/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/190402.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, April 2, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 66 Headlines 3M COMPANY: Torres Sues over Defective Combat Arms Earplugs ABM INDUSTRIES: Agreement Reached With Opt-Out Members in Hussein ABM INDUSTRIES: Bucio Class Action in California Still Ongoing ABM INDUSTRIES: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set for Aug. 20 AKAL SECURITY: Court Grants Summary Judgment in Alonzo FLSA Suit AMERICAN FINANCE: Bid to Dismiss St. Clair-Hibbard Suit Pending AMERICAN FINANCE: Notice of Appeal in Maryland Class Suit Pending AMERICAN FINANCE: Parties Agree to Stay Hibbard Class Suit ANKER TECHNOLOGY: Dawson Claims Website not Blind-friendly APPLIED SERVICES: Thompson Seeks Overtime Pay for Hourly Employees AVATEL TECH: Court Grants Bids to Dismiss 2nd Amended Jones Suit AVON PRODUCTS: Bevinal Hits Share Price Drop BANNER HEALTH: Ariz. App. Flips Summary Judgment in Ansley Suit BARNES & NOBLE: Appeal in Bernardino Class Action Still Pending BARNES & NOBLE: PIN Pads Consolidated Class Action Ongoing BARNES & NOBLE: Still Defends Cafe Managers' Class Suit BIG PICTURE: Order on Data Transfer in Williams RICO Suit Entered BON WORTH INC: Dawson Claims Website not Blind-friendly BRIDGEWAY OF BENSENVILLE: Sued over Collection of Biometric Data BROWN UNIVERSITY: Short Seeks Prelim. Approval of $3.5-Mil. Deal BUCKINGHAM PROPERTY: Ferrell FLSA Suit Removed to E.D. California BUKHARA INDIAN: Prabir FLSA Suit Settlement Has Approval CAPITAL MGMT: Dismissal of Kolbasyuk's Claims in FDCPA Suit Upheld CAS MEDICAL: Torreano Balks at Sale to Edwards Lifesciences CATERPILLLAR INC: Shortchanges Workers' OT Pay, Archuleta Says CHEN'S BUFFET: Lin Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages CHESTERTON, IN: Firefighters Seek Unpaid OT, Accrued Vacation Pay CHRISTOPHER KANE: Dawson Says Website not Blind-friendly CLEVELAND, OH: Williams Seeks Sup. Ct. Review of 6th Cir. Ruling CLIENT SERVICES: Summary Judgment in Steffek FDCPA Suit Granted CMRE FINANCIAL: Crooks Sues over Background Checks COMPETENTIA US: Juarez Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA COOK COUNTY, IL: Class of Inmates Certified in Whitney Suit COOK COUNTY, IL: Court Flips Dismissal of Gassman Suit as Moot COSTY'S INC: Ventura Labor Suit Seeks to Recover OT Pay, Damages CRANE & RIGGING: Narvaez Sues Over Unpaid Regular, Overtime Wages CREATIVE WERKS: Brown Hits Illegal Biometrics Data Sharing DG STRATEGIC VII: Brown Labor Suit Removed to N.D. Cal. DIGITAL MEDIA: Thrower Sues over Nuisance Telemarketing Practices DRIZLY INC: Traynor Files Class Suit under ADA in New York ELLIE MAE: Faces Epstein Securities Suit Over Sale to Thoma Bravo ENSIGN UNITED: Faulkner FLSA Suit Settlement Has Partial Approval FARMERS GROUP: Grigson Moves to Certify Auto Policyholders Class FRESENIUS MEDICAL: Freeman Suit Challenges Wage and Hour Policies FROST RESTAURANT: Salto Brings Suit Over FLSA & NYLL Violations GALVESTON COUNTY, TX: Class Certification in Booth Suit Recommended GCA SERVICES: Faces Cisneros Suit over Background Checks in Calif. GOLDEN WOKS: Chen Seeks Overtime Pay GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid for Class Cert. in SunEdison Suit Granted GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Dismiss Commodities-Related Suit Pending GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Nix U.S. Treasury Securities Suit Pending GOLDMAN SACHS: Continues to Defend Securities Lending Suit GOLDMAN SACHS: Dropped as Defendant from Snap Inc. IPO Suit GOLDMAN SACHS: Interest Rate Swap Antitrust Litigation Ongoing GOLDMAN SACHS: Unit to Defend Suit over Sea Limited IPO GOLDMAN SACHS: Valeant Securities Suit in Canada Ongoing GONCALVES & FERREIRA: Martinez Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages GREAT WALL: Zheng Seeks to Recover Minimum and Overtime Wages GRUNT STYLE: Dixon Hits Biometrics Data Sharing HALL MANAGEMENT: Martinez Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages HEALTH NET: W. Poe Suit Remains in California District Court HIBU INC: Cooley Hits Illegal Telemarketing Calls HILL'S PET: Sued Over Toxic Levels of Vitamin D in Pet Food HOME DEPOT: Hankey Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Calif. HOME PRODUCTS: Pedroza Asserts BIPA Violation HOUSTON FOODS: Johnson Sues Over Unlawful Use of Biometric Data HSBC BANK: Antonicic Moves to Certify Two Classes and 1 Subclass HYATT CORPORATION: Denies Equal Access to Web Site, Kiler Claims IBM CORP: Wants Supreme Court to Review Revival of Jander Suit IKEA US: Cahilig Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. INDEPENDENT HOME: FLSA Settlement in Mitchell Suit Wins Final Nod INTER-CONTINENTAL HOTEL: Restaurant Staff Seek OT Wages, Damages INTUIT INC: Settlement in Consolidated Suit Gets Initial Okay JEFFREY GREENE: Maceda Sues Over Unsolicited Text Under TCPA JONATHAN NEIL: Reconsideration of Attys' Fees Order in Brown Denied JP MORGAN: Seeks 9th Circuit Review of Ruling in McShannock Suit KAY WATERPROOFING: Construction Workers Seek Unpaid Overtime Wages KRAFT HEINZ: Osborne Files ERISA Suit v. Board LA BOOM DISCO: Second Circuit Appeal Filed in Duran TCPA Suit LAPEER INDUSTRIES: Nikora Suit Asserts WARN Act Violation LOTUS BY JOHNNY DUNG: Nguyen Moves to Certify 6 Consumer Classes M-I LLC: $556K Settlement in Syed FCRA Suit Has Prelim Approval MACY'S WEST: Diaz Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. MCKINSEY & COMPANY: Bhatia Hits Employees' Fund Mismanagement MDL 2672: Court Amends Order Granting ECF No. 3631 Bid to Remand MEDICAL VITALITY: Guerra Sues over Marketing Text Messages METALS USA: $2.8MM Settlement in Wilson Suit Has Prelim Approval MICROCHIP TECH: Court Dismisses Counterclaim in Schuman ERISA Suit MILWAUKEE HEALTH: Jones Seeks to Collect Wages Under WARN Act MISSION VALLEY: Lengyel Suit Alleges Conspiracy and Fraud MISSOURI: Court Denies Class Certification Bid in T. Watson's Suit NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Koenitz Sues over Debt Collection NEW YORK FISH: Melgarejo Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation NS INVESTMENTS: Williams Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages NUSRET MIAMI: Compere Seeks to Certify Class of Tipped Employees NVIDIA CORP: Bid to Relate and Consolidate Securities Suits Granted OCWEN LOAN: Court Resolves 1st Discovery Dispute in Franklin Suit OHIO: Dismissal of 2nd Amended Vance Suit w/o Prejudice Upheld OHIO: Mays Seeks to Certify Class of Arrestees and Detainees OWL INC: Supervisors & Drivers Subclasses Certified in Perez Suit PELL'S POINT: Denies Workers Overtime Pay & Wage Slips, Says Cruz PERMANENT GENERAL: Faces Suit Over Insurance Policy Breach PNGI CHARLES: Fourth Circuit Appeal Filed in Barrick FLSA Suit PRIME WATERPROOFING: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Amador Says PRUCO LIFE: Class Certification Bid in Behfarin Pending PUBLISHERS CLEARING: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Wright Suit REGIS CORPORATION: Boyack Appeals C.D. Calif. Ruling to 9th Cir. RITE AID CORP: Nucci Sues Over Unpaid Reimbursements RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CA: Rodriguez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages RMJV LP: Amador Suit Remanded to California State Court ROKU INC: Andrews Says Website Not Blind-friendly S & D CARWASH: Faces Crum Labor Suit in Sacramento S & F SUPPLIES: Mendoza Seeks Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages SECURITAS SECURITY: Merritt Alleges Labor Code Violations SENTRY CENTERS: Fischler Files ADA Class Action in NY SEQUENOM INC: Court Grants Bid to Stay Stockholder Suit SINCERE CLIENT CARE: Blackshire Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay SIXTYONE READE: Does not Pay Minimum, Overtime Wages, Campos Says SKYTEL SYSTEMS: Padilla Sues over Unwanted Telephone Calls SOLED ENERGY: Krum et al Seek Wages & OT Pay for Material Handlers SPARK THERAPEUTICS: Newman Files Securities Class Action in Del. SPECTRUM BRANDS: Deceives Public Shareholders, Wagner Suit Claims STARLING CHEVROLET: Troup Sues over Telemarketing Text Messages STATE FARM: Appeals Opinion and Order in Hicks Suit to 6th Cir. SUBARU OF AMERICA: Court Denies Bid to Stay Discovery in Udeen Suit SUTTER HEALTH: Saini Sues over Deceptive Hospital Emergency Fees SYNERGY PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Weber Securities Suit in E.D.N.Y. TATE & KIRLIN: Burnes Disputes Collection Letter TEMPLE TERRACE, FL: Lea Family Wins Bid to Certify Owners Class TRAININGWHEEL CORP: Bid for FLSA Class Cert. Filed in Freeman Suit U.V.S. INC: Obiefuna Sues over Kickback & Price Fixing Scheme ULTIMATE SOFTARE: Weinstein Challenges Go-Private Deal ULTIMATE SOFTWARE: Murray Files Securities Class Action in Del. UNITED AIRLINES: Brown Hits Missed Breaks, Lack of Wage Statements UNITED NATIONS: Laventure Seeks More Time to File Writ UNITED STATES: Tenth Circuit Appeal Filed in Fletcher Civil Suit UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT: Martinez Sues Over Data Breach UQM TECHNOLOGIES: Gunderson Seeks to Enjoin Vote on Danfoss Sale US BANK: Fails to Acknowledge Requests Under RESPA, Gibson Claims VAPOR 4: Metzler Sues over Unsolicited Telephone Calls VENNPOINT REAL: Pine Hill Residents Sue Over Units' Decreased Value VENTURE EXPRESS: Bid to Dismiss/Transfer Ratliff FCRA Suit Denied WALKING COMPANY: Traynor Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act WASTE PRO USA: Helpers Class Certified Under FLSA in Thomas Suit WELLS FARGO: Rivera Seeks Overtime Pay for Service Managers WESTERN DENTAL: Caldera Sues Over Illegal Collection Calls WIDEOPENWEST INC: Continues to Defend IPO Suits in NY and Colorado WOLF & SHEPHERD: Traynor Alleges Disabilities Act Violation YOSSI'S FISH: Parra Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ZUMBA FITNESS: Traynor Alleges Violation under Disabilities Act ZUTANO GLOBAL: Traynor Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act ********* 3M COMPANY: Torres Sues over Defective Combat Arms Earplugs ----------------------------------------------------------- The case, NOEL TORRES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. 3M COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-21001-XXXX (S.D. Fla., March 14, 2019), seeks to recover damages for Plaintiff's personal injuries incurred while in training and/or on active military duty, resulting from Defendant's defective and unreasonably dangerous product, the Dual-ended Combat Arms (TM) earplugs (Version 2 CAEv.2) ("Dual-ended Combat Arms (TM) earplugs"), and to establish a Court-supervised fund to provide medical monitoring to active-duty and veteran service members of the armed forces of the United States of America due to their increased risk from using 3M's defective products, and to extend some of the claims deadlines for fraudulent tolling. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff joined the military in 1982 and was discharged in 2005. Prior to joining the military, the Plaintiff had no signs or symptoms of hearing loss. The Plaintiff was deployed for active duty in Iraq from 2003 to 2005 and fought on behalf of our country during those years. At the time of Plaintiff's deployment and during his pre-deployment training, the 3M Dual-ended Combat Arms (TM) earplugs were standard issue and issued to Plaintiff. The Dual-ended Combat Arms (TM) earplugs were provided and used by the Plaintiff. The Dual-ended Combat Arms (TM) earplugs were provided for single use while the Plaintiff was deployed and during his pre-deployment training. The Plaintiff now suffers from hearing loss as a direct result of 3M's admittedly defective product. The Dual-ended Combat Arms (TM) earplugs were standard issue in certain branches of the military (including Plaintiff's) between at least 2003 to at least 2015. 3M Company, formerly known as the Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company, is an American multinational conglomerate corporation operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, health care, and consumer goods.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the Class Adam M. Moskowitz, Esq. Howard M. Bushman, Esq. Joseph M. Kaye, Esq. THE MOSKOWITZ LAW FIRM, PLLC Alhambra Plaza, Suite 601 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 740-1423 E-mail: adam@moskowitz-law.com howard@moskowitz-law.com joseph@moskowitz-law.com - and - R. Seth Crompton, Esq. HOLLAND LAW FIRM, LLC 300 N. Tucker Blvd., Suite 801 St. Louis, MO Telephone: 314 241-8111 Facsimile: 314 241-5554 E-mail: scrompton@allfela.com ABM INDUSTRIES: Agreement Reached With Opt-Out Members in Hussein ----------------------------------------------------------------- ABM Industries Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 7, 2019, for the quarterly period ended January 31, 2019, that the company has reached a tentative agreement to resolve the claims of the opt-out members in the Hussein case for $1.2 million. The Hussein and Hirsi v. Air Serv Corporation filed on January 20, 2016, pending in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington at Seattle (the "Hussein case"), was a certified class action involving a class of certain hourly Air Serv employees at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport in SeaTac, Washington. The plaintiffs alleged that Air Serv violated a minimum wage requirement in an ordinance applicable to certain employers in the local city of SeaTac (the "Ordinance"). Plaintiffs sought retroactive wages, double damages, interest, and attorneys' fees. This matter was removed to federal court. In a separate lawsuit brought by Filo Foods, LLC, Alaska Airlines, and several other employers at SeaTac Airport, the King County Superior Court (the "Superior Court") issued a decision that invalidated the Ordinance as it applied to workers at SeaTac Airport. Subsequently, the Washington Supreme Court reversed the Superior Court’s decision. On February 7, 2017, the Isse et al. v. Air Serv Corporation filed on February 7, 2017 in the Superior Court of Washington for King County (the "Isse case"), was filed against Air Serv on behalf of 60 individual plaintiffs (who would otherwise be members of the Hussein class), who alleged failure to comply with both the minimum wage provision and the sick and safe time provision of the Ordinance. The Isse plaintiffs sought retroactive wages and sick benefits, double damages for wages and sick benefits, interest, and attorneys' fees. The Isse case later expanded to approximately 220 individual plaintiffs. In mediations on November 2 and 3, 2017, and without admitting liability in either matter, the company agreed to settle the Hussein and Isse cases for a combined total of $8.3 million, inclusive of damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and employer payroll taxes. On December 8, 2017, the Superior Court approved the settlement agreement for the 220 Isse plaintiffs, and the company subsequently made a settlement payment of $4.5 million to the Isse plaintiffs in January 2018. On July 30, 2018, the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington at Seattle preliminarily approved the settlement in the Hussein case. At the final approval hearing on December 4, 2018, the court (i) accepted opt-out notices from 78 Hussein class members (the "opt-out members") indicating their intent to participate in separate lawsuits (leaving 386 class members in the Hussein class), (ii) directed the parties to recalculate the settlement amount by deducting the settlement funds attributable to the 78 opt-out members, and (iii) requested other minor changes, but indicated that the court intended to grant final approval of the settlement with these changes. On December 20, 2018, the court issued its order granting final approval of the Hussein class action settlement in the amount of $2.1 million. The Hussein settlement funds were distributed to the class on March 6, 2019. In January 2019, the company reached a tentative agreement to resolve the claims of the opt-out members for $1.2 million. ABM Industries Incorporated provides integrated facility solutions in the United States and internationally. It operates through Business & Industry, Aviation, Technology & Manufacturing, Education, Technical Solutions, and Healthcare segments. The company was founded in 1909 and is headquartered in New York, New York. ABM INDUSTRIES: Bucio Class Action in California Still Ongoing -------------------------------------------------------------- ABM Industries Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 7, 2019, for the quarterly period ended January 31, 2019, that the consolidated cases of Bucio and Martinez v. ABM Janitorial Services filed on April 7, 2006, in the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco the "Bucio case", is still ongoing. The Bucio case is a class action pending in San Francisco Superior Court that alleges we failed to provide legally required meal periods and make additional premium payments for such meal periods, pay split shift premiums when owed, and reimburse janitors for travel expenses. There is also a claim for penalties under the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"). On April 19, 2011, the trial court held a hearing on plaintiffs' motion to certify the class. At the conclusion of that hearing, the trial court denied plaintiffs' motion to certify the class. On May 11, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a motion to reconsider, which was denied. The plaintiffs appealed the class certification issues. The trial court stayed the underlying lawsuit pending the decision in the appeal. The Court of Appeal of the State of California, First Appellate District (the "Court of Appeal"), heard oral arguments on November 7, 2017. On December 11, 2017, the Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's order denying class certification and remanded the matter for certification of a meal period, travel expense reimbursement, and split shift class. The case was remitted to the trial court for further proceedings on class certification, discovery, dispositive motions, and trial. On September 20, 2018, the trial court entered an order defining four certified subclasses of janitors who were employed by the legacy ABM janitorial companies in California at any time between April 7, 2002 and April 30, 2013, on claims based on previous automatic deduction practices for meal breaks, unpaid meal premiums, unpaid split shift premiums, and unreimbursed business expenses, such as mileage reimbursement for use of personal vehicles to travel between worksites. On February 1, 2019, the Superior Court held that the discovery related to PAGA claims allegedly arising after April 30, 2013 would be stayed until after the class and PAGA claims accruing prior to April 30, 2013 had been tried. ABM Industries said, "This matter has not been set for trial. Prior to trial, we will have the opportunity to move for summary judgment, seek decertification of the classes, or mediate, if we deem such actions appropriate." ABM Industries Incorporated provides integrated facility solutions in the United States and internationally. It operates through Business & Industry, Aviation, Technology & Manufacturing, Education, Technical Solutions, and Healthcare segments. The company was founded in 1909 and is headquartered in New York, New York. ABM INDUSTRIES: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set for Aug. 20 ----------------------------------------------------------------- ABM Industries Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 7, 2019, for the quarterly period ended January 31, 2019, that the court in the case, Castro and Marmolejo v. ABM Industries, Inc., et al., filed on October 24, 2014, pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, has set a hearing to consider final approval of the parties' settlement on August 20, 2019. On October 24, 2014, Plaintiff Marley Castro filed a class action lawsuit alleging that ABM did not reimburse janitorial employees in California for using their personal cell phones for work-related purposes, in violation of California Labor Code section 2802. On January 23, 2015, Plaintiff Lucia Marmolejo was added to the case as a named plaintiff. On October 27, 2017, plaintiffs moved for class certification seeking to represent a class of all employees who were, are, or will be employed by ABM in the State of California with the Employee Master Job Description Code "Cleaner" (hereafter referred to as "Cleaner Employees") beginning from October 24, 2010. ABM filed its opposition to class certification on November 27, 2017. On January 26, 2018, the district court granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The court rejected plaintiffs' proposed class, instead certifying three classes that the court formulated on its own: (1) all employees who were, are, or will be employed by ABM in the State of California as Cleaner Employees who used a personal cell phone to punch in and out of the EPAY system and who (a) worked at an ABM facility that did not provide a biometric clock and (b) were not offered an ABM-provided cell phone during the period beginning on January 1, 2012, through the date of notice to the Class Members that a class has been certified in this action; (2) all employees who were, are, or will be employed by ABM in the State of California as Cleaner Employees who used a personal cell phone to report unusual or suspicious circumstances to supervisors and were not offered (a) an ABM-provided cell phone or (b) a two-way radio during the period beginning four years prior to the filing of the original complaint, October 24, 2014, through the date of notice to the Class Members that a class has been certified in this action; and (3) all employees who were, are, or will be employed by ABM in the State of California as Cleaner Employees who used a personal cell phone to respond to communications from supervisors and were not offered (a) an ABM-provided cell phone or (b) a two-way radio during the period beginning four years prior to the filing of the original complaint, October 24, 2014, through the date of notice to the Class Members that a class has been certified in this action. On February 9, 2018, ABM filed a petition for permission to appeal the district court's order granting class certification with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which was denied on April 30, 2018. On March 20, 2018, ABM moved to compel arbitration of the claims of certain class members pursuant to the terms of three collective bargaining agreements. In response to that motion, on May 14, 2018, the district court modified the class definition to exclude all claims arising after the operative date(s) of the applicable collective bargaining agreements (which is June 1, 2016 for one agreement and May 1, 2016 for the other two agreements). However, the district court denied the motion to compel arbitration as to claims that arose prior to the operative date(s) of the applicable collective bargaining agreements. ABM has appealed to the Ninth Circuit the district court's order denying the motion to compel arbitration with respect to the periods preceding the operative dates of the collective bargaining agreements. After a court-ordered mediation held on October 15, 2018, the parties agreed to a class action settlement of $5.4 million, subject to court approval. The plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of the settlement was filed on January 4, 2019, and the court held a hearing on the motion on February 12, 2019. On February 14, 2019, the court granted preliminary approval of the settlement. In connection with the settlement, the company modified its existing written policies for California to expressly confirm that ABM service workers are not required to use personal cell phones for work purposes and began centralizing the process and implementing technology for such employees to request reimbursement for personal cell phone use due to work. A hearing on final approval of the settlement is scheduled to be held on August 20, 2019. ABM Industries Incorporated provides integrated facility solutions in the United States and internationally. It operates through Business & Industry, Aviation, Technology & Manufacturing, Education, Technical Solutions, and Healthcare segments. The company was founded in 1909 and is headquartered in New York, New York. AKAL SECURITY: Court Grants Summary Judgment in Alonzo FLSA Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, Ed E. Alonzo, Plaintiff, v. Akal Security Incorporated, Defendant, No. CV-17-00836-PHX-JJT (D. Ariz.), Judge John T. Tuchi of the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona granted the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. The Defendant is a federal government contractor, and the Plaintiff worked for it as an Aviation Security Officer ("ASO"). ASOs are responsible for the supervision of persons being expelled from the United States, or "deportees," during both domestic travel between holding facilities and international travel to the deportees' home countries. Once the deportees are transported abroad, ASOs travel on a return flight to the United States. The Defendant maintained a written Timekeeping Policy for ASOs, and the Plaintiff testified that he read and understood the Timekeeping Policy. In pertinent part, the Policy provided for a one-hour unpaid meal period during certain return flights when no deportees were present, with a few exceptions not relevant in the case. The Plaintiff signed an Employee Offer Letter with the Defendant that similarly set forth a one-hour unpaid meal period policy. Moreover, the Defendant and the International Union, Security, Police and Fire Professionals of America entered into a Collective Bargaining Agreement that included a comparable unpaid meal period policy. The Plaintiff was a party to that Collective Bargaining Agreement as a member and officer of the Union. The Defendant's Timekeeping Policy instructed ASOs to completely disengage from all work duties during the meal period. The Defendant required ASOs to record time worked during meal periods if special circumstances necessitated that an ASO perform work during these periods. The Policy further mandated that the ASO notify his/her supervisor if such a situation arose. The Plaintiff testified that he never recorded any time worked during a meal period. However, at least in the Complaint, the Plaintiff alleged that an ASO may not take any lunch break and the Defendant deducted one hour of compensation from his/her pay anyway. The Plaintiff brought the case as a hybrid class action, and the Court denied his Motion to Certify a Conditional Class because he failed to show that other ASOs alleged that they worked without compensation during their meal breaks. Additionally, the Court dismissed two counts of the Plaintiff's Complaint for failure to state a claim. In the remaining count-- Count II -- the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant's automatic one-hour pay deduction for meal periods, deducted regardless of whether he took a meal period or worked through the hour, violated the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The Defendant now moves for summary judgment on the remaining claim. The Defendant moves for summary judgment on the Plaintiff's claim for unpaid overtime wages accrued during one-hour meal periods. In support, it argues that the evidence undisputedly demonstrates that the Plaintiff received bona fide meal breaks of at least one hour on the designated flights and that, under the parties' agreements, the Plaintiff's meal period was non-compensable. The Defendant thus contends that the Plaintiff cannot meet his burden to show that the meal periods are compensable. It also maintains that, if Defendant is liable for an FLSA violation, the Plaintiff is not entitled to liquidated damages because Defendant relied in good faith on the advice of counsel. In response, the Plaintiff argues that a genuine dispute of fact exists as to whether he worked during the unpaid meal period on the designated flights, precluding summary judgment. As such, the Court must determine if the Plaintiff has raised a genuine dispute regarding whether he received one-hour bona fide meal periods or whether he performed work for which he was not compensated under the FLSA. Judge Tuchi finds that the Plaintiff's denial of performing work during an unpaid meal period, lack of written records, and lack of knowledge or recollection as to encountering special circumstances in which he worked during a meal period is not evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that the Plaintiff was required to work during an unpaid meal period. Under the FLSA, the Judge finds taht bona fide meal periods are permissible, and an employer need not permit employees to leave the premises during meal periods so long as they are freed from their duties. To resist summary judgment, the Plaintiff has the burden to proffer at least some evidence that creates a genuine dispute of material fact, as to whether the Defendant did not compensate him for time he actually worked. In his Response to the Defendant's Motion, the Plaintiff has pointed to irrelevant facts and, at most, generalized, conclusory allegations, but the Plaintiff has not met his burden of proffering evidence that he actually engaged in work related duties during an unpaid lunch period or that he did not get at least one hour of free time on the relevant flights -- indeed, his deposition testimony is precisely the opposite. Because the Plaintiff has not raised a genuine dispute as to whether the Defendant is liable to Plaintiff for an FLSA violation, the Judge need not reach the Defendant's Motion as to liquidated damages. Based on the foregoing, Judge Tuchi granted the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. He directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment for the Defendant and close the case. A full-text copy of the Court's March 12, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/6qSGea from Leagle.com. Ed E Alonzo, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Seth Sarelson -- msarelson@kymplaw.com -- Kaplan Young & Moll Parron PLLC, Nicholas Jason Enoch, Lubin & Enoch PC & Stanley Lubin, Lubin & Enoch PC. Akal Security Incorporated, Defendant, represented by Derek H. Sparks -- Derek.Sparks@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis PC, Jenna Rinehart Rassif -- Jenna.Rassif@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis PC & Sonya K. Boun -- Sonya.Boun@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis LLP. AMERICAN FINANCE: Bid to Dismiss St. Clair-Hibbard Suit Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- American Finance Trust, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 7, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the motion to dismiss the class action lawsuit initiated by Carolyn St. Clair-Hibbard is still pending. On February 8, 2018, Carolyn St. Clair-Hibbard, a purported stockholder of the company, filed a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the company, AR Global, the Advisor, Nicholas S. Schorsch and William M. Kahane. On February 23, 2018, the complaint was amended to, among other things, assert some claims on the plaintiff's own behalf and other claims on behalf of herself and other similarly situated shareholders as a class. On April 26, 2018, defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. On May 25, 2018, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint. The second amended complaint alleges that the proxy materials used to solicit stockholder approval of the Merger at the company's 2017 annual meeting were materially incomplete and misleading. The complaint asserts violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act against the company, as well as control person liability against the Advisor, AR Global, and Messrs. Schorsch and Kahane under 20(a). It also asserts state law claims for breach of fiduciary duty against the Advisor, and claims for aiding and abetting such breaches, of fiduciary duty against the Advisor, AR Global and Messrs. Schorsch and Kahane. The complaint seeks unspecified damages, rescission of the company's advisory agreement (or severable portions thereof) which became effective when the Merger became effective, and a declaratory judgment that certain provisions of the company's advisory agreement are void. The company believes the second amended complaint is without merit and intend to defend vigorously. On June 22, 2018, defendants moved to dismiss the second amended complaint. On August 1, 2018, plaintiff filed an opposition to defendants' motions to dismiss. Defendants filed reply papers on August 22, 2018, and oral argument was held on September 26, 2018. That motion is now pending. American Finance said, "Due to the early stage of the litigation, no estimate of a probable loss or any reasonably possible losses are determinable at this time." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. American Finance Trust, Inc. is a publicly traded real estate investment trust listed on the Nasdaq focused on acquiring and managing a diversified portfolio of primarily service-oriented and traditional retail and distribution related commercial real estate properties in the U.S. AMERICAN FINANCE: Notice of Appeal in Maryland Class Suit Pending ----------------------------------------------------------------- American Finance Trust, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 7, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that plaintiffs notice of appeal of the court's order of dismissal in the Maryland class action suit, is still pending. On January 13, 2017, four affiliated stockholders of Retail Centers of America, Inc. (RCA) filed in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland a putative class action lawsuit against the company, RCA, Edward M. Weil, Jr., Leslie D. Michelson, Edward G. Rendell (Weil, Michelson and Rendell, the "Director Defendants"), and AR Global, alleging violations of Sections 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") by RCA and the Director Defendants, violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by AR Global and the Director Defendants, breaches of fiduciary duty by the Director Defendants, and aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duty by AR Global and the company in connection with the negotiation of and proxy solicitation for a shareholder vote on the proposed merger of us and RCA and an amendment to RCA's charter. The complaint sought on behalf of the putative class rescission of the merger transaction, which was voted on and approved by stockholders on February 13, 2017, and closed on February 16, 2017, together with unspecified rescissory damages, unspecified actual damages, and costs and disbursements of the action. On April 26, 2017, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff. Lead plaintiff, along with other stockholders of RCA, filed an amended complaint on June 19, 2017. The amended complaint named additional individuals and entities as defendants (David Gong, Stanley Perla, Lisa Kabnick ("Additional Director Defendants"), Nicholas Radesca and American Realty Capital Retail Advisor, LLC), added counts under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act in connection with the Registration Statement for the proposed merger, under Section 13(e) of the Exchange Act, and counts for breach of contract and unjust enrichment. The company, in addition to RCA, the Director Defendants, the Additional Director Defendants and Nicholas Radesca deny wrongdoing and liability and intend to vigorously defend the action. On August 14, 2017, defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. On March 29, 2018, the Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss and dismissed the amended complaint. On April 26, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the court's order, which appeal is pending. American Finance said, "Due to the early stage of the litigation, no estimate of a probable loss or any reasonable possible losses are determinable at this time. No provisions for such losses have been recorded in the accompanying consolidated financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2018 or 2017." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. American Finance Trust, Inc. is a publicly traded real estate investment trust listed on the Nasdaq focused on acquiring and managing a diversified portfolio of primarily service-oriented and traditional retail and distribution related commercial real estate properties in the U.S. AMERICAN FINANCE: Parties Agree to Stay Hibbard Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- American Finance Trust, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 7, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that parties in the purported class action lawsuit initiated by Terry Hibbard have agreed to stay this litigation pending a decision on the motion to dismiss in the St. Clair-Hibbard litigation pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On October 26, 2018, Terry Hibbard, a purported stockholder of the company, filed a putative class action complaint in New York State Supreme Court, New York County, against the company, AR Global, the Advisor, Nicholas S. Schorsch, William M. Kahane, Edward M. Weil, Jr., Nicholas Radesca, David Gong, Stanley R. Perla, and Lisa D. Kabnick. The complaint alleges that the registration statement pursuant to which RCA shareholders acquired shares of the company's common stock during the Merger contained materially incomplete and misleading information. The complaint asserts violations of Section 11 of the Securities Act against Messrs. Weil, Radesca, Gong, and Perla, and Ms. Kabnick, violations of Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act against the company and Mr. Weil, and control person liability against the Advisor, AR Global, and Messrs. Schorsch and Kahane under Section 15 of the Securities Act. The complaint seeks unspecified damages and rescission of our sale of stock pursuant to the registration statement. The company believes the complaint is without merit and intend to defend vigorously. American Finance said, "We have not yet answered or moved to dismiss the complaint. The parties have agreed to stay this litigation pending a decision on the motion to dismiss in the St. Clair-Hibbard litigation pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Due to the early stage of the litigation, no estimate of a probable loss or any reasonably possible losses are determinable at this time." American Finance Trust, Inc. is a publicly traded real estate investment trust listed on the Nasdaq focused on acquiring and managing a diversified portfolio of primarily service-oriented and traditional retail and distribution related commercial real estate properties in the U.S. ANKER TECHNOLOGY: Dawson Claims Website not Blind-friendly ---------------------------------------------------------- Leshawn Dawson, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated Plaintiff, v. Anker Technology Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-01427 (S.D. N.Y., February 14, 2019), seeks preliminary and permanent injunction, compensatory, statutory and punitive damages and fines, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, costs and expenses of this action together with reasonable attorneys' and expert fees and such other and further relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act, New York State Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights Law. Defendant is a manufacturer and retailer of computer and mobile accessories and owns and operates the website, www.anker.com. Dawson claims that this is not accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Plaintiff is legally blind and claims that Defendant's website cannot be accessed by the visually-impaired. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003-2461 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 Email: nyjg@aol.com danalgottlieb@aol.com - and - Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq. COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Fl. Brooklyn, NY 11201 Tel: (929) 575-4175 Fax: (929) 575-4195 Email: Joseph@cml.legal APPLIED SERVICES: Thompson Seeks Overtime Pay for Hourly Employees ------------------------------------------------------------------ JACK THOMPSON, Individually and for Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, v. APPLIED SERVICES AUGMENTATION PARTNERS, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-00127 (W.D.N.C., March 14, 2019), alleges that Applied Services Augmentation Partners, Inc. has failed to pay Jack Thompson and other workers like him, overtime as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act. Instead, ASAP pays Thompson, and other workers like him, the same hourly rate for all hours worked, including those in excess of 40 in a workweek, the lawsuit states. Thompson brings this collective action to recover unpaid overtime and other damages. According to the complaint, Thompson is an hourly employee of ASAP. Thompson started working for ASAP in December 2015. ASAP's failure to pay wages and overtime compensation at the rates required by the FLSA results from generally applicable, systematic policies, and practices which are not dependent on the personal circumstances of the Putative Class Members. The defendant operates an employment agency.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: Tamara L. Huckert, Esq. Christopher Strianese, Esq. STRIANESE HUCKERT LLP 3501 Monroe Rd. Charlotte, NC 28205 Telephone: 704-966-2101 E-mail: chris@strilaw.com tamara@strilaw.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Richard M. Schreiber, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. DUNLAP LAW FIRM 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: 713-352-1100 Facsimile: 713-352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com rschreiber@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C. 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: 713 877-8788 Facsimile: 713 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com AVATEL TECH: Court Grants Bids to Dismiss 2nd Amended Jones Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JONES REAL ESTATE, INC. d/b/a JONES REALTY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. AVATEL TECHNOLOGIES, INC., THE CIT GROUP INC., and CIT BANK, N.A., Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-1949(PKC)(S.D. N.Y.), Judge P. Kevin Castel of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' motions, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), Fed. R. Civ. P., to dismiss the Second Amended Class Action Complaint ("SAC"). Jones entered into a lease agreement with CIT Bank to lease telephone equipment supplied by Avatel. The Lease identifies the Lessor as "CIT Bank, N.A." and the Lessee as Jones. The equipment that Jones leased would have cost approximately $644 if Jones had purchased the equipment instead of leasing it. The Lease required Jones to use the equipment only for business purposes. The Lease also required Jones to obtain insurance related to the leased equipment. In the event, Jones failed to provide proof of acceptable insurance, CIT Bank had the right (but not the obligation) to obtain insurance and the full costs of obtaining that insurance may be added to the charges to be paid by Jones under the Lease. The present motion requires a construction of this provision of the Lease, which will be deferred to the section analyzing Jones' breach of contract claim. It suffices to note that Jones did not obtain or provide any proof of insurance to CIT Bank. As a result, CIT Bank obtained $10,235 in insurance coverage, which is $0.61 less than the amount that Jones would be expected to pay to CIT Bank over the course of the Lease. CIT Bank charged the premiums for this insurance policy directly to Jones by adding $19.58 to Jones' monthly Lease invoices. Jones voices a variety of complaints about the $19.58 per month charge. It filed its SAC against the Defendants, alleging seven causes of action for breach of contract (Counts I and IV), breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing (Counts II and V), a violation of New York General Business Law Section 349 (Count VI), and violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act ("FDUTPA") (Counts VII and VIII). In Counts I and II it asserts breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing claims against CIT Bank, arguing that the additional insurance charge was inflated because CIT Bank obtained insurance for a value higher than the Lease allowed. Jones also claims in Count VI that CIT Bank and CIT Group did not adequately disclose what Jones would be charged for insurance in violation of N.Y. Gen. Bus. L. Section 349(a). In Count VII, it asserts a violation of the ("FDUTPA"), against CIT Group for, among other things, charging inflated premiums for the insurance and related misrepresentations. Avatel's Service Protection Plan and the Equipment Warranty. Apart from the insurance provision of the Lease between Jones and CIT Bank, Jones complains about a Service Protection Plan ("SPP") offered by Defendant Avatel. In Count VIII (against CIT Group and Avatel), Jones alleges violations of FDUTPA, based on the marketing of the SPP. It asserts, among other things, that the SPP does not become effective until the manufacturer's warranty expires and that the SPP overlaps with protections offered by the warranty. The telephone equipment leased by Jones comes with a manufacturer's warranty, which covers hardware for 12 months, and software for 90 days. The SPP provides benefits to those who lease or purchase office equipment from Avatel. Pursuant to the SPP, a customer is entitled to services and assistance related to software and hardware failures to be provided by Avatel within certain designated response times. The Defendants have moved, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), Fed. R. Civ. P., to dismiss the Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The Plaintiff has withdrawn Counts IV and V, which deal with an alleged "negative option contract." Judge Castel granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' motions to dismiss. He denied the motions with respect to Count I (as asserted against CIT Bank) and granted with respect to the remaining claims and parties, including CIT Group and Avatel. Among other things, the Judge finds that the state of the briefing by the parties on the proper construction of the terms of the Lease leaves him with the preliminary conclusion that the language is ambiguous and susceptible to more than one plausible interpretation. For this reason, the motion to dismiss is denied as to so much of the breach of contract claim as alleges that Jones was charged premiums in excess of the amount allowed by the Lease. The issue, of course, may be revisited at the summary judgment stage. To the extent Jones seeks to recover on the more generalized assertion that "CIT Bank, N.A. has further breached the terms of the Lease Agreement by charging borrowers for force-placed insurance premiums that are not reasonable or appropriate to protect the noteholder's interest in the equipment and rights under the security instrument," it cites no law for the proposition that the provision of the Lease is unlawful or otherwise violates any public policy of the state of New York. If Jones means nothing more than the premiums were not "appropriate" because they were not authorized by the Lease, then similarly (and subject to the same considerations on contract construction) the allegation states a claim. The Clerk is respectfully directed to terminate the motions. A full-text copy of the Court's March 12, 2019 Opinion and Order is available at https://is.gd/Y2NDaX from Leagle.com. Jones Real Estate, Inc., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated doing business as Jones Realty, Plaintiff, represented by Paul C. Whalen, Law Offices of Paul C. Whalen, P.C. & Jason Kyle Whittemore -- jason@wagnerlaw.com -- Wagner McLaughlin, P.A., pro hac vice. The CIT Group, Inc., Defendant, represented by Cory William Eichhorn -- Cory.Eichhorn@hklaw.com -- Holland & Knight LLP, Cynthia G. Burnside -- cynthia.burnside@hklaw.com -- Holland & Knight LLP, pro hac vice & Gregory J. Digel -- greg.digel@hklaw.com -- Holland & Knight LLP. Avatel Technologies, Inc., Defendant, represented by Randall Jay Love, Randall J. Love, P.A., pro hac vice. CIT Bank, N.A., Defendant, represented by Cory William Eichhorn, Holland & Knight LLP, Cynthia G. Burnside, Holland & Knight LLP & Robert Joseph Burns, Holland & Knight LLP. AVON PRODUCTS: Bevinal Hits Share Price Drop -------------------------------------------- Manzoor Bevinal, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. Avon Products, Inc., Sherilyn S. McCoy, James S. Wilson and James S. Scully, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-01420 (S.D. N.Y., February 14, 2019), seeks compensatory damages, including interest thereon, reasonable costs and expenses incurred in this action, including counsel fees and expert fees and such other and further relief under the Exchange Act. Avon is a global manufacturer and marketer of beauty and related products. Bevinal alleges that Avon significantly loosened its credit for its distributors in Brazil, its largest market, in order to inflate its reported revenue and growth. However, it failed to increase its allowance for doubtful accounts to account for the changes to its credit terms in the Brazil market. Avon's stock price on August 4, 2017 fell 40% from the previous year's closing. Bevinal purchased Avon common stock and lost substantially. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: (631) 367-7100 Fax: (631) 367-1173 Email: SRudman@rgrdlaw.com - and - W. Scott Holleman, Esq. Garam Choe, Esq. JOHNSON FISTEL, LLP 99 Madison Avenue, 5th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 292-5690 Fax: (212) 602-1592 scotth@johnsonfistel.com BANNER HEALTH: Ariz. App. Flips Summary Judgment in Ansley Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, WALTER ANSLEY, et al., Plaintiffs/Appellees/Cross-Appellants, v. BANNER HEALTH NETWORK, et al., Defendants/Appellants/Cross-Appellees, Case No. 1 CA-CV 17-0075 (Ariz. App.), Judge Diane M. Johnsen of the Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division One, (i) affirmed the superior court's order enjoining the liens; (ii) reversed the court's summary judgment against the Patients on their third-party-beneficiary claim for breach of contract; and (iii) vacated and remanded for further consideration a portion of the attorney's fee award to the Patients. Banner Health Network and other hospital groups each contracted with the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System ("AHCCCS") to serve AHCCCS members. The Plaintiffs in the case ("Patients") received settlements or damage awards from third-party tortfeasors for injuries that required treatment at the Hospitals. The Patients sued to enjoin the Hospitals from enforcing liens on their tort recoveries for the balance between the rates the Hospitals agreed to accept from AHCCCS and what the Hospitals would have charged non-AHCCCS patients. The Hospitals recorded their liens pursuant to two statutes, Arizona Revised Statutes ("A.R.S.") sections 33-931 (2019) and 36-2903.01(G)(4) (2019). The former allows a health-care provider to file a lien for its "customary" charges against a patient's tort recovery. The latter specifically applies when a hospital has served an AHCCCS member and allows that hospital to collect any unpaid portion of its bill from other third-party payors or in situations in which the general medical-lien statute applies. In their complaint, the Patients alleged federal Medicaid law preempts the Arizona lien statutes in cases such as theirs, and sought an injunction barring the Hospitals from recording liens on their tort recoveries. They argued the liens constitute impermissible "balance billing," a term describing a health-care provider's effort to collect from a patient the difference in the amount paid by Medicaid, or a state plan like AHCCCS, and the amount the provider typically charges. Early in the litigation, the superior court dismissed a group of the Plaintiffs who had settled their lien claims with the Hospitals and entered partial final judgment as to those Plaintiffs pursuant to Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). Those Plaintiffs appealed, arguing their settlements lacked consideration because federal law preempted the Hospitals' liens. The Court accepted that argument, Abbott v. Banner Health Network, but the supreme court reversed, Abbott, 239 Ariz. 409 (2016). The supreme court ruled the settlements were valid and made "fairly and in good faith" because the validity of the Hospitals' lien rights was not settled under Arizona law. Meanwhile, the superior court certified the remaining Plaintiffs as a class, and both sides moved for summary judgment on the preemption issue. The superior court ruled in favor of the Patients on their claim for a declaratory judgment, holding that when a hospital has accepted payment from AHCCCS for treating a patient, 42 Code of Federal Regulations ("C.F.R.") Section 447.15 (2019) preempts the hospital's state-law right to a lien on the patient's tort recovery for the balance between what AHCCCS paid and the hospital's customary charges. The court then enjoined the Hospitals from filing or asserting any lien or claim against a patient's personal injury recovery, after having received any payment from AHCCCS for the same patient's care. It granted summary judgment to the Hospitals, however, on the Patients' third-party-beneficiary claim, which alleged the Hospitals breached their contracts with AHCCCS by imposing the liens. Finally, the superior court awarded attorney's fees to the Patients under the private attorney general doctrine and denied both sides' motions for new trial. The Hospitals appealed the preemption ruling and injunction, and the Patients cross-appealed the judgment against them on their contract claim. Judge Johnsen holds that applicable federal law, 42 C.F.R. Section 447.15, preempts A.R.S. Sections 33-931 and 36-2903.01(G)(4) to the extent those statutes allow a health-care provider that has accepted payment from AHCCCS for treating a patient to impose a lien on the patient's tort recovery for the difference between what the provider accepted from AHCCCS and the amount the provider would have charged a non-AHCCCS patient. Therefore, she affirmed the superior court's entry of summary judgment in favor of the Patients on their claim for declaratory relief and the court's order enjoining the Hospitals from enforcing any lien rights they may have under state law to recover those funds. The Judge also holds that the Patients are third-party beneficiaries of the contracts the Hospitals entered with AHCCCS to serve AHCCCS members. Those contracts required the Hospitals to comply with federal law, including 42 C.F.R. Section 447.15. Accordingly, she reversed and remanded the dismissal of the Patients' claim for breach of contract and direct entry of judgment in favor of the Patients on that claim. Finally, she affirmed the superior court's award of fees to the Patients, excepting only the amount of $60,442, which the Patients sought for work performed in connection with the Abbott case, and she directed the superior court on remand to reconsider that fees claim. She awarded the Patients their costs on appeal and their attorney's fees pursuant to A.R.S. Section 12-341.01(A), contingent upon compliance with Arizona Rule of Civil Appellate Procedure 21. A full-text copy of the Court's March 12, 2019 Opinion is available at https://is.gd/CrQCg8 from Leagle.com. Levenbaum Trachtenberg, PLC, Phoenix, By Geoffrey M. Trachtenberg, Justin Henry, Co-Counsel for Plaintiffs/Appellees/Cross-Appellants. The Entrekin Law Firm, Phoenix, By B. Lance Entrekin, Co-Counsel for Plaintiffs/Appellees/Cross-Appellants. Gammage & Burnham, PLC, Phoenix, By Richard B. Burnham -- rburnham@gblaw.com -- Cameron C. Artigue -- cartigue@gblaw.com -- Christopher L. Hering -- chering@gblaw.com -- Counsel for Defendants/Appellants/Cross-Appellees. BARNES & NOBLE: Appeal in Bernardino Class Action Still Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- Barnes & Noble, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 7, 2019, for the quarterly period ended January 26, 2019, that the appeal in the case, Bernardino v. Barnes & Noble Booksellers, Inc., is still pending. On June 16, 2017, a putative class action complaint was filed against Barnes & Noble Booksellers, Inc. (B&N Booksellers) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging violations of the federal Video Privacy Protection Act and related New York law. The plaintiff, who seeks to represent a class of subscribers of Facebook, Inc. (Facebook) who purchased DVDs or other video media from the Barnes & Noble website, seeks damages, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees, among other things, based on her allegation that B&N Booksellers supposedly knowingly disclosed her personally identifiable information to Facebook without her consent when she bought a DVD from Barnes & Noble's website. On July 10, 2017, the plaintiff moved for a preliminary injunction requiring Barnes & Noble to change the operation of its website, which motion B&N Booksellers opposed. On July 31, 2017, B&N Booksellers moved to compel the case to arbitration, consistent with the terms of use on Barnes & Noble's website. On August 28, 2017, the court denied the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction. On January 31, 2018, the court granted B&N Booksellers' motion to compel arbitration, and the clerk of court closed the case on February 1, 2018. On March 2, 2018, the plaintiff filed an appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit from the district court's grant of B&N Booksellers' motion to compel arbitration. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Barnes & Noble, Inc. primarily operates as a bookseller in the United States. The company operates through two segments, B&N Retail and NOOK. The company was founded in 1986 and is based in New York, New York. BARNES & NOBLE: PIN Pads Consolidated Class Action Ongoing ---------------------------------------------------------- Barnes & Noble, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 7, 2019, for the quarterly period ended January 26, 2019, that the company continues to defend a consolidated class action suit related to tampered PIN pads. The Company discovered that PIN pads in certain of its stores had been tampered with to allow criminal access to card data and PIN numbers on credit and debit cards swiped through the terminals. Following public disclosure of this matter on October 24, 2012, the Company was served with four putative class action complaints (three in federal district court in the Northern District of Illinois and one in the Northern District of California), each of which alleged on behalf of national and other classes of customers who swiped credit and debit cards in Barnes & Noble Retail stores common law claims such as negligence, breach of contract and invasion of privacy, as well as statutory claims such as violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, state data breach notification statutes, and state unfair and deceptive practices statutes. The actions sought various forms of relief including damages, injunctive or equitable relief, multiple or punitive damages, attorneys' fees, costs, and interest. All four cases were transferred and/or assigned to a single judge in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, and a single consolidated amended complaint was filed. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint in its entirety, and in September 2013, the Court granted the motion to dismiss without prejudice. Plaintiffs then filed an amended complaint, and the Company filed a second motion to dismiss. On October 3, 2016, the Court granted the second motion to dismiss, and dismissed the case without prejudice; in doing so, the Court permitted Plaintiffs to file a second amended complaint by October 31, 2016. On October 31, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint, and on January 25, 2017, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. On June 13, 2017, the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss with prejudice. Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. On April 11, 2018, the Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's decision granting the motion to dismiss the case, and remanded the case to the District Court for further proceedings. The Company filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc; that petition was denied on May 10, 2018. The case is currently pending in the District Court. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Barnes & Noble, Inc. primarily operates as a bookseller in the United States. The company operates through two segments, B&N Retail and NOOK. The company was founded in 1986 and is based in New York, New York. BARNES & NOBLE: Still Defends Cafe Managers' Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------- Barnes & Noble, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 7, 2019, for the quarterly period ended January 26, 2019, that the company continues to defend the class action by cafe managers. On September 20, 2016, Kelly Brown filed a complaint against Barnes & Noble in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in which she alleges that she is entitled to unpaid compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Illinois law. Ms. Brown seeks to represent a class of allegedly similarly situated employees who performed the same position (Cafe Manager) under the FLSA, as well as an Illinois-based class under Illinois law. On November 9, 2016, Ms. Brown filed an amended complaint to add an additional plaintiff named Tiffany Stewart, who is a former Cafe Manager who also alleges unpaid overtime compensation in violation of New York law and seeks to represent a class of similarly situated New York-based Cafe Managers under New York law. On May 2, 2017, the Court denied Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Certification, without prejudice. Plaintiffs filed a renewed motion for Conditional Certification on November 17, 2017, which the Court denied on June 25, 2018. There are currently 24 former Cafe Managers who have joined the action as opt-in plaintiffs. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Barnes & Noble, Inc. primarily operates as a bookseller in the United States. The company operates through two segments, B&N Retail and NOOK. The company was founded in 1986 and is based in New York, New York. BIG PICTURE: Order on Data Transfer in Williams RICO Suit Entered ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, LULA WILLIAMS, et al., on behalf of themselves and all individuals similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. BIG PICTURE LOANS, LLC, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 3:17cv461 (E.D. Va.), Judge Robert E. Payne of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Division, granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for Entry of Order, subject to limitation. In the Memorandum Opinion entered on July 27, 2018, the core of the case lies consumer loans bearing interest rates of more than 600% that are alleged to violate Virginia's usury laws and a lending scheme (implemented through a convoluted corporate maze) that is alleged to violate the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"). The corporate structure and the lending schemes were set up by the Corporate Defendants and the individual Defendant, Matt Martorello, in an effort to escape the reach of state usury laws and federal credit regulating laws by trying to put the Corporate Defendants within the sovereign immunity of the Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians. For the reasons set forth in the Opinion, the Corporate Defendants' motion to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction under a claim of sovereign immunity was rejected. That decision is on appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. After the Corporate Defendants appealed from the decision holding that they were not entitled to the Tribe's sovereign immunity, the case was set for trial on the claims against Martorello, and the class, and the merits discovery was allowed to proceed as to the case against Martorello. The case against Martorello was set for trial to begin on March 18, 2019, but as explained in the Memorandum Order entered on Jan. 23, 2019, the Corporate Defendants have thwarted the discovery efforts of both the Plaintiffs and Martorello by interposing rather farfetched notions of sovereign immunity to oppose the Plaintiffs' efforts to obtain information from non-parties and from employees of the Corporate Defendants who formerly were employed by entities owned or controlled by Martorello. As part of their discovery of non-parties, the Plaintiffs issued a subpoena duces tecum to TranDotCom Solutions, LLC, a company that maintains Big Picture's data relating to the allegedly usurious loans such as loan amounts, origination dates, and payments. TranDotCom refused to comply because of its contract with Big Picture and its concerns about whether production was prohibited by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. However, TranDotCom has not filed objections to producing the documents requested in the subpoena. Instead, the Plaintiffs and TranDotCom negotiated a resolution that required a Court order to sanction the resolution. TranDotCom and the Plaintiffs informed Big Picture of the subpoena and the agreement. After that agreement was reached, the Corporate Defendants, who had been informed of the subpoena but had done nothing to oppose it, filed a pleading titled Specially Appearing Defendants Bid Picture Loans, LLC'S and Ascension Technologies, LLC'S Response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Order, in which they object to entry of the order to which the Plaintiffs and TranDotCom agreed. The matter is before the Court on the Plaintiffs' Motion for Entry of Order. In the Motion, the Court is asked to enter an order declaring that TranDotCom's transfer of Big Picture's data in response to the subpoena does not violate the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act so that TranDotCom will provide the requested data without fear of violating the statute. Corporate Defendants Ascension and Big Picture responded, and the Court heard argument on the matter. Judge Payne agrees that the transfer of Big Picture's data does not violate the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act because a subpoena falls within the judicial-process exception to the Act. Further, he rejects the other reasons advanced by the Corporate Defendants for denying the motion: (1) that the subpoena must be served in Georgia rather than in Virginia under Rule 45 and (2) that the motion should be quashed, because the subpoena does not satisfy Rule 45's balancing test. He finds that their arguments lack merit because Section 6802(e)(8) explicitly says that Subsections (a) and (b) will not prohibit the disclosure of nonpublic personal information to respond to judicial process. The Corporate Defendants' argument that turning over the data does not satisfy the Rule 45 balancing test is rejected because the Corporate Defendants' did not make that argument in compliance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Finally, considering that the Court has not yet decided Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification of Claims Against Defendant Matt Martorello), the production of documents will not take effect until the Court decides whether the plaintiffs satisfy Fed. R. Civ. P. 23's requirements to maintain a class action. Meanwhile, TranDotCom will segregate the requested information and preserve it so that it can be produced when directed by subsequent order. By March 30, 2019, TranDotCom will certify in writing and under oath that it has properly preserved the requested information. For the reasons he stated, Judge Payne granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for Entry of Order, subject to the limitation set forth. A full-text copy of the Court's March 12, 2019 Memorandum Opinion is available at https://is.gd/XqshjN from Leagle.com. Lula Williams, on behalf of themselves and all individuals similarly situated, George Hengle, Dowin Coffy & Marcella P. Singh, Administrator of the Estate of Felix M. Gillison, Jr., Plaintiffs, represented by Craig Carley Marchiando , Consumer Litigation Associates, Kristi Cahoon Kelly -- kkelly@kellyandcrandall.com -- Kelly Guzzo PLC, Andrew Joseph Guzzo -- aguzzo@kellyandcrandall.com -- Kelly Guzzo PLC, Beth Ellen Terrell, Terrell Marshall Law Group PLLC, pro hac vice, Casey Shannon Nash -- casey@kellyandcrandall.com -- Kelly Guzzo PLC, Eleanor Michelle Drake, Berger & Montague PC, pro hac vice, Elizabeth Anne Adams, Terrell Marshall Law Group PLLC, pro hac vice, Elizabeth W. Hanes, Consumer Litigation Associates, James Wilson Speer -- jay@vplc.org -- Virginia Proverty Law Center, Jennifer Rust Murray, Terrell Marshall Law Group PLLC, pro hac vice, John Gerard Albanese, Berger & Montague PC, pro hac vice, Leonard Anthony Bennett, Consumer Litigation Associates & Matthew William Wessler, Gupta Wessler PLLC, pro hac vice. Gloria Turnage, Plaintiff, represented by Craig Carley Marchiando , Consumer Litigation Associates, Kristi Cahoon Kelly, Kelly Guzzo PLC, Andrew Joseph Guzzo, Kelly Guzzo PLC, Beth Ellen Terrell, Terrell Marshall Law Group PLLC, pro hac vice, Casey Shannon Nash, Kelly Guzzo PLC, Eleanor Michelle Drake , Berger & Montague PC, pro hac vice, Elizabeth Anne Adams, Terrell Marshall Law Group PLLC, pro hac vice, Elizabeth W. Hanes, Consumer Litigation Associates, James Wilson Speer , Virginia Proverty Law Center, Jennifer Rust Murray, Terrell Marshall Law Group PLLC, pro hac vice, John Gerard Albanese , Berger & Montague PC, pro hac vice & Leonard Anthony Bennett, Consumer Litigation Associates. Big Picture Loans, LLC & Ascension Technologies, Inc., Defendants, represented by Craig Thomas Merritt, Christian & Barton LLP, David Neal Anthony -- david.anthony@troutmansanders.com -- Troutman Sanders LLP, James Edward Moore , Christian & Barton LLP, Shannan Marie Fitzgerald, Christian & Barton LLP, Anna Marek Bruty, Rosette LLP, Julie Diane Hoffmeister, Troutman Sanders LLP, Justin Alexander Gray -- jgray@rosettelaw.com -- Rosette, LLP, pro hac vice & Timothy James St. George -- tim.stgeorge@troutmansanders.com -- Troutman Sanders LLP. Matt Martorello, Defendant, represented by David Neal Anthony , Troutman Sanders LLP, Hugh McCoy Fain, III, Spotts Fain PC, John Michael Erbach, Spotts Fain PC, Jonathan Peter Boughrum -- jboughrum@mmwr.com -- Armstrong Teasdale LLP, pro hac vice, Maurice Francis Mullins, Spotts Fain PC, Michael Christopher Witsch, Armstrong Teasdale LLP, pro hac vice, Michelle Lynne Alamo, Armstrong Teasdale LLP, pro hac vice, Paul Louis Brusati, Armstrong Teasdale LLP, pro hac vice, Richard Lawrence Scheff -- rscheff@mmwr.com -- Armstrong Teasdale LLP, pro hac vice, Timothy James St. George, Troutman Sanders LLP, Tod Daniel Stephens, Armstrong Teasdale LLP, pro hac vice & William Ojile, Armstrong Teasdale LLP, pro hac vice. BON WORTH INC: Dawson Claims Website not Blind-friendly ------------------------------------------------------- Leshawn Dawson, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated Plaintiff, v. Bon Worth, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-01379 (S.D. N.Y., February 13, 2019), seeks preliminary and permanent injunction, compensatory, statutory and punitive damages and fines, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, costs and expenses of this action together with reasonable attorneys' and expert fees and such other and further relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act, New York State Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights Law. Defendant is a clothing and accessories company that operates www.bonworth.com. Dawson claims that the website is not accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Plaintiff is legally blind and claims that Defendant's website cannot be accessed by the visually-impaired. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003-2461 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 Email: nyjg@aol.com danalgottlieb@aol.com - and - Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq. COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Fl. Brooklyn, NY 11201 Tel: (929) 575-4175 Fax: (929) 575-4195 Email: Joseph@cml.legal BRIDGEWAY OF BENSENVILLE: Sued over Collection of Biometric Data ---------------------------------------------------------------- RICARDO WHITE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. BRIDGEWAY OF BENSENVILLE, INDEPENDENT LIVING, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2019CH03387 (Ill. Cir., March 14, 2019), alleges that the Defendant has implemented an invasive program that relies on the capture, collection, storage and use of their workers' fingerprints, while disregarding the applicable Illinois statute and the privacy interests it protects. The Defendant's employees in Illinois have been required to clock "in" and "out" of their work shifts by scanning their fingerprints. When clocking in and out using the fingerprint scans, Defendant's biometric computer systems then verify the employee and clock the employee "in" or "out." Unlike traditional time clock punch cards which can be changed or replaced if lost or compromised, fingerprints are unique, permanent biometric identifiers associated with eachCounsel for the employee. This exposes Defendant's workforce to serious and irreversible privacy risks. For example, if a fingerprint database is hacked, breached, or otherwise exposed, employees have no means by which to prevent identity theft and unauthorized tracking, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: James X. Bormes, Esq. Catherine P. Sons, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JAMES X. BORMES, P.C. 8 South Michigan A venue, Suite 2600 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: 312-201-0575 E-mail: jxbormes@bormeslaw.com cpsons@bormeslaw.com - and - Thomas M. Ryan, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS M. RYAN, P.C. 35 East Wacker Drive, Suite 650 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: 312 726 3400 E-mail: tom@tomryanlaw.com BROWN UNIVERSITY: Short Seeks Prelim. Approval of $3.5-Mil. Deal ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled DIANE G. SHORT, JUDITH DAVIAU, and JOSEPH BARBOZA, Individually and as representatives of a class of participants and beneficiaries in and on behalf of the BROWN UNIVERSITY DEFERRED VESTING RETIREMENT PLAN, and the BROWN UNIVERSITY LEGACY RETIREMENT PLAN v. BROWN UNIVERSITY in Providence in the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Case No. 1:17-cv-00318-WES-PAS (D.R.I.), move the Court for an order: (1) preliminarily approving the parties' proposed $3,500,000 class action settlement; (2) approving class certification for settlement purposes; (3) establishing a plan for providing the notice of the Settlement to Class Members; (4) appointing Class Counsel; (5) appointing a Settlement Administrator; and (6) setting a hearing for final approval of the Settlement and consideration of Co-Lead Counsel's motion for an award of attorney's fees and reimbursement of litigation expenses. As reflected in the Settlement Agreement, the parties want to compromise and settle all issues and claims relating to the allegations made in this action on behalf of all members of the proposed Classes. The Plaintiffs' proposed plan of allocation will fairly and compensate Class Members in proportion to the relative losses resulting from Defendants' alleged imprudent investment of their assets and other claims as described in the Complaint in this case, and taking into account Defendant's proffered defenses, says the complaint.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Sonja L. Deyoe, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF SONJA L. DEYOE 395 Smith Street Providence, RI 02908 Telephone: (401) 864-5877 Facsimile: (401) 354-7464 E-mail: sld@the-straight-shooter.com - and - Todd S. Collins, Esq. Eric Lechtzin, Esq. Ellen T. Noteware, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103-6365 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 Facsimile: (215) 875-4604 E-mail: tcollins@bm.net scarson@bm.net enoteware@bm.net - and - Garrett W. Wotkyns, Esq. John J. Nestico, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP 8501 N. Scottsdale Road, Suite 270 Scottsdale, AZ 85253 Telephone: (480) 428-0145 Facsimile: (866) 505-8036 E-mail: gwotkyns@schneiderwallace.com jnestico@schneiderwallace.com - and - Todd Schneider, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP 2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400 Emeryville, CA 94608 Telephone: (415) 421-7100 Facsimile: (415) 421-7105 E-mail: tschneider@schneiderwallace.com Defendant Brown University is represented by: Steven M. Richard, Esq. NIXON PEABODY LLP One Citizens Plaza, Suite 500 Providence, RI 02903 Telephone: (401) 454-1000 E-mail: srichard@nixonpeabody.com - and - Charles M. Dyke, Esq. NIXON PEABODY LLP One Embarcadero Center, 18th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 984-8315 E-mail: cdyke@nixonpeabody.com - and - H. Douglas Hinson, Esq. ALSTON & BIRD The Atlantic Building 950 F Street, NW Washington, DC 20004-1404 Telephone: (202) 239-3300 E-mail: doug.hinson@alston.com BUCKINGHAM PROPERTY: Ferrell FLSA Suit Removed to E.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant Buckingham Property Management removed on March 11, 2019, the lawsuit titled KEVIN FERRELL, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated; CHERYL BAKER, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated and on behalf of other aggrieved employees pursuant to the California Private Attorneys General Act v. BUCKINGHAM PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, a California corporation; and DOES 1-100, Case No. BC554213, from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-at-00187 to the proceeding. On August 8, 2014, Plaintiff Kevin Ferrell filed a complaint in Los Angeles County Superior Court naming Buckingham Property Management as Defendant and alleging ten causes of action for wage and hour violations, which was recently subsequently amended to include a claim under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").[BN] Defendant Buckingham Property Management is represented by: John T. Egley, Esq. Shirin Forootan, Esq. CALL & JENSEN A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 610 Newport Center Drive, Suite 700 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 717-3000 Facsimile: (949) 717-3100 E-mail: jegley@calljensen.com sforootan@calljensen.com BUKHARA INDIAN: Prabir FLSA Suit Settlement Has Approval -------------------------------------------------------- In the case, SAMUEL PRABIR, MUSTAFA JAMAL BHUIYAN and SYDUR RASHID, Plaintiffs, v. BUKHARA INDIAN CUISINE, INC., d/b/a "Indigo Indian Bistro," BASER INDIAN CUISINE, INC., d/b/a "Baser Restaurant," ANIL KUMAR and RENU KUMAR, Defendants, Case No. 17 Civ. 3704 (HBP) (S.D. N.Y.), Judge Henry Pitman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted the parties' settlement agreement in the action brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"). The Plaintiffs formerly worked as servers and/or food runners at two restaurants allegedly owned and operated by the individual defendants. They allege that the Defendants (1) paid them a flat weekly salary regardless of the number of hours they worked, (2) failed to pay the minium wage and overtime premium pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week, (3) failed to pay "spread of hours" pay as required by the NYLL, (4) misappropriated gratuities and (5) failed to provide the wage statements and wage notices require by the NYLL. Exclusive of liquidated damages, interest and statutory penalties, the parties claim the following amounts: (i) Prabir - $74,648 (31%); (ii) Bhuiyan - $46,026.25 (19%); (iii) Rashid - $119,566 (49.8%), The parties have reached an agreement to settle all claims of all the Plaintiffs against all the Defendants for the total sum of $130,000. The $43,000, or slightly less than one-third, will be paid to the Plaintiffs' counsel as reimbursement for out-of-pocket costs and fees. The parties have agreed to allocate the remainder of $87,000 as follows: (i) Prabir - $36,000 (41.3%); (ii) Bhuiyan - $14,000 (42.5%); and (iii) Rashid - $37,000 (16%). The action has been marked by continuing efforts on the part of the Defendants to dissipate and/or hide their assets. In February 2018, the Plaintiffs sought and ultimately obtained a pre-judgement order of attachment on the theory that the Defendants with the intent to defraud their creditors or frustrate the enforcement of a judgment that might be rendered in the Plaintiffs' favor, have assigned, disposed of, encumbered, or secreted property, or removed it from the state or are about to do so. The evidenced adduced at the hearing on the motion for an order of attachment demonstrated that the Defendants were transferring, encumbering and selling assets, all in an effort to frustrate a judgment. The discovery conducted by the Plaintiffs has also disclosed that the Defendants failed to pay rent for one of their restaurants for several months, resulting in a debt of $350,000 and that the Defendants owe the State of New York $87,000 in unpaid taxes. The Defendants efforts to evade their creditors have been so extensive that the Plaintiffs here were compelled to commence an action in state court asserting fraudulent conveyance claims against the Defendants and their family members. The money to fund the proposed settlement in the matter has already been paid to the Plaintiffs' counsel and is being held in escrow pending my approval of the settlement. Judge Pitman finds that (i) the net settlement amount represents approximately 36% of the Plaintiffs' claimed unpaid minimum wage and overtime pay; (ii) the settlement will entirely avoid the expense and aggravation of litigation and the problems of collection; (iii) the settlement will enable the Plaintiffs to avoid the risk of litigation; (iv) there is no evidence that the settlement is anything other than the product of arm's-length bargaining between experienced counsel; (v) here is no evidence suggesting fraud; and (vi) the settlement agreement's fee provision is clearly reasonable. Accordingly, for all the foregoing reasons, Judge Pitman approved the parties' settlement agreement. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully requested to mark the matter closed, and the pending motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the claims against Renu Kumar is denied as moot. A full-text copy of the Court's March 12, 2019 Opinion and Order is available at https://is.gd/Zv24yU from Leagle.com. Samuel Prabir, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Lucas Colin Buzzard -- lucas@jk-llp.com -- Joseph & Kirshenbaum LLP & Daniel Maimon Kirschenbaum -- maimon@jhllp.com -- Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester, & Kirschenbaum. Mustafa Jamal Bhuiyan & Sydur Rashid, Plaintiffs, represented by Lucas Colin Buzzard, Joseph & Kirshenbaum LLP. Bukhara Indian Cuisine, Inc, doing business as Indigo Indian Bistro, Basera Indian Cuisine, Inc., doing business as Basera Restaurant, Anil Kumar & Renu Kumar, Defendants, represented by Arthur Harvey Forman -- mail@ahforman.com -- Arthur H. Forman, Esq., Benjamin Wade Baumgartner, Gehi & Associates & Naresh M. Gehi, Law Offices of N. M. Gehi, P.C.. CAPITAL MGMT: Dismissal of Kolbasyuk's Claims in FDCPA Suit Upheld ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, YURI KOLBASYUK, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CAPITAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LP, Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 18-1260-cv (2d Cir.), Judge Debra Ann Livingston of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of Kolbasyuk's claims. The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") regulates certain communications from debt collectors to consumers with outstanding debts. Plaintiff-Appellant Kolbasyuk sought to invoke the FDCPA's protections when he received a debt collection letter from Defendant-Appellee CMS. Kolbasyuk owed a debt to Barclays Bank Delaware. Barclays hired CMS to collect it. In an effort to accomplish that task, CMS sent Kolbasyuk a dunning letter dated July 21, 2017. The letter stated the present amount of Kolbasyuk's debt (about $6,000) as well as the identity of the original and current creditor (Barclays). The letter contained CMS's address and contact information, including a website at which Kolbasyuk could submit his payment. The letter noted that it was a communication from a debt collector. After receiving CMS's letter, Kolbasyuk filed a putative class action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. He alleged that the letter violated Sections 1692e and 1692g of the FDCPA. According to his complaint, the letter violated those provisions because it failed to inform him, inter alia, what portion of the amount listed is principal, what 'other charges' might apply, if there is interest, when such interest will be applied, and what the interest rate is. Kolbasyuk also claimed that the letter conveyed the mistaken impression that the debt could be satisfied by remitting the listed amount as of the date of the letter, at any time after receipt of the letter. On April 14, 2018, the district court dismissed Kolbasyuk's complaint, holding that CMS' letter violated neither of the two provisions that Kolbasyuk cited. In so doing, the district court noted that the letter stated the amount Plaintiff owed as of its date and stated that the amount owed may increase due to interest and fees. Kolbasyuk timely appealed. He argues that CMS' letter violated Section 1692g and Section 1692e. Judge Livingston finds that the text of Section 1692g clearly forecloses Kolbasyuk's argument. That provision required CMS to inform Kolbasyuk of the "amount of the debt" in question. And that is exactly the figure that CMS provided: the total, present quantity of money that Kolbasyuk was obligated to pay Barclays as of the date of CMS' letter. Nothing in Section 1692g required CMS to inform Kolbasyuk of the constituent components of that debt or the precise rates by which it might later increase. To the extent that Kolbasyuk attempts to state a claim under Section 1692e based on CMS' failure to provide him with a precise breakdown of his debt or to inform him of the precise interest he might incur going forward, the Judge rejects that claim too. CMS has provided Kolbasyuk with the total, present quantity of his debt and informed him that this amount might increase due to additional fees and interest. A failure to provide the additional detailed disclosures that Kolbasyuk seeks does not transform CMS' otherwise-straightforward letter into a "false, deceptive, or misleading" one. Kolbasyuk presents no other theory under which CMS might have violated Section 1692e. Nor can the Judge imagine one. Absent additional facts not present on the record, nothing about CMS' letter could be fairly characterized as "false, deceptive, or misleading." Accordingly, the district court did not err in concluding that Kolbasyuk's complaint fails to state a claim that CMS "used any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection" of the debt at issue. Judge Livingston has considered Kolbasyuk's remaining arguments and concludes that they are waived or without merit. For the foregoing reasons, she affirmed the district court's judgment. A full-text copy of the Court's March 12, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/wt5ABV from Leagle.com. LEVI HUEBNER, Levi Huebner & Associates, PC, Brooklyn, New York, for Yuri Kolbasyuk, for Plaintiff-Appellant. KIRSTEN H. SMITH -- ksmith@sessions.legal -- (Bryan C. Shartle -- bshartle@sessions.legal -- on the brief), Sessions, Fishman, Nathan & Israel LLC, Metairie, Louisiana, for Capital Management Services, LP., for Defendant-Appellee. CAS MEDICAL: Torreano Balks at Sale to Edwards Lifesciences ----------------------------------------------------------- THOMAS TORREANO, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. CAS MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC., THOMAS M. PATTON, ALAN W. MILINAZZO, PAUL A. MOLLOY, GREGORY P. RAINEY, JAMES E. THOMAS, KATHLEEN A. TUNE, KENNETH R. WEISSHAAR, EDWARDS, LIFESCIENCES HOLDING, INC., CROWN MERGER SUB, INC., and EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES CORPORATION, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00510-UNA (D. Del., March 14, 2019), is a class action on behalf of the public stockholders of CAS Medical Systems, Inc. against CASM's Board of Directors for their violations of Section 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, arising out of the Board's attempt to sell the Company to Edwards Lifesciences Corporation through its wholly-owned subsidiary Edwards Lifesciences Holding, Inc. and its wholly owned subsidiary Crown Merger Sub, Inc. The Proxy recommends that CASM shareholders vote in favor of a proposed transaction whereby CASM is acquired by Edwards. The Proposed Transaction was first disclosed on February 12, 2019, when CASM and Edwards announced that they had entered into a definitive merger agreement pursuant to which Edwards will acquire all of the outstanding shares of common stock of CASM for $2.45 per share. The deal is valued at approximately $100 million and is expected to close in the second quarter of 2019. CASM undertook a multi-year transition to make the Company a leader in tissue oximetry, which monitors oxygen levels in brains and other tissues. Yet just as that transition was coming to an end, the Board decided to try and sell the Company. Edwards was an early contender for a potential transaction, but decided to pursue a commercial collaboration with CASM instead. This collaboration would make it easier for hospitals to integrate the Company's products into its existing systems, which would expand the market. Well over a year later, after gaining insight into the Company, Edwards made an offer to purchase CASM. The Board agreed, despite the fact that doing so limits CASM's ability to collaborate with other companies in a similar way as with Edwards. Furthermore, the Proxy is materially incomplete and contains misleading representations and information in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Specifically, the Proxy contains materially incomplete and misleading information concerning the sales process, financial projections prepared by CASM management, as well as the financial analyses conducted by William Blair & Company, L.L.C., CASM's financial advisor. The Plaintiff seeks to enjoin Defendants from taking any steps to consummate the Proposed Transaction, including filing a definitive proxy statement with the SEC or otherwise causing a Definitive Proxy to be disseminated to CASM's shareholders, unless and until the material information discussed below is included in the Definitive Proxy or otherwise disseminated to CASM's shareholders. CAS, a medical technology company, develops, manufactures, and markets non-invasive patient monitoring products worldwide.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff Shane T. Rowley, Esq. Danielle Rowland Lindahl, Esq. ROWLEY LAW PLLC 50 Main Street, Suite 1000 White Plains, NY 10606 Telephone: (914) 400-1920 Facsimile: (914) 301-3514 - and - Brian D. Long, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 295-5310 Facsimile: (302) 654-7530 E-mail: bdl@rl-legal.com gms@rl-legal.com CATERPILLLAR INC: Shortchanges Workers' OT Pay, Archuleta Says -------------------------------------------------------------- Stephanie Archuleta, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Caterpilllar, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-00121 (E.D. Ark., February 14, 2019), seeks to recover monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees as a result of failure to pay overtime wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act. Caterpillar is a manufacturer of construction and mining equipment, diesel and natural gas engines, industrial turbines and diesel-electric locomotives where Archuleta worked as a production worker in Caterpillar's manufacturing facility in North Little Rock. She complains that Caterpillar did not include the bonuses and cash awards in their regular rates when calculating their overtime pay. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Lydia Hicks Hamlet, Esq. Steve Rauls, Esq. Josh Sanford, Esq. Sanford Law Firm Post Office Box 39 Russellville, AR 72811 Tel: (479) 880-0088 Fax: (888) 787-2040 Email: lydia@sanfordlawfirm.com steve@sanfordlawfirm.com josh@sanfordlawfirm.com CHEN'S BUFFET: Lin Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- Yun Lin, individually and on behalf of all other employees similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Chen's Buffet City II Inc., Tom "Doe" (Last Name Unknown) and Qi Se Chen, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-01585 (E.D. N.Y., March 19, 2019) is an action brought against the Defendants for alleged violations of the Federal Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and of New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), arising from the Defendants' various willful and unlawful employment policies, patterns and/or practices. The Defendants have willfully and intentionally committed widespread violations of the FLSA and NYLL by engaging in a pattern and practice of failing to pay their employees, including Plaintiff, compensation for all hours worked, minimum wage, and overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 each workweek and spread of hours, as well as failing to provide their employees, including Plaintiff, with wage notice at the time of hiring and wage statements, says the complaint. Plaintiff Yun Lin was employed as a waitress in Defendants' restaurant from November 6, 2018 to March 3, 2019. Chen's Buffet City II Inc. is a domestic business corporation organization and existing under the laws of the State of New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rui Ma, Esq. Hang & Associates, PLLC 136-20 38th Avenue, Suite 10G Flushing, NY 11354 Phone: (718 353-8588 Fax: (718 353-6288 Email: rma@hanglaw.com CHESTERTON, IN: Firefighters Seek Unpaid OT, Accrued Vacation Pay ----------------------------------------------------------------- Eric Camel, Chad Compton, Heather Compton, Anthony Coslet, Aimee Gilbert, Stephen Himan, Rudolph Jimenez, Evan Jones, Joshua Mohlke Miguel Plazola, Stephen Sloan, Brandon Smith, Bradford Tyskiewicz, Brent Valpatic, Stephen Williams and Chesterton Firefighters Local 4600, for themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Town of Chesteron, Indiana, Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-00043, (N.D. Ind., February 16, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid compensation, including overtime wages and liquidated damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiffs are firefighters with the Town of Chesterton, Indiana. They rendered four 24-hour shifts and claim overtime and accrued vacation leaves. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Angela M. Jones, Esq. Kevin C. Smith, Esq. SMITH SERSIC 9301 Calumet Avenue, Suite 1F Munster, IN 46321 Phone: (219) 936-7600 Fax: (219) 836-2848 Email: ajones@smithsersic.com; ksmith@smithsersic.com CHRISTOPHER KANE: Dawson Says Website not Blind-friendly -------------------------------------------------------- Leshawn Dawson, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated Plaintiff, v. Christopher Kane US, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-01382 (S.D. N.Y., February 13, 2019), seeks preliminary and permanent injunction, compensatory, statutory and punitive damages and fines, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, costs and expenses of this action together with reasonable attorneys' and expert fees and such other and further relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act, New York State Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights Law. Defendant is a clothing company that operates www.christopherkane.com that allow consumers to access store locations and hours, purchase store products online for pickup or delivery including shoes and related products. Dawson claims that it is not accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Plaintiff is legally blind and claims that Defendant's website cannot be accessed by the visually-impaired. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003-2461 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 Email: nyjg@aol.com danalgottlieb@aol.com - and - Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq. COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Fl. Brooklyn, NY 11201 Tel: (929) 575-4175 Fax: (929) 575-4195 Email: Joseph@cml.legal CLEVELAND, OH: Williams Seeks Sup. Ct. Review of 6th Cir. Ruling ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Tynisa Williams filed with the Supreme Court of the United States a petition for a writ of certiorari in the matter entitled Tynisa Williams, Petitioner v. City of Cleveland, Ohio, Case No. 18-1172. Response is due on April 10, 2019. The questions presented are: -- Whether the Appeals Court erroneously held that the physical delousing of all detainees entering the Cleveland Workhouse, whereby delousing solution was sprayed onto the genitals and anus of naked pre-trial detainees with a pressurized spray canister, was constitutional under the Fourth Amendment given reasonable de minimis alternatives to this procedure, including self-application of the solution; and -- Whether the Appeals Court erroneously held that routine group strip searches and physical delousing of all detainees entering the Cleveland Workhouse, whereby detainees were strip searched and deloused in groups of three, were constitutional under the Fourth Amendment given reasonable de minimis alternatives to this procedure, including the utilization of privacy partitions recommended by state regulators. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, in the case styled TYNISA WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CITY OF CLEVELAND, Defendant-Appellant, Case Nos. 16-4237/17-3508 (6th Cir.), Judge Eugene Edward Siler, Jr., (i) reversed the District Court's summary judgment and permanent injunction orders; and (ii) remanded with instructions to grant summary judgment in favor of the City on all counts and to vacate the permanent injunction. In 2009, Williams brought suit against the City, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. She alleged that the City's intake procedures conducted at its House of Corrections ("HOC"), consisting of strip searches and mandatory delousing, violated the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.[BN] Plaintiff-Petitioner Tynisa Williams is represented by: Elmer Robert Keach, III, Esq. Maria K. Dyson, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ELMER ROBERT KEACH, III, PC One Pine West Plaza, Suite 109 Albany, NY 12205 Telephone: (518) 434-1718 Telecopier: (518) 770-1558 E-mail: bobkeach@keachlawfirm.com - and - Nicholas Migliaccio, Esq. MIGLIACCIO LAW FIRM, PLLC 412 H Street NE, Suite 302 Washington, DC 20002 Telephone: (202) 470-3520 Telecopier: (202) 800-2730 E-mail: nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com - and - D. Aaron Rihn, Esq. ROBERT PEIRCE & ASSOCIATES, PC 2500 Gulf Tower 707 Grant Street Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Telephone: (412) 281-7229 Telecopier: (412) 281-4229 E-mail: arihn@peircelaw.com - and - Daniel Karon, Esq. KARON LLP 700 West St. Clair Avenue, Suite 200 Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 622-1851 Telecopier: (216) 241-8175 E-mail: dkaron@karonllc.com CLIENT SERVICES: Summary Judgment in Steffek FDCPA Suit Granted --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, SARAH M. STEFFEK and JILL VANDENWYNGAARD, Plaintiffs, v. CLIENT SERVICES, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 18-C-160 (E.D. Wis.), Judge William C. Griesbach of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin (i) denied the Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment as to liability, and (ii) granted CSI's motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs Steffek and Vandenwyngaard filed the class action against CSI and a number of John Does, alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"). The Plaintiffs allege that CSI violated Section 1692g(a) by failing to disclose the current creditor's name in the required notice of debt it sent to them regarding a Chase Bank USA, N.A. debt. In addition, they claim the notice violated Section 1692e because it is false, deceptive, and misleading. On Feb. 22, 2017, CSI mailed a form debt-collection letter to Steffek in an attempt to collect a debt. Similarly, on Feb. 22, 2017, CSI mailed a form debt-collection letter to Vandenwyngaard in an attempt to collect a debt. The last payment for the account identified in Steffek's letter occurred on June 4, 2014, and the account was charged-off by Chase Bank on Jan. 30, 2015. The last payment for the account identified in Vandenwyngaard's letter occurred on Dec. 7, 2014, and the account was charged-off by Chase Bank on March 31, 2015. The parties do not dispute that Chase Bank was in fact the original creditor of the debts. The Plaintiffs claim the letters violated Section 1692e and 1692g(a)(2) of the FDCPA by failing to expressly identify Chase as the current creditor. Although they object to the affidavit filed by CSI that states Chase is also the current creditor, the Plaintiffs have offered no evidence suggesting that the debt was ever sold or assigned to a different creditor. Instead, they argue that the court should not consider additional facts not contained in the parties' stipulated facts. On Aug. 22, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel, seeking responses to certain discovery requests. CSI failed to respond to the motion to compel, and the Court accordingly granted the motion on Aug. 31, 2018. On Sept. 8, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion to vacate the order compelling discovery. They noted that the parties entered into a stipulation on Aug. 24, 2018 that obviated the need for any further oral and written discovery into CSI's liability. In particular, the parties agreed that, in order to streamline the litigation, they would stipulate to all facts they believe are necessary for the Court, or a jury, to decide the issue of liability in the litigation (by dispositive motions or trial) which would enable the parties to forego undertaking any further depositions or discovery. They further agreed that the ten facts listed in the stipulation would be the only facts that will be used by the Parties in support of, or in opposition to, a finding of liability by way of any dispositive motion filed by the Parties or at trial. On Sept. 11, 2018, the Court granted the motion to vacate the order compelling discovery and ordered that, in the event the Court enters an order either finding CSI liable or setting the case for trial, the Plaintiffs will be allowed 45 days from the date of that order to take oral and written discovery regarding damages. The Plaintiffs argue that the Court should only consider the ten facts enumerated in the parties' stipulation because they would be highly prejudiced if it considered any additional information beyond that contained in those facts. The Plaintiffs do not dispute that they had the opportunity to conduct discovery and decided to forgo additional discovery to streamline the litigation and resolve the matter in the most efficient and economical manner possible. They have failed to offer any evidence on summary judgment to dispute, contradict, or undermine CSI's assertion that Chase Bank is the current creditor, thereby forfeiting any argument that it is not. Presently before the Court are the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment. There is no dispute that CSI is a debt collector and the letters were mailed in connection with the collection of a debt. The sole issue before the court is whether the Plaintiffs have produced evidence from which a jury could conclude that the letters violated one or more provisions of the FDCPA. Judge Griesbach concludes on the record before him that CSI is entitled to summary judgment. There is no evidence that Chase Bank is not the creditor to whom the debt is owed, and the letters comply with Section 1692g(a)(2) in that they provide the debtor a written notice that clearly contained Chase Bank's name as the source of the account CSI was attempting to collect. The letters stated the required information clearly enough that the recipient is likely to understand it. Because the letters did not violate Section 1692g, it follows that, under the facts of the case, the letter did not violate Section 1692e. For the foregoing reasons, Judge Griesbach granted CSI's motion for summary judgment, and denied the Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment as to liability. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment of dismissal in favor of CSI accordingly. A full-text copy of the Court's March 12, 2019 Decision and Order is available at https://is.gd/Pt4fad from Leagle.com. Sarah M Steffek & Jill Vandenwyngaard, Plaintiffs, represented by Francis R. Greene -- fgreene@edcombs.com -- Stern Thomasson LLP, Philip D. Stern -- philip@sternthomasson.com -- Stern Thomasson LLP & Andrew T. Thomasson -- andrew@sternthomasson.com -- Stern Thomasson LLP. Client Services Inc, Defendant, represented by Eugene X. Martin, IV, Malone Akerly Martin PLLC, Patrick A. Watts -- pat.watts@wattslawfirmpa.com -- Watts Law Group LLC & Robbie L. Malone, Malone Akerly Martin PLLC. CMRE FINANCIAL: Crooks Sues over Background Checks -------------------------------------------------- A class action complaint has been filed against CMRE Financial Services, Inc. The case is captioned, JEREMY CROOKS, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CMRE FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-00529-H-BGS (S.D. Cal., March 20, 2019). Plaintiff Crooks seeks damages and injunctive relief for the CMRE's violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Crooks alleges that CMRE is engaged in deceptive business practices with its systematic unauthorized credit inquiries and inaccurate credit reports. CMRE, registered in the State of California, provides collection and A/R management services for the healthcare industry. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yana A. Hart, Esq. HYDE & SWIGART, APC 2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101 San Diego, CA 92108-3609 Telephone: (619) 233-7770 Fax: (619) 297-1022 E-mail: yana@westcoastlitigation.com - and - Daniel G. Shay, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL G. SHAY 409 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101B San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (619) 222-7429 Fax: (866) 431-3292 E-mail: danielshay@tcpafdcpa.com COMPETENTIA US: Juarez Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------------- LESLIE JUAREZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. COMPETENTIA US INC., Case No. 4:19-cv-00846 (S.D. Tex., March 8, 2019), seeks to recover alleged unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Competentia is a Texas corporation with its principal place of business in Houston, Texas. Competentia is engaged in providing professional services in the oil and gas industry throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. James A. Jones, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com jjones@brucknerburch.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com COOK COUNTY, IL: Class of Inmates Certified in Whitney Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Matthew F. Kennelly grants the Plaintiff's motion for class certification in the lawsuit titled DEMETRIUS WHITNEY v. FAUZIA KHAN, THOMAS DART, and COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS, Case No. 1:18-cv-04475 (N.D. Ill.). The Court certifies this class under Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: all persons assigned to be treated by the Residential Treatment Unit dental clinic from January 1, 2017 to the date of entry of judgment, who submitted a written "Health Service Request Form" processed as "urgent" by the RTU dental assistant and did not receive an evaluation by a dentist for at least 14 days after submitting the request. The Court also appoints Patrick William Morrissey, Esq., and Thomas Gerard Morrissey, Esq., as class counsel. Demetrius Whitney is a former inmate at the Cook County Jail, who repeatedly requested treatment for dental problems at the jail's Residential Treatment Unit (RTU) dental clinic while in custody. He sued the dentist at the RTU, Dr. Fauzia Khan, as well as the county and Sheriff Thomas Dart, alleging that the RTU's scheduling and staffing policies caused unreasonable delays in dental care in violation of the Eighth Amendment, according to the Court's memorandum opinion and order.[CC] COOK COUNTY, IL: Court Flips Dismissal of Gassman Suit as Moot -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, David Gassman and A&G Foods, Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. THE CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, in Her Official Capacity, Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 1-17-1543 (Ill. App.), Judge Mary Anne Mason of the Appellate Court of Illinois for the First District, First Division, reversed the trial court's order dismissing the case as moot and remanded for further proceedings. Section 27.2a(g)(2) of the Clerks of Courts Act imposes a fee for filing a petition to vacate or modify any final judgment or order of court. In separate underlying cases, the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County charged Plaintiffs Gassman and A&G, a fee for filing a petition to vacate a nonfinal order. They brought the suit for mandamus and other relief against the Clerk, arguing that such fees were not authorized under the Act. In Gassman v. Clerk of the Circuit Court ("Gassman I"), the Court agreed with the Plaintiffs, holding that the word "final" modifies both of the terms "judgment" and "order," and therefore the statute does not authorize the Clerk to charge a fee for filing a petition to vacate a nonfinal order. On remand, the Clerk tendered to the Pplaintiffs a refund of the disputed fees, and she also represented to the trial court that the Clerk's office had changed its fee-collection policies to comply with Gassman I. On this basis, the trial court dismissed the complaint as moot. The Plaintiffs now appeal, arguing that (i) there is still an active controversy between the parties because the Clerk continues to collect improper fees notwithstanding her alleged change in policy, (ii) the Clerk's tender was defective because the check she provided was not negotiable and it otherwise failed to provide plaintiffs the full relief they sought, and (iii) the public-interest exception to the mootness doctrine applies. JUdge Mason agrees with the Plaintiffs' first two contentions. She finds that the Clerk's tender to Novoselsky Law Office was defective. The Plaintiffs allege that at the time of the tender, Jonathan was representing the laintiffs as Jonathan Novoselsky, P.C. The Clerk provides no record citation to the contrary, and she was apparently aware of Jonathan's status as the Plaintiffs' counsel, since she correctly sent notice of her motion to dismiss to Jonathan at his firm. Moreover, if there was any uncertainty as to whom the tender should be made, it was incumbent upon the Clerk to clarify that fact before making the tender. Thus, because the check was made payable to the wrong law firm and was not negotiable, there was no "actual production" (internal quotation marks omitted) of the amount due, and the Plaintiffs' claim was not mooted. The Clerk argues that even if the check was made payable to the wrong law firm, David could have signed the check over to Jonathan Novoselsky, P.C. The Plaintiffs argue that such an action would have been contrary to the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct; specifically, Rule 1.15 requires that all client funds be deposited in a client trust account. Notably, the Clerk does not respond to this contention, much less cite any authority as to why Rule 1.15 would not apply in the case. Even more fundamentally, the Court fails to see why, if a defendant proffers a tender to the wrong entity, that error would be cured by the possibility that the entity might later deliver the tender to the correct entity. Consequently, the Judge finds that the Clerk's tender was defective and did not moot the Plaintiffs' action. Judge Mason concludes that the present action is not moot, since (i) there is evidence that the Clerk's policy and practice with regard to fee collection do not comply with our mandate in Gassman I and (ii) the Clerk's tender of funds to the Plaintiffs was deficient, insofar as the check could not be negotiated. Therefore, she need not decide whether the public-interest exception to the mootness doctrine applies. Accoridngly, she reversed the trial court's order dismissing the case as moot and remanded for further proceedings. A full-text copy of the Court's March 12, 2019 Opinion is available at https://is.gd/RnboqF from Leagle.com. COSTY'S INC: Ventura Labor Suit Seeks to Recover OT Pay, Damages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lorena Brito Ventura, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Costy's Inc., Agatha Kim and Raquel Kim, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-00934 (E.D. N.Y., February 15, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, spread-of-hours wages, earned wages and overtime compensation together with liquidated damages, compensatory damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest and attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. Defendants operate as "Dashin Diva," a nail salon where Ventura worked as a manicurist at their Nassau County salon. Ventura reports 10 minutes before the nail salon opened and remained at the salon 10-15 minutes after the nail salon closed. She never received any meal breaks, says the complaint. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Jacob Aronauer, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JACOB ARONAUER 225 Broadway, Suite 307 New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 323-6980 Facsimile: (212) 233-9238 Email: jaronauer@aronauerlaw.com - and - Yale Pollack, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF YALE POLLACK, P.C. 66 Split Rock Rd. Syosset, NY 11791 Tel: (516) 634-6340 CRANE & RIGGING: Narvaez Sues Over Unpaid Regular, Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Adrian Vinicio Andrade Narvaez, Plaintiff, v. U.S. Crane & Rigging, LLC and Thomas Auringer, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02394 (S.D. N.Y., March 18, 2019) seeks redress against the Defendants for unpaid wages in which Plaintiff was deprived of regular and overtime wages for his complete number of hours worked, and the Defendants' failure to provide proper statements with each payment of wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and New York Labor Law ("NYLL"). Plaintiff was paid solely for his hours worked at construction sites and was not paid any wages for his hours worked at Defendants' yard and transporting materials and equipment between the yard and worksites. As a result, Plaintiff was deprived of approximately 21 hours of regular and overtime wages per week throughout his employment, says the complaint. Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a rigger on various construction projects in the State of New York from in or around July 2014 through January 11, 2018. U.S. Crane and Rigging, LLC is a heavy industrial crane and rigging company that provides various services to clients in the New York metropolitan area.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew Madzelan, Esq. SLATER SLATER SCHULMAN LLP 445 Broad Hollow Road, Suite 334 Melville, NY 11747 Phone: (631) 420-9300 Email: MMadzelan@sssfirm.com CREATIVE WERKS: Brown Hits Illegal Biometrics Data Sharing ---------------------------------------------------------- Leon Brown, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Creative Werks LLC, Case No. 2019CH02030 filed in Cook County Circuit Court on February 15, 2019, seeks an injunction requiring Defendants to cease all unlawful activity related to the capture, collection, storage and use of biometrics, statutory damages together with costs and reasonable attorneys' fees for violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. Defendant operates a packaging company with warehouses in Elk Grove Village, Bensenville, and Bartlett, Illinois where Plaintiff worked through a staffing agency, Metro Staff, as an hourly general laborer. Creative used a biometric time clock system to record their time worked. Brown alleges that Creative improperly disclosed employees' biometrics data without their informed consent. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas M. Werman, Esq. Zachary C. Flowerree, Esq. Sarah J. Arendt, Esq. WERMAN SALAS P.C. 77 West Washington, Suite 1402 Chicago, IL 60602 Tel: (312) 419-1008 Email: dwerman@flsalaw.com zflowerree@flsalaw.com DG STRATEGIC VII: Brown Labor Suit Removed to N.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned Wade G. Brown, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. DG Strategic VII, LLC, DG Strategic II and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 19-CV-341180 filed in the Superior Court of Santa Clara County on January 17, 2019, was removed to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on February 15, 2019, under Case No. 19-cv-00833. Plaintiff accuses Defendants of wage and hour violations for failure to provide meal and rest periods, failure to pay hourly wages, failure to provide accurate written wage statements and failure to timely pay all final wages.[BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Shaun Setareh, Esq. Thomas Segal, Esq. Farrah Grant, Esq. SETAREH LAW GROUP 315 South Beverly Drive, Suite 315 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 DG Strategic is represented by: John A. Van Hook, Esq. MCGUIREWOODS LLP 1800 Century Park East, 8th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067-1501 Telephone: (310) 315-8200 Facsimile: (310) 315-8210 Email: jvanhook@mcguirewoods.com - and - Joel S. Allen, Esq. MCGUIREWOODS LLP 2000 McKinney Ave, Suite 1400 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 932-6400 Email: jallen@mcguirewoods.com DIGITAL MEDIA: Thrower Sues over Nuisance Telemarketing Practices ----------------------------------------------------------------- GENE THROWER on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. JOBCASE, INC., and DIGITAL MEDIA SOLUTIONS, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-10486 (D. Mass., March 14, 2019), seeks to enforce the consumer-privacy provisions of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act in response to widespread public outrage about the proliferation of intrusive, nuisance telemarketing practices. In violation of the TCPA, JobCase hired the co-defendant, Digital Media, Inc., who made automated telemarketing calls to a cellular telephone number of Mr. Thrower for the purposes of advertising JobCase goods and services using an automated dialing system and a pre-recorded message, which is prohibited by the TCPA. Digital Media made these calls because of an agreement with JobCase, who hired Digital Media Solutions, LLC to generate business through telemarketing and maintained interim control over their actions. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff never consented to receive the calls, which were placed to him for telemarketing purposes. Because telemarketing campaigns generally place calls to thousands or even millions of potential customers en masse, the Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of a proposed nationwide class of other persons who received illegal telemarketing calls from or on behalf of the Defendants.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: Anthony I. Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Telephone: (508) 221-1510 E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com - and - Edward A. Broderick, Esq. BRODERICK LAW, P.C. 99 High Street, Suite 304 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 738-7080 - and - Matthew P. McCue, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW P. McCUE 1 South Avenue, Suite 3 Natick, MA 01760 Telephone: (508) 655-1415 E-mail: mmccue@massattorneys.net - and - Andrew W. Heidarpour, Esq. HEIDARPOUR LAW FIRM, PPC 1300 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, 190-318 Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (202) 234-2727 E-mail: AHeidarpour@HLFirm.com DRIZLY INC: Traynor Files Class Suit under ADA in New York ---------------------------------------------------------- Drizly, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Yaseen Traynor, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Drizly, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02457 (S.D. N.Y., March 19, 2019). Drizly, Inc. develops an iPhone application for local liquor retailers. The company offers Drizly, an iPhone application that enables users to get on-demand beer, wine, and liquor deliveries to their doorsteps in Austin, Boston, Boulder, Chicago, Denver, Indianapolis, Los Angeles, New York, Seattle, St. Louis, Vail, Hoboken, Franklin, Nashville, Jersey City, and Washington, D.C. Drizly, Inc. was incorporated in 2012 and is based in Boston, Massachusetts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dov Michael Mittelman, Esq. Stein Saks, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Tel: (201) 282-6500 Email: mittelmandov@yahoo.com ELLIE MAE: Faces Epstein Securities Suit Over Sale to Thoma Bravo ----------------------------------------------------------------- CAROLE EPSTEIN, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. ELLIE MAE, INC., SIGMUND ANDERMAN, JONATHAN CORR, KAREN BLASING, CARL BUCCELLATO, CRAIG DAVIS, A. BARR DOLAN, ROBERT J. LEVIN, MARINA LEVINSON, JEB S. SPENCER, and RAJAT TANEJA, Case No. 1:19-cv-00486-UNA (D. Del., March 11, 2019), stems from a proposed transaction, pursuant to which Ellie Mae will be acquired by EM Eagle Purchaser, LLC, and EM Eagle Merger Sub, Inc., affiliates formed by Thoma Bravo Fund XIII, L.P. On February 11, 2019, Ellie Mae's Board of Directors caused the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with Thoma Bravo. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Ellie Mae's stockholders will receive $99 in cash for each share of Ellie Mae common stock held. The Plaintiff contends that with respect to the Company's financial projections, the proxy statement relating to the sale fails to disclose: (i) all line items used to calculate Adjusted Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation, and Amortization ("EBITDA"); (ii) all line items used to calculate Unlevered Free Cash Flow; and (iii) a reconciliation of all non-GAAP ("Generally Accepted Accounting Principles") to GAAP metrics. Accordingly, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the Proxy Statement. Ellie Mae is a leading cloud-based platform provider for the mortgage finance industry offering services which include Encompass(R) education, certification, professional consulting, implementation, and business writing. The Company was founded by Limin Hu and Sigmund Anderman in August 1997 and is headquartered in Pleasanton, California. The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company. Encompass(R) is a digital lending platform that allows lenders and investors to engage homebuyers and efficiently originate, close, sell and purchase loans that maximize return on investments across their business from a single system of record.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian D. Long, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 295-5310 Facsimile: (302) 654-7530 E-mail: bdl@rl-legal.com gms@rl-legal.com - and - Gregory Nespole, Esq. HACH ROSE SCHIRRIPA & CHEVERIE LLP 112 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 213-8311 Facsimile: (212) 779-0028 E-mail: gnespole@hrsclaw.com ENSIGN UNITED: Faulkner FLSA Suit Settlement Has Partial Approval ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, RICKIE FAULKNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ENSIGN UNITED STATES DRILLING INC., Defendant, Civil Action No. 16-cv-03137-PAB-KLM (D. Colo.), Judge Philip A. Brimmer of the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado granted in part and denied in part the parties' Stipulated Motion to Approve Settlement. The Defendant is an oilfield services company located in Denver, Colorado that has operations in North Dakota. The Plaintiff has worked for defendant as a rig manager in North Dakota. The Plaintiff claims that rig managers typically worked more than 40 hours each week. As compensation, he claims that he and other rig managers were paid a day rate regardless of the number of hours they worked. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant knowingly or recklessly classified him and other rig managers as exempt employees, and therefore not eligible for overtime pay, in order to avoid compensating them for all hours worked. he claims that, had rig managers been appropriately classified, they would have been entitled to overtime premium pay. On Dec. 20, 2016, the Plaintiff filed the case against the Defendant, bringing a claim for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and a claim for violation of North Dakota Administrative Code Section 46-02-07. He brings his FLSA claim as a collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b). He alleges that he and the Defendant's other rig managers are similarly situated because they performed the same or similar work and were subject to the same compensation scheme. On Jan. 15, 2018, the parties jointly moved for and stipulated to conditional certification of a collective action. The Court granted the motion on Feb. 9, 2018, conditionally certifying a class of all current and former rig managers of Ensign United States Drilling Inc. classified as exempt from overtime under the FLSA for at least one week during the two-year period prior to the date the Court authorizes notice to the present. It further approved the Plaintiff's proposed Notice of Collective Action. Following receipt of the court-authorized notice, three individuals joined the collective action as opt-in Plaintiffs, bringing the total number of members of the putative collective action to four. The parties advised Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix that they had reached a settlement on July 16, 2018. On July 31, 2018, the parties jointly moved for a court order approving the settlement agreement and dismissing the matter with prejudice. The Plaintiff contends that the requirements for final collective action certification are satisfied because (1) the opt-in Plaintiffs all worked as rig managers for the Defendant, performing the same job duties and performing the same training; (2) the Defendant's defenses apply equally to all the Plaintiffs; and (3) proceeding as a collective action provides a fair and procedurally efficient resolution of the Plaintiffs' claims. Judge Brimmer agrees that the opt-in Plaintiffs are similarly situated for purposes of final certification. Moreover, the parties' settlement in this case will only affect the rights of those individuals who have affirmatively opted in to the lawsuit. Therefore, he will grant final collective action certification. Although the parties' motion states that the three opt-in members of the collective action were "extensively counseled," the parties provide no evidence that the opt-in members were given notice of an opportunity to object. Notably, the settlement agreement provided to the Court is only signed by Faulkner. The Judge finds that, without evidence that the parties have provided the opt-in Plaintiffs with notice of the settlement and an opportunity to object, he must deny the motion. To be fair and reasonable, an FLSA settlement must provide adequate compensation to the employees and must not frustrate the FLSA's policy rationales. The Judge finds that the parties did not reach a settlement in the matter until after they had engaged in meaningful discovery, and engaged in motions practice in the Court. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, the Defendant agrees to pay $50,000, which consists of (1) $25,121.34 in individual settlement payments; (2) a $2,500 service payment for Mr. Faulkner; and (3) a $22,378.65 fee and expense award to the class counsel. The parties represent that the parties' settlement takes into account the time worked and compensation paid to each Plaintiff. The Plaintiff contends that the settlement constitutes a fair compromise of the claims in the case, given the risks of protracted litigation, the uncertainty surrounding the nature and amount of recoverable damages, and the Defendant's defenses to liability. Based on this information, and upon consideration of the relevant factors, the Judge finds the parties' proposed settlement to be fair and reasonable. The settlement also provides for a $2,500 service payment to the named Plaintiff, Mr. Faulkner, which represents 5% of the total settlement amount. The Judge finds that the parties' motion provides no argument or evidence that would allow him to evaluate these factors and determine whether the award is reasonable. Accordingly, he does not have sufficient evidence to approve the requested service payment for Mr. Faulkner. As there is no evidence in the record that the Defendant's non-compliance with the FLSA constitutes a continuing violation, and the settlement agreement does not contain a confidentiality provision, the parties' settlement does not undermine the purposes of the FLSA. Considering whether the counsel's requested award of $16,666.65 plus expenses of $5,712 is reasonable, the Judge holds that he lacks sufficient information to determine whether the fees and costs requested are reasonable. The counsel has not shown that the case involved particularly novel or difficult legal issues, or that the time and labor required justifies a higher award. The parties also fail to address how the attorney's fees were negotiated in relation to the class members' settlement. Any future motion should therefore address this issue. The cited deficiencies preclude approval of the parties' settlement agreement at this time. For the foregoing reasons, Judge Brimmer granted in part and denied in part the parties' Stipulated Motion to Approve Settlement. The parties' joint request for final collective action certification for a collective of all current and former rig managers of Ensign United States Drilling Inc. classified as exempt from overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") for at least one week during the two-year period prior to the date the Court authorizes notice to the present, is granted. The Judge denied without prejudice the remainder of the parties' motion. A full-text copy of the Court's March 12, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/Q4n1XB from Leagle.com. Rickie Faulkner, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Simiarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by David Wayne Hodges, Kennedy Hodges, L.L.P., William M. Hogg -- whogg@schneiderwallace.com -- Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns LLP & Don J. Foty -- DFoty@kennedyhodges.com -- Kennedy Hodges, LLP. Ensign United States Drilling Inc., Defendant, represented by Beth Ann Lennon -- blennon@shermanhoward.com -- Sherman & Howard, L.L.C. & Brooke A. Colaizzi -- bcolaizzi@shermanhoward.com -- Sherman & Howard, L.L.C. Brent Heim, Interested Party, represented by Don J. Foty, Kennedy Hodges, LLP & William M. Hogg, Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns LLP. FARMERS GROUP: Grigson Moves to Certify Auto Policyholders Class ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled CHARLES GRIGSON, LISA HOING, and DAVID KELLY, Individually and on behalf of all putative class members v. FARMERS GROUP, INC., a Nevada corporation, Case No. 1:17-cv-00088-LY (W.D. Tex.), ask the Court to certify this class: "All Farmers Texas auto policyholders who had an active FA2 policy in effect on or after January 4, 2016." Excluded from the Class are: (a) any Judge or Magistrate presiding over this action, and members of their families; (b) FGI and affiliated entities, including but not limited to FIE and Farmers Texas, within the Farmers Insurance Group of Companies, their employees, officers, directors, and licensed agents; (c) FGI's legal representatives, assigns, and successors; and (d) all persons who properly execute and file a timely request for exclusion from the Class. Charles Grigson, Lisa Hoing, and David Kelly also ask the Court to appoint them as class representatives, and to appoint their counsel as Class Counsel. This case challenges an alleged pervasive, internal, discriminatory scheme implemented by Farmers Group, Inc. ("FGI") against its existing auto insurance customers vis-a-vis new customers, categorically depriving the former from accessing lower rates that would be available to them but for FGI's conduct. The single cause of action here, and the core common legal and factual issues implicated, including whether FGI engaged in discrimination and whether that misconduct was "knowing", are ideally suited to class-wide adjudication.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael L. Slack, Esq. John R. Davis, Esq. SLACK DAVIS SANGER, LLP 2705 Bee Cave Road, Suite 220 Austin, TX 78746 Telephone: (512) 795-8686 Facsimile: (512) 795-8787 E-mail: mslack@slackdavis.com jdavis@slackdavis.com - and - Joe K. Longley, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JOE K. LONGLEY 3305 Northland Drive, Suite 500 Austin, TX 78731 Telephone: (512) 477-4444 Facsimile: (512) 477-4470 E-mail: joe@joelongley.com - and - Roger N. Heller, Esq. Jonathan Selbin, Esq. Michelle A. Lamy, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 956-1000 Facsimile: (415) 956-1008 E-mail: rheller@lchb.com jselbin@lchb.com mlamy@lchb.com FRESENIUS MEDICAL: Freeman Suit Challenges Wage and Hour Policies ----------------------------------------------------------------- DAVID M. FREEMAN On behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. FRESENIUS MEDICAL CARE HOLDINGS, INC., dba Fresenius Medical Care North America, and RENAL CARE GROUP, INC., Case No. 1:19-cv-10439 (D. Mass., March 11, 2019), challenges wage-and-hour policies of the Defendants by which they willfully violated the Fair Labor Standards Act. Fresenius Medical Care Holdings, Inc., doing business as Fresenius Medical Care North America, is a New York corporation with its principal place of business in Waltham, Massachusetts. Fresenius Medical Care provides coordinated health care services. Renal Care Group, Inc., is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Waltham, Massachusetts. Since 2006, Renal Care Group has been a wholly-owned subsidiary of Fresenius.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas T. Merrigan, Esq. SWEENEY MERRIGAN LAW, LLP Greenfield, MA 01301 Telephone: (413) 774-5300 Facsimile: (413) 773-3388 E-mail: tom@sweeneymerrigan.com FROST RESTAURANT: Salto Brings Suit Over FLSA & NYLL Violations --------------------------------------------------------------- Manuel Salto, individually and on behalf all other employees similarly situated v. Frost Restaurant Inc., Rocco DePaola, and Giuseppe Morena, Case No. 1:19-cv-01343 (E.D.N.Y., March 7, 2019), accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law by failing to pay their employees, including the Plaintiff, minimum wage and overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 each workweek. Frost Restaurant Inc. is a domestic business corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of New York and maintains its principal place of business in Brooklyn, New York. The Individual Defendants jointly own and operate Frost Restaurant. The Defendants operate an Italian style restaurant, located at 193 Frost Street, in Brooklyn.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lorena P. Duarte, Esq. HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 136-20 38th Ave., Suite #10G Flushing, NY 11354 Telephone: (718) 353-8522 E-mail: lduarte@hanglaw.com GALVESTON COUNTY, TX: Class Certification in Booth Suit Recommended ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, AARON BOOTH, Plaintiff., v. GALVESTON COUNTY, ET AL., Defendants, Civil Action No. 3:18-CV-00104 (S.D. Tex.), Magistrate Judge Andrew M. Edison of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Galveston Division, recommended that the Plaintiffs' Amended Motion for Class Certification be granted. The lawsuit concerns Galveston County's pretrial detention system. Booth was arrested and charged with felony drug possession in Galveston County in April 2018. After his arrest, Booth claims his bail was set at $20,000 in accordance with the County's standard operating procedures. Booth was dissatisfied with this bail determination because he believed that the County's standard operating procedure resulted in arrestees being routinely detained before trial solely due to their inability to pay bail in violation of the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the United States Constitution. Booth filed the suit on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, asserting that the County's pretrial detention practices violated his substantive and procedural due process rights, infringed Equal Protection guarantees, and undermined his constitutional right to counsel. Booth asserted his claims against several categories of defendants based on their various alleged roles in his constitutional deprivation: the County; a group of Galveston County District Court Judges; several Galveston County Magistrate Judges; and Galveston County District Attorney Jack Roady. He sued the District Court Judges and the Magistrates in their official and individual capacities. He sued Roady in his official capacity as the County District Attorney. At the motion to dismiss stage, the Court recommended the dismissal of all claims against the Magistrates in their official capacities and all claims against the District Court Judges in their individual capacities. It recommended that all other claims survive the initial pleading challenge. Booth has moved to certify the following class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2): all people who are or will be detained in Galveston County Jail on felony and state-jail felony charges because they are unable to pay secured bail set at magistration. Magistrate Judge Edison finds that the Plaintiffs have satisfied the requirements of Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(2). Accordingly, he recommended that the Amended Motion for Class Certification be granted and the following class be certified under Rule 23(b)(2): all people who are or will be detained in Galveston County Jail on felony and state-jail felony charges because they are unable to pay secured bail set at magistration. The Clerk will provide copies of the Memorandum and Recommendation to the respective parties who have 14 days from the receipt thereof to file written objections pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and General Order 2002-13. Failure to file written objections within the time period mentioned will bar an aggrieved party from attacking the factual findings and legal conclusions on appeal. A full-text copy of the Court's March 12, 2019 Memorandum & Recommendation is available at https://is.gd/VflYiC from Leagle.com. Aaron Booth, on behalf of himself and all others similary situated, Plaintiff, represented by Trisha Trigilio, American Civil Liberties Union of Texas, Adriana Pinon, American Civil Liberties Union of Texas, Andre Ivan Segura, ACLU of Texas, Brandon J. Buskey, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, Christopher Mohr Odell -- christopher.odell@arnoldporter.com -- Arnold & Porter, Hannah DeMarco Sibiski -- hannah.sibiski@arnoldporter.com -- Arnold & Porter LLP, Kali Alanna Cohn, American Civil Liberties Union of Texas & Twyla Carter, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, pro hac vice. Galveston County, Defendant, represented by James Edwin Trainor, III, Akerman LLP, Joseph M. Nixon, The Nixon Law Firm, PC, Paul A. Ready, Ready Law Firm, PLLC & Robert Barron Boemer, Galveston County Legal Department. District Attorney Jack Roady, Defendant, represented by Andrew J. Mytelka -- amytelka@greerherz.com -- Greer Herz Adams LLP, Angela Olalde -- aolalde@greerherz.com -- Greer Herz Adams LLP & Joseph R. Russo, Jr. -- jrusso@greerherz.com -- Greer Herz et al. Galveston County District Court Judges, Defendant, represented by Joseph M. Nixon, The Nixon Law Firm, PC & Leah Jean O'Leary, Office of the Attorney General Law Enforcement Defense Division. The Office of the Attorney General - Amicus Curiae, Amicus, represented by Emily Marie Landon, Office of the Attorney General of TX & Leah Jean O'Leary, Office of the Attorney General Law Enforcement Defense Division. GCA SERVICES: Faces Cisneros Suit over Background Checks in Calif. ------------------------------------------------------------------ A class action complaint has been filed against GCA Services Group, Inc. for the alleged violations of Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act (CCRAA), and Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act (ICRAA). The case is captioned GUILLERMINA CISNEROS, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. GCA SERVICES GROUP, INC., a Delaware corporation, and DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 5:19-cv-01340-NC (N.D. Cal., March 12, 2019). Cisneros alleges that GCA failed to comply with federal and California statutes that mandate very specific and particular disclosures and conditions prior to obtaining and using background reports for employment purposes. Accordingly, Cisneros, individually and on behalf of all other members of the general public similarly situated, seeks compensatory and punitive damages based on GCA's willful and systematic violation of the FCRA, IICRAA, and CCRAA. GCA is a Delaware corporation that offers janitorial and custodial services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ronald H. Bae, Esq. Olivia D. Scharrer, Esq. AEQUITAS LEGAL GROUP A Professional Law Corporation 1156 E. Green Street, Suite 2000 Pasadena, CA 91106 Telephone: (213) 674-6080 Facsimile: (213) 674-6081 E-mail: rbae@aequitaslegalgroup.com oscharrer@aequitaslegalgroup.com GOLDEN WOKS: Chen Seeks Overtime Pay ------------------------------------ A labor-related class action has been filed against Golden Woks. The case is captioned ZHONGMIN CHEN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. CHRISTOPHER'S GOLDEN WOK, INC. d/b/a GOLDEN WOKS AND STEPHEN LU, Defendants Case No. 1:19-cv-01436 (E.D.N.Y., March 12, 2019). Chen, on behalf of himself as well as other employees similarly situated, alleges violations of the Federal Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and of New York Labor Law (NYLL). Defendants have willfully and intentionally committed widespread violations of the FLSA and NYLL by engaging in a pattern and practice of failing to pay their employees, including Plaintiff, compensation for all hours worked, minimum wage, and overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 each workweek and spread of hours, as well as failing to provide their employees, including Plaintiff, with wage notice at the time of hiring and wage statements. Christopher's Golden Wok, Inc. owns and operates a Chinese restaurant named Golden Woks located at 159 Christopher Street, New York, NY 10014. Defendant Stephen Lu owns and operates Golden Woks. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Keli Liu, Esq. Hang & Associates, PLLC 136-20 38th Avenue, Suite 10G Flushing, NY 11354 Telephone: (718) 353-8588 Facsimile: (718) 353-6288 E-mail: kliu@hanglaw.com GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid for Class Cert. in SunEdison Suit Granted ------------------------------------------------------------ The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the court has granted the motion for class certification in the class action lawsuit involving SunEdison, Inc.'s convertible preferred stock. Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC (GS&Co.) is among the underwriters named as defendants in several putative class actions and individual actions filed beginning in March 2016 relating to the August 2015 public offering of $650 million of SunEdison, Inc. (SunEdison) convertible preferred stock. The defendants also include certain of SunEdison's directors and officers. On April 21, 2016, SunEdison filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The pending cases were transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and on March 17, 2017, plaintiffs in the putative class action filed a consolidated amended complaint. GS&Co., as underwriter, sold 138,890 shares of SunEdison convertible preferred stock in the offering, representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $139 million. On March 6, 2018, the defendants' motion to dismiss in the class action was granted in part and denied in part. On February 11, 2019, plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the class action was granted. On April 10, 2018 and April 17, 2018, certain plaintiffs in the individual actions filed amended complaints. The defendants have reached a settlement with certain plaintiffs in the individual actions. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking, securities, and investment management company worldwide. It operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered in New York, New York. GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Dismiss Commodities-Related Suit Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the motion to dismiss the third consolidated amended complaint in the Commodities-Related Litigation remains pending. Goldman Sachs International (GSI) is among the defendants named in putative class actions relating to trading in platinum and palladium, filed beginning on November 25, 2014 and most recently amended on May 15, 2017, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The amended complaint generally alleges that the defendants violated federal antitrust laws and the Commodity Exchange Act in connection with an alleged conspiracy to manipulate a benchmark for physical platinum and palladium prices and seek declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as treble damages in an unspecified amount. Defendants moved to dismiss the third consolidated amended complaint on July 21, 2017. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking, securities, and investment management company worldwide. It operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered in New York, New York. GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Nix U.S. Treasury Securities Suit Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company's motion to dismiss the U.S. Treasury Securities-Related Suit is still pending. Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC (GS&Co.) is among the primary dealers named as defendants in several putative class actions relating to the market for U.S. Treasury securities, filed beginning in July 2015 and consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. GS&Co. is also among the primary dealers named as defendants in a similar individual action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on August 25, 2017. The consolidated class action complaint, filed on December 29, 2017, generally alleges that the defendants violated antitrust laws in connection with an alleged conspiracy to manipulate the when-issued market and auctions for U.S. Treasury securities and that certain defendants, including GS&Co., colluded to preclude trading of U.S. Treasury securities on electronic trading platforms in order to impede competition in the bidding process. The individual action alleges a similar conspiracy regarding manipulation of the when-issued market and auctions, as well as related futures and options in violation of the Commodity Exchange Act. The complaints seek declaratory and injunctive relief, treble damages in an unspecified amount and restitution. Defendants moved to dismiss on February 23, 2018. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking, securities, and investment management company worldwide. It operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered in New York, New York. GOLDMAN SACHS: Continues to Defend Securities Lending Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC continues to defend itself from an antitrust suit involving securities lending practices. The Company ("Group Inc.") and Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC ("GS&Co.") are among the defendants named in a putative antitrust class action and two individual actions relating to securities lending practices filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York beginning in August 2017. The complaints generally assert claims under federal antitrust law and state common law in connection with an alleged conspiracy among the defendants to preclude the development of electronic platforms for securities lending transactions. The individual complaints also assert claims for tortious interference with business relations and under state trade practices law and, in the second individual action, unjust enrichment under state common law. The complaints seek declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as treble damages and restitution in unspecified amounts. Group Inc. was voluntarily dismissed from the putative class action on January 26, 2018. Defendants moved to dismiss the first individual action on June 1, 2018 and moved to dismiss the second individual action on December 21, 2018. Defendants' motion to dismiss the class action complaint was denied on September 27, 2018. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking, securities, and investment management company worldwide. It operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered in New York, New York. GOLDMAN SACHS: Dropped as Defendant from Snap Inc. IPO Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that (GS&Co.) was voluntarily dismissed in the class action suit relating to Snap Inc.'s $3.91 billion March 2017 initial public offering. Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC (GS&Co.) is among the underwriters named as defendants in putative securities class actions pending in California Superior Court, County of Los Angeles and the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California beginning in May 2017, relating to Snap Inc.'s $3.91 billion March 2017 initial public offering. In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include Snap Inc. and certain of its officers and directors. GS&Co. underwrote 57,040,000 shares of common stock representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $970 million. The underwriter defendants, including GS&Co., were voluntarily dismissed from the federal action on September 18, 2018. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking, securities, and investment management company worldwide. It operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered in New York, New York. GOLDMAN SACHS: Interest Rate Swap Antitrust Litigation Ongoing -------------------------------------------------------------- The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company continues to defend a putative class action suit related to Interest Rate Swap Antitrust Litigation. The Company ("Group Inc."), Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC ("GS&Co."), Goldman Sachs International (GSI), GS Bank USA and Goldman Sachs Financial Markets, L.P. (GSFM) are among the defendants named in a putative antitrust class action relating to the trading of interest rate swaps, filed in November 2015 and consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The same Goldman Sachs entities also are among the defendants named in two antitrust actions relating to the trading of interest rate swaps, commenced in April 2016 and June 2018, respectively, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by three operators of swap execution facilities and certain of their affiliates. These actions have been consolidated for pretrial proceedings. The complaints generally assert claims under federal antitrust law and state common law in connection with an alleged conspiracy among the defendants to preclude exchange trading of interest rate swaps. The complaints in the individual actions also assert claims under state antitrust law. The complaints seek declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as treble damages in an unspecified amount. Defendants moved to dismiss the class and the first individual action on January 20, 2017. On July 28, 2017, the district court issued a decision dismissing the state common law claims asserted by the plaintiffs in the first individual action and otherwise limiting the state common law claim in the putative class action and the antitrust claims in both actions to the period from 2013 to 2016. On May 30, 2018, plaintiffs in the putative class action filed a third consolidated amended complaint, adding allegations as to the surviving claims. On October 26, 2018, plaintiffs in the putative class action filed a motion for leave to file a fourth amended complaint. On November 20, 2018, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss the second individual action, dismissing the state common law claims for unjust enrichment and tortious interference but denying dismissal of the federal and state antitrust claims. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking, securities, and investment management company worldwide. It operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered in New York, New York. GOLDMAN SACHS: Unit to Defend Suit over Sea Limited IPO ------------------------------------------------------- The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that Goldman Sachs (Asia) LLC continues to defend itself from a securities class action involving Sea Limited's initial public offering. GS Asia is among the underwriters named as defendants in a putative securities class action filed on November 1, 2018 in the Supreme Court of New York, County of New York, relating to Sea Limited's $989 million October 2017 initial public offering of American depository shares. In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include Sea Limited and certain of its officers and directors. GS Asia underwrote 28,026,721 American depository shares representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $420 million. On January 25, 2019, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking, securities, and investment management company worldwide. It operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered in New York, New York. GOLDMAN SACHS: Valeant Securities Suit in Canada Ongoing -------------------------------------------------------- The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC (GS&Co.) and Goldman Sachs Canada Inc., together with Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc., continue to defend a putative class action lawsuit in Canada. Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC (GS&Co.) and Goldman Sachs Canada Inc. (GS Canada) are among the underwriters and initial purchasers named as defendants in a putative class action filed on March 2, 2016 in the Superior Court of Quebec, Canada. In addition to the underwriters and initial purchasers, the defendants include Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. (Valeant), certain directors and officers of Valeant and Valeant’s auditor. As to GS&Co. and GS Canada, the complaint relates to the June 2013 public offering of $2.3 billion of common stock, the June 2013 Rule 144A offering of $3.2 billion principal amount of senior notes, and the November 2013 Rule 144A offering of $900 million principal amount of senior notes. The complaint asserts claims under the Quebec Securities Act and the Civil Code of Quebec. On August 29, 2017, the court certified a class that includes only non-U.S. purchasers in the offerings. Defendants' motion for leave to appeal the certification was denied on November 30, 2017. GS&Co. and GS Canada, as sole underwriters, sold 5,334,897 shares of common stock in the June 2013 offering to non-U.S. purchasers representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $453 million and, as initial purchasers, had a proportional share of sales to non-U.S. purchasers of approximately CAD14.2 million in principal amount of senior notes in the June 2013 and November 2013 Rule 144A offerings. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking, securities, and investment management company worldwide. It operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered in New York, New York. GONCALVES & FERREIRA: Martinez Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- Maximino Gildardo Martinez, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Goncalves & Ferreira Restaurant Corp. d/b/a O Lavrador Restaurant & Bar, Edgar Ferreira, Manuela Ferreira, and Joao Ferreira, Defendants, Case No. 704696/2019 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Queens Cty., March 18, 2019) alleges, pursuant to New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), that Plaintiff is entitled to recover from Defendants unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime wages, unpaid spread of hours premium, statutory penalties, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs. Plaintiff and Class members regularly worked over 40 hours per week, but the Defendants failed to pay the proper overtime compensation in violation of New York Labor Law. The Defendants willfully violated Plaintiff Martinez and Class Members' rights by paying them on a salary basis, because Plaintiff Martinez and Class Members are non-exempt employees who must be paid on an hourly basis under the New York Labor Law, including proper overtime premium for all hours over 40 in a week, says the complaint. Plaintiff Martinez worked for Defendants until in or about February 2014. Defendants operate a food and beverage establishment under the trade name "O Lavrador Restaurant & Bar" located at 138-40 101st Avenue, Jamaica, NY 11435.[BN] The Plaintiff is repreesented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 30 East 39th Street, Second Floor New York, NY 10016 Phone: (212) 465-1188 Fax: (212) 465-1181 GREAT WALL: Zheng Seeks to Recover Minimum and Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- QIN WEN ZHENG, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. GREAT WALL IN EAST ELMHURST INC. d/b/a GREAT WALL, and Rong Ping Lin, Case No. 1:19-cv-01332 (E.D.N.Y., March 7, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. Great Wall in East Elmhurst Inc., doing business as Great Wall, is a domestic business corporation organized under the laws of the state of New York. Rong Ping Lin is the owner, chief executive officer, and/or managing agent of the Defendant Corporation. The Defendants operate a Chinese restaurant located at 87-12 Astoria Blvd., in East Elmhurst, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Xiaoxi Liu, Esq. HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 136-20 38th Ave. Suite 10G Flushing, NY 11354 Telephone: (718) 353-8588 Facsimile: (718) 353-6288 E-mail: xliu@hanglaw.com GRUNT STYLE: Dixon Hits Biometrics Data Sharing ----------------------------------------------- Christopher Dixon, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, V. Grunt Style LLC, Case No. 2019CH01981 (Ill. Cir., February 14, 2019), seeks an injunction requiring Defendants to cease all unlawful activity related to the capture, collection, storage and use of biometrics, statutory damages together with costs and reasonable attorneys' fees under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. Dixon worked for Grunt Style and was required to "clock-in" and "clock-out" using a timeclock that scanned fingerprints. He alleges that Grunt improperly disclosed employees' fingerprint data without informed consent. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Brandon M. Wise, Esq. Paul A. Lesko, Esq. PEIFFER WOLF CARR & KANE, APLC 818 Lafayette Ave., Floor 2 St. Louis, MO 63104 Tel: (314) 833-4825 Email: bwise@pwcklegal.com plesko@pwcklegal.com danalgottlieb@aol.com HALL MANAGEMENT: Martinez Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------- A class action complaint has been filed against Hall Management Corp for alleged violations of California Labor Code and California Business and Professions Code. The case is captioned ERIKA MARTINEZ, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. HALL MANAGEMENT CORP., a California corporation; HALL MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, Defendants, Case No. 19CECG00937 (Cal. Super., Fresno County, March 12, 2019). Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, brings this action for recovery of unpaid wages and penalties under California Labor Code Sections 201-204, 226 et seq., 226.7, 510, 512, 558, 1182.12, 1194, 1194.2, 1197, 1198, and Business and Professions Code Sec. 17200 et. seq., and Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order 13-2001, in addition to seeking declaratory relief and restitution. Defendants maintains its business operations within the County of Fresno and the State of California by employing seasonal farm labor employees to process and pack produce (such as melons, oranges, and lemons).[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul K. Haines, Esq. Fletcher W. Schmidt, Esq. Matthew K. Moen, Esq. Brittaney D. de la Torre, Esq. HAINES LAW GROUP, APC 222 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 1550 El Segundo, CA 90245 Telephone: (424) 292-2350 Facsimile: (424) 292-2355 E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com fschmidt@haineslawgroup.com mmoen@haineslawgroup.com bdelatorre@haineslawgroup.com HEALTH NET: W. Poe Suit Remains in California District Court ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, WILLIAM POE, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. HEALTH NET, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. CV 18-9792-R (C.D. Cal.), Judge Manuel L. Real of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California denied the Plaintiff's Notice of Motion and Motion to Remand, filed on Dec. 20, 2018. On Aug.31, 2018, the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf all others similarly situated, filed a purported Class Action Complaint against the Defendants in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles. The Plaintiff's Complaint asserted five causes of action, including: (1) Fraud; (2) Breach of Contract; (3) Violation Cal. Bus & Prof. Code Section 17200 et seq. (Unfair Competition); (4) Violation of Cal. Civ. Code Section 1750 et seq. (Consumer Legal Remedies Act); and (5) statutory negligence under California law. On Nov. 21, 2018, all five named Defendants -- Health Net, Inc.; Centene Corp.; Centene Management Co., LLC; Health Net of California, Inc.; and Health Net Community Solutions, Inc. -- filed a Notice of Removal from Los Angeles Superior Court, asserting subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 ("CAFA"). The Plaintiff now timely moves to remand for lack of jurisdiction under CAFA. In his Motion, the Plaintiff does not contest the prerequisites for CAFA jurisdiction -- namely, numerosity, sufficient amount in controversy, and minimal diversity of parties. Instead, he challenges removal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d)(4)(A) and closely related grounds, including the "local controversy" exception to CAFA jurisdiction. The Plaintiff further argues that, to the extent the jurisdiction of the Court remains "uncertain" under CAFA, the time for parties' initial meeting under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 26(f) should be extended "until 30 days after the issue is finally resolved" or appellate review of the issue exhausted. Judge Real, however, is not persuaded by the Plaintiff's arguments. He finds the Plaintiff's contention that there exists a "presumption against removal" of class action proceedings under CAFA lacks merit. Although the Plaintiff suggests the Ninth Circuit did not explicitly consider the very specific subsection of CAFA that is at issue, the Serrano court explicitly held that any exception under CAFA" pertaining to remand must be proven by the party seeking remand. Considering the Ninth Circuit's pronouncement in Serrano and its related CAFA decisions, the Judge is unpersuaded by the Plaintiff's novel legal rationales concerning why the Plaintiff cannot be expected to bear the burden of proving why this specific subsection of CAFA's exception applies to mandate remand. Thus, the Defendants bear no burden of proof to keep the case before the Court under CAFA. In the absence of any cognizable challenge to the minimal jurisdictional requirements of CAFA, he holds that the Plaintiff bears the burden of proof to remand based on some non-jurisdictional exception to the Court's proper exercise of CAFA jurisdiction. As established by persuasive authority of fellow federal district courts in the State, the Judge finds that the Plaintiff has failed to prove "no other class action has been filed" asserting "the same or similar factual allegations" against any of the Defendants on behalf of the same or other individuals. Given the Court's review of the related cases, Harvey and Steinley, it is apparent that Plaintiff cannot satisfy his burden of showing the criteria of 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d)(4)(A)(ii) are satisfied. To the extent the Plaintiff could do so, he fails to even attempt to argue that these cases are dissimilar from his class action. The Plaintiff's Motion fails for the foregoing reasons. As a result, Judge Real denied the Plaintiff's Motion to Remand and request to extend time for the parties' initial meeting until 30 days after the issue is finally resolved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 26(f). A full-text copy of the Court's March 12, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/bA6BUc from Leagle.com. William Poe, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Robert C. Moest, Robert C Moest Law Offices. Health Net, Inc., Health Net Community Solutions, Inc., Health Net of California, Inc., Centene Corp. & Centene Management Company, LLC, Defendants, represented by Ileana M. Hernandez -- IHemandez@manatt.com -- Manatt Phelps and Phillips LLP, Brendan V. Sullivan, Jr. -- bsullivan@wc.com -- Williams and Connolly LLP, pro hac vice, Steven M. Cady -- scady@wc.com -- Williams and Connolly LLP, pro hac vice, William R. Murray, Jr. -- bmurray@wc.com -- Williams and Connolly LLP, pro hac vice & John M. LeBlanc -- JLeBlanc@manatt.com -- Manatt Phelps and Phillips LLP. HIBU INC: Cooley Hits Illegal Telemarketing Calls ------------------------------------------------- Blake Cooley, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Hibu Inc., Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-00269, (D. Nev., January 21, 2019), seeks damages, attorneys' fees, costs together with other relief for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Hibu is a digital marketing agency servicing clients nationwide. Its business model relies on contacting small businesses to attempt to convince them to retain their services. Despite Cooley's disinterest in their services, he still receives multiple calls from Hibu without his prior express written consent. He is on the national Do-Not-Call Registry. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Craig B. Friedberg, Esq. 4760 South Pecos Road, Suite 103 Las Vegas, NV 89121 Phone: (702) 435-7968; Fax: (702) 825-8071 Email: attcbf@cox.net - and - Anthony I. Paronich, Esq. BRODERICK & PARONICH, P.C. 99 High St., Suite 304 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (508) 221-1510 Email: anthony@broderick-law.com HILL'S PET: Sued Over Toxic Levels of Vitamin D in Pet Food ----------------------------------------------------------- W. Allan Schwegmann, Jr., individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. Hill's Pet Nutrition, Inc. and Hill's Pet Nutrition Sales, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 5 2:19-cv-02149-KHV-KGG (D. Kan., March 18, 2019) is a class action complaint against Defendants for their negligent, reckless, and/or intentional practice of misrepresenting, failing to test for, and failing to fully disclose the presence of toxic levels of Vitamin D in their Contaminated Dog Foods and for selling Contaminated Dog Foods that are adulterated and do not conform to the labels, packaging, advertising, and statements throughout the United States. The Defendants have created a niche in the pet food market by marketing foods they claim will "help enrich and lengthen the special relationships between people and their pets." The Defendants' website states, "Guided by science, we formulate our food with precise balance so your pet gets all the nutrients they need--and none they don't". The Defendants make numerous other representations and promises about the Contaminated Dog Foods' nutrition as well as their supply chain and quality control measures. However, the Defendants failed to act in a timely manner when it learned of the broad scope of the initial Vitamin D recall in November 2018. The Defendants further mislead consumers by promising "Premium Dog Food" and "Clinical Nutrition", says the complaint. Plaintiff is a resident and citizen of the State of California. Defendants manufacture, market, advertise, label, distribute, and sell pet food under the brand names Hill's Prescription Diet and Hill's Science Diet dog foods throughout the United States, including in this District.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard M. Paul III, Esq. Ashlea G. Schwarz, Esq. PAUL LLP 601 Walnut Street, Suite 300 Kansas City, MO 64106 Phone: (816) 984-8100 Email: Rick@PaulLLP.com Ashlea@PaulLLP.com - and - Rebecca Peterson, Esq. Robert K. Shelquist, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P. 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Phone: (612) 339-6900 Email: rapeterson@locklaw.com rkshelquist@locklaw.com - and - Kevin A. Seely, Esq. Steven M. McKany, Esq. ROBBINS ARROYO LLP 5040 Shoreham Place San Diego, CA 92122 Phone: (619) 525-3990 Email: kseely@robbinsarroyo.com smckany@robbinsarroyo.com - and - Charles J. Laduca, Esq. Katherine Van Dyck, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP 4725 Wisconsin Ave NW, Suite 200 Washington, DC 20016 Phone: 202-789-3960 Email: kvandyck@cuneolaw.com charles@cuneolaw.com - and - Joseph J. Depalma, Esq. Susana Cruz Hodge, Esq. LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC 570 Broad Street, Suite 1201 Newark, NJ 07102 Phone: (973) 623-3000 Email: jdepalma@litedepalma.com scruzhodge@litedepalma.com HOME DEPOT: Hankey Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Calif. ---------------------------------------------------- The purported class action lawsuit titled RICHARD W. HANKEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HOME DEPOT U.S.A., Inc., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 30-2018-01027364-CU-OE-CXC, was removed on January 17, 2019, from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Orange to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-00413-MCE-CKD to the proceeding. Plaintiff Richard W. Hankey is a former hourly employee of Home Depot. He alleges that Home Depot failed to pay hourly and overtime wages, failed to provide accurate wage statements, and failed to pay all wages due at termination.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Donna M. Mezias, Esq. Dorothy F. Kaslow, Esq. AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP 580 California Street, Suite 1500 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 765-9500 Facsimile: (415) 765-9501 E-mail: dmezias@akingump.com dkaslow@akingump.com HOME PRODUCTS: Pedroza Asserts BIPA Violation --------------------------------------------- Raul Pedroza, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Home Products International, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2019CH03517 (Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., March 18, 2019) is a class action under the Biometric Information Privacy Act ("BIPA") on behalf of all persons in Illinois who had their fingerprints improperly collected, captured, received, or otherwise obtained by the Defendant. The Defendant failed to maintain or publicize information about its biometric practices or policies; and failed to provide Plaintiff or, upon information and belief, any member of the putative BIPA Class, with information about their policies or practices, notes the complaint. The Defendant failed to obtain prior written consent from Plaintiff or, upon information and belief, any putative BIPA Class member before they collected, stored, or used those individuals' biometric information. The Defendant did not inform Plaintiff of the specific purposes or length of time for which it collected, stored, or used his fingerprint and of any biometric data retention policy developed by the Defendant, nor has he ever been informed of whether Defendant will ever permanently delete fingerprints, says the complaint. Plaintiff Pedroza is an adult resident of Stickney, Illinois and worked for Defendant from December 2017 to March 8, 2019. HPI is a Delaware corporation that is registered to do business in Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alejandro Caffarelli, Esq. Alexis D. Martin, Esq. Caffarelli & Associates Ltd. 224 S. Michigan Ave., Ste. 300 Chicago, IL 60604 Phone: (312) 763-6880 HOUSTON FOODS: Johnson Sues Over Unlawful Use of Biometric Data --------------------------------------------------------------- Michele Johnson, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Houston Foods, Inc. and Tri City Foods of Illinois LLC d/b/a Burger King, Defendants, Case No. 2 2019CH03586 (Circuit Ct., Cook Cty., March 19, 2019) is a Class Action Complaint pursuant to the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure, to redress and curtail Defendants' unlawful collection, use, storage, and disclosure of Plaintiffs' sensitive and proprietary biometric data. While many employers use conventional methods for time tracking (such as ID badges or punch clocks), the Defendants' employees are required to have their fingerprints scanned by a biometric timekeeping device. Recognizing the need to protect its citizens from situations like these, Illinois enacted the Biometric Information Privacy Act ("BIPA"), specifically to regulate companies that collect, use and store Illinois citizens' biometrics, such as fingerprints. Notwithstanding the clear and unequivocal requirements of the law, the Defendants disregard their employees' statutorily protected privacy rights and have unlawfully collected, stored, disseminated, and used employees' biometric data in violation of BIPA, says the complaint. Plaintiff Michele Johnson first worked as a Crew Member for Defendants from February 2018 until July 2, 2018, and as a Shift Manager until January 28, 2019. Defendant Houston Foods, Inc. is the second largest franchisee of the Burger King restaurant chain.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James B. Zouras, Esq. Ryan F. Stephan, Esq. Teresa M. Becvar, Esq. STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP 100 N Riverside Plaza, Suite 2150 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: 312.233.1550 Fax: 312.233.1560! Email: jzouras@stephanzouras.com rstephan@stephanzouras.com tbecvar@stephanzouras.com HSBC BANK: Antonicic Moves to Certify Two Classes and 1 Subclass ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled CHRISTOPHER J. ANTONICIC, ANASTASIA ANTONICIC, GUST PAPAS, and AFRODITI PAPAS individually and as the representatives of a class of similarly-situated persons v. HSBC BANK USA, N.A., Case No. 1:19-cv-00101 (N.D. Ill.), submit their Motion for Class Certification pursuant to Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011). The Plaintiffs propose these class definitions: 1. National Class for Count I (Breach of Contract): All persons who (1) within ten years prior to the filing of HSBC's foreclosure action, (2) had an FHA insured loan serviced by HSBC, (3) occupied the subject property, and (4) were charged inspection fees by HSBC while still occupying the property; 2. National Class for Count II (Unjust Enrichment): All persons who (1) within five years prior to the filing of HSBC's foreclosure action, (2) had an FHA insured loan serviced by HSBC, (3) occupied the subject property, and (4) were charged inspection fees by HSBC while still occupying the property; and 3. Illinois Subclass for Count III (Violation of Illinois Consumer Fraud Act): All persons in Illinois who (1) within three years prior to the filing of HSBC's foreclosure action, (2) had an FHA insured loan serviced by HSBC, (3) occupied the subject property, and (4) were charged inspection fees by HSBC while still occupying the property. The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint them as class representatives and to appoint their attorneys as class counsel.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Arthur C. Czaja, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF ARTHUR C. CZAJA AND ASSOC. 7521 N. Milwaukee Avenue Niles, IL 60714 Telephone: (847) 647-2106 Facsimile: (847) 647-2057 E-mail: arthur@czajalawoffices.com - and - Jeffrey A. Berman, Esq. Patrick J. Solberg, Esq. ANDERSON + WANCA 3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500 Rolling Meadows, IL 60008 Telephone: (847) 368-1500 Facsimile: (847) 368-1501 E-mail: jberman@andersonwanca.com psolberg@andersonwanca.com HYATT CORPORATION: Denies Equal Access to Web Site, Kiler Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- MARION KILER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. HYATT CORPORATION, Case No. 1:19-cv-01669 (N.D. Ill., March 8, 2019), alleges that the Defendant is denying blind individuals throughout the United States equal access to the goods and services it provides to its non-disabled customers through its Web site. Ms. Kiler brings this civil rights class action against the Defendant for failing to design, construct, and/or own or operate a Web site that is fully accessible to, and independently usable by, blind people. Hyatt Corporation is an American for-profit corporation organized under the laws of Illinois with a principal executive office located in Chicago, Illinois. Hyatt owns and operates premium full service and lifestyle hotels including the Hyatt Regency Milwaukee, which is a place of public accommodation located in Wisconsin.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 73 West Monroe Street Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (212) 465-1188 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com IBM CORP: Wants Supreme Court to Review Revival of Jander Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants Retirement Plans Committee of IBM, et al., filed with the Supreme Court of United States a petition for a writ of certiorari in the matter titled Retirement Plans Committee of IBM, et al., Petitioners v. Larry W. Jander, et al., Case No. 18-1165. Response is due on April 8, 2019. The Defendants seek review of the Court of Appeals' judgment entered on December 10, 2018, reversing the District Court's judgment dismissing the case entitled Jander v. Ret. Plans Comm. of IBM, No. 1:15-cv-3781 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 21, 2016), and remanding for further proceedings. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Jan. 4, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued an Opinion reversing the judgment of the District Court granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case. The appellate case is styled LARRY W. JANDER, and all other individuals similarly situated, RICHARD J. WAKSMAN, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. RETIREMENT PLANS COMITTEE OF IBM, RICHARD CARROLL, ROBERT WEBER, MARTIN SCHROETER, Defendants-Appellees, INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 17-3518. (2nd Cir.). The Plaintiffs here, IBM employees who were participants in the Company's Employee's Stock Option Plan (ESOP), claim that the plan's fiduciaries knew that a division of the company was overvalued but failed to disclose that fact. This failure, the Plaintiffs allege, artificially inflated IBM's stock price, harming the ESOP's members. To state a duty-of-prudence claim, the Plaintiffs must plausibly allege that a proposed alternative action would not have done more harm than good.[BN] Defendants-Petitioners RETIREMENT PLANS COMMITTEE OF IBM, et al., et al., are represented by: Lawrence Portnoy, Esq. Michael S. Flynn, Esq. David B. Toscano, Esq. Trent Thompson, Esq. DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP 450 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 450-4000 E-mail: lawrence.portnoy@davispolk.com michael.flynn@davispolk.com david.toscano@davispolk.com trent.thompson@davispolk.com - and - Paul D. Clement, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 655 Fifteenth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 879-5000 E-mail: paul.clement@kirkland.com IKEA US: Cahilig Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------ The case captioned Allyza Cahilig, on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Ikea US Retail, LLC and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV00676 filed in the Los Angeles County Superior Court on January 10, 2019, was removed to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on February 15, 2019, under Case No. 19-cv-01182. Plaintiff accuses Defendants for alleged wage and hour violations over failure to provide meal and rest periods, failure to pay hourly wages, failure to provide accurate written wage statements and failure to timely pay all final wages. Cahilig worked as a non-exempt hourly employee for IKEA in their Carson CA facility from August 7, 2013 to August 26, 2018.[BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin T. Barnes, Esq. Gregg Lander, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF KEVIN T. BARNES 1635 Pontius Avenue, Second Floor Los Angeles, CA 90025 Tel: (323) 549-9100, (323) 302-9675 Fax: (7323) 549-0101 Website: https://www.kbarneslaw.com/ - and - Raphael Albert Katri, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF RAPHAEL A KATRI 8549 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Phone: (310) 940-2034 Fax Number: (310) 733-5644 Email: rkatri@SoCalLaborLawyers.com IKEA US is represented by: John A. Van Hook, Esq. MCGUIREWOODS LLP 1800 Century Park East, 8th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067-1501 Telephone: (310) 315-8200 Facsimile: (310) 315-8210 Email: jvanhook@mcguirewoods.com - and - Joel S. Allen, Esq. MCGUIREWOODS LLP 2000 McKinney Ave, Suite 1400 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 932-6400 Email: jallen@mcguirewoods.com INDEPENDENT HOME: FLSA Settlement in Mitchell Suit Wins Final Nod ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Michael H. Watson grants the Plaintiff's unopposed motion for final approval of Rule 23 class settlement and for approval of FLSA Settlement in the lawsuit captioned Audrea Mitchell, On behalf of herself and other members of the general public similarly situated v. Independent Home Care, Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-00717-MHW-CMV (S.D. Ohio). On February 20, 2019, Magistrate Judge Vascura Issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the Plaintiff's unopposed motion for final approval of Rule 23 class settlement and for approval of FLSA Settlement be granted. The R&R also recommends that the Plaintiffs counsel's unopposed motion for award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of costs be granted. The R&R notified the Plaintiff of her right to object within 14 days and of the consequences for falling to do so. Namely, the R&R notified the Plaintiff that a failure to timely object would result in a waiver of the right to de novo review by the Court, as well as a waiver of the right to appeal the judgment of the Court. Judge Watson notes that the time for filing objections has passed, and none were filed. Accordingly, the Court adopts the R&R without conducting a de novo review and dismisses this case with prejudice. The Clerk shall enter final judgment and terminate this case.[CC] INTER-CONTINENTAL HOTEL: Restaurant Staff Seek OT Wages, Damages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Alisha Askew, Deborah Williams and Shavonna Askew, individually and on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated current and former employees, Plaintiffs, v. Inter-Continental Hotels Corporation, Lingate Hospitality (Glenn Enterprises, Inc.), Burger Theory (Big Blue Bar, Inc.) and Glenn Higdon, individually, Case No. 19-cv-00024, (W.D. Ky., February 15, 2019) seeks monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees as a result of Defendants' failure to pay lawful overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of forty hours per week under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendants are locators/outlets located within Holiday Inn Riverfront in Paducah, Kentucky where Plaintiffs were restaurant employees. The complaint says the Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of employees' hours worked. Their actual duties, in payroll records, were as tipped employees instead of as a non-tipped employee, thus allowing Defendants to pay them above the tip-credit rate, but below the minimum wage, adds the complaint. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Lori Keen, Esq. GLASSMAN EDWARDS WADE & WYATT, PC 26 North 2nd St. Memphis, TN 38103 Tel: (901) 527-4673 Email: lkeen@gwtclaw.com - and - Gordon E. Jackson, Esq. J. Russ Bryant, Esq. Robert E. Turner, Esq. Nathaniel A. Bishop, Esq. JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER & HOLT 262 German Oak Drive Memphis, TN 38018 Tel: (901) 754-8001 Fax: (901) 759-1745 Email: gjackson@jsyc.com rturner@jsyc.com nbishop@jsyc.com rbryant@jsyc.com INTUIT INC: Settlement in Consolidated Suit Gets Initial Okay ------------------------------------------------------------- Intuit Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 22, 2019, for the quarterly period ended January 31, 2019, that the settlement in the consolidated class action lawsuit has been preliminarily approved. In fiscal 2015 Intuit Inc. was contacted by certain state and federal regulatory authorities in connection with inquiries regarding an increase during the 2015 tax season in attempts by criminals using stolen identity information to file fraudulent tax returns and claim refunds. Intuit provided information in response to those inquiries and now believes those inquiries are resolved. A consolidated putative class action lawsuit was filed by individuals who claim to have suffered damages in connection with the 2015 events. On May 23, 2018, the parties reached a settlement in principle of this matter. The settlement has been preliminarily approved and remains subject to final approval by the court. The terms of the settlement are not material to the company's consolidated financial statements. Intuit said, "In the event the settlement does not receive final approval by the court, the litigation may resume and we may not be able to predict the outcome of such lawsuit. We continue to believe that the allegations in this lawsuit are without merit." Intuit Inc. provides financial management and compliance products and services for small businesses, consumers, self-employed, and accounting professionals in the United States, Canada, and internationally. Intuit Inc. was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in Mountain View, California. JEFFREY GREENE: Maceda Sues Over Unsolicited Text Under TCPA ------------------------------------------------------------ LYNDA MACEDA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. JEFFREY GREENE a/k/a JEFF GREENE, Case No. 9:19-cv-80321-XXXX (S.D. Fla., March 7, 2019), alleges that in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, the Defendant, using an automatic telephone dialing system, caused to be made at least one call to the Plaintiff that delivered a text messages to her cell phone without her prior express consent. Ms. Maceda alleges that she received a text message on July 18, 2018, which reads as follows: "Hi, this is Democrat Jeff Greene running for governor. I'll stand up to Donald Trump and for Florida's families. Joseph, if you want world-class schools, commonsense gun reform and to protect women's choice, please vote for me with your absentee ballot! Can we count on your support?" Jeff Greene is a resident of Palm Beach, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yechezkel Rodal, Esq. RODAL LAW, P.A. 5300 N.W. 33rd Ave., Suite 219 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33309 Telephone: (954) 367-5308 Facsimile: (954) 900-1208 E-mail: Chezky@rodallaw.com - and - Aytan Y. Bellin, Esq. BELLIN & ASSOCIATES LLC 50 Main Street, Suite 1000 White Plains, NY 10606 Telephone: (914) 358-5345 Facsimile: (212) 571-0284 E-mail: Aytan.Bellin@bellinlaw.com JONATHAN NEIL: Reconsideration of Attys' Fees Order in Brown Denied ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, TERI BROWN, Plaintiff, v. JONATHAN NEIL AND ASSOCIATES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00675-SAB (E.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California denied the Plaintiff's request for reconsideration of the order granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiff's counsel's motion for attorney fees. On Feb. 14, 2019, an order issued granting a joint motion for final approval of a class action settlement and granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiff's counsel's motion for attorney fees. On Feb. 25, 2019, the Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the order granting in part and denying in part the motion for attorney fees. The Plaintiff contends that the Court erred by finding that the United States Consumer Law Survey Report for 2015-2016 does not address the relevant community here which is the Fresno Division of the Eastern District of California. The Plaintiff argues that the report does reflect attorney rates for Fresno, California pointing to page 181 of the report. Courts in the district have disagreed as to the appropriateness of considering the United States Consumer Law Survey Report in determining fee awards. A number of the courts declining to do originate in the judicial district. Based on review of the report, Magistrate Judge Boone finds that it is not competent evidence of the reasonable hourly rates for attorneys in the Fresno Division of the Court for the following reasons. First, while the report states that more than 4,153 fields of data calculation were included in the survey, he finds no information regarding the number of attorneys that participated in the survey, or particularly relevant, the number of responses, if any, that were from attorneys that are practicing in the Fresno Division of the Eastern District of California. Secondly, he notes that the report states that where two metropolitan areas are near each other the rates can be found to be comparable. Based on his experience with attorney fee motions from attorneys seeking fees from these two metropolitan areas, the Judge is aware that hourly rates in San Francisco and Los Angeles are significantly higher than the hourly rates in the Fresno Division. While the fees may be reflective of the hourly rates in Los Angeles or San Francisco due to the higher cost of living in those areas, Bratton v. FCA US LLC, the Judge finds that the report is not competent evidence to establish the rates in the Fresno Division. The Judge reviewed recent decisions awarding attorney fees in similar cases and found that given the experience and skill of counsel in the matter, a reasonable hourly rate for Mr. Marcus was $300 per hour and a reasonable hourly rate for Mr. Zelman was $225 per hour. The Plaintiff states that due to a clerical error, the court erroneously found that Mr. Zelman had been practicing five years, but he has actually over six years of experience. Regardless of whether Mr. Zelman has five or six years of experience, in the district $225 is a reasonable hourly rate. The Court has previously found that a reasonable rate for an attorney with approximately seven to eight years of experience is $220 to $225 per hour. Based on the foregoing, Magistrate Judge Boone denied the Plaintiff's request for reconsideration of the order granting in part and denying in part the motion for attorney fees. He vacated the March 27, 2019 hearing on the motion. The parties will file a stipulation of dismissal of the action with 14 days of the date of entry of the Order. A full-text copy of the Court's March 12, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/bdlUfk from Leagle.com. Teri Brown, Plaintiff, represented by Ari Marcus -- Ari@MarcusZelman.com -- Marcus & Zelman, LLC, pro hac vice, Yitzchak Zelman -- Yzelman@MarcusZelman.com -- Marcus & Zelman, LLC, pro hac vice & Tammy L. Hussin -- Tammy@HussinLaw.com -- Hussin Law. Jonathan Neil and Associates, Inc., Defendant, represented by Christopher Michael Egan -- cegan@porterscott.com -- Porter Scott, APC, Derek Joseph Haynes -- dhaynes@porterscott.com -- Porter Scott, PC & Lynette Mary Komar, Porter Scott. JP MORGAN: Seeks 9th Circuit Review of Ruling in McShannock Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant JP Morgan Chase Bank NA filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the lawsuit titled Susan McShannock, et al. v. JP Morgan Chase Bank NA, Case No. 3:18-cv-01873-EMC, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Judge Edward M. Chen denied Chase's motion to dismiss and denied as moot its motion to stay. Plaintiffs Monica Chandler, McShannock, and Meky, filed suit against Chase on behalf of a putative class. The Plaintiffs assert claims under the California Unfair Competition Law ("UCL") based on Chase's alleged violation of a California law requiring mortgage lenders to pay interest to mortgagors on funds held in escrow accounts for residential mortgages. The Consolidated Class Action Complaint alleges that the Plaintiffs took out mortgage-secured loans from Washington Mutual Bank ("WaMu"), a federal savings bank, between 2005 and the end of 2007. When WaMu failed in 2008, its assets, including the Plaintiffs' mortgages, were acquired by Chase via the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. ("FDIC"). The mortgage agreements at issue required the Plaintiffs to make payments into escrow accounts held by the lender, in order to cover any potential taxes and assessments, leasehold payments, and insurance premiums on the property. The Plaintiffs have each made payments into the escrow accounts as required, but have never received any interest on the escrow funds from Chase. The mortgage agreement contains a provision addressing interest on escrow accounts. The appellate case is captioned as Susan McShannock, et al. v. JP Morgan Chase Bank NA, Case No. 19-80030, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN] Plaintiffs-Respondents SUSAN MCSHANNOCK, as Executrix of the Estate of Patricia Blaskower, on behalf of the Estate of Patricia Blaskower and all others similarly situated; MONICA CHANDLER, as Trustee of the Chandler Family Trust, and all others similarly situated; and MOHAMED MEKY, and all others similarly situated, are represented by: Michael Ram, Esq. ROBINS KAPLAN LLP 2440 W. El Camino Real, Suite 100 Mountain View, CA 94040 Telephone: (650) 784-4006 E-mail: mram@robinskaplan.com Defendant-Petitioner JP MORGAN CHASE BANK NA, doing business as Chase Bank, is represented by: Alexander J. Gershen, Esq. David C. Powell, Esq. MCGUIREWOODS LLP Two Embarcadero Center, Suite 1300 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 844-9944 E-mail: agershen@mcguirewoods.com dpowell@mcguirewoods.com - and - Brian David Schmalzbach, Esq. MCGUIREWOODS LLP Gateway Plaza 800 East Canal Street Richmond, VA 23219-3916 Telephone: (804) 775-4746 E-mail: bschmalzbach@mcguirewoods.com KAY WATERPROOFING: Construction Workers Seek Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------ Andres Carrillo, Edson Abel Meza Alvarez, Edwin Alejandro Moran Salas, Israel Murgueitio Cordova, Jesus Orellana, Manuel Chuqui, Manuel Mesias Chalco Lucero, Percy Prempeh-Mann and Raul Chavez Diaz, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Kay Waterproofing Corp., Kay Sales Corp., Kay Construction Corp., Monster Construction LLC, Galicia Construction Co., Inc., Galicia Contracting and Restoration Corp., Barry Grummer, Saul Gonzalez, Alex Rosenblatt, Ronald W. Hampson, Sr., Manuel Minnino, Steven Katz, Tony Rodriguez, Ronald Duarte, Eric Hermosillo and Manuela Paz, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-01365 (S.D. N.Y., February 13, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages and redress for failure to provide itemized wage statements pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and New York Labor Law, including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. Defendants belong to a construction company group where Plaintiffs were employed as construction laborers, mechanics, foremen, scaffold workers, bricklayers and brick leaders. They worked in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage, spread-of-hours and overtime compensation for the hours that they worked. Defendants also failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of their hours worked, says the complaint. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Tel: (212) 317-1200 Email: Faillace@employmentcompliance.com KRAFT HEINZ: Osborne Files ERISA Suit v. Board ---------------------------------------------- John Osborne, Brian Coleman and Eve Coleman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Employee Benefits Administration Board of Kraft Heinz, David Knopf, Greg Guidotti, Shirley Weinstein, Kathi Barton, Steve Crucitt and John Does 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-00307-AJS (W.D. Penn., March 19, 2019) is a class action brought pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"), against the Defendants. On February 21, 2019, after the stock market closed, Kraft Heinz announced its earnings for the fourth quarter of 2018. To the shock of investors, including Plan participants, Kraft Heinz disclosed that the Company took an impairment charge of $15.4 billion to lower the carrying amount of goodwill in its U.S. Refrigerated and Canada retail reporting units and the carrying amount of certain intangible assets, including the Company's Kraft and Oscar Mayer trademarks. The impairment charge resulted in a net loss attributable to common shareholders of $12.6 billion and diluted loss per share of $10.34. As a result of these disclosures, the price of Kraft Heinz common stock declined over 27% from $48.18 per share to $34.95 per share, erasing more than $16 billion of the Company's market capitalization. According to the complaint, Kraft Heinz's failure to disclose critical, material information to the public, caused the market to improperly value Kraft Heinz's stock price. As a result, the Defendants, who knew that false and misleading statements were continuously made, also knew that the Company's misrepresentations had artificially inflated the price of Kraft Heinz stock throughout the Class Period. In short, the Plan participants who purchased Kraft Heinz stock paid excessive prices for it during the Class Period. They suffered concrete financial harm to their retirement savings by over-paying for Kraft Heinz stock which, Defendants knew, or should have known, would fall sharply in value when the Company disclosed its impaired goodwill and misrepresentations, says the complaint. Plaintiffs are Plan participants within the meaning of ERISA and were employees of Kraft Heinz. Defendant EBAB is a committee established by the governing documents of the Plan and is a "named fiduciary" of the Plan according to those documents.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jason A. Archinaco, Esq. Michael A. O'Leary, Esq. THE ARCHINACO FIRM 1100 Liberty Avenue, Suite C-6 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Phone: (412) 434-0555 Facsimile: (888) 563-7549 Email: jarchinaco@archlawgroup.com - and - Samuel E. Bonderoff, Esq. Jacob H. Zamansky, Esq. James Ostaszewski, Esq. ZAMANSKY LLC 50 Broadway, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10004 Phone: (212) 742-1414 Facsimile: (212) 742-1177 Email: samuel@zamansky.com LA BOOM DISCO: Second Circuit Appeal Filed in Duran TCPA Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Radames Duran filed an appeal from a District Court judgment issued on February 27, 2019, in the lawsuit styled Duran v. La Boom Disco Inc., Case No. 17-cv-6331, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Brooklyn). As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Mr. Duran filed the putative class action lawsuit against the Defendant on October 31, 2017, alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"). The appellate case is captioned as Duran v. La Boom Disco Inc., Case No. 19-600, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant Radames Duran, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 30 East 39th Street, Second Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 465-1188 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com Defendant-Appellee La Boom Disco Inc. is represented by: Christopher R. Lynn, Esq. 24-15 Queens Plaza North Long Island City, NY 11101 Telephone: (917) 385-0368 LAPEER INDUSTRIES: Nikora Suit Asserts WARN Act Violation --------------------------------------------------------- Alex Nikora IV, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Lapeer Industries, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00539-UNA (E.D. Mich., March 19, 2019) is an action on behalf of Plaintiff and other similarly situated former employees who worked for Defendant and who were terminated without cause, as part of, or as the foreseeable result of, plant closings or mass layoffs ordered by Defendant and who were not provided 60 days advance written notice of their terminations by Defendant, as required by the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act ("WARN Act"). The Defendant failed to give Plaintiff and the Class members written notice that complied with the requirements of the WARN Act. The Defendant also failed to pay Plaintiff and each of the Class Members their respective wages, salary, commissions, bonuses, accrued holiday pay and accrued vacation for 60 days following their terminations, and failed to make the pension and 401(k) contributions and provide employee benefits under COBRA for 60 days from and after the dates of their terminations, says the complaint. Plaintiff Alex Nikora worked as a plant manager for Defendant. Lapeer Industries, Inc. is a Michigan corporation, and conducted business in this district.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rene S. Roupinian, Esq. Jack A. Raisner, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor New York, NY 10017 Phone: (212) 245-1000 Email: rsr@outtengolden.com jarr@outtengolden.com LOTUS BY JOHNNY DUNG: Nguyen Moves to Certify 6 Consumer Classes ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned LONG NGUYEN; THUY TRAN; LUONG TRAN, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated and the General Public v. LOTUS BY JOHNNY DUNG INC. f/k/a JADE LOTUS WAY, INC., a California corporation, Case No. 8:17-cv-01317-JVS-JDE (C.D. Cal.), move the Court for an order to certifying these Classes: -- Unfair Competition Law ("UCL") California-Only Class (Illegal "Drug" Sales): * All consumers in California, who within the applicable statute of limitations, purchased Defendant's Fucoidan Products; and * All consumers in California, who within the applicable statute of limitations, purchased Defendant's Graviola Products; -- Unfair Competition Law ("UCL") California-Only Class (Deception Claim): * All consumers in California, who within the applicable statute of limitations, purchased Defendant's Fucoidan Products; and * All consumers in California, who within the applicable statute of limitations, purchased Defendant's Graviola Products; -- Consumer Remedies Legal Act ("CLRA") California-Only Class: * All consumers in California, who within the applicable statute of limitations, purchased Defendant's Fucoidan Products; and * All consumers in California, who within the applicable statute of limitations, purchased Defendant's Graviola Products; -- False Advertising Law ("FAL") California-Only Class: * All consumers in California, who within the applicable statute of limitations, purchased Defendant's Fucoidan Products; and * All consumers in California, who within the applicable statute of limitations, purchased Defendant's Graviola Products; -- Breach of Express Indemnity ("BEI") California-Only Class: * All consumers in California, who within the applicable statute of limitations, purchased Defendant's Fucoidan Products; and * All consumers in California, who within the applicable statute of limitations, purchased Defendant's Graviola Products; and -- Breach of Implied Indemnity ("BII") California-Only Class: * All consumers in California, who within the applicable statute of limitations, purchased Defendant's Fucoidan Products; and * All consumers in California, who within the applicable statute of limitations, purchased Defendant's Graviola Products. The Plaintiffs also move the Court for an Order designating them as Class Representatives and appointing their counsel, Law Offices of Mike N. Vo, APLC, and Mesisca Riley Kreitenberg LLP, as Class Counsel. The Plaintiffs also request the Court to order the parties to meet and confer and present to this Court, within 15 days of an order granting class certification, with a proposed notice to the certified Classes. The Court will commence a hearing on May 13, 2019, at 1:30 p.m., to consider the Motion.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mike N. Vo, Esq. Julie H. Lin, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF MIKE N. VO, APLC 17910 Skypark Circle, Suite 103 Irvine, CA 92614 Telephone: (949) 221-8238 Facsimile: (844) 394-0129 E-mail: mvo@mikevolaw.com jlin@mikevolaw.com - and - Dennis P. Riley, Esq. Rena E. Kreitenberg, Esq. MESISCA, RILEY & KREITENBERG LLP 644 S. Figueroa Street, 2nd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 623-2300 Facsimile: (213) 623-6600 E-mail: dpriley@mrklawyers.com rek@mrklawyers.com M-I LLC: $556K Settlement in Syed FCRA Suit Has Prelim Approval --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, SARMAD SYED, an individual on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs. v. M-I LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:14-cv-00742 WBS BAM (E.D. Cal.), Judge William B. Shubb of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California granted the Plaintiff's motion for preliminary certification of a conditional settlement class and preliminary approval of the class action settlement. Syed brought the putative class action lawsuit against M-I and other parties, alleging M-I violated federal credit reporting laws while conducting pre-employment background checks. The parties have reached a settlement which would resolve the Plaintiff's claims against Defendant M-I in October 2018. Their Settlement Agreement provides for a gross settlement amount of $556,000. It specifies that the Defendants agree not to oppose a motion by the class counsel for attorney's fees (up to $300,000) and attorney's costs (up to $10,000) from the gross settlement amount. It also estimates the settlement administration costs of approximately $25,000 and a class representative service award of up to $5,000, both of which will be deducted from the gross settlement amount. The Settlement Agreement provides that the amount remaining after these deductions will be equally distributed among those class members who have not opted out of the settlement, with each one receiving a pro rata share of the Net Settlement Amount. The Plaintiff now seeks preliminary approval of the parties' stipulated class-wide settlement pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e). M-I has not opposed the motion. Judge Shubb finds that preliminary approval of the proposed class, proposed class settlement, proposed class counsels' fee and settlement allocation, and proposed plan of notice is appropriate. Therefore, he granted the Plaintiff's motion for preliminary certification of a conditional settlement class and preliminary approval of the class action settlement. The Judge provisionally certified, for the purpose of settlement in accordance with the terms of the stipulation, the class of all persons residing in the United States (including all territories and other political subdivisions of the United States) as to whom M-I L.L.C. may have procured or caused to be procured a consumer report for employment purposes during the period from May 19, 2009 through Nov. 1, 2018, who M-I L.L.C. hired, and who have not signed a severance agreement and release or equivalent agreement releasing the claims asserted in the Action. He appointed (i) Sarmad Syed as the representatives of the settlement class; (ii) Peter R. Dion-Kindem, P.C., 21550 Oxnard St., Suite 900, Woodland Hills, CA 91367; and Blanchard Law Group, APC, 3311 East Pico Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90023, as the class counsel; and (iii) Simpluris, Inc. as the settlement administrator. He approved the form and content of the proposed Notice of Settlement, except to the extent that they must be updated to reflect dates and deadlines specified in the Order. No later than 21 days from the date the Order is signed, the Defendant will provide the class list to Simpluris. No later than 14 days from the date it receives the class list from the Defendant, Simpluris will mail a Notice of Settlement to all members of the settlement class in the manner provided for in the Order. No later than 90 days from the date the Order is signed, any member of the settlement class who intends to object to, comment upon, or opt out of the settlement will mail written notice of that intent to Simpluris, pursuant to the instructions in the Notice of Settlement. A final fairness hearing will be held before the Court on Aug. 5, 2019, at 1:30 p.m. The Court may continue the final fairness hearing without further notice to the members of the class. No later than 28 days before the final fairness hearing, the class counsel will file with the Court a petition for an award of attorneys' fees and costs. Any objections or responses to the petition will be filed no later than 14 days before the final fairness hearing. The Class counsel may file a reply to any objections no later than seven days before the final fairness hearing. No later than 28 days before the final fairness hearing, the class counsel will file and serve upon the Court and the Defendant's counsel all papers in support of the settlement, the incentive award for the class representative, and any award for attorneys' fees and costs. No later than 28 days before the final fairness hearing, Simpluris will prepare, and the class counsel will file and serve upon the court and the Defendant's counsel, a declaration setting forth the services rendered, proof of mailing, a list of all the class members who have opted out of the settlement, and a list of all the class members who have commented upon or objected to the settlement. To be heard in opposition at the final fairness hearing, a person must, no later than 90 days from the date the Order is signed, (a) serve by hand or through the mails written notice of his or her intention to appear, stating the name and case number of the action and each objection and the basis therefore, together with copies of any papers and briefs, upon the class counsel and the counsel for defendants, and (b) file said appearance, objections, papers, and briefs with the court, together with proof of service of all such documents upon counsel for the parties. Responses to any such objections will be served by hand or through the mails on the objectors, or on the objector's counsel if there is any, and filed with the court no later than 14 calendar days before the final fairness hearing. Objectors may file optional replies no later than seven calendar days before the final fairness hearing in the same manner described. A full-text copy of the Court's March 12, 2019 Memorandum and Order is available at https://is.gd/6kL3qO from Leagle.com. Sarmad Syed, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Lonnie C. Blanchard, III -- lonnieblanchard@gmail.com -- The Blanchard Law Group, APC & Peter R. Dion-Kindem -- Peter@Dion-KindemLaw.com -- Peter R. Dion-Kindem, P.C. PreCheck, Inc., a Texas Corporation, Defendant, represented by Raymond Joseph Muro -- rmuro@nelsongriffin.com -- Nelson Griffin, LLP & Thomas Joseph Griffin -- tgriffin@nelsongriffin.com -- Nelson Griffin, LLP. MACY'S WEST: Diaz Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------- The case captioned Yuriria Diaz, as an individual and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Macy's West Stores, Inc. and Does 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 30-2018-01033577 filed in the Superior Court of California was removed to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on February 14, 2019, under Case No. 19-cv-00303. Diaz seeks to recover statutory penalties under Labor Code for Defendant's failure to provide accurate wage statements. Macy's cites that the class easily exceeds the 100-member requirement imposed by the Class Action Fairness Act, that the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000 and that Plaintiff and Defendant are citizens of different states, as basis for removal. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Armond Marced Jackson Jackson Law, APC 16330 Bake Parkway Irvine, CA 92618-4667 Tel: (949) 281-6857 Macy's is represented by: Fermin H. Llaguno, Esq. P. Dustin Bodaghi, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 2050 Main Street, Suite 900 Irvine, CA 92614 Telephone: (949) 705-3000 Fax: (949) 724-1201 Email: fllaguno@littler.com dbodaghi@littler.com MCKINSEY & COMPANY: Bhatia Hits Employees' Fund Mismanagement ------------------------------------------------------------- Tushar Bhatia, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons, and on behalf of the McKinsey & Company, Inc. Profit-Sharing Retirement Plan and the McKinsey & Company, Inc. Money Purchase Pension Plan, Plaintiff, v. McKinsey & Company, Inc., MIO Partners, Inc., and John Does 1-50, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-01466 (S.D. N.Y., February 15, 2019), asserts claims for breach of the fiduciary duties of loyalty and prudence, failure to monitor fiduciaries, prohibited transactions with a party-in-interest and prohibited transactions with a fiduciary, and seeks to recover losses to the McKinsey & Company Profit-Sharing Retirement Plan caused by Defendants' violations of Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. McKinsey sponsors two defined contribution retirement plans for its employees and retained its subsidiary, MIO, to manage their investment menu which Plaintiffs allege was a high-cost program and failed to replace its portfolios with better alternatives. McKinsey also failed to appropriately monitor and control the Plans' recordkeeping expenses and has paid a portion of these charges to itself, the complaint says. Each participant pays approximately $95 per year or more for recordkeeping services which is more than twice the reasonable market rate for similarly-sized plans. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Michelle L. Kornblit, Esq. Kai H. Richter, Esq. Carl F. Engstrom, Esq. Paul Lukas, Esq. Brandon T. McDonough, Esq. Brock J. Specht, Esq. NICHOLS KASTER PLLP 4600 IDS Center, 80S 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 256-3200 Facsimile: (612) 338-4878 Email: mkornblit@nka.com krichter@nka.com cengstrom@nka.com lukas@nka.com bmcdonough@nka.com bspecht@nka.com MDL 2672: Court Amends Order Granting ECF No. 3631 Bid to Remand ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, IN RE: VOLKSWAGEN "CLEAN DIESEL" MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. This Order Relates To: ECF No. 5989 Estenssoro v. VWGoA, No. 3:17-cv-2724-CRB Frech v. VWGoA, No. 3:17-cv-4250-CRB Hightower v. VWGoA, No. 3:17-cv-3369-CRB Laub v. VWGoA, No. 3:17-cv-4512-CRB Montes v. VWGoA, No. 3:17-cv-0729-CRB Pantoja v. VWGoA, No. 3:17-cv-2305-CRB Sanwick v. VWGoA, No. 3:17-cv-3032-CRB, MDL No. 2672 CRB (JSC) (N.D. Cal.), Judge Charles R. Breyer of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. ("VWGoA")'s motion for partial reconsideration of the March 8 Order, that remanded 184 cases. On March 8, 2019, the Court issued an Order addressing ECF No. 3631, a motion to remand 184 cases to California state court. In the Order, the Court explained that the 184 cases at issue were removed by VWGoA and California-based dealership Defendants only on the basis of federal-question jurisdiction, under 28 U.S.C. Section 1331. After determining that the cases would not necessarily raise a federal question, the Court concluded that subject-matter jurisdiction was lacking and granted the motion to remand. On March 11, 2019, VWGoA filed a motion for leave to file a motion for partial reconsideration of the Court's March 8 Order. In its motion, VWGoA states that seven of the 184 cases that were covered by the ECF No. 3631 remand motion were removed based on diversity jurisdiction, under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(a), or based on both federal-question and diversity jurisdiction. As to those seven cases, it has asked the Court to reconsider whether remand is appropriate. Breyer has reviewed the record and has confirmed that VWGoA is correct. The seven cases VWGoA has identified, which were among the 184 cases subject to the ECF No. 3631 remand motion, and which are listed in the caption to the Order, were each removed based on diversity jurisdiction or based on both federal-question and diversity jurisdiction. California-based dealerships are not named as Defendants in these cases. The Court overlooked these facts in its March 8 Order as the parties' briefs did not bring them to the Court's attention. For six of the seven cases identified, the Court in fact has already determined that it has diversity jurisdiction over them. These six were among 39 cases covered by two separate remand motions that the Court previously denied, on Feb. 19, 2019, which were filed by the same counsel who filed the ECF No. 3631 remand motion. These six cases appear to have been mistakenly listed by the Plaintiffs' counsel in multiple remand motions. The Judge confirms that, for the reasons stated in the February 19 Orders, the Court has diversity jurisdiction over these six cases. For the last of the seven cases, Laub, the Judge holds that it has diversity jurisdiction over it. The notice of removal in Laub, and the Laub complaint's factual allegations, causes of actions, and requests for relief mirror those in the 39 cases that were addressed in the February 19 Orders. Thus, for the same reasons articulated in those Orders, Section 1332(a)'s complete diversity and amount-in-controversy requirements are satisfied. Notwithstanding the Court's March 8 Order, the seven cases identified in the caption to the Order will not be remanded to California state court. The Court has diversity jurisdiction over these cases. Judge Breyer granted VWGoA's motion for partial reconsideration of the March 8 Order, and amended the March 8 Order. A full-text copy of the Court's March 12, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/WbeGbD 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. MEDICAL VITALITY: Guerra Sues over Marketing Text Messages ---------------------------------------------------------- MARIO GUERRA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. MEDICAL VITALITY CLINIC, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, the Defendant, Case No. 0:19cv60692 (S.D. Fla., March 16, 2019), contends that, in efforts to drum-up business, the Defendant would often send marketing text messages providing different types of offers and savings for future purchases without first obtaining express written consent to send those marketing text messages as required to do so under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The messages were sent using mass-automated technology through a third-party company hired by Defendant to send marketing text messages on Defendant’s behalf en masse. In sum, Defendant knowingly and willfully violated the TCPA, causing injuries to Plaintiff and members of the putative class, including invasion of their privacy, aggravation, annoyance, intrusion on seclusion, trespass, and conversion, the lawsuit says. The Defendant owns and operates a medical practice that provides "state-of-the-art aesthetic skin and body enhancements (including laser, microdermabrasion, chemical peels, Botox, facial fillers, and thread lifting)."[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI, PLLC 110 SE 6th Street Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 907-1136 Facsimile: (855) 529-9540 E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com METALS USA: $2.8MM Settlement in Wilson Suit Has Prelim Approval ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JAMES WILSON, an individual, and JACK WHITE, an individual, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. METALS USA, INC., a Delaware Corporation, and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:12-cv-00568-KJM-DB (E.D. Cal.), Judge Kimberly J. Mueller of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California granted the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for preliminary approval of the proposed class action settlement. Plaintiffs James Wilson and Jack White have brought the certified class action alleging that roofing tiles manufactured by Dura-Loc Roofing Systems Ltd. suffer from an inherent design defect, which results in the deterioration of the tiles' outer coating upon exposure to air and sunlight. They bring the action against Defendant, the alleged successor to Dura-Loc's liability. Specifically, the Court certified the class of all individuals and entities that own homes or other structures located in the State of California on which Dura-Loc Roofing Systems Ltd.'s Continental, Shadowline, or Wood Shake stone coated steel roof shingles were installed during the period of time beginning July 1, 1996 through May 12, 2006. The Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for preliminary approval of the proposed class action settlement, filed on Aug. 31, 2018, is before the Court. The Court held a hearing on the matter on Oct. 19, 2018. Under the proposed Settlement Agreement, the Defendant agrees to pay a gross amount of $2.8 million for all claims. The agreement further provides defendant will make the following payments separate and apart from the gross settlement payment of $2.8 million: (1) settlement administration expenses; (2) attorney's fees and costs, not to exceed $1,111,000; and (3) incentive awards for each representative Plaintiff, as approved by the Court, not to exceed $39,000 in aggregate. The settlement will be allocated to class members using the following distribution formula: Each member of the Settlement Class may claim up to 300 affected tiles, each valued at $10, for a maximum claim of $3,000 ($10 × 300 = $3,000). Should the total value of the claims exceed $2.8 million, the value of each affected tile will be decreased on a pro rata basis. To be eligible to receive payment from the settlement, a class member must submit a claim form by mail or through the settlement website by the submission deadline. The settlement payment will be made available on a reversionary basis, with the Defendant retaining unclaimed funds. Additionally, if the class members do not cash their settlement checks within ninety days of receiving them, those sums will be returned to the Defendant. The Settlement Agreement contemplates a notice period for the class members to opt out of the settlement or to file an objection regarding its fairness. A settlement administrator will send a summary notice to all the putative class members. The settlement administrator will also provide publication notice through targeted publication and direct class members to the settlement website, which will contain the full notice, as well as copies of the Plaintiffs' operative complaint and the Court's preliminary approval order. Once notice is sent out, class members are automatically part of the settlement unless they opt out of the settlement by the opt-out deadline. The class members may also file objections to the settlement and subsequently appear at the second fairness hearing. Judge Mueller finds that the Settlement Agreement offers genuine relief in the form of payments capped at $3,000 per class member. The parties, moreover, reached agreement just before trial after more than six years of litigation, thereby assuring they entered into the Settlement Agreement with a substantial grasp of the strengths and weaknesses of the case. The risks and uncertainty associated with continued litigation also weigh in favor of approving the settlement, as does the fact the parties engaged in substantial discovery and mediation. Therefore, the proposed agreement hsatisfies the requirements for preliminary approval. Nevertheless, the Judge expresses very strong reservations about several aspects of the fairness of the proposed settlement and warns the parties that the Court will not grant final approval if these concerns are not resolved by the time of the final hearing on whether to approve the settlement. The Judge granted preliminary approval of the class settlement, and granted approval of the proposed notice to the putative class. She appointed Kurtzman Carson Consultants, LLC as the claims administrator. The Judge adopted the parties stipulated schedule, as follows: (1) Within two days of the Order, the class counsel must submit the class list to the claims administrator; (2) Within 32 days of the Order, the claims administrator must (a) mail the summary notice, (b) publish the publication notice, and (c) post the full notice, the Plaintiffs' third amended complaint, a copy of the Order, and the claim form on the settlement website; (3) Within 80 days of the Order, the Plaintiffs must file their anticipated motion to approve attorney's fees and costs, administration expenses, and incentive awards; (4) Within three days of the filing of the motion for attorney's fees and costs, administration expenses and incentive awards, the claims administrator must post the motion on the settlement website; (5) Within 94 days of the Order, the class members must postmark their claim forms, objections to the settlement, or requests for exclusion; (6) The Plaintiffs must file their motion for final approval of the class action settlement no earlier than 150 days after the entry of the Order; and (7) The final hearing on whether to approve the settlement will be held no earlier than 28 days after the filing of the motion for final approval of the class action settlement, with the hearing date set by the Plaintiffs upon the filing of the motion. A full-text copy of the Court's March 12, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/aAdKh2 from Leagle.com. James Wilson & Jack White, Plaintiffs, represented by Crystal Lee Matter -- crystal@matterlawapc.com -- Stonebarger Law APC, Gene Joseph Stonebarger, Esq. -- gstonebarger@stonebargerlaw.com -- and Richard David Lambert, Esq. -- rlambert@stonebargerlaw.com -- STONEBARGER LAW. Rita White, Plaintiff, represented by Gene Joseph Stonebarger, Stonebarger Law & Richard David Lambert, Stonebarger Law. Metals USA, Inc., A Delaware Corporation, Defendant, represented by Adrian J. Sawyer, Esq. -- sawyer@kerrwagstaffe.com -- KERR & AGSTAFFE, LLP -- Bartholomew Dalton, Esq. -- Bdalton@kilpatricktownsend.com -- KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON, LLP MICROCHIP TECH: Court Dismisses Counterclaim in Schuman ERISA Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, PETER SCHUMAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MICROCHIP TECHNOLOGY INCORPORATED, et al., Defendants, Case No. 16-cv-05544-HSG (N.D. Cal.), Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted the Plaintiffs' motion to dismiss Defendants Atmel Corp. and Microchip's counterclaim, without leave to amend. Plaintiffs Schuman and William Coplin originally filed the putative class action in September 2016, alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"). In short, the Plaintiffs claimed that their former employer Atmel Corp., its merger partner Microchip, and the Atmel Corp. U.S. Severance Guarantee Benefit Program ("Plan") failed to honor the terms of an employee severance agreement. The Plaintiffs are former employees of Atmel. In 2015, Atmel made a guarantee to its employees that if their employment was terminated and certain conditions were met, it would pay them severance benefits. This was the original "Atmel Plan," which was governed by ERISA. Id. Microchip acquired Atmel on April 6, 2016. After the acquisition, some Atmel employees claimed that they were eligible for benefits under the Atmel Plan. But in the Defendants' view, the Atmel Plan had expired. Nevertheless, to resolve the continuing dispute with these Atmel employees, the Defendants offered employees the opportunity to receive different severance benefits if they were terminated. This was the "Second Atmel Plan." The Employees had 45 days to decide whether to accept it. In exchange for accepting the Second Atmel Plan, these employees agreed to execute a release of any claims they might have against Microchip, Atmel, and their affiliates, and subsidiaries. The Plaintiffs signed the severance agreement and release. Between April 6, 2016 and March 18, 2017, Atmel terminated the Plaintiffs' employment. After their termination, the Plaintiffs were paid according to the terms of the Second Atmel Plan. Even though they signed the severance agreements and releases (and accepted severance benefits) under the Second Atmel Plan, the Plaintiffs still brought suit. They did not tender back their benefits and never intended to keep their promises; rather, they intended to deceive the Defendants. The Defendants reasonably relied on the Plaintiffs' promises, but the Plaintiffs have kept their benefits despite not honoring their promises. The Defendants have been financially injured by the Plaintiffs' fraudulent promises, but ERISA does not allow them to obtain money damages. The Defendants have reasonably concluded that the Plaintiffs are dissipating the benefits they received under the Second Atmel Plan. Based on these allegations, the Defendants brought a counterclaim for equitable relief under ERISA Section 502(a)(3). They seek an injunction to prevent the Plaintiffs from dissipating benefits received, an order equitably estopping them from continuing to pursue their claims, interest on any sums awarded, and attorneys' fees and costs. The Plaintiffs moved to dismiss. Judge Gilliam finds that, as a matter of law, the Defendants have not alleged (nor could they allege) that the Plaintiffs violated any provision of the Second Atmel Plan. Therefore, they have failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under ERISA. The Judge granted the motion to dismiss the Defendants' counterclaim, without leave to amend. The Judge set a further case management conference for 2:00 p.m. on April 2, 2019. At the case management conference, the parties should be prepared to discuss a schedule for the prompt resolution of the matter and the proposed form and timing of ADR efforts, including the possibility of a magistrate judge settlement conference. The parties are directed to file a joint case management statement addressing these and any other issues by March 26, 2019. A full-text copy of the Court's March 12, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/DHMaTd from Leagle.com. Peter Schuman & William Coplin, Plaintiffs, represented by Cliff Michael Palefsky -- CP@mhpsf.com -- McGuinn Hillsman & Palefsky, Connie K. Chan -- cchan@altber.com -- Altshuler Berzon LLP, Michael Rubin -- mrubin@altber.com -- Altshuler Berzon LLP, Raphael N. Rajendra -- rrajendra@altber.com -- Altshuler Berzon, William B. Reilly -- bill@williambreilly.com -- Law Office of William Reilly & Keith A. Ehrman -- keith@mhpsf.com -- McGuinn, Hillsman & Palefsky. Microchip Technology Incorporated, Atmel Corporation & Atmel Corporation U.S. Severance Guarantee Benefit Program, Defendants, represented by Mark E. Schmidtke , Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak, Stewart, P.C., pro hac vice, Elizabeth M. Soveranez , Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., Kristina Holmstrom , Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak, Stewart, P.C., pro hac vice, Mark Gerard Kisicki , Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart P.C. & Sean Patrick Nalty , Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C. Microchip Technology Incorporated & Atmel Corporation, Counter-claimants, represented by Mark E. Schmidtke, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak, Stewart, P.C., pro hac vice, Mark Gerard Kisicki, Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart P.C. & Sean Patrick Nalty, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C. William Coplin & Peter Schuman, Counter-defendants, represented by Cliff Michael Palefsky, McGuinn Hillsman & Palefsky, Michael Rubin, Altshuler Berzon LLP, William Bernard Reilly, Law Office of William Reilly & Keith A. Ehrman, McGuiMICROCHIP TECHnn, Hillsman & Palefsky. MILWAUKEE HEALTH: Jones Seeks to Collect Wages Under WARN Act ------------------------------------------------------------- PAMELA JONES on behalf of herself and all others Similarly situated v. MILWAUKEE HEALTH CARE, LLC d/b/a Wellspring of Milwaukee, WILLIAM NICHOLSON and WILLIAM KOSKI, Case No. 2:19-cv-00355 (E.D. Wisc., March 8, 2019), is a civil action for collection of unpaid wages and benefits for 60 calendar days pursuant to the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act of 1988 and for unpaid wages and benefits under state law. The Plaintiff was an employee of MHC until she was terminated as part of, or as a result of a mass layoff and/or plant closure ordered by MHC. MHC was a Delaware corporation, which maintained a facility in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. The Individual Defendants are owners of MHC.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sara J. Geenen, Esq. THE PREVIANT LAW FIRM, S.C. 310 West Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 100 MW Milwaukee, WI 53203 Telephone: (414) 271-4500 Facsimile: (414) 271-6308 E-mail: sjg@previant.com - and - Stuart J. Miller, Esq. LANKENAU & MILLER, LLP 132 Nassau Street, Suite1100 New York, NY 10038 Telephone: (212) 581-5005 Facsimile: (212) 581-2122 E-mail: stuart@lankmill.com - and - Mary E. Olsen, Esq. M. Vance McCrary, Esq. THE GARDNER FIRM, PC 210 S. Washington Ave. Mobile, AL 36602 Telephone: (251) 433-8100 Facsimile: (251) 433-8181 E-mail: molsen@thegardnerfirm.com vmccrary@thegardnerfirm.com MISSION VALLEY: Lengyel Suit Alleges Conspiracy and Fraud --------------------------------------------------------- A class action has been filed against Richard Schlander, Lori Broussard, and Mission Valley Bank for alleged breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, and conspiracy to convert funds. The case is captioned LAD S. LENGYEL, an individual; derivatively on behalf of TOWN & COUNTRY FARM SCHOOL, INC.; WILLIAM M. LENGYEL, an individual; STEVEN A. LENGYEL, an individual, Plaintiffs, v. RICHARD SCHLANDER, an individual; LORI BROUSSARD, an individual; MISSION VALLEY BANK; and DOES 1-50, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV08504 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles County, March 12, 2019). The case is assigned to Hon. Judge Elizabeth Allen White. In addition to massive embezzlement, upon information and belief, Schlander has now stopped managing Town & Country Farm School, Inc. (T&CFS) or performing any other function for the corporation yet he still receives a salary from T&CFS. This has resulted in citations filed by the California Department of Social Services (DSS). DSS cited T&CFS for numerous violations relating to child safety including operating the facility with no licensed director. These actions and inactions by Schlander have left T&CFS exposed to liability by putting children in harm’s way. To cover up their conspiracy, Defendants failed to conduct any of the mandated annual meetings for T&CFS and insured that the business records of T&CFS are almost nonexistent, including deliberately cooking the financial records. Lengyel, through this complaint, seeks to correct these injustices and to examine the business records of T&CFS. Lengyel has attempted in vein to convince Defendants to cease and desist their unlawful activities. T&CFS is based in the City of Newhall, County of Los Angeles, State of California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kirk J. Retz, Esq. Retz & Aldover, LLP 2550 ViaTejon, Suite 3A Palos Verdes Estates, CA 90274 Telephone: (310)540-9800 Facsimile: (424)218-1175 MISSOURI: Court Denies Class Certification Bid in T. Watson's Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, TERRY G. WATSON, Plaintiff, v. KAREY L. WITTY, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:16CV71 HEA (E.D. Mo.), Judge Henry Edward Autrey of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Northern Division, denied the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Action. In his "Motion for Class Action," the Plaintiff states that the number of disabled and elderly persons affected by the unconstitutional bedding incarcerated at Missouri Department of Corrections ("MDOC") is so large that it is impractical for each claimant to bring suit and appear in Court; that the violations of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments; 42 U.S.C. Section 12131, et seq. Title of the ADA; Section 504 Federal Rehabilitation Act; Missouri Human Rights Act, are violations and questions of law and fact common to the class; the claims made by the Plaintiff are similar to the claims of all the class members; and the Plaintiff, through a court appointed attorney is able to fairly and adequately protect the interest of the class. As the Defendants correctly argue, Judge Autrey finds that the Plaintiff's motion for class certification is based on Count II of the Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint. On Jan. 7, 2019, the Court granted summary judgment on Count II, which was brought against the MDOC's employees for failing to accommodate the Plaintiff's alleged back, neck, and leg pain disabilities in relation to bunk beds and mattresses at the Couth Central Correctional Center and at the Moberly Correctional Center. Since Count II is no longer a viable claim, the Plaintiff cannot establish that he can fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class, as required by Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Accordingly, the Judge denied the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Action. A full-text copy of the Court's March 13, 2019 Opinion, Memorandum and Order is available at https://is.gd/SVMrAn from Leagle.com. Terry G. Watson, Plaintiff, pro se. Jeff Allen, Cari D. Collins, ADA Site Coordinator & Chris Sweeten, MDOC Director of ADA, Defendants, represented by John W. Taylor, Missouri Attorney General's Office. Will Jones, ADA Site Coordinator, Defendant, pro se. NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Koenitz Sues over Debt Collection ---------------------------------------------------- ARTHUR KOENITZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NATIONWIDE CREDIT, INC.; and JOHN DOES 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-07001-BRM-TJB (D.N.J., Feb. 26, 2019) alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The case is assigned to Judge Brian R. Martinotti and referred to Magistrate Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni. Nationwide Credit, Inc., a collection agency, provides customer relationship and accounts receivable management services. The company specializes in collecting delinquent and defaulted accounts. The company was founded in 1947 and is based in Tempe, Arizona. Nationwide Credit, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Altisource Portfolio Solutions S.A. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph K. Jones, Esq. JONES, WOLF &KAPASI, LLC 375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100 Fairfield, NJ 07004 Telephone: (973) 227-5900 Facsimile: (973) 244-0019 E-mail: jkj@legaljones.com NEW YORK FISH: Melgarejo Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation --------------------------------------------------------------- Florentino Melgarejo, on behalf of himself, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly-situated, Plaintiff, v. New York Fish & Vegetable, Inc., d/b/a "NY Fish and Vegetable" and Lee's Fish & Fruit, Inc., and David Lee, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02439 (S.D. N.Y., March 19, 2019) is a civil action for damages and equitable relief based upon willful violations that Defendants committed of Plaintiffs' rights guaranteed to him by the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"). The Defendants required Plaintiff to work, and Plaintiff did in fact work, in excess of forty hours for each week or virtually each week, yet the Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiff at any rate of pay, much less at the rate of one and one half times his regular rate of pay for all hours that he worked in excess of forty each week, and instead paid him on a flat weekly basis for all hours worked that operated by law to cover only the first forty hours that he worked in a week, says the complaint. Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a stocker from May 2012 until January 4, 2019. Defendants are two corporate entities that consecutively operated a single deli and grocery store located in the Bronx, New York, as well as the entities' owner who was Plaintiffs direct supervisor.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey R. Maguire, Esq. Alexander T. Coleman, Esq. Michael J. Borrelli, Esq. BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C. 655 Third Avenue, Suite 1821 New York, NY 10017 Phone: (212) 679-5000 Fax: (212) 679-5005 NS INVESTMENTS: Williams Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- ISAIAH WILLIAMS, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NS INVESTMENTS, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 19STCV08026 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., March 8, 2019), arises from the Defendants' alleged failure to pay minimum and straight time wages, failure to pay overtime wages, and failure to provide meal periods. NS Investments, Inc., is a California corporation with its principal place of business in Los Angeles, California. The Company is a business entity conducting business in numerous counties throughout the state of California, including in Los Angeles County. The Plaintiff does not know the true names or capacities of the Doe Defendants.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kane Moon, Esq. Allen Feghali, Esq. MOON & YANG, APC 1055 W. Seventh St., Suite 1880 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 232-3128 Facsimile: (213) 232-3125 E-mail: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com allen.feghali@moonyanglaw.com NUSRET MIAMI: Compere Seeks to Certify Class of Tipped Employees ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled MELISSA COMPERE, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. NUSRET MIAMI, LLC d/b/a Nusr-et Steakhouse, a Florida limited liability company, and NUSRET GOKCE, an individual, Case No. 1:19-cv-20277-KMM (S.D. Fla.), seeks collective-action certification of this class of similarly situated persons: All front-of-the-house tipped employees who worked at Nusr-et Steakhouse in Miami within the two years preceding this lawsuit and who, as a result of Defendants' policy of requiring Class Members to share tips with non-tipped employees and to work without being paid an hourly wage, earned less than the applicable minimum and/or overtime wage for one or more weeks. Ms. Compere also asks the Court to issue an order: (i) directing the Defendants to produce to undersigned counsel within twenty (20) days a list containing the names and last known addresses of putative Class Members who worked for the Defendants during the last two years; and (ii) authorizing the Plaintiff's counsel to send a notice to all individuals whose names appear on the list produced by the Defendants' counsel.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert W. Brock II, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF LOWELL J. KUVIN 17 East Flagler Street, Suite 223 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 358-6800 Facsimile: (305) 358-6808 E-mail: robert@kuvinlaw.com NVIDIA CORP: Bid to Relate and Consolidate Securities Suits Granted ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, In re: NVIDIA CORPORATION SECURITIES LITIGATION. This Document Relates to: ALL ACTIONS, Case No. 4:18-cv-07669-HSG (N.D. Cal.), Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted the Defendants' administrative motion to relate and consolidate cases and to appoint the co-lead counsel. The following three derivative actions: (i) Han v. Huang, et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-00341; (ii) Yang v. Huang, et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-00766, (iii) The Booth Family Trust v. Huang, et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-00876; and the consolidated securities class action, In Re NVIDIA Corporation Securities Litigation, Case. No. 4:18-cv-07669-HSG, currently pending before Judge Gilliam, involve substantially similar parties and events; conducting them before different judges would create the risk of potentially unduly burdensome duplication of labor and expenses and inconsistent results. Accordingly, the Derivative Actions are related to the Consolidated Class Action and reassigned to Judge Gilliam. Each of the Derivative Actions also involve substantially similar parties and events and there is a risk of unnecessary duplication of labor and expenses or conflicting results if they were to be conducted separately before different judges. Accordingly, the Derivative Actions are also related to each other. The Derivative Actions involve a common question of law and fact. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a), the Derivative Actions are consolidated with each other for all purposes, including pre-trial proceedings and trial, under Case No. 3:19-cv-00341, which will serve as the lead case. The Consolidated Derivative Action will not be consolidated with the Consolidated Class Action. Every pleading filed in the Consolidated Derivative Action will bear the following caption: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA In re NVIDIA CORPORATION Case No. 4:19-cv-00341 CONSOLIDATED DERIVATIVE LITIGATION Judge: Hon. Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. Courtroom: 2 _______________ This Document Relates to: Related Case No. 4:18-cv-07669-HSG ALL ACTIONS All papers filed in connection with the Consolidated Derivative Action will be maintained in one file under Lead Case 4:19-cv-00341. The Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs for the conduct of the Consolidated Derivative Action will be: THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. 355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 785-2610 Facsimile: (213) 226-4684 Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- and -- THE BROWN LAW FIRM, P.C. Timothy Brown, Esq. 240 Townsend Square Oyster Bay, NY 11771 Telephone: (516) 922-5427 Facsimile: (516) 344-6204 Email: tbrown@thebrownlawfirm.net -- and -- WEISSLAW LLP David C. Katz, Esq. 1500 Broadway, 16th Floor New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 682-3025 Facsimile: (212) 682-3010 Email: dckatz@weisslawllp.com The Plaintiffs' Co-Lead Counsel will have the sole authority to speak for the Plaintiffs in all matters regarding pre-trial procedure, trial, and settlement negotiations and will make all work assignments in such manner as to facilitate the orderly and efficient prosecution of the litigation and to avoid duplicative or unproductive effort. The Co-Lead Counsel will be responsible for coordinating all activities and appearances on behalf of the Plaintiffs. No motion, request for discovery, or other pre-trial or trial proceedings will be initiated or filed by any Plaintiffs except through the Co-Lead Counsel. The Defendants' counsel may rely upon all agreements made with the Co-Lead Counsel, or other duly authorized representative of the Co-Lead Counsel, and such agreements will be binding on all the Plaintiffs. For all shareholder derivative actions subsequently filed in, removed to, reassigned to, or transferred to the Court that are related to the Consolidated Derivative Action by the Court, the parties (including the parties to the subsequently filed action) will meet and confer regarding potential consolidation. If the parties ultimately stipulate to consolidation, such action will be consolidated with the Consolidated Derivative Action. If the parties are unable to agree on consolidation, the parties will bring the matter to the Court's attention within 10 days after the subsequently filed or transferred action is related to the Consolidated Derivative Action. The parties will submit a proposed schedule within 30 days of entry of the Order. The Defendants are not required to answer, move, or otherwise respond to the respective complaints filed in the Han, Yang, or Booth actions until the deadline set forth in the Court's order on the parties' proposed schedule. The Court's scheduling order will supersede any and all deadlines previously set in the individual Derivative Actions. The parties are not waiving any rights, claims, or defenses of any kind except as expressly stated, and the parties reserve the right to seek further extensions of time as circumstances may warrant, subject to the Court's approval. Judge Gilliam directed the clerk to administratively close the later-filed civil actions, Case Nos. 19-cv-00766 and 19-cv-00876. A full-text copy of the Court's March 12, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/gF9Frf from Leagle.com. Iron Workers Local 580 Joint Funds, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jonathan Daniel Uslaner -- jonathanu@blbglaw.com -- Bernstein Litowitz et al & David Ronald Stickney -- davids@blbglaw.com -- Bernstein, Litowitz, Berger & Grossmann. Michael Oto, Consol Plaintiff, represented by J. Alexander Hood, II -- ahood@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, Jennifer Pafiti -- jpafiti@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP & Jeremy A. Lieberman -- jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice. NVIDIA Corporation, Jensen Huang & Colette Kress, Defendants, represented by John C. Dwyer -- dwyerjc@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP, Brett Hom De Jarnette -- bdejarnette@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP, Claire Andrea McCormack, Skadden Arps Slate Meagher and Flom LLP, Emily Brooke Harrington -- eharrington@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP & Patrick Edward Gibbs -- pgibbs@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP. Oakland County Employees' Retirement System, Oakland County Voluntary Employees' Benefit Association Trust & Oakland County Employees' Retirement System Trust, Defendants, represented by Adam J. Zapala -- azapala@cpmlegal.com -- Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy LLP. Henry Keller, Dennis Horanic & Jack Cravens, Movants, represented by Jon A. Tostrud, Tostrud Law Group, P.C. Meitav Dash Provident Funds and Pension Ltd., Movant, represented by Jennifer Pafiti, Pomerantz LLP. Shelly Weiss, Movant, represented by Christopher J. Keller, Labaton Sucharow LLP, pro hac vice, Eric J. Belfi, Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff LLP, pro hac vice, Francis P. McConville, Labaton Sucharow LLP, pro hac vice & James Matthew Wagstaffe, Wagstaffe, von Loewenfeldt, Busch & Radwick LLP. Julius Myron Rosen, Movant, represented by Ramzi Abado, Kahn Swick Foti LLP. NVDA Investor Group, Movant, represented by Melissa Ann Fortunato, Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. E. Ohman J:or Fonder AB, Movant, represented by Darren J. Check , Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, pro hac vice, Jennifer Lauren Joost, Kessler Topaz Meltzer and Check LLP, John Christopher Browne, Bernstein Litowitz Berger Grossman LLP, pro hac vice, Michael D. Blatchley, Bernstein Litowitz Berger Grossmann LLP, pro hac vice, Naumon A. Amjed, Kessler Topaz Meltzer Check, LLP, pro hac vice & Ryan Thomas Degnan, Kessler Topaz Meltzer Check, LLP, pro hac vice. Stichting Pensioenfonds PGB, Movant, represented by Darren J. Check, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Jennifer Lauren Joost, Kessler Topaz Meltzer and Check LLP, John Christopher Browne, Bernstein Litowitz Berger Grossman LLP, Jonathan Daniel Uslaner, Bernstein Litowitz et al, Michael D. Blatchley, Bernstein Litowitz Berger Grossmann LLP, Naumon A. Amjed, Kessler Topaz Meltzer Check, LLP & Ryan Thomas Degnan, Kessler Topaz Meltzer Check, LLP. OCWEN LOAN: Court Resolves 1st Discovery Dispute in Franklin Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, GREGORY FRANKLIN, Plaintiff, v. OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-03333-SI (N.D. Cal.), Judge Susan Illston of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California has issued an order resolving the parties' first discovery dispute: the information the Plaintiffs requested related to the number of California residents whose conversations with the Defendant were recorded. In his First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff Franklin sues the Defendant, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated. He brings one claim for relief, for illegal recording of cellular phone conversations pursuant to California Penal Code Section 632.7. He brings the suit on behalf of himself and a proposed class consisting of all persons in California whose cellular telephone conversations were recorded without their consent by Defendant and/or its agent/s from Nov. 11, 2011 through the date of filing the Complaint. By their joint letter, the parties identify the following outstanding dispute: in Interrogatory Nos. 12, 13, and 14, the Plaintiff requested information related to the number of California residents whose conversations with the Defendant were recorded. The parties have not attached the Plaintiff's written requests for discovery or the Defendant's answers or objections, but the Defendant does not contest the Plaintiff's characterization of the request. Rather, the Defendant objects that the request is unduly burdensome and disproportionate to the needs of the case because responding to them would take thousands or hundreds of thousands of hours of work. The Defendant states that to comply it would have to examine each account with a California address or area code, determine if any calls were made on that account, attempt to locate those calls and any recordings of those calls, and then listen to the recordings to determine whether the person being called answered the call and was recorded rather than a message being left on voicemail or someone else answering the call. It has proposed that the parties stipulate that it called and recorded a minimum number of persons in California, such as over 100 persons. The Plaintiff has rejected the offer and states that the requested information is vital to class certification. Judge Illton agrees with the Plaintiff that information regarding the number of recorded calls the Defendant made is relevant to his motion for class certification, going not only to numerosity but also to the question of whether a class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy. It is also relevant, among other things, to the question of damages, particularly in light of the Court's ruling that the Plaintiff may seek a class-wide award of statutory damages in an amount up to $5,000 per class member. It will not suffice for the Defendant to stipulate to an arbitrary number such as over 100 persons. In light of the relevance of the information that the Plaintiff seeks, the Judge orders that the Defendant will respond to Interrogatory Nos. 12, 13, and 14, with, at minimum, information regarding the total number of phone calls the Defendant made during the relevant period to California residents (including any account associated with a California address and any account containing a California area code). The Defendant will provide the information no later than March 26, 2019. Also no later than March 26, 2019, the parties will stipulate to a method for extrapolating the total number of recorded phone calls the Defendant made to California residents during the relevant period. This may be an agreement to sample some subset of the data to extrapolate a class-wide number or some other method such as a stipulation that the ratio of calls received to calls recorded that the Plaintiff experienced is representative of the typical class member. Because the parties did not attach their discovery requests and responses, the Judge is unable to give more specific guidance at this time. The intent of the Order is that the Defendant will respond to the interrogatories with information regarding the number of calls made, and the parties will agree to a process for estimating the number of calls recorded. The Judge is concerned about the amount of time that has elapsed since the Plaintiff served his discovery requests in September 2019. It thus appears that defendant unilaterally stayed its discovery responses during the nearly two-month period during which the Plaintiff's motion for clarification was pending. The Plaintiff's motion for class certification is due on Oct. 11, 2019. The Judge expects the Defendant to timely meet its discovery obligations so that the other deadlines in the case may proceed apace. The Plaintiff also states that he served a deposition notice dated Dec. 12, 2018, but that he had to withdraw its deposition notice because the Defendant failed to timely produce documents. To date, the Defendant has not provided alternative dates for a deposition. Presumably, the Plaintiff is waiting on the above discovery before deposing the Defendant. The Judge will therefore not issue any order on deposition scheduling at this time. If the parties continue to be unable to resolve this issue, they may file another joint letter with the Court, after complying with the Court's standing order requiring that, prior to filing such a letter, the parties will meet and confer to attempt to resolve their dispute informally. A mere exchange of letters, e-mails, telephone calls, or facsimile transmissions does not satisfy the requirement to meet and confer. Based on the foregoing, Judge Illston ordered that no later than March 26, 2019: (1) the Defendant will respond to Interrogatory Nos. 12, 13, and 14, with, at minimum, information regarding the total number of phone calls the Defendant made during the relevant period to California residents (including any account associated with a California address and any account containing a California area code); and (2) the parties will stipulate to a method for extrapolating the total number of recorded phone calls the Defendant made to California residents during the relevant period. A full-text copy of the Court's March 12, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/d7T3RD from Leagle.com. Gregory Franklin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Ryan Lee McBride -- ryan@kazlg.com -- Kazerouni Law Group, Abbas Kazerounian -- ak@kazlg.com -- Kazerounian Law Group, APC, Emily C. Headlee -- emily@kazlg.com -- Kazerouni Law Group, APC & Seyed Abbas Kazerounian -- ak@kazlg.com -- Kazerouni Law Group, APC. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, Defendant, represented by Edward Dean Totino -- edward.totino@dlapiper.com -- DLA Piper LLP, Mandy Chan -- mandy.chan@dlapiper.com -- DLA Piper LLP & Perrie Michael Weiner, Esq. -- perrie.weiner@dlapiper.com -- DLA PIPER LLP. OHIO: Dismissal of 2nd Amended Vance Suit w/o Prejudice Upheld -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, Bruce A. Vance et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. State of Ohio, Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 18AP-484 (Ohio App.), Judge Lisa L. Sadler of the Court of Appeals of Ohio for the Tenth District, Franklin County, affirmed the judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas granting summary judgment in favor of the Defendant-Appellee, State of Ohio; and dismissing the Appellants' second amended class action complaint ("SAC") due to lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. On June 26, 2015, Appellants, Vance, G. Fredrick Pierce-Ruhland, and the Joseph K. Blystone Trust, filed a class action complaint on behalf of the more than 100,000 owners of Ohio lands devoted to agricultural production, alleging that the state, by and through Joseph W. Testa, Commissioner of the Ohio Department of Taxation ("ODT"), "illegally collected" more than $1 billion of property taxes from the Appellants by failing to calculate Current Agricultural Use Valuation ("CAUV") taxes in accordance with Ohio law. The complaint further alleges that commencing in 2005 and increasingly during the Kasich Administration, CAUV taxes have doubled, tripled and quadrupled, threatening the future of agriculture, Ohio's largest industry. It alleges a claim for unjust enrichment and seeks injunctive and declaratory relief, as well as the certification of a class action under Civ.R. 23(B)(2) and (3). In an amended class action complaint filed in the Ashtabula County Court of Common Pleas on July 27, 2015, the Appellants identified several other named Plaintiffs, added the Hon. John R. Kasich, Governor of the state of Ohio, as a Defendant and added claims for equitable restitution and for compensatory damages based on certain alleged statutory and constitutional violations. In the SAC filed by the Appellants with leave of court on Nov. 9, 2015, the Appellants identified the state of Ohio as the Defendant, removed the tax commissioner and governor as the Defendants, and deleted the claims for injunctive relief and for compensatory damages based on alleged statutory and constitutional violations. Thus, the remaining claims for relief alleged in the SAC are equitable restitution and declaratory judgment. The SAC seeks an award against the State of Ohio for equitable restitution to the Plaintiffs and members of the proposed class, entitling them to the difference between what they paid in property taxes since 2005 and what they would have paid had the ODT properly and lawfully calculated CAUV. On Feb. 24, 2016, the Ashtabula County Court of Common Pleas granted the state's motion to transfer the action to Franklin County. On Nov. 2, 2016, the trial court denied the state's motion to dismiss the SAC for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. On May 12, 2017, the state filed a motion for summary judgment arguing the Court of Claims of Ohio had exclusive jurisdiction of the Appellants' second amended complaint because any claim for monetary relief against the state asserted therein sounded in legal rather than equitable restitution. In opposing the state's motion, they abandoned their allegation that the state assessed and retained the illegitimate property taxes paid as a result of the tax commissioner's misapplication of CAUV. Rather, the Appellants claimed the respective county auditors and county treasurers acted as agents of the tax commissioner for purposes of assessing and collecting CAUV property taxes. The Appellants' further contended the state was unjustly enriched by the retention of overpaid taxes which directly reduce the state's burden of local school funding. On May 17, 2018, the trial court granted the state's motion for summary judgment as to the Appellants' claim for equitable restitution and "dismissed" their class action complaint without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Appellants timely appealed to the Court from the judgment of the trial court. The Appellant assigns the following as trial court error: (i) the trial court erred by granting summary judgment in favor of the Appellees, and (ii) the trial court erred in holding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the Appellants' claims. Pursuant to the CAUV property tax scheme at issue in the case, Judge Sadler finds that the CAUV property taxes are assessed locally by county auditors, collected locally by the respective county treasurers, and distributed locally. The fact that the CAUV is determined pursuant to the Land Tables drafted by the tax commissioner does not change the local character of the assessment and collection of the tax. Accordingly, consistent with the reasoning employed by the Supreme Court in Ohio Utilities Co. v. Collins, she holdd that local county treasurers are not agents of the tax commissioner or the state treasurer for purposes of the CAUV property tax. She agrees with the trial court that the relief sought by the Appellants in the case is legal in nature rather than equitable. Unlike the Plaintiffs in Santos v. Ohio Bur. of Workers' Comp., the Appellants cannot identify specific funds belonging in good conscience to them that can clearly be traced to specific funds in the possession of the state. The fact that the amount of the alleged overpayment to the county treasurers is calculable does not change the character of the claim. Accordingly, she holds that the trial court did not err when it determined that the Appellants failed to produce evidence to support a claim for equitable restitution against the state and granted the state's motion for summary judgment as to that claim. Furthermore, because the Appellants' claim for monetary relief against the state sought either legal restitution or compensatory damages at law, the trial court did not err when it determined the Court of Claims had exclusive, original jurisdiction of the second amended complaint. Accordingly, she holds that the trial court did not err when it dismissed the Appellants' SAC, without prejudice, due to the lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. For the foregoing reasons, Judge Salder overruled the Appellants' two assignments of error, and accordingly affirmed. A full-text copy of the Court's March 12, 2019 Decision is available at https://is.gd/IG19s9 from Leagle.com. On brief: Cohen Rosenthal & Kramer LLP, and Joshua R. Cohen -- jcohen@crklaw.com; The Roberts Law Firm, and Kevin T. Roberts -- ktr@kevinrobertslaw.com; Murray & Murray Co. L.P.A., Dennis E. Murray, Jr., and William H. Bartle; Mansour Gaven LP, Anthony J. Coyne -- acoyne@mggmlpa.com -- and Edward O. Patton -- epatton@mggmlpa.com -- for appellants. Argued: Kevin T. Roberts. On brief: Brennan, Manna & Diamond, LLC, Robert A. Hager -- rahager@bmdllc.com -- Justin M. Alaburda -- jmalaburda@bmdllc.com -- Daniel J. Rudary -- djrudary@bmdllc.com; Dave Yost, Attorney General, Daniel W. Fausey -- Daniel.Fausey@OhioAttorneyGeneral.gov -- Christine Mesirow -- Christine.Mesirow@OhioAttorneyGeneral.gov -- and Daniel Kim -- Daniel.Kim@OhioAttorneyGeneral.gov -- for appellee. Argued: Daniel J. Rudary. OHIO: Mays Seeks to Certify Class of Arrestees and Detainees ------------------------------------------------------------ The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned TOMMY RAY MAYS II and QUINTON NELSON SR., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JON HUSTED, in his official capacity as Secretary of State, Case No. 2:18-cv-01376-MHW-CMV (S.D. Ohio), move the Court to enter an order certifying this case as a class action pursuant to Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Named Plaintiffs Mays and Nelson seek to serve as Class Representatives and represent a class pursuant to Counts One and Two of Plaintiffs' Complaint, to be defined as: All individuals arrested and held in detention in Ohio on or after close of business for the county election board on the Friday prior to the Election who (1) are eligible to vote in Ohio and are registered to do so, (2) did not vote absentee in person or by mail prior to their detention, (3) were provided neither an absentee ballot nor transportation to a voting center nor access to any other method of voting while held in detention, and (4) will remain in detention through close of polls on Election Day. According to the Plaintiffs, in Ohio, qualified voters who are arrested after the deadline to request an absentee ballot and held in detention through Election Day are not permitted to vote, in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint their counsel as class counsel.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mark P. Gaber, Esq. Danielle M. Lang, Esq. Jonathan M. Diaz, Esq. CAMPAIGN LEGAL CENTER 1411 K St. NW, Suite 1400 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 736-2200 E-mail: mgaber@campaignlegalcenter.org dlang@campaignlegalcenter.org jdiaz@campaignlegalcenter.org - and - Locke E. Bowman, Esq. Alexa Van Brunt, Esq. Laura C. Bishop, Esq. RODERICK AND SOLANGE MACARTHUR JUSTICE CENTER NORTHWESTERN PRITZKER SCHOOL OF LAW 375 East Chicago Avenue Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (312) 503-1271 E-mail: l-bowman@law.northwestern.edu a-vanbrunt@law.northwestern.edu laura.bishop@law.northwestern.edu - and - Naila S. Awan, Esq. DEMOS 80 Broad Street, 4th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 485-6055 E-mail: nawan@demos.org - and - Chiraag Bains, Esq. DEMOS 740 6th Street NW, 2nd Floor Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 864-2746 E-mail: cbains@demos.org The Defendant is represented by: Steven Voigt, Esq. Damian Sikora, Esq. OFFICE OF OHIO ATTORNEY GENERAL 30 E. Broad St., 14th Floor Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 466-2872 Facsimile: (614) 728-7592 E-mail: Steven.Voigt@OhioAttorneyGeneral.gov damian.sikora@ohioattorneygeneral.gov - and - Jack Christopher, Esq. DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE AND LEGAL COUNSEL 180 East Broad Street, 16th Floor Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 466-2655 E-mail: jchristopher@ohiosecretaryofstate.gov OWL INC: Supervisors & Drivers Subclasses Certified in Perez Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Carlos E. Mendoza grants the Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for Issuance of Notice in the lawsuit styled JOSE PEREZ, ALFREDO SANTOS and DOUGLAS RICHEY v. OWL, INC., Case No. 6:17-cv-01092-CEM-GJK (M.D. Fla.). These collective subclasses are conditionally certified: a. Road Supervisors: Drivers employed by Owl, Inc. since June 15, 2014, who have been labeled as "road supervisors" and paid on a salary basis; and b. Hourly Drivers: Drivers employed by Owl, Inc. since June 15, 2014, who have been paid on an hourly basis. Judge Mendoza rules that on or before April 8, 2019, the Plaintiffs shall issue notice to potential plaintiffs by first-class mail and by electronic mail, informing them of their right to opt in to this case in the form of the proposed Notice and Opt-In Consent Form attached to the Plaintiff's Motion. The opt-in period shall be 90 days from the first issuance of the notice. Within 45 days of the first issuance of the notice, the Plaintiffs are authorized to send a reminder to all potential plaintiffs, who received notice but have not yet responded by first-class mail and electronic mail. On or before March 25, 2019, the Defendant shall produce to the Plaintiffs a list of all drivers, who worked more than 40 hours a week without receiving overtime pay since June 15, 2014, including their names, last known mailing addresses, last known telephone numbers, email addresses, work locations, and dates of employment. The Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Leave to File a Reply is denied.[CC] PELL'S POINT: Denies Workers Overtime Pay & Wage Slips, Says Cruz ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dennis Cruz, on behalf of himself, individually, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Pell's Point LLC, Clayton Bushong, individually, and Brenan Hefner, individually, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-01425 (S.D. N.Y., February 14, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages and redress for failure to provide itemized wage statements pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and New York Labor Law, including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. Defendants operate the restaurant, "Cantina Lobos," where Cruz worked as a chef, dishwasher, cleaner, kitchen worker and server. He claims to have worked in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage, spread-of-hours and overtime compensation for the hours that he worked. Defendants also failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of hours worked, and terminated him without a 30-day written notice, says the Plaintiff. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Galen J. Criscione, Esq. CRISCIONE RAVALA, LLP 250 Park Avenue, 7th Floor New York, NY 10177 Tel: (212) 920-7142 Fax: (800) 583-1787 E-mail: GCriscione@lawcrt.com PERMANENT GENERAL: Faces Suit Over Insurance Policy Breach ---------------------------------------------------------- Lindsey Williams-Diggins, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Permanent General Assurance Corporation of Ohio, Defendant, Case No. CV-19-912705 filed in Cuyahoga Court of Common Pleas on March 19, 2019, is a lawsuit on behalf of all persons insured under a Permanent General Ohio private passenger auto ("PPA") insurance policy who suffered a total loss covered claim and were not paid the full sales tax, title fees, and registration fees due under their policies. Plaintiff suffered a total loss on a vehicle insured under Permanent General's PPA policy of insurance. Plaintiff made a covered claim for physical damage. The Policy requires payment on first-party total loss physical damage claims of Actual Cash Value ("ACV"). ACV is defined by the Policy, in relevant part, as the fair market value of the insured vehicle at the time of accident or loss. Permanent General breaches the Policy by refusing to pay ACV sales tax, title fees, and registration fees on covered total loss claims. Permanent General also breached the policy by failing to pay Plaintiff sales tax, title transfer fees ("title fees"), and registration fees due under the policy, says the complaint. Plaintiff is an Ohio resident who entered into a Policy agreement to be insured by Permanent General under policy form PA001-0416-OH. Permanent General is a subsidiary of American Family Insurance, and is one of several American Family entity insurance companies providing PPA insurance coverage in Ohio.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark A. DiCello, Esq. Kenneth P. Abbamo, Esq. Justin J. Hawal, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC 7556 Mentor Avenue Mentor, OH 44060 Phone: 440-953-8888 Email: madicello@dicellolevitt.com kabbamo@dicellole vitt.com ihawal@dicellolevitt.com - and - Adam J. Levitt, Esq. Daniel R. Ferri, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC Ten North Dearborn Street, Eleventh Floor Chicago, IL 60602 Phone: 312-214-7900 Email: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com dferri@dicellolevitt.com - and - Edmund A. Normand, Esq. Jacob L. Phillips, Esq. NORMAND PLLC Post Office Box 1400036 Orlando, FL 32814-0036 Phone: 407-603-6031 Email: iacob.phillips@mormandpllc.com ed@ednormand.com - and - Andrew Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14N.E 1st Ave Ste. 1205 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: 305-479-2299 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com - and - Scott Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, P.A. 19495 Biscayne Blvd. #607 Aventura, FL 33180 Phone: 305-975-3320 Email: Scott@edelsberglaw.com PNGI CHARLES: Fourth Circuit Appeal Filed in Barrick FLSA Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Linda Barrick filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the lawsuit titled Linda Barrick v. PNGI Charles Town Gaming, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-00138-GMG, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia at Martinsburg. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is brought against the Defendants for breach of contract and violations of the West Virginia Payment and Collection Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act. The appellate case is captioned as Linda Barrick v. PNGI Charles Town Gaming, LLC, et al., Case No. 19-1257, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Opening Brief and Appendix are due on April 22, 2019; and -- Response Brief is due on May 22, 2019.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant LINDA BARRICK, on her own behalf and on behalf of all other similarly situated, is represented by: Garry G. Geffert, Esq. 114 South Maple Avenue P. O. Box 2281 Martinsburg, WV 25402 Telephone: (304) 262-4436 E-mail: geffert@wvdsl.net - and - Robert Scott Oswald, Esq. Nicholas Woodfield, Esq. EMPLOYMENT LAW GROUP, PC 888 17th Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-0000 Telephone: (202) 261-2883 E-mail: soswald@employmentlawgroup.com nwoodfield@employmentlawgroup.com Defendants-Appellees PNGI CHARLES TOWN GAMING, L.L.C., d/b/a Hollywood Casino at Charles Town Races, and PENN NATIONAL GAMING, INCORPORATED, are represented by: Kimberly Jeanne Gost, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON PC 1601 Cherry Street Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (267) 402-3007 E-mail: kgost@littler.com - and - Richard M. Wallace, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON PC Chase Tower 707 Virginia Street East Charleston, WV 25301 Telephone: (304) 599-4628 E-mail: rwallace@littler.com PRIME WATERPROOFING: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Amador Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- HUGO AMADOR, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PRIME WATERPROOFING & ROOFING, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 19STCV08032 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., March 8, 2019), arises from the Defendants' alleged California Labor Code violations and unfair business practices, including failure to pay minimum and straight time wages, and failure to pay overtime wages. Prime Waterproofing & Roofing, Inc. is a California corporation with its principal place of business in Los Angeles, California. The Plaintiff does not currently know the true names or capacities of the Doe Defendants. Prime Waterproofing is a full service Commercial and Industrial Roofing and Waterproofing Contractor serving the Southwest region of the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kane Moon, Esq. Allen Feghali, Esq. MOON & YANG, APC 1055 W. Seventh St., Suite 1880 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 232-3128 Facsimile: (213) 232-3125 E-mail: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com allen.feghali@moonyanglaw.com PRUCO LIFE: Class Certification Bid in Behfarin Pending ------------------------------------------------------- Pruco Life Insurance Company said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 7, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the motion for class certification filed in the putative class action lawsuit entitled, Richard Behfarin v. Pruco Life Insurance Company, is pending. In July 2017, a putative class action complaint entitled Richard Behfarin v. Pruco Life Insurance Company was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, alleging that the Company imposes charges on owners of universal life policies to cure defaults and/or reinstate lapses, that are inconsistent with the applicable universal life policy. The complaint includes claims for breach of contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and violation of California law, and seeks unspecified damages along with declaratory and injunctive relief. In September 2017, the Company filed its answer to the complaint. In September 2018, plaintiff filed a motion for class certification. Pruco Life Insurance Company, together with its subsidiaries, provides various individual life insurance and annuity products in the United States. It offers term life insurance, variable life insurance, and universal life insurance, as well as variable annuities. The company was founded in 1971 and is based in Newark, New Jersey. Pruco Life Insurance Company is a subsidiary of The Prudential Insurance Company of America. PUBLISHERS CLEARING: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Wright Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, EARL WRIGHT, RAMONA HOLDEN, ETTA WILLIAMS, MICHAEL HAMILTON, JOSEPH EKO, LINDA PHILLIPS, ELAINE WILHELM, ANTHONY GILLESPIE, MARK CARLISLE, VERNITA JESSIE, CHERYL RIFE, SANDY SAMENS, RUTHIE ORTIZ SOUDJIAN, Plaintiffs, v. PUBLISHERS CLEARING HOUSE, INCORPORATED and PUBLISHERS CLEARING HOUSE, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-02373 (ADS)(AYS)(E.D. N.Y.), Judge Arthur D. Spatt of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York (i) granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss, and (ii) denied as moot the Defendants' motions to strike and to compel arbitration and stay the present action. On April 23, 2018, the named Plaintiffs brought the putative class action against the Defendants, alleging that the Defendants engaged in unlawful, unfair and deceptive marketing practices in violation of the federal Deceptive Mail Prevention and Enforcement Act ("DMPEA"), the federal Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act ("CAN SPAM"), and New York General Business Law ("GBL") Sections 349 and 369e. The Defendants operate the nationally recognized sweepstakes and marketing brand Publisher's Clearing House ("PCH"). PCH advertises sweepstakes over national television networks, direct mail, and internet and email marketing campaigns. The Plaintiffs are various residents of states outside of New York who claim that they purchased goods based on the Defendants' misrepresentations that doing so would increase their chances of winning a sweepstakes, prize, or drawing. Presently before the Court is a motion by the Defendants, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) to dismiss the Complaint, pursuant to Rule 12(f), to strike the class allegations, and in the alternative, to compel arbitration and stay the present action. Judge Spatt finds that the Plaintiffs lack standing to bring a cause of action under CAN SPAM. CAN SPAM makes it unlawful for any person to initiate a transmission, to a protected computer, of a commercial electronic mail message, or a transactional or relationship message, that contains, or is accompanied by, header information that is materially false or materially misleading. However, the statute contains no provisions expressly creating a private right of action for consumers aggrieved by such violations. Citing Alexander v. Sandoval, the Plaintiffs ask the Court to infer one based on a congressional finding that spam may be used to perpetrate fraudulent schemes. Nothing about this finding supports the inference that Congress intended to create a private remedy. Indeed, it appears that Congress contemplated that the Federal Trade Commission and related regulatory agencies would carry out the enforcement of the statute. Therefore, the Judge granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss with respect to the Plaintiffs' CAN SPAM claims. He also granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss with respect to the Plaintiffs' DMPEA claims. He finds that the DMPEA prescribes a set of requirements for mailed documents that constitute "entry materials for a sweepstakes." However, the DMPEA provides private rights of action only if an individual receives one or more mailings after he or she has elected to be excluded from the list of names and addresses used by a promoter of a sweepstake. As the Plaintiffs do not allege that they elected to be excluded in accordance with 38 U.S.C. Section 3017(d)(a), they lack standing to bring a cause of action under the DMPEA. Next, the Judge granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss with respect to the Plaintiffs' Section 369e claims. He finds that implying a private right of action in the case would contradict the intentions of the New York legislature, because Section 369e makes no reference to a private remedy and instead explicitly assigns enforcement of the statute to the state attorney general. Finally, the Judge finds that the Complaint lacks the specific factual allegations necessary for the Plaintiffs to possess standing or state a claim under Section 349. He finds that none of the Plaintiffs are New York residents. They assert that their claims fall within Section 349 because a substantial amount of the acts and omissions complained of occurred in the District (New York). However, they support this conclusory assertion with no specific facts showing that any part of the transactions occurred in New York. As a result, the Complaint fails to articulate a sufficient connection to New York even under the more lenient Cruz standard. The Judge will provide the Plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint addressing the problems identified by the Court. He also finds that the Complaint generally asserts that the Defendants engaged in materially misleading behavior without setting forth any facts tying that behavior to the Plaintiffs' specific claims. It fails to identify the specific advertisements seen by each Plaintiff and provides no explanation why those advertisement created a mistaken belief that purchasing a product would increase that Plaintiff's chance of winning. Without this information, the Plaintiffs cannot state a Section 349 claim. For the foregoing reasons, Judge Spatt granted the Defendants motion to dismiss as follows. He dismissed the Plaintiffs' CAN SPAM, DMPEA, and Section 369e claims with prejudice. He dismissed the Plaintiffs' Section 349 claim without prejudice. Because the Plaintiffs have no surviving claims, the Judge denied the Defendants' motions to strike and compel as moot. The Plaintiffs are directed to file an amended complaint consistent with the Opinion no later than 30 days from the issuance of the Opinion. A full-text copy of the Court's March 12, 2019 Memorandum Decision and Order is available at https://is.gd/5wyCyc from Leagle.com. Earl Wright, Ramona Holden, Etta Williams, Michael Hamilton, Joseph Eko, Linda Phillips, Elaine Wilhelm, Anthony Gillespie, Mark Carlisle, Vernita Jessie, Cheryl Rife, Sandy Samens & Ruthie Ortiz Soudjian, Plaintiffs, represented by Andrew Schwaba -- ADMIN@VERDICTNC.COM -- Schwaba Law Firm, PLLC, pro hac vice & John S. Selinger, Zeccola & Selinger, LLC. Publishers Clearing House, Incorporated & Publishers Clearing House, LLC, Defendants, represented by Erica Adina Barrow -- ebarrow@bakerlaw.com -- Baker Hostetler LLP, John Siegal -- jsiegal@bakerlaw.com -- Baker & Hostetler LLP & Paul Karlsgodt -- pkarlsgodt@bakerlaw.com -- Baker & Hostetler LLP, pro hac vice. REGIS CORPORATION: Boyack Appeals C.D. Calif. Ruling to 9th Cir. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Lauren Boyack and Jennifer Leaf filed an appeal from a Court ruling in their lawsuit styled Lauren Boyack, et al. v. Regis Corporation, et al., Case No. 8:18-cv-01233-AG-DFM, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Santa Ana. The nature of suit is stated as other labor litigation. The appellate case is captioned as Lauren Boyack, et al. v. Regis Corporation, et al., Case No. 19-55279, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Transcript must be ordered by April 10, 2019; -- Transcript is due on May 10, 2019; -- Appellants Lauren Boyack and Jennifer Leaf's opening brief is due on June 19, 2019; -- Appellees RG Salon Management, LLC, Regis Corp. and Regis Corporation's answering brief is due on July 19, 2019; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants LAUREN BOYACK and JENNIFER LEAF, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Jessica L. Campbell, Esq. Ali S. Carlsen, Esq. Kashif Haque, Esq. Samuel Wong, Esq. AEGIS LAW FIRM PC 9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92618 Telephone: (949) 379-6250 E-mail: jcampbell@aegislawfirm.com acarlsen@aegislawfirm.com khaque@aegislawfirm.com swong@aegislawfirm.com Defendants-Appellees REGIS CORPORATION, REGIS CORP. and RG SALON MANAGEMENT, LLC, erroneously sued as Salon Management Corporation, are represented by: Catherine M. Dacre, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 560 Mission Street San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 397-2823 E-mail: cdacre@seyfarth.com - and - Julie G. Yap, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 400 Capitol Mall Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: (916) 498-7025 E-mail: jyap@seyfarth.com RITE AID CORP: Nucci Sues Over Unpaid Reimbursements ---------------------------------------------------- Kristal Nucci, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Rite Aid Corporation, Thrifty Payless, Inc. and Does 1-10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 5:19-cv-01434 (N.D. Cal., March 19, 2019) is a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, against the Defendants' unlawful practices. The Defendants have required, by company-wide policy, that their store employees, including Plaintiffs, wear only "royal" blue shirts and khaki pants while working. The Defendants do not reimburse employees for the expense of obtaining these required clothing items. These clothing items are of a "distinctive design or color" and are not generally usable in the occupation, and therefore constitute a uniform under the Wage Order. By failing to pay for these uniforms, the Defendants violate this provision of the wage order, notes the complaint. Plaintiffs have been injured by Defendants' failure to reimburse necessary business expenditures, and failure to pay for required work uniforms, as required by California law, says the complaint. Plaintiff Nucci has been employed by Rite Aid since May of 2015, and has worked as a non-exempt retail employee in Rite Aid stores in Capitola and Aptos, California. Rite Aid Corporation is a Delaware Corporation, who operates retail stores throughout the United States, including approximately 550 stores in California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Randall B. Aiman-Smith, Esq. Reed W.L. Marcy, Esq. Hallie Von Rock, Esq. Carey A. James, Esq. Brent A. Robinson, Esq. 7677 Oakport St. Suite 1150 Oakland, CA 94621 Phone: 510.817.2711 Fax: 510.562.6830 Email: ras@asmlawyers.com rwlm@asmlawyers.com hvr@asmlawyers.com caj@asmlawyers.com bar@asmlawyers.com RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CA: Rodriguez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Salvador Rodriguez, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs, v. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, Defendant, Case No. 5:19-cv-00480 (C.D. Cal., March 18, 2019) is action pursuant to the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FSLA") to recover from the Defendant's unpaid overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, costs of suit, and reasonable attorney's fees. The Defendant impermissibly excluded certain remunerations or undervalued the "regular rate" of pay, upon which all forms of Plaintiff's overtime compensation is based. The Defendant's practice of computing Plaintiff's overtime has impermissibly reduced the amount being paid to Plaintiff by failing to compute all statutorily required amounts into Plaintiff's "regular rate" of pay, says the complaint. Plaintiff Salvador Rodriguez is currently employed by the Defendant as a Correctional Officer with the Riverside County Probation Department. Defendant is a political subdivision of the State of California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael P. Stone, Esq. Muna Busailah, Esq. Robert Rabe, Esq. STONE BUSAILAH, LLP 1055 E. Colorado Boulevard, Suite 320 Pasadena, CA 91106 Phone: (626) 683-5600 Facsimile: (626) 683-5656 Email: d.danial@police-defense.com RMJV LP: Amador Suit Remanded to California State Court ------------------------------------------------------- Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California remanded the case, AMADOR, individually and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. RMJV, LP, an unknown business entity d/b/a Fresh Creative Foods, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-02351-BTM (MSB) (S.D. Cal.), to the San Diego County Superior Court. On Sept. 7, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a putative wage and hour class action lawsuit against the Defendant, defining the class as all current and former California-based hourly-paid and non-exempt employees (either directly or through a staffing agency or labor contractor) employed by the Defendant during the period from four years preceding the filing of the Complaint to final judgment. The Complaint alleges: (1) unpaid overtime in violation of California Labor Code Sections 510, 1198; (2) unpaid meal period premiums in violation of California Labor Code Sections 226.7, 512(a); (3) unpaid rest period premiums in violation of California Labor Code 226.7; (4) unpaid minimum wages in violation of California Labor Code Sections 1194, 1197; (5) final wages not timely paid in violation of California Labor Code Sections 201, 202; (6) non-compliant wage statements in violation of California Labor Code Sections 201, 202; and (7) unlawful business practices in violation of California Business & Professions Code Section 172,00, et seq. The Defendant removed the action to federal court pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"). The Plaintiff moved to remand the controversy to state court, arguing that the Defendant failed to proffer sufficient evidence to satisfy CAFA's amount in controversy requirement. On Feb. 22, 2019, the Defendant submitted a Notice of Non-Opposition to the Plaintiff's Motion to Remand to State Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1447. Judge Mozkowitz finds that the Defendants estimate that the amount-of-controversy ranges from $6,713,585 to $7,438,275. However, after Plaintiff moved to remand, Defendant supplied no other summary-judgment-like evidence to support the figures or calculations in its Notice of Removal, which largely rely on assumptions. The Judge finds that these calculations, among others, are premised upon speculations and unverified "average" figures lacking in any factual underpinnings. Such guesswork does not constitute summary-judgment-like evidence or meet the preponderance of the evidence standard. In sum, the dearth of summary-judgment-like evidence and abundance of speculation and assumptions, combined with the Defendant's notice of non-opposition, leads him to conclude that removal jurisdiction has not been established and remand is appropriate. Judge Mozkowitz remanded the matter to the San Diego County Superior Court. He denied the Plaintiff's Motion to Strike and the Joint Motion to Continue Hearing as moot. A full-text copy of the Court's March 13, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/irXotp from Leagle.com. Alejandro Amador, individually and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel J. Park -- dpark@justicelawcorp.com -- Justice Law Corporation & Douglas Han -- dhan@justicelawcorp.com -- Justice Law Corporation. RMJV, LP, an unknown business entity, Defendant, represented by Aaron Nathan Colby -- aaroncolby@dwt.com -- Davis Wright Tremain LLP, Evelyn F. Wang -- evelynwang@dwt.com -- Davis Wright Tremaine LLP & Paul Rodriguez -- paulrodriguez@dwt.com -- Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP. ROKU INC: Andrews Says Website Not Blind-friendly ------------------------------------------------- Victor Andrews, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Roku, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-00863, (E.D. N.Y., January 13, 2019), seeks declaratory and injunctive relief and compensatory damages under the Americans with Disabilities Act, New York State Human Rights Law and the New York City Human Rights Law. Defendant owns and operates a website that provides access to a wide array of goods and services offered to the public, such as novelty fan merchandise and clothing available for purchase where Andrews attempted to browse services and facilities, events and promotions. Plaintiff is legally blind and claims that the website is not accessible to the blind. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 30 East 39th Street, Second Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 465-1188 Fax: (212) 465-1181 S & D CARWASH: Faces Crum Labor Suit in Sacramento -------------------------------------------------- An employment-related class action lawsuit has been filed against S & D Carwash Management LLC. The case is captioned as TYLER CRUM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. S & D CARWASH MANAGEMENT LLC; and DOES 1-50, Defendants, Case No. 34-2019-00251338-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., Feb. 26, 2019). S & D Carwash Management LLC provides vehicle and truck washing, cleaning and detailing services; installation, repair and replacement of windshields. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq. BLUMENTHAL NORDREHAUG BHOWMIK DE BLOUW LLP 2255 Calle Clara La Jolla, CA 92037 Telephone: (858) 551-1223 Facsimile: (858) 551-1232 S & F SUPPLIES: Mendoza Seeks Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Alberto L. Mendoza, individually and on behalf all other employees similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. S & F Supplies, Inc., Joseph Sandel, and Yoely Schounfle, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01538 (E.D. N.Y., March 19, 2019) is an action brought by Plaintiff on his own behalf and on behalf of similarly situated employees, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law, arising from Defendants' various willful and unlawful employment policies, patterns and/or practices. The Defendants have willfully and intentionally committed widespread violations of the FLSA and NYLL by engaging in a pattern and practice of failing to pay their employees, including Plaintiff, minimum wages and overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 each workweek, says the complaint. Plaintiff Alberto L. Mendoza is a resident of Queens and was employed as a driver by Defendant from on or about January 2009 to October 2018. S & F Supplies, Inc., is a domestic business corporation organization and existing under the laws of the State of New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lorena P. Duarte, Esq. HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 136-20 38th Ave., Suite #10G Flushing, NY 11354 Phone: (718) 353-8588 Dir: (718) 353-8522 Fax: (718) 353-6288 Email: lduarte@hanglaw.com SECURITAS SECURITY: Merritt Alleges Labor Code Violations --------------------------------------------------------- An employee suit has been filed against Securitas Security Services USA, Inc. The case is captioned Derek Merritt, an individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff vs. Securitas Security Services USA, Inc., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1-50, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV08197 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles County, March 11, 2019). The plaintiff seeks damages, civil penalties, injunctive relief and restitution over Defendant's violations of California Labor Code and California Business and Professions Code. Securitas Security Services USA, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that maintains its locations and transacts business in Los Angeles County. The company provides security protection services and security solutions to clients. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin Mahoney, Esq. Edward Kim, Esq. MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC 249 E. Ocean Blvd., Ste. 814 Long Beach, CA 90802 Telephone: (562) 590-5550 Facsimile: (562) 590-8400 E-mail: kmahoney@mahoney-law.net ekim@mahoney-law.net SENTRY CENTERS: Fischler Files ADA Class Action in NY ----------------------------------------------------- Sentry Centers Holdings LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Brian Fischler, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Sentry Centers Holdings LLC doing business as: Convene, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02465 (S.D. N.Y., March 19, 2019). Sentry Centers Holdings LLC was founded in 2013. The company's line of business includes providing library services, including the circulation of books and other materials for reading, study, and reference.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq. Lipsky Lowe LLP 630 Third Avenue Fifth Floor New York, NY 10017 Tel: (212) 392-4772 Fax: (212) 444-1030 Email: doug@lipskylowe.com SEQUENOM INC: Court Grants Bid to Stay Stockholder Suit ------------------------------------------------------- In the case, In re SEQUENOM, INC. STOCKHOLDER LITIGATION. This Document Relates To: ALL ACTIONS, Lead Case No. 16-cv-02054-JAH-BLM (S.D. Cal.), Judge John A. Houston of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California granted the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Stay. In the shareholder class action lawsuit, the First Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint ("FAC") alleges that Sequenom and eight of its former board members violated sections 14(e) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing a false and misleading recommendation statement advising Sequenom shareholders to tender their shares pursuant to a tender offer. The Plaintiffs further allege that the Defendants offered flawed and unreliable financial projections as the most accurate view of the company's prospects. Defendant Sequenom and Defendants Kenneth F. Buechler, Myla Lai-Goldman, Richard A. Lerner, Ronald M. Lindsay, Catherine J. Mackey, O'Boyle, David Pendarvis, Charles P. Slacik and Dirk van den Boom, filed a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, challenging the Plaintiffs' complaint for failure to adequately plead: (1) falsity, (2) scienter, and (3) loss causation. Since the filing of the Defendants' motion to dismiss, the parties have filed multiple notices of controlling, persuasive, and not so persuasive authority from various courts. Despite contrary holdings in five other circuits, the Ninth Circuit held in Varjabedian that claims under Section 14(e) of the Exchange Act do not require a showing of scienter; only negligence. The grant of certiorari prompted the Defendants to file a motion to stay pending the Supreme Court decision. The Defendants' motion to dismiss and motion to stay are now before the Court. Also pending are the Defendant's Requests for Consideration of Documents and Judicial Notice in support of its pending motion to dismiss and the Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike. The Defendants argue that the Court's determination of the scienter issue raised in the motion to dismiss will be directly impacted by the Supreme Court's decision in Varjabedian. They further contend that a stay in the matter would promote judicial economy, simplify the issues in the case, and avoid the unnecessary risk of the Court applying a legal standard that may change if the Ninth Circuit's decision is reversed. In response, the Plaintiffs argue that the Defendants have not made a showing of hardship or inequity in being required to go forward. They Plaintiffs have previously argued (in opposition to the Defendants' motion to dismiss) that their Complaint meets the higher "scienter" standard. They maintain that since the scienter issue has been fully briefed, a reversal of Varjabedian by the Supreme Court would not change the parties' positions. In consideration of the competing interests and in light of the Supreme Court's grant of certiorari, Judge Houston finds that a stay is warranted. The Supreme Court's decision will determine the appropriate pleading standard for a disputed element of the Plaintiff's Section 14(e) claim. It would be inconsistent with judicial principles of efficacy if litigation continued in the action, requiring additional briefing on, and adjudication of, issues using a standard of law currently in flux. The Plaintiffs do not dispute that the Supreme Court's decision will have a direct impact on the issues before the Court, nor do they identify any harm which may result from the granting of a stay. On the contrary, if the stay is not granted, both parties would be prejudiced if the decision reached by the Supreme Court required additional expense and effort in the case by virtue of the case proceeding forward without awaiting its decision. The Supreme Court has set oral argument in Emulex v. Varjabedian for April 15, 2019. Therefore, the issue presented will likely be determined within in a reasonable time. Accordingly, the Judge (i) deferred ruling on the Defendants' motion to dismiss and request for judicial notice pending resolution of the Varjabedian case, and (ii) granted the Defendants' motion to stay the entire action. A full-text copy of the Court's March 12, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/WK0erz from Leagle.com. Todd Malkoff, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Adam C. McCall -- amccall@zlk.com -- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP. Shikha Gupta, Plaintiff, represented by Barbara A. Rohr -- brohr@faruqilaw.com -- Faruqi & Faruqi LLP, James M. Wilson, Jr. -- jwilson@faruqilaw.com -- Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, pro hac vice & Ronald Marron, Law Office of Ronald Marron. Judith Fruchter, on Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Joel E. Elkins, WeissLaw LLP. Joseph Cusumano, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Avi N. Wagner -- avi@thewagnerfirm.com -- The Wagner Firm. James Reilly, Plaintiff, represented by Eun Jin Lee, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, Kristen L. O'Connor, Johnson Fistel, LLP, Danielle Suzanne Myers, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, David A. Knotts, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, David T. Wissbroecker, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Frank J. Johnson, Jr., Johnson Fistel, LLP & Michael J. Dowd, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP. Sequenom, Inc., Defendant, represented by David W. Skaar -- david.skaar@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells US LLP, Michael Frederick Gosling, Jones Day, Sarah M. Lightdale -- slightdale@cooley.com -- COOLEY LLP, pro hac vice & Scott R. Haiber -- scott.haiber@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells US LLP, pro hac vice. Kenneth F. Buechler, PH.D., Myla Lai-Goldman, M.D., Richard A. Lerner, M.D., Ronald M. Lindsay, PH.D., David Pendarvis, Catherine J. Mackey, PH.D., Charles P. Slacik & Dirk Van Den Boom, PH.D., Defendants, represented by Koji F. Fukumura, Cooley, LLP, Nathaniel Robert Cooper, Cooley LLP, Peter M. Adams, Cooley LLP & Sarah M. Lightdale, COOLEY LLP, pro hac vice. SINCERE CLIENT CARE: Blackshire Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay ------------------------------------------------------------- Sharon Blackshire, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Sincere Client Care Services, LLC and Andrea Baxter, individually, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-00193 (W.D. La., February 15, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid overtime as well as other damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendants jointly operate a home health services business in Louisiana where Blackshire worked for Sincere as a caregiver. She claims to have worked in excess of 40 hours without overtime wages for overtime worked. Plaintiff is represented by: Shane McGuire THE MCGUIRE FIRM, PC 102 N. College St., Suite 1030 Tyler, TX 75702 Phone: 903-630-7154 Fax: 903-630-7173 Email: shane@mcguirefirm.com - and - Sarah Giglio, Esq. GILMER & GIGLIO, LLC 3541 Youree Drive Shreveport, LA 71105 Tel: (318) 459-9111 Fax: (318) 602-4716 Email: sarah@gilmergiglio.com SIXTYONE READE: Does not Pay Minimum, Overtime Wages, Campos Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Fermin Rendon Campos, Gregorio Garcia Maurelio, and Octaviano Ramos De la Rosa Vivaldo, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Sixtyone Reade Pizza Inc. (a.k.a. 61 Reade Pizza Inc.) (d/b/a Tre Sorelle), Antonia Pulice Pati, Joseph Pati, Billy Doe, and Jacqueline Doe, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02414 (S.D. N.Y., March 18, 2019) seeks unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"), and for violations of the N.Y. Labor Law ("NYLL"), and the "spread of hours" and overtime wage orders of the New York Commissioner of Labor, plus applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. The Defendants have maintained a policy and practice of requiring Plaintiffs 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, notes the complaint. In addition, Defendants have maintained a policy and practice of unlawfully appropriating Plaintiffs' and other tipped employees' tips and have made unlawful deductions from these Plaintiffs' and other tipped employees' wages, says the complaint. Plaintiffs are both current and former employees of Defendants. Defendants own, operate, or control an Italian restaurant, located at 61 Reade Street, New York, New York 10007 under the name "Tre Sorelle".[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Phone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-162 SKYTEL SYSTEMS: Padilla Sues over Unwanted Telephone Calls ---------------------------------------------------------- RONALD PADILLA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. SKYTEL SYSTEMS, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-at-00195 Document (E.D. Cal. March 15, 2019), seeks stop Defendant's practice of placing calls using an automatic telephone dialing system to the cellular telephones of consumers nationwide without their prior express written consent; enjoin Defendant from continuing to place calls using an ATDS to consumers who did not provide their prior express written consent to receive them; and obtain redress for all persons injured by its conduct, under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant called Mr. Padilla from telephone number (800) 205-4259 using an autodialer without his prior express written consent on at least one occasion, including a call on January 7, 2019. When Plaintiff answered Defendant's call, he heard a momentary pause. This pause is a hallmark of a predictive dialer. According to the Federal Communications Commission and experts on telecommunications equipment, predictive dialers have the inherent present capacity to both store and dial a list of telephone numbers without human intervention, and generate random or sequential telephone numbers and to then dial those numbers, the lawsuit says. Skytel Systems, LLC provides enterprise-grade cloud based VoIP communication system and related support solutions.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. Scott A. Bursor, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com scott@bursor.com SOLED ENERGY: Krum et al Seek Wages & OT Pay for Material Handlers ------------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit against SOLED Energy, Inc., alleges that Defendant failed to pay wages and overtime, failed to pay prevailing wages on public works, failed to pay wages of terminated or resigned employees, and failed to provide or otherwise compensate for missed meal and rest breaks under the California Labor Code. The Plaintiffs were employed on public works projects in California, and bring the action against their former employer, SOLED. The Plaintiffs seek damages and equitable relieif resulting from systemic noncompliance with California's wage and hour laws. The Plaintiffs worked for SOLED as non-exempt employees performing the work of inside Wireman and Material Handlers. The work performed as part of the Proposition 39 projects included the replacement of fluorescent ballast fixtures with LED fixtures. The case is captioned as MICHAEL KRUM, CUDBERTO A VILA, ORVILLE LEE TARTER, KHOA HUA, RONN MADRIGAL, ADRIANO ARROYO, GARFIELD RALPH, BRENT HAUG, FRANCISCO HOLGUIN, THOMAS HOLGUIN, JOSHUA RICHARDS, DANIEL SBRAGIA-EDELL, RON STEVENS, AARON TORRES, ANTHONY TORRES, ANDREW MIRAMONTES, EDWIN BLANCO, THOMAS JENSEN, TRINIDAD MACIAS, ORLANDO JAL V ARADO and JAMES WINCHESTER, each as an Individual, and on behalf of the general public for all those similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. SOLED ENERGY, INC., a California corporation; ACCREDITED SURETY AND CASUALTY COMPANY, INC. a Florida Corporation; HUDSON INSURANCE COMP ANY a Delaware Corporation and DOES 1 through 200, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 19CV344656 (Cal. Super., March 15, 2019).[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs: Richard E. Donahoo, Esq. Sarah L. Kokonas, Esq. Judith L. Camilleri, Esq. William E. Donahoo, Esq. DONAHOO & ASSOCIATES, PC 440 W. First Street, Suite 101 Tustin, CA 92780 Telephone (714) 953-1010 Facsimile (714) 953-1777 E-mail: rdonahoo@donahoo.com skokonas@donahoo.com jcamilleri@donahoo.com wdonahoo@donahoo.com SPARK THERAPEUTICS: Newman Files Securities Class Action in Del. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Arthur Newman, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Spark Therapeutics, Inc., Steven Altschuler, M.D., Lars Ekman, M.D., PH.D., Katherine High, M.D., Jeffrey D. Marazzo, Anand Mehra, M.D., Vincent Milano, Robert Perez, Elliot Sigal, M.D., PH.D., and Lota Zoth, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00528-UNA (D. Del., March 18, 2019) is an action on behalf of Plaintiff and the public stockholders of Spark Therapeutics, Inc. against the Company and Spark's Board of Directors for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. On February 25, 2019, the Company announced that it had entered into an agreement and plan of merger with Roche, by which Roche will acquire all of the outstanding shares of Spark common stock through an all-cash tender offer at a purchase price of $114.50 per share. The February 25 Press Release disclosed that the Proposed Transaction would be accomplished through a tender offer rather than a shareholder vote. The Tender Offer commenced on March 7, 2019, when the Company filed a Recommendation Statement on Schedule 14D-9 with the SEC, recommending that the Company's stockholders tender their shares for the Tender Offer price. The Tender Offer is set to expire on April 3, 2019. Plaintiff alleges that the 14D-9 is materially false and/or misleading because, inter alia, it fails to disclose certain material projected internal financial information about the Company, relied on by the Individual Defendants to recommend the Tender Offer and certain inputs and certain valuation methodologies employed by the Company's financial advisor Centerview Partners LLC in their financial analysis that support the fairness opinions provided by Centerview. These omissions render the projected financial disclosures and the summary of the fairness opinion in the 14D-9 incomplete and/or misleading, says the complaint. Plaintiff is, and has been at all relevant times, the owner of shares of Spark common stock. Defendant Spark is a Delaware corporation with its principal executive offices located at 3737 Market Street, Suite 1300, Philadelphia, PA 19104.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nadeem Faruqi, Esq. James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 685 Third Ave., 26th Fl. New York, NY 10017 Phone: (212) 983-9330 Email: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com jwilson@faruqilaw.com - and - Michael Van Gorder, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 3828 Kennett Pike, Suite 201 Wilmington, DE 19807 Phone: (302) 482-3182 Email: mvangorder@faruqilaw.com SPECTRUM BRANDS: Deceives Public Shareholders, Wagner Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- EARL S. WAGNER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. SPECTRUM BRANDS LEGACY, INC. f/k/a SPECTRUM BRANDS HOLDINGS, INC., ANDREAS R. ROUVE and DOUGLAS L. MARTIN, Case No. 3:19-cv-00178 (W.D. Wisc., March 7, 2019), accuses the Defendants of violating the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by deceiving the investing public regarding Spectrum's business, operations, management and the intrinsic value of its securities. Specifically, the Plaintiff contends, the Defendants failed to disclose that: (1) Spectrum was facing operational issues with the development of its Ohio and Kansas facilities; (2) these issues were negatively impacting production, shipping levels and sales; and (3) as a result, the Company's financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. Spectrum is a Delaware corporation with its principal executive offices located in Middleton, Wisconsin. The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company. Spectrum is a diversified global branded consumer products company manufacturing, marketing and distributing a variety of products in approximately 160 countries. Spectrum operates different segments, including the Hardware & Home Improvement segment ("HHI") and the Global Auto Care segment ("GAC"). The HHI includes products related to security (such as locksets, knobs, levers, deadbolts, etc.), plumbing (such as kitchen and bath faucets) and hardware (such as hinges, metal shapes, security hardware, door hardware, etc.). The GAC includes products related to appearance (such as wipes, tire and wheel care products, glass cleaner, etc.), performance (such as fuel and oil additives, functional fluids and other automotive appearance products) and A/C recharge (such as air conditioner sealant and cleaner products).[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael H. Schaalman, Esq. Kenneth J. Baker, Esq. HALLING & CAYO, S.C. 320 E. Buffalo Street, Suite 700 Milwaukee, WI 53202 Telephone: (414) 271-3400 E-mail: mhs@hallingcayo.com kjb@hallingcayo.com - and - Donald J. Enright, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 1101 30th St., NW, Suite 115 Washington, DC 20007 Telephone: (202) 524-4292 Facsimile: (202) 333-2121 E-mail: denright@zlk.com - and - Shannon L. Hopkins, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 1111 Summer Street, Suite 403 Stamford, CT 06905 Telephone: (203) 992-4523 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 E-mail: shopkins@zlk.com STARLING CHEVROLET: Troup Sues over Telemarketing Text Messages --------------------------------------------------------------- JESSICA TROUP, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. STARLING CHEVROLET MP, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company, the Defendant, Case No. 6:19-cv-00501-CEM-GJK (M.D. Fla., March 14, 2019), seeks redress for Defendant's violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant is an automotive dealership that sells vehicles for individuals and businesses. To promote its services, Defendant engages in unsolicited marketing, harming thousands of consumers in the process. The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's illegal conduct, which has resulted in the invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of thousands of individuals. Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of herself and members of the class, and any other available legal or equitable remedies. On or about September 17, 2018, the Defendant sent the following telemarketing text messages to Plaintiff's cellular telephone number ending in 2707. The Defendant's text messages were transmitted to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone, and within the time frame relevant to this action. The Defendant's text messages constitute telemarketing because they encouraged the future purchase or investment in property, goods, or services, i.e., selling Plaintiff an automobile. The Plaintiff received the subject texts within this judicial district and, therefore, Defendant's violation of the TCPA occurred within this district. At no point in time did Plaintiff provide Defendant with her express written consent to be contacted using an ATDS, the lawsuit states.[BN] Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Class: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 1205 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: 305-479-2299 E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com - and - Scott Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, PA E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com 19495 Biscayne Blvd. No. 607 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: 305 975-3320 STATE FARM: Appeals Opinion and Order in Hicks Suit to 6th Cir. --------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant State Farm Fire & Casualty Company filed an appeal from the District Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order issued on February 21, 2019, in the lawsuit entitled SUSAN HICKS, et al. v. STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY CO., Case No. 0:14-cv-00053, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky at Ashland. The appellate case is captioned as In re: State Farm Fire & Casualty Company, Case No. 19-503, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Jan. 25, 2019, State Farm filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit. That appellate case is styled as In re: State Farm Fire & Casualty Company, Case No. 19-501. The action was filed by the Plaintiffs challenging State Farm's methodology in calculating the "actual cash value" of the damaged portion of an insured structure upon the occurrence of loss.[BN] Defendant-Petitioner STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY is represented by: Joseph A. Cancila, Jr., Esq. Heidi Dalenberg, Esq. Jacob Kahn, Esq. RILEY, SAFER, HOLMES & CANCILA LLP 70 W. Madison Street, Suite 2900 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 471-8450 E-mail: jcancila@rshc-law.com hdalenberg@rshc-law.com jkahn@rshc-law.com - and - David T. Klapheke, Esq. BOEHL, STOPHER & GRAVES LLP 400 W. Market Street, Suite 2300 Louisville, KY 40202 Telephone: (502) 589-5980 Facsimile: (502) 561-9400 E-mail: dklapheke@bsg-law.com Plaintiffs-Respondents SUSAN HICKS, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and DON WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Philip Gray Fairbanks, Esq. Austin M. Mehr, Esq. Erik D. Peterson, Esq. MEHR, FAIRBANKS & PETERSON TRIAL LAWYERS, PLLC 201 W. Short Street, Suite 800 Lexington, KY 40507 Telephone: (859) 225-3731 E-mail: pgf@austinmehr.com amehr@austinmehr.com edp@austinmehr.com SUBARU OF AMERICA: Court Denies Bid to Stay Discovery in Udeen Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, CHAD UDEEN and MARY JANE JEFFERY, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SUBARU OF AMERICA, INC., et al., Defendants, Civil No. 18-17334 (RBK/JS) (D. N.J.), Magistrate Judge Joel Schneider of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, Camden Vicinage, denied the Defendants' request for a complete stay of discovery while its Motion to Dismiss remains to be decided. The Magistrate addresses the Defendants' request that all discovery be stayed until their Motion to Dismiss filed on Feb. 28, 2019 is decided. The Plaintiffs oppose the Defendants' request. The Court received the parties' letter briefs and held oral argument. The Plaintiffs brought the putative nationwide class action alleging that Subaru sold and leased its cars with a defective Starlink infotainment system. They allege, inter alia, the defect creates a safety hazard. The Defendants deny all liability allegations. Not unexpectedly, the Plaintiffs believe the Defendants' motion to dismiss will be denied in whole or in part. However, the Defendants acknowledge that even if their motion is granted in toto, some express warranty claims of the California Plaintiffs will remain. The Magistrate agrees that the Plaintiffs will be prejudiced if all discovery is stayed while waiting for the Defendants' motion to be decided. Given the extensive briefing on the Defendants' motion and the expected time it will take for the motion to be decided, the case will be in suspense for months if the Defendants' request is granted. Also favoring the Plaintiffs is the fact that the Defendants will not be prejudiced, nor will they suffer "undue hardship," if limited discovery goes forward. The fact that the case is at an early stage and no trial date has been set is not a persuasive relevant factor to the Court's decision. It is almost always the case that a trial date is not set before a motion to dismiss is decided. The Magistrate is not insensitive to the Defendants' concerns about proceeding with discovery while their motion to dismiss is outstanding. Nonetheless, by closely managing the discovery process and only permitting discovery on core issues, the goals of Fed.R.Civ.P. 1 will be furthered, i.e., to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding. His resolution is fair to all parties. On the one hand, the Plaintiffs can immediately proceed to obtain plainly relevant and important core discovery. On the other hand, the "floodgates" of discovery will not open until the Defendants' motion is decided and the issues to be litigated are joined. Accordingly, Magistrate Judge Schneider denied the Defendants' request for a complete stay of discovery while its Motion to Dismiss remains to be decided. By April 15, 2019, the Defendants will produce all documents listed in nos. 1-5 on page 5 of its March 8, 2019 letter. By April 15, 2019, the Plaintiffs will produce all documents regarding their purchase of the subject Subaru vehicles and all documents regarding their complaints about and repair efforts concerning the Starlink infotainment system. By April 15, 2019, the parties will meet and confer regarding the Plaintiffs' request for the documents listed on page 7 of their March 8, 2019 letter. The Magistrate generally agreed the listed subject matter is relevant. He also finds that the Defendants' documents in Japan are not necessarily off-limits. However, he is concerned that the Plaintiffs' requests are too broad. He will only permit narrow and focused discovery requests asking for core information. The parties meet and confer discussions will also address the Plaintiffs' request for third-party discovery. To the extent the parties cannot agree on the discovery to be produced, simultaneous letter briefs will be served by April 15, 2019. The parties will serve their Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(1)(A) disclosures by April 8, 2019. They will base their disclosures on all claims presently pleaded in their first amended complaint. A Fed.R.Civ.P. 16 conference is scheduled in Courtroom 3C on April 22, 2019 at 2:00 p.m. The Court expects to address and decide all discovery disputes at the conference. Prior to the ruling on the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, no discovery will be taken absent leave of Court. A full-text copy of the Court's March 12, 2019 Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at https://is.gd/R6tzd4 from Leagle.com. CHAD UDEEN & MARY JANE JEFFERY, Plaintiffs, represented by ANDREW W. FERICH -- AndrewFerich@chimicles.com -- Chimicles Schwartz Kriner & Donaldson-Smith LLP, BENJAMIN F. JOHNS -- benjohns@chimicles.com -- Chimicles Schwartz Kriner & Donaldson-Smith LLP, DANIEL R. LAPINSKI -- dlapinski@wilentz.com -- WILENTZ, GOLDMAN & SPITZER, PC, J. LLEWELLYN MATHEWS, KEVIN PETER RODDY -- kroddy@wilentz.com -- WILENTZ, GOLDMAN & SPITZER, PA & ALEX M. KASHURBA, CHIMICLES SCHWARTZ KRINER & DONALDSON-SMITH LLP. SUBARU OF AMERICA, INC., Defendant, represented by CASEY GENE WATKINS -- WATKINSCBALLARDSPAHR.COM -- BALLARD SPAHR LLP & NEAL D. WALTERS -- WALTERSNBALLARDSPAHR.COM -- BALLARD, SPAHR LLP. FUJI HEAVY INDUSTRIES, LTD., Defendant, represented by NEAL D. WALTERS, BALLARD, SPAHR LLP. SUTTER HEALTH: Saini Sues over Deceptive Hospital Emergency Fees ---------------------------------------------------------------- DAR SAINI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SUTTER HEALTH; and DOES 1 through 25, Defendants, Case No. RG19008395 (Cal. Super., Alameda Cty. Feb. 26, 2019) seeks to challenge the Defendants' unfair, deceptive, and unlawful practice of charging its emergency care patients a substantial undisclosed emergency room fee. According to the complaint, the Defendants charge the Plaintiff and the class an emergency room fee which is billed on top of the charges for the individual items of treatment and services provided but which is not disclosed and is concealed from a patient presenting at any one of the Defendants' emergency rooms. These fees were not mentioned in the Conditions of Admission drafted by the Defendants, and is not disclosed on signage posted in or around the Defendants' emergency rooms, or verbally during the patients' registration process. Sutter Health, together with its subsidiaries, provides health care, education, and research and administration services primarily in Northern California. It also provides health education, health libraries, school-based clinics, home health care, hospice care, adult day care, prenatal clinics, community clinics, immunization services, and health professions education. In addition, the company operates California Pacific Medical Center, a hospital with 274 acute-care beds. Sutter Health is headquartered in Sacramento, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gretchen Carpenter, Esq. CARPENTER LAW 1230 Rosecrans Ave., Suite 300 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 Telephone: (424) 456-3183 E-mail: gretchen@gcarpenter.com - and – Barry L. Kramer, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF BARRY L. KRAMER 9550 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. 253 Las Vegas, NV 89123 Telephone: (702) 778-6090 SYNERGY PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Weber Securities Suit in E.D.N.Y. ---------------------------------------------------------------- DAVID WEBER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. TROY HAMILTON, GARY S. JACOB, and GARY G. GEMIGNANI, Case No. 1:19-cv-01352 (E.D.N.Y., March 7, 2019), is a securities class action brought on behalf of those who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of Synergy Pharmaceuticals Inc. The Defendants are directors and officers of Synergy. Synergy is incorporated under the laws of the state of Delaware with its headquarters located in New York City. Synergy is a biopharmaceutical company focused on the development and commercialization of therapies to treat Gastro-Intestinal disorders and diseases. The Company filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy on December 12, 2018. Synergy is a biopharmaceutical company, which has only one FDA-approved commercial product, TRULANCE. Approved by the FDA on January 19, 2017, TRULANCE became available for purchase at the end of the first quarter of 2017. Synergy, by and through its management including the Defendants, opted to position itself as a go-it-alone developer, and seller of its own product retaining third party contract manufacturers and approximately 250 sales representatives and foregoing potential licensing partnerships for the manufacture or distribution of TRULANCE. Mr. Weber alleges that the Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that TRULANCE was underperforming and Synergy's revenues were insufficient to meet the minimum revenue requirements in its $300 million senior secured loan from CRG Partners III L.P., and that due to operating expenses and lack of revenues, Synergy was unlikely to meet the capital requirements in the CRG Loan.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. Jonathan D. Lindenfeld, 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 - and - Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 377-1181 Facsimile: (312) 377-1184 E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com - and - Peretz Bronstein, Esq. BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 697-6484 Facsimile: (212) 697-7296 E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com TATE & KIRLIN: Burnes Disputes Collection Letter ------------------------------------------------ Thomas Burnes, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Tate & Kirlin Associates, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-00054 (E.D. Tex., February 14, 2019), seeks statutory damages and injunctive relief for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Tate & Kirlin Associates is a Pennsylvania corporation engaged in the business of collecting debts. It attempted to collect an alleged debt incurred by Burnes to a certain "Ally" vis-a-vis a collection letter under false and misleading pretenses, namely, a one-time special "discount" of 40% of his balance or $3,725.55 offered for a limited period of time to settle his debt. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Joel S. Halvorsen, Esq. Gregory M. Klote, Esq. 680 Craig Road, Suite 104 St. Louis, MO 63141 Tel: (314) 451-1314 Fax: (314) 787-4323 Email: joel@hklawstl.com greg@hklawstl.com TEMPLE TERRACE, FL: Lea Family Wins Bid to Certify Owners Class --------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. James S. Moody, Jr., grants the Plaintiff's renewed Motion for Class Certification in the lawsuit entitled LEA FAMILY PARTNERSHIP LTD. v. CITY OF TEMPLE TERRACE, FLORIDA, Case No. 8:16-cv-03463-JSM-AAS (M.D. Fla.). The Court certifies this class: All owners of residential dwellings located within the City of Temple Terrace: (i) whose dwelling was subject to the City's Rental Housing Ordinance Program; (ii) who submitted an application for the City's Rental Housing Program at any time during the Class Period for such dwelling; (iii) who paid an application fee to the City of Temple Terrace with their Rental Housing Ordinance Program application; (iv) whose dwelling was inspected by the City at least once pursuant to the Rental Housing Program; and (v) whose dwelling was unoccupied at the time of a City inspection. Based on Lea Family's previous Motion for Class Certification and subsequent filings, for purposes of the above Class definition, the "Class Period" is November 16, 2012 to present. The Court previously denied Lea Family Partnership Ltd.'s Motion for Class Certification without prejudice because Lea Family did not present an administratively feasible way to determine which units from Defendant City of Temple Terrace, Florida's (the "City") Rental Housing Program were unoccupied during the City's initial inspection of the units. Lea Family also did not present evidence that other owners of dwellings subject to the Rental Housing Program had units that were unoccupied during the initial inspection, according to the Order. After a lengthy discovery period, Lea Family filed the instant Renewed Motion for Class Certification.[CC] TRAININGWHEEL CORP: Bid for FLSA Class Cert. Filed in Freeman Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ The parties in the lawsuit styled KATRINA FREEMAN and AIREANNE CLARK, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. TRAININGWHEEL CORPORATION, LLC A/K/A TRAININGWHEEL, INC., Case No. 2:19-cv-00052-SPC-UAM (M.D. Fla.), move the Court for an order approving conditional certification and court-authorized notice under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and for a stay of the proceedings until the completion of alternative dispute resolution following the opt-in period. The collective action shall consist of the following individuals to be conditionally certified and receive notice of this lawsuit pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) (the "Collective"): All individuals who worked for TrainingWheel providing training and support to TrainingWheel's clients in connection with the implementation of electronic recordkeeping systems in the United States and who did not receive overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of forty (40) per week from [three years prior to the Court's order granting certification] to the present. The Parties stipulate to the terms of the Notice of Lawsuit and Opt-In Consent Form and the Parties jointly request Court approval of both the Notice and Opt-In Consent Form. The Parties also jointly stipulate and move for approval of procedures and deadlines with respect to notice to the Collective. In addition, except as stated in this Stipulation and Motion, the Parties ask that the Court stay any proceedings, discovery, or case management orders pending participation in mediation at the close of the opt-in period. The Parties will participate in an in-person mediation conference before mediator, Mark Hanley, Esquire. The mediation shall take place within 30 days following the close of the opt-in period. If the mediation results in an impasse, the Parties shall hold a case management conference and submit a proposed Case Management Plan no later than 30 days following notice to the Court.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Shanon J. Carson, Esq. Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq. Alexandra K. Piazza, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market St., Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 E-mail: scarson@bm.net sschalman-bergen@bm.net apiazza@bm.net - and - Harold Lichten, Esq. Olena Savytska, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston St., Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 E-mail: hlichten@llrlaw.com osavytska@llrlaw.com - and - David M. Blanchard, Esq. BLANCHARD & WALKER, PLLC 221 N. Main Street, Suite 300 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 Telephone: (734) 929-4313 E-mail: blanchard@bwlawonline.com - and - Eric Lindstrom, Esq. EGAN, LEV, LINDSTROM & SIWICA, P.A. Post Office Box 2231 Orlando, FL 32802 Telephone: (407) 422-1400 Facsimile: (407) 422-3658 E-mail: elindstrom@eganlev.com The Defendant is represented by: Jason L. Gunter, Esq. GUNTERFIRM 1514 Broadway, Suite 101 Fort Myers, FL 33901 Telephone: (239) 334-7017 E-mail: Jason@GunterFirm.com U.V.S. INC: Obiefuna Sues over Kickback & Price Fixing Scheme ------------------------------------------------------------- SHEILA OBIEFUNA, Plaintiff, v. HYPOTEC, INC., formally known as U.V.S. INC. and FREDERIC ABITBOL, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01039-SEB-DLP (S.D. Ind., March 15, 2019), seeks treble damages for title and settlement services charged by All Star, including, but not limited to, title insurance premiums, in an amount equal to three times the amount of any charge paid for such settlement services. The Plaintiff and alleged Class Members are borrowers who currently have or had a residential mortgage loan originated and/or brokered by Defendant or Allegro Funding Corporation which was or is secured by Plaintiff's and Class Members' residential real property. The Plaintiff and alleged Class Members are victims of an illegal kickback and price fixing scheme between UVS/Hypotec, and the entity's President Frederic Abitbol. Under the scheme, UVS/Hypotec loan officers, agents, and/or other employees, including Abitbol, received and accepted illegal kickbacks in exchange for the assignment and referral of residential mortgage loans, refinances and reverse mortgages to All Star for title and settlement services in violation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act. UVS/Hypotec and All Star laundered the kickbacks through third party marketing companies to conceal the illegal kickbacks and the kickback agreement. As an essential component of the scheme, All Star conspired to and formed a cartel with various residential mortgage lenders. UVS/Hypotec participated in the All Star Lender Cartel and, in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, entered into naked price fixing, minimum pricing and refusal to deal agreements with All Star related to the residential mortgage loans generated by All Star's illegal kickback payments to the UVS/Hypotec. UVS/Hypotec benefitted from the Cartel Agreements, because the supracompetitive prices for title and settlement services charged to borrowers on loans brokered or originated by UVS Hypotec under the Cartel Agreements were financed into the borrowers' loans, and which UVS/Hypotec charges and earns interest from these supracompetitive prices. UVS/Hypotec and All Star continuously and regularly used the U.S. Mail, interstate and international wires in furtherance of the kickback and price fixing scheme, and to identify and defraud borrowers into the All Star Scheme, willfully and intentionally engaging in a pattern of racketeering activity over a period of at least five years, in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, the lawsuit says. The Kickback and Cartel Agreements, and the resulting supracompetitive prices, were fraudulently concealed by UVS/Hypotec and All Star from Plaintiff and alleged Class Members by: laundering kickbacks through third party marketing companies, creating sham invoice and payment records, fraudulent representations in marketing materials, false allocation of title and settlement fees and manipulation of the APR associated with the UVS/Hypotec loans, and false and fraudulent representations and omissions in borrowers' loan documents, and prevented borrowers, regulators and auditors from discovering the scheme or kickback and Cartel Agreements and the injuries to' borrowers therefrom, thereby allowing the kickbacks and supracompetitive fees to continue. Hypotec, Inc., formerly known and registered as U.V.S., Inc., is engaged in the business of consumer mortgage brokering, origination and/or lending, and otherwise transacted business in Indiana.[BN] Counsel for the Plaintiff and Class Members: Steven C. Coffaro, Esq. Gregory M. Utter, Esq. KEATING MUETHING & KLEKAMP PLLC One East Fourth Street, Suite 1400 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 579-6489 Facsimile: (513) 579-6457 E-mail: gmutter@kmklaw.com steve.coffaro@kmklaw.com - and - Timothy F. Maloney, Esq. Veronica B. Nannis, Esq. Megan A. Benevento, Esq. JOSEPH, GREENWALD & LAAKE, P.A. 6404 Ivy Lane, Suite 400 Greenbelt, Maryland 20770 Telephone: (301) 220-2200 Facsimile: (301) 220-1214 E-mail: tmaloney@jgllaw.com vnannis@jgllaw.com mbenevento@jgllaw.com - and - Michael Paul Smith, Esq. Melissa L. English, Esq. Sarah A. Zadrozny, Esq. SMITH, GILDEA & SCHMIDT, LLC 600 Washington Avenue, Suite 200 Towson, Maryland 21204 Telephone: (410) 821-0070 Facsimile: (410) 821-0071 E-mail: mpsmith@sgs-law.com menglish@sgs-law.com szadrozny@sgs-law.com ULTIMATE SOFTARE: Weinstein Challenges Go-Private Deal ------------------------------------------------------ DEBORAH WEINSTEIN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. THE ULTIMATE SOFTARE GROUP, INC., SCOTT SCHERR, MARC D. SCHERR, JAMES A. FITZPATRICK, JR., RICK A. WILBER, AL LEITER, JONATHAN MARINER, and JASON DORSEY, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00505-UNA (D. Del., March 14, 2019), seeks to enjoin the Defendants and all persons acting in concert with them from proceeding with a shareholder vote on a proposed go-private transaction or consummating the proposed transaction, unless and until the Company discloses material information which has been omitted from the Proxy, under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Ultimate Software (Nasdaq: ULTI), a global provider of human capital management (HCM) solutions in the cloud, announced on February 4 that it has entered into a definitive merger agreement to be acquired by an investor group led by Hellman & Friedman, a private equity investment firm, in an all-cash transaction for $331.50 per share in cash -- representing an aggregate value of approximately $11 billion -- after which Ultimate Software will operate as a privately held company. Under the terms of the agreement, all Ultimate stockholders of record will receive $331.50 in cash for each share of Ultimate's common stock held upon the closing of the transaction. This price represents a premium of approximately 32% over Ultimate’s volume-weighted average price during the 30 trading days ending February 1, 2019, and a premium to Ultimate's all-time high closing share price. Ultimate's Board of Directors has unanimously approved this transaction and recommended that stockholders vote in favor of the transaction. On March 11, 2019, in order to convince Ultimate Software shareholders to vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction, the Board authorized the filing of a materially incomplete and misleading Preliminary Proxy Statement on Schedule 14A with the Securities and Exchange Commission, in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. In particular, the Proxy contains materially incomplete and misleading information concerning Ultimate Software’s financial projections, which were developed by the Company's management and relied on by the Board to recommend the Proposed Transaction. It is imperative that the material information that has been omitted from the Proxy is disclosed to the Company’s shareholders prior to the forthcoming shareholder vote so that they can properly exercise their corporate suffrage rights. Ultimate Software is an American technology company that develops and sells UltiPro, a cloud-based human capital management solution for businesses. Headquartered in Weston, Florida, the company was founded in 1990 by current president and CEO, Scott Scherr, and released its first version of software in 1993.[BN] Counsel for the Plaintiff: Nadeem Faruqi, Esq. James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq. Michael Van Gorder, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 685 Third Ave., 26th Fl. New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 983-9330 E-mail: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com jwilson@faruqilaw.com mvangorder@faruqilaw.com ULTIMATE SOFTWARE: Murray Files Securities Class Action in Del. --------------------------------------------------------------- Brian Murray, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. The Ultimate Software Group, Inc., Scott Scherr, Marc D. Scherr, Jason Dorsey, James A. FitzPatrick, Jr., Alois T. Leiter, Jonathan D. Mariner, Rick A. Wilber, Unite Parent Corp., Unite Merger Sub, Inc., The Blackstone Group L.P., GIC Pte. Ltd., Canada Pension Plan Investment Board, JMI Management, Inc., and Hellman & Friedman LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00539-UNA (D. Del., March 19, 2019) is a class action on behalf of the public stockholders of Ultimate Software against Ultimate Software's Board of Directors for their violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint asserts that the Defendants violated the Exchange Act by causing a materially incomplete and misleading preliminary proxy statement to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") on March 11, 2019. The Proxy recommends that Ultimate Software shareholders vote in favor of a proposed transaction whereby Ultimate Software is acquired by the Investor Group. The Proposed Transaction was first disclosed on February 4, 2019, when Ultimate Software and the Investor Group announced that they had entered into a definitive merger pursuant to which the Investor Group will acquire all of the outstanding shares of common stock of Ultimate Software for $331.50 per share. The deal is valued at approximately $11 billion and is expected to close in the middle of 2019, says the complaint. Plaintiff is the owner of shares of common stock of Ultimate Software. Ultimate Software is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian D. Long, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220 Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 295-5310 Facsimile: (302) 654-7530 Email: bdl@rl-legal.com gms@rl-legal.com - and - Shane T. Rowley, Esq. Danielle Rowland Lindahl, Esq. ROWLEY LAW PLLC 50 Main Street, Suite 1000 White Plains, NY 10606 Phone: (914) 400-1920 Facsimile: (914) 301-3514 UNITED AIRLINES: Brown Hits Missed Breaks, Lack of Wage Statements ------------------------------------------------------------------ Ella Brown, an individual, on behalf of herself, and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. UNITED AIRLINES, INC. and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 37-2019-00008533 (Ca. Super., February 14, 2019), seeks redress for failure to provide meal and rest breaks, failure to provide itemized wage statements, interest thereon at the statutory rate, actual damages, all wages due terminated employees, costs of suit, prejudgment interest and such other and further relief pursuant to the California Labor Code and applicable Industrial Welfare Commission wage orders. United Airlines provides air transportation services througout the Asia-Pacific, Europe, the Middle East and Latin America. Brown has worked for United as a ramp agent since September of 2016. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq. Kyle R. Nordrehaug, Esq. Aparajit Bhowmik, Esq. BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK LLP 2255 Calle Clara La Jolla, CA 92037 Telephone: (858) 551-1223 Facsimile: (858) 551-1232 Website: www.bamlawca.com UNITED NATIONS: Laventure Seeks More Time to File Writ ------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned Marie Laventure, each individually and on behalf of the Estate of Cherylusse Laventure, and the Estate of MARIE THERESE FLEURICIANE DELINAIS, and the additional persons and their representatives listed, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Petitioners, v. United Nations, United Nations Stabilization Mission in Haiti, BAN KI-MOON, Secretary-General of the United Nations, EDMOND MULET, former Under Secretary-General for the United Nations Stabilization Mission in Haiti, CHANDRA SRIVASTAVA, former Chief Engineer for the United Nations Mission to Haiti, PAUL AGHADJANIAN, Chief of Mission Support for the United Nations Mission to Haiti, PEDRO MEDRANO, Assistant United Nations Secretary General, MIGUEL DE SERPA, Under Secretary for Legal Affairs, Respondents, (U.S. Supreme Ct., March 18, 2019, Marie Laventure request a 45-day extension of time, to and including May 13, 2019, within which to file a petition for a writ of certiorari to review the judgment of the Second Circuit in this case. Petitioners have not previously sought an extension of time from this Court. The decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit was issued on December 28, 2018. If not extended, the time for filing a petition will have expired on March 28, 2019, says the complaint. Petitioners are American citizens, Haitian citizens residing in the United States, as well as Haitian citizens in Haiti, all of whom were damaged as a result of the UN's tortious conduct, either directly or as surviving family members of those who have been killed. Petitioners are represented by: Mark A. Gottlieb, Esq. NORTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW 360 Huntington Avenue Boston, MA 02115 Phone: (617) 373-2026 Email: markphaionhine.org - and - James F. Haggerty, Esq. 45 Broadway, Suite 3140 New York, NY 10006 Phone: (212) 480-0700 Email: jamesfhaggerty@gmail.com UNITED STATES: Tenth Circuit Appeal Filed in Fletcher Civil Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs William S. Fletcher and Charles A. Pratt filed an appeal from a Court ruling in their lawsuit styled Fletcher, et al. v. United States, et al., Case No. 4:02-CV-00427-GKF-JFJ, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma - Tulsa. The nature of suit is stated as civil rights voting. The appellate case is captioned as Fletcher, et al. v. United States, et al., Case No. 19-5023, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Entry of appearance, transcript order form and docketing statement was due March 25, 2019, for William S. Fletcher and Charles A. Pratt; -- Entry of appearance was due March 25, 2019, for David Bernhardt, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Department of Interior, Tara Katuk MacLean Sweeney and United States of America.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants WILLIAM S. FLETCHER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and CHARLES A. PRATT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Jason Bjorn Aamodt, Esq. Krystina E. Phillips, Esq. Dallas Lynn Dale Strimple, Esq. INDIAN & ENVIRONMENTAL LAW GROUP 204 Reunion Center 9 East Fourth Street Tulsa, OK 74103 Telephone: (918) 347-6169 E-mail: jason@iaelaw.com krystina@iaelaw.com dallas@iaelaw.com - and - James David Jorgenson, Esq. WALLER JORGENSON WARZYNSKI 401 South Boston Avenue, Suite 500 Tulsa, OK 74103 Telephone: (918) 582-1761 E-mail: djorgenson@wjwattorneys.com - and - Amanda Sue Proctor, Esq. SHIELD LAW GROUP 400 Riverwalk Terrace, Suite 240 Jenks, OK 74037 Telephone: (800) 655-4820 E-mail: aproctor@shield-lawgroup.com - and - G. Steven Stidham, Esq. STIDHAM LAW 9 East 4th Street Tulsa, OK 74103 Telephone: (918) 588-1313 Defendants-Appellees UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR; DAVID BERNHARDT, in his official capacity as Acting Secretary of the U.S. Department of the Interior; BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS; and TARA KATUK MACLEAN SWEENEY, in her official capacity as Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs, are represented by: Jeffrey Andrew Gallant, Esq. Cathryn Dawn McClanahan, Esq. Loretta F. Radford, Esq. OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 110 West 7th Street, Suite 300 Tulsa, OK 74119 Telephone: (918) 382-2700 E-mail: Jeff.Gallant@usdoj.gov cathy.mcclanahan@usdoj.gov loretta.radford@usdoj.gov - and - Joseph H. Kim, Esq. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE P.O. Box 7611 Washington, DC 20044-7611 Telephone: (202) 514-2748 E-mail: joseph.kim@usdoj.gov - and - John H. Martin, III, Esq. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 999 18th Street, Suite 370 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (303) 844-1383 E-mail: john.h.martin@usdoj.gov - and - Barbara M.R. Marvin, Esq. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 601 D Street NW, Room 3129 Washington, DC 20004-0000 Telephone: (202) 305-0492 E-mail: barbara.marvin@usdoj.gov UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT: Martinez Sues Over Data Breach --------------------------------------------------------- Yoselin Martinez, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. University of Connecticut and UCONN Health, Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-00416-VLB (D. Conn., March 18, 2019) is a putative class action lawsuit brought by current and former patients of UCONN Health against UCONN for its failure to properly secure and safeguard their personally identifiable information ("PII") and protected health information ("PHI"), and for their failure to provide timely, accurate and adequate notice that such PII had been compromised. On February 25, 2019, UCONN announced that hacker gained access to a number of employee email accounts through a phishing attack which subsequently exposed the personal data of more than 326,000 UCONN Health patients. The exposed personal information included patients' names, dates of birth, addresses, medical information and Social Security numbers. This Data Breach occurred, however, only because UCONN failed to implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols. Among other things, Defendants failed to exercise reasonable care, and to implement adequate cyber-security training, including, but not limited to, how to spot phishing e-mails from unauthorized senders, says the complaint. UCONN disregarded the rights of Plaintiff and Class members by intentionally, willfully, recklessly, or negligently failing to take adequate and reasonable measures to ensure its data systems were protected, failing to disclose to its patients the material fact that it did not have adequate computer systems and security practices to safeguard their PII, failing to take available steps to prevent the Data Breach, failing to monitor and timely detect the Data Breach, and failing to provide Plaintiff and Class members prompt and accurate notice of the Data Breach, the complaint adds. Plaintiff and Class members seek to remedy the harms suffered as a result of the Data Breach and have a significant interest in ensuring that their PII, which remain in UCONN's possession, is protected from further breaches, notes the complaint. Plaintiff Yoselin Martinez is a resident of New London, Connecticut and a patient of UCONN Health. University of Connecticut is a public land grant, National Sea Grant and National Space Grant Research University founded in 1881 and located in Storrs, Connecticut. UCONN Health is a branch of the University of Connecticut that oversees clinical care, advanced biomedical research, and academic education in medicine.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian P. Murray, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 230 Park Avenue, Suite 530 New York, NY 10169 Phone: (212) 682-5340 Fax: (212) 884-0988 Email: bmurray@glancylaw.com - and - Jean Sutton Martin, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN 2018 Eastwood Rd., Ste. 225 Wilmington, NC 28403 Phone: (813) 559-4908 Facsimile: (813) 222-4795 Email: jeanmartin@ForThePeople.com UQM TECHNOLOGIES: Gunderson Seeks to Enjoin Vote on Danfoss Sale ---------------------------------------------------------------- DAVID GUNDERSON, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. UQM TECHNOLOGIES, INC., DONALD W. VANLANDINGHAM, JOE MITCHELL, STEPHEN J. ROY, JOSEPH P. SELLINGER, and JOHN E. SZTYKIEL, Case No. 1:19-cv-02219 (S.D.N.Y., March 11, 2019), seeks to enjoin the Defendants from taking any steps to consummate a transaction relating to the proposed sale of the Company to Danfoss Power Solutions (US) Company unless and until certain material information is disclosed to UQM stockholders before the vote on the Proposed Transaction. The Plaintiff alleges that the Proxy Statement, among other things, fails to disclose any information concerning financial projections prepared by UQM's management. On January 21, 2019, UQM entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger with Danfoss and a wholly owned subsidiary of Danfoss ("Merger Sub"). Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub will merge with and into the Company and the Company would become a wholly owned subsidiary of Danfoss. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Danfoss will acquire all outstanding common shares of UQM for $1.71 per share in an all-cash transaction valued at approximately $100 million, including the assumption of UQM's debt. UQM is a Colorado corporation with its principal executive offices located in Longmont, Colorado. The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company. UQM is a developer and manufacturer of power-dense, high-efficiency electric motors, generators, power electronic controllers and fuel cell compressors for the commercial truck, bus, automotive, marine, and industrial markets.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua M. Lifshitz, Esq. LIFSHITZ & MILLER LLP 821 Franklin Avenue, Suite 209 Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: (516) 493-9780 Facsimile: (516) 280-7376 E-mail: jml@jlclasslaw.com US BANK: Fails to Acknowledge Requests Under RESPA, Gibson Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- KIM GIBSON and LAWRENCE FARRELL, Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. U.S. BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Case No. 1:19-cv-00538-DAP (N.D. Ohio, March 11, 2019), alleges that in violation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, the Defendant failed to send written acknowledgment of receipt of qualified written requests made by the Plaintiffs. U.S. Bank is a federal depository institution incorporated under the laws of the state of Delaware and maintains its principal place of business in Minneapolis, Minnesota. U.S. Bank does business in the state of Ohio and is licensed to do business in the state of Ohio as a foreign corporation. U.S. Bank is a mortgage "servicer" as defined by the RESPA and is the current servicer of Plaintiffs' and Class Members' notes and mortgages on real property that secure those notes.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Marc E. Dann, Esq. Brian D. Flick, Esq. Daniel M. Solar, Esq. DANNLAW P.O. Box. 6031040 Cleveland, OH 44103 Telephone: (216) 373-0539 Facsimile: (216) 373-0536 E-mail: mdann@dannlaw.com bflick@dannlaw.com dsolar@dannlaw.com - and - Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., Esq. ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C. 77 W. Washington Street, Suite 1220 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 440-0020 Facsimile: (312) 440-4180 E-mail: tom@attorneyzim.com VAPOR 4: Metzler Sues over Unsolicited Telephone Calls ------------------------------------------------------ MARK METZLER, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. VAPOR 4 LIFE HOLDINGS, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01838 (N.D. Ill., March 15, 2019), alleges that Defendant has violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by making unsolicited calls to the Plaintiff and Class Members using an "automatic telephone dialing system" without Plaintiff's and Class Members' prior express written consent within the meaning of the TCPA. According to the complaint, Vapor 4 Life is a manufacturer and/or distributor of electronic cigarettes and related products. To promote its services, Defendant engages in unsolicited marketing, harming thousands of consumers in the process.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the Proposed Class: Gary M. Klinger, Esq. KOZONIS & KLINGER, LTD. 4849 N. Milwaukee Ave., Ste. 300 Chicago, IL 60630 Telephone: 312.283.3814 E-mail: gklinger@kozonislaw.com - and - Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. ashamis@shamisgentile.com 14 NE 1 st Avenue, Suite 1205 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: 305-479-2299 - and - Scott Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, PA 19495 Biscayne Blvd No. 607 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: 305 975-3320 E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com VENNPOINT REAL: Pine Hill Residents Sue Over Units' Decreased Value ------------------------------------------------------------------- LUZ MENESES; SRINIVASA NANDIPATI; JOSE ROMAN; LORI POLYAKOV; ALEX PAYKIN; SVETLANA ABADIA; ALEXANDRA KESS; NAGARJUNA ("REDDY") SRIPA TI; BRENDA CARDOSO; DA YID KOGUT; MICHAEL KHARP AK; MARINA LIBOV; PARESH PATEL: FRANCISCO GONZALEZ; MIKHAIL FEDORUK; RAVI THUPAKULA; KANTHITHUPAKULA;ALLANA GOLDBERG; PETER SHASHIN; YELENA SHASHIN; PAUL BREYTMAN, GUILD PROPERTIES LLC; NORTH SHORE HOLDINGS LTD; JANUSZ ZAJOWSKI; YURITKACHENKO; BEAUSCHACKMANN; SALOMON CARDOSO; DORA PLOTKINA; KANTHI THUPAKULA; XENIYA KORIKOVA; ALINA YA VLINSKY; MICHAEL CALIGURI; ALI KARAR; GENNADIY VEKSLER; NAT ALIA ROGUSKA; MARIA ELENA ASCENCIO; MICHAEL HURTADO; JOSEPHINE SELVAGGI; FRANCISCO DEL VILLAR; KASIMIR PANDEY; SERGEY KADUKOV; ANNA FA YBYSH; ANGELICA GALLEGO; SRINIV ASA NANDIPA TI; FERNANDO and CARIDAD ALAZ; ALEX TAGANSKY; JAMES WILLIARD; MACIEJ and IZABELA MASLAK; MARIO TALAGA;MICHAEL KHARPAK; SHIBU JOSEPH; SALMA S BAIG; ALLEN GOLDEN; YELENA TOKHTAMYSHEVA; PETER SHASHIN YELENA SHASHIN; IRINA GRUNIN; MASON WEIRA; KRYSTYNA ZMUDA; DANIEL and ANET A GANCARCZYK; ALEX and ALLA PAYKIN; BORIS GOLDBERG; STOIAN RA YKOV; YORDANKA V PANKOVA; KUGAR NINEL; JEREMIAH RA TH; DEVINDER ("PINKY") DEOL; NAGARJUNA R SRIPATI; VLADIMIR ROKVIC; SAM RAKHMAN; WILLIAM EZPELETA; L YUBOV HODOVANYI; RAJESH RATNALA; WOJCIECH MELKOWSKI; ANGELICA MEDRANO-RAMOS; DIMITRY LEVITES; LUZDARY MENESES; LARISA POLYAKOV; DEEPINDER SINGH; NANCY WILSON; YEFIM KHARPAK; DMITRI OSADCHUK; GREGORY ABRAMOV; EDWARD SCHUBERT; PARESH PATEL; EDWARD SCHUBERT; PARESH PATEL; DA YID KOGUT; STEFANIA ("MARGARET") BABINSKA; SANDRA W GREENBERG; PAVLO KOTLYAR; ANNA PETROV; STEVE ZHELEZNIAK; VLAD KOMAROV; STEVE ZHELEZNIAK; VLAD KOMAROV; INNA ORTENBERG; MARINA BLANC; INNA ORTENBERG; MARINA BLANC; JACK LOJKO; TA TS IAN A MAIKO; VERONICA DE J GONZALEZ; MYKOLA YANITSKYY; EDWARD SHEKHTER; BIJAN ROOHIZADEGAN; ALINA LICHSTEIN; JEVGENIJS ("GENE") ZIKOV; and S MANDUJANO, on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs, v. VENNPOINT REAL ESTATE, LLC; BMP2 MANAGEMENT, LLC; JAKE GANTZ; PINE HILL CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION; VPH WHEELING LLC; VPH OWNER WHEELING LLC; Defendants, Case No. 2019CH03558 (Circuit Ct., Cook Cty., March 19, 2019) is an action seeking to vindicate the rights of owners and residents of the Pine Hill Condominium Complex. The Plaintiffs are owners and residents of the Pine Hill Condominium Complex in Wheeling, Illinois. According to the complaint, the Defendants, using various shell companies, purchased sixty percent of the Complex with plans of purchasing the entire Complex for a condominium deconversion. VennPoint then appointed an illegally constituted board and used that board to enter into illegal contracts, raise assessments, and stop making repairs, all to reduce the value of Plaintiffs' units and force Plaintiffs to sell their units. Specifically, says the complaint, Gantz and VennPoint acted through the unlawfully constituted Pine Hill Board to decrease the value of Plaintiffs' units. In January and February of 2019, several Plaintiffs began receiving calls from agents of VennPoint. Those agents demanded that Plaintiffs sell their units to VennPoint. Plaintiffs have no wish or desire to sell their units.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Sheryl Ring, Esq. Open Communities Legal Assistance Program #62447 990 Grove Street, Suite 500 Evanston, IL 60201 Phone: (847) 501-5760 Email: sheryl@open-communities.org VENTURE EXPRESS: Bid to Dismiss/Transfer Ratliff FCRA Suit Denied ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JEROME RATLIFF, JR., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. VENTURE EXPRESS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 17 C 7214 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Gary Feinerman of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, denied Venture's renewed motion to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(2) or to transfer under Section 1404(a). Ratliff brings the putative class action against Venture, alleging that it violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA") by failing to provide him with certain disclosures after rejecting his job application due at least in part to negative information it received about him in a background report. Ratliff, an Illinois resident, applied online for employment as a commercial truck driver in response to a solicitation from Venture. Venture is a trucking and transportation company incorporated and headquartered in Tennessee. Venture operates a website through which prospective employees can apply for positions as drivers. From Oct. 1, 2012 through Sept. 30, 2017, Venture received 11,638 online applications, of which thirty listed Illinois addresses. As part of its hiring process, it obtains background reports from HireRight, LLC, a firm located in California. Each report provides the applicant's name, social security number, date of birth, past employers, work records, reasons for leaving past employers, rehire eligibility, drug and alcohol history, truck driving school performance records, and trucking accident or incident history. Venture uses the reports in deciding whether to continue the hiring process. It communicates with HireRight from Tennessee. The day after Ratliff applied, Venture obtained his background report from HireRight. The report referenced a "Preventable Accident/Incident" involving Ratliff that occurred on Sept. 5, 2014 in South Dakota. This aspect of the report was inaccurate or incomplete in that it failed to indicate that the citation issued to Ratliff arising from the incident had been dismissed. Based in part on the HireRight report, Venture disqualified Ratliff from further consideration. Ratliff never received any oral, written, or electronic notification from Venture that it would not offer him a job -- much less notice that its decision was based in part on the HireRight report or that the FCRA gave him the right to obtain the report and dispute its accuracy or completeness with HireRight. This deprived Ratliff of the ability to contact HireRight to correct the report, which had the effect of denying him fair access to employment. Ratliff did not learn about Venture's use of the report until October 2015, when he discovered it through his own investigation. Ratliff alleges that Venture violated the FCRA by failing to notify him that it rejected his application based in part on the HireRight report and to provide HireRight's contact information and a summary of his FCRA rights—including the right to obtain a free copy of the report and dispute its accuracy or completeness with HireRight -- as required by 15 U.S.C. Section 1681b(b)(3)(B). Venture moved to dismiss under Civil Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of Article III standing and under Civil Rule 12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction, or alternatively for transfer under 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a) to the Middle District of Tennessee. While that motion was pending, the Seventh Circuit heard argument in Robertson v. Allied Solutions, LLC, 902 F.3d 690 (7th Cir. 2018), which presented an FCRA standing issue akin to the one in the instant case. The Court stayed the case pending the Seventh Circuit's decision in Robertson and denied the motion to dismiss or transfer without prejudice to renewal when the case resumed. The court lifted the stay after Robertson was decided and allowed Ratliff to file an amended complaint. Venture now renews its motion to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(2) or to transfer under Section 1404(a). Venture argues that Ratliff does not allege a concrete injury and thus lacks Article III standing. Because Ratliff alleges that the HireRight report is inaccurate and incomplete, Venture's failure to disclose that it took adverse action at least in part due to the report impaired his ability to use that information for a substantive purpose that Subparagraph (B) envisioned, making concrete his informational injury. Judge Feinerman therefore denied the motion to dismiss for lack of Article III standing. Next, the Judge finds that although Venture would face some burden in being forced to defend an action in Illinois rather than Tennessee, out-of-state defendants always face such a burden, and there is no suggestion that Venture's hardship would be any greater than that routinely tolerated by courts exercising specific jurisdiction against nonresidents. There is also no compelling reason to assume either that a suit in Illinois would not serve Ratliff's interest in obtaining convenient and effective relief or that it would not be the most efficient way to resolve the matter. Given all this, exercising personal jurisdiction over Venture would not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. Finally, he finds that the interest of justice factors is neutral or slightly favor transfer, while the convenience factors slightly disfavor transfer. That state of affairs does not justify transfer, which is appropriate only if the balance of factors "strongly" favors the Defendant's proposed forum. Based on the foregoing, Judge feinerman denied Venture's motion to dismiss or transfer. Venture shall answer the operative complaint by March 26, 2019. The opinion does not speak to the merits of Ratliff's FCRA claim or to whether he would be an adequate class representative under Civil Rule 23(a)(4). A full-text copy of the Court's March 12, 2019 Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at https://is.gd/48QSU5 from Leagle.com. Jerome Ratliff, Jr, Plaintiff, represented by Michael James Aschenbrener -- masch@kamberlaw.com -- KamberLaw LLC & Adam C. York, KamberLaw LLC. Venture Express, Inc., Defendant, represented by Austin Gordon Rahe -- arahe@rfclaw.com -- Rock Fusco & Connelly LLC, Matthew Patrick Connelly -- mpc@rfclaw.com -- Rock Fusco & Connelly, LLC & Patrick William Chinnery -- pchinnery@rfclaw.com -- Rock Fusco & Connelly, Llc. WALKING COMPANY: Traynor Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act ----------------------------------------------------------- The Walking Company Holdings, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Yaseen Traynor, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. The Walking Company Holdings, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02459 (S.D. N.Y., March 19, 2019). The Walking Company Holdings, Inc. engages in the retail sale of footwear and accessories. It offers casual shoes, dress shoes, clogs, boots, sandals, athletic shoes, walking shoes, and slippers for men and women, as well as kids footwear and gift cards. The company also provides accessories, such as orthotics, socks, and shoe care products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dov Michael Mittelman, Esq. Stein Saks, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Tel: (201) 282-6500 Email: mittelmandov@yahoo.com WASTE PRO USA: Helpers Class Certified Under FLSA in Thomas Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Charlene Edwards Honeywell grants the Plaintiffs' Motion to Conditionally Certify an FLSA Collective Action and Authorize Notice to Putative Opt-In Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled ALFRED W. THOMAS v. WASTE PRO USA, INC. and WASTE PRO OF FLORIDA, INC., Case No. 8:17-cv-02254-CEH-CPT (M.D. Fla.). In the Second Amended Complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that the action is brought on behalf of himself and the National Collective Action Members who have worked for Defendant Waste Pro USA as Helpers, however variously titled, anywhere in the United States, between September 28, 2014 and the date of final judgment in this matter who elect to opt-in to this action and who, at any point during this time, were paid a day rate and also worked at a location that had a policy or practice to either pay a half-day rate or pay non-discretionary bonuses. Judge Honeywell directs the parties to confer and submit a jointly proposed notice within 14 days of the date of this Order. Should the parties be unable to agree on a proposed notice, they shall each submit proposed notices. Additionally, the parties shall confer on a class notice plan and issues that may arise associated with the administration of the class, including the establishment of an opt-in period, and shall advise the Court of these efforts and whether there are issues that require the Court's resolution within 14 days of the date of this Order. The Defendants shall produce to the Plaintiff in an electronic or computer-readable format the full name, address(es), telephone numbers, e-mail address(es), and dates and locations of employment for each of the collective members by April 9, 2019.[CC] WELLS FARGO: Rivera Seeks Overtime Pay for Service Managers ----------------------------------------------------------- MELISSA RIVERA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. WELLS FARGO & COMPANY; and DOES 1 through 50 inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. CGC-19-574545 (Cal. Super. Ct., March 15, 2019), alleges that Wells Fargo misclassifies its Service Managers as "exempt" managerial/executive employees for purposes of the payment of overtime compensation (including failing to pay for meal and rest breaks) when, in fact, they are "non-exempt" non-managerial employees according to California law, and denies them meal and rest breaks under California law. Wells Fargo & Company is an American multinational financial services company headquartered in San Francisco, California, with central offices throughout the United States.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: Reuben D. Nathan, Esq. NATHAN & ASSOCIATES, APC 2901 W. Coast Highway, Suite 200 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Telephone: (949) 270-2798 Facsimile: (949) 209-0303 E-mail: rnathan@nathanlawpractice.com WESTERN DENTAL: Caldera Sues Over Illegal Collection Calls ---------------------------------------------------------- Rosina Caldera, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Western Dental Services, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 19-at-00136 (E.D. Cal., February 15, 2019), seeks injunctive relief, statutory damages, treble damages and all other relief for violation of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Western Dental Services provides dental care services whom Caldera allegedly owes a debt to, and who contacted her on her cellular telephone using an automatic telephone dialing system. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Phone: (877) 206-4741 Fax: 866-633-0228 Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com WIDEOPENWEST INC: Continues to Defend IPO Suits in NY and Colorado ------------------------------------------------------------------ WideOpenWest, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 7, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company continues to defend class action suits in New York and Colorado in relation to its initial public offering (IPO). In June and July of 2018, putative class action complaints were filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York and Colorado State Court against WideOpenWest, Inc. (WOW) and certain of the Company's current and former officers and directors, as well as Crestview Advisors, L.L.C., Avista Capital Partners, and each of the underwriter banks involved with the Company's initial public offering (IPO). The complaints allege violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 in connection with the IPO. The plaintiffs seek to represent a class of stockholders who purchased stock pursuant to or traceable to the IPO. The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief. The Company believes the complaint and allegations to be without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself against these actions. The Colorado actions have been stayed while the New York cases have been consolidated with the court staying discovery until after a determination has been made with respect to the Company's Motion to Dismiss. WideOpenWest said, "The Company is unable at this time to determine whether the outcome of the litigation would have a material impact on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. WideOpenWest, Inc. provides high speed data, cable television, and digital telephony services to residential and business services customers in the United States. The company was formerly known as WideOpenWest Kite, Inc. and changed its name to WideOpenWest, Inc. in March 2017. The company was founded in 2001 and is based in Englewood, Colorado. WOLF & SHEPHERD: Traynor Alleges Disabilities Act Violation ----------------------------------------------------------- Wolf & Shepherd, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Yaseen Traynor, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Wolf & Shepherd, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02461 (S.D. N.Y., March 19, 2019). Wolf and Shepherd is a men's dress shoe company. The company designs and sells Italian leather dress shoes using technology found in running sneakers. Wolf & Shepherd was founded in 2014 in Jacksonville Beach, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dov Michael Mittelman, Esq. Stein Saks, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Tel: (201) 282-6500 Email: mittelmandov@yahoo.com YOSSI'S FISH: Parra Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Sergio Parra, on behalf of himself and similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. Yossi's Fish & Market Corp., d/b/a "Yossi's Fish Market" and Joseph Heiman, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01555 (E.D. N.Y., March 19, 2019) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages at minimum wage rate, unpaid wages at the overtime rate for all work hours over 40 hours in a work week, statutory penalties, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and attorney's fees and costs, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"). The Defendants knowingly and willfully operated their business with a policy of not paying Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals a wage at the minimum wage rate and overtime wages for the total hours worked over 40 hours in a work week, in violation of the FLSA and NYLL and the supporting Federal and New York State Department of Labor Regulations, says the complaint. Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants in or around February 2017 to work as a fish monger. Yossi is a domestic corporation existing under the laws of the State of New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lawrence Spasojevich, Esq. Law Offices of James F. Sullivan, P.C. 52 Duane Street, 7th Floor New York, NY 10007 Phone: (212) 374-0009 Facsimile: (212) 374-9931 Email: ls@jfslaw.net ZUMBA FITNESS: Traynor Alleges Violation under Disabilities Act --------------------------------------------------------------- Zumba Fitness, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Yaseen Traynor, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Zumba Fitness, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02462 (S.D. N.Y., March 19, 2019). Zumba Fitness, LLC provides dance fitness classes through gyms and cruises to customers worldwide. It offers instructor training programs. The company also provides Zumba Stories, a platform where people share their real life journeys and triumphs to inspire a healthier and happier world. In addition, it offers tops and bottoms for women and men, accessories, shoes, DVDs, equipment, and gift vouchers, as well as energy drinks through an online store.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dov Michael Mittelman, Esq. Stein Saks, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Tel: (201) 282-6500 Email: mittelmandov@yahoo.com ZUTANO GLOBAL: Traynor Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act --------------------------------------------------------- Zutano Global Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Yaseen Traynor, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Zutano Global Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02463 (S.D. N.Y., March 19, 2019). Zutano, Inc. distributes and supplies fabric and clothing. The Company engages in the wholesale distribution of children's, and infants clothing, as well as provides nursery furniture, toys, and accessories. Zutano operates in the State of Vermont.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dov Michael Mittelman, Esq. Stein Saks, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Tel: (201) 282-6500 Email: mittelmandov@yahoo.com ********* 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 ***