/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/190321.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, March 21, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 58 Headlines ACTAVIS: Out-of-State Plaintiffs Can Bring Antitrust Class Claims ADOMANI INC: Second Amended Complaint Filed in Mollik Class Suit ADVANCE AUTO: Still Defends Delaware Class Action AES CORPORATION: Lehto et al. Sue over Pollution from Power Plant AKORN INC: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action AKORN INC: Wickstrom Sues over Misleading Financial Report ALLIANCEONCE RECEIVABLES: Settles FCRA Class Action for $2.2MM ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Must Face Auto Policyholders' Class Action ALPINE ENGINEERING: Ramirez Seeks OT Pay for Drainage Installers AMARIN CORP: Lied about Vascepa Drug Trial, Sharma Alleges AMERICAN INCOME: Removes Case to Central District of California AMERICAN WATER: Bid to Dismiss Suit over Water Main Break Pending AMGEN INC: UFCW Sues over Anticompetitive Agreement for Sensipar AT&T INC: Georgia High Ct. Rules Against Counties in 911 Fee Suit AVEO PHARMACEUTICALS: April 26 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set AVONCE CONSTRUCTION: Ordonez Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages BANK OF NEW YORK: May 23 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set BANK OF NEW YORK: Mogollon Files Fraud Class Suit in New Jersey BERSHKA USA: Faces Fischler ADA Class Suit BLACK ANGUS STEAKHOUSES: Dixon Alleges Disabilities Act Violation BLC LEXINGTON: Johnson Suit Moved to Eastern District of Kentucky BLOOMINGDALE ROAD: Miller Sues over Debt Collection Practices BOOMERANG RUBBER: Meyers Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation CAFE PARIS: Luna Seeks Payment of Minimum & Overtime Wages CANADA: Class Action Over St-Anne's Hospital Care Can Proceed CANADA: Court Orders Amendment to Segregation Class Definition CANADA: Faces Class Action $165MM VA Accounting Error CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Moye Sues over Debt Collection Practices CARDINGTON YUTAKA: Buskirk Seeks Overtime Pay CASH CONVERTERS: Class Action Settlement Hits 1st Half Results CELGENE CORPORATION: Gainey McKenna Files Securities Class Action CEMTREX INC: Settles Consolidated NY Class Suit for $625,000 CENTENE CORP: Ambetter Policies-Related Suit Ongoing CENTENE CORP: Still Awaits Court OK on Bid to Dismiss Sanchez Suit CITIGROUP INC: July 12 ADR Settlement Approval Hearing Set CLAIRE MERIC: Fails to Pay OT to Counselors, Clark et al. Say COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY: Parties Await Decision on Petition to Appeal COLLINS AVENUE: Valencia Seeks Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages CONAGRA BRANDS: Faces Securities Class Action in Illinois COVELLI ENTERPRISES: Hall et al Seek OT Pay for Assistant Managers CREDIT SUISSE: Must Face Pension Funds' Class Action Over ADRs CVS HEALTH: April 26 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set CVS HEALTH: Faces Securities Class Action in New York DEL MONTE: Sued over "Off-the-Clock" Work Without Pay DIPLOMAT PHARMACY: Faces Prentice Securities Class Action in Calif. DIPLOMAT PHARMACY: Riehm Sues over Drop in Stock Price DIPLOMAT PHARMACY: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action DIVAN INC: Ramirez Seeks Overtime Pay for Restaurant Workers ECOATM LLC: Garey Suit Asserts ADA Breach ELI LILLY: Medical Mutual Suit Related to Axiron Dismissed ELI LILLY: Product Liability Suits over Actos Drug Still Ongoing ELI LILLY: RICO Claims in Insulin Pricing-Related Suit Dismissed ELI LILLY: Viagra and Cialis Product Liability Suit Ongoing ENOVA FINANCIAL: Faces Class Action Over BIPA Violation EPIC GAMES: Sued over 'Fortnite Save the World' Predatory Tactics EPIC HEALTH: Faces Blackwelder Wage & Hour Lawsuit ESPN INTERNET: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Cerros Suit Alleges ESSENDANT: Faces Class Action Over Proposed Staples Merger FACEBOOK INC: Consumer Advocacy Groups Call for FTC Investigation FEDERATION DES INVENTEURS: Quebec Court Authorizes Class Action FEDEX: Removed Robinson Case to Central District of California FIRSTCREDIT INC: Angeles Files FDCPA Class Suit in Ohio FLIGHT CENTRE: OT Class Action Seeks More Than 100MM Damages FMR LLC: Wong Sues over Kickbacks from Retirement Savings Plan FORD MOTOR: Faces Possible Class Actions Over Emissions Figures FOREST COUNTY POTAWATOMI: Kiler Files ADA Suit in New York FORNOS CORP: Mejia Seeks Overtime Pay for Restaurant Cooks FRESH DEL MONTE: Continues to Defend DBCP-Related Suits GOODRX INC: Garey Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York GOOGLE INC: To Drop Forced Arbitration Requirements for Employees HAIR CLUB: Garey Files ADA Class Suit in New York HERBALIFE NUTRITION: Continues to Defend Rodgers Class Action HERTZ GLOBAL: Removes Mitton Case to C.D. California HILL'S PET: Faces Class Action in California Over Dog Food Recall HOMELAND SECURITY: Faces Suit over Arrests without Valid Warrants HSBC USA: Ahmed and Monteleone Seek Court Approval of Settlement HSBC USA: Discovery Ongoing in Gold Fix Litigation HSBC USA: Discovery Ongoing in Silver Fix Litigation HSBC USA: Nov. 2019 Final Hearing on Credit Card Case Settlement HSBC USA: Still Awaits Court OK on Bid to Dismiss PGM Fixing Suit HSBC USA: Still Defends Nypl and Contant Class Suits INOVALON HOLDINGS: Settlement Agreement Executed in Xiang Suit LEIDOS HOLDINGS: Settlement in NY Suit Still Awaits Court Approval LENDINGCLUB CORP: Court Orders Parties in Moses Suit to Arbitrate LIVE NATION: Underpays Sales Managers, Wellinger Suit Alleges LMS REINFORCING: Faces Martinez Suit in Kern County MDL 2492: Ayles Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated MDL 2492: Barna Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidate MDL 2492: Brown Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated MDL 2492: Caldwell Suit v. NCAA over Concussion Consolidated MDL 2492: Clement Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated MDL 2492: Eischens Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated MDL 2492: Freeman Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated MDL 2492: Garland Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated MDL 2492: Gholson Suit v. NCAA over Concussion Consolidated MDL 2492: Hawkins Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated MDL 2492: Hayes Suit v. NCAA over Concussion Consolidated MDL 2492: Jarmon Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated MDL 2492: Kimbrough Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated MDL 2492: Kunzelman Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated MDL 2492: Markham Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated MDL 2492: McGregor Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated MDL 2492: Randall Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated MDL 2492: Ritenour Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated MDL 2492: Rycroft Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated MDL 2492: Tabb Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated MDL 2492: Wilson Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated MDL 2672: ECF No. 3626 Bid to Remand VWGoA Clean Diesel Suit Denied MEC GENERAL: Marin Seeks Minimum Wage & Overtime Pay MICHIGAN: HHS Faces Class Action Over Child Mental Health Care MID-ATLANTIC SPORTS: Settlement Gets Preliminary Court Approval MIDLAND CREDIT: Dionisio Sues over Debt Collection Practices MIRAGE OPERATIONS: Valdivia Seeks Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages MOLINA HEALTHCARE: Appeal in Pension Plan Suit Underway MOLSON COORS: Sussberg Says Financial Report Misleading MONSANTO COMPANY: Capps Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup MONSANTO COMPANY: Sears Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup MONSANTO COMPANY: Sheehan Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup MONSANTO COMPANY: Todds Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup MONSANTO COMPANY: Walkers Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup MONSANTO COMPANY: Webb Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup NATIONAL ASSOCIATION: Moehrl Files Antitrust Class Suit in Illinois NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Removes Guillory Suit to E.D. Louisiana NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Removes Guillory Suit to E.D. Louisiana NATIONAL HEALTH: Cain and Wood Sue over Telemarketing Calls NCAA: Niemi Sues over Health & Safety of SCSU Student-Athletes NCAA: Rodgers & Pruitt Sue over Safety of USM Student-Athletes NCAA: Solomon-Jett Sues over Safety of BUP Student-Athletes NEW LINK: Judge Dismisses New York Securities Class Action OLLIE'S BARGAIN: Breached Disabilities Act, Allen & Mullen Allege PERRIGO COMPANY: Block & Leviton Files Securities Class Action PETROMAR INTERNATIONAL: Murray Sues Over Unpaid Compensation PG&E: U.S. Supreme Court Ruling May Hurt Wildfire Victims PRIMARK: Settles ADA Breach Class Action in New York PUBLIC STORAGE: Faces Class Action Over Tenant Insurance SAG MARBLE: Marti Seeks Overtime Pay for Granite Installers SANTA MONICA: Removes Valentine Suit to C.D. California SCHELL & KAMPETER: Jackson et al. Sue over Contaminated Pet Foods SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY: Arango Seeks OT Pay for Calif. Employees SHREVEPORT, LA: Water, Sewer Overcharges Class Action Can Proceed SMASHBURGER IP: Galvan Sues over Mislabeled Triple Double Burgers SPECIALTY LAWN: Petty Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages SUNRISE SENIOR: Schlieser Suit Removed to C.D. California TATE & KIRLIN: Matthias Files FDCPA Suit in Wisconsin TESLA INC: Hearing on Bid to Dismiss Tentatively Set for June 20 TESLA INC: Suits over Model 3 Vehicle Production Ongoing TEVA PHARMA: Failed to Warn over Opioids Risks, Kassab Says TNT CABLE: Rougeau Seeks Overtime Wages for Technicians TOTAL AIRPORT: Nedialkova Sues over Biometric Data Collection TW CONSTRUCTION: Alameda, Perez Seek Overtime Pay UNITED STATES: Faces Class Action Over Terror Watchlist UNITED STATES: VA Faces Class Action Over Emergency Care Denials VANDA PHARMACEUTICALS: Rosen Law Firm Files Class Action VERISK ANALYTICS: Faces Sheahan Class Action in California VIRGINIA HOME CARE: Castillo Claims Unpaid Overtime WEBER TRUCKING: Prater Seeks Overtime Pay for Truck Driver WELLS FARGO: Court Okays $30MM FHA Loan Class Action Settlement WORK NOW: Bailey et al. Sue over Collection of Biometric Data ********* ACTAVIS: Out-of-State Plaintiffs Can Bring Antitrust Class Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Alison Frankel, writing for Reuters, reports that U.S. District Judge Cynthia Rufe of Philadelphia ruled that employee healthcare plans, labor unions, private health insurers and independent pharmacies can proceed with most of their state-law antitrust, consumer protection and unjust enrichment claims against pharmaceutical manufacturers accused of conspiring to jack up the prices of six widely prescribed generic versions of prescription drugs. These so-called indirect purchasers can't bring claims for money damages under federal antitrust law because of the U.S. Supreme Court's embattled 1977 precedent in Illinois Brick v. Illinois, so Judge Rufe's decision means drugmakers can be held liable for whatever unwarranted expense consumers bore as a result of the alleged price-fixing conspiracy. Significantly, the judge ruled that the health plans (which she calls "end-payer plaintiffs") and independent pharmacies (known as "indirect reseller plaintiffs") have constitutional standing to bring state-law class action claims even when none of the named plaintiffs is based in the state or bought supposedly overpriced generic drugs in the state. On the threshold question of standing, Judge Rufe said, named plaintiffs can represent the interests of absent plaintiffs with similar claims under parallel state laws. For cases alleging vast nationwide price-fixing conspiracies, that's important analysis. The law on constitutional standing to assert out-of-state class action claims is, to cite the quotation Judge Rufe included in her ruling, "surprisingly difficult." The defendants -- including Actavis, Sandoz and Perrigo -- argued that named plaintiffs only have constitutional standing to bring state law claims in jurisdictions where they were allegedly injured. (The defendants asserted many other reasons to dismiss plaintiffs' claims but I'm focusing on the Article III arguments.) And as Judge Rufe explained, there's case law in the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to back those arguments. The appeals court ruled in 2015's Neale v. Volvo that as long as a named class member has standing, a proposed class action meets Article III requirements. But in a subsequent decision in pay-for-delay antitrust litigation over the drug Niaspan, U.S. District Judge Jan DuBois held that even after Neale, named plaintiffs did not have standing to assert class claims based on the laws of states where they had not been injured. Judge Rufe said, however, that the weight of precedent backs arguments by plaintiffs in the generics MDL, who contended that they meet threshold standing requirements for all of their state claims -- and that class certification, not dismissal on the pleadings, is the appropriate stage of litigation to winnow out unwarranted class claims. In a 2018 case involving wheelchair access claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, Mielo v. Steak 'n Shake, the 3rd Circuit teased out Article III and Rule 23 inquiries, holding that the plaintiffs had standing to bring class claims but that the certified class was too broad because it included claims against restaurants where no plaintiff had suffered an injury. The 1st and 2nd Circuits have been even more explicit in recent decisions about the distinction between establishing constitutional standing to bring out-of-state class claims and meeting Rule 23 predominance and typicality requirements. In 2018's Langan v. Johnson & Johnson, the 2nd Circuit explicitly said that as long as the named plaintiff has standing to sue, "any concern about whether it is proper for a class to include out-of-state, nonparty class members with claims subject to different state laws is a question of predominance under Rule 23, not a question of 'adjudicatory competence' under Article III." The 1st Circuit's 2018 decision in In re Asacol Antitrust Litigation created a stir because of its holding on class certification and uninjured class members, but its analysis of standing and Rule 23 predominance parallels that of the 2nd Circuit: Named plaintiffs have standing to assert out-of-state claims on behalf of the class as long as they meet Article III requirements. In the generics case, Judge Rufe pointed out that the defendants aren't challenging indirect purchasers' standing to assert claims based on the laws of states in which they allegedly suffered an injury. The laws of the few jurisdictions in which no named plaintiff was allegedly injured, the judge said, are substantially similar. So, she held, those claims can't be dismissed on standing grounds, but will be analyzed anew at the class certification stage of the litigation. Reuters' Ms. Frankel reached out to Fine Kaplan & Black, which represents the end-payer plaintiffs, Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, which represents the indirect reseller plaintiffs and Pepper Hamilton, which serves as liaison counsel for the defendants. Fine Kaplan declined to comment. The other firms did not respond. [GN] ADOMANI INC: Second Amended Complaint Filed in Mollik Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- ADOMANI, 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 a second amended complaint has been filed in the class action entitled, M.D. Ariful Mollik v. ADOMANI, Inc. et al. On August 23, 2018, a purported class action lawsuit captioned M.D. Ariful Mollik v. ADOMANI, Inc. et al., Case No. RIC 1817493, was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Riverside against the company, certain of its executive officers, and the two underwriters of its offering of common stock under Regulation A in June 2017. This complaint alleges that documents related to the Company's offering of common stock under Regulation A in June 2017 contained materially false and misleading statements and that all defendants violated Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act, and that the Company and the individual defendants violated Section 15 of the Securities Act, in connection therewith. The plaintiff seeks on behalf of himself and all class members: (i) certification of a class under California substantive law and procedure; (ii) compensatory damages and interest in an amount to be proven at trial; (iii) reasonable costs and expenses incurred in this action, including counsel fees and expert fees; (iv) awarding of rescission or rescissionary damages; and (v) equitable relief at the discretion of the Court. Plaintiff's counsel has subsequently filed a first amended complaint and a second amended complaint. Adomani said, "We believe that the purported class action lawsuit is without merit and intend to vigorously defend the action." ADOMANI, Inc. provides zero-emission electric and hybrid drivetrain systems for integration in new and existing school buses and medium to heavy-duty commercial fleet vehicles. ADOMANI, Inc. was founded in 2012 and is headquartered in Corona, California. ADVANCE AUTO: Still Defends Delaware Class Action ------------------------------------------------- Advance Auto Parts, 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 29, 2018, that the company continues to defend itself against a putative class action lawsuit filed in the the United States District Court, District of Delaware. On February 6, 2018, a putative class action on behalf of purchasers of the company's securities who purchased or otherwise acquired their securities between November 14, 2016 and August 15, 2017, inclusive (the "Class Period"), was commenced against the company and certain of its current and former officers in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The plaintiff alleges that the defendants failed to disclose material adverse facts about our financial well-being, business relationships, and prospects during the alleged Class Period in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The case is still in its preliminary stages. Advance Auto said, "We strongly dispute the allegations of the complaint and intend to defend the case vigorously." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Advance Auto Parts, Inc. provides automotive replacement parts, accessories, batteries, and maintenance items for domestic and imported cars, vans, sport utility vehicles, and light and heavy duty trucks. Advance Auto Parts, Inc. was founded in 1929 and is based in Raleigh, North Carolina. AES CORPORATION: Lehto et al. Sue over Pollution from Power Plant ----------------------------------------------------------------- GARY LEHTO; AND JAMESSA HENDERSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE AES CORPORATION; AESSOUTHLAND ENERGY, LLC; AESSOUTHLAND ENERGY HOLDINGS II,LLC; AES REDONDO BEACH, L.L.C.;ERIC PENDERGRAFT; STEVENWINTERS; AND DOES I through 100, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV04396 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 8, 2019) alleges that the Defendants failed to maintain their natural gas burning power plant. According to the complaint, the Defendants have completely failed to maintain their facility located at 1100 Harbor Drive, Redondo Beach, California, which emits particulate matter such as acids, chemicals, metals, and soil particles into the air and water of the surrounding area. As a result, the Plaintiffs and the class' properties have been harmed, suffered significant losses, and caused real risk to their health. The AES Corporation operates as a diversified power generation and utility company. It owns and/or operates power plants to generate and sell power to customers, such as utilities, industrial users, and other intermediaries. The company was formerly known as Applied Energy Services, Inc. and changed its name to The AES Corporation in April 2000. The AES Corporation was founded in 1981 and is headquartered in Arlington, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Anthony W. Trujillo, Esq. Alexander H. Winnick, Esq. TRUJILLO & WINNICK, LLP 29191/2 Main Street Santa Monica, CA 90405 Telephone: (310)210-9302 Facsimile: (310)921-5616 AKORN INC: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Feb. 25 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Akorn, Inc. (NASDAQ: AKRX) from August 1, 2018 through January 8, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Akorn investors under the federal securities laws. To join the Akorn class action, go to https://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1497.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 made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Akorn's management misled investors concerning the severity of Akorn's manufacturing violations at its Decatur, Illinois facility; (2) Akorn's responses to the Food and Drug Administration's ("FDA") Form 483 -- which contained a list of observations made by the FDA during its inspection of Akorn's Decatur, Illinois facility in April and May 2018 -- would be deemed inadequate by the FDA; (3) Akorn repeatedly failed to correct manufacturing violations at this facility; (4) the foregoing would subject Akorn to heightened regulatory scrutiny by the FDA; and (5) as a result, Akorn's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. 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-1497.html or to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please 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] AKORN INC: Wickstrom Sues over Misleading Financial Report ---------------------------------------------------------- JOHNNY WICKSTROM, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. AKORN, INC., RAJAT RAI, and DUANE A. PORTWOOD, the Defendants, Case No.: 1:19-cv-01299 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 21, 2019), seeks to recover compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of federal securities laws. The case is a federal securities class action brought on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities, other than Defendants and their affiliates, who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded securities of Akorn from August 1, 2018 through January 8, 2019, inclusive. On August 1, 2018, the Company filed a Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2018 with the SEC, which provided the Company's second quarter 2018 financial results and position. The 2Q 2018 10-Q stated that the Company's disclosure controls and procedures were effective as of June 30, 2018. The 2Q 2018 10-Q was signed by Defendant Portwood. The 2Q 2018 10-Q contained signed certifications pursuant to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 ("SOX") by Defendants Rai and Portwood attesting to the accuracy of financial reporting, the disclosure of any material changes to the Company's internal controls over financial reporting, and the disclosure of all fraud. On November 6, 2018, the Company filed a Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2018 with the SEC, which provided the Company's third quarter 2018 financial results and position. The 3Q 2018 10-Q stated that the Company's disclosure controls and procedures were effective as of September 30, 2018. The 3Q 2018 10-Q was signed by Defendant Portwood. The 3Q 2018 10-Q contained signed SOX certifications by Defendants Rai and Portwood attesting to the accuracy of financial reporting, the disclosure of any material changes to the Company's internal controls over financial reporting, and the disclosure of all fraud, the lawsuit says. Akorn purports to develop, manufacture, and market specialized generic and branded pharmaceuticals, over-the-counter drug products, and animal health products in the United States and internationally.[BN] Counsel for the Plaintiff: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. Jonathan D. Lindenfeld, Esq. Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com jlindenfeld@pomlaw.com pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com - and - Phillip Kim, Esq. Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 686-1060 Facsimile: (212) 202-3827 E-mail: pkim@rosenlegal.com lrosen@rosenlegal.com ALLIANCEONCE RECEIVABLES: Settles FCRA Class Action for $2.2MM -------------------------------------------------------------- David N. Anthony, Esq. -- david.anthony@troutman.com -- John C. Lynch, Esq. -- john.lynch@troutman.com -- Ethan G. Ostroff, Esq. -- ethan.ostroff@troutman.com -- and Elizabeth Flowers, Esq., of Troutman Sanders LLP, in an article for Lexology, report that on February 7, 2019, AllianceOne Receivables Management, Inc. ("AllianceOne"), a debt collector, agreed to pay $2.2 million to settle a nationwide class action alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA") for obtaining consumer reports on individuals with outstanding parking tickets without a permissible purpose. The parties moved to approve the settlement after more than three years of litigation and propose that AllianceOne will pay $2.2 million to a class fund, plus $5,000 to the named Plaintiff and up to $733,333.33 in attorney's fees. The settlement follows the district court's grant of partial summary judgment in Plaintiff's favor and certification of a nationwide class of individuals. In the case, Rodriguez v. AllianceOne, filed in 2015 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, Rodriguez alleged that AllianceOne's purpose in pulling consumer reports on individuals with outstanding parking tickets -- to obtain contact information and identify assets -- was not "permissible" under § 1681b of the FCRA. The District Court agreed with Rodriguez's theory, granting partial summary judgment in his favor, finding that AllianceOne did not have a permissible purpose to obtain consumer reports under § 1681b because a vehicle parking violation is not a credit transaction "initiated" by a consumer. However, the District Court also held that Rodriguez failed to prove any actual damages; thus, leaving only the possibility of statutory damages based on a willful violation of the FCRA. The Court further found that whether AllianceOne's conduct was "willful" is a question of fact for the jury. Recognizing that "there is no assurance that the jury would find a willful violation," the parties agreed to settle the case on a class-wide basis and moved for approval of the class settlement. The certified class contains nearly 15,000 people. Assuming no opt-outs, the proposed settlement contemplates about $98 per class member for the alleged FCRA violation. This nears the minimum statutory penalty of $100 for a willful violation of the FCRA but is far less than the maximum penalty of $1,000 per violation. The District Court is expected to approve the settlement. [GN] ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Must Face Auto Policyholders' Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Dan Churney, writing for Cook County Record, reports that in a split decision, an Illinois appeals panel stripped Allstate Insurance of its defenses against a class action that alleged the company unfairly billed long-term auto policyholders more than it charged new ones. The panel said Illinois insurers can't protect their rates from lawsuits because their rates are not controlled by the Illinois Department of Insurance. The Jan. 29 ruling was delivered by Justice Judy Cates with concurrence from Justice Melissa Chapman of Illinois Fifth District Appellate Court in Mt. Vernon. Justice James Moore dissented. The ruling favored Illinois residents Jeffrey A. Corbin, Margaret A. Corbin and Anna Tryfonas in their class action complaint against Allstate. They brought the suit in 2016 to downstate Madison County Circuit Court, which is known as a venue favorable to plaintiffs. Allstate, which is one of the country's largest insurers, is headquartered in the Chicago suburb of Northbrook. All plaintiffs said their vehicles were covered by Allstate for 20 years. Plaintiffs alleged Allstate had been violating the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act since at least 2012 by charging its longtime customers higher auto insurance premiums than it charged newer customers. Allstate figured out loyal policyholders would tolerate higher premiums than would new customers, plaintiffs alleged. Further, Allstate allegedly told neither the Illinois Department of Insurance nor existing customers of this practice. Allstate moved to dismiss the suit, citing the so-called filed rate and primary jurisdiction doctrines. Madison County Judge Barbara Crowder refused to dismiss, prompting Allstate to ask the appellate panel to address whether the doctrines served as defenses to the suit. By a 2-1 margin, the appellate court ruled the doctrines were not applicable. The filed rate doctrine protects public utilities and other regulated entities from lawsuits involving rates if the rates must first be filed and pass muster with a regulatory agency. Justice Cates found the legislature decided to leave insurers free to fix rates according to market conditions without approval from the Department of Insurance. As a consequence, the filed rate doctrine is useless for Allstate. "Illinois has embraced open competition in regard to rate-setting for auto insurance," Justice Cates observed. [GN] ALPINE ENGINEERING: Ramirez Seeks OT Pay for Drainage Installers ---------------------------------------------------------------- JORGE MANUEL RAMIREZ and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(b), the Plaintiff, vs. ALPINE ENGINEERING AND DEVELOPMENT CORP., and EDUARDO O HERNANDEZ, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-20679-UU (S.D. Fla., Feb. 21, 2019), seeks to recover overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a sewage pipe and drainage installer from on or about June 5, 2016 through on or about February 13, 2019. The Plaintiff was a sewage pipe and drainage installer and his duties included but were not limited to installing drainage and digging to install the drainage system and sewage system as well. As a sewage pipe and drainage installer, the Plaintiff's job duties required the Plaintiff to use goods and materials such as PVC pipes which were produced outside of the country, steel pipes, plastic pipes, and commercial excavating machines, the lawsuit says. According to the complaint, the Defendants have employed several other similarly situated employees like the Plaintiff (i.e. at least 14 employees who do both cement work and installing drainage) who have not been paid overtime and/or minimum wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly from the filing of this complaint back three years. The Defendants willfully and intentionally refused to pay the Plaintiff's overtime wages as required by the FLSA as the Defendants knew of the overtime requirements of the FLSA and recklessly failed to investigate whether the Defendants' payroll practices were in accordance with the FLSA.[BN] Attorney for the Plaintiff: J.H. Zidell, Esq. J.H. ZIDELL, P.A. 300 71 st Street, Suite 605 Miami Beach, FL 33141 Telephone: (305) 865-6766 Facsimile: (305) 865-7167 AMARIN CORP: Lied about Vascepa Drug Trial, Sharma Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------- A case, DEBENDRA SHARMA, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. AMARIN CORPORATION PLC, JOHN F. THERO, and STEVEN KETCHUM, the Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-06601 (D.N.J., Feb. 22, 2019), alleges that the Defendants' violations of the anti-fraud provisions of the federal securities laws on behalf of all purchasers of the publicly traded securities of Amarin Corporation plc between September 24, 2018 and November 9, 2018, who were damaged thereby. According to the complaint, the Defendants made false and misleading statements about a clinical trial of a drug called Vascepa intended to treat cardiovascular disease. Specifically, Defendants issued a press release stating that the study, called REDUCE-IT, had shown a 25% relative risk reduction for patients taking Vascepa. As a result of these statements, the price of Amarin's securities increased from $2.99 to $12.40 the next trading day, an increase of more than 414%. This increase was a result of the artificial inflation caused by Defendants misleading statements. Subsequently, certain scientists who had participated in the REDUCE–IT trials presented the full results of the study at the Scientific Sessions of the American Heart Association on November 10, 2018 in Chicago, Illinois. Those results showed for the first time that the placebo given to patients in the REDUCE-IT study, mineral oil, may have caused cardiovascular problems in the patients taking it. In other words, instead of Vascepa lowering the rate of cardiovascular problems, the placebo used in REDUCE-IT may have increased them. As a result of this disclosure, the price of Amarin's securities dropped from $21.05 to $15.38 in two trading days, a decrease of 27%. This decrease was a result of the artificial inflation caused by Defendants' misleading statements coming out of the price, the lawsuit says. Amarin is a biotechnology company with its headquarters located in Dublin, Ireland and its U.S. office is located at 1430 Route 206, Bedminster, New Jersey 07921.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: Bruce D. Greenberg, Esq. LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC 570 Broad Street, Suite 1201 Newark, NJ 07102 Telephone: (973) 623-3000 Facsimile: (973) 623-0858 E-mail: bgreenberg@litedepalma.com - and - Eric H. Gibbs, Esq. David Stein, Esq. John A. Kehoe, Esq. Amanda M. Karl, Esq. GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP 505 14th Street, Suite 1110 Oakland, CA 94612-1406 Telephone: (510) 350-9700 Facsimile: (510) 350-9701 E-mail: ehg@classlawgroup.com ds@classlawgroup.com jak@classlawgroup.com amk@classlawgroup.com AMERICAN INCOME: Removes Case to Central District of California --------------------------------------------------------------- American Income Life Insurance Company removed case, TREMONISHA PUTROS, an individual, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. AMERICAN INCOME LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, an Indiana corporation, Case No. 8:19-cv-00340 (C.D. Cal., Feb. 21, 2019), Case No. 30-2019-0144772-CU-OE-CXC, from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Orange, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on Feb. 21, 2019. The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:19-cv-00340 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff alleges that AIL employed her as a Sales Agent in California to sell insurance to customers from September 2017 to February 2018. The Plaintiff further alleges that she was required to complete mandatory training before being permitted to sell insurance and earn any commissions as a Sales Agent, but was neither compensated nor engaged in "outside sales" during training because she did not 'sell' anything and did not earn any commissions. The Plaintiff alleges she was "willfully misclassified" as an independent contractor, rather than an employee, during her time as a Sales Agent, and also alleges that she was entitled to compensation during training time because she did not engage in outside sales and "did not fall under any of the exemptions under Wage Order No. 4, including the outside sales exemption."[BN] Attorneys for the Defendant: Christopher G. Caldwell, Esq. Albert Giang, Esq. Arwen R. Johnson, Esq. BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP 725 South Figueroa Street, 31st Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017-5524 Telephone: (213) 629-9040 Facsimile: (213) 629-9022 E-mail: ccaldwell@bsfllp.com agiang@bsfllp.com ajohnson@bsfllp.com - and - John Walker, Esq. SACRO & WALKER LLP 701 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 800 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 672-5965 Facsimile: (818) 721-9670 E-mail: jwalker@sacrowalker.com AMERICAN WATER: Bid to Dismiss Suit over Water Main Break Pending ----------------------------------------------------------------- American Water Works Company, 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 West Virginia-American Water Company (WVAWC) has sought to prevent further discovery while its motion to dismiss litigation related to water supply disruption is pending. On the evening of June 23, 2015, a 36-inch pre-stressed concrete transmission water main, installed in the early 1970s, failed. The water main is part of West Virginia-American Water Company's (WVAWC's) West Relay pumping station located in the City of Dunbar. The failure of the main caused water outages and low pressure to up to approximately 25,000 WVAWC customers. In the early morning hours of June 25, 2015, crews completed a repair, but that same day, the repair developed a leak. On June 26, 2015, a second repair was completed and service was restored that day to approximately 80% of the impacted customers, and to the remaining approximately 20% by the next morning. The second repair showed signs of leaking but the water main was usable until June 29, 2015 to allow tanks to refill. The system was reconfigured to maintain service to all but approximately 3,000 customers while a final repair was completed safely on June 30, 2015. Water service was fully restored on July 1, 2015 to all customers affected by this event. On June 2, 2017, a class action complaint was filed in West Virginia Circuit Court in Kanawha County against WVAWC on behalf of a purported class of residents and business owners who lost water service or pressure as a result of the Dunbar main break. The complaint alleges breach of contract by WVAWC for failure to supply water, violation of West Virginia law regarding the sufficiency of WVAWC's facilities and negligence by WVAWC in the design, maintenance and operation of the water system. The plaintiffs seek unspecified alleged damages on behalf of the class for lost profits, annoyance and inconvenience, and loss of use, as well as punitive damages for willful, reckless and wanton behavior in not addressing the risk of pipe failure and a large outage. In October 2017, WVAWC filed with the court a motion seeking to dismiss all of the plaintiffs' counts alleging statutory and common law tort claims. Furthermore, WVAWC asserted that the Public Service Commission of West Virginia, and not the court, has primary jurisdiction over allegations involving violations of the applicable tariff, the public utility code and related rules. On May 30, 2018, the court, at a hearing, denied WVAWC's motion to apply the primary jurisdiction doctrine, and on October 11, 2018, the court issued a written order to that effect. The court has not yet issued a written order on WVAWC's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' tort claims. The court has requested the parties submit a scheduling order with a trial date of August 26, 2019, and WVAWC has sought to prevent further discovery while its motion to dismiss is pending. The Company and WVAWC believe that WVAWC has valid, meritorious defenses to the claims raised in this class action complaint and WVAWC will continue to vigorously defend itself against these allegations. American Water Works Company, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides water and wastewater services in the United States and Canada. It offers water and wastewater services to approximately 1,600 communities in 16 states serving approximately 3.4 million active customers. The company was founded in 1886 and is headquartered in Camden, New Jersey. AMGEN INC: UFCW Sues over Anticompetitive Agreement for Sensipar ---------------------------------------------------------------- A case, UFCW LOCAL 1500 WELFARE FUND, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. AMGEN INC., TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA., INC., WATSON LABORATORIES, INC., ACTAVIS INC., and ACTAVIS PHARMA INC., the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00369-UNA (D. Del., Feb. 21, 2019), seeks damages and equitable relief arising from Defendants' anticompetitive agreement, which eliminated generic competition in the United States for branded and generic versions of Sensipar (cinacalcet hydrochloride tablets). According to the complaint, Amgen received FDA approval for Sensipar in March 2004. After launch, Sensipar's sales grew rapidly. As of 2017, Amgen's U.S. sales of Sensipar exceeded $1.3 billion annually. Because Sensipar was a blockbuster drug, numerous generic manufacturers filed Abbreviated New Drug Applications ("ANDAs") with the FDA seeking the approval of generic versions of Sensipar. Teva was one such generic. Other generic manufacturers filing ANDAs included Aurobindo Pharma, Hetero Labs, Apotex, Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Cipla Ltd., Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Breckenridge Pharmaceutical, Micro Labs, Piramal Healthcare, Strides Pharma, Ajanta Pharma, and Zydus Pharmaceuticals. As part of their applications, these generic manufacturers were required to make certain certifications against the patents covering Sensipar. Among these patents was U.S. Patent No. 9,375,405 ("the '405 patent"), "Rapid dissolution formulation of a calcium receptor-active compound." Generic manufacturers filed "Paragraph IV" certifications against the '405 patent, stating that the patent was invalid, unenforceable, or not infringed by the proposed ANDA applicants' generics. Amgen sued each generic manufacturer that filed an ANDA for allegedly infringing the '405 patent. While many of the generics thereafter settled with Amgen, a few -- including Teva, Amneal, Piramal, and Zydus -- continued litigating. A bench trial in the Court (Goldberg, D.J.) was held in March 2018. After the submission of post-trial briefs, in July 2018 the Court issued an opinion, finding that Teva, Amneal, and Piramal's generic versions of Sensipar did not infringe the '405 patent. In September 2018, Amgen appealed the Court's non-infringement ruling to the Federal Circuit. With Amgen's appeal pending, on December 27, 2018, the FDA approved Teva's ANDA for a generic version of Sensipar. The recipient of a non-infringement judgment, Teva immediately launched its generic product. During the one week that followed, Teva flooded the market with roughly six weeks of product sales. Teva itself reportedly realized approximately $59 million in profits (assuming at 25% discount off Sensipar's price), while Amgen lost an estimated $79 million in profits. With Teva competing in the market, Amgen had limited options: either apply to the trial or appellate court for a stay of the non-infringement order and an injunction against Teva -- or engage in self-help. Instead of applying for relief in court, Amgen chose self-help -- and broke the law. On January 2, 2019, Teva and Amgen entered a confidential agreement in which Teva agreed to stop selling its generic version of Sensipar. Public reports also stated that the agreement: (1) ended Amgen's appeal against Teva; (2) required Teva to delay any further sales for nearly two and a half years, until mid-year 2021; (3) called on Teva to pay Amgen an undisclosed sum; and (4) called on Amgen to pay Teva for licenses to other Teva products. Amgen's quickly-reached deal with Teva re-established and maintained Amgen's brand monopoly. Moreover, the deal eliminated not only Teva as a competitor but other generics as well. Amgen's '405 patent action settlements, include acceleration clauses, which permit the generics to enter the market after a short delay if another generic, like Teva, launched. The hasty deal between Amgen and Teva avoided triggering the acceleration clauses, thereby preventing other settling generics from launching their products. Amgen and Teva thus stopped other generics from entering and driving the price of Sensipar well below Teva's discount. Absent Defendants' unlawful agreement, the Plaintiff and the members of the Classes would have been able to purchase generic Sensipar tablets during the period after January 2, 2019 at significantly lower prices than Amgen has charged since then. Indeed, the injury to Plaintiff and the Classes is ongoing, as there still is no generic alternative to Amgen's branded Sensipar available to purchase. An agreement by competing companies to cease competing is "anticompetitive regardless of whether the parties split a market within which both do business or whether they merely reserve one market for one and another for the other. Accordingly, to redress the economic injury Defendants have already caused -- and continue to cause' -- Plaintiff, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, seeks injunctive and other equitable relief under the federal antitrust laws, as well as damages and other monetary relief under state antitrust, consumer protection, and common laws, the lawsuit says. Sensipar is a drug used to treat certain conditions associated with chronic kidney disease and thyroid cancer.[BN] Counsel for UFCW Local 1500 Welfare Fund and the Proposed Classes: Ned Weinberger, Esq. Gregory S. Asciolla, Esq. Jay L. Himes, Esq. Karin E. Garvey, Esq. Robin A. van der Meulen, Esq. Matthew J. Perez, Esq. Domenico Minerva, Esq. LABATON SUCHAROW LLP 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1340 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 573-2540 E-mail: nweinberger@labaton.com gasciolla@labaton.com jhimes@labaton.com kgarvey@labaton.com rvandermeulen@labaton.com mperez@labaton.com dminerva@labaton.com - and - Ian Connor Bifferato, Esq. THE BIFFERATO FIRM, P.A. 1007 N. Orange Street, 4th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 225-7600 E-mail: cbifferato@tbf.legal - and - Scott A. Martin, Esq. Irving Scher, Esq. Brent Landau, Esq. Melinda R. Coolidge, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 14 th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (646) 357-1100 Facsimile: (212) 202-4322 E-mail: smartin@hausfeld.com ischer@hausfeld.com blandau@hausfeld.com mcoolidge@hausfeld.com - and - Roberta D. Liebenberg, Esq. Jeffrey S. Istvan, Esq. Paul Costa, Esq. Adam J. Pessin, Esq. FINE, KAPLAN AND BLACK, R.P.C. One South Broad Street, 23rd Floor Philadelphia, PA 19107 Telephone: (215) 567-6565 Facsimile: (215) 568-5872 E-mail: rliebenberg@finekaplan.com jistvan@finekaplan.com pcosta@finekaplan.com apessin@finekaplan.com AT&T INC: Georgia High Ct. Rules Against Counties in 911 Fee Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Alice Queen, writing for Rome News-Tribune, reports that the Georgia Supreme Court ruled on Feb. 25 against counties -- including Newton -- that are looking to collect millions in 911 fees they say are not being charged to customers. Newton joined a class action lawsuit last spring that was initiated by Gwinnett and Cobb counties against several telecom providers. The lawsuit claimed that several telecommunications companies had failed to collect fees levied by local governments to pay for 911 services. Newton County Manager Lloyd Kerr told commissioners at their meeting that the Supreme Court had ruled that the 911 fees are actually a tax and that local governments do not have the authority to sue to collect the tax. It would be up to the General Assembly to determine how much is owed in taxes and how they could be collected, according to the Supreme Court ruling. The ruling reverses a Georgia Court of Appeals decision. Mr. Kerr said attorneys representing the counties are "taking a step back to see what their next steps will be." District 5 Commissioner Ronnie Cowan said the issue will likely wind up in the Legislature next year for a resolution. "It's up to the state under the Gold Dome to decide if they want to go down that road to allow for collection of that sort of tax," he said. Former Gov. Roy Barnes told commissioners during a presentation last March that his law firm represents about 40 cities and counties in Georgia and said Newton County could be owed as much as $1.5 million in uncollected fees. Mr. Kerr said the total amount of uncollected 911 fees across the state has reached as much as $100 million. Mr. Barnes told commissioners last spring that telecom providers by state law are required to collect approximately $1.50 each month for each line or connection that is capable of calling 911. The providers are allowed to keep 3 percent of the fees to cover their costs, and the balance is supposed to be remitted to cities and counties to support 911 emergency systems. Mr. Barnes said that most residential lines are charged correctly; however, telecom providers often under-count the number of lines for which a company could be charged in order to gain an advantage over competitors. This practice is particularly true when using technology that allows multiple phone lines to use a single telephone number, he said. [GN] AVEO PHARMACEUTICALS: April 26 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set ----------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP on Feb. 25 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Aveo Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Aveo" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: AVEO) and certain of its officers and directors. The class action, filed in United States District Court, Southern District of New York, and indexed under 19-cv-01722, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities, other than Defendants and their affiliates, who purchased or otherwise acquired AVEO securities between August 4, 2016 through January 31, 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 Aveo securities during the class period, you have until April 26, 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. AVEO is a biopharmaceutical company incorporated in 2001. The Company is based in Cambridge, Massachusetts and develops and commercializes a portfolio of targeted medicines for oncology and other areas of unmet medical need. AVEO was formerly known as "GenPath Pharmaceuticals, Inc." and changed its name to "AVEO Pharmaceuticals, Inc." in March 2005. AVEO markets and develops its lead candidate drug, tivozanib (registered under the trademarked name FOTIVDA), which is an oral, once-daily medication for treating renal cell carcinoma ("RCC"). In June 2013, tivozanib, was deemed insufficient for approval by the U.S. Food & Drug Administration ("FDA"), over reported concerns regarding the negative trend in overall survival ("OS") in the Company's first pivotal phase 3 trial (the "TIVO-1" study). On May 26, 2016, AVEO announced the dosing of its first patient in the "TIVO-3 trial," the Company's Phase 3 randomized, controlled, multi-center, open-label study to compare tivozanib to sorafenib in 351 subjects with highly refractory advanced or metastatic. According to AVEO, the TIVO-3 trial was designed to address the overall survival concerns from the TIVO-1 trial presented in June 2013. On November 5, 2018, AVEO issued a press release announcing that tivozanib had successfully "met its primary endpoint of demonstrating a statistically significant benefit in progression-free survival (PFS)" through the TIVO-3 trial (the "November 5 Press Release"). According to the November 5 Press Release, AVEO planned to submit a New Drug Application ("NDA") to the FDA in approximately six months based on results from the TIVO-3 trial, together with the previously completed Phase 3 TIVO-1 trial of tivozanib in the first line treatment of RCC. The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the TIVO‑3 trial was inadequately designed to address the OS concerns regarding AVEO's lead candidate drug, tivozanib, from the TIVO-1 trial presented in the June 2013; (ii) tivozanib had insufficient survival data to meet FDA approval following its initial 2013 rejection; (iii) this lack of sufficient survival data would put tivozanib at greater risk of delayed FDA approval; and (iv) as a result, AVEO's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On January 31, 2019, Boston Business Journal reported that AVEO would not submit its tivozanib application for FDA approval "due to a recommendation from the agency gather more late-stage testing results. Specifically, the FDA is asking for additional survival data, echoing concerns that led to the agency's rejection of the same drug in 2013." On this news, AVEO's stock price dropped $1.07 per share, or over 60%, to close at $0.70 per share on January 31, 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] AVONCE CONSTRUCTION: Ordonez Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------- FRANCISCO J. ORDONEZ, And other similarly situated individuals, vs. the Plaintiff(s), vs. AVONCE CONSTRUCTION GROUP INC, and ZEFERINO AVONCE, individually, the Defendants, Case No. 6:19-cv-00349-PGB-TBS (M.D. Fla., Feb. 21, 2019), seeks to recover money damages for unpaid overtime wages and retaliation under the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked more than 40 hours every week period. Nevertheless, the Plaintiff never was properly compensated for overtime hours worked. The Plaintiff was paid for all his hours, but at his regular rate. Therefore, the Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff, and other similarly situated employees, overtime hours at the rate of time and a half his regular rate, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants did not maintain any time-keeping method, and the Plaintiff did not clock in and out. But Defendants were able to track the hours worked by the Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals because the Plaintiff were supervised by Avonce Construction's supervisor Ernesto Marquez, and by foreman Florencio Vazquez, the lawsuit says. Avonce Construction is a general construction contractor, providing residential and commercial new construction services.[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 BANK OF NEW YORK: May 23 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set -------------------------------------------------------- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Carver, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Bank of New York Mellon, et al., Defendants. No. 15-CV-10180 (JPO)(JLC) PUBLICATION NOTICE OF (I) PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT; (II) FINAL APPROVAL HEARING; AND (III) MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF LITIGATION EXPENSES TO: All participants, beneficiaries, trustees, and fiduciaries of an ERISA Entity that at any time during the period January 1, 1997 through December 20, 2018 held, directly or indirectly, American Depositary Receipts for which The Bank of New York Mellon acted as the depositary and provided foreign currency exchange transactional services ("BNYM ADRs"). A list of BNYM ADRs is available for download on the Settlement Website, www.BNYMADRERISASettlement.com. An "ERISA Entity" means an ERISA plan and any trust, pooled account, collective investment vehicle, or group insurance arrangement that files a Form 5500 annual return/report as a Direct Filing Entity ("DFE") in accordance with the DFE Filing Requirements, such as a group trust, master trust investment account (MTIA), common/collective trust (CCT), pooled separate account (PSA), 103-12 investment entity (102-12 IE), group insurance arrangement (GSA), or collective investment vehicle that held plan assets as defined by the U.S. Department of Labor "Instructions for Form 5500, Annual Return/Report of Employee Benefit Plan." PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY. IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS DESCRIBED ABOVE, THE RIGHTS OF YOUR ERISA ENTITY, AND ITS PARTICIPANTS, BENEFICIARIES, TRUSTEES, AND FIDUCIARIES, WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE PENDING ACTION AND YOUR ERISA ENTITY MAY BE ENTITLED TO SHARE IN THE SETTLEMENT. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, that the Action has been preliminarily certified as a class action for the purposes of settlement and that the parties to the Action have reached a proposed settlement (the "Settlement") for $12,500,000 in cash (the "Settlement Fund") that, if approved, will resolve all claims in the Action. A hearing will be held on May 23, 2019 at 3:00 p.m., before the Honorable J. Paul Oetken in Courtroom 706 of the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, New York, NY 10007, to determine: (i) whether the proposed Settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) whether the Action should be dismissed with prejudice against The Bank of New York Mellon and BNY Mellon, National Association ("BNYM" or "Defendants") and the Releases described in the Stipulation should be granted; (iii) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation should be approved as fair and reasonable; (iv) whether the Notice and the means of dissemination thereof pursuant to the Settlement were appropriate and reasonable; and (v) whether Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees and Litigation Expenses (including Service Awards to Named Plaintiffs) should be approved. If the Settlement is approved, Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel (McTigue Law LLP and Ciresi Conlin LLP) will ask the Court to award them attorneys' fees not to exceed 33 1/3% and reimbursement of Litigation Expenses, including a $10,000 award to each Named Plaintiff ("Service Awards") to compensate them for their efforts and participation in the Action. If the Court approves the Settlement, the settlement proceeds, after deduction of Court-approved Notice and Administration Costs, attorneys' fees and Litigation Expenses, including Service Awards to Named Plaintiffs, and Taxes and Tax Expenses, will be distributed to eligible ERISA Entities ("Settlement Entities") pursuant to the Plan of Allocation in the Notice, or other plan of allocation approved by the Court. A Postcard Notice (or Validation Letter for those ERISA Entities that have been identified as holding at least one BNYM ADR for which BNYM provided foreign exchange transactional services during the Settlement Class Period) is being mailed to all ERISA Entities that filed a Form 5500 with the U.S. Department of Labor based on the most current complete year of data on Form 5500 available ("Potential Class Entity"), directing them to the Settlement Website, www.BNYMADRERISASettlement.com for more information about the Settlement. If you or your ERISA Entity receive a Validation Letter in the mail (rather than Postcard Notice), that means that the ERISA Entity you represent, or in which you participate or to which you are a beneficiary ("Your Entity") was identified, based on structured data produced in discovery in this Action, as holding at least one BNYM ADR during the Settlement Class Period in respect of which BNYM provided foreign exchange transactional services. Your Entity is an "Identified Class Entity" and does not have to take any further action in order to be eligible to receive a payment from the Settlement Fund. Your Entity's payment amount, if any, will be calculated using the information described in its Validation Letter. It is important that you visit the Settlement Website using the Claim Number and Password provided in Your Entity's Validation Letter to verify the information regarding Your Entity's BNYM ADR holdings. The information in Your Entity's Validation Letter may not represent every BNYM ADR held by Your Entity during the Settlement Class Period. If the information is incomplete, Your Entity may supplement or correct it by visiting the Settlement Website and submitting a revised Claim Form, which must be received by April 29, 2019. If Your Entity does not update the information, the Claims Administrator will use the data in the Validation Letter to calculate its Claim and Your Entity will waive its rights to later supplement or correct it. If you or Your Entity received a Postcard Notice in the mail (rather than a Validation Letter), Your Entity has not yet been identified as a Settlement Entity and is referred to in this Settlement as a Potential Class Entity. If you believe Your Entity may be a Settlement Entity, you have the following choices: (1) Submit a Claim Form by April 29, 2019 through the Settlement Website www.BNYMADRERISASettlement.com using the Claim Number and Password provided on the Postcard Notice or (2) Do Nothing: If Your Entity is a Settlement Plan and does nothing, Your Entity will not receive a payment from this Settlement, but it and its participants, beneficiaries, trustees, and fiduciaries will be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in this Action. You may object to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, or Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and reimbursement of Litigation Expenses. Any such objection must be filed with the Court and delivered to Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel and Defendants' Counsel such that they are received no later than April 18, 2019, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice on the Settlement Website. If Your Entity does not receive a Postcard Notice or a Validation Letter but you believe Your Entity may be a Settlement Entity, please visit www.BNYMADRERISASettlement.com for more information. There, you will find the Notice and Plan of Allocation, a Stipulation of Settlement, and other documents explaining the rights of Settlement Class Members in connection with the Settlement and the process to submit a Claim Form in order for Your Entity to be eligible to receive a payment from the Settlement. You or Your Entity may also contact the Claims Administrator Analytics Consulting, LLC, toll-free at 1-855-773-0250 or via e-mail at info@BNYMADRERISASettlement.com. Any questions regarding this Publication Notice, the Action, the Settlement, or Your Entity's eligibility to participate in the Settlement may also be directed to Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel: Barry Landy, Esq. or Heather M. McElroy, Esq., Ciresi Conlin LLP, 225 South Sixth Street, Suite 4600, Minneapolis, MN 55402, www.ciresiconlin.com; or J. Brian McTigue, Esq. or Regina M. Markey, Esq., McTigue Law LLP, 4530 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 300, Washington, DC 20016, adrfxsettlement@mctiguelaw.com. Please do not contact the Court, the Clerk's office, BNYM, or its counsel regarding this notice. All questions about this notice, the Settlement, or Your Entity's eligibility to participate in the Settlement should be directed to Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel or the Claims Administrator. DATED: February 20, 2019. BY ORDER OF THE COURT United States District Court Southern District of New York [GN] BANK OF NEW YORK: Mogollon Files Fraud Class Suit in New Jersey --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Bank of New York Mellon et al. The case is styled as Sergio Mogollon, Colleen Lowe individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. The Bank of New York Mellon, George W. Arnett, III, Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-08235-FLW-DEA (D. N.J., Mar. 8, 2019). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation, doing business as BNY Mellon, is an American worldwide banking and financial services holding company headquartered in New York City.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James E. Cecchi, Esq. CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 Phone: (973) 994-1700 Fax: (973) 994-1744 Email: jcecchi@carellabyme.com BERSHKA USA: Faces Fischler ADA Class Suit ------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bershka USA, Inc. The case is styled as Brian Fischler Individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Bershka USA, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02094 (S.D. N.Y., Mar. 6, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Bershka is a clothing retailer company. It is part of the Spanish Inditex group.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq. Lipsky Lowe LLP 630 Third Avenue New York, NY 10017 Phone: (212) 392-4772 Fax: (212) 444-1030 Email: chris@lipskylowe.com BLACK ANGUS STEAKHOUSES: Dixon Alleges Disabilities Act Violation ----------------------------------------------------------------- RONALD DIXON, JR., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BLACK ANGUS STEAKHOUSES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 19STCV04416 (Cal. Super., Loss Angeles Cty., Feb. 8, 2019) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff patronized the Black Angus Steakhouses located at Fountain Valley, California, to purchase dinner and suffered discrimination as a result of being denied full and equal access. The Plaintiff is a L2 paraplegic that requires a wheelchair to move about. The Defendant denied equal access to the Plaintiff and the class because it failed to provide an accessible parking lot and restroom area. Black Angus Steakhouses, LLC owns and operates a chain of restaurants in Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, New Mexico, and Washington. It provides dinner, lunch, desserts, and beverages; and menu for kids. The company was founded in 1964 and is based in Sherman Oaks, California. Black Angus Steakhouses, LLC is a former subsidiary of American Restaurant Group, Inc. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Evan J. Smith, Esq. BRODSKY & SMITH 9595 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 900 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (877) 534-2590 Facsimile: (310) 247-0160 BLC LEXINGTON: Johnson Suit Moved to Eastern District of Kentucky ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit against BLC Lexington SNF, LLC, and other entities was removed from the Fayette Circuit Court, to U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky (Lexington) on Feb. 21, 2019. The Eastern District of Kentucky Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:19-cv-00064-DCR to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Danny C. Reeves. The case is captioned Carrie Johnson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. BLC Lexington SNF, LLC, doing business as: Brookdale Richmond Place SNF (KY); ARC Richmond Place, Inc. doing business as: Brookdale Richmond Place PCH (KY), doing business as: Brookdale Lexington IL/AL/MC (KY), doing business as: Brookdale Home Health; American Retirement Corporation; Brookdale Senior Living Communities, Inc.; Brookdale Senior Living, Inc.; Ann Phillips, in her Capacity as Executive Director and Administrator of Brookdale Richmond Place; BRE Knight SH KY Owner, LLC; Emeritus Corporation; Park Place Investments, LLC; BKD Personal Assistance Services, LLC; Horizon Bay Management, LLC; Emericare Inc.; BKD Richmond Place Propco, LLC; Brookdale Employee Services - Corporate LLC; Brookdale Employee Services, LLC; BKD Twenty One Management Company, Inc.; ARC Therapy Services, LLC; Brookdale Associate Fund, Inc.; Benita Dickenson, in her Capacity as Managing Employee of Brookdale Richmond Place, SNF; Lucinda Baier, in her capacity as Owner of and Manager of various defendants; Chad C. White, in his capacity as Owner of and Manager of various defendants; Mary Sue Patchett, in her capacity as Owner of and Manager of various defendants; Joanne Leskowicz, in her capacity as Owner of and Manager of various defendants; George T. Hicks, in his capacity as Owner of and Manager of various defendants; Labeed Diab, in his capacity as Owner of Brookdale Richmond Place, SNF; Geraldine Gordon-Krupp, in her capacity as Owner of Brookdale Richmond Place, SNF; Bryan Richardson, in his capacity as Owner of Brookdale Richmond Place, SNF; Thomas Smith, in his capacity as Owner of Brookdale Richmond Place, SNF; ARC Richmond Place Real Estate Holdings, LLC; HCP, Inc.; abd HBP Leaseco Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 18-CI-3625.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: Justin Peterson, Esq. Laraclay Drake Parker, Esq. GOLDEN LAW OFFICE, PLLC 771 Corporate Drive, Suite 750 Lexington, KY 40503 Telephone: (859) 469-5000 Facsimile: (859) 469-5001 E-mail: jpeterson@goldenlawoffice.com lparker@goldenlawoffice.com Attorneys for the Defendants: Donald L. Miller, II, Esq. J. Peter Cassidy, III, Esq. Matthew Coleman Cocanougher, Esq. QUINTAIROS, PRIETO, WOOD & BOYER, P.A. - LOU 9300 Shelbyville Road, Suite 400 Louisville, KY 40222 Telephone: (502) 423-6390 Facsimile: (502) 423-6391 E-mail: dmiller@qpwblaw.com pcassidy@qpwblaw.com mcocanougher@qpwblaw.com BLOOMINGDALE ROAD: Miller Sues over Debt Collection Practices ------------------------------------------------------------- GLENN MILLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BLOOMINGDALE ROAD JUDGMENT RECOVERY; BLOOMINGDALE PARTNERS, LP; BLOOMINGDALE PARTNERS, LLC; BLOOMINGDALE CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC; GIL KREITER also known as: GILEAD KREITER; and JOHN DOES 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01267-KPF (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 10, 2019) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. Bloomingdale's, Inc. operates a chain of department stores in the United States. It operates outlet stores in California, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Virginia; and a location in Dubai. Bloomingdale's, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Macy's, Inc. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin Jarret Wolf, Esq. Joseph Karl Jones JONES WOLF & KAPASI, LLC 60 East 42st, 46th Floor New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (646) 459-7971 Facsimile: (646) 459-7973 E-mail: bwolf@legaljones.com jkj@legaljones.com BOOMERANG RUBBER: Meyers Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation --------------------------------------------------------------- James Meyers, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Boomerang Rubber, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-00070-WHR (S.D. Ohio., March 8, 2019) is a case challenging the policies and practices of the Defendant that violates the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). Plaintiff and those similarly situated to him frequently worked more than 40 hours in a single workweek, entitling them to overtime compensation under the FLSA. They were not paid all of the overtime compensation they earned, says the complaint. Plaintiff worked for Defendant as an hourly laborer within this district and division. Defendant is an Ohio for-profit corporation, with its principal place of business located in Botkins, Ohio (Shelby County).[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robi J. Baishnab, Esq. Nilges Draher LLC 34 N. High St., Ste. 502 Columbus, OH 43215 Phone: (614) 824-5770 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 Email: rbaishnab@ohlaborlaw.com - and - Hans A. Nilges, Esq. Shannon M. Draher, Esq. Nilges Draher LLC 7266 Portage Street, N.W., Suite D Massillon, OH 44646 Phone: (330) 470-4428 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 Email: hans@ohlaborlaw.com sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com CAFE PARIS: Luna Seeks Payment of Minimum & Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- MARTIN ROMERO LUNA, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. CAFE ON16TH INC. (D/B/A CAFE PARIS), CAFE DE PARIS BROOKLYN INC. (D/B/A CAFE PARIS), SHLOMO MOSHE SHLYFER, and RACHEL MESHAN SHLYFER, the Defendants, Case 1:19-cv-01044 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 21, 2019), seeks unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff was employed as a cook at Defendants' restaurant. The Plaintiff Romero worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of hours compensation for the hours that he worked. Rather, the Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked, failed to pay the Plaintiff appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium. Further, the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff Romero the required "spread of hours" pay for any day in which he had to work over 10 hours a day. Furthermore, the Defendants repeatedly failed to pay Plaintiff Romero wages on a timely. The Defendants' conduct extended beyond Plaintiff Romero to all other similarly situated basis. The Defendants maintained a policy and practice of requiring 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 restaurant, located at 4424 16th Avenue, Brooklyn, New York 11204 under the name "Cafe Paris."[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 CANADA: Class Action Over St-Anne's Hospital Care Can Proceed ------------------------------------------------------------- Anne Leclair, writing for Global News, reports that a 96-year-old veteran has received authorization to launch a class action lawsuit against both the federal and provincial governments for failing to uphold the level of care that was promised when the Ste-Anne's Hospital was transferred to provincial jurisdiction close to three years ago. "I look forward to a very successful outcome," said Second World War veteran Wolf William Solkin. "It will take time of which we don't have very much left but there are other veterans, there are also the families." Mr. Solkin is spearheading the case against the Canadian and Quebec governments as well as the CIUSSS de l'Ouest-de-l'Ile-de-Montreal. He claims despite a signed transfer agreement between both levels of government, the level of care took a dramatic drop after April, 2016. "We feel that the promises that were made to us both verbally and in writing have been breached," Mr. Solkin told Global News. Quebec's superior court had agreed to give him an accelerated hearing, considering the average age of veterans covered under the claim is 93. Many potential class members have passed away since the transfer. "We're here to fight for him, for his honour," Kathy Duke said of her father, D-Day veteran Gordon Duke. She was his main caregiver and saw the deterioration in care first hand. "He was there for almost six years and it was almost to the day they transferred that the services got really bad," Ms. Duke said. Younger veterans were also on hand to show support, including one woman who drove from Ottawa. "Mr. Solkin is a real inspiration," said retired veteran Jill Greenwood. "It's an emotional day too because you don't want to see a 96-year-old War World II veteran fighting for standards of care for veterans." "I feel just ashamed that he has to be here today to fight for his rights at 96 years-old," said veteran Martin Frechette. The goal, according to the plaintiff's legal team, is to essentially restore services to what they were prior to the transfer and to compensate veterans and their families for damages. "It's basically asking that the governments that are involved respect the agreement that they made, which was made for the benefit and goodness of the veterans," lawyer Larry Kanemy said. According to the claim, there were 300 veterans living at the Ste-Anne's Hospital at the time of the transfer. In September, that number had dropped to 156. Lawyers for the CIUSSS de l'Ouest-de-l'Ile-de-Montreal promise to provide an updated list within the next 30 days. "I would like to see the day when our proper level of care is restored along with our dignity as veterans and Canadians," Mr. Solkin said. [GN] CANADA: Court Orders Amendment to Segregation Class Definition -------------------------------------------------------------- In 2015, Koskie Minsky LLP commenced a class action against the Attorney General of Canada ("Canada") on behalf of all inmates incarcerated in Federal correctional institutions who were seriously mentally ill. The action was certified as a class proceeding in December 2016. The court has ordered an amendment to the class definition to exclude those seriously mentally ill prisoners who were never in administrative segregation. The case alleges, among other things, that Canada breached sections 7, 9 and 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms by subjecting mentally ill inmates to periods of administrative segregation. The claim now covers the following class: All offenders who were placed in administrative segregation, who were diagnosed by a medical doctor with an Axis I Disorder (excluding substance use disorders), or Borderline Personality Disorder, who suffered from their disorder, in a manner described in Appendix A, and reported such during their incarceration, where the diagnosis by a medical doctor occurred either before or during incarceration in a federal institution between 1992 and present. Appendix A refers to: -- Significant impairment in judgment (including inability to make decisions; confusion; disorientation); -- Significant impairment in thinking (including constant preoccupation with thoughts, paranoia; delusions that make the offender a danger to self or others); -- Significant impairment in mood (including constant depressed mood plus helplessness and hopelessness; agitation; manic mood that interferes with ability to effectively interact with other offenders, staffs or follow correctional plan); -- Significant impairment in communications that interferes with ability to effectively interact with other offenders, staff or follow correctional plan; -- Significant impairment due to anxiety (panic attacks; overwhelming anxiety) that interferes with ability to effectively interact with other offenders, staff or follow correctional plan; -- Other symptoms: hallucinations; delusions; severe obsessional rituals that interferes with ability to effectively interact with other offenders, staff or follow correctional plan; -- Chronic and severe suicidal ideation resulting in increased risk for suicide attempts; - Chronic and severe self-injury; or, -- A GAF score of 50 or less. Please note that the class no longer includes inmates incarcerated in Federal correctional facilities who suffer from a mental illness but were not placed in administrative segregation. If you suffer from a mental illness but were not placed in administrative segregation, you are no longer covered by the class action, and, in accordance with section 28 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, all applicable limitation periods will resume with respect to your claim after April 11, 2019 (45 days after publication of this notice). Website: www.kmlaw.ca/prisonermentalhealth For further information: Toll-free hotline: 1-866-777-6343, Email: prisonermentalhealth@kmlaw.ca [GN] CANADA: Faces Class Action $165MM VA Accounting Error ----------------------------------------------------- Murray Brewster, writing for CBC News, reports that the federal government now faces four proposed class-action lawsuits over a $165 million accounting error at Veterans Affairs that shortchanged more than 250,000 former soldiers, sailors and aircrew, CBC News has learned. The latest claim was filed by the Ottawa law firm headed by retired colonel Michel Drapeau. It joins similar cases launched by lawyers with Koskie-Minsky of Toronto, McInnis-Cooper of Halifax and the Kelowna office of Murphy-Battista. The court actions, which have not yet been certified, relate to a bungled calculation of disability awards and pensions at Veterans Affairs -- an oversight that started in 2002 and ran undetected for almost eight years. In January, CBC News revealed internal federal documents that explained how the error happened and detailed some of the flawed assumptions bureaucrats used to bury the mistake when it was uncovered. In 2010, when the department discovered and corrected the indexing mistake, it did not notify any of the 272,000 veterans who were affected. The matter did not become public until former veterans ombudsman Guy Parent blew the whistle last November. The Liberal government owned up to the error and promised to reimburse veterans, beginning in 2020 -- but Dennis Manuge, the former soldier who initiated the first class-action claim, said the mushrooming number of cases is a sign of the frustration and impatience felt by those affected. The fact that it will take until after the next election to rectify the situation is one of the major factors driving the court cases, he added. "The trust level isn't there, and I think that's regardless of the party in office," said Mr. Manuge, who noted the former Conservative government fought a separate class-action lawsuit related to a clawback of veterans' disability payments. In that case, Mr. Manuge -- acting on behalf of roughly 7,500 former soldiers -- won an $887 million settlement in 2013. The documents obtained and published by CBC News in January show how Veterans Affairs officials traced the confusion over the disability payments back to changes in forms related to the 2001 overhaul of the Income Tax Act. Critics say the revelations over the unchecked error raise important questions about fiscal accountability at Veterans Affairs. They're asking what actions bureaucrats took when the error was first discovered — and why it was kept hidden for almost a decade. Many of the affected veterans have died A significant number of the affected veterans -- 170,000 -- have passed away since the error was discovered. The Liberal government promised to repay their estates, but the documents show Veterans Affairs does not keep track of next-of-kin and has no means of finding them. Mr. Manuge said he has no confidence that all affected veterans' families will get justice. "If we wait another two years, the older veterans involved, well, many of them will be gone," he said. "I can only speak for myself . . . that's one of the major factors in my making a decision to have a go at this." The government's handling of the error "just isn't good enough," he said. "It's not acceptable." Since the matter is before the courts, federal government officials declined comment on Feb. 20. [GN] CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Moye Sues over Debt Collection Practices ------------------------------------------------------------ CYNTHIA MOYE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CAPITAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LP, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-00812-JFB-AKT (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 8, 2019) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. The case is assigned to Judge Joseph F. Bianco and referred to A. Kathleen Tomlinson. Capital Management Services L.P., a collections agency, provides delinquent receivables resolutions. It monitors and tracks debt collection laws, state licensing, company profile, and client contractual expectations. The company was formerly known as Ventus Capital Services, LP and changed its name to Capital Management Services L.P. in October 2006. Capital Management Services L.P. was incorporated in 2004 and is based in Buffalo, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Mauro, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH MAURO, LLC 306 McCall Ave. West Islip, NY 11795 Telephone: (631) 669-0921 CARDINGTON YUTAKA: Buskirk Seeks Overtime Pay --------------------------------------------- A case, RICK VAN BUSKIRK, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. CARDINGTON YUTAKA TECHNOLOGIES, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-00557-GCS-CMV (S.D. Ohio, Feb. 19, 2019), challenges the Defendant's policies and practices that violate the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked for Defendant as an hourly employee. The Plaintiff and those similarly situated to him are current or former hourly employees of the Defendant routinely worked approximately seven days a week, for at least approximately eight hours per day. The Plaintiff and those similarly situated to him frequently worked more than 4 hours in a single workweek, entitling them to overtime compensation under the FLSA, the lawsuit says. Cardington Yutaka Technologies, Inc. develops, manufactures, and supplies automotive parts. The company offers torque converters, and catalytic converters.[BN] Counsel for the Plaintiff: Robi J. Baishnab, Esq. Hans A. Nilges, Esq. Shannon M. Draher, Esq. NILGES DRAHER LLC 34 N. High St., Ste. 502 Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 824-5770 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 E-mail: rbaishnab@ohlaborlaw.com hans@ohlaborlaw.com sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com CASH CONVERTERS: Class Action Settlement Hits 1st Half Results -------------------------------------------------------------- Sean Smith, writing for The West Australian, reports that a big increase in bad debt charges has overshadowed further sharp loan growth at Cash Converters, which has been dragged back into the red by its latest class action settlement. The lender and pawn chain's half-year results today show that profit from its core lending business slumped 23 per cent in the six months to December 31 as bad debt charges more than doubled to $23 million. Cash Converters sheeted home some of the blame to accounting changes but noted also it "had begun to more critically assess the loan flow" in the wake of surging applications for its short and medium-term loans. "The business has deployed a number of new credit measures during the period, which are already showing improvement to the default rates and are expected to have a positive impact on bad debt expense in the second half of the year," it said. Cash Converters shares, which are trading at 11-year lows, closed unchanged at 23¢. Gross profit was 3 per cent lower but the bottom-line result fell from a $9.4 million net profit for the same period in 2017 to a $5.2 million loss after a $16.4 million hit to settle a class action on behalf of Queensland customers charged a brokerage fee between 2010 and 2013. Cash Converters revamped its lending strategy two years ago to concentrate on bigger, longer-term loans to people with lower credit risk with the stated aim of reducing the problematic lending to low-income earners and the disadvantaged, the sectors at the heart of most of the criticism that so-called pay day, or short term, loans trap vulnerable customers in a cycle of debt. Lending volumes rose 12 per cent during the December half, with revenue from the personal finance business jumping 21.5 per cent. Medium amount credit contacts (MACC), or loans of up to $5000, were up 23.4 per cent. However, MACC loans still account for less than a third of the Cash Converters loan book. The company's store network lifted profit nearly 5 per cent, with purchases of goods from customers up 9 per cent to $12.3 million and pawn loans increasing 7.3 per cent to $11.4 million. [GN] CELGENE CORPORATION: Gainey McKenna Files Securities Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- Gainey McKenna & Egleston on Feb. 25 disclosed that it filed a class action lawsuit against Celgene Corporation ("Celgene" or the "Company") (Nasdaq: CELG) and its board of directors (the "Board"), on behalf of a proposed class consisting of all public stockholders of Celgene in connection with alleged violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). The Complaint alleges that on January 2, 2019, Celgene, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company ("BMS" or "Parent"), and Burgundy Merger Sub, Inc., a direct wholly-owned Subsidiary of Parent ("BM Merger Sub"), entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement"). Pursuant to the Merger Agreement BM Merger Sub will merge with and into Celgene, with Celgene surviving the merger and becoming a wholly-owned Subsidiary of Parent (the "Proposed Transaction"). The Complaint also alleges that on February 1, 2019, in order to convince Celgene's public stockholders to vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction, Parent jointly filed a materially incomplete and misleading Form S-4 Registration Statement (the "Proxy") with the SEC, in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The Complaint alleges that the Proxy contains materially incomplete and misleading information concerning: (a) the valuation analyses prepared by the Company's financial advisors, J. P. Morgan Securities LLC ("JPM") and Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. ("Citi"), in support of their fairness opinion and (b) the potential conflicts of interest faced by the Board during the sales process leading up to the Proposed Transaction. Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares during the Class Period should contact the Firm prior to the April 26, 2019 lead plaintiff motion deadline. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna & Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com or gegleston@gme-law.com. Please visit our website at http://www.gme-law.comfor more information about the firm. [GN] CEMTREX INC: Settles Consolidated NY Class Suit for $625,000 ------------------------------------------------------------ Cemtrex, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2019, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2018, that the Company has reached a settlement of: -- securities class action litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York through a mediator for an amount of $625,000; and -- a derivative action for $100,000. Three securities class action complaints were filed against the company and certain of its executive officers in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on February 24, 2017. Under the requirements of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, these three alleged class actions, as well as any further related actions, were consolidated into a single lawsuit on March 9, 2018. A follow-on, related derivative complaint also was filed against the company and its executive officers and directors in New York State court on April 10, 2017. That derivative action has been stayed by agreement of the parties until after the motion to dismiss process in the consolidated alleged class actions has run its course. Pursuant to a stipulated District Court schedule, plaintiffs filed an Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint on May 7, 2018. The company filed a motion to dismiss this class action with the Court on July 6, 2018. On October 4, 2018, the Company reached a settlement on the securities class action litigation through a mediator for an amount of $625,000 and also reached a settlement on Derivative action for an amount of $100,000. This settlement is subject to a final court approval which will take several months. The settlement amounts shall be paid by the Company's insurance carrier. Cemtrex, Inc. primarily provides electronic manufacturing services. The company operates through three segments: Advanced Technologies, Electronics Manufacturing, and Industrial Technology. The company was formerly known as Diversified American Holding, Inc. and changed its name to Cemtrex, Inc. in December 2004. Cemtrex, Inc. was incorporated in 1998 and is headquartered in Long Island City, New York. CENTENE CORP: Ambetter Policies-Related Suit Ongoing ---------------------------------------------------- Centene 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 the company continues to defend a class action lawsuit related to Ambetter policies. On January 11, 2018, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by Cynthia Harvey and Steven A. Milman against the Company and certain subsidiaries in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington. The complaint alleges that the Company failed to meet federal and state requirements for provider networks and directories with regard to its Ambetter policies, denied coverage and/or refused to pay for covered benefits, and failed to address grievances adequately, causing some members to incur unexpected costs. In March 2018, the Company filed separate motions to dismiss each defendant. In July 2018, the plaintiff voluntarily filed a First Amended Complaint that removed Steven Milman as a plaintiff, dropped Centene Corporation and Superior Health Plan as defendants, abandoned certain claims, narrowed the putative class to Washington State only, and added Centene Management Company as a defendant. In August 2018, the Company moved to dismiss the First Amended Complaint. In response, the plaintiff voluntarily filed a Second Amended Complaint. In September 2018, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. On November 21, 2018, the Court granted in part and denied in part the Company's motion to dismiss. Plaintiff Cynthia Harvey filed a Third Amended Complaint, on November 28, 2018, against Centene Management Company and Coordinated Care Corporation ("Defendants"), both subsidiaries of the Company. Defendants filed an answer on December 12, 2018 and the matter is expected to proceed. Centene said, "The Company intends to vigorously defend itself against these claims. Nevertheless, this matter is subject to many uncertainties and the Company cannot predict how long this litigation will last or what the ultimate outcome will be, and an adverse outcome in this matter could potentially have a materially adverse impact on our financial position and results of operations." Centene Corporation operates as a diversified and multi-national healthcare enterprise that provides programs and services to under-insured and uninsured individuals in the United States. The company provides its services through primary and specialty care physicians, hospitals, and ancillary providers. Centene Corporation was founded in 1984 and is headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri. CENTENE CORP: Still Awaits Court OK on Bid to Dismiss Sanchez Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Centene 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 the company's motion to dismiss the case entitled, Israel Sanchez v. Centene Corp., et al., remains pending. On November 14, 2016, a putative federal securities class action, Israel Sanchez v. Centene Corp., et al., was filed against the Company and certain of its executives in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. In March 2017, the court entered an order transferring the matter to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. The plaintiffs in the lawsuit allege that the Company's accounting and related disclosures for certain liabilities acquired in the acquisition of Health Net violated federal securities laws. In July 2017, the lead plaintiff filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint. The Company filed a motion to dismiss this complaint in September 2017. In February 2018, the Court held a hearing on the motion to dismiss but has not yet issued a ruling. The Company denies any wrongdoing and is vigorously defending itself against these claims. Nevertheless, this matter is subject to many uncertainties and the Company cannot predict how long this litigation will last or what the ultimate outcome will be, and an adverse outcome in this matter could potentially have a materially adverse impact on our financial position and results of operations. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Centene Corporation operates as a diversified and multi-national healthcare enterprise that provides programs and services to under-insured and uninsured individuals in the United States. The company provides its services through primary and specialty care physicians, hospitals, and ancillary providers. Centene Corporation was founded in 1984 and is headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri. CITIGROUP INC: July 12 ADR Settlement Approval Hearing Set ---------------------------------------------------------- The following statement is being issued by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP regarding the Citibank ADR Litigation. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and Court Order, Merryman et al. v. Citigroup, Inc. et al., No. 1:15-cv-09185-CM-KNF (S.D.N.Y.) has been provisionally certified as a class action for settlement purposes and a settlement for $14,750,000 in cash and certain additional non-monetary relief has been proposed, which, if approved, will resolve all claims in the litigation. This notice provides basic information. It is important that you review the detailed notice ("Notice") found at the website below. What is this lawsuit about: Plaintiffs allege that, during the relevant time period, Citibank N.A. (the "Depositary") systematically deducted impermissible fees for conducting foreign exchange from dividends and/or cash distributions issued by foreign companies, and owed to ADR holders. The Depositary has denied, and continues to deny, any wrongdoing or liability whatsoever. Who is a Class Member: Persons or entities (1) who received cash distributions from the ADRs listed in Appendix 1 to the Notice from January 1, 2006 to September 4, 2018, inclusive, and were damaged thereby (the "Damages Class"); and/or (2) who currently own the ADRs listed in Appendix 1 to the Notice (the "Current Holder Class" and, together with the Damages Class, the "Class"). What are the benefits: If the Court approves the settlement, the proceeds, after deduction of Court-approved notice and administration costs, attorneys' fees and expenses, will be distributed pursuant to the Plan of Allocation in the Notice, or other plan approved by the Court. If you are a Current Holder Class Member, the Settlement also provides additional non-monetary relief related to the conversion of foreign currency of cash distributions paid by eligible ADR issuers pursuant to a deposit agreement. What are my rights: If you are a Damages Class Member and you hold (or held) your ADRs directly and are listed on the Depositary's transfer agent records, you are a Registered Holder Damages Class Member and do not have to take any action to be eligible for a settlement payment. However, if you hold (or held) your ADRs through a bank, broker or nominee and are not listed on the Depositary's transfer agent records, you are a Non-Registered Holder Damages Class Member and you must submit a Claim Form, postmarked by August 12, 2019, to be eligible for a settlement payment. Non-Registered Holder Damages Class Members who do nothing will not receive a payment, and will be bound by all Court decisions. If you are a Class Member and do not want to remain in the Class, you may exclude yourself by request, received by June 7, 2019, in accordance with the Notice. If you exclude yourself, you will not be bound by any Court decisions in this litigation and you will not receive a payment, but you will retain any right you may have to pursue your own litigation at your own expense concerning the settled claims. Objections to the settlement, Plan of Allocation, or request for attorneys' fees and expenses must be received by June 7, 2019, in accordance with the Notice. A hearing will be held on July 12, 2019 at 10:00 a.m., before the Honorable Colleen McMahon, at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007, to determine if the settlement, Plan of Allocation, and/or request for fees and expenses should be approved. Supporting papers will be posted on the website once filed. For more information visit www.CitibankADRSettlement.com, email info@CitibankADRSettlement.com or call 1.866.680.6138. CLAIRE MERIC: Fails to Pay OT to Counselors, Clark et al. Say ------------------------------------------------------------- SHEILA SMITH CLARK, TERRY LEWIS; and LAVAR HEARNS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CLAIRE MERIC d/b/a CLARE FOUNDATION; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV04405 (Cal. Super., Feb. 8, 2019) is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, and reimburse necessary business expenses. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as counselors. Claire Meric d/b/a Clare Foundation The Claire Foundation, Inc. is a non-profit 501(c)(3). The Company provides financial support and other resources that may be necessary for families that have been diagnosed with complicated pregnancy. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jennifer Kramer, Esq. JENNIFER KRAMER LEGAL, APC 5015 Eagle Rock Blvd., Suite 202 Los Angeles, CA 90041 Telephone: (213) 955-0200 - and - Robert Ackermann, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT ACKERMANN 11040 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 320 West L.A., CA 90025 Telephone: (310) 479-2441 COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY: Parties Await Decision on Petition to Appeal ------------------------------------------------------------------ Cognizant Technology Solutions Corp. 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 parties in the consolidated class action lawsuit in New Jersey are awaiting a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on the defendants' petition for permission to appeal. On October 5, 2016, October 27, 2016, and November 18, 2016, three putative securities class action complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, naming the company and certain of its current and former officers as defendants. In an order dated February 3, 2017, the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey consolidated the three putative securities class actions into a single action and appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel. On April 7, 2017, the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint on behalf of a putative class of stockholders who purchased our common stock during the period between February 27, 2015 and September 29, 2016, naming the company and certain of its current and former officers as defendants and alleging violations of the Exchange Act, based on allegedly false or misleading statements related to potential violations of the FCPA, the company's business, prospects and operations, and the effectiveness of our internal controls over financial reporting and our disclosure controls and procedures. The lead plaintiffs seek an award of compensatory damages, among other relief, and their reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint on June 6, 2017, and the motion to dismiss was fully briefed as of September 5, 2017. On August 8, 2018, the Court issued an order which granted the motion to dismiss in part, including dismissal of all claims against current officers of the Company, and denied them in part. On September 7, 2018, the company filed a motion in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey to certify the August 8, 2018 order for immediate appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b). On October 18, 2018, the District Court issued an order granting the company's motion, and staying the action pending the outcome of the company's petition to the Third Circuit. On October 29, 2018, the company filed a petition for permission to appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1292(b) with the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Plaintiffs filed their opposition to the petition on November 8, 2018. On November 13, 2018, the company filed a motion for leave to file a reply in support of its petition, and a proposed reply. On November 21, 2018, plaintiffs filed an opposition to the company's motion for leave to file a reply. The parties are now awaiting a decision from the Third Circuit on the petition. Cognizant Technology Solutions Corp. provides information technology consulting and technology services in North America, Europe, and Asia. The company was founded in 1994 and is based in Teaneck, New Jersey. COLLINS AVENUE: Valencia Seeks Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- CARLOS VALENCIA and other similarly-situated individuals, Plaintiff(s), the Plaintiff, vs. COLLINS AVENUE RESTAURANT, LLC d/b/a ABUELA'S CUBAN KITCHEN, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-20680-RNS (S.D. Fla., Feb. 21, 2019), seeks to recover money damages for retaliation, unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, Collins Avenue Restaurant, LLC is a Florida corporation, having place of business in Miami-Dade County, Florida, where Plaintiff worked as a cook from Friday January 18, 2019, to January 27, 2019, or 1 weeks plus 3 days. The Plaintiff was hired as a non-exempt hourly employee and worked 7 days per week from 3:00 p.m. to 11:30 p.m. (8.5 hours daily), resulting in 59.5 hours per week. The Plaintiff was unable to take bona-fide lunch periods. The Defendants did not use any time keeping device, and the manager, Mr. Pacheco kept track of the hours worked by Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees. On or about Friday January 25, 2019, which was payment day, the Plaintiff saw that several co-workers, had already received their payment checks. The Plaintiff was also expecting the payment for his workweek, but he was not paid. At the end of his shift, Plaintiff requested to the manager his check and let him know that he had worked that first week 19.5 overtime hours. The manager told Plaintiff that Defendant does not pay for overtime hours, but he was going to check with the owner of the business. The Plaintiff worked next Saturday and Sunday as usual. However, at the end of his shift on Sunday, Plaintiff was ordered not to return to work anymore, because he was fired. The Defendant fired Plaintiff, but they did not pay Plaintiff for his 10 days of hard work. Therefore, Defendant willfully failed to pay Plaintiff minimum wages, and overtime hours at the rate of time and one-half his regular rate for every hour that he worked in excess of 40, in violation of Section 7(a) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys 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 CONAGRA BRANDS: Faces Securities Class Action in Illinois --------------------------------------------------------- Federman & Sherwood on Feb. 25 disclosed that on February 22, 2019, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against Conagra Brands, Inc. (NYSE: CAG). The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of material or false misrepresentations to the market which had the effect of artificially inflating the market price during the Class Period, which is June 27, 2018 through December 19, 2018. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all Conagra Brands, Inc. shareholders who purchased common stock during the Class Period and are therefore a member of the Class as described above. You may move the Court no later than Tuesday, April 23, 2019 to serve as a lead plaintiff for the entire Class. However, in order to do so, you must meet certain legal requirements pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. If you wish to discuss this action, obtain further information and participate in this or any other securities litigation, or should you have any questions or concerns regarding this notice or preservation of your rights, please contact: Robin Hester FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Email to: rkh@federmanlaw.com Or, visit the firm's website at www.federmanlaw.com [GN] COVELLI ENTERPRISES: Hall et al Seek OT Pay for Assistant Managers ------------------------------------------------------------------ Saidah Farrell and Mariah Hall, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Covelli Enterprises, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. CV 19 911857 (Ohio Ct. of Common Pleas, Cuyahoga Cty., Feb. 28, 2019), seeks to recover overtime compensation for the Plaintiffs and those similarly situated who are or were employed by Covelli as Assistant Managers at Covelli-owned and operated Panera Bread bakery-cafes in the state of Ohio, pursuant to the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant misclassified the Plaintiffs and a Class of other Assistant Managers employed or previously employed at restaurants within the State of Ohio, as exempt from overtime under the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act. The Assistant Managers are entitled to unpaid overtime as non-exempt hourly employees under R.C. section 4111.10. Covelli also employs "Assistant Managers," such as the Plaintiffs, to work in its Panera Bread locations throughout Ohio. Assistant Managers report to, and are lower on the store hierarchy than, the General Manager. Consistent with the Defendant's policy and pattern or practice, the Plaintiffs and members of the Class regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week without being paid overtime wages. The Defendant has assigned all of the work that the Plaintiffs and the Class members have performed, and/or the Defendant is aware of all the work that they have performed, the lawsuit says. Covelli is the largest franchisee of Panera Bread and operates more than 260 Panera Bread bakery-cafes. In fiscal year 2015, Covelli Enterprises' revenue reached around $614.3 million. In each of its Panera Bread locations, Covelli employs a combination of salaried and hourly-paid employees. At the top of the store hierarchy are "General Managers" who oversee and are responsible for day-to-day store operations.[BN] Counsel for the Plaintiffs and the Class: Drew Legando, Esq. LANDSKRONER GRIECO MERRIMAN LLC 1360 West 9th Street, Suite 200 Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 522-9000 Facsimile: (216) 522-9007 E-mail: drew@lgmlegal.com - and - Gregg Shavitz, Esq. Logan A. Pardell, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. 951 Yamato Road, Suite 285 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Telephone: (561) 447-8888 Facsimile (561)447-8831 E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com lpardell@shavitzlaw.com - and - Michael Palitz, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. 830 Third Avenue, 5th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (800) 616-4000 E-mail: mpalitz@shavitzlaw.com - and - Daniel R. Karon, Esq. Beau D. Hollowell, Esq. KARON LLC 700 W. St. Clair Ave., Suite 200 Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216)622-1851 Facsimile: (216)241-8175 E-mail: dkaron@karonllc.com bhollowell@karonllc.com - and - Randall S. Newman, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP 270 Madison Avenue, 10th Fl. New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 545-4600 Facsimile: (212)686-0114 E-mail: newman@whafh.com - and - Justin M. Swartz, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 685 Third Ave., 25th floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212)245-1000 Facsimile (646)509-2060 E-mail: jms@outtengolden.com - and - Sally Abrahamson, Esq. Lucy Bansal, Esq. 601 Massachusetts Ave NW, Suite 200W Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 847-4400 Facsimile: (202) 847-4410 E-mail: sabrahamson@outtengolden.com lbansal@outtengolden.com CREDIT SUISSE: Must Face Pension Funds' Class Action Over ADRs -------------------------------------------------------------- Hazel Bradford, writing for Pensions & Investments, reports that a bid by Credit Suisse Group to dismiss a class-action securities lawsuit brought by several pension funds was denied on Feb. 20 by U.S. District Court Judge Lorna Schofield in New York. The class action was filed by the City of Birmingham Firemen's and Policemen's Supplemental Pension System, International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local No. 710 Pension Plan, Mokena, Ill., and other purchasers of Credit Suisse American Depository Receipts on the New York Stock Exchange from March 20, 2015 to Feb. 3, 2016. The complaint alleges that Credit Suisse misrepresented its trading and risk-limit controls and that they were increased to allow it to accumulate nearly $3 billion in distressed debt and U.S. collateralized loan obligations that later proved to be difficult to liquidate. A subsequent disclosure by Credit Suisse of a $633 million write-down related to the sale of those positions led to an 11% stock drop, the plaintiffs allege. Ms. Schofield said in her ruling that the allegations "are sufficient to plead loss causation." Carol Gilden -- cgilden@cohenmilstein.com -- partner at Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, the plaintiffs' co-lead counsel, said the case is about Credit Suisse misleading investors and "skirting many of the very controls designed to prevent risky investments. We look forward to continuing to vigorously pursue justice for shareholders wronged by the bank's behavior." The case is City of Birmingham Firemen's and Policemen's Supplemental Pension System vs. Credit Suisse Group AG, et al. [GN] CVS HEALTH: April 26 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set ------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP on Feb. 25 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed against CVS Health Corporation ("CVS" or the "Company") (NYSE: CVS) and certain of its officers and directors. The class action, filed in United States District Court, Southern District of New York, and indexed under 19-cv-01725, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities, other than Defendants and their affiliates, who purchased or otherwise acquired CVS Health securities between May 21, 2015 and February 20, 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 CVS securities during the Class Period, you have until April 26, 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. CVS Health was founded in 1892 and is headquartered in Woonsocket, Rhode Island. The Company was formerly known as CVS Caremark Corporation and changed its name to CVS Health Corporation in September 2014. CVS Health, together with its subsidiaries, provides integrated pharmacy health care services, operating through its Pharmacy Services and Retail/LTC segments. On May 20, 2015, CVS Pharmacy, Inc. ("CVS Pharmacy"), a wholly owned subsidiary of CVS Health, entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") to acquire Omnicare, Inc. ("Omnicare"), a provider of pharmaceuticals and related pharmacy services to long-term care facilities and provider of specialty pharmacy and commercialization services for the bio-pharmaceutical industry (the "Omnicare Acquisition"). According to CVS Health's SEC filings, upon the effective date of the Omnicare Acquisition, each share of common stock, par value $1.00 per share, of Omnicare would be converted into the right to receive $98.00 in cash, or approximately $10.6 billion in the aggregate. In addition, CVS Pharmacy would assume approximately $2.3 billion in debt of Omnicare. On August 18, 2015, CVS Health acquired 100% of the outstanding common shares and voting interests of Omnicare for $98 per share for a total of $9.6 billion and assumed long-term debt with a fair value of approximately $3.1 billion. Additionally, holders of Omnicare restricted stock units and performance based restricted stock units received 738,765 CVS Health restricted stock awards with a fair value of approximately $80 million as replacement awards. According to CVS Health's SEC filings, the Company acquired Omnicare to expand its operations in dispensing prescription drugs to assisted-living and long-term care facilities, and to broaden its presence in the specialty pharmacy business as it sought to serve a greater percentage of the growing senior patient population in the United States. The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) CVS Health's financial condition and expected earnings were deteriorating as a result of rising costs and poor results associated with the Omnicare Acquisition; and (ii) as a result, CVS Health's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On February 20, 2019, CVS Health announced the Company's fourth quarter and full year financial and operating results and provided 2019 full year guidance. CVS Health 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. Following this news, CVS Health's stock price fell by $5.66 per share, or slightly over 8%, to close at $64.22 per share on February 20, 2019. With offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Paris, The Pomerantz Firm, 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] CVS HEALTH: Faces Securities Class Action in New York ----------------------------------------------------- Colby Hamilton, writing for Law.com, reports that CVS, the nation's largest pharmacy chain, faces a class action securities litigation in Manhattan federal court over representations made about its 2015 merger with pharmacy services provider Omnicare. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on Feb. 25, claims that CVS hid the negative financial impact of the Omincare acquisition in the years that followed. On Feb. 20, CVS acknowledged to investors the impact the poor business performance of Omnicare was having on the company, including a $2.2 billion impairment charge. As the suit notes, CVS stock prices fell be more than 8 percent on the news, closing at $64.22. Since the acquisition, CVS had touted the positive impact of expanding its business with the merger with Omnicare, according to the suit. "Given the aging U.S. population, long term care is a growth segment of the health care system," the company stated at the time of Omnicare's acquisition. "More people are expected to use assisted living facilities and independent living communities in the coming decades, creating a substantial growth opportunity for those companies serving the health care needs of seniors." CVS continued to speak positively of the Omnicare merger in its filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, detailing the growth benefits of the move in its 2016 and 2017 10-K filings. However, by February 2019, the impact of the Omnicare on CVS' business was being cast in less optimistic terms, as the company told investors that adjusted earnings would be down significantly, in part due to the acquisition. "The [long-term care] business has continued to experience industrywide challenges that have impacted our ability to grow the business at the rate that was originally estimated when the Company acquired Omnicare, Inc. in 2015," the company acknowledged. The plaintiffs are represented by Pomerantz managing partner Jeremy Lieberman, who did not respond to a request for comment on the suit. A spokeswoman for CVS did not immediately respond to a request for comment. [GN] DEL MONTE: Sued over "Off-the-Clock" Work Without Pay ----------------------------------------------------- A case, MARIA AVILA-LOPEZ and VICTORINA LOPEZ-AVILA on behalf ofthemselves and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiffs, vs. DEL MONTE CORPORATION, d/b/a DEL MONTE FOODS; DEL MONTE FRESH PRODUCE, N.A., INC; DEL MONTE FRESH PRODUCE (WEST COAST) and DOES 6 through 50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 19CECG00654 (Cal. Super. Ct., Fresno Cty., Feb. 21, 2019), challenge Del Monte's policy and practice of requiring its non-exempt production and support employees at its Sanger, California production facilities to work substantial amounts of time "off—the-clock" and without pay, and failing to offer or provide its non-exempt hourly work force legally compliant meal and rest periods to which they entitled by law. According to the complaint, Del Monte does not and, during the relevant time did not pay Plaintiffs and putative donning and doffing class members for all required pre and post-production work activities that are integral and indispensable to their overall employment responsibilities, including, inter alia, donning and doffing personal protective equipment ("PPE"), time spent waiting in lines, time spent waiting at work stations for paid production time to commence time spent walking to work stations, time spent washing/sanitizing persons and PPE, time spent waiting to receive PPE, and/or time spent waiting to wash persons and/or PPE. Del Monte Foods, Inc is a North American food production and distribution company headquartered at 3003 Oak Road, Walnut Creek, California, USA.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class: Stuart R. Chandler, Esq. STUART R. CHANDLER APC 761 E. Locust Avenue, Suite 101 Telephone: (559) 431-7770 Facsimile: (559) 431-7778 - and - Cory G. Lee, Esq. THE DOWNEY LAW FIRM, LLC 9595 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 900 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (610) 324-2848 Facsimile: (610) 813-4579 DIPLOMAT PHARMACY: Faces Prentice Securities Class Action in Calif. ------------------------------------------------------------------- David Prentice, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. Diplomat Pharmacy, Inc., Brian T. Griffin, Jeffrey Park, and Atul Kavthekar, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-01642 (C.D. Cal., March 6, 2019) seeks to recover compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On March 1, 2018, the Company filed a Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017 with the SEC, which provided the Company's financial results and position. The 2017 10-K was signed by Defendants Park and Kavthekar. The 2017 10-K contained signed certifications pursuant to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 ("SOX") by Defendants Park and Kavthekar attesting to the accuracy of financial reporting, the disclosure of any material changes to the Company's internal control over financial reporting and the disclosure of all fraud. On November 6, 2018, the Company issued a press release announcing its financial results for the third quarter ended September 30, 2018. In the announcement, the Defendant Griffin commented that the Company's "solid" results were driven by the Company's ability to "successfully execute on its growth plan" and through "strong PBM performance". The complaint asserts that the Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Diplomat had downplayed its success in integrating and growing its PBM business, which included LDI Integrated and National Pharmaceutical, two companies Diplomat had acquired in late 2017; (ii) consequently, Diplomat would need to record a non-cash impairment charge upwards of approximately $630 million relating to its PBM business and these 2017 acquisitions; (iii) due to the foregoing, Diplomat would withdraw its preliminary 2019 full-year outlook issued less than seven weeks prior; and (iv) as a result, Defendants' statements about Diplomat's business, operations and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times, the complaint says. Plaintiff purchased Diplomat common stock during the Class Period. Defendant Diplomat purports to operate as an independent specialty pharmacy in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jennifer Pafiti, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 468 North Camden Drive Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Phone: (818) 532-6499 Email: jpafiti@pomlaw.com - and - Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. POMERANTZ, LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Phone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com - and - Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP Ten South La Salle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Phone: (312) 377-1181 Facsimile: (312) 377-1184 Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com - and - Corey D. Holzer, Esq. HOLZER & HOLZER, LLC 1200 Ashwood Parkway, Suite 410 Atlanta, GA 30338 Phone: (770) 392-0090 Facsimile: (770) 392-0029 Email: cholzer@holzerlaw.com DIPLOMAT PHARMACY: Riehm Sues over Drop in Stock Price ------------------------------------------------------ WILLIAM RIEHM, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. DIPLOMAT PHARMACY, INC., BRIAN T. GRIFFIN, JEFFREY PARK, and ATUL KAVTHEKAR, the Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-01369 (C.D. Cal., Feb. 24, 2019), seeks to recover compensable 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. The case is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded securities of Diplomat between February 26, 2018 through February 21, 2019, both dates inclusive. The Plaintiff purchased Diplomat common stock during the Class Period, and suffered damages as a result of the federal securities law violations and alleged false and/or misleading statements and/or material omissions. In late 2017, the Company entered the pharmacy benefit management ("PBM") business through its December 2017 acquisition of LDI Holding Company, LLC, doing business as LDI Integrated Pharmacy Services ("LDI Integrated"), and its November 2017 acquisition of Pharmaceutical Technologies, Inc., doing business as National Pharmaceutical Services ("National Pharmaceutical"). A PBM is a third-party administrator of prescription drug programs. Diplomat's PBM segment purports to "provide services designed to help [its] customers reduce the cost and manage the complexity of their prescription drug programs." On April 30, 2018, Diplomat launched a new brand, CastiaRx, which united its specialty pharmacy capabilities with its PBM capabilities of LDI Integrated and National Pharmaceutical to serve as a specialty benefit manager. On February 26, 2018, the Company announced its fourth quarter and 2017 year-end financial results. In the announcement, Defendant Park commented that the Company's "strong performance for the fourth quarter and full year reflects the successful execution of our strategy, as well as the actions we took to position Diplomat for long-term growth, including entering the PBM market and bolstering our bench of talent." On March 1, 2018, the Company filed a Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017 (the "2017 10-K") with the SEC, which provided the 25 Company's financial results and position. The 2017 10-K was signed by Defendants Park and Kavthekar. The 2017 10-K contained signed certifications pursuant to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 ("SOX") by Defendants Park and Kavthekar attesting to the accuracy of financial reporting, the disclosure of any material changes to the Company's internal control over financial reporting and the disclosure of all fraud. The 2017 10-K stated the Company's internal control over financial reporting was effective as of December 31, 2017. On May 7, 2018, the Company issued a press release announcing its financial results for the first quarter ended March 31, 2018. In the announcement, Defendant Park commented that the Company's "PBM integration has progressed rapidly." On August 6, 2018, the Company issued a press release announcing its financial results for the second quarter ended June 30, 2018. In the announcement, Defendant Griffin commented that the Company's "PBM integration is reaching its conclusion with CastiaRx demonstrating strong results in the quarter, as well as continued momentum on our growth and profitability initiatives across the entire enterprise." On November 6, 2018, the Company issued a press release announcing its financial results for the third quarter ended September 30, 2018. In the announcement, Defendant Griffin commented that the Company's "solid" results were driven by the Company's ability to "successfully execute on [its] growth plan" and through "strong PBM performance." On January 7, 2019, the Company issued a press release providing updated 2018 guidance and the Company's preliminary outlook for 2019. The statements were materially false and/or misleading because failed to disclose the following adverse facts pertaining to the Company's business and operations which were known to Defendants or recklessly disregarded by them. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Diplomat had downplayed its success in integrating and growing its PBM business, which included LDI Integrated and National Pharmaceutical, two companies Diplomat had acquired in late 2017; (2) consequently, Diplomat would need to record a non-cash impairment charge upwards of approximately $630 million relating to its PBM business and these 2017 acquisitions; (3) due to the foregoing, Diplomat would withdraw its preliminary 2019 full-year outlook issued less than seven weeks prior; and (4) as a result, Defendants' statements about Diplomat's business, operations and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. On February 22, 2019, Diplomat filed a Form 8-K with the SEC, announcing it was postponing the release of its Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018 due to a "recent determination" that it would need to record a non-cash impairment charge upwards of approximately $630 million relating to 2017 acquisitions for its PBM business. Diplomat also disclosed that it was withdrawing its Preliminary 2019 full-year outlook provided in January. However, the company has withdrawn its preliminary 2019 full-year outlook provided in January. On this news, shares of Diplomat fell $7.59 or over 56% to close at $5.87 per share on February 22, 2019. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's common shares, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages,the lawsuit says. Diplomat purports to operate as an independent specialty pharmacy in the United States. The Company is a Michigan corporation with location(s) in Van Nuys, California. Diplomat securities trade on the New York Stock Exchange (the "NYSE") under the symbol "DPLO".[BN] Counsel for the Plaintiff: Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 785-2610 Facsimile: (213) 226-4684 E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com DIPLOMAT PHARMACY: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Feb. 24 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Diplomat Pharmacy, Inc. (NYSE:DPLO) from February 26, 2018 through February 21, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Diplomat investors under the federal securities laws. To join the Diplomat class action, go to https://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1515.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 made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Diplomat had downplayed its success in integrating and growing its PBM business, which included LDI Integrated and National Pharmaceutical, two companies Diplomat had acquired in late 2017; (2) consequently, Diplomat would need to record a non-cash impairment charge upwards of approximately $630 million relating to its PBM business and these 2017 acquisitions; (3) due to the foregoing, Diplomat would withdraw its preliminary 2019 full-year outlook issued less than seven weeks prior; and (4) as a result, defendants' statements about Diplomat's business, operations and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. 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 25, 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-1515.html or to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please 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] DIVAN INC: Ramirez Seeks Overtime Pay for Restaurant Workers ------------------------------------------------------------ GALINDO RAMIREZ on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective the Plaintiffs, the Plaintiff, vs. DIVAN INC., d/b/a GALATA MEDITERRANEAN CUISINE, FETULLAH ANAR, MUSTAFA BOZ, UCEL Y YUKSEL, and HUSEYIN BOZ, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01917 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 28, 2019), seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid overtime, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff brings claims for relief as a collective action pursuant to FLSA Section, on behalf of all non-exempt persons (including, but not limited to delivery persons, dishwashers, waiters, runners, food preparers, cooks, cashiers and general helpers) employed by the Defendants on or after the date that is three years before the filing of the Complaint. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the other FLSA Collective the Plaintiffs are and have been similarly situated, have had substantially similar job requirements and pay provisions, and are and have been subjected to the Defendants' decisions, policies, plans, programs, practices, procedures, protocols, routines, and rules, all culminating in a willful failure and refusal to pay them the proper wages due to time shaving, and overtime premium at the rate of one and one half times the regular rate for work in excess of 40 hours per workweek. On or about June 2016, the Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants and/or their predecessors, as applicable, to work as a delivery person for the Defendants' restaurant located at 212 East 34th Street New York New York, 10016. On or about December 1, 2016, the Plaintiff was promoted to a cook and continued working for the Defendants until on or about December 2018. Throughout his employment with the Defendants, the Plaintiff worked well over 40 hours each week, and worked over 10 hours each day. The Defendants knowingly and willfully violated the Plaintiff rights by paying him on a salary basis because the Plaintiff is a non-exempt employee who must be paid on an hourly basis under the FLSA. During this term, the Defendants knowingly and willfully operated their business with a policy of not paying the Plaintiffs and FLSA Collective the Plaintiffs the FLSA overtime rate, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs and FLSA Collective Plaintiffs: C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 30 East 39 th Street, Second Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: 212-465-1188 Facsimile: 212-465-1181 ECOATM LLC: Garey Suit Asserts ADA Breach ----------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ecoatm, LLC. The case is styled as Kevin Garey on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Ecoatm, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02072 (S.D. N.Y., Mar. 6, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. ecoATM develops and manufactures an automated self-serve kiosk system to evaluate and buy-back used electronics from consumers. The Company's product uses patented, advanced machine vision, electronic diagnostics, and artificial intelligence to create a transaction that issues cash or store credit.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Shalom, Esq. Shalom Law, PLLC 124-04 Metropolitan Avenue Kew Gardens, NY 11374 Phone: (516) 807-1748 Email: jshalom@jonathanshalomlaw.com ELI LILLY: Medical Mutual Suit Related to Axiron Dismissed ---------------------------------------------------------- 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 United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois has granted summary judgment in favor of defendants and dismissed Medical Mutual of Ohio's (MMO's) lawsuit with prejudice. Eli Lilly said, "We are named as a defendant in approximately 500 Axiron product liability lawsuits in the U.S. involving approximately 550 plaintiffs." In about one-third of the cases, other manufacturers of testosterone are named as co-defendants. Nearly all of these lawsuits have been consolidated in a federal MDL in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. A small number of lawsuits have been filed in state courts. The cases generally allege cardiovascular and related injuries. The company had reached agreement on a settlement framework that provides for a comprehensive resolution of nearly all of these personal injury claims alleging cardiovascular and related injuries from Axiron treatment. There can be no assurances, however, that a final settlement will be reached. The company had also been engaged in litigation with Medical Mutual of Ohio ("MMO") who has filed a class action complaint against multiple manufacturers of testosterone products, including the company, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, on behalf of third-party payers who paid for those products seeking damages under the Federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. MMO's motion for class certification was denied, and in February 2019, the District Court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants, dismissing MMO's lawsuit with prejudice. Eli Lilly said, "We continue to believe all of 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. ELI LILLY: Product Liability Suits over Actos Drug Still 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 itself together with Takeda Chemical Industries, Ltd. multiple class action suits related to the drug Actos. Eli Lilly said, "We are named along with Takeda Chemical Industries, Ltd. and Takeda affiliates (collectively, Takeda) as a defendant in three purported product liability class actions in Canada related to Actos, which we commercialized with Takeda in Canada until 2009, including one in Ontario (Casseres et al. v. Takeda Pharmaceutical North America, Inc., et al.), one in Quebec (Whyte et al. v. Eli Lilly et al.), and one in Alberta (Epp v. Takeda Canada et al.)." In general, plaintiffs in these actions alleged that Actos caused or contributed to their bladder cancer. Eli Lilly said, "We believe these lawsuits are without merit, and we and Takeda are defending against them 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: RICO Claims in Insulin Pricing-Related Suit Dismissed ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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 court in the case entitled, In re. Insulin Pricing Litigation, has dismissed without prejudice the federal RICO Act claim as well as certain state consumer protection claims. The company, along with Sanofi and Novo Nordisk, are named as defendants in a consolidated purported class action lawsuit, In re. Insulin Pricing Litigation, in the U.S. District Court of New Jersey relating to insulin pricing. Plaintiffs seek damages under various state consumer protection laws and the Federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (Federal RICO Act). In February 2019, the court dismissed without prejudice the federal RICO Act claim as well as certain state consumer protection claims. Separately, the company, along with Sanofi and Novo Nordisk, are named as defendants in a purported class action lawsuit, MSP Recovery Claims, Series, LLC et al. v. Sanofi Aventis U.S. LLC et al., in the same court, seeking damages under various state consumer protection laws, common law fraud, unjust enrichment, and the federal RICO Act. Finally, the Minnesota Attorney General's Office filed a complaint against the company, Sanofi, and Novo Nordisk, State of Minnesota v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC et al., in the U.S. District Court of New Jersey, alleging unjust enrichment, and violations of various Minnesota state consumer protection laws and the Federal RICO Act. Eli Lilly said, "We believe these claims 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. ELI LILLY: Viagra and Cialis Product Liability Suit 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 consolidated class action suit entitled, In re: Viagra (Sildenafil Citrate) and Cialis (Tadalafil) Products Liability Litigation. Eli Lilly said, "We are named as a defendant in approximately 295 Cialis product liability lawsuits in the U.S. These cases, many of which were originally filed in various federal courts, contain allegations that Cialis caused or contributed to the plaintiffs' cancer (melanoma)." In December 2016, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) granted the plaintiffs' petition to have filed cases and an unspecified number of future cases coordinated into a federal MDL in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alongside an existing coordinated proceeding involving Viagra(R). The JPML ordered the transfer of the existing cases to the now-renamed MDL In re: Viagra (Sildenafil Citrate) and Cialis (Tadalafil) Products Liability Litigation. Eli Lilly said, "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 Class Action Over BIPA Violation ------------------------------------------------------- Stephen Mayhew, writing for BiometricUpdate.com, reports that proposed class action lawsuits have been filed in Cook County Circuit Court against Enova Financial Holdings Inc., DaBecca Natural Foods Inc. and janitorial service Geralex claiming the companies violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA). This is the latest litigation brought under BIPA, which makes companies liable for damages if they fail to properly keep people informed about the use of their biometric identifiers. Cook County Record reports that Enova Financial Holdings is accused by a former employee, who was required by Enova to use a biometric time clock to keep track of her attendance, of improperly disclosing employees' data to out-of-state third-party vendors and 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 also alleges that Enova never provided workers with nor ever asked them to sign a written release permitting the company to obtain and store their biometric data. Geralex Janitorial Services is also accused of collecting and storing employees' biometric data without consent. According to the complaint, the plaintiffs have suffered injury from the unlawful collection and storage of their biometric data that compromised employees' and former employees' sensitive financial and personal data and exposes them to serious and irreversible privacy risks, threat of identity theft and unauthorized tracking. They also allege Geralex failed to inform employees in writing of the purpose and duration for which their fingerprints were being collected and stored, and failed to provide a publicly available retention schedule and guidelines. In the DaBecca Natural Foods related complaint, the plaintiffs allege that they suffered damages as a result of the allegedly unlawful conduct of the defendant in requiring employees to scan their handprints to track work hours. They also allege DaBecca failed to inform its employees of the complete purposes for which it collects their biometric data; failed to get written consent that allowed them to collect or store their employees' biometric information, and; failed to provide employees with a written retention schedule and guidelines for the permanent destruction of the biometric data. In each case the defendants could face damages of $1,000 to $5,000 per violation, which, according to the Cook County Record report, is considered by the law to be each time an employee used the biometric time clock. Following the Illinois Supreme Court decision that reduced the harm threshold required for an individual to bring suit under BIPA, law firm Lewis Brisbois formed a new BIPA sub-practice to focus on the increase in litigation brought against companies that collect or use biometric information in Illinois. In January an insurance company asked an Illinois state judge to declare it not responsible for covering a grocery store chain accused of violating state biometrics laws. [GN] EPIC GAMES: Sued over 'Fortnite Save the World' Predatory Tactics ----------------------------------------------------------------- R.A., a minor, by and through his Guardian, Steve Altes, on behalf of 21 himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Epic Games, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-01488-GW-E (C.D. Cal., Feb. 28, 2019), seeks actual damages, punitive damages, restitution, and an injunction to prevent Epic from continuing to engage in an illegal practices. Rising to the forefront in a multi-billion-dollar video game industry, Epic has perfected a predatory scheme whereby it exploits players, including minors, by inducing them to purchase in-game loot boxes in the pursuit of the best in-game item schematics, heroes, and survivors (collectively, "loot"). As part of its scheme, Epic offers Fortnite Save the World at a lower price point than competitor video games to entice players to start playing its game, with the goal of luring those players to make in-game microtransactions that generate significant revenue for Epic. Because Fortnite Save the World's game progression is inextricably linked to loot progression, players are pushed to keep seeking better loot to progress in the game. Accordingly, Epic designed Fortnite Save the World to effectively limit a player's ability to progress within the game without spending money on loot boxes. The scheme plays out perfectly to the benefit of Epic: once players are sufficiently invested in the game, Epic induces players to purchase loot boxes in order to get better loot, which results in massive revenue to Epic. Epic has made a fortune on in-game purchases, preying in large part on minors who are especially susceptible to such predatory tactics. However, many of these in-game purchases are marketed through material misrepresentations and omissions which lure minors and other players into making repeated purchases, without receiving the promised loot. Specifically, in Fortnite Save the World, the Defendant entices minors and others into purchasing "loot boxes," known as "Llamas," using unfair and deceptive marketing. Llamas are purchased with V-Bucks. Purchasing a Llama is like playing a slot machine. Llamas contain "randomized" loot for use in the Fortnite game. Players, and particularly minors, are lured into purchasing Llamas with the reasonable expectation that a purchase will result in better loot. Players are encouraged to keep purchasing Llamas with the reasonable belief that repeated purchase will lead to the chance of receiving better loot and therefore improvement in performance of the game. Through both express misrepresentations and omissions, Epic markets Llamas as highly likely to contain valuable loot that will increase a player's power and prowess in the Fortnite game. But in reality, Llamas do not contain the loot expected by the reasonable consumer. Only Epic knows the odds of receiving any given loot in a Llama, and it exploits this informational advantage mercilessly to lure minors and other purchasers into making purchases they otherwise would not make. Epic systematically advertises Llamas with promises that they will contain appealing and valuable loot. Like with a slot machine, Epic psychologically manipulates its young players into thinking they will "get lucky." But what Epic knows -- and what its young players do not know—is that the Llamas almost never contain what they are touted as containing. The reasonable consumer purchasing Llamas believes that he or she will have significantly better chances of receiving valuable loot than they actually do. Worse yet, Epic fails to disclose that the odds of receiving the valuable loot are next to nothing. The Plaintiff, like hundreds of thousands of consumers, fell for Epic's deceptive sales practices and purchased Epic's Llamas hoping for rare and powerful loot. The Plaintiff did not receive that desired loot and never had a realistic chance of doing so. Epic's prominent display of the most valuable (and exceedingly rare)loot in every Llama, coupled with its failure to disclose the odds of winning the most valuable loot, constitute deceptive and misleading representations that deceive consumers into purchasing Llamas based on their reasonable reliance on Epic's representations. Had the Plaintiff known the odds of receiving the desired loot in Llamas were virtually nil, he would not have purchased them. The Plaintiff and the Class members have been injured by Epic's practices. Epic Games Inc. is a video game company based in North Carolina. The Defendant released Fortnite Save the World and Fortnite Battle Royale in 2017. Both game "modes" are part of the same Fortnite game, and both are immensely popular. As of January 2019, there are an estimated 200 million Fortnite players worldwide. Epic made an estimated $2.4 billion on Fortnite in 2018. Fortnite is an open-world survival video game in which players collect weapons, tools, and resources, also commonly referred as loot, in order to survive and advance in the game. Fortnite currently includes two game modes: Save the World and Battle Royale. This Complaint only concerns Fortnite Save the World. Fortnite is a global phenomenon. Since its release to early access in 2017, Fortnite has taken the gaming world by storm. Its explosion of popularity has even expanded beyond the game itself making its way into professional athletes' celebrations in leagues around the world. Its popularity has even infiltrated schools, leaving parents and teachers concerned with its effect on education.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: Daniel L. Warshaw, esq. Melissa S. Weiner, esq. PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP 15165 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 400 Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Telephone: (818) 788-8300 Facsimile: (818) 788-8104 E-mail: dwarshaw@pswlaw.com mweiner@pswlaw.com - and - Jeffrey Kaliel, Esq. Sophia Gold, Esq. KALIEL PLLC 1875 Connecticut Ave. NW, 10 th Floor Washington, D.C. 20009 Telephone: (202) 350-4783 Facsimile: (202) 871-8180 E-mail: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com sgold@kalielpllc.com EPIC HEALTH: Faces Blackwelder Wage & Hour Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------- LISA VICTORIA BLACKWELDER, on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Epic Health Services, Inc., and Eveanna Healthcare As, LLC Case No. 1:19-cv-00254-LY (W.D. Tex., March 14, 2019), seeks payment of unpaid wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act as well as damages for unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, and a reasonable attorney's fee and costs. Epic Health Services is a corporation existing under the laws of the State of Texas and maintains offices in Austin, Texas. Meanwhile, Eveanna Healthcare As, LLC, is a limited liability company existing under the laws of the State of Delaware and maintains offices in Austin, Texas. The Defendants operate a company that primarily provides pediatric skilled nursing, therapy, developmental services, and home medical solutions, including enteral nutrition, respiratory, specialty pharmacy, and medical supplies to medically fragile children across the United States. They also offer a spectrum of adult home health care services , including skilled nursing, therapy, personal care, behavioral health nursing, and home medical solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles L. Scalise, Esq. Daniel B. Ross, Esq. ROSS LAW GROUP 1104 San Antonio Street Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (512) 474-7677 Facsimile: (512) 474-5306 E-mail: Charles@rosslawpc.com ESPN INTERNET: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Cerros Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- JENNIFER N. CERROS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ESPN INTERNET VENTURES; ABC RADIO LOS ANGELES ASSETS, LLC; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV04386 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 8, 2019) is an action against the Defendants for unpaid regular hours, overtime hours, minimum wages, wages for missed meal and rest periods. The Plaintiff Cerros was employed by the Defendants as hourly paid, non-exempt employee. ESPN Internet Ventures, doing business as Starwave Partners, produces ESPN.com, a sports site on the Web. The company is based in New York, New York. ESPN Internet Ventures operates as a subsidiary of The Walt Disney Company. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shaun Setareh, Esq. Thomas Segal, Esq. SETAREH LAW GROUP 315 South Beverly Drive, Suite 315 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (310) 888-7771 Facsimile: (310) 888-0109 E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com thomas@setarehlaw.com ESSENDANT: Faces Class Action Over Proposed Staples Merger ---------------------------------------------------------- John Corrigan, writing for Advertising Specialty Insurance, reports that an investor in Essendant is taking steps toward launching a class action against the office supplies distributor, a move that could cause further delay for Staples, Inc. in its bid to finalize its acquisition of Essendant. Framingham, MA-based Staples is the parent company of Top 40 distributor Staples Promotional Products (asi/120601). Investor Long Nguyen is accusing Essendant of withholding key details and potential conflicts of interests associated with its merger with Staples, Inc. Mr. Nguyen filed a suit in October, alleging that Essendant issued an incomplete and misleading statement with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission recommending that shareholders tender their shares for a transaction (which at the time was valued at $996 million) in which their shares would be purchased by Staples for $12.80 apiece. On Feb. 18, Mr. Nguyen asked a Delaware federal judge that Nguyen be named lead plaintiff, according to a report from Law360. Mr. Nguyen sought to appoint law firm WeissLaw LLP as lead counsel on the class action. Mr. Nguyen told the court he has approximately $13.1 million in Essendant stock -- and thus the largest financial interest in ensuring that all relevant information about the merger is made public. Mr. Nguyen claims that the recommendation statement filed with the SEC fails to provide shareholders with information about potential conflicts of interests faced by Essendant's financial adviser Citigroup Global Markets Inc. and company insiders. Mr. Nguyen said the statement does not present information about fees Citi expects to receive for its work on behalf of Essendant and Staples. There are also outstanding questions regarding discussions and negotiations among executive officers about future employment and participation in the equity of the merged company, according to the complaint. "This information is necessary for stockholders to understand potential conflicts of interest of management and the board, as that information provides illumination concerning motivations that would prevent fiduciaries from acting solely in the best interests of the company's stockholders," said Mr. Nguyen, according to the Law360 report. Given such concerns, Mr. Nguyen's goal is to have the expiration date of the tender offer extended until the relevant information is revealed. In January, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission approved Staples' acquisition of Essendant with conditions. "Staples, which is owned by the private equity firm Sycamore Partners, will establish a firewall separating Staples' business-to-business sales operations from Essendant's wholesale business," the regulator said in a statement. "This firewall will restrict Staples' access to the commercially sensitive information of Essendant's customers." Even so, the deal has not yet been finalized. The government shutdown had delayed the FTC's approval process, according to Essendant CEO Ric Phillips in a letter to customers. The review was already complicated by criticisms from Essendant's dealer and reseller clients that Staples, a long-time competitor, could obtain inside information on them and take sales away. The closure date had been extended twice. In business nearly 100 years, Deerfield, IL-based Essendant was formerly known as United Stationers. The paper and office products supplier lost $267 million in 2017 as sales declined nearly 7.5% to just above $5 billion amid a changing marketplace disrupted by digitization and other factors. As a result of the deal, Essendant will become a private company. Staples, which had been publicly listed, went private after being acquired by private equity firm Sycamore Partners in 2017. With estimated 2017 North American promotional product revenue of $592.9 million, Staples Promotional Products ranked second on Counselor's most recent list of the largest distributors in the industry. [GN] FACEBOOK INC: Consumer Advocacy Groups Call for FTC Investigation ----------------------------------------------------------------- Rana Foroohar, writing for The Financial Times, reports that if you want to get people really upset, hurt their children. That's the message from a new spate of complaints about Big Tech. A dozen consumer and children's advocacy groups filed a request for the US Federal Trade Commission to investigate Facebook for alleged deceptive practices following revelations in recently unsealed class action documents that the company had knowingly tried to dupe children into spending large amounts of money in online games. (Facebook employees actually referred to the kids as "whales", a casino term for high rollers.) Meanwhile, brands such as Nestlé and Disney have stopped buying ads on Google-owned YouTube after paedophiles swamped the comment sections on children's videos with obscene postings. The corporate behaviour in question is of course wildly different in the two cases. But the connective tissue is a business model based on the monetisation of user content and data. And that's the bigger topic that a number of the FTC complainants, most notably Common Sense Media, hope will be addressed by a new piece of California legislation that looks to bring an end to the era in which personal data is treated as a commodity to be freely exploited by platform technology firms. The details of the legislation, which have already been teased by California governor Gavin Newsom in his recent speech, may be unveiled. But the basic idea is that platform tech companies like Facebook and Google -- but possibly also a host of others such as Amazon, or even non-platform firms that collect and monetise personal data -- should be forced to pay a "data dividend" to consumers if they use any of their personal information. The idea being that if data is the new oil, then the people who own it (in this case internet users themselves) should have a piece of the huge profits being made from it. That's not a huge intellectual leap considering that citizens of American states like Alaska, or countries like Norway, have long benefited from commodities like oil. The idea of a "data dividend" is based in part on work by the Silicon Valley technologist Jaron Lanier, and economist Glen Weyl, a co-author of the book Radical Markets: Uprooting Capitalism and Democracy for a Just Society, which lays out in detail how the idea of paying users for data might work. The idea has been pushed behind the scenes by the civil liberties lawyer and Stanford professor Jim Steyer, the head of Common Sense Media (whose billionaire hedge funder brother Tom has spent about $50m on a campaign calling for the impeachment of US president Donald Trump). The legislation would build on tough California privacy laws adopted last year, which were also backed by Common Sense. These underscore the irony that California, which gave birth to the platform giants, could also be the place where they are first reined in. "We could have tried to do this legislation in Washington," Mr Steyer told me. "But Washington isn't a functioning democracy. California is." California is also a hotbed for the "data as labour" movement, which aims to reclassify data not as an asset but as a kind of work. This is something that Mr Weyl argues for in his book, along with the creation of "data unions" which could advocate for consumers/workers. "There needs to be a new category of organisations that could act as fiduciaries for internet users," he says, bringing the power of collective bargaining to users who currently have no way of pushing back against the power of Big Tech. Such a role could be played by existing unions or consumer advocacy groups, but also co-operatives, universities, guilds, publishers, professional societies or even financial institutions. California has begun setting the highest standards for data protection, not only in the US but in some senses in the world — the state privacy laws, which would force major new disclosure about how data is used and sold to third parties, are considered tougher than even the EU's General Data Protection Regulation. The legislative process will be long and convoluted. But it is already resulting in a host of new and interesting twists in the Big Tech story. It has, for example, sparked a debate about whether data should indeed be treated as an asset (which some governments and consumer groups want) or labour (which a number of blockchain libertarians and leftwingers would like). It will also spark what looks to be a very vigorous and contentious debate about which companies should pay this proposed dividend. Mr Weyl -- who, like Mr Lanier, works for Microsoft -- believes his employer (which runs a search engine, Bing) should actually pay digital dividends just like Google and Facebook. But if the law is applied to every company that collects and utilises data, then the basket would become much larger and would include auto companies, consumer goods manufacturers, retailers -- indeed, pretty much every company these days. Whether data is ultimately labelled an asset, or a kind of work, it is becoming clear that companies are going to have to share the proceeds -- and that will have a big impact on their future margins. [GN] FEDERATION DES INVENTEURS: Quebec Court Authorizes Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- François Larose, Esq. -- flarose@bereskinparr.com -- and Alain Alphonse, Esq. -- aalphonse@bereskinparr.com -- of Bereskin & Parr LLP, in an article for Mondaq, report that when it comes to protecting an invention, it is better to turn to a registered patent agent who is well versed in the relevant laws governing patents and has relevant experience, and not to a consulting company with no registered patent agents that claims to offer the same services at a lower cost, and is eventually accused of fraud for lack of adequate services. This is what we can conclude from a class action application authorized by the Superior Court of Quebec in Berube c. Federation des inventeurs du Quebec, 2018 QCCS 3459 (CanLII). In this case, the plaintiff, Benjamin Berube, sought to bring a class action against the Federation des inventeurs du Quebec (FIQ) and Mr. Christian William Varin, the founder, president and sole director of the FIQ. The FIQ appears to be an organization that provides patent consulting and management services to inventors, including prior art searches and filing of provisional patent applications in the United States. Mr. Berube alleges that he retained the FIQ in 2015 to carry out prior art searches and to help him obtain a provisional patent application in the United States. To this end, he claims to have paid more than $3,000. He also had to become a member of the FIQ for an annual membership fee of $95. Mr. Berube, however, was dissatisfied with the nature and quality of the services rendered by the FIQ. According to him, the FIQ and Mr. Varin systematically deceived their clients by misrepresenting the nature of the organization, its resources, programs and services, as well as its partnerships with others organizations. For example, it falsely suggested being able to provide prior art search and provisional patent preparation services, that members of its team were experts in the field of intellectual property including patent prosecution and management, and that they would guide their clients throughout the process, when in fact the FIQ's work was incomplete, the follow-ups were inadequate, and the provisional patent applications were deficient. In his application to the Court, Mr. Berube sought a class action for the benefit of all natural and legal persons who had used the services of the FIQ starting October 1, 2014. After analyzing the requirements set out in Article 575 of the Quebec Code of Civil Procedure, the Court authorized the class action against the FIQ and Mr. Varin, finding, in particular, that the alleged facts seemed to justify the conclusions sought. The Court determined that the conclusions sought by the class action include a payment of $2,000 to each of the class members for damages, pain and suffering, a payment to each member equivalent to what he or she paid for deficient or incomplete services rendered by the defendants, and a payment to each member equivalent to what he or she paid to correct the actions taken by the defendants regarding her respective inventions. A brief search reveals that the FIQ has been targeted by a dozen other lawsuits and several complaints before the Office of Consumer Protection of Quebec. On January 31st 2019, the Court ordered, among other things, the defendants to provide within 30 days the names and contact information of clients who would form the class members. The class action is therefore following its course. [GN] FEDEX: Removed Robinson Case to Central District of California -------------------------------------------------------------- Federal Express Corporation and Fedex Corporation removed case, CLARICE ROBINSON, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated and as an aggrieved employee pursuant to the Private Attorney General Act ("PAGA"), the Plaintiff, vs. FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation; FEDEX CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 18STCV06454 (Filed: Nov. 28, 2018), from the Los Angeles Superior Court, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on Feb. 21, 2019. The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-01281 to the proceeding. The complaint asserts the following causes of action: (1) non-payment of wages for unpaid overtime in violation of California Labor Code section 510 and 1198; (2) non-payment of wages for unpaid minimum wages in violation of California Labor Code 11 section 1182.12, 1194, 1197, 1198; (3) failure to provide meal breaks in violation of California Labor Code section 226.7, 512(a) and 1198; (4) failure to provide rest breaks in violation of California Labor Code section 226.7 and 1198; (5) failure to provide compliant wage statements and failure to maintain records in violation of California Labor Code section 226(a), 1174(d) and 1198; (6) failure to timely pay wages in violation of California Labor Code section 202 and 202; (7) failure to provide reporting time pay in violation of California Labor Code section 1198 and California Code of Regulations Title 8, Section 11090, subdivision 5(A); (8) failure to reimburse business expenses in violation of California Labor Code section 2802; (9) PAGA penalties for violations of California Labor Code; (10) unlawful business practices under California Business and Professions Code section 17200; and (11) unfair business practices under California Business and Professions Code section 23 17200.[BN] Attorney for the Defendants: Stephanie A. Stroup (SBN 235071) FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION 2601 Main Street, Suite 340 Irvine, CA 92614 Telephone: (949) 862-4585 Facsimile: (901) 492-5641 E-mail: sastroup@fedex.com FIRSTCREDIT INC: Angeles Files FDCPA Class Suit in Ohio ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against FirstCredit Inc. The case is styled as Sarah Angeles individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FirstCredit Inc., John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 5:19-cv-00503 (N.D. Ohio, Mar. 6, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. FirstCredit Inc. provides revenue cycle solutions to hospitals, health systems and integrated physician practices through an array of eligibility and receivables management services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Amichai E. Zukowsky, Esq. 23811 Chagrin Blvd., Ste. 160 Beachwood, OH 44122 Phone: (216) 800-5529 Fax: (216) 514-4987 Email: ami@zukowskylaw.com FLIGHT CENTRE: OT Class Action Seeks More Than 100MM Damages ------------------------------------------------------------ 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. As a result, workers were "systemically prevented from claiming and/or receiving overtime compensation in accordance with the applicable employment standards legislation," the statement of claim says. If certified, the class action will seek $100 million in general damages for thousands of employees across the country dating back to October 2010, as well as $10 million in punitive damages. Allison Wallace, Flight Centre's vice-president of corporate communications, said the company intended to vigorously defend itself. "We don't believe we've done anything wrong," she said. "At this point, now that it's a legal matter, I can't comment further than that at this time." According to the class action's statement of claim, Flight Centre travel consultants have employment contracts that stipulate full-time hours of work, a base salary plus commission, which constitutes a significant portion of their compensation. But if consultants surpass certain sales targets, they earn a larger chunk of their total sales as commission -- a structure that incentivizes them to "work longer and harder in order to sell more," the suit says. "While class members regularly work significantly in excess of their scheduled hours, the defendant has no system in place to track, monitor, record or compensate (them) for their actual hours worked." Stephen Aps was a Mississauga-based international travel consultant employed by Flight Centre from 2014 to 2015. His base salary was $27,000 a year and he averaged about 45 to 50 hours of work a week -- but he worked longer hours during busy periods, according to the statement of claim. He was never compensated either with overtime pay or time off in lieu, the lawsuit says. "This class action is about more than just reclaiming our back pay," said Mr. Aps. "It's about changing company-wide practices and improving working conditions in the entire industry." Goldblatt lawyer Nadine Blum said the retail travel industry is a "high pressure" sector where employees are often expected to work as long as required to hit sales targets and support customers. "The employers who reap the benefits of that work should be properly compensating employees for their time," she said. "We hope that this proposed class action serves as a powerful reminder that employees are not disentitled to overtime pay merely because they are paid on a salaried basis," added co-counsel Josh Mandryk. "There's a misconception that employees who are on commission aren't entitled to overtime and that's not the case." Under Ontario law, employees must receive time-and-a-half when they work more than 44 hours a week. As part of their standard employment contract, Flight Centre employees were required to sign averaging agreements and excess weekly hours of work agreements -- legal tools that reduce employers' overtime obligations, the statement of claim says. The contract also stipulated that employees must attend staff meetings, "buzz nights," and training sessions. According to the class action, workers were not remunerated for this time. The contract specifies that overtime is only payable when specifically authorized by management and that in "some cases" the company could offer "special incentives" as compensation for overtime -- a practice the class action calls unlawful. Overall, the contracts do "not allow for payment of overtime to persons who are routinely required or permitted to work overtime to fulfil the basic duties of their employment," according to the suit. "By virtue of the power imbalance inherent to the employee-employer relationship, the class members are powerless to challenge the unlawful aspects of the defendant's overtime policy," the statement of claim says. "In attempting to do so, they would risk discharge and/or employment and career-related sanctions." In order to proceed, the class action must first be certified in court. Mr. Mandryk said the hearing would likely take place within the year. Flight Centre has outlets in Ontario, British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. Its parent company, which is listed on the Australian Securities Exchange, earned around $2.7 billion in global revenue last year. [GN] FMR LLC: Wong Sues over Kickbacks from Retirement Savings Plan -------------------------------------------------------------- ANDRE W. WONG, On Behalf of the T-MOBILE USA, INC. 401(K) RETIREMENT SAVINGS PLAN AND TRUST and On Behalf of All Other Similarly Situated Employee Benefit Plans, the Plaintiff, vs. FMR LLC; FIDELITY MANAGEMENT & RESEARCH COMPANY; FIDELITY MANAGEMENT TRUST COMPANY; FIDELITY BROKERAGE SERVICES LLC; NATIONAL FINANCIAL SERVICES LLC; FIDELITY INVESTMENTS INSTITUTIONAL OPERATIONS COMPANY, INC. and JOHN and JANE DOES 1-10, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-10335 (D. Mass., Feb. 21, 2019), seeks to recover equitable relief and damages under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, for the benefit of the 401(k) plans in the Class and all other similarly situated Plans. Personal savings accounts in the form of 401(k) and other defined contribution plans have become the primary method for employees in the United States to save for retirement in recent years. The importance of defined contribution plans to the United States retirement system has become increasingly pronounced as employer-provided defined benefit ("DB") plans have become increasingly rare as an offered and meaningful employee benefit. Fidelity acts as a recordkeeper, "service provider," a party-in-interest and a fiduciary for thousands of 401(k) plans and similar defined contribution retirement plans (the "Plans," more fully defined below) in the United States. Fidelity offers the Plans the opportunity to invest in third-party mutual funds and similar investment vehicles through its "FundsNetwork", which Fidelity launched in 1989 and describes as "one of the industry's leading fund supermarkets." As part of its "Workplace Investing" business unit, Fidelity allows the Plans "to invest in mutual funds from hundreds of fund companies outside of Fidelity," https://www.fidelity.com/mutual-funds/overview, and Fidelity's Workplace Investing business unit provides third-party (i.e., non-Fidelity) mutual funds with access to more than 24,000 retirement plans with more than $1.6 trillion in assets. Beginning in or about 2017, Fidelity began requiring various mutual funds, affiliates of mutual funds, mutual fund advisors, sub-advisors, investment funds, including collective trusts, and other investment advisors, instruments or vehicles that are offered to the Plans through Fidelity's FundsNetwork (collectively, "mutual funds"), to make secret payments (the "kickbacks," "kickback payments," or "secret payments") to Fidelity for its own benefit in the guise of "infrastructure" payments or so-called relationship-level fees in violation of, inter alia, the prohibited transaction rules of the ERISA. The kickback payments at issue are part of a pay-to-play scheme in which Fidelity receives these payments from mutual funds in the event that otherwise disclosed 12b-1 fees, administration fees, service fees, sub-transfer agent fees and/or similar fees ("revenue sharing payments" or "RSPs") fall below a certain level and Fidelity requires payment of these kickbacks in return for providing the mutual funds with access to its retirement plan customers, including its 401(k) plan customers. Although Fidelity attempts to categorize these secret kickback payments as flat dollar payments, the payments are, in fact, calculated based upon the assets the mutual funds maintain under management [multiplied by designated basis point ("bp") amounts], including the Plans' assets invested in the mutual funds, and are offset by the amount, if any, of revenue sharing payments generated by the assets for which Fidelity provides recordkeeping and related services, including with respect to such services that are provided by Fidelity to the Plans. Although these secret payments clearly constitute indirect compensation that Fidelity is required to disclose to the Plans under ERISA, Fidelity does not disclose the amount of these secret payments (which amount to at least tens of millions of dollars per annum and likely in the hundreds of millions of dollars per annum) to the Plans and forbids the mutual funds from disclosing the amount of these secret payments, despite their legal obligation to do so, the lawsuit says. FMR LLC is a financial services conglomerate headquartered in Boston, Suffolk County, Massachusetts, which operates as the parent entity for Fidelity Investments (defined below) and its associated business enterprises.FMR has controlled and directed the activities of the other Defendants.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class: David Pastor, Esq. PASTOR LAW OFFICE 63 Atlantic Avenue, 3rd Floor Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 742-9700 Facsimile: (617) 742-9701 E-mail: dpastor@pastorlawoffice.com - and - James E. Miller, Esq. Laurie Rubinow, Esq. Ronald S. Kravitz, Esq. Kolin C. Tang, Esq. Nathan Zipperian Chiharu G. Sekino Jaclyn M. Reinhart SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH, LLP 65 Main Street Chester, CT 06412 Telephone: (860) 526-1100 Facsimile: (866) 300-7367 E-mail: lrubinow@sfmslaw.com jmiller@sfmslaw.com rkravitz@sfmslaw.com ktang@sfmslaw.com nzipperian@sfmslaw.com csekino@sfmslaw.com jreinhart@sfmslaw.com - and - Sahag Majarian, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF SAHAG MAJARIAN 18250 Ventura Blvd. Tarzana, CA 91356 Telephone: (818) 609-0807 Facsimile: (818) 609-0892 E-mail: sahagii@aol.com FORD MOTOR: Faces Possible Class Actions Over Emissions Figures --------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Taylor, writing for Motoring, reports that lawyers and prosecutors are already scrambling after US-based Ford Motor Company confessed on Feb. 21 that its published fuel economy and emissions figures were wrong. While Ford hasn't confirmed how widespread the problem is, the initial focus is on the Australian-developed 2019 model Ranger mid-sized pickup. The company confirmed it had hired an outside expert to investigate how it got fuel-economy data wrong, with its confession leading to a slight dip in its share price overnight. While insisting it did not have a "defeat device" like the one used by the Volkswagen Group to skirt official test procedures, Ford still faces huge fines and possible class-action lawsuits. Group vice-president for sustainability, environment and safety engineering, Kimberly Pittel, said Ford employees raised their concerns that the mileage and emissions data given by Ford to government officials were incorrectly calculated. Ms. Pittel confirmed Ford voluntarily shared the information with both the US Environmental Protection Agency and the California Air Resources Board. A statement from the EPA insisted the information Ford provided was, "too incomplete for EPA to reach any conclusions. We take the potential issues seriously and are following up with the company to fully understand the circumstances behind this disclosure". It's not the first time Ford has messed up its published official fuel-economy figures. It was forced to cut seven miles per gallon from the C-Max hybrid's claims -- and compensate owners -- in 2013 after customers complained they couldn't match the published mileage. It then cut the claimed mileage from six other models a year later. There has been a major clampdown on fuel-economy and emissions claims in the US since Dieselgate struck in 2015, costing the Volkswagen Group more than $US25 billion. South Korea's Hyundai and Kia were forced to pay $US300 million and paid out another $US400 million in class action suits after misquoting its economy figures in 2013. The fine prodded Mercedes-Benz, Ford and Mini to lower their fuel-economy claims. FCA was fined $US77 million in February after it failed to meet fuel economy requirements in 2016. [GN] FOREST COUNTY POTAWATOMI: Kiler Files ADA Suit in New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Forest County Potawatomi Community. The case is styled as Marion Kiler on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Forest County Potawatomi Community doing business as: Potawatomi Hotel & Casino, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-00353-WED (E.D. N.Y., Mar. 8, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Potawatomi Hotel & Casino, formerly Potawatomi Bingo Casino, is a Native American casino in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, owned and operated by the Forest County Potawatomi Community.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: CK Lee, Esq. Lee Litigation Group PLLC 30 E 39th St-2nd Fl New York, NY 10016 Phone: (212) 465-1188 Fax: (212) 465-1181 Email: cklee@leelitigation.com FORNOS CORP: Mejia Seeks Overtime Pay for Restaurant Cooks ---------------------------------------------------------- APOLINAR MEJIA and other similarly-situated individuals, the Plaintiff(s), vs. FORNOS CORP. d/b/a/ EL GALLEGAZO RESTAURANT and MARCELINO FRANCOS, individually, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-20683-UU (S.D. Fla., Feb. 21, 2019), seeks recover money damages for unpaid half-time overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was a non-exempt, hourly, full-time restaurant employee approximately from February 2014 to February 14, 2019, or more than 5 years. However, for FLSA purposes, Plaintiff's relevant period of employment is 155 weeks. The Plaintiff was hired to work as a cook, and throughout his employment the Plaintiff was paid a salary of $530.00, $630.00 and $840.00 per week. During his relevant employment period with Defendants, the Plaintiff maintained an irregular schedule. The Plaintiff worked weeks of 6 and 7 days per week. The Plaintiff worked morning shifts, afternoon shifts, split shifts, double shifts, but he worked consistently a minimum average of 56 hours per week. The Plaintiff was unable to take bona-fide lunch breaks. The Plaintiff worked more than 40 hours per week, and he was paid for all his working hours at his regular rate, but he was not paid for overtime hours, the lawsuit says. The Defendants operates a Spanish restaurant.[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 FRESH DEL MONTE: Continues to Defend DBCP-Related Suits ------------------------------------------------------- Fresh Del Monte Produce 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 28, 2018, that the company and its subsidiaries continue to defend against various class action lawsuits related to the chemical dibromochloropropane (DBCP). Beginning in December 1993, certain of the company's U.S. subsidiaries were named among the defendants in a number of actions in courts in Texas, Louisiana, Hawaii, California and the Philippines involving claims by numerous non-U.S. plaintiffs alleging that they were injured as a result of exposure to a nematocide containing the chemical dibromochloropropane ("DBCP") during the period 1965 to 1990. As a result of a settlement entered into in December 1998, the remaining unresolved DBCP claims against the company's U.S. subsidiaries are pending in Hawaii, Delaware and the Philippines. On October 14, 2004, two of the company's subsidiaries were served with a complaint in an action styled Angel Abarca, et al. v. Dole Food Co., et al. filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles on behalf of more than 2,600 Costa Rican banana workers who claim injury from exposure to DBCP. On January 2, 2009, three of the company's subsidiaries were served with multiple complaints in related actions styled Jorge Acosta Cortes, et al. v. Dole Food Company, et al. filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles on behalf of 461 Costa Rican residents. An initial review of the plaintiffs in the Abarca and Cortes actions found that a substantial number of the plaintiffs were claimants in prior DBCP actions in Texas. On June 27, 2008, the court dismissed the claims of 1,329 plaintiffs who were parties to prior DBCP actions. On June 30, 2008, the company's subsidiaries moved to dismiss the claims of the remaining Abarca plaintiffs on grounds of forum non conveniens in favor of the courts of Costa Rica. On September 22, 2009, the court granted the motion to dismiss and on November 16, 2009 entered an order conditionally dismissing the claims of those remaining plaintiffs who allege employment on farms in Costa Rica exclusively affiliated with the company's subsidiaries. Those dismissed plaintiffs re-filed their claim in Costa Rica on May 17, 2012 (The "Lagos" case). On January 18, 2013, all remaining plaintiffs in California filed Requests for Dismissal effecting the dismissal of their claims without prejudice. On September 25, 2013, the company's subsidiaries filed an answer to the claim re-filed with the courts of Costa Rica. In the Lagos case, the trial court dismissed the claims of all plaintiffs for defective powers of attorney. On appeal from that decision, the appellate court remanded the action for the trial court to consider a preliminary issue before addressing the validity of the powers of attorney. The case is back before the trial court. Two additional DBCP-related lawsuits were filed in Costa Rica in 2015, which have since been dismissed by the court on procedural grounds. On May 31 and June 1, 2012, eight actions were filed against one of the company's subsidiaries in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware on behalf of approximately 3,000 plaintiffs alleging exposure to DBCP on or near banana farms in Costa Rica, Ecuador, Panama, and Guatemala. The company and its subsidiaries were not involved with any banana growing operations in Ecuador or Panama during the period when DBCP was in use. The plaintiffs include 229 claimants who had cases pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana which were dismissed on September 17, 2012. On August 30, 2012, the company's subsidiary joined a motion to dismiss the claims of those plaintiffs on the grounds that they have first-filed claims pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. The motion was granted on March 29, 2013 and appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. On September 21, 2012, the company's subsidiary filed an answer with respect to the claims of those plaintiffs who had not already filed in Louisiana. On May 27, 2014, the court granted a motion made by a co-defendant and entered summary judgment against all remaining plaintiffs based on the September 19, 2013 affirmance by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit of the dismissal on statute of limitations grounds of related cases by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. On July 7, 2014, the company's subsidiary joined in a motion for summary judgment on statute of limitations grounds as to all remaining plaintiffs on the basis of the court's May 27, 2014 ruling. Plaintiffs agreed that judgment be entered in favor of all defendants for the claims still pending in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware on the basis of the summary judgment granted on May 27, 2014 and the district court entered judgment dismissing all plaintiffs' claims on September 22, 2014. On October 21, 2014, a notice of appeal was filed with the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit expressly limited the appeal to the claims of 57 (out of the more than 2,600) plaintiffs who had not previously filed claims in Louisiana. On August 11, 2015, a panel of the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the claims of these plaintiffs. Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Rehearing en Banc with the Third Circuit, which was granted on September 22, 2015. On September 2, 2016, the Third Circuit en banc reversed the District Court's dismissal on first-filed doctrine grounds of the claims of approximately 229 of the plaintiffs and remanded the case back to the District Court for further proceedings. On June 2, 2017, the Third Circuit issued a Petition for Certification of State Law to the Delaware Supreme Court to resolve the complex procedural question pending on appeal regarding the duration of the tolling of limitations afforded by a class action that had been pending in Texas. The Delaware Supreme Court accepted certification of the pending question of law. On March 15, 2018, the Delaware Supreme court decided the complex procedural question in favor of the plaintiffs and the case is back before the United States District Court for the District of Delaware for further proceedings. On remand, there remain approximately 285 claims pending, although roughly two-thirds of those claims are of plaintiffs from Panama and Ecuador, where the company have not been involved with any banana growing during the period when DBCP was in use. By agreement of the parties and the Court, discovery is first proceeding with respect to the Ecuadorian plaintiffs, followed by the Panamanian plaintiffs and then the Costa Rican plaintiffs. In Hawaii, plaintiffs filed a petition for certiorari to the Hawaii Supreme Court based upon the Hawaii Court of Appeals affirmance in March 2014 of a summary judgment ruling in defendants' favor at the trial court level. The Hawaii Supreme Court accepted the petition and oral argument was held on September 18, 2014 with respect to whether the claims of the six named plaintiffs were properly dismissed on statute of limitations grounds. On October 21, 2015, the Hawaii Supreme Court reversed the Hawaii Court of Appeals and the Hawaii state trial court's grant of partial summary judgment against the DBCP plaintiffs on statute of limitations grounds. The Hawaii Supreme Court remanded the claims of six remaining plaintiffs back to the Hawaii state trial court for further proceedings, where they remain pending. In late 2018, plaintiffs sought to activate the case and the Court has set a conference for March 6, 2019 at which a schedule for the case is likely to be set. There are at most 3 plaintiffs remaining in the action who allege employment on a farm affiliated with our banana growing operations. Fresh Del Monte Produce Inc., through its subsidiaries, produces, markets, and distributes fresh and fresh-cut fruits and vegetables in North America, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, Asia, and internationally. Fresh Del Monte Produce Inc. was founded in 1886 and is based in George Town, Cayman Islands. GOODRX INC: Garey Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Goodrx, Inc. The case is styled as Kevin Garey on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Goodrx, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02071 (S.D. N.Y., Mar. 6, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. GoodRx, Inc. owns and operates a prescription drug price comparison platform using data from local and mail-order pharmacies in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Shalom, Esq. Shalom Law, PLLC 124-04 Metropolitan Avenue Kew Gardens, NY 11374 Phone: (516) 807-1748 Email: jshalom@jonathanshalomlaw.com GOOGLE INC: To Drop Forced Arbitration Requirements for Employees ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jennifer Faull, writing for The Drum, reports that after thousands of its employees walked out in protest last November over the handling of handling sexual harassment cases, Google has announced it will drop forced arbitration requirements for all of its staff. The common business practice requires workers to take legal disputes to private arbitration -- where there is no judge or jury. In this process they are less likely to win their cases and if they do are likely to get less compensation that a court would grant. It sparked outrage after it was revealed that Android founder Andy Rubin was allowed to exit with a package worth tens of millions of dollars in the wake of sexual harassment allegations by employees -- which he denied. Activists led a protest in November, which was backed by thousands of Google staffers, which listed six demands. In addition to the end of forced arbitration, they wants a commitment to end pay and opportunity inequality and the creation of a sexual harassment transparency report. Now, from 21 March, both existing and new employees at Google will have the option to sue in court and to join together in class-action lawsuits. [GN] HAIR CLUB: Garey Files ADA Class Suit in New York ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hair Club For Men LTD. The case is styled as Kevin Garey on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Hair Club For Men LTD., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02073 (S.D. N.Y., Mar. 6, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Hair Club for Men, Ltd., Inc. provides hair restoration and replacement services for men and women. It offers professional advice, digital progress tracking, salon, laser hair therapy, and surgical hair restoration services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Shalom, Esq. Shalom Law, PLLC 124-04 Metropolitan Avenue Kew Gardens, NY 11374 Phone: (516) 807-1748 Email: jshalom@jonathanshalomlaw.com HERBALIFE NUTRITION: Continues to Defend Rodgers Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Herbalife Nutrition Ltd. 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 a purported class action lawsuit entitled, Rodgers, et al. v Herbalife Ltd., et al. On September 18, 2017, the Company and certain of its subsidiaries and Members were named as defendants in a purported class action lawsuit, titled Rodgers, et al. v Herbalife Ltd., et al. and filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, which alleges violations of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices statute and federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations statutes, unjust enrichment, and negligent misrepresentation. On August 23, 2018, the Court issued an order transferring the action to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California as to four of the putative class plaintiffs and ordering the remaining four plaintiffs to arbitration, thereby terminating the Company defendants from the Florida action. The plaintiffs seek damages in an unspecified amount. Herbalife said, "The Company believes the lawsuit is without merit and will vigorously defend itself against the claims in the lawsuit." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Herbalife Nutrition Ltd. develops and sells nutrition solutions in North America, Mexico, South and Central America, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, and the Asia Pacific. he company was formerly known as Herbalife Ltd. and changed its name to Herbalife Nutrition Ltd. in April 2018. Herbalife Nutrition Ltd. was founded in 1980 and is headquartered in Los Angeles, California. HERTZ GLOBAL: Removes Mitton Case to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------- Hertz Global Holdings, Inc. removed case, JAMES DEAN MITTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. HERTZ GLOBAL HOLDINGS, INC., a Delaware and Florida corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 18STCV10166 (Filed Dec. 31, 2018), from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on Feb. 21, 2019. The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-01312 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff alleges two causes of action: (1) violation of the California Constitution, and (2) violation of California's Rental Passenger Vehicle Transactions Law. The Plaintiff seeks an award of monetary damages, including, but not limited to consequential damages and out-of-pocket costs of identity theft insurance and credit monitoring.[BN] Attorneys for the Defendant: Eric R. McDonough, Esq. Christopher Lee, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500 Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021 Telephone: (310) 277-7200 Facsimile: (310) 201-5219 E-mail: chlee@seyfarth.com emcdonough@seyfarth.com HILL'S PET: Faces Class Action in California Over Dog Food Recall ----------------------------------------------------------------- Charmaine Little, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that class action lawsuits are rolling in against a major pet nutrition food producer after it recalled canned dog food products because of potentially elevated amounts of vitamin D. For instance, John Navarrete sued Hill's Pet Nutrition Inc. on Feb. 12 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in the San Francisco/Oak Division. The defendant is also facing six other lawsuits filed in courts in the wake of the recall. The seven cases were filed in Florida, Rhode Island, New York and California between Feb. 11 and Feb. 20, with some of the most well-known plaintiffs firms getting involved. Mr. Navarrete's lawsuit came after Hill's recalled a number of its dog food products in January because of its "excessive amount" of vitamin D, the suit states. The suit states dogs that eat too much vitamin D can suffer detrimental health issues from vomiting and dehydration to weight loss and death. The recall for the products came on Jan. 31, just months after Mr. Navarrete purchased products from PetSmart in Concord, California, on Oct. 1, 2018, for his German Shepherd. The plaintiff alleges he fed his dog the food through January, when the animal started experiencing health setbacks like vomiting and lethargy. He alleges he incurred veterinary bills for the dog's care. Some of the recalled food includes Hill's Prescription Diet c/d MultiCare Canine Chicken & Vegetable Stew; Hill's Prescription Diet Low Fat Canine Rice, Vegetable & Chicken Stew; and Hill's Science Diet Puppy Chicken & Barley Entrée. According to a Food and Drug Administration announcement of the recall issued Jan. 31, an investigation by Hill's determined the elevated levels of the vitamin were caused by a supplier error. Mr. Navarrete noted in the suit that Hill's marketed the now-recalled products as extremely healthy and nutritious for canines. "Defendant also touts on its website that it is ‘the global leader in nutritional health care for companion animals, allowing us to provide the right formulas for precisely balanced nutrition that meets the wellness and therapeutic needs of pets worldwide," according to the lawsuit. There is also a proposed subclass for what the plaintiff described as "Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act and the Consumer Legal Remedies," for those who bought the recalled products for household and family reasons. Hill's is alleged to have presented goods to have positive characteristics and uses that they do not have. Mr. Navarette is represented by Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe of San Francisco. Other lawyers with lawsuits against Hill's are: Joseph Tusa of New York; the Levin Papantonio firm of Florida; Marlin and Saltzman of California; Motley Rice's Rhode Island office; and Wexler Wallace in Chicago. [GN] HOMELAND SECURITY: Faces Suit over Arrests without Valid Warrants ----------------------------------------------------------------- ISABEL ZELAYA, GERONIMO GUERRERO, CAROLINA ROMULO MENDOZA, LUIS BAUTISTA MARTINEZ, MARTHA PULIDO, CATARINO ZAPOTE HERNANDEZ, and MARIA DEL PILAR GONZALEZ CRUZ, individually and on behalf of all others CLASS ACTION similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. JERE MILES, Special Agent in Charge, Homeland Security Investigations ("HSI"); ROBERT HAMMER, Assistant Special Agent in Charge, HSI; DAVID VICENTE, Agent, Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") Enforcement and Removal Operations ("ERO"); FRANCISCO AYALA, Agent, ICE ERO; BILLY RIGGINS, Special Agent, ICE; WILLIAM HINKLE, Deportation Officer, ICE; ANTHONY MARTIN, Deportation Officer, ICE; M. GROOMS, Deportation Officer, ICE; SCOTT PA, Special Agent, ICE; DOES #1-30, Agents of U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement; in their individual capacities, the Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-00062 (E.D. Tenn., Feb. 21, 2019), seek declaratory and monetary relief against the Defendants for violations of "their clearly established" constitutional rights the day of the raid by immigration officers last year. In April 2018, officers from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE"), Homeland Security Operations ("HSI"), Enforcement and Removal Operations ("ERO"), and the Tennessee Highway Patrol ("THP") descended on the Southeastern Provision meatpacking plant ("Plant") in Bean Station, Tennessee, a small town in the far eastern corner of the state. Heavily armed, the officers formed a perimeter around the plant and blocked every exit. They used official vehicles to seal off the one public road to the Plant. Law enforcement helicopters flew above the Plant, securing and surveilling the premises. In the Plant's parking lot, several vans and large bags of plastic "zip tie" handcuffs waited to be used. Moments later, dozens of armed officers in bullet-proof vests rushed into the Plant. They quickly fanned out, many with their firearms drawn, and screamed at the workers inside to stop moving. The workers, terrified and confused, feared the commotion was a terrorist attack, a mass shooting, or a fire. According to the complaint, the officers were not searching for terrorists, armed criminals, or violent felons. Rather, the officers were assisting with the execution of an Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") search warrant for financial documents related to the alleged crimes of the plant's owner, James Brantley. However, the officers' goal that day was far more extensive than what the search warrant authorized: They planned to detain and arrest every worker in the plant who was or appeared to be Latino. Prior to the raid, ICE enlisted Tennessee state resources -- Tennessee Highway Patrol troopers -- to accomplish this goal. ICE also secured the Tennessee National Guard's armory to use as a location to process individuals who were arrested that day. Then, with only an IRS search warrant for documents in hand, the officers executed the largest workplace immigration raid in nearly a decade. They forcefully seized and arrested approximately 100 Latino workers. In the process, the officers berated the workers with racial slurs, punched one worker in the face, and shoved firearms in the faces of many others. Meanwhile, the officers did not detain the Plant's white workers or subject them to the same intrusive and aggressive treatment and prolonged detention that the Latino workers experienced. Many of the Latino workers were long-term employees of the Plant who had spent years performing the dangerous work endemic to slaughterhouses, often in unsafe conditions and without receiving legally-mandated overtime pay. The workers and their families are long-time members of the local community, attending school, church, and other local events alongside their neighbors. The day after the raid, nearly 600 children in the community did not show up for school. Prior to the raid, the federal officers did not know the identities or the immigration status of any worker in the Plant. They knew only that many of the workers were "Hispanic." Only after detaining the Latino workers -- and, in many instances, not until after transporting the workers to an offsite location -- did the federal officers question the workers about their identity or immigration status. Ultimately, only eleven of the approximately 100 workers arrested were charged with any crime, and of those, none were charged with a violent crime. The U.S. Constitution protects individuals from this kind of law enforcement overreach. The law is clear that seizures based entirely on race or ethnicity, arrests without probable cause, and the use of excessive force are prohibited by the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. The federal officers conspired to plan and execute the forceful and prolonged seizure of the Plant's Latino workforce solely on the basis of their actual or apparent race or ethnicity. The federal officers made arrests without a valid arrest warrant, probable cause that each worker had violated U.S. immigration or criminal laws, or any exigent circumstances. In executing some of these arrests, the federal officers used brutal and excessive force without any provocation, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs: William L. Harbison, Esq. Phillip F. Cramer, Esq. John L. Farringer IV, Esq. SHERRARD ROE VOIGT & HARBISON , PLC 150 3rd Avenue South, Suite 1100 Nashville, TN 37201 Telephone: (615) 742-4200 E-mail: bharbison@srvhlaw.com pcramer@srvhlaw.com jfarringer@srvhlaw.com - and - Melissa S. Keaney, Esq. Nora A. Preciado, Esq. Araceli Martínez-Olguín, Esq. NATIONAL IMMIGRATION LAW CENTER 3450 Wilshire Blvd. #108 – 62 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 639-3900 Facsimile: (213) 639-3911 E-mail: keaney@nilc.org preciado@nilc.org martinez-olguin@nilc.org - and - Trudy S. Rebert, Esq. NATIONAL IMMIGRATION LAW CENTER P.O. Box 721361 Jackson Heights, NY 11372 Telephone: (646) 867-8793 E-mail: rebert@nilc.org - and - Meredith B. Stewart, Esq. Julia Solorzano, Esq. SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER 201 Saint Charles Avenue, Suite 2000 New Orleans, LA 70170 Telephone: (504) 486-8982 Facsimile: (504) 486-8947 E-mail: meredith.stewart@splcenter.org julia.solorzano@splcenter.org HSBC USA: Ahmed and Monteleone Seek Court Approval of Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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 plaintiffs in the case, Ahmed and Monteleone v. HSBC Bank USA, National Association, have sought court approval of a settlement. In March 2017, plaintiff filed a consolidated and amended putative class action in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Ahmed and Monteleone v. HSBC Bank USA, National Association (Case No. 5:16-cv-02057). The consolidated action alleges that the defendants contacted plaintiffs, or the members of the class that they seek to represent, on their cellular telephones using an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice, without prior express consent or despite revocation of prior consent, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 227 et seq. Plaintiffs seek statutory damages of up to $1,500 for each violation. HSBC Mortgage Corporation responded to the complaint, and discovery proceeded. In December 2018, the parties agreed to settle the action. Plaintiffs filed for court approval of the settlement in January 2019. 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: Discovery Ongoing in Gold Fix Litigation -------------------------------------------------- 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 discovery is ongoing in the case entitled, In re Commodity Exchange Inc., Gold Futures and Options Trading Litigation (Gold Fix Litigation). Since 2014, numerous putative class actions have been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and the Northern District of California naming as defendants HSBC USA, HSI, HSBC and HSBC Bank plc, in addition to other members of the London Gold Fix. The complaints allege that from January 2004 through June 2013, defendants conspired to manipulate the price of gold and gold derivatives during the afternoon London Gold Fix in order to reap profits on proprietary trades. The actions have been transferred to and centralized in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The parties are proceeding under a third amended complaint. Discovery is proceeding. 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: Discovery Ongoing in Silver Fix Litigation ---------------------------------------------------- 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 discovery is ongoing in the case entitled, In re London Silver Fixing, Ltd. Antitrust Litigation (Silver Fix Litigation). In 2014, putative class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York naming HSBC, HSBC Bank plc, HSBC Bank USA and the other members of The London Silver Market Fixing Ltd as defendants. The complaints allege that, from January 2007 through December 2013, defendants conspired to manipulate the price of physical silver and silver derivatives for their collective benefit in violation of the U.S. Commodity Exchange Act and U.S. antitrust laws. The actions have been transferred to and centralized in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The parties are proceeding under a third amended complaint. Discovery is proceeding. 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: Nov. 2019 Final Hearing on Credit Card Case Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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 court in the case, In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation, MDL 1720, has scheduled a final settlement approval hearing for November 2019. Since 2005, HSBC Bank USA, HSBC Finance, HSBC North America and HSBC, as well as other banks and Visa Inc. ("Visa") and MasterCard Incorporated ("MasterCard"), had been named as defendants in a number of consolidated merchant class actions and individual merchant actions had been filed against Visa and MasterCard, alleging that the imposition of a no-surcharge rule by the associations and/or the establishment of the interchange fee charged for credit card transactions causes the merchant discount fee paid by retailers to be set at supracompetitive levels in violation of the federal antitrust laws. In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation, MDL 1720, E.D.N.Y. ("MDL 1720"). In 2011, MasterCard, Visa, the other defendants, including HSBC Bank USA, and certain affiliates of the defendants entered into settlement and judgment sharing agreements (the "Sharing Agreements") that provide for the apportionment of certain defined costs and liabilities that the defendants, including HSBC Bank USA and the company's affiliates, may incur, jointly and/or severally, in the event of an adverse judgment or global settlement of one or all of these actions. The district court granted final approval of the class settlement in 2013 and entered the Class Settlement Order and final judgment dismissing the class action shortly thereafter. In June 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ("Second Circuit") issued a decision vacating class certification and approval of the class settlement in MDL 1720, concluding the class was inadequately represented by their counsel in violation of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure governing class actions as well as the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Specifically, the Second Circuit held that there was a conflict between two different but overlapping settlement classes: (1) an opt-out class, which permitted individual class members to forgo their share of the monetary relief and pursue individual claims; and (2) a non-opt-out class of merchants, including future merchants that do not currently exist, which provided injunctive relief mainly in the form of a rule change by Visa and MasterCard to allow merchants to surcharge card transactions until July 20, 2021. The U.S. Supreme Court denied the plaintiffs' petition for review of the decision in March 2017. In June 2018, the defendants, including the HSBC entities, reached an agreement in principle with counsel for the putative Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) opt-out class, seeking monetary relief, to resolve all claims as filed in a third consolidated amended class action complaint in In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation, MDL 1720, E.D.N.Y. The parties subsequently entered into a settlement agreement. The court granted preliminary approval of the settlement in January 2019 and scheduled the final settlement approval hearing for November 2019. HSBC USA said, "If settlement approval is granted, certain HSBC entities are responsible for a pro rata portion of the settlement amount, for which they are reserved, pursuant to the Sharing Agreements entered into by the defendants." Numerous merchants objected and/or opted out of the settlement during the exclusion period. Various opt-out merchants have filed opt-out suits in either state or federal court, most of which have been transferred to the consolidated multidistrict litigation, MDL 1720. To date, certain groups of opt-out merchants have entered into settlement agreements with the defendants in those actions and certain HSBC entities that, pursuant to the Sharing Agreements, are responsible for a pro rata portion of any judgment or settlement amount awarded in actions consolidated into MDL 1720. 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: Still Awaits Court OK on Bid to Dismiss PGM Fixing Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- 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 are awaiting a court ruling on their joint motion to dismiss a third amended complaint in the Platinum and Palladium Fix Litigation. Since 2014, several putative class actions have been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York naming as defendants members of The London Platinum and Palladium Fixing Company (the "Platinum Group Metals or PGM Fixing"), including HSBC Bank USA, BASF Metals Limited, Goldman Sachs International and Standard Bank, plc. The complaints allege that, from January 2008 through November 2014, defendants conspired to manipulate the benchmark prices for physical Platinum Group Metals ("PGM") and PGM-based financial products. Plaintiffs have filed a third amended complaint and the defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss. The company awaits a ruling. 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: Still Defends Nypl and Contant Class Suits ---------------------------------------------------- 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 and its affiliates continue to defend against two class action suits entitled, Nypl v. JPMorgan Chase, et al. and Contant v. Bank of America Corporation, et al. In addition to the case, In re Foreign Exchange Benchmark Rates Antitrust Litigation; Case No. 13-CV-7789(LGS), other putative class actions making similar allegations are pending against HSBC defendants, as well as other defendants, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of: (1) retail customers (Nypl v. JPMorgan Chase, et al.; Case No. 1:15-CV-9300); and (2) "indirect purchasers" of FX (Contant v. Bank of America Corporation, et al.; Case No. 1:17-CV-03139). The Nypl defendants have answered the complaint and discovery is underway. In January 2019, the court in Nypl granted the plaintiffs leave to file a motion for leave to amend their complaint. In October 2018, the court in Contant granted in part and denied in part plaintiffs' motion to amend the complaint, allowing plaintiffs to amend their state law antitrust and unfair trade practices claims but denying their request to amend their federal law antitrust claims. HSBC USA said, "It is possible that additional actions will be initiated against the HSBC entities, including HSBC Bank USA, in relation to their historical foreign exchange activities." 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. INOVALON HOLDINGS: Settlement Agreement Executed in Xiang Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Inovalon Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed on February 20, 2019, that the company has executed a settlement agreement in connection with the securities class action suit, Xiang v. Inovalon Holdings, Inc., et al. On February 20, 2019, Inovalon Holdings, Inc. executed a settlement agreement in connection with the securities class action suit, Xiang v. Inovalon Holdings, Inc., et.al., No. 1:16-cv-04923, filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on June 24, 2016, against the Company, certain officers, directors and underwriters in the Company's initial public offering. The agreement, which is subject to Court approval, provides for the dismissal of all claims against the defendants in connection with the securities class action suit, and provides for a payment to the class of $17 million, of which the Company has agreed to contribute $1.7 million, which is recorded in the Company's 2018 financial statements, with the remaining amounts to be paid by the Company's insurance carriers. The Company and the other defendants have vigorously denied, and continue vigorously to deny, the merits of any claims against it and its officers and directors as set forth in the suit, and the proposed settlement contains no admission of liability by the Company and the other defendants. Inovalon Holdings, Inc., a technology company, provides cloud-based platforms empowering data-driven healthcare. Inovalon Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1998 and is headquartered in Bowie, Maryland. LEIDOS HOLDINGS: Settlement in NY Suit Still Awaits Court Approval ------------------------------------------------------------------ Leidos Holdings, 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 28, 2018, that the settlement in the case entitled, In Re: SAIC, Inc. Securities Litigation, still awaits court approval. Between February and April 2012, alleged stockholders filed three putative securities class actions against the Company and several former executives relating to the Company's contract to develop and implement an automated time and attendance and workforce management system for certain agencies of the City of New York ("CityTime"). One case was withdrawn and two cases were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in In Re: SAIC, Inc. Securities Litigation. The consolidated securities complaint asserted claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on allegations that the Company and individual defendants made misleading statements or omissions about the Company's revenues, operating income and internal controls in connection with disclosures relating to the CityTime project. The plaintiffs sought to recover from the Company and the individual defendants an unspecified amount of damages class members allegedly incurred by buying Leidos' stock at an inflated price. The District Court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims with prejudice and without leave to replead. The plaintiffs then appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which issued an opinion affirming in part, and vacating in part, the District Court's ruling. The Company filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court, which was granted on March 27, 2017. The District Court granted the Company's request to stay all proceedings, including discovery, pending the outcome at the Supreme Court. In September 2017, the parties engaged in mediation resulting in an agreement to settle all remaining claims for an immaterial amount to be paid by the Company. The amounts payable by the Company are covered by an insurance policy. The terms of the proposed settlement remain subject to court approval. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Leidos Holdings, Inc. provides services and solutions in the defense, intelligence, civil, and health markets in the United States and internationally. It operates through three segments: Defense Solutions, Civil, and Health. The company was founded in 1969 and is headquartered in Reston, Virginia. LENDINGCLUB CORP: Court Orders Parties in Moses Suit to Arbitrate ----------------------------------------------------------------- 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 court in the case, Moses v. LendingClub Corporation, has granted the company's motion to compel arbitration, dismissed the putative class action without prejudice, and ordered the parties to arbitrate the plaintiff's claim. In December 2017, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against the Company in the State of Nevada (Moses v. LendingClub Corporation, 2:17-cv-03071-JAD-PAL) alleging violations of the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act. The complaint alleges that the Company improperly accessed the credit report of the plaintiff, who had formerly had a loan serviced by the Company. The complaint further alleges, on information and belief, that the Company improperly accessed credit reports of other similarly situated individuals. The Company filed a motion to compel arbitration on the grounds that the plaintiff waived the right to bring a class action and must individually arbitrate any claim. On February 6, 2019, the court issued an order granting this motion, dismissed the putative class action without prejudice, and ordered the parties to arbitrate the plaintiff's claim. The Company denies the plaintiff's claim and is prepared to vigorously defend against it in the event the plaintiff initiates an arbitration following the court’s recent order. 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. LIVE NATION: Underpays Sales Managers, Wellinger Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- GEORGE WELLINGER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LIVE NATION WORDLWIDE INC.; LIVE NATION ENTERTAINMENT, INC.; and DOES 1 through 50, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV04397 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 8, 2019) is an action against the Defendants for unpaid regular hours, overtime hours, minimum wages, wages for missed meal and rest periods. Mr. Wellinger was employed by the Defendants as sales manager. Live Nation Worldwide, Inc. offers live music and event management services. It operates venues worldwide and engages in promotional activities for concerts. I addition, it offers ticketing services for arenas, stadiums, professional sports franchises and leagues, college sports teams, performing arts venues, museums and theaters. It also provides training Live Nation Worldwide, Inc. was formerly known as SFX Entertainment, Inc. The company was incorporated in 1997 and is based in Beverly Hills, California. Live Nation Worldwide, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Helen U. Kim, Esq. HELEN KIM LAW, APC 3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2700 Los Angeles, Ca 90010 Telephone: (323) 487-9151 Facsimile: (866) 652-7819 LMS REINFORCING: Faces Martinez Suit in Kern County --------------------------------------------------- An employment-related class action lawsuit has been filed against LMS Reinforcing Steel. The case is assigned to RAFAEL MARTINEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LMS REINFORCING STEEL, Defendant, Case No. BCV-19-100374 (Cal. Super., Kern Cty., Feb. 8, 2019). The case is assigned to Stephen D. Schuett. LMS Reinforcing Steel Group Inc. fabricates, supplies, and installs reinforcing steel and post-tensioning products for residential, commercial, institutional, civil, industrial, mining, hydro construction, and infrastructure construction sectors in Canada. LMS Reinforcing Steel Group Inc. was formerly known as Lower Mainland Steel Ltd. and changed its name to LMS Reinforcing Steel Group Inc. LMS Reinforcing Steel Group Inc. was founded in 1987 and is based in Surrey, Canada with a regional office in Calgary, Canada. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by Douglas Han, Esq. MDL 2492: Ayles Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated ------------------------------------------------------------ A case, Blake Ayles, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION and UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00420 (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-01063 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 University of Southern California Student-Athletes. The Ayles 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: Barna Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidate ----------------------------------------------------------- A case, Karl Barna, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION and Hobart and William Smith Colleges, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00386 (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-01189 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 Hobart and William Smith Colleges Student-Athletes. The Barna 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 Health Issues Consolidated ------------------------------------------------------------ A case, Jason Brown, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION and Hobart and Morehouse College (Inc.), the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00382 (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-01186 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 Morehouse College (Inc.) 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: Caldwell Suit v. NCAA over Concussion Consolidated ------------------------------------------------------------ A case, JEREMY CALDWELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00406 (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-01039 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 Caldwell 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: Clement Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated -------------------------------------------------------------- A case, MARIO CLEMENT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION and Hobart and THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00393 (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-01195 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 The Catholic University of America Student-Athletes. The Clement 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: Eischens Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated --------------------------------------------------------------- A case, ROBERT EISCHENS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00397 (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-01011 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 Eischens 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: Freeman Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated -------------------------------------------------------------- A case, DEREK FREEMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00378 (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-01181 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 Freeman 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: Garland Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated -------------------------------------------------------------- A case, Jamal Garland, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00380 (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-01183 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 Garland 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: Gholson Suit v. NCAA over Concussion Consolidated ----------------------------------------------------------- A case, Javar Gholson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00405 (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-01037 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 Gholson 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: Hawkins Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated -------------------------------------------------------------- A case, RILEY HAWKINS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION and SAMFORD UNIVERSITY, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00396 (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-01198 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 Samford University Student-Athletes. The Hawkins 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: Hayes Suit v. NCAA over Concussion Consolidated --------------------------------------------------------- A case, William Hayes, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00402 (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-01029 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 Hayes 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: Jarmon Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated ------------------------------------------------------------- A case, Ira Jarmon, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00379 (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-01182 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 Jarmon 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: Kimbrough Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated ---------------------------------------------------------------- A case, NATHAN KIMBROUGH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. , 1:19-cv-00414 (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-01058 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 Kimbrough 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: Kunzelman Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated ---------------------------------------------------------------- A case, Ryan Kunzelman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION and The University of Findlay, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00434 (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-01118 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 The University of Findlay Student-Athletes. The Kunzelman 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: Markham Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated -------------------------------------------------------------- A case, Houston Markham, Jr., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00377 (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-01180 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 Markham 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: McGregor Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated --------------------------------------------------------------- A case, Jeffrey McGregor, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00385 (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-01188 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 McGregor 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: Randall Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated -------------------------------------------------------------- A case, KYSHAWN RANDALL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION and CHOWAN UNIVERSITY, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00391 (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-01193 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 Chowan University Student-Athletes. The Randall 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: Ritenour Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated --------------------------------------------------------------- A case, STEVEN RITENOUR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00399 (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-01023 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 Ritenour 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: Rycroft Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated -------------------------------------------------------------- A case, Kendall Rycroft, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00387 (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-01190 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 Rycroft 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: Tabb Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated ----------------------------------------------------------- A case, Juan Tabb, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00411 (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-01050 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 Tabb 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: Wilson Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated ------------------------------------------------------------- A case, Quincy Wilson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00431 (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-01111 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 Wilson 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. 3626 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. 3626, 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. 3626 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. 3626. When it was filed, the ECF No. 3626 motion covered 61 separate cases. Each had been filed in Texas state court, by counsel at the law firm of Hyde and Swigart, and then removed by Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. ("VWGoA"). Many of the cases have since been voluntarily dismissed; only 12 remain outstanding. VWGoA removed the ECF No. 3626 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. 3626 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. 3626 complaints each include five claims against VWGoA and VW AG. The claims are for violation of Texas's Deceptive Trade Practices Act ("DTPA") and for breach of contract, an express warranty, and the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose. The Plaintiffs seek remedies which include actual and punitive damages, "rescission and repurchase of the subject vehicle[s] and restitution of all monies expended," and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. They each seek "only monetary relief of not more than $74,499.99 including damages of any kind, penalties, costs, expenses, pre-judgment interests, and attorney fees." VWGoA removed the Plaintiffs' cases to federal court, in part on the basis of diversity subject-matter jurisdiction. VW AG apparently was not served and did not join the notices of removal. The Plaintiffs responded by filing the ECF No. 3626 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 $12,600 to $26,012 per case. Next, instead of including $50,000 in punitive damages for each of the ECF No. 3626 cases, the Judge will include punitive damages for each case equal to the lesser of three times the estimated amount of economic damages or $50,000. Using this formula, the punitive damages in controversy range from $37,800 to $50,000 per case. Given the facts alleged and the amounts of punitive damages awarded in comparable cases, these amounts of punitive damages are reasonably at stake in the ECF No. 3626 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. 3621 cases. Finally, when the estimates of actual damages, punitive damages, and attorneys' fees are added together, the amounts in controversy for the ECF No. 3626 cases range from $80,136 to $105,748. 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. 3626 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/AyHoNA 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. MEC GENERAL: Marin Seeks Minimum Wage & Overtime Pay ---------------------------------------------------- JESUS AQUILINO ULLOA MARIN, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. MEC GENERAL INC. (D/B/A MEC GENERAL CONSTRUCTION), MEC GENERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (D/B/A MEC GENERAL CONSTRUCTION), MEC GENERAL CONSTRUCTION CORP. (D/B/A MEC GENERAL CONSTRUCTION), EDMILSON DE LIMA, ERIC DE LIMA, ADRIANO DE LIMA, ROSALIA DE LIMA, and RODRIGO DOE, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01052 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 21, 2019), alleges that the Defendants maintained a policy and practice of requiring Plaintiff and other employees to work in excess of 40 hours per week without providing the minimum wage and overtime compensation required by the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the New York Labor Law. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was employed as a framer and worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage and overtime compensation for the hours that he worked. Rather, the Defendants 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 own, operate, or control a construction company, located at 33-20 61st Street, Woodside, NY 11377 under the name "MEC General Construction."[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 MICHIGAN: HHS Faces Class Action Over Child Mental Health Care -------------------------------------------------------------- Stateside reports that where do you go, to whom do you turn if your child needs mental health care? Child psychiatrists and parents agree: the options in Michigan are too few and far between. This issue has led to a class action lawsuit against the state's Department of Health and Human Services. It was filed in 2018 against then-Governor Snyder, and it alleges the state has failed to meet its legal obligation under Medicaid to provide adequate services for children who have behavioral and mental health problems. Earlier in February, federal judge Thomas Ludington ruled the lawsuit may proceed towards trial. Former state senator and state representative David Honigman is the lead attorney in the case, and a partner at the law firm Mantese Honigman, PC. Federal law entitles people with disabilities and mental or physical illnesses to have their medical treatment paid for by the state. Mr. Honigman says the state is falling short on that legal responsibility. "There's a lack of political responsiveness to the needs of the vulnerable," Mr. Honigman said. Mr. Honigman says this has major consequences for kids. He describes one of the seven cases in their lawsuit: a non-verbal 20-year-old boy who has autism, intellectual disabilities, and cerebral palsy. For years, his mother had been requesting mental health services and medical attention for him. Mr. Honigman says that her son didn't receive services until he was 17, and when he did, only minimal services were offered to treat his autism. "It's easier to build a strong child than it is to repair a broken man or woman. That's why the Medicaid law emphasizes early intervention to address the mental and physical health of our nation's children," Mr. Honigman said. Michigan Radio reached out to the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services for comment and were provided this statement: "We cannot comment on ongoing litigation, however, MDHHS is committed to working with partners to address mental health needs in Michigan." Stateside's request to discuss the state's mental health system for children, more broadly, and what the department is doing to improve it, was declined. [GN] MID-ATLANTIC SPORTS: Settlement Gets Preliminary Court Approval --------------------------------------------------------------- John D.S. Gilmour, Esq. -- jgilmour@kelleydrye.com -- Talat Ansari, Esq. -- tansari@kelleydrye.com -- David A. Hartquist, Esq. -- dhartquist@kelleydrye.com -- James F. Jacobus, Esq., Philip D. Robben, Esq., John L. Hagan, Esq., Lee S. Brenner, Esq., Andrew E. Minkiewicz, Esq., and John M. Herrmann II, Esq., of Kelley Drye & Warren LLP, in an article for Lexology, report that a judge in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida has preliminarily approved a $2.5 million settlement of a putative class action against Mid-Atlantic Sports Network, Hyundai, and Mercedes-Benz. Gonzalez v. TCR Sports Broadcasting Holding, LLP, et al., 1:18-cv-20048-DPG (S.D. Fla. Feb. 14, 2019) (Dkt. No. 79). The putative class representative's unopposed motion seeking the court's preliminary approval of the settlement described it as the result of "hard fought" settlement negotiations to resolve the "highly contentious" litigation, including two mediation conferences over two weeks. (Dkt. No. 76 at 2.) The complaint, which was filed in Florida state court before defendants sought removal to federal court, alleged the defendants violated Sec. 277 of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227 (the "TCPA"), by using an automatic telephone dialing system ("ATDS") to text unsolicited sales promotions without the express written consent of the recipients. Before settling, the parties briefed whether the court should stay the action to allow the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") to first clarify the definition of an ATDS. An ATDS is defined as "equipment which has the capacity -- (A) to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator; and (B) to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227(a)(1). In 2015, the FCC expanded the scope of this definition to include equipment that has the "potential" or "future capacity" to dial in an automated manner. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Declaratory Ruling and Order, CG Docket No. 02- 278, 30 FCC Rcd. 7961, 7971-72, 7974-76, 8089 Pars. 10, 16, 19 (2015). After courts rejected this interpretation, ACA International v. FCC, 885 F.3d 687 (D.C. Cir. 2018), the FCC issued a public notice seeking comments for a revised definition of ATDS, specifically: "[i]f equipment cannot itself dial random or sequential numbers, can that equipment be an automatic telephone dialing system?" Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau Seeks Comment on Interpretation of The Telephone Consumer Protection Act in Light of the D.C. Circuit's ACA International Decision, CG Docket No. 18-152, CG Docket No. 02-278, DA 18-493 (May 14, 2018). The public comment period closed on June 28, 2018. Id. The putative class representative opposed the defendants' motion to stay the action, arguing, in part, that the FCC may take significantly more time to recast its definition of an ATDS. The parties settled before the court decided the stay motion, and the FCC has not yet released its response to public comments. [GN] MIDLAND CREDIT: Dionisio Sues over Debt Collection Practices ------------------------------------------------------------ VIRGINIA DIONISIO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC. and MIDLAND FUNDING LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00190-DAD-JLT (E.D. Cal., Feb. 10, 2019) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. The case is assigned to District Judge Dale A. Drozd and referred to Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston Midland Credit Management, Inc., a licensed debt collector, assists customers in resolving past-due financial obligations through various education and payment plans. The company was founded in 1953 and is based in San Diego, California. Midland Credit Management, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Encore Capital Group, Inc. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Aaron Stieglitz, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JONATHAN A. STIEGLITZ 11845 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 800 Los Angeles, CA 90064 Telephone: (323) 979-2063 Facsimile: (323) 488-6748 E-mail: jonathan.a.stieglitz@gmail.com MIRAGE OPERATIONS: Valdivia Seeks Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- LUIS A. VALDIVIA and other similarly-situated individuals, the Plaintiff(s), v. MIRAGE OPERATIONS, LLC a/k/a WAJIRO'S RESTAURANT, OTTO I DE LA TORRE, and SONIA T DE LA TORRE, individually, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-20669-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Feb. 21, 2019), seeks to recover money damages for unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, Wajiro's Restaurant is a Latin restaurant specialized in traditional Cuban food. The Plaintiff worked at the restaurant located at 12670 SW 8th street, Miami, Florida 33184. The Plaintiff had duties, which consisted of general restaurant work and delivery driver duties. However, part of Plaintiff's duties was misclassified as a manager's work. The Plaintiff worked always more than 40 hours per week, but at least during 2016 and 2017, he was not paid minimum wages nor overtime hours as required by the FLSA. During 2018, the Plaintiff worked also in excess of 40 hours. He was paid at 2 different rates for the same general restaurant work. In this period Plaintiff was paid for all his working hours, but he was not paid for overtime hours. The Plaintiff was not allowed to clock in and out, but he worked under the supervision of the owners of the business. Thus, the Defendants were able to track all the hours worked by Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees. The Plaintiff was paid bi-weekly with checks accompanied by paystubs that never showed the number of days and hours worked, wage rate paid, or job classification. For the period of 2016-2017, the Plaintiff is not in possession of time and payment records, but he is going to provide a good faith estimate of his unpaid wages and overtime hours based on his best recollection. For the period of 2018, the Plaintiff will base his calculations on time records in his possession, the lawsuit says.[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 MOLINA HEALTHCARE: Appeal in Pension Plan Suit Underway ------------------------------------------------------- Molina Healthcare, 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 plaintiff's opening brief in the appealed Steamfitters Local 449 Pension Plan v. Molina Healthcare, Inc., et al., is due April 10, 2019. On October 5, 2018, the Steamfitters Local 449 Pension Plan filed its first amended class action securities complaint in the Central District Court of California against the Company and its former executive officers, J. Mario Molina, John C. Molina, Terry P. Bayer, and Rick Hopfer, Case 2:18-cv-03579. The amended complaint purports to seek recovery on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased Molina common stock between October 31, 2014, and August 2, 2017, for alleged violations under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The plaintiff alleges the defendants misled investors regarding the scalability of the Company's administrative infrastructure during the identified class period. On December 13, 2018, the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss in its entirety and closed the case. On January 9, 2019, plaintiffs appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Plaintiff's opening brief is due April 10, 2019, the Company's response is due May 10, 2019, and Plaintiff's reply is due May 31, 2019. Oral argument will likely occur within 9-12 months after the briefing is completed. Molina Healthcare said, "The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the alleged claims and intends to defend the matter vigorously. At this time, we are not able to estimate a possible loss or range of loss that may result from this matter or to determine whether such loss, if any, would have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows." Molina Healthcare, Inc., a multi-state healthcare organization, provides managed health care services to low-income families and individuals under the Medicaid and Medicare programs and through the state insurance marketplaces. Molina Healthcare, Inc. was founded in 1980 and is headquartered in Long Beach, California. MOLSON COORS: Sussberg Says Financial Report Misleading ------------------------------------------------------- LARRY SUSSBERG, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. MOLSON COORS BREWING COMPANY, MARK R. HUNTER, and TRACEY I. JOUBERT, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00514 (D. Colo., Feb. 21, 2019), seeks to recover compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 . The case is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities, other than Defendants and their affiliates, who purchased publicly traded Molson Coors securities from February 14, 2017 through February 11, 2019, both dates inclusive. On October 11, 2016, Molson Coors completed its acquisition of SABMiller plc's 58% stake in MillerCoors LLC, the joint venture formed in the United States and Puerto Rico by both companies in 2008. The Class Period begins on February 14, 2017, when Molson Coors filed a Form 10-K with the SEC, which provided its financial results and position for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. The 2016 10-K was signed by the Individual Defendants. The 2016 10-K contained signed certifications pursuant to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 ("SOX") by the Individual Defendants attesting to the accuracy of financial reporting, the disclosure of any material changes to the Company's internal control over financial reporting and the disclosure of all fraud. The 2016 10-K stated that the Company's internal control over financial reporting was effective, excluding the internal control over financial reporting at its recently acquired stake in MillerCoors LLC. The 2016 10-K provided the Company's consolidated statement of operations, which reported comprehensive income attributable to Molson Coors as $2.125 billion for the period covered by the 2016 10-K. On February 14, 2018, Molson Coors filed a Form 10-K with the SEC, which provided its financial results and position for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017. The 2017 10-K was signed by the Individual Defendants. The 2017 10-K contained signed SOX certifications by the Individual Defendants attesting to the accuracy of financial reporting, the disclosure of any material changes to the Company's internal control over financial reporting and the disclosure of all fraud. The 2017 10-K stated that the Company's internal control over financial reporting was effective as of December 31, 2017. The 2017 10-K provided the Company's consolidated statement of operations, which reported comprehensive income attributable to Molson Coors as $2.126 billion for the period covered by the 2017 10-K. On this news, Molson Coors' stock price fell $6.17 per share, or 9.44%, to close at $59.19 per share on February 12, 2019, damaging investors. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's common shares, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, the lawsuit says. Molson Coors manufactures and sells beer and other beverage products in the United States, Canada, Europe, and internationally.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. Jonathan Lindenfeld, Esq. Patrick V. Dahlstrom POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, New York 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com jlindenfeld@pomlaw.com pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com - and - Peretz Bronstein, Esq. BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC 60 East 42 nd Street, Suite 4600 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 697-6484 Facsimile: (212) 697-7296 E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Capps Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup ----------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL A. CAPPS, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY and JOHN DOES 1-50, the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00329 (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 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 COMPANY: Sears Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup ----------------------------------------------------------- TODD SEARS, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY and JOHN DOES 1-50, the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00312 (E.D. Mo., Feb. 26, 2019), seeks to recover damages suffered by Plaintiff, as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains 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 Plaintiff brings 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: D. Todd Mathews, Esq. Joseph B. Carnduff, Esq. GORI JULIAN LAW 156 N. Main St. Edwardsville, IL 62025 Telephone: (618) 659-9833 Facsimile: (618) 659-9834 E-mail: todd@gorijulianlaw.com jcarnduff@gorijulianlaw.com - and - 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: Sheehan Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup ------------------------------------------------------------- EARLYNN SHEEHAN, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY and JOHN DOES 1-50, the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00313 (E.D. Mo., Feb. 26, 2019), seeks to recover damages suffered by Plaintiff, as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains 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 Plaintiff brings 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: D. Todd Mathews, Esq. Joseph B. Carnduff, Esq. GORI JULIAN LAW 156 N. Main St. Edwardsville, IL 62025 Telephone: (618) 659-9833 Facsimile: (618) 659-9834 E-mail: todd@gorijulianlaw.com jcarnduff@gorijulianlaw.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Todds Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup ---------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL H. TODD and JANICE C. TODD, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY and JOHN DOES 1-50, the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00317 (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 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: Walkers Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup ------------------------------------------------------------ FRANCES M. WALKER AND RUSSEL WALKER, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY and JOHN DOES 1-50, the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00328 (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 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: Webb Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup ---------------------------------------------------------- KATHY S. WEBB, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY and JOHN DOES 1-50, the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00327 (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 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 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION: Moehrl Files Antitrust Class Suit in Illinois ------------------------------------------------------------------- Christopher Moehrl, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. the National Association of Realtors, Realogy Holdings Corp., HomeServices of America, Inc., RE/MAX Holdings, Inc., and Keller Williams Realty, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01610 (N.D. Ill., March 6, 2019) is an action against the Defendants for conspiring to require home sellers to pay the broker representing the buyer of their homes, and to pay at an inflated amount, in violation of federal antitrust law. The Defendants' conspiracy has centered around NAR's adoption and implementation of a rule that requires all brokers to make a blanket, non-negotiable offer of buyer broker compensation when listing a property on a Multiple Listing Service (MLS). The Defendants and their co-conspirators collectively possess market power in local markets for real estate broker services through their control of the local MLS. The conspiracy has saddled home sellers with a cost that would be borne by the buyer in a competitive market. Moreover, because most buyer brokers will not show homes to their clients where the seller is offering a lower buyer broker commission, or will show homes with higher commission offers first, sellers are incentivized when making the required blanket, non-negotiable offer to procure the buyer brokers' cooperation by offering a high commission, notes the complaint. The conspiracy has inflated buyer broker commissions, which, in turn, have inflated the total commissions paid by home sellers such as Plaintiff and the other class members. Plaintiff and the other class members have each incurred, on average, thousands of dollars in damages as a result of Defendants' conspiracy, the complaint asserts. Plaintiff is a resident of Shorewood, Minnesota. On November 15, 2017, he sold a home located in the Minneapolis metropolitan area. National Association of Realtors has over 1.2 million individual members and is one of the largest lobbying groups in the country, advocating for the interests of real estate brokers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carol V. Gilden, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 190 South LaSalle Street, Suite 1705 Chicago, IL 60603 Phone: (312) 357-0370 Email: cgilden@cohenmilstein.com - and - Daniel A. Small, Esq. Kit A. Pierson, Esq. Benjamin D. Brown, Esq. Courtney A. Elgart, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 1100 New York Ave. NW . Fifth Floor Washington, DC 20005 Phone: (202) 408-4600 Email: dsmall@cohenmilstein.com bbrown@cohenmilstein.com celgart@cohenmilstein.com - and - Steve W. Berman, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1301 Second Avenue . Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 623-7292 Email: steve@hbsslaw.com - and - Elizabeth A. Fegan, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 455 North Cityfront Plaza Drive, Suite 2410 Chicago, IL 60611 Phone: (708) 628-4949 Email: beth@hbsslaw.com - and - Jeff D. Friedman, Esq. Rio S. Pierce, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 715 Hearst Avenue . Suite 202 Berkeley, CA 94710 Phone: (510) 725-3000 Email: jefff@hbsslaw.com riop@hbsslaw.com - and - George Farah, Esq. HANDLEY FARAH & ANDERSON PLLC 81 Prospect Street Brooklyn, NY 11201 Phone: (212) 477-8090 Email: gfarah@hfajustice.com - and - William H. Anderson, Esq. HANDLEY FARAH & ANDERSON PLLC 4730 Table Mesa Drive, Suite G-200 Boulder, CO 80305 Phone: (303) 800-9109 Email: wanderson@hfajustice.com - and - Benjamin David Elga, Esq. Brian Shearer, Esq. JUSTICE CATALYST LAW 25 Broadway . Ninth Floor New York, NY 10004 Phone: (518) 732-6703 Email: belga@justicecatalyst.org brianshearer@justicecatalyst.org - and - Monte Neil Stewart, Esq. Russell E. Marsh, Esq. WRIGHT MARSH & LEVY 300 S. 4th Street . Suite 701 Las Vegas, NV 89101 Phone: (702) 382-4004 Email: monteneilstewart@gmail.com rmarsh@wmllawlv.com - and - Vildan A. Teske, Esq. Marisa C. Katz, Esq. TESKE KATZ KITZER & ROCHEL PLLP 222 South Ninth Street . Suite 4050 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (612) 746-1558 Email: teske@tkkrlaw.com katz@tkkrlaw.com NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Removes Guillory Suit to E.D. Louisiana ---------------------------------------------------------- The Defendant in the case of DARRELL GUILLORY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE; THROUGH ITS COMMISSIONER ROGER GOODELL; NFL REFEREES ASSOCIATION; LOUISIANA STADIUM AND EXPOSITION DISTRICT; GARY CAVALETTO; BILL VINOVICH; TODD PRUKOP; ROGER GOODELL; and PHIL MCKINNELY, Defendants, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Civil District Court of the State of Louisiana, County of Parish (Case No. 19-739 Div G Sec 11) to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana on February 8, 2019. The clerk of court for the Eastern District of Louisiana assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-01197-SM-MBN. The case is assigned to Judge Susie Morgan and referred to Magistrate Judge Michael North. National Football League, Inc. owns and operates a football league in the United States and internationally. The company offers news, videos, teams, players, scores, schedules, stats, and standings; and online services, such as game rewind, field pass, game pass, tools and widgets. It provides its services through online, radio, mobile, and TV. National Football League, Inc. was formerly known as American Professional Football Association and changed its name to National Football League, Inc. in June 1922. The company was founded in 1920 and is based in New York, New York. It has operations in Canada, China, France, Japan, Mexico, and the United Kingdom. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: L. Eric Williams , Jr., Esq. Williams Law Office, LLC 3343 Metairie Road, Suite 6 Metairie, LA 70001 Telephone: (504) 832-9898 Facsimile: (504) 832-9811 E-mail: eric@amlbenzene.net - and - Tregg Connell Wilson, Esq. WILSON & WILSON, LLC 8550 United Plaza Blvd., Suite 702 Baton Rouge, LA 70809 Telephone: (225) 663-1900 Facsimile: (225) 922-4550 E-mail: treggc@yahoo.com The Defendants are represented by: Gladstone N. Jones , III, Esq. Harvey Sylvanous Bartlett , III, Esq. Lynn E. Swanson, Esq. Peter Newton Freiberg, ESq. JONES SWANSON HUDDELL & GARRISON, LLC 601 Poydras St., Suite 2655 New Orleans, LA 70130-6004 Telephone: (504) 523-2500 E-mail: gjones@jonesswanson.com tbartlett@jonesswanson.com lswanson@jonesswanson.com pfreiberg@jonesswanson.com NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Removes Guillory Suit to E.D. Louisiana ---------------------------------------------------------- The Defendant in the case of DARRELL GUILLORY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE; THROUGH ITS COMMISSIONER ROGER GOODELL; NFL REFEREES ASSOCIATION; LOUISIANA STADIUM AND EXPOSITION DISTRICT; GARY CAVALETTO; BILL VINOVICH; TODD PRUKOP; ROGER GOODELL; and PHIL MCKINNELY, Defendants, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Civil District Court of the State of Louisiana, County of Parish (Case No. 19-739 Div G Sec 11) to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana on February 8, 2019. The clerk of court for the Eastern District of Louisiana assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-01197-SM-MBN. The case is assigned to Judge Susie Morgan and referred to Magistrate Judge Michael North. National Football League, Inc. owns and operates a football league in the United States and internationally. The company offers news, videos, teams, players, scores, schedules, stats, and standings; and online services, such as game rewind, field pass, game pass, tools and widgets. It provides its services through online, radio, mobile, and TV. National Football League, Inc. was formerly known as American Professional Football Association and changed its name to National Football League, Inc. in June 1922. The company was founded in 1920 and is based in New York, New York. It has operations in Canada, China, France, Japan, Mexico, and the United Kingdom. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: L. Eric Williams , Jr., Esq. Williams Law Office, LLC 3343 Metairie Road, Suite 6 Metairie, LA 70001 Telephone: (504) 832-9898 Facsimile: (504) 832-9811 E-mail: eric@amlbenzene.net - and - Tregg Connell Wilson, Esq. WILSON & WILSON, LLC 8550 United Plaza Blvd., Suite 702 Baton Rouge, LA 70809 Telephone: (225) 663-1900 Facsimile: (225) 922-4550 E-mail: treggc@yahoo.com The Defendants are represented by: Gladstone N. Jones , III, Esq. Harvey Sylvanous Bartlett , III, Esq. Lynn E. Swanson, Esq. Peter Newton Freiberg, ESq. JONES SWANSON HUDDELL & GARRISON, LLC 601 Poydras St., Suite 2655 New Orleans, LA 70130-6004 Telephone: (504) 523-2500 E-mail: gjones@jonesswanson.com tbartlett@jonesswanson.com lswanson@jonesswanson.com pfreiberg@jonesswanson.com NATIONAL HEALTH: Cain and Wood Sue over Telemarketing Calls ----------------------------------------------------------- Ryan Cain and Audra Wood, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. National Health Agents, LLC, Case No. 19-10487 (D. Mass., March 14, 2019), seeks to enforce the consumer-privacy provisions of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), a federal statute enacted in 1991, in response to widespread public outrage about the proliferation of intrusive, nuisance telemarketing practices. The plaintiffs alleges that National Health Agents made automated and pre-recorded telemarketing calls to cellular telephone numbers, which is prohibited by the TCPA. Defendant National Health Agents is a Florida limited liability company with its principal place of business in Boynton Beach, Florida. The Defendant has a Registered Agent of Donald Keiber at 5390 NW41 Way in Coconut Creek, FL 33073. The Defendant engages in telemarketing nationwide, including into this District.[BN] The plaintiffs are represented by: Anthony I. Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Tel: (508) 221-1510 E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com - and - Alex M. Washkowitz, Esq. Jeremy Cohen, Esq. CW LAW GROUP, P.C. 188 Oaks Road Framingham, MA 01701 E-mail: alex@cwlawgrouppc.com jeremy@cwlawgrouppc.com NCAA: Niemi Sues over Health & Safety of SCSU Student-Athletes -------------------------------------------------------------- GEOFF NIEMI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00820-JRS-DML (S.D. Ind. Feb. 25, 2019), seeks redress for injuries sustained a result of Defendant's reckless disregard for the health and safety of St. Cloud State University ("SCSU") 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, SCSU 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 SCSU 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 SCSU 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: Rodgers & Pruitt Sue over Safety of USM Student-Athletes -------------------------------------------------------------- JOSHUA RODGERS and ETRIC PRUITT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00785-RLY-TAB (S.D. Ind. Feb. 22, 2019), seeks redress for injuries sustained a result of Defendant's reckless disregard for the health and safety of University of Southern Mississippi ("USM") 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 Plaintiffs 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, USM 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 Plaintiffs experienced, Defendant failed to implement adequate procedures to protect Plaintiffs and other USM 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, Plaintiffs and countless former USM football players suffered brain and other neurocognitive injuries from playing NCAA football. As such, Plaintiffs 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 Plaintiffs 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: Solomon-Jett Sues over Safety of BUP Student-Athletes ----------------------------------------------------------- DAVID SOLOMON-JETT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00780-SEB-MPB (S.D. Ind. Feb. 22, 2019), seeks redress for injuries sustained a result of Defendant's reckless disregard for the health and safety of Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania ("BUP") 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, BUP 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 BUP 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 BUP 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 NEW LINK: Judge Dismisses New York Securities Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Shearman & Sterling LLP, in an article for Lexology, reports that on February 13, 2019, United States District Judge William H. Pauley III of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed a putative securities class action against clinical stage biopharmaceutical company New Link Genetics Corporation (the "Company") and its co-founders. Nguyen and Nguyen v. New Link Genetics Corp., et al., No. 16-cv-03545 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 13, 2019). Plaintiffs contended that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making a series of alleged misrepresentations regarding the development of the Company's flagship pancreatic cancer drug that "painted a rosier picture for investors, who were misled into thinking the drug would obtain FDA approval." The Court dismissed without prejudice plaintiffs' initial complaint, finding that, although plaintiffs adequately pled falsity concerning one alleged misstatement, plaintiffs had not sufficiently pled falsity as to any other statement and, in any event, failed to sufficiently plead loss causation for any of the alleged misstatements. Having reviewed plaintiffs' amended complaint and defendants' motion to dismiss that complaint, the Court again dismissed plaintiffs' claims, holding that plaintiffs' new allegations regarding misstatements failed to sufficiently plead falsity and that plaintiffs' loss causation allegations "merely parrot" the defective allegations in their previous complaint. The Court first addressed the issue of the adequacy of the falsity allegations, noting at the outset those allegations are subject to Rule 9(b)'s heightened pleading standard. The Court also focused on the distinction between alleged misstatements of fact, on the one hand, and alleged misstatements of opinion, on the other hand. Citing the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Omnicare as well as the Second Circuit's decision in Tongue v. Sanofi, 816 F.3d 199 (2d Cir. 2016), the Court noted that an opinion is false if either the speaker did not hold the belief professed or the supporting fact supplied was untrue, and also noted that an opinion, even if sincerely held and otherwise true as a matter of fact, may be actionable if the speaker omits information whose omission makes the statement misleading to a reasonable investor. Plaintiffs' amended complaint alleged three new misrepresentations and omissions: two relating to the alleged underreporting of the historical survival rate of pancreatic cancer patients during clinical trials, and a third regarding testing efficacy. The Court rejected plaintiffs' characterization of a statement by one co-founder that "You can look at the last 30 years, all the major studies, pancreatic cancer survival . . . rates [were] between 15-20 months" in U.S.-based studies as false. While plaintiffs contended that this was a misstatement of fact, the Court instead found that the statement, which plaintiffs cited out of context, was a nonactionable statement of opinion because the speaker did not believe that the facts he stated were untrue and "interpretations of the results of various clinical studies . . . are essentially no different than opinions," given that "[r]easonable persons may disagree over how to analyze data and interpret results, and neither lends itself to objective conclusions." Moreover, the Court took issue with the lack of particularity of these allegations, citing the Second Circuit's decision in Rombach v. Chang, 355 F. 3d 164 (2d Cir. 2004) for the principle that a plaintiff is required do more than allege that the statements were false and misleading, but rather "must demonstrate with specificity why and how that is so." The Court similarly rejected plaintiffs' allegation that one of the co-founders "falsely stated that the results of a recent Johns Hopkins Group study found that 'for the last three decades going all the way back to the 1980s, 1990s and all the way up to 2011, the survival expectancy of pancreatic cancer was 19.2 months.'" The Court agreed with defendants that plaintiffs cited the wrong article in disputing the truth of the co-founder's statement, and that the actual article referenced by the co-founder did in fact support his assertion and therefore the statement was not false. The Court also rejected plaintiffs' argument that the Company's decision to exclude certain patients with short life expectancies from its trial amounted to a material misstatement or omission, finding that defendants' preference of a different methodology was not sufficient to allege falsity. The Court observed that the Company may have had good reason to exclude such patients from the trial, including that such patients would need to receive the drug for at least six months. The Court next addressed the issue of loss causation. Noting that the Second Circuit has not resolved whether the notice pleading standard under Rule 8 or the heightened pleading standard under Rule 9(b) applies to the issue of loss causation, the Court observed that the "vast majority" of courts in the Southern District have required that loss causation only meet the notice of requirement of Rule 8. The Court then turned to plaintiffs' argument that four alleged corrective disclosures made by defendants revealed the truth behind the alleged misrepresentations and were purportedly followed by dips in the Company's stock price, and as a result demonstrated loss causation. The Court rejected that theory as to the first two alleged corrective disclosures, noting that the alleged misstatements were not false, and that even if they were, the corrective disclosures did not relate to the alleged misrepresentations concerning historical survival rates. Similarly, the Court rejected the third alleged corrective disclosure that one of the clinical trial sites may not have been in compliance with certain good clinical practices. The Court found that such disclosure "did nothing to 'reveal'[] the truth behind the alleged fraud," because the disclosure did not relate to the alleged misstatement and the Company had never disclosed that any patients were excluded from the study because of such good clinical practices violations. With respect to the last alleged corrective disclosure—that the last phase of the trial failed—the Court found that the "allegations merely parrot those already found to be insufficient" in the initial complaint and that "nothing in th[e] disclosure relates to [any] actionable misrepresentation." The Court thus determined that plaintiffs failed to sufficiently allege loss causation as to any of the alleged misstatements. Noting that Section 20(a) claims are dependent on the viability of the Section 10(b) claims, the Court dismissed all of plaintiffs' claims with prejudice and marked the case closed. [GN] OLLIE'S BARGAIN: Breached Disabilities Act, Allen & Mullen Allege ----------------------------------------------------------------- Irma Allen and Bartley Michael Mullen Jr., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Ollie's Bargain Outlet, Inc., Case No. 2:19-cv-00281-JFC (W.D. Pa., March 14, 2019), accuses the defendant of violating Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and its implementing regulations. The Defendant positions a host of obstructions, including merchandise displays, stocking carts, bins, dollies, and ladders so that they block or narrow the aisle pathways of its stores. Allen and Mullen claim that the facilities of Ollie's Bargain Outlet, Inc. are not fully accessible to and independently usable by individuals who use wheelchairs or scooters. The Plaintiffs invoke their statutory rights to declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as costs and attorneys' fees. Ollie's Bargain Outlet, Inc. is a domestic corporation headquartered at 6295 Allentown Boulevard, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17112.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: R. Bruce Carlson, Esq. Kelly K. Iverson, Esq. Elizabeth Pollock-Avery, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH KILPELA & CARPENTER 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh PA, 15222 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 E-mail: bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com kiverson@carlsonlynch.com eavery@carlsonlynch.com PERRIGO COMPANY: Block & Leviton Files Securities Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Block & Leviton LLP (www.blockesq.com), a securities litigation firm representing investors nationwide, on Feb. 25 disclosed that it has filed a securities fraud class action against Perrigo Company plc. ("PRGO" or the "Company") (NYSE: PRGO) and certain of its officers. The firm encourages shareholders to contact Block & Leviton LLP ahead of the March 4, 2019 lead plaintiff deadline. The complaint, filed in the United States District Court Southern District of New York, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007, captioned Masih v. Perrigo Company plc, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00070, alleges that on December 20, 2018, Perrigo issued a Form 8-K disclosing that the Company had received an audit finding letter from the Irish tax authorities on October 30, 2018 asserting "that IP sales transactions… including the sale of Tysabri(R), were not part of the trade of Elan Pharma and therefore should have been treated as chargeable gains subject to an effective 33% tax rate, rather than the 12.5% tax rate applicable to trading income." While Perrigo had disclosed the existence of the audit finding letter to investors on November 8, 2018, the Company failed to disclose material details associated with the audit finding letter at that time. Following the publication of the December 20, 2018 8-K, Perrigo's stock price plunged almost 25%. If you have purchased or otherwise acquired Perrigo securities between November 8, 2018 and December 20, 2018 and have questions about your legal rights, or possess information relevant to this investigation, you are encouraged to contact Block & Leviton LLP at (617) 398-5660, (888) 868-2385, by email at info@blockesq.com, or by visiting http://shareholder.law/perrigo. Block & Leviton LLP -- https://blockesq.com -- 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. [GN] PETROMAR INTERNATIONAL: Murray Sues Over Unpaid Compensation ------------------------------------------------------------ James Murray, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. Petromar International, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-00800 (S.D. Tex., March 6, 2019) seeks to recover on behalf of himself and the Class Members all unpaid wages and other damages owed to them under the Fair Labor Standard Act of 1938 ("FLSA"). The case is a collective action seeking to remedy the extensive and sweeping violations of the wage and hour provisions which the Defendant has integrated as its standard payment policies, and for violations which have deprived Mr. Murray and the Class Members of their lawfully earned wages. The Defendant knowingly, deliberately, and voluntarily failed to pay its employees overtime and minimum wage. Consequently, the Defendant's conduct violates the FLSA because of the mandate that non-exempt employees, such as Mr. Murray and the Class Members, be paid one and one half their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 in a single week and be paid a minimum wage per hour, says the complaint. Plaintiff James Murray is an individual who resides in Harris County, Texas and worked for Defendant during the last three years. Petromar International, Inc. is a corporation organized under the laws of Delaware.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Galvin B. Kennedy, Esq. KENNEDY HODGES, LLP 4409 Montrose Blvd. Houston, TX 77006 Phone: (713) 523-0001 Facsimile: (713) 523-1116 Email: gkennedy@kennedyhodges.com PG&E: U.S. Supreme Court Ruling May Hurt Wildfire Victims --------------------------------------------------------- George Avalos, writing for The Mercury News, reports that a group of Butte County wildfire victims have filed a class action complaint against PG&E as part of the embattled utility's bankruptcy case, but a 50-year-old court ruling could place wildfire victims near the bottom of the stack of priorities in PG&E's insolvency proceeding, according to a market researcher and a Bay Area bankruptcy expert. A 1968 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in connection with a fire that burned down an industrial building, if applied to the PG&E bankruptcy case, potentially would place the claims of the victims of the infernos of recent years at a lower priority than victims of any PG&E-caused wildfires that began after the company's bankruptcy filing this year. "Any wildfire victims whose claims arise -- meaning, their property catches on fire -- from the date of PG&E's bankruptcy onward will have first priority in the bankruptcy case," said Jared Ellias, a bankruptcy expert and law professor with the UC Hastings College of the Law. This news organization asked Professor Mr. Ellias to assess whether that 1968 Supreme Court decision could come into play in the PG&E bankruptcy case which is being supervised by U.S. Bankruptcy Court Judge Dennis Montali. That would produce an inferior status for the claims of victims of fires that occurred in 2017, such as the infernos that scorched the North Bay Wine Country and nearby regions; and the 2018 wildfire that roared through Butte County and essentially destroyed the town of Paradise, he said. "The 2017 and 2018 wildfire victims as well as any other pre-bankruptcy creditor, including the bondholders," would be treated as unsecured claims with a status well behind fires that might occur in 2019, 2020 or 2021, during the course of the bankruptcy case, according to Mr. Ellias. PG&E listed $51.69 billion in debts and $71.39 billion in assets in its Jan. 29 bankruptcy filing, seeking to reorganize its shattered finances that have been overshadowed by a mountain of potential liabilities arising from the lethal infernos of the last two years. "To the extent that 2019 is a bad wildfire season, the 2019 victims could end up draining PG&E of a lot of value" that might otherwise have gone to the victims of 2017 and 2018, Ellias said. This sort of outcome could generate plenty of controversy, according to a Wyco Researcher assessment posted on the Seeking Alpha investment site. "From a political standpoint, there is going to be public outrage that 2019 (and as long as PG&E is in Ch.11) wildfire victims must be paid in full, but victims from 2017 and 2018 may get less than full recovery under a reorganization plan because they are in a lower priority class of unsecured claims," stated Wyco Researcher, an investment research firm. The forbidding outlook for those harmed by previous infernos has emerged at the same time that victims of the November 2018 Camp Fire in Butte County have lodged a class action complaint against PG&E. The class action was filed with the bankruptcy court on Feb. 13. The litigation claims that PG&E failed to properly maintain its aging electricity and power transmission system and didn't take preventative measures such as de-energizing power lines during hazardous conditions. "PG&E's dereliction of these duties resulted in the deadliest and most destructive wildfire in California history," according to the class action complaint that was made part of the PG&E bankruptcy case. "Judge's actions don't ensure safety" of PG&E electricity system The class action claimed that PG&E was negligent, caused a private and public nuisance, violated state laws, and violated health and safety codes. The litigation also seeks to apply a California doctrine called inverse condemnation, whereby PG&E and other major power companies in the state could be strictly liable if their equipment was a substantial cause of a fire, even if the utility followed established inspection and safety rules. David Herndon, Julia Herndon, Gabriell Herndon, Jedidiah Herndon and Estafania Miranda, all Butte County residents, were listed as the principal plaintiffs in the class action arising from the Camp Fire, bankruptcy court records show. "This catastrophe was preventable," the class action claimed, the court papers show. [GN] PRIMARK: Settles ADA Breach Class Action in New York ---------------------------------------------------- Mark Paul, writing for The Irish Times, reports that Primark, the Irish-run international fashion retailer that operates here as Penneys, has in recent weeks agreed to settle a US lawsuit that claimed its consumer website discriminates against the visually-impaired. A raft of US consumer-facing businesses have been hit with similar cases in the past two years, over allegations that their websites breach the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), a landmark piece of US federal equality legislation. Primark, which is making a major push into the US market after opening nine stores there, was caught up in a class action lawsuit filed in New York late last year. A visually-impaired New York resident, Luc Burbon, launched the suit against the retailer, which she alleges breached the ADA due to the design of its website, and therefore discriminates against blind people. In documents filed as part of the court case, she explained that many of the 8.1 million visually-impaired people in the US are only able to access websites using screen-reading software, such as Jaws, which translates text and descriptions of graphics into audio, or displays it on a refreshable braille unit. [GN] PUBLIC STORAGE: Faces Class Action Over Tenant Insurance -------------------------------------------------------- Inside Self Storage reports that Public Storage Inc., a self-storage real estate investment trust and third-party management firm, is facing a $100 million class-action lawsuit from past customers who claim they were forced to buy tenant insurance from the company as a condition of renting a unit. This video discusses the case, including the company's arguments for why the class should be decertified. [GN] SAG MARBLE: Marti Seeks Overtime Pay for Granite Installers ----------------------------------------------------------- ALBERTO MARTI, and other similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff (s), v. SAG MARBLE & GRANITE, INC., MIGUEL A. GUTIERREZ and ALMA A. GUTIERREZ, individually, the Defendants, Case No. 8:19-cv-00453 (M.D. Fla., Feb. 21, 2019), seeks to recover money damages for unpaid overtime pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and all other current and former employees similarly situated to Plaintiff worked in excess of 40 hours during one or more weeks on or after September 2017 without being compensated overtime wages pursuant to the FLSA. The Plaintiff was marble and granite installer. The Plaintiff began his employment earning $10.00 an hour and his last wage rate was $15.00 an hour. While employed by the Defendants, the Plaintiff had an irregular schedule. The Plaintiff worked 5 or 6 days per week from Mondays to Saturdays, and he always worked more than 40 hours in a week period. The Plaintiff alleges that he was paid for all his hours at regular rate, but he was not paid for overtime hours at the rate of time and on half his regular rate. The Plaintiff always worked more than 40 hours every week period, but he was not paid for overtime hours. Therefore, the Defendant willfully failed to pay Plaintiff overtime hours at the rate of time and one-half his regular rate for every hour that he worked in excess of 40, the lawsuit says. The Defendant is a construction company specialized in marble and granite work for commercial and residential customers.[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 SANTA MONICA: Removes Valentine Suit to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- Rehabilitation Center of Santa Monica Holding Company GP LLC removed case, TERRY VALENTINE, individually, and on behalf of all other similarly-situated employees of DEFENDANTS in the State of California, the Plaintiff, vs. REHABILITATION CENTER OF SANTA MONICA HOLDING COMPANY GP, LLC; REHABILITATION CENTER OF SANTA MONICA OPERATING COMPANY, LP; MARINER HEALTH CARE MANAGEMENT COMPANY; MARINER HEALTH CARE, INC.; MARINER HEALTH CENTRAL; INC.; and DOES 1 THROUGH 50, Inclusive, Case No. 18STCV09282 (Dec. 21, 2018), from the Los Angeles Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The Central District of California Court ClerK Assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-01300 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff's complaint purports to allege claims for relief against Defendants stemming from Defendants' alleged procurement of consumer reports on Plaintiff and other individuals. The Plaintiff bases her claims on alleged violations by Defendants of the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act as well as the FCRA's California counterpart, the California Investigative Consumer Reporting.[BN] Attorneys for the Defendants: Jon D. Meer, Esq. David Rosenberg, Esq. John Drury, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500 Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021 Telephone: (310) 277-7200 Facsimile: (310) 201-5219 E-mail: jmeer@seyfarth.com drosenberg@seyfarth.com jdrury@seyfarth.com SCHELL & KAMPETER: Jackson et al. Sue over Contaminated Pet Foods ----------------------------------------------------------------- A case, CONSTANCE JACKSON and GWEN KASZYNSKI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. SCHELL & KAMPETER, INC. d/b/a DIAMOND PET FOODS, and DIAMOND PET FOODS INC., the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01459 (N.D. Ill.. Feb. 28, 2019), seeks injunctive and monetary relief as a result of Defendants' negligent, reckless, and/or intentional practice of misrepresenting, failing to test for, and failing to fully disclose the risk and/or presence of heavy metals, toxins, Bisphenol A ("BPA"), and/or unnatural or other ingredients that do not conform to the labels, packaging, advertising, and statements of products sold throughout the United States. According to the complaint, aware of the health risks and environmental damage caused by processed and chemical-laden foods, consumers increasingly demand foods for themselves and for their pets that possess high quality ingredients and are free of contaminants, toxins, chemicals and/or other unnatural ingredients. The Defendants know that certain consumers seek out and wish to purchase premium pet foods that possess high quality ingredients and do not contain chemicals, toxins contaminants chemicals and other unnatural ingredients, and that these consumers will pay more for pet foods that they believe possess these qualities than for pet foods that they do not believe possess these qualities. As such, the Defendants' promises, warranties, pricing, statements, claims, packaging, labeling, marketing, and advertising center on representations and pictures that are intended to, and do, convey to consumers that their pet food, including their Contaminated Dog Food, possess certain qualities and characteristics that justify a premium price. However, the Defendants' Marketing is deceptive, misleading, unfair, and/or false because, among other things, the Contaminated Dog Food includes undisclosed Heavy Metals, pesticides, acrylamide, bisphenol A ("BPA") and/or unnatural or other ingredients that do not conform to the labels. The Defendants' Contaminated Dog Food does not have a disclaimer regarding the presence of Heavy Metals, pesticides, acrylamide, BPA, and/or unnatural or other ingredients that do not conform to the labels or that these toxins can accumulate over time in the dog's body to the point where poisoning, injury, and/or disease can occur. Consumers lack the scientific knowledge necessary to determine whether the Products do in fact contain Heavy Metals, pesticides, acrylamide, BPA, and/or unnatural or other ingredients that do not conform to the labels and to know or to ascertain the true ingredients and quality of the Products, the lawsuit says. Schell & Kampeter, Inc., doing business as Diamond Pet Foods, Inc., manufactures pet foods. It offers dog and cat products.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs and the Class: Katrina Carroll, Esq. Susana Cruz Hodge, Esq. LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG LLC 111 W. Washington Street, Suite 1240 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 750-1265 Facsimile: (312) 212-5919 E-mail: kcarroll@litedepalma.com scruzhodge@litedepalma.com - and - Robert K. Shelquist, Esq. Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P. 100 South Washington Ave., Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-6900 Facsimile: (612) 339-0981 E-mail: rkshelquist@locklaw.com rapeterson@locklaw.com - and - Jonathan Shub, Esq. Kevin Laukaitis, Esq. KOHN, SWIFT & GRAF, P.C. 1600 Market Street, Suite 2500 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 238-1700 Facsimile: (215) 238-1968 E-mail: jshub@kohnswift.com klaukaitis@kohnswift.com - and - Kevin A. Seely, Esq. Steven M. Mckany, Esq. ROBBINS ARROYO LLP 600 B Street, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 525-3990 Facsimile: (619) 525-3991 E-mail: kseely@robbinsarroyo.com smckany@robbinsarroyo.com - and - Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq. Karla M. Gluek, Esq. Joseph C. Bourne, Esq. Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. GUSTAFSON GLUEK, PLLC Canadian Pacific Plaza 120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 333-8844 Facsimile: (612) 339-6622 E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com kgluek@gustafsongluek.com jbourne@gustafsongluek.com rborrelli@gustafsongluek.com SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY: Arango Seeks OT Pay for Calif. Employees ----------------------------------------------------------------- Allan Arango, an individual, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION, a Corporation; and Does 1 through 50, Inclusive Case No. 30-2019-01056839-CU-OE-CXC (Calif. Super., Orange Cty., March 14, 2019), seeks compensation for the defendant's alleged violations of California Business and Professions Code, California Labor Code, and Private Attorneys General Act, and the applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order. Plaintiff brings this class action on behalf of himself and a California class, defined as all individuals who are or previously were employed by Defendant in California and classified as non-exempt employees at any time during the period beginning on the date four years prior to the filing of this Complaint and ending on the date as determined by the Court. The amount in controversy for the aggregate claim of the California Class Members is under $5,000,000. Plaintiff wants the defendant to fully compensate the California Class for their losses incurred during the California Class Period caused by the defendant's uniform policy and practice which failed to lawfully compensate these employees for all their overtime worked. Schlumberger Technology, founded in 1926, provides technology for reservoir characterization, drilling, production, and processing to the oil and gas industry. It also offers data management software products and computing services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq. Kyle R. Nordrehaug, Esq. Aparajit Bhowmik, Esq. BLUMENTHAL NORDREHAUG BHOWMIK DE BLOUW LLP 2255 Calle Clara La Jolla, CA 92037 Telephone: (858)551-1223 Facsimile: (858) 551-1232 Website: www.bamlawca.com SHREVEPORT, LA: Water, Sewer Overcharges Class Action Can Proceed ----------------------------------------------------------------- KTBS3abcOnYourSide reports that a lawsuit alleging the city of Shreveport knowingly overbilled water and sewer customers qualifies as a class action and is proceeding to determine the city's liability, according to a law firm that's handling the legal action. District Judge Michael Pitman issued the ruling in the lawsuit originally filed in August by The Haven Property Owners Association and Briarwood Apartments. A state sales tax imposed in 2015 -- collected by municipalities that are to send the money on to the state -- allows taxation of water usage but does not apply to sewage. Shreveport collected on both for a while before the error was discovered. The lawsuit alleges the city collected the two sales taxes from July 2015 to late 2017 and didn't refund the sewer tax, even after finding the error. The city has denied liability for the overcharges but in September began sending refunds to some of the customers with large accounts. About 6,000 accounts were expected to be refunded a total of $1.4 million. The Harper Law Firm, represented by Jerry Harper and Anne Wilkes, has been court-approved as class counsel to represent the interests of the class members. Those members may consult with the approved counsel or hire their own lawyers for advice. The court still must approve notices to be sent to all Shreveport water and sewer who were affected during the time period the taxes were collected. They'll be informed of their rights to participate in the class action lawsuit or decline to do so. The notices should be mailed and published within the next few weeks, according to the law firm. The lawsuit seeks to recover amounts overpaid by Shreveport commercial and industrial water and sewer customers, interest and attorney's fees. A trial date for the liability phase of the suit has not been set. Depositions are scheduled in March for city officials to answer questions such as the sewer quantity charge, sewer customer charge and security fee. They also are being asked why the city did not begin issuing reimbursements until Sept. 7 and to explain why not all refunds have been given. A second class action lawsuit against the city alleging overcharges of all of the city's residential water and sewer customers has been filed and is pending class certification in the First Judicial District Court. [GN] SMASHBURGER IP: Galvan Sues over Mislabeled Triple Double Burgers ----------------------------------------------------------------- ANDRE GALVAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SMASHBURGER IP HOLDER LLC; SMASHBURGER FRANCHISING LLC; and JOLLIBEE FOODS CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-00993-JAK-JEM (C.D. Cal., Feb. 2, 2019) is a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of Smashburger's Triple Double, Bacon Triple Double, and Pub Triple Double burgers, alleging violations of the California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, California's False Advertising Law, California's Unfair Competition Law, fraud, breach of express warranty, and unjust enrichment. According to the complaint, Smashburger promotes its Triple Double Burgers as containing "Double the Beef." However, contrary to this statement, Triple Double Burgers actually include two patties that are each half the size of the patties of Smashburger's regular-sized Classic Smash burgers. Therefore, Triple Double Burgers contain the same amount of beef as Smashburger's regular-sized Classic Smash burgers, not "double" the beef. Smashburger's false and misleading use of its "Double the Beef" taglines, such as "Triple the Cheese, Double the Beef in Every Bite," "Triple the Cheese, Double the Beef, Triple the Options," and "Classic Smash Beef Build with triple the cheese & double beef in every bite," are thus likely to confuse and mislead the consuming public by causing consumers to believe incorrectly that Smashburger's products sold under these slogans include twice the beef of Smashburger's regular-sized Classic Smash burgers, which they do not. Smashburger IP Holder LLC is a Delaware corporation, operating and franchising a chain of fast casual restaurants specializing in hamburger and cheeseburger sandwiches and other products and services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. Blair E. Reed, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com - and - Marc G. Reich, Esq. Adam T. Hoover, Esq. REICH RADCLIFFE & HOOVER LLP 4675 MacArthur Court, Suite 550 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 975-0512 Facsimile: (949) 975-0514 E-mail: mgr@reichradcliffe.com adhoover@reichradcliffe.com SPECIALTY LAWN: Petty Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Bill Petty, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated Plaintiff, v. William D. Wells, and Specialty Lawn Care, Inc., doing business as US Lawns of Terre Haute, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-00112-JMS-DLP (S.D. Ind., March 6, 2019) is a collective action against Wells and Specialty pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), for minimum wage and overtime pay violations. Wells and Specialty failed and refused to pay Petty overtime compensation for all hours which Petty worked in excess of forty hours per week, notes the complaint. Wells and Specialty have similarly failed and refused to pay other employees overtime compensation for such work. Wells and Specialty have intentionally and knowingly violated their employees' right to earned wages through their illegal practices regarding minimum wages and overtime compensation and continues to do so, asserts the complaint. Plaintiff Petty worked for Wells and Specialty until October of 2018 at which time he resigned his position. He is no longer an employee of either. Wells and Specialty are engaged in the business of providing lawn care services under the name of US Lawns of Terre Haute located at 2793 W. U.S. Hwy 40, Brazil, IN, 47834.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert F. Hunt, Esq. HUNT, HASSLER, LORENZ & KONDRAS LLP 100 Cherry Street Terre Haute, IN 47807 Phone: (812) 232-9691 Facsimile: (812) 234-2881 Email: hunt@huntlawfirm.net SUNRISE SENIOR: Schlieser Suit Removed to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned Nancy Schlieser, an individual, and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Sunrise Senior Living Management, Inc., a Virginia corporation; and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 30-2019-01044809-CU-OE-CXC was removed from the Orange County Superior Court, State of California to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on March 6, 2019, and assigned Case No. 8:19-cv-00443. Plaintiff seeks to bring a class action on behalf of a "all current and former non-exempt employees of DEFENDANTS in the State of California at any time within the period beginning 4 years prior to the filing of this action and ending at the time this action settles or proceeds to final judgment." Among other things, Plaintiff alleges that putative class members are entitled to unpaid wages, premiums for missed meal periods and rest breaks, penalties for failure to provide accurate wage statements, waiting time penalties for failure to pay all wages due at termination, and attorneys' fees and costs. The Defendant is represented by: Michele L. Maryott, Esq. Ashley Allyn, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 3161 Michelson Drive Irvine, CA 92612-4412 Phone: 949.451.3800 Facsimile: 949.451.4220 Email: mmaryott@gibsondunn.com aallyn@gibsondunn.com - and - Jason C. Schwartz, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20036-5306 Phone: 202.955.8500 Facsimile: 202.467.0539 Email: jschwartz@gibsondunn.com TATE & KIRLIN: Matthias Files FDCPA Suit in Wisconsin ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tate & Kirlin Associates, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Robin Matthias, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Tate & Kirlin Associates, Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation, LVNV Funding, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-00182-slc (W.D. Wis., Mar. 8, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Tate & Kirlin Associates, Inc. provides debt collection services. The company's clientele ranges from financial and retail credit communities to the medical and commercial industries. LVNV Funding LLC, ("LVNV") purchases portfolios of both domestic (U.S.) and international consumer debt owned by credit grantors including banks and finance companies, and by other debt buyers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Joseph Philipps, Esq. Angie K. Robertson, Esq. Mary Elizabeth Philipps, Esq. Philipps & Philipps, Ltd. 9760 South Roberts Road, Suite One Palos Hills, IL 60465 Phone: (708) 974-2900 Fax: (708) 974-2900 Email: davephilipps@aol.com angie@philippslegal.com mephilipps@aol.com TESLA INC: Hearing on Bid to Dismiss Tentatively Set for June 20 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Tesla 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 hearing on the motion to dismiss the securities suits related to Elon Musk's August 7, 2018 Twitter post is tentatively set for June 20, 2019. Between August 10, 2018 and September 6, 2018, nine purported stockholder class actions were filed against Tesla and Elon Musk in connection with Elon Musk's August 7, 2018 Twitter post that he was considering taking Tesla private. All of the suits are now pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Although the complaints vary in certain respects, they each purport to assert claims for violations of federal securities laws related to Mr. Musk's statement and seek unspecified compensatory damages and other relief on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of Tesla's securities. Plaintiffs filed their consolidated complaint on January 16, 2019 and added as defendants the members of Tesla’s board of directors. Defendants plan to file a motion to dismiss the complaint on or before March 7, 2019. The hearing on the motion to dismiss is tentatively set for June 20, 2019. Tesla said, "We believe that the claims have no merit and intend to defend against them vigorously. We are unable to estimate the potential loss, or range of loss, associated with these claims." Tesla Inc. designs, manufactures, and sells high-performance electric vehicles and electric vehicle powertrain components. The Company owns its sales and service network and sells electric powertrain components to other automobile manufacturers. Tesla serves customers worldwide. Tesla, Inc. was founded in 2003 and is headquartered in Palo Alto, California. TESLA INC: Suits over Model 3 Vehicle Production Ongoing -------------------------------------------------------- Tesla 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 a purported stockholder class action lawsuits related to the company's preparedness to produce Model 3 vehicles. On October 10, 2017, a purported stockholder class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against Tesla, two of its current officers, and a former officer. The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws and seeks unspecified compensatory damages and other relief on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of Tesla securities from May 4, 2016 to October 6, 2017. The lawsuit claims that Tesla supposedly made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's preparedness to produce Model 3 vehicles. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on March 23, 2018, and defendants filed a motion to dismiss on May 25, 2018. The court granted defendant's motion to dismiss with leave to amend. Plaintiffs filed their amended complaint on September 28, 2018. Tesla said, "We will file a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on February 15, 2019. The hearing on the motion to dismiss is set for March 1, 2019. We believe that the claims are without merit and intend to defend against this lawsuit vigorously. We are unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any, associated with this lawsuit." On October 26, 2018, in a similar action, a purported stockholder class action was filed in the Superior Court of California in Santa Clara County against Tesla, Elon Musk and seven initial purchasers in an offering of debt securities by Tesla in August 2017. The complaint alleges misrepresentations made by Tesla regarding the number of Model 3 vehicles Tesla expected to produce by the end of 2017 in connection with such offering, and seeks unspecified compensatory damages and other relief on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of Tesla securities in such offering. Tesla thereafter removed the case to federal court. On January 22, 2019, plaintiff abandoned its effort to proceed in state court, instead filing an amended complaint against Tesla, Elon Musk and seven initial purchasers in the debt offering before the same judge in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California who is hearing the above-referenced earlier filed federal court case. On February 5, 2019, the Court stayed this new case pending a ruling on the motion to dismiss the complaint in the above earlier filed case. Tesla said, "We believe that the claims are without merit and intend to defend against this lawsuit vigorously. We are unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any, associated with this lawsuit." Tesla Inc. designs, manufactures, and sells high-performance electric vehicles and electric vehicle powertrain components. The Company owns its sales and service network and sells electric powertrain components to other automobile manufacturers. Tesla serves customers worldwide. Tesla, Inc. was founded in 2003 and is headquartered in Palo Alto, California. TEVA PHARMA: Failed to Warn over Opioids Risks, Kassab Says ----------------------------------------------------------- A case, ADAM C. KASSAB, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC.; CEPHALON, INC.; ENDO PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; and AMERISOURCEBERGEN CORPORATION, the Defendants, Case No. GD-18-012337 (Penn. Ct of Common Pleas, Allegheny Cty.), seeks to hold the Defendants accountable for the economic harm they have imposed on Pennsylvania purchasers of private health insurance. Prescription opioids have devastated communities across the country and in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Since 1999, there have been more than 183,000 reported opioid-related deaths nationwide -- more than three times the number of U.S. soldiers who died in the Vietnam War. In addition to the tragic loss of life and the heartbreaking impact on children and loved ones, some estimates state that the opioid crisis is costing governmental entities and private companies as much as $500 billion per year. Defendants manufacture, market, sell, and distribute prescription opioids, which are powerful, highly addictive narcotic painkillers. The Manufacturer Defendants have engaged in a cunning and deceptive marketing scheme to encourage doctors and patients to use opioids to treat chronic pain. In doing so, the Manufacturer Defendants falsely minimized the risks of opioids, overstated their benefits, and generated far more opioid prescriptions than there should have been. The opioid epidemic is the direct result of the Manufacturer Defendants' deliberately crafted, well-funded campaign of deception. For years, they misrepresented the risks posed by the opioids they manufacture and sell, misleading susceptible prescribers and vulnerable patient populations. As families and communities suffered from the scourge of opioid abuse, the Manufacturer Defendants earned billions in profits as a direct result of the harms they imposed. The Manufacturer Defendants knew that their misrepresentations about the risks and benefits of opioids were not supported by, and sometimes were directly contrary to, the scientific evidence. Certain opioid manufacturers, including Defendant Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc., have entered agreements prohibiting them from making misrepresentations identified in this Complaint in other jurisdictions. Nonetheless, the Manufacturer Defendants continue to misrepresent the risks and benefits of long-term opioid use in Pennsylvania, and they have not corrected their past misrepresentations. The Manufacturer Defendants' false and misleading statements deceived doctors and patients about the risks and benefits of opioids and convinced them that opioids were not only appropriate, but necessary to treat chronic pain. The Manufacturer Defendants targeted susceptible prescribers, like family doctors, and vulnerable patient populations, like the elderly and veterans. And they tainted the sources that doctors and patients relied upon for guidance, including treatment guidelines, medical education programs, medical conferences and seminars, and scientific articles. As a result, they successfully transformed the way doctors treat chronic pain, opening the floodgates of opioid prescriptions and dependence. Opioids are now the most prescribed class of drugs, generating billions of dollars in revenue for the Manufacturer Defendants every year. In addition, the Distributor Defendant could and should have prevented the brunt of the opioid epidemic, but instead allowed the country to be flooded with prescription opioids. Under federal law, distributors are required to secure and monitor drugs as they travel through commerce, to protect them from theft, and to reject and report suspicious or unusual orders by downstream pharmacies, doctors, or patients. But the Distributor Defendant neglected this duty, turning a blind eye to known or knowable problems in its own supply chains. By doing so, the Distributor Defendant created conditions in which vast amounts of opioids flowed freely from the Manufacturer Defendants to abusers and drug dealers -- with the Distributor Defendant readily fulfilling suspicious orders from pharmacies and ignoring red flags that would require further investigation and resolution. This behavior by the Distributor Defendant has allowed massive amounts of opioids to be diverted from legitimate channels of distribution into the illicit black market, fueling the opioid epidemic. The Distributor Defendant created an environment in which drug diversion can flourish. For years, the Distributor Defendant had the ability to substantially reduce the death toll and adverse economic consequences of opioid diversion but opted to pursue corporate revenues instead. All of the Defendants in this action share responsibility for creating, sustaining, and prolonging the opioid epidemic. The explosion in opioid prescriptions and use has created a public health crisis in Pennsylvania. An oversupply of prescription opioids has provided a source for illicit use or sale of opioids, while their widespread use has created a population of addicted and dependent patients. When those patients can no longer afford or legitimately obtain opioids, they often turn to the street to buy prescription opioids or even heroin. In addition to the societal impact of deaths, overdoses, and rampant addiction, Defendants' conduct has created higher demand and thus higher prices for opioids, as well as the need for expensive medical treatment for a number of covered health conditions, resulting in increased insurance costs for Pennsylvania residents. Defendants' conduct has fueled skyrocketing opioid addiction and opioid-related deaths and emergency treatments, and has generated huge sales of opioids at inflated prices. The direct and proximate consequence of Defendants' misconduct is that every Pennsylvania purchaser of private health insurance paid higher premiums, co-payments, and deductibles. Insurance companies have considerable market power and pass onto their insureds the expected cost of future care -- including opioid-related coverage. Accordingly, insurance companies factored in the unwarranted and exorbitant healthcare costs of opioid-related coverage caused by Defendants and charged that back to insureds in the form of higher premiums, deductibles, and co-payments, the lawsuit says.[BN] Counsel for Plaintiff and the Putative Class: Scott M. Hare, Esq. SCOTT LAW 1806 Frick Building 437 Grant Street Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Telephone: 412-338-8632 E-mail: scott@scottlawpgh.com - and - William S. Consovoy, Esq. Thomas R. McCarthy, Esq. Michael H. Park, Esq. CONSOVOY MCCARTHY PARK PLLC 3033 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 700 Arlington, VA 22201 Telephone: (703) 243 9423 E-mail: will@consovoymccarthy.com tom@consovoymccarthy.com park@consovoymccarthy.com - and - Ashley Keller, Esq. Travis Lenkner, Esq. Seth Meyer, Esq. KELLER LENKNER LLC 150 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 2570 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 741 5220 E-mail: ack@kellerlenkner.com tdl@kellerlenkner.com sam@kellerlenkner.com TNT CABLE: Rougeau Seeks Overtime Wages for Technicians ------------------------------------------------------- ROWLAND J. ROUGEAU, on Behalf of Himself and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. TNT CABLE CONTRACTORS, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-00148 (E.D. Tex., Feb. 28, 2019), alleges that the Defendant misclassified the Plaintiff as an "independent contractor," and failed to pay him overtime wages when he worked more than 40 hours in a workweek as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff as well as the similarly situated employees are the Defendant's current and former Technicians who worked for the Defendant within the last three years. The Defendant's pay practices and policies applied not only to the Plaintiff, but also to all Class Members. TNT controlled the Plaintiff's conditions of employment. For instance, the Plaintiff and the other Class Members were required to report to TNT's warehouse in Lafayette, Louisiana in the mornings by approximately 7:15 a.m. - 7:30 a.m. At the warehouse, the Plaintiff would get his route for the day and was required to get the equipment and supplies he would need in order to complete the job orders given to him by TNT. In addition, TNT, directly or indirectly, set the price that the Plaintiff and the other Class Members would get paid for the services they provided. Neither the Plaintiff nor the Class Members set the price of their services. TNT required the Plaintiff and the other Class Members to comply with various rules and regulations as a condition of working for TNT. The Defendant paid the Plaintiff on a "piece rate" or "job rate" basis -- and did not include an overtime premium payment for any hours worked in excess of forty each week, the lawsuit says. TNT provides cable installation and repair services.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: Robert R. Debes, Jr., Esq. SHELLIST | LAZARZ | SLOBIN LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 621-2277 Facsimile: (713) 621-0993 E-mail: bdebes@eeoc.net TOTAL AIRPORT: Nedialkova Sues over Biometric Data Collection ------------------------------------------------------------- KRISTIN NEDIALKOVA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. TOTAL AIRPORT SERVICES, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2019CH02300 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty, Feb. 21, 2019), alleges that the Plaintiff and the putative Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) Class members have continuously and repeatedly been exposed to risks, harmful conditions, and violations of privacy through the Defendant's violations of BIPA. The case is a class action under the BIPA, on behalf of all persons in Illinois who had their fingerprints improperly collected, captured, received, or otherwise obtained by TAS. the Plaintiff began working for Defendant in May 2015 and was an employee of Defendant through June 2017. The Plaintiffs final position with Defendant was working in its Customer Service Department. According to the complaint, in or around 2016, TAS installed and implemented the use of a biometric scanner. The Plaintiff, and all other members of the putative BIPA Class, was required to have her fingerprint collected and/or captured so that TAS could store it and use it moving forward as an authentication method. The Defendant failed to maintain or publicize information about its biometric practices or policies; and failed to provide the Plaintiff or, upon information and belief, any member of the putative BIPA Class, with information about its policies or practices. The Defendant failed to provide the Plaintiff or, any member of the putative BIPA Class, with written notice of the fact that it was collecting biometric information prior to collection. The Defendant failed to obtain prior written consent from the Plaintiff or any putative BIPA Class member before it collected, stored, or used those individuals' biometric information. Each day, the Plaintiff and the putative BIPA Class members were each required to place their finger on a panel to be scanned in order to 'clock in' and 'clock out' of work. TAS did not inform the Plaintiff of the specific purposes or length of time for which it collected, stored, or used her fingerprint. TAS did not inform the Plaintiff of any biometric data retention policy developed by Defendant, nor has she ever been informed of whether TAS will ever permanently delete her fingerprint. The Plaintiff was not provided with nor ever signed a written release allowing TAS to collect or store her fingerprint. The Plaintiffs experiences as described above are typical and representative of the experiences of the putative BIPA Class, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: Alejandro Caffarelli, Esq. Alexis D. Martin, Esq. CAFFARELLI & ASSOCIATES LTD. 224 S. Michigan Ave., Ste. 300 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 763-6880 TW CONSTRUCTION: Alameda, Perez Seek Overtime Pay ------------------------------------------------- Angel Pantoja Alameda and Jaime Marin Perez, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. TW Construction, Inc. d/b/a TW Outdoor Services, Case No. 2:19-cv-01070-CDJ (E.D. Pa., March 14, 2019), seeks all relief available under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA), the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act (PMWA), the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law, and Pennsylvania common law. Plaintiffs work substantially more than 40 hours per week for the Defendant, yet they are not paid proper overtime premiums. They also claim that TW took unauthorized deductions from their salaries. TW, which maintains its operational headquarters in Morrisville, Bucks County, Pennsylvania, provides landscaping, parking lot and street sweeping, and snow removal services in Pennsylvania and surrounding states.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq. Camille Fundora Rodriguez, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 Facsimile: (215) 875-4620 E-mail: sschalman-bergen@bm.net crodriguez@bm.net - and – Alia Al-Khatib, Esq. Kathryn Brown, Esq. Liz Chacko, Esq. JUSTICE AT WORK, INC. 990 Spring Garden Street, Suite 300 Philadelphia, PA 19123 Telephone: (215) 733-0878 Facsimile: 215-733-0876 E-mail: aal-khatib@justiceatworklegalaid.org kbrown@justiceatworklegalaid.org lchacko@justiceatworklegalaid.org - and – Ryan Allen Hancock, Esq. WILLIG, WILLIAMS & DAVIDSON 1845 Walnut Street, 24th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 656-3600 Facsimile: (215) 567-2310 UNITED STATES: Faces Class Action Over Terror Watchlist ------------------------------------------------------- Michael Burke, writing for The Hill, reports that the federal government shares its terrorist watchlist with more than 1,400 private groups, according to court papers reported on by The Associated Press. The AP reported on Feb. 19 that Timothy Groh, the deputy director of the FBI's Terrorist Screening Center (TSC), said in a written statement to a federal court that 1,441 private entities can access the watchlist, which is compiled by the center. Groh's statement came as part of a class-action lawsuit in federal court in Alexandria, Va., brought by Muslims who say they have been wrongly included on the list. To have access to the watchlist, the groups must be linked to the criminal justice system, Groh said, according to the AP. He reportedly pointed to police at private universities, security staff at hospitals and private correctional facilities as examples of groups who have access. The FBI did not immediately return a request for comment to The Hill. The government has previously denied disseminating the list to private groups, the AP noted. The AP reported that government lawyer Dena Roth said at a pretrial hearing last year that the TSC "does not work with private partners, and that watchlist status itself . . . is considered law enforcement sensitive information and is not shared with the public." Gadeir Abbas, an attorney with the Council on American-Islamic Relations, told the AP that the government's use of the watchlist is shocking. "We've always suspected there was private-sector dissemination of the terror watchlist, but we had no idea the breadth of the dissemination would be so large," Mr. Abbas said. Mr. Abbas and other attorneys have asked a judge to force the government to provide more details on which private groups are accessing the watchlist and how those groups are using the list, according to the AP. Mr. Abbas also told the AP that the list has so many incorrect names that it is essentially a collection of "innocent Muslims who have never committed a crime." "It is a fool's errand," Mr. Abbas said. "They are trying to predict, among the innocent, which people will be terrorists. That is an impossibility." [GN] UNITED STATES: VA Faces Class Action Over Emergency Care Denials ---------------------------------------------------------------- WSAW reports that Department of Veteran Affairs representatives said only a single $12 reimbursement has been paid under the law meant to stop the VA from denying payment for non-VA emergency care, a congressional aide familiar with specifics of a meeting between congressional staff and the VA tells 7 Investigates. The revelation comes nearly three years after 7 Investigates first exposed a loophole leaving thousands of Wisconsin veterans, and hundreds of thousands of veterans nationally, improperly charged for emergency care. That law is called the Staab Rule. Today, the veteran behind the national case that changed the law still remains without a refund from the U.S. Dept. of Veterans Affairs. Richard Staab's life-threatening emergency "It's wrong. I think it's wrong," 86-year-old Minnesota Airforce veteran Richard Staab told 7 Investigates Senior Investigative Reporter Matthew Simon. The exclusive interview comes nearly a decade after Mr. Staab's long legal struggle began -- on a day back in December 2010. "Well, the heart was pounding. And I thought if I would sit down and rest, it would go away. But it didn't. So they called the ambulance," Mr. Staab said. It would end up being life-threatening. Mr. Staab would survive emergency open heart surgery at a non-VA hospital in St. Cloud, Minn., after suffering a heart attack and stroke. He could not communicate for months. "They told me I'd be lucky if I got out in a year when I was in the nursing home. I said, 'Oh no, I'll be out of here in six months.' And I was," Mr. Staab said. When it came time to pay his bills, the VA cited the federal Veterans Emergency Care Fairness Act. The law includes directing how the agency is expected to reimburse veterans for non-VA emergency care. Under their interpretation of that law, the VA said because Mr. Staab had Medicare as other insurance covering part of his non-VA emergency care, they would not reimburse him for any of the remaining $48,000 in bills. "It's wrong what happened. And I don't see how all the GIs would know what you need to do to be covered," Mr. Staab said. Looking back at some of his basic training pictures from 1952, as the Korean War veteran recalled his current VA struggle, he also remembered the promise his country made to him. "You enlist with us. You get to have all health care taken care of. And this, and that. That was the big thing back then," Mr. Staab said. A Nearly Decade Long Legal Fight A large part of Mr. Staab's story can symbolically be seen in Mr. Staab's lawyer Jackie Schuh's St. Cloud, Minn. Office. Mr. Schuh is a veteran herself. This mission is personal. Multiple legal filings, medical records, and appeal pleadings show the journey of VA denials representing the Staab case for most of the last eight years. "There's nobody that should be put in the position that he's been put in where they have to come up with $48,000 to pay for emergency fees," Mr. Schuh said. "When they are promised when they sign the dotted line or do their 20 years that they're going to be free from that result. It's ridiculous." "So it's got to be fixed. I mean it's sad to say what has been promised to Dick, and all the other veterans who have that vested benefit, is not what they're receiving," the lawyer added. After years of legal fights, in 2016 the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims ruled in Mr. Staab's favor. Judges said back in 2010, when Congress had changed the law, they intended for the VA to act as a "secondary payer," when veterans' other health insurance only covered part of their non-VA emergency treatment. Last year, what was thought to be a final clarification of this statute called the 'Staab Rule,' named after Richard Staab, was finally put into law. "And so the Staab Rule made it unconstitutional, or perhaps illegal is a better way to say it, to have the VA implement denials internally when the law required they grant the request for coverage," Mr. Schuh said. VA's history: not answering refund questions During the course of this 7 Investigates three-year investigation, a House Veterans Affairs Committee spokesperson confirmed in January 2018, more than one million Staab Rule-related veterans' claims were waiting to be processed. However, that number differs from VA spokesperson Randal Noller's confirmation in February 2018. Mr. Noller said 217,000 veterans are impacted nationally -- which included 5,442 Wisconsin veterans. Refunds, Mr. Noller said at that time, would add between $165 million and $298 million to their budget during the next five calendar years. However, an unnamed VA Public Affairs spokesperson told 7 Investigates in October 2018 that once the Staab Rule was published and all claims were processed, they could not answer how many veterans had been refunded. "These claims became part of our normal workload," the VA Public Affairs email said. "They are not tracked separately." In February 2018, Mr. Noller could not answer how many veterans waiting for refunds had died. "The VA is unable to determine how many Veterans with denied claims since 2010 have died," Mr. Noller wrote. That is significant. Under federal law, once a veteran dies their benefit dies with them. Publication of Staab: An unforeseen obstacle Mr. Staab's story is also personal for National Veterans Legal Services Program, or NVLSP Executive Director Bart Stichman. He previously was part of the team representing Mr. Staab nationally, and is now fighting the VA's emergency care denials with a class action lawsuit. While Mr. Staab's court victory specified the VA has to pay the remainder of a non-VA emergency bill, even if a veteran has other insurance, the NVLSP claims that is not happening and says the VA is rejecting claims anyway. "The problem with the new regulation is the VA came up with a different reason for why they shouldn't reimburse veterans who have some private insurance," Mr. Stichman said. The class action suit also claims the VA circumvented Congress by adding the words "deductibles and coinsurance" to the part of the Staab Rule allowing the VA to not cover co-payments. "And the VA is trying to drive a Mack truck through that minor exception. So that everything you could possibly reimburse a veteran for, is not subject to reimbursement," Mr. Stichman said. Staab: Life is a battle Even after Richard Staab had a law named after him, he still does not have his refund. "Should you cry for all the other servicemen who haven't got their just?" Mr. Staab asked. "It's just not me. It's all the other ones." Based on his case, he and his lawyer do not think any other veteran has a refund either. "I'm angry about the whole thing. I'm angry for my client. I'm angry for the thousands of others," Mr. Schuh said. "This impacts every military member. Past. Currently serving. And in the future, until it's fixed," Mr. Schuh says to look no further than Mr. Staab surviving another stroke in 2017. The VA is now using his own law, the Staab Rule, to cite cost shares or deductibles associated with his other health insurance to reject payment for his non-VA emergency care. "I just can't believe, in my heart, that that would've been Congress' intent," Mr. Schuh added. So Richard Staab, this one Minnesota veteran, chooses to continue fighting this epic battle—hoping that someday he, and the hundreds of thousands of other veterans he represents, will finally see justice. "Life is a battle, isn't it?" Mr. Staab said matter-of-factly, with a veterans' conviction in his voice. "And you've got to have hope. You made the right decisions. And let's face it. Not everything goes that smooth." Calling for a law change Mr. Staab's lawyer and NVLSP, the national group behind this class action lawsuit, say if the claim is unsuccessful, than the law needs to be changed. They say Mr. Staab's story shows how major loopholes remain within this system. Democratic Sen. Tammy Baldwin's office tells 7 Investigates that Baldwin is working with the NVLSP "on a legislative fix that would strike the provision in the law that the VA is misinterpreting to not pay for emergency care costs that veterans' other insurance plans don't cover." During the last three years, 7 Investigates has also shared stories of veterans, with only VA insurance, afraid to go to their closest ER because of inconsistent billing messages from VA representatives. Sen. Baldwin's office said once the VA makes an update to what's called their "Access Standards" early this month, the senator's office plans to submit comments asking the VA to pay for all emergency room visits. The senator's office said if the VA does not comply when they finalize their regulations, she will introduce legislation to require them to do so. Citing the ongoing lawsuit, representatives from VA Public Affairs had no comment. Congressman Sean Duffy's spokesperson Mark Bednar said because of the lawsuit, Mr. Duffy also had no comment. Sen. Ron Johnson's spokesperson did not return our repeated request for a statement. The next step Richard Staab hopes hearing his story means more veterans join this class action lawsuit. He would also like to see lawmakers address the VA's 72-hour rule, which requires veterans inform the VA within 72 hours of receiving non-VA emergency care, or the bill might not be covered "Well what's being forgotten is the fact that you're a serviceman. And if all of a sudden he's in a bad way and needs hospitalization, he's got to have enough sense to call the VA," Mr. Staab said. [GN] VANDA PHARMACEUTICALS: Rosen Law Firm Files Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Feb. 25 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc. (NASDAQ:VNDA) from November 4, 2015 through February 11, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Vanda investors under the federal securities laws. To join the Vanda class action, go to https://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1504.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 complaint, on March 10, 2017 a whistleblower action detailing misconduct at Vanda was filed, but was not unsealed until February 4, 2019. On February 11, 2019, private investment firm Aurelius Value published a report revealing the existence of the whistleblower action. The report also revealed additional details about Vanda's misconduct, including that it had for years fraudulently promoted its drugs, Fanapt and Hetlioz, and engaged in a scheme to defraud the government. Accordingly, the complaint alleges that defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Vanda was engaged in a fraudulent scheme in which it promoted the off-label use of Fanapt and Hetlioz; (2) Vanda was fraudulently receiving drug reimbursements from the government by abusing Medicare, Medicaid, and Tricare programs; (3) as a result of the scheme, Vanda faced legal action from the government; (4) Vanda's promotional materials for Fanapt and Hetlioz were false and misleading, garnering regulatory scrutiny from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration; and (5) as a result, defendants' statements about Vanda's business, operations and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. 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 26, 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-1504.html or to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim or Zachary Halper of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via email at pkim@rosenlegal.com or zhalper@rosenlegal.com. Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 3 each year since 2013. [GN] VERISK ANALYTICS: Faces Sheahan Class Action in California ---------------------------------------------------------- Verisk Analytics, 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 co-defendant in a putative class action entitled, Sheahan, et al. v. State Farm General Insurance Co., Inc., et al. On December 10, 2018, the company was served with a First Amended Complaint filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California titled Sheahan, et al. v. State Farm General Insurance Co., Inc., et al. The action is brought by California homeowners, on their own behalf and on behalf of an unspecified putative class of State Farm policyholders whose homes were damaged or lost during the Northern California wildfires of 2017, against State Farm as well as the company, ISO, and Xactware Solutions, Inc. Plaintiffs served a Second Amended Complaint on January 6, 2019. Like the First Amended Complaint, it alleges that defendants through the use of the company's 360Value product conspired to under-insure plaintiffs' homes by issuing undervalued policies and underestimating the costs of rebuilding those homes. Plaintiffs claim that defendants violated federal antitrust law as well as California consumer protection law and common law. Verisk said, "At this time, it is not reasonably possible to determine the ultimate resolution of, or estimate the liability related to, this matter." Verisk Analytics, Inc. provides data analytics solutions in the United States and internationally. It provides predictive analytics and decision support solutions to customers in rating, underwriting, claims, catastrophe and weather risk, natural resources intelligence, economic forecasting, and various other fields. The company operates through three segments: Insurance, Energy and Specialized Markets, and Financial Services. The company was founded in 1971 and is headquartered in Jersey City, New Jersey. VIRGINIA HOME CARE: Castillo Claims Unpaid Overtime --------------------------------------------------- Ana Castillo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Virginia Home Care Services, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-00129, (E.D. Va., February 1, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Virginia Home Care Services is a home health care agency that provides in-home health care services and related personal care assistant services for children and adults primarily in the Commonwealth of Virginia where Castillo worked as a Home Health Aide until approximately January 2019. During her employment, she often works between approximately 60 and 75 hours per week. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Andrea Harris, Esq. Robert Powers, Esq. Dirk McClanahan, Esq. Zach Miller, Esq. MCCLANAHAN POWERS, PLLC 8133 Leesburg Pike, Suite 130 Vienna, VA 22182 Telephone: (703) 520-1326 Facsimile: (703) 828-0205 Email: aharris@mcplegal.com rpowers@mcplegal.com dmcclanahan@mcplegal.com zmiller@mcplegal.com ljereen@mcplegal.com WEBER TRUCKING: Prater Seeks Overtime Pay for Truck Driver ---------------------------------------------------------- BRADLEY PRATER, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. WEBER TRUCKING COMPANY, INC. and JEFF WEBER, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00769-JRS-DLP (S.D. Ind., Feb. 21, 2019), alleges that Defendants willfully failed to pay members of the Collective Class for all overtime hours worked pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The case is a proposed collective action brought on behalf of all former and current truck drivers of Defendants against the Defendants. Each member of the Collective Class is or was a truck driver of WTC at all times relevant to this action. The members of the Collective Class were paid by the load. The members of the Collective Class were paid on a weekly basis. The Defendant failed to pay the members of the Collective Class all of the overtime hours that they worked. While the members of the Collective Class were paid overtime hours for work beyond 40 hours in a workweek, the members of the Collective Class were not paid overtime wages for all hours that they worked each workweek. Rather, the Defendants would deduct time from the hours that the Collective Class members worked each week. Weber Trucking is trucking company providing freight transportation services and hauling cargo. Insurance carriers from insurance history of Weber Trucking are Great West Casualty Co., Great West Casualty, and Quick Transport Solutions Inc.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: Ronald E. Weldy, Esq. WELDY LAW 8383 Craig Street, Suite 330 Indianapolis, IN 46250 Telephone: (317) 842-6600 Facsimile: (317) 288-4013 E-mail: weldy@weldylegal.com WELLS FARGO: Court Okays $30MM FHA Loan Class Action Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- Weiner Brodsky Kider PC, in an article for JDSupra, reported that the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California recently approved a class action settlement between borrowers and a large national bank for the alleged unlawful and unfair collection of post-payment interest on FHA loans. In Fowler v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 17-cv-02092, plaintiffs alleged that the bank collected post-payment interest on their loans without providing the proper notice in compliance with HUD regulations. According to HUD regulations, banks may collect interest after a borrower repays the full principal on his or her FHA-insured loan if the final payment is made after the first of the month, provided a bank discloses to the borrower this ability using a form approved by the FHA Commissioner. The bank allegedly used its own unauthorized form that (1) did not fairly disclose the terms by which the bank could collect the post-payment interest and (2) suggested that borrowers could not avoid paying the post-payment interest. The district court granted the motion for final approval of the class action settlement. The approved settlement included a net settlement fund consisting of $30 million, minus the costs of settlement administration, incentive awards, and attorneys' fees and expenses. Plaintiffs estimated that members of the class will recover between $25 and $33. The Court approved attorneys' fees of 25% of the total fund, or $7.5 million, costs in the amount of $70,000, and incentive awards to the two named plaintiffs totaling $12,500. [GN] WORK NOW: Bailey et al. Sue over Collection of Biometric Data ------------------------------------------------------------- A case, STEVIE BAILEY, TROY BYRD, AND IGNACIO GONZALEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, WORK NOW, LLC and ALG LOGISTICS, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 2019CH02218 (Ill. Cir., Cook Cty., Feb. 19, 2019), asserts that Defendants have not informed the Plaintiffs of any biometric data retention policy developed by the Defendants, nor were they informed of whether the Defendants will ever permanently delete their fingerprints and/or handprints. The case alleges violation of the Biometric Information Privacy Act.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: Margherita Albarello, Esq. DI MONTE & LIZAK, LLC 216 Higgins Road Park Ridge, IL Telephone: (847) 698-9600 - and - Alejandro Caffarelli, Esq. Madeline K. Engel, Esq. CAFFARELLI & ASSOCIATES LTD. 224 S. Michigan Ave., Ste. 300 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 763-6880 ********* 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 ***