gov -- "These settlements are critically important in righting the wrongs of the emissions cheating scandal." California's portion of the Fiat Chrysler deal was $13.5 million. That amount, along with $45.8 million in penalties for violations of environmental laws and a $19 million mitigation payment, gave the Golden State a total of $78.4 million. "California's emission standards exist to protect our residents and the environment from harmful pollution," said Attorney General Xavier Becerra, Esq. in a statement on Jan. 10. "Fiat Chrysler tried to evade these standards by installing software to cheat emissions testing." Other government regulators involved in the deal included the U.S. Department of Justice, on behalf of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the California Air Resources Board, which received $305 million. U.S. Customs and Border Protection received another $6 million. In the class action, U.S. District Judge Edward Chen of the Northern District of California early on appointed Kenneth Feinberg to serve as settlement master. Last year, the judge allowed claims to go forward against Fiat Chrysler under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. Jan. 10 deal did not include a request for attorneys fees or expenses, which lawyers plan to file by Feb. 25. A motion for settlement filed on Jan. 10 said, "Fiat Chrysler and Bosch reserve all rights to object to an award of attorney's fees and/or expenses beyond what they believe to be reasonable." The affected vehicles were Jeep Grand Cherokees and Dodge Ram 1500s, model years 2014 through 2016. Consumers who bring their vehicles in for the software fixes would be eligible for an extended warranty, estimated to cost $105 million, and, for most class members, cash payments of $3,075 -- although former owners and lessees also can make claims. "The owners and lessees of these vehicles are literally the engines driving the repair program," Cabraser said. "They're the ones who will be bringing in their vehicles and getting repairs done." She said class members who still own their cars could make claims within 18 months after the settlement's final approval. Under the deal, Fiat Chrysler will have to pay an additional $6,000 per vehicle in penalties if it does not obtain a claims rate of 85 percent.[GN] FITCHBURG GAS: Bellermann Class Action Concluded ------------------------------------------------ Unitil 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 case entitled Bellermann et al v. Fitchburg Gas and Electric Light Company, has been concluded. In early 2009, a putative class action complaint was filed against Unitil's Massachusetts based utility, Fitchburg, in Massachusetts’ Worcester Superior Court, (captioned Bellermann et al v. Fitchburg Gas and Electric Light Company). The Complaint sought an unspecified amount of damages, including the cost of temporary housing and alternative fuel sources, emotional and physical pain and suffering and property damages allegedly incurred by customers in connection with the loss of electric service during the ice storm in Fitchburg's service territory in December 2008. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court issued an order denying class certification status in July 2016, though the plaintiffs' individual claims remained pending. The Company resolved this matter by settlement in the fall of 2018 and there was no material impact on the Company's financial position, operating results or cash flows. Unitil Corporation, a public utility holding company, engages in the distribution of electricity and natural gas in the United States. It operates through three segments: Utility Gas Operations, Utility Electric Operations, and Non-Regulated. Unitil Corporation was incorporated in 1984 and is headquartered in Hampton, New Hampshire. FIVE STARS: Quinones Seeks Minimum Wage and Overtime Pay -------------------------------------------------------- Francisco Quinones, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Five Stars of Brooklyn Incorporated; Five Stars of Brooklyn III Incorporated; Five Stars of Brooklyn IV Inc.; Five Stars of Brooklyn V Inc.; Five Stars of Brooklyn VI Inc.; Five Stars of Brooklyn VII Inc.; Five Stars of Brooklyn VIII Inc.; Five Stars of Brooklyn IX Inc.; Five Stars of Brooklyn X Inc.; Metro of Buffalo Inc; Metro of Buffalo II Inc; Metro of Buffalo III Inc; and Morad Marashli, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00512 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 25, 2019), seeks recover from the Defendants unpaid minimum wage and overtime compensation, liquidated damages on those amounts, prejudgment and post-judgment interest; and attorneys' fees and costs, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act; the New York Labor Law; and the New York State Wage Theft Prevention Act. The Defendants had, and continue to have a policy and practice of refusing to pay overtime compensation at the statutory rate of time and one-half to Plaintiff and the Proposed FLSA Collective members for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per work week, which violated and continues to violate the FLSA. The Defendants knowingly and willfully disregarded the provisions of the FLSA as evidenced by their failure to compensate Plaintiff and the Proposed FLSA Collective members at the minimum wage and the statutory overtime rate of time and one-half for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week, when they knew or should have known such was due and that non-payment of minimum wage and overtime compensation would financially injure Plaintiff and the Proposed FLSA Collective members, the lawsuit says. According to the complaint, the Defendants have willfully failed to supply Plaintiff and the members of the Rule 23 Class with accurate statements of wages as required by NYLL, containing the dates of work covered by that payment of wages; name of employee; name of employer; address and phone number of employer; rate or rates of pay and basis thereof, whether paid by the hour, shift, day, week, salary, piece, commission, or other; gross wages; hourly rate or rates of pay and overtime rate or rates of pay if applicable; the number of hours worked, including overtime hours worked if applicable; deductions; and net wages. The Defendants run a chain of wireless telecommunications' establishments located throughout the State of New York.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff and the FLSA Proposed Collective and Rule 23 Proposed Class: Mohammed Gangat, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MOHAMMED GANGAT 675 3rd Avenue, Suite 1810 Telephone: (718) 669-0714 E-mail: mgangat@gangatllc.com FLIGHT CLUB: Faces Traynor ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Flight Club New York, LLC. The case is captioned as YASEEN TRAYNOR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FLIGHT CLUB NEW YORK, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00483-RA (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 17, 2019). The lawsuit alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is assigned to Judge Ronnie Abrams. Flight Club New York Ltd. retails footwear and apparel products. The Company offers sweatshirts, bottoms, socks, hats, footwear, and other accessories. Flight Club New York serves customers in the State of New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Harris Kohn, Esq. Stein Saks, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: dkohn@steinsakslegal.com G4S SECURE: Young et al. Seek OT Pay for Security Service Workers ----------------------------------------------------------------- KEVIN R. HOLLOMAN and SHANIDA YOUNG, on Behalf of Themselves and on Behalf of Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. G4S SECURE SOLUTIONS USA, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-00297 (S.D. Tex., Jan. 28, 2019), alleges that the Defendant failed to pay Plaintiffs and others similarly situated for all hours worked by failing to pay overtime wages when they worked more than 40 hours in a workweek as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs and the similarly situated individuals they seek to represent, are current and former employees who work/worked for Defendant and held the job title of Bank Protection Officer, Upscale Security Officer, or workers known under another distinct title but whose primary duties were to provide security services to Defendant's clients/customers. The Defendant's pay practices and policies applied not only to Plaintiffs, but also to all Class Members. The Defendant had a policy and practice of failing to pay Plaintiffs, and others similarly situated, 1-1/2 times their regular rate of pay for hours worked over 40 hours per work week. Defendant's conduct violates the FLSA because non-exempt employees, such as Plaintiffs and the Class Members should be paid at one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek, the lawsuit says. G4S Secure Solutions is a United States/British-based security services company, and a subsidiary of G4S plc. It was founded as The Wackenhut Corporation in 1954, in Coral Gables, Florida, by George Wackenhut and three partners. In 2002, the company was acquired for $570 million by Danish corporation Group 4 Falck.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Gregg M. Rosenberg, Esq. Tracey D. Lewis, Esq. Rosenberg Sprovach 3518 Travis Street, Suite 200 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 960 8300 Facsimile: (713) 621 6670 GMA INVESTMENTS: Court Grants Joint Bid to Dismiss Pendleton Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the District of Nevada issued an Order dismissing the action in the case captioned MEGAN PENDLETON, SHAVANA NASH, LAUREN MARTELL, KEN HALLEY, MELANIE JOHNSON, THEORDORA CORK, RAMON TORREZ, RENEE GREEN, SILVIA GREEN, and XANADU STAMENKOVIC, Plaintiffs, v. GMA INVESTMENTS, LLC, d/b/a SUMMIT RECEIVABLES, a Nevada corporation, and ANTHONY GUADAGNA, individually, Defendants. Case No. 2:18-cv-01181-APG-CHW. (D. Nev.). The Plaintiffs and the Defendant, individually, through their respective counsel, and pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), stipulate to dismiss the plaintiff's class action allegations without prejudice. The court has not certified the proposed class and no notice has been given to any putative class member of this lawsuit. The parties have settled their differences in a private settlement agreement which is not binding on any class member other than the plaintiffs. As such, there is no need for notice to the putative class members pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e). The parties also stipulate to dismiss the plaintiff's individual claims against the defendant with prejudice with both sides to bear their own fees and costs. A full-text copy of the District Court's January 24, 2018 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y7q6ttlb from Leagle.com. Megan Pendleton, Orerbis Carbonell, Lauren Martell, Ken Halley, Theodora Cork, Ramon Torrez, Renee Green, Silvia Green, Xanadu Stamenkovic & Melanie Johnson, Plaintiffs, represented by Kevin L. Hernandez, Law Office of Kevin L. Hernandez. GMA Investments, LLC, doing business as & Anthony Guadagna, Defendants, represented by Cami M. Perkins -- CPERKINS@NEVADAFIRM.COM -- Holley Driggs Walch Fine Wray Puzey & Thompson & Sean Story -- SSTORY@NEVADAFIRM.COM -- Holley, Driggs, Walch, Fine, Wray, Puzey & Thompson. GRANGE INSURANCE: Failed to Reimburse Conditional Medicare Payment ------------------------------------------------------------------ A case, MSP RECOVERY CLAIMS, SERIES LLC, a Delaware entity, and SERIES 16-11-509 LLC, a series of MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC, the Plaintiffs, v. GRANGE INSURANCE COMPANY formerly known as Grange Mutual Casualty Company, an Ohio corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 5:19-cv-00219 (N.D. Ohio, Jan. 28, 2019), concerns about the Defendant's systematic and uniform failure to reimburse conditional Medicare payments under the Medicare Secondary Payer Act. The lawsuit contends that the Defendant has repeatedly failed to reimburse payments by Plaintiff's assignors and the Class Members on behalf of Medicare beneficiaries enrolled in Part C of the Medicare Act for medical expenses resulting from injuries sustained in an accident. The Enrollees were enrolled in Medicare Advantage health plans offered by Plaintiffs' assignors and the Class Members, i.e., Medicare Advantage Organizations. The Plaintiffs' assignors and the Class Members suffered an injury in fact from Defendant's failure to reimburse, and accordingly, have standing to sue under 42 U.S.C. section 1395y(b)(3)(A) (the "MSP Private Cause of Action"). The Defendant has failed to fulfill its statutory duty upon entering into settlements with the Enrollees. Specifically, Defendant has entered into settlement agreements with Medicare beneficiaries as a result of claims arising under liability insurance policies issued by Defendant. Liability insurance plans are considered primary plans under 42 U.S.C. section 1395y(b)(2). Accordingly, Defendant is a primary payer and must reimburse Plaintiffs and the putative Class Members for their Medicare payments, the lawsuit says. Grange Mutual Casualty Company, commonly known as Grange Insurance, is an American insurance company based in Columbus, Ohio. Grange markets its products exclusively through a network of about 3,600 independent agents to offer home, auto, life, and business insurance protection to policyholders.[BN] Counsel for Plaintiffs: Eduardo E. Bertran, Esq. Francesco Zincone, Esq. ARMAS BERTRAN PIERI 4960 S.W. 72nd Avenue Miami, FL 33155 Telephone: (305) 461-5100 E-mail: alfred@armaslaw.com ebertran@armaslaw.com nmarrero@armaslaw.com barbi@armaslaw.com fzincone@armaslaw.com HEALTHPLUS SURGERY: More Patients Expected to Join Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- WABC reports that more potential victims are joining a class-action lawsuit against a New Jersey surgery center that may have exposed more than 3,000 patients to HIV, hepatitis B and hepatitis C. State health officials say patients who underwent procedures at the HealthPlus Surgery Center in Saddle Brook may have been exposed to bloodborne infections because of lapses in infection control procedures. Attorney Michael Maggiano filed the lawsuit and said at a press conference on Jan. 2 that he has been contacted by about 30 people who had procedures at the facility and are worried as they await their test results. One of his clients is Cristal Irons, a trained psychotherapist who received the letter from HealthPlus and says she can't believe this is happening to her. "It feels like a double fraud, because they're sending me for testing at Hudson Hospital in Secaucus, which is owned by the same people that own HealthPlus," she said. Patient Mahogany Clifton described her experience on New Year's Day, when she opened her letter. "Jan. 1 was the worst day of my life," she said. "I'm scared, scared to death these people would put us in danger . . . I don't trust nobody, feel betrayed. My life is not normal now." Patient Juan Areas and his wife Blanca were also at the press conference. Although his test results are not back yet, Areas believes he has symptoms. The warning covers anyone who had procedures between January and September 7 of 2018, and administrator Betty McCabe said the exposure was due to "deficiencies in infection control" involving the cleaning of instruments and injection of medications. A state report said the facility used poor drug storage methods, an outdated infection control plan, and unacceptable sterilization practices. Ms. McCabe says 3,778 patients are being urged to get their blood tested. One person has tested positive for Hepatitis C, but it is unclear if that patient contracted the disease at the center or if it was a pre-existing condition. The report said operating rooms were not properly cleaned and disinfected between procedures, and in one instance, an inspector saw a stretcher in a hallway with a blood-stained sheet that wasn't properly disinfected even after the inspector pointed it out to staffers. State surveyors also found the facility improperly stored sterilized items, jeopardizing their cleanliness, while other sterilized instruments revealed rust-like stains, the report said. Facility representatives said an investigation determined that "a handful of people who have been removed" were mostly responsible for the lapses that occurred. Two employees were fired after revelations that thousands may have been exposed to the diseases. The facility was shuttered for three weeks in September after the state Department of Health received a complaint. [GN] HEALTHPLUS SURGERY: Patients Wait for Results Amid Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Lindy Washburn, writing for North Jersey Record, reports that hundreds waited on Dec. 31 to learn whether they had contracted HIV or hepatitis at an unsanitary Saddle Brook, New Jersey, surgery center. Letters from the facility arrived around Christmas advising patients in New Jersey and New York to be tested. Some 3,778 patients underwent same-day procedures at the HealthPlus Surgery Center between Jan. 1 and Sept. 7, when the state Department of Health ordered an immediate halt to admissions. An inspection found blood stains on a stretcher, rust-like spots on surgical instruments, and a staff so rushed that trays containing surgical instruments were not allowed to dry thoroughly between uses. The center reopened three weeks later after the Health Department determined corrective steps were adequate. "As soon as I got my letter I got a panic attack," said Karine Travieso of Bergenfield, who is 41. She received a certified letter from the facility on Dec. 26 that recommended blood tests for HIV, hepatitis B and hepatitis C. "Getting a certified letter is not the way this should have gone down," Ms. Travieso said, noting the nearly three-month lag between the time the facility was shut down for safety reasons and the patients were alerted. "The doctors who did the procedures should have been involved -- and they just knew nothing." Preliminary results from the first 186 people to be tested "show no acute infection in any of the patients," Mark Manigan, an attorney representing HealthPlus, said on the surgery center's website. One patient showed evidence of chronic hepatitis, which probably existed before his or her treatment at HealthPlus, Mr. Manigan said, but a state health department analysis will take place to be sure. One-time patients at the center who received letters advising testing are now anxious and angry. "How could they let all this time pass?" asked Kristin Debenedictis of Rochelle Park, who is 37. Her letter arrived on Dec. 21. "I cried. I was upset," the former waitress said. Ms. Debenedictis had two epidural injections during the critical time period at the facility to treat a herniated disc following a car accident. She had a blood test on Dec. 24, but still had not received the results on Dec. 31. Robert Stridiron, 52, a breaking news photographer and emergency-services technician from Queens, said he had arthroscopic surgery on his right knee at the center on March 9. His letter arrived Christmas Eve. Mr. Stridiron went for a blood test on Dec. 27 and was awaiting results. "I'm very nervous. It's very stressful. I'm scared about what could happen," he said. "Being an EMT for 31 years, the first they teach you is sanitizing, wearing gloves, cleaning your instruments." The doctor who performed the surgery at HealthPlus hasn't called him back, he said. Ms. Debenedictis and Mr. Stridiron spoke on Dec. 31 at a press conference in Brooklyn with their lawyer, Sanford Rubenstein. "While it is horrible to contract HIV or hepatitis through no fault of your own, it is terrible as well to suffer the fear of contracting these diseases," Mr. Rubenstein said. "Victims of both are entitled to damages." The delay in receiving test results "exacerbates the horrors they suffer," said Mr. Rubenstein, who called for the results to be expedited. None of his six clients have received results yet, he said. A spokesman for LabCorp, Donald R. Von Hagen, said results for the full panel of tests are typically completed within five days of LabCorp receiving specimens. "Since the results will need to be communicated to the individual patient by HealthPlus or the patient's physician, that could take additional time," he said. Mr. Rubenstein said he plans to file individual lawsuits on behalf of clients on Jan. 2 in New Jersey Superior Court in Hackensack. Meanwhile, a Fort Lee attorney who filed the first lawsuit against HealthPlus on Dec. 28 said the list of clients for his class-action has now reached 30. The lawyer, Michael Maggiano, of Maggiano, DiGirolamo & Lizzi, said his clients come from the five boroughs of New York City,as well as Nanuet, Newark, Jersey City and Passaic and Bergen counties in New Jersey. HealthPlus said in a statement that it had corrected the lapses in infection control and dispensing of medication. Two employees were fired after the state inspection, and the facility's nursing director resigned a day before the inspection, Mr. Manigan said. But Mr. Maggiano said the contamination level throughout the facility and the delay in notifying patients was very concerning. "There was a serious systemic failure that had to take place at the top of management over a nine-month period," he said. The Saddle Brook surgery center is licensed by the state and owned by Yan Moshe, a real estate multimillionaire, Manigan said. Moshe, who also owns a surgery center in Hackensack cited for failing to meet safety regulations, bought Meadowlands Hospital Medical Center in December 2017 despite having no experience running a hospital. The Secaucus facility is now called Hudson Regional Hospital. It's where HealthPlus Surgery Center is referring patients to be tested. Patient Karine Travieso received good news on Dec. 31. After being unable to obtain her blood test results from LabCorp, the company she was referred to by HealthPlus, she had additional tests done privately at NYU/Langone Medical Center. All of the results came back negative for HIV, hepatitis B and hepatitis C. "The way this was handled is absurd," she said. "People deserve to be treated better than this." [GN] HOCKEY CANADA: Faces Class-Action Concussion Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------- Rick Westhead, writing for TSN, reports that a former Western Hockey League player has filed a proposed class-action lawsuit against the WHL, Canadian Hockey League and Hockey Canada, alleging that he was often not given medical attention after his 72 fights in the WHL and that he now is showing symptoms of the brain-withering disease chronic traumatic encephalopathy, or CTE. James Johnathon McEwan made his allegations in a 24-page notice of claim filed on Jan. 9 in B.C. Superior Court. His allegations haven't been proven and the defendants haven't filed their responses to the claim. McEwan has brought forward the proposed class-action on behalf of any and all former CHL players who didn't advance to play in the National Hockey League and suffered injury as a result of concussive and subconcussive impacts. McEwan, 31, is seeking damages for personal and physical injury, psychological injuries, special damages for out-of-pocket medical expenses and loss of past and future income. The Ottawa Citizen first reported on the lawsuit. WHL spokesman Taylor Rocca, Hockey Canada spokesman Mark Halliday and CHL president David Branch didn't respond to an email seeking comment. McEwan, a left wing, played for four seasons in the WHL from 2004 to 2008. He joined the Seattle Thunderbirds in 2004 at the age of 17 and was involved in 18 fights throughout the season, fights that, according to his claim, were "not just condoned and tolerated by the coaches and managers of the teams he had played for, but… encouraged, praised and rewarded." The fights led to "swelling, black eyes, loss of consciousness and temporary confusion. After each fight, Mr. McEwan would continue to play. He was not given medical attention." The following season, McEwan was involved in 19 fights as a member of the Thunderbirds. He then served as an assistant captain for the Kelowna Rockets during the 2006-07 season. "Mr. McEwan was involved in 25 fights throughout the season and was ‘glorified' on numerous social media outlets as holding the best fight with the most punches landed, and was voted the third most entertaining player," his claim says. "The side effect of his continuous head trauma began to have a noticeable impact in his day-to-day life. He was beginning to experience severe anxiety, mood swings, personality changes and angry outbursts. Mr. McEwan began to consume copious amounts of alcohol in an effort to cope with the physical pain and mental distress he was regularly experiencing." As a 20-year-old, McEwan was Kelowna's captain in the 2007-08 season, when he had 11 fights. His claim says the bouts in his final WHL season led to swelling and pressure in his head and a documented concussion, which resulted in a two-week medical leave from the team. "Mr. McEwan began experiencing severe depression, anxiety, mood swings, memory loss, confusion, angry outbursts, and suicidal thoughts," his claim says. The WHL, CHL and Hockey Canada "should have known, or ought to have known, that multiple sub concussive and concussive blows to the head would lead to long term injury including but not limited to memory loss, dementia, depression, and CTE and its related symptoms." McEwan played parts of five seasons in the ECHL after his junior career. His final season was 2014-15, when he appeared in 21 games with the Duluth, Ga.-based Gwinnett Gladiators. In the statement of claim, McEwan's lawyer, Robyn Wishart, Esq. -- rlw@brainandspinelaw.com -- wrote that scientific evidence for decades has linked brain trauma to long-term neurological problems and that during practices and games, a CHL player can sustain close to 1,000 or more hits to the head in one season without any documented concussions. "Such repeated blows result in permanently impaired brain function," the claim says, adding that neuropathologist Dr. Ann McKee, a researcher with Boston University, has diagnosed CTE in the brains of four former junior hockey players who never advanced to the NHL. All four of those players committed suicide before the age of 30. McEwan's claim comes months after the NHL settled major concussion-related litigation of its own. In August, a U.S. judge ruled that a proposed lawsuit against the NHL filed in Minnesota would not proceed as a class action largely because medical monitoring laws were too different between various U.S. states and Canadian provinces for players to form a common class of plaintiffs. After that ruling, the NHL offered a settlement to some 300 former players. They face a Jan. 20 deadline to accept the settlement or pursue their own individual lawsuits against the NHL. The CHL is also fighting class-action lawsuits in Alberta, Ontario and Quebec related to working conditions for players. In each of those cases, former players have alleged that for-profit teams should be paying players at least minimum wage. The leagues have countered that if they have to pay players, some teams will go out of business. They also contend that most players who don't go on to play pro hockey are well looked after with education scholarships. [GN] HOUZZ INC: Underpays Account Coordinators, Merritt Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------- ELIZABETH MERRITT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HOUZZ INC.; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 19CV341181 (Cal. Super., Santa Clara Cty., Jan. 17, 2019) is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, and reimburse necessary business expenses. The Plaintiff Merritt was employed by the Defendants as account coordinator. Houzz Inc. owns and operates a platform that connects homeowners, home design enthusiasts, and home improvement professionals around the world. Houzz Inc. was incorporated in 2008 and is based in Palo Alto, California. The company has additional offices in Palo Alto, Irvine, and San Diego, California; London, United Kingdom; Berlin, Germany; Sydney, Australia; Moscow, Russian Federation; and Tokyo, Japan. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael D. Singer, Esq. Kristina De La Rosa, Esq. COHELAN KHOURY & SINGER 605 C Street, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 595-3001 Facsimile: (619) 595-3000 E-mail: msinger@ckslaw.com kdelarosa@ckslaw.com - and - Jonathan M. Lebe, Esq. LEBE LAW, APC 5723 Melrose Avenue, Suite 100 Los Angeles, CA 90038 Telephone: (310) 921-7056 Facsimile: (310) 820-1258 E-mail: jon@lebelaw.com HUD HOSPITALITY: Leible Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wage for Servers ------------------------------------------------------------- A case, S.D. RYAN LEIBLE, on behalf of himself and FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, the Plaintiff, vs. HUD HOSPITALITY LLC d/b/a YOON HAEUNDAE GALBI, and JUSUNG YOON, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00842 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 28, 2019), alleges pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law that the Plaintiff and others similarly situated are entitled to recover from Defendants unpaid minimum wage due to invalid tip credit deductions, unlawfully retained tips, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs. According to the complaint, from in or around March 2018 until on or about July 7, 2018, the Plaintiff worked as a server for Defendants' "Yoon Haeundae Galbi" restaurant located at 8 West 36th Street, New York, NY 10018. Throughout his employment with Defendants, the Plaintiff regularly worked seven hours per day for 5-6 days per week. No break time was provided during Plaintiff's employment. Based on Plaintiff's observations and conversations with his co-workers, all tipped employees at Yoon Haeundae Galbi regularly worked similar hours. The Defendants had a policy of improperly retaining the tips earned by Plaintiff and other tipped employees. In addition, the Defendants had a common policy of penalizing employees who are late for work by reducing their tip pool allocation by 5% permanently and the management keeping such tips. As a result of Defendants' improper tip pool and unlawful tip retention, the Plaintiff was not paid approximately $200 in tips he earned from customers each week. At no time during the relevant time periods did Defendants provide Plaintiff with proper wage and hour notices or wage statements as required by NYLL. The Defendants paid Plaintiff and FLSA Collective Plaintiffs at hourly rates below the prevailing minimum wage, in violation of the FLSA and NYLL, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff and FLSA Collective Plaintiffs C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 30 East 39th Street, Second Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 465-1188 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 INTEL CORP: Settlement Reached in Suit over McAfee Acquisition -------------------------------------------------------------- Intel Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 1, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 29, 2018, that the parties in the consolidated class action suit related to the company's acquisition of McAfee, Inc., agreed in principal to settle the case for an aggregate payment by defendants of $11.7 million. On August 19, 2010, the company announced that it had agreed to acquire all of the common stock of McAfee, Inc. (McAfee) for $48.00 per share. Four McAfee shareholders filed putative class-action lawsuits in Santa Clara County, California Superior Court challenging the proposed transaction. The cases were ordered consolidated in September 2010. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that named former McAfee board members, McAfee, and Intel as defendants, and alleged that the McAfee board members breached their fiduciary duties and that McAfee and Intel aided and abetted those breaches of duty. The complaint requested rescission of the merger agreement, such other equitable relief as the court may deem proper, and an award of damages in an unspecified amount. In June 2012, the plaintiffs' damages expert asserted that the value of a McAfee share for the purposes of assessing damages should be $62.08. In January 2012, the court certified the action as a class action, appointed the Central Pension Laborers' Fund to act as the class representative, and scheduled trial to begin in January 2013. In March 2012, defendants filed a petition with the California Court of Appeal for a writ of mandate to reverse the class certification order; the petition was denied in June 2012. In March 2012, at defendants' request, the court held that plaintiffs were not entitled to a jury trial and ordered a bench trial. In April 2012, plaintiffs filed a petition with the California Court of Appeal for a writ of mandate to reverse that order, which the court of appeal denied in July 2012. In August 2012, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. The trial court granted that motion in November 2012, and entered final judgment in the case in February 2013. In April 2013, plaintiffs appealed the final judgment. The California Court of Appeal heard oral argument in October 2017, and in November 2017, affirmed the judgment as to McAfee's nine outside directors, reversed the judgment as to former McAfee director and chief executive officer David DeWalt, Intel, and McAfee, and affirmed the trial court's ruling that the plaintiffs are not entitled to a jury trial. At a June 2018 case management conference following remand, the Superior Court set an October hearing date for any additional summary judgment motions that may be filed, and set trial to begin in December 2018. In July 2018, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to amend the complaint, which the court denied in September 2018. Also in July 2018, McAfee and Intel filed a motion for summary judgment on the aiding and abetting claims asserted against them; in October 2018, the court granted the motion as to McAfee and denied the motion as to Intel. In late October 2018, the parties agreed in principal to settle the case for an aggregate payment by defendants of $11.7 million. Intel's contribution to the settlement will be immaterial to its financial statements. The parties will seek court approval of the settlement after they have completed documenting the agreement. Intel Corporation designs, manufactures, and sells computer, networking, data storage, and communication platforms worldwide. The company operates through Client Computing Group, Data Center Group, Internet of Things Group, Non-Volatile Memory Solutions Group, Programmable Solutions Group, and All Other segments. The company was founded in 1968 and is based in Santa Clara, California. INTERNATIONAL EXCHANGE: Inks $65.5MM Proposed Settlement Deal ------------------------------------------------------------- Colleen Slevin, writing for Associated Press, reports that a proposed $65.5 million settlement for low-paid child care workers from around the world would be divided up under a formula after a judge decides whether the agreement is fair, a conclusion that could take several months to reach. The deal, filed in Denver federal court on Jan.9, covers nearly 100,000 people, mainly women, who came to the United States to work as au pairs between Jan. 1, 2009, and Oct. 28, 2018. Lawyers who have been representing the au pairs in the class-action case for free over the past four years expect to ask a judge for 35 percent of the settlement for compensation and legal fees, leaving about $40 million to be divided among the au pairs. The 11 au pairs named as plaintiffs -- from Colombia, Australia, Germany, South Africa and Mexico -- would get $5,000 each as a base payment. Amounts for other au pairs and any additional money for the named plaintiffs would be determined using the formula, which factors in when they worked, whether they had to undergo unpaid training, which states they worked in, and the various claims of wrongdoing in the lawsuit. "This settlement is designed to get as much of the class funds to as many class members as possible," said David Seligman, Esq. director of Denver's Towards Justice, which filed the lawsuit in 2014. If a judge gives the deal preliminary approval, which could happen in a matter of weeks, notices of the settlement will be sent to au pairs using their email addresses provided by the companies that recruited them, said Peter Skinner, Esq., a partner at Boies Schiller Flexner, a New York firm that took over as lead counsel in the case. He also expects word to spread through social media, including Facebook groups for current and former au pairs. Information about the settlement is also being added to aupairclassaction.com. Money would not be paid out until after final approval by the court. The lawsuit claimed 15 companies authorized to bring au pairs to the United States colluded to keep their wages low, ignoring overtime and state minimum wage laws and treating the federal minimum wage for au pairs as a maximum amount they could earn. In some cases, the lawsuit said, families pushed the limits of their duties, requiring au pairs to do things like feed backyard chickens and help families move and not allowing them to eat with the family. The companies denied any wrongdoing under the deal, which came a few weeks before the case was set to go on trial. The trade group representing many of those companies, Alliance for International Exchange, declined to comment on the settlement. The settlement also requires the companies to tell future au pairs that they have the right to ask to be paid above the federal minimum wage of $7.25, which the lawyers expect will help some to negotiate for higher pay based on things like their experience, the number of children or their cost of living. "As a former au pair and career nanny, I feel hopeful about this settlement," said Tatiane Oliveira, a native of Brazil who now advocates for domestic workers at Boston's Matahari Women Workers' Center. However, she said more work needs to be done to protect au pairs' rights, including setting up a third party to ensure families are complying with all regulations. [GN] JACKSON HANDS: Williams Seeks Unpaid Wages & Overtime Pay --------------------------------------------------------- NATALIE WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. JACKSON HANDS OF CHANGE, LLC and DREATHA JACKSON, Case No. 2:19-cv-00646-JCZ-MBN (E.D. La.,. Jan. 28, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid wages and other damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, Hands of Change failed to pay Williams and other workers like her the overtime premium required by federal law for hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek. In fact, Hands of Change did not even pay Williams, and other workers like her, at all for a large portion of the time these individuals worked for Hands of Change each week, the lawsuit says. Williams was an employee of Hands of Change. Hands of Change is a mental health provider located in New Orleans, Louisiana. Williams began working for Hands of Change in July 2017, and was employed as a mental health therapist providing in-home services to Hands of Change's clients.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Matthew S. Parmet, Esq. PARMET PC P.O. Box 540907 800 Sawyer St. (77007) Houston, TX 77254 Telephone: 713 999 5228 Facsimile: 713 999 1187 E-mail: matt@parmet.law JETBLUE AIRWAYS: Challenges Donoff Subpoena Bid ----------------------------------------------- JetBlue Airways has commenced a lawsuit against class action plaintiff, Judith Marilyn Donoff, and filed a motion to quash Donoff's attempt to subpoena the airline company. The case is captioned as JETBLUE AIRWAYS CORPORATION, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUDITH MARILYN DONOFF, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-mc-00076-ARR (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 11, 2019). The case is assigned to Judge Allyne R. Ross. Donoff commenced a lawsuit against Delta last year over travel insurance. CBS News reported in September that Delta and JetBlue were accused in separate class actions of failing to disclose to consumers that they receive payments from sales of travel cancellation insurance promoted on their websites. According to the nearly identical lawsuits, the airlines leave consumers "with the false impression that the charge for trip insurance is a pass-through" fee from another entity with which they have no financial interest. Instead, the suits allege JetBlue and Delta receive "kickbacks" for selling policies on their websites. The suits claim that the payments to the carriers are illegal because the companies aren't providing anything in return. Moreover, since Delta and JetBlue lack licenses to sell insurance, they can't accept any payments relating to its sale, according to the lawsuits. The Donoff case captioned as, is JUDITH MARILYN DONOFF on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. DELTA AIR LINES, INC, Defendant, Case No. 9:18-cv-81258-DMM (S.D. Fla.). JetBlue is not a party to the Florida suit. Donoff's counsel, Leon Cosgrove, LLP, issued the Subpoena in the Donoff case directing JetBlue to designate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) one or more individuals competent to testify on (1) JetBlue's participation in conferences or meetings sponsored by AGA Service Company d/b/a Allianz Global Assistance; (2) the uniformity or differences in pricing for Allianz travel insurance policies between Delta Air Lines and JetBlue, and (3) the ways in which JetBlue competes with Delta in the travel insurance policy market. Currently pending in Donoff is a Motion to Dismiss filed by Delta, as well as a motion to stay discovery pending a decision on its Motion to Dismiss. JetBlue contends that the Subpoena is improper and should be quashed. JetBlue argues that the Subpoena seeks information that is not relevant to any claim or defense and is not proportional to the needs of the Donoff case and poses an undue burden because it is overbroad and requires a comprehensive gathering of information that simply cannot occur in the designated time frame. Leon Cosgrove, who also represents another plaintiff in a nearly identical action against JetBlue in the Southern District of Florida, served the Subpoena for an improper purpose -- namely, to obtain discovery for use in proceedings other than in Donoff. In the event the Court wishes to modify, rather than quash, the subpoena, Donoff should be directed to proceed by serving a notice of deposition by written questions, narrowly tailored to the information she seeks from JetBlue. JetBlue asserts that it should not be required to disclose any information that is not otherwise publicly available to its competitors. Plaintiff Donoff is seeking to expose JetBlue's internal strategies and information to Delta; the Protective Order in the Donoff case is insufficient protection as Plaintiff Donoff refused to execute a Protective Order with an "Attorneys' Eyes' Only" provision. Thus, Delta would be entitled to review the transcript and/or Plaintiff would be able to disclose its contents to Delta witnesses. If JetBlue should be required to turn over this highly confidential information for Plaintiff Donoff's case, it should be under an "Attorneys' Eyes' Only" basis to ensure that JetBlue's information is not disclosed to its competitors. Finally, at a minimum, JetBlue should not be asked to comply with Plaintiff Donoff's non-party discovery unless and until it has been determined that Plaintiff Donoff possesses a viable claim for relief, or that the presiding court orders the action to proceed in light of the pending Motion to Dismiss. JetBlue Airways Corporation, a passenger carrier company, provides air transportation services. As of December 31, 2017, the company operated a fleet of 53 Airbus A321 aircraft, 130 Airbus A320 aircraft, and 60 Embraer E190 aircraft. It also served 101 destinations in 30 states in the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and 21 countries in the Caribbean and Latin America. JetBlue Airways Corporation was founded in 1998 and is based in Long Island City, New York. [BN] Jetblue is represented by: Seth Eliot Spitzer, Esq. Winston & Strawn LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166 Telephone: (212) 294-6700 E-mail: sspitzer@winston.com JETBLUE AIRWAYS: Seeks to Quash Subpoena in Dolan Suit ------------------------------------------------------ The Defendants have filed a Motion to Quash Subpoena in the case captioned as MILITA BARBARA DOLAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JETBLUE AIRWAYS CORPORATION; and DELTA AIR LINES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00313-MLB-CMS (N.D. Ga., Jan. 16, 2019). The case is assigned to Judge Michael L. Brown and referred to Magistrate Judge Catherine M. Salinas. Judge Salinas on Feb. 8, 2019, directed the parties to file a supplemental brief, not to exceed 10 pages in length, by 5 p.m. on Feb. 15 addressing these issues. Delta is further ordered to advise the Court in its supplemental brief as to whether it will consent to transfer this motion to the court in the Southern District of Florida pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(f). CBS News reported in September that Delta and JetBlue were accused in separate class actions of failing to disclose to consumers that they receive payments from sales of travel cancellation insurance promoted on their websites. According to the nearly identical lawsuits, the airlines leave consumers "with the false impression that the charge for trip insurance is a pass-through" fee from another entity with which they have no financial interest. Instead, the suits allege JetBlue and Delta receive "kickbacks" for selling policies on their websites. The suits claim that the payments to the carriers are illegal because the companies aren't providing anything in return. Moreover, since Delta and JetBlue lack licenses to sell insurance, they can't accept any payments relating to its sale, according to the lawsuits. JetBlue Airways Corporation, a passenger carrier company, provides air transportation services. JetBlue Airways Corporation was founded in 1998 and is based in Long Island City, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason H. Alperstein, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG KEECHL 200 SW 1st Avenue, Suite 1200 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 Facsimile: (954) 525-4300 E-mail: alperstein@kolawyers.com - and - Paul J. Geller, Esq. Stuart A. Davidson, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD, LLP - GA 120 E. Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Telephone: (561) 750-3000 Facsimile: (561) 750-3364 E-mail: pgeller@rgrdlaw.com sdavidson@rgrdlaw.com - and - Peter M. Jones, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD, LLP - GA 3424 Peachtree Road, NE Atlanta, GA 30326 Telephone: (404) 504-6500 Facsimile: (404) 504-6501 E-mail: pjones@rgrdlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: David Lewis Balser, Esq. KING & SPALDING, LLP-ATL 1180 Peachtree Street, NE, 40th Floor Atlanta, GA 30309-3521 Telephone: (404) 572-4600 Facsimile: (404) 572-5100 E-mail: dbalser@kslaw.com - and - Julia Constance Barrett, Esq. KING & SPALDING LLP - ATL 1180 Peachtree St., N.E. Atlanta, GA 30309-3521 Telephone: (404) 572-3562 E-mail: jbarrett@kslaw.com - and - Katherine Paige Nobles, Esq. KING & SPALDING LLP - ATL 1180 Peachtree St., N.E. Atlanta, GA 30309-3521 Telephone: (404) 572-3560 E-mail: pnobles@kslaw.com JOHNSON AND JOHNSON: Sued over Damaging Retirement Savings Plan --------------------------------------------------------------- TOM TARANTINO and ROCHELLE ROSEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, vs. JOHNSON AND JOHNSON PENSION AND BENEFITS COMMITTEE, PETER FASOLO, and JOHN DOES 1-10, the Defendants Case No. 3:19-cv-01115 (D.N.J., Jan. 25, 2019), seeks recover many millions of dollars of damages suffered in Plaintiffs' retirement accounts due to breaches of fiduciary duties owed to them, pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. The Plaintiffs file this Complaint on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated current and former employees of Johnson and Johnson who were participants in and beneficiaries of the Johnson and Johnson Savings Plan and who were invested in the Johnson and Johnson Common Stock Fund during the period of February 22, 2013 through January 25, 2019, inclusive. Fiduciaries of the Plan, who owed "the highest duty known to the law" to Plan participants, breached those duties throughout the Class Period when they knew that J&J's stock price had become artificially inflated in value, which made the Fund, which primarily invested in J&J stock, an imprudent investment under ERISA, thereby damaging the Plan and those Plan participants invested in the Fund. As fiduciaries, Defendants had responsibility for the Plan's management, operations and investments. They breached their fiduciary duties to the Plan and its participants when, as, upon information and belief, high-level corporate insiders, they knew (or should have known) as that J&J's stock price had become artificially inflated due to undisclosed misrepresentation and fraud, yet they took no action whatsoever to protect the Plan or Plan participants from foreseeable resulting harm. They knowingly permitted Plan participants to purchase and hold an imprudent investment that was disqualified under ERISA as well as damaging to the Plan. According to the complaint, the Defendants were duty-bound to try to prevent, or at least to mitigate, any damage caused by the fraud to the Plan and its participants. They could have mitigated the harm to Plan participants by trying to effectuate, through personnel with disclosure responsibilities, corrective public disclosures to cure the fraud consistent with the requirements of the federal securities laws, thereby making J&J stock an accurately priced, prudent investment again. The Defendants could not reasonably have believed that taking this action would do more harm than good to the Plan or to Plan participants. J&J stock traded in an efficient market. The Defendants were -- or should have been -- familiar with the rudimentary principles of how securities trade in efficient markets. Thus, they would have known that correcting the Company's fraud would reduce J&J's stock price only by the amount by which it was artificially inflated to begin with. They had no basis to believe that any factor was distorting the market for J&J stock at the time -- such as widespread short-selling or liquidity problems or the like -- and thus no reason to fear that public correction of the Company's fraud would reduce J&J's stock price to anything but its true, accurate value. Moreover, Defendants should have known that, the longer the artificial inflation of the Company's stock persisted, the greater the risk of reputational harm that would inure to J&J upon revelation of the truth. When a public company like J&J prolongs a fraud, the likelihood of a harsher price correction and a more lethargic price recovery increases. A prudent fiduciary would take this increasing risk of harm to Plan participants into account in deciding whether and when to act on the basis of inside information. Accordingly, Defendants should have taken appropriate responsive action by trying to effectuate, through personnel with disclosure responsibilities, corrective public disclosures to cure the fraud, correct the stock price, and render the Fund a prudent investment again. As such, between February 22, 2013, through January 25, 2019, Plan participants could not appreciate the true risks presented by investments in J&J's stock and, therefore, could not make informed decisions regarding their investments. As a direct and proximate result of the breaches of alleged fiduciary duties, the Plan, and indirectly Plaintiffs and other Plan participants, suffered foreseeable damage to or lost a significant portion of their retirement investments, the lawsuit says.[BN] Counsel for Plaintiffs and the Putative Class Samuel E. Bonderoff, Esq. Jacob H. Zamansky, Esq. Edward H. Glenn, Jr., Esq. Justin Sauerwald, Esq. ZAMANSKY LLC 50 Broadway, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 742-1414 Facsimile: (212) 742-1177 E-mail: justin@zamansky.com KEMET CORP: 4th Payment in Capacitors Antitrust Suit Due May 15 --------------------------------------------------------------- Kemet Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 1, 2019, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2018, that the fourth payment in the case entitled, In re: Capacitors Antitrust Litigation, is due May 15, 2019 and the final payment is due by December 31, 2019. On July 15, 2016, TOKIN entered into definitive settlement agreements in two antitrust suits filed with the United States District Court, Northern District of California as In re: Capacitors Antitrust Litigation, No. 3:14-cv-03264-JD (the "Capacitor Class Action Suits"). Pursuant to the terms of the settlement, in consideration of the release of TOKIN and its subsidiaries (including TOKIN America, Inc.) from claims asserted in the Capacitor Class Action Suits, TOKIN will pay an aggregate $37.3 million to a settlement class of direct purchasers of capacitors and a settlement class of indirect purchasers of capacitors. Each of the respective class payments is payable in five installments, three of which have been paid on or before their respective due dates of July 29, 2016, May 15, 2017, and May 15, 2018. The fourth payment is due May 15, 2019 and the final payment is due by December 31, 2019. Kemet Corporation manufactures and sells passive electronic components under the KEMET brand worldwide. The company operates in three segments: Solid Capacitors, Film and Electrolytic; and Electro-Magnetic, Sensors, and Actuators. The company was founded in 1919 and is headquartered in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. KEMET CORP: Inductors Antitrust Still Ongoing --------------------------------------------- Kemet Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 1, 2019, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2018, that TOKIN and TOKIN America Inc. continues to defend in the purported class action suit entitled, In re: Inductors Antitrust Litigation. On July 2, 2018, TOKIN and TOKIN America Inc. were named as two of 20 defendants in a purported U.S. class action antitrust lawsuit, In re: Inductors Antitrust Litigation, No. 5:18-cv-00198-EJD-NC, filed in the United States District Court, Northern District of California, regarding the sale of inductors brought on behalf of direct product purchasers and indirect product purchasers. The complaint alleges violations of Sections 1 and 3 of the Sherman Act, for which it seeks injunctive and equitable relief and money damages. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Kemet Corporation manufactures and sells passive electronic components under the KEMET brand worldwide. The company operates in three segments: Solid Capacitors, Film and Electrolytic; and Electro-Magnetic, Sensors, and Actuators. The company was founded in 1919 and is headquartered in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. KICKS USA: Faces Traynor ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kicks, U.S.A. Inc. The case is captioned as YASEEN TRAYNOR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KICKS, U.S.A. INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00488-GBD (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 17, 2019). The lawsuit alleges violation of Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is assigned to Judge George B. Daniels. Founded in 2002, KicksUSA provides urban footwear, apparel and career opportunities to communities in Philadelphia, New Jersey and surrounding areas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Harris Kohn, Esq. Stein Saks, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: dkohn@steinsakslegal.com LEGACY HEALTH: Former Nurse Sues Over Breaks, Overtime ------------------------------------------------------ Lynne Terry, writing for The Lund Report, reports that a former registered nurse for Legacy Health has filed a class action lawsuit against the Portland hospital network, claiming that it systematically denied meal breaks to non-exempt nursing staff and failed to pay overtime. Julianne Hunter, who worked for Legacy Health for nine years, including the last three at Legacy Emanuel Medical Center, filed the suit in Multnomah County Circuit Court on behalf of herself and other nurses, nurse aides and nurse assistants. The complaint says Legacy does not allow nursing staff to take a 30-minute break during their shift as required by state and federal law but rather expects them to try to grab a bite to eat when they can while attending to patients and other duties. Yet, the suit says, Legacy still deducted 30 minutes a day from nursing staff pay for a meal break. The complaint also accuses the hospital chain of systematically failing to pay for work performed before clocking in and after clocking out. "This case implicates the longstanding policy of Legacy Health, which fails to properly compensate non-exempt employees for work during meal periods and for work performed while 'off-the-clock,'" the suit says. Legacy Health did not respond to requests for comment. This is not the first time that Legacy staff have complained about being denied breaks. A year ago, the state Bureau of Labor and Industries fined Legacy Emanuel Medical Center a record $277,000 for failing to ensure that staff got breaks. That fine followed an investigation of a dozen complaints, many from surgical technicians, who said they were not allowed to go to the restroom for four hours or more. The bureau found that the North Portland hospital had more than 4,400 meal and rest period violations in 2015 and 2016. Legacy paid the fine, saying it did not want to start shelling out money in legal fees. Then in September, the bureau announced it was fining Legacy another record sum -- more than $5 million -- for 5,000-plus meal and rest period violations at Legacy Meridian Park Hospital, Legacy Mount Hood Medical Center and Legacy Good Samaritan Hospital and Medical Center. This time Legacy appealed, asking for a hearing. That meeting is scheduled for April, said Christine Lewis, spokeswoman for the bureau. This latest lawsuit says Hunter worked as a non-exempt nurse for Legacy Emanuel Medical Center between March 2009 through April 2016, earning $48.18 an hour during her last year of employment. Her responsibilities including caring for patients, administering medicine, monitoring test results, responding to emergencies and interacting with other staff and visitors. The suit says she worked throughout her shifts and was "interrupted or denied meal and rest breaks on a regular basis." The suit says she worked off-the-clock as well, doing things like cleaning, preparing equipment, charting, interacting with patients and assisting other staff but was not paid for that time. "In practice, nursing staff involved in direct patient care are not permitted to take a 30-minute uninterrupted and bona fide meal or rest breaks due to the demands of their job during the majority of their shifts," the complaint says. "In the rare instances where they attempt a meal or rest break, they remain on duty in that they are required to respond to calls from their patients, doctors, patients' families, other nursing staff and hospital staff, attend to the normal demands of the job and otherwise respond to emergencies." Hunter worked long days, the suit says, 12 or 13-hour shifts and up to 52 hours a week. Oregon law requires employers to give staff a 30-minute meal break free of interruptions after six hours or work and 10-minute breaks for each four hours of work. Federal law also requires employers to pay hourly wage employees time and a half their regular pay for all hours that exceed a 40 in a week. The complaint says that when non-exempt employees like Hunter worked more than 40 hours a week that Legacy did not pay overtime because it did not include time spent working off-the-clock in its pay calculations and automatically deducted break time that wasn't taken. The complaint says this policy was not the result of an accounting error but rather part of a "willful" policy. The complaint says that all non-exempt staff who worked more than 40 hours in at least one week in the past three years at Legacy Health should be included in the suit. It estimates that there are at least 100 people in this class. The suit seeks orders banning Legacy from retaliation against the plaintiffs, stating that Legacy willfully violated federal law and violated Oregon law. It also seeks all unpaid wages due to plaintiffs under the law, with 9 percent interest; an equal amount in damages; attorneys fees and fines of $200 for each violation. [GN] LEXICON PHARMA: Sued over Misleading Report on Sotagliflozin ------------------------------------------------------------ A case, DANIEL MANOPLA, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. LEXICON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., LONNEL COATS, and JEFFREY L. WADE, the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00301 (S.D. Tex., Jan. 28, 2019), seeks to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, against the Company and certain of its top officials. The case is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class consisting of all persons other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired Lexicon securities between March 11, 2016 and January 17, 2019, both dates inclusive. In November 2015, Lexicon entered into a collaboration and license agreement with Sanofi S.A. ("Sanofi"), a French multinational pharmaceutical company. Under the collaboration and license agreement, Lexicon granted Sanofi an exclusive, worldwide, royalty-bearing right and license to develop, manufacture and commercialize Sotagliflozin. Lexicon is responsible for all clinical development activities relating to type 1 diabetes and retains an exclusive option to co-promote and has a significant role, in collaboration with Sanofi, in the commercialization of Sotagliflozin for the treatment of type 1 diabetes in the United States. Sanofi is responsible for all clinical development and commercialization of Sotagliflozin for the treatment of type 2 diabetes worldwide and is solely responsible for the commercialization of Sotagliflozin for the treatment of type 1 diabetes outside the United States. On May 22, 2018, Sanofi filed a New Drug Application ("NDA") for "Zynquista" (the trademarked, commercialized name of Sotagliflozin) with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA"). The NDA for Zynquista was based on data from the inTandem clinical trial program that included three Phase 3 clinical trials (called, respectively, "inTandem1," "inTandem2," and "inTandem3") assessing the safety and efficacy of Zynquista in approximately 3,000 adults with inadequately controlled type 1 diabetes. According to Jorge Insuasty, Senior-Vice President, Global Head of Development, Sanofi, "if approved, Zynquista would be the first oral antidiabetic drug approved in the U.S. for use by adults with type 1 diabetes, in combination with insulin, the lawsuit says." Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the data from Lexicon's Phase 3 clinical trials assessing the safety and efficacy of Sotagliflozin in treating type 1 diabetes were not as positive as Lexicon represented; (ii) the health risks posed by Sotagliflozin were severe enough to threaten its FDA approval prospects; and (iii) as a result, Lexicon's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On January 17, 2019, Lexicon announced that the Endocrinologic and Metabolic Drugs Advisory Committee of the FDA (the "Advisory Committee") had "voted eight to eight on the question of whether the overall benefits of [Lexicon's product] Zynquista (sotagliflozin) outweighed the risks to support approval." According to the complaint, on news of the Advisory Committee's stalemate, Lexicon's stock price fell $1.74 per share, or 22.6%, to close at $5.96 per share on January 18, 2019. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages. Lexicon was founded in 1995 and is headquartered in The Woodlands, Texas. Lexicon is a biopharmaceutical company that focuses on the development and commercialization of pharmaceutical products for the treatment of human diseases. "Sotagliflozin" is the scientific name of one of Lexicon's orally-delivered small molecule drug candidates under development. Sotagliflozin is in Phase 3 clinical trials for the treatment of type 1 and type 2 diabetes.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Willie C. Briscoe, Esq. THE BRISCOE LAW FIRM, PLLC 12700 Park Central Drive, Suite 520 Dallas, TX 75251 Telephone 972 521-6868 Facsimile 281 254-7789 E-mail: wbriscoe@thebriscoelawfirm.com - and - Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. Jonathan Lindenfeld, Esq. Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20 th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com jlindenfeld@pomlaw.com pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com LLOYD'S OF LONDON: Hit With Federal Class Action ------------------------------------------------ Terry Gangcuangco, writing for Insurance Business, reports that certain underwriters at Lloyd's of London, insurance agencies, and Lloyd's syndicates have been taken to court. A federal class action lawsuit has been filed with the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii over what were described as "virtually worthless" policies. The case centres on surplus lines insurance and points to an alleged scheme designed to drive Hawaiian homeowners away from state-established coverage. In a release, Foster Law Offices stated: "Lloyd's and its agents knew that they were not allowed to place surplus lines insurance unless other insurance was not available and the insurance coverage amounts exceeded the coverage available through traditional insurance carriers, including the government-established insurance coverage offered through the HPIA (Hawaii Property Insurance Association)." According to the Hawaii-based firm, residents could have qualified for HPIA-sponsored insurance, "but Lloyd's and its agents deceived them by artificially inflating coverage limits" beyond those provided under non-surplus lines insurance. Citing data from the National Association of Insurance Commissioners and the Centre for Insurance Policy and Research, Foster Law Offices said Lloyd's syndicates wrote approximately US$52 million in surplus lines premium in Hawaii in 2017. Meanwhile the 60-page class action complaint, which is demanding a jury trial, alleges that insurance brokers received "kickbacks" from Lloyd's in the form of increased and unwarranted commissions. It also cites policy exclusions which insureds claim render the Lloyd's offering essentially useless. "By wrongfully steering plaintiffs and the class into surplus lines insurance, defendants have been able to deny coverage to plaintiffs and many class members impacted by the recent eruption of the Kilauea Volcano on the basis of the lava exclusion," read the court filing seen by Insurance Business. "In the absence of defendants' unlawful scheme, plaintiffs and the class would have been offered more comprehensive insurance, including insurance through HPIA, which provides for coverage against 16 perils, including fire and volcanic eruption." The lawsuit asserts that class members "discovered in the aftermath of this tragedy that they unknowingly were sold virtually worthless homeowner's insurance that did not provide coverage for the losses they have suffered." [GN] LOANCARE, LLC: Hamilton Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois --------------------------------------------------------- DERRICK L. HAMILTON, the Plaintiff, vs. LOANCARE, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00554 (N.D. Ill., Jan. 28, 2019), seeks damages for Defendant's violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. On January 10, 2013, the Plaintiff executed a mortgage in favor of United Security Financial Corp. The Mortgage secured the purchase of real estate located at 148 North Bertram Drive, Yorkville, Illinois 60560. The Mortgage secured the repayment of the indebtedness evidenced by a promissory note in the amount of $124,343. On January 23, 2015, United Security Financial Corp. initiated mortgage foreclosure proceedings against the Property. The subject debt was subsequently transferred to Lenderlive Network, Inc. On January 28, 2015, the Plaintiff initiated a bankruptcy case in the Northern District of Illinois by filing a voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code. Simultaneously, Plaintiff filed his Chapter 13 plan. The Plaintiff's plan explicitly provided for the subject debt: "[Plaintiff] is surrendering [the Property] to LenderLive Network, Inc. in full satisfaction of its claims." On March 27, 2015, the Bankruptcy Court confirmed Plaintiff's January 28, 2015 Chapter 13 Plan. The Plaintiff successfully completed plan payments in accordance with the confirmed Chapter 13 plan. On September 8, 2015, the Plaintiff was granted a discharge under section 1328(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, thus extinguishing Plaintiff's liability on the subject debt. On April 1, 2016, LenderLive transferred the servicing rights to the subject debt to RoundPoint Mortgage Servicing Corporation. On December 16, 2016, the Circuit Court of Kendall County entered a judgment of foreclosure. On May 2, 2017, RoundPoint transferred the servicing rights to the subject debt to Defendant. The Defendant received notice of Plaintiff's bankruptcy discharge from its predecessor RoundPoint during the loan onboarding process. At the time Defendant acquired servicing rights, the subject debt was in default. On July 10, 2017, the Property was sold at public sale by the Sheriff of Kendall County, Illinois. On December 13, 2018, the Defendant sent a letter addressed to Plaintiff pertaining to the subject debt. The Plaintiff was highly confused and misled by the Defendant's letter because he was led to believe that his bankruptcy discharge had no legal effect and that he was liable for the deficiency balance up to the date he received the Defendant's letter, the lawsuit says.[BN] Counsel for Plaintiff: Joseph S. Davidson, Esq. Mohammed O. Badwan, Esq. SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD. Lombard, IL 60148 Telephone: (630) 575 8180 Facsimile: (630) 575 8188 E-mail: jdavidson@sulaimanlaw.com mbadwan@sulaimanlaw.com LYONDELLBASELL ACETYLS: McDevitt Seeks Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------- A case, SHELLY McDEVITT, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. LYONDELLBASELL ACETYLS, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-00028 (S.D. Tex., Jan. 28, 2019), seeks to recover compensation, overtime wages, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members are those similarly situated persons who worked for LYB anywhere in the United States, and were not paid for all hours worked or the correct amount of overtime compensation in violation of federal law. Specifically, LYB has enforced a uniform company-wide policy wherein it improperly compensated its non-exempt hourly employees -- Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members -- for their time spent during the "shift relief" or "turnover" between the day and night shifts -- that is, the twenty to thirty minutes per shift during which each outgoing employee was required to brief and prep the incoming shift worker. LYB's company-wide policies have caused Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members to have hours worked that were not compensated and further, to not receive overtime compensation at a rate of one had one half their regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek. Although Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members routinely worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek, the Plaintiffs and the Putative Class Members have not been paid overtime of at least one and one-half their regular rates for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. LYB has knowingly and deliberately failed to compensate Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members for all hours worked each workweek and therefore failed to provide the proper amount of overtime compensation on a routine and regular basis in the last three years, the lawsuit says. LyondellBasell produces two grades of acetic acid, for industrial use and for food use.[BN] Attorneys in Charge for Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members: Clif Alexander, Esq. Austin W. Anderson, Esq. Lauren E. Braddy, Esq. Alan Clifton Gordon, Esq. Carter T. Hastings, Esq. ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC George Schimmel, Esq. 819 N. Upper Broadway Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Telephone: (361) 452-1279 Facsimile: (361) 452-1284 E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com austin@a2xlaw.com lauren@a2xlaw.com cgordon@a2xlaw.com carter@a2xlaw.com geordie@a2xlaw.com MARRIOTT INT'L: Class Action Powerhouses Sue Over Data Breach -------------------------------------------------------------- National class action law firms DiCello Levitt; Hausfeld; Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll; Cohen & Gresser; and Kramon & Graham have teamed up to file the nation's largest class action complaint against Marriott (NASDAQ: MAR) following a massive, long-running data breach at the company. With 176 Plaintiffs from all fifty states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands, this landmark court filing comes on the heels of Marriott's recent admission that approximately 5.25 million unencrypted passport numbers and 20.3 million encrypted passport numbers were among the sensitive customer records accessed by hackers. By the hotel chain's own acknowledgement, the breach compromised the personal information of nearly 400 million customers who made reservations at Starwood-branded hotels, which Marriott acquired in 2016, making it one of the largest data breaches in the country's history. The consumers filed their lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Maryland on Wednesday January 9, 2019, and allege that Starwood, and later Marriott, took more than four years to discover the breach and then failed to notify its customers in a timely manner. Marriott became the world's largest hotel chain when it acquired Starwood. "It is difficult to comprehend how Marriott did not discover a data breach of this size during the course of its due diligence efforts in conjunction with its 2016 Starwood acquisition," said Amy Keller, a partner with DiCello Levitt, who also serves as Co-Lead Counsel in the nationwide class action against Equifax related to its 2017 data breach. "Marriott has completely failed its customers and it is disingenuous for the company to attempt to downplay the seriousness of this breach." Co-counsel James Pizzirusso of Hausfeld, who is also a Plaintiffs' Steering Committee member in the Equifax case, added that, "Our clients have instances of documented fraud that we allege are tied to the breach and Marriott's empty promise to replace passports for only a select few customers rings hollow." Beginning in 2014 and possibly earlier, and continuing through November 2018, hackers exploited vulnerabilities in Starwood's network to access the guest reservation system and steal customer data. Marriott discovered the breach on September 8, 2018 but failed to publicly disclose it until nearly three months later, on November 30, 2018, when it admitted that there had been unauthorized access to the Starwood guest reservation database. This database contained personal customer information, including names, mailing addresses, phone numbers, email addresses, passport numbers, Starwood Preferred Guest (SPG) account information, date of birth, gender, arrival and departure information, reservation dates, and communication preferences. For some customers, the information also included payment card numbers and payment card expiration dates. "Marriott's post-breach response plan was wholly inadequate, and we intend to hold the company accountable for its failings," said Andrew Friedman of Cohen Milstein. "Marriott's latest revelation that millions of customer passport numbers were unencrypted boggles the mind and is an unprecedented lapse in cybersecurity for such a large customer service business." The complaint, filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, Southern Division, is Vetter, et al. v. Marriott International, Inc., No. 19-cv-00094 (D. Md.). A copy of the complaint is available upon request. If you believe that you have been affected by the Marriott data breach, attorneys are eager to speak with you about the ongoing litigation and how to protect your rights. Call (440) 953-8888 to speak with one of our attorneys. Jason Milch, Esq. Baretz+Brunelle Telephone: 312.379.9406 (440) 953-8888 Email: jmilch@baretzbrunelle.com [GN] MCKESSON CORP: Plaintiffs Seek to Lead Evanston Police Fund Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- McKesson 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 31, 2018, that several plaintiffs in the case, Evanston Police Pension Fund v. McKesson Corporation, filed motions for appointment as lead plaintiff with the court. On December 12, 2018, the Company was served with a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging that McKesson and several of its officers violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by reporting profits and revenues from 2013 until early 2017 that were false and misleading, due to an alleged conspiracy to fix the prices of generic drugs. Evanston Police Pension Fund v. McKesson Corporation, No. 3:18-06525. On December 26, 2018, several plaintiffs filed motions for appointment as lead plaintiff with the court. McKesson Corporation provides pharmaceuticals and medical supplies in the United States and internationally. It operates in three segments: U.S. Pharmaceutical and Specialty Solutions, European Pharmaceutical Solutions, and Medical-Surgical Solutions. McKesson Corporation was founded in 1833 and is headquartered in San Francisco, California. MDL 1566: Suggestion to Remand Suit to JPML Granted --------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the District of Nevada issued an Order granting Plaintiffs' Motion to Suggest Remand in the case captioned In re WESTERN STATES WHOLESALE NATURAL GAS ANTITRUST LITIGATION. No. 2:03-cv-01431-RCJ-PAL, MDL No. 1566, No. 2:05-cv-01331-RCJ-PAL., 2:06-cv-00233-RCJ-PAL, 2:06-cv-00267-RCJ-PAL, 2:06-cv-00282-RCJ-PAL, 2:06-cv-01351-RCJ-PAL, 2:07-cv-00987-RCJ-PAL, 2:07-cv-01019-RCJ-PAL, 2:09-cv-00915-RCJ-PAL (D. Nev.). The Plaintiffs, retail buyers of natural gas, allege that the Defendants, natural gas traders, manipulated the price of natural gas by reporting false information to price indices published by trade publications and by engaging in wash sales. In 2003, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) transferred seven class action cases from various districts in California to this District under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407 as Multidistrict Litigation Case No. 1566, assigning Judge Pro to preside. Since then, the JPML has transferred in several more actions from various districts throughout the United States. Judge Pro ruled on many motions to remand, to dismiss, and for summary judgment. He also approved several class settlements. Several parties settled on their own. One or more of the cases have been to the Court of Appeals twice and to the Supreme Court once. Specifically, in 2007, the Court of Appeals reversed several dismissals under the filed-rate doctrine and remanded for further proceedings. In 2013, the Court of Appeals reversed several summary judgment orders, ruling that the Natural Gas Act did not preempt state law anti-trust claims and that certain Wisconsin- and Missouri-based Defendants should not have been dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction. The Supreme Court granted certiorari as to preemption under the Natural Gas Act and affirmed. The case was soon thereafter reassigned to this Court when Judge Pro retired. The Court issued several dispositive orders and denied class certification in applicable cases. The Court of Appeals reversed the Court's ruling that Reorganized FLI, Inc. was entitled to summary judgment based on a release in a previous action. The Court of Appeals ruled that Sinclair Oil Corp.'s claims were similarly not released; nor were they precluded. The Court of Appeals reversed the Court's grant of summary judgment to CenterPoint Energy Services, Inc. on the merits of the claims under Wisconsin's antitrust statutes, as well as the Court's denials of class certification. The Plaintiffs in the remaining cases have asked the Court to suggest remand to the JPML. The Defendants have opposed the motions and filed additional dispositive motions. The Court grants the motions for suggestion of remand for the reasons given therein. The Motions for Suggestion of Remand are granted. The Court is of the opinion, having had its grants of summary judgment reversed, that dispositive motion practice should be concluded, and the matters should proceed to trial in the transferor courts. Further delay is inappropriate. Only class certification remains in the five of the eight remaining actions that are class actions, and given the Court of Appeals' reversal of this Court's denials of class certification, the transferor courts are better positioned to apply the relevant states' laws in these complex matters. The Court respectfully suggests remand of these actions for trial. A full-text copy of the District Court's January 14, 2018 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ybwf25yv from Leagle.com. In re Western States Wholesale Natural Gas Antitrust Litigation, Plaintiff, represented by Jay Kevin Wieser -- jwieser@jw.com -- Jackson Walker L.L.P., Anna K. Milunas -- amilunas@mckoolsmith.com -- McKool Smith Hennigan PC, Bradley C. Weber -- bweber@lockelord.com -- Locke Lord LLP, Brent Cohen -- bcohen@lrrc.com -- Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP, Brett D. Bissett -bbissett@mckoolsmithhennigan.com -- McKool Smith Hennigan, P.C., Craig A. Fitzgerald -- cfitzgerald@gablelaw.com -- Gable Gotwals, D. Neal Tomlinson, Snell & Wilmer L.L.P., Diane R. Hazel -- dhazel@lrrc.com -- Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP, Eric I. Unrein, Cavanaugh, Biggs & Lemon, P.A., Gary D. McCallister, Gary D. McCallister & Associates, LLC, Gregory M. Bentz -- gbentz@polsinelli.com -- Polsinelli Shughart, Jennifer Gille Bacon -- jbacon@polsinelli.com -- Polsinelli PC, Joseph A. Fischer, III -- tfisher@jw.com -- Jackson Walker L.L.P. Aquila, Inc., Defendant, represented by Charles A. Moore, Dewey & LeBoeuf LLP, Khai LeQuang -- klequang@orrick.com -- Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP, pro hac vice, Martin M. Loring -- martin.loriing@huschblackwell.com -- Blackwell, Sanders, Peper, Martin, William Molinski -- wmolinski@orrick.com -- Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP, Bradley C. Weber -- bweber@lockelord.com -- Locke Lord LLP & Orrin L. Harrison, III -- oharrison@ghjhlaw.com -- Gruber Hurst Johansen Hail Shank. Cantera Natural Gas, Inc. & Cantera Resources, Inc., Defendants, represented by Bradley C. Weber, Locke Lord LLP, Orrin L. Harrison, III, Gruber Hurst Johansen Hail Shank, Sean Commons -- scommons@sidley.com -- Sidley Austin LLP & T. Robert Scarborough -- TSCARBOROUGH@SIDLEY.COM- Sidley Austin LLP. CMS Enterprises Group, Inc., Encana Energy Services, Inc., EPNG Mojave, Inc., Mojave Pipeline Company, Mojave Pipeline Operating Company & WD Energy Services, Inc., Defendants, represented by Bradley C. Weber, Locke Lord LLP & Orrin L. Harrison, III, Gruber Hurst Johansen Hail Shank. Dynegy Holding Co., Inc., Defendant, represented by Jay Kevin Wieser, Jackson Walker L.L.P.,Joseph A. Fischer, III, Jackson Walker L.L.P., Michael J. Kass -- mkass@vlplawgroup.com -- VLP Law Group LLP, Bradley C. Weber, Locke Lord LLP, Douglas R. Tribble -- douglas.tribble@pillsburylaw.com -- Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP & Orrin L. Harrison, III, Gruber Hurst Johansen Hail Shank. MDL 2323: Ex-Wife Can't Intervene in Concussion Suit ---------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania issued a Memorandum denying Cynthia Phillips' Motion to Intervene in the case captioned IN RE: NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE PLAYERS' CONCUSSION INJURY LITIGATION, THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: Lewis et al. v. Kansas City Chiefs Football Club, Inc. No. 2:12-md-02323-AB, MDL No. 2323, No. 14-1995. (E.D. Pa.). Cynthia Phillips seeks to permissively intervene in Lewis, et al. v. Kansas City Chiefs Football Club, Inc., No. 14-1995 (E.D. Pa.) to assert a claim against Defendant Kansas City Chiefs Football Club, Inc., for loss of consortium related to head injuries her ex-husband sustained while playing for the Chiefs. In Lewis, former Chiefs players including Phillips's ex-husband, Joseph Phillips bring claims against the Chiefs for harms arising from concussive and sub-concussive injuries suffered during their time playing football for the Chiefs. Phillips asserts that permissive intervention is warranted because her loss of consortium claim shares common issues of law or fact with the claims in Lewis. The Class Action Settlement The proposed Class consisted of: All living NFL Football Players who, prior to the date of the Preliminary Approval and Class Certification Order [July 7, 2014], retired, formally or informally, from playing professional football with the NFL or any Member Club (Retired NFL Football Player); and spouses parents, children who are dependents, or any other persons who properly under applicable state law assert the right to sue independently or derivatively by reason of their relationship with a Retired NFL Football Player (Derivative Claimants). The Settlement contained a broad release of claims by Class Members against the NFL Defendants. Each Class Member released any claims against the NFL Defendants, including individual NFL teams, that could have been asserted in the Class Action Complaint or any other Related lawsuit. The Settlement explicitly released, among others, claims arising out of, or relating to, head, brain, and/or cognitive injury, as well as any injuries arising out of, or relating to, concussions and/or subconcussive events; claims arising out of, or relating to, CTE (Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy) and claims arising out of, or relating to, loss of support, services, consortium, companionship, society, or affection, or damage to familial relations. Cynthia Phillips and the Lewis Action Phillips was previously married to Joseph Phillips. From 1992-1998, during their marriage, Joseph Phillips was a professional football player with the Chiefs. Joseph Phillips, along with other former Chiefs players and their spouses, filed this action against the Chiefs in Missouri state court. Phillips alleged that the Chiefs' wrongful conduct directly caused or directly contributed to cause him to develop post-concussion syndrome and latent brain disease, including . Phillips's ex-husband and most of the other Lewis plaintiffs filed a stipulation of dismissal of their claims. This stipulation of dismissal followed confidential settlement discussions. The granted the Chiefs' motion to dismiss the claim of the only remaining Lewis plaintiff, Anita Martin, because her claim was precluded by the Settlement. Phillips argues that her action for loss of consortium shares a question of law or fact with her ex-husband's action, that her motion to intervene is timely, and that intervention will not unduly delay or prejudice adjudication of the parties' rights. The Chiefs do not contest that Phillips's action and her ex-husband's action share a common question of law or fact, but contend that her motion is untimely. Phillips's Motion to Intervene is Futile Because her Claim is Precluded by the Class Action Settlement Intervention is not warranted because the Settlement precludes the claim Phillips seeks to assert. A district court has the discretion to deny a motion to intervene where intervention would be futile. Phillips is a Settlement Class Member Who Did Not Opt Out The Settlement Agreement defines the Settlement Class as all Retired NFL Football Players, Representative Claimants and Derivative Claimants" who do not timely and properly exercise the right to be excluded from the Settlement Class. The Settlement defines Derivative Claimants as spouses, parents, children who are dependents, or any other persons who properly under applicable state law assert the right to sue independently or derivatively by reason of their relationship with a Retired NFL Football Player. Phillips is a Derivative Claimant because she has a claim against the Chiefs under applicable state law by reason of [her] relationship with a Retired NFL Football Player. Joseph Phillips, Phillips's ex-husband, is a Retired NFL Football Player under the definition of the Settlement because he stopped playing professional football after 1998. Phillips's loss of consortium claim exists because she was married to Joseph Phillips while he played for the Chiefs. Phillips did not timely opt out of the settlement. Therefore, Phillips is a Derivative Claimant and a Settlement Class Member. Phillips Was Not Exempt from the Requirement to Individually Opt Out Phillips argues that she did not need to independently opt out of the Settlement, because her ex-husband opted out. This is incorrect. The right to opt out of a class action is one that must be exercised individually. The Settlement Agreement and the Summary and Long-Form Notices, approved by this Court and the Third Circuit, clearly communicated that each class member was required to individually opt out in order to continue pursuing claims against the NFL parties. Nothing in the Settlement Agreement, this Court's opinion approving the Settlement, or the Notices suggests that the opt-out right did not need to be exercised by each individual Class Member, or that any Class Member's opt out could have had the effect of opting out any other Class Member. Phillips's Claim Was Released by the Settlement and Her Current Suit is Barred by Res Judicata The Chiefs argue that the Settlement bars all claims of non-opt-out Class Members, including Phillips, against the NFL Parties for injuries arising from head concussions. The Chiefs are correct. Because Phillips is a Class Member who failed to opt out and because she brings a loss of consortium claim for injuries arising from her ex-husband's alleged head injuries experienced during his time playing for the NFL, her claims are squarely within those released by the Settlement. The Settlement thus precludes her claim. Claim preclusion bars a plaintiff's claim when there has been: (1) a final judgment on the merits in a prior suit involving (2) the same parties or their privies and (3) a subsequent suit based on the same cause of action. The NFL Concussion Settlement was a final judgment on the merits. Allowing Phillips to intervene to assert her loss of consortium claim against the Chiefs would result in the relitigation of settled question at the core of the NFL Settlement. Because Phillips's claim is precluded by the Settlement, intervention would be futile. Phillips's Motion to Intervene is Untimely Courts consider three factors to determine whether the intervention motion is timely: (1) the stage of the proceeding (2) the prejudice that delay may cause the parties and (3) the reason for the delay. Stage of the Proceeding A motion to intervene after entry of a decree should be denied except in extraordinary circumstances. While no decree of judgment has been entered in this case, this is because there are no claims remaining to enter judgment on: all but one of the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their claims, and this Court has dismissed the claim of the only plaintiff who did not settle. Phillips contends that this litigation is not at an advanced stage because no discovery has occurred. However, because the parties settled their claims, no discovery is needed. The stage of the proceedings is as advanced as it can possibly be essentially, the case is at an end. Because the litigation is at such an advanced stage, Phillips must provide a compelling explanation for her four-year delay in filing this motion. Prejudice the Delay May Cause the Parties Here, the existing parties in the case chose to resolve their claims by settlement rather than engaging in discovery. At this late stage in the litigation when all claims have been either settled or dismissed allowing intervention would prejudice the Chiefs by forcing them to now engage in discovery, and expend time and resources they made the strategic choice to avoid. Reason for the Delay Phillips's made her request for intervention in August 2018, nearly five years after the Lewisaction was filed, and nearly four years after the Settlement opt-out period ended. The only reason Phillips puts forth for her delay is that she did not learn of her ex-husband's action against the Chiefs until recently. Extensive news coverage of a case undermines a proposed intervenor's claim that she was unaware of the litigation. The month the Lewis action was filed, several national media outlets covered the litigation: USA Today, the New York Times, Forbes, and ESPN all published articles online discussing the lawsuit and listing Phillips's ex-husband by name as a plaintiff. While Phillips may be correct that the Lewis action, specifically, did not receive media coverage in her county, the NFL Concussion Settlement did. The Observer-Reporter, Phillips's local paper, published at least two articles about the NFL concussion litigation and settlement, one in November 2014 and one in April 2015. In addition, the Settlement included an extensive notice program, approved by both this Court and the Third Circuit. The notice program included full-page advertisements in Ebony, People, Sports Illustrated, and Time; thirty-second television commercials on ABC, CBS, CNN, and other television stations; and ads on popular internet sites. This was supplemented by widespread national news coverage of the Settlement. As the Settlement has been implemented, it has continued to receive extensive national and local news coverage, including coverage on the website of the Observer-Reporter. Phillips thus received at least constructive notice of the ongoing NFL concussion litigation, the class action settlement, and the opt-out deadline. Even if Phillips did not see the national media coverage of the Lewis action, she had notice of the Settlement and the potential for her to recover under the Settlement as a Derivative Claimant. Phillips' failure to give a compelling explanation for her multi-year delay in seeking intervention, Phillips's motion is untimely. Accordingly, the Motion to Intervene will be denied. A full-text copy of the District Court's January 14, 2018 Memorandum is available at https://tinyurl.com/yaxv77km from Leagle.com. CLAIMS ADMINISTRATOR, Adminstrator, represented by ORRAN L. BROWN, BROWNGREER PLC. ARIZONA CARDINALS FOOTBALL CLUB LLC, Movant, represented by ALEXANDRA M. WALSH -- awalsh@wilkinsonwalsh.com -- PAUL WEISS RIFKIND WHARTON & GARRISON, LLP, BETH A. WILKINSON, PAUL WEISS RIFKIND WHARTON & GARRISON LLP, BRAD S. KARP, PAUL WEISS RIFKIND WHARTON & GARRISON LLP, BRUCE BIRENBOIM, PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON, LLP & CASEY O. HOUSLEY -- c.housley@swrsllp.com -- SANDERS AND WARREN LLP. JOHN LORENTZ, Movant, represented by MICHAEL H. MOIRANO -- mmoirano@mgklaw.com -- MOIRANO GORMAN KENNY LLC & RON A. COHEN. THE LOCKS LAW FIRM, Movant, represented by DAVID D. LANGFITT, LOCKS LAW FIRM PLLC, MICHAEL B. LEH, LOCKS LAW FIRM & TOBIAS BARRINGTON WOLFF, UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA LAW SCHOOL. MDL 2848: Court Lifts Conditional Transfer Order Stay for 89 Cases ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, IN RE: ZOSTAVAX (ZOSTER VACCINE LIVE) PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL No. 2848, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has entered an order lifting the stay of the Panel's conditional transfer order designated as "CTO-15" filed on November 14, 2018, insofar as it relates to 89 lawsuits against Merck & Co.,Inc., et al., pending in the District of New Jersey, Division 3. The actions are transferred to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for inclusion in the coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1407 being conducted by the Honorable Harvey Bartle, III. A conditional transfer order was filed in the 89 actions on November 14, 2018. Prior to expiration of that order's 7-day stay of transmittal, plaintiffs in these actions filed a notice of opposition to the proposed transfer. Plaintiffs later filed a motion to vacate the conditional transfer order and a supporting brief. Plaintiffs have now withdrawn their opposition to transfer. The Panel, therefore, lifted the stay of its conditional transfer order designated as "CTO-15" filed on November 14, 2018, as it relates to the 89 actions. The actions are transferred to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for inclusion in the coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1407 being conducted by the Honorable Harvey Bartle, III. The Panel also vacated the January 31, 2019 Hearing Session Order insofar as they relate to these actions. A full-text copy of the Panel's January 30, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/JHXIOS The 89 actions are: C.A. NO. CASE CAPTION -------- ------------ 18-15844 ANDERSON v. MERCK & CO.,INC. et al 18-15845 BIRMANTAS v. MERCK & CO.,INC. et al 18-15846 WORTMAN v. MERCK & CO. INC. et al 18-15847 LUCAS v. MERCK & CO.,INC. et al 18-15850 BRAGINTON v. MERCK & CO.,INC. et al 18-15852 BROWNING v. MERCK & CO.,INC. et al 18-15853 ALVAREZ v. MERCK & CO.,INC. et al 18-15854 WALDROUP v. MERCK & CO. INC et al 18-15858 BLOCHER v. MERCK & CO.,INC. et al 18-15860 VANHOOSE v. MERCK & CO. INC. et al 18-15865 SMITHSON v MERCK & CO., INC. et al. 18-15866 CAIN v. MERCK & CO., INC et al 18-15867 NICHOLS v. MERCK & CO.,INC. et al 18-15868 CARDINE v. MERCK & CO., INC. et al 18-15871 DOHERTY v. MERCK & CO.,INC. et al 18-15872 SHOWALTER v. MERCK & CO. INC. et al 18-15873 CARTWRIGHT v. MERCK & CO., INC. et al 18-15874 THOMAS v. MERCK & CO.,INC. et al 18-15875 PETERSON v. MERCK & CO. INC. et al 18-15876 CASE v. MERCK & CO., INC. et al 18-15878 CAMPBELL v. MERCK & CO.,INC. et al 18-15879 PENDLETON v. MERCK & CO. INC. et al 18-15880 COMEAU v. MERCK & CO., INC et al 18-15882 COOPER v. MERCK & CO.,INC. et al 18-15883 DELACRUZ v. MERCK & CO., INC. et al 18-15884 PALERMO v. MERCK & CO. INC. et al 18-15885 CLAUSELL v. MERCK & CO.,INC. et al 18-15886 MICHAEL v. MERCK & CO., INC et al 18-15888 O'SHEA v. MERCK & CO. INC. et al 18-15890 BROWN v. MERCK & CO.,INC. et al 18-15844 ANDERSON v. MERCK & CO.,INC. et al 18-15845 BIRMANTAS v. MERCK & CO.,INC. et al 18-15846 WORTMAN v. MERCK & CO. INC. et al 18-15847 LUCAS v. MERCK & CO.,INC. et al 18-15850 BRAGINTON v. MERCK & CO.,INC. et al 18-15852 BROWNING v. MERCK & CO.,INC. et al 18-15853 ALVAREZ v. MERCK & CO.,INC. et al 18-15854 WALDROUP v. MERCK & CO. INC et al 18-15858 BLOCHER v. MERCK & CO.,INC. et al 18-15860 VANHOOSE v. MERCK & CO. INC. et al 18-15865 SMITHSON v MERCK & CO., INC. et al. 18-15866 CAIN v. MERCK & CO., INC et al 18-15867 NICHOLS v. MERCK & CO.,INC. et al 18-15868 CARDINE v. MERCK & CO., INC. et al 18-15871 DOHERTY v. MERCK & CO.,INC. et al 18-15872 SHOWALTER v. MERCK & CO. INC. et al 18-15873 CARTWRIGHT v. MERCK & CO., INC. et al 18-15874 THOMAS v. MERCK & CO.,INC. et al 18-15875 PETERSON v. MERCK & CO. INC. et al 18-15876 CASE v. MERCK & CO., INC. et al 18-15878 CAMPBELL v. MERCK & CO.,INC. et al 18-15879 PENDLETON v. MERCK & CO. INC. et al 18-15880 COMEAU v. MERCK & CO., INC et al 18-15882 COOPER v. MERCK & CO.,INC. et al 18-15883 DELACRUZ v. MERCK & CO., INC. et al 18-15884 PALERMO v. MERCK & CO. INC. et al 18-15885 CLAUSELL v. MERCK & CO.,INC. et al 18-15886 MICHAEL v. MERCK & CO., INC et al 18-15888 O'SHEA v. MERCK & CO. INC. et al 18-15890 BROWN v. MERCK & CO.,INC. et al 18-15952 MILLER v. MERCK & CO., INC. et al 18-15953 NIESPOREK v. MERCK & CO.,INC. et al 18-15954 FRISBIE v. MERCK & CO. INC. et al 18-15955 MORSE v. MERCK & CO., INC. et al 18-15956 BUTLER v. MERCK & CO. INC. et al 18-15957 OTTE v. MERCK & CO.,INC. et al 18-15958 NELSON v. MERCK & CO., INC. et al 18-15959 COLE v. MERCK & CO. INC. et al 18-15961 PARIBELLO v. MERCK & CO.,INC. et al 18-15962 OLIVA v. MERCK & CO., INC. et al 18-15963 EDMONDS v. MERCK & CO. INC. et al 18-15964 WYLIE v. MERCK & CO.,INC. et al 18-15965 GLEASON v. MERCK & CO. INC. et al 18-15966 PERKINS v. MERCK & CO., INC. et al 18-15968 LINN v. MERCK & CO. INC. et al 18-15969 CARVER v. MERCK & CO. INC. et al 18-15970 PILLOW v. MERCK & CO., INC. et al 18-15971 EVERSOLE, SR. v. MERCK & CO. INC. et al 18-15973 MCCULLOUGH v. MERCK & CO.,INC. et al 18-15974 REDDEN v. MERCK & CO., INC. et al 18-15976 REED v. MERCK & CO., INC. et al 18-15977 MEYERS v. MERCK & CO.,INC. et al 18-15979 ROSSI v. MERCK & CO., INC. et al 18-15980 RUBIK v. MERCK & CO., INC. et al 18-15981 SANCHEZ v. MERCK & CO., INC. et al 18-15982 BREITNER et al v. MERCK & CO., INC. et al 18-15983 METZ v. MERCK & CO., INC. et al 18-15984 OPATRNY et al v. MERCK & CO., INC. et al 18-15985 SHERMAN et al v. MERCK & CO., INC. et al MEDLEY CAPITAL: Khan & Dicristino Balk at Sierra Income Merger -------------------------------------------------------------- RICHARD DICRISTINO and EVAN KHAN, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. BROOK TAUBE, SETH TAUBE, JEFFREY TONKEL, ARTHUR S. AINSBERG, KARIN HIRTLER-GARVEY, JOHN E. MACK, MARK LERDAL, RICHARD T. ALLORTO, JR., MEDLEY CAPITAL CORPORATION, MEDLEY MANAGEMENT INC., SIERRA INCOME CORPORATION, and SIERRA MANAGEMENT, INC., the Defendants, Index No. 650510/2019 (N.Y. Super Ct., N.Y. Cty., Jan. 25, 2019), alleges that the Defendants, in connection with a proposed merger transaction, knowingly or recklessly violated their fiduciary duties, including their duties of loyalty, care, good faith, and candor owed to Plaintiffs and the Class, or aided and abetted such breaches. According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs bring this stockholder class action on behalf of themselves and similarly situated stockholders of MCC against the directors and certain officers of MCC for breaching their fiduciary duties in connection with a proposed transaction whereby MCC will combine with Sierra Income Corporation and Medley. The Plaintiffs also bring an independent claim against Brook Taube and Seth Taube for breaching the fiduciary duties they owed MCC's remaining stockholders in their capacities as controlling stockholders of MCC. The Taubes, in addition to serving as directors and/or officers of MCC, also controlled 14.6% of MCC's common stock and acted as MCC's controlling stockholders in connection with the Proposed Transaction. The Plaintiffs also assert a claim against MCC, MDLY, Sierra, and Sierra Management, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Sierra, for aiding and abetting the Director/Officer Defendants' and the Taubes' breaches of fiduciary duties. On August 9, 2018, the Director/Officer Defendants and the Taubes caused MCC to enter into an Agreement and Plan of Merger with Sierra, pursuant to which MCC will merge with Sierra, with Sierra continuing as the surviving company, and each share of MCC common stock will be converted into the right to receive 0.8050 shares of Sierra common shares. MCC is an affiliate of Sierra, as the investment managers of both Sierra and MCC are controlled by MDLY. The closing of the MCC Merger is contingent upon MDLY merging with and into Merger Sub, with Merger Sub continuing as the surviving company in the merger. In connection with the MDLY Merger, unaffiliated MDLY Class A stockholders will receive 0.3836 shares of Sierra common stock for each Medley Class A share, as well as $3.44 per share of cash consideration and $0.65 per share of special cash dividends. Furthermore, Medley LLC Units, primarily held by the Taubes and other members of management, will be converted into MDLY Class A Common Stock, enabling these insiders to obtain the same cash and stock consideration as well as a $0.35 per share special cash dividend (i.e., $3.79 in cash plus 0.3836 shares of Sierra common stock). In other words, while the Taubes and other members of management are receiving a sizeable cash payout as a result of the Proposed Transaction, MCC stockholders are being compensated solely with stock in the combined entity following the Mergers. The Merger Consideration being offered to MCC stockholders severely undervalues their shares. The Proposed Transaction was never intended to benefit MCC stockholders, but instead was designed to primarily benefit certain individuals who hold leadership roles at and exert significant influence over each of MCC, MDLY, and Sierra, including the Taubes, who collectively control 14.6% of MCC's shares and are controlling stockholders of MCC. As such, the Proposed Transaction is subject to exacting entire fairness review, which requires the Defendants to establish that the Proposed Transaction was the result of a fair process and provides MCC stockholders with fair consideration for their shares. For the reasons set forth below, neither can be established. The Proposed Transaction came to fruition after the Taubes and certain other insiders were unsuccessful in their attempts to find a takeover partner willing to acquire MDLY. MDLY is a publicly traded asset management firm, which is controlled by Medley Group LLC, an entity wholly owned by management, which consists of defendants Brook Taube, Seth Taube, Jeff Tonkel, and Richard T. Allorto, Jr., as well as nonparties John D. Fredericks, Samuel Anderson, and Christopher Taube. The Taubes and Management have done a horrendous job of managing MDLY and MCC, and between May 2017 and May 2018. These shares are held by Medley Seed Funding I LLC, a limited liability company controlled by Medley LLC, which in turn is controlled by Brook Taube and Seth Taube. After a prolonged process which failed to result in a sale of MDLY, Management devised a new plan that would enable them to transform MDLY while simultaneously allowing them to extract personal financial benefits for themselves -- that is, they would orchestrate the Proposed Transaction, whereby MCC's value would be transferred to Management and MDLY's stockholders, at the expense of MCC's public stockholders. The Taubes asserted their control over MCC in order to capitalize on MCC's depreciated value -- which was largely due to their own deficient management -- and, through the Proposed Transaction, provide MDLY's stakeholders with an outrageous premium and an infusion of cash. Specifically, by converting an aggregate of 24,839,302 Medley LLC Units held by the members of Management into shares of MDLY Class A Common Stock, the members of Management, principally the Taubes, stand to receive approximately $85 million in cash, which represents approximately 80% of the cash consideration that will be received by MDLY Class A stockholders. Meanwhile, MCC stockholders only stand to receive an inadequate amount of Sierra common stock, without any cash consideration. The lawsuit further alleges that the Taubes have also structured the Proposed Transaction to ensure that they will continue to generate income via MCC Advisors LLC, an investment adviser controlled by MDLY. The Taubes, along with Defendant Jeff Tonkel, serve as Managing Partners at MCC Advisors, and Defendant Richard Allorto Jr. serves as its Chief Financial Officer. Pursuant to the Merger Agreements, MCC Advisors will serve as the investment advisor of the Combined Company, for which it will receive fees via a fee structure that is likely to create incentives for MCC Advisors that are not fully aligned with the interests of MCC stockholders. The inadequate Merger Consideration for MCC stockholders is the result of an illusory "negotiation" process leading up to the execution of the Merger Agreements that was fundamentally flawed and marred by conflicts of interest. Specifically, several of MCC's officers and directors hold overlapping leadership roles at MDLY and Sierra and had significant financial interests in MDLY, including three of MCC's seven directors.[BN] Counsel for Plaintiffs: Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. Miles D. Schreiner, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4405 New York, NY 10118 Telephone: (212) 971-1341 Facsimile: (212) 202-7880 E-mail: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com mschreiner@monteverdelaw.com MISSOURI: Court Denies Bid for Counsel Appointment in Postawko -------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri, Central Division, issued an Order denying Plaintiffs' Motion for Appointment of Counsel and Injunctive Relief in the case captioned MICHAEL POSTAWKO, CHRISTOPHER BAKER, and MICHAEL JAMERSON, On behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs, v. MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Defendants. Case No. 2:16-cv-04219-NKL. (W.D. Mo.). Darrin Walker, a pro se inmate in the custody of the Missouri Department of Corrections (MDOC), seeks appointment of counsel and injunctive relief in this class action. Three inmates in MDOC's custody, Michael Postawko, Christopher Baker, and Michael Jamerson, bring this suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, alleging that they were denied direct-acting antiviral (DAA) drugs for treatment of their chronic hepatitis C (HCV). Mr. Walker requests that the Court appoint him counsel in this case or direct current class Action counsel to represent him in his efforts to get an Injunction or TRO in order to obtain the Hep C cure, to modify the claims raised to include damages awards against defendants on [his] behalf, and to obtain life-saving treatment to include a living donor liver transplant. Mr. Walker also requests that the Court order defendants to begin immediate Hepatitis C cure treatment on him. It is the policy of the Court not to consider pro se filings when a party is represented by counsel. But even if the Court were to construe Mr. Walker's filings as a request to intervene, the Court would deny Mr. Walker's motions because he does not suggest that the named plaintiffs are inadequate representatives of the class of inmates to which he purportedly belongs. The class representatives here are presumed adequate, given that both the class representatives and Mr. Walker have the same ultimate objective—obtaining HCV treatment with DAA drugs. Mr. Walker's desire to pursue individual monetary damages also does not overcome the presumption of adequate representation. To the extent that Mr. Walker wishes to pursue monetary damages, he will need to do so in a separate action, on his own behalf. Accordingly, Mr. Walker's motions for appointment of counsel and for injunctive relief are denied. A full-text copy of the District Court's January 24, 2018 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y7btplw4 from Leagle.com. Michael G Postawko, Christopher Baker & Michael Jamerson, Plaintiffs, represented by Anthony E. Rothert, American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri Foundation, Megan G. Crane, pro hac vice, Amy Elizabeth Breihan, MacArthur Justice Center at St. Louis, Gillian R. Wilcox, American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri Foundation, Jessie Steffan, American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri Foundation & Omri E. Praiss, American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri Foundation. Missouri Department of Corrections & Anne L. Precythe, in her official capacity as Director of the Missouri Department of Corrections, Defendants, represented by David D. Dean, Missouri Attorney General's Office, Dean John Sauer, Missouri Attorney General's Office & John W. Taylor, Missouri Attorney General's Office. Corizon, LLC, Defendant, represented by Daniel L. Messeloff, Jackson Lewis PC, pro hac vice, Dwight Allan Vermette, Eckenrode-Maupin, Attorneys at Law & William R. Lunsford, pro hac vice. MUNCHERY, INC: Joshua Philips Sues over Mass Layoffs ---------------------------------------------------- Joshua James Eaton Philips, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Munchery, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-00469 (N.D. Cal., Jan. 25, 2019), seeks to recover 60 days' wages benefits, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. from Defendant, as required by the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act and the California Labor Code. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and the other similarly situated former employees who worked for Defendant and who were terminated without cause, as part of, or as the result of, the mass layoff or plant closing ordered by Defendant on or about January 21, 2019 and within 30 days of that date, and who were not provided 60 days' advance written notice of their terminations by Defendant. According to the complaint, until its sudden demise on January 21, 2019, the Defendant operated an online food delivery service based in San Francisco. The Plaintiff worked for Defendant until January 21, 2019, when Defendant abruptly ceased operations. The Plaintiff, along with an estimated 250 other employees, were terminated without any written notice, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff Joshua James Eaton Philips, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated: Gail Lin Chung, Esq. Jack A. Raisner, Esq. Rene S. Roupinian, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP One California Street, Suite 1250 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 638-8800 Facsimile: (415) 638-8810 E-mail: gl@outtengolden.com rsr@outtengolden.com jar@outtengolden.com MUTUAL OF OMAHA: Workers Pursue Class Action Over 401(k) Plan ------------------------------------------------------------- Jacklyn Wille, writing for BloombergLaw, reports that workers suing Mutual of Omaha Insurance Co. over affiliated investment funds in the company's 401(k) plan are moving forward with their proposed class action. The workers put forth enough facts to show that Mutual of Omaha acted disloyally when it paid above-market rates to a subsidiary that acted as a plan service provider, Senior Judge Joseph F. Bataillon of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska said Dec. 31. [GN] NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Abdulrahman Asserts Personal Injury Claim --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate Athletic Association. The case is styled as Amin Abdulrahman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00477-JMS-DML (S.D. Ind., January 29, 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: Ashby Suit Asserts Claim for Personal Injury ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate Athletic Association. The case is styled as Paul Ashby, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00303 (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 appears PRO SE. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Booker Files Personal Injury Case in Indiana ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate Athletic Association. The case is styled as Jonathon Booker, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association and Millikin University, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00409-TWP-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: Campbell Files PI Suit in S.D. Indiana ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate Athletic Association. The case is styled as Anthony Campbell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00478-JRS-MJD (S.D. Ind., January 29, 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: Caylor Files Personal Injury Suit in Ind. --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate Athletic Association. The case is styled as David Caylor, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00472-TWP-MPB (S.D. Ind., January 29, 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: Chuinard Files PI Suit in S.D. Indiana ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate Athletic Association. The case is styled as Edmund Chuinard, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00475-TWP-MPB (S.D. Ind., January 29, 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: Cooke Files PI Suit in S.D. Indiana -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate Athletic Association. The case is styled as Clifford Cooke, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00268-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: Elliott Asserts Personal Injury Claim ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate Athletic Association. The case is styled as Thomas Elliott, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association and Canisius College of Buffalo, N.Y., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00493-SEB-MJD (S.D. Ind., January 29, 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 Fox Personal Injury Suit in Indiana -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate Athletic Association. The case is styled as Domarco Fox, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00474-TWP-TAB (S.D. Ind., January 29, 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 Markham Personal Injury Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate Athletic Association. The case is styled as Houston Markham, Jr., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00377-JPH-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: Fahy Asserts Claim for Personal Injury ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate Athletic Association. The case is styled as Matthew Fahy, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00501-TWP-DLP (S.D. Ind., January 29, 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: Fontaine Asserts Claim for Personal Injury --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate Athletic Association. The case is styled as Jeremy Fontaine, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00486-SEB-MPB (S.D. Ind., January 29, 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: Freeman Asserts Claim for Personal Injury -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate Athletic Association. The case is styled as Derek Freeman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00378-TWP-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: Hurst Suit Claim for Personal Injury --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate Athletic Association. The case is styled as Alex Hurst, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association and Millikin University, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00357-SEB-TAB (S.D. Ind., January 26, 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: Johnson Files Personal Injury Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate Athletic Association. The case is styled as Howard Johnson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00485-TWP-TAB (S.D. Ind., January 29, 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: Jones Suit Alleges Personal Injury Claim -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate Athletic Association. The case is styled as Eric Jones, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association and Fairleigh Dickinson University, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00483-JPH-TAB (S.D. Ind., January 29, 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: Kidd Files PI Suit in S.D. Indiana ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate Athletic Association. The case is styled as Eric Kidd, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association and Howard Payne University, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00376-TWP-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: Kuehne Asserts Claim for Personal Injury ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate Athletic Association. The case is styled as David Kuehne, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00277-JPH-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: Lauback Asserts Claim for Personal Injury -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate Athletic Association. The case is styled as Tyler Lauback, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00503-JPH-MPB (S.D. Ind., January 29, 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: MacLellan Suit Asserts Personal Injury Claim ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate Athletic Association. The case is styled as Darren MacLellan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association and University of La Verne, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00480-JRS-TAB (S.D. Ind., January 29, 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: Martin Brings Personal Injury Suit in Indiana ------------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate Athletic Association. The case is styled as Chad Martin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association and Central College, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00479-JRS-TAB (S.D. Ind., January 29, 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: McMonigle Files PI Suit in S.D. Indiana ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate Athletic Association. The case is styled as William McMonigle, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00496-TWP-TAB (S.D. Ind., January 29, 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: Merchant Asserts Claim for Personal Injury --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate Athletic Association. The case is styled as Emmett Merchant, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00476-SEB-DML (S.D. Ind., January 29, 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: Montgomery Files PI Suit in Indiana -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate Athletic Association. The case is styled as Devin Montgomery, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00473-TWP-MJD (S.D. Ind., January 29, 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: Moravec Asserts Personal Injury Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate Athletic Association. The case is styled as Jonathan Moravec, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00487-RLY-MJD (S.D. Ind., January 29, 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: Robert Suit Asserts Claim for Personal Injury ------------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate Athletic Association. The case is styled as Donald Robert, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association and Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00481-JPH-DML (S.D. Ind., January 29, 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: Sepanski Asserts Claim for Personal Injury --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate Athletic Association. The case is styled as Joshua Sepanski, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association and Southwest Baptist University, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00488-JPH-MJD (S.D. Ind., January 29, 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: Smith Files PI Suit in S.D. Indiana -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate Athletic Association. The case is styled as Paul Smith, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00502-JRS-MPB (S.D. Ind., January 29, 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: Staten Asserts Claim for Personal Injury ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate Athletic Association. The case is styled as Armond Staten, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00358-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: Stinyard Suit Alleges Personal Injury Claim ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate Athletic Association. The case is styled as Cleo Stinyard, III, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00266-TWP-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: Udovich Suit Asserts Personal Injury Claim --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate Athletic Association. The case is styled as Mark Udovich, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00499-TWP-MJD (S.D. Ind., January 29, 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: Watts Brings Personal Injury Suit in Indiana ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate Athletic Association. The case is styled as Gregory Watts, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00498-TWP-MJD (S.D. Ind., January 29, 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: Willis Asserts Claim for Personal Injury ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate Athletic Association. The case is styled as Damon Willis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00270-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: Wilson Suit Asserts Claim for Personal Injury ------------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate Athletic Association. The case is styled as Charles Wilson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00471-TWP-DLP (S.D. Ind., January 29, 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: Young Files Personal Injury Suit in Indiana ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate Athletic Association. The case is styled as Floyd Young, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00497-JMS-MJD (S.D. Ind., January 29, 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 NATIONWIDE BUSINESS: Court Grants Joint Bid to Dismiss Cunningham ----------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Central District of California issued an Order granting dismissal in the case captioned CRAIG CUNNINGHAM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. NATIONWIDE BUSINESS RESOURCES, INC., and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Defendant. Case No. 2:18-cv-04180-MWF-KLS. (C.D. Cal.). The entire above-captioned action is dismissed with prejudice as to named Plaintiff Cunningham's individual claims, and without prejudice as to the putative class action. A full-text copy of the District Court's January 24, 2018 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yaar4y49 from Leagle.com. Craig Cunningham, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Todd M. Friedman -- tfriedman@toddflaw.com -- Law Office of Todd M. Friedman PC, Adrian Robert Bacon -- abacon@toddflaw.com -- Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman PC, Meghan Elisabeth George -- mgeorge@toddflaw.com -- Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman PC & Thomas Edward Wheeler -- twheeler@toddflaw.com -- Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman PC. Nationwide Business Resources, Inc., Defendant, represented by David George Hagopian -- dhagopian@cdflitigation.com -- Carothers DiSante and Freudenberger LLP & Jeffrey L. Sikkema -- jsikkema@cdflitigation.com -- Carothers DiSante and Freudenberger LLP. NAVIENT SOLUTIONS: Hill Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages ----------------------------------------------------------- A case, AMANDA HILL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NAVIENT SOLUTIONS, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 5:19-cv-00161 (C.D. Cal., Jan. 28, 2019), seeks legal and equitable remedies resulting from illegal actions of Navient Solutions, LLC in transmitting unsolicited, autodialed SMS or MMS text messages, en masse, to Plaintiff's cellular device and the cellular devices of numerous other individuals across the country, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant transmitted its text messages to the 9785 Number and to the numbers of the members of the Class using an "automated telephone dialing system" because its text messages were sent from a telephone number used to message consumers en masse; because Defendant's dialing equipment includes features substantially similar to a predictive dialer, inasmuch and because the hardware and software used by Defendant to send such messages have the capacity to store, produce, and dial random or sequential numbers, or to receive and store lists of telephone numbers and to then dial such numbers, en masse, in an automated fashion and without human intervention. And indeed, the Defendant actually transmitted the text messages at issue in this case to Plaintiff and all other unnamed Class members in an automated fashion and without human intervention, with hardware and software that received and stored lists of telephone numbers to be dialed and then dialed such numbers automatically, the lawsuit says. Navient Solutions, LLC provides asset management and business processing solutions to education, healthcare, and government clients at the federal, state, and local levels.[BN] Counsel for Plaintiff and the Putative Classes: Frank S. Hedin, Esq. David W. Hall, Esq. HEDIN HALL LLP Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 766-3534 Facsimile: (415) 402-0058 E-mail: fhedin@hedinhall.com dhall@hedinhall.com NCAA: Disregards WNEU Student-Athletes' Safety, Hurd Says --------------------------------------------------------- JEREMY HURD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION and WESTERN NEW ENGLAND UNIVERSITY, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00424-JRS-DLP (S.D. Ind. Jan. 28, 2019), seeks redress for injuries sustained a result of Defendant's reckless disregard for the health and safety of generations of Western New England University ("WNEU") 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, WNEU 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 WNEU 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 WNEU 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: McCormick Sues over Johns Hopkins Student-Athletes' Safety ---------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL MCCORMICK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION and THE JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY, the Defendants, Case No.: 1:19-cv-00425-SEB-DLP (S.D. Ind. Jan. 28, 2019), seeks redress for injuries sustained a result of Defendant's reckless disregard for the health and safety of generations of Johns Hopkins University ("JHU") 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, JHU 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 JHU 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 JHU 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: Newbern Sues over Safety of Lehigh Student-Athletes --------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL NEWBERN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION and LEHIGH UNIVERSITY, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00426-SEB-TAB (S.D. Ind. Jan. 28, 2019), seeks redress for injuries sustained a result of Defendant's reckless disregard for the health and safety of generations of Lehigh University ("LU') 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, LU 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 LU 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 LU 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 NH STATE EMPLOYEES' ASSOCIATION: Non-union Members Hit Illegal Fees ------------------------------------------------------------------- Patrick Doughty and Randy Severance, as individuals and representatives of the requested class, Plaintiffs, v. State Employees' Association of New Hampshire, SEIU, Local 1984, CTW, CLC, Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-00053 (D. N.H., January 14, 2019), seeks to recover compensatory damages, refunds or restitution in the amount of compulsory union fees paid to the union from Plaintiff's wages without their written consent, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, costs and attorneys' fees pursuant to the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. Patrick Doughty and Randy Severance are public employees of the State of New Hampshire but not members of the union, the State Employees' Association of New Hampshire. They were allegedly forced by provisions of the operative collective bargaining agreements to pay union fees to the union as a condition of their employment. The State deducted those compulsory fees without Plaintiffs' consent and remitted them to the union, notes the complaint. Doughty has worked in the Department of Transportation while Severance worked in the Department of Information Technology. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Bryan K. Gould, Esq. Cleveland, Waters and Bass, P.A. Two Capital Plaza, P.O. Box 1137 Concord, NH 03302-1137 Telephone: (603) 224-7761 Facsimile: (603) 224-6457 Tel: gouldb@cwbpa.com - and - Milton L. Chappell, Esq. Alyssa K. Hazelwood, Esq. Frank D. Garrison, Esq. National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, Inc. 8001 Braddock Rd, Ste. 600 Springfield, VA 22160 Tel: (703) 770-3329 Email: mlc@nrtw.org akh@nrtw.org fdg@nrtw.org NORTHWESTERN MEDICINE: Bars Patients From Bringing Class-Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Julie Spitzer, writing for Becker's Hospital Review, reports that Chicago-based Northwestern Medicine placed new restrictions on how patients can use its digital services, according to Chicago's NPR station WBEZ. Patients who opt in to Northwestern Medicine's MyChart patient portal must agree not to seek jury trials or class-action lawsuits if information stored on the portal is misused. Instead, patients are instructed to bring disputes up directly with Northwestern Medicine, either through arbitration or in small claims court. A Northwestern Medicine spokesperson told WBEZ the new rules apply only to digital services, such as MyChart. Patients who do not agree to the new terms will lose access to MyChart, according to WBEZ.[GN] NOVA LIFESTYLE: Responds to Research Report, To Defend Lawsuits --------------------------------------------------------------- Nova LifeStyle, Inc. (NASDAQ: NVFY) on Jan. 2 responded to a document published by Seeking Alpha on December 21, 2018. The document is a self-styled research report regarding the Company (the "Purported Research Report"). The Purported Research Report was apparently generated by an Eastern European firm apparently formed in 2017 and called Andri Capital. The Purported Research Report contains a "Sell" recommendation, and purports to present evidence that a substantial portion of the Company's sales to four of the Company's largest customers during the relevant past is not legitimate, and it posits that as a consequence the Company's operating results have been substantially overstated. Exactly one month earlier Andri Capital issued a report on Seeking Alpha concluding that the Company's Common Stock was significantly undervalued with a "Buy" recommendation. Within the month preceding the Purported Research Report and before Andri Capital published the reversal in its advice that the stock was substantially undervalued, Andri Capital accumulated a large short position which Andri Capital disclosed in its December 21, 2018 Purported Research Report. Following the publication of the Purported Research Report, the market price of the Company's Common Stock suffered a rapid decline, and a number of putative class action complaints that largely parrot the assertions set forth in the Purported Research Report have followed. To date the Company is aware that the following complaints have been filed: George Barney, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v Nova Lifestyle, Inc., Thanh H. Lam, Ya Ming Wong, Jeffery Chuang, and Yuen Ching Ho, Defendants. Case No. Case 2:18-cv-10725 (US District Court for the Central District of California). Management believes that the conclusions set forth in the Purported Research Report are baseless; and further that the report is malicious and manipulative, intended to serve the interests of the author (and his organization) who disclosed that he accumulated a short position in advance of the publication of the report. The complaints that have been filed are based largely upon the insidious claims set forth in the Purported Research Report, and are baseless. The Company will defend those lawsuits. The Company is also considering the assertion of direct claims against anyone that has caused damage to the Company. The Audit Committee has acted promptly to address the concerns raised in the Purported Research Report, and to reinstate the market confidence that the Purported Research Report so severely undermined. The Audit Committee has engaged independent counsel, expert in addressing such matters, to advise it, and it has engaged the Company's auditor to perform special procedures to confirm the reported sales. Those procedures include but are not limited to the examination and testing of relevant documentation relating to the sales made by the Company to the customers identified in the Purported Research Report for the periods 2015-2018. Those procedures will include 100% sampling of all transactions between the Company and the subject customers. Once the special procedures are completed, reviewed, and to the extent necessary supplemented by the Audit Committee with the advice of its independent counsel, the Audit Committee will disclose the results of that work. The Audit Committee expects that this process will take approximately two months. About Nova LifeStyle Nova LifeStyle, Inc., a NASDAQ Global Market listed company headquartered in California -- http://www.NovaLifeStyle.com-- is a fast growing, innovative designer and distributor of modern LifeStyle furniture; primarily sofas, dining rooms, cabinets, office furniture and related components, bedrooms, and various accessories in matching collections. Nova's products are made in the US, Europe, and Asia that include LifeStyle brands such as Diamond Sofa, Nova QwiK, and Bright Swallow International. Nova's products feature urban contemporary styles that integrate comfort and functionality, incorporating upscale luxury designs appeals to middle and upper middle-income consumers in the USA, China, Europe, and elsewhere in the world. [GN] OAKWOOD, OH: Plaintiffs to Receive $200K in Checks from Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Wayne Baker, writing for My Dayton Daily News, reports that more than $200,000 in checks will be mailed out today to thousands of plaintiffs and the lawyers who won a class-action suit against the city of Oakwood regarding its Pre-Sale Inspection Program. In November, Oakwood City Council agreed to pay $295,000 as a result of a lawsuit regarding the city's Pre-Sale Inspection Program. About $73,000 will go to 1,055 plaintiffs to refund a $60 inspection fee, according to city officials. More than $200,000 will be spent covering attorney fees. The inspection program required that properties pass an inspection by the city before being sold. A lawsuit filed by the 1851 Center in federal court in May 2016 claimed the requirement was like a warrant-less search. In February, Judge Thomas M. Rose in the Southern District of Ohio rejected the pre-sale inspections, granting a refund of inspection fees. "Checks will be mailed out on Jan. 11, so Oakwood residents and former residents should receive them the next week," said Executive Director Maurice Thompson of the 1851 Center for Constitutional Law, which represented the homeowners in the federal suit. An Oakwood statement said the case centered around a lack of a search warrant provision in the ordinance "that would allow for independent judicial review in the event that a property owner refused consent for the inspection." "Without that language, the ordinance appeared to mandate a minor misdemeanor criminal penalty for refusing an inspection," the statement said. In 1992, search warrant language was left out of the ordinance accidentally, according to Oakwood Law Director Rob Jacques, Esq.. "This was a scrivener's error, a drafting mistake, that happened more than 25 years ago," Jacques said. "Despite the court's finding of liability, the ordinance was never implemented in an unconstitutional manner, and the city never had so much as a single complaint prior to this lawsuit."[GN] OYSHI TABLE: De Jesus et al. Seek Unpaid Wages and Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------- FIDEL DE JESUS, and VICTOR RAMOS on behalf of themselves, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class, the Plaintiffs, vs. OYSHI TABLE CORP. d/b/a TOASTIES, JOHN DOE CORPORATIONS 1-4 d/b/a TOASTIES, MATTHEW AHN, ROBERT KIM, ELLIOT LEE, JIN CHOI, and HELEN LEE, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00830 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 28, 2019), seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages due to time shaving, unpaid minimum wage, unpaid overtime, illegally retained gratuities, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs, pursuant to the New York Labor Law and the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs and other FLSA Collective Plaintiffs are and have been similarly situated, have had substantially similar job requirements and pay provisions, and are and have been subjected to Defendants' decisions, policies, plans, programs, practices, procedures, protocols, routines, and rules, all culminating in a willful failure and refusal to pay them their proper wages. A subclass of tipped employees also has a claim for unpaid minimum wage and overtime, including those due to an improperly deducted tip credit and time-shaving, and a claim for illegally retained tips.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiffs, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class: C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 30 East 39th Street, Second Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: 212 465-1188 Facsimile: 212 465-1181 P.A.M. TRANSPORT: Bid to Decertify FLSA Collective Action Denied ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned DAVID BROWNE; ANTONIO CALDWELL; and LUCRETIA HALL, on behalf of themselves and all those similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. P.A.M. TRANSPORT, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 5:16-cv-05366-TLB (W.D. Ark., Jan. 25, 2019), the Hon. Judge Timothy L. Brooks entered an order on Jan. 25, 2019: 1. granting David Browne's, Antonio Caldwell's, and Lucretia Hall's motion for class certification pursuant to F.R.C.P. 23; 2. denying P.A.M. Transport, Inc.'s motion to decertify conditional Collective FLSA Action; and 3. directing the parties must to confewr and provide the Court with an agreed-to form of and plan for notice to class members by no later than Feb. 8, 2019. The Court said, "Turning now to the matter of FLSA collective action certification: other than choice-of-law issues, which obviously are not implicated for this federal-law claim, the issues discussed above are all substantively identical here. . . . the Plaintiffs intend to use evidence common to all members of the collective action to prove that PAM had "a single, FLSA-violating policy." Bouaphakeo, 765 F.3d at 796. This Court has already explained above that federal minimum wage law and Arkansas minimum wage law are substantively identical in all respects pertinent to this Order’s analysis. Thus, decertification of the FLSA collective action is inappropriate here, and PAM's Motion to Decertify will be denied."[CC] PORANIA LLC: Robinson Files Class Action in Arizona --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Porania LLC. The case is styled as Ernestine Robinson, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, Debtor, Plaintiff v. Porania LLC and Biltmore Asset Management LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-mc-00002 (D. Ariz., January 30, 2019). The docket of the lawsuit states the case type as Other statutory actions. Porania LLC is a debt collection agency.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Susan Mary Rotkis, Esq. Consumer Litigation Associates PLLC - Tucson, AZ 382 S Convent Ave. Tucson, AZ 85701 Tel: (520) 622-2481 Fax: (757) 930-3662 Tel: srotkis@clalegal.com PORTAGE COUNTY, WI: Court Won't Strike B. Lieberman's Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin denying Defendants' Motion to Strike as Premature in the case captioned BRETT LIEBERMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PORTAGE COUNTY, MIKE LUKAS in his individual OPINION and capacity, CORY NELSON in his individual capacity, DALE BOETTCHER in his individual capacity, JOHN DOE PORTAGE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE PERSONNEL in their individual capacities, and JOHN DOE PORTAGE COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE PERSONNEL in their individual capacities, Defendants. No. 18-cv-450-jdp. (W.D. Wis.). Two motions are before the court: (1) the defendants' motion to strike Lieberman's state law class claims and (2) a motion to intervene filed by the county's insurer, Wisconsin County Mutual Insurance Corporation (WCMIC). This is a proposed class action in which plaintiff Brett Lieberman alleges that Portage County, the county's sheriff, and two jail officials recorded his and other jail detainees' confidential legal communications without the detainees' knowledge or consent. Lieberman is asserting claims under the United States Constitution, the Wisconsin Constitution, and the Wisconsin Electronic Surveillance Act. The court will deny the defendants' motion to strike as premature. Motions to strike generally are governed by Rule 12(f), which applies when allegations in a pleading are so unrelated to a plaintiff's claim as to be devoid of merit, unworthy of consideration, and unduly prejudicial. But this is not what defendants are contending. Rather, their brief is styled as a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim: they say that potential class members cannot proceed on a state-law claim because they did not comply with the prerequisites in Wis. Stat. Section 893.80(1d) for bringing such a claim. But Lieberman has not moved for class certification yet, so the claims of potential class members are not before the court. The court cannot issue an advisory opinion about claims that are not yet part of the case. It seems that what the defendants are really trying to do is obtain an early determination under Rule 23 that Lieberman's state-law claims should not be certified for class treatment. Rule 23 does not prohibit defendants from seeking a decision on class certification, which defendants ignore. This is reason alone for denying defendants' motion. But even if the court were to apply the test for the defendants, the court would deny the defendants' motion. The arguments raised in the defendants' motion are most similar to the question whether Lieberman's claims are typical of the class, as required by Rule23(a)(3). Generally, a plaintiff cannot represent a class if he is not subject to the same defenses as the potential class members. If the defendants believe that neither Lieberman nor the potential class members complied with Section 893.80(1d), that is not a ground for denying class certification. It is an argument for certifying the class and then moving to dismiss the entire class action on that ground. Finally, even if the court could consider at this stage of the proceedings whether potential class members complied with § 893.80(1d), the court would deny the defendants' motion. The parties debate many issues about the application of Section 893.80(1d) in their briefs, but the defendants simply ignore Lieberman's argument that potential class members substantially complied with Wis. Stat. Section 893.80(1d), which is usually sufficient. Because the defendants failed to develop an argument on this issue, the court concludes that the defendants have forfeited it for the purpose of their motion. The Defendants are free to raise any issues about class certification in a Rule 23 motion or about the merits in a summary judgment motion, but they have not shown that they are entitled to any relief at this time. A full-text copy of the District Court's January 24, 2018 Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y7cpkjug from Leagle.com. Brett Lieberman, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Brian Howard Eldridge -- beldridge@hmelegal.com -- Hart McLaughlin & Eldridge, LLC, John Shannon Marrese, Hart McLaughlin & Eldridge, LLC & Steven Alan Hart, Hart McLaughlin & Eldridge, LLC. Portage County, Mike Lukas, Cory Nelson & Dale Boettcher, Defendants, represented by Garrett Anthony Soberalski, Meissner Tierney Fisher & Nichols, S.C., Lori Marie Lubinsky -- llubinsky@axley.com -- Axley Brynelson, LLP, Michael J. Cohen, Meissner Tierney Fisher & Nichols SC, Michael J. Modl -- mmodl@axley.com -- Axley Brynelson, LLP & Morgan Kathleen Stippel -- mstippel@axley.com -- Axley Brynelson, LLP. John Doe Portage County District Attorney's Office Personnel, Defendant, represented by David C. Rice, Wisconsin Department of Justice. Wisconsin County Mutual Insurance Corporation, Intervenor, represented by Thomas J. Donnelly -- tjd@ghnlawyers.com- Grady, Hayes & Neary, LLC. POST HOLDINGS: Opt-Out Plaintiffs' Antitrust Claims v. Unit Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------------------- Post Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 1, 2019, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2018, that anti-trust claims by plaintiffs who opted out of class action lawsuits remains pending against a subsidiary. In late 2008 and early 2009, approximately 22 class action lawsuits were filed in various federal courts against Michael Foods, Inc. ("MFI"), a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, and approximately 20 other defendants (producers of shell eggs and egg products, and egg industry organizations), alleging violations of federal and state antitrust laws in connection with the production and sale of shell eggs and egg products, and seeking unspecified damages. All cases were transferred to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for coordinated and/or consolidated pretrial proceedings. The case involved three plaintiff groups: (i) a nationwide class of direct purchasers of shell eggs ("direct purchaser class"); (ii) individual companies (primarily large grocery chains and food companies that purchase considerable quantities of eggs) that opted out of various settlements and filed their own complaints related to their purchases of shell eggs and egg products ("opt-out plaintiffs"); and (iii) indirect purchasers of shell eggs ("indirect purchaser plaintiffs"). To date, MFI has resolved the following claims, including all class claims: (i) in December 2016, MFI settled all claims asserted against it by the direct purchaser class for a payment of $75.0, which was approved by the district court in December 2017; (ii) MFI settled all claims asserted against it by opt-out plaintiffs related to shell egg purchases on confidential terms in January 2017; and (iii) in June 2018, MFI settled all claims asserted against it by indirect purchaser plaintiffs on confidential terms. MFI has at all times denied liability in this matter, and no settlement contains any admission of liability by MFI. MFI remains a defendant only with respect to claims that seek damages based on purchases of egg products by six opt-out plaintiffs. The district court had granted summary judgment precluding any claims for egg products purchases by such opt-out plaintiffs, but the Third Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded these claims for further pre-trial proceedings. Defendants have filed a second motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the claims, and that motion is currently pending. Post Holdings said, "Although the likelihood of a material adverse outcome in the egg antitrust litigation has been significantly reduced as a result of the MFI settlements described above, the remaining portion of the case could still result in a material adverse outcome." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Post Holdings, Inc. operates as a consumer packaged goods holding company in the United States and internationally. It operates through Post Consumer Brands, Weetabix, Refrigerated Food, and Active Nutrition segments. The company was founded in 1895 and is headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri. PUBLIC STORAGE: Underpays Sales Agents, Arakelian Suit Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- TANYA ARAKELIAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PUBLIC STORAGE; and DOES 1-20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV01191 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Jan. 17, 2019) is an action against the Defendants for unpaid regular hours, overtime hours, minimum wages, wages for missed meal and rest periods. The Plaintiff Arakelian was employed by the Defendants as sales agent. Public Storage, a member of the S&P 500 and FT Global 500, is a REIT that primarily acquires, develops, owns and operates self-storage facilities. The Company’s headquarters are located in Glendale, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Vache A. Thomassian, Esq. Caspar Jivalagian, Esq. KJT LAW GROUP LLP 230 North Maryland Avenue, Suite 306 Glendale, CA 91206 Telephone: (818) 507-8525 E-mail: vache@kjtlawgroup.com caspar@kjtlawgroup.com REDROCK TRAVEL: Ramos-Rivera Seeks Minimum Wage Compensation ------------------------------------------------------------ ASHLEY RAMOS-RIVERA, and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(b), the Plaintiff(s), vs. REDROCK TRAVEL GROUP, LLC, CARDIFF LEXINGTON CORPORATION, JAY JAHID, individually, FERNANDA JAHID, individually, and ROLLAN ROBERTS, individually, the Defendants, Case No.: 6:19-cv-00174 (M.D. Fla., Jan. 25, 2019), alleges that Defendants have unlawfully deprived Plaintiff, and all other employees similarly situated, of federal minimum wage compensation during the course of their employment, under the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked an average of at least 37.5 hours per week. The Defendants failed to properly compensate Plaintiff pursuant to federal law for hours worked in these workweeks, notwithstanding the fact that Plaintiff performed work for the benefit of Defendants. Accordingly, the Plaintiff is entitled to recover at least $271.87 per week for each of these three workweeks in which Defendants refused to pay Plaintiff for a total of $815.62. However, Defendants' actions were intentional and/or willful and Plaintiff is therefore entitled to an additional amount of liquidated (double) damages for wages in the amount of $815.62, the lawsuit says. Red Rock provides travel and tourism services. The company is based in Orlando, Florida.[BN] Counsel for Ashley Ramos-Rivera: Jordan Richards, Esq. USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS - JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC 805 East Broward Blvd. Suite 301 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 E-mail: jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com melissa@jordanrichadrspllc.com livia@jordanrichardspllc.com jake@jordanrichardspllc.com REDROCK TRAVEL: Tibolla Suit Seeks Minimum Wage Compensation ------------------------------------------------------------ CHRISTINE TIBOLLA, and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(b), the Plaintiff(s), vs. REDROCK TRAVEL GROUP, LLC, CARDIFF LEXINGTON CORPORATION, JAY JAHID, individually, FERNANDA JAHID, individually, and ROLLAN ROBERTS, individually, the Defendants, Case No. 6:19-cv-00168 (M.D. Fla., Jan. 25, 2019), alleges that Defendants have unlawfully deprived Plaintiff, and all other employees similarly situated, of federal minimum wage compensation during the course of their employment, under the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, during Plaintiff's employment, the Defendants assigned Plaintiff to work multiple workweeks in which Defendants failed and refused to compensate Plaintiff. From October 29, 2018, through November 11, 2018, the Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiff in any conceivable way. The Defendants failed to ever compensate Plaintiff for any hours worked in these workweeks notwithstanding that Plaintiff performed work for the benefit of Defendants. The Plaintiff worked an average of at least 40 hours per week during this time period, the lawsuit says. Redrock specializes in developing leads for timeshare and vacation club industries and has been operating in the State of Florida since 2014. The Company also provides discounted theme park tickets, highly discounted travel, and engages in significant online, media, and offline advertising that directs traffic to online websites or to state-of-the-art call centers.[BN] Counsel for Plaintiff: Jordan Richards, Esq. USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS - JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC 805 East Broward Blvd. Suite 301 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 871-0050 E-mail: jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com melissa@jordanrichadrspllc.com livia@jordanrichardspllc.com jake@jordanrichardspllc.com REDROCK TRAVEL: Wilder Seeks Minimum Wage Compensation ------------------------------------------------------ MARC WILDER, and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(b), the Plaintiff(s), vs. REDROCK TRAVEL GROUP, LLC, CARDIFF LEXINGTON CORPORATION, JAY JAHID, individually, FERNANDA JAHID, individually, and ROLLAN ROBERTS, individually, the Defendants, Case No. 6:19-cv-00165 Document (M.D. Fla., Jan. 25, 2019), alleges that Defendants have unlawfully deprived Plaintiff, and all other employees similarly situated, of federal minimum wage compensation during the course of their employment, under the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked an average of at least 40 hours per week. The Plaintiff is entitled to recover at least $290.00 per week for each of these three workweeks in which Defendants refused to pay Plaintiff for a total of $870.00. However, the Defendants' actions were intentional and/or willful and Plaintiff is therefore entitled to an additional amount of liquidated (double) damages for wages in the amount of $870.00. The Defendants also refused to pay Plaintiff commissions he earned during the past six months in an amount equal to $4,000.00, the lawsuit says. Red Rock Travel Group LLC provides travel and tourism services.[BN] Counsel for Marc Wilder: Jordan Richards, Esq. USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS – JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC 805 East Broward Blvd. Suite 301 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 871-0050 E-mail: jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com melissa@jordanrichadrspllc.com livia@jordanrichardspllc.com jake@jordanrichardspllc.com RIOT BLOCKCHAIN: Settles SEC Fraud Case Amid Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Avi Mizrahi, writing for Bitcoin.com, reports that Riot Blockchain, Inc. replaced its CEO in September after the SEC charged him in connection with a fraudulent $27 million pump and dump scheme. Now another person involved in that case, biotech billionaire Phillip Frost, has agreed to pay $5.5 million to settle the charges. $5.5 Million Settlement Phillip Frost Agrees to Settle Riot Blockchain Related Case for $5.5 MillionThe Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) charged a group of 10 individuals and 10 associated entities back in September for fraudulent schemes that generated over $27 million from unlawful stock sales and "caused significant harm to retail investors who were left holding virtually worthless stock." According to the SEC's complaint, the group of "microcap fraudsters" was led by Barry Honig who was once the largest shareholder in Riot Blockchain, Inc. (NASDAQ:RIOT) and included John O'Rourke, its former CEO. From 2013 to 2018, the South Florida-based group manipulated the share price of the stock of three companies in pump-and-dump schemes, and Miami billionaire Phillip Frost allegedly participated in two of these. On Dec. 27, Mr. Frost and his company OPKO Health, Inc. (NASDAQ: OPK) announced they have agreed to a settlement with the SEC to resolve the action brought against them, subject to court approval. Without admitting or denying the SEC's allegations, OPKO agreed to a $100,000 penalty. Frost agreed, also without admitting or denying the SEC's allegations, to approximately $5.5 million in penalties, disgorgement, and prejudgment interest. He also agreed to a prohibition from trading in penny stocks, with certain exceptions. Frost will continue to serve as OPKO's CEO and Chairman. "We have reached agreement with the SEC that will end a potentially expensive, contentious and time-consuming litigation and I am happy that we can focus on an exciting and productive 2019 for OPKO Health," said Frost. Before October 2017, Riot was a biotechnology company known as Bioptix, Inc. that specialized in the development of veterinary diagnostic tools. On October 4, 2017 Bioptix announced it was changing its name to Riot Blockchain and shifting its business focus to investing in blockchain technologies. In February 2018 Riot was hit with a class action lawsuit in the Southern District of Florida. The complaint alleged that the company failed to disclose that it had changed its name to Riot Blockchain in order to generate investor enthusiasm and tie the company to the then recent rise in the price of cryptocurrencies. This was done despite Riot's lack of a significant blockchain business in order to further an insider scheme that would allow controlling shareholder Barry Honig and his associates to sell their Riot securities at artificially inflated prices. [GN] SAFE HAVEN: Martin et al. Seek to Certify Salespeople Class ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned ISAIAH MARTIN, KIRK KINCAID, and ERIK FOUTS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. SAFE HAVEN SECURITY SERVICES, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00063-ODS (W.D. Mo.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court on Jan. 15, 2019, for an order: 1. conditionally certifying the case a collective action; 2. authorizing Plaintiffs to send notice of the case to: "all current and former Salespeople/"Inside Sales Representatives" employed by Safe Haven Security Services, Inc., within the past three years who were subject to Defendant's policy of denying compensation for any employee who worked more than 45 hours in a workweek and/or who work more than 40 hours in a workweek, but were not properly compensated"; 3. requiring the Defendants to provide Plaintiffs' counsel with a computer readable data file containing the name, telephone number, last known address, and e-mail address for each such current and former employee; 4. directing Defendants to conspicuously post notice of this lawsuit in its facilities for a period not less than 90 days; 5. directing Defendants to place a notice in three separate paychecks for each potential class member; 6. designating Isaiah Martin, Kirk Kincaid, and Erik Fouts as collective representatives; and 7. approving Plaintiffs' counsel to act as collective class counsel.[CC] Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Marck N. Middleton, Esq. Ryan M. Paulus, Esq. CORNERSTONE LAW FIRM 8350 N. St. Clair Ave., Ste 225 Kansas City, MI 64151 Telephone: (816) 581 4040 Facsimile: (816) 741 8889 E-mail: n.middleton@cornerstonefirm.com r.paulus@cornerstonefirm.com SAFE HAVEN: Martin et al. Seek Unpaid Overtime Compensation ----------------------------------------------------------- ISAIAH MARTIN, KIRK KINCIAD, and ERIK FOUTS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. SAFE HAVEN SECURITY SERVICE, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00063-ODS (W.D. Mo., Jan. 25, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation and related penalties and damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant's primary function is to sell home security systems to homeowners and leases. The Defendants' practice and policy is to deny compensation to its employees for any hours worked above 45 hours in any workweek. The Defendant refused to pay employees more than 5 hours of overtime, despite requiring they work well above 15 hours of overtime each week. As a result, the Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated, have not been paid appropriate overtime under FLSA, the lawsuit says. Safe Haven provides residential security systems and installations.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Marck N. Middleton, Esq. Ryan M. Paulus, Esq. CORNERSTONE LAW FIRM 8350 N. St. Clair Ave., Ste 225 Kansas City, MI 64151 Telephone: (816) 581 4040 Facsimile: (816) 741 8889 E-mail: n.middleton@cornerstonefirm.com r.paulus@cornerstonefirm.com SAGORA SENIOR: Mickle Seeks Unpaid Wages & Overtime Pay ------------------------------------------------------- A case, CATRISHA MICKLE Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. SAGORA SENIOR LIVING, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00044 (E.D. Tex., Jan. 28, 2019), seeks all available relief, including compensation, overtime wages, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, and Texas common law. The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated who worked for Sagora Senior Living, Inc. at any time from January 28, 2016 through the final disposition of this matter. Specifically, Sagora has allegedly enforced a uniform company-wide policy wherein it systematically reduced the hours of its non-exempt hourly nursing assistants -- Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members -- causing them to perform work off-the-clock and without pay. Sagora's illegal company-wide policy has caused Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members to have hours worked that were not compensated and further created a miscalculation of their regular rate(s) of pay for purposes of calculating their overtime compensation each workweek. According to the complaint, although Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members routinely worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek, the Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members have not been paid overtime of at least one and one-half times their regular rates for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. Sagora knowingly and deliberately failed to compensate Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members for all hours worked and the proper amount of overtime each workweek on a routine and regular basis during the relevant time period. The Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members did not and currently do not perform work that meets the definition of exempt work under the FLSA or Texas law, the lawsuit says. Sagora Senior Living, Inc. operates senior living communities in Texas, Oklahoma, Alabama, and Florida.[BN] Attorneys in Charge for Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members: Clif Alexander, Esq. Austin W. Anderson, Esq. Lauren E. Braddy, Esq. Alan Clifton Gordon, Esq. Carter T. Hastings, Esq. George Schimmel, Esq. ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC 819 N. Upper Broadway Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Telephone: (361) 452-1279 Facsimile: (361) 452-1284 E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com austin@a2xlaw.com lauren@a2xlaw.com cgordon@a2xlaw.com carter@a2xlaw.com geordie@a2xlaw.com SALAS CONCRETE: Denied Break Periods, Wage Statements, Cavazos Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- John Cavazos, individually and on behalf of other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Salas Concrete, Inc. and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 19-at-00035 (E.D. Cal. January 14, 2019), seeks redress for Defendant's failure to pay overtime and minimum wages, failure to provide meal breaks and proper wage statements, and failure to pay earned wages upon discharge including waiting time penalties under Unfair Business Practices statutes of the California Business and Professions Code, the California Labor Code and applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Orders. Salas Concrete employed Cavazos as an hourly construction worker from 2011 until approximately September 19, 2018. Plaintiff is represented by: David G. Spivak, Esq. Maralle Messrelian, Esq. THE SPIVAK LAW FIRM 16530 Ventura Blvd, Suite 312 Encino, CA 91436 Telephone: (818) 582-3086 Facsimile: (818) 582-2561 Email: david@snivaklaw.com maralle@spivaklaw.com - and - Walter Haines, Esq. UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP 5500 Bolsa Ave., Suite 201 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Telephone: (562)256-1047 Facsimile: (562)256-1006 Email: walter@uelglaw.com SARAH JONES: White et al. Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages & Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------ KELVIN WHITE, MICHAEL JENKINS, JEREMY DEERING, and KELVIN DELVONTAE WHITE, Individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. SARAH JONES ENTERPRISES, INC., and SARAH A. JONES, Individually, the Defendants, Case No. 8:19-cv-00207-EAK-AAS (M.D. Fla., Jan. 25, 2019), seeks to recover compensatory damages, lost wages and benefits, prejudgment interest, liquidated damages, attorney's fees and costs, and any other damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs were qualified to perform their job duties within the legitimate expectations of their employers. The Plaintiffs regularly and routinely worked over 40 hours in a work week. The Plaintiffs were not paid time and a one-half their regular hourly rate for each and every hour that they worked in excess of 40 hours in a work week for all weeks that they worked. The Plaintiffs routinely worked past their regularly scheduled work hours without pay. The Plaintiffs were required to begin work at 6:00 a.m. to travel to the job site and load up the truck. The Plaintiffs were not considered "on the clock" until approximately 10:00 a.m. The Plaintiffs were then required to clean the truck "off the clock" after the day's work. The Plaintiffs estimate they worked approximately 15 hours each week without pay, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Wolfgang M. Florin, Esq. Christopher D. Gray, Esq. FLORIN, GRAY, BOUZAS, OWENS, LLC 16524 Pointe Village Drive, Suite 100 Lutz, FL 33558 Telephone: (727) 254-5255 Facsimile: (727) 483-7942 E-mail: wolfgang@fgbolaw.com chris@fgbolaw.com SEALIFT HOLDINGS: Faces Baduria Suit in E.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sealift Holdings, Inc. The case is captioned as EUFRONIO JOLLADO BADURIA, and DANIEL LLAGAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SEALIFT HOLDINGS, INC.; SEALIFT INC.; SEALIFT INC. OF DELAWARE; BLACK EAGLE SHIPPING, LLC; FORTUNE MARITIME, LLC; SAGAMORE SHIPPING LLC; SEALIFT TANKSHIPS, INC.; and REMINGTON SHIPPING, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-00364-SJF-GRB (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 17, 2019). The case is assigned to Judge Sandra J. Feuerstein and referred to Magistrate Judge Gary R. Brown. Sealift Holdings, Inc. operates as a shipping company. The Company offers general cargo, breakbulk liner, paper, and rice handling services. Sealift Holdings serves customers in the State of New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jacob Shisha, Esq. Ralph J. Mellusi, Esq. TABAK MELLUSI & SHISHA 29 Broadway New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 962-1590 Facsimile: (212) 385-0920 E-mail: jshisha@yahoo.com rjmellusi@sealawyers.com ST. LOUIS, MO: Class Action Prompts Warrantless Arrest Changes -------------------------------------------------------------- Christine Byers, writing for St. Louis Post-Dispatch, reports that: CLAYTON Wanted: Dwayne Furlow Age: 31 Charge: Domestic assault Originating agency: St. Louis County police That's about all a county officer learned about Mr. Furlow when he ran his name through a regional police database after pulling him over in January 2016. There was no warrant in Mr. Furlow's name, but his listing as "wanted" in the database was enough for police to arrest him and hold him for 24 hours. No one checked with the detective who had listed Mr. Furlow as wanted. If they had, they might have learned that three days before the traffic stop, the alleged domestic assault victim had told police that she made up the allegations against Mr. Furlow out of anger and withdrew her complaint. Mr. Furlow was held for 24 hours, then released. He wasn't questioned during that time, and he was never charged in the domestic assault case. Mr. Furlow was caught up in a practice that is rare in other parts of the country, but has affected thousands in the St. Louis area. He was one of an estimated 15,000 people county police officers entered between 2011 and 2016 into the regional law enforcement database as wanted, though there was no warrant for his arrest. And he was one of about 2,500 who were arrested between 2011 and 2016 based on their listing in the database, according to court filings in a lawsuit Mr. Furlow later filed against the county police on behalf of himself and others. Though a judge ruled against Mr. Furlow, saying the practice is constitutional, the suit still prompted changes. Since September, St. Louis County police have been using the wanted system only for more serious crimes. And Wesley Bell, the new St. Louis County prosecutor who took office on Jan. 1, has said eliminating wanteds altogether is one of his priorities. Despite the judge's ruling in Mr. Furlow's case, Bell said he believes wanteds are unconstitutional. He would like officers to seek warrants instead, a system he said includes protections for the accused because warrants require approval from prosecutors and judges, not just police officers alone. "We want to make sure we are not violating people's rights, and there are requirements established when it comes to warrants to make sure we are protecting people's rights to due process," Bell said. How it works It's not clear when the practice of entering people into a regional law enforcement database as wanted began. Former St. Louis County Prosecutor Robert McCulloch, who left office at midnight after 28 years, says officers have been doing it for as long as he can remember. Officers in the St. Louis area routinely check the database during traffic stops and other encounters with the public, arresting those listed as wanted and holding them for up to 24 hours without a charge. They've been doing that for years, whether the alleged offense was a felony, a misdemeanor or an ordinance violation. In most of the rest of the country, officers would check instead to see if the person had an arrest warrant, approved by a judge. But the wanted system, which is unusual outside of St. Louis, doesn't require there be a warrant for the person's arrest, only that a police officer somewhere in Missouri wants the person held. It's a system that Mr. Furlow's lawsuit says can upend lives with little outside oversight. "Can you imagine the kind of disruption that can cause in someone's life, to be arrested and held for 24 hours?" asked Rebecca Gorley, spokeswoman for ArchCity Defenders, the firm that represented Furlow. "People have jobs. People have kids." Ms. Gorley declined to comment further on the matter and did not make Mr. Furlow nor his attorneys available for comment. Mr. Furlow's lawsuit played a role in the St. Louis County department's decision to reevaluate its wanted system. The federal civil rights class-action lawsuit he filed in 2016 named the county police, Chief Jon Belmar and the county officer who entered him as wanted. "When (lawsuits) happen, you owe it to your community and it's part of your responsibilities to make sure we're taking a look at what we do and why we do it," Belmar said. On Oct. 5, U.S. District Judge Henry Autrey ruled in favor of the county police. Judge Autrey ruled that although Mr. Furlow and the other plaintiffs were arrested without a warrant, a warrantless arrest can be constitutional if there is "at least 'arguable probable cause'" to support it. Even a mistaken arrest can be constitutional if that mistake is "arguably reasonable," Judge Autrey wrote, quoting an appellate court opinion. In the plaintiffs' cases, Judge Autrey wrote that officers who issued the wanteds relied on witnesses and other evidence that constituted probable cause. Officers can rely on wanteds to make an arrest in the same way that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that officers can rely on wanted flyers or bulletins to stop a person, question them and detain them while trying to get more information, Judge Autrey wrote. Mr. Furlow alleged in the lawsuit that the officer investigating the domestic assault charge told Mr. Furlow he would enter him as wanted out of spite after Mr. Furlow invoked his right to silence in a phone conversation. Judge Autrey rejected that claim. Belmar changed the county police policy before Judge Autrey's ruling, even though it went in the department's favor. As of Sept. 4, his 900 or so officers can no longer enter people as wanted without a warrant in cases of misdemeanors and ordinance violations. They can still be issued for those police suspect of felonies. And other departments continue the practice, even for lesser crimes. Another change: When St. Louis County officers learn someone is wanted, they're now required to contact the investigator who entered the person in the system. They will seek to learn about the probable cause behind the entry before making an arrest. And, if the originating officer cannot be reached, the wanted person will not be detained, Mr. Belmar said. As a result, Mr. Belmar expects his officers will make fewer warrantless arrests and do their jobs like most of their peers throughout the country. "Most of American law enforcement doesn't have a system like us," he said. "Even the top 10 most wanted by the FBI are individuals that have federal charges issued against them. "This also creates an additional layer of certainty that we have the individual we want and actually have a legit reason to detain them." 'No need' A Post-Dispatch series in 2008 on the wanted system found it developed because prosecutors in the St. Louis area required officers to get statements from suspects before they would ask judges to consider issuing warrants. Having suspects' statements could make stronger cases. In 2015, the Justice Department criticized the countywide practice in a report on Ferguson, which quoted "one veteran officer," apparently from Ferguson, as saying he would issue a wanted "if I do not have enough probable cause to arrest you." The report was a summary of how policing practices in the area were racially biased against black people. As of Nov. 15, county police had 546 people listed as wanted in the Regional Justice System. About 90 percent were for felony crimes, 7.9 percent were for ordinance violations and 1.6 percent were for misdemeanors. Of those wanted for felonies, about 80 percent were men, according to a Post-Dispatch analysis of the data. Black suspects made up more than half of all felony wanteds. Mr. McCulloch, who was the county prosecutor for 28 years, said his office was always willing to issue charges on suspects even if they didn't talk to police. He doesn't consider himself one of the reasons why police created the wanteds practice. "Generally we like to have a guy picked up and we like to talk to him to see what other evidence might develop, but it's certainly not a hard-and-fast rule," Mr. McCulloch said. "If a warrant facilitates picking him up, we have no hesitation. I can't tell you how many cases we prosecuted without a defendant's statements." Mr. Bell, sworn in early on Jan. 1 after defeating Mr. McCulloch in August, said he's already met with police departments and municipal courts throughout St. Louis County to talk about his priorities, including his desire to end the practice of issuing wanteds. He said most law enforcement leaders agree with him because it can make the region safer. That's because many other parts of the country have no wanted database. Officers there check for warrants. If a suspect from the St. Louis area who is wanted but not yet charged leaves the area, officers elsewhere would have no way to know the person is wanted. "When someone is accused of a violent or serious crime, it makes it hard for officers (elsewhere) to catch them because they're often not in their system because there's no warrant," Mr. Bell said. Mr. Bell said the St. Louis County police policy change is a step in the right direction, but wants to see the practice eliminated entirely. "I look at it as a sign of cooperation when I see departments start to go away from the wanted system," he said. "If they have the requirements for a warrant, we should be issuing that warrant, in which case there will be no need for a 'wanted' in these situations." Robert Patrick and Janelle O'Dea of the Post-Dispatch contributed to this report. [GN] STADION MONEY: Sued over Underperformance of Retirement Plan ------------------------------------------------------------ Kimberly Davis, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons, the Plaintiff, vs. Stadion Money Management, LLC, and United of Omaha Life Insurance Company, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00119-LCB-LPA (M.D.N.C., Jan. 25, 2019), alleges that the Defendants have breached their fiduciary duties and engaged in other unlawful conduct to the detriment of Plaintiff and the Class, and seeks to recover losses caused by this unlawful conduct, prevent further similar conduct, and obtain equitable and other relief as provided by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. Stadion provides a managed account service to participants in employer-sponsored retirement plans governed by ERISA. Through the service, participants pay Stadion a fee, and in return, Stadion accepts complete fiduciary discretion to manage the participant's retirement account by allocating the participant's account balance among the investment options offered within the plan. Stadion is not a well-known investment manager. Although Stadion has over $3 billion in assets under management within its managed account service, this is based not on the strength of its investment management acumen, but on its relationships with insurance companies who market group annuity products to small and midsize retirement plans. This case focuses on Stadion's relationship with United of Omaha, and the self-interested conduct of both parties in relation to Class members' retirement assets. According to the complaint, Stadion depends on United of Omaha as its entree to employers. United of Omaha sells employers a group annuity product that serves as a one-stop-shop for employees' retirement savings. Employees receive account statements, investment information, and a menu of investment options, and United of Omaha receives fees. United of Omaha also pitches Stadion's managed accounts as an add-on service. If employers include Stadion's service, Stadion exercises complete discretion over participating employees' accounts by selecting investments from the menu of options in the employer's retirement plan. Stadion receives a fee from participating employees, which it shares with United of Omaha and its affiliates. It is not unusual for a managed account provider to depend on another provider to pitch their service to employers. Nor is it unusual for the managed account fee to be split between them. There is potential for abuse, however, if a managed account provider can confer additional benefits on its marketing partner or itself by selecting certain investment options over others for participants. Unfortunately, that is what happened here, and Defendants violated ERISA by putting their own interests ahead of retirement plan participants. Stadion owed fiduciary duties under ERISA to every participant enrolled in its service. These duties are "the highest known to the law." Stadion was required to act solely in the interest of participants and beneficiaries, and "exclude all selfish interest and all consideration of the interests of third persons." Stadion also was required to manage participants' accounts with the care, skill, prudence, and diligence of a prudent person in similar circumstances. Omaha could not knowingly benefit from Stadion's violations of ERISA in connection with the managed account program. Stadion breached its fiduciary duties by making investment decisions to further its own interests and the interests of United of Omaha. Stadion directed participants' accounts into United of Omaha- and Stadion-affiliated investment options, despite the availability of lower-cost, higher-performing investment options within the plan that would have better met the needs of participants. In certain cases, there were identical options available in the plan menu that would have charged 50% less in fees. Stadion avoided these options because they did not generate as much revenue for its business partner, United of Omaha. In other cases, Stadion financially benefited itself and United of Omaha by continuing to use Stadion-affiliated accounts despite their underperformance on both an absolute and risk-adjusted basis. United of Omaha improperly retained revenue resulting from Stadion's malfeasance despite knowledge of Stadion's compromised loyalty and imprudence. Indeed, United of Omaha expected preferential treatment from Stadion in exchange for retaining Stadion as a managed account provider available through its retirement platform. Based on this conduct, Defendants cost participants millions of dollars in losses due to excess fees and investment underperformance. To remedy this, Plaintiff asserts ERISA claims against Stadion for breach of the fiduciary duties of loyalty and prudence (Count I) and prohibited transactions (Counts III & IV), and against United of Omaha for knowingly profiting from a fiduciary breach (Count II). Stadion Money Management, LLC is a privately owned investment manager. The firm also provides retirement account management services.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: F. Hill Allen, Esq. THARRINGTON SMITH, L.L.P. P.O. Box 1151 Raleigh, NC 27602-1151 Telephone: 919-821-4711 Facsimile: 919-829-1583 E-mail: hallen@tharringtonsmith.com - and - Kai H. Richter, Esq. Carl F. Engstrom, Esq. Paul Lukas, Esq. Brandon T. McDonough, Esq. Brock J. Specht, Esq. NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP 4600 IDS Center, 80 S 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: 612-256-3200 Facsimile: 612-338-4878 E-mail: krichter@nka.com cengstrom@nka.com lukas@nka.com bmcdonough@nka.com bspecht@nka.com STANFORD UNIVERSITY: Lawsuit Disputes Background Check Practices ---------------------------------------------------------------- Hannah Knowles, writing for The Stanford Daily, reports that a class action lawsuit alleges that Stanford violated federal law by failing to get proper consent from prospective employees before performing background checks. Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), employers conducting background checks must notify potential hires of checks in advance and obtain signed authorization forms. The FCRA requires that employers disclose their intent to use background checks in a "document that consists solely of the disclosure." The lawsuit claims that Stanford failed to meet this stand-alone document requirement by combining its background disclosure with additional language that states that "all persons or entities requesting or supplying" relevant background information are released from liability. Such extra information could distract from the background check disclosure, the suit argues. The University could be ordered to pay up to $1,000 per person for whom it performed a background check that was not properly authorized, as well as other damages and attorney's fees, the lawsuit states. An initial case management conference for the lawsuit, which was filed in October, is scheduled for Jan. 30 at a District Court in San Jose. The lawsuit proposes a class action on behalf of anyone who did not properly consent to background check between Aug. 16, 2015 and a date that will be determined by the court. The named plaintiff in the case is Theresa Richard, who according to the suit was hired in 2017 as a dining worker at Stanford's Residential & Dining Enterprises (R&DE). Stanford spokesperson EJ Miranda said the University will seek to dismiss the claim. "This lawsuit is baseless," he wrote in an email to The Daily. "The plaintiff received and signed a FCRA disclosure form which was fully compliant with the law." Stanford's Human Resources website includes an employment application with a background check consent section at the end, as well as a separate background check form intended "for use when there is no SU Employment Application." Both forms contain language mostly identical to what the lawsuit takes issue with. "I agree to cooperate in the Background Investigation . . . . and to release from all liability and responsibility all persons or entities requesting or supplying such information in connection with the Background Investigation," Stanford's forms state. While the lawsuit focuses on the note about liability, the Federal Trade Commission also states on its website that the FCRA-mandated background check notice "cannot be in an employment application." Asked if the background check section included in the "Employment Application" document on Stanford's Human Resources website violates the FTC's guidance, Miranda stated that "the disclosure and consent form is a standalone document and is not contained in the employment application." Other recent class action lawsuits have successfully sought compensation from employers — including Stanford — for failing to clearly disclose and gain consent for background checks as set out in the FCRA. A district court ruled in 2015 that Stanford violated the FCRA's stand-alone stipulation by noting seven state laws and adding a disclaimer that "nothing herein shall be construed as an offer of employment or contract for services," alongside the school's disclosure to applicants about background checks. A 2018 district court verdict reinforced that ruling by holding that extra language about state law and other documents, as well as a link to a privacy policy, prevented an employer's materials from meeting the stand-alone notice bar. However, the Central District of California ruled this year in an employer's favor in another suit about FCRA technicalities, finding that Hansen & Adkins Auto Transport did not break the law by including its background checks notice at the back of an application packet and within a package of several documents. The Court found that the relevant disclosure need not be provided "separate in time from any other documents" and that the disclosure form itself met standards. Lawyers representing the complainant did not respond to a request for comment. [GN] TIDAL BASIN: Gonzalez Seeks Unpaid Wages for Workers ---------------------------------------------------- YAHAIRA GONZALEZ, on Behalf of Herself and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. TIDAL BASIN HOLDING, INC. and VANGUARD EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT, the Defendants, Case No. 7:19-cv-00058-GEC (W.D. Va., Jan. 28, 2019), alleges that the Defendants knowingly and deliberately failed to compensate Plaintiff and the Class Members at the rate of time and one half their regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek as required under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff and the employees she seeks to represent are current and former workers classified as independent contractors by Tidal Basin Holdings, Inc. and Vanguard Emergency Management. The Defendants violated the FLSA by misclassifying the Plaintiff and Class Members as independent contractors instead of as employees. Consequently, Defendants' compensation policy violates the FLSA's mandate that non-exempt employees, such as the Plaintiff and Class Members, be compensated at 1-1/2 times their regular rate of pay for each hour worked over 40 in a week, the lawsuit says. Vanguard Emergency Management is a company owned, controlled, and operated by Tidal Basin Holdings, Inc. Vanguard Emergency Management provides housing inspection services for those individuals whose homes have been damaged by a natural disaster.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff and Class Members: Don J. Foty, Esq. Gabriel A. Assaad, Esq. KENNEDY HODGES, LLP 124409 Montrose Blvd., Ste. 200 Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (713) 523-0001 Facsimile: (713) 523-1116 E-mail: dfoty@kennedyhodges.com gassaad@kennedyhodges.com - and - Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq. SHELLIST LAZARZ SLOBIN, LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 621-2277 Facsimile: (713) 621-0993 E-mail: rprieto@eeoc.net TRANSAMERICA CORP: Faces ERISA Class Action Over 401(k) Plan ------------------------------------------------------------ Law360 reports that a proposed class of roughly 17,000 participants in Transamerica Corp.'s 401(k) plan have sued the financial services company in Iowa federal court, claiming it flouted the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. [GN] TRIDENT ASSET: Green Files Case Under FDCPA in New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Trident Asset Management, LLC. The case is styled as Harold Green, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Trident Asset Management, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-00591 (E.D. N.Y., 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. Trident Asset Management, LLC offers collection services and servicing of non-performing consumer receivables.[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 TRILLIANT FOOD: Mitchell Seeks OT Pay for Production Employees -------------------------------------------------------------- A case, KATHLEEN MITCHELL on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. TRILLIANT FOOD AND NUTRITION, LLC, 1101 Moasis Drive Little Chute, Wisconsin 54140, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00147 (E.D. Wisc., Jan. 28, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid agreed upon wages, liquidated damages, costs, attorneys' fees, declaratory and/or injunctive relief, and/or any such other relief the Court may deem appropriate, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated are current and former hourly-paid, non-exempt Production employees of Trilliant Food and Nutrition, LLC. The Defendant allegedly operated (and continues to operate) an unlawful compensation system that deprived and failed to compensate all current and former hourly-paid, non-exempt Production employees for all hours worked and work performed each workweek, including at an overtime rate of pay, by: (1) failing to include all non-discretionary compensation, such as bonuses, commissions, incentives, and/or other monetary payments of rewards, in said employees' regular rates of pay for overtime calculation purposes, in violation of the FLSA and WWPCL; and (2) failing to compensate said employees for meal periods during which they were not completely relieved of duty or free from work for at least 30 consecutive minutes, in violation of the WWPCL. The Defendant's failure to compensate its hourly paid, non-exempt Production employees for compensable work performed, including but not limited to at the correct and lawful overtime rate of pay, was intentional, willful, and violated federal law as set forth in the FLSA and state law as set forth in the WWPCL, the lawsuit says. The Defendant formerly known as Victor Allen's Coffee, is a privately owned company headquartered in Little Chute, Wisconsin that produces and manufactures food, beverage, and nutrition products.[BN] Counsel for Plaintiff: Scott S. Luzi, Esq. James A. Walcheske, Esq. David M. Potteiger, Esq. WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC 15850 W. Bluemound Road, Suite 304 Brookfield, WI 53005 Telephone: (262) 780-1953 Facsimile: (262) 565-6469 E-mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com TSYS BUSINESS: Court Grants Final Approval of Gardiner Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Central District of California issued an Order granting Final Approval of the Settlement Agreement in the case captioned ADAM GARDINER, JOSEPH GRECO, and SEAN CONROY, as individuals and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. TSYS BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, LLC, f/k/a TRANSFIRST, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; TOTAL SYSTEM SERVICES, INC., a Georgia corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, Defendants. Case No. 8:18-cv-00415 DOC (JCGx). (C.D. Cal.). The Court grants final approval of the Settlement Agreement because it meets the criteria for final settlement approval. The settlement falls within the range of approval as fair, adequate, and reasonable, appears to be the product of arm's-length and informed negotiations, and treats all members of the Settlement Class fairly. The Court finds that the distribution by U.S. first-class mail of the Class Notice constituted the best notice practicable under the circumstances to all persons within the definition of the Settlement Class and fully met the requirements of due process under the United States Constitution and applicable state law. Based on evidence and other material submitted in conjunction with the Final Approval Hearing, the notice to the Settlement Class was adequate. The Court finds, for purposes of settlement only, that the Settlement Class satisfies the applicable standards for certification under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3) and under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Accordingly, solely for purposes of effectuating this Settlement, this Court has certified the Settlement Class, as defined above. Because the Settlement Class is being certified here for settlement purposes only, the Court need not (and does not) address the manageability requirement of Rule 23(b)(3). The Court approves the Settlement, and each of the releases and other terms set forth in the Settlement Agreement, as fair, reasonable, and adequate as to the Settlement Class, the Class Representatives, and Defendants (Settling Parties). The Settling Parties and the Settlement Administrator are directed to perform in accordance with the terms set forth in the Settlement Agreement. The Court approves the payment from the Gross Settlement Amount of settlement administration costs in the amount of $16,500.00 to Kurtzman Carson Consultants, LLC, the Settlement Administrator, for services rendered in this matter. The Court also approves payment from the Gross Settlement Amount of an Incentive Payment of $7,500.00 to each of the Class Representatives (for a total of $22,500.00) to reimburse the Class Representatives for their valuable services in initiating and maintaining this litigation and the benefits conferred onto the Settlement Class as a result of the Action. The Court finds that these payments are fair and reasonable. The Settlement Administrator is directed to make the foregoing payments in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. The Court approves a payment from the Gross Settlement Amount of $37,500.00 to the California Labor & Workforce Development Agency for its share of penalties under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act, pursuant to Labor Code Section 2699(i), in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. The Court awards to Class Counsel the amount of $428,333.33 for attorney's fees, and the amount of $14,324.78 for litigation costs. Based on Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and Class Representative Incentive Payments, the Court finds that Class Counsel advanced legal theories on a contingent-fee basis, and that their efforts resulted in a substantial monetary recovery for the Settlement Class. The Court finds this payment to be fair and reasonable. The Settlement Administrator is ordered to make these payments to Class Counsel in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. A full-text copy of the District Court's January 24, 2018 Judgment and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y7dknxbn from Leagle.com. Adam Gardiner, as individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated & Joseph Greco, as individuals and on behalf of all others similarly situated,, Plaintiffs, represented by Paul Keith Haines -- phaines@haineslawgroup.com -- Haines Law Group APC, Daniel Johnson Brown -- dbrown@haineslawgroup.com -- Haines Law Group APC & Tuvia Korobkin -- tkorobkin@haineslawgroup.com -- Haines Law Group APC. Sean Conroy, as individuals and on behalf of all others similarly situated,, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher J. Hamner -chamner@hamnerlaw.com -- Hamner Law Offices APC, Isam C. Khoury -- Ikhoury@ckslaw.com -- Cohelan Khoury and Singer, Jeff Geraci -- jgeraci@ckslaw.com -- Cohelan Khoury and Singer, Michael D. Singer msinger@ckslaw.com -- Cohelan Khoury and Singer & Paul Keith Haines -- phaines@haineslawgroup.com -- Haines Law Group APC. TSYS Business Solutions, LLC, a Delaware limited liablity company & Total System Services, Inc., a Georgia corporation, Defendants, represented by John R. Giovannone -- jgiovannone@cdflaborlaw.com -- Carothers DiSante & Freudenberger. UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Drivers' Class Action Can Go Ahead ----------------------------------------------------- The Canadian Press reports that a proposed class-action lawsuit against the ride-hailing company Uber filed by one of its drivers will go ahead after Ontario's top court reversed a lower court decision that would have sent the matter to arbitration overseas. In a ruling released on Jan. 2, the Court of Appeal for Ontario says a clause in Uber's services agreement that requires all disputes to go through arbitration in the Netherlands amounts to illegally outsourcing an employment standard and therefore cannot stand. It further concludes that the clause takes advantage of the significant power and financial disparity between Uber and its drivers, who would bear up to $14,500 US in filing fees just to begin the arbitration process, no matter the amount at stake in the dispute. "I believe that it can be safely concluded that Uber chose this arbitration clause in order to favour itself and thus take advantage of its drivers, who are clearly vulnerable to the market strength of Uber," the appeal court said. "It is a reasonable inference that Uber did so knowingly and intentionally." Lawsuit stayed by motion judge The lawsuit, which claims Uber drivers are employees rather than contractors and thus subject to Ontario's labour legislation, had been stayed in 2018 by a motion judge who found Uber drivers were bound by the arbitration clause. The three-judge appeal panel says the motion judge erred on several points, including in considering the arbitration clause like the kind seen in "normal commercial contracts" where the parties are relatively equal in power and sophistication. A spokesman for Uber Canada says the company will be reviewing the appeal ruling. The appeal court ruling does not deal with the claims made in the lawsuit, which will be tested in civil court. Nor does it rule on whether the suit qualifies as a class action. The man behind the suit, David Heller, is a 35-year-old driver for UberEats, a service that calls on drivers to deliver food from restaurants to Uber customers. He argues that Uber drivers are employees, which makes them entitled to a minimum wage, vacation pay and other protections under Ontario's Employment Standards Act. "This decision confirms that employment laws actually matter in Ontario, and that you cannot deprive workers of their legal rights under the Ontario Employment Standards Act by sending them 6,000 km overseas to enforce those rights at exorbitant personal cost," lawyer Lior Samfiru, who represents Mr. Heller, said in a statement. "Legal rights are meaningless if there is no mechanism to enforce those rights. Uber's contract with its drivers seeks to make the enforceability of rights virtually impossible. The court sent a loud and clear message that this is illegal in Ontario." Contracting out employment standards prohibited The appeal court said the law prohibits employers from contracting out employment standards. Another lawyer for the plaintiff, Michael Wright of Cavalluzzo LLP, told CBC News that one aspect of the court's decision has already made a significant impact on employment law. Michael Wright says one aspect of the court's decision already made a significant impact on employment law. (Cavalluzzo LLP) "The Court of Appeal was very strong in emphasizing how seriously it takes any efforts to contract out of the Ontario Employment Standards Act, which is the minimum standards legislation [in] the province for all employees," he said. "Going forward, the significant issue is going to be how is the law going to respond to these much less conventional arrangements than have traditionally been the case in the workforce." It also found that a provision that allows workers to file complaints against an employer with the Ministry of Labour constitutes an employment standard. And so, in requiring disputes to go to arbitration, Uber's services agreement is illegally contracting out the employment standard that establishes a mechanism to deal with complaints, and depriving Heller of the right to have the ministry investigate his complaint, the ruling said. "This is of some importance for, among other reasons, if a complaint is made then the Ministry of Labour bears the burden of investigating the complaint. That burden does not fall on the appellant. Under the arbitration clause, of course, the appellant would bear the entire burden of proving his claim," the decision read. Arbitration clause invalid The fact that Heller chose to file a lawsuit rather than complain to the ministry doesn't change that finding, the appeal court said. The arbitration clause is invalid regardless of his decision, it said, and both a complaint to the ministry and a proposed class action would rule on the issue publicly and for all Uber drivers -- unlike arbitration, which would affect only him and do so privately. The court also found that the arbitration clause "represents a substantially improvident or unfair bargain" in that it disproportionately favours Uber in any dispute brought by its drivers. "It requires an individual with a small claim to incur the significant costs of arbitrating that claim . . . the fees for which are out of all proportion to the amount that may be involved. And the individual has to incur those costs up front," the court said. The evidence showed that starting arbitration costs the applicant roughly $14,500 US, which does not include the costs of travel, accommodation or counsel, the appeal panel said. "These costs are to be contrasted with the appellant's claim for minimum wage, overtime, vacation pay and the like brought by a person earning $400-$600 per week," it said. "Additionally, the arbitration clause requires each claimant to individually arbitrate his/her claim and to do so in Uber's home jurisdiction, which is otherwise completely unconnected to where the drivers live, and to where they perform their duties. Still further, it requires the rights of the drivers to be determined in accordance with the laws of the Netherlands, not the laws of Ontario, and the drivers are given no information as to what the laws of the Netherlands are," it said. The court has ordered Uber to pay Mr. Heller his costs for the appeal, a total of $20,000. [GN] UNITED STATES: Can't Pause Suit Over Migrant Teens' Detention ------------------------------------------------------------- Law360 reports that a D.C. federal judge has refused to pause a class action challenging the detention of migrant teenagers in adult facilities despite the lapse in federal funding during the government shutdown. [GN] UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN: Workers Oppose Supreme Court Review Bid --------------------------------------------------------------- Jacklyn Wille, writing for BloombergLaw, reports that the U.S. Supreme Court shouldn't hear a case asking whether the University of Southern California can use arbitration agreements to avoid a class action over its retirement plan, university workers said. The appeals court decision favoring the workers was based on a sound reading of the relevant arbitration agreements and wasn't in conflict with any Supreme Court or federal appeals court opinions, the workers said in their Dec. 31 opposition to the school's request for Supreme Court review. [GN] VISA INC: Amended Deal with Damages Class Wins Initial Approval --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 a district court has granted preliminary approval on the Damages Class plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of the Amended Settlement Agreement, in the Interchange Multidistrict Litigation (MDL). On December 6, 2018, the district court held a hearing on the Damages Class plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of the Amended Settlement Agreement, and on January 24, 2019, the district court granted preliminary approval. Settlement discussions with plaintiffs purporting to act on behalf of the putative Injunctive Relief Class are ongoing. On January 16, 2019, the bank defendants moved to dismiss the claims brought against them by the Injunctive Relief Class, on the grounds that plaintiffs lack standing and fail to state a claim against the bank defendants. 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. VISTA ACQUISITION: Stell Seeks Unpaid 60 Days' Pay & Benefits ------------------------------------------------------------- CONDIE STELL on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, 148 S Edgehill Ave Austintown, OH 44515, the Plaintiff, vs. VISTA ACQUISITION COMPANY LLC a/k/a VISTA WINDOW COMPANY LLC 1701 Henn Parkway Lordstown, OH 44481, and PARADIGM OPERATING COMPANY, LLC 56 Milliken Street Portland, Maine 04103, the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00203-BYP (N.D. Ohio, Jan. 25, 2019), seeks to recover damages in the amount of 60 days' pay and Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 benefits by reason of Defendants' violation of the Plaintiff's rights under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act of 1988. According to the complaint, although the Plaintiff and the Other Similarly Situated Employees were nominally employed by Defendant, Vista Acquisition Company LLC a/k/a Vista Window Company LLC, pursuant to the WARN Act's single employer rule, Paradigm Operating Company, LLC was also the Plaintiff's and the Other Similarly Situated Employees "Employer" until they were terminated as part of, or as a result of a mass layoff and/or plant closing ordered by Defendants on or about December 6, 2018-January 16, '2019 and thereafter. The Defendants allegedly violated the WARN Act by failing to give the Plaintiff and the Other Similarly Situated Employees of the Defendants at least 60 days' advance written notice of termination, as required by the WARN Act. As a consequence, the Plaintiff and the Other Similarly Situated Employees of the Defendants are entitled under the WARN Act to recover from the Defendants their wages and ERISA benefits for 60 days, none of which has been paid. The Defendants employed 100 or more employees, exclusive of part-time employees, or employed 100 or more employees who in the aggregate worked at least 4,000 hours per week exclusive of hours of overtime within the United States as defined by the WARN Act and employed more than 60 employees at the Facility, the lawsuit says. Vista Window Company, LLC manufactures vinyl replacement windows and patio doors in the United States.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Kenneth R. Cookson, Esq. KEGLER BROWN HILL & RITTER Capitol Square, Suite 1800 65 East State Street Columbus, OH 43215-4294 Telephone (614) 462-5445 Facsimile (614) 464-2634 - and - Stuart J. Miller, Esq. LANKENAU & MILLER, LLP 132 Nassau Street, Suite 1100 New York, NY 10038 Telephone: (212) 581-5005 Facsimile: (212) 581-2122 - and - Mary E. Olsen, Esq. M. Vance McCrary, Esq. THE GARDNER FIRM 182 St. Francis Street, Suite 103 Mobile, AL 36602 Telephone: (251) 433-8100 Facsimile: (251) 433-8181 - and - THE NLG MAURICE AND JANE SUGAR LAW CENTER FOR ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL JUSTICE 4605 Cass Ave. Detroit, MH 48201 Telephone: (313) 993-4505 WAYFAIR INC: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/wayfair/)today announced that a class action has been commenced on behalf of purchasers of Wayfair Inc. (NYSE:W) Class A common stock during the period between August 2, 2018 and October 31, 2018 (the "Class Period"). This action was filed in the District of Massachusetts and is captioned Goodstein v. Wayfair Inc., et al., No. 19-cv-10062. The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased Wayfair Class A common stock during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing the litigation. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from today. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Mary K. Blasy of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com. You can view a copy of the complaint as filed at http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/wayfair/. The complaint charges Wayfair and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Wayfair is an online purveyor of household retail goods. The Company offers approximately 10 million products for the home sector under various brands. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants made false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose adverse information regarding Wayfair's business and prospects, including that Wayfair had been experiencing significantly diminished demand for its online product offerings and had significantly increased advertising spending to grow sales. As a result of defendants' false statements and/or omissions, the price of Wayfair stock was artificially inflated to more than $149 per share during the Class Period. Meanwhile, with the price of Wayfair common stock artificially inflated, certain of its senior executives and directors cashed in, selling more than $87.75 million worth of their personally held shares. Then, on November 1, 2018, before the open of trading, Wayfair issued a press release announcing its third quarter 2018 financial results. The Company reported a massive $151.7 million GAAP net loss for the quarter, or $(1.69) per share, compared with a GAAP loss of $76.4 million, or $(0.88) per share, for the third quarter of 2017. In reality, advertising expenses had skyrocketed in the third quarter to more than $202.5 million, an increase of 43%. On this news, the price of Wayfair common stock declined precipitously, falling more than $14 per share, or nearly 13%, to close at $96.16 per share on November 1, 2018. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of Wayfair Class A common stock during the Class Period (the "Class"). The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has extensive experience in prosecuting investor class actions including actions involving financial fraud. Mary K. Blasy, Esq. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP Telephone: 800-449-4900 Email: djr@rgrdlaw.com mblasy@rgrdlaw.com [GN] WELLS FARGO: Court Approves $1,300,000 Settlement in Fowler Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned VANA FOWLER, the Plaintiff, vs. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., the Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-02092-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. entered an order on Jan. 25, 2019: 1. granting Plaintiff's motion for final approval of class action settlement; 2. granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff's motion for an award of attorneys' fees, reimbursement of costs to class counsel, and incentive award; 3. approving approves settlement amount of $1,300,000 including payments of costs in the amount of $70,000; incentive awards of $7,500 to Plaintiff Vana Fowler, and $5,000 to Plaintiff Michael Peters; and attorneys' fees in the amount of $7,500,000 (less the incentive awards total). 4. directing parties and settlement administrator to implement the Final Order and the settlement agreement in accordance with the terms of the settlement agreement; and 5. directing Parties to submit a joint proposed judgment by Feb. 1, 2019. The Court declines to award the requested $500 each to non-Named Plaintiff class members Gerald Braxmeyer, Henry Yrlas, Russell Reece, Seth Hawk, Sandra McKenzie, and Dane Yetzer. The Court has found the settlement to be a good and fair deal for the class members generally, and concludes that it is fair for these class members as well. The Court does not believe it appropriate to award more than 15 times the maximum recovery projected for other class members to these individuals based on their contributions to claims that were never filed. The Court is of the view that incentive awards should be reserved for named plaintiffs, to avoid creating tiers of differently-treated class members. See, e.g., Hendricks v. StarKist Co., 2016 WL 11 5462423 at 14 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 29, 2016) (denying request for $1,000 incentive payments for eight "interested party" class members who filed motion to intervene, assisted with preparation of class action complaint that was never filed, and were on standby to represent statewide classes if necessary), aff'd, Hendricks v. Ference, 2018 WL 5115482 (9th Cir. October 19, 2018).[CC] XPO LOGISTICS: Hagens Berman Files Securities Fraud Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP notifies investors in XPO Logistics, Inc. (NYSE:XPO) of the securities class action pending in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut and the February 12, 2019 Lead Plaintiff deadline. If you purchased or otherwise acquired XPO securities between February 26, 2014 and December 13, 2018 (the "class period") and suffered losses contact Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP. For more information visit: https://www.hbsslaw.com/cases/XPO or contact Reed Kathrein, who is leading the firm's investigation, by calling 510-725-3000 or emailing XPO@hbsslaw.com. The complaint alleges that, throughout the class period, Defendants made false and misleading statements and/or did not disclose adverse information about XPO's mergers and acquisitions strategy and engaged in improper accounting. On December 12, 2018, an analyst reported its forensic investigation results and accused XPO of financial irregularities "that conveniently cover its growing financial strain and inability to complete additional acquisitions despite repeated promises." The analyst concluded, "[g]iven its unreliable and dubious financials, $4.7 bn debt burden, inability to generate sustaining free cash flow, and dependency on external capital and asset sales, we have a worst-case terminal price target of zero." This news drove the price of XPO shares down $15.77, or about 26%, to close at $44.50 on December 13, 2018. "We're focused on investors' losses, the extent to which management's statements about XPO's M&A strategy and financial reporting may have been misleading," said Hagens Berman partner Reed Kathrein. Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding XPO should consider their options to help in the investigation or take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program. Under the new program, whistleblowers who provide original information may receive rewards totaling up to 30 percent of any successful recovery made by the SEC. Reed Kathrein, Esq. Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP Telphone: 510-725-3000 Email: XPO@hbsslaw.com reed@hbsslaw.com [GN] YIN WALL: Court Grants Final Approval of Ginseng Growers' Deal -------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin issued a Joint Motion for Final Approval of the Class Action Settlement in the case captioned BAUMANN FARMS, LLP a Wisconsin limited liability partnership; GLENN HEIER; and AARON KAISER, Plaintiffs, v. YIN WALL CITY, INC., an Illinois corporation; SUT I. FONG; CHEONG SAT O; YIN WALL CITY, DALLAS, INC., a Texas Corporation, Defendants. YIN WALL CITY, INC. (Illinois), YIN WALL CITY, INC. (Texas), and YIN WALL CITY DALLAS, INC., Counterclaim and Third-Party Plaintiffs, v. BAUMANN FARMS, LLP; GLENN HEIER; and AARON KAISER, Counterclaim Defendants and GINSENG BOARD OF WISCONSIN, INC.; THOMAS HACK, JOE HEIL and KURT BAUMANN, Third-Party Defendants. Case No. 16-CV-605. (E.D. Wis.). The Court previously preliminarily approved the parties' stipulated Class Action Settlement, and certified the Settlement Class as: All individuals and entities engaged in the business of cultivating ginseng in the State of Wisconsin who have registered as ginseng growers with Wisconsin's DATCP as mandated by Wis. Stats. Section 94.50(2), during the calendar years 2010 through 2015, excluding Certified Class members who have previously asked to be excluded from the Class, defendants, and all officers, directors, employees, and agents of defendants. The Court grants final approval of the Settlement, and this entire action, including all claims, counterclaims and third-party claims, is dismissed with prejudice. The Court grants final approval to the method of allocation and distribution of the Settlement Fund as set forth in the Settlement Agreement. Class Counsel, as the Settlement Administrator, will distribute the funds according to the terms of the Settlement Agreement. The Court grants Plaintiffs' Motions for attorneys' fees in the reasonable sum of $64,000.00; expenses in the reasonable amount of $5,556.30; and Class Representative participation awards to the three named Plaintiffs in the reasonable amount of $1,500.00 each, all to be paid from the Settlement Fund. The Court grants Plaintiffs' Motion to File Exhibit A to the Declaration of Michael T. Hopkins Regarding Registered Ginseng Growers and Class Members Under Seal. A full-text copy of the District Court's January 24, 2018 Decision and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y8bnq98c from Leagle.com. Baumann Farms LLP, Glenn Heier & Aaron Kaiser, Plaintiffs, represented by Michael T. Hopkins, IP-Litigation US LLC. Yin Wall City Inc, an Illinois Corporation, Sut I Fong, Choeng Sat O, Yin Wall City Inc, a Texas Corporation & Yin Wall City Dallas Inc, Defendants, represented by Peter J. Phillips, Lucas & Mercanti LLP, Eric V.C. Jansson, Jansson Munger McKinley & Kirby LTD, Molly H. McKinley, Jansson Munger McKinley & Kirby LTD & Peter N. Jansson, Jansson Munger McKinley & Kirby LTD. Yin Wall City Inc, a Texas Corporation, Yin Wall City Dallas Inc & Yin Wall City Inc, an Illinois Corporation, Third Party Plaintiffs, represented by Peter J. Phillips, Lucas & Mercanti LLP, Eric V.C. Jansson, Jansson Munger McKinley & Kirby LTD, Molly H. McKinley, Jansson Munger McKinley & Kirby LTD & Peter N. Jansson, Jansson Munger McKinley & Kirby LTD. YOGAWORKS INC: Mirza Sues over 89% Drop in Share Price ------------------------------------------------------ RUBINA MIRZA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. YOGAWORKS, INC.; ROSANNA MCCOLLOUGH; VANCE CHANG; PETER L. GARRAN; MICHAEL A. KUMIN; MICHAEL J. GEREND; BRIAN T. COOPER; GREAT HILL PARTNERS, L.P.; GREAT HILL EQUITY PARTNERS V, L.P.; GREAT HILL INVESTORS, LLC; COWEN AND COMPANY, LLC; ROTH CAPITAL PARTNERS, LLC; STEPHENS INC.; GUGGENHEIM SECURITIES, LLC; IMPERIAL CAPITAL, LLC; and DOES 1-25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV00438 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Jan. 17, 2019) seeks to obtain a recovery for the damages suffered as a result of the Defendants' violations of the Securities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants failed in their duty by inducing public investment in the Company by means of the materially untrue, inaccurate, misleading, and incomplete Offering Materials. As a result of the materially misleading Offering Materials, the Company's share price was inflated at the time of the August 11, 2017 IPO, through which YogaWorks raised approximately $40.15 million in gross proceeds. Unfortunately for YogaWorks stockholders, the Company's stock has consistently traded lower that the $5.50 Offering price, weighed down by the truth regarding the Company's business and financial prospects. YogaWorks' stock has continued to drop, with the Company filing a Form 8-K on December 12, 2018 reporting that, on December 6, 2018, it had received a letter from Nasdaq indicating that the market value of the publicly held shares of the Company for the prior thirty business days fell below the exchange's $5 million minimum value and thus, the Company was subject to delisting if it was unable to regain compliance. The Company then received a second similar letter from the Nasdaq on December 12, 2018 for its noncompliance with the exchange's $1 minimum share price requirement. As of the filing of the complaint, the Company's stock price has dropped to $0.58 per share -- 89.5% below the Offering price. YogaWorks, Inc. operates yoga studios under the YogaWorks and Yoga Tree brand names in the United States. The company was formerly known as YWX Holdings, Inc. and changed its name to YogaWorks, Inc. in April 2017. YogaWorks, Inc. was founded in 1987 and is headquartered in Culver City, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rosanne L. Mah, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 44 Montgomery Street, Suite 650 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 373-1671 Facsimile: (415) 484-1294 E-mail: rmah@zlk.com [*] McGuireWoods Attorneys Discuss 2 Class Action Rulings --------------------------------------------------------- R. Locke Beatty, Esq. -- lbeatty@mcguirewoods.com -- and Laura A. Lange, Esq. -- llange@mcguirewoods.com -- of McGuireWoods LLP, in an article for Lexology, report that that as the new year begins, this is a good time to recap two of the major Supreme Court decisions from the past year impacting class action law, and to look ahead to a couple big decisions on the horizon. Looking Back Arbitration and Class Actions First, in Epic Systems Corporation v. Lewis, the Court confirmed that class action waivers in arbitration agreements are enforceable in employment contracts, even where the employee is covered by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). Within a year after the Supreme Court's decision in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, which held that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) overrode any state law prohibiting class action waivers, the National Labor Relations Board ruled that class action waivers in employer arbitration agreements were not enforceable because such waivers limited employees' rights under the NLRA to engage in "concerted activities." Federal courts consistently disagreed with the Board's reasoning until the Seventh Circuit's decision adopting it in Epic Systems. The Ninth Circuit and Sixth Circuit followed suit shortly thereafter, creating a circuit split with the Second, Fifth and Eighth Circuits on one side and the Sixth, Seventh and Ninth Circuits on the other. On May 21, 2018, the Supreme Court ended the split, holding that the NLRA did not override the FAA's clear instruction that arbitration agreements must be enforced as written. Relying on Concepcion, the Court further explained that the savings clause in the FAA permits courts to invalidate arbitration agreements only on the basis of contract defenses such as fraud and duress, not on the basis of defenses that apply only to arbitration. The Court held that challenges to an agreement because it requires individualized arbitration attacks arbitration, not the contract itself, and therefore, was not a basis to invalidate the arbitration provision under the FAA. Class Actions and Tolling On June 11, 2018, the Supreme Court issued another major decision affecting the class action jurisprudence. In China Agritech v. Resh, the Court held that American Pipe tolling did not apply to successive class actions, instead limiting the prior holding to a putative class members' ability to bring an individual suit after class certification has been denied. Under American Pipe, the timely filing of a class action tolls the applicable statute of limitations for all persons encompassed by the class complaint. If class certification is later denied, those would-be members can intervene in the still-pending action. Later, in Crown, Cork & Seal Co. v. Parker, the Court extended American Pipe tolling to allow for the putative class members to bring an individual suit rather than join the original lawsuit in which certification was sought. The plaintiff (and the Ninth Circuit) in China Agritech attempted to take Crown, Cork & Seal Co. one step further by filing a new class action after class certification had been denied in two prior cases. The Supreme Court, in its decision in China Agritech, held this went too far. The Court explained that the justification for American Pipe tolling -- the efficiency and economy of avoiding multiple individual actions that may be swept up into a class while the certification issue is being decided – does not apply to successive class actions. Instead, the Court reasoned, efficiency favors early assertion of competing class representative claims. Otherwise, allowing tolling for successive class suits could allow plaintiffs "limitless bites at the apple." Looking Ahead Cy Pres Looking ahead to 2019, one key issue the Supreme Court may take up is whether cy pres settlements that award substantial relief to a fund that benefits the general public but little or none to actual class members meet the "fair, reasonable, and adequate" threshold set for settlements under Rule 23(e)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The named plaintiffs in Frank v. Gaos, currently on appeal to the Supreme Court, alleged that Google improperly disclosed private information regarding their searches to third parties, and ultimately entered into a settlement agreement that awarded over $2 million to class counsel, $5,000 to the named plaintiffs, and $6 million to several privacy advocacy groups – but no payment to the estimated 129 million class members. The Ninth Circuit approved the settlement, breaking with the decisions of several circuits that have held class members must be compensated prior to allocating funds to other uses, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari. The reason the Supreme Court may not resolve this split? Following oral argument, the Supreme Court requested supplemental briefing on the issue of whether any named plaintiff had standing under Spokeo to assert the claims in the first place. Nationwide Class Settlements Another issue impacting class action settlements that has not wound its way up to the Supreme Court yet, but may in 2019, is whether and when the differences in the state laws that govern the respective claims of class members across the country preclude nationwide certification—and thus a nationwide settlement. Before the Supreme Court can step into the fold, an 11-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit will issue a ruling following its en banc review of the prior decision of a three-judge panel to decertify the settlement based on these state law variances. The case, In re Hyundai and Kia Fuel Economy Litigation, arises out of allegations of automakers marketing artificially high fuel estimates for certain vehicles. The complaint alleged violations of California consumer protection laws, and certain objectors contended their claims must be construed under the consumer protection laws of their state of residence. Advocacy groups on both the consumer and defense side of the class action bar have expressed support for allowing settlement on a nationwide basis under these circumstances, but only time will tell if that is sufficient to turn the tide back to approval. [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 ***