/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/190320.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, March 20, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 57 Headlines AARGON AGENCY: Warenski Sues over Unwanted Telephone Calls ABC PHONES: Akrami Seeks Unpaid Wages & OT for Store Managers AETNA INC: Settles Depression Coverage Class Action for $6.2MM ALERE INC: June 6 Class Action Settlement Hearing Set ANTHEM INC: Settles 401(k) Plan Fee Class Action for $5.1-Bil. APOGEE ENTERPRISES: Robbins Geller to Lead in Securities Suit ARAMARK: Managers Withdraw Claims in Bonuses Class Action ARLO TECHNOLOGIES: Kahn Swick Files Securities Class Suit ARLO TECHNOLOGIES: Schall Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit ASTEC INDUSTRIES: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Securities Class Action ASTERIAS BIOTHERAPEUTICS: Lampe Balks at Merger Deal with BioTime AT&T INC: Pomerantz LLP Investigates Securities Fraud Claims BANK OF AMERICA: Fixes Interest Rates of VRDO Bonds, Suit Says BAUSCH HEALTH: Generic Drug Pricing Antitrust Class Suit Ongoing BAUSCH HEALTH: Leave to Appeal Afexa-Related Class Suit Dismissed BAUSCH HEALTH: Third-Party Payors' Class Suit Remains Stayed BHI ENERGY: Conditional Certification of Klapatch Class Allowed BIG FISH: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Gambling Practices BOOZ ALLEN: Faces No-Poach Class Action in Ohio BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Resolves 35,500 Mesh-Related Suits BRISTOW GROUP: April 15 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set CANADA DRY: Settles False Advertising Class Action for $11MM CBL & ASSOCIATES: Faces Class-Action Lawsuit CGY & J CORP: Wang Seeks Minimum Wage and Overtime Pay CHINA AGRITECH: Pierce Atwood Attorney Discusses Court Ruling CIMAREX ENERGY: Faces Suits over Resolute Energy Merger COMMUNITY HEALTH: Settles 2014 Data Breach Class Action for $4.5MM CONAGRA BRANDS: Inflated Stock Price, Pension Fund Says CONNECTICUT: Court Dismisses Without Prejudice Silva Suit CONTINENTAL RESOURCES: $19.8MM Obligation to be Satisfied in 2019 CONTROL GROUP: Hunt et al Sue over Sale of Sealed Criminal Records COOK COUNTY COURT: Court Dismisses Nisi Suit Without Prejudice COSTCO WHOLESALE: 9th Cir. Flips Summ. Judgment in Korolshteyn Suit COVERALL NORTH: Appeal from Arbitration Ruling in Gonzalez Nixed CVS HEALTH: Pomerantz Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims DAF: Hauliers Urged to Join Class Action Against Truckbuilders DELTA AIR LINES: Bid to Dismiss Donoff Class Suit Underway DIGNITY HEALTH: Removes Van Bebber Case to E.D. California DIPLOMAT PHARMACY: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims DISCOVER FINANCIAL: Renewed Class Cert. Bid in B&R Suit Underway E TRADE FINANCIAL: Rayner Class Action Now Closed E TRADE FINANCIAL: Schwab Class Action Now Closed ELI LILLY: Glucagon Pricing Class Lawsuit in New Jersey Ongoing ELI LILLY: Still Defends 535 Byetta Product Liability Lawsuits ENOVA FINANCIAL: Faces Biometrics Privacy Class Action EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Partial Bid to Dismiss Gearhart Suit Sustained FAST LANE: Craggs Suit Moved to Western District of Missouri FITBIT INC: Sued over Defective 'Charge 2' Smart Fitness Bands FLIGHT CENTRE: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages FLORIDA: Corrections Dep't Sued Over Inmates' Media Files FLOWERS FOODS: Bid to Certify Class Action in Georgia FORT MYERS, FL: Buys Contaminated Land to Avert Class Action G4S SECURE: Court Narrows Claims in J. King's RICO Suit GEE & GEE: Tellez Seeks Payment of Overtime & Minimum Wages GENERAL ELECTRIC: Saxena White Files Securities Fraud Class Action GETSWIFT: 2 Execs Face ASIC Lawsuit Amid Class Actions GOLF CLUB: Unlawfully Retained Tips & Gratuities, Vega, et al. Say GRAND PRIX: Sosa Seeks Minimum & Overtime Wages HCA MANAGEMENT: Laciste Sues over Alleged Illegal Time Shaving HEALTH INSURANCE: April 22 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set HENRY SCHEIN: Amended Complaint Filed in Kramer Class Suit HENRY SCHEIN: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in NY HENRY SCHEIN: Dismissal of Marion Diagnostic Suit under Appeal HENRY SCHEIN: Settlement Reached in Dental Supplies Antitrust Suit HONEYWELL INT'L: Levi & Korsinsky to Lead in Securities Suit HSBC USA: Bid to Dismiss Firefighters Suit Underway HSBC USA: Bid to Dismiss Police Pension Fund Suit Still Pending HSBC USA: Bid to Dismiss Vasquez and Garcia Suit Underway HSBC USA: Rigged ICE LIBOR, Putnam Bank Alleges HSBC USA: Suits over Precious Metals Derivatives in Canada Ongoing IKE & MIKE: Sirak Seeks Minimum Wages & Overtime Pay IMMUNOMEDICS INC: Pomerantz Law Files Class Action IQVIA: Faces TCPA Class Action Over Fax Marketing KING COUNTY, WA: Petition for Writ of Certiorari Filed in "Moore" LENDINGCLUB CORP: Files Consolidated Amended Complaint in Veal LEXICON PHARMACEUTICALS: RM LAW Files Class Action Lawsuit MARGOLIN SHOES: Sued for Collecting Biometric Information MDL 2179: Court Dismisses E. Brown's Claims With Prejudice MDL 2492: Asby vs. NCAA over Health & Safety Issues Consolidated MDL 2492: Benditt Suit v. NCAA over Health & Safety Issues Moved MDL 2492: Blunt Suit v. NCAA over Health & Safety Issues Moved MDL 2492: Booker Suit v. NCAA over Concussion Consolidated MDL 2492: Brantley Suit v. NCAA over Concussion Consolidated MDL 2492: Briggs Suit v. NCAA over Concussion Consolidated MDL 2492: Brown Suit v. NCAA over Concussion Consolidated MDL 2492: Chambliss Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated MDL 2492: Davis-Moab Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated MDL 2492: Delts Suit v. NCAA over Health & Safety Issues Moved MDL 2492: Drake Suit v. NCAA over Concussion Consolidated MDL 2492: Flamish Suit v. NCAA over Concussion Consolidated MDL 2492: Hurd Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated MDL 2492: Mackey Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated MDL 2492: Newbern Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated MDL 2492: Phillips Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated MDL 2492: Porras v. NCAA over Health & Safety Issues Consolidated MDL 2492: Rasmussen v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated MDL 2492: Rizzo Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated MDL 2492: Scott Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated MDL 2492: Shadwick Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated MDL 2492: Sunday Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated MDL 2492: Taylor Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated MDL 2492: Williamson Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated MDL 2672: ECF No. 3619 Bid to Remand VWGoA Clean Diesel Suit Denied MDL 2672: ECF No. 3647 Bid to Remand VWGoA Clean Diesel Suit Denied MDL 2672: ECF No. 3654 Bid to Remand VWGoA Clean Diesel Suit Denied MDL 2873: Jackson vs. 3M over Water Contamination Consolidated MDL 2879: Barkley Suit vs Marriott over Data Breach Consolidated MDL 2879: Grady Suit vs Marriott over Data Breach Consolidated MICRO FOCUS: Araiza Labor Class Action Stayed MICRO FOCUS: Court Grants Final Approval of Settlement in Wall Suit MICRO FOCUS: Court Stays Jackson Class Action MICRO FOCUS: Forsyth Class Action Remains Stayed MICRO FOCUS: Securities Class Action in California Stayed MICRO FOCUS: To Seek Dismissal of Securities Suit in New York MIDLAND CREDIT: Court Narrows Claims in Connor FDCA Suit MOLSON COORS: Block & Leviton Files Securities Class Action MONSANTO COMPANY: Allen Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup MONSANTO COMPANY: Cantus Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup MONSANTO COMPANY: Lubbens Sue over Sale of Roundup Products MONSANTO COMPANY: Lumpkins Sue over Sale of Roundup Products MONSANTO COMPANY: Moore Sues over Sale of Roundup Products MONSANTO COMPANY: Perry Sues over Sale of Roundup Products MONSANTO COMPANY: Reeds Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup MONSANTO: Roundup Weed Killer Lawsuit Heads to Trial NASSAU COUNTY, NY: Faces Tax Racial Discrimination Class Action NASSAU COUNTY, NY: Sued Over Discriminatory Tax Assessment NATIONAL DISTRIBUTION: Removes Soward Case to C.D. California NCAA: Lett Sues over Health & Safety of NCAT Student-Athletes NCAA: Talley Sues over Safety of Catawba Student-Athletes NEBRASKA: ACLU Files Class Action Over Prison Conditions NEBRASKA: Court Grants Bid to Quash Subpoenaed Docs in Sabata Suit NEBRASKA: Expert Witnesses Condemn Prison Conditions NEBRASKA: Sabata, et al. Seek to Certify Class & SubClasses NEW ENGLAND MOTOR: Fails to Provide Proper Notice Prior to Layoff NIKE: 1st Hearing in Gender Discrimination Class Action Held NISOURCE INC: Suits over Greater Lawrence Incident in Mediation NUVASIVE INC: No Longer Has Liability in Mauss Securities Suit OTTOMAN RESTAURANT: Juan Sierra Seeks Overtime Pay PACIFIC GAS: York County Sues over Violation of Securities Laws PARAMETRIC SOUND: April 1 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set PENINSULA INFINITI: Unger Sues over Vehicle Order Deposits PROCTER & GAMBLE: Judge Approves Oral B Mouthwash Class Action PRONAI THERAPEUTICS: May 24 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set PROVIDENCE HEALTH: Settlement in Johnson Suit Has Prelim Approval QWEST CORP: Court Denies Bid to Certify Order in Seifert for Review REVEL SYSTEMS: Settlement in Bisaccia FLSA Suit Has Prelim Approval RIT TECHNOLOGIES: Padgett Securities Suit Dismissed w/o Prejudice SAMSUNG: Aug. 6 Washing Machines Claims Filing Deadline Set SARBANAND FARMS: Court Partly Okays Class Notice Plan in Rosas Suit SIDELINE MARKETING: Saul Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages SIX FLAGS: Seasonal Employees' Unpaid OT Class Action Certified SOUTH FLORIDA MGS: Wijesinha Sues over Unauthorized Text Messages SOUTHLAND HVAC: Bolotnikov Sues over Time-Shaving Practices TEXAS: Court Denies Bid for Class Certification in Lynn Suit TIGER BRANDS: No Summons Yet for Listeriosis Class Action TIGER NATURAL: $3.7MM Settlement in Fishman Suit Has Prelim OK TRANSPORTATION AMERICA: Thadal Seeks Payment for Overtime Work TRUEACCORD CORP: Rohrbach Sues over Debt Collection Practices UNITED AIRLINES: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Class Action UNITED STATES: Ex-Trump Campaign Staffer Files Class Action VERYABLE INC: Scott Seeks Overtime Pay for Warehouse Laborers WESTPAC: Faces Class Action Over Irresponsible Lending WW GRAINGER: S. Rangel Granted Leave to File 1st Amended Complaint YRC WORLDWIDE: Court Has Not Named Lead Plaintiff in Lewis Suit [*] Class Actions Target Companies in Agricultural Sector ********* AARGON AGENCY: Warenski Sues over Unwanted Telephone Calls ---------------------------------------------------------- Alan Warenski, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Aargon Agency, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-00313 (D. Nev., Feb. 20, 2019), seeks to recover damages, injunctive relief, and any other available legal or equitable remedies, resulting from the illegal actions of Aargon Agency, Inc. in negligently and/or intentionally contacting Plaintiff on his cellular telephone, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, thereby invading Plaintiff's privacy. The Defendant called Plaintiff's cellular telephone number using a prerecorded voice and an artificial voice. The Defendant placed these calls using an "automatic telephone dialing system." The telephone calls constituted calls that were not for emergency purposes as defined by 47 U.S.C. section 227 (b)(1)(A)(i). The ATDS used by Defendants has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator. The Defendant's calls was placed to a telephone number assigned to a cellular telephone service for which Plaintiff incurred a charge for incoming calls. The telephone calls were unwanted by Plaintiff. The Defendant did not have prior express written consent to place the telephone calls to the Plaintiff, the lawsuit says. Aargon Agency, Inc. provides mercantile and consumer credit reporting services.[BN] Attorneys for Alan Warenski, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated: Michael Kind, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 6069 South Fort Apache Road, Suite 100 Las Vegas, NV 89148 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: mkind@kazlg.com - and - David H. Krieger, Esq. HAINES & KRIEGER, LLC 8985 S. Eastern Avenue, Suite 350 Henderson, NV 89123 Telephone: (702) 880-5554 Facsimile: (702) 385-5518 E-mail: dkrieger@hainesandkrieger.com ABC PHONES: Akrami Seeks Unpaid Wages & OT for Store Managers ------------------------------------------------------------- ZAID AKRAMI, an individual, NICHOLAS BERNARDI, on behalf of themselves and a class of other similarly situated persons, the Plaintiffs, v. ABC PHONES OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC., a Corporation, DOES 1-20, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 19STCV06326 (Cal. Super. Ct., Feb. 26, 2019), seeks damages, restitution and injunctive relief for Defendants' (1) failure to provide meal periods, (2) failure to provide rest periods; (3) failure to pay overtime; (4) failure to pay wages when due; (5) failure to pay wages on termination; (6) failure to provide accurate wage statements; (7) failure to pay meal and rest period premiums; (8) unfair competition; and (8) violations of Private Attorney General Act. The Plaintiffs worked as store managers for ABC. As a store manager, each Plaintiff supervised the operations of a single ABC store and the sales associates employed there. Each store had only one store manager. Store managers like Plaintiffs in turn reported to district managers, who were supervised by regional managers. Accorindg to thr complaint, when ABC did pay a meal period premium to Plaintiffs and other store managers, it did not pay the full amount it owed. Mr. Akrami and Mr. Bemardi were paid on salary plus commission. California law requires that an employee be paid one-hour's wage for any missed meal periods. The wage for Plaintiffs should have included his substantial commission compensation. Instead, ABC paid a meal premium equal to only 1 hour of Plaintiffs' hourly pay excluding commission compensation. As store managers, Plaintiffs were responsible for limiting overtime expenses for their stores. Overtime hours, like missed meal periods, were reported to store managers and district managers through ABC's timekeeping software. Although overtime was rarely scheduled, sales associates often were required to work overtime. Selling cell phones and associated services and accessories takes time. Buying a new phone, starting service, transferring data to a new phone all take time. An average new phone buyer takes a sales associate at least 30 minutes to serve. Customers asked to wait to see a sales associate are likely to leave. If the end of shift conflicted with a sale, the sales associates were required to work overtime. The Paintiffs and other store managers were also required to and did work overtime. The Plaintiffs were not compensated for all their overtime hours. District managers would fix any overtime violations by altering timekeeping records. For example, district managers would shift hours so an employee did not work more than eight hours in a day, so an employee that worked ten hours on Monday would show a time record of eight hours on Monday and two additional hours on Tuesday, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs: Nathan M. Smith, Esq. BROWN, NERI, SMITH AND KHAN LLP 11601 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2080 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (310) 593-9890 Facsimile: (310)593-9980 E-mail: nate@bnsklaw.com AETNA INC: Settles Depression Coverage Class Action for $6.2MM -------------------------------------------------------------- Jacklyn Wille, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Aetna Inc. will pay $6.2 million to be rid of a class action challenging its refusal to cover transcranial magnetic stimulation, a noninvasive procedure used to treat depression. The proposed deal would reimburse about 1,100 patients whose claims were denied without requiring them to submit to reprocessing by the insurer, the parties said in a Feb. 15 motion for court approval. [GN] ALERE INC: June 6 Class Action Settlement Hearing Set ----------------------------------------------------- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS JUDITH GODINEZ, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. ALERE INC., et al., Defendants. Civil Action No. 1:16-cv-10766-PBS NOTICE OF (I) PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT WITH DEFENDANTS; (II) SETTLEMENT FAIRNESS HEARING; AND (III) MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF LITIGATION EXPENSES NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION: Please be advised that your rights may be affected by the above- captioned securities class action (the "Action") pending in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts (the "Court") if, during the period from May 9, 2013 through October 3, 2017, inclusive (the "Class Period"), you purchased, or otherwise acquired the publicly-traded common stock of Alere Inc. ("Alere"). NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT: Please also be advised that the Court-appointed lead plaintiffs Glazer Capital Management, L.P., Glazer Enhanced Fund L.P., Glazer Enhanced Offshore Fund, Ltd., Glazer Offshore Fund, Ltd. and Highmark Limited, in respect of its Segregated Account Highmark Multi-Strategy 2 (collectively, "Glazer") and OFI Asset Management ("OFI" and together with Glazer, "Lead Plaintiffs"), on behalf of themselves and the Settlement Class, have reached a proposed settlement of the Action for $20,000,000 in cash (the "Settlement"). The Settlement, if approved, will resolve all claims in the Action. To be eligible for a payment from the proceeds of the Settlement, you must be a member of the Settlement Class and you must timely complete and return the Claim Form with adequate supporting documentation postmarked no later than, June 26, 2019. You may obtain one from the website maintained by the Claims Administrator for the Settlement, www.AlereSecuritiesLitigation.com, or you may request that a Claim Form be mailed to you by calling the Claims Administrator toll free at 877-261-7472. Please retain all records of your ownership of and transactions in Alere common stock, as they may be needed to document your Claim. If you request exclusion from the Settlement Class or do not submit a timely and valid Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the Net Settlement Fund. Each Settlement Class Member will be bound by the determinations, orders and judgments in this Action relating to the Settlement, whether favorable or unfavorable, unless such person or entity mails or delivers a written Request for Exclusion from the Settlement Class, addressed to Judith Godinez v. Alere Inc., et al. EXCLUSIONS, c/o A.B. Data, Ltd., P.O. Box 173001, Milwaukee, WI 53217. The exclusion request must be received no later than May 7, 2019. You will not be able to exclude yourself from the Settlement Class after that date. Each Request for Exclusion must: (a) state the name, address and telephone number of the person or entity requesting exclusion, and in the case of entities, the name and telephone number of the appropriate contact person; (b) state that such person or entity "requests exclusion from the Settlement Class in Judith Godinez v. Alere Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 1:16-cv-10766-PBS;" (c) state the number of shares of publicly-traded Alere common stock that the person or entity requesting exclusion purchased/acquired and sold during the Class Period (May 9, 2013 through October 3, 2017, inclusive) as well as the dates and prices of each such purchase/acquisition and sale, and provide appropriate documentary proof of such purchases/acquisitions and sales; and (d) be signed by the person or entity requesting exclusion or an authorized representative under penalty of perjury. A Request for Exclusion shall not be valid and effective unless it provides all the information and documentation called for in this paragraph and is received within the time stated above, or is otherwise accepted by the Court. The Settlement Hearing will be held on June 6, 2019 at 2:00 p.m., before the Honorable Patti B. Saris at the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, John Joseph Moakley U.S. Courthouse, 1 Courthouse Way, Courtroom 19, 7th Floor, Boston, Massachusetts 02210. The Court reserves the right to approve the Settlement, the Plan of Allocation, Lead Counsel's motion for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of Litigation Expenses, and/or any other matter related to the Settlement at or after the Settlement Hearing without further notice to the members of the Settlement Class. Any Settlement Class Member who or which does not request exclusion may object to the Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation or Lead Counsel's motion for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of Litigation Expenses. Objections must be in writing. You must file any written objection, together with copies of all other papers and briefs supporting the objection, with the Clerk's Office at the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts at the address set forth below on or before May 7, 2019. You must also mail the papers to Lead Counsel and Defendants' Counsel at the addresses set forth below so that the papers are received on or before May 7, 2019. This Notice contains only a summary of the terms of the proposed Settlement. For more detailed information about the matters involved in this Action, you are referred to the papers on file in the Action, including the Stipulation, which may be inspected during regular office hours at the Office of the Clerk, United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, John Joseph Moakley U.S. Courthouse, 1 Courthouse Way, Suite 2300, Boston, Massachusetts 02210. Additionally, copies of the Stipulation and any related orders entered by the Court will be posted on the website maintained by the Claims Administrator, www.AlereSecuritiesLitigation.com. Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice, should be made to Lead Counsel: Vincent R. Cappucci, Esq. Entwistle & Cappucci LLP 299 Park Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10171 (212) 894-7200 vcappucci@entwistle-law.com Jeffrey S. Abraham, Esq. Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP One Penn Plaza, Suite 2805 New York, NY 10119 (212) 279-5050 jabraham@aftlaw.com Requests for the Notice and Claim Form should be made to: Judith Godinez v. Alere Inc., et al. c/o A.B. Data, Ltd. P.O. Box 173055 Milwaukee, WI 53217 877-261-7472 info@AlereSecuritiesLitigation.com www.AlereSecuritiesLitigation.com By Order of the Court United States District Court District of Massachusetts Dated: March 8, 2019 ANTHEM INC: Settles 401(k) Plan Fee Class Action for $5.1-Bil. -------------------------------------------------------------- Jacklyn Wille, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Anthem Inc. reached a settlement with employees who sued the company over the fees tied to its $5.1 billion 401(k) plan. The settlement would resolve a class action accusing Anthem's retirement plan committee of including high-fee mutual fund share classes in the plan and paying excessive record-keeping fees to Vanguard Group Inc. Terms of the deal haven't yet been made public. The settlement was noted in the court docket Feb. 19 after a hearing before Magistrate Judge Matthew P. Brookman. [GN] APOGEE ENTERPRISES: Robbins Geller to Lead in Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, Murray Mayer, individually and on behalf Case of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Apogee Enterprises, Inc., Joseph F. Puishys, and James S. Porter, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-3097 (NEB/SER) (D. Minn.), Magistrate Judge Steven E. Rau of the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota granted the Retirement Plans' Motion for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff and Approval of Selection of Counsel. Murray Mayer filed a putative class action against the Defendants, alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint alleges the Defendants made false and misleading statements or concealed adverse information regarding Apogee's business, operations, and prospects in order to inflate the stock price. Mayer proposes a class of investors who purchased Apogee common stock between June 28, 2018 and Sept. 17, 2018. He asserts two counts for the proposed class: (1) violation of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 against all defendants, and (2) violation of Section 20(a) by Puishys and Porter. The City of Cape Coral Municipal Firefighters' Retirement Plan and the City of Cape Coral Municipal Police Officers' Retirement Plan ("Retirement Plans") moved for appointment as the Lead Plaintiffs and approval as the Lead Counsel. Neither Mayer nor Defendants have responded to the Retirement Plans' motion. Additionally, no other persons or entities have come forward to request appointment as the Lead Plaintiff. Magistrate Judge Rau notes, however, that Mayer requests in his complaint appointment as the Class Representative and appointment of his attorneys as the Class Counsel. He explains that statutory notice was published on Nov. 5, 2018. The Retirement Plans' motion was timely filed following that notice. Likewise, Mayer filed the complaint which initiated the matter. Thus, both Mayer and the Retirement Plans may be considered as the Lead Plaintiff. Second, according to the Complaint, Mayer purchased 400 shares of Apogee stock on Sept. 17, 2018. The Retirement Plans purchased 8,460 shares on Aug. 14, 2018. Whether considering the Retirement Plans individually or collectively, they hold a much larger financial interest than Mayer by a factor of 10 or 20, respectively. Moreover, the Retirement Plans purchased their shares at a higher price -- $49.73 -- compared to Mayer -- $49.05 -- rendering their loss even higher. Further, the Retirement Plans have held Apogee stock longer than Mayer. Thus, the Judge holds that the Retirement Plans have the largest financial interest in the relief sought by the class. Third, the Judge has no concerns that the Retirement Plans would not adequately represent the interests of the class. The Retirement Plans, as institutional investors, are able and willing to prosecute this action completely and vigorously and have the resources to do so. Indeed, the Retirement Plans are the large, institutional lead plaintiff[s] envisioned by Congress when the PSLRA was enacted. The Retirement Plans interests are similar to those of the class in litigating the alleged securities violations related to the valuation of Apogee stock, that is, the Retirement Plans are driven to seek redress for the losses incurred. Thus, the Retirement Plans satisfy the third requirement. Finally, the Retirement Plans ask for appointment of their counsel of choice as the Lead Counsel. The Judge finds no reason to disturb the Retirement Plans' choice in counsel. Based on the foregoing, Judge Rau granted the Retirement Plans' Motion for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff and Approval of Selection of Counsel. He appointed the Retirement Plans as the Lead Plaintiffs, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as the Lead Counsel, and Zimmerman Reed LLP as the Liaison Counsel. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 26, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/4HedNR from Leagle.com. Murray Mayer, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Garrett D. Blanchfield, Jr. -- g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com -- Reinhardt Wendorf & Blanchfield & Roberta A. Yard -- r.yard@rwblawfirm.com -- Reinhardt Wendorf & Blanchfield. Apogee Enterprises, Inc., Joseph F. Puishys & James S. Porter, Defendants, represented by Kirsten E. Schubert -- schubert.kirsten@dorsey.com -- Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Thomas P. Swigert -- swigert.tom@dorsey.com -- Dorsey & Whitney LLP & Vanessa J. Szalapski -- szalapski.vanessa@dorsey.com -- Dorsey & Whitney LLP. City of Cape Coral Municipal Firefighters' Retirement Plan & City of Cape Coral Municipal Police Officers' Retirement Plan, Movants, represented by Brian C. Gudmundson -- brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com -- Zimmerman Reed, PLLP, Carolyn G. Anderson -- ‎carolyn.anderson@zimmreed.com -- Zimmerman Reed, PLLP & June Pineda Hoidal -- june.hoidal@zimmreed.com -- Zimmerman Reed LLP. ARAMARK: Managers Withdraw Claims in Bonuses Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Harold Brubaker, writing for Philly.com, reports that two Aramark managers filed a federal lawsuit on Feb. 19 in Philadelphia alleging that the food-, building-, and uniform-services giant broke a contract when it decided in February not to pay 2018 bonuses to thousands of lower-level managers across the country. The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of Henry J. Lacher and Michael Ruskowski, seeks nationwide class-action status. Mr. Lacher, of Greenville, S.C., has worked for Aramark as a district facilities manager since 2016. The lawsuit says Mr. Lacher earned a bonus of more than $40,000 in 2018. Aramark owes Mr. Ruskowski, a director of environmental services at a facility in Florida, more than $10,000 for his 2018 bonus, according to the lawsuit [Update on Feb. 21: Mr. Ruskowksi withdrew his claim on Feb. 20 without giving a reason.] Failure by the court to force Aramark to pay the bonuses "would cause a great injustice" to the managers and provide "an unfair financial windfall" to the company, the complaint said. Representing Messrs. Lacher and Ruskowski are lawyers in Dresher, Boston, and Greenville. They argue that Aramark breached a contract by not paying bonuses promised in employment offer letters, which said managers were eligible for bonuses calculated according to a management incentive bonus plan. "We look forward to pursuing this important lawsuit on behalf of managers who worked hard for their annual bonuses and reasonably expected the bonuses to be paid," the lawyers said in a statement provided by lawyer Peter Winebrake of Winebrake & Santillo LLC in Dresher. "For many working families, annual bonuses are an important component of household income. In today's economy, families rely on bonus pay when they make their household budgets. So it's very important that businesses follow through on commitments to pay annual bonuses." The other lawyers listed on the complaint are David E. Rothstein, of Rothstein Law Firm PA, in Greenville, plus Harold Lichten and Shannon Liss-Riordan, of Lichten & Liss-Riordan P.C. in Boston. The lawyers did not make Messrs. Lacher and Ruskowski available for interviews. Aramark has denied any obligation to pay bonuses, which sometimes account for more than 20 percent of a manager's annual compensation. The company employs about 170,000 people in the United States, including 14,000 in Pennsylvania and nearly 6,500 in the Philadelphia region. "Aramark does not have a guaranteed bonus plan, and does have ultimate discretion to determine bonus payouts. Beyond that, we do not comment on pending litigation," the company said on Feb. 19. The company's chief financial officer, Stephen P. Bramlage, said that Aramark did not pay 2018 bonuses to lower-level managers because the company did not meet a profit target set by the firm's board of directors. Lower-level managers, whose bonuses have long been calculated at the local level, were not told at the beginning of the year that the company's overall profitability could determine whether or not they got a bonus, Mr. Bramlage acknowledged. In the fiscal year ended Sept. 28, the company had net income of $568 million on revenue of $15.8 billion. The bonus controversy at Aramark, which is among the largest U.S. providers of food, facilities, and uniform services, started Dec. 3, when the company notified thousands of managers that fiscal 2018 bonuses, "historically paid in December, will be paid in February." That set off alarm bells that the bonuses, which often amount to 15 percent to 25 percent of total compensation, depending on performance, would not be paid. Sure enough, late on Feb. 1, Aramark notified lower-level managers that they would not get their 2018 bonuses because of "great disparity in the financial performance across our U.S. businesses." Instead, the company said, it would make onetime payments ranging from $5,500 to $27,500 for all managers at a particular level using money it saved on taxes because of the 2017 Tax Cut and Jobs Act, which slashed corporate tax rates from 35 percent to 21 percent. Despite the profit shortfall, Aramark's top executives still received their bonuses -- including CEO Eric Foss, whose total compensation in 2018 was $16 million, including $2.6 million in bonus payments. [GN] ARLO TECHNOLOGIES: Kahn Swick Files Securities Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------- Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors that they have until March 25, 2019, to file lead plaintiff applications in a securities class action lawsuit against Arlo Technologies, Inc. (NYSE: ARLO), if they purchased the Company's shares issued in connection with its August 3, 2018 initial public offering ("IPO"). This action is pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. What You May Do If you purchased shares of Arlo and would like to discuss your legal rights and how this case might affect you and your right to recover for your economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact KSF Managing Partner Lewis Kahn toll-free at 1-877-515-1850 or via email -- lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com -- or visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nyse-arlo/ to learn more. If you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this class action, you must petition the Court by March 25, 2019. About the Lawsuit Arlo and certain of its executives are charged with failing to disclose material information during the Class Period, violating federal securities laws. On December 3, 2018, the Company disclosed that shipments of Arlo Ultra, its recently-announced flagship security camera system, were delayed due to "a quality issue with the battery from one of its suppliers" discovered during the final testing phase, and that as a result it lowered its Q4 2018 financial guidance. On this news, the price of Arlo's shares plummeted 42% from its IPO price. The case is Wong v. Arlo Technologies, Inc. et al, 19-cv-00372. Lewis Kahn, Esq. Managing Partner Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC 1100 Poydras St., Suite 3200 New Orleans, LA 70163 Telephone: 1-877-515-1850 Email: lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com [GN] ARLO TECHNOLOGIES: Schall Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm, on Feb. 24 announced he filing of a class action lawsuit against Arlo Technologies, Inc. ("Arlo" or "the Company") (NYSE: ARLO) for violations of Secs. 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Investors who purchased the Company's shares pursuant or traceable to Arlo's Registration Statement and Prospectus (collectively, the "Registration Statement") issued in connection with Arlo's August 3, 2018 Initial Public Offering ("IPO"), are encouraged to contact the firm before March 25, 2019. We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall, or Sherin Mahdavian, of the Schall Law Firm, 1880 Century Park East, Suite 404, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at 424-303-1964, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by email at brian@schallfirm.com. The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member. According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. Arlo's new battery for the Company's Ultra camera systems suffered from flaws and quality issues. These problems resulted in a shipping delay in the Ultra cameras. The delays endangered Arlo's product from reaching the market for the holiday season, and allowed competitors to capitalize on the issue, gaining market share from the Company. At the same time, Arlo's customers experienced problems with the product including excessive battery drain. The battery issues were likely to negatively impact the fourth quarter 2018 financial results. Based on these facts, the Company's Registration Statement was false and materially misleading. When the market learned the truth about Arlo, investors suffered damages. Join the case to recover your losses. The Schall Law Firm -- http://www.schallfirm.com-- represents investors around the world and specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder rights litigation. [GN] ASTEC INDUSTRIES: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Securities Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC, notifies investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Astec Industries, Inc. ("Astec" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: ASTE) and certain of its officers, on behalf of shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired Astec securities between July 26, 2016 and October 22, 2018, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). Such investors are encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's site: www.bgandg.com/aste. This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Complaint alleges that Defendants made materially false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material adverse information regarding Astec's business, operations and prospects, including that its wood pellet plants suffered from significant and costly problems that prevented them from running at their promised production capacity, posing a threat to the Company's pellet plant business, its overall financial performance, and its financial outlook. On July 24, 2018, Astec revealed its 2018 second quarter financial results and announced that it was exiting from its contractual obligations concerning the Highland wood pellet plant in Arkansas "driven by unresolved issues, which inhibited the plant's ability to meet contractual provisions by the date required by the Company's sales contract with Highland." As a result, the Company "agreed to pay $68 million in cash in the aggregate over the course of the next 120 days and forgive approximately $7 million in receivables." Following this news, Astec stock dropped $12.59 per share, or over than 20%, to close at $48.21 on July 24, 2018. Then on January 22, 2019, Astec revealed that its Chief Executive Officer, Benjamin G. Brock, had resigned effective immediately. Following this news, Astec stock dropped $1.86 per share, or roughly 5%, over the next two trading days to close at $35.97 on January 23, 2019. 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/aste 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 Astec, you have until April 2, 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] ASTERIAS BIOTHERAPEUTICS: Lampe Balks at Merger Deal with BioTime ----------------------------------------------------------------- THOMAS LAMPE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. ASTERIAS BIOTHERAPEUTICS, INC., DONALD M. BAILEY, MICHAEL H. MULROY, ANDREW ARNO, STEPHEN L. CARTT, ALFRED D. KINGSLEY, RICHARD T. LEBUHN, ADITY A MOHANTY, NATALE S. RICCIARDI, HOWARD I. SCHER, BIOTIME, INC., PATRICK MERGER SUB, INC., BROADWOOD CAPITAL, INC., BROADWOOD PARTNERS, L.P., NEAL C. BRADSHER, and DOES 1-25, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. RG19007391 (Cal. Super. Ct., Feb. 19, 2019), contends that the Defendants breached their fiduciary duty and/or aided and abetted those breaches of fiduciary duty in connection with the proposed sale of Asterias to BioTime. On November 8, 2018, Asterias issued a press release announcing it had entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger dated November 7, 2018 to sell Asterias to Bio Time. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Asterias stockholders will have the right to receive 0.71 BioTime common shares for each share of Asterias common stock they own. Upon consummation of the Proposed Transaction, BioTime stockholders will own approximately 84% of the combined company and Asterias stockholders will own approximately 16% of the combined company. According to the complaint, BioTime's acquisition of Asterias is a blatantly conflicted transaction that was arranged by and carried out for the sole benefit of Bio Time and its officers and directors, and that is unfair to Asterias' minority stockholders. Asterias was a long-time majority owned and controlled subsidiary of BioTime. Although legally spun off in May 2016, BioTime and its insiders still collectively own over 49% of Asterias' common stock and therefore retain effective control of the Company. This fact is readily conceded in Asterias' public filings. The proposed Transaction is driven by the interests of the Bio Time insiders and affiliates who stand on both sides of the deal, in particular BioTime director Bradsher who is BioTime's largest stockholder and Asterias' second largest stockholder. Despite the Proposed Transaction being a terrible deal for Asterias' minority stockholders they are powerless to stop it given BioTime and Bradsher's control over the Company. Moreover, since Asterias' Board failed to establish the required procedural safeguards to protect the Company's minority stockholders against this conflicted controlled transaction, the burden is on the Board to demonstrate that the Proposed Transaction is entirely fair. The lawsuit contends that the interlocking relationships between Asterias and BioTime and Broadwood are endemic, and render the Proposed Transaction hopelessly conflicted. At least six of the nine members of the Board -- Defendants Donald M. Bailey, Michaef H. Mulroy, Andrew Arno, Stephen L. Cartt, Alfred D. Kingsley and Aditya Mohanty -- suffer from debilitating conflicts of interest and are beholden to Bio Time as either (i) members or former members ofBioTime's board or former senior executives of Bio Time; (ii) board members or senior executives of OncoCyte Corporation ("OncoCyte"), an affiliate of Bio Time and a former subsidiary of Bio Time from August 2016 to November 2017; ( iii) members of the board of AgeX Therapeutics, Inc., which recently spun of from BioTime; or (iv) members of the board of the combined company if the Proposed Transaction is consummated. Additionally, Defendant Richard T. LeBuhn is employed and beholden to Broadwood. As dual fiduciaries suffering from divided loyalties, there is no doubt that these director Defendants are not disinterested and independent of Bio Time, the lawsuit says. Asterias is a biotechnology company focused on developing cell-based therapeutics to treat neurological conditions associated with demyelination and cellular immunotherapies to treat cancer.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: Joel E. Elkins, Esq. WEISS LAW LLP 9107 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 450 Telephone: 310 208-2800 Facsimile: 310 209-2348 E-mail: jelkins@weisslawllp.com AT&T INC: Pomerantz LLP Investigates Securities Fraud Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ Pomerantz LLP is investigating claims on behalf of investors of AT&T Inc. ("AT&T" or the "Company") (NYSE: T). Such investors are advised to contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888-476-6529, ext. 9980. The investigation concerns whether AT&T and certain of its officers and/or directors have engaged in securities fraud or other unlawful business practices. In June 2018, in connection with its acquisition of Time Warner Inc. ("Time Warner"), AT&T issued approximately 1.185 billion new shares of AT&T common stock directly to former shareholders of Time Warner common stock, with each former share of Time Warner common stock issued and outstanding immediately before the acquisition converted into the right to receive 1.437 shares of newly issued AT&T common stock. The Registration Statement issued in connection with the stock issuance touted yearly and quarterly growth trends in AT&T's Entertainment Group segment, particularly Video Entertainment, including quarterly subscriber gains in its DirecTV Now service sufficient to offset any decrease in traditional satellite DirecTV subscribers, such that AT&T was purportedly experiencing an ongoing trend of total video subscriber "Net Additions." It subsequently became clear that AT&T had substantially increased prices while discontinuing promotional discounts for its DirecTV Now service and was consequently losing subscribers. Since the Time Warner acquisition, AT&T's stock price has fallen as low as $27.36 per share, a decline of nearly 16% from the $32.52 price per share on the exchange date for the acquisition. With offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Paris, The Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. [GN] BANK OF AMERICA: Fixes Interest Rates of VRDO Bonds, Suit Says -------------------------------------------------------------- The City of Philadelphia brings an antitrust class action on behalf of itself and a proposed class of issuers of "Variable Rate Demand Obligations" or "VRDOs" -- mainly state and local public entities such as municipalities, agencies, public universities, and hospitals -- against various financial institutions alleging that the Defendant conspired to inflate the interest rates for VRDOs. The lawsuit seeks to recover actual damages, treble damages, punitive damages, declaratory and injunctive relief, costs of suit, pre- and post-judgment interest, and other relief under Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, Sections 4 and 16 of the Clayton Antitrust Act, arguing that the harm inflicted by the Defendants likely amounts to billions of dollars class-wide. VRDOs are tax-exempt bonds with interest rates that are reset on a periodic basis, typically weekly. VDROs are issued by public entities to raise money to fund their operations, as well as critically important infrastructure and public services, such as neighborhood schools, water and wastewater systems, public power utilities, and transportation services. VRDOs are also issued by public entities on behalf of tax-exempt 501(c)(3) organizations -- including schools, community organizations, and charities -- which use the VRDOs to fund their operations and projects. VRDOs allow issuers to borrow money for long periods of time while paying short-term interest rates. Investors find VRDOs attractive because the bonds include a built-in Variable Rate Demand Obligations are also sometimes referred to as Variable Rate Demand Notes ("VRDNs"). To manage the bond, VRDO issuers contract with banks -- like the Defendants -- to act as re-marketing agents ("RMAs"). RMAs have two primary jobs under the remarketing agreements. First, on each reset date, RMAs are required to reset the interest rate of the VRDO at the lowest possible rate that would permit the bonds to trade at par. For the vast majority of VRDOs, the reset date occurs on a weekly basis, typically every Tuesday or Wednesday. Second, when an existing investor exercises the "put" on the bonds and tenders the bond to RMAs, RMAs are required to "remarket" the VRDO to other investors at the lowest possible rate. For these ongoing services, issuers pay RMAs remarketing fees. VRDO issuers are motivated to obtain the lowest interest rates for their debt. The higher the rates that VRDO issuers pay, the more costly it is for them to finance their operations and fund infrastructure projects. If an RMA cannot deliver low rates, issuers have the right to replace that RMA with another one who can. Thus, in a properly functioning market, RMAs would compete against each other for issuers' business by actively working to set the best (i.e., the lowest) possible rate for their customers. Since about late 2015, various government authorities have been investigating the Defendants' practices in the market for VRDO remarketing services, based on facts that were first brought to their attention by a whistleblower. Among other things, the whistleblower alleges that RMAs (including the Defendants) were not actively and individually marketing and pricing VRDOs at the lowest possible interest rates, but instead were setting artificially high rates without regard to the individual characteristics of VRDOs, market conditions, or investor demand. The whistleblower also alleges that RMAs (including the Defendants here) were improperly coordinating the rates they set for VRDOs. These allegations were based on the whistleblower's extensive analysis of data available to the whistleblower due to that person's role in the marketplace the lawsuit says. According to the complaint, as a result of Plaintiff counsel's investigation, Plaintiff has further learned that, as early as February 2008, the Defendants were agreeing among themselves not to compete against each other in the market for remarketing services, and instead to keep VRDO rates artificially high, to the detriment of their customers, including Plaintiff. The Defendants conspired by communicating with each other in person, via telephone, and through electronic communications. The case is captioned THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, the Plaintiff, vs. BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., BANC OF AMERICA SECURITIES LLC, MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INCORPORATED, BARCLAYS BANK PLC, BARCLAYS CAPITAL INC., CITIGROUP, INC., CITIBANK N.A., CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS LIMITED, THE GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP, INC., GOLDMAN SACHS & CO. LLC, JPMORGAN CHASE & CO., JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, THE ROYAL BANK OF CANADA, RBC CAPITAL MARKETS LLC, WELLS FARGO & CO., WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., WACHOVIA BANK, N.A., WELLS FARGO FUNDS MANAGEMENT, LLC, WELLS FARGO SECURITIES LLC, the the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01608-LAK (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 21, 2019). The Bank of America Corporation is an American multinational investment bank and financial services company based in Charlotte, North Carolina with central hubs in New York City, London, Hong Kong, Minneapolis, and Toronto. Bank of America was formed through NationsBank's acquisition of BankAmerica in 1998.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: Daniel L. Brocket, Esq. Steig D. Olson, Esq. Sami H. Rashid, Esq. Thomas Lepri, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN 51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor New York, NY 10010 Telephone: (212) 849-7000 Facsimile: (212) 849-7100 E-mail: danbrockett@qulnnemanuel.com steigolson@quinnemanuel.com samirashid@quinnemanuel.com thomaslepri@quinnemanuel.com - and - Jeremy D. Andersen, Esq. 865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 443-3000 Facsimile: (213) 443-3100 E-mail: jeremyandersen@quinnemanuel.com - and - David H. Wollmuth, Esq. William A. Maher, Esq. Brant Duncan Kuehn, Esq. WOLLMUTH MAHER & DEUTSCH LLP 500 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10100 Telephone: (212) 382-3300 E-mail: dwollmuth@wmd-law.com wmaher@wmd-law.com bkuehn@wmd-law.com BAUSCH HEALTH: Generic Drug Pricing Antitrust Class Suit Ongoing ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bausch Health Companies Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 20, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company and its subsidiaries continue to defend the Generic Pricing Antitrust Class Action. On June 22, 2018, the Company's subsidiaries, Oceanside Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Oceanside"), Bausch Health US, LLC (formerly Valeant Pharmaceuticals North America LLC) ("Bausch Health US"), and Bausch Health Americas, Inc. (formerly Valeant Pharmaceuticals International) ("Bausch Health Americas"), were added as defendants in putative class action multidistrict antitrust litigation entitled In re: Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation, pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (MDL 2724, 16-MD-2724). The complaint was filed by direct purchaser plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated. The plaintiffs seek damages under federal antitrust laws. Separate complaints by other plaintiffs which had been consolidated in the same multidistrict litigation did not name the Company or any of its subsidiaries as a defendant. The direct purchaser plaintiffs assert that the Company's subsidiaries purportedly entered into a conspiracy to fix, stabilize, and raise prices, rig bids and engage in market and customer allocation for generic pharmaceuticals. Specific claims against the Company's subsidiaries relate to generic pricing of the Company's metronidazole vaginal product as part of an alleged overarching conspiracy among generic drug manufacturers. Prior to the Company's subsidiaries being added to the case, some of the defendants moved to dismiss certain of the consolidated amended complaints. On October 16, 2018, the Court granted in part and denied in part these defendants' motions to dismiss. On December 21, 2018, the direct purchaser plaintiffs filed an amended complaint alleging similar claims against the Company's subsidiaries as the earlier-filed putative class action complaint. On December 20, 2018, three direct purchaser plaintiffs that had opted out of the putative class filed an amended complaint in the MDL that added Oceanside, Bausch Health US and Bausch Health Americas, alleging similar claims as the direct purchaser plaintiffs' putative class action complaint. The current deadline for filing motions to dismiss is February 21, 2019. Discovery against the Company's subsidiaries has commenced. Bausch Health said, "The Company intends to vigorously defend this matter." Bausch Health Companies Inc. develops, manufactures, and markets a range of pharmaceutical, medical device, and over-the-counter (OTC) products primarily in the therapeutic areas of eye health, gastroenterology, and dermatology. The company operates through four segments: Bausch + Lomb/International, Salix, Ortho Dermatologics, and Diversified Products. The company was formerly known as Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. and changed its name to Bausch Health Companies Inc. in July 2018. Bausch Health Companies Inc. was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in Laval, Canada. BAUSCH HEALTH: Leave to Appeal Afexa-Related Class Suit Dismissed ----------------------------------------------------------------- Bausch Health Companies Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 20, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the Supreme Court of Canada has dismissed the application for leave to appeal, with costs, in the lawsuit over Cold-FX(R). On March 9, 2012, a Notice of Civil Claim was filed in the Supreme Court of British Columbia which sought an order certifying a proposed class proceeding against the Company and a predecessor, Afexa Life Sciences Inc. ("Afexa") (Case No. NEW-S-S-140954). The proposed claim asserted that Afexa and the Company made false representations respecting Cold-FX(R) to residents of British Columbia who purchased the product during the applicable period and that the proposed class has suffered damages as a result. On November 8, 2013, the plaintiff served an amended notice of civil claim which sought to re-characterize the representation claims and broaden them from what was originally claimed. On December 8, 2014, the Company filed a motion to strike certain elements of the plaintiff's claim for failure to state a cause of action. In response, the plaintiff proposed further amendments to its claim. The hearing on the motion to strike and the plaintiff's amended claim was held on February 4, 2015. The Court allowed certain additional subsequent amendments, while it struck others. The hearing to certify the class was held on April 4-8, 2016 and, on November 16, 2016, the Court issued a decision dismissing the plaintiff's application for certification of this action as a class proceeding. On December 15, 2016, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal in the British Columbia Court of Appeal appealing the decision to dismiss the application for certification. The plaintiff filed its appeal factum on March 15, 2017 and the Company filed its appeal factum on April 19, 2017. The appeal hearing was held on September 19, 2017 and, on April 30, 2018, the British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. On June 29, 2018, the plaintiff filed leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada in this matter and, on February 7, 2019, the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the application for leave to appeal with costs. Bausch Health Companies Inc. develops, manufactures, and markets a range of pharmaceutical, medical device, and over-the-counter (OTC) products primarily in the therapeutic areas of eye health, gastroenterology, and dermatology. The company operates through four segments: Bausch + Lomb/International, Salix, Ortho Dermatologics, and Diversified Products. The company was formerly known as Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. and changed its name to Bausch Health Companies Inc. in July 2018. Bausch Health Companies Inc. was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in Laval, Canada. BAUSCH HEALTH: Third-Party Payors' Class Suit Remains Stayed ------------------------------------------------------------ Bausch Health Companies Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 20, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the case entitled, In re Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. Third-Party Payor Litigation, No. 3:16-cv-03087, remains stayed. Between May 27, 2016 and September 16, 2016, three virtually identical actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against the Company and various third-parties, alleging claims under the federal Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO") on behalf of a putative class of certain third-party payors that paid claims submitted by Philidor for certain Company branded drugs between January 2, 2013 and November 9, 2015. On November 30, 2016, the Court entered an order consolidating the three actions under the caption In re Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. Third-Party Payor Litigation, No. 3:16-cv-03087. A consolidated class action complaint was filed on December 14, 2016. The consolidated complaint alleges, among other things, that the Defendants committed predicate acts of mail and wire fraud by submitting or causing to be submitted prescription reimbursement requests that misstated or omitted facts regarding (1) the identity and licensing status of the dispensing pharmacy; (2) the resubmission of previously denied claims; (3) patient co-pay waivers; (4) the availability of generic alternatives; and (5) the insured's consent to renew the prescription. The complaint further alleges that these acts constitute a pattern of racketeering or a racketeering conspiracy in violation of the RICO statute and caused plaintiffs and the putative class unspecified damages, which may be trebled under the RICO statute. The Company moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint on February 13, 2017. On March 14, 2017, other defendants filed a motion to stay the RICO class action pending the resolution of criminal proceedings against Andrew Davenport and Gary Tanner. On August 9, 2017, the Court granted the motion to stay and entered an order staying all proceedings in the case and accordingly terminating other pending motions. Bausch Health said, "The Company believes these claims are without merit and intends to defend itself vigorously." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Bausch Health Companies Inc. develops, manufactures, and markets a range of pharmaceutical, medical device, and over-the-counter (OTC) products primarily in the therapeutic areas of eye health, gastroenterology, and dermatology. The company operates through four segments: Bausch + Lomb/International, Salix, Ortho Dermatologics, and Diversified Products. The company was formerly known as Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. and changed its name to Bausch Health Companies Inc. in July 2018. Bausch Health Companies Inc. was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in Laval, Canada. BHI ENERGY: Conditional Certification of Klapatch Class Allowed --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, DENNIS KLAPATCH and RICHARD LEE, individually and for others similarly situated, v. BHI ENERGY I POWER SERVICES, LLC, Civil Action No. 18-11581-RGS (D. Mass.), Judge Richard G. Stearns of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts allowed the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification. Klapatch and Lee are the Plaintiffs in the putative class action directed against BHI. They allege that BHI misclassified them as exempt from the overtime requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the Connecticut Minimum Wage Act ("CMWA"), and then failed to pay them overtime as required under the FLSA and CMWA. BHI provides temporary staffing to nuclear power plants across the country. BHI employs salaried (exempt) and hourly (non-exempt) workers through whom it provides clients with engineering, construction, electrical, management, and supervisory services. Clients, in turn, pay BHI based on the total number of employee hours worked. BHI hired Klapatch in February of 2015 and Lee in January of 2017 to work in various power plant positions. Klapatch worked in Minnesota and Connecticut, while Lee worked in Texas. They allege that as hourly employees, they were improperly paid a standard hourly rate, including for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. On July 26, 2018, they initiated the lawsuit, claiming that BHI had failed to pay them and other employees the required overtime. On Dec. 28, 2018, they moved for conditional certification pursuant to the FLSA, which BHI opposed on Jan. 25, 2019. The Plaintiffs seek conditional certification of a collective action consisting of all employees of BHI who were, at any point in the past 3 years, paid "straight time for overtime" and staffed to a power plant. Judge Stearns finds that the Plaintiffs have made a plausible case that they are similarly situated employees of BHI who suffered from a common unlawful practice, namely not being paid overtime. He, therefore, accepts as a conditional collective action class all employees of BHI who were, at any point in the past 3 years, paid "straight time for overtime" and staffed to a power plant. The Plaintiffs also request that the Court adopts their proposed notice and consent form, opt-in procedures, and schedule, all of which BHI opposes. The Judge, instead, directs the parties to file a joint proposal (to the extent an agreement is possible) by March 22, 2019, for an appropriate mechanism for providing notice to the putative class members with a clearly stated option to elect to opt-in. For the foregoing reasons, Judge Stearns allowed the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 22, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/N8cUl4 from Leagle.com. Dennis Klapatch, Individually and for Others Similarly Situated, & Richard Lee, Individually and for Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Michael Josephson -- mjosephson@mybackwages.com -- Josephson Dunlap Law Firm, pro hac vice, Philip J. Gordon -- pgordon@gordonllp.com -- Gordon Law Group, Richard M. Schreiber -- rschreiber@mybackwages.com -- Josephson Dunlap Law Firm, pro hac vice & Kristen M. Hurley -- khurley@gordonllp.com -- Gordon Law Group. BHI Energy I Power Services, LLC, Defendant, represented by James M. Nicholas -- jnicholas@foley.com -- Foley & Lardner LLP, Donald W. Schroeder -- dschroeder@foley.com -- Foley & Lardner LLP & Erin C. Horton -- ehorton@foley.com -- Foley & Lardner LLP. BIG FISH: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Gambling Practices ------------------------------------------------------------ Alex Halverson, writing for SeattlePI, reports that a class action lawsuit was filed against Seattle-based Big Fish Games alleging they used illegal gambling practices in their mobile apps. The complaint, filed Feb. 11 U.S. District Court in Western Washington, said that Big Fish Games, Inc., an app developer that makes "free-to-play" online casino games, used practices similar to casinos to "reap huge profits" while never paying out anything of monetary value. The games start players off with a free, finite set of virtual chips they can use for slot machine and other casino-style games, the complaint said. After the chips run out, players can't play anymore unless they buy chips through in-app offers or micro-transactions that start at 99 cents but can run up to hundreds or thousands of dollars. In "social casino" games like the ones made by Big Fish Games, there's no way to accumulate more chips unless you win them by wagering chips you already have, or by buying more, the lawsuit said. This is unlike other mobile games that give players the option of a paywall or to wait a certain amount of time to play after losing lives or credits. The complaint said developers of the games "have begun exploiting the same psychological triggers as casino operators." They referenced gaming publications like PC Gamer that wrote about the similarities of micro-transactions in video games to casinos. Some that download the app don't spend a dime on the game, but the complaint said the company depends on certain customers known as "whales," similar to how casinos operate. "Whales," as they're described in the complaint, make up a minuscule portion of the total players, but together can provide almost half of the revenue for the games. The complaint said the games also contribute to gambling addicts who migrate from casino game apps to online gambling, through a study that linked the high revenue of "free-to-play" games and the low number of gamers who actually purchase in-app items. Big Fish Games' premier product is "Big Fish Casino, and brings in an annual revenue of over $100 million, and all of their casino games combined bring in revenues of over $200 million," the complaint said. When Big Fish Games was owned by Churchill Downs Inc., the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the company's practices constituted illegal gambling under Washington state law. "As we allege in our complaint, the mobile gambling industry, by design, preys on consumers by bringing additive gambling opportunities directly into their homes," Christopher Dore, an attorney representing the plaintiff said in an email. "We look forward to proving that companies are aware that many of their customers fall victim to these gambling games, with significant negative impacts on their lives financially and otherwise." The class action said it represents Florida resident Manasa Thimmegowda individually, and on behalf of all individuals similarly situated, who lost money wagering on games of chance developed by the defendants. The lawsuit accuses Big Fish Games, Inc., their owners Aristocrat Technologies Inc. and their previous owners Churchill Downs Incorporated, of operating illegal online casino games. Big Fish Games have not yet have not yet submitted a reply in the case. [GN] BOOZ ALLEN: Faces No-Poach Class Action in Ohio ----------------------------------------------- Jennifer Carsen, writing for HR Dive, reports that an antitrust class-action complaint filed Feb. 7 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio alleged a group of U.S. government contractors entered into illegal no-poaching agreements with each other. The class of current and former employees seeks damages and injunctive relief (Hunter v. Booz Allen Hamilton Holding Corp., Inc et al., No. 2:19-CV-411 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 7, 2019)). The plaintiffs, who all worked at the Joint Intelligence Operations Center Europe in Molesworth, England, claim their employers agreed not to hire each other's employees, in violation of U.S. antitrust laws including the Sherman Act and Clayton Act. The group alleged these actions had the effect of eliminating competition for skilled labor, restricting employee mobility and suppressing wages for the purpose of increasing profits. According to the plaintiffs, contractors routinely hired workers employed by subcontractors that were not parties to the no-poach agreement. In one instance, the complaint said, a supervisor for one contractor told workers not to attend another contractor's job fair because "[t]he no poaching agreement is still in place so they are not allowed to talk to you." The plaintiffs also argued they were "essentially Defendants' captives" due to the need for workers to hold jobs in order to maintain their work visas and due to the fact that workers would need to pay relocation expenses if they chose to quit their jobs, among other factors. "Defendants knew this, and Defendants unlawfully exploited their power over workers," the complaint said. "This made Defendants' illegal agreement even more profitable." Dive Insight: No-poach agreements are an active area of enforcement for the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), with employee advocates arguing that such agreements unfairly stack the deck in favor of employers. In October 2016, DOJ and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued a guidance document for HR stating that it is illegal for employers to agree to fix wages, or to not hire one another's workers. The agencies also reserved the right to pursue criminal charges against companies and individuals involved in those activities. Last year, in the first no-poach settlement since the release of the 2016 guidance, DOJ and FTC declined to pursue criminal charges, but only because the no-poach agreements had been ended prior to the agencies' announcement of their intent to pursue criminal charges. Notably for employers, DOJ said in the settlement that no-poaching agreements are illegal even if they don't ultimately have any anticompetitive effects -- they are per se illegal, according to Mark Krotoski, Partner at Morgan, Lewis and Bockius. Franchise owners, including Jiffy Lube and several fast-food restaurants, have also been among those targeted in the no-poach crackdown. Unless employers are engaging in a joint venture, merger or acquisition, they should not share sensitive information about employee salaries and recruitment, experts previously told HR Dive, even with employers they don't consider direct competitors. Additionally, employers may want to conduct an "antiitrust audit" of their contracts to ensure they don't contain any potentially unlawful provisions, even if they are not enforced. Compliance efforts also may need to involve a clear reporting component so employees know who to speak with if they suspect a problem. [GN] BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Resolves 35,500 Mesh-Related Suits ----------------------------------------------------- Boston Scientific Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that of the approximately 50,000 cases and claims related to transvaginal surgical mesh products, approximately 35,500 have met the conditions of settlement and are final. As of February 5, 2019, approximately 53,000 product liability cases or claims related to transvaginal surgical mesh products designed to treat stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse have been asserted against the company. The pending cases are in various federal and state courts in the U.S. and include eight putative class actions. There were also fewer than 25 cases in Canada, inclusive of one certified and three putative class actions and fewer than 25 claims in the United Kingdom. Generally, the plaintiffs allege personal injury associated with use of our transvaginal surgical mesh products. The plaintiffs assert design and manufacturing claims, failure to warn, breach of warranty, fraud, violations of state consumer protection laws and loss of consortium claims. Over 3,100 of the cases have been specially assigned to one judge in state court in Massachusetts. On February 7, 2012, the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation (MDL) established MDL-2326 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia and transferred the federal court transvaginal surgical mesh cases to MDL-2326 for coordinated pretrial proceedings. During the fourth quarter of 2013, the company received written discovery requests from certain state attorneys general offices regarding its transvaginal surgical mesh products. Boston Scientific said, "We have responded to those requests. As of February 5, 2019, we have entered into master settlement agreements in principle or are in the final stages of entering one with certain plaintiffs' counsel to resolve an aggregate of approximately 50,000 cases and claims. These master settlement agreements provide that the settlement and distribution of settlement funds to participating claimants are conditional upon, among other things, achieving minimum required claimant participation thresholds. Of the approximately 50,000 cases and claims, approximately 35,500 have met the conditions of the settlement and are final. All settlement agreements were entered into solely by way of compromise and without any admission or concession by us of any liability or wrongdoing." Boston Scientific Corporation develops, manufactures, and markets medical devices for use in various interventional medical specialties worldwide. It operates through three segments: MedSurg, Rhythm and Neuro, and Cardiovascular. The company was founded in 1979 and is headquartered in Marlborough, Massachusetts. BRISTOW GROUP: April 15 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set ---------------------------------------------------------- Law Offices of Howard G. Smith reminds investors of the April 15, 2019 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the class action filed on behalf of investors that purchased Bristow Group Inc. ("Bristow" or the "Company") (NYSE: BRS) securities between February 8, 2018 and February 12, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Bristow investors have until April 15, 2019 to file a lead plaintiff motion. Investors suffering losses on their Bristow investments are encouraged to contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to discuss their legal rights in this class action at 888-638-4847 or by email to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com. On February 11, 2019, the Company disclosed that it "did not have adequate monitoring control processes in place related to non-financial covenants within certain of its secured financing and lease agreements." The same day, the Company announced that it had terminated its agreement to purchase Columbia Helicopters, Inc. On this news, the Company's share price fell $1.22 per share, or nearly 40%, to close at $1.84 per share on February 12, 2019, on unusually heavy trading volume. Then on February 12, 2019, the Company filed a Form 8-K with the SEC to announce: (i) that it had terminated its agreement to purchase Columbia Helicopters, Inc.; and (ii) that Jonathan E. Baliff would retire as Chief Executive Officer and would resign from the Board of Directors, effective February 28, 2019. On this news, the Company's share price fell $0.64, or nearly 35%, to close at $1.20 per share on February 13, 2019, thereby injuring investors. The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that the Company lacked adequate monitoring processes related to non-financial covenants within its secured financing and lease agreements; (2) that, as a result, the Company could not reasonably assure compliance with certain non-financial covenants; (3) that, as a result, the Company was reasonably likely to breach certain agreements; (4) that, as a result, the Company had understated its short-term debt; (5) the required corrections would materially impact financial statements; (6) that there was a material weakness in the Company's internal controls over financial reporting; and (7) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. If you purchased shares of Bristow during the Class Period you may move the Court no later than April 15, 2019 to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff if you meet certain legal requirements. To be a member of the Class you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the Class. If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Howard G. Smith, Esquire, of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020 by telephone at (215) 638-4847, toll-free at (888) 638-4847, or by email to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or visit our website at www.howardsmithlaw.com. [GN] CANADA DRY: Settles False Advertising Class Action for $11MM ------------------------------------------------------------ Tracy Armbruster, writing for News4JAX, reports that Ginger ale drinkers could be owed some money after the makers of Canada Dry reached a pair of settlements in class-action lawsuits. The company agreed to pay $11 million to settle claims of false advertising over whether the company's drinks were "made from real ginger." Real ginger is known to provide health benefits, such as stomach calming. In addition to the cash payout, the ginger ale class-action settlement also requires Canada Dry to change product labels to include words such as "taste," "extract" or "flavor" if it continues to represent "ginger" as an ingredient, according to cdgasettlement.com. To cash in on the class-action lawsuit, you must have bought Canada Dry Ginger Ale between Jan. 1, 2013, and Dec. 19, 2018. If you do not have receipts, you can get up to $5.20 per household. If you have proof of purchase, you can get up to $40 per household. The deadline to submit a claim form is March 19. To learn more about the settlement or submit a claim, go to cdgasettlement.com. [GN] CBL & ASSOCIATES: Faces Class-Action Lawsuit -------------------------------------------- Michael Burke, writing for Madison.com, reports that a 21-state class-action lawsuit scheduled for trial in April alleges that CBL & Associates, the owner of East Towne Mall and West Towne Mall in Madison, deliberately overcharged its commercial tenants for electricity for years. The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Florida, claims that CBL's tenants have been victim to a "criminal enterprise" in which CBL knowingly overcharged its mall tenants for electricity by up to 100 percent. The lawsuit was filed in March 2016 by Hagens Berman and Buckner+Miles. A federal judge in Florida certified the class of small business tenants, denied CBL's motion for summary judgment. The trial is expected to start on April 1 or very soon thereafter at the U.S. District Courthouse for the Middle District of Florida in Fort Myers. CBL, which is publicly held and based in Chattanooga, Tenn., also is the former owner of Regency Mall in Racine, which it acquired in 2000. The current owners, Hull Property Group, bought Regency as a "failed mall" in December 2016, along with two other CBL malls. Hull has since put millions of dollars into renovations of Regency Mall and has also since bought the former Boston Store property, which was not part of the original purchase, although the mall continues to struggle with closures similar to other malls. CBL spokeswoman Stacey Keating said on Feb. 6, "We believe this case is without merit and we will defend ourselves vigorously. We have already filed an appeal with the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals." The allegations According to the 32-page complaint, CBL promised its small-business tenants that their electricity charges would not exceed what CBL was charged by local public utilities for the electricity the tenants actually used. But the suit states that CBL breached its own lease agreements, and state law, by inflating both the electricity rates charged and the amounts of electricity used by tenants. In U.S. District Court Judge Paul A. Magnuson's recent order certifying the class, he called CBL's objections "specious" and denied CBL's attempts to strike expert witnesses chosen by attorneys representing the mall tenants. In Magnuson's order he wrote that CBL hired Valquest to prepare estimates of electricity usage for its tenants, and based its tenant electricity charges on those surveys. "According to plaintiff, CBL and Valquest intentionally engaged in a scheme to inflate both the usage and the rate for that usage," the judge wrote. "Indeed, plaintiff cites to evidence that Valquest and CBL knew what they were doing was wrong and potentially illegal." The lawsuit details alleged racketeering and a conspiracy between CBL and Valquest, in violation of the Racketeer Influence and Corrupt Organization (RICO) Act, as well as violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act and Florida's Civil Remedies for Criminal Practices Act. The suit seeks relief for all individuals and entities that leased mall space from and paid monthly energy charges to CBL and whose electricity charges were determined based on a Valquest survey.[GN] CGY & J CORP: Wang Seeks Minimum Wage and Overtime Pay ------------------------------------------------------ Guo Hua Wang, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. CGY & J Corp. d/b/a Kitaro, and Guo Yong Chen, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01772 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 26, 2019), alleges that the Defendants have willfully and intentionally committed widespread violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law by engaging in a pattern and practice of failing to pay their employees, including Plaintiff, compensation for all hours worked, minimum wage, and overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 each workweek. According to the complaint, the Defendants knew that the nonpayment of minimum wage, overtime pay, spread of hours pay, and failure to provide the required wage notice at the time of hiring and to furnish wage statements with every payment of wages would financially injure Plaintiff and similarly situated employees and violate state and federal laws. From approximately 2004 to present, the Defendants hired Plaintiff to work as a food delivery person for their restaurant, namely Kitaro located at 510 Amsterdam Avenue, New York, NY 10024, the lawsuit says. Guo Yong Chen owns the stock of CGY & J Corp. and manages and makes all business decisions including but not limited to the amount in salary the employees will receive and the number of hours employees will work; and being amongst the ten largest corporate shareholders, Guo Yong Chen is individually responsible for unpaid wages under Section 630 of the New York Business Corporation Law.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: Ge Qu, Esq. HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 136-20 38 th Ave. Suite 10G Flushing, NY 11354 Telephone: (718) 353-8588 Facsimile: (718) 353-6288 E-mail: rqu@hanglaw.com CHINA AGRITECH: Pierce Atwood Attorney Discusses Court Ruling ------------------------------------------------------------- Joshua D. Dunlap, Esq. -- jdunlap@pierceatwood.com -- of Pierce Atwood LLP, in an article for The National La Review reports that the Supreme Court meant what it said in China Agritech, Inc. v. Resh -- that is the primary lesson from the First Circuit's January 30th decision in In re Celexa and Lexapro Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation. The Supreme Court observed in China Agritech that its prior ruling in American Pipe & Constr. Co. v. Utah "tolls the statute of limitations during the pendency of a putative class action, allowing unnamed class members to join the action individually or file individual claims if the class fails." China Agritech went on to hold that "American Pipe does not permit the maintenance of a follow-on class action past expiration of the statute of limitations." The First Circuit, in In re Celexa and Lexapro, rejected a plaintiff's attempt to read China Agritech narrowly. In re Celexa and Lexapro involved consolidated prescription drug marketing cases. Plaintiffs asserted RICO and state-law claims, alleging that defendants fraudulently promoted antidepressant drugs for uses the FDA had not approved -- referred to as "off-label" uses. The same defendants had previously been named in a qui tam action that was unsealed in February 2009. One of the plaintiffs, Painters, and Allied Trades District Council 82 Health Care Fund ("Painters"), sought certification of two classes of third party-payors that had paid for or reimbursed off-label prescriptions of Celexa or Lexapro. The district court denied class certification. On appeal, the First Circuit -- while brushing aside the district court's concerns about individual issues of causation and injury -- nevertheless affirmed the denial of class certification. Judge Kayatta, writing for a unanimous panel, concluded that Painters had put forward evidence that could establish causation and injury on a class-wide basis. He went on, however, to find that the class action was time-barred. The Court first found that Painters' individual claims were timely. The Court concluded that the four-year statute of limitations was subject to the discovery rule and held that, as a matter of law, the limitations period began running in March 2009 after the qui tam action was unsealed. Painters' claim was timely because the running of the limitations period was stayed for eight months by a prior class action (the "N.M. UFCW case"). Because Painters was a putative class member of that prior class action, American Pipe tolling applied to its claim during the pendency of the N.M. UFCW case. Even though Painters' own claim was timely, the Court nevertheless held that Painters' class action was not. As Judge Kayatta wrote, China Agritech clarified that [American Pipe] tolling has limits: While a putative class member may join an existing suit or file an individual action upon denial of class certification, a putative class member may not commence a class action anew beyond the time allowed by the untolled statute of limitations. The Court refused to limit China Agritech to situations in which class certification was denied in the earlier-filed class action. Painters had argued that, unlike China Agritech, there was no substantive ruling on class certification in the N.M. UFCW case that had preceded Painters' own action. The First Circuit, however, held that the decision in China Agritech stood for the broad proposition that the "tolling effect of a motion to certify a class applies only to individual claims, no matter how the motion is ultimately resolved. To hold otherwise would be to allow a chain of withdrawn class-action suits to extend the limitations period forever." The Court, therefore, affirmed the denial of class certification. After In re Celexa and Lexapro, there is no doubt that China Agritech is no paper tiger in the First Circuit. The rule is clear: a class action does not toll the statute of limitations for subsequent class actions. [GN] CIMAREX ENERGY: Faces Suits over Resolute Energy Merger ------------------------------------------------------- Cimarex Energy Co. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 20, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company has been named as a defendant in several putative class action lawsuits related to its agreement and plan of merger to acquire Resolute Energy Corporation. In 2018, the company made various oil and gas property acquisitions for $26 million. Additionally, the company entered into an agreement and plan of merger to acquire Resolute Energy Corporation in a cash and stock transaction valued at a total purchase price of approximately $1.6 billion, including cash, stock, and the assumption of Resolute's long-term debt. As of January 25, 2019, Resolute, the directors of Resolute, and in two of the cases, Cimarex, Merger Sub 1, and Merger Sub 2, have been named as defendants in five purported stockholder class actions challenging the adequacy of the disclosures to Resolute stockholders made in the proxy statement/prospectus concerning the merger. Three complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, one complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, and one complaint was filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. Additional lawsuits arising out of the merger may be filed in the future. Cimarex Energy said, "There can be no assurance that defendants will be successful in the outcome of the pending or any potential future lawsuits. A preliminary injunction could delay or jeopardize the completion of the merger." Cimarex Energy Co. operates as an independent oil and gas exploration and production company primarily in Oklahoma, Texas, and New Mexico. Cimarex Energy Co. was founded in 2002 and is headquartered in Denver, Colorado. COMMUNITY HEALTH: Settles 2014 Data Breach Class Action for $4.5MM ------------------------------------------------------------------ Matthew M. Shatzkes, Esq. -- mshatzkes@sheppardmullin.com -- of Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP, in an article for The National Law Review, reports that Community Health System, one of the largest health systems in the United States, has agreed to pay $4,500,000 to settle claims made against it arising from a 2014 data breach. The data breach, believed to be caused by malware installed by Chinese hackers on CHS's computer system, exposed the names, dates of birth, addresses, telephone numbers, and Social Security numbers of approximately 4.5 million patients. Following the breach, numerous lawsuits were filed by patients seeking compensation for the theft of their personal information. The lawsuits were consolidated into a single lawsuit. The settlement, which still must be approved by the Judge overseeing the case, provides for two different payments to patients affected by the breach. Individuals who can prove they incurred out-of-pocket expenses as a result of the breach and/or can show evidence in time lost securing their accounts, can claim up to $250. Individuals who have suffered identity theft or fraud can recover up to $5,000. Putting It Into Practice: This case is a reminder for entities to review their data protection mechanisms. Class action lawsuits by individuals affected by breaches are becoming more common, and could significantly increase the financial penalties and exposure applicable to companies that store patient information. [GN] CONAGRA BRANDS: Inflated Stock Price, Pension Fund Says ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit against ConAgra Brands seeks to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Exchange Act claims allege that certain Defendants engaged in a fraudulent scheme to artificially inflate the Company's stock price. The case is a federal securities class action against Conagra and certain of its officers and/or directors, and the underwriters for violations of the federal securities laws. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Conagra common stock from June 27, 2018 through December 19, 2018, inclusive. Under the Securities Act, defendants are strictly liable for the material misstatements in the Offering Documents for the SPO, and these claims specifically exclude any allegations of knowledge or scienter. The Securities Act claims also expressly exclude and disclaim any allegation that could be construed as alleging fraud or intentional or reckless misconduct. The complaint alleges that in Conagra's Offering Documents and throughout the Class Period, Defendants failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's financial well-being, including the troubled acquisition of Pinnacle Foods, Inc. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts, false and misleading statements and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's common stock, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages. In January 2013, Conagra acquired Ralcorp Holdings, Inc., a manufacturer of private branded food, for $6.8 billion including debt. After trying and failing to address executional shortfalls and customer service issues, Conagra divested its Private Brands business in February 2016 to TreeHouse Foods for $2.7 billion, recognizing a substantial loss. Less than two years later, Conagra was again acquiring another large publicly traded food service company. On June 27, 2018, Conagra announced the acquisition of Pinnacle, in a cash and stock transaction valued at approximately $10.9 billion (the "Transaction"). Conagra represented the merger as a combination of two "growing portfolios" and "a no brainer of a deal" that would enhance Conagra's multi-year transformation plan and expand its presence and capabilities in its most strategic categories, including frozen foods and snacks. Conagra highlighted their due diligence of the deal, the similar cultures and work ethics of the two companies, and the tremendous synergies of the deal. Specifically, Defendants represented that the Company was acquiring "a portfolio of complementary, leading brands" as "the Pinnacle team has done an absolutely phenomenal job driving innovation and growth here, and that meant a lot to us." In addition, Defendants represented that the Company had a "proven track record of executing strategic transactions" and "will be able to implement a smooth integration process," as "we've been very clear-eyed from the beginning" of the Transaction. On or about October 9, 2018, in order to partially finance the pending acquisition of Pinnacle, Defendants effectuated a secondary public offering of 16,312,057 shares of common stock, priced at $35.25 per share. In connection with the SPO, Defendants issued the materially false and/or misleading Offering Documents. The Company received net proceeds of approximately $612 million after underwriters exercised their option of an additional 1,631,206 shares of Conagra common stock. Unbeknownst to shareholders, however, Conagra and its management were aware or recklessly disregarded that the Transaction would not result in anywhere near the sort of benefits that Defendants had publicly represented. Just a few weeks after the closing of the merger, on December 20, 2018, Conagra stunned the market by releasing its third quarter 2018 results, as well as an update on the performance of the newly merged company, which revealed that Pinnacle's performance had been much worse than Defendants had previously represented. In addition, Defendants revealed that Pinnacle's three leading brands had "suffered sales and distribution losses" in 2018, and accounted "for the vast majority of Pinnacle's current challenges" due to self-inflicted subpar innovation and executional missteps. As a result of the disclosure, on December 20, 2018, Conagra's stock price fell $4.81 per share to $24.28, or nearly 17%, wiping out over $2.3 billion in Conagra's market capitalization. On the next trading day, Conagra's stock declined an additional $2.13 per share or 8.8%. In fact, in three trading sessions, Conagra stock declined $8.13 or 30%, to close at $20.96 on December 24, 2018. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's common stock, Plaintiff and the other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, the lawsuit says. The case is captioned WEST PALM BEACH FIREFIGHTERS' PENSION FUND, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. CONAGRA BRANDS, INC., SEAN M. CONNOLLY, DAVID S. MARBERGER, ROBERT G. WISE, ANIL ARORA, THOMAS K. BROWN, STEPHEN G. BUTLER, JOIE A. GREGOR, RAJIVE JOHRI, RICHARD H. LENNY, RUTH ANN MARSHALL, CRAIG P. OMTVEDT, GOLDMAN SACHS & CO. LLC, J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INCORPORATED, MIZUHO SECURITIES USA LLC, MUFG SECURITIES AMERICAS INC., WELLS FARGO SECURITIES, LLC, BARCLAYS CAPITAL INC., BTIG, LLC, HSBC SECURITIES (USA) INC., SCOTIA CAPITAL (USA) INC., BNP PARIBAS SECURITIES CORP., RABO SECURITIES USA, INC., RBC Capital Markets, LLC , and SUNTRUST ROBINSON HUMPHREY, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01323 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 22, 2019). Conagra manufactures and markets packaged foods for retail consumers, restaurants and institutions. The Company has a portfolio of well-known food brands including Reddi-wip, Hunt's, Healthy Choice, Slim Jim and Orville Redenbacher's. Conagra is based in Chicago, Illinois.[BN] Counsel for the Plaintiff: Carol V. Gilden, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 190 South LaSalle Street / Suite 1705 Chicago, IL 60603 IL ARDC: 6185530 Telephone: (312) 357-0370 Facsimile: (312) 357-0369 E-mail: cgilden@cohenmilstein.com - and - Steven B. Singer Joseph E. White, III Lester R. Hooker SAXENA WHITE P.A. 10 Bank Street, 8th Floor White Plains, New York 10606 Telephone: (914) 437-8551 E-mail: ssinger@saxenawhite.com jwhite@saxenawhite.com lhooker@saxenawhite.com CONNECTICUT: Court Dismisses Without Prejudice Silva Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Judge Michael P. Shea of the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut dismissed without prejudice the case, GERALD J. SILVA, Plaintiff, v. D.K. WILLIAMS, Defendant, Case No. 3:18-CV-1770 (MPS) (D. Conn.). On Oct. 26, 2018, Silva, a pro se inmate currently confined at the Federal Correctional Institution ("FCI Danbury") in Danbury, Connecticut, brought a civil rights action under Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, against the warden of FCI Danbury, D.K. Williams. Inmates do not know the amount of payment they will receive until the end of each pay period. As a result, they are unable to plan their living situations at FCI Danbury and are often unable to purchase necessary items through the commissary. The practice of garnishing inmate wages at FCI Danbury has been ongoing since 2015, but it has become more persistent and egregious over the past year. Many inmates have voiced their concerns about the situation, but they fear reprisal if they file suit in the courts. Inmates have also alleged that the defendant and her staff have engaged in "illegal price gouging" of products in the commissary. The Plaintiff seeks monetary and injunctive relief against the Defendant for "garnishing inmates' wages" and "price gouging" items in the prison commissary. He brings the action against the Defendant in her individual and official capacities under Bivens. He requests that the lawsuit be designated as a class action for all inmates at FCI Danbury who have been affected by the garnishing of wages and/or the "price gouging" of items in the commissary. Judge Shea holds that the case must be dismissed because the Plaintiff fails to allege facts showing standing, and he also does not state a plausible constitutional claim of "price gouging." First, the plaintiff fails to establish standing to bring suit because he never alleges that he suffered any cognizable injury as a result of the Defendant's conduct. Second, with respect to the Plaintiff's allegation that the Defendant and her staff are "price gouging" items in the commissary, he has failed to state a plausible claim. Nonetheless, the Judge will dismiss the case without prejudice and permit the Plaintiff to file an amended complaint. In particular, the Judge has not been able to identify any regulation that permits the BOP to withhold earned wages for the purpose of balancing F.C.I. Danbury's budget. In other words, absent a regulation or statute permitting withholding of already earned wages to balance the budget, it appears that BOP officials do not have meaningful discretion in paying federal inmates wages already earned. Accordingly, because it would not be futile, the Judge will allow the Plaintiff to file an amended complaint. Based on the foregoing, Judge Shea dimissed without prejudice the instant action for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. Section 1915A. The Clerk is directed to close the case. Nonetheless, within 30 days of the Order, the Plaintiff may file an amended complaint in which he attempts to address the defects identified in the ruling or otherwise to plead a cognizable claim. In particular, the Plaintiff may replead his claim under Bivens for the "garnishing" of his earned wages while employed at FCI Danbury, as well as any other cognizable claim he deems necessary. Failure to file an amended complaint by the deadline will result in dismissal of the case. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 22, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/7UK6SH from Leagle.com. Gerald J. Silva, Plaintiff, pro se. CONTINENTAL RESOURCES: $19.8MM Obligation to be Satisfied in 2019 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Continental Resources, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the remaining loss accrual for the settled class action suit initiated by Billy J. Strack and Daniela A. Renner, totals $19.8 million at December 31, 2018, representing additional settlement obligations expected to be satisfied in 2019. In November 2010, a putative class action was filed in the District Court of Blaine County, Oklahoma by Billy J. Strack and Daniela A. Renner as trustees of certain named trusts and on behalf of other similarly situated parties against the Company. The Petition, as amended, alleged the Company improperly deducted post-production costs from royalties paid to plaintiffs and other royalty interest owners from crude oil and natural gas wells located in Oklahoma. The plaintiffs alleged a number of claims, including breach of contract, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and other claims and sought recovery of compensatory damages, interest, punitive damages and attorney fees on behalf of the proposed class. The Company denied all allegations and denied that the case was properly brought as a class action. On June 11, 2015, the trial court certified a "hybrid" class requested by plaintiffs over the objections of the Company. The Company appealed the trial court's class certification order. On February 8, 2017, the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals reversed the trial court's ruling on certification and remanded the case for further proceedings. After certification of the case as a class action was reversed the parties engaged in settlement negotiations. Due to the uncertainty of and burdens of litigation, on February 16, 2018 the Company reached a settlement in connection with this matter. Under the settlement, the Company initially expected to make payments and incur costs associated with the settlement of approximately $59.6 million and accrued a loss for such amount at December 31, 2017. On April 3, 2018, the District Court of Garfield County, Oklahoma preliminarily approved the settlement and set certain dates applicable to the settlement including the timing and content of Notice, Opt-out, and Objections to Class Members. On June 12, 2018, the court entered an order formally approving the settlement, which is not subject to appeal. In the third quarter of 2018, the Company made payments totaling $45.8 million to satisfy the majority of its obligations under the settlement. The Company's remaining loss accrual for this matter totals $19.8 million at December 31, 2018, representing additional settlement obligations expected to be satisfied in 2019. The accrual for this matter is included in "Accrued liabilities and other" on the consolidated balance sheets. Continental Resources, Inc. explores for, develops, and produces crude oil and natural gas properties primarily in the north, south, and east regions of the United States. Continental Resources, Inc. was founded in 1967 and is based in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. CONTROL GROUP: Hunt et al Sue over Sale of Sealed Criminal Records ------------------------------------------------------------------ Tyanna Walker, Samantha Sanchez, Terry Hunt, Joe Cardenas, Vladimir Tejada, Roberto Huerta, and Michelle Rice on behalf of themselves and of others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. The Control Group Media Company, Inc., Instant Checkmate, Inc., Instant Checkmate, LLC, TruthFinders, Inc. and TruthFinders, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-00347-LAB-JLB (S.D. Cal., Feb. 20, 2019), targets the Defendants' willful publication and sale of consumers' expunged, expuncted, and/or sealed criminal records in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and Texas Business and Commerce Code. According to the complaint, the Defendants' misconduct was discovered during multiple audits conducted regarding the Defendants by a startup expungement service in Central Texas, which correctly feared that the Defendants continued to publish and report expunged and sealed records even after receiving legal notice -- which included individualized court orders -- to permanently remove these records. The Plaintiffs in this case come from a group of at least 24 clients of the Texas expungement service whose expunged or sealed records still appear on the Defendants' websites and apps despite receipt of court-order notices as early as July 2017 demanding their immediate removal. That a single, startup expungement service provider encountered such a high frequency of improper publications, given its limited client base and operational history, and that it encountered violations of such length, certainly indicates there is a massive, class-action-sized problem before the Court, the lawsuit contends. About one in three Americans has a criminal record of some kind and 87% of employers, 80% of landlords, and 66% of colleges screen for criminal records. Background checking has become an intractable barrier to the fundamental needs of life for huge numbers of people with criminal records and has become a significant cause of poverty in this country, a phenomenon known as collateral consequences. To alleviate this burden, most states have expanded their expungement or sealing laws in the last decade. For instance, Texas passed its own protective provisions in 2013, which is today codified in Texas Business and Commerce Code sections 109.001–.007. These state laws provide additional remedies and protections to those found in the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act, which has long forbidden the publication and reporting of expunged or sealed records. Despite the efforts of Congress and state legislatures, however, the commercial screening industry's continued publication and reporting of expunged cases threatens to undermine the whole strategy of broadening expungement as a remedy for the harm of collateral consequences. Defendants operate background investigation websites that allow users to search for consumers based on several categories, including name, date of birth, and state of residence. Those reports can contain numerous items of information, including but not limited to age, employer, current and previous addresses, phone numbers, email addresses, arrest and conviction records, the identity of relatives, property records, marriage and divorce records, social media accounts, and lawsuit records.[BN] Attorney for the Plaintiffs: Stephanie R. Tatar, Esq. TATAR LAW FIRM, APC 3500 West Olive Avenue, Suite 300 Burbank, CA 91505 Telephone: (323) 744-1146 Facsimile: (888) 778-5695 E-mail: Stephanie@thetatarlawfirm.com - and - David George, Esq. BAKER WOTRING LLP 700 JP Morgan Chase Tower 600 Travis Street Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: 713-980-1700 Facsimile: 713-980-1701 E-mail: dgeorge@bakerwotring.com - and - Kevin D. Green, Esq. CONSUMER ADVOCATE OFFICE OF KEVIN GREEN 800 Brazos St. Suite 1309 Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (512) 695-3613 E-mail: kevingreen68@gmail.com - and - Thomas J. Lyons Jr., Esq. CONSUMER JUSTICE CENTER P.A. 367 Commerce Court Vadnais Heights, MN 55127 Telephone: (651) 770-9707 Facsimile: (651) 704-0907 E-mail: tommy@consumerjusticecenter.com COOK COUNTY COURT: Court Dismisses Nisi Suit Without Prejudice -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge John J. Tharp, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, dismissed without prejudice the case, MARY NISI, Plaintiff, v. DOROTHY BROWN, in her official capacity as Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Defendant, Case No. 18 C 4861 (N.D. Ill.). Nisi filed the putative class action lawsuit alleging that Defendant Brown, in her official capacity as Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County, violated the Driver's Privacy Protection Act ("DPPA"), by improperly disclosing personal information derived from motor vehicle records. In March 2005, Mary Nisi received a speeding ticket which was sent to the Clerk for processing. The ticket included identifying information such as Nisi's gender, date of birth, home address, and driver's license number. According to the complaint, the Clerk allows members of the public to access that personal information (and the personal information of all others who receive traffic citations in Cook County) through electronic computer terminals located at all Cook County courthouses. Nisi filed suit in 2018, alleging that such conduct violates the DPPA. The complaint seeks both injunctive and monetary relief. The DPPA prohibits state departments of motor vehicles ("DMVs") and their employees from disclosing or making available to a third-party personal information contained in an individual's motor vehicle record. State DMVs with policies of noncompliance are subject to civil penalties imposed by the U.S. Attorney General, while "persons" in violation of the statute may be sued civilly. Nisi maintains that the Clerk is a "person" who has violated the statute and filed suit under Section 2724(a). The Clerk moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that it is barred by the Eleventh Amendment and fails to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). Judge Tharp concludes that Nisi's claim against the Clerk, acting in her official capacity, must be dismissed -- not because it is barred by the Eleventh Amendment (a question the Court does not reach) but because the DPPA does not provide a private right of action against the Clerk in her official capacity. Section 2724 of the DPPA provides an express private right of action against any "person" who knowingly discloses personal information from a motor vehicle record for an unauthorized purpose. Under the statute, "person" means "an individual, organization or entity, but does not include a State or agency thereof." This carve out raises the question of whether the Clerk, a state official acting in her official capacity, constitutes the "State" for purposes of DPPA liability. Because the DPPA does not provide a private cause of action under which Nisi can sue the Clerk, the Judge dismissed her complaint. The dismissal is without prejudice, however, because while a plaintiff must proffer some legal basis to support her cause of action, the failure to identify a viable legal theory is not immediately fatal. That said, it is not immediately apparent that the facts Nisi alleges state a claim which could proceed under a different legal theory. Nisi should file an amended complaint, then, only if she can in good faith present a theory of liability under which she could sue the Clerk in federal court. If she can do so, the amended complaint must be filed by March 22, 2019. Failure to file by that date will result in dismissal with prejudice. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 22, 2019 Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at https://is.gd/rAtwiW from Leagle.com. Mary Nisi, On behalf of herself and the class described below, Plaintiff, represented by Roger Zamparo, Jr. -- roger@zamparolaw.com -- Zamparo Law Group, P.C. & Steven J. Uhrich -- steven@zamparolaw.com -- Zamparo Law Group, P.C. Dorothy Brown, in her official capacity as Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Defendant, represented by Megan Kelly McGrath, Cook County State's Attorney Office & Sisavanh Baccam Baker, Cook County States Attorney's Office Daley Ctr.. COSTCO WHOLESALE: 9th Cir. Flips Summ. Judgment in Korolshteyn Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, TATIANA KOROLSHTEYN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION and NBTY, INC., Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 17-56435 (9th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Defendants, affirmed the denial of the Daubert motions, and remanded for further proceedings. Korolshteyn and the other putative class action Plaintiffs appeal an adverse summary judgment entered by the district court in favor of Costco and NBTY and a denial of Daubert motions in a diversity class action. The class alleges that appellees violated California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL") and Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA") by falsely advertising the benefits of TruNature Ginkgo Biloba with Vinpocetine. Both parties had introduced expert testimony supporting their respective claims and the district court denied the Appellants' Daubert motions to exclude the testimony of three of the appellees' expert witnesses. The Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1291. It reviews summary judgment de novo. It reviews a district court's admission of scientific evidence for abuse of discretion. Because the district court did not have the benefit of a recently released decision of the Court, the Court reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment, affirmed the denial of the Daubert motions, and remanded for further proceedings. Based on the recently released opinion, the Court finds that the district court erred in granting summary judgment by failing to apply the appropriate substantive evidentiary standard of a preponderance to claims brought under California's consumer protection laws. The appropriate evidentiary standard must be applied in determining whether a factual dispute must be submitted to a jury. The district court applied a tougher, conclusive standard, holding that the existence of scientific studies supporting the alleged benefits of the product precluded the appellants from conclusively proving falsity in the Appellees' product labeling. The Court therefore remanded so that the district court may apply the newly clarified standard. It also finds that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Apellants' Daubert motions and admitting the testimony of the Appellees' expert witnesses. Concerns regarding the admission of "shaky" evidence are resolved through the trial process through vigorous cross-examination, presentation of contrary evidence, and careful instruction on the burden of proof. The Court affirmed the district court's denial of the Appellants' Daubert motions. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 20, 2019 Memorandum is available at https://is.gd/vHGdAc from Leagle.com. COVERALL NORTH: Appeal from Arbitration Ruling in Gonzalez Nixed ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, SERGIO GONZALEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COVERALL NORTH AMERICA, INC., Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 17-55787 (9th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit dismissed Gonzalez's appeal from the district court's order granting Coverall's motion to compel arbitration. Coverall is a franchisor of commercial cleaning businesses. Gonzalez is one of Coverall's franchisees. In November 2016, Gonzalez filed a class action against Coverall, alleging that he and other similarly situated individuals are misclassified as independent contractors, rather than employees of the Appellee, in violation of California law. Coverall subsequently filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration pursuant to the parties' "Janitorial Franchise Agreement." The district court granted Coverall's motion to compel arbitration and stayed further proceedings pending a ruling by the arbitrator as to whether the parties' dispute was subject to arbitration. Thereafter, rather than proceeding to arbitration, Gonzalez filed a motion to dismiss his claims, which the district court granted without prejudice. Having secured the dismissal of his complaint, Gonzalez pursued an appeal in the Court under 28 U.S.C. Section 1291. Gonzalez seeks reversal of the district court's order granting Coverall's motion to compel arbitration. Coverall argues that the Court lacks jurisdiction to hear Gonzalez's appeal because the Plaintiff's attempt to manufacture appellate jurisdiction violates the final-judgment rule, the Federal Arbitration Act's explicit bar on interlocutory appeals, and prevailing case law. The Court agrees, and dismissed Gonzalez's appeal for lack of jurisdiction. It explains that the district court's order directing the parties to arbitration and staying further proceedings is not an appealable, final decision under 28 U.S.C. Section 1291. To appeal from the arbitration order, Gonzalez was obliged to obtain the district court's permission for an interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b). It is undisputed, however, that Gonzalez failed to seek or secure the requisite certification from the district court. It makes no difference that Gonzalez then secured a voluntary dismissal without prejudice. A plaintiff's voluntary dismissal without prejudice is ordinarily not a final judgment from which the plaintiff may appeal. Indeed, Gonzalez made clear that he wished voluntarily to dismiss his case only so that he could immediately seek review of the stay order. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 22, 2019 Memorandum is available at https://is.gd/2S5LGZ from Leagle.com. CVS HEALTH: Pomerantz Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP is investigating claims on behalf of investors of CVS Health Corporation ("CVS" or the "Company") (NYSE: CVS). Such investors are advised to contact Robert S. Willoughby, Esq. -- rswilloughby@pomlaw.com -- or 888-476-6529, ext. 9980. The investigation concerns whether CVS and certain of its officers and/or directors have engaged in securities fraud or other unlawful business practices. On February 20, 2019, CVS announced the Company's fourth quarter and full year financial and operating results and provided 2019 full year guidance. CVS advised investors that adjusted earnings in 2019 would be $6.68 to $6.88 per share, compared with the $7.36 average of market estimates, citing rising costs and poor results related to the Company's 2015 acquisition of Omnicare, Inc. Following this news, CVS's stock price fell $5.66 per share, or 8.1%, to close at $64.22 on February 20, 2019. With offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Paris, The Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. [GN] DAF: Hauliers Urged to Join Class Action Against Truckbuilders -------------------------------------------------------------- Alexander Whiteman, writing for The Loadstar, reports that five major truck manufacturers which participated in an illegal pricing cartel are facing a claim of at least GBP1.5billion in damages from operators. Led by the Road Haulage Association (RHA), more than 7,800 truck operators are part of a class action lawsuit against Daf, Daimler, Iveco, Man and Volvo. The legal action follows a 2016 European Commission ruling that the five manufacturers had coordinated on pricing and colluded on passing on the costs of compliance with emission rules. They were fined more than EUR2.9billion. The RHA claims that between 1997 and 2011, they had sold 650,000 new trucks with the price of each truck inflated by GBP6,000. RHA chief executive Richard Burnett said: "The truck cartel operated for 14 years and it's likely that its impact on truck prices continued even beyond that. "We're working tirelessly to ensure that truck operators who suffered get the compensation they deserve." On Feb. 7, it published a legal notice ahead of a Competition Appeal Tribunal in June, which will decide if the RHA will be appointed to represent claimants and can proceed. The association is confident and says more truck operators are signing up to the class action on a daily basis. The director of RHA solicitor Backhouse Jones, Steven Meyerhoff, said: "If the RHA is appointed, this will be the first case of its kind under the new regime. It will mark an important shift towards ensuring that those who suffer financial harm at the hands of competition law infringers get the redress they deserve." Some estimates suggest that between 60,000 and 90,000 operators may be eligible to claim. The RHA noted this was the first fully funded group claim against the truck manufacturers and called on any affected UK truck owners to join the action. There will be no cost for hauliers to be part of the group claim. [GN] DELTA AIR LINES: Bid to Dismiss Donoff Class Suit Underway ---------------------------------------------------------- Delta Air Lines, Inc., is seeking dismissal, for failure to state a claim, of the second amended complaint in the case styled as Judith Marilyn Donoff v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., Case No. 9:18-cv-81258-DMM (S.D. Fla.). Donoff has filed her response. Delta also filed a joint motion for extension of time of class certification deadline and to extend time for the airline to respond to the class certification motion. Meanwhile, United Airlines, Inc., a non-party in the case captioned as JUDITH MARILYN DONOFF, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DELTA AIR LINES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00458 (N.D. Ill., Jan. 22, 2019), has asked the Court in Illinois to quash a subpoena for corporate representative deposition served on the Defendant by Plaintiff in the case styled as Judith Marilyn Donoff v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., Case No. 9:18-cv-81258-DMM (S.D. Fla.). According to United, the Subpoena presents a transparent attempt by Plaintiff's counsel, Leon Cosgrove, to circumvent the discovery stay imposed by Judge Alonso in a separate lawsuit brought against United by Leon Cosgrove in the Northern District of Georgia. Indeed, another court has already determined that a similar discovery subpoena by Leon Cosgrove in the JetBlue Suit was issued for an "improper purpose." Dolan v. JetBlue Airways Corp., No. 4:18-MC-023-A, Dkt. 11 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 15, 2018). The Plaintiff can obtain the information she seeks in the Subpoena through discovery from Delta in the Delta Suit. To the extent the Plaintiff seeks information regarding United's travel insurance-related knowledge, practices, and competitive strategies, that discovery is not relevant to Plaintiff's claims against Delta. There is no need in the Delta Suit for testimony by United, a non-party. Finally, the Plaintiff's Subpoena would require United to disclose commercially sensitive information to United's competitor, Delta, and -- based on the Plaintiff's counsel's articulated position that discovery materials designated as confidential in the Delta Suit may be publicly filed -- to the public. The class action seeks to redress injuries that Plaintiff and a class of consumers have suffered, and will continue to suffer, as a result of Delta's deceptive practices relating to its presentation of the charge for trip insurance sold on its website. On its website, and throughout the online process of purchasing a flight ticket and trip insurance, Delta leaves the consumer with the false impression that the charge for trip insurance is a pass-through fee, i.e., a fee that is passed on to another entity and for which Delta has no financial interest. The net impression of Delta's representations and omissions to its consumers is that, when consumers purchase a trip insurance policy, the funds to cover the policy's cost ultimately go to an independent third-party insurance company, whom Delta identifies as the company brokering the policy for sale to the consumer. Indeed, Delta identifies this third-party insurance company as "the licensed producer," or insurance agent, for the trip insurance policies. In reality, and despite lacking a license to broker insurance policies, Delta retains or ultimately receives an undisclosed kickback from every policy sold. Delta Air Lines, Inc. provides scheduled air transportation for passengers and cargo in the United States and internationally. Delta Air Lines, Inc. was founded in 1924 and is headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia. [BN] Non-party United Airlines, Inc. is represented by: Sondra A. Hemeryck, Esq. Tal C. Chaiken, Esq. RILEY SAFER HOLMES & CANCILA LLP 70 West Madison Street, Suite 2900 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 471-8700 Facsimile: (312) 471-8701 E-mail: shemeryck@rshc-law.com tchaiken@rshc-law.com DIGNITY HEALTH: Removes Van Bebber Case to E.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- Dignity Health removes case, ROBERT VAN BEBBER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated and the general public, the Plaintiffs, v. DIGNITY HEALTH, a California Corporation; dba MERCY MEDICAL CENTER - MERCED, and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, the the Defendants, Case No. 17-CV-02311 (Filed: July 13, 2017), from the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Merced, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on Feb. 22, 2019. The Eastern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-at-00149 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff brings claims for: (1) violations of Business and Professions Code section 17200; (2) unpaid wages and penalties pursuant to Labor Code sections 218, 226, 510, 511, 1194, and 1998 (i.e. overtime); (3) failure to pay all wages due to illegal rounding; (4) failure to provide meal breaks; (5) failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements pursuant to Labor Code section 226; (6) violations of the Private Attorneys General Act (Labor Code sections 2698-2699); (7) failure to provide rest periods; and (8) failure to pay wages of terminated or resigned employees. Attorneys for the Defendants: Richard J. Simmons, Esq. Tracey A. Kennedy, Esq. Daniel J. McQueen, Esq. Limore Torbati, Esq. Natasha L. Domek, Esq. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP 333 South Hope Street, 43rd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-1422 Telephone: 213 620 1780 Facsimile: 213 620 1398 DIPLOMAT PHARMACY: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, is continuing to investigate potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of Diplomat Pharmacy, Inc. (NYSE: DPLO) resulting from allegations that Diplomat may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. On February 22, 2019, Diplomat announced it would be postponing the release of its fourth quarter and full-year 2018 financial results because it will need to record a non-cash impairment charge related to its PBM business. More specifically, Diplomat disclosed the "charge is expected to be equal to a significant portion of the PBM's Goodwill and Definite-lived intangible assets, which total approximately $630 million as of December 31, 2018, prior to impairment charges." Diplomat also withdrew its preliminary 2019 full-year outlook provided in January. On this news, shares of Diplomat fell $7.59 per share, or over 56%, to close at $5.87 per share on February 22, 2019. Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action lawsuit to recover losses suffered by Diplomat investors. If you purchased shares of Diplomat, please visit the firm's website at https://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1515.html to join the class action. You may also contact Phillip Kim or Zachary Halper of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via email at pkim@rosenlegal.com or zhalper@rosenlegal.com. Rosen Law Firm -- http://www.rosenlegal.com-- represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 3 each year since 2013. [GN] DISCOVER FINANCIAL: Renewed Class Cert. Bid in B&R Suit Underway ---------------------------------------------------------------- Discover Financial Services said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 20, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the parties in the case, B&R Supermarket, Inc., d/b/a Milam's Market, et al. v. Visa, Inc. et al., anticipate that class briefing will be complete by spring of 2019. On March 8, 2016, a class action lawsuit was filed against the Company, other credit card networks, other issuing banks, and EMVCo in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (B&R Supermarket, Inc., d/b/a Milam's Market, et al. v. Visa, Inc. et al.) alleging violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act, California’s Cartwright Act, and unjust enrichment. Plaintiffs allege a conspiracy by defendants to shift fraud liability to merchants with the migration to the EMV security standard and chip technology. Plaintiffs assert joint and several liability among the defendants and seek unspecified damages, including treble damages, attorneys' fees, costs and injunctive relief. On July 15, 2016, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that includes additional named plaintiffs, reasserts the original claims, and includes additional state law causes of action. On September 30, 2016, the court granted the motions to dismiss for certain issuing banks and EMVCo but denied the motions to dismiss filed by the networks, including the Company. In May 2017, the Court entered an order transferring the entire action to a federal court in New York that is presiding over certain related claims that are pending in the actions consolidated as MDL 1720. On March 11, 2018, the Court entered an order denying the plaintiffs' motion for class certification without prejudice to filing a renewed motion. Plaintiffs filed a renewed motion for class certification on July 16, 2018. Plaintiffs filed their opening merits expert reports on October 5, 2018, and the parties anticipate that class briefing will be complete by spring of 2019. Discover Financial said, "The Company is not in a position at this time to assess the likely outcome or its exposure, if any, with respect to this matter, but will seek to vigorously defend against all claims asserted by the plaintiffs." Discover Financial Services, through its subsidiaries, operates as a direct banking and payment services company in the United States. The company was incorporated in 1960 and is based in Riverwoods, Illinois. E TRADE FINANCIAL: Rayner Class Action Now Closed ------------------------------------------------- E Trade Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 20, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the putative class action lawsuit initiated by Ty Rayner is now closed. On March 26, 2015, a putative class action was filed in the US District Court for the Northern District of California by Ty Rayner, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, naming E TRADE Financial Corporation and E TRADE Securities as defendants. The complaint alleges that E TRADE breached a fiduciary duty and unjustly enriched itself in connection with the routing of its customers' orders to various market-makers and exchanges. The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages, declaratory relief, restitution, disgorgement of payments received by the Company, and attorneys' fees. On April 2, 2017, the District Court dismissed the complaint in Rayner. The plaintiffs in Rayner appealed and the oral argument was heard by the Second Court of Appeals on December 7, 2017. On July 31, 2018, the Second Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal of the complaint. The class plaintiff did not appeal and the matter is now closed. E Trade Financial Corporation, a financial services company, provides brokerage and related products and services for traders, investors, stock plan administrators and participants, and registered investment advisors (RIAs). E Trade Financial Corporation was founded in 1982 and is headquartered in New York, New York. E TRADE FINANCIAL: Schwab Class Action Now Closed ------------------------------------------------- E Trade Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 20, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the putative class action lawsuit by Craig L. Schwab is now closed. On July 23, 2016, a putative class action was filed in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York by Craig L. Schwab, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, naming E TRADE Financial Corporation, E TRADE Securities, and former Company executives as defendants. The complaint alleges that E TRADE violated federal securities laws in connection with the routing of its customers' orders to various market-makers and exchanges. The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages, declaratory relief, restitution, disgorgement of payments received by the Company, and attorneys' fees. By stipulation both matters are now venued in the Southern District of New York. On July 10, 2017 the Court dismissed the Schwab claims without prejudice. The plaintiff in Schwab filed a third amended complaint on August 9, 2017, which E TRADE moved to dismiss. On January 22, 2018, the Court dismissed all claims with prejudice. Plaintiffs have appealed to the Second Court of Appeals on October 23, 2018. On October 26, 2018, the Second Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal of the complaint. The class plaintiff did not appeal and the matter is now closed. E Trade Financial Corporation, a financial services company, provides brokerage and related products and services for traders, investors, stock plan administrators and participants, and registered investment advisors (RIAs). E Trade Financial Corporation was founded in 1982 and is headquartered in New York, New York. ELI LILLY: Glucagon Pricing Class Lawsuit in New Jersey Ongoing --------------------------------------------------------------- Eli Lilly and Company said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company continues to defend a lawsuit seeking class action status in the U.S. District Court of New Jersey relating to glucagon pricing. The company, along with Novo Nordisk and various pharmacy benefit managers, are named as defendants in a lawsuit seeking class action status in the U.S. District Court of New Jersey relating to glucagon pricing. The plaintiffs are seeking damages under various state consumer protection laws, the Federal RICO Act, the Sherman Act, and other state and federal laws. Eli Lilly said, "We believe this lawsuit is without merit and are defending against it vigorously." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Eli Lilly and Company discovers, develops, manufactures, and markets pharmaceutical products worldwide. The company operates in two segments, Human Pharmaceutical Products and Animal Health Products. Eli Lilly and Company was founded in 1876 and is headquartered in Indianapolis, Indiana. ELI LILLY: Still Defends 535 Byetta Product Liability Lawsuits -------------------------------------------------------------- Eli Lilly and Company said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company continues to face approximately 535 Byeta product liability-related suits. The company was named as a defendant in approximately 535 Byetta product liability lawsuits in the U.S. involving approximately 795 plaintiffs. Approximately 59 of these lawsuits, covering about 316 plaintiffs, are filed in California state court and coordinated in a Los Angeles Superior Court. Approximately 475 of the lawsuits, covering about 480 plaintiffs, are filed in federal court, the majority of which are coordinated in a multi-district litigation (MDL) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. Three lawsuits, representing approximately five plaintiffs, have also been filed in various state courts. Approximately 525 of the lawsuits, involving approximately 760 plaintiffs, contain allegations that Byetta caused or contributed to the plaintiffs' cancer (primarily pancreatic cancer or thyroid cancer); most others allege Byetta caused or contributed to pancreatitis. In addition, two suits involving approximately nine plaintiffs allege that Byetta caused or contributed to renal injuries and one case alleges that Byetta caused or contributed to ampullary cancer. The federal and state trial courts granted summary judgment in favor of the company and its co-defendants on the claims alleging pancreatic cancer. The plaintiffs appealed those rulings. In November 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the U.S. District Court's grant of summary judgment based on that court's discovery rulings and remanded the cases for further proceedings. In November 2018, the California Court of Appeal reversed the state court's grant of summary judgment based on that court's discovery rulings and remanded for further proceedings. Eli Lilly said, "We are aware of approximately 20 additional claimants who have not yet filed suit. These additional claims allege damages for pancreatic cancer or thyroid cancer. We believe these lawsuits are without merit and are defending against them vigorously. Eli Lilly and Company discovers, develops, manufactures, and markets pharmaceutical products worldwide. The company operates in two segments, Human Pharmaceutical Products and Animal Health Products. Eli Lilly and Company was founded in 1876 and is headquartered in Indianapolis, Indiana. ENOVA FINANCIAL: Faces Biometrics Privacy Class Action ------------------------------------------------------ Bree Gonzales, writing for Cook County Record, reports that a woman has filed a class action lawsuit against Enova Financial Holdings Inc., claiming the company violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. Sandra Diaz filed a complaint, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, on Feb. 7 in Cook County Circuit Court, alleging Enova unlawfully collected, stored and used her personal biometric data. According to the complaint, the plaintiff was required by Enova to use a biometric time clock to keep track of her attendance. The complaint alleges Enova improperly disclosed employees' data, including Ms. Diaz's, to out-of-state third-party vendors. Ms. Diaz claims the company failed to destroy workers' biometric data when the initial purpose for obtaining such data had been satisfied or within three years of employee's last interactions with them. The plaintiff alleges Enova never provided workers with nor ever asked them to sign a written release permitting the company to obtain and store their biometrics. The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks damages including statutory or liquidated damages, injunctive relief, attorney's fees and costs, and other relief. Under the statute, the company could face damages of $1,000-$5,000 per violation. A violation could be considered to be each time an employee punched in or out of a work shift using a biometric time clock. Ms. Diaz is represented by Brandon M. Wise and Paul A. Lesko of Peiffer Wolf Carr & Kane APLC in St. Louis. Cook County Circuit Court Case No. 2019CH01642. [GN] EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Partial Bid to Dismiss Gearhart Suit Sustained --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, EDWARD P. GEARHART, Individually and On Behalf of Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. EXPRESS SCRIPTS, INC., Defendant, Civil Action No. 18-2-HRW (E.D. Ky.), Judge Henry R. Wilhoit, Jr. of the U.S. District Court, for the Eastern District of Kentucky, Norther Division, Ashland, (i) sustained the Defendant's Partial Motion to Dismiss; and (ii) dismissed without prejudice Count V and Count VI of the Third Amended Complaint. Gearhart filed the putative class action against Express Scripts claiming that Express Scripts charged him in excess of the statutory limit for a copy of his prescription records. In his Third Amended Complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that Express Scripts is a pharmacy benefit management company. A pharmacy benefit manager is a third-party administrator of prescription drug programs that acts as an intermediary between retail pharmacies and health benefits providers. The Plaintiff, a Kentucky resident, alleges that he requested his medical records, through his agent, Jones Ward PLC, from Express Scripts. In May 2014, as part of a products liability case in which Gearhart was a plaintiff, Jones Ward requested a copy of his prescription claims data from Express Scripts in its capacity as the pharmacy benefit manager for the Plaintiffs health plan. In exchange for a $75 fee, Express Scripts compiled information from its database of claims it maintains for a "network of retail pharmacies" and provided Jones Ward with a report listing Plaintiffs various prescription claims. Jones Ward, understanding that Express Scripts charged $75 for "processing" the detailed information from various pharmacies included in the report, paid the fee. The Plaintiff did not pay Express Scripts or Jones Ward for this statement of prescription pharmacy claims. The Plaintiff then filed the lawsuit against Express Scripts, on behalf of a purported class of Kentucky citizens, for Express Scripts' alleged practice of overcharging customers who authorize a third party to request a copy of their prescription claims data on his or her behalf. The third iteration of his complaint alleges claims for violation of the Kentucky Consumer Protection Act (Count I), fraud (Count II), unjust enrichment (Count III), violation of Kentucky Health Records Law (Count IV), fraud under the Health Insurance Portal and Accountability Act ("HIPAA") (Count V), and breach of contract (Count VI). The Defendant seeks dismissal of Counts V and VI. In Count V, the Plaintiff asserts a fraud claim based exclusively on an alleged HIPAA violation. However, Judge Wilhoit finds that HIPAA does not confer a private right of action on an individual. Nor can the Plaintiff circumvent well settled federal law by using HIPAA as a basis for a state law claim, which is precisely what Plaintiff attempts to achieve in Count V. Id. (citations omitted). The Plaintiff does not, and cannot, defend his claim. Although he tries to cast it as one intertwined with his allegations of violations of certain Kentucky statutes, it is clear that the fraud alleged in Count V relies solely upon an alleged violation of HIPAA. Therefore, there is no viable legal claim alleged in Count V and it must be dismissed. In Count VI, Plaintiff asserts breach of contract. The Judge finds that the Plaintiff's claim for breach of contract fails at the first juncture; the Third Amended Complaint contains no factual allegations that plausibly suggest the existence of a contract. Moreover, the Plaintiff fails to point to any express provision of the contract that Express Scripts purportedly breached. Nor does the Plaintiff indicate how Express Scripts breached any such provision. The Plaintiff's failure to properly identify the existence and/or breach of a contract renders his claim implausible. In light of the foregoing, Judge Wilhoit (i) sustainted the Defendant's Partial Motion to Dismiss, and (ii) dismissed without prejudice Count V and Count VI of the Third Amended Complaint. The Order is an interlocutory and non-appealable order. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 22, 2019 Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at https://is.gd/xOWgES from Leagle.com. Edward P. Gearhart, Individually And On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Alex C. Davis -- alex@jonesward.com -- Jones Ward PLC & Jasper Duduley Ward, IV -- jasper@jonesward.com -- Jones Ward PLC. Express Scripts, Inc., Defendant, represented by Britt K. Latham, Bass, Berry & Sims PLC, pro hac vice, Elaina S. Al-Nimri, Bass, Berry & Sims PLC, pro hac vice, Jaron P. Blandford -- jblandford@mmlk.com -- McBrayer, McGinnis, Leslie & Kirkland, PLLC & Jason R. Hollon -- jhollon@mmlk.com -- McBrayer, McGinnis, Leslie & Kirkland, PLLC. FAST LANE: Craggs Suit Moved to Western District of Missouri ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit, Dale E. Craggs, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, vs. Fast Lane Car Wash & Lube, L.L.C. d/b/a In & Out Carwash, the Defendant, Case No. 1831-CC01295, from Circuit Court of Greene County, Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri (Springfield) on Feb. 21, 2019. The Western District of Missouri Court Clerk Assigned Case No. 6:19-cv-03081-BP to the proceeding. The suit demands $5,000,001,000 and alleges fraud claims. The case is assigned to the Hon. Chief District Judge Beth Phillips.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. Attorneys for the Defendant: Christopher Weiss, Esq. HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP 901 St. Louis Street, Suite 1800 Springfield, MO 65806 Telephone: (417) 268-4134 Facsimile: (417) 268-4040 E-mail: chris.weiss@huschblackwell.com FITBIT INC: Sued over Defective 'Charge 2' Smart Fitness Bands -------------------------------------------------------------- A case, HILLARY SCHNEIDER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. FITBIT, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01322 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 22, 2019), alleges that the Defendant's design, manufacture and sale of Fitbit Charge 2 smart fitness bands with screens that are prone to cracking gives rise the claims alleged for (1) violation of Section 2 of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, 815 ILCS 505/2, (2) breach of implied warranty of merchantability, and (3) unjust enrichment, in the alternative. The case is a class action arising out of the Defendant's design, marketing and sale of Fitbit devices to the Plaintiff and the class. More specifically, the Fitbit "Charge 2" smart fitness bands purchased by the Plaintiff and other class members were manufactured with screens that develop cracks over time. The devices, introduced in 2016 with a retail price of $149.95 ($179.95 for the Special Edition Series), continue to be sold through major retailers throughout the United States. When customers such as the Plaintiff have complained that their Charge screens have cracked, Fitbit has refused to provide refunds or repairs; instead, consumers are offered a 25% discount on a replacement product. As a result of the defect, the Plaintiff and other class members have overpaid for the Product because the crack significantly diminishes the value of the Product. Additionally, the Plaintiff and class members have purchased a Product that they would not otherwise have purchased, or would have paid less for, had they known of the defect. The Plaintiffs and the class members have consequently suffered actual economic damages as a result of Fitbit's unlawful conduct. Fitbit, Inc., is a technology company incorporated under the laws of Delaware with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Fitbit designed, manufactured and sold the Charge 2 health and fitness trackers.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the Class: William M. Sweetnam, Esq. Natasha Singh, Esq. SWEETNAM LLC 100 North La Salle Street, Suite 2200 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 757-1888 E-mail: wms@sweetnamllc.com ns@sweetnamllc.com FLIGHT CENTRE: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Sara Mojtehedzadeh, writing for Toronto Star, reports that Canada's largest bricks-and-mortar travel retailer routinely failed to pay employees overtime and created "unlawful barriers" to claiming accurate compensation, according to a proposed class-action lawsuit worth more than $100 million. The suit launched on Feb. 22 by Toronto-based labour law firm Goldblatt Partners claims Flight Centre, a well-known travel company with 150 stores across Canada, "regularly required" employees to work beyond their scheduled hours but instituted "unlawful" overtime policies that shortchanged them out of payment and overtime protections. [GN] FLORIDA: Corrections Dep't Sued Over Inmates' Media Files --------------------------------------------------------- Ben Conarck, writing for Jacksonville.com, reports that the Florida Department of Corrections is facing a potential class action over recently forcing inmates to forfeit millions of dollars worth of mp3 and other multimedia files purchased under a since-axed media player contract. William Demler, a 74-year-old incarcerated man at South Florida Reception Center is the lead plaintiff in the case, which was filed in the northern U.S. District Court on Feb. 19 with the backing of the nonprofit legal firm, the Florida Justice Institute. In 2012, Mr. Demler first bought an MP3 player while incarcerated at Hamilton Correctional Institution in Jasper. Over the next few years, he purchased about 335 songs, spending nearly $700 all told on the player and accessories. He is seeking to form a class with similarly situated inmates. Mr. Demler's grievance about losing his music was first reported by the Times-Union in August after inmates sent scores of letters with similar complaints to the newsroom. Over the course of the Access contract, which dates back to 2014, more than 30,299 media players were sold and 6.7 million songs downloaded -- about $11.3 million worth of music. The department ditched the contract in 2017 in favor of a more lucrative multimedia tablet deal with JPay, rendering all past purchases irrelevant. The complaint details the rollout and advertising of the Access program. It quotes ad copy directed toward inmates promising, "Once music is purchased, you'll always own it!" "These men and women relied on representations made by the FDOC and its vendor that, once purchased, they would own these songs and books for the duration of their incarceration," Josh Glickman, an attorney for the Social Justice Law Collective, also backing the suit, said in a statement. Mr. Glickman continued, "The FDOC's confiscation of these individuals' lawfully purchased property -- for no reason other than to turn a profit -- is simply unconscionable." The Times-Union has asked the Department of Corrections for comment on the pending lawsuit. The Florida Justice Institute has a lengthy track record of mounting class actions against the department over prison conditions. The media player complaint alleges violations of the Takings and Due Process clauses of the U.S. Constitution. If certified, the class could be sprawling in scale. Inmates filed grievances about the mp3 program so frequently that the Department of Corrections created a separate category in December 2017 to track hundreds of related grievance appeals at the administrative level. The fallout from the media player contract is one example of how inmates are often on the losing end in the Department of Corrections' various dealings with the private companies that do profitable business in state prisons. The department, meanwhile, has positioned itself to generate more cash than ever. Commissions from its JPay contract are spiking and its prison canteens are bringing in about $35 million or more per year. Securus Technologies, the department's former phone vendor, sued the agency in January, claiming it was going around the Legislature to collect a "wish list of goodies" from its new phone contract rather than negotiate for lower calling rates. PROMISES UNKEPT The Department of Corrections published numerous ads and posted them in various institutions, the lawsuit claims, in an effort to encourage prisoners to purchase digital media players, files, and accessories. Besides touting the media player's memory capacity, operating power, and screen size, at least one widely distributed advertisement, which appeared on the digital media player order form, promised that inmates would always own the music they purchased. "Notably, the same advertisement that promised participating FDOC prisoners that they would ‘always own' the digital media files they had purchased listed only one restriction," the lawsuit said, "that each FDOC prisoner was only permitted to possess one digital media player at any given time." A user guide informed inmates that they were allowed to delete and re-order digital media files they had purchased from a cloud-based library at any time, with no additional cost, according to the lawsuit. "You will never be charged for a song that is ordered from the Re-Order manager," the guide said. "After all, you have already paid for the song once, we don't think you should ever have to pay for it again." Attorneys were unable to uncover any written warnings or suggestions that purchases made through the Access program would only be available for use during the span of the contract, according to lawsuit. Media players were first sold in 2011 under a different vendor, according to the lawsuit. When the department signed its contract with Access in 2014, it ensured that inmates would be able to transfer the music purchases they already made. "It is the intent of the department that the implementation of the new digital player program have little or no financial impact on inmates presently participating in the department's current program," the old contract language said, according to the lawsuit. The latest round of media player negotiations with JPay included no such protections, the lawsuit said. CUT OFF The Department of Corrections officially terminated its contract with Access in April 2017, entering that same month into a new agreement with JPay that would bring the Florida-based company's multimedia tablets to every facility. Beginning in January 2018, inmates lost access to their cloud-based libraries, preventing them from downloading previously purchased music and books, according to the lawsuit. Prisoners who chose not to receive a JPay tablet were given a deadline of January 23, 2019 to surrender their digital media players, the lawsuit said. Inmates who are forced to give up their digital media players and files were given the option to mail the player back to Access Corrections to have its security timer removed and mailed to someone outside of the prison for a fee of $25, or have the files from the player transferred to a CD and mailed to someone outside prison for the same fee. "The option to send the player and/or files to someone outside of prison does not cure the problem," the lawsuit claims. "... Prisoners purchased the digital players and music to listen to them and enjoy them while in prison — not at some unspecified time in the future." Beyond that, many of the inmates who purchased media files were serving life sentences or equivalent sentences, the complaint said. Others have no family or friends outside prison who would be able to receive a player or CD, it continued. "For these prisoners in particular, the option to mail out the player is completely illusory," the complaint said. Mr. Demler, for example, is serving a life sentence, and remains in contact only with his 92-year-old uncle, "who has no use for Mr. Demler's digital music player and/or files," according to the lawsuit. The lawsuit emphasizes that state prison inmates don't have internet access, and many don't have access to AM/FM radios, or meaningful work assignments. In a 2017 grievance filed with the Department of Corrections, Mr. Demler complained that the agency "promoted the MP3 Program and encouraged participation to ensure a larger share in the profits made by Access Corrections." "Discontinuing the program and forcing inmates to give up their players without compensation amounts to an act of fraud," he said. [GN] FLOWERS FOODS: Bid to Certify Class Action in Georgia ----------------------------------------------------- Flowers Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 20, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company is awaiting a court order on the motion for class certification in a consolidated class action in Georgia. On August 12, 2016, a class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by Chris B. Hendley (the "Hendley complaint") against the company and certain senior members of management (collectively, the "defendants"). On August 17, 2016, another class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by Scott Dovell, II (the "Dovell complaint" and together with the Hendley complaint, the "complaints") against the defendants. Plaintiffs in the complaints are securities holders that acquired company securities between February 7, 2013 and August 10, 2016. The complaints generally allege that the defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that (1) the company's labor practices were not in compliance with applicable federal laws and regulations; (2) such non-compliance exposed the company to legal liability and/or negative regulatory action; and (3) as a result, the defendants' statements about the company's business, operations, and prospects were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. The counts of the complaints are asserted against the defendants pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 under the Exchange Act. The complaints seek (1) class certification under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, (2) compensatory damages in favor of the plaintiffs and all other class members against the defendants, jointly and severally, for all damages sustained as a result of wrongdoing, in an amount to be proven at trial, including interest, and (3) awarding plaintiffs and the class their reasonable costs and expenses incurred in the actions, including counsel and expert fees. On October 21, 2016, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York consolidated the complaints into one action captioned "In re Flowers Foods, Inc. Securities Litigation" (the "consolidated securities action"), appointed Walter Matthews as lead plaintiff ("lead plaintiff"), and appointed Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP and Johnson & Weaver, LLP as co-lead counsel for the putative class. On November 21, 2016, the court granted defendants' and lead plaintiff's joint motion to transfer the consolidated securities action to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia. Lead plaintiff filed his Consolidated Class Action Complaint on January 12, 2017, raising the same counts and general allegations and seeking the same relief as the Dovell and Hendley complaints. On March 13, 2017, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit which was granted in part and denied in part on March 23, 2018. The court dismissed certain allegedly false or misleading statements as nonactionable under federal securities laws, and will allow others to proceed to fact discovery. On July 23, 2018, lead plaintiff filed his motion for class certification. The defendants filed their memorandum of law in opposition to class certification on October 5, 2018. The court has scheduled a hearing on the class certification motion for February 28, 2019. Flowers Foods, Inc. produces and markets bakery products in the United States. The company operates through two segments, Direct-Store-Delivery and Warehouse Delivery. The company was formerly known as Flowers Industries and changed its name to Flowers Foods, Inc. in 2001. Flowers Foods, Inc. was founded in 1919 and is headquartered in Thomasville, Georgia. FORT MYERS, FL: Buys Contaminated Land to Avert Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Patricia Borns, writing for Fort Myers News-Press, reports that Tony Rodriguez has been coming to Fort Myers since 2005 to mow a vacant lot he bought on Jeffcott Street during the real estate bubble -- a lot he has since learned was contaminated by the city of Fort Myers. Now the Cape Coral man and two others in the same predicament will be selling their lots to the city for $15,000 apiece -- a purchase unanimously approved by the City Council on Feb. 19 to fortify itself against potential damages from a federal class-action lawsuit. "You're telling me we are going to pay $15,000 for property valued at $8 on the Lee County Property Appraiser website?" said local activist Anthony Thomas, protesting the purchase of the lots. "You ought to be embarrassed. For legal reasons you are bribing people with taxpayer money to get them out of the lawsuit," Mr. Thomas said. Neighbors mounted the lawsuit last year because they had bought homes without being told about the landfill of contaminated lime sludge in their midst; not in 2007 when higher than normal arsenic was found in the soil and groundwater, and not in 2010 when the Florida Department of Environmental Protection said property owners should be told. It took The News-Press report to inform the public in 2017. The city also did not move to clean up the sludge, dumped in the 1960s and 1970s, until the suit was filed. Located in the same block as the landfill, the three lots are especially burdened by the gooey substance the city inadvertently dumped. Rodriguez recalled his lawn mower once sinking so deep in the muck that he had to have help dislodging it. City Attorney Grant Alley recommended the purchase. "It's a negotiated price. It's important for the litigation and the cleanup," Alley said. Once the city purchases the properties, the owners will dismiss their claims against the city, plaintiffs' co-council Gary Davis said. Claims for property and health damages will continue from other property owners named in the suit, however, as well as from those who may join in if the judge in the case -- U.S. Middle District Judge Sheri Polster Chappell -- decides it may go forward as a class action. Most recently the parties failed to reach a negotiated settlement. The city resurrected its motion to have the case dismissed. If denied, it will go to trial in December 2019. "I think it's a reasonable expense," Councilman Fred Burson said of the purchase. "It's not so much paying off the people of South Street. It's a business move. The more we can buffer what used to be a sludge pit with additional ownership, the less it will continue to be a liability that hangs over us," Mr. Burson said. The lots being purchased include: -- 3313 Jeffcott Street owned by Noemy Rodriguez of Cape Coral -- 3320 South Street owned by Ralph Henry of Miami -- 3324 South Street owned by Jerry Benien of Washington. Meanwhile the cleanup of 30,000 cubic tons of sludge continues, and Councilman Johnny Streets, whose Ward encompasses the site, has called for a redevelopment plan of the area based on neighborhood input. [GN] G4S SECURE: Court Narrows Claims in J. King's RICO Suit ------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JOSEPH M. KING, et al., Plaintiffs, v. G4S SECURE SOLUTIONS (USA) INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:18 CV 448 (N.D. Ohio), Judge Donald C. Nugent of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, (i) granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint, and (ii) granted the Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike Matters Outside the Pleadings, or Alternatively, Motion to Convert Defendants' Motion to a Motion for Summary Judgment, Vacate Order Staying Discovery, and Grant Plaintiffs Leave to Supplement their response upon close of Discovery. In the First Amended Complaint, 18 Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of a class, bring eight claims against Defendant G4S and three employees of G4S, Chuck Brock, Don Drent, and Kevin Baker. Defendant G4S "contracts with corporate customers to supply security personnel to companies in a variety of industries, including the automobile industry. It entered a contract to provide security personnel for General Motors Co. in or around the fall of 2011. Beginning in or around January 2012, G4S hired the Plaintiffs to work in GM facilities located throughout the United States. No employment agreements for the other Plaintiffs were provided. The remaining 17 Plaintiffs were hired as either salaried or hourly employees of G4S to work at various GM plants. The Plaintiffs are citizens of Ohio, Texas, North Carolina and Kentucky. The Plaintiffs allege that the salaried employees (Plaintiffs King, Eisenhut, Gregorcic, Howard, Ingram, Lesher, Magrum, Mekolon, Rohrig and Spires) were provided with copies of various G4S policies including a policy titled "Paid Time Off ("PTO") for Personnel Assigned to General Motors" under which eligible salaried G4S employees were awarded a designated number of PTO hours on January 1st each year, depending on the employee's number of years of service with GM, and any unused portion thereof would be paid out at a discount to the employee by G4S in the event of his/her termination. The hourly employees' (Plaintiffs Almanza, Andresen, Baldwin, Milby, Morgan, Salama, Swetmon and Tomes) PTO policy was set forth in the collective bargaining agreement ("CBA") between G4S and the International Union, Security, Police and Fire Professionals of America. Under the CBA PTO Policy, eligible hourly G4S employees were awarded a designated number of PTO hours, depending on years of service with GM, on their anniversary date each year, and any unused portion thereof would be paid out to the employee by G4S upon their next anniversary date. Upon termination of employment with G4S prior to the employee's anniversary date, G4S would pay prorated termination benefits to the employee for PTO accrued during the partial year. In the fall of 2017, G4S lost its bid to renew the GM contract and as a result, G4S employment for employees assigned to GM terminated upon expiration of the GM contract on Jan. 31, 2018, triggering their entitlement to termination benefits under the PTO and the CBA PTO Policies. The Plaintiffs allege that prior to the termination of the GM contract, individual Defendants Drent and Baker, as well as one or more Doe Defendants participated in several conference calls with one or more of the Plaintiffs and other G4S employees assigned to GM to discuss the termination of their employment with G4S and transition to the winning subcontractor Allied Universal. The Plaintiffs further assert that Defendants Brock, Drent, Baker and/or one or more of the Doe Defendants made similar representations to G4S employees assigned to GM via email and that on Dec. 11, 2017, Mr. Drent sent a group email to approximately 100 class members, including Plaintiff King, attaching the PTO policy. The Plaintiffs assert that in reliance on the assurances provided by the Defendants, the Plaintiffs and other G4S employees assigned to GM elected not to use their accrued PTO or take action to terminate their employment with G4S prior to the expiration of the GM contract on Jan. 31, 2018. After expiration of the GM contract, G4S did not pay out termination benefits and or other economic entitlements to the Plaintiffs. On Feb. 15, 2019, Defendant Brock notified the Plaintiffs via email that G4S had decided not to make any payout of termination benefits to employees not covered by GM's CBA because it would be unable to bill GM therefor. Although none of the named Plaintiffs worked for G4S at a Chrysler facility, the Plaintiffs allege on information and belief that G4S lost its contract with Chrysler in 2017 and after giving the affected G4S employees similar representations regarding termination benefits, elected not to make any payout for termination benefits to former G4S employees assigned to Chrysler. Based upon these allegations, the Plaintiffs assert claims of Breach of Contract (Count I); Promissory Estoppel (Count II); Fraudulent Misrepresentation & Concealment (Count III); Breach of Fiduciary Duty (Count IV); Civil Theft/Conversion (Count V); Civil RICO under federal law (Count VI) and Civil Conspiracy (Count VII). The matter is before the Court on the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, and the Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike. The Plaintiffs have moved to strike the exhibits attached to the Defendants Reply Brief in Support of their Motion to Dismiss. Judge Nugent granted the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss as to all claims related to Chrysler and Count VI (RICO). He enied the Motion as to Counts I-V and VII. Among other things, he finds that despite the Plaintiffs' professed knowledge of the industry and anecdotal evidence, not cited in the Amended Complaint, the Plaintiffs do not know if the G4S employees assigned to Chrysler had the same or similar contracts and PTO policies, what representation or promises, if any, were made to those employees or whether those employees suffered any loss. What is clear is that none of the named Plaintiffs here suffered any injury or loss related to the termination of the G4S/Chrysler contract. All of the cases cited regarding accepting "on information and belief" allegations involved situations where at least some of the allegations in the claims asserted were made on personal knowledge. The Plaintiffs' claims based upon the termination of the G4S/Chrysler contract are too tenuous and implausible to remain and those claims as to G4S employees assigned to Chrysler are dismissed. As to Count VI, the Judge finds that the Plaintiffs have alleged that the Defendants have defrauded the Plaintiffs and breached a fiduciary duty to the Plaintiffs. As those claims remain, they may act as the requisite unlawful act for the purposes of the Plaintiffs' civil conspiracy claim. The Judge granted the Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike. He finds that the exhibits are not authenticated and purport to demonstrate that the hourly named Plaintiff were paid under the relevant PTO Policy. As such, these documents support the Defendants' defenses but are clearly outside the scope of what a court may consider on a 12(b)(6) motion. The exhibits attached to the Defendants' Reply Brief are not within these categories and as such, the motion to strike is granted. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 22, 2019 Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at https://is.gd/Z5eGAb from Leagle.com. Joseph M King, on behalf of himself and all similarly-situated former employees of G4S Secure Solutions (USA), Inc., E. David Swetmon, Saiby Salama, James Eisenhut, Jerime Magrum, Donnie Tomes, Louis J Gregorcic, Michael Morgan, Stephen Baldwin, Robert Howard, James Milby, Kenneth J. Mekolon, Angel Almanza, Mark Rohrig, Fred Lesher, Laureen Andresen, Annette Ingram & Bethanna Spires, Plaintiffs, represented by Mark E. Kremser , Wuliger & Wuliger, William T. Wuliger , Wuliger & Wuliger & Amy A. Wuliger , Wuliger & Wuliger. G4S Secure Solutions (USA) Inc, Chuck Brock, Don Drent & John Does, 1 - 100, Defendants, represented by Kelly E. Eisenlohr-Moul -- kelly.eisenlohr-moul@dinsmore.com -- Dinsmore & Shohl, Charles M. Roesch -- chuck.roesch@dinsmore.com -- Dinsmore & Shohl, Michael B. Mattingly -- michael.mattingly@dinsmore.com -- Dinsmore & Shohl & Terry P. Finnerty -- terry.finnerty@dinsmore.com -- Dinsmore & Shohl. Kevin Baker, Defendant, represented by Kelly E. Eisenlohr-Moul, Dinsmore & Shohl, William T. Wuliger, Wuliger & Wuliger, Charles M. Roesch, Dinsmore & Shohl, Michael B. Mattingly, Dinsmore & Shohl & Terry P. Finnerty, Dinsmore & Shohl. GEE & GEE: Tellez Seeks Payment of Overtime & Minimum Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- ROLANDO ANTONIO MEMBRENO TELLEZ and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(b), the Plaintiff, vs. GEE & GEE PRODUCE, INC, KAVITA CHADEE, and ASHA CHADEE, the Defendants, Case No. (S.D. Fla., Feb. 26, 2019), alleges that the Defendants have not paid their employees overtime and/or minimum wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly from the filing of this complaint back three years pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff's duties included the exportation of fruits and vegetables. As an exporter of fruits and vegetables, the Plaintiff's job duties required the Plaintiff to work with fruits and vegetables that were coming and going out of Florida from containers on a regular weekly basis. Between the period of on or about January 1, 2005 through on or about January 3, 2019, the Plaintiff worked an average of 66 hours a week for the Defendants and was paid an average of $7.57 per hour but was not paid the half-time rate for the hours worked over 40 hours in a week as required by the FLSA. The Plaintiff therefore claims the half-time overtime rate based upon the applicable minimum wage for the hours worked above 40 in a week.[BN] Attorney for the Plaintiff: J.H. Zidell, Esq. J.H. Zidell, P.A. 300 71 st Street, Suite 605 Miami Beach, Florida 33141 Telephone: (305) 865-6766 Facsimile: (305) 865-7167 E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM GENERAL ELECTRIC: Saxena White Files Securities Fraud Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------------ Saxena White P.A. has filed a securities fraud class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Case No. 19-cv-01244) against General Electric Company ("GE" or the "Company") (NYSE: GE) on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of the Company between December 27, 2017 and October 29, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period"). If you purchased GE common stock during the Class Period and wish to apply to be lead plaintiff, a motion on your behalf must be filed with the Court by no later than April 2, 2019. You may contact Lester Hooker, Esq. -- lhooker@saxenawhite.com -- at Saxena White P.A. to discuss your rights regarding the appointment of lead plaintiff or your interest in the class action. Please note that you may also retain counsel of your choice and need not take any action at this time to be a class member. GE is a 126-year old industrial conglomerate with a number of primary business units, including Lighting, Aviation, Healthcare, Power, and Capital. GE's largest and most important segment is GE Power. The majority of GE Power's revenue comes from the sale and servicing of its Gas Power Systems, including its H-Class gas turbines that the Company sells to power utilities across the globe. In 2017, GE Power was the leading manufacturer of gas turbines, with more than 50% of global market share. The Complaint asserts claims for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, prospects and financial health. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose that: (i) the design and technology of GE Power's flagship gas turbines were structurally flawed as they were plagued with an oxidation problem that caused the blades in the H-Class gas turbines to fail; (ii) GE Power's goodwill was materially overstated, in large part because of such structural issues; (iii) the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and (iv) as a result of the foregoing, Defendant's public statements were materially false and/or misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. You may obtain a copy of the Complaint and join the class action at www.saxenawhite.com. Lester R. Hooker, Esq. Saxena White P.A. 150 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 600 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Telephone: (561) 206-6708 Fax: (866) 290-1291 Email: lhooker@saxenawhite.com [GN] GETSWIFT: 2 Execs Face ASIC Lawsuit Amid Class Actions ------------------------------------------------------ Colin Kruger, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports that GetSwift shares tested record lows as the market reacted to the Feb. 22 late news that the company and two of its executives, Bane Hunter and former Melbourne Football Club player Joel Macdonald, had been sued by the corporate regulator. GetSwift said it would vigorously defend itself against the proceedings as its shares, which hit a high of $4.30 in December 2017, plunged 35 per cent to a low of 28¢ by Feb. 25 lunchtime and finished the day at 30¢. It has wiped $160 million from the net worth of Mr Macdonald, who founded the company, which provides last-mile logistics solutions to business customers. "The company, Mr Macdonald and Mr Hunter irrefutably deny the allegations made by ASIC and, collectively, will vigorously defend the proceedings," the company said in a statement to the ASX on Feb. 25. Mr Macdonald and Mr Hunter were not available for further comment. In February last year, the stock crashed from $2.92 to a low of 98¢ after the company revealed that fewer than half the contracts it had been publicising were actually generating any revenue. GetSwift had raised $75 million from investors at $4 a share just months before the shock announcement. "ASIC alleges that GetSwift made representations in a series of ASX announcements relating to client agreements, between February 2017 and December 2017 that were misleading, and that it failed to notify the ASX of material information in relation to these client agreements," said the release from the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) on Feb. 22. The legal bills have already been mounting for GetSwift as it attempts to have two of the three separate class action law suits it faces reduced to just one. Its shares dropped sharply in January after its quarterly statements revealed slower growth and increased legal costs. "Administration and corporate costs continued to be significant cash expenditures due to legal defence costs and increased governance expenses. These expenses include the aforementioned costs for defending proceedings before the Federal Court of Australia," it said. On Feb. 25, GetSwift said it remained focused on supporting its customers and continuing to build its business. [GN] GOLF CLUB: Unlawfully Retained Tips & Gratuities, Vega, et al. Say ------------------------------------------------------------------ A case, LINETTE VEGA and VICTOR VILLASIN, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. THE GOLF CLUB OF PURCHASE, INC.; ROBERT F. WISE; and any other related entities, the Defendants, Case No. 608665/2017 (NY Sup. Ct., Nassau Cty. Feb. 25, 2019), alleges that the Defendants unlawfully withheld and retained portions of gratuities provided to service employees, including but not limited to those collected as Service Charges. The case alleges violation of New York Labor Law. According to the complaint, beginning in approximately August 2011 and continuing through the present, the Defendants have engaged in a policy and practice of unlawfully retaining employees' gratuities at all of Defendants' restaurant and catering venues located in New York. The Defendants have engaged in a policy and practice of failing to pay the Service Charge to Plaintiffs and similarly situated employees and instead retained the money for their own benefit in violation of Labor Law Article 6 section 196-d.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs: LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. One Old Country Road, ste. 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Telephone: (516) 873-9550 Attorneys for the Defendants: Jackson Lewis, Esq. 44 South Broadway 14th Floor White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: (914) 872-6870 GRAND PRIX: Sosa Seeks Minimum & Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------- ADONIS RODRIGUEZ SOSA, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. GRAND PRIX TRADING CORP. (D/B/A GRAND PRIX TRADING), ZELJKO MAZIC, SAJID NADEEM, SIMUN SIMUNOVIC, and WALTER DOE, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01090 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 22, 2019), seeks unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff is a former employee of the Defendants. He was employed as a general assistant at the distribution center located at 75A Onderdonk Ave, Ridgewood, NY 11385. The Plaintiff worked in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage and overtime compensation for hours that he worked. Rather, the Defendants allegedly failed to maintain accurate record-keeping of the hours worked and failed to pay the Plaintiff appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium. The Defendants' conduct extended beyond the Plaintiff to all other similarly situated employees, the lawsuit says. According to the complaint, the Defendants maintained a policy and practice of requiring the Plaintiff and other employees to work in excess of 40 hours per week without providing the minimum wage and overtime compensation required by federal and state law and regulations. The Defendants own, operate, or control a gourmet grocery warehouse store, located at 75A Onderdonk Ave, Ridgewood, NY 11385 under the name "Grand Prix Trading".[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 E-mail: Faillace@employmentcompliance.com HCA MANAGEMENT: Laciste Sues over Alleged Illegal Time Shaving -------------------------------------------------------------- WILLIAM LACISTE on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public, the Plaintiffs, vs. HCA MANAGEMENT SERVICES, L.P.; DBA REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER OF SAN JOSE; and DOES 1-100, the DEFENDANTS, Case No. 19CV343206 (Cal. Super. Ct., Feb. 26, 2019), seeks to recover damages, injunctive relief, declaratory relief, and restitution for Defendants' 1) failure to pay all straight time wages; 2) failure to pay all overtime wages; 3) failure to provide meal periods; 4) failure to authorize and permit rest; 5) knowing and intentional failure to comply with itemized employee wage statement provisions; 6) failure to pay all wages due at the time of termination of employment; 7) failure to reimburse/illegal deductions; and 8) violation of unfair competition law, pursuant to the California Labor Code. According to the complaint, the Defendants employed current and former non-exempt employees with job titles including laboratory technicians, laboratory assistants (non-exempt employees). The Defendants have had a continuous and widespread policy of not paying Plaintiff and those similarly situated for all hours they worked, including before clocking in for their work shift, after clocking out for their work shift, and during unpaid meal periods. Further, the Defendants have had a continuous and widespread policy of shaving the time Plaintiff and those similarly situated worked (time shaving), the lawsuit says. HCA Management Services, L.P. was incorporated in 1999 and is based in Nashville, Tennessee. The company operates as a subsidiary of HCA Healthcare, Inc.[BN] Attorneys for William Laciste on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public: William Turley, Esq. David Mara, Esq. Jamie Serb, Esq. Tony Roberts, Esq. Alexandra Shipman, Esq. THE TURLEY & MARA LAW FIRM, APLC 117428 Trade Street San Diego, CA 92121 Telephone: (619) 234-2833 Facsimile: (619) 234-4048 HEALTH INSURANCE: April 22 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set ------------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Feb. 19 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Health Insurance Innovations, Inc. (NASDAQ:HIIQ) from February 28, 2018 through November 27, 2018 inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Health Insurance Innovations investors under the federal securities laws. To join the Health Insurance Innovations class action, go to https://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1511.html or call Phillip Kim, Esq. or Zachary Halper, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or zhalper@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF. According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) a substantial portion of Health Insurance Innovations' revenue was derived from third parties; (2) these third parties used deceptive tactics to sell Health Insurance Innovations' policies, including overstating the policy's coverage and/or selling under the licenses of employees who had no involvement in the underlying sales; (3) regulatory scrutiny of these third parties would materially impact Health Insurance Innovations' operations; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' positive statements about Health Insurance Innovations' business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than April 22, 2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to https://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1511.html or to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. or Zachary Halper, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or zhalper@rosenlegal.com. Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 3 each year since 2013. [GN] HENRY SCHEIN: Amended Complaint Filed in Kramer Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Henry Schein said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 20, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that an amended complaint has been filed in the purported class action suit entitled, Kramer v. Henry Schein, Inc., Patterson Co., Inc., Benco Dental Supply Co., and Unnamed Co-Conspirators On October 9, 2018, a purported class action complaint entitled Kramer v. Henry Schein, Inc., Patterson Co., Inc., Benco Dental Supply Co., and Unnamed Co-Conspirators, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The complaint alleges that members of the proposed class, comprised of purchasers of dental services from dental practices in California, suffered antitrust injury due to an unlawful boycott, price-fixing or otherwise anticompetitive conspiracy among Henry Schein, Patterson and Benco. The complaint alleges that the alleged conspiracy overcharged California dental practices, orthodontic practices and dental laboratories on their purchase of dental supplies, which in turn passed on some or all of such overcharges to members of the California class purchasing dental services. Subject to certain exclusions, the complaint defines the class as "all persons residing in California purchasing and/or reimbursing for dental services from California dental practices on or after August 31, 2012." The complaint alleges violations of California antitrust laws, including the Cartwright Act (Cal. Bus. and Prof. Code Section 16720) and the Unfair Competition Act (Cal. Bus. and Prof. Code Section 17200), and seeks a permanent injunction, actual damages to be determined at trial, trebled, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, and pre- and post-judgment interest. On December 7, 2018, an amended complaint was filed asserting the same claims against the same parties. Henry Schein said, "We intend to defend ourselves vigorously against this action." Henry Schein, Inc. provides health care products and services to dental practitioners and laboratories, physician practices, government, institutional health care clinics, and other alternate care clinics worldwide. It operates through two segments, Health Care Distribution, and Technology and Value-Added Services. The company was founded in 1932 and is headquartered in Melville, New York. HENRY SCHEIN: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in NY ------------------------------------------------------------- Henry Schein said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 20, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company remains a defendant in a class action suit entitled, In re Henry Schein, Inc. Securities Litigation. On March 7, 2018, Joseph Salkowitz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a putative class action complaint for violation of the federal securities laws against Henry Schein, Inc., Stanley M. Bergman and Steven Paladino in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Case No. 1:18-cv-01428. The complaint sought to certify a class consisting of all persons and entities who, subject to certain exclusions, purchased Henry Schein securities from March 7, 2013 through February 12, 2018 (the "Class Period'). The complaint alleged, among other things, that the defendants had made materially false and misleading statements about Henry Schein's business, operations and prospects during the Class Period, including matters relating to the issues in the antitrust class action and the FTC action described above, thereby causing the plaintiff and members of the purported class to pay artificially inflated prices for Henry Schein securities. The complaint sought unspecified monetary damages and a jury trial. Pursuant to the provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (the "PSLRA"), the court appointed lead plaintiff and lead counsel on June 22, 2018 and recaptioned the putative class action as In re Henry Schein, Inc. Securities Litigation, under the same case number. Lead plaintiff filed a consolidated class action complaint on September 14, 2018. The consolidated class action complaint asserts similar claims against the same defendants (plus Timothy Sullivan) on behalf of the same putative class of purchasers during the Class Period. It alleges that Henry Schein's stock price was inflated during that period because Henry Schein had misleadingly portrayed its dental-distribution business "as successfully producing excellent profits while operating in a highly competitive environment" even though, "in reality, (Henry Schein) had engaged for years in collusive and anticompetitive practices in order to maintain Schein's margins, profits, and market share." The complaint alleges that the stock price started to fall from August 8, 2017, when the company announced below-expected financial performance that allegedly "revealed that Schein's poor results were a product of abandoning prior attempts to inflate sales volume and margins through anticompetitive collusion," through February 13, 2018, after the FTC filed a complaint against Benco, Henry Schein and Patterson alleging that they violated U.S. antitrust laws. The complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Henry Schein said, "We intend to defend ourselves vigorously against this action. Henry Schein has also received a request under 8 Del. C. Section 220 to inspect corporate books and records relating to the issues raised in the securities class action and the antitrust suit. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Henry Schein, Inc. provides health care products and services to dental practitioners and laboratories, physician practices, government, institutional health care clinics, and other alternate care clinics worldwide. It operates through two segments, Health Care Distribution, and Technology and Value-Added Services. The company was founded in 1932 and is headquartered in Melville, New York. HENRY SCHEIN: Dismissal of Marion Diagnostic Suit under Appeal -------------------------------------------------------------- Henry Schein said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 20, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the plaintiffs have taken an appeal from the District Court's decision in granting the defendants' motion to dismiss the class action suit entitled, Marion Diagnostic Center, LLC, et al. v. Becton, Dickinson, and Co., et al., to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. On May 3, 2018, a purported class action complaint, Marion Diagnostic Center, LLC, et al. v. Becton, Dickinson, and Co., et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-010509, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois against Becton, Dickinson, and Co. ("Becton"); Premier, Inc. ("Premier"), Vizient, Inc. ("Vizient"), Cardinal Health, Inc. ("Cardinal"), Owens & Minor Inc. ("O&M"), Henry Schein, Inc., and Unnamed Becton Distributor Co-Conspirators. The complaint alleges that the defendants entered into a vertical conspiracy to force healthcare providers into long-term exclusionary contracts that restrain trade in the nationwide markets for conventional and safety syringes and safety IV catheters and inflate the prices of certain Becton products to above-competitive levels. The named plaintiffs seek to represent three separate classes consisting of all healthcare providers that purchased (i) Becton's conventional syringes, (ii) Becton's safety syringes, or (iii) Becton's safety catheters directly from Becton, Premier, Vizient, Cardinal, O&M or Henry Schein on or after May 3, 2014. The complaint asserts a single count under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, and seeks equitable relief, treble damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs and expenses, and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest. On June 15, 2018, an amended complaint was filed asserting the same allegations against the same parties and adding McKesson Medical-Surgical, Inc. as an additional defendant. On November 30, 2018, the District Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss and entered a final judgment, dismissing plaintiffs' complaint with prejudice. On December 27, 2018, plaintiffs appealed the District Court's decision to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Henry Schein said, "We intend to defend ourselves vigorously against this action." Henry Schein, Inc. provides health care products and services to dental practitioners and laboratories, physician practices, government, institutional health care clinics, and other alternate care clinics worldwide. It operates through two segments, Health Care Distribution, and Technology and Value-Added Services. The company was founded in 1932 and is headquartered in Melville, New York. HENRY SCHEIN: Settlement Reached in Dental Supplies Antitrust Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Henry Schein said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 20, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the parties in the case entitled, In re Dental Supplies Antitrust Litigation, Civil Action No. 1:16-CV-00696-BMC-GRB, have executed a settlement agreement that proposes a full and final settlement of the lawsuit on a classwide basis, subject to court approval. Beginning in January 2016, purported class action complaints were filed against Patterson Companies, Inc. ("Patterson"), Benco Dental Supply Co. ("Benco") and Henry Schein, Inc. Although there were factual and legal variations among these complaints, each of these complaints alleges, among other things, that defendants conspired to fix prices, allocate customers and foreclose competitors by boycotting manufacturers, state dental associations and others that deal with defendants’ competitors. On February 9, 2016, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York ordered all of these actions, and all other actions filed thereafter asserting substantially similar claims against defendants, consolidated for pre-trial purposes. On February 26, 2016, a consolidated class action complaint was filed by Arnell Prato, D.D.S., P.L.L.C., d/b/a Down to Earth Dental, Evolution Dental Sciences, LLC, Howard M. May, DDS, P.C., Casey Nelson, D.D.S., Jim Peck, D.D.S., Bernard W. Kurek, D.M.D., Larchmont Dental Associates, P.C., and Keith Schwartz, D.M.D., P.A. (collectively, "putative class representatives") in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, entitled In re Dental Supplies Antitrust Litigation, Civil Action No. 1:16-CV-00696-BMC-GRB. In the consolidated class action complaint, putative class representatives allege a nationwide agreement among Henry Schein, Benco, Patterson and non-party Burkhart Dental Supply Company, Inc. ("Burkhart") not to compete on price. The consolidated class action complaint asserts a single count under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, and seeks equitable relief, compensatory and treble damages, jointly and severally, and reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys’ fees and expert fees. On September 28, 2018, the parties executed a settlement agreement that proposes, subject to court approval, a full and final settlement of the lawsuit on a classwide basis. Subject to certain exceptions, the settlement class consists of all persons or entities that purchased dental products directly from Henry Schein, Patterson, Benco, Burkhart, or any combination thereof, during the period August 31, 2008 through and including March 31, 2016. Henry Schein said, "As a result, we recorded a charge of $38.5 million in our third quarter 2018 results." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Henry Schein, Inc. provides health care products and services to dental practitioners and laboratories, physician practices, government, institutional health care clinics, and other alternate care clinics worldwide. It operates through two segments, Health Care Distribution, and Technology and Value-Added Services. The company was founded in 1932 and is headquartered in Melville, New York. HONEYWELL INT'L: Levi & Korsinsky to Lead in Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, DAVID KANEFSKY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. HONEYWELL INT'L INC., et al., Defendants, Civ. No. 2:18-15536 (WJM) (D. N.J.), Judge William J. Martini of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey granted Charles M. Francisco, III's motion to serve as the Lead Plaintiff and approved his choice of Levi & Korsinsky, LLP as the Lead Counsel. Kanefsky brings the putative securities class action against Honeywell and its corporate officers, Darius Adamczyk and Thomas A. Szlosek, on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Honeywell securities from Feb. 9, 2018 through Oct. 19, 2018. Kanefsky alleges he acquired Honeywell securities at artificially inflated prices and suffered damages when the Defendants disclosed making materially false and misleading statements to the investing public. The matter comes before the Court upon the competing motions of Kanefsky and Francisco to serve as the Lead Plaintiff, and separately, appoint the Lead Counsel. Judge Martini finds that Francisco has the largest financial interest. During the class period, he purchased 1,425 shares, expended a net amount of $232,659.75, and suffered $30,638.33 in losses. Kanefsky, however, purchased 1,400 shares, expended a net amount of $224,676, and suffered $26,402 in losses. Moreover, after reviewing Francisco's competing motion, Kanefsky replied that he does not appear to have the largest financial interest in this action within the meaning of the PSLRA. The Judge also finds that Francisco meets the typicality and adequacy requirements of Rule 23. Francisco has expressed his willingness to serve as the Lead Plaintiff and asserts that he shares the same claims and injuries as those of Kanefsky and the potential class. Specifically, the Defendants' material misstatements or omissions misled him to purchase Honeywell securities at artificially inflated prices. And upon the Defendants disclosing the statement or omission, Francisco suffered damages when Honeywell securities dropped in value. He also finds Francisco has retained adequate counsel because Levi & Korsinsky has relevant experience litigating securities class actions. Finally, there is no evidence of conflict between Francisco and the members of the class. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 26, 2019 Opinion is available at https://is.gd/LLUoSU from Leagle.com. DAVID KANEFSKY, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by JONATHAN DAVID LINDENFELD -- jlindenfeld@pomlaw.com -- POMERANTZ LLP. CHARLES FRANCISCO, Plaintiff, represented by EDUARD KORSINSKY -- ek@zlk.com -- LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP. HSBC USA: Bid to Dismiss Firefighters Suit Underway --------------------------------------------------- HSBC USA Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the defendants in the case, Oklahoma Firefighters Pension & Retirement System, et al. v. Banco Santander S.A., et al., are awaiting the court's decision on their motion to dismiss the case. HSBC Bank plc, HSBC North America, HSBC Bank USA, HSI, HMUS, as well as non-U.S. HSBC affiliates, have been named as defendants, among others, in a putative class action brought in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in March 2018 relating to the Mexican government bond ("MGB") market (Oklahoma Firefighters Pension & Retirement System, et al. v. Banco Santander S.A., et al.). The action alleges that defendants conspired to fix MGB prices between January 2006 and April 2017 in violation of federal antitrust laws. In July 2018, plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint. Defendants filed motions to dismiss in September 2018. HSBC USA Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provides consumer and commercial banking products, and related financial services in the United States. The company was founded in 1850 and is based in New York, New York. HSBC USA Inc. is a subsidiary of HSBC North America Holdings Inc. HSBC USA: Bid to Dismiss Police Pension Fund Suit Still Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- HSBC USA Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the defendants in the case, Fire & Police Pension Association of Colorado, et al. v Bank of Montreal, et al., are awaiting the court's decision on their motion to dismiss the case. HSBC Bank USA, HSBC, HSBC USA, HSBC Bank plc, HSBC North America, HSI and HSBC Canada have been named as defendants, among others, in a putative class action brought in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of persons who transacted in products tied to the Canadian Dealer Offered Rate ("CDOR") between August 2007 and December 2014. The complaint, encaptioned Fire & Police Pension Association of Colorado, et al. v Bank of Montreal, et al. (Case No. 18-cv-00342), alleges that the defendant banks conspired to suppress CDOR by making artificially lower submissions and entering into collusive transactions in the swaps market, thereby fixing the prices of CDOR-based derivatives for their collective financial benefit. The defendants are accused of illegal restraint of trade in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act, violation of the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization Act and Commodity Exchange Act. HSBC USA said, "In July 2018, defendants filed a motion to dismiss and we await a decision." HSBC USA Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provides consumer and commercial banking products, and related financial services in the United States. The company was founded in 1850 and is based in New York, New York. HSBC USA Inc. is a subsidiary of HSBC North America Holdings Inc. HSBC USA: Bid to Dismiss Vasquez and Garcia Suit Underway --------------------------------------------------------- HSBC USA Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the HSBC defendants are awaiting the court's decision on the motion to dismiss the amended complaint in Rigoberto Vasquez and Eva Garcia et al v. Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd., HSBC Bank USA, N.A., et al. Rigoberto Vasquez and Eva Garcia et al v. Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd., HSBC Bank USA, N.A., et al., was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in March 2018 against HSBC Bank USA and the Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank Corporation. Plaintiffs purport to represent those that invested in a Ponzi scheme allegedly orchestrated by Phil Ming Xu and certain companies he allegedly controlled, such as WCM777. Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation is alleged to have accepted wire transfers from plaintiffs to WCM777 from investors in furtherance of the Ponzi scheme. HSBC Bank USA is alleged to have acted as Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation's correspondent bank for certain wire transfers to WCM777. The purported class period is from June 2013 to May 2014. Plaintiffs allege claims for Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act violations, aiding and abetting fraud, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, and aiding and abetting conversion. Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages in the amount of $37 million plus punitive damages, interest and attorneys' fees and costs. In August 2018, the HSBC defendants filed a motion to dismiss. In response, plaintiffs requested and received leave from the court to file an amended complaint, which was filed in October 2018. The HSBC defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint in December 2018. We await a decision. HSBC USA Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provides consumer and commercial banking products, and related financial services in the United States. The company was founded in 1850 and is based in New York, New York. HSBC USA Inc. is a subsidiary of HSBC North America Holdings Inc. HSBC USA: Rigged ICE LIBOR, Putnam Bank Alleges ----------------------------------------------- HSBC USA Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company has been named as a defendant in a putative class action suit entitled, Putnam Bank v. Intercontinental Exchange, Inc., et al. In January 2019, a putative class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of persons who purchased over the counter instruments paying interest indexed to Intercontinental Exchange ("ICE") LIBOR (ICE LIBOR) from a panel bank against HSBC Bank plc, HSBC Bank USA, HSBC North America, HSBC USA and HSI, as well as other panel banks, alleging a conspiracy to depress USD ICE LIBOR from February 2014 (when ICE began administration of LIBOR) to the present. The complaint alleges, among other things, misconduct related to the suppression of the benchmark rate in violation of US antitrust and state law. (Putnam Bank v. Intercontinental Exchange, Inc., et al. (Case No. 19-cv-00439)). HSBC USA Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provides consumer and commercial banking products, and related financial services in the United States. The company was founded in 1850 and is based in New York, New York. HSBC USA Inc. is a subsidiary of HSBC North America Holdings Inc. HSBC USA: Suits over Precious Metals Derivatives in Canada Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------------------ HSBC USA Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company continues to defend itself against several class action suits in Canada. Beginning in December 2015, HSBC, HSBC Bank plc, HSBC USA, HSI, HSBC Bank Canada and HSBC Securities Canada have been named, along with other institutions, in several putative class actions filed in the Superior Courts of Justice in the Provinces of Ontario and Quebec, Canada. These suits allege, among other things, that the defendants conspired to manipulate the prices of gold and silver derivatives. These claims include: (1) DiFilippo and Caron v. The Bank of Nova Scotia, et al. (Superior Court of Justice, Ontario Province) (Gold Fix); (2) DiFilippo and Caron v. The Bank of Nova Scotia, et al. (Superior Court of Justice, Ontario Province) (Silver Fix); (3) Benoit v. Bank of Nova Scotia, et al. (Superior Court of Justice, Quebec Province); and (4) Ayas v. La Banque de Nouvelle-Ecosse, et. al. (Superior Court of Justice, Quebec Province). These actions are at an early stage. HSBC USA Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provides consumer and commercial banking products, and related financial services in the United States. The company was founded in 1850 and is based in New York, New York. HSBC USA Inc. is a subsidiary of HSBC North America Holdings Inc. IKE & MIKE: Sirak Seeks Minimum Wages & Overtime Pay ---------------------------------------------------- JASON SIRAK, individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons, the Plaintiff, vs. IKE & MIKE PIZZA, LLC and STEPHEN CORONIS, individually, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00172 (W.D. Tex., Feb. 22, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime hours owed to Plaintiff and similarly situated delivery drivers employed by Defendants at their Domino's stores under the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants operate several Domino's Pizza franchise stores. The Defendants employ delivery drivers who use their own automobiles to deliver pizza and other food items to their customers. However, instead of reimbursing delivery drivers for the reasonably approximate costs of the business use of their vehicles, the Defendants use a flawed method to determine reimbursement rates that provides such an unreasonably low rate beneath any reasonable approximation of the expenses they incur that the drivers' unreimbursed expenses cause their wages to fall below the federal minimum wage during some or all workweeks (nominal wages – unreimbursed vehicle costs = subminimum net wages).[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: J. Forester, Esq. Matthew Haynie, Esq. FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC www.foresterhaynie.com 1701 N. Market Street, Suite 210 Dallas, TX 75202 Telephone: (214) 210-2100 Facsimile: (214) 346-5909 - and - Mark Potashnick, Esq. WEINHAUS & POTASHNICK 11500 Olive Blvd., Suite 133 St. Louis, MO 63141 Telephone: (314) 997-9150 Facsimile: (314) 997-9170 E-mail: markp@wp-attorneys.com IMMUNOMEDICS INC: Pomerantz Law Files Class Action -------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Immunomedics, Inc. ("Immunomedics" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: IMMU) and certain of its officers and directors. The class action, filed in United States District Court, District of New Jersey, and indexed under 19-cv-05151, is on behalf of a class consisting of all behalf of persons and/or entities who purchased or otherwise, acquired Immunomedics securities between February 8, 2018 and January 18, 2019, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking 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 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials If you are a shareholder who purchased Immunomedics securities between February 8, 2018, and January 18, 2019, you have until February 25, 2019, to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased. Immunomedics, Inc., a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company, develops monoclonal antibody-based products for the targeted treatment of cancer. Its advanced antibody-drug conjugates are sacituzumab govitecan and labetuzumab govitecan, which are in advanced trials for various solid tumors and metastatic colorectal cancer, respectively. The company focuses on commercializing sacituzumab govitecan as a third-line therapy for patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer in the United States. The company also develops IMMU-140, a humanized antibody directed against an immune response target. Its other product candidates include products for the treatment of cancer and autoimmune diseases, including epratuzumab, an anti-CD22 antibody; veltuzumab, an anti-CD20 antibody; milatuzumab, an anti-CD74 antibody; and IMMU-114, a humanized anti-HLA-DR antibody. The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors (i) Immunomedics' Morris Plains, New Jersey drug substance manufacturing facility was not in compliance with U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") requirements; (ii) the Company's Quality Control Unit did not possess the authority to investigate and correct critical FDA violations occurring at the Morris Plains, New Jersey facility; (iii) the Company suffered a February 2018 data integrity breach at the Morris Plains, New Jersey facility which, among other issues, included the backdating records and manipulation of bioburden samples; (iv) the Company's Chemistry, Manufacturing and Control data submitted in connection with its BLA for sacituzumab govitecan was insufficient to support FDA approval; and (v) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On December 17, 2018, the FDAnews.com published an article titled "FDA Hits Immunomedics for Data Integrity Breach." According to this article, "[t]he FDA cited Immunomedics for a host of violations -- including its handling of a data integrity breach -- observed at its Morris Plains, New Jersey, drug substance manufacturing facility between August 6 and 14." The article states that this breach included "manipulated bioburden samples, misrepresentation of an integrity test procedure in the batch record, and backdating of batch records, such as dates of analytical results." On December 17, 2018, following the publication of the FDAnews.com story, Immunomedics shares fell from an opening price of $18.54 to close at $17.86, a decline of 4%. On December 20, 2018, the truth was fully revealed to the market when Favus Institutional Research issued a Report (the "Favus Report") providing additional details regarding the data integrity breach. Following the Favus Report, the Company's stock price fell drastically, from $17.64 at close on December 19, 2018, to $14.17 at close on December 20, 2018, a drop of 20%. Then on January 17, 2019, the Company announced that it "received a Complete Response Letter (CRL) from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the Biologics License Application (BLA) seeking accelerated approval of sacituzumab govitecan for the treatment of patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC) who have received at least two prior therapies for metastatic disease." In the CRL, the FDA raised issues related to approvability "focused on Chemistry, Manufacturing and Control matters." Following the news of the CRL, the Company's stock price fell drastically, from $18.09 at close on January 17, 2019, to $13.31 at close on January 18, 2019, a drop of approximately 26%. Robert S. Willoughby, Esq. Pomerantz LLP Telephone: 888-476-6529 ext. 9980 Email: rswilloughby@pomlaw.com [GN] IQVIA: Faces TCPA Class Action Over Fax Marketing ------------------------------------------------- Seth Thomas Gulledge, writing for Triangle Business Journal, reports that a class action lawsuit has been brought against Durham-based Iqvia -- for faxing without consent. According to a court filing submitted by lawyers representing Dr. Kenneth Thomas, a Connecticut-based doctor, Iqvia (NYSE: IQV) repeatedly sent multiple faxes to his company over the course of several years -- rendering the fax machine useless during the period of incoming faxes and costing the company time, money and paper. Dr. Thomas is represented by Ted Johnson, a Greensboro attorney, and Avi Kaufman and Stefan Coleman -- two Miami-based attorneys. The filing states that between December 2016 and June 2018, Thomas received four unsolicited fax advertisements -- three of which failed to include a proper opt-out notice. These faxes, according to the case documents recently filed in the Middle District Court of North Carolina, "announced the commercial availability and touted the quality of IQVIA's services, including the National Healthcare Census and another nationally recognized, HIPAA-compliant research study for the 'benefit' of, among others, 'private-sector establishments across the globe.'" The filing notes the company "did not have Plaintiff's consent or permission to send Plaintiff fax advertisements" nor did the defendant have an existing business relationship with Iqvia. The filing claims the fax campaign was a violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, and caused the plaintiff -- and subsequent members of the class -- to suffer actual harm, including the aggravation and nuisance of receiving such faxes, the loss of use of their fax machines during the receipt of such faxes, and other expenses. The plaintiff is seeking an injunction requiring the company to cease all unauthorized fax-marketing activities, as well as an award of statutory damages and costs. The filing states that the fax campaign is part of Iqvia's Physician Insights 360 service, which uses "cutting edge referral intelligence" to enable "precision targeting" to find the physicians and patients that customers want. [GN] KING COUNTY, WA: Petition for Writ of Certiorari Filed in "Moore" ----------------------------------------------------------------- MITZI JOHANKNECHT, In her official capacity as King County Sheriff, the Petitioner v. EVA MOORE AND BROOKE SHAW, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Respondents, Case 18-1056 (U.S.), is an appeal filed to the Supreme Court of United States form a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Case No. 16-36086 (9th Cir.) on Feb. 12, 2019. Petitioner Mitzi Johanknecht appears before the court in her official capacity as the elected Sheriff of King County, Washington. The petitioner contends that the Ninth Circuit's decision overtly circumvents Los Angeles County v. Humphries, 562 U.S. 29 (2010). Rather than applying Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978) to Respondents' claims for prospective relief against municipalities as directed by Humphries, the Ninth Circuit adopts a new, judge made cause of action that stands apart from both 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 and Monell considerations. The source of its new cause of action is the Eleventh Amendment doctrine of Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908), which the Ninth Circuit extends from state officials to purely local officials. The reason for ignoring Humphries and turning Ex parte Young on its head? -- to allow Respondents to bring an official capacity action against Petitioner, the King County Sheriff, for the routine act of faithfully executing Writs of Restitution, which are Washington Superior Courts orders issued pursuant to state eviction statutes at the request of landlords. It has long been the rule that local officials are expected to promptly and faithfully execute facially valid court orders. Under the Ninth Circuit's decision, however, local officials are now required to second guess facially valid court orders -- which undermines respect for state courts. A local official like the Sheriff, directed by the state court to execute a facially valid order, is caught between a proverbial rock and a hard place. She risks being hauled into federal court if she follows the commands of the state court order, but a federal court later invalidates it under the vagaries of procedural due process. Alternatively, if she questions the state court order, reviews the record, studies the law, consults with counsel, and attempts to anticipate possible constitutional or statutory challenges, the Sheriff risks being held in contempt by the state court for failing to execute the order. Whatever problem the Ninth Circuit sought to address with its decision, its cure creates far greater problems. This Court's Monell doctrine ensures that municipalities -- whether sued directly or for the official capacity acts of their officials -- are liable only for constitutional deprivations caused by the municipalities' own policies and customs. There is no respondeat superior liability under Sec. 1983, nor should there be a doctrine of respondeat inferior, whereby a municipality is held liable for the unconstitutional acts of its parent state. Yet, this is the impact of the Ninth Circuit's decision. The Sheriff does not initiate the Writ process, nor is she a party to it. She is not responsible for the wording of the Writ, nor the court process that results in its issuance -- but she is mandated by the state court to follow the Writ's precise commands. The Ninth Circuit's new cause of action leaves the Sheriff and her municipality as the designated defendant to answer for the claimed procedural due process problems of a Washington State statute that is outside the Sheriff's discretionary enforcement responsibilities, and a Writ issued under that statute by a state court judge that operates independent of the municipality's influence or control. Because the Ninth Circuit's decision substantially departs from Monell and twists Ex parte Young into spaces it was never meant to occupy, the Court should grant certiorari, the petitioner says. A motion to extend the time to file a response has been granted and the time to respond has been extended to and including April 15, 2019.[BN] Attorneys for Mitzi Johanknecht: David J. W. Hackett, Esq. Prosecuting Attorney's Office 500 Fourth Avenue Suite 900 Seattle, WA 98104 E-mail: david.hackett@kingcounty.gov LENDINGCLUB CORP: Files Consolidated Amended Complaint in Veal -------------------------------------------------------------- LendingClub Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 20, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the lead plaintiffs in the case, Veal v. LendingClub Corporation et.al., have filed a consolidated amended class action complaint. In May 2018, following the announcement of the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC's) litigation against the Company, putative shareholder class action litigation was filed in the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of California (Veal v. LendingClub Corporation et.al., No. 5:18-cv-02599) against the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors alleging violations of federal securities laws in connection with the Company's description of fees and compliance with federal privacy law in securities filings. The court appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel for the litigation in November 2018. On January 7, 2019, the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class action complaint which asserts the same causes of action as the original complaint and adds additional allegations. LendingClub said, "This lawsuit is in the early stages. The Company denies and will vigorously defend against the allegations." LendingClub Corporation operates an online lending marketplace platform that connects borrowers and investors in the United States. The company's marketplace facilitates various types of loan products for consumers and small businesses, including unsecured personal loans, unsecured education and patient installment loans, auto refinance loans, and small business loans. The company was founded in 2006 and is headquartered in San Francisco, California. LEXICON PHARMACEUTICALS: RM LAW Files Class Action Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------- RM LAW, P.C. disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Lexicon" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: LXRX) between March 11, 2016, and January 17, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Lexicon shareholders may, no later than April 1, 2019, move the Court for appointment as a lead plaintiff of the Class. If you purchased shares of Lexicon and would like to learn more about these claims or if you wish to discuss these matters and have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights, contact Richard A. Maniskas, Esquire toll-free at (844) 291-9299 or to sign up online, click here. This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Complaint alleges that Defendants made materially false and misleading statementsand/or failed to disclose that: (1) 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; (2) the health risks posed by Sotagliflozin were severe enough to threaten its FDA approval prospects; and (3) 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 U.S. Food and Drug Administration 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." 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. If you are a member of the class, you may, no later than April 1, 2019, request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff of the class. A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will adequately represent the class. Under certain circumstances, one or more class members may together serve as "lead plaintiff." Your ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. You may retain RM LAW, P.C. or other counsel of your choice, to serve as your counsel in this action. For more information regarding this please; Richard A. Maniskas, Esq. RM LAW, P.C. 1055 Westlakes Dr., Ste. 300 Berwyn, PA 19312 Telephone: 484-324-6800 844-291-9299 Email: rm@maniskas.com [GN] MARGOLIN SHOES: Sued for Collecting Biometric Information --------------------------------------------------------- Angelica Saylo Pilo, writing for Madison Record, reports that an employee of a footwear company filed a class action lawsuit alleging employees' biometric information was collected and transferred to third parties without the employees' knowledge or consent. Keshia Tyson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a complaint on Feb. 7 in the Madison County Circuit Court against Margolin Shoes Inc., alleging that the footwear company violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges the defendant unlawfully extracted biometric information from its employee's fingerprints and subsequently transferred the information to third parties without informing the employees in writing that their biometric information was collected and used. As a result, Tyson alleges she suffered damages in the form of diminution in the unique identifying value of her biometric information and costs associated with identity protection and account monitoring. The plaintiff seeks an order certifying the case as a class action and appointing Tyson and her counsel as representatives. She also seeks an award for actual, statutory and punitive damages, litigation cost and expenses and all other relief deemed just and equitable. She is represented by Lanny Darr of Darr Law Offices Ltd. in Alton. Madison County Circuit Court case number 19-L-172 [GN] MDL 2179: Court Dismisses E. Brown's Claims With Prejudice ---------------------------------------------------------- In the case, In Re: Oil Spill by the Oil Rig "Deepwater Horizon" in the Gulf of Mexico, on April 20, 2010, SECTION: J(2). This Document Relates To: Eddie Brown v. Global Safety Medics, LLC, et al, MDL 2179, No. 19-00023 (E.D. La.), Judge Carl Barbier of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana (i) granted Tiger's Motion for Disposition of Claim, and (ii) dismissed with prejudice all claims by Eddie Brown asserted in No. 19-00023. Before the Court is the Modern Group, Ltd. and Tiger Rentals, LLC, doing business as Tiger Safety's ("Tiger") Motion for Disposition of Claim. The motion concerns member case No. 19-00023, an action by Brown against Tiger and another entity, Global, for personal injuries he allegedly sustained from exposure to oil-related chemicals while employed as a cleanup worker during the response to the Deepwater Horizon/Macondo Well oil spill. The case was originally filed in Louisiana state court, then removed to the Western District of Louisiana and subsequently transferred to this Court where it was consolidated with Multidisrict Litigation No. 2179. While the case was pending in the Western District, Tiger filed a motion for summary judgment on the basis of res judicata or claim preclusion. Tiger's instant motion requests information on the disposition of Brown's claims so that it may further support its res judicata/claim preclusion defense. The Court grants this motion and provides the following information regarding Brown's claims. On Jan. 11, 2013, the Court entered an Order and Judgment granting final approval to the Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement and confirmed certification of the Medical Benefits Settlement Class. Pursuant to the Order and Judgment and the Medical Settlement, the class members who did not timely opt out of the Medical Class are deemed to have released and are barred from pursuing in litigation all "Released Claims" against any "Release Parties," as those terms are defined under the Medical Settlement. Judge Barbier finds that it appears from the allegations in Brown's petition that he is a member of the Medical Class, specifically, a Clean-Up Worker, and Brown's name does not appear among the list of valid opt-outs. Furthermore, Brown's petition alleges "Released Claims," and Tiger is the "Released Parties." Indeed, the Judge has inquired with the Claims Administrator for the Medical Settlement who informs that Brown (born April 15, 1965) submitted a claim for a Specified Physical Condition to the Medical Settlement, the Claims Administrator determined Brown was a member of the Medical Class, and the Claims Administrator deemed Brown eligible for payment at the A2 level. Accordingly, it appears that Brown's claims against Tiger are barred by the Medical Settlement's class-wide release. Brown's petition also alleges claims against Global. Global is not explicitly identified as a "Released Party" in the Medical Settlement. Judge Barbier will assume for the time being that Global Safety Medics, LLC is not a "Released Party," although this might not be the case. Nevertheless, even if Brown's claims against Global are not precluded by the Medical Settlement's class-wide release, such claims were dismissed by the "PTO 63 Compliance Order." On April 20, 2012, Brown filed a short form joinder in the Court that asserted chemical exposure claims and specifically identified Global as his employer. Such claims are in the B3 pleading bundle. On Feb. 22, 2017, the Court issued Pretrial Order No. 63, which required that all the Plaintiffs who had timely filed a claim in the B3 pleading bundle and who had not released their claims to file an individual lawsuit and complete, serve, and file the Sworn Statement attached to PTO 63. PTO 63 warned that the Plaintiffs who failed to timely comply with PTO 63 would have their B3 claims dismissed with prejudice without further notice. On July 18, 2017, the Court issued the PTO 63 Compliance Order, which identified 960 Plaintiffs that complied with PTO 63. The PTO 63 Compliance Order dismissed with prejudice the B3 claims of those Plaintiffs who did not comply PTO 63. Brown did not comply with PTO 63, consequently, his claim against Global was dismissed by the PTO 63 Compliance Order (assuming that claim was not already released by the Medical Settlement). Accordingly, Judge Barbier (i) granted Tiger's Motion for Disposition of Claim as set forth, and (ii) dismissed with prejudice all claims by Brown asserted in No. 19-00023. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 26, 2019 Order and Reasons is available at https://is.gd/RbDO1i from Leagle.com. Plaintiff, Plaintiff, represented by James P. Roy -- jimr@wrightroy.com -- Domengeaux -- john Wright, Roy & Edwards & Stephen J. Herman -- sherman@hhklawfirm.com -- Herman, Herman & Katz, LLC. Marine Spill Response Corporation, Dispersant defendant, Defendant, represented by Alan Mark Weigel -- aweigel@blankrome.com – Blank Rome LLP. Airborne Support, Inc., Dispersant defendant & Airborne Support International Inc, Dispersant defendant, Defendants, represented by Francis Xavier Neuner, Jr. -- fneuner@neunerpate.com -- NeunerPate, Ben Louis Mayeaux, NeunerPate, and Jed M. Mestayer, NeunerPate. Dynamic Aviation Group Inc, Defendant, represented by Leo Raymond McAloon, III -- lmcaloon@glllaw.com -- Gieger, Laborde & Laperouse, LLC & Michael D. Cangelosi -- mcangelosi@glllaw.com -- Gieger, Laborde & Laperouse, LLC. International Air Response Inc, Defendant, represented by Kevin Richard Tully -- krtully@christovich.com -- Christovich & Kearney, LLP & Howard Carter Marshall, Christovich & Kearney, LLP. Lane Aviation, Defendant, represented by George Edmond Crow, Law Office of George E. Crow. National Response Corporation, Defendant, represented by Michael J. Lyle -- mikelyle@quinnemanuel.com -- Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Eric C. Lyttle -- ericlyttle@quinnemanuel.com -- Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Patrick Edward O'Keefe -- pokeefe@couhigpartners.com -- Couhig Partners, LLC, Philip S. Brooks, Jr. -- pbrooks@gamb.law.com -- Gordon, Arata, Montgomery & Barnett & Sylvia E. Simson -- sylviasimson@quinnemanuel.com -- Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP. DRC Emergency Services, LLC, Defendant, represented by Harold J. Flanagan -- hflanagan@flanaganpartners.com -- Flanagan Partners, LLP, Andy Joseph Dupre -- adupre@flanaganpartners.com -- Flanagan Partners, LLP & Sean Patrick Brady -- sbrady@flanaganpartners.com -- Flanagan Partners, LLP. Tiger Rentals Ltd., Defendant, represented by John Emerson Galloway, Galloway, Johnson, Tompkins, Burr & Smith & Cherrell Simms Taplin, City Attorney's Office. Defendant, Defendant, represented by David J. Beck -- dbeck@beckredden.com -- Beck, Redden & Secrest, LLP, pro hac vice, Deborah DeRoche Kuchler -- dkuchler@kuchlerpolk.com -- Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Don Keller Haycraft -- dkhaycraft@liskow.com -- Liskow & Lewis, Donald E. Godwin, Godwin Lewis PC, pro hac vice, J. Andrew Langan -- andrew.langan@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis, LLP, Kerry J. Miller -- kjmiller@bakerdonelson.com -- Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz, Michael J. Lyle, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Phillip A. Wittmann, Stone, Pigman, Walther, Wittmann, LLC & Thomas Lotterman, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius. Federal Government Interests, Interested Party, represented by R. Michael Underhill, U. S. Department of Justice. State Interests, Interested Party, represented by Luther J. Strange, III, Attorney General's Office. Lynn C. Greer, Transition Coordinator, Interested Party, pro se. MDL 2492: Asby vs. NCAA over Health & Safety Issues Consolidated ---------------------------------------------------------------- A case, Paul Asby, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00303 (Filed Jan. 28, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on Feb. 26, 2019. The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-01274 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff brings this class action complaint against NCAA to obtain redress for injuries sustained as result of Defendant's reckless disregard for the health and safety of Student-Athletes. The Asby case is being consolidated with MDL No. 2492, Re: NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION STUDENT-ATHLETE CONCUSSION INJURY LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Dec. 18, 2013. These actions seek medical monitoring for putative classes of former student athletes at NCAA-member schools who allege they suffered concussions. The Plaintiffs allege that the NCAA concealed information about the risks of the long-term effects of concussion injuries. Opponents to centralization argue, inter alia, that (1) the putative classes and claims alleged in these actions do not sufficiently overlap; and (2) given the small number of actions pending, alternatives to centralization are preferable. Opponents' arguments, while persuasive when the Section 1407 motion was first filed, are less compelling now given the current state of the litigation. Since the motion for centralization was filed, an additional eight related actions have been filed, most alleging overlapping putative classes of former football players at NCAA-member schools. The Northern District of Illinois Arrington action involves student-athletes who participated in additional sports, and the putative class alleged in that action is more limited in scope. Most of the actions now pending, however, involve nearly completely overlapping putative classes and claims. Moreover, the Panel is persuaded that the overlap between Arrington and the remaining actions is sufficient to warrant centralization. Regardless of the scope of the putative classes alleged, all actions share common factual questions concerning the NCAA's knowledge of the risks of concussions in football players and its policies governing the protection of players from such injuries. Plaintiffs in all actions seek medical monitoring for putative class members. In its Dec. 18, 2013 Order, the MDL Panel found that the these actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Northern District of Illinois will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. These actions share factual questions relating to allegations against the NCAA stemming from injuries sustained while playing sports at NCAA-member institutions, including damages resulting from the permanent long-term effects of concussions. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge John Z. Lee Paul. The lead case is 1:16-cv-08727. NCAA is a non-profit organization which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American institutions and conferences.[BN] Counsel for the 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 MDL 2492: Benditt Suit v. NCAA over Health & Safety Issues Moved ---------------------------------------------------------------- A case, Russell Benditt, II, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION and Albright College, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00433 (Filed Jan. 28, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on Feb. 26, 2019. The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-01116 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff brings this class action complaint against NCAA to obtain redress for injuries sustained as result of Defendant's reckless disregard for the health and safety of Albright College Student-Athletes. The Benditt case is being consolidated with MDL No. 2492, Re: NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION STUDENT-ATHLETE CONCUSSION INJURY LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Dec. 18, 2013. These actions seek medical monitoring for putative classes of former student athletes at NCAA-member schools who allege they suffered concussions. The Plaintiffs allege that the NCAA concealed information about the risks of the long-term effects of concussion injuries. Opponents to centralization argue, inter alia, that (1) the putative classes and claims alleged in these actions do not sufficiently overlap; and (2) given the small number of actions pending, alternatives to centralization are preferable. Opponents' arguments, while persuasive when the Section 1407 motion was first filed, are less compelling now given the current state of the litigation. Since the motion for centralization was filed, an additional eight related actions have been filed, most alleging overlapping putative classes of former football players at NCAA-member schools. The Northern District of Illinois Arrington action involves student-athletes who participated in additional sports, and the putative class alleged in that action is more limited in scope. Most of the actions now pending, however, involve nearly completely overlapping putative classes and claims. Moreover, the Panel is persuaded that the overlap between Arrington and the remaining actions is sufficient to warrant centralization. Regardless of the scope of the putative classes alleged, all actions share common factual questions concerning the NCAA's knowledge of the risks of concussions in football players and its policies governing the protection of players from such injuries. Plaintiffs in all actions seek medical monitoring for putative class members. In its Dec. 18, 2013 Order, the MDL Panel found that the these actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Northern District of Illinois will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. These actions share factual questions relating to allegations against the NCAA stemming from injuries sustained while playing sports at NCAA-member institutions, including damages resulting from the permanent long-term effects of concussions. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge John Z. Lee Paul. The lead case is 1:16-cv-08727. NCAA is a non-profit organization which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American institutions and conferences.[BN] Counsel for the 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 MDL 2492: Blunt Suit v. NCAA over Health & Safety Issues Moved -------------------------------------------------------------- A case, Byron Blunt, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00403 (Filed Jan. 28, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on Feb. 26, 2019. The Illinois District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-01031 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff brings this class action complaint against NCAA to obtain redress for injuries sustained as result of Defendant's reckless disregard for the health and safety of Student-Athletes. The Blunt case is being consolidated with MDL No. 2492, Re: NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION STUDENT-ATHLETE CONCUSSION INJURY LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Dec. 18, 2013. These actions seek medical monitoring for putative classes of former student athletes at NCAA-member schools who allege they suffered concussions. The Plaintiffs allege that the NCAA concealed information about the risks of the long-term effects of concussion injuries. Opponents to centralization argue, inter alia, that (1) the putative classes and claims alleged in these actions do not sufficiently overlap; and (2) given the small number of actions pending, alternatives to centralization are preferable. Opponents' arguments, while persuasive when the Section 1407 motion was first filed, are less compelling now given the current state of the litigation. Since the motion for centralization was filed, an additional eight related actions have been filed, most alleging overlapping putative classes of former football players at NCAA-member schools. The Northern District of Illinois Arrington action involves student-athletes who participated in additional sports, and the putative class alleged in that action is more limited in scope. Most of the actions now pending, however, involve nearly completely overlapping putative classes and claims. Moreover, the Panel is persuaded that the overlap between Arrington and the remaining actions is sufficient to warrant centralization. Regardless of the scope of the putative classes alleged, all actions share common factual questions concerning the NCAA's knowledge of the risks of concussions in football players and its policies governing the protection of players from such injuries. Plaintiffs in all actions seek medical monitoring for putative class members. In its Dec. 18, 2013 Order, the MDL Panel found that the these actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Northern District of Illinois will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. These actions share factual questions relating to allegations against the NCAA stemming from injuries sustained while playing sports at NCAA-member institutions, including damages resulting from the permanent long-term effects of concussions. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge John Z. Lee Paul. The lead case is 1:16-cv-08727. NCAA is a non-profit organization which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American institutions and conferences.[BN] Counsel for the 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 MDL 2492: Booker Suit v. NCAA over Concussion Consolidated ---------------------------------------------------------- A case, JONATHON BOOKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION and MILLIKIN UNIVERSITY, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00409 (Filed Jan. 27, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on Feb. 26, 2019. The Illinois District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-01046 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff brings this class action complaint against NCAA to obtain redress for injuries sustained as result of Defendant's reckless disregard for the health and safety of Millikin University Student-Athletes. The Blunt case is being consolidated with MDL No. 2492, Re: NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION STUDENT-ATHLETE CONCUSSION INJURY LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Dec. 18, 2013. These actions seek medical monitoring for putative classes of former student athletes at NCAA-member schools who allege they suffered concussions. The Plaintiffs allege that the NCAA concealed information about the risks of the long-term effects of concussion injuries. Opponents to centralization argue, inter alia, that (1) the putative classes and claims alleged in these actions do not sufficiently overlap; and (2) given the small number of actions pending, alternatives to centralization are preferable. Opponents' arguments, while persuasive when the Section 1407 motion was first filed, are less compelling now given the current state of the litigation. Since the motion for centralization was filed, an additional eight related actions have been filed, most alleging overlapping putative classes of former football players at NCAA-member schools. The Northern District of Illinois Arrington action involves student-athletes who participated in additional sports, and the putative class alleged in that action is more limited in scope. Most of the actions now pending, however, involve nearly completely overlapping putative classes and claims. Moreover, the Panel is persuaded that the overlap between Arrington and the remaining actions is sufficient to warrant centralization. Regardless of the scope of the putative classes alleged, all actions share common factual questions concerning the NCAA's knowledge of the risks of concussions in football players and its policies governing the protection of players from such injuries. Plaintiffs in all actions seek medical monitoring for putative class members. In its Dec. 18, 2013 Order, the MDL Panel found that the these actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Northern District of Illinois will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. These actions share factual questions relating to allegations against the NCAA stemming from injuries sustained while playing sports at NCAA-member institutions, including damages resulting from the permanent long-term effects of concussions. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge John Z. Lee Paul. The lead case is 1:16-cv-08727. NCAA is a non-profit organization which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American institutions and conferences.[BN] Counsel for the 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 MDL 2492: Brantley Suit v. NCAA over Concussion Consolidated ------------------------------------------------------------ A case, Johnathan Brantley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00408 (Filed Jan. 27, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on Feb. 26, 2019. The Illinois District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-01044 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff brings this class action complaint against NCAA to obtain redress for injuries sustained as result of Defendant's reckless disregard for the health and safety of Student-Athletes. The Brantley case is being consolidated with MDL No. 2492, Re: NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION STUDENT-ATHLETE CONCUSSION INJURY LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Dec. 18, 2013. These actions seek medical monitoring for putative classes of former student athletes at NCAA-member schools who allege they suffered concussions. The Plaintiffs allege that the NCAA concealed information about the risks of the long-term effects of concussion injuries. Opponents to centralization argue, inter alia, that (1) the putative classes and claims alleged in these actions do not sufficiently overlap; and (2) given the small number of actions pending, alternatives to centralization are preferable. Opponents' arguments, while persuasive when the Section 1407 motion was first filed, are less compelling now given the current state of the litigation. Since the motion for centralization was filed, an additional eight related actions have been filed, most alleging overlapping putative classes of former football players at NCAA-member schools. The Northern District of Illinois Arrington action involves student-athletes who participated in additional sports, and the putative class alleged in that action is more limited in scope. Most of the actions now pending, however, involve nearly completely overlapping putative classes and claims. Moreover, the Panel is persuaded that the overlap between Arrington and the remaining actions is sufficient to warrant centralization. Regardless of the scope of the putative classes alleged, all actions share common factual questions concerning the NCAA's knowledge of the risks of concussions in football players and its policies governing the protection of players from such injuries. Plaintiffs in all actions seek medical monitoring for putative class members. In its Dec. 18, 2013 Order, the MDL Panel found that the these actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Northern District of Illinois will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. These actions share factual questions relating to allegations against the NCAA stemming from injuries sustained while playing sports at NCAA-member institutions, including damages resulting from the permanent long-term effects of concussions. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge John Z. Lee Paul. The lead case is 1:16-cv-08727. NCAA is a non-profit organization which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American institutions and conferences.[BN] Counsel for the 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 MDL 2492: Briggs Suit v. NCAA over Concussion Consolidated ---------------------------------------------------------- A case, JOSEPH BRIGGS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00410 (Filed Jan. 27, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on Feb. 26, 2019. The Illinois District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-01048 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff brings this class action complaint against NCAA to obtain redress for injuries sustained as result of Defendant's reckless disregard for the health and safety of Student-Athletes. The BRIGGS case is being consolidated with MDL No. 2492, Re: NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION STUDENT-ATHLETE CONCUSSION INJURY LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Dec. 18, 2013. These actions seek medical monitoring for putative classes of former student athletes at NCAA-member schools who allege they suffered concussions. The Plaintiffs allege that the NCAA concealed information about the risks of the long-term effects of concussion injuries. Opponents to centralization argue, inter alia, that (1) the putative classes and claims alleged in these actions do not sufficiently overlap; and (2) given the small number of actions pending, alternatives to centralization are preferable. Opponents' arguments, while persuasive when the Section 1407 motion was first filed, are less compelling now given the current state of the litigation. Since the motion for centralization was filed, an additional eight related actions have been filed, most alleging overlapping putative classes of former football players at NCAA-member schools. The Northern District of Illinois Arrington action involves student-athletes who participated in additional sports, and the putative class alleged in that action is more limited in scope. Most of the actions now pending, however, involve nearly completely overlapping putative classes and claims. Moreover, the Panel is persuaded that the overlap between Arrington and the remaining actions is sufficient to warrant centralization. Regardless of the scope of the putative classes alleged, all actions share common factual questions concerning the NCAA's knowledge of the risks of concussions in football players and its policies governing the protection of players from such injuries. Plaintiffs in all actions seek medical monitoring for putative class members. In its Dec. 18, 2013 Order, the MDL Panel found that the these actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Northern District of Illinois will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. These actions share factual questions relating to allegations against the NCAA stemming from injuries sustained while playing sports at NCAA-member institutions, including damages resulting from the permanent long-term effects of concussions. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge John Z. Lee Paul. The lead case is 1:16-cv-08727. NCAA is a non-profit organization which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American institutions and conferences.[BN] Counsel for the 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 MDL 2492: Brown Suit v. NCAA over Concussion Consolidated --------------------------------------------------------- A case, Philip Brown, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00430 (Filed Jan. 28, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on Feb. 26, 2019. The Illinois District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-01081 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff brings this class action complaint against NCAA to obtain redress for injuries sustained as result of Defendant's reckless disregard for the health and safety of Student-Athletes. The Brown case is being consolidated with MDL No. 2492, Re: NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION STUDENT-ATHLETE CONCUSSION INJURY LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Dec. 18, 2013. These actions seek medical monitoring for putative classes of former student athletes at NCAA-member schools who allege they suffered concussions. The Plaintiffs allege that the NCAA concealed information about the risks of the long-term effects of concussion injuries. Opponents to centralization argue, inter alia, that (1) the putative classes and claims alleged in these actions do not sufficiently overlap; and (2) given the small number of actions pending, alternatives to centralization are preferable. Opponents' arguments, while persuasive when the Section 1407 motion was first filed, are less compelling now given the current state of the litigation. Since the motion for centralization was filed, an additional eight related actions have been filed, most alleging overlapping putative classes of former football players at NCAA-member schools. The Northern District of Illinois Arrington action involves student-athletes who participated in additional sports, and the putative class alleged in that action is more limited in scope. Most of the actions now pending, however, involve nearly completely overlapping putative classes and claims. Moreover, the Panel is persuaded that the overlap between Arrington and the remaining actions is sufficient to warrant centralization. Regardless of the scope of the putative classes alleged, all actions share common factual questions concerning the NCAA's knowledge of the risks of concussions in football players and its policies governing the protection of players from such injuries. Plaintiffs in all actions seek medical monitoring for putative class members. In its Dec. 18, 2013 Order, the MDL Panel found that the these actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Northern District of Illinois will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. These actions share factual questions relating to allegations against the NCAA stemming from injuries sustained while playing sports at NCAA-member institutions, including damages resulting from the permanent long-term effects of concussions. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge John Z. Lee Paul. The lead case is 1:16-cv-08727. NCAA is a non-profit organization which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American institutions and conferences.[BN] Counsel for the 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 MDL 2492: Chambliss Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated ---------------------------------------------------------------- A case, MYRON CHAMBLISS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00413 (Filed Jan. 27, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on Feb. 26, 2019. The Illinois District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-01055 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff brings this class action complaint against NCAA to obtain redress for injuries sustained as result of Defendant's reckless disregard for the health and safety of Student-Athletes. The Chambliss case is being consolidated with MDL No. 2492, Re: NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION STUDENT-ATHLETE CONCUSSION INJURY LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Dec. 18, 2013. These actions seek medical monitoring for putative classes of former student athletes at NCAA-member schools who allege they suffered concussions. The Plaintiffs allege that the NCAA concealed information about the risks of the long-term effects of concussion injuries. Opponents to centralization argue, inter alia, that (1) the putative classes and claims alleged in these actions do not sufficiently overlap; and (2) given the small number of actions pending, alternatives to centralization are preferable. Opponents' arguments, while persuasive when the Section 1407 motion was first filed, are less compelling now given the current state of the litigation. Since the motion for centralization was filed, an additional eight related actions have been filed, most alleging overlapping putative classes of former football players at NCAA-member schools. The Northern District of Illinois Arrington action involves student-athletes who participated in additional sports, and the putative class alleged in that action is more limited in scope. Most of the actions now pending, however, involve nearly completely overlapping putative classes and claims. Moreover, the Panel is persuaded that the overlap between Arrington and the remaining actions is sufficient to warrant centralization. Regardless of the scope of the putative classes alleged, all actions share common factual questions concerning the NCAA's knowledge of the risks of concussions in football players and its policies governing the protection of players from such injuries. Plaintiffs in all actions seek medical monitoring for putative class members. In its Dec. 18, 2013 Order, the MDL Panel found that the these actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Northern District of Illinois will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. These actions share factual questions relating to allegations against the NCAA stemming from injuries sustained while playing sports at NCAA-member institutions, including damages resulting from the permanent long-term effects of concussions. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge John Z. Lee Paul. The lead case is 1:16-cv-08727. NCAA is a non-profit organization which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American institutions and conferences.[BN] Counsel for the 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 MDL 2492: Davis-Moab Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated ----------------------------------------------------------------- A case,Rodne Davis-Moab, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00432 (Filed Jan. 28, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on Feb. 26, 2019. The Illinois District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-01113 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff brings this class action complaint against NCAA to obtain redress for injuries sustained as result of Defendant's reckless disregard for the health and safety of Student-Athletes. The Davis-Moab case is being consolidated with MDL No. 2492, Re: NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION STUDENT-ATHLETE CONCUSSION INJURY LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Dec. 18, 2013. These actions seek medical monitoring for putative classes of former student athletes at NCAA-member schools who allege they suffered concussions. The Plaintiffs allege that the NCAA concealed information about the risks of the long-term effects of concussion injuries. Opponents to centralization argue, inter alia, that (1) the putative classes and claims alleged in these actions do not sufficiently overlap; and (2) given the small number of actions pending, alternatives to centralization are preferable. Opponents' arguments, while persuasive when the Section 1407 motion was first filed, are less compelling now given the current state of the litigation. Since the motion for centralization was filed, an additional eight related actions have been filed, most alleging overlapping putative classes of former football players at NCAA-member schools. The Northern District of Illinois Arrington action involves student-athletes who participated in additional sports, and the putative class alleged in that action is more limited in scope. Most of the actions now pending, however, involve nearly completely overlapping putative classes and claims. Moreover, the Panel is persuaded that the overlap between Arrington and the remaining actions is sufficient to warrant centralization. Regardless of the scope of the putative classes alleged, all actions share common factual questions concerning the NCAA's knowledge of the risks of concussions in football players and its policies governing the protection of players from such injuries. Plaintiffs in all actions seek medical monitoring for putative class members. In its Dec. 18, 2013 Order, the MDL Panel found that the these actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Northern District of Illinois will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. These actions share factual questions relating to allegations against the NCAA stemming from injuries sustained while playing sports at NCAA-member institutions, including damages resulting from the permanent long-term effects of concussions. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge John Z. Lee Paul. The lead case is 1:16-cv-08727. NCAA is a non-profit organization which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American institutions and conferences.[BN] Counsel for the 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 MDL 2492: Delts Suit v. NCAA over Health & Safety Issues Moved -------------------------------------------------------------- A case, DAMIEN DELTS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION and Robert Morris University, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00421 (Filed Jan. 28, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on Feb. 26, 2019. The Illinois District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-01065 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff brings this class action complaint against NCAA to obtain redress for injuries sustained as result of Defendant's reckless disregard for the health and safety of Robert Morris University Student-Athletes. The Delts case is being consolidated with MDL No. 2492, Re: NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION STUDENT-ATHLETE CONCUSSION INJURY LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Dec. 18, 2013. These actions seek medical monitoring for putative classes of former student athletes at NCAA-member schools who allege they suffered concussions. The Plaintiffs allege that the NCAA concealed information about the risks of the long-term effects of concussion injuries. Opponents to centralization argue, inter alia, that (1) the putative classes and claims alleged in these actions do not sufficiently overlap; and (2) given the small number of actions pending, alternatives to centralization are preferable. Opponents' arguments, while persuasive when the Section 1407 motion was first filed, are less compelling now given the current state of the litigation. Since the motion for centralization was filed, an additional eight related actions have been filed, most alleging overlapping putative classes of former football players at NCAA-member schools. The Northern District of Illinois Arrington action involves student-athletes who participated in additional sports, and the putative class alleged in that action is more limited in scope. Most of the actions now pending, however, involve nearly completely overlapping putative classes and claims. Moreover, the Panel is persuaded that the overlap between Arrington and the remaining actions is sufficient to warrant centralization. Regardless of the scope of the putative classes alleged, all actions share common factual questions concerning the NCAA's knowledge of the risks of concussions in football players and its policies governing the protection of players from such injuries. Plaintiffs in all actions seek medical monitoring for putative class members. In its Dec. 18, 2013 Order, the MDL Panel found that the these actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Northern District of Illinois will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. These actions share factual questions relating to allegations against the NCAA stemming from injuries sustained while playing sports at NCAA-member institutions, including damages resulting from the permanent long-term effects of concussions. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge John Z. Lee Paul. The lead case is 1:16-cv-08727. NCAA is a non-profit organization which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American institutions and conferences.[BN] Counsel for the 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 MDL 2492: Drake Suit v. NCAA over Concussion Consolidated --------------------------------------------------------- A case, James Drake, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION and Miles College, Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00423 (Filed Jan. 28, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on Feb. 26, 2019. The Illinois District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-01069 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff brings this class action complaint against NCAA to obtain redress for injuries sustained as result of Defendant's reckless disregard for the health and safety of Miles College, Inc. Student-Athletes. The Drake case is being consolidated with MDL No. 2492, Re: NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION STUDENT-ATHLETE CONCUSSION INJURY LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Dec. 18, 2013. These actions seek medical monitoring for putative classes of former student athletes at NCAA-member schools who allege they suffered concussions. The Plaintiffs allege that the NCAA concealed information about the risks of the long-term effects of concussion injuries. Opponents to centralization argue, inter alia, that (1) the putative classes and claims alleged in these actions do not sufficiently overlap; and (2) given the small number of actions pending, alternatives to centralization are preferable. Opponents' arguments, while persuasive when the Section 1407 motion was first filed, are less compelling now given the current state of the litigation. Since the motion for centralization was filed, an additional eight related actions have been filed, most alleging overlapping putative classes of former football players at NCAA-member schools. The Northern District of Illinois Arrington action involves student-athletes who participated in additional sports, and the putative class alleged in that action is more limited in scope. Most of the actions now pending, however, involve nearly completely overlapping putative classes and claims. Moreover, the Panel is persuaded that the overlap between Arrington and the remaining actions is sufficient to warrant centralization. Regardless of the scope of the putative classes alleged, all actions share common factual questions concerning the NCAA's knowledge of the risks of concussions in football players and its policies governing the protection of players from such injuries. Plaintiffs in all actions seek medical monitoring for putative class members. In its Dec. 18, 2013 Order, the MDL Panel found that the these actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Northern District of Illinois will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. These actions share factual questions relating to allegations against the NCAA stemming from injuries sustained while playing sports at NCAA-member institutions, including damages resulting from the permanent long-term effects of concussions. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge John Z. Lee Paul. The lead case is 1:16-cv-08727. NCAA is a non-profit organization which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American institutions and conferences.[BN] Counsel for the 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 MDL 2492: Flamish Suit v. NCAA over Concussion Consolidated ----------------------------------------------------------- A case, John Flamish, IV, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00407 (Filed Jan. 27, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on Feb. 26, 2019. The Illinois District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-01041 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff brings this class action complaint against NCAA to obtain redress for injuries sustained as result of Defendant's reckless disregard for the health and safety of Student-Athletes. The Flamish case is being consolidated with MDL No. 2492, Re: NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION STUDENT-ATHLETE CONCUSSION INJURY LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Dec. 18, 2013. These actions seek medical monitoring for putative classes of former student athletes at NCAA-member schools who allege they suffered concussions. The Plaintiffs allege that the NCAA concealed information about the risks of the long-term effects of concussion injuries. Opponents to centralization argue, inter alia, that (1) the putative classes and claims alleged in these actions do not sufficiently overlap; and (2) given the small number of actions pending, alternatives to centralization are preferable. Opponents' arguments, while persuasive when the Section 1407 motion was first filed, are less compelling now given the current state of the litigation. Since the motion for centralization was filed, an additional eight related actions have been filed, most alleging overlapping putative classes of former football players at NCAA-member schools. The Northern District of Illinois Arrington action involves student-athletes who participated in additional sports, and the putative class alleged in that action is more limited in scope. Most of the actions now pending, however, involve nearly completely overlapping putative classes and claims. Moreover, the Panel is persuaded that the overlap between Arrington and the remaining actions is sufficient to warrant centralization. Regardless of the scope of the putative classes alleged, all actions share common factual questions concerning the NCAA's knowledge of the risks of concussions in football players and its policies governing the protection of players from such injuries. Plaintiffs in all actions seek medical monitoring for putative class members. In its Dec. 18, 2013 Order, the MDL Panel found that the these actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Northern District of Illinois will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. These actions share factual questions relating to allegations against the NCAA stemming from injuries sustained while playing sports at NCAA-member institutions, including damages resulting from the permanent long-term effects of concussions. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge John Z. Lee Paul. The lead case is 1:16-cv-08727. NCAA is a non-profit organization which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American institutions and conferences.[BN] Counsel for the 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 MDL 2492: Hurd Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated ----------------------------------------------------------- A case, 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 (Filed Jan. 28, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on Feb. 26, 2019. The Illinois District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-01071 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff brings this class action complaint against NCAA to obtain redress for injuries sustained as result of Defendant's reckless disregard for the health and safety of Western New England University Student-Athletes. The Hurd case is being consolidated with MDL No. 2492, Re: NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION STUDENT-ATHLETE CONCUSSION INJURY LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Dec. 18, 2013. These actions seek medical monitoring for putative classes of former student athletes at NCAA-member schools who allege they suffered concussions. The Plaintiffs allege that the NCAA concealed information about the risks of the long-term effects of concussion injuries. Opponents to centralization argue, inter alia, that (1) the putative classes and claims alleged in these actions do not sufficiently overlap; and (2) given the small number of actions pending, alternatives to centralization are preferable. Opponents' arguments, while persuasive when the Section 1407 motion was first filed, are less compelling now given the current state of the litigation. Since the motion for centralization was filed, an additional eight related actions have been filed, most alleging overlapping putative classes of former football players at NCAA-member schools. The Northern District of Illinois Arrington action involves student-athletes who participated in additional sports, and the putative class alleged in that action is more limited in scope. Most of the actions now pending, however, involve nearly completely overlapping putative classes and claims. Moreover, the Panel is persuaded that the overlap between Arrington and the remaining actions is sufficient to warrant centralization. Regardless of the scope of the putative classes alleged, all actions share common factual questions concerning the NCAA's knowledge of the risks of concussions in football players and its policies governing the protection of players from such injuries. Plaintiffs in all actions seek medical monitoring for putative class members. In its Dec. 18, 2013 Order, the MDL Panel found that the these actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Northern District of Illinois will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. These actions share factual questions relating to allegations against the NCAA stemming from injuries sustained while playing sports at NCAA-member institutions, including damages resulting from the permanent long-term effects of concussions. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge John Z. Lee Paul. The lead case is 1:16-cv-08727. NCAA is a non-profit organization which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American institutions and conferences.[BN] Counsel for the 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 MDL 2492: Mackey Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated ------------------------------------------------------------- A case, Damian Mackey, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00404 (Filed Jan. 27, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on Feb. 26, 2019. The Illinois District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-01035 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff brings this class action complaint against NCAA to obtain redress for injuries sustained as result of Defendant's reckless disregard for the health and safety of Student-Athletes. The Mackey case is being consolidated with MDL No. 2492, Re: NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION STUDENT-ATHLETE CONCUSSION INJURY LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Dec. 18, 2013. These actions seek medical monitoring for putative classes of former student athletes at NCAA-member schools who allege they suffered concussions. The Plaintiffs allege that the NCAA concealed information about the risks of the long-term effects of concussion injuries. Opponents to centralization argue, inter alia, that (1) the putative classes and claims alleged in these actions do not sufficiently overlap; and (2) given the small number of actions pending, alternatives to centralization are preferable. Opponents' arguments, while persuasive when the Section 1407 motion was first filed, are less compelling now given the current state of the litigation. Since the motion for centralization was filed, an additional eight related actions have been filed, most alleging overlapping putative classes of former football players at NCAA-member schools. The Northern District of Illinois Arrington action involves student-athletes who participated in additional sports, and the putative class alleged in that action is more limited in scope. Most of the actions now pending, however, involve nearly completely overlapping putative classes and claims. Moreover, the Panel is persuaded that the overlap between Arrington and the remaining actions is sufficient to warrant centralization. Regardless of the scope of the putative classes alleged, all actions share common factual questions concerning the NCAA's knowledge of the risks of concussions in football players and its policies governing the protection of players from such injuries. Plaintiffs in all actions seek medical monitoring for putative class members. In its Dec. 18, 2013 Order, the MDL Panel found that the these actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Northern District of Illinois will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. These actions share factual questions relating to allegations against the NCAA stemming from injuries sustained while playing sports at NCAA-member institutions, including damages resulting from the permanent long-term effects of concussions. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge John Z. Lee Paul. The lead case is 1:16-cv-08727. NCAA is a non-profit organization which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American institutions and conferences.[BN] Counsel for the 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 MDL 2492: Newbern Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated -------------------------------------------------------------- A case, MICHAEL NEWBERN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION and LEHIGH UNIVERSITY, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00426 (Filed Jan. 28, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on Feb. 26, 2019. The Illinois District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-01074 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff brings this class action complaint against NCAA to obtain redress for injuries sustained as result of Defendant's reckless disregard for the health and safety of Lehigh University Student-Athletes. The Newbern case is being consolidated with MDL No. 2492, Re: NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION STUDENT-ATHLETE CONCUSSION INJURY LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Dec. 18, 2013. These actions seek medical monitoring for putative classes of former student athletes at NCAA-member schools who allege they suffered concussions. The Plaintiffs allege that the NCAA concealed information about the risks of the long-term effects of concussion injuries. Opponents to centralization argue, inter alia, that (1) the putative classes and claims alleged in these actions do not sufficiently overlap; and (2) given the small number of actions pending, alternatives to centralization are preferable. Opponents' arguments, while persuasive when the Section 1407 motion was first filed, are less compelling now given the current state of the litigation. Since the motion for centralization was filed, an additional eight related actions have been filed, most alleging overlapping putative classes of former football players at NCAA-member schools. The Northern District of Illinois Arrington action involves student-athletes who participated in additional sports, and the putative class alleged in that action is more limited in scope. Most of the actions now pending, however, involve nearly completely overlapping putative classes and claims. Moreover, the Panel is persuaded that the overlap between Arrington and the remaining actions is sufficient to warrant centralization. Regardless of the scope of the putative classes alleged, all actions share common factual questions concerning the NCAA's knowledge of the risks of concussions in football players and its policies governing the protection of players from such injuries. Plaintiffs in all actions seek medical monitoring for putative class members. In its Dec. 18, 2013 Order, the MDL Panel found that the these actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Northern District of Illinois will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. These actions share factual questions relating to allegations against the NCAA stemming from injuries sustained while playing sports at NCAA-member institutions, including damages resulting from the permanent long-term effects of concussions. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge John Z. Lee Paul. The lead case is 1:16-cv-08727. NCAA is a non-profit organization which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American institutions and conferences.[BN] Counsel for the 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 MDL 2492: Phillips Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated --------------------------------------------------------------- A case, Paul Phillips, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00429(Filed Jan. 28, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on Feb. 26, 2019. The Illinois District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-01080 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff brings this class action complaint against NCAA to obtain redress for injuries sustained as result of Defendant's reckless disregard for the health and safety of Lehigh University Student-Athletes. The Phillips case is being consolidated with MDL No. 2492, Re: NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION STUDENT-ATHLETE CONCUSSION INJURY LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Dec. 18, 2013. These actions seek medical monitoring for putative classes of former student athletes at NCAA-member schools who allege they suffered concussions. The Plaintiffs allege that the NCAA concealed information about the risks of the long-term effects of concussion injuries. Opponents to centralization argue, inter alia, that (1) the putative classes and claims alleged in these actions do not sufficiently overlap; and (2) given the small number of actions pending, alternatives to centralization are preferable. Opponents' arguments, while persuasive when the Section 1407 motion was first filed, are less compelling now given the current state of the litigation. Since the motion for centralization was filed, an additional eight related actions have been filed, most alleging overlapping putative classes of former football players at NCAA-member schools. The Northern District of Illinois Arrington action involves student-athletes who participated in additional sports, and the putative class alleged in that action is more limited in scope. Most of the actions now pending, however, involve nearly completely overlapping putative classes and claims. Moreover, the Panel is persuaded that the overlap between Arrington and the remaining actions is sufficient to warrant centralization. Regardless of the scope of the putative classes alleged, all actions share common factual questions concerning the NCAA's knowledge of the risks of concussions in football players and its policies governing the protection of players from such injuries. Plaintiffs in all actions seek medical monitoring for putative class members. In its Dec. 18, 2013 Order, the MDL Panel found that the these actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Northern District of Illinois will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. These actions share factual questions relating to allegations against the NCAA stemming from injuries sustained while playing sports at NCAA-member institutions, including damages resulting from the permanent long-term effects of concussions. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge John Z. Lee Paul. The lead case is 1:16-cv-08727. NCAA is a non-profit organization which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American institutions and conferences.[BN] Counsel for the 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 MDL 2492: Porras v. NCAA over Health & Safety Issues Consolidated ----------------------------------------------------------------- A case, ROBERTO PORRAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION and Fort Lewis College, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-309 (Filed Jan. 25, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on Feb. 20, 2019. The Illinois District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-00986to the proceeding. The Plaintiff brings this class action complaint against NCAA to obtain redress for injuries sustained as result of Defendant's reckless disregard for the health and safety of Fort Lewis College student-athletes. The Porras case is being consolidated with MDL No. 2492, Re: NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION STUDENT-ATHLETE CONCUSSION INJURY LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Dec. 18, 2013. These actions seek medical monitoring for putative classes of former student athletes at NCAA-member schools who allege they suffered concussions. The Plaintiffs allege that the NCAA concealed information about the risks of the long-term effects of concussion injuries. Opponents to centralization argue, inter alia, that (1) the putative classes and claims alleged in these actions do not sufficiently overlap; and (2) given the small number of actions pending, alternatives to centralization are preferable. Opponents' arguments, while persuasive when the Section 1407 motion was first filed, are less compelling now given the current state of the litigation. Since the motion for centralization was filed, an additional eight related actions have been filed, most alleging overlapping putative classes of former football players at NCAA-member schools. The Northern District of Illinois Arrington action involves student-athletes who participated in additional sports, and the putative class alleged in that action is more limited in scope. Most of the actions now pending, however, involve nearly completely overlapping putative classes and claims. Moreover, the Panel is persuaded that the overlap between Arrington and the remaining actions is sufficient to warrant centralization. Regardless of the scope of the putative classes alleged, all actions share common factual questions concerning the NCAA's knowledge of the risks of concussions in football players and its policies governing the protection of players from such injuries. Plaintiffs in all actions seek medical monitoring for putative class members. In its Dec. 18, 2013 Order, the MDL Panel found that the these actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Northern District of Illinois will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. These actions share factual questions relating to allegations against the NCAA stemming from injuries sustained while playing sports at NCAA-member institutions, including damages resulting from the permanent long-term effects of concussions. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge John Z. Lee Paul. The lead case is 1:16-cv-08727. NCAA is a non-profit organization which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American institutions and conferences.[BN] Counsel for the 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: jedelson@edelson.com brichman@edelson.com rbalabanian@edelson.com MDL 2492: Rasmussen v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated ----------------------------------------------------------- A case, JASON RASMUSSEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION and and TRUSTEES OF THE HAMLINE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-325 (Filed Jan. 26, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on Feb. 20, 2019. The Illinois District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-01004 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff brings this class action complaint against NCAA to obtain redress for injuries sustained as result of Defendant's reckless disregard for the health and safety of Hamline student-athletes. The Rasmussen case is being consolidated with MDL No. 2492, Re: NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION STUDENT-ATHLETE CONCUSSION INJURY LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Dec. 18, 2013. These actions seek medical monitoring for putative classes of former student athletes at NCAA-member schools who allege they suffered concussions. The Plaintiffs allege that the NCAA concealed information about the risks of the long-term effects of concussion injuries. Opponents to centralization argue, inter alia, that (1) the putative classes and claims alleged in these actions do not sufficiently overlap; and (2) given the small number of actions pending, alternatives to centralization are preferable. Opponents' arguments, while persuasive when the Section 1407 motion was first filed, are less compelling now given the current state of the litigation. Since the motion for centralization was filed, an additional eight related actions have been filed, most alleging overlapping putative classes of former football players at NCAA-member schools. The Northern District of Illinois Arrington action involves student-athletes who participated in additional sports, and the putative class alleged in that action is more limited in scope. Most of the actions now pending, however, involve nearly completely overlapping putative classes and claims. Moreover, the Panel is persuaded that the overlap between Arrington and the remaining actions is sufficient to warrant centralization. Regardless of the scope of the putative classes alleged, all actions share common factual questions concerning the NCAA's knowledge of the risks of concussions in football players and its policies governing the protection of players from such injuries. Plaintiffs in all actions seek medical monitoring for putative class members. In its Dec. 18, 2013 Order, the MDL Panel found that the these actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Northern District of Illinois will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. These actions share factual questions relating to allegations against the NCAA stemming from injuries sustained while playing sports at NCAA-member institutions, including damages resulting from the permanent long-term effects of concussions. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge John Z. Lee Paul. The lead case is 1:16-cv-08727. NCAA is a non-profit organization which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American institutions and conferences.[BN] Counsel for the 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: jedelson@edelson.com brichman@edelson.com rbalabanian@edelson.com MDL 2492: Rizzo Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated ------------------------------------------------------------ A case, Anthony Rizzo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION and IONA College, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00418 (Filed Jan. 28, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on Feb. 26, 2019. The Illinois District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-01061 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff brings this class action complaint against NCAA to obtain redress for injuries sustained as result of Defendant's reckless disregard for the health and safety of IONA College Student-Athletes. The Rizzo case is being consolidated with MDL No. 2492, Re: NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION STUDENT-ATHLETE CONCUSSION INJURY LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Dec. 18, 2013. These actions seek medical monitoring for putative classes of former student athletes at NCAA-member schools who allege they suffered concussions. The Plaintiffs allege that the NCAA concealed information about the risks of the long-term effects of concussion injuries. Opponents to centralization argue, inter alia, that (1) the putative classes and claims alleged in these actions do not sufficiently overlap; and (2) given the small number of actions pending, alternatives to centralization are preferable. Opponents' arguments, while persuasive when the Section 1407 motion was first filed, are less compelling now given the current state of the litigation. Since the motion for centralization was filed, an additional eight related actions have been filed, most alleging overlapping putative classes of former football players at NCAA-member schools. The Northern District of Illinois Arrington action involves student-athletes who participated in additional sports, and the putative class alleged in that action is more limited in scope. Most of the actions now pending, however, involve nearly completely overlapping putative classes and claims. Moreover, the Panel is persuaded that the overlap between Arrington and the remaining actions is sufficient to warrant centralization. Regardless of the scope of the putative classes alleged, all actions share common factual questions concerning the NCAA's knowledge of the risks of concussions in football players and its policies governing the protection of players from such injuries. Plaintiffs in all actions seek medical monitoring for putative class members. In its Dec. 18, 2013 Order, the MDL Panel found that the these actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Northern District of Illinois will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. These actions share factual questions relating to allegations against the NCAA stemming from injuries sustained while playing sports at NCAA-member institutions, including damages resulting from the permanent long-term effects of concussions. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge John Z. Lee Paul. The lead case is 1:16-cv-08727. NCAA is a non-profit organization which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American institutions and conferences.[BN] Counsel for the 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 MDL 2492: Scott Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated ------------------------------------------------------------ A case, Michael Scott, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION and McMurry University, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00427 (Filed Jan. 28, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on Feb. 26, 2019. The Illinois District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-01078 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff brings this class action complaint against NCAA to obtain redress for injuries sustained as result of Defendant's reckless disregard for the health and safety of McMurry University Student-Athletes. The Scott case is being consolidated with MDL No. 2492, Re: NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION STUDENT-ATHLETE CONCUSSION INJURY LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Dec. 18, 2013. These actions seek medical monitoring for putative classes of former student athletes at NCAA-member schools who allege they suffered concussions. The Plaintiffs allege that the NCAA concealed information about the risks of the long-term effects of concussion injuries. Opponents to centralization argue, inter alia, that (1) the putative classes and claims alleged in these actions do not sufficiently overlap; and (2) given the small number of actions pending, alternatives to centralization are preferable. Opponents' arguments, while persuasive when the Section 1407 motion was first filed, are less compelling now given the current state of the litigation. Since the motion for centralization was filed, an additional eight related actions have been filed, most alleging overlapping putative classes of former football players at NCAA-member schools. The Northern District of Illinois Arrington action involves student-athletes who participated in additional sports, and the putative class alleged in that action is more limited in scope. Most of the actions now pending, however, involve nearly completely overlapping putative classes and claims. Moreover, the Panel is persuaded that the overlap between Arrington and the remaining actions is sufficient to warrant centralization. Regardless of the scope of the putative classes alleged, all actions share common factual questions concerning the NCAA's knowledge of the risks of concussions in football players and its policies governing the protection of players from such injuries. Plaintiffs in all actions seek medical monitoring for putative class members. In its Dec. 18, 2013 Order, the MDL Panel found that the these actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Northern District of Illinois will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. These actions share factual questions relating to allegations against the NCAA stemming from injuries sustained while playing sports at NCAA-member institutions, including damages resulting from the permanent long-term effects of concussions. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge John Z. Lee Paul. The lead case is 1:16-cv-08727. NCAA is a non-profit organization which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American institutions and conferences.[BN] Counsel for the 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 MDL 2492: Shadwick Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated --------------------------------------------------------------- A case, Michael Shadwick, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION and Quincy University Corporation, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00428 (Filed Jan. 28, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on Feb. 26, 2019. The Illinois District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-01079 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff brings this class action complaint against NCAA to obtain redress for injuries sustained as result of Defendant's reckless disregard for the health and safety of Quincy University Corporation Student-Athletes. The Shadwick case is being consolidated with MDL No. 2492, Re: NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION STUDENT-ATHLETE CONCUSSION INJURY LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Dec. 18, 2013. These actions seek medical monitoring for putative classes of former student athletes at NCAA-member schools who allege they suffered concussions. The Plaintiffs allege that the NCAA concealed information about the risks of the long-term effects of concussion injuries. Opponents to centralization argue, inter alia, that (1) the putative classes and claims alleged in these actions do not sufficiently overlap; and (2) given the small number of actions pending, alternatives to centralization are preferable. Opponents' arguments, while persuasive when the Section 1407 motion was first filed, are less compelling now given the current state of the litigation. Since the motion for centralization was filed, an additional eight related actions have been filed, most alleging overlapping putative classes of former football players at NCAA-member schools. The Northern District of Illinois Arrington action involves student-athletes who participated in additional sports, and the putative class alleged in that action is more limited in scope. Most of the actions now pending, however, involve nearly completely overlapping putative classes and claims. Moreover, the Panel is persuaded that the overlap between Arrington and the remaining actions is sufficient to warrant centralization. Regardless of the scope of the putative classes alleged, all actions share common factual questions concerning the NCAA's knowledge of the risks of concussions in football players and its policies governing the protection of players from such injuries. Plaintiffs in all actions seek medical monitoring for putative class members. In its Dec. 18, 2013 Order, the MDL Panel found that the these actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Northern District of Illinois will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. These actions share factual questions relating to allegations against the NCAA stemming from injuries sustained while playing sports at NCAA-member institutions, including damages resulting from the permanent long-term effects of concussions. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge John Z. Lee Paul. The lead case is 1:16-cv-08727. NCAA is a non-profit organization which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American institutions and conferences.[BN] Counsel for the 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 MDL 2492: Sunday Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated ------------------------------------------------------------- A case, DAVID SUNDAY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION and CURRY COLLEGE, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00422 (Filed Jan. 28, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on Feb. 26, 2019. The Illinois District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-01067 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff brings this class action complaint against NCAA to obtain redress for injuries sustained as result of Defendant's reckless disregard for the health and safety of Curry College Student-Athletes. The Sunday case is being consolidated with MDL No. 2492, Re: NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION STUDENT-ATHLETE CONCUSSION INJURY LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Dec. 18, 2013. These actions seek medical monitoring for putative classes of former student athletes at NCAA-member schools who allege they suffered concussions. The Plaintiffs allege that the NCAA concealed information about the risks of the long-term effects of concussion injuries. Opponents to centralization argue, inter alia, that (1) the putative classes and claims alleged in these actions do not sufficiently overlap; and (2) given the small number of actions pending, alternatives to centralization are preferable. Opponents' arguments, while persuasive when the Section 1407 motion was first filed, are less compelling now given the current state of the litigation. Since the motion for centralization was filed, an additional eight related actions have been filed, most alleging overlapping putative classes of former football players at NCAA-member schools. The Northern District of Illinois Arrington action involves student-athletes who participated in additional sports, and the putative class alleged in that action is more limited in scope. Most of the actions now pending, however, involve nearly completely overlapping putative classes and claims. Moreover, the Panel is persuaded that the overlap between Arrington and the remaining actions is sufficient to warrant centralization. Regardless of the scope of the putative classes alleged, all actions share common factual questions concerning the NCAA's knowledge of the risks of concussions in football players and its policies governing the protection of players from such injuries. Plaintiffs in all actions seek medical monitoring for putative class members. In its Dec. 18, 2013 Order, the MDL Panel found that the these actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Northern District of Illinois will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. These actions share factual questions relating to allegations against the NCAA stemming from injuries sustained while playing sports at NCAA-member institutions, including damages resulting from the permanent long-term effects of concussions. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge John Z. Lee Paul. The lead case is 1:16-cv-08727. NCAA is a non-profit organization which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American institutions and conferences.[BN] Counsel for the 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 MDL 2492: Taylor Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated ------------------------------------------------------------- A case, Jay Taylor, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION and Fisk University, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00383 (Filed Jan. 27, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on Feb. 25, 2019. The Illinois District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-01187 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff brings this class action complaint against NCAA to obtain redress for injuries sustained as result of Defendant's reckless disregard for the health and safety of Fisk University Student-Athletes. The Taylor case is being consolidated with MDL No. 2492, Re: NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION STUDENT-ATHLETE CONCUSSION INJURY LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Dec. 18, 2013. These actions seek medical monitoring for putative classes of former student athletes at NCAA-member schools who allege they suffered concussions. The Plaintiffs allege that the NCAA concealed information about the risks of the long-term effects of concussion injuries. Opponents to centralization argue, inter alia, that (1) the putative classes and claims alleged in these actions do not sufficiently overlap; and (2) given the small number of actions pending, alternatives to centralization are preferable. Opponents' arguments, while persuasive when the Section 1407 motion was first filed, are less compelling now given the current state of the litigation. Since the motion for centralization was filed, an additional eight related actions have been filed, most alleging overlapping putative classes of former football players at NCAA-member schools. The Northern District of Illinois Arrington action involves student-athletes who participated in additional sports, and the putative class alleged in that action is more limited in scope. Most of the actions now pending, however, involve nearly completely overlapping putative classes and claims. Moreover, the Panel is persuaded that the overlap between Arrington and the remaining actions is sufficient to warrant centralization. Regardless of the scope of the putative classes alleged, all actions share common factual questions concerning the NCAA's knowledge of the risks of concussions in football players and its policies governing the protection of players from such injuries. Plaintiffs in all actions seek medical monitoring for putative class members. In its Dec. 18, 2013 Order, the MDL Panel found that the these actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Northern District of Illinois will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. These actions share factual questions relating to allegations against the NCAA stemming from injuries sustained while playing sports at NCAA-member institutions, including damages resulting from the permanent long-term effects of concussions. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge John Z. Lee Paul. The lead case is 1:16-cv-08727. NCAA is a non-profit organization which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American institutions and conferences.[BN] Counsel for the 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 MDL 2492: Williamson Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated ----------------------------------------------------------------- A case, JAMES WILLIAMSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION and Muskingum University, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00381 (Filed Jan. 27, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on Feb. 25, 2019. The Illinois District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-01185 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff brings this class action complaint against NCAA to obtain redress for injuries sustained as result of Defendant's reckless disregard for the health and safety of Muskingum University Student-Athletes. The Williamson case is being consolidated with MDL No. 2492, Re: NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION STUDENT-ATHLETE CONCUSSION INJURY LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Dec. 18, 2013. These actions seek medical monitoring for putative classes of former student athletes at NCAA-member schools who allege they suffered concussions. The Plaintiffs allege that the NCAA concealed information about the risks of the long-term effects of concussion injuries. Opponents to centralization argue, inter alia, that (1) the putative classes and claims alleged in these actions do not sufficiently overlap; and (2) given the small number of actions pending, alternatives to centralization are preferable. Opponents' arguments, while persuasive when the Section 1407 motion was first filed, are less compelling now given the current state of the litigation. Since the motion for centralization was filed, an additional eight related actions have been filed, most alleging overlapping putative classes of former football players at NCAA-member schools. The Northern District of Illinois Arrington action involves student-athletes who participated in additional sports, and the putative class alleged in that action is more limited in scope. Most of the actions now pending, however, involve nearly completely overlapping putative classes and claims. Moreover, the Panel is persuaded that the overlap between Arrington and the remaining actions is sufficient to warrant centralization. Regardless of the scope of the putative classes alleged, all actions share common factual questions concerning the NCAA's knowledge of the risks of concussions in football players and its policies governing the protection of players from such injuries. Plaintiffs in all actions seek medical monitoring for putative class members. In its Dec. 18, 2013 Order, the MDL Panel found that the these actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Northern District of Illinois will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. These actions share factual questions relating to allegations against the NCAA stemming from injuries sustained while playing sports at NCAA-member institutions, including damages resulting from the permanent long-term effects of concussions. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge John Z. Lee Paul. The lead case is 1:16-cv-08727. NCAA is a non-profit organization which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American institutions and conferences.[BN] Counsel for the 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 MDL 2672: ECF No. 3619 Bid to Remand VWGoA Clean Diesel Suit Denied ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, IN RE: VOLKSWAGEN "CLEAN DIESEL" MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. This Order Relates To: MDL Dkt. No. 3619, MDL No. 2672 CRB (JSC) (N.D. Cal.), Judge Charles R. Breyer of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California denied the ECF No. 3619 motion to remand. Around 575,000 people who owned or leased a Volkswagen, Audi, or Porsche "clean diesel" car previously agreed to participate in one of two Court-approved class action settlements with these car makers. Rather than participate in those settlements, approximately 4,000 people instead chose to opt out of them. Some of these opt outs filed their own cases against the car makers in state court, and many of those cases were later removed to federal court by the Defendants and transferred to the Court as part of the captioned MDL. Whether there was a basis for removal has been contested, and more than 60 motions to remand, covering several hundred opt-out cases, were filed in the Court. The Order addresses one of those motions, ECF No. 3619. When it was filed, the ECF No. 3619 motion covered 14 separate cases; each had been filed in Minnesota state court, by counsel at the law firm of Hyde and Swigart, and then removed by Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. ("VWGoA"). Most of the cases have since been voluntarily dismissed; only three remain outstanding. VWGoA removed the ECF No. 3619 cases on the basis of both federal question and diversity subject-matter jurisdiction. The Plaintiffs, in their motion to remand, have argued that neither form of jurisdiction is present. Each of the ECF No. 3619 cases was filed by either an individual or a couple who bought or leased a Volkswagen TDI diesel-engine car. The general factual allegations in the cases are the same. The Plaintiffs allege that they purchased the cars at Colorado-based dealerships, and that prior to doing so, they read the window stickers attached to the cars, which advertised that the cars offered "good clean diesel fun." The Plaintiffs also allege that VWGoA and Volkswagen AG, represented to them that the cars would emit 25 percent fewer emissions than comparable gasoline-powered cars, and that the cars were 90% cleaner than pervious diesel cars. In fact, the cars did not have low emissions. And not only were their emissions higher than represented, but VW knew this. VW knew that the cars could not perform as promised and had specifically developed and installed software in them that detected and evaded emissions testing. During testing, the cars appeared to satisfy governing emission standards; but when the cars were on the road, they emitted nitrogen oxides at up to 40 times the legal limits. In September 2015, in response to state and federal investigations, VW admitted that it had equipped its TDI-diesel engine cars with emissions-cheating software, and that it had been doing so since 2009. The ECF No. 3619 complaints each include nine state-law claims against VWGoA and VW AG. The claims are for violation of Minnesota's Unlawful Trade Practices Act, Consumer Fraud Act and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, for fraud, breach of an express warranty and breach of the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose, and for making negligent misrepresentations and false statements in advertising. The Plaintiffs seek remedies which include "incidental, consequential, and actual damages," punitive damages, "rescission and repurchase of the subject vehicle[s] and restitution of all monies expended," and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. VWGoA removed the Plaintiffs' cases to federal court, in part on the basis of diversity subject-matter jurisdiction. It apparently was not served and did not join the notices of removal. The Plaintiffs responded by filing the ECF No. 3619 motion to remand. WGoA, as the removing party, need only provide a short and plain statement of the grounds for removal, in which it alleges the underlying facts supporting each of the requirements for removal jurisdiction. The requirement at issue is complete diversity; and JUdge Breyer finds that VWGoA has alleged the underlying facts supporting this requirement by alleging that it was a citizen of New Jersey and Virginia and that the Plaintiffs were citizens of Alabama when the complaints were filed. These allegations are sufficient to support that the Plaintiffs and VWGoA were citizens of different states when the cases began. The requirement of complete diversity is therefore satisfied. As to actual damages, the Judge finds that the fact that Plaintiffs have not challenged the accuracy of Mr. Lytle's numbers suggests that he has made reasonably accurate calculations. Mr. Lytle's methodology also appears sensible: he used the vehicle-specific information that the Plaintiffs provided in their complaints and respected market metrics and resources, and he explained in detail how he arrived at his estimates. Plaintiffs have put the full amounts that they paid to buy the cars in dispute, and Mr. Lytle's estimates serve as a sufficient proxy of those amounts. Based on Mr. Lytle's estimates, the actual damages in controversy range from $20,850 to $26,720 per case. As to punitive damages, the Judge finds that at this stage, the question is whether at least $50,000 in punitive damages is at stake in each of the cases. Given the facts alleged and the amounts of punitive damages awarded in comparable cases, it is clear that the answer to the question is yes. At least $50,000 in punitive damages is at stake in each of the ECF No. 3619 cases. As to attorneys' fees, multiplying 100.8 hours by the hourly rate of $295 leads to an estimate of $29,736 in attorneys' fees per case. At least that amount of attorneys' fees is reasonably in controversy in each of the ECF No. 3619 cases. Finally, as to the total amount in controversy, the Judge finds that when $50,000 in punitive damages is added to $29,736 in attorneys' fees, the combined amount exceeds $75,000. And when actual damages are also added, the amounts in controversy for the ECF No. 3619 cases range from $100,586 to $106,456. Section 1332(a)'s amount-in-controversy requirement is satisfied. Judge Breyer holds that VWGoA has plausibly alleged that there is complete diversity of citizenship between it and VW AG on the one hand, and the Plaintiffs on the other. Also, a preponderance of the evidence supports that the amount-in-controversy requirement is met. He therefore concludes that the Court has diversity subject-matter jurisdiction over the ECF No. 3619 cases, and denied the motion to remand. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 22, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/NKyoeB from Leagle.com. Nicholas Benipayo, Plaintiff, represented by Robert B. Carey -- rob@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice, Steve W. Berman -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice & Thomas Eric Loeser -- toml@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice. Nadine Bonda, Plaintiff, represented by Adam M. Stewart -- astewart@shulaw.com -- Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP & Thomas G. Shapiro -- tshapiro@shulaw.com -- Shapiro Haber and Urmy, LLP. Brian Connelly, Plaintiff, represented by Thomas G. Shapiro, Shapiro Haber and Urmy, LLP. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., a New Jersey Corporation, Defendant, represented by Amie Adelia Vague -- avague@lightfootlaw.com -- Lightfoot Franklin & White, Casey Erin Lucier -- clucier@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP, Charles J. Baker, III -- chuck.baker@wbd-us.com -- Womble Carlyle Sandridge and Rice, Colin Hampton Tucker -- ctucker@rhodesokla.com -- Rhodes Hieronymus Jones Tucker & Gable, Dana Woodrum Lang -- dana.lang@wbd-us.com -- Womble Carlyle Sandridge and Rice, David M. Eisenberg -- eisenberg@bscr-law.com -- Sterchi, Cowden & Rice, LLC, Henry Buist Smythe, Jr. -- henry.smythe@wbd-us.com -- Womble Carlyle Sandridge and Rice, Howard Feller -- hfeller@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP, William R. Scherer -- wscherer@conradscherer.com -- Conrad and Scherer, LLP, J. Randolph Bibb, Jr. -- rbibb@lewisthomason.com -- Lewis, Thomason, King, Krieg & Waldrop, P.C., James K. Toohey -- tooheyj@jbltd.com -- Johns & Bell LTD, Jeffrey Lance Chase -- JChase@herzfeld-rubin.com -- Chase Kurshan Herzfeld & Rufin LLC, Jeffrey S. Rugg -- jrugg@bhfs.com -- Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP, Jennifer Marino Thibodaux -- jthibodaux@gibbonslaw.com -- Gibbons PC. MDL 2672: ECF No. 3647 Bid to Remand VWGoA Clean Diesel Suit Denied ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, IN RE: VOLKSWAGEN "CLEAN DIESEL" MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. This Order Relates To: MDL Dkt. No. 3647, MDL No. 2672 CRB (JSC) (N.D. Cal.), Judge Charles R. Breyer of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California denied the ECF No. 3647 motion to remand. Around 575,000 people who owned or leased a Volkswagen, Audi, or Porsche "clean diesel" car previously agreed to participate in one of two Court-approved class action settlements with these car makers. Rather than participate in those settlements, approximately 4,000 people instead chose to opt out of them. Some of these opt outs filed their own cases against the car makers in state court, and many of those cases were later removed to federal court by the Defendants and transferred to the Court as part of the captioned MDL. Whether there was a basis for removal has been contested, and more than 60 motions to remand, covering several hundred opt-out cases, were filed in the Court. The Order addresses one of those motions, ECF No. 3647. The ECF No. 3647 motion covers five separate cases, each of which was originally filed in California state court and then removed by Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. ("VWGoA") to federal court. VWGoA removed the ECF No. 3647 cases on the basis of diversity subject-matter jurisdiction. The Plaintiffs, in their motion to remand, have argued that diversity jurisdiction is lacking. Each of the ECF No. 3647 cases was filed by either an individual or a couple who bought or leased a Volkswagen or Audi TDI diesel-engine car. The general factual allegations in the cases are the same. The Plaintiffs allege that they purchased the cars at California-based dealerships, and that prior to doing so, they read the window stickers attached to the cars, which advertised them as having low emissions. They also reviewed marketing materials representing that the cars were "green" vehicles and were good for the environment. The low-emission representations induced Plaintiffs to purchase the cars. In fact, the cars did not have low emissions and were not good for the environment. And not only were the cars' emissions higher than represented, but VWGoA, which also did business as Audi of America, Inc., knew this. VWGoA knew that the cars could not perform as promised and had specifically developed and installed software in them that detected and evaded emissions testing. During testing, the cars appeared to satisfy governing emission standards; but when the cars were on the road, they emitted nitrogen oxides at up to 40 times the legal limits. In September 2015, in response to state and federal investigations, VWGoA admitted that it had equipped the cars with emissions-cheating software. VWGoA also admitted that the same or similar software had been installed in 11 million diesel cars worldwide. The ECF No. 3647 complaints each include three to four state-law claims against VWGoA. All of the complaints include an implied warranty claim, under California's Song-Beverly Act, and two common law fraud claims (one based on fraudulent misrepresentations and the other based on fraudulent concealment). Some of the complaints also include a claim for violation of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"). The Plaintiffs seek remedies which include "general, special and actual damages according to proof at trial," "rescission of the purchase contract and restitution of all monies expended," injunctive and equitable relief, punitive damages, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. VWGoA removed Plaintiffs' cases to federal court on the basis of diversity subject-matter jurisdiction. The Plaintiffs responded by filing the ECF No. 3647 motion to remand. As to actual damages, Judge Breyer finds that the Plaintiffs have put the full amounts that they paid to buy and lease the cars in dispute, and Mr. Lytle's estimates serve as a sufficient proxy of those amounts. Based on Mr. Lytle's estimates, the actual damages in controversy range from $12,238 to $61,199 per case. With respect to punitive damages, the Judge holds that at this stage, the question is whether at least $50,000 in punitive damages is at stake in each of the cases. Given the facts alleged and the amounts of punitive damages awarded in comparable cases, it is clear that the answer to this question is yes. At least $50,000 in punitive damages is at stake in each of the ECF No. 3647 cases. Multiplying 100.8 hours by the hourly rate of $350 leads to an estimate of $35,280 in attorneys' fees per case. At least that amount of attorneys' fees is reasonably in controversy in each of the ECF No. 3647 cases. Finally, when $50,000 in punitive damages is added to $35,280 in attorneys' fees, the combined amount exceeds $75,000. And when actual damages are also added, the amounts in controversy for the ECF No. 3647 cases range from $97,518 to $146,479. The Judge holds that Section 1332(a)'s amount-in-controversy requirement is satisfied. Judge Breyer holds that VWGoA has plausibly alleged that there is complete diversity of citizenship between it and the Plaintiffs, and a preponderance of the evidence supports that the amount-in-controversy requirement is met. He therefore concludes that the Court has diversity subject-matter jurisdiction over the ECF No. 3647 cases and denied the motion to remand. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb 19, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/wiVKid from Leagle.com. Nicholas Benipayo, Plaintiff, represented by Robert B. Carey -- rob@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice, Steve W. Berman -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice & Thomas Eric Loeser -- toml@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice. Nadine Bonda, Plaintiff, represented by Adam M. Stewart -- astewart@shulaw.com -- Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP & Thomas G. Shapiro -- tshapiro@shulaw.com -- Shapiro Haber and Urmy, LLP. Brian Connelly, Plaintiff, represented by Thomas G. Shapiro, Shapiro Haber and Urmy, LLP. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., a New Jersey Corporation, Defendant, represented by Amie Adelia Vague -- avague@lightfootlaw.com -- Lightfoot Franklin & White, Casey Erin Lucier -- clucier@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP, Charles J. Baker, III -- chuck.baker@wbd-us.com -- Womble Carlyle Sandridge and Rice, Colin Hampton Tucker -- ctucker@rhodesokla.com -- Rhodes Hieronymus Jones Tucker & Gable, Dana Woodrum Lang -- dana.lang@wbd-us.com -- Womble Carlyle Sandridge and Rice, David M. Eisenberg -- eisenberg@bscr-law.com -- Sterchi, Cowden & Rice, LLC, Henry Buist Smythe, Jr. -- henry.smythe@wbd-us.com -- Womble Carlyle Sandridge and Rice, Howard Feller -- hfeller@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP, William R. Scherer -- wscherer@conradscherer.com -- Conrad and Scherer, LLP, J. Randolph Bibb, Jr. -- rbibb@lewisthomason.com -- Lewis, Thomason, King, Krieg & Waldrop, P.C., James K. Toohey -- tooheyj@jbltd.com -- Johns & Bell LTD, Jeffrey Lance Chase -- JChase@herzfeld-rubin.com -- Chase Kurshan Herzfeld & Rufin LLC, Jeffrey S. Rugg -- jrugg@bhfs.com -- Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP, Jennifer Marino Thibodaux -- jthibodaux@gibbonslaw.com -- Gibbons PC. MDL 2672: ECF No. 3654 Bid to Remand VWGoA Clean Diesel Suit Denied ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, IN RE: VOLKSWAGEN "CLEAN DIESEL" MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. This Order Relates To: MDL Dkt. No. 3654, MDL No. 2672 CRB (JSC) (N.D. Cal.), Judge Charles R. Breyer of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California denied the ECF No. 3654 motion to remand. Around 575,000 people who owned or leased a Volkswagen, Audi, or Porsche "clean diesel" car previously agreed to participate in one of two Court-approved class action settlements with these car makers. Rather than participate in those settlements, approximately 4,000 people instead chose to opt out of them. Some of these opt outs filed their own cases against the car makers in state court, and many of those cases were later removed to federal court by the Defendants and transferred to the Court as part of the captioned MDL. Whether there was a basis for removal has been contested, and more than 60 motions to remand, covering several hundred opt-out cases, were filed in the Court. The Order addresses one of those motions, ECF No. 3654. The ECF No. 3654 motion covers 34 separate cases, each of which was originally filed in California state court and then removed by Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. ("VWGoA") to federal court. With one exception, VWGoA removed the ECF No. 3654 cases on the basis of both federal question and diversity subject-matter jurisdiction. The Plaintiffs, in their motion to remand, have argued that neither form of jurisdiction is present. Each of the ECF No. 3654 cases was filed by either an individual or a couple who bought or leased a Volkswagen or Audi TDI diesel-engine car. The general factual allegations in the cases are the same. The Plaintiffs allege that they purchased the cars at California-based dealerships, and that prior to doing so, they read the window stickers attached to the cars, which advertised them as having low emissions. They also reviewed marketing materials representing that the cars were "green" vehicles and were good for the environment. The low-emission representations induced Plaintiffs to purchase the cars. In fact, the cars did not have low emissions and were not good for the environment. And not only were the cars' emissions higher than represented, but VWGoA, which also did business as Audi of America, Inc., knew this. VWGoA knew that the cars could not perform as promised and had specifically developed and installed software in them that detected and evaded emissions testing. During testing, the cars appeared to satisfy governing emission standards; but when the cars were on the road, they emitted nitrogen oxides at up to 40 times the legal limits. The ECF No. 3654 complaints each include three to four state-law claims against VWGoA. All of the complaints include an implied warranty claim, under California's Song-Beverly Act, and two common law fraud claims (one based on fraudulent misrepresentations and the other based on fraudulent concealment). Some of the complaints also include a claim for violation of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"). The Plaintiffs seek remedies which include "general, special and actual damages according to proof at trial," "rescission of the purchase contract and restitution of all monies expended," injunctive and equitable relief, punitive damages, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. Some Plaintiffs also seek civil penalties in the amount of two times their actual damages. VWGoA removed the Plaintiffs' cases to federal court, in part on the basis of diversity subject-matter jurisdiction. The Plaintiffs responded by filing the ECF No. 3654 motion to remand. Judge Breyer finds that the allegations in VWGoA's notices of removal are sufficient to support that the Plaintiffs and VWGoA were citizens of different states when the complaints were filed. The requirement of complete diversity is therefore satisfied. As to actual damages, he finds that the Plaintiffs have put the full amounts that they paid to buy and lease the cars in dispute, and Mr. Lytle's estimates serve as a sufficient proxy of those amounts. Based on Mr. Lytle's estimates, the actual damages in controversy range from $10,250 to $71,739 per case. With respect to punitive damages, the Judge holds that at this stage, the question is whether at least $50,000 in punitive damages is at stake in each of the cases. Given the facts alleged and the amounts of punitive damages awarded in comparable cases, it is clear that the answer to this question is yes. At least $50,000 in punitive damages is at stake in each of the ECF No. 3654 cases Multiplying 100.8 hours by the hourly rate of $350 leads to an estimate of $35,280 in attorneys' fees per case. At least that amount of attorneys' fees is reasonably in controversy in each of the ECF No. 3654 cases. Finally, when $50,000 in punitive damages is added to $35,280 in attorneys' fees, the combined amount exceeds $75,000. And when actual damages are also added, the amounts in controversy for the ECF No. 3654 cases range from $95,530 to $157,019. The Judge holds that Section 1332(a)'s amount-in-controversy requirement is satisfied. Judge Breyer holds that WGoA has plausibly alleged that there is complete diversity of citizenship between it and the Plaintiffs, and a preponderance of the evidence supports that the amount-in-controversy requirement is met. He therefore concludes that the Court has diversity subject-matter jurisdiction over the ECF No. 3654 cases and denied the motion to remand. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb 19, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/GcMjRE from Leagle.com. Nicholas Benipayo, Plaintiff, represented by Robert B. Carey -- rob@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice, Steve W. Berman -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice & Thomas Eric Loeser -- toml@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice. Nadine Bonda, Plaintiff, represented by Adam M. Stewart -- astewart@shulaw.com -- Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP & Thomas G. Shapiro -- tshapiro@shulaw.com -- Shapiro Haber and Urmy, LLP. Brian Connelly, Plaintiff, represented by Thomas G. Shapiro, Shapiro Haber and Urmy, LLP. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., a New Jersey Corporation, Defendant, represented by Amie Adelia Vague -- avague@lightfootlaw.com -- Lightfoot Franklin & White, Casey Erin Lucier -- clucier@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP, Charles J. Baker, III -- chuck.baker@wbd-us.com -- Womble Carlyle Sandridge and Rice, Colin Hampton Tucker -- ctucker@rhodesokla.com -- Rhodes Hieronymus Jones Tucker & Gable, Dana Woodrum Lang -- dana.lang@wbd-us.com -- Womble Carlyle Sandridge and Rice, David M. Eisenberg -- eisenberg@bscr-law.com -- Sterchi, Cowden & Rice, LLC, Henry Buist Smythe, Jr. -- henry.smythe@wbd-us.com -- Womble Carlyle Sandridge and Rice, Howard Feller -- hfeller@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP, William R. Scherer -- wscherer@conradscherer.com -- Conrad and Scherer, LLP, J. Randolph Bibb, Jr. -- rbibb@lewisthomason.com -- Lewis, Thomason, King, Krieg & Waldrop, P.C., James K. Toohey -- tooheyj@jbltd.com -- Johns & Bell LTD, Jeffrey Lance Chase -- JChase@herzfeld-rubin.com -- Chase Kurshan Herzfeld & Rufin LLC, Jeffrey S. Rugg -- jrugg@bhfs.com -- Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP, Jennifer Marino Thibodaux -- jthibodaux@gibbonslaw.com -- Gibbons PC. MDL 2873: Jackson vs. 3M over Water Contamination Consolidated -------------------------------------------------------------- A case, KRISTA JACKSON, on behalf of herself, and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. THE 3M COMPANY, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing, Co.; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS L.P., successor in interest to THE ANSUL COMPANY; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CHEMGUARD INC.; and NATIONAL FOAM, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-00167 (Feb. 5, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, to the the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina (Charleston) on Feb. 21, 2019. The District of South Carolina Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-00522-RMG to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Richard M Gergel. The lead case is Case No. 2:18-mn-02873-RMG. Jackson brings the lawsuit for medical monitoring and property damage as a result of the plaintiff's exposure to water contaminated with toxic chemicals resulting from Defendants' harmful and defective products, aqueous firefighting foams ("AFFF") and other materials containing perfluorochemicals (PFCs) including perfluorooctanesulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related fluorochemicals that can degrade to perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") or PFOS. The chemicals were released onto the ground, into the environment and infiltrated the groundwater and Plaintiffs' drinking/potable water. The Jackson case is being consolidated with MDL 2873 in RE: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams (AFFF) Products Liability Litigation. 3M Company, is an American multinational conglomerate corporation operating in the fields of industry, health care, and consumer goods.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: Janissa Ann Strabuk, Esq. Kaleigh N.B. Powell, Esq. TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS 1700 Seventh Ave., Ste 2200 SEATTLE, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 682-5600 E-mail: jstrabuk@tousley.com kpowell@tousley.com MDL 2879: Barkley Suit vs Marriott over Data Breach Consolidated ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit titled Raymond J. Barkley Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-00206 (Filed Jan. 10, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland (Greenbelt) on Feb. 21, 2019. The District of Maryland Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:19-cv-00526-PWG to the proceeding. The Plaintiff alleges violation of customers' privacy rights. The Barkley case is being consolidated with MDL No. 2879 in re: Marriott International, Inc., Customer Data Security Breach Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Feb. 6, 2019. These actions -- which are putative nationwide and/or statewide consumer class actions -- share factual issues concerning a recently-disclosed breach of Marriott's Starwood guest reservation database from 2014 to 2018. In its Feb. 6, 2019 Order, the MDL Panel found that the factual overlap among these actions is substantial, as they all arise from the same data breach, and they all allege that Marriott failed to put in to place reasonable data protections. Many also allege that Marriott did not timely notify the public of the data breach. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery, prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings on class certification and other issues, and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge. Paul W. Grimm. The lead case is 8:19-md-02879-PWG.[BN] MDL 2879: Grady Suit vs Marriott over Data Breach Consolidated -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit titled Brian Grady and Mark Kleiman, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC., and Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 4:18-cv-07358 (Filed Dec. 6, 2018), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland (Greenbelt) on Feb. 21, 2019. The District of Maryland Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:19-cv-00505-PWG to the proceeding. The Plaintiff alleges violation of customers' privacy rights. The Grady case is being consolidated with MDL No. 2879 in re: Marriott International, Inc., Customer Data Security Breach Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Feb. 6, 2019. These actions -- which are putative nationwide and/or statewide consumer class actions -- share factual issues concerning a recently-disclosed breach of Marriott's Starwood guest reservation database from 2014 to 2018. In its Feb. 6, 2019 Order, the MDL Panel found that the factual overlap among these actions is substantial, as they all arise from the same data breach, and they all allege that Marriott failed to put in to place reasonable data protections. Many also allege that Marriott did not timely notify the public of the data breach. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery, prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings on class certification and other issues, and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge. Paul W. Grimm. The lead case is 8:19-md-02879-PWG.[BN] MICRO FOCUS: Araiza Labor Class Action Stayed --------------------------------------------- Micro Focus said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 20, 2019, for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2018, that case entitled, Araiza vs. HP Inc. and HPE has been stayed. On December 29, 2015, former PPS (HP Inc.) employee Daniel Araiza filed a California class action against HP Inc. and HPE in Santa Clara County Superior Court. Plaintiff alleges failure to (a) compensate Field Technical Support Representatives with minimum and overtime wages for all hours worked, (b) failure to pay exempt and non-exempt employees all accrued vacation and/or floating holidays upon separation of employment, (c) to provide meal breaks, and (d) derivate claims for inaccurate wage statements, waiting time penalties, unfair business practices, and Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA") penalties. Plaintiff seeks to certify three groups of California employees from December 29, 2011 to the present. The parties have exchanged limited written discovery. On January 28, 2019, the parties participated in mediation, but have not yet settled the matter. The case is stayed until at least March 22, 2019, which is the date of the Court's Case Management Conference. Micro Focus International plc, an infrastructure software company, develops, sells, and supports software products and solutions to small and medium size enterprises. Micro Focus International plc was founded in 1976 and is headquartered in Newbury, the United Kingdom. MICRO FOCUS: Court Grants Final Approval of Settlement in Wall Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Micro Focus said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 20, 2019, for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2018, that the Court overseeing the case, Wall vs. HPE and HP Inc., has granted final approval of a settlement. This certified California class action and Private Attorney General Act action was filed against Hewlett-Packard Company on January17, 2012 and the fifth (and operative) amended complaint was filed against HP Inc. and HPE on June 28, 2016. The complaint alleges that the defendants paid earned incentive compensation late and failed to timely pay incentive compensation upon termination of employment. On August 9, 2016, the court ordered the class certified without prejudice to a future motion to amend or modify the class certification order or to decertify. The scheduled January 22, 2018 trial date was vacated following the parties' notification to the court that they had reached an agreement to resolve the dispute. The parties subsequently finalized and executed a settlement agreement and received preliminary approval of that agreement on June 29, 2018. After giving notice of the settlement to the class, to which there were no objections or opt-outs, the Court granted final approval of the settlement on December 21, 2018. Micro Focus International plc, an infrastructure software company, develops, sells, and supports software products and solutions to small and medium size enterprises. Micro Focus International plc was founded in 1976 and is headquartered in Newbury, the United Kingdom. MICRO FOCUS: Court Stays Jackson Class Action --------------------------------------------- Micro Focus said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 20, 2019, for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2018, that the case entitled, Jackson, et al. v. HP Inc. and Hewlett Packard Enterprise, has been stayed. This putative nationwide class action was filed on July 24, 2017 in United States District Court in San Jose. Plaintiffs purport to bring the lawsuit on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated African-Americans and individuals over the age of 40. Plaintiffs allege that defendants engaged in a pattern and practice of racial and age discrimination in lay-offs and promotions. On September 29, 2017, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint to add an additional plaintiff and a claim alleging that defendants engaged in a pattern and practice of racial discrimination in hiring. On January 12, 2018, defendants moved to transfer the matter to the United States District Court in the Northern District of Georgia. Defendants also moved to dismiss the claims on various grounds and to strike certain aspects of the proposed class definition. On July 11, 2018, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss this action for improper venue, and also partially dismissed and struck certain claims without prejudice to re-filing in the appropriate venue. On July 23, 2018, plaintiffs re-filed their lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. On August 9, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the dismissal of the Northern District of California action with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. On August 15, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a motion to stay their lawsuit in the Northern District of Georgia, which was granted by the court. Micro Focus International plc, an infrastructure software company, develops, sells, and supports software products and solutions to small and medium size enterprises. Micro Focus International plc was founded in 1976 and is headquartered in Newbury, the United Kingdom. MICRO FOCUS: Forsyth Class Action Remains Stayed ------------------------------------------------ Micro Focus said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 20, 2019, for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2018, that the Forsyth, et al. vs. HP Inc. and HPE, remains stayed. This purported class and collective action was filed on August 18, 2016 and an amended (and operative) complaint was filed on December 19, 2016 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, against HP Inc. and HPE alleging defendants violated the Federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"), the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, California public policy and the California Business and Professions Code by terminating older workers and replacing them with younger workers. Plaintiffs seek to certify a nationwide collective action under the ADEA comprised of all individuals aged 40 and older who had their employment terminated by an HP entity pursuant to a work force reduction ("WFR") plan on or after December 9, 2014 for individuals terminated in deferral states and on or after April 8, 2015 in non-deferral states. Plaintiffs also seek to certify a Rule 23 class under California law comprised of all persons 40 years of age or older employed by defendants in the state of California and terminated pursuant to a WFR plan on or after August 18, 2012. On September 20, 2017, the Court granted the defendants' motions to compel arbitration and administratively closed the case pending resolution of the arbitration proceedings. On November 30, 2017, three named plaintiffs filed a single arbitration demand. Thirteen additional plaintiffs later joined the arbitration. On December 22, 2017, defendants filed a motion to (1) stay the case pending arbitrations and (2) enjoin the demanded arbitration and require each plaintiff to file a separate arbitration demand. On February 6, 2018, the court granted the motion to stay and denied the motion to enjoin. The claims of the arbitration named plaintiffs have now been resolved. The Forsyth class action remains stayed. Micro Focus International plc, an infrastructure software company, develops, sells, and supports software products and solutions to small and medium size enterprises. Micro Focus International plc was founded in 1976 and is headquartered in Newbury, the United Kingdom. MICRO FOCUS: Securities Class Action in California Stayed --------------------------------------------------------- Micro Focus said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 20, 2019, for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2018, that the case, In re Micro Focus International plc Securities Litigation brought before the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo, has been stayed. In re Micro Focus International plc Securities Litigation is a putative class action on behalf of holders of Micro Focus filed on March 28, 2018, in the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo against Micro Focus International plc and certain current and former directors and officers, among others. Five additional purported holders of Micro Focus ADS filed putative class actions in the same court, and the court consolidated all cases. The lawsuit alleges violations of the Securities Act. The court has stayed this lawsuit pending disposition of the lawsuit in the Southern District of New York. Micro Focus International plc, an infrastructure software company, develops, sells, and supports software products and solutions to small and medium size enterprises. Micro Focus International plc was founded in 1976 and is headquartered in Newbury, the United Kingdom. MICRO FOCUS: To Seek Dismissal of Securities Suit in New York ------------------------------------------------------------- Micro Focus said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 20, 2019, for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2018, that the company intends to file a motion to dismiss the amended complaint in the case, In re Micro Focus International plc Securities Litigation, pending before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. In re Micro Focus International plc Securities Litigation is another putative class action on behalf of holders of Micro Focus ADS filed on May 23, 2018 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against Micro Focus and certain current and former directors and officers, among others. On July 26, 2018, the court transferred the case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The lawsuit alleges violations of the Securities Act and of the Exchange Act. On November 9, 2018, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint. Micro Focus and other defendants intend to move to dismiss the amended complaint. Micro Focus International plc, an infrastructure software company, develops, sells, and supports software products and solutions to small and medium size enterprises. Micro Focus International plc was founded in 1976 and is headquartered in Newbury, the United Kingdom. MIDLAND CREDIT: Court Narrows Claims in Connor FDCA Suit -------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JACKI LYN CONNOR, Plaintiff, v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., Defendant, Case No. 18-23023-CIV-GOODMAN (S.D. Fla.), Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Miami Division, granted in part and denied in part Midland's motion to dismiss. The putative class action concerns the allegedly questionable debt-collection practices of Midland before the now-defunct National Arbitration Forum ("NAF") and Florida state courts. In 2009, following a lawsuit by the Minnesota Attorney General and an investigation by a U.S. House of Representatives' Subcommittee, the NAF agreed to stop arbitrating claims. Plaintiff Connor alleges that Midland, which was not registered as a debt collector in Florida until shortly before the NAF ceased to function, used a law firm with close financial ties to the NAF to obtain, without proper notice, thousands of arbitration awards and final judgments against consumers in Florida. Connor alleges that she became a victim of Midland's practice in 2005 when it obtained, by default, an arbitration award against her before the NAF. Midland then had that award confirmed in Florida state court in 2007, also by default. At neither of those times was Midland registered as a debt collector under Florida law (as Midland first registered as a Florida debt collector on Jan. 1, 2009). Several years later, in November 2017, Midland issued writs of garnishments to Connor's employer. On July 25, 2018, approximately 10 months after the writs issued, Connor sued Midland, raising four claims: violation of 15 U.S.C. Section 1692e (Count I) and Section 1692f (Count II) of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"); violation of the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act ("FCCPA") (Count III); and unjust enrichment (Count IV). Connor later amended her complaint to add a fifth claim: violation of the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA")(Count V). Midland's motion to dismiss the amended complaint raises five issues: (1) whether the Rooker-Feldman doctrine divests the Court of subject-matter jurisdiction over some of the FDCPA and FCCPA claims; (2) whether Connor's claims are either barred by the statute of limitations or are meritless (depending on whether the claims are based on pre-registration events); (3) whether Connor is bringing an impermissible private cause of action for failure to register, which the FCCPA does not allow; (4) whether Connor's unjust enrichment claim fails for that same reason; and (5) whether the FAA's 90-day statute of limitations bars the claim to vacate the arbitration award. Magistrate Judge Goodman granted in part and denied in part Midland's motion to dismiss. First, he dismissed without prejudice Count I, III, and IV as barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Second, he dismissed without prejudice Count I as falling outside the FDCPA's one-year statute of limitations. The same ruling applies to those allegations in Count II that are duplicative of Count I, but he otherwise denied the motion to dismiss as to Count II on limitations grounds. Third, the Magistrate dismissed without prejudice Count III based on the additional reason that, as pled, Connor raises an impermissible private cause of action under the FCCPA for failure to register. Fourth, and last, he denied the motion to dismiss as to Count V. Although the question is a close one, the Magistrate declined to dismiss Count V at this time given that Connor has alleged that she and Midland never entered into an arbitration agreement. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 20, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/RFWrW3 from Leagle.com. Jacki Lyn Connor, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Darren R. Newhart -- darren@cloorg.com -- Consumer Law Organization, P.A., Jack Dennis Card, Jr. -- DCard@Consumerlaworg.com -- Consumer Law Organization, P.A. & James Lawrence Kauffman -- jkauffman@baileyglasser.com -- Bailey & Glasser, LLP. Midland Credit Management, Inc., Defendant, represented by Cory William Eichhorn -- Cory.Eichhorn@hklaw.com -- Holland & Knight LLP & Philip E. Rothschild -- Phil.Rothschild@hklaw.com -- Holland & Knight. MOLSON COORS: Block & Leviton Files Securities Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Block & Leviton LLP, a Boston based securities litigation firm representing investors nationwide, informs investors that it has filed a securities fraud class action against Molson Coors Brewing Co. ("Molson" or the "Company") (NYSE: TAP) and certain of its officers alleging violations of the federal securities laws. Class members interested in serving as lead plaintiff are required to move for appointment by April 16, 2019, and are encouraged to contact Block & Leviton LLP to learn more. The Complaint filed in the United States District Court, District of Colorado, located at 901 19th Street, Denver Colorado, and captioned Segalis v. Molson Coors Brewing Co, et al., Case No. 19-cv-00455, alleges that throughout the Class Period the Defendants repeatedly and materially misstated Molson's financial condition in filings with the SEC, while falsely representing that Molson's financial statements complied with GAAP and that its internal controls were effective. The case alleges a class period between February 14, 2017 and February 12, 2019, inclusive. A judge has not yet been assigned to the case. If you have purchased or otherwise acquired Molson securities and have questions about your legal rights, or possess information relevant to this investigation, you are encouraged to contact Attorney Dan DeMaria at (617) 398-5660, by email at dan@blockesq.com, or by visiting http://shareholder.law/molson. Block & Leviton LLP was recently ranked 4th among securities litigation firms by ISS for recoveries in 2017. The firm represents many of the nation's largest institutional investors and numerous individual investors in securities litigation throughout the country. Indeed, its lawyers have recovered billions of dollars for its clients. Contact: Dan DeMaria, Esq. BLOCK & LEVITON LLP 155 Federal Street, Suite 400 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 398-5660 (888) 868-2385 Website: https://blockesq.com Email: dan@blockesq.com [GN] MONSANTO COMPANY: Allen Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup ----------------------------------------------------------- BILLY H. ALLEN, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY and JOHN DOES 1-50, the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00330 (E.D. Mo., Feb. 26, 2019), seeks to recover damages suffered by Plaintiffs, as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiffs maintain that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The Plaintiffs' injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable. The Plaintiffs bring this action for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA). As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma. Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products, including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide, Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth S. Webb, Esq. BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C. 211 North Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 222-2222 Facsimile: (314) 421-0359 E-mail: sethw@getbc.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Cantus Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup ----------------------------------------------------------- CANDELARIO CANTU AND FELEITAS CANTU, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY and JOHN DOES 1-50, the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00331 (E.D. Mo., Feb. 26, 2019), seeks to recover damages suffered by Plaintiffs, as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiffs maintain that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The Plaintiffs' injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable. The Plaintiffs bring this action for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA). As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma. Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products, including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide, Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth S. Webb, Esq. BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C. 211 North Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 222-2222 Facsimile: (314) 421-0359 E-mail: sethw@getbc.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Lubbens Sue over Sale of Roundup Products ----------------------------------------------------------- DAVID C. LUBBEN and ESTHER LUBBEN, the Plaintiffs, vs. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-00275 (E.D. Mo., Feb. 21, 2019), alleges unlawful promotion, marketing, and sale of various Roundup Products, manufactured and marketed by Monsanto Company, in violation of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, the New York General Business Law, the California's Unfair Competition Law, the False Advertising Law, and Consumers Legal Remedies Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants label, advertise, and promote their retail Roundup (TM) products, including but not limited to their Roundup (TM) "Garden Weeds" Weed & Grass Killer products ("Roundup" or "Roundup Products"), with the false statement that Roundup's active ingredient, glyphosate, targets an enzyme that is not found "in people or pets." This statement is false, misleading, and deceptive, because the enzyme that glyphosate targets is found in people and pets. Glyphosate targets the EPSP synthase enzyme, which is utilized by beneficial bacteria present, including in the gut biome, in humans and other mammals, such as household pets. This enzyme, in beneficial bacteria, is critical to the health and wellbeing of humans and other mammals, including their immune system, digestion, allergies, metabolism, and brain function. The Defendants' false statements and omissions regarding glyphosate and the enzyme it targets are material. There is widespread controversy and concern around glyphosate and its effects on humans and animals. For example, EPSP synthase is directly linked to our general health, and the interference with the gut flora (including EPSP synthase) can have serious effects on humans and pets. Instead of being open and honest with consumers, Defendants have chosen to use a false statement to market their Roundup (TM) products. In addition to making the false statement, Defendants omit material, contrary information that might clarify that statement, namely, that bacteria present in humans and animals produce and utilize the enzyme targeted by Roundup. Because of the false statement and material omissions, Defendants have been able to sell more Roundup Products and to charge more for Roundup than they otherwise would have been. The Defendants were unjustly enriched through utilizing the false statement and omitting material contrary information. The Plaintiffs and other Class Members who purchased the Roundup Products suffered economic damages in a similar manner because they purchased more Roundup Products and/or paid more for Roundup Products than they would have had they not been deceived, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs: Seth S. Webb, Esq. BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C. 211 North Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 222 2222 Facsimile: (314) 421 0359 E-mail: sethw@getbc.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Lumpkins Sue over Sale of Roundup Products ------------------------------------------------------------ RICHARD C. LUMPKIN and MURIEL E. LUMPKIN, the Plaintiffs, vs. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-00277 (E.D. Mo., Feb. 21, 2019), alleges unlawful promotion, marketing, and sale of various Roundup Products, manufactured and marketed by Monsanto Company, in violation of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, the New York General Business Law, the California's Unfair Competition Law, the False Advertising Law, and Consumers Legal Remedies Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants label, advertise, and promote their retail Roundup (TM) products, including but not limited to their Roundup (TM) "Garden Weeds" Weed & Grass Killer products ("Roundup" or "Roundup Products"), with the false statement that Roundup's active ingredient, glyphosate, targets an enzyme that is not found "in people or pets." This statement is false, misleading, and deceptive, because the enzyme that glyphosate targets is found in people and pets. Glyphosate targets the EPSP synthase enzyme, which is utilized by beneficial bacteria present, including in the gut biome, in humans and other mammals, such as household pets. This enzyme, in beneficial bacteria, is critical to the health and wellbeing of humans and other mammals, including their immune system, digestion, allergies, metabolism, and brain function. The Defendants' false statements and omissions regarding glyphosate and the enzyme it targets are material. There is widespread controversy and concern around glyphosate and its effects on humans and animals. For example, EPSP synthase is directly linked to our general health, and the interference with the gut flora (including EPSP synthase) can have serious effects on humans and pets. Instead of being open and honest with consumers, Defendants have chosen to use a false statement to market their Roundup (TM) products. In addition to making the false statement, Defendants omit material, contrary information that might clarify that statement, namely, that bacteria present in humans and animals produce and utilize the enzyme targeted by Roundup. Because of the false statement and material omissions, Defendants have been able to sell more Roundup Products and to charge more for Roundup than they otherwise would have been. The Defendants were unjustly enriched through utilizing the false statement and omitting material contrary information. The Plaintiffs and other Class Members who purchased the Roundup Products suffered economic damages in a similar manner because they purchased more Roundup Products and/or paid more for Roundup Products than they would have had they not been deceived, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs: Seth S. Webb, Esq. BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C. 211 North Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 222 2222 Facsimile: (314) 421 0359 E-mail: sethw@getbc.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Moore Sues over Sale of Roundup Products ---------------------------------------------------------- MARJORIE MOORE, the Plaintiffs, vs. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-00279 (E.D. Mo., Feb. 21, 2019), alleges unlawful promotion, marketing, and sale of various Roundup Products, manufactured and marketed by Monsanto Company, in violation of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, the New York General Business Law, the California's Unfair Competition Law, the False Advertising Law, and Consumers Legal Remedies Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants label, advertise, and promote their retail Roundup (TM) products, including but not limited to their Roundup (TM) "Garden Weeds" Weed & Grass Killer products ("Roundup" or "Roundup Products"), with the false statement that Roundup's active ingredient, glyphosate, targets an enzyme that is not found "in people or pets." This statement is false, misleading, and deceptive, because the enzyme that glyphosate targets is found in people and pets. Glyphosate targets the EPSP synthase enzyme, which is utilized by beneficial bacteria present, including in the gut biome, in humans and other mammals, such as household pets. This enzyme, in beneficial bacteria, is critical to the health and wellbeing of humans and other mammals, including their immune system, digestion, allergies, metabolism, and brain function. The Defendants' false statements and omissions regarding glyphosate and the enzyme it targets are material. There is widespread controversy and concern around glyphosate and its effects on humans and animals. For example, EPSP synthase is directly linked to our general health, and the interference with the gut flora (including EPSP synthase) can have serious effects on humans and pets. Instead of being open and honest with consumers, Defendants have chosen to use a false statement to market their Roundup (TM) products. In addition to making the false statement, Defendants omit material, contrary information that might clarify that statement, namely, that bacteria present in humans and animals produce and utilize the enzyme targeted by Roundup. Because of the false statement and material omissions, Defendants have been able to sell more Roundup Products and to charge more for Roundup than they otherwise would have been. The Defendants were unjustly enriched through utilizing the false statement and omitting material contrary information. The Plaintiffs and other Class Members who purchased the Roundup Products suffered economic damages in a similar manner because they purchased more Roundup Products and/or paid more for Roundup Products than they would have had they not been deceived, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs: Seth S. Webb, Esq. BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C. 211 North Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 222 2222 Facsimile: (314) 421 0359 E-mail: sethw@getbc.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Perry Sues over Sale of Roundup Products ---------------------------------------------------------- BARBARA L. PERRY, the Plaintiffs, vs. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-00281 (E.D. Mo., Feb. 21, 2019), alleges unlawful promotion, marketing, and sale of various Roundup Products, manufactured and marketed by Monsanto Company, in violation of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, the New York General Business Law, the California's Unfair Competition Law, the False Advertising Law, and Consumers Legal Remedies Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants label, advertise, and promote their retail Roundup (TM) products, including but not limited to their Roundup (TM) "Garden Weeds" Weed & Grass Killer products ("Roundup" or "Roundup Products"), with the false statement that Roundup's active ingredient, glyphosate, targets an enzyme that is not found "in people or pets." This statement is false, misleading, and deceptive, because the enzyme that glyphosate targets is found in people and pets. Glyphosate targets the EPSP synthase enzyme, which is utilized by beneficial bacteria present, including in the gut biome, in humans and other mammals, such as household pets. This enzyme, in beneficial bacteria, is critical to the health and wellbeing of humans and other mammals, including their immune system, digestion, allergies, metabolism, and brain function. The Defendants' false statements and omissions regarding glyphosate and the enzyme it targets are material. There is widespread controversy and concern around glyphosate and its effects on humans and animals. For example, EPSP synthase is directly linked to our general health, and the interference with the gut flora (including EPSP synthase) can have serious effects on humans and pets. Instead of being open and honest with consumers, Defendants have chosen to use a false statement to market their Roundup (TM) products. In addition to making the false statement, Defendants omit material, contrary information that might clarify that statement, namely, that bacteria present in humans and animals produce and utilize the enzyme targeted by Roundup. Because of the false statement and material omissions, Defendants have been able to sell more Roundup Products and to charge more for Roundup than they otherwise would have been. The Defendants were unjustly enriched through utilizing the false statement and omitting material contrary information. The Plaintiffs and other Class Members who purchased the Roundup Products suffered economic damages in a similar manner because they purchased more Roundup Products and/or paid more for Roundup Products than they would have had they not been deceived, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs: Seth S. Webb, Esq. BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C. 211 North Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 E-mail: sethw@getbc.com Telephone: (314) 222 2222 Facsimile: (314) 421 0359 MONSANTO COMPANY: Reeds Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup ---------------------------------------------------------- THOMAS REED AND LYNN REED, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY and JOHN DOES 1-50, the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00324 (E.D. Mo., Feb. 26, 2019), seeks to recover damages suffered by Plaintiffs, as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiffs maintain that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The Plaintiff' injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable. The Plaintiffs bring this action for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA). As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma. Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products, including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide, Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Seth S. Webb, Esq. BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C. 211 North Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 222-2222 Facsimile: (314) 421-0359 E-mail: sethw@getbc.com MONSANTO: Roundup Weed Killer Lawsuit Heads to Trial ---------------------------------------------------- AFP reports that the controversial Roundup weed killer was set to go on trial again on Feb. 25 in the US, six months after a groundskeeper won the first-ever lawsuit accusing the chemical of causing cancer. Roundup, a brand owned by German chemical and pharmaceutical giant Bayer after its purchase of US-based Monsanto last year, contains glyphosate that environmentalists and other critics have long maintained leads to cancer. Glyphosate is used in weed killers made by several companies, and is currently the most used herbicide around the world. Jurors in August unanimously found that Monsanto acted with "malice" and that its weed killers Roundup and Ranger Pro contributed "substantially" to Dewayne "Lee" Johnson's terminal illness. Now another Californian, Edwin Hardeman, accuses Roundup of contributing to his cancer, which is of the same type as Johnson's non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL). Mr. Hardeman, of Sonoma County -- north of San Francisco -- says he used Roundup extensively to treat his property from the 1980s until 2012, according to his lawyers. He filed a complaint against Monsanto in early 2016, a year after being diagnosed with cancer. According to the complaint, the company "knew or had reason to know that Roundup was defective and unsafe" and that exposure to the product "could result in cancer and other severe illnesses and injuries." Information that Monsanto provided or communicated "failed to contain adequate warnings and precautions that would have enabled Mr Hardeman, and similarly situated individuals, to utilize the product safely and with adequate protection," Mr. Hardeman's lawyers added. Instead, the company "disseminated information that was inaccurate, false, and misleading," they alleged. Monsanto, which has sold Roundup worldwide for more than 40 years, is holding firm to its line of defense. The products are not dangerous if the conditions of use are followed, as proven by hundreds of scientific studies, it says. Like the Johnson trial, the new case will take place in San Francisco but it will be the first heard in a federal court, where some legal technicalities differ from the state level where Johnson won his case. Mr. Hardeman's is the leading case in a multi-district litigation of hundreds of similar cases which are legally linked, but will be heard separately. Although not a class action lawsuit, the outcome of the Hardeman case will provide a signal for the other jurisdictions. The Johnson precedent will also hang over the new trial which should last four or five weeks. Mr. Johnson was diagnosed in 2014 with NHL, a cancer that affects white blood cells. He said he repeatedly used Ranger Pro while working at a school in Benicia, California. US$78 million in damages Jurors in his case last August ordered Monsanto to pay $250 million in punitive damages along with compensatory damages and other costs, bringing the total award to nearly US$290 million (RM1.2 billion). Judge Suzanne Bolanos, who presided over the case in California State Court, later denied Monsanto's request for a new trial – but cut the damages to US$78 million (RM318 billion) to comply with a law regarding how such awards must be calculated. The ruling sent Bayer shares tumbling on fears that a wave of costly litigation could be about to break on the firm. In November, Bayer said it would slash 12,000 jobs in a restructuring after the takeover of Monsanto, which asked a US appeals court to toss out the Johnson verdict. At Bayer's request, the Hardeman trial will be conducted in two stages. The first phase will seek to determine whether Roundup is responsible for the complainant's cancer. If the jury concludes that it is, the next step will be to decide whether or not Monsanto has a liability and, if so, what compensation should be paid. For the judge, the two-stage process aims to help the jury decide the possible liability of glyphosate without being influenced by the reputation of Monsanto, which has a controversial image all over the world, accused of having manipulated studies. Praised by farmers for its effectiveness and low cost, glyphosate is under particular scrutiny in Europe and especially in France, where authorities in January banned a form of the herbicide, Roundup Pro 360. But the chemical has been subject to contradictory decisions around the world. The European Union renewed its authorization of glyphosate for five years in November 2017, but President Emmanuel Macron has vowed to outlaw its use in France by 2021. A 2015 study by a World Health Organization agency concluded that glyphosate was "probably carcinogenic." Environmental groups including Greenpeace have called for an outright ban in Europe for glyphosate but Monsanto insisted the herbicide meets EU licensing standards. [GN] NASSAU COUNTY, NY: Faces Tax Racial Discrimination Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Jay Shah, writing for WSHU, reports that a class action lawsuit against Nassau County alleges a tax assessment freeze in 2010 discriminated against non-white homeowners. The lawsuit says county policies on grieving assessments allowed wealthier, white residents to shift a $1.7 billion property tax burden onto lower income, non-white communities since 2010. Proponents say non-white residents are less likely to grieve their property taxes. A similar case was brought against Nassau in 1997, which led to a new tax assessment system that was based on fair market value. This new lawsuit alleges that the tax assessment freeze in 2010 abandoned that system. County Executive Laura Curran has tried to fix the system and recently completed a reassessment of property values in Nassau. [GN] NASSAU COUNTY, NY: Sued Over Discriminatory Tax Assessment ---------------------------------------------------------- Teri West, writing for The Island Now, reports that three Nassau residents have filed a class-action lawsuit against the county on behalf of non-white property owners who they contend were forced to bear the property tax burden of wealthier, white communities due to county policies beginning in 2010. Former County Executive Edward Mangano froze the tax assessment roll in 2011. Two years ago, Newsday reported the move shifted the tax burden to lower-income communities because individuals living in higher-income communities were the ones who primarily used the tax grievance process. The county policy shift was "illegal, discriminatory conduct," the lawsuit says. It seeks compensation of an amount that the court deems just. "You can't balance your books based on phony assessments and sticking it to the weakest citizens," said David Bishop, an attorney representing the plaintiffs. The issues at stake directly overlap with those of a 1997 lawsuit against Nassau County, the lawsuit says. That case, Coleman v. Seldin, challenged the county over racial discrimination in its tax assessment. It led to a consent decree, requiring Nassau to maintain an equitable tax assessment and a new county policy that required the tax assessment to be updated annually. Compliance with that policy lapsed when Mr. Mangano, a Republican, was in office, Mr. Bishop said. "The system got so out of whack and the taxes are so high in Nassau that doing the right thing, that making the system correct is politically unpalatable," Mr. Bishop said. "It's painful politically, so weak politicians like Mr. Mangano are tempted to do the wrong thing, and they did the wrong thing." Though the lawsuit does not designate how much the plaintiffs are seeking, the monetary damage is "enormous," Mr. Bishop said, "and it speaks to the irresponsibility of the county." If the plaintiffs win, it should not bankrupt the county, he said. Lawsuits like this were bonded to be paid out over decades during his time in Suffolk County politics, he said. Presiding Officer Richard Nicolello (R-New Hyde Park) said he believes the lawsuit is a political tool for Nassau Democrats to change the narrative around the reassessment currently taking place. In his argument, Mr. Nicolello pointed to plaintiff Wayne Hall's Democratic Party affiliation and the fact that the lawsuit does not demand a stay on the reassessment's five-year phase-in as reasons that the legal action is "suspicious." He also said the firm representing the plaintiffs also represents county Democratic Chairman Jay Jacobs, which Jacobs said is untrue. He has no connection to Kirby McInerney, the law firm that represents the plaintiffs, Jacobs said, and does not know Bishop. "I had no knowledge of the lawsuit before it was filed," he added. "Nobody asked me about it, nobody presented the idea to me, I never thought about it. I had read it in the paper, I spoke to [County Executive] Laura Curran when I read about it in the paper. She had no knowledge of it, so I think [Nicolello]'s getting ahead of himself." The county executive's office does not comment on pending litigation, a spokeswoman said. Wayne Hall, one of the lawsuit's plaintiff's and a former Village of Hempstead mayor, also rebutted Nicolello's statements. "It's not a Democratic plot," Hall said. "They all colluded along with Mangano to shift the tax burden to senior citizens, disabled veterans and minority communities and they just have to pay for it. Pay for the wrongs that they did. So it's not a Democratic plot." He had read about a woman who had a $2 million house and was paying taxes as if it was worth $1 million, Hall said, which was one reason he decided to engage in a lawsuit. "I felt that there's some kind of retribution that needs to be made for the wrongs that Mangano's administration did," he said. The class-action lawsuit was filed Feb. 15, and it took about six months to prepare all 62 pages, said Bishop, a former Suffolk County legislator and Babylon councilman. His firm, Kirby McInerney, which is based in New York City, specializes in class action lawsuits and is constantly scanning the news, he said. What was happening in Nassau County was "an extraordinary situation that caught our attention," he said. The named plaintiffs besides Hall are Reina Hernandez and Floridalma Portillo. Both live in the Village of Hempstead, Bishop said. [GN] NATIONAL DISTRIBUTION: Removes Soward Case to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- National Distribution Centers LLC removes case, RODNEY SOWARD, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. MOORE ADVANCED, INC. d/b/a "Moore Advanced," an entity, form unknown; NFI, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership; and Does 1 to 100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. RIC1900029, from the Superior Court of California, County of Riverside, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:19-cv-00318 to the proceeding. National Distribution Centers LLC is erroneously sued as "NFI, L.P." The action alleges wage and hour, and misclassification claims. There are no current motions pending and there have been no further proceedings in Riverside County Superior Court, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: George A. Stohner, Esq. Michael Jaeger, Esq. Andrew Murphy, Esq. FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS LLP 11766 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 750 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: 310 500 2090 Facsimile: 310 500 2091 E-mail: george.stohner@faegrebd.com michael.jaeger@faegrebd.com andrew.murphy@faegrebd.com NCAA: Lett Sues over Health & Safety of NCAT Student-Athletes ------------------------------------------------------------- ELAINE LETT, as attorney-in-fact of Earl Lett, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00815-JMS-TAB (S.D. Ind. Feb. 25, 2019), seeks redress for injuries sustained as a result of Defendant's reckless disregard for the health and safety of generations of North Carolina A&T State University (NCAT) 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 the 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, NCAT 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 NCAT 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 NCAT 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 the 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: Talley Sues over Safety of Catawba Student-Athletes --------------------------------------------------------- LAQUANE TALLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION and CATAWBA COLLEGE, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00784-JPH-MJD (S.D. Ind. Feb. 22, 2019), seeks redress for injuries sustained a result of the Defendant's reckless disregard for the health and safety of generations of Catawba 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 the 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, Catawba 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 Catawba 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 Catawba 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 the 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 NEBRASKA: ACLU Files Class Action Over Prison Conditions -------------------------------------------------------- Joanne Young, writing for Lincoln Journal Star, reports that it's been 18 months since 11 Nebraska prisoners sued the state Department of Correctional Services over conditions and crowding they say endanger the health, safety and lives of prisoners and staff on a daily basis. On Feb. 19, the ACLU of Nebraska, which represents the prisoners, took a step to increase the reach of the complaint by filing a motion in federal court for class-action status on behalf of the thousands of men and women in the state's prisons. To do that, the organization enlisted at least six experts with experience in treatment of prisoners with mental health, medical and dental needs and their disability rights. One of those, Craig Haney, a social psychologist and noted expert on the psychological impact of imprisonment and prison isolation, said in his filing that Nebraska inmates subjected to excessive and inappropriate solitary confinement -- especially those with mental illness -- face significant risk of psychological harm. Nebraska prisons have a far higher suicide rate than other state prison systems, he said, and records show multiple suicide attempts at the prisons in recent years. He noted two suicides in restricted housing at the Tecumseh State Correctional Institution. Adrian Eagle Elk, 29, hanged himself in his cell last year, after two months in restricted housing, and in 2016, Aslin Nabarro, 44, killed himself after four months in isolation. Mr. Nabarro suffered from depression and an adjustment disorder, Mr. Haney said, and had not been seen by mental health providers for 40 days prior to his death. On a request to prison officials for aid, Mr. Nabarro had written: "I can't stand it any longer. Nobody helps." The experts who documented their observations after interviewing prisoners and staff, touring facilities and reading documents and records, detailed in hundreds of pages problems they said extended far beyond just those 11 inmates who had filed the lawsuit. The problems included bad policies and practices of the department, crowding, lack of appropriate access to medical, mental health and dental care, and failure to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act. "Their conclusions make clear that Nebraska remains an extreme outlier, and human rights and legal abuses are rampant," said ACLU of Nebraska executive director Danielle Conrad. David Fathi, director of the American Civil Liberties Union National Prison Project, said the class certification is necessary, in part, for efficiency and because prisoners come and go from custody and can't be involved in the complaint once they have been released. "Our burden on the motion for class certification is to show that there are common issues in their case and that we're bringing a case that's not about the situation of individual people, but about statewide policies and practices that put everybody at risk of harm," Mr. Fathi said. In addition to a general class of complainants, the lawsuit denotes subclasses for those in solitary confinement or those who have disabilities. The affidavits brought by the experts are "quite scathing," Mr. Fathi said. "This case is an attempt to fix a profoundly broken prison system," he said. "This is a system that is in perpetual crisis, that poses an imminent risk of injury or death, not only to prisoners but to people who work in the prisons." Attorney General Doug Peterson said his office is reviewing the filings. "It is important to remember that these remain allegations and the Attorney General's Office looks forward to showing the court the quality of care provided at NDCS," he said. The experts gave examples of what they observed as dangerous conditions: * While all restrictive housing units appear capable of having harmful impacts on prisoners, Haney said, the "South Forty" control unit at the State Penitentiary is more toxic than others. He described conditions in the unit as shocking and the plight of many of those prisoners are "truly dire." The cells are small, dirty, essentially windowless and infested with insects and rodents. Staff must navigate through a utility chase, or "tunnel," between units and peer through an opening in the rear of individual cells to communicate with prisoners and assess their health needs. * I understand and agree that registration on or use of this site constitutes agreement to its user agreement and privacy policy. Haney interviewed several dozen prisoners at multiple facilities, some who spent months, even years, in restricted housing and who described enforced idleness and inactivity, oppressive security and surveillance and starkly deprived conditions that can create cognitive, emotional and behavioral impairments. Those damages can be permanent and life-threatening, he said. * Dentist Jay D. Shulman reported allegations of inadequate policies, procedures and staffing in the dental department that result in consistently inadequate care. There is a one-year quarantine during which prisoners are not eligible to receive treatment for dental disease until the conditions cause pain. There is a two-year restriction from receiving dentures, even for those who have pain and discomfort in chewing. An available waiver process is "highly problematic," he said, because the basis for approving such a waiver is not stated. * Eldon Vail, formerly with the Washington State Department of Corrections, described the "two-headed monster" of overcrowding and understaffing that leads to over-reliance on solitary confinement. In spite of a stated reform of restricted housing policies, the practice has increased rather than decreased, he said. And the practice of putting two prisoners together in restricted housing cells is dangerous, he said, as shown by the murder of Terry Berry by his cellmate, Patrick Schroeder. Vail said Chief of Operations Diane Sabatka-Rine has said she didn't believe double-celling, in and of itself, impacts safety or the mental well-being of individuals. Corrections Director Scott Frakes said double-bunking in restrictive housing can be as safe as in general population. * Dr. Pablo Stewart, a psychiatrist, declared in his filing the systems for prescribing and adjusting medication, and for detecting and treating dangerous side effects of powerful psychotropic medication, are not functioning at the level needed to prevent serious harm and death. Prisoners taking powerful psychotropic drugs are not properly monitored for side effects, he said. * Dr. Marc Stern found what he called improper use of nursing staff; inappropriate use of inmate "porters," who provide direct clinical care and are given access to other prisoners' confidential medical records; poor clinical decision-making and practice by health care professionals; and failure to have a reliable system in place to ensure medical orders are followed. Poor decisions could in some cases be life-threatening, Stern said. One patient at the women's correctional center at York who was recommended for additional X-rays for an abnormal and concerning mammogram didn't get the followup care for six months, at which time she was diagnosed with breast cancer. * Margo Schlanger, an expert in law, policies and procedures affecting prisoners with disabilities, reported the department has no written policies governing the provision of assistive devices beyond a cursory reference they will be provided subject to "medical necessity, safety, and security." The department does not inform prisoners of their rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act or about how to access services, she said. [GN] NEBRASKA: Court Grants Bid to Quash Subpoenaed Docs in Sabata Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, HANNAH SABATA; DYLAN CARDEILHAC; JAMES CURTRIGHT; JASON GALLE; RICHARD GRISWOLD; MICHAEL GUNTHER; ANGELIC NORRIS; R. P., a minor; ISAAC REEVES; ZOE RENA; and BRANDON SWEETSER; on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated; Plaintiffs, v. NEBRASKA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES; SCOTT FRAKES, in his official capacity as Director of the Nebraska Department of Correctional Services; HARBANS DEOL, in his official capacity as Director of Health Services of the Nebraska Department of Correctional Services; NEBRASKA BOARD OF PAROLE; JULIE MICEK, in her official capacity as the Board of Parole Acting Parole Administrator; and DOES, 1 to 20 inclusive; Defendants, Case No. 4:17CV3107 (D. Neb.), Magistrate Michael D. Nelson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska granted the motion of Marshall Lux, Public Counsel for Nebraska, to quash the subpoena duces tecum served on him by the Defendant Nebraska Department of Correctional Services ("NDCS"). The Plaintiffs, inmates within the custody and control of the NDCS, filed the proposed class action on Aug. 15, 2017, against Defendants NDCS and its administrators and medical staff, asserting violations of the Plaintiffs' civil and constitutional rights. The Plaintiffs' claims arise out of their allegations that Nebraska state prisons are overcrowded, under-resourced, and understaffed, and that prisoners are consistently deprived of adequate health care, including medical, dental, and mental health care, and denied accommodations for their disabilities. The Plaintiffs are represented by a number of attorneys from various firms and organizations, including the National Prison Project of the American Civil Liberties Union ("ACLU"), the National Association of the Deaf Law & Advocacy Center, and the Nebraska Appleseed Center. The NDCS seeks documents from the office of the Public Counsel regarding communications with these firms and organizations. The Nebraska legislature established the office of Public Counsel to perform certain duties, including investigating any administrative act of any administrative agency, such as the NDCS. In addition, the Inspector General of the Nebraska Correctional System was created within the office of the Public Counsel to conduct investigations, audits, inspections, and other reviews of the Nebraska correctional system. The subpoena served by the NDCS on the Public Counsel requests all communications and contents of such communications, including emails and messages sent by or from the office of Public Counsel (including the Inspector General) to the Plaintiffs' counsel and their respective firms and organizations. The subpoena states the request is limited in scope to communications or contents of such communications sent from Jan. 1, 2014, to the present regarding any of the individually named Plaintiffs. The Public Counsel provided the Court with a Privilege Log listing eight emails either from the Public Counsel or the Inspector General with ACLU counsel as either an addressee or a recipient. The Public Counsel represents the eight emails are all the documents responsive to the NDCS's subpoena. He has filed the instant motion to quash the subpoena for two reasons: (1) the NDCS has not made a threshold showing of relevance of the requested documents and (2) the requested documents are privileged under Neb. Rev. Stat. Sections 81-8,253 and Section 47-916. Magistrate Judge Nelson finds that the privilege log submitted by the Public Counsel indicates that the documents responsive to the subpoena concern matters within his official cognizance. The eight items in the privilege log are emails either from the Public Counsel or the Inspector General with the ACLU counsel as either an addressee or a recipient. The email replies concern ACLU counsel's request for documents that an individually named incarcerated Plaintiff had previously submitted to the Public Counsel; three replies concern ACLU counsel's inquiry about records that another Plaintiff had previously provided to the Public Counsel; one reply is in response to ACLU counsel's concerns related to a Plaintiff's segregation/solitary confinement; two replies relate to a referral ACLU counsel made on behalf of one of the Plaintiffs about solitary confinement; and one reply instructs the Public Counsel's staff to open an investigation file for one of the Plaintiffs showing ACLU counsel as referring party. The Judge holds that these replies concerning individuals incarcerated at the NDCS and potential complaints and investigations related to those individuals are matters that clearly fall within the "official cognizance" of the Public Counsel and Inspector General. Accordingly, neither the Public Counsel and Inspector General will be required to produce documents in response to the NDCS' subpoena. Upon consideration, Magistrate Judge Nelson granted the Public Counsel's Motion to Quash. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 22, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/4pTGZ4 from Leagle.com. Hannah Sabata, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Dylan Cardeilhac, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, James Curtright, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Jason Galle, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Richard Griswold, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Michael Gunther, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Angelic Norris, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Isaac Reeves, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Zoe Rena, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated & Brandon Sweetser, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Aaron T. Goodman -- aaron.goodman@dlapiper.com -- DLA PIPER LAW FIRM, pro hac vice, Amy Fettig, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION - NATIONAL PRISON PROJECT, pro hac vice, Amy A. Miller, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION, Andrew D. Day -- andrew.day@dlapiper.com -- DLA PIPER US LAW FIRM, pro hac vice, Anna P. Bitencourt Emilio, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF THE DEAF LAW & ADVOCACY CENTER, pro hac vice, Benjamin Bien-Kahn -- bbien-kahn@rbgg.com -- ROSEN, BIEN LAW FIRM, pro hac vice, Christopher M. Young -- christopher.young@dlapiper.com -- DLA PIPER LAW FIRM, pro hac vice, David C. Fathi, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION - NATIONAL PRISON PROJECT, pro hac vice, Dawn M. Jenkins -- dawn.jenkins@dlapiper.com -- DLA PIPER LAW FIRM, pro hac vice, Debra Patkin, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF THE DEAF LAW & ADVOCACY CENTER, pro hac vice, Ernest Galvan -- egalvan@rbgg.com -- ROSEN, BIEN LAW FIRM, pro hac vice, Jennifer Eldridge -- jennifer.eldridge@dlapiper.com -- DLA PIPER LAW FIRM, pro hac vice, Kara J. Janssen -- kjanssen@rbgg.com -- ROSEN, BIEN LAW FIRM, pro hac vice, Kenneth M. Smith -- ksmith@neappleseed.org -- NEBRASKA APPLESEED CENTER, Michael W. Bien -- mbien@rbgg.com -- ROSEN, BIEN LAW FIRM, pro hac vice, Rekha Arulanantham -- rarulanantham@aclusocal.org -- AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION-NATIONAL PRISON PROJECT, pro hac vice & Robert E. McEwen, NEBRASKA APPLESEED CENTER. R. P., a minor, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Aaron T. Goodman, DLA PIPER LAW FIRM, pro hac vice, Amy Fettig , AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION - NATIONAL PRISON PROJECT, pro hac vice, Amy A. Miller, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION, Andrew D. Day, DLA PIPER US LAW FIRM, pro hac vice, Anna P. Bitencourt Emilio, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF THE DEAF LAW & ADVOCACY CENTER, pro hac vice, Benjamin Bien-Kahn, ROSEN, BIEN LAW FIRM, pro hac vice, Christopher M. Young, DLA PIPER LAW FIRM, pro hac vice, David C. Fathi, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION - NATIONAL PRISON PROJECT, pro hac vice, David J. Tarrell, Berry Law Firm, Dawn M. Jenkins, DLA PIPER LAW FIRM, pro hac vice, Debra Patkin, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF THE DEAF LAW & ADVOCACY CENTER, pro hac vice, Ernest Galvan, ROSEN, BIEN LAW FIRM, pro hac vice, Jennifer Eldridge, DLA PIPER LAW FIRM, pro hac vice, Kara J. Janssen, ROSEN, BIEN LAW FIRM, pro hac vice, Kenneth M. Smith, NEBRASKA APPLESEED CENTER, Michael W. Bien , ROSEN, BIEN LAW FIRM, pro hac vice, Rekha Arulanantham, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION - NATIONAL PRISON PROJECT, pro hac vice & Robert E. McEwen, NEBRASKA APPLESEED CENTER. Nebraska Department of Correctional Services, Scott Frakes, In his official capacity as Director of the Nebraska Department of Correctional Services, Harbans Deol, In his official capacity as Director of Health Services of the Nebraska Department of Correctional Services & Nebraska Board of Parole, Defendants, represented by Benjamin M. Goins, ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, Danielle L. Rowley, ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, David A. Lopez, ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, Jessica M. Forch, ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, Katherine O'Brien, ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE & Ryan S. Post, ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE. Julie Micek, In her official capacity as the Board of Parole Acting Parole Administrator, Defendant, represented by Benjamin M. Goins, ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, Danielle L. Rowley, ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, David A. Lopez, ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, Jessica M. Forch, ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, Katherine O'Brien, ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE & Ryan S. Post, ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE. Marshall Lux, Movant, represented by Shawn D. Renner -- srenner@clinewilliams.com -- CLINE, WILLIAMS LAW FIRM. NEBRASKA: Expert Witnesses Condemn Prison Conditions ---------------------------------------------------- Paul Hammel, writing for BH News Service, reports that expert witnesses hired by the ACLU of Nebraska condemned conditions inside Nebraska's prisons in court filings on Feb. 19 as dangerous to inmates due to inadequate health care, "perpetual overcrowding" and understaffing. The civil rights organization, which sued the State of Nebraska in August 2017, unveiled preliminary opinions from its experts in asking a federal judge to authorize the lawsuit as a class action for all of the 5,500 prison inmates incarcerated in Nebraska. ACLU officials said gaining class-action status would give them more leverage in their lawsuit and in possibly obtaining an out-of-court settlement. State attorneys, in court filings, have denied assertions by the ACLU and the 10 inmates now named in the lawsuit that prison facilities are so overcrowded that they violate constitutional rights. The ACLU's lawsuit, which is still in the pretrial stage, alleges that inmates are subjected to cruel and unusual punishment due to inadequate health and mental health care, overuse of solitary confinement and lack of adequate accommodations for handicapped inmates. The ACLU experts maintained that overcrowding, combined with inadequate staffing, made conditions worse by forcing the use of solitary confinement to maintain order, delaying needed mental health evaluations and treatment, and creating unsafe conditions for inmates. Nebraska has the second-most-overcrowded prison system in the country, housing about 2,100 more inmates than its design capacity. ACLU officials, in a press release, compared conditions to California where, in 2011, a federal court sided with the ACLU and ordered inmates to be released to ease crowded conditions. Danielle Conrad, director of ACLU of Nebraska, said on Feb. 19 that the organization is still open to working with the state to improve conditions and avoid an expensive legal battle. [GN] NEBRASKA: Sabata, et al. Seek to Certify Class & SubClasses ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit HANNAH SABATA, et al., the Plaintiffs, vs. NEBRASKA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-03107-RFR-MDN (D. Neb.), the Plaintiffs move the Court for an order: 1. certifying that this action is maintainable as a class action under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a), 23(b)(1), and 23(b)(2) as to each of Plaintiffs' causes of action; 2. certifying a NDCS Class of: "all persons who are now, or will in the future, be subjected to the health care (including medical, mental health and dental care) policies and practices of NDCS" and certifying all named Plaintiffs as representatives of the NDCS Class"; 3. certifying an Isolation Subclass of: "all NDCS prisoners who are now, or will in the future be, subject to conditions of confinement that provide limited contact with other prisoners, strictly controlled movement while out of cell, and out-of-cell time of less than twenty- four hours per week" and certifying named Plaintiffs Hannah Sabata, Dylan Cardeilhac, Jason Galle, Michael Gunther, Richard Griswold, Angelic Norris, R.P., Isaac Reeves, and Zoe Rena, as representatives of the Isolation Subclass"; 4. certifying a Disability Subclass consisting of "all persons with disabilities who are now, or will in the future be, confined at any NDCS facility" and certifying named Plaintiffs Hannah Sabata, Dylan Cardeilhac, James Curtright, Jason Galle, Richard Griswold, Michael Gunther, Angelic Norris, R.P., Isaac Reeves, and Brandon Sweetser, as representatives of the Disability Subclass; 5. certifying counsel of record for Plaintiffs as Class Counsel for the NDCS Class and the Isolation and Disability Subclasses.[CC] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs: Kara J. Janssen, Esq. ROSEN BIEN GALVAN & GRUNFELD LLP 101 Mission Street, Sixth Floor San Francisco, CA 94105-1738 Telephone: (415) 433-6830 Facsimile: (415) 433-7104 E-mail: kjanssen@rbgg.com NEW ENGLAND MOTOR: Fails to Provide Proper Notice Prior to Layoff ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jon Harris, writing for The Morning Call, reports that the federal WARN Act, generally speaking, aims to protect workers by requiring employers to provide them with 60-days notice ahead of a closing or mass layoff. That heads-up didn't happen at New England Motor Freight, allege hundreds of the company's employees -- including some from the Carbon County terminal -- in a class-action complaint filed against the Elizabeth, N.J., firm. Many of New England Motor Freight's 3,450 full- and part-time employees worked their last day at the company, Friday, Feb. 15, only four days after the trucking carrier filed for bankruptcy and announced plans to wind down its operations. The company's Mahoning Township terminal, at 457 Mahoning Drive, employed around 200 people, officials in Carbon County said. "Even if you qualify that as notice, they were still owed another 55 days notice," said Chuck Ercole -- cercole@klehr.com -- a partner at Klehr Harrison Harvey Branzburg LLP in Philadelphia and one of the attorneys representing the employees. Mr. Ercole, chairman of the firm's labor and employment law practice group, said about 250-300 employees are now involved in the action, a number that could grow. "The story behind the scenes is supposedly the company didn't think they had violated the WARN Act, but I'm not sure what their defense is," Mr. Ercole said. Vincent Colistra, New England Motor Freight's chief restructuring officer, did not respond to a call seeking comment on Feb. 19. In a statement, Mr. Colistra said the company worked hard to explore options but, following two years of losses with rises in overhead and a shortage of truck drivers, New England Motor Freight opted to wind down its operations to maximize its assets for employees and creditors. But, Mr. Ercole noted, the challenges the business faced did not pop up out of nowhere, and bankruptcy is not a way out of providing proper notice. For example, on Feb. 18, Payless ShoeSource announced that it filed for bankruptcy and planned to wind down its roughly 2,500 stores in North America, though many of the retailer's stores will remain open through the end of May. Mr. Ercole has been involved with trucking cases before, perhaps most notably in 2009, when a class-action lawsuit was filed against Arrow Trucking, which abruptly shut down just before Christmas that year. The company shut off its fuel cards, which left drivers stranded across the country. Mr. Ercole said about 400 drivers were involved in that action, a two-year case that ended with the plaintiffs getting their requested wages and benefits. Mr. Ercole, who met with some New England Motor Freight drivers in Cherry Hill, N.J., on Feb. 18, expects this case to take at least a year, though he's had some actions resolve faster. In the complaint, the employees are looking to get eight weeks pay and the value of their health benefits. In the meantime, Mr. Ercole noted, many of the affected workers he spoke with are applying for unemployment benefits. "We'll see how it all plays out," he said. [GN] NIKE: 1st Hearing in Gender Discrimination Class Action Held ------------------------------------------------------------ Matthew Kish, writing for Portland Business Journal, reports that an attorney for current and former Nike employees on Feb. 19 argued during a court hearing that a sweeping gender discrimination lawsuit against the sportswear giant should be allowed to proceed. The lawsuit was filed in August in the wake of reports about a "boys' club" culture at Nike. Current and former employees allege widespread gender and pay discrimination. The lawsuit seeks class-action status. Nike filed a partial motion to dismiss the case in December, arguing the lawsuit is overly broad and lacks sufficient facts. The lawsuit had its first hearing on Feb. 19. The telephonic hearing focused on Nike's arguments to have three of the lawsuit's four claims dismissed. Nike's attorney also argued the lawsuit doesn't have enough evidence to be certified as a class action. Arguing for current and former Nike employees, Goldstein, Borgen, Dardarian & Ho attorney James Kan -- jkan@gbdhlegal.com -- said the lawsuit has enough statistical and anecdotal evidence to survive Nike's motion to dismiss. He also noted Nike has publicly acknowledged its workplace problems. "The combined panoply of fact can support an inference of discriminatory intent," Mr. Kan said. Arguing for Nike, Paul Hastings attorney Felicia Davis said the statistics in the lawsuit are "very, very high level and they're very general and I don't think they meet the pleading standards." The statistics in the lawsuit include the percentage of Nike vice presidents who are male (71 percent) and the percentage of Nike directors and senior directors who are male (62 percent). Ms. Davis described the statistics as "vague" and not proof of gender discrimination. She also argued the lawsuit should not be certified as a class action because the proposed class is too broad and includes "hundreds of job titles and thousands of current and former employees across every area of Nike's business." "The scope is unbridled," she said. Plaintiffs' attorney Kan said Nike is getting ahead of itself by asking the court to rule on the proposed class certification, saying it was "not appropriate at this stage of the litigation." "We're not trying to jump ahead," Davis said. "The court has the authority and should exercise the authority to manage cases that are on their face unnmanageable and not likely to lead to any kind of certification down the line." The case is assigned to Magistrate Judge Jolie A. Russo. At the conclustion of the hearing, Russo said she expects to issue a ruling on the motion to dismiss shortly. The lawsuit was the first of two expansive lawsuits related to the claims about a toxic workplace at Nike. The other was filed on behalf of shareholders who allege the company's board didn't do enough to protect investors. Nike has filed a motion to dismiss that lawsuit, calling it "contorted," "nonsensical," and "illogical." [GN] NISOURCE INC: Suits over Greater Lawrence Incident in Mediation --------------------------------------------------------------- NiSource Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 20, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that a special judge in the consolidated class action lawsuit related to the so-called Greater Lawrence Incident granted the parties' joint motion to stay all cases for 90 days to allow mediation. On September 13, 2018, a series of fires and explosions occurred in Lawrence, Andover and North Andover, Massachusetts related to the delivery of natural gas by Columbia of Massachusetts. Various lawsuits, including several purported class action lawsuits, have been filed by various affected residents or businesses in Massachusetts state courts against the Company and/or Columbia of Massachusetts in connection with the Greater Lawrence Incident. A special judge has been appointed to hear all pending and future cases and the class actions will be consolidated into one class action. On January 14, 2019, the special judge granted the parties' joint motion to stay all cases for 90 days to allow mediation. The parties are in the process of filing a request with the special judge to extend this period. The class action lawsuits allege varying causes of action, including those for strict liability for ultra-hazardous activity, negligence, private nuisance, public nuisance, premises liability, trespass, breach of warranty, breach of contract, failure to warn, unjust enrichment, consumer protection act claims, negligent and reckless infliction of emotional distress, and gross negligence, and seek actual compensatory damages, plus treble damages, and punitive damages. Many residents and business owners have submitted individual damage claims to Columbia of Massachusetts. NiSource said, "We also have received notice from three parties indicating an intent to assert wrongful death claims. In Massachusetts, punitive damages are available in a wrongful death action upon proof of gross negligence or willful or reckless conduct causing the death. In addition, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the municipalities of Lawrence, Andover and North Andover are seeking reimbursement from Columbia of Massachusetts for their respective expenses incurred in connection with the Greater Lawrence Incident. The outcomes and impacts of the private actions are uncertain at this time." NiSource Inc., an energy holding company, operates as a regulated natural gas and electric utility company in the United States. The company operates in two segments, Gas Distribution Operations and Electric Operations. The company was formerly known as NIPSCO Industries, Inc. and changed its name to NiSource Inc. in April 1999. NiSource Inc. was founded in 1912 and is headquartered in Merrillville, Indiana. NUVASIVE INC: No Longer Has Liability in Mauss Securities Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- NuVasive, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 20, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company no longer has any remaining liability related to class action lawsuit spearheaded by Brad Mauss, as of December 31, 2018. On August 28, 2013, a purported securities class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California naming the Company and certain of its current and former executive officers for allegedly making false and materially misleading statements regarding the Company's business and financial results, specifically relating to the purported improper submission of false claims to Medicare and Medicaid. The operative complaint asserts a putative class period stemming from October 22, 2008 to July 30, 2013. The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and seeks unspecified monetary relief, interest, and attorneys' fees. On February 13, 2014, Brad Mauss, the lead plaintiff in the case, filed an Amended Class Action Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws. The Company answered the complaint on August 25, 2016, and discovery commenced. The plaintiffs filed motions for class certification on October 28, 2016 and the Company's opposition papers were filed on January 9, 2017. On March 22, 2017, the court issued an order granting class certification. The Company filed a petition to appeal the order granting class certification with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (the "Ninth Circuit") on April 5, 2017 and the plaintiffs filed an opposition to the petition. On August 15, 2017, the Ninth Circuit denied the Company’s petition. The Company filed a motion for summary judgment on September 8, 2017. On February 1, 2018, the court entered an order denying the Company’s motion for summary judgment. On February 13, 2018, the Company entered into a memorandum of understanding with the plaintiffs to settle the case for $7.9 million. On March 23, 2018, the parties executed a stipulation of settlement, which was preliminarily approved by the court on June 11, 2018. On December 6, 2018, the court issued an order and judgment granting final approval of the settlement. The settlement of $7.9 million was fully funded by insurance proceeds and includes the dismissal of all claims against the Company and the named individuals in the lawsuit without any liability or wrongdoing attributed to them. The Company no longer has any remaining liability related to this matter as of December 31, 2018. NuVasive, Inc., a medical device company, develops and markets minimally disruptive surgical products and procedurally integrated solutions for spine surgery. Its products focus on applications for spine fusion surgery, including ancillary products and services used to aid in the surgical procedure. NuVasive, Inc. was founded in 1997 and is headquartered in San Diego, California. OTTOMAN RESTAURANT: Juan Sierra Seeks Overtime Pay -------------------------------------------------- A case, JUAN E. SIERRA and other similarly-situated individuals, vs. Plaintiff(s), OTTOMAN RESTAURANT, INC. d/b/a/ SULTAN RESTAURANT and GURSEL SEZGIN, individually, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-20689-MGC (S.D. Fla., Feb. 22, 2019), seeks to recover money damages for unpaid overtime wages and retaliation, which constitute violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant is a Mediterranean restaurant which operates under the name of SULTAN RESTAURANT at 1903 Collins Avenue, Miami Beach, FL 33139, where Plaintiff worked. The Defendants SULTAN RESTAURANT and GURSEL SEZGIN employed the Plaintiff as a non-exempt, hourly, full-time restaurant employee approximately from March 05, 2018 to February 05, 2019, or 48 weeks. The Plaintiff was hired to work as a Prep Cook. He was paid $12.00 an hour, and after January 01, 2019 Plaintiff's wage rate was $13.00 an hour. The Defendants, Plaintiff maintained an irregular schedule. The Plaintiff had 1 day off, but he worked 5, 6 and sometimes up to 7 days per week. When Plaintiff worked 5 days, he completed 55 working hours, when Plaintiff worked 6 days, he completed 66 working hours. Thus, Plaintiff worked an average of 60 hours every week. Plaintiff was unable to take bona-fide lunch breaks. Plaintiff was paid for all his working hours at his regular rate. Defendants paid Plaintiff 40 regular hours with checks by direct deposits, and the overtime hours with cash and at his regular rate. Plaintiff was not paid for overtime hours. Therefore, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff overtime at the rate of time and a half his regular rate.[BN] Attorney for the Plaintiff: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com PACIFIC GAS: York County Sues over Violation of Securities Laws --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit against Pacific Gas seeks to pursue remedies under the Securities Act of 1933. The case is a securities class action on behalf of all persons or entities that acquired PG&E senior notes in or traceable to the Company's Notes Offerings. PG&E is a California utility that provides electricity to central and Northern California. Since March 2016, PG&E has issued over $4 billion worth of senior notes registered with the SEC. After selling billions of dollars' worth of bonds, PG&E has been implicated in several of the most destructive wildfires in history. In October 2017, a series of devastating fires, which became known as the Northern California Fires, ravaged at least 245,000 acres of land and killed 44 people. At the time, the fires were the most destructive in California history and were responsible for over $13 billion in damages. Then, little more than a year later, the tragedy of the Northern California Fires would be surpassed by an even more destructive and deadly blaze, the Camp Fire, which ignited in November 2018 in Butte County, California. This catastrophic event claimed the lives of at least 86 people and caused an estimated $16.5 billion in damages. The Camp Fire was reportedly the world's costliest natural disaster in 2018. As investigators sort through the wreckage of these devastating fires, a picture of PG&E's shocking failure to take proper fire mitigation measures, at the same time that it was selling billions of dollars' worth of bonds, has come to light. These events directly contradict the representations made by defendants in the offering documents for the Notes Offerings. For example, of the first 18 major Northern California Fires for which the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection ("Cal Fire") has determined a cause, all 18 were found to have been started by PG&E equipment. Of these, Cal Fire concluded that to follow applicable laws and regulations regarding vegetation management. The agency referred these cases to the appropriate District Attorney's offices for possible criminal prosecution. Similarly, PG&E's failure to properly maintain a transmission tower has been cited as the most likely source of the Camp Fire, meaning that PG&E has been implicated in directly causing the two most destructive wildfire events in California history in a span of only 13 months. Prosecutors have stated that PG&E's conduct could amount to implied-malice murder, depending on the conclusions reached by ongoing investigations. In addition, in-depth reporting has exposed the Company's lax wildfire safety practices. From June 2014 through December 2017, PG&E equipment was found to have caused over 1,500 fires across almost the entirety of the Company's service area, or more than one fire per day on average. In addition, the Company reportedly had not improved its fire prevention measures as represented and failed to even produce a fire mitigation report as mandated by California state law. Regulators have also concluded that the Company falsified safety and reporting data, further demonstrating the Company's systemic aversion to basic risk mitigation measures. Now, PG&E has declared bankruptcy, as it faces a slew of criminal probes, regulatory investigations and civil lawsuits, with the Company's potential liability estimated to reach as high as $30 billion. As a result of these tragic events, the prices of PG&E bonds have plummeted, adding hundreds of millions of dollars' in investor losses to the devastation wrought by the Company's conduct. This action seeks recompense for those losses under the federal securities laws, the lawsuit says. The case is captioned as YORK COUNTY ON BEHALF OF THE COUNTY OF YORK RETIREMENT FUND, CITY OF WARREN POLICE AND FIRE RETIREMENT SYSTEM and MID-JERSEY TRUCKING INDUSTRY & LOCAL NO. 701 PENSION FUND, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. BARBARA L. RAMBO, GEISHA J. WILLIAMS, NICKOLAS STAVROPOULOS, DAVID S. THOMASON, DINYAR B. MISTRY, LEWIS CHEW, ANTHONY F. EARLEY, JR., FRED J. FOWLER, MARYELLEN C. HERRINGER, RICHARD C. KELLY, ROGER H. KIMMEL, RICHARD A. MESERVE, FORREST E. MILLER, BARRY LAWSON WILLIAMS, ROSENDO G. PARRA, ANNE SHEN SMITH, ERIC D. MULLINS, BARCLAYS CAPITAL INC., BNP PARIBAS SECURITIES CORP., MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC, MUFG SECURITIES AMERICAS, INC. f/k/a MITSUBISHI UFJ SECURITIES (USA, INC., THE WILLIAMS CAPITAL GROUP, L.P., CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INCORPORATED, MIZUHO SECURITIES USA LLC, GOLDMAN, SACHS & CO., LLC, RBC CAPITAL MARKETS, LLC, WELLS FARGO SECURITIES, LLC, BNY MELLON CAPITAL MARKETS, LLC, TD SECURITIES (USA LLC, C.L. KING & ASSOCIATES, INC., GREAT PACIFIC SECURITIES, CIBC WORLD MARKETS CORP., SMBC NIKKO SECURITIES AMERICA, INC., U.S. BANCORP INVESTMENTS, INC., LEBENTHAL & CO., LLC, MISCHLER FINANCIAL GROUP, INC., BLAYLOCK VAN, LLC, SAMUEL A. RAMIREZ & COMPANY, INC. and MFR SECURITIES, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-00994 (N.D. Cal., Feb. 22, 2019).[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs: Darren J. Robbins, Esq. Brian E. Cochran, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: 619/231-1058 Facsimile: 619/231-7423 E-mail: darrenr@rgrdlaw.com bcochran@rgrdlaw.com - and - Thomas C. Michaud, Esq. VANOVERBEKE, MICHAUD & TIMMONY, P.C. 79 Alfred Street Detroit, MI 48201 Telephone: 313 578-1200 Facsimile: 313 578-1201 E-mail: tmichaud@vmtlaw.com PARAMETRIC SOUND: April 1 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set ----------------------------------------------------------- The following statement is being issued by Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP regarding the Parametric Sound Corporation Shareholders' Litigation: EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA In re PARAMETRIC SOUND CORPORATION SHAREHOLDERS' LITIGATION Lead Case No. A-13-686890-B Dept. No. XI CLASS ACTION This Document Relates To: ALL ACTIONS. SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION TO: All holders of Parametric Sound Corporation ("Parametric") common stock who held shares on January 15, 2014, at the time Parametric issued shares in the Merger pursuant to the Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Class"). YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the Eighth Judicial District Court for the State of Nevada, County of Clark (the "Court"), that you may be a member of a Class Action pending in the Court. The lawsuit captioned In re Parametric Sound Corporation Shareholders' Litigation, Lead Case No. A-13-686890-B was recently certified as a Class Action, and Kearney IRRV Trust was appointed as Class representative. If any benefits are eventually obtained for the Class as a result of this lawsuit, eligible Class members may be entitled to a payment. Class members may choose to exclude themselves from the Class. If you exclude yourself, you will not be entitled to a payment if any benefits are obtained for the Class. If you do not exclude yourself, you will be bound by any judgment in this litigation, whether favorable or unfavorable. To remain a Class member and eligible for a payment if any benefits are obtained, you are not required to do anything at this time. To request exclusion, you must submit a written request for exclusion to In re Parametric Sound Corporation Shareholders' Litigation, EXCLUSIONS, c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC, 3301 Kerner Blvd., San Rafael, CA 94901, postmarked on or before April 1, 2019, setting forth your name and address. The deadline to exclude yourself is April 1, 2019. [GN] PENINSULA INFINITI: Unger Sues over Vehicle Order Deposits ---------------------------------------------------------- STANLEY B. UNGER, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons and the general public, as applicable, the Plaintiff, v. PENINSULA INFINITI LLC, a California limited liability company doing business as Peninsula Infiniti; and DOES 1-10 inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 19CIV01021 (Cal. Super. Ct., Feb. 26, 2019), seeks legal and equitable relief resulting from Infiniti's alleged violation of the requirements of California Business and Professions Code. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants affirmatively represented that vehicle order deposits are non refundable when it is illegal to do so and/or failing to inform customers that it is unlawful to collect deposits for vehicles not then available, and imposing unconscionable and illegal penalites regarding vehicle orders, based on violation of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the prohibition against imposing liquidated damages clauses in consumer contracts, and provisions of the California Vehicle Code, California's Automobile Sales Finance Act, and California Leasing Act. The Defendant is engaged in the business of advertising, selling, distributing, and warranting motor vehicles.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: John W. Hanson, Esq. Elisa M. Swanson, Esq. THE HANSON LAW FIRM 7752 Fay Avenue, Ste. F La Jolla,CA 92037 Telephone: (858) 451 0291 Facsimile: (858) 451 0281 E-mail: john@thesandiegolemonlawyer.com - and - Alan M. Mansfield, Esq. THE CONSUMER LAW GROUP OF CALIFORNIA 206 Park Blvd. Ste. 603 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 308-5034 Facsimile: (888) 341—5048 E-mail: alan@clgca.com PROCTER & GAMBLE: Judge Approves Oral B Mouthwash Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Times of Israel reports that reading the instructions is always good practice, but reading them in both Hebrew and English led an astute lawyer in Ramat Gan to file an $8 million class-action lawsuit against the importer of a popular mouthwash. Attorney Yossi Beitner, a regular user of Proctor & Gamble's Oral B mouthwash, peeled off the Hebrew language instructions label on his bottle and noticed that the English version concealed underneath was different, the Ynet news website reported. The Hebrew version told customer to use the product twice a day and gargle for 30 seconds each time, but the English instructions told users to gargle once a day for 60 seconds. The difference in versions meant Israeli customers used the product twice as fast, prompting Mr. Beitner to file a NIS 30 million (about $8.3 million) class-action lawsuit against the local importer. Mr. Beitner's lawsuit claims the Israeli company conspired to cause Israeli consumers to use double the amount of product they actually needed. Customers outside of Israel, or those who peeled off the Hebrew language sticker on top of their bottle and paid attention to the English instructions, would use half the amount. The lawyer did the math and realized that as a constant user of mouthwash he would be out-of-pocket an extra 1,398 shekels (about $375). "The connection between the non-disclosure of additional usage instructions and the damage caused to the consumer was ostensibly proven," said Judge Shoshana Almagor, who approved the petition for the class-action and gave the company 45 days to file a defense. Proctor & Gamble's Israeli representative said the company would respond according to legal procedures. [GN] PRONAI THERAPEUTICS: May 24 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set ----------------------------------------------------------- The following statement is being issued by Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, LLP regarding the In re ProNAi Shareholder Litigation Settlement. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN MATEO IN RE PRONAI THERAPEUTICS, INC. SHAREHOLDER LITIGATION This Document Relates To: All Actions. Case No. 16-CIV-02473 Class Action Assigned to: Hon. Richard H. DuBois Department 16 SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION Date Action Filed: November 18, 2016 TO: ALL PERSONS OR ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED SHARES OF COMMON STOCK OF PRONAI THERAPEUTICS, INC., NOW KNOWN AS SIERRA ONCOLOGY, INC ("SIERRA" OR THE "COMPANY") IN THE COMPANY'S JULY 15, 2015 INITIAL PUBLIC OFFERING ("IPO"), OR AT ANY TIME BETWEEN JULY 15, 2015 AND NOVEMBER 18, 2016 (THE "CLASS PERIOD"), INCLUSIVE ("CLASS" OR "CLASS MEMBERS"). IN ORDER TO QUALIFY FOR A SETTLEMENT PAYMENT, YOU MUST TIMELY SUBMIT A PROOF OF CLAIM AND RELEASE FORM ("PROOF OF CLAIM") BY MAY 30, 2019. THIS NOTICE WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE COURT. IT IS NOT A LAWYER SOLICITATION. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that a hearing will be held on May 24, 2019, at 9:00 a.m., before the Honorable Richard H. DuBois at the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo, Department 16, 400 County Center, Redwood City, CA 94063, to determine whether: (1) the proposed settlement (the "Settlement") of the above-captioned action as set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement ("Stipulation")1 for $7,200,000 in cash should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable and adequate; (2) the Final Judgment as provided under the Stipulation should be entered; (3) to award Plaintiffs' Counsel attorneys' fees and expenses out of the Settlement Fund (as defined in the Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class Action ("Notice"), which is discussed below); (4) to pay Plaintiffs a service award for the time and expenses they incurred in representing the Class out of the Settlement Fund; and (5) the Plan of Allocation should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable and adequate. This Action is a consolidated securities class action brought on behalf of those Persons who purchased or acquired the common stock of Sierra pursuant or traceable to the Registration Statement and Prospectus for Sierra's IPO, against Sierra, certain of its key executives and directors, and underwriters of Sierra's IPO (collectively, "Defendants") for, among other things, allegedly misstating and omitting material facts from the Registration Statement filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the IPO concerning, among other things, the success and viability of the development of Sierra's drug candidate, PNT2258. Plaintiffs allege that these purportedly false and misleading statements inflated the price of the Company's stock, resulting in damage to Class Members when the truth was revealed. Defendants deny all of Plaintiffs' allegations. IF YOU PURCHASED OR ACQUIRED SIERRA COMMON STOCK BETWEEN JULY 15, 2015 THROUGH AND INCLUDING NOVEMBER 18, 2016, YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF THIS ACTION. To share in the distribution of the Settlement Fund, you must establish your rights by submitting a Proof of Claim and Release form ("Proof of Claim") by mail (postmarked no later than May 30, 2019) or electronically (no later than May 30, 2019). Your failure to submit your Proof of Claim by May 30, 2019, will subject your claim to rejection and preclude your receiving any of the recovery in connection with the Settlement of this Action. If you are a member of the Class and do not request exclusion therefrom, you will be bound by the Settlement and any judgment and release entered in the Action, including, but not limited to, the Final Judgment or Alternative Judgment, whether or not you submit a Proof of Claim. If you have not received a copy of the Notice, which more completely describes the Settlement and your rights thereunder (including your right to object to the Settlement), and a Proof of Claim form, you may obtain these documents, as well as a copy of the Stipulation (which, among other things, contains definitions for the defined terms used in this Summary Notice) and other settlement documents, online at www.ProNAiShareholderLitigation.com, or by writing to: In re ProNAi Shareholder Litigation Settlement c/o Epiq P.O. Box 5053 Portland, OR 97208-5053 Inquiries should NOT be directed to Defendants, the Court, or the Clerk of the Court. Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice or for a Proof of Claim form, may be made to Plaintiffs' Lead Counsel: COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP Mark C. Molumphy 840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200 Burlingame, CA 94010 Telephone: 650-697-6000 IF YOU DESIRE TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE CLASS, YOU MUST SUBMIT A REQUEST FOR EXCLUSION SUCH THAT IT IS POSTMARKED BY APRIL 30, 2019, IN THE MANNER AND FORM EXPLAINED IN THE NOTICE. ALL MEMBERS OF THE CLASS WHO HAVE NOT REQUESTED EXCLUSION FROM THE CLASS WILL BE BOUND BY THE SETTLEMENT EVEN IF THEY DO NOT SUBMIT A TIMELY PROOF OF CLAIM. IF YOU ARE A CLASS MEMBER, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO OBJECT TO THE SETTLEMENT, THE PLAN OF ALLOCATION, THE REQUEST BY PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES, AND/OR THE PAYMENT OF A SERVICE AWARD TO PLAINTIFFS FOR THEIR TIME AND EXPENSES. ANY OBJECTIONS MUST BE FILED WITH THE COURT AND SENT TO PLAINTIFFS' LEAD COUNSEL BYAPRIL 30, 2019, IN THE MANNER AND FORM EXPLAINED IN THE NOTICE. DATED: February 8, 2019 HONORABLE RICHARD H. DUBOIS SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 1 The Stipulation can be viewed and/or obtained at www.ProNAiShareholderLitigation.com. PROVIDENCE HEALTH: Settlement in Johnson Suit Has Prelim Approval ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JENNY JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of a class of persons similarly situated, and on behalf of the Providence Health & Service 403(b) Value Plan, Plaintiff, v. PROVIDENCE HEALTH & SERVICES, et al., Defendants, Case No. C17-1779-JCC (W.D. Wash.), Judge John C. Coughenour of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle, granted the Plaintiff's unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class settlement. The litigation involves claims for alleged violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") with respect to Defendant Providence's management of its employer-sponsored retirement plans. Having received and considered the Unopposed Motion and supporting papers, including the Class Action Settlement Agreement and Release dated Jan. 25, 2019 and the declarations of the counsel, Judge Coughenour preliminarily approved the terms set forth in the Settlement Agreement, subject to further consideration at the hearing conducted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e). He approved the retention by the Class Counsel of Rust Consulting as the Settlement Administrator, and the Notice of Proposed Class Action Settlement. Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(1), the Judge certified, solely for the purposes of effectuating the proposed Settlement on a non-opt-out basis, the Settlement Class described as all Current and Former Participants in the Providence Health & Services 401(a) Service Plan, the Providence Health & Services Multiple Employer 401(k) Plan, the Providence Health & Services 403(b) Value Plan, or in any plan merged into the 401(a), 401(k), or 403(b) Plans, or in any successor plan into which 401(a), 401(k), or 403(b) Plans may be merged, who maintained a balance of any amount in the Plans from November 28, 2011 to the date of entry of the Preliminary Approval Order. He appointed the Plaintiff as the class representative, and the Plaintiff's Counsel as the Class Counsel. Upon request of the Settlement Administrator and within a reasonable period before the issuance of the Notice, the Defendants will provide the Settlement Administrator with the names and last known addresses and email addresses (if available) of the Settlement Class Members. Within 30 days after entry of the Order, the Settlement Administrator will cause copies of the Notice to be sent by first-class mail or electronic mail (if available) to all Settlement Class Members through the notice procedure described in the Settlement Agreement. Not later than seven business days after sending the Notice to the Settlement Class Members, the Settlement Administrator will provide to the Class Counsel and to the Defendants' Counsel a declaration attesting to compliance with the sending of the Notice, as set forth. All reasonable costs incurred by the Settlement Administrator for providing the Notice as well as for administering the Settlement will be paid as set forth in the Settlement Agreement without further order of the Court. The Fairness Hearing is set for July 9, 2019 at 9:00 a.m. Not later than 30 days before the Fairness Hearing, the Class Counsel will submit their papers in support of final approval of the Settlement Agreement, and of the Class Counsel's applications for attorney fees and reimbursement of litigation expenses, and a Case Contribution Award. Anyone who files and serves a timely, written comment or objection in accordance with the Order may also appear at the Fairness Hearing either in person or through qualified counsel retained at their own expense. Those persons or their attorneys intending to appear at the Fairness Hearing must effect service of a notice of intention to appear setting forth no later than 15 days before the Fairness Hearing. The Parties may file written responses to any objections no later than seven days before the Fairness Hearing. The Order will become null and void, ab initio, and will be without prejudice to the rights of the Parties, all of whom will be deemed to have reverted to their respective status in the Action as of Nov. 7, 2018, if the Settlement is terminated in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 22, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/nb4p2e from Leagle.com. Jenny M Johnson, individually, and on behalf of a class of persons similarly situated, and on behalf of the Providence Health & Service 403(b) Value Plan, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas P. Needham, IZARD KINDALL & RAABE LLP, pro hac vice, Gregory Y. Porter -- gporter@baileyglasser.com -- BAILEY & GLASSER, pro hac vice, Julie Siebert-Johnson -- jsjohnson@ktmc.com -- KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK LLP, pro hac vice, Mark George Boyko -- mboyko@baileyglasser.com -- BAILEY & GLASSER, pro hac vice, Mark K. Gyandoh -- mgyandoh@ktmc.com -- KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK LLP, pro hac vice, Mark P. Kindall -- mkindall@ikrlaw.com -- IZARD, KINDALL & RAABE LLP, pro hac vice, Clifford A. Cantor & Michael L. Murphy -- mmurphy@baileyglasser.com -- Bailey & Glasser, LLP. Providence Health & Services, Providence Health & Services Human Resources Committee & John and Jane Does, Defendants, represented by Brian D. Boyle -- bboyle@omm.com -- O'MELVENY & MYERS, pro hac vice, Meaghan VerGow -- mvergow@omm.com -- O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP, pro hac vice & Medora A. Marisseau -- mmarisseau@karrtuttle.com -- KARR TUTTLE CAMPBELL. QWEST CORP: Court Denies Bid to Certify Order in Seifert for Review ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JORDAN SEIFFERT, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs, v. QWEST CORPORATION D/B/A/ CENTURYLINK QC AND CENTURYLINK COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, Defendants, Case No. CV-18-70-GF-BMM (D. Mont.), Judge Brian Morris of the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana, Great Falls Division, denied the Defendants' Motion to Certify the Court's Dec. 14, 2018, Order for Interlocutory Review. Seiffert, on behalf of himself, and all others similarly situated, brought a collective action against the Defendants. The Defendants moved to dismiss the out-of-state Plaintiffs and putative Plaintiffs, or, in the alternative, transfer the case to the Western District of Louisiana where CenturyLink is headquartered. The Defendants argued that the United States Supreme Court's ruling in Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Superior Ct. of Cal., applies to FLSA collective actions and deprives the Court of specific personal jurisdiction. The Court determined that Bristol-Myers did not apply to FLSA collective actions and denied the Defendants' motion on Dec. 14, 2018. Bristol-Myers involved group of plaintiffs that brought a mass tort action against Bristol-Myers Squibb in California state court in which they alleged state law claims. The plaintiffs included 86 people who resided in California, and 592 people who resided in 33 other states. The United States Supreme Court determined that the California state court lacked personal jurisdiction over the state claims brought by the out-of-state plaintiffs as no connection existed between the forum in California and the claims. The Defendants argue that the issue of whether Bristol-Myers deprives a district court of specific personal jurisdiction over the claims of the out-of-state opt-in Plaintiffs in a FLSA collective action presents a controlling question. They argue, therefore, that the Court's Dec. 14, 2018 Order denying their Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Transfer Venue should be certified for interlocutory appeal. Having considered the Defendants' Motion to Certify the Court's Dec. 14, 2018, Order for interlocutory review, Judge Morris determines that exceptional circumstances do not exist to warrant such review. The Defendants have demonstrated that the issue of whether Bristol-Myers applies to the out-of-state opt-in Plaintiffs is a controlling issue of law in the case. They have failed to show, however, that there is substantial ground for a difference of opinion on the controlling issue. The Defendants have further failed to show that resolution of whether Bristol-Myers applies to the out-of-state opt-in Plaintiffs would materially advance the litigation. The 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b) three-factor test weighs in favor of the Plaintiffs. Accordingly, Judge Morris denied the Defendants' Motion to Certify the Court's Dec. 14, 2018, Order for Interlocutory Review. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 22, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/GZtGAx from Leagle.com. Jordan Seiffert, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Philip L. McGrady -- Philip@mcgradylawfirm.com -- McGRADY LAW, Rowdy B. Meeks, ROWDY MEEKS LEGAL GROUP LLC, pro hac vice & Tracey F. George, DAVIS GEORGE MOOK LLC, pro hac vice. Qwest Corporation, d/b/a CenturyLink QC & CenturyLink Communications, LLC, Defendants, represented by Brian Mumaugh -- bmumaugh@hollandhart.com -- HOLLAND & HART, pro hac vice, Brianne C. McClafferty -- bcmcclafferty@hollandhart.com -- HOLLAND & HART, Chris R. Pace -- chris.pace@ogletree.com -- OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART, P.C., pro hac vice, Justin M. Dean -- justin.dean@ogletree.com -- OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART, P.C., pro hac vice & W. Scott Mitchell -- smitchell@hollandhart.com -- HOLLAND & HART. REVEL SYSTEMS: Settlement in Bisaccia FLSA Suit Has Prelim Approval ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JOSEPH BISACCIA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. REVEL SYSTEMS INC., Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-02533-HSG (N.D. Cal.), Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement. On May 3, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed the putative class action against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation as required under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). They allege that they and other inside sales representatives ("ISRs") employed by the Defendant regularly worked more than 40 hours in a workweek but did not receive overtime compensation. Instead, the Defendant classified them as "exempt" employees who were not entitled to such overtime compensation. On July 18, 2017, the Plaintiffs sought conditional certification of a collective action as to all inside sales employees, across sales titles and across the Defendant's various offices. The Defendant eventually stipulated to conditional certification and distribution of judicial notice to the collective action members. Judicial notice was distributed pursuant to the parties' agreement, and the case now includes approximately 149 opt-in Plaintiffs. On June 7, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint asserting putative class action claims under California and New York law in addition to the FLSA claims asserted in the original complaint. On Aug. 16, 2018, the parties jointly filed a notice of settlement. Following extensive formal discovery and with the assistance of a mediator, the parties eventually entered into a settlement agreement on Sept. 6, 2018. The key terms are as follows: A. Class Definition: The settlement includes all opt-in Plaintiffs who have filed consent to join forms, as well as three Rule 23 settlement classes, defined as follows: i. The California Class: All ISRs employed by Defendant who worked for Defendant in its California locations and who did not receive payment in exchange for a release of California claims through the Chatfield v. Revel class action settlement from May 30, 2013 through and until Jan. 15, 2017 and who do not communicate a timely written request for exclusion from the settlement. ii. The California Travel Class: All ISRs employed by Defendant who worked for Revel outside of California but who traveled to, and performed work in, California from May 30, 2013 through and until Jan. 15, 2017 and who do not communicate a timely written request for exclusion from the settlement. iii. The New York Class: All ISRs who were employed by Defendant in New York from May 30, 2011 through and until Jan. 15, 2017 and who do not communicate a timely written request for exclusion from the settlement. B. Settlement Benefits: the Defendant will pay a total settlement amount of $2.75 million, including settlement payments to all Class and Collective Members, administrative costs, incentive awards, any attorneys' fees and costs award, and all individual settlement payments, including employee taxes but excluding employer taxes. Individual settlement payments will be calculated proportionately based on individualized damages calculations using payroll data provided by Defendant. Individual settlement amounts will range from $248.12 to $53,244.24. The settlement is non-reversionary. C. All settlement class members will release: i. For New York Class Members, any statutory claims for unpaid wages (including but not limited to overtime pay, minimum wage, and regular wages), and claims for interest, penalties, or premiums in connection therewith, as well as any claims under the New York Labor Law, alleged or which could have been alleged under the facts plead in the Complaint during the Class Period. The Class Members who are not FLSA Collective Members will not release FLSA claims. ii. For California Class Members and California Travel Class Members, any statutory claims for unpaid wages (including but not limited to overtime pay, minimum wage, and regular wages), and claims for interest, penalties, or premiums in connection therewith, as well as any claims under the California Labor Code or California Wage Orders alleged or which could have been alleged under the facts plead in the Complaint during the Class Period arising from work performed in California. The Class Members who are not FLSA Collective Members will not release FLSA claims. iii. For FLSA Collective Members, the claims released also include all Fair Labor Standards Act claims against the Released Parties for work performed during the Class Period. D. Class Notice: A third-party settlement administrator will send class notices via U.S. mail to each member of the classes, using a class list provided by the Defendant. The notice will include: the nature of the action, a summary of the settlement terms, and instructions on how to object to and opt out of the settlement, including relevant deadlines. E. Opt-Out Procedure: The parties propose that any putative class member who does not wish to participate in the settlement must sign and postmark a written request for exclusion to the settlement administrator no later than 60 days after the date notice is mailed. F. Incentive Award: The Named Plaintiffs will apply for incentive awards of no more than $5,000 each, subject to the approval of the Court. G. Attorneys' Fees and Costs: The Plaintiffs will file an application for attorneys' fees not to exceed 25% of the settlement fund, and costs not to exceed $20,000. Having weighed the relevant factors, Judge Gilliam preliminarily finds that the settlement agreement is fair, reasonable, and adequate, and granted preliminary approval of the class action and FLSA collective action settlement. The parties are directed to meet and confer and stipulate to a schedule of dates for each event listed, which will be submitted to the Court within seven days of the date of the Order: (i) Deadline for Settlement Administrator to mail notice to all putative class members; (ii) Filing Deadline for attorneys' fees and costs motion; (iii) Filing deadline for incentive payment motion; (iv) Deadline for class members to opt-out or object to settlement and/or application for attorneys' fees and costs and incentive payment; and (v) Filing deadline for final approval motion Final fairness hearing and hearing on motions. The parties are further directed to implement the proposed class notice plan. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 22, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/yHg4co from Leagle.com. Joseph Bisaccia, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew C. Helland -- helland@nka.com -- Nichols Kaster, LLP, Kevin R. Allen, Velton Zegelman PC, Kevin Robert Allen, Allen Attorney Group & Daniel S. Brome -- dbrome@nka.com -- Nichols Kaster, LLP. Rosie O'Brien & Joshua Michi, Plaintiffs, represented by Daniel S. Brome, Nichols Kaster, LLP & Kevin Robert Allen, Allen Attorney Group. Revel Systems Inc., Defendant, represented by Mollie Michelle Burks -- mburks@grsm.com -- Gordon & Rees LLP, Sara Allison Moore -- smoore@grsm.com -- Gordon and Rees LLP & Sat Sang S. Khalsa -- skhalsa@grsm.com -- Gordon and Rees LLP. RIT TECHNOLOGIES: Padgett Securities Suit Dismissed w/o Prejudice ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, STEPHEN PADGETT, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. RIT TECHNOLOGIES LTD., AMIT MANTSUR, YOSSI BEN HAROSH, ERAN EROV, and MOTTI HANIA, Defendants, Civ. No. 16-4579 (KM) (JBC) (D. N.J.), Judge Kevin McNulty of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint. The Amended Complaint in the putative class action asserts claims under the federal securities laws against senior officers of RiT, as well as the Company itself. The claims arise from allegedly false or materially misleading statements made by the Defendants in press releases and public filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC"). The Plaintiffs assert that these false and materially misleading statements violate Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The crux of the Plaintiffs' claims is that the Defendants materially misled investors by failing to disclose the full extent of RiT's reliance on an agreement with RiT CIS Ltd. That agreement provided that RiT CIS was a non-exclusive distributor of RiT products and services in the Commonwealth of Independent States region ( "CIS"). The language RiT used to describe the agreement, though accurate, is alleged to have been deceptively incomplete. The Plaintiffs allege that the public statements referred were materially false or misleading because they failed to disclose that: (1) RiT 015 was RiT's major distributor in Russia and the 015 region; and (2) RiT 015 was vital to the viability of RiT. Those omissions, which downplayed the significance of the Distributor Agreement with RiT CIS, also allegedly concealed the full extent of RiT's dependence on Stins Coman. With respect to scienter, the Plaintiffs allege that given RiT CIS' importance for the Company's continued viability, the Individual Defendants were aware of both RiT 015's status as the Company's major distributor in Russia and the CIS region and RiT 015's indispensability for the Company's viability. In other words, the Defendants acted with scienter because they allegedly knew the public statements were materially misleading when they participated in the dissemination of those statements. The Plaintiffs allege that throughout 2016 RiT progressively revealed the true nature of RiT's relationship with RiT CIS. The Amended Complaint also notes press releases from later in 2016 which expressed doubt about RiT's ability to continue its operations as a going concern, disclosed the resignation of its president and CEO, Defendant Harosh, stated that it was delisted from trading on the NASDAQ, and revealed that a group of RiT's employees had filed petitions with the Tel Aviv District Court to liquidate the Company. Count I asserts claims under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule lob-5 promulgated thereunder against RiT and the individual Defendants. Count II asserts controlling person liability under Section 20(a) against the individual Defendants only. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants disseminated or approved the allegedly false statements described, knowing that they were misleading. The original complaint, filed on July 28, 2016, named Padgett as the Lead Plaintiff. Padgett withdrew his motion to be the Lead Plaintiff after it became apparent that others had a larger financial interest in the outcome of the case. Thereafter the Court approved the appointment of Martin and Hershel Smilovich as the Co-Lead Plaintiffs. The Smiloviches then filed an Amended Complaint, which is the currently operative pleading and the subject of the Defendants' current motion to dismiss. The Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs have failed to sufficiently plead the first and second elements. Judge McNulty agrees. All in all, the Amended Complaint fails to plead sufficient facts to support an actionable inference that the March-April 2015 SEC disclosures were misleading in the sense of significantly altering the mix of information available to the investor. Consequently, the motion to dismiss the Exchange Act Section 10(b) and Rule 10(b)-5 claim for failure to plead materiality is granted. The Defendants assert that the Amended Complaint does not plead the strong inference of scienter necessary to survive a motion to dismiss. Considering the alleged facts holistically, the Judge does not find that the allegations in the Amended Complaint satisfy the PSLRA requirement that there be a strong inference that the Defendants acted with scienter. Consequently, the Defendants' motion to dismiss, to the extent it is based on failure to plead scienter, is granted. As to Count II, because the Plaintiffs have failed to plead such a violation, the Section 20(a) claim is correspondingly insufficient and is dismissed. For the reasons he stated, Judge McNulty granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss. Because itis an initial dismissal, it is without prejudice to the filing of a properly supported motion to amend within 45 days. An appropriate Order follows. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 22, 2019 Memorandum Opinion is available at https://is.gd/8U4qdQ from Leagle.com. Theodore Ivanco, Movant, represented by EDUARD KORSINSKY -- ek@zlk.com -- LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP. Martin Smilovich & Hershel Smilovich, Lead Plaintiffs, represented by NEIL GROSSMAN -- neil@bgandg.com -- BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, ESQS. STEPHEN PADGETT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by LAURENCE M. ROSEN -- lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, PA. AMIT MANTSUR, YOSSI BEN HAROSH, ERAN EROV & MOTTI HANIA, Defendants, represented by SARA BESS CANNON -- sara.cannon@kirkland.com -- KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP. SAMSUNG: Aug. 6 Washing Machines Claims Filing Deadline Set ----------------------------------------------------------- Kate Streit, writing for simplemost, reports that in late 2016, Samsung recalled 2.8 million high-efficiency top-loading washing machines due to a problem with the top detaching, breaking apart or exploding during the spin cycle. Nine related injuries related to the problem were reported. Now, Samsung -- as well as Best Buy, Lowe's and Home Depot -- have agreed to a preliminary settlement of a class-action lawsuit for $6.55 million related to the recall, though Samsung denies that the products are defective. "This settlement only applies to certain washing machines produced until 2016, that have long been off the market," a Samsung spokesperson told Consumer Reports. "The company chose to settle to avoid the distraction and expense of litigation." The retailers also deny the allegations that they continued to sell defective products after the problem was identified. "The parties thought that settling this was the most expeditious thing to do, rather than continuing to incur the costs and disruptions of litigation and taking the time of the court system," Margaret Smith, a spokesperson for Home Depot, told Consumer Reports. Melissa Thaxton of Dallas, Georgia says she was almost seriously injured by one of the washers. "All of the sudden, without warning the washing machine just exploded," she told ABC News in 2016. "It was the loudest sound. It sounded like a bomb went off in my ear." The washers were made between March 2011 and October 2016. The model number and 15-digit serial number can be checked on this site to see if your model was affected. Consumers who are believed to have purchased one of the washers are being notified by mail. If you do not receive a notice but think you purchased an affected product, you can still file a claim online or download the form from the Case Documents page and send it in by mail. All claims must be filed by Aug. 6, 2019. Class members may be eligible for a number of benefits, including a rebate or a repair. [GN] SARBANAND FARMS: Court Partly Okays Class Notice Plan in Rosas Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, BARBARO ROSAS and GUADALUP TAPIA, as individuals and on behalf of all other similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs, v. SARBANAND FARMS, LLC, MUNGER BROS., LLC, NIDIA PEREZ, and CSI VISA PROCESSING S.C., Defendants, Case No. C18-0112-JCC (W.D. Wash.), Judge John C. Coughenour of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle, granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs' motion to approve their proposed class notice plan. On Dec. 20, 2018, the Court certified a class and two sub-classes of Mexican national migrant farm workers. The Plaintiffs now move for approval of their proposed notice plan, which includes notice by text message, a radio campaign in Mexico and in U.S. farm worker communities, online publication on two web platforms, and Facebook. The Plaintiffs propose to individually notify class members by text message. They claim to possess 96 of the class members' phone numbers, but less than 2% of their email addresses. The proposed text message would include a link to the full class notice, how to access the opt-out form, and the class counsel's contact information. Since the class members do not have permanent addresses in the U.S. and the class counsel has 96% of their phone numbers, Judge Coughenour finds that notifying the class members by text message is the best practicable individualized notice under the particular circumstances of the case. The Plaintiffs propose to provide notice via a radio campaign that would air in Mexican states where class members have resided and in U.S. cities where migrant farm worker populations are concentrated. Radio notice would be made in collaboration with Centro de los Derechos del Migrante ("CDM"). Although the Plaintiffs have proposed notice by text message, they acknowledge the lack of consistent cell service or the internet in rural Mexican communities. The use of a radio campaign in conjunction with sending class members individual text messages is appropriate in the event that some class members do not have reliable cell phone or internet service despite having provided their phone number. Therefore, the Judge finds that the radio form of notice is appropriate. The Plaintiffs have proposed notice via publication on two web platforms. CDM would post the publication notice, which is a one-page, condensed version of the full class notice, on its "online forum for migrant workers." Additionally, the class counsel would provide the publication notice to a national farm worker advocate listserv. Given the ease with which parties may post additional documents to a web forum, the Judge finds that full notice should be posted in addition to the publication notice to fully inform the class members about the lawsuit and their rights. Therefore, he finds it reasonable to post the publication notice to the two web platforms after the content is modified pursuant to the Order, and orders the Plaintiffs to include the full notice form. The Plaintiffs propose to use Facebook as a form of the class notice, but provide no details as to the method or contents of such notice. Posting to social media platforms can constitute over-inclusive notice, especially if the Court has approved other notice formats. Given that he has already approved notice by text message, radio, and publication to two web platforms as the best practicable notice plan, the Judge finds that the Facebook posting is unnecessary, and denies the Plaintiffs' request to use this form of notice. The Judge also finds that both the proposed full notice and proposed publication notice satisfy the elements of Rule 23(c)(2)(b). The full notice and publication notice explain the nature of the action, the claims or defenses, the class members' right to appear individually through an attorney, the right to be excluded from the class upon request, how a member can request exclusion, and the preclusive effect of any class judgment. In order to adequately notify the class members of their legal rights, the Plaintiffs are ordered to change the content of the proposed publication notice to mirror the FJC's publication notice form. Given the proposed publication notice's neutral language and substantial similarity to the FJC's model form, the Judge approves the publication notice with the modifications ordered. The Plaintiffs propose an opt-out procedure that requires the class members to mail the completed form to the Court in order to be excluded. The Judge finds that it would be incongruent to expect the Mexican mail system to be any more reliable for enabling the class members to send opt-out forms to the Court than it would be for providing class notice. In order to provide convenient opt-out procedures, he finds an additional method to opt-out is necessary. Therefore, the Plaintiffs are ordered to provide an alternative opt-out method by text message, email, or by another format allowing members to contact the class counsel. The class counsel is directed to assist the class members who wish to opt out in completing the opt-out forms as necessary and to file such forms with the Court before the end of the opt-out window. For the foregoing reasons, Judge Coughnour grantad in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs' motion for approval of the class notice. He approved the following forms of providing notice to the class: text message, radio advertisement, and publication on two web platforms. The Plaintiffs are ordered to modify the content of the notices and opt-out form in accordance with the Order. The Plaintiffs are granted leave to move the Court for additional forms of notice if necessary, after conferring with the Defendants. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 22, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/vVA7xD from Leagle.com. Barbaro Rosas & Guadalupe Tapia, Plaintiffs, represented by Adam J. Berger -- berger@sgb-law.com -- SCHROETER GOLDMARK & BENDER, Joachim Morrison -- joe.morrison@columbialegal.org -- COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES, Bernardo Rafael Cruz -- bernardo.cruz@columbialegal.org -- COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES, Lindsay Halm -- halm@sgb-law.com -- SCHROETER GOLDMARK & BENDER, Lori Isley -- lori.isley@columbialegal.org -- COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES & Tony Gonzalez -- tony.gonzalez@columbialegal.org -- COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES. Sarbanand Farms LLC, Munger Bros LLC & Nidia Perez, Defendants, represented by Christopher E. Hawk -- chawk@grsm.com -- GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI & Derek Allan Bishop -- dbishop@grsm.com -- GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI LLP. CSI Visa Processing, S.C., Defendant, represented by Adam S. Belzberg, STOEL RIVES, Christopher T. Wall, STOEL RIVES & Ryan R. Jones, STOEL RIVES. Washington State Employment Security Department, Interested Party, represented by Mary Maureen Tennyson, ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE. SIDELINE MARKETING: Saul Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages ------------------------------------------------------------ A case, STEVEN SAUL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. SIDELINE MARKETING INC. d/b/a BLOWOUTPICKS.COM, the Defendant, Case No. 0:19-cv-60476-WPD (S.D. Fla., Feb. 22, 2019), seeks to recover damages, injunctive relief, and any other available legal or equitable remedies, resulting from the illegal actions of Blowoutpicks.com in negligently or willfully contacting the Plaintiff on his cellular telephone, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, thereby invading the Plaintiff's privacy. According to the complaint, Blowoutpicks.com is a website which offers sports betting advice and sells memberships for that advice. Blowoutpicks.com uses a business model whereby it promotes its sports gambling prediction services, in part, by sending unsolicited text messages to wireless phone users. Blowoutpicks.com utilizes bulk SPAM text messaging, or SMS marketing, to send unsolicited text messages, marketing and advertising of Blowoutpicks.com's sports gambling prediction services, including at least 6 unsolicited text messages to the Plaintiff. For example, on or about November 13, 2017, at approximately 3:09 p.m. (EST), and on or about November 16, 2018, at approximately 3:56 PM. (EST), Blowoutpicks.com sent the following unsolicited text messages to the Plaintiff's cellular telephone ending in "6564:" The Plaintiff was at no time given an option to "opt-out" of receiving future unsolicited text messages from Blowoutpicks.com. At no time did the Plaintiff provide the Plaintiff's cellular phone number to Blowoutpicks.com through any medium, nor did the Plaintiff consent to receive such an unsolicited text message. The Plaintiff has never signed-up for, and has never used, Blowoutpicks.com's services, and has never had any form of business relationship with Blowoutpicks.com. Through the unsolicited SPAM text messages, Blowoutpicks.com contacted the Plaintiff several times on the Plaintiff's cellular telephone regarding an unsolicited service via an "automatic telephone dialing system," as defined by 47 U.S.C. section 227(a)(1) and prohibited by 47 U.S.C. section 227(b)(1)(A).[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: Seth M. Lehrman, Esq. EDWARDS POTTINGER LLC 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: 954 524-2820 Facsimile: 954 524-2822 E-mail: seth@epllc.com SIX FLAGS: Seasonal Employees' Unpaid OT Class Action Certified --------------------------------------------------------------- Alison Casey, Esq. -- acasey@nutter.com -- and Ashley Paquin, Esq. -- apaquin@nutter.com -- of Nutter McClennen & Fish LLP, in an article for JDSupra, report that Judge Sanders certified a class of more than 18,000 Six Flags seasonal employees complaining that the amusement park failed to pay overtime. The park pays its seasonal employees on an hourly basis, but not overtime. In support of this policy, Six Flags relied on G.L. c. 151, § 1A(20), which excuses amusement parks from paying overtime if they do not operate more than 150 calendar days a year. The plaintiffs countered that in recent years Six Flags recorded attendance at the park on 150 days or more -- in addition to days when the park is open for private or special events. Judge Sanders granted the motion for class certification because the plaintiffs' claim that Six Flags operated more than 150 days of the year was common to all members of the overtime class. Judge Sanders, however, declined to certify a class of seasonal employees complaining of unpaid meal breaks. The plaintiffs alleged that Six Flags requires its employees to take meal breaks inside designated areas, which under state law, would also require the meal break to be compensated. But the park denied these allegations, asserting that its handbook requires employees take meal breaks only out of the sight of guests. Judge Sanders denied certification of the meal-break class because of a lack of commonality among members. Because the employee handbook did not require employees to eat in a certain area, she reasoned, the plaintiffs' claim that there was a restriction on meal locations turned on what park staff told each class member, a factual issue that varies among employees. Dakota Hickman & Matthew D'Agostino, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Riverside Park Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Six Flags New England et al. (November 7, 2018) [GN] SOUTH FLORIDA MGS: Wijesinha Sues over Unauthorized Text Messages ----------------------------------------------------------------- A case, LAURA WIJESINHA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. SOUTH FLORIDA MGS, LLC d/b/a MASSAGE GREEN SPA OF SOUTH FLORIDA, a Florida Limited Liability Company, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-20744-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Feb. 26, 2019), contends that the Defendant owns massage and spa locations throughout South Florida and, to promote its services, it engages in unsolicited telemarketing, harming thousands of consumers in the process. The Defendant sent unauthorized text messages to cellular subscribers who never provided Defendant with prior express consent, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.[BN] Counsel for the Plaintiff: Ignacio J. Hiraldo, Esq. IJH Law 1200 Brickell Ave Suite 1950 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: 786 496 4469 E-mail: ijhiraldo@ijhlaw.com - and - Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: 954.400.4713 E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com SOUTHLAND HVAC: Bolotnikov Sues over Time-Shaving Practices ----------------------------------------------------------- VLADIMIR BOLOTNIKOV, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. SOUTHLAND HVAC & CONSTRUCTION, INC. a California corporation, E & A MECHANICAL, INC., a California corporation; BARRETT BUSINESS SERVICES, INC., a Maryland corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 19STCV06391 (Cal. Super. Ct., Feb. 26, 2019), alleges that the Defendants failed to pay all overtime wages owed, pay all minimum wages owed, provide meal periods, provide accurate, itemized wage statements, and pay all wages owed upon termination pursuant to the California Labor Code. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a non-exempt employee from approximately 2003 through on or about March 13, 2018, at which time he commenced a medical leave of absence. Then, on or about January 14, 2019, Plaintiffs employment with Defendants was terminated. The Plaintiff was based out of Defendants' facility in Tujunga, California and held the position of "Sheet Metal Worker." During Plaintiff's employment with Defendants, Plaintiff was typically scheduled to 10 work from 6:30 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. However, Plaintiff often commenced work before the start of his scheduled shift and would also often work several minutes after his shift was scheduled to end. Indeed, Defendants' timekeeping policy expressly states, "employees should clock in no sooner than five minutes before their scheduled shift and clock out no later than five minutes after their scheduled shift." Defendants would keep track of Plaintiffs time worked through handwritten timesheets and would unlawfully shave Plaintiff s work time and/or round Plaintiffs work time such that Plaintiff would not be fully paid for all time worked. This time-shaving and/or rounding practice utilized by Defendants was not even handed over time and would almost exclusively round and shave in Defendants' favor such that Plaintiff was routinely unpaid for his time worked. As a result, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff all required minimum and overtime wages, the lawsuit says. Southland HVAC & Construction, Inc. provides mechanical contracting services. The Company designs, installs, and repairs furnace, heat pump, and refrigeration, chiller, boiler, and air conditioning systems, as well as offers data cabling, electrical upgrade, energy saving audit, wiring, plumbing, and sheet metal fabrication services.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: Scott M. Lidman, Esq. Elizabeth Nguyen, Esq. Milan Moore, Esq. LIDMAN LAW, APC 222 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 1550 El Segundo, CA 90245 Telephone: (424) 322-4772 Facsimile: (424) 322-4775 E-mail: slidman@lidmanlaw.com enguyen@lidmanlaw.com mmoore@lidmanlaw.com - and - Steven Drew, Esq. Paul K. Haine, Esq. HAINES LAW GROUP, APC 222 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 1550 El Segundo, CA 90245 Telephone: (424) 292-2350 Facsimile: (424) 292-2355 E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com TEXAS: Court Denies Bid for Class Certification in Lynn Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, CARROLL RAY LYNN JR, v. LORIE DAVIS, Civil Action No. M-18-162 (S.D. Tex.), Judge Micaela Alvarez of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, McAllen Division, denied Lynn's Motion for Class Action Certification. The Petitioner's Motion had been referred to the Magistrate Court for a report and recommendation. On Jan. 28, 2019, the Magistrate Court issued the Report and Recommendation, recommending that the Petitioner's Motion be denied. On Feb. 11, 2019, the Court adopted the Report and Recommendation believing that the Petitioner's only response was a request that the case remain on the docket as a 28 U.S.C. Section 2254 motion. The docket now reveals that the Petitioner timely filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b)(1)(c), the Court has made a de novo determination of those portions of the report to which objections have been made. As to those portions to which no objections have been made, in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), the Court has reviewed the report for clear error. Finding no error whatsoever, the Court again adopts the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. Accordingly, Judge Alvarez denied Lynn's Motion for Class Action Certification. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 26, 2019 Amended Order is available at https://is.gd/IddXdf from Leagle.com. Carroll Ray Lynn, Jr, Plaintiff, pro se. Lorie Davis, Defendant, represented by Benjamin Graham Lancaster, Office of the Attorney General & Edward Larry Marshall, Office of the Attorney General. TIGER BRANDS: No Summons Yet for Listeriosis Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Fin24 reports that Tiger Brands, which had to shut down a number of its factories and issue a massive recall of cold meat products due to a deadly listeriosis outbreak early in 2018, said in a note to shareholders on Feb. 20 that it has not as yet received a summons in terms of an intended class action suit against it. In December 2018, the High Court of South Africa, Johannesburg Local Division granted an order certifying the four classes of claimants in a class action lawsuit against Tiger Brands. Tiger Brands said on Feb. 20 that it has product liability insurance cover appropriate for a business of its scale. Coverage has been confirmed by the insurers, subject to the terms and limits of the policy. The policy will accordingly respond to the claim within its terms in the event that the group is held liable. Trading update The latest information is part of a voluntary trading update for the four months to 31 January 2019 that Tiger Brands released on Feb. 20. According to the update, group revenue from continuing operations was up 1% compared with the corresponding period last year. The four months to January 2019 had 85 trading days versus 82 days last year. Excluding value added meat products (VAMP), group revenue from continuing operations was 8% higher, driven by overall price inflation of 2% and volume growth of 6%. The group is pleased with volume performances recorded in wheat, maize, groceries, snacks and treats, beverages, baby and in particular, home and personal care. With the exception of sorghum-based products, pasta, maize and rice, all categories recorded selling price inflation although price increases were not sufficient to fully recover cost increases, resulting in gross margin compression. According to Tiger Brands, the re-launch of the VAMP business has been well received by customers and consumers, however challenges in managing the factory start-ups have resulted in the inability to fully meet demand in this period, which has had a significant negative impact on VAMP's operating performance. The group said, however, that good progress is being made to resolve these challenges. It expects the trading environment to remain challenging for the remainder of the financial year, with ongoing pressure on consumer spending. Unbundling The group announced previously that the board has decided to pursue an unbundling of its shareholding in Oceana Group. There is a proposed sale of 8 000 000 Oceana shares to Brimstone Investment Corporation. Subject to the fulfilment of all the conditions, this sale will take place prior to the unbundling date. The process of unbundling the remaining 49 104 774 shares is on track and expected to be completed by the end of April 2019, according to Tiger Brands. [GN] TIGER NATURAL: $3.7MM Settlement in Fishman Suit Has Prelim OK -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, EMILY FISHMAN and SUSAN FARIA, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. TIGER NATURAL GAS INC., an Oklahoma corporation; COMMUNITY GAS CENTER INC., a Colorado corporation; JOHN DYET, an individual; and DOES 3-100 Defendants, Case No. C 17-05351 WHA (N.D. Cal.), Judge William Alsup of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of a proposed class settlement. Defendant Dyet owned several telemarketing companies, including Defendant Community Gas Center ("CGC"). Beginning in 2014, CGC called PG&E customers to promote Defendant Tiger's capped-rate program, pursuant to which program Tiger's supply rate for natural gas would be capped at $0.69 per therm. The case stems from alleged misrepresentations made during these phone solicitations to PG&E's customers. The Plaintiffs further alleged that defendants recorded these sales calls without customers' consent. Based on these allegations, Plaintiff Fishman filed her initial complaint in August 2017. The Plaintiffs' most recent iteration of the complaint contained 13 claims for relief, including for violations of California's Recording Law, California's Unfair Competition Law, and California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act. A November 2018 order certified the following class only with respect to the Plaintiffs' Recording Law claim, denying without prejudice certification as to the Section 17200 and CLRA claims: Tiger/PG&E Customer Class described as all California consumers and businesses that were customers of PG&E at the time they enrolled in Tiger's capped-rate price protection program after receiving a telemarketing call advertising the program between Aug. 18, 2013, and the present. With respect to the Section 17200 and CLRA claims, the class certification order explained that although the Plaintiffs had claimed they could show the existence of damages on an aggregate, classwide basis using PG&E's data, they had failed to show that such information existed or was available and, as a result, the Plaintiffs had failed to meet their burden of showing that FRCP 23(b)(3)'s requirements had been met as to their CLRA and Section 17200 claims. The order further provided that if the Plaintiffs obtained the necessary proof from PG&E, the Court would consider a supplemental motion for class certification. Following a settlement conference with Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Laporte, the parties reached a settlement of the Plaintiffs' Recording Law claim. The parties also reached a class-wide settlement of the Plaintiffs' not-yet-certified Section 17200 and CLRA claims. The Plaintiffs now move for preliminary approval of the class settlement. With respect to the Plaintiffs' Recording Law claim, the proposed settlement establishes a gross settlement fund of $3.7 million, to be distributed evenly amongst the 26,637 class members. Because California's Recording Law provides for $5,000 in statutory damages per violation, this settlement amounts to 2.78% of the $133 million in statutory damages that the Plaintiffs contend are owed to the class. This is before any deductions from the settlement fund, which deductions will include any future awards for the Plaintiffs' attorney's fees and litigation expenses, any incentive award, and payments to the claims administrator. With respect to the Plaintiffs' Section 17200 and CLRA claims, the proposed settlement provides for injunctive relief prohibiting Tiger from engaging in the misleading business practices alleged in this case but does not provide for additional monetary compensation. The Plaintiffs do not provide an estimated amount of class-wide damages stemming from these statutory claims. Although the settlement fund reflects a huge discount on the Plaintiffs' claims, there exists a serious risk that the Defendants would go bankrupt and the class would be left with much less (if anything) even if the Plaintiffs did succeed at trial. In connection with the motion, the Defendants have demonstrated their limited financial resources and inability to pay a more reasonable settlement. In the event that any class member does not cash their settlement check, leftover funds will go to a cy pres recipient. The Plaintiffs propose that leftover funds be distributed to The Utility Reform Network, a nonprofit engaged in protecting consumers from overreach by utilities in California. Tiger disagrees that The Utility Reform Network should be a cy pres recipient, but does not propose a specific alternative. Judge Alsup overrules Tiger's objection and finds that TURN is an appropriate choice for a cy pres recipient. Under the proposed settlement, the claims administrator will use contact information obtained from Tiger to send the settlement notice via first-class mail. The proposed class notice satisfies the requirements of FRCP 23(c)(2)(B) and 23(e)(1), as it clearly describes of the nature of the action, the estimate for each class member's expected recovery, the implications of objecting to the settlement, and the process for opting out of the settlement. Judge Alsup preliminarily approved the terms of the parties' settlement agreement as being fair, reasonable and adequate to the members of the class, subject to further consideration at the final approval hearing. The Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for preliminary approval of the settlement is granted. He appointed the Angeion Group as the claims administrator. Provided that all missing information in the proposed notices is filled out, the proposed form of notice for the class is approved. Tiger will provide the claims administrator with the information necessary to conduct the mailing of the notices. The class notice should be distributed by March 11, 2019. The deadline to opt out of the settlement or to file objections to the settlement is MAY 9, 2019. The parties will respond to any objections to the settlement by May 16, 2019. The class counsel will file a motion for an award of attorneys' fees, costs and enhancement award by April 11, 2019. By May 16, 2019, the Plaintiffs will file a motion for final approval of the class settlement. A hearing to consider whether the class settlement should be given final approval, and on the Plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees, costs and enhancement awards, is set for June 20, 2019 at 11:00 a.m. The Judge vacateed the final pretrial conference and trial dates, and will be reset if final approval is not granted. The Judge also granted the Plaintiffs' administrative motion to file under seal in support of their motion for preliminary approval on the grounds that the information sought to be sealed is either duplicative or relates to confidential settlement negotiations. He denied Tiger and Dyet's administrative motions. Tiger and Dyet will re-file their declarations and related exhibits on the public docket by Feb. 29, 2019 at noon. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 22, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/TWUawx from Leagle.com. Emily Fishman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated & Susan Faria, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Daniel L. Balsam -- calbar@danbalsam.com -- The Law Offices of Daniel Balsam, Jacob N. Harker -- harkerjacob@gmail.com -- Law Offices of Jacob Harker, Kathleen Styles Rogers -- krogers@kraloweclaw.com -- Kralowec Law, P.C. & Kimberly Ann Kralowec -- kkralowec@kraloweclaw.com -- Kralowec Law, P.C. Tiger Natural Gas, Inc., an Oklahoma corporation, Defendant, represented by Janet Chung -- janet.chung@hklaw.com -- Holland and Knight LLP, John Andrew Canale -- john.canale@hklaw.com -- Holland and Knight LLP, Leah E. Capritta -- Leah.Capritta@hklaw.com -- Holland & Knight LLP, Thomas Drew Leland -- Thomas.Leland@hklaw.com -- Holland and Knight LLP & Vince Lee Farhat -- vince.farhat@hklaw.com -- Holland and Knight LLP. Community Gas Center Inc., a Colorado corporation & John Dyet, 1301 Seminole Blvd., Suite 155, Largo, FL 33770, Defendants, represented by Christine Marie Reilly, Manatt Phelps & Phillips LLP & Emily Marie Speier, Manatt, Phelps and Phillips LLP. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Objector, represented by Elliott Thomas Seals, Pacific Gas and Electric. TRANSPORTATION AMERICA: Thadal Seeks Payment for Overtime Work -------------------------------------------------------------- MANOUCHEKA THADAL, individually, and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, vs. TRANSPORTATION AMERICA, INC., a Florida corporation, SUPER NICE STS, INC, a Florida corporation doing business as TRANSPORTATION AMERICA, and RAYMOND GONZALEZ, individually, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-20767-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Feb. 26, 2019), relates that the Defendants paid Thadal an hourly rate of $12.63 per hour, but failed to pay the plaintiff an overtime rate for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. During the approximate time period of February 23, 2016, up through February 27, 2017, the plaintiff was employed as a driver, transporting individuals on behalf of the Defendants. In addition, the Defendants did not allow Thadal to take lunch breaks, and was aware that the plaintiff was not taking lunch breaks, but the lunch breaks were auto-deducted during each shift Thadal worked for Defendant, resulting in the loss of anywhere between 2-3 hours of time deducted from THADAL's (and the putative class') pay each week. Such deducted hours should have been paid as overtime hours because they required THADAL to exceed 40 hours per week. Further, the Defendants failed to pay Thadal for the time driving to the first job of the day and home from the last job of the day, even though she was still in the Defendants' vehicle, resulting in the loss of anywhere between 2 to 4 hours of time from Thadal's (and the putative class') pay each week. Transportation America advertises itself as "South Florida's Largest Transportation Company."[BN] Counsel for the Plaintiff: Kristy M. Johnson, Esq. Jason R. Alderman, Esq. Caleb Sugg, Esq. THE ALDERMAN LAW FIRM 9999 NE 2nd Avenue, Suite 211 Miami Shores, FL 33138 Telephone: 305 200-5473 Facsimile: 305 200-5474 E-mail: kjohnson@thealdermanlawfirm.com jalderman@thealdermanlawfirm.com TRUEACCORD CORP: Rohrbach Sues over Debt Collection Practices ------------------------------------------------------------- Cindy Rohrbach, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Trueaccord Corp., the Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-00330 (D. Nev., Feb. 22, 2019), seeks to recover actual damages, statutory damages, and reasonable attorney's fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices. According to the complaint, sometime before October 2018, Plaintiff's identity was fraudulently used by an unknown identity theft criminal to take out numerous loans with online payday lenders, including Bright Lending, and Inbox Loans. These alleged obligations were primarily for personal, family or household purposes and are therefore a "debt" as that term is defined by 15 U.S.C. 25 section 1692a(5). Whether a debt is actually owed by Plaintiff is irrelevant to this FDCPA action. The alleged debt was thereafter assigned, placed, or otherwise transferred, to Defendant for collection. In or around October 2018, the Defendant began sending emails to Plaintiff to collect debt. The Plaintiff immediately informed the Defendant that she was a victim of identity theft, did not authorize the loan, and that she therefore disputed the debt. The email also gave some tips on how to deal with identify theft and concluded with the notice: "This communication is from a debt collector. This is an attempt to collect a debt and any information obtained will be used for that purpose." The Plaintiff disputed the debt several times and received at least four email responses from Defendant with substantially the same language: "If we don't receive documentation within 21 days, collection efforts will resume." At one point, the Defendant acknowledged that the debt was the result of identity theft and agreed to "cease" its collection efforts but nevertheless continued to send emails to Plaintiff to attempt to collect the debt, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for Cindy Rohrbach Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated: Michael Kind, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 6069 South Fort Apache Road, Suite 100 Las Vegas, NE 89148 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: mkind@kazlg.com UNITED AIRLINES: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- The San Diego employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP filed a class action lawsuit against United Airlines, Inc., alleging that the company failed to lawfully calculate and pay their employees the correct overtime. The class action lawsuit against United Airlines is currently pending in the San Diego County Superior Court, Case No. 37-2019-00008533-CU-OE-CTL. The class action lawsuit alleges that DEFENDANT's uniform policy and practice to not pay the members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS the correct overtime rate for all overtime worked in accordance with applicable law is evidenced by DEFENDANT's business records. State and federal law provides that employees must be paid overtime at one-and one- half times their "regular rate of pay." PLAINTIFF and other CALIFORNIA CLASS Members are compensated at an hourly rate plus incentive pay that was tied to specific elements of an employee's performance. Additionally the complaint alleges PLAINTIFF and other CALIFORNIA CLASS Member are also from time to time unable to take off duty meal breaks and are not fully relieved of duty for meal periods due to having such rigorous work schedules. California labor laws require an employer to provide an employee required to perform work for more than five (5) hours during a shift with, a thirty (30) minute uninterrupted meal break prior to the end of the employee's fifth (5th) hour of work. For more information about the class action lawsuit against United Airlines call (800) 568-8020 to speak to an experienced California employment attorney today. Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP, is a labor law firm with law offices located in San Diego County, Riverside County, Los Angeles County, Sacramento County, and San Francisco County. The firm has a statewide practice of representing employees on a contingency basis for violations involving unpaid wages, overtime pay, discrimination, harassment, wrongful termination and other types of illegal workplace conduct. [GN] UNITED STATES: Ex-Trump Campaign Staffer Files Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Zoe Tillman, writing for BuzzFeed News, reports that a former Trump campaign staffer filed a class action on Feb. 20 seeking to invalidate all of the nondisclosure and nondisparagement agreements that the Trump campaign required all staffers to sign. The claims brought by former campaign staffer Jessica Denson represent the broadest attack to date on the Trump campaign's practice of having staffers, volunteers, and contractors sign agreements barring them from ever publicly criticizing Trump, his company, or his family, and from disclosing private or confidential information. The Trump campaign has gone after several former staffers who publicly aired their grievances against Trump, his administration, or his campaign, including Omarosa Manigault Newman and Cliff Sims, who recently wrote a book about his time in the White House called Team of Vipers. Ms. Denson was ordered to pay nearly $50,000 to the campaign after filing a workplace discrimination and harassment lawsuit in 2017. Ms. Denson has been tangling with the Trump campaign on multiple fronts in court and in arbitration. Her class action case was filed before the American Arbitration Association on Feb. 20. Individual arbitration proceedings normally take place in secret, but class action cases are public. Ms. Denson's lawyers estimate thousands of campaign staffers, volunteers, and contractors signed NDAs and could be covered by the case. If the nondisclosure and nondisparagement agreements that they signed were thrown out, these former staffers would be free to talk about their time on the campaign -- and to criticize the campaign or the president without fear of facing financial penalties. Ms. Denson's lawyers argue the campaign's standard NDA is unlawful because it penalizes employees for exercising their right to sue for things like workplace discrimination and harassment, unpaid wages, and violations of workplace safety laws, and for claiming violations of campaign finance laws, corruption, or fraud. "The Form NDAs effectively strip employees, contractors, and volunteers of their ability to pursue any of their rights to redress workplace misconduct," Ms. Denson's lawyers wrote in the arbitration filing. "Anything and everything they could do will of necessity contain some information that a Trump Person could find disparaging or a disclosure of confidential information." Her lawyers are also arguing that the language of the NDA is too vague -- it gives Trump himself discretion to decide what is "private" and "confidential" -- doesn't have any time or geographic limits, "lacks a legitimate purpose," and is void because it allows a government actor -- in this case, the president -- to restrain a person's free speech rights under the First Amendment. "Indeed, any person who has ever signed the Form NDA, whether or not he or she has entered into government service, subjects himself or herself to grievous financial penalty for the mere act of engaging in constitutionally protected criticism of the sitting President of the United States," Ms. Denson's lawyers wrote. The NDA that Ms. Denson signed, which her lawyers contend was the same document used for other campaign staffers, volunteers, and contractors, applies not only when staffers worked for the campaign, but also "at all times thereafter." Ms. Denson, who has claimed she was a victim of discrimination and harassment while she worked for the campaign, declined an interview request. Her attorney David Bowles told BuzzFeed News that although their case only involves the version of the NDA that Trump campaign workers signed, a ruling for Denson could affect other campaign workers or Trump administration staffers who may have signed similar agreements. "[Denson] was deeply disappointed by the way she was treated by the campaign. She's been deeply disappointed by the way the Trump campaign has used the NDA against her and she fears that similar things are being done to other campaign workers. She wants to put it right," Mr. Bowles said. Ms. Denson's case comes on the heels of a lawsuit filed earlier in February by Sims, who is challenging an arbitration demand filed by the campaign accusing him of violating an NDA that he signed. The Trump campaign also previously sued former campaign consultant Sam Nunberg in the summer of 2016, claiming a breach of his nondisclosure agreement; Mr. Nunberg and the campaign later reached a confidential settlement. The campaign announced last year that it had brought an arbitration case against Manigault Newman, a former White House official and campaign aide, for allegedly breaching her NDA, but there hasn't been any public information about the status of that case since. A spokesperson for Manigault Newman did not return a request for comment on Feb. 20. A Trump campaign spokesperson and lawyers for the campaign did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Ms. Denson was hired by the campaign in August 2016 as a national phone bank administrator, and she was later promoted to director of Hispanic engagement; Federal Election Commission records show that Denson was on the campaign's payroll through the fall of 2016. In November 2017, Ms. Denson sued the campaign in New York County Supreme Court. She claimed she was discriminated against and cyberbullied by campaign officials -- she did not raise any claims against Trump himself -- and was subject to a hostile work environment. She asked for $25 million in damages. In December 2017, the Trump campaign took Ms. Denson to arbitration, claiming she had breached her nondisclosure agreement by bringing the lawsuit in state court. In March 2018, Ms. Denson sued the Trump campaign in federal district court in Manhattan, challenging the NDA as invalid. In state court, the judge found that Denson's claims of workplace discrimination and harassment fell outside of her NDA, and allowed Denson to go forward with the case. In federal court, the judge dismissed her lawsuit, finding that any attempt to invalidate the NDA had to go to arbitration. Denson did not participate in the arbitration case filed by the campaign. An arbitrator concluded that Denson did breach her agreement, and she was ordered to pay just under $50,000 to the campaign (in October, the arbitrator entered a partial award in the campaign's favor, ordering Denson to pay $24,808 in damages, and then in December he ordered Denson to also pay $24,699 in legal fees and costs). In the state court case, Ms. Denson is now asking the judge to throw out the arbitration order. In the federal court case, the campaign is asking the judge to uphold the arbitrator's award and Ms. Denson is challenging it. Neither judge has ruled so far. [GN] VERYABLE INC: Scott Seeks Overtime Pay for Warehouse Laborers ------------------------------------------------------------- A case, SHARON SCOTT, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. VERYABLE, INC., and MEDLINE INDUSTRIES, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-00472-N (N.D. Tex. Feb. 22, 2019), alleges that all of the warehouse laborers placed to work at Defendant Medline's Wilmer distribution center have been denied payment of overtime compensation when their work hours exceeded 40 in a workweek. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff works for Defendants as an hourly-paid warehouse laborer. Before January 2019, she regularly worked more than 40 hours per workweek, and the Defendants did not pay her an overtime premium of at least one and one-half times her regular rate for hours worked over 40 in a workweek. The Plaintiff is not alone in being a victim of Defendants' illegal pay practices. She is one of more than 100 warehouse laborers misclassified as an independent contractor and denied overtime pay at Defendant Medline's Wilmer, TX distribution center. According to its website, Medline is the largest privately held manufacturer and distributor of medical supplies. It operates over 50 distribution centers worldwide, including an 800,000 square foot distribution warehouse at 1 Medline Dr., Wilmer, TX 75172, which is situated in Dallas County, TX. In the past three years, the Defendant Medline has employed over 100 warehouse laborers at the Wilmer location it classified as independent contractors to pick and pack customer orders. The Defendant Veryable is a labor placement firm that purports to use an app to place laborers in manufacturing, distribution, and logistics jobs located in its customers' workplaces.[BN] Attorney for the Plaintiff and Opt Ins: Barry S. Hersh, Esq. HERSH LAW FIRM, PC 3626 N. Hall St., Suite 800 Dallas, TX 75219-5133 Telephone: (214) 303-1022 Facsimile: (214) 550-8170 E-mail: barry@hersh-law.com WESTPAC: Faces Class Action Over Irresponsible Lending ------------------------------------------------------ News.com.au's Frank Chung and The Australian Associated Press report that Westpac has been hit with the first class action against one of the big four since the banking royal commission's final report earlier in February. The claim filed by law firm Maurice Blackburn in the Federal Court alleges Westpac breached responsible lending laws by providing unaffordable loans, leading to "substantial losses" for many customers. Lead plaintiff Michelle Tate told a media conference in Brisbane on Feb. 21 she and her husband Ian were ruined after the bank lent them more than $1.8 million across five properties, despite the family having just one income. Ms Tate said Westpac trusted a loan broker who provided information about her family's financial position, and did not independently verify the situation. She said her family would now lose all of their properties save for a block of land. "Dealing with Westpac has devastated us," Ms Tate said. "Everything we were trying to achieve is lost. Instead of striving for financial independence, we are back living pay cheque to pay cheque, tax return to tax return. We have gone backwards after years of hard work and struggle. It is worse than being back to square one." Maurice Blackburn expects thousands of customers given unsuitable loans after January 1, 2011 will sign up for the class action, which has been "undergoing careful preparation for months" and is being backed by global litigation funder Harbour. The law firm will allege Westpac failed to properly check if customers would be able to meet their repayments or wrongly assessed their capacity to repay through the use of the controversial HEM benchmark. The HEM, or Household Expenditure Measure, is a tool used by banks to determine whether customers can afford to pay off a loan, but in nearly all cases is not a true reflection of someone's actual financial situation. It will also be alleged that Westpac failed to properly assess if customers would cope after interest-only periods on their loans ended. The Tate family appeared on the ABC's 7.30 program last year. They said the bank grossly underestimated their expenditure. They bought their first home in 2008 but decided to invest in a further three in 2013 and 2014 while Mrs Tate was a full-time mum, all funded through Westpac loans they locked in as interest only and secured against their first property. Unaware the interest only period would eventually end, they were faced with $1.6 million in debt they couldn't afford. The couple said they had been forced to borrow from relatives to get by and sold their home to build a new property, but Westpac woulnd't release the funds because the home was securing the investment properties they couldn't cover anyway. "We're losing it all," Ms Tate told the program. Maurice Blackburn Principal lawyer Ben Slade said Westpac was "required to comply with strict obligations which are specifically designed to protect consumers from irresponsible lending and the risk of financial hardship". "This case will seek to prove that Westpac failed to comply with these obligations and that this failure caused substantial losses for many consumers," he said. Westpac said in a statement on Feb. 21 was aware of the class action being brought against it. "Westpac takes its responsible lending obligations very seriously and will be defending the claims against it," a spokesman said. "Westpac works closely with customers who experience financial difficulty to provide tailored assistance as required."'[GN] WW GRAINGER: S. Rangel Granted Leave to File 1st Amended Complaint ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, SELINA RANGEL, an individual, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. W.W. GRAINGER, INC., an Illinois Corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-02867-KJM-DB (E.D. Cal.), Judge Kimberly J. Mueller of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California granted the Plaintiff leave to file her First Amended Complaint. Judge Mueller has considered the Joint Stipulation requesting Entry of an Order Granting Plaintiff Leave to File a First Amended Complaint and staying further proceedings in the action pending the parties' completion of mediation on July 29, 2019 filed by the Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated employees of the Defendant and the Defendant, and the proposed First Amended Class Action Complaint. With good cause appearing, and pursuant to the Joint Stipulation, she approved the Joint Stipulation, and granted the Plaintiff leave to file her First Amended Complaint. She stayed the action, including any conferences, the filing of further pleadings, and proceeding with formal discovery, pending the parties' completion of mediation The Initial Status Conference scheduled for March 14, 2019 in the action is continued to Aug. 29, 2019 at 2:30 p.m. in Courtroom Three. The parties will file their Joint Status Report under Rule 26(f) by Aug. 22, 2019. The Defendant will file its responsive pleading to the First Amended Complaint, if necessary, within 21 days following the continued Initial Status Conference. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 26, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/80yGHO from Leagle.com. Selina Rangel, an individual, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Alvin B. Lindsay -- alvin@yeremianlaw.com -- David Yeremian & Associates, Inc. & David Harmik Yeremian -- david@yeremianlaw.com -- David Yeremian & Associates, Inc. W.W. Grainger, Inc., an Illinois Corporation, Defendant, represented by Henry F. Galatz, W.W. Grainger, Inc., pro hac vice, Ryan H. Crosner -- ryan.crosner@ogletree.com -- Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.c. & Michael John Nader -- michael.nader@ogletree.com -- Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C. YRC WORLDWIDE: Court Has Not Named Lead Plaintiff in Lewis Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- YRC Worldwide Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that court in Christina Lewis v. YRC Worldwide Inc., et al., has not yet appointed lead plaintiff or lead counsel for the case. In January 2019, a purported class action lawsuit captioned Christina Lewis v. YRC Worldwide Inc., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00001, was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York against the Company and certain of its current and former officers. The complaint was filed on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's publicly traded securities between March 10, 2014 and December 14, 2018. The complaint generally alleges that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making false and misleading statements relating to its freight billing practices as alleged in the Department of Defense complaint described above. The action includes claims for damages, including interest, and an award of reasonable costs and attorneys' fees. Management believes it has meritorious defenses and will vigorously defend this action. The court has not yet appointed lead plaintiff or lead counsel for this case. YRC Worldwide said, "Given the early stage of the proceedings at this time we are not in a position to assess the likelihood of any potential loss or adverse effect on our financial condition or to estimate the range of potential loss, if any." YRC Worldwide Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides a range of transportation services primarily in North America. The company operates in two segments, YRC Freight and Regional Transportation. The company was formerly known as Yellow Roadway Corporation and changed its name to YRC Worldwide Inc. in January 2006. YRC Worldwide Inc. was founded in 1924 and is headquartered in Overland Park, Kansas. [*] Class Actions Target Companies in Agricultural Sector --------------------------------------------------------- Growing Produce's Frank Giles in January wrote about "connected consumers" and how they can peer into the world of agriculture through their smartphones and other digital media to learn more about the food they purchase and who is growing it. This can offer opportunities. But it also can present challenges -- negative news and misinformation can spread as easily and as fast as true information. For example, what started as an off-shoot of the anti-GMO movement has blossomed into a class action lawsuit bonanza. You may have seen the commercials from law firms trolling the waters for people who have developed a certain form of cancer as a result of exposure to glyphosate. This was fueled by digital connectivity and the spread of information via social media platforms, blogs, and websites. A retracted study suggesting GMOs and glyphosate caused cancer in rats made its rounds on social media long after it was debunked. Photos of rats with baseball-sized tumors on their sides painted a scary picture to unknowing consumers. Later, the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) statement that glyphosate was "probably carcinogenic" added fuel to the fire. Cherry-picked by opposition activists, the IARC designation was controversial because it opposed many global regulatory/safety agencies that deemed the herbicide not a risk. The study was further called into question in 2017 when Reuters reported that the head of the IARC glyphosate review board withheld information, showing no link between the chemical and cancer. More recently, Health Canada stood by its position that glyphosate was safe, stating: "After a thorough scientific review, we have concluded that the concerns raised by the objectors could not be scientifically supported when considering the entire body of relevant data. The objections raised did not create doubt or concern regarding the scientific basis for the 2017 re-evaluation decision for glyphosate. Therefore, the Department's final decision will stand." While this debate now moves into the legal system, it is certain to remain fodder for social media. This is unfortunate because it can be used to paint agriculture in a negative light. Other news out of North Carolina reports how urban definitions applied to farming via various digital connections can have a negative impact. Another round of class-action lawsuits targeting hog farms allege they are a nuisance to neighbors who have moved into more rural areas near farms. During the recent American Farm Bureau Convention, a panel took up the topic. Andy Curliss, CEO of the North Carolina Pork Council, said four recent trials in North Carolina have resulted in more than $550 million in damages for 26 plaintiffs, with hundreds more plaintiffs awaiting trials. In July 2018, a North Carolina jury awarded more than $25 million in a lawsuit against Smithfield Foods, alleging a hog farm owned by Joey Carter was a nuisance, even though Mr. Carter met or exceeded state laws regarding manure. While Smithfield Farms is a target of the "big ag is bad" social media meme, it is the farmer who is taking the hit. While this is a hog farm in North Carolina, it should be a concern to Florida growers, too, if this class action lawsuit frenzy continues, driven by urban consumers who don't understand the realities of farming. "If it can happen to Joey Carter, it can happen to anyone, anywhere," Mr. Curliss said. [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 ***