/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/190417.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, April 17, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 77 Headlines 15 W 55TH ST: DV Retail Hits Illegal Eviction, Seeks Damages 3M COMPANY: Coyaso Claims Damages Over Defective Earplug 3M COMPANY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Holloway Suit Alleges ACRE GOURMET: Ramirez Files Class Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ALPHA SERVICES: Sanderlin Seeks OT Pay for Pipeline Inspectors AMARIN CORP: Howard G. Smith Files Securities Class Action AMD ENERGY: Kyle Nichols Seeks Payment for Overtime Work AMERICAN GUARANTEE: Sterling Sues Over Breaches of Defense Duties ASHLAND GLOBAL: Does not Pay Chemical Operators Overtime Wages AT&T INC: Gross Files Securities Suit Over Time Warner Merger ATLANTIC CREDIT: Baumann Asserts FDCPA Violation B ERA CORPORATION: Figueroa Alleges Disabilities Act Violation BANK OF AMERICA: Baltimore Files Antitrust Suit BANK OF AMERICA: Banks Hit With Class Action Over Fannie Mae Bonds BANK OF AMERICA: Kaymark Appeals Memo and Orders to 3rd Circuit BARILLA AMERICA: Bolden Sues Over Pasta Sauce's Misleading Ad BEST WESTERN: Young Alleges Violation under ADA BEVERAGE MARKETING: Niles Files Fraud Class Suit Over Energy Drink BLUESTONE INDUSTRIES: Meyer Suit Alleges FLSA Breach BUSHRA FOOD: Faces Suleman Suit over Labor Law Violations CALLIHAN PHILIPS: Chisley Files Class Suit under FDCPA CANON SOLUTIONS: Deanda Suit Alleges Labor Code Violations CHLV GROUP: Navarro Asserts TCPA Violation in Calif. Suit. CHURRASQUERIA MARINA: Faces Ortega Romero's Labor Suit in NJ COMCAST CABLE: Faces Hearn Suit over Background Checks CONCORDIA INTERNATIONAL: June 25 Settlement Approval Hearing Set COOK COUNTY: Guy Sues Over Freedom of Information Act Breach COSTCO WHOLESALE: Correa et al. Seek Minimum & OT Pay for Sales Rep DASH AMERICA: Figueroa Assert Breach of Disabilities Act DELTA AIR LINES: Settles Background Check Class Action for $2.3MM DIRECT ENERGY: Sued by Burk Over Illegal Collection Calls DIRECT LENDING: Kosstrin Sues Over Inflated Financial Reports DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Baker Sues over Debt Collection Practices EMPIRE FINANCE: Tanner Seeks Overtime Pay ENVISION HEALTHCARE: Stewart Says 401k Plan Contributions Missing ESTATES OF HYDE PARK: Faces Williams Labor Suit EVERQUOTE INC: Kahn Swick Files Class Action Lawsuit FARMERS INSURANCE: Nguyen Seeks Minimum & Overtime Wages FERRARA CANDY: May 1 SweeTARTS Settlement Opt-Out Deadline Set FOOT LOCKER RETAIL: Haggar Claims Website not Blind-Friendly GOOGLE INC: Karate School Owner Urges 9th Cir. to Reinstate Lawsuit GRANITE QUEENS: Fischler Alleges Violation under ADA HAYNES FAMILY: Loper Seeks Overtime & Minimum Wages INDIGO ROOM: McCartney et al Seek Minimum & OT Pay for Bartenders INFINITY AUTO INSURANCE: Plantation Open Suit Transferred to Fla. INFINITY INDEMNITY: Plantation Open Suit Transferred to S.D. Fla. IOOF: Faces Shareholder Class Action Over APRA Fallout JENNINGS ROAD: Underpays Drivers, Berman Suit Alleges JESSE CREEK: Odom Suit Asserts WARN Act Violation KNISHKA RESTAURANT: Underpays Kitchen Workers, Ramirez Alleges KORAN LANDSCAPE: Underpays Landscapers, Ventura et al. Allege KRAFT HEINZ: Brower Piven Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit LAKEFRONT TERRACE: Young Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act LAN SHENG: Wu Seeks Minimum Wage & Overtime Pay LENNY & LARRY'S: BakerHostetler Attorneys Discuss Settlement LIFE FOR RELIEF: Kempton Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages MDL 2741: Ingle Suit vs Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated MDL 2741: Kunz Suit vs Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated MDL 2741: Lubben Suit vs Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated MDL 2741: Lumpkin Suit vs Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated MDL 2741: Sheehan Suit vs Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated MIDLAND CREDIT: Deluccio Asserts Breach of FDCPA MONSANTO COMPANY: Allens Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup MONSANTO COMPANY: Collins Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup MONSANTO COMPANY: Cupp Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup MONSANTO COMPANY: Fishburns Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup MONSANTO COMPANY: Fohnes Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup MONSANTO COMPANY: Fruits Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup MONSANTO COMPANY: Joneses Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup MONSANTO COMPANY: Lawary Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup MONSANTO COMPANY: Madigans Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup MONSANTO COMPANY: Malandrinos Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup MONSANTO COMPANY: Mincks Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup MONSANTO COMPANY: Musselmans Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup MONSANTO COMPANY: Nolan Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup MONSANTO COMPANY: Ott Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup MONSANTO COMPANY: Pages Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup MONSANTO COMPANY: Sears Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup MONSANTO COMPANY: Simmons Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup MONSANTO COMPANY: Vereugo Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup NCAA: Carney Seeks Damages Over Student-Athletes' Injuries NCAA: DiValentino Seeks Damages Over Injuries Sustained NCAA: Waller Seek Damages Over Injuries Sustained as an Athlete NEW PRECIOUS: Muy Seeks Minimum Wage & OT Pay for Salon Staff NIKE INC: Female Employees Clear 1st Hurdle in Discrimination Suit NORTHBAY BUILDERS: Licona Moreno Sues Over Unpaid Min., OT Wages NORTHRIDGE HOSPITAL: Underpays Crisis Clinicians, Basilio Alleges OKLAHOMA: Beard, et al. File Suit v. DOC, Parole Board Officers ORACLE CORP: Fights Plaintiffs' Jury Demand in ERISA Class Action OSIRIS THERAPEUTICS: LaBarbara Brings Securities Class Action in Md OSIRIS THERAPEUTICS: Scarantino Balks at Smith & Nephew Merger PERMCO INC: Claudio Pop Seeks Overtime Compensation PERSONAL TOUCH: Short-Jones Seeks Overtime Wages for Clinicians PRATT INDUSTRIES: Brzozowski Suit Alleges FLSA Violation PROFESSIONAL FREEZING: Like Sues Over Biometric Data Retention QUINCY BIOSCIENCE: Engert Sues Over Ineffective Memory Drug RESOLUTE BANK: Faces Schick Suit over Autodialed Calls RESTAURANT 597: Sanchez Suit Alleges FLSA Violation ROBERTSON'S READY MIX: Soriano Labor Suit Transferred to C.D. Cal. RVR RANCHO: Soto Sues Over Denied Labor Code Benefits &Protection SAN DIEGO CREDIT: Beltran Seeks Overtime Pay SAN DIEGO, CA: Kelley Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages SCOTT DOLICH: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in Allison FLSA Suit SELECTIVE NURSING: Illinik Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages SEMORAN AUTO: Rosado Sues over Telemarketing Calls SIERRA INCOME: Faces Anderson et al. Suit over Merger Transaction SIERRA PACIFIC: Borrowers File RICO Suit Over Excessive Prices SIKA CORP: Vieyara-Flores Labor Suit Transferred to C.D. Cal. SIMPLEXGRINNELL LP: Rodriguez to Seek Summary Judgment SINH SINH RESTAURANT: Tepaz Seeks OT Pay and Unpaid Minimum Wages STAFFMORE LLC: Wahpoe Seeks OT Pay for Therapeutic Staff Supports STAMPS.COM INC: Scott+Scott Files Securities Class Action SUBWAY FRANCHISEE: Fishman Sues Over TCPA Violation SYNEOS HEALTH: Wolf Haldenstein Probes Potential Securities Suit TOUCHSTONES MUSIC: Kelley Drye Attorney Discusses Court Ruling TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Baker Sues over Debt Collection Practices UNITED STATES SOCCER: Morgan Suit Alleges Equal Pay Act Violation UNIVERSAL MUSIC: Kiler Sues Over Blind-inaccessible Website UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS: Responds to Admissions Scandal Class Action VANDA PHARMACEUTICALS: Brower Piven Files Class Action Lawsuit VANDA PHARMACEUTICALS: RM LAW Files Securities Class Action VERSUM MATERIALS: City of Providence Sues over Entegris Merger WALT DISNEY: Rasmussen Asserts Gender Pay Discrimination WESTCO CHEMICALS: Mismanaged Employees' Fund, Draney Claims WHIRLPOOL CORP: Seeks 2nd Circuit Review of Order in Famular Suit YRC WORLDWIDE: Block & Leviton Files Securities Class Action ZHENJIANG HUAHAI PHARMA: Silberman Sues over Tainted Valsartan ********* 15 W 55TH ST: DV Retail Hits Illegal Eviction, Seeks Damages ------------------------------------------------------------ DV Retail 55 LLC, as a member of 15 West 55 Retail LLC suing on behalf of itself and all other members of 15 West 55 Retail LLC similarly situated and in the right of 15 West 55 Retail LLC, Domenico Vacca Enterprises Ltd Corporation and Domenico Vacca individually, Plaintiffs, v. Salim Assa a/k/a Solly Assa, Steven J. Caspi, Yaakov Ilowitz, Abraham Leifer, Arthur D. Bellini, Richard J. Migliaccio, Esq., Salim Chakalo, Sury Cattan, 15 W. 55th St. Property LLC, Black Bear 555, LLC, West 55th Street Management LLC, Assa Properties Inc., Aview 55, LLC, Aview Equities Inc., Aview Holdings LLC and Bal Harbour Concepts LLC, Defendants, Case No. 651140/2019 (N.Y. Sup., February 25, 2019), seeks damages, declaratory judgment and restraints against Defendants, plaintiffs' landlord for breach of contract. Defendants, who, as plaintiffs' landlord, formed a joint venture, a designer clothing store and private club, with a full bar, in the building's commercial space. Defendants now seek to evict Plaintiffs from the joint business they created. Plaintiff renovated the commercial space to obtain a $91 million commercial mortgage loan. Now, the Defendants are seeking to sell the building and sought to evict Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants were only after the appreciated value of the building after Plaintiffs' renovation. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: CYRULI SHANKS HART & ZIZMOR, LLP. 420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 2320 New York, NY 10170 Tel: (212) 661-6800 3M COMPANY: Coyaso Claims Damages Over Defective Earplug -------------------------------------------------------- Achique Coyaso, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. 3M Company, Aearo Holdings, LLC, Aearo Intermediate, LLC, Aearo, LLC and Aearo Technologies, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-00097 (D. Haw., February 25, 2019), seeks to recover actual, compensatory, consequential, incidental and punitive damages, attorneys' fees, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, legal and equitable relief resulting from negligence and breach of implied and express warranty. Defendants sold dual-ended Combat Arms Earplugs to the US Armed Forces for use as hearing protection for military personnel, protecting against the disorienting effects of loud impulse noises such as improvised explosive devices and gun fire, yet still allow the service member to hear low-level noises critical to mission safety such as commands, footsteps and encroaching enemies. It, however, dislodges from the ear in a manner that is imperceptible to the wearer. 3M settled a False Claims Act lawsuit with the United States Government for over $9 million but has yet to remedy the harm it caused to the tens of thousands of service members, including Coyaso, notes the complaint. 3M Company is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in St. Paul, Minnesota. Aearo Group is a wholly owned subsidiary of 3M Company. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: John Francis Perkin, Esq. Brandee J.K. Faria, Esq. James Wade, Esq. PERKIN & FARIA, LLLC 841 Bishop Street, Suite 1000 Honolulu, HI 96813 Telephone: (808) 523-2300 Facsimile: (808) 697-5304 E-mail: perkin@perkinlaw.com 3M COMPANY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Holloway Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ JASON HOLLOWAY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY; and DOES 1 through 50, Defendants, Case No. CIVDS1907761 (Cal. Super., San Bernardino Cty., March 14, 2019) is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal and rest periods, and provide itemize wage statements. Mr. Holloway was employed by the Defendants as non-exempt employee. 3M Company operates as a diversified technology company worldwide. The company's Industrial segment offers tapes; coated, non-woven, and bonded abrasives; adhesives; ceramics; sealants; specialty materials; purification products; closure systems for personal hygiene products; acoustic systems products; automotive components; and abrasion-resistant films, and paint finishing and detailing products. The company was founded in 1902 and is headquartered in St. Paul, Minnesota. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J. Matern, Esq. Launa Adolph, Esq. Kayvon Sabourian, Esq. MATERN LAW GROUP, PC 1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 Telephone: (310) 531-1900 Facsimile: (310) 531-1901 ACRE GOURMET: Ramirez Files Class Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Acre Gourmet, Inc. The case is styled as Aurelia Ramirez, on behalf of herself, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Acre Gourmet, Inc., a California Corporation and Does 1 to 100 inclusive, Defendants, Case No. CGC19575117 (Cal. Super., April 8, 2019). Acre Gourmet, Inc. is engaged in restaurant business.[BN] The Plaintiff appears PRO SE. ALPHA SERVICES: Sanderlin Seeks OT Pay for Pipeline Inspectors -------------------------------------------------------------- LARRY SANDERLIN, on Behalf of Himself and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. ALPHA SERVICES LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-00013 (W.D. Tex., March 25, 2019), seeks to recover overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act. To provide its services, the Defendant employs hundreds of inspectors nationwide to inspect pipelines for oil and gas companies during construction and during their use. The Plaintiff worked for Defendant as an inspector from December 2017 to September 2018 in Pecos, Texas. The Defendant paid Plaintiff on a day rate basis. That is, the Defendant paid Plaintiff a set day rate regardless of the number of hours he worked each day or each week. The Defendant did not pay Plaintiff a minimum, guaranteed amount each week. Instead, Plaintiff's compensation varied each week depending upon the number of days worked. The Plaintiff regularly worked over 40 hours each week. However, when he worked more than 40 hours, he was not paid any overtime wages for those hours worked in excess of 40, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorney for the Plaintiff & Class Members: Don J. Foty, Esq. KENNEDY HODGES, L.L.P. 4409 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200 Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (713) 523-0001 Facsimile: (713) 523-1116 E-mail: dfoty@kennedyhodges.com AMARIN CORP: Howard G. Smith Files Securities Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Law Offices of Howard G. Smith disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors that purchased Amarin Corporation plc (NASDAQ: AMRN) ("Amarin" or the "Company") securities between September 24, 2018 and November 8, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Amarin investors have until April 23, 2019 to file a lead plaintiff motion. On November 12, 2018, an article was published on Seeking Alpha regarding Amarin's "recent revelations of positive topline results" from its REDUCE-IT trial for Vascepa, its sole product. The article raised the possibility that "the placebo group received an active agent that in effect was an anti-statin," and that the REDUCE-IT trial results may have consequently exaggerated the efficacy of Vascepa. On this news, Amarin's American depositary receipt price fell $4.44, or 22%, to close at $15.38 on November 13, 2018, thereby injuring investors. The complaint filed in this class action alleges that Defendants made materially false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the top-line results Amarin touted about its REDUCE-IT trial for Vascepa were not as positive as the company represented; (2) the placebo given to patients in the control arm of REDUCE-IT may have increased the incidence of cardiovascular events in those patients; (3) as a result, Amarin's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. If you purchased shares of Amarin, have information or would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters please; Howard G. Smith, Esq. Law Offices of Howard G. Smith 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020 Website: www.howardsmithlaw.com Telephone: 215-638-4847 Toll free: 888-638-4847 Email: howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com [GN] AMD ENERGY: Kyle Nichols Seeks Payment for Overtime Work -------------------------------------------------------- KYLE NICHOLS, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. AMD ENERGY SERVICES LLC and ALBERT DeHOYOS, the Defendants, Case No. 7:19-cv-00079 (W.D. Tex., March 25, 2019), seeks to recover compensation, overtime wages, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members are those similarly situated persons who worked for AMD Energy at any time from March 25, 2016 through the final disposition of this matter and were not paid any overtime. Although the Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members routinely worked (and work) in excess of 40 hours per workweek, the Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members were not paid overtime of at least one and one-half their regular rates for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek, the lawsuit says. AMD Energy is an oilfield service company servicing the oil and gas industry in the State of Texas.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members: Clif Alexander, Esq. Lauren E. Braddy, Esq. Alan Clifton Gordon, Esq. Carter T. Hastings, Esq. ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC 819 N. Upper Broadway Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Telephone: (361) 452-1279 Facsimile: (361) 452-1284 E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com lauren@a2xlaw.com cgordon@a2xlaw.com carter@a2xlaw.com AMERICAN GUARANTEE: Sterling Sues Over Breaches of Defense Duties ----------------------------------------------------------------- Rochelle Sterling, individually, and Donald T. Sterling, individually and doing business as Beverly Hills Properties; Plaintiffs, v. American Guarantee & Liability Insurance Company, a New York corporation; Fireman's Fund Insurance Company, a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV10924 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., April 2, 2019) is a lawsuit arising from AGLIC's and FFIC's wrongful and bad faith breaches of the defense duties they owed to the Sterlings under two commercial general liability insurance policies. AGLIC and FFIC promised to defend lawsuits against the Sterling for, among other things, bodily injury, property damage, and other personal injuries. However, when the Sterlings were sued in two lawsuits, both insurers breached their duties to defend, in AGLIC's case refusing to pay for the reasonable defense fees and costs as to one lawsuit and in both insurers' cases refusing to defend the Sterlings in another lawsuit. AGLIC's and FFIC's breaches are contrary to the terms of their policies, the law, insurance industry custom and practice, the facts, and their duties of good faith and fair dealing owed to their insureds. By this lawsuit, the Sterlings seek compensatory and punitive damages against AGLIC and FFIC, says the complaint. Plaintiffs are individuals residing in Los Angeles County, California and doing business as Beverly Hills Properties. AGLIC is a New York Corporation with its principal place of business in Schaumburg, Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kirk A. Pasich, Esq. Shaun H. Crosner, Esq. Kayla M. Robinson, Esq. PASICH LLP 1100 Glendon Avenue, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90024-3503 Phone: (424) 313-7860 Facsimile: (424) 313-7890 Email: kpasich@pasichllp.com scrosner@pasichllp.com krobinson@pasichllp.com ASHLAND GLOBAL: Does not Pay Chemical Operators Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- BRIAN KNOWLTON and KELLY ANN MARSTON, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs v. ASHLAND GLOBAL HOLDINGS INC., ASHLAND SPECIALTY INGREDIENTS G.P., and ISP FREETOWN FINE CHEMICALS INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-02156-DJH (N.D. Ohio, April 2, 2019) is a collective and class action brought by Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons employed by Ashland, arising from Ashland's willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act ("Ohio Wage Act"), the Ohio Prompt Pay Act, the Massachusetts Overtime Act, and the Massachusetts Wage Act. In order to provide specialty chemical solutions to its customers, Ashland employs nonexempt Chemical Operators, including Plaintiffs, who work as an integral part of the production team. Ashland requires its Chemical Operators to work a full-time schedule, plus overtime. However, Ashland does not compensate Chemical Operators for all work performed; instead, Ashland requires its Chemical Operators to perform compensable work tasks before and after their scheduled shifts, when they are not clocked into Ashland's timekeeping system. This policy results in Chemical Operators not being paid for all time worked, including overtime, says the complaint. Plaintiffs worked for Ashland as Chemical Operators from March 2008 until November 2018. Ashland is a global leader in providing specialty chemical solutions to customers in a wide range of consumer and industrial markets, including adhesives, architectural coatings, automotive, construction, energy, food and beverage, nutraceuticals, personal care and pharmaceutical.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew L. Turner, Esq. Rod M. Johnston, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Phone: (248) 355-0300 Email: mturner@sommerspc.com rjohnston@sommerspc.com - and - Benjamin Knox Steffans, Esq. Steffans Legal LLC 7 North Street, Suite 307 Pittsfield, MA 01201 Phone (413) 418-4176 Email: bsteffans@steffanslegal.com AT&T INC: Gross Files Securities Suit Over Time Warner Merger ------------------------------------------------------------- Melvin Gross, Individually, and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. AT&T INC., RANDALL L. STEPHENSON, JOHN J. STEPHENS, SAMUEL A. DI PIAZZA, JR., RICHARD W. FISHER, SCOTT T. FORD, GLENN H. HUTCHINS, WILLIAM E. KENNARD, MICHAEL B. MCCALLISTER, BETH E. MOONEY, JOYCE M. ROCHE, MATTHEW K. ROSE, CYNTHIA B. TAYLOR, LAURA D'ANDREA TYSON, and GEOFFREY Y. YANG, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02892 (S.D. N.Y., April 1, 2019) is a securities class action on behalf of all persons or entities who (a) acquired AT&T common stock pursuant or traceable to the SEC Form S-4 registration statement and prospectus (collectively, the "Registration Statement") issued in connection with AT&T's June 2018 acquisition of and merger with Time Warner and/or (b) purchased or otherwise acquired AT&T securities between October 22, 2016 and October 24, 2018, both dates inclusive. Plaintiff asserts claims against AT&T and certain of AT&T's officers and directors under the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. In June 2018, in connection with the Acquisition, AT&T issued approximately 1.185 billion new shares of AT&T common stock directly to former shareholders of Time Warner common stock as follows: each former share of Time Warner common stock issued and outstanding immediately before the Acquisition was converted into the right to receive 1.437 shares of newly issued AT&T common stock. Each of these new shares of AT&T common stock was issued pursuant to the Registration Statement. The complaint asserts that the Registration Statement touted false and misleading financial results, trends, and metrics and omitted material facts rendering those financial results, trends, and metrics materially misleading, says the complaint. Plaintiff acquired AT&T securities at artificially inflated prices pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's Registration Statement and was economically damaged thereby. AT&T is a telecommunications and media company incorporated under the laws of Delaware and headquartered in Dallas, Texas.[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 Phone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 Email: 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 Phone: (312) 377-1181 Facsimile: (312) 377-1184 Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com ATLANTIC CREDIT: Baumann Asserts FDCPA Violation ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Atlantic Credit & Finance, Inc. The case is styled as Katrinka Baumann, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Atlantic Credit & Finance, Inc., Midland Funding LLC and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00999 (D. Colo., April 4, 2019). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Atlantic Credit & Finance, Inc. purchases and manages unsecured and consumer-distressed assets. It also purchases various consumer-distressed asset types, including credit card receivables, retail credit card receivables, automotive deficiencies, healthcare receivables, telecommunication receivables, and utilities receivables.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. Stein Saks, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Tel: (201) 282-6500 Fax: (201) 282-6501 Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com B ERA CORPORATION: Figueroa Alleges Disabilities Act Violation -------------------------------------------------------------- B Era Corporation is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Jose Figueroa, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, ADR Provider v. B Era Corporation doing business as: Burnetie, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-03010 (S.D. N.Y., April 4, 2019). Burnetie Shoes is a shoe company offering a great collection of high quality men's and women's shoes and boots.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq. Cohen & Mizrahi LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Tel: (917) 299-6612 Fax: (929) 575-4195 Email: joseph@cml.legal BANK OF AMERICA: Baltimore Files Antitrust Suit ------------------------------------------------ Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.; BARCLAYS BANK PLC; BARCLAYS CAPITAL INC.; BNP PARIBAS SECURITIES CORP.; CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC.; CREDIT SUISSE AG; CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES (USA) LLC; DEUTSCHE BANK AG; DEUTSCHE BANK SECURITIES INC.; FIRST TENNESSEE BANK, N.A.; FTN FINANCIAL SECURITIES CORP.; GOLDMAN SACHS & CO. LLC; JEFFERIES GROUP LLC; JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.; J. P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC; MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INC; AND UBS SECURITIES LLC; and UNNAMED CO CONSPIRATORS; Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02900-UA (S.D. N.Y., April 2, 2019) asserts claims for violations of federal antitrust law against the Defendants arising from the collusion among Defendants to fix the prices of bonds sold to investors from January 1, 2009 through April 27, 2014. The bonds (FFB) were issued by the Federal National Mortgage Association and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation. FFBs are unsecured debt securities and do not include the mortgage-backed securities issued by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The City of Baltimore paid almost $1 billion for 108 FFBs during the Class Period, and therefore suffered enormous monetary losses when it was overcharged in these transactions, as a direct result of Defendant's price fixing conspiracy. The Defendants are horizontal competitors and the leading dealers of FFBs. According to the complaint, the Defendants conspired to fix prices in the secondary FFB market by overcharging investors purchasing Defendants' FFBs and underpaying investors selling their FFBs to Defendants. Through this conspiracy, Defendants received supracompetitive profits at the expense of the City of Baltimore and Class Members. This conspiracy injured investors like the City of Baltimore, which were attracted to FFBs because they are generally considered safe, liquid investments. Instead, these investors were financially harmed by overpaying for FFB purchases and being underpaid by their FFB sales, says the complaint. Plaintiff is the Mayor and the City Council of Baltimore, a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Maryland. Defendant Bank of America, N.A. is a federally chartered national banking association with its principal place of business in Charlotte, North Carolina.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William Christopher Carmody, Esq. Arun Subramanian, Esq. Seth Ard, Esq. Stephanie Spies, Esq. Susman Godfrey L.L.P. 1301 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Phone: (212) 336-3330 Facsimile: (212) 336-8340 Email: bcarmody@susmangodfrey.com asubramanian@susmangodfrey.com sard@susmangodfrey.com sspies@susmangodfrey.com BANK OF AMERICA: Banks Hit With Class Action Over Fannie Mae Bonds ------------------------------------------------------------------ Colby Hamilton, writing for Law.com, reports that a new federal class action suit filed in Manhattan brings claims against Bank of America and other financial institutions currently under investigation by the Justice Department for the manipulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bonds. The suit claims traders at the banks looked to rig the system that provided generous profits during the run-up to the housing bubble bursting last decade, according to the filing in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The suit -- and the reported investigation by federal authorities -- stems from the two federally backed providers that undergird the nation's housing financing. The pair issue unsecured bonds, known as FFBs, which currently total an estimated $550 billion in securities. The focus of the lawsuit is on the secondary market trading on these securities, which a host of financial firms have access to through an application process to become part of Fannie and Freddie's dealer group. These companies, therefore, according to the complaint, control the FFB supply available to investors. The plaintiffs claim that they are being harmed by the financial companies, who are exploiting their control over the supply chain to create "an opaque secondary market to facilitate the collision and reap supra-competitive profits at the expense of their own clients." The suit claims the companies are in violation of the federal Sherman Act. The complaint relies on a June 2018 report from Bloomberg that DOJ antitrust and criminal division investigators are looking into collusion to fix prices, as well as potential fraud prosecutions. A spokeswoman for the DOJ did not respond to a request for confirmation that the investigations were ongoing. The class action focuses on banks involved in the bond trading market. The banks allegedly work together to inflate the price of newly issued FFBs to be sold to investors after Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac provide them to the dealers. This, the plaintiffs claim, runs against the realities of the market, which contracted substantially in the wake of the financial crisis. "After the financial crisis the volume of new issuances began to decline, which resulted in reduced profits for the defendants' desks underwriting and trading FFBs," the complaint states. "Rather than adapt to the new reality by developing ways to compete, defendants adjusted by unlawfully manipulating it in their favor." The suit is brought by the Deerfield Beach Municipal Firefighters Pension Trust Fund. The fund's counsel, private attorney Linda Nussbaum, Esq. -- lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com -- did not respond to a request for comment. Spokesmen for the named defendant, Bank of America, did not respond to a request for comment. [GN] BANK OF AMERICA: Kaymark Appeals Memo and Orders to 3rd Circuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Dale Kaymark and Non-party Michael P. Malakoff seek review of the District Court's March 2, 2019 memorandum opinion and order, as well as its March 4, 2019 order, issued in the lawsuit styled Dale Kaymark v. Bank of America NA, et al., Case No. 2-13-cv-00419, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. The nature of suit is stated as other contract actions. The appellate case is captioned as Dale Kaymark v. Bank of America NA, et al., Case No. 19-1646, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on March 15, 2019, Plaintiff Dale Kaymark and non-party Michael P. Malakoff appealed the District Court's January 22, 2019 order and its February 7, 2019 order. That appellate case is titled Dale Kaymark v. Bank of America NA, et al., Case No. 19-1424. The Clerk of the Appellate Court ruled that neither District Court order appears to be final within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. 1291 or otherwise appealable at this time. Hence, the Clerk directed all parties to file written responses addressing this issue, with a certificate of service attached, within 14 days from the date of this order.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant DALE KAYMARK, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated current and former homeowners in Pennsylvania, is represented by: John C. Evans, Esq. JC EVANS LAW 436 Seventh Avenue Koppers Building, 26th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Telephone: (412) 642-2300 E-mail: jcevans@jcevanslaw.com Plaintiff-Appellant DALE KAYMARK, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated current and former homeowners in Pennsylvania, and Not Party-Appellant MICHAEL P. MALAKOFF are represented by: Michael P. Malakoff, Esq. MICHAEL P. MALAKOFF, PC 3214 Ladoga Street Pittsburgh, PA 15204 Telephone: (412) 281-4217 E-mail: malakoff@mpmalakoff.com Defendants-Appellees BANK OF AMERICA NA and UDREN LAW OFFICES PC are represented by: Jonathan J. Bart, Esq. WILENTZ GOLDMAN & SPITZER PA Two Penn Center Plaza, Suite 910 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (215) 636-4466 E-mail: jbart@wilentz.com Defendant-Appellee BANK OF AMERICA NA is represented by: Andrew J. Soven, Esq. HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP 2929 Arch Street, Suite 800 Philadelphia, PA 19104 Telephone: (215) 252-9554 E-mail: Andrew.Soven@hklaw.com Defendant-Appellee UDREN LAW OFFICES PC is represented by: Daniel S. Bernheim, III, Esq. WILENTZ GOLDMAN & SPITZER PA Two Penn Center Plaza, Suite 910 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (215) 636-4466 E-mail: dbernheim@wilentz.com BARILLA AMERICA: Bolden Sues Over Pasta Sauce's Misleading Ad ------------------------------------------------------------- Lynn Bolden, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Barilla America, Inc., a corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02237 (C.D. Cal., April 2, 2019) is a class action against Defendant Barilla, seeking redress for Defendant's fraudulent and misleading practice of advertising its Pasta Sauce as containing "No Preservatives," when, in fact, the Product contains citric acid, a known preservative. The Defendant advertises its Pasta Sauce as containing "No Preservatives", despite the presence of citric acid, which is listed as an ingredient on the back of the bottles of its Pasta Sauce. The "No Preservatives" claim is prominently displayed on the front of the Product packaging even though citric acid is listed in the ingredients. The Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") has categorized citric acid as a preservative, used to prevent food spoilage, delay rancidity and slow changes in color, flavor and texture. Accordingly, Defendant's statements that the Products do not contain preservatives are false and misleading. By deceptively marketing and labeling the Product as containing "No Preservatives," Defendant wrongfully capitalized on, and reaped profits from, consumers' strong preference for food products made free of preservatives, says the complaint. Plaintiff purchased the Defendant's Pasta Sauce Product from January 2017 to October 2018. Defendant Barilla is an international manufacturer of pasta and pasta sauces, and Bertolli, Newman's Own and Kraft Heinz (which competes with major brands including the Classico pasta sauce brand) in an attempt to dominate the U.S. pasta sauce market.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gordon M. Fauth, Jr., Esq. K. Hope Echiverri Ranoa, Esq. FINKELSTEIN THOMPSON LLP 1935 Addison Street, Suite A Berkeley, CA 94704 Direct Phone: (510) 238-9610 Phone: (415) 398-8700 Facsimile: (415) 398-8704 Email: gfauth@finkelsteinthompson.com hranoa@finkelsteinthompson.com BEST WESTERN: Young Alleges Violation under ADA ----------------------------------------------- Best Western International, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Lawrence Young, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Best Western International, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-03074 (S.D. N.Y., April 5, 2019). Best Western International, Inc. owns and operates a chain of hotels. The Company offers accommodation rooms, online hotel booking, and other services. Best Western serves customers worldwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq. 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Tel: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: nyjg@aol.com BEVERAGE MARKETING: Niles Files Fraud Class Suit Over Energy Drink ------------------------------------------------------------------ Kalesha Niles and Jason Lahey, on behalf of themselves, the general public, and those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Beverage Marketing USA, Inc., Hornell Brewing Co., Inc., AriZona Beverage Company LLC, AriZona Beverages USA LLC, and AriZona Iced Tea LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-01902 (E.D. N.Y., April 2, 2019) is a class action against the Defendants on behalf of themselves, the general public, and those similarly situated for common law fraud, deceit and/or misrepresentation, breach of express and implied warranties, unjust enrichment/restitution, and violations of statewide consumer protection statutes. To sell their product, Defendants represent to consumers that it contains ginseng in an amount sufficient to provide energy to those who drink it. Consumers are familiar with the well-publicized benefits of consuming ginseng. Ginseng is believed to be a cure for low energy, and is purported to have other health benefits. The Defendants themselves credit the presence of ginseng for the success of the Product. The Product, however, does not contain any detectible amounts of ginseng, if indeed it contains any ginseng at all. Accordingly, Defendants' representations that (i) the Product has enough ginseng to provide energy; and (ii) the Product has "just the right amount of ginseng," are demonstrably false, asserts the complaint. The Defendants apparently decided to use, at best, a miniscule, scientifically undetectable amount of ginseng in the Product (or, more likely, to entirely omit ginseng from the Product), to increase their revenues. Over the past decade, demand for ginseng has skyrocketed while supply has dwindled, causing prices to surge above $1,000 per pound. Ginseng is so coveted in the marketplace that certain species of ginseng have been harvested to the edge of extinction. Defendants know that if they were to use enough ginseng in the Product to actually provide energy to consumers, their revenues and competitive advantage would suffer, adds the complaint. The Defendants never disclosed to consumers that the Product does not contain enough ginseng to provide energy. Defendants' misrepresentations and omissions have misled millions of consumers and caused them to pay a premium for the Product, says the complaint. Plaintiffs have purchased the Product many times within New York. Defendants are among the world's largest producers of canned and bottled beverages.[BN] Stephen M. Raab, Esq. GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP 113 Cherry Street, #55150 Seattle, WA 98140-2205 Phone: (415) 639-9090 x109 Email: stephen@gutridesafier.com BLUESTONE INDUSTRIES: Meyer Suit Alleges FLSA Breach ---------------------------------------------------- Mark Meyers, in his own right and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Bluestone Industries, Inc., Jillean L. Justice, James C. Justice III, and James T. Miller, Case No. 5:19-cv-00162 (S.D. W.Va., March 8, 2019), is brought against the Defendant for violations of the West Virginia Wage Payment and Collection Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendant has violated the terms of the aforementioned Acts by failing to issue proper and full payments to its employees, including the Plaintiff and his co-workers and has caused them to incur wire transfer fees. The Plaintiff Mark Meyers is a resident of West Virginia and was employed by the Defendant. The Defendant Bluestone Industries, Inc. is a West Virginia corporation. The Individual Defendants are officers of Bluestone. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Majestro, Esq. POWELL & MAJESTRO, PLLC 405 Capitol Street, Suite P1200 Charleston, WV 25301 Tel: (304) 346-2889 Fax: (304) 346-2895 BUSHRA FOOD: Faces Suleman Suit over Labor Law Violations --------------------------------------------------------- A wage-and-hour class action complaint has been filed against Bushra Food Corp, Bushra Shahza, and Jay Choudhary for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law (NYLL). The case is captioned ASAAD ABDU SULEMAN, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, against BUSHRA FOOD CORP. (D/B/A US FRIED CHICKEN), BUSHRA SHAHZA, and JAY CHOUDHARY (A.K.A. JAHANGIR), Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01947 (E.D.N.Y, April 4, 2019). In the complaint, Plaintiff Asaad Abdu Suleman assert the Defendants have violated several FLSA and NYLL provisions of minimum wage, overtime, wage statement, timely payment, unlawful deductions, and notice and recordkeeping requirements. Bushra Food Corp. (d/b/a US Fried Chicken) is a domestic corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York. It maintains its principal place of business at 129 Dwight Street, Brooklyn, NY 11231. Defendant Jay Choudhary is sued individually in his capacity as owner, officer and/or agent of Bushra. With an ownership interest, Choudhary possesses operational control over Bushra and controls significant functions of the company. He determines the wages and compensation of the employees of Defendants, including Plaintiff Suleman, establishes the schedules of the employees, maintains employee records, and has the authority to hire and fire employees. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 E-mail: Faillace@employmentcompliance.com CALLIHAN PHILIPS: Chisley Files Class Suit under FDCPA ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Callihan, Philips & Adams L.L.C. The case is styled as Latoya Chisley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Callihan, Philips & Adams L.L.C. and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-00198-SDD-EWD (M.D. La., April 4, 2019). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Callihan, Phillips & Adams is a professional debt recovery agency specializing in the collection of retail & commercial debts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel John Ford, Esq. Scott, Vicknair, Hair & Checki, LLC 909 Poydras Street, Suite 1100 New Orleans, LA 70112 Tel: (504) 684-5100 Email: ford@svhclaw.com CANON SOLUTIONS: Deanda Suit Alleges Labor Code Violations ---------------------------------------------------------- Carlos Deanda, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Canon Solutions America, Inc. and Does 1 through 10, Case No. 19STCV08040 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., March 8, 2019), is brought against the Defendants for California Labor Code violations and unfair business practices. The case stems from the Defendants' failure to pay minimum and straight time wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide meals periods, failure to authorize and permit rest periods, failure to maintain accurate records of hours worked and meal periods, failure to timely pay all wages to terminated employees, failure to indemnify necessary business expenses, and failure to furnish accurate wage statements. The Plaintiff Carlos Deanda, a California resident, worked for Defendants in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, as a digital service engineer from approximately December 2000 to September 2018. Canon Solutions America is the company created by the integration of Canon Business Solutions, Inc. with Oce. The Defendants owned and operated an industry, business, and establishment within the State of California, including Los Angeles County. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kane Moon, Esq. H. Scott Leviant, Esq. Allen Feghali, Esq. MOON & YANG, APC 1055 W. Seventh St. Suite 1880 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Tel: (213) 232-3128 Fax: (213) 232-3125 E-mail: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com scott.leviant@moonyanglaw.com allen.feghali@moonyanglaw.com CHLV GROUP: Navarro Asserts TCPA Violation in Calif. Suit. ---------------------------------------------------------- CAROLYN NAVARRO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CHLV GROUP, INC., and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-02488 (C.D. Cal., April 2, 2019) brought this action individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated seeking damages and any other available legal or equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of the Defendant in negligently, knowingly, and/or willfully contacting Plaintiff on Plaintiff's home telephone in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") and related regulations, specifically the National Do-Not-Call provisions, thereby invading Plaintiff's privacy. Beginning February 2018, Defendant contacted Plaintiff on Plaintiff's home telephone number in an attempt to solicit Plaintiff to purchase Defendant's services. The Defendant used an "automatic telephone dialing system" to place its call to Plaintiff seeking to solicit its services. The Defendant did not possess Plaintiff's "prior express consent" to receive calls using an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice on her telephone. The Defendant failed to establish and implement reasonable practices and procedures to effectively prevent telephone solicitations in violation of the regulations, says the complaint. Plaintiff, CAROLYN NAVARRO is a natural person residing in West Covina, California. Defendant, CHLV GROUP, INC. is a realty company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. Meghan E. George, Esq. Tom E. Wheeler, 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 mgeorge@toddflaw.com twheeler@toddflaw.com CHURRASQUERIA MARINA: Faces Ortega Romero's Labor Suit in NJ ------------------------------------------------------------ An employment-related class action complaint has been filed against Churrasqueria Marina, Inc., a/k/a Brinel, LLC., d/b/a Paulo's BBQ, and Paulo M. Simoes for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law (NJWHL). The case is captioned PEDRO ORTEGA ROMERO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. CHURRASQUERIA MARINA, INC., a/k/a BRINEL, LLC., d/b/a PAULO'S BBQ, and PAULO M. SIMOES, individually, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-09353 (D.N.J., April 5, 2019). Plaintiff Ortega Romero seeks recovery against Defendants for its violation of FLSA and NJWHL. Churrasqueria Marina is a restaurant located in 101 E. Westfield Ave. Roselle Park, NJ. Headquartered in South Plainfield, Middlesex County, NJ, Paulo's BBQ employs individuals to perform labor services. Its annual gross volume of sales made or business done was not less than $500,000.00. Paulo Simoes has been an owner, partner, officer and/or manager of Paulo's BBQ. Simoes was present at the restaurant every day, and managed the day to day operations, controlled the employees, the company pay practices and had the power to change same, and the power to hire and fire employees, set their wages, and otherwise control the terms of their employment.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq. JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A. 301 N. Harrison Street, Suite 9F, #306 Princeton, NJ 08540 Telephone: (201) 687-9977 Facsimile: (201) 595-0308 E-mail: JJaffe@JaffeGlenn.com COMCAST CABLE: Faces Hearn Suit over Background Checks ------------------------------------------------------ MICHAEL HEARN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01198-TWT (N.D. Ga., March 14, 2019) alleges violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The case is assigned to Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, doing business as Xfinity, provides cable operator services in the United States. It develops, manages, and operates broadband communication networks. The company offers various services over its cable communications networks, including traditional analog video; digital cable; and high-speed Internet service. The company was incorporated in 1981 and is based Wilmington, Delaware. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC operates as a subsidiary of Comcast Corporation. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Braxton Mason, Esq. MASON LAW GROUP, LLC- GA 1100 Peachstreet, NE, Suite 200 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 920-8040 Facsimile: (404) 920-8039 E-mail: jmason@atlshowbizlaw.com CONCORDIA INTERNATIONAL: June 25 Settlement Approval Hearing Set ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. on March 18 disclosed that the United States District Court Southern District of New York has approved the following announcement of a proposed class action settlement that would benefit purchasers of securities of Concordia International Corp. (OTCMKTS:CXRXF) (NASDAQ:CXRX): SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED CONCORDIA INTERNATIONAL CORP. SECURITIES FROM JANUARY 6, 2016 THROUGH AUGUST 12, 2016, INCLUSIVE. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, that a hearing will be held on June 25, 2019, at 11:00 a.m. before the Honorable Richard M. Berman, United States District Judge of the Southern District of New York, 500 Pearl Street, Court Room 17B, New York, New York 10007-1312, for the purpose of determining: (1) whether the proposed Settlement of the claims in the above-captioned Action for consideration including the sum of $9,250,000 should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether the proposed plan to distribute the Settlement proceeds is fair, reasonable, and adequate; (3) whether the application of Lead Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees of up to thirty percent (30%) of the Settlement Amount, reimbursement of expenses of not more than $385,000, and an incentive payment to Lead Plaintiff of not more than $5,000, should be approved; and (4) whether this Action should be dismissed with prejudice as set forth in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated December 20, 2018 (the "Stipulation"). If you purchased Concordia International Corp. ("Concordia") securities on a United States Exchange (shares purchased on a Canadian exchange are ineligible for compensation from the Settlement) during the period from January 6, 2016 and August 12, 2016, both dates inclusive (the "Settlement Class Period"), your rights may be affected by this Settlement, including the release and extinguishment of claims you may possess relating to your ownership interest in Concordia securities. If you have not received a detailed Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action ("Notice") and a copy of the Proof of Claim and Release Form, you may obtain copies by writing to or calling the Claims Administrator: Concordia International Corp. Litigation, c/o Strategic Claims Services, P.O. Box 230, 600 N. Jackson St., Ste. 205, Media, PA 19063; (Tel) (866) 274-4004; (Fax) (610) 565-7985; info@strategicclaims.net, or going to the website, www.strategicclaims.net. If you are a member of the Settlement Class, in order to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim and Release Form postmarked no later than May 29, 2019 to the Claims Administrator, establishing that you are entitled to recovery. Unless you submit a written exclusion request, you will be bound by any judgment rendered in the Action whether or not you make a claim. If you desire to be excluded from the Settlement Class, you must submit to the Claims Administrator a request for exclusion so that it is received no later than June 4, 2019, in the manner and form explained in the detailed Notice. All members of the Settlement Class who have not requested exclusion from the Settlement Class will be bound by any judgment entered in the Action pursuant to the Stipulation. Any objection to the Settlement, Plan of Allocation, or Lead Counsel's request for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses and award to Lead Plaintiff must be in the manner and form explained in the detailed Notice and received no later than May 28, 2019, to each of the following: Clerk of the Court United States District Court Southern District of New York 500 Pearl Street New York, New York 10007-1312 LEAD COUNSEL: Jacob A. Goldberg, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 101 Greenwood Avenue, Suite 440 Jenkintown, PA 19046 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS: Peter A. Stokes, Esq. NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP 98 San Jacinto Boulevard, Suite 1100 Austin, TX 78701-4255 If you have any questions about the Settlement, you may call or write to Lead Counsel: Jacob A. Goldberg, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 101 Greenwood Avenue, Suite 440 Jenkintown, PA 19046 Tel: 215-600-2817 PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING THIS NOTICE. Dated: February 28, 2019 [GN] COOK COUNTY: Guy Sues Over Freedom of Information Act Breach ------------------------------------------------------------ PATRICIA GUY, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. COOK COUNTY STATE'S ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, Defendant, Case No. 2019CH04259 (Circuit Ct., Cook Cty., Ill., April 2, 2019) seeks to overturn Defendant's refusal, in willful violation of the Illinois Freedom of Information Act, to respond to NINOS GORGIS's Freedom of Information Act requests. Pursuant to the fundamental philosophy of the American constitutional form of government, it is the public policy of the State of Illinois that all persons are entitled to full and complete information regarding the affairs of government and the official acts and policies of those who represent them as public officials and public employees consistent with the terms of the Illinois Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"). On December 21, 2018, GORGIS requested from CCSAO"[a]ll case files, texts, emails, notes, documents in regards to but not limited to case #99CR11761 that relates to the investigation into the murder of Dereth Womack, that occurred on April 24, 1999 at the corner of Euclid and Wolf in Mount Prospect, Illinois. GORGIS requested an index of all items available related to the investigation into this murder. This request should be construed to encompass the complete investigative 'street file' and all investigative documents. On December 21, 2018, CCSAO responded that it received GORGIS's FOIA request. CCSAO denied the entire request as unduly burdensome under 5 ILCS 140/3(g). CCSAO also denied any grand jury records as exempt under 5 ILCS 140/7(1)(a) and 725 ILCS 5/112-6. In violation of FOIA Section 3(g), CCSAO failed to "extend to the person making the request an opportunity to confer with it in an attempt to reduce the request to manageable proportions" before invoking the exemption, says the complaint. Plaintiff NINOS GORGIS is the FOIA requester in this case. COOK COUNTY STATES'S ATTORNEY'S OFFICE ("CCSAO") is a public body located in Cook County, Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew Topic, Esq. Joshua Burday, Esq. Merrick Wayne, Esq. LOEVY & LOEVY 311 North Aberdeen, 3rd Floor Chicago, IL 60607 Phone: 312-243-5900 Email: foia@loevy.com COSTCO WHOLESALE: Correa et al. Seek Minimum & OT Pay for Sales Rep ------------------------------------------------------------------- SILVERIO NEVAREZ, individually, EFREN CORREA and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, and DOES 1 through 25, the Defendants, Case No. 19STCV10017 (Cal. Super., March 25, 2019), alleges that Defendants failed to pay overtime, failed to provide itemized statement to employee, failed to pay upon termination or quitting employee, and failed to pay minimum wages under the California Labor Code. Nevarez is employed by the Defendants as an hourly worker commencing in April 2017. Correa was employed by the Defendants as an hourly worker from November 2012 to April 25, 2018. The Plaintiffs were required to work without being compensated for all hours worked. Moreover, since Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs and similarly situated class members minimum wages, Defendants are in violation of the Labor Code. The Plaintiff brings this claim on behalf of himself and all other current and former sales representatives for the recovery of civil penalties, as provided by California Labor Code, for Defendant's violation, in an amount according to proof, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: Michael A. Gould, Esq. Aarin Zeif, Esq. GOULD & ASSOCIATES 17822 East 17th Street, Suite 106 Tustin, CA 92780 Telephone: (714)669-2850 Facsimile: (714) 544-0800 E-mail: Michael@wageandhourlaw.com Aarin@wageandhourlaw.com DASH AMERICA: Figueroa Assert Breach of Disabilities Act -------------------------------------------------------- Dash America, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Jose Figueroa, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, ADR Provider v. Dash America, Inc. doing business as: Pearl Izumi, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-03019 (S.D. N.Y., April 4, 2019). DashAmerica, Inc., doing business as Pearl Izumi USA, Inc., manufactures and markets sports apparel for men and women. It offers jerseys, shorts and bibs, outerwear, tights, baselayers, essentials, gloves, socks, and cycling shoes for men and women. The company offers its products for skiing, cycling, triathlon, duathlon, running, and other outdoor sport activities. It offers its products online; and through its factory stores, dealers, and distributors, as well as online retailers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq. Cohen & Mizrahi LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Tel: (917) 299-6612 Fax: (929) 575-4195 Email: joseph@cml.legal DELTA AIR LINES: Settles Background Check Class Action for $2.3MM ----------------------------------------------------------------- Perry Cooper, writing for Bloomberg Law, reported that Delta Air Lines Inc. will pay $2.3 million to settle class claims by job applicants who allege it improperly obtained their credit reports, according to a deal that won preliminary approval Feb. 27. The nationwide class includes about 44,100 members. They won't have to make a claim but will be automatically enrolled in the class unless they choose to opt out. Class counsel may seek up to one-third of the settlement amount in attorneys' fees. Joseph L. Schofield sued Delta under the Fair Credit Reporting Act and California law after he applied for a job with the company. Delta's background check procedures lacked the required disclosures and authorizations, he says. Judge Edward M. Chen of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California wrote the opinion. A hearing on final approval and attorneys' fees is scheduled for July 11. Setareh Law Group represented the applicants. Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP represented Delta. The case is Schofield v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 2019 BL 66170, N.D. Cal., No. 18-cv-382, 2/27/19.[GN] DIRECT ENERGY: Sued by Burk Over Illegal Collection Calls --------------------------------------------------------- Brittany Burk, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Direct Energy, LP, Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-00663 (S.D. Tex., February 25, 2019), seeks statutory damages, permanent injunction to enjoin Defendants' and their agents' violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act; reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of this action; statutory prejudgment interest and such other relief. Direct is a Texas utility company with its headquarters in Houston. Defendants or its agents place telephone calls to consumers using autodialers and/or leave prerecorded telephone messages for their customers who allegedly owe them for utility services. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan D. Selbin, Esq. LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10013-1413 Tel. (212) 355-9500 Email: jselbin@lchb.com - and - Daniel M. Hutchinson, Esq. Nimish R. Desai, Esq. Evan J. Ballan, Esq. LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-3339 Tel. (415) 956-1000 Email: dhutchinson@lchb.com ndesai@lchb.com eballan@lchb.com - and - Gary M. Klinger, Esq. KOZONIS LAW, LTD 4849 N. Milwaukee Ave., Ste. 300 Chicago, IL 60630 Phone: (773) 545-9607 Fax: (773) 496-8617 Email: gklinger@kozonislaw.com DIRECT LENDING: Kosstrin Sues Over Inflated Financial Reports ------------------------------------------------------------- Marcia Kosstrin, TRUST AND PROFESSIONAL HOME IMPROVEMENTS INC. RETIREMENT PLAN, Plaintiffs, v. DIRECT LENDING INVESTMENTS, LLC, BRENDAN ROSS, BRYCE MASON, FRANK TURNER, RODNEY OMANOFF, and QUARTERSPOT INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-02452 (C.D. Cal., April 1, 2019) is an action concerning the Fund's misrepresentations about its due diligence leading to its disastrous investment in defendant VOIP Guardian Partners I, LLC ("VOIP Guardian"), and, separately, the Fund's materially inflated financial reports to Limited Partners caused by its materially inflated reported fair value for investments in QuarterSpot, Inc., a lending platform for small businesses. VOIP Guardian provides "factoring" financing to small telecommunications companies providing services to larger telecommunications companies. Under its factoring arrangements, VOIP Guardian utilizes the money provided to it by the Funds to purchase accounts receivable of the small telecoms at a discount. As of December 31, 2018, approximately 25% of the Funds' capital was invested in VOIP Guardian. On February 11, 2019, the Limited Partners learned by letter from defendant Brendan Ross, founder and CEO of the Funds and the General Partner, that the Funds were the victims of likely misconduct. According to Ross, $160 million, of a total of $190 million outstanding to VOIP Guardian, may not be recoverable. By materially misstating the value of the QuarterSpot investments, the General Partner and Ross falsely inflated the value of the Fund and thereby fraudulently induced Plaintiffs and other current Limited Partners to purchase their limited partnership interests at inflated prices. By not accurately reporting to them the true financial condition, valuation and risk in the Fund relating to the VOIP Guardian investments, the General Partner and the Individual Defendants breached the Limited Partnership Agreement, breached their fiduciary duties to the Limited Partners, deceived the Limited Partners concerning the value and risks concerning these investments, and deprived the Limited Partners of various contractual rights, including a meaningful right to withdraw from the Fund, causing them to incur significant loss of capital, says the complaint. The Plaintiff entities are investment vehicles for Jeffrey Greenberg and his spouse Marcia Kosstrin. Direct Lending Investments, LLC is the General Partner and Investment Manager of the Fund.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: DAVID E. AZAR, Esq. Milberg Tadler Phillips Grossman LLP 11766 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 500 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Phone: (213) 617-1200 Facsimile: (212) 868-1229 Email: dazar@milberg.com - and - HENRY J. KELSTON, Esq. ANDREI RADO, Esq. Milberg Tadler Phillips Grossman LLP One Pennsylvania Plaza, Suite 1920 New York, NY 10119 Phone: (212) 594-5300 Facsimile: (212) 868-1229 Email: hkelston@milberg.com arado@milberg.com DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Baker Sues over Debt Collection Practices ----------------------------------------------------------- CANDISS BAKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DYNAMIC RECOVERY SOLUTIONS LLC; and JOHN DOES 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-00103 (S.D. Tex., March 14, 2019) seeks to stop the Defendants' unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. The case is assigned to Judge George C. Hanks, Jr. Dynamic Recovery Services, Inc. provides collection services to the commercial sector. The company was founded in 1990 and is based in Farmers Branch, Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shawn Jaffer, Esq. SHAWN JAFFER LAW FIRM PLLC 6136 Frisco Square Blvd., Suite 400 Frisco, TX 75034 Telephone: (214) 210-9910 Facsimile: (214) 594-6100 E-mail: shawn@jafflaw.com EMPIRE FINANCE: Tanner Seeks Overtime Pay ----------------------------------------- An employment-related class action has been filed against Empire Finance Co. LLC for alleged violations of Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The case is captioned TABITHA TANNER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. EMPIRE FINANCE, CO. LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-00825 (E.D. Mo., April 4, 2019). Plaintiff Tabitha Tanner brings this lawsuit to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages under FLSA against Defendant Empire. The complaint asserts that Empire has failed to pay Tanner and other workers like her overtime for all hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek at 1.5 times their "regular rate" as required by the FLSA. Empire is a Missouri corporation with its corporate office located at 328 E Carl Albert Pkwy, McAlester, OK 74501. It operates at least 40 retail small consumer loan branches in Missouri, Oklahoma, and New Mexico. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard J. (Rex) Burch, 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 - and – Michael A. Josephson, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 ENVISION HEALTHCARE: Stewart Says 401k Plan Contributions Missing ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action complaint has been filed against Envision Healthcare Corporation and its subsidiaries over alleged violations of Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). The case is captioned JOHN STEWART, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ENVISION HEALTHCARE CORPORATION 1A Burton Hills Boulevard Nashville, TN 37215, and REIMBURSEMENT TECHNOLOGIES, INC 1000 River Road Conshohocken, PA 19428, and EMS MANAGEMENT LLC 6200 S. Syracuse Way, Suite 200 Greenwood Village, CO 80111, and CHARLES SCHWAB BANK 211 Main Street, 14th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105, EMPLOYEE BENEFIT PLAN FOR EMPLOYEES OF ENVISION HEALTHCARE C/O Envision Healthcare Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-01436-PD (E.D. Pa., April 4, 2019). The lawsuit seeks reimbursement of allegedly missing or stolen 401k contributions, contribution matches, and all applicable earnings and interest thereon of Plaintiff, John Stewart, and all other similarly situated employees of Envision Healthcare Corporation and its subsidiaries, including but not limited to EMS Management LLC and Reimbursement Technologies, Inc. which were withdrawn from the paychecks of Plaintiff and other employees of the Defendants on or about Nov. 9, 2018 which were never deposited into the Employee Benefit Plan for Employees of Envision Healthcare with Charles Schwab Bank despite representations to the contrary. Envision Healthcare Corporation is a Tennessee for-profit business entity with its headquarters at 1A Burton Hills Boulevard, Nashville, TN 37215. The company provides physician-led outsourced medical services in the United States. The company offers a range of hospital-based physician staffing, related management services, and comprehensive care management solutions. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: George A. Bochetto, Esq. Anton Kaminsky, Esq. BOCHETTO & LENTZ, P.C. 1524 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (212) 735-3900 ESTATES OF HYDE PARK: Faces Williams Labor Suit ----------------------------------------------- An employment-related class action complaint has been filed against The Estates of Hyde Park, LLC, Central Street Management, LLC, and Steven Miretzky for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Chicago Minimum Wage Ordinance. The case is captioned VIVIAN WILLIAMS, on behalf of herself, and all other plaintiffs similarly situated, known and unknown, Plaintiff, v. THE ESTATES OF HYDE PARK, LLC, CENTRAL STREET MANAGEMENT, LLC AND STEVEN MIRETZKY, INDIVIDUALLY, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02288 (N.D. Ill., April 4, 2019). Williams, on behalf of all other past and present employees similarly situated, seeks liquidated damages equal to the amount of all unpaid compensation. She also seeks reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred as a result of Defendant's violation of the FLSA and for such additional relief the Court deems appropriate under the circumstances. The Estates of Hyde Park, LLC, located at 4505 South Drexel Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60653, operates a nursing and rehabilitation facility for senior citizens that provides short and long-term medical care for patients. Steven Miretzky owns and manages The Estates of Hyde Park, LLC. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John William Billhorn, Esq. BILLHORN LAW FIRM 53 West Jackson Blvd., Suite 401 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 853-1450 EVERQUOTE INC: Kahn Swick Files Class Action Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------- Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors of a securities class action lawsuit against EverQuote, Inc. (NasdaqGM: EVER) relating to the purchase of the Company's shares issued pursuant to its June 2018 initial public offering (the "IPO"). This action is pending in the Supreme Court of the State of New York. What You May Do If you purchased shares of EverQuote shares issued pursuant to its June 2018 IPO and would like to discuss your legal rights and how this case might affect you and your right to recover for your economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact KSF Managing Partner Lewis Kahn, Esq. -- lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com -- call toll-free at 1-877-515-1850, or visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgm-ever/ to learn more. About the Lawsuit EverQuote and certain of its executives are charged with failing to disclose material information in its Registration Statement filed pursuant to its IPO, violating federal securities laws. The alleged false and misleading statements and omissions include, but are not limited to, that: (i) the Company's "quote request volume" and revenue were not growing as the Company had touted in its Registration Statement; (ii) the Company had taken measures to decrease its quote request volume in order to inflate its margin and other financial metrics before the IPO closed; and (iii) as a result of the foregoing, EverQuote's financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. The case is Townsend v. EverQuote, Inc., No. 650997/2019. Lewis Kahn, Esq. Managing Partner Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC 1100 Poydras St., Suite 3200 New Orleans, LA 70163 Telephone: 1-877-515-1850 Email: lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com [GN] FARMERS INSURANCE: Nguyen Seeks Minimum & Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------- TIEN NGUYEN, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE and DOES 1 through 25, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV10020 (Cal. Super., March 25, 2019), alleges that Defendants failed to pay overtime wages due, failed to provide itemized statement to employee, failed to pay upon termination or quitting employee, failed to provide rest breaks and meal periods, and failed to pay minimum wages under the California Labor Code. The Plaintiff is employed by Defendants as a claims representative commencing in April 2017. The Plaintiff and other similarly situated class members often worked in excess of eight hours in one workday and/or 40 hours in one workweek and were not paid at a rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay, the lawsuit states. As a result of the unlawful acts of Defendants, the Plaintiff and other similarly situated class members are entitled to recover unpaid overtime wages in the amount to be proven at trial, prejudgment interest, attorney's fees and costs pursuant to California Labor Code.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: Michael A. Gould, Esq. Aarin Zeif, Esq. GOULD & ASSOCIATES 17822 East 17th Street, Suite 106 Tustin, CA 92780 Telephone: (714)669-2850 Facsimile: (714) 544-0800 E-mail: Michael@wageandhourlaw.com Aarin@wageandhourlaw.com FERRARA CANDY: May 1 SweeTARTS Settlement Opt-Out Deadline Set -------------------------------------------------------------- A proposed settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit involving Ferrara Candy Company, the maker of SweeTARTS candy. On February 28th, 2019, United States District Court Judge Anthony J. Battaglia preliminarily approved a settlement of a lawsuit between the above Defendant and purchasers of certain SweeTARTS products. The lawsuit alleged that the Defendant violated certain laws by labeling and marketing SweeTARTS products in a way that was false or deceptive. Defendant stands by its advertising and denies it did anything wrong. The Court has not decided which side was right. Instead, the parties have decided to settle the case. The proposed class settlement provides for certain modifications of the labeling and packaging of SweeTARTS products. Class members, who purchased certain SweeTARTS products between January 1, 2012 and February 28, 2019, are advised to carefully read the Class Notice as their legal rights may be affected whether they act or not. The covered SweeTARTS products include: (1) SweeTARTS Original; (2) SweeTARTS Mini Chewy; (3) SweeTARTS Giant Chewy; (4) SweeTARTS Chews; (5) SweeTARTS Extreme Sour Chewy; (6) SweeTARTS Chewy Sours; (7) SweeTARTS Sour Gummies; (8) SweeTARTS Gummies; (9) SweeTARTS Whipped & Tangy; (10) SweeTARTS Cherry Punch Soft & Chewy Ropes; (11) SweeTARTS Tangy Strawberry Soft & Chewy Ropes; and (12) SweeTARTS Jelly Beans Class members may request to be excluded from the class ("opt out" of the settlement), comment on the settlement, or object to the settlement, but must do so by May 1, 2019. Class members who do nothing will be bound by the Court's decision. The Court will hold a final approval hearing on this case on May 31, 2019 at 2:00 pm in Courtroom 4A of the federal courthouse at 221 West Broadway, San Diego, California. Your rights and options -- and the deadlines to exercise them -- are only summarized in this press release. A detailed Long Form Notice describes, in full, benefits of the settlement, how to object, or exclude yourself, and provides other important information. For more information and to obtain a Long Form Notice, or other documents, visit www.sweetartsclassaction.com, call toll-free 1-888-857-5936, or write to: SweeTARTS Class Action Administrator, c/o Classaura Class Action Administration, 1718 Peachtree St #1080, Atlanta, GA 30309. [GN] FOOT LOCKER RETAIL: Haggar Claims Website not Blind-Friendly ------------------------------------------------------------ Elia Haggar, Kyo Hak Chu and Valerie Brooks, individually and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Foot Locker Retail, Inc. and Does 1 to 10, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-01387 (C.D. Cal., February 25, 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 and California's Unruh Civil Rights Act. Defendant offers footwear via its website https://www.footlocker.com/. Plaintiffs are legally blind and claims that Rag & Bone's website cannot be accessed by the visually-impaired. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Bobby Saadian, Esq. Thiago Coelho, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM 3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90010 Tel: (213) 381-9988 Fax: (213) 381-9989 Email info@wilshirelawfirm.com GOOGLE INC: Karate School Owner Urges 9th Cir. to Reinstate Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Wendy Davis, writing for MediaPost Communications, reports that a karate school owner who advertises on Google wants a federal appellate court to allow him to proceed with a class-action complaint accusing the company of mishandling paid search campaigns. Mark Trudeau, an Oakland County, Michigan resident who co-owns Troy Martial Arts, alleged in a lawsuit filed in February of 2018 that Google displayed pay-per-click ads for his karate studio when users typed queries containing "negative" keywords -- meaning terms that were supposed to prevent ads from appearing. Last year, U.S. District Court Judge Beth Labson Freeman in San Jose, California granted Google's motion to send the matter to arbitration. Freeman ruled that Google's contract with search advertisers required arbitration of all disputes. Trudeau is now asking the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to reverse that ruling and reinstate the case. He argues that Google didn't add an arbitration clause to its advertiser contract until September of 2017 -- after the company allegedly mishandled his search campaign. He contends that Google's arbitration provision doesn't apply to activity that occurred before September 2017. "Google did not have the right to add an arbitration clause that would apply retroactively to already-accrued claims," he argues in papers filed this week with the 9th Circuit. He adds that before September of 2017, Google had promised to avoid retroactive changes to its terms of service. "The very notion that Google can unilaterally and retroactively eliminate a term promising no retroactivity would run afoul of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing," he argues. Trudeau alleged that he began advertising with Google in 2012, and agreed to pay between 50 cents and $5 per click. He also said he attempted to use "negative" keywords to block ads from being displayed when people's search queries suggested they lived far from Oakland County. For instance, he said, he wanted to block ads from being displayed to people who used the word "Southfield" in their queries, because he didn't believe people in Southfield would travel to Troy for martial arts training. Despite his attempts to block those ads, Google sometimes served ads when the queries contained "negative" keywords like Southfield, he alleged. For example, he alleged, if search users misspelled "Southfield" as "Douthfield," Google sometimes showed ads for his studio in Troy. "The order compelling arbitration should be reversed, and Google should be held to account for the tens of millions of dollars that it over-billed its contractual counterparties," he says in his newest court papers. [GN] GRANITE QUEENS: Fischler Alleges Violation under ADA ---------------------------------------------------- Granite Queens Plaza 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. Granite Queens Plaza LLC, as assignee of Aurora LIC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02031 (E.D. N.Y., April 8, 2019). Granite Queens Plaza LLC is in the Counter Top Installation business.[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 - and – Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq. Lipsky Lowe LLP 630 Third Avenue New York, NY 10017 Tel: (212) 392-4772 Fax: (212) 444-1030 Email: chris@lipskylowe.com HAYNES FAMILY: Loper Seeks Overtime & Minimum Wages --------------------------------------------------- TIMOTHY LOPER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. HAYNES FAMILY OF PROGRAMS, INC., a California Corporation; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 19STCV10010 (Cal. Super., March 25, 2019), alleges that the Defendants failed to pay all overtime wages and minimum wages pursuant to the California Labor Code. The Plaintiff brings this complaint for recovery of unpaid wages and penalties. During Plaintiff's time working with Haynes, the Plaintiff was an hourly non-exempt employee earning between $14.00-16.00/hour while employed. Haynes Family of Programs runs a treatment program for children with special needs, such as autism. The Defendant hired the Plaintiff to provide childcare-related services. The Defendant engaged in systematic wage theft by requiring the Plaintiff to clock out from work and to have him continue participating in additional tasks after he clocked out of work. The Plaintiff was not paid for this extra work, which should have been paid at an overtime premium rate. The Defendant also maintained an unlawful rest period policy, which deprived the Plaintiff of all of the rest periods he was entitled to receive, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: Kevin M. Schwin, Esq. SCHWIN LAW, PC 1220 East Olive Ave. Fresno, CA 93728 Telephone: (559) 715-2889 Facsimile: (559)221-6812 E-mail: kevin@scliwinlaw.com - and - Briana M. Kim, Esq. BRIANA KIM, PC 249 E. Ocean Blvd, Suite 814 Long Beach, CA 90802 Telephone:(714) 482-6301 Facsimile: (714)482-6302 E-mail: briana@brianakim.com INDIGO ROOM: McCartney et al Seek Minimum & OT Pay for Bartenders ----------------------------------------------------------------- PETER MCCARTNEY, and BRIAN WEAVER, Individually and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated , the Plaintiffs, vs. THE INDIGO ROOM, INC., a Florida for profit corporation, RAIMOND AULEN, Individually, and RAIMOND AULEN d/b/a as THE 86 ROOM Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-00185-UA-MRM (M.D. Fla., March 25, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act on behalf of bartenders and wait staff at the Defendants' Ft. Myers, Florida establishments, The Indigo Room and The 86 Room. Both bars are owned and operated by Raimond Aulen. The Defendants have a longstanding policy of failing to pay a direct wage to their bartender and wait staff employees, instead opting to either pay only the tips earned or to appropriate the tips and use them to pay the direct wage to the bartenders without a valid tip pool agreement, the lawsuit says. The Defendants allegedly required and/or permitted McCartney and Weaver to work as bartenders/waiters in excess of 40 hours per week, but refused to compensate them at the applicable minimum wage and overtime rate. In fact, Defendants refused to compensate the Plaintiffs at all for the hours that they worked. the Plaintiffs' only compensation was in the form of tips from the bar patrons. The Defendants' conduct violates the FLSA, which requires non-exempt employees, such as the Plaintiffs, to be compensated for their overtime work at a rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay. Likewise, Defendants are not entitled to take a tip credit with respect to their bartenders and wait staff because they do not put the bartenders and wait staff on adequate notice of their intent to utilize the tip credit.[BN] Attorney for the Plaintiffs and Class Members: Paul M. Botros., Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 600 N. Pine Island Road, Suite 400 Plantation, FL 33324 Telephone: (954) 318-0268 Facsimile: (954) 327-3017 E-mail: pbotros@forthepeople.com INFINITY AUTO INSURANCE: Plantation Open Suit Transferred to Fla. ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Plantation Open MRI LLC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated other Jorge Hidalgo, Plaintiff v. Infinity Auto Insurance Company, Defendant, Case No. CACE-19-004473, was transferred from the 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on April 8, 2019, and assigned Case No. 0:19-cv-60911-RNS. The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Insurance. Infinity Auto Insurance Company is an underwriting company that provides car insurance policies. The company was formerly known as Leader Insurance Company and changed its name in January, 2006. Infinity Auto Insurance Company was founded in 1950 and is based in Dallas, Texas. Infinity Auto Insurance Company operates as a subsidiary of Infinity Insurance Company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jose Pete Font, Esq. Font & Nelson, LLC 200 S. Andrews Ave., Suite 501 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Tel: (954) 248-2920 Fax: (954) 248-2134 Email: jfont@fontnelson.com - and - Sean A. Storani, Esq. Font & Nelson, PLLC 200 S. Andrews Avenue, Suite 501 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Tel: (954) 248-2920 The Defendant is represented by: Garrett Andrew Tozier, Esq. 4301 W. Boy Scout Blvd., Ste. 300 Tampa, FL 33607 Tel: (813) 227-8174 Email: gtozier@shutts.com - and - Rachel Marie La Montagne,Esq. Shutts & Bowen LLP 200 South Biscayne Blvd., Suite 4100 Miami, FL 33131 Tel: (305) 358-6300 Fax: (305) 381-9982 Email: rlamontagne@shutts.com - and - Victoria San Pedro Madani, Esq. Shutts & Bowen 200 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 4100 Miami, FL 33131 Tel: (305) 379-9154 Fax: (305) 415-9872 Email: vmadani@shutts.com - and - Suzanne Youmans Labrit, Esq. Shutts & Bowen LLP 4301 W. Boy Scout Blvd., Suite 300 Tampa, FL 33607 Tel: (813) 227-8113 Fax: (813) 227-8213 Email: slabrit@shutts.com INFINITY INDEMNITY: Plantation Open Suit Transferred to S.D. Fla. ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Plantation Open MRI LLC a/a/o Shawn Thomas on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Infinity Indemnity Insurance Company, Defendant, Case No. CACE-19-004540, was transferred from the 17th Judicial Circuit Court of Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on April 8, 2019, and assigned Case No. 0:19-cv-60912-WJZ. The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Insurance. Infinity Indemnity Insurance Company operates as a subsidiary of Infinity Insurance Company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jose Pete Font, Esq. Font & Nelson, LLC 200 S. Andrews Ave., Suite 501 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Tel: (954) 248-2920 Fax: (954) 248-2134 Email: jfont@fontnelson.com The Defendant is represented by: Garrett Andrew Tozier, Esq. 4301 W. Boy Scout Blvd., Ste. 300 Tampa, FL 33607 Tel: (813) 227-8174 Email: gtozier@shutts.com - and - Rachel Marie La Montagne, Esq. Shutts & Bowen LLP 200 South Biscayne Blvd., Suite 4100 Miami, FL 33131 Tel: (305) 358-6300 Fax: (305) 381-9982 Email: rlamontagne@shutts.com - and - Victoria San Pedro Madani, Esq. Shutts & Bowen 200 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 4100 Miami, FL 33131 Tel: (305) 379-9154 Fax: (305) 415-9872 Email: vmadani@shutts.com - and - Suzanne Youmans Labrit, Esq. Shutts & Bowen LLP 4301 W. Boy Scout Blvd., Suite 300 Tampa, FL 33607 Tel: (813) 227-8113 Fax: (813) 227-8213 Email: slabrit@shutts.com IOOF: Faces Shareholder Class Action Over APRA Fallout ------------------------------------------------------ Misa Han, writing for Australian Financial Review, reports that embattled wealth company IOOF is facing a shareholder class action over its alleged failure to inform shareholders about its fallout with the regulator over the alleged breach of superannuation laws. The shareholder class action, led by former Maurice Blackburn partner Damian Scattini, now with Quinn Emanuel, and backed by US-based litigation funder Regency Group, is expected to be filed within weeks. Among those who have expressed interest in the class action include sophisticated investors and retail investors, although it will be run as an open class action meaning shareholders who bought the IOOF shares between May 2015 and December 2018 will be part of the action unless they opt out. IOOF chief executive Chris Kelaher is on leave while he is defending the prudential regulator's action against him. AAP The class action is based on the Hayne royal commission's finding of possible contravention of trustee duties under the ASIC Act. The action will allege IOOF was aware its conduct would have significant legal and regulatory risks, and between May 2015 and December 2018 it breached its continuous disclosure obligations to shareholders and engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct. Mr Scattini said the banking royal commission had revealed a number of issues with IOOF's management of super funds. "When ordered to compensate their superannuation customers, IOOF did so with their superannuation customers' own money," he said. "They should have known that was going to draw the ire of the regulator." Mr Scattini said IOOF had failed to inform the market about its troubled relationship with the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority, and when the issue was exposed in the royal commission, it failed to address the regulator's concerns. "They should have revealed to the market they were under investigation by APRA. It was dragged out in the royal commission and even then they refused to do the right thing and APRA came down hard on it," he said. "No wonder the market reacted with shock." Shine also investigating Quinn Emanuel is not the only class-action law firm preparing to make a move on IOOF. ASX-listed law firm Shine Lawyers said in December it was investigating a potential class action against IOOF with backing from litigation funders ICP and Litigation Lending. It said the scope of its investigation was broader and it was also looking at the allegations of insider trading, front running and staff cheating on exams that date back to 2015. The class action announcement follows the prudential regulator's taking IOOF chief executive Chris Kelaher, chairman George Venardos and three senior executives to the Federal Court in December, seeking to disqualify them from sitting on superannuation fund boards. The shock move from the typically litigation-shy regulator wiped its market capitalisation by almost $1 billion in a single day and forced Mr Kelaher and Mr Venardos to go on extended leave while they defend the action in a three-week hearing in July. The banking royal commission and the court case revealed APRA had raised concerns about IOOF's management of superannuation funds over a number of years before the regulator decided to make the shock move on IOOF and its senior leaders. The regulator claimed the final straw was IOOF ignoring the regulator's call to respond to a proposal for a court-enforceable undertaking by a midday deadline. Within hours, APRA filed the court action against IOOF. On March 15, IOOF shares closed at $6.37, down 40 per cent from the 12-month high of $10.77 in March last year. IOOF declined to comment on March 17 about the proposed class action, but previously said it believed APRA's allegations were "misconceived" and "it and its executives intend to vigorously defend the proceedings". [GN] JENNINGS ROAD: Underpays Drivers, Berman Suit Alleges ----------------------------------------------------- STANLEY BERMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JENNINGS ROAD MANAGEMENT CORP. d/b/a THE HERB CHAMBERS COMPANIES; HERB CHAMBERS OF NATICK, INC.; and HERBERT G. CHAMBERS, Defendants, Case No. 19-722 (Mass. Super., Middlesex Cty., March 14, 2019) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs. The Plaintiff Berman was employed by the Defendants as driver. Jennings Road Management Corp. was founded in 1985. The company's line of business includes providing management services on a contract or fee basis. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael R. Harriman, Esq. Rachel N. Costello, Esq. HARRIMAN LAW 92 State Street, 9th Floor Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: (617) 482-1723 E-mail: mharriman@harriman-law.com JESSE CREEK: Odom Suit Asserts WARN Act Violation ------------------------------------------------- Curtis Blake Odom on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Jesse Creek Mining, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-00522-RDP (N.D. Ala., April 2, 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 (the "WARN Act"). The Plaintiff was an employee of the Defendant until he was terminated as part of, or as a result of a mass layoff and/or plant closing ordered by the Defendant. As such, the Defendant is liable under the WARN Act for the failure to provide the Plaintiff and the other similarly situated former employees at least 60 days' advance written notice of termination, as required by the WARN Act, says the complaint. Plaintiff was an employee who was employed by Defendant and worked at or reported to the Facility until his termination without cause on or about March 27, 2019. Defendant was a Delaware limited liability company which conducted mining operations.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mary E. Olsen, Esq. M. Vance McCrary, Esq. THE GARDNER FIRM, PC 182 St. Francis Street, Suite 103 Mobile, AL 36602 Phone: (251) 433-8100 Fax: (251) 433-8181 - and - Stuart J. Miller, Esq. LANKENAU & MILLER, LLP 132 Nassau Street, Suite1100 New York, NY 10038 Phone: (212) 581-5005 Fax: (212) 581-2122 KNISHKA RESTAURANT: Underpays Kitchen Workers, Ramirez Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- JOSE NELSON RAMIREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KNISHKA RESTAURANT ASSOCIATES INC.; PRADEPP MALHOTRA; and MEENA MALHOTRA, Defendants, Case No. 19-1476 (E.D.N.Y., March 14, 2019) is an action against the Defendants' failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. Mor Ramirez was employed by the Defendants as a kitchen worker. Knishka Restaurant Associates Inc. is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of New York. The Company is engaged in the restaurant business. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Telephone: (718) 263-9591 KORAN LANDSCAPE: Underpays Landscapers, Ventura et al. Allege ------------------------------------------------------------- JUAN VENTURA; JOSE GRANADOS DOMINGUEZ; CASTO CUADRA; JOSE LIDIO REYES GRANADOS; CARLOS HUMBERTO CHAVEZ; HEBER ALFARO; and LUIS ALFARO DOMINGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. KORAN LANDSCAPE SERVICE INC.; BILL KORAN; BRAD WINE; and JIM HAND, Defendants, Case No. CV19-1478 (E.D.N.Y., March 14, 2019) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as landscapers. Koran Landscape Service Inc. provides grounds maintenance, and landscape construction services. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, PC 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 114415 Telephone: (718) 263-9591 Facsimile: (718) 263-9598 KRAFT HEINZ: Brower Piven Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- The securities litigation law firm of Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation, disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of purchasers of The Kraft Heinz Company (Nasdaq: KHC) ("Kraft" or the "Company") securities during the period between May 4, 2017 to February 21, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors who wish to become proactively involved in the litigation have until April 25, 2019 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. If you wish to choose counsel to represent you and the class, you must apply to be appointed lead plaintiff and be selected by the Court. The lead plaintiff will direct the litigation and participate in important decisions including whether to accept a settlement for the class in the action. The lead plaintiff will be selected from among applicants claiming the largest loss from investment in Kraft securities during the Class Period. Members of the class will be represented by the lead plaintiff and counsel chosen by the lead plaintiff. No class has yet been certified in the above action. The complaint accuses the defendants of violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by virtue of the defendants' failure to disclose during the Class Period that that Kraft's internal controls, specifically with respect to its procurement area, were inadequate, and that Kraft would be forced to write down a significant amount of goodwill and certain intangible assets in its Kraft natural cheese business, its Oscar Mayer cold cuts business, and its Canada retail business due to supply chain issues. According to the complaint, following a February 21, 2019 announcement of its earnings for the fourth quarter of 2018 and that it had received a subpoena from the Securities and Exchange Commission in October 2018 in connection with the Company's procurement function, the value of Kraft shares declined significantly. If you have suffered a loss in excess of $100,000 from investment in Kraft securities purchased on or after May 4, 2017 and held through the revelation of negative information during and/or at the end of the Class Period and would like to learn more about this lawsuit and your ability to participate as a lead plaintiff, without cost or obligation to you please; Charles J. Piven, Esq. Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation 1925 Old Valley Road Stevenson, Maryland 21153 Telephone: 410-415-6616 Email: hoffman@browerpiven.com [GN] LAKEFRONT TERRACE: Young Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act ----------------------------------------------------------- Lakefront Terrace Resort LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Lawrence Young, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Lakefront Terrace Resort LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-03131 (S.D. N.Y., April 8, 2019). Lakefront Terrace Resort offers a picturesque oasis along the shores of Lake George, including a 150-foot private beach and heated swimming pool.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq. 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Tel: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: nyjg@aol.com LAN SHENG: Wu Seeks Minimum Wage & Overtime Pay ----------------------------------------------- A case, GANG WU, on his own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated Plaintiff, v. LAN SHENG SZECHUAN FOOD INC d/b/a Lan Sheng Szechuan Restaurant; LAN YANG, ZI XIANG HE a/k/a Peter He, GYALTSEN LOBSING, BIN SHENG YAN, and ANGIE "DOE", the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02632-JGK (S.D.N.Y., March 25, 2019), seeks minimum wage and overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. According to the complaint, the Defendants have willfully and intentionally committed widespread violations of the FLSA and NYLL by engaging in pattern and practice of failing to pay their employees, including Plaintiff, minimum wage for each hour worked and overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 each workweek. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants to work as a deliveryman at 128 West 36 Street, New York, NY 10018.[BN] Attorney for the Plaintiff, proposed FLSA Collective and potential Rule 23 Class: John Troy, Esq. TROY LAW, PLLC 41-25 Kissena Boulevard Suite 119 Flushing, NY 11355 Telephone: (718) 762-1324 LENNY & LARRY'S: BakerHostetler Attorneys Discuss Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------ Alan L. Friel, Esq. -- afriel@bakerlaw.com -- Linda Goldstein, Esq. -- lgoldstein@bakerlaw.com -- Amy Ralph Mudge, Esq. -- amudge@bakerlaw.com -- and Randal M. Shaheen, Esq. -- rshaheen@bakerlaw.com -- of BakerHostetler, in an article for Mondaq, report that settlement in misleading label action unfair to class members says DOJ. Dapibus Populo Lenny & Larry's is a fun brand -- bold, colorful packaging with a distinctly '80s palette, goofy brand icon featuring the woofed-out hair of the founders, and lots of exclamation points in the copy. Is all this zip deployed because it's selling a product that is so relentlessly healthy? As the company website puts it: "Lenny & Larry's The Complete Cookie(R) forms the foundation of a whole new category of food: Baked Nutrition(R). Vegan, Kosher, and Non-GMO . . ." In addition to its Complete Cookies, the company also hawks a "Muscle Muffin" and a "Muscle Brownie." Its entire line is pitched as "a better way to get more protein in your diet while enjoying something tasty." Just the Snacks, Ma'am But when a pair of consumers from Michigan and Illinois sued Lenny & Larry's in 2017, their accusations struck at the heart of the company's identity. Over the course of three amended complaints (the final landed in March 2018), the evolving group of class plaintiffs accused the company of mislabeling its products so that they appeared healthier than they are, such as by allegedly misrepresenting the number of calories and amount of fat and protein the products contained. The plaintiffs also alleged that Lenny & Larry's testing methodology was flawed and not in compliance with various federal and state testing regulations. "Based on Plaintiffs' testing," the final complaint claimed, "the Product generally contain [sic] 40%-50% less protein than stated on the label. Defendant has also misrepresented other key nutrients in the Product, including the total calories, carbohydrates, fats and sugars." The parties wrangled for a few more months in the Northern District of Illinois and reached a $5 million settlement in October 2018. And then the feds showed up. The Department of Justice (DOJ or Department) filed a statement of interest with the court in February 2019 alleging that the settlement was unfair to class members. The DOJ claimed that the majority of the cash settlement funds were set to go to the class counsel and amounted, in the final analysis, to a marketing opportunity for the cookie makers. Specifically, the DOJ took issue with the fact that the bulk of the nonmonetary award would "consist of free cookies the defendant plans to send to vendors across the country . . ." For the record, the DOJ is notified about all proposed class action settlements -- a requirement of the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA). "While the CAFA notice provision does not expressly grant specific authority or impose explicit obligations upon federal or state officials," the Department wrote in the statement, "the Act's legislative history shows that Congress intended the notice provision to enable public officials to 'voice concerns if they believe that the class action settlement is not in the best interest of their citizens.'" The Takeaway And voice them it did. The Department claimed that the settlement, which involved 90,000 class members, was divided in such a way as to leave the 70,000 members who opted for cash payments out in the cold. Of the original $5 million, $3.15 million had been set aside as a "large cy pres distribution of free cookies to vendors who already sell defendant's products . . . ." That left about $1.85 million on the table. But class counsel was asking for $1.1 million in fees. After other costs, only $350,000 remained for the class members who wanted cash. "A class member who submitted a claim with proof of purchase for $50 likely would receive roughly $25," the department claimed. "A class member without proof of purchase seeking the standard $10 claim would instead receive about $5. This pro rata reduction 'dramatically reduce[s]' the settlement's 'apparent value.'" Lawyers for Lenny & Larry's told the press that the issues raised by the feds were already being addressed by the company and the plaintiffs before the statement was issued. Pursuit of a settlement restructuring is in the hands of the district court; we'll watch with interest for its response. [GN] LIFE FOR RELIEF: Kempton Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages ------------------------------------------------------------ Ty Kempton, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Life for Relief and Development Inc., a California corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-02156-DJH (D. Ariz., April 2, 2019) seeks to stop the Defendants' violation the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by sending unsolicited autodialed text messages to consumers, and to obtain injunctive and monetary relief for all persons injured by Life for Relief's conduct. Life for Relief is a non-profit corporation and it uses text message marketing to solicit donations. In Plaintiff's case, Life for Relief sent approximately eight unsolicited, unwanted autodialed text messages to his cellular phone. In response to these text messages, Plaintiff files this lawsuit seeking injunctive relief, requiring Defendant to cease sending unwanted text messages to consumers' cellular telephone numbers using an automatic dialing system without consent, as well as an award of statutory damages to the members of the Class and costs. Plaintiff Kempton is a Gilbert, Arizona resident. Life for Relief is a California nonprofit corporation headquartered in Southfield, Michigan.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nathan Brown, Esq. Brown Patent Law 15100 N 78th Way Suite 203 Scottsdale, AZ 85260 Phone: 602-529-3474 Email: Nathan.Brown@BrownPatentLaw.com - and - Stefan Coleman, Esq. Law Offices of Stefan Coleman, P.A. 201 s. Biscayne Blvd, 28th Floor Miami, FL 33131 Phone: (877) 333-9427 Fascimile: (888) 498-8946 Email: law@StefanColeman.com - and - Avi R. Kaufman, Esq. Kaufman P.A. 400 NW 26th Street Miami, FL 33127 Phone: (305) 469-5881 Email: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com MDL 2741: Ingle Suit vs Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled EDDIE INGLE, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY and JOHN DOES 1-50, the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00311 (Filed Feb. 26, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco) on March 26, 2019. The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-01500-VC to the proceeding. This is an action for damages suffered by the Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Ingle case is being consolidated with MDL 2741 in re: Roundup Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on October 3, 2016. These actions share common factual questions arising out of allegations that Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, particularly its active ingredient, glyphosate, causes non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. The Plaintiff alleges that they or their decedents developed non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after using Roundup over the course of several or more years. Plaintiff also alleges that the use of glyphosate in conjunction with other ingredients, in particular the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA), renders Roundup even more toxic than glyphosate on its own. Issues concerning general causation, the background science, and regulatory history will be common to all actions. In its October 3, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions in this MDL involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Northern District of California will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings (including with respect to discovery, privilege, and Daubert motion practice); and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria. The lead case is 3:16-md-02741-VC.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: D. Todd Mathews, Esq. Megan Myers Arvola, Esq 156 N. Main St. Edwardsville, IL 62025 Telephone: (618) 659-9833 Facsimile: (618) 659-9834 E-mail: todd@gorijulianlaw.com marvola@gorijulianlaw.com MDL 2741: Kunz Suit vs Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled RICHARD W. KUNZ and MARY J. KUNZ, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY and JOHN DOES 1-50, the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00272 (Filed Feb. 21, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco) on Mar. 26, 2019. The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-01496-VC to the proceeding. This is an action for damages suffered by the Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Kunz case is being consolidated with MDL 2741 in re: Roundup Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on October 3, 2016. These actions share common factual questions arising out of allegations that Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, particularly its active ingredient, glyphosate, causes non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. The Plaintiff alleges that they or their decedents developed non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after using Roundup over the course of several or more years. Plaintiff also alleges that the use of glyphosate in conjunction with other ingredients, in particular the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA), renders Roundup even more toxic than glyphosate on its own. Issues concerning general causation, the background science, and regulatory history will be common to all actions. In its October 3, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions in this MDL involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Northern District of California will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings (including with respect to discovery, privilege, and Daubert motion practice); and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria. The lead case is 3:16-md-02741-VC.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs: Seth S. Webb, Esq. BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C. 211 North Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 E-mail: sethw@getbc.com Telephone: (314) 222-2222 Facsimile: (314) 421-0359 MDL 2741: Lubben Suit vs Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled DAVID C. LUBBEN and ESTHER LUBBEN, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY and JOHN DOES 1-50, the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00275 (Filed Feb. 21, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco) on March 26, 2019. The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-01497-VC to the proceeding. This is an action for damages suffered by the Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Lubben case is being consolidated with MDL 2741 in re: Roundup Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on October 3, 2016. These actions share common factual questions arising out of allegations that Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, particularly its active ingredient, glyphosate, causes non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. The Plaintiff alleges that they or their decedents developed non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after using Roundup over the course of several or more years. Plaintiff also alleges that the use of glyphosate in conjunction with other ingredients, in particular the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA), renders Roundup even more toxic than glyphosate on its own. Issues concerning general causation, the background science, and regulatory history will be common to all actions. In its October 3, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions in this MDL involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Northern District of California will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings (including with respect to discovery, privilege, and Daubert motion practice); and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria. The lead case is 3:16-md-02741-VC.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs: Seth S. Webb, Esq. BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C. 211 North Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 222-2222 Facsimile: (314) 421-0359 E-mail: sethw@getbc.com MDL 2741: Lumpkin Suit vs Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated ------------------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit titled RICHARD C. LUMPKIN and MURIEL E. LUMPKIN, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY and JOHN DOES 1-50, the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00277 (Filed Feb. 21, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco) on March 26, 2019. The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-01497-VC to the proceeding. This is an action for damages suffered by the Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Lumpkin case is being consolidated with MDL 2741 in re: Roundup Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on October 3, 2016. These actions share common factual questions arising out of allegations that Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, particularly its active ingredient, glyphosate, causes non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. The Plaintiff alleges that they or their decedents developed non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after using Roundup over the course of several or more years. Plaintiff also alleges that the use of glyphosate in conjunction with other ingredients, in particular the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA), renders Roundup even more toxic than glyphosate on its own. Issues concerning general causation, the background science, and regulatory history will be common to all actions. In its October 3, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions in this MDL involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Northern District of California will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings (including with respect to discovery, privilege, and Daubert motion practice); and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria. The lead case is 3:16-md-02741-VC.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs: Seth S. Webb, Esq. BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C. 211 North Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 222-2222 Facsimile: (314) 421-0359 E-mail: sethw@getbc.com MDL 2741: Sheehan Suit vs Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated ------------------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit titled EARLYNN SHEEHAN, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY and JOHN DOES 1-50, the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00313 (Filed Feb. 26, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco) on March 26, 2019. The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-01502-VC to the proceeding. This is an action for damages suffered by the Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Sheehan case is being consolidated with MDL 2741 in re: Roundup Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on October 3, 2016. These actions share common factual questions arising out of allegations that Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, particularly its active ingredient, glyphosate, causes non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. The Plaintiff alleges that they or their decedents developed non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after using Roundup over the course of several or more years. Plaintiff also alleges that the use of glyphosate in conjunction with other ingredients, in particular the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA), renders Roundup even more toxic than glyphosate on its own. Issues concerning general causation, the background science, and regulatory history will be common to all actions. In its October 3, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions in this MDL involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Northern District of California will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings (including with respect to discovery, privilege, and Daubert motion practice); and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria. The lead case is 3:16-md-02741-VC.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs: D. Todd Mathews, Esq. Megan Myers Arvola, Esq. 156 N. Main St. Edwardsville, IL 62025 E-mail: todd@gorijulianlaw.com marvola@gorijulianlaw.com Telephone: (618) 659-9833 Facsimile: (618) 659-9834 MIDLAND CREDIT: Deluccio Asserts Breach of FDCPA ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit Management, Inc. The case is styled as Robert Deluccio, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-02004 (E.D. N.Y., April 8, 2019). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Midland Credit Management, Inc., a licensed debt collector, assists customers in resolving past-due financial obligations through various education and payment plans. The company was founded in 1953 and is based in San Diego, California. Midland Credit Management, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Encore Capital Group, Inc.[BN] The Plaintiff appears PRO SE. The Defendant is represented by: Matthew B Corwin, Esq. Hinshaw & Culbertson, LLP 800 Third Avenue 13th Floor New York, NY 10022 Tel: (212) 471-6200 Fax: (212) 935-1166 Email: mcorwin@hinshawlaw.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Allens Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup ----------------------------------------------------------- THOMAS L. ALLEN AND STEPHANIE ALLEN, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00659 (E.D. Mo., March 26, 2019), seeks to recover damages suffered by Plaintiffs, as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiffs maintain that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The Plaintiffs' injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable. The Plaintiffs bring this action for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA). As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma. Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products, including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide, Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Seth S. Webb, Esq. BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C. 211 North Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 222-2222 Facsimile: (314) 421-0359 E-mail: sethw@getbc.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Collins Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup ------------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT E. COLLINS, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00657 (E.D. Mo., March 26, 2019), seeks to recover damages suffered by Plaintiff, as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The Plaintiff's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable. The Plaintiff brings this action for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA). As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma. Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products, including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide, Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Seth S. Webb, Esq. BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C. 211 North Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 222-2222 Facsimile: (314) 421-0359 E-mail: sethw@getbc.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Cupp Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup ---------------------------------------------------------- ROGER CUPP, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00647-SPM (E.D. Mo., March 26, 2019), seeks to recover damages suffered by Plaintiff, as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The Plaintiff's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable. The Plaintiff brings this action for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA). As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma. Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products, including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide, Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Seth S. Webb, Esq. BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C. 211 North Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 222-2222 Facsimile: (314) 421-0359 E-mail: sethw@getbc.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Fishburns Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup -------------------------------------------------------------- DUDLEY FISHBURN AND BELINDA FISHBURN, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00656-SNLJ (E.D. Mo., March 26, 2019), seeks to recover damages suffered by Plaintiffs, as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiffs maintain that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The Plaintiffs' injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable. The Plaintiffs bring this action for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA). As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma. Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products, including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide, Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Seth S. Webb, Esq. BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C. 211 North Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 222-2222 Facsimile: (314) 421-0359 E-mail: sethw@getbc.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Fohnes Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup ----------------------------------------------------------- NORMAN FOHNE and RHONDA FOHNE, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00649 (E.D. Mo., March 26, 2019), seeks to recover damages suffered by Plaintiffs, as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiffs maintain that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The Plaintiffs' injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable. The Plaintiffs bring this action for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA). As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma. Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products, including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide, Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Seth S. Webb, Esq. BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C. 211 North Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 222-2222 Facsimile: (314) 421-0359 E-mail: sethw@getbc.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Fruits Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup ----------------------------------------------------------- DAVID FRUITS and LAURA FRUITS, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00646-HEA (E.D. Mo., March 26, 2019), seeks to recover damages suffered by Plaintiffs, as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiffs maintain that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The Plaintiffs' injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable. The Plaintiffs bring this action for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA). As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma. Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products, including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide, Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Seth S. Webb, Esq. BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C. 211 North Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 222-2222 Facsimile: (314) 421-0359 E-mail: sethw@getbc.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Joneses Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup ------------------------------------------------------------ DAVID V. JONES AND SABRINA JONES, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00654 (E.D. Mo., March 26, 2019), seeks to recover damages suffered by Plaintiffs, as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiffs maintain that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The Plaintiffs' injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable. The Plaintiffs bring this action for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA). As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma. Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products, including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide, Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Seth S. Webb, Esq. BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C. 211 North Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 222-2222 Facsimile: (314) 421-0359 E-mail: sethw@getbc.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Lawary Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup ------------------------------------------------------------ HAROLD LAWARY, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00634 (E.D. Mo., March 25, 2019), seeks to recover damages suffered by Plaintiffs, as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiffs maintain that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The Plaintiffs' injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable. The Plaintiffs bring this action for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA). As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma. Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products, including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide, Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Seth S. Webb, Esq. BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C. 211 North Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 222-2222 Facsimile: (314) 421-0359 E-mail: sethw@getbc.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Madigans Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup ------------------------------------------------------------- THOMAS L. MADIGAN AND NORMA MADIGAN, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00658 (E.D. Mo., March 26, 2019), seeks to recover damages suffered by Plaintiffs, as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiffs maintain that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The Plaintiffs' injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable. The Plaintiffs bring this action for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA). As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma. Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products, including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide, Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Seth S. Webb, Esq. BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C. 211 North Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 222-2222 Facsimile: (314) 421-0359 E-mail: sethw@getbc.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Malandrinos Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup ---------------------------------------------------------------- ALEXANDER P. MALANDRINOS AND ELENI MALANDRINOS, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00655-DDN (E.D. Mo., March 26, 2019), seeks to recover damages suffered by Plaintiffs, as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiffs maintain that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The Plaintiffs' injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable. The Plaintiffs bring this action for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA). As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma. Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products, including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide, Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Seth S. Webb, Esq. BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C. 211 North Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 222-2222 Facsimile: (314) 421-0359 E-mail: sethw@getbc.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Mincks Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup ------------------------------------------------------------ DEBRA MINCKS, Executrix on behalf of the ESTATE OF LARRY MINCKS, (deceased), the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00648-AGF (E.D. Mo., March 26, 2019), seeks to recover damages suffered by Plaintiffs, as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiffs maintain that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The Plaintiffs' injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable. The Plaintiffs bring this action for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA). As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma. Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products, including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide, Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Seth S. Webb, Esq. BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C. 211 North Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 222-2222 Facsimile: (314) 421-0359 E-mail: sethw@getbc.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Musselmans Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup --------------------------------------------------------------- PAMELA MUSSELMAN and GARY MUSSELMAN, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00643 (E.D. Mo., March 26, 2019), seeks to recover damages suffered by Plaintiffs, as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiffs maintain that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The Plaintiffs' injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable. The Plaintiffs bring this action for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA). As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma. Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products, including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide, Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Seth S. Webb, Esq. BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C. 211 North Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 222-2222 Facsimile: (314) 421-0359 E-mail: sethw@getbc.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Nolan Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup ----------------------------------------------------------- BETTY J. NOLAN, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00650 (E.D. Mo., March 26, 2019), seeks to recover damages suffered by Plaintiffs, as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiffs maintain that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The Plaintiffs' injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable. The Plaintiffs bring this action for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA). As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma. Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products, including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide, Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Seth S. Webb, Esq. BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C. 211 North Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 222-2222 Facsimile: (314) 421-0359 E-mail: sethw@getbc.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Ott Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup --------------------------------------------------------- JAMES OTT, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00601 (E.D. Mo., March 25, 2019), seeks to recover damages suffered by Plaintiffs, as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiffs maintain that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The Plaintiffs' injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable. The Plaintiffs bring this action for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA). As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma. Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products, including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide, Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Seth S. Webb, Esq. BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C. 211 North Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 222-2222 Facsimile: (314) 421-0359 E-mail: sethw@getbc.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Pages Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup ---------------------------------------------------------- MAXINE F. PAGE AND DONALD PAGE, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00652 (E.D. Mo., March 26, 2019), seeks to recover damages suffered by Plaintiffs, as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiffs maintain that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The Plaintiffs' injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable. The Plaintiffs bring this action for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA). As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma. Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products, including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide, Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Seth S. Webb, Esq. BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C. 211 North Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 222-2222 Facsimile: (314) 421-0359 E-mail: sethw@getbc.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Sears Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup ----------------------------------------------------------- TODD SEARS, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-01501-VC (E.D. Mo., March 26, 2019), seeks to recover damages suffered by the Plaintiff, as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The Plaintiff's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable. The Plaintiff brings this action for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA). As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma. Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products, including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide, Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: D. Todd Mathews, Esq. Megan Myers Arvola, Esq. 156 N. Main St. Edwardsville, IL 62025 Telephone: (618) 659-9833 Facsimile: (618) 659-9834 E-mail: todd@gorijulianlaw.com marvola@gorijulianlaw.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Simmons Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup ------------------------------------------------------------- PEGGY SIMMONS, individually and on behalf of JAMES SIMMONS, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00644 (E.D. Mo., March 26, 2019), seeks to recover damages suffered by the Plaintiffs, as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff's maintain that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The Plaintiff's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable. The Plaintiffs bring this action for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA). As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma. Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products, including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide, Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Seth S. Webb, Esq. BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C. 211 North Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 222-2222 Facsimile: (314) 421-0359 E-mail: sethw@getbc.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Vereugo Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup ------------------------------------------------------------- ARTHUR VEREUGO, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00623 (E.D. Mo., March 25, 2019), seeks to recover damages suffered by Plaintiffs, as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiffs maintain that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The Plaintiffs' injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable. The Plaintiffs bring this action for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA). As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma. Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products, including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide, Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Seth S. Webb, Esq. BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C. 211 North Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 222-2222 Facsimile: (314) 421-0359 E-mail: sethw@getbc.com NCAA: Carney Seeks Damages Over Student-Athletes' Injuries ---------------------------------------------------------- Sean Carney, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-00828 (S.D. Ind., February 25, 2019), seeks economic, monetary, actual, consequential, compensatory, and punitive damages, past, present and future medical expenses, other out of pocket expenses, lost time and interest, lost future earnings, litigation and attorney fees, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, injunctive and/or declaratory relief and such other and further relief resulting from negligence, fraudulent concealment, breach of express contract, breach of implied contract, breach of third-party express contract and unjust enrichment. Carney played football at Tulane from 2005 to 2009. He suffered from numerous concussions, as well as countless sub-concussive hits as part of routine practice and gameplay. Carney now suffers from depression, emotional instability, loss of inhibition, loss of impulse control, motor impairment, ADHD, short-term memory loss, speech and language impairment and suicidal thoughts. NCAA is an unincorporated association with its principal office located at 700 West Washington Street, Indianapolis, Indiana 46206. The NCAA is the governing body of collegiate athletics that oversees twenty-three college sports and over 400,000 students who participate in intercollegiate athletics. Carney alleges NCAA knew about the debilitating long-term dangers of concussions, concussion-related injuries and sub-concussive injuries that resulted from playing college football, but did nothing. Plaintiff is represented by: Jay Edelson, Esq. Benjamin H. Richman, Esq. EDELSON PC 350 North LaSalle Street, 13th Floor Chicago, IL 60654 Tel: 312.589.6370 Fax: 312.589.6378 Email: jedelson@edelson.com brichman@edelson.com - and - Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq. 329 Bryant Street San Francisco, CA 94107 Tel: 415.212.9300 Fax: 415.373.9435 Email: rbalabanian@edelson.com - and - Robert T. Dassow, Esq. HOVDE DASSOW & DEETS, LLC 10201 N. Illinois Street, Suite 500 Indianapolis, IN 46290 Tel: (317) 818-3100 NCAA: DiValentino Seeks Damages Over Injuries Sustained ------------------------------------------------------- Robert DiValentino, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-00818 (S.D. Ind., February 25, 2019), seeks economic, monetary, actual, consequential, compensatory, and punitive damages, past, present and future medical expenses, other out of pocket expenses, lost time and interest, lost future earnings, litigation and attorney fees, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, injunctive and/or declaratory relief and such other and further relief resulting from negligence, fraudulent concealment, breach of express contract, breach of implied contract, breach of third-party express contract and unjust enrichment. DiValentino played football at Tennessee Technological University from 1979 to 1980. He suffered from numerous concussions, as well as countless sub-concussive hits as part of routine practice and gameplay. DiValentino now suffers from memory loss, loss of impulse control, loss of inhibition, loss of concentration, depression, anxiety, irritability, ADHD, sleep apnea, mood disorder, bipolar I disorder, cognitive disorder and encephalopathy. NCAA is an unincorporated association with its principal office located at 700 West Washington Street, Indianapolis, Indiana 46206. The NCAA is the governing body of collegiate athletics that oversees twenty-three college sports and over 400,000 students who participate in intercollegiate athletics. DiValentino alleges NCAA knew about the debilitating long-term dangers of concussions, concussion-related injuries and sub-concussive injuries that resulted from playing college football, but did nothing. Plaintiff is represented by: Jay Edelson, Esq. Benjamin H. Richman, Esq. EDELSON PC 350 North LaSalle Street, 13th Floor Chicago, IL 60654 Tel: 312.589.6370 Fax: 312.589.6378 Email: jedelson@edelson.com brichman@edelson.com - and - Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq. 329 Bryant Street San Francisco, CA 94107 Tel: 415.212.9300 Fax: 415.373.9435 Email: rbalabanian@edelson.com - and - Jeff Raizner, Esq. RAIZNER SLANIA LLP 2402 Dunlavy Street Houston, TX 77006 Tel: 844.456.4823 Fax: 713.554.9098 Email: efile@raiznerlaw.com NCAA: Waller Seek Damages Over Injuries Sustained as an Athlete --------------------------------------------------------------- Matthew Council and Alesia Waller, as attorney-in-fact of DeSwann Waller, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) and Liberty University, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-00817 (S.D. Ind., February 25, 2019), seeks economic, monetary, actual, consequential, compensatory, and punitive damages, past, present and future medical expenses, other out of pocket expenses, lost time and interest, lost future earnings, litigation and attorney fees, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, injunctive and/or declaratory relief and such other and further relief resulting from negligence, fraudulent concealment, breach of express contract, breach of implied contract, breach of third-party express contract and unjust enrichment. Waller played football at Liberty from 2004 to 2007. He suffered from numerous concussions, as well as countless sub-concussive hits as part of routine practice and gameplay. Waller now suffers from depression, loss of concentration, learning and cognitive impairment, memory loss, personality disorder, social phobia and suicidal thoughts. NCAA is an unincorporated association with its principal office located at 700 West Washington Street, Indianapolis, Indiana 46206. The NCAA is the governing body of collegiate athletics that oversees twenty-three college sports and over 400,000 students who participate in intercollegiate athletics. Waller alleges NCAA knew about the debilitating long-term dangers of concussions, concussion-related injuries and sub-concussive injuries that resulted from playing college football, but did nothing. Plaintiff is represented by: Jay Edelson, Esq. Benjamin H. Richman, Esq. EDELSON PC 350 North LaSalle Street, 13th Floor Chicago, IL 60654 Tel: 312.589.6370 Fax: 312.589.6378 Email: jedelson@edelson.com brichman@edelson.com - and - Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq. 329 Bryant Street San Francisco, CA 94107 Tel: 415.212.9300 Fax: 415.373.9435 Email: rbalabanian@edelson.com - and - Jeff Raizner, Esq. RAIZNER SLANIA LLP 2402 Dunlavy Street Houston, TX 77006 Tel: 844.456.4823 Fax: 713.554.9098 Email: efile@raiznerlaw.com NEW PRECIOUS: Muy Seeks Minimum Wage & OT Pay for Salon Staff ------------------------------------------------------------- SILBIA DOLORES MUY GOMEZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the the Plaintiff, vs. NEW PRECIOUS NAIL INC. (D/B/A PRECIOUS NAILS), PELINO YOON (A.K.A. YUNG YOON) , and SOPHIA YOON, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02659 (S.D.N.Y., March 25, 2019), alleges that the Defendants maintained a policy and practice of requiring the Plaintiff and other employees to work in excess of 40 hours per week without providing the minimum wage and overtime compensation required by the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. Muy is a former employee of the Defendants who own, operate, or control a nail salon, located at 180 E 94th Street, New York, New York 10128 under the name "Precious Nails". The Defendants employed and accounted for the Plaintiff Muy as a manicurist, pedicurist and a masseuse in their payroll, but in actuality her duties required a significant amount of time spent performing the alleged non-tipped duties, the lawsuit says. She was required to spend a considerable part of her work day performing non-tipped duties, including but not limited to cleaning the bathroom, vacuuming, taking out the trash, accommodating products for the salon, cleaning the general, mopping and cleaning the windows (non-tipped duties). Muy worked for the Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage and overtime compensation for the hours that she worked. Rather, the Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked and failed to pay the Plaintiff Muy appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 E-mail: Faillace@employmentcompliance.com NIKE INC: Female Employees Clear 1st Hurdle in Discrimination Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Peter Blumberg, writing for BloombergQuint, reports that Nike Inc. lost its first attempt to scale back a class-action lawsuit accusing the athletic apparel giant of systematic pay discrimination against female employees. The company sought to block the four women who sued in August from proceeding collectively on behalf of other employees, but a federal magistrate judge said it's too early to limit who's covered by the case. The magistrate's findings will be reviewed by a district judge. The four former employees alleged that Nike mistreats women by relying on their salary history in setting their starting pay, marginalizing their performance to stifle their career growth, and largely ignoring sexual harassment. A lawyer for the plaintiffs said when the case was first filed that if it clears the difficult hurdle of attaining class-action status, she expects at least 500 more women to join. Last year, Nike announced that in the wake of a review of its pay structure, including pay equity, it was increasing the salaries of about 7,400 workers worldwide. A spokesman for Nike declined to comment. The case is Cahill v. Nike Inc., 3:18-cv-01477, U.S. District Court, District of Oregon. [GN] NORTHBAY BUILDERS: Licona Moreno Sues Over Unpaid Min., OT Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Alejandro Licona Moreno, Edgar Dario Simancas de la Rosa, Freddy Siguencia Romero, and Jorge Toalongo, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Northbay Builders Corp. (d/b/a Northbay Builders Corp.), Albert Babaev, Mayer Doe, Jaime Contreras, Efrain Romero, Francisco Doe, and Freddy Doe, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01889 (E.D. N.Y., April 2, 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"), including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. Plaintiffs worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage and overtime compensation for the hours that they worked. Rather, Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked and failed to pay Plaintiffs appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium. The Defendants 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, says the complaint. Plaintiffs were employed as construction workers at the construction corporation. Defendants own, operate, or control a construction company, located at 33-06 88th Street, Unit 213, Jackson Heights, New York 11372 under the name "Northbay Builders Corp".[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) 317-1620 NORTHRIDGE HOSPITAL: Underpays Crisis Clinicians, Basilio Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- NORMAN BASILIO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NORTHRIDGE HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER; DIGNITY HEALTH; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV07718 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., March 6, 2019) is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, and reimburse necessary business expenses. Plaintiff Basilio was employed by the Defendants as crisis clinician. Northridge Hospital Medical Center offers health care services. The Company offers critical care, surgery, nursing, rehabilitation, pediatric, trauma, women's health, pathology, and birth services. Northridge Hospital Medical Center serves patients and communities in the State of California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott M. Lidman, Esq. Elizabeth Nguyen, Esq. Milan Moore, Esq. LIDMAN LAW, APC 222 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 1550 El Segundo, CA 90245 Telephone: (424) 322-4772 Facsimile: (424) 322-4775 E-mail: slidman@lidmanlaw.com enguyen@lidmanlaw.com mmoore@lidmanlaw. com - and - Paul K. Haines, 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 OKLAHOMA: Beard, et al. File Suit v. DOC, Parole Board Officers --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Oklahoma's Parole Board and Department of Corrections officers. The case is styled as Allison Beard, Adrian E Grant, Brandon J Ballard, Carie Rachelle Walker, Cheyenne A Moore, David Earl Flowers, Delma L Sullivan, Deodrick Carter, Donnie A McIntosh, Donnino Y Moreland, Keith L Brown, Larry D Brown, Rico Williams, Robin Ratliff, Shawn A Detwiler, Shawn Shinton, Terry L Hunt, Terry L Lee, Titus T Helms, Travis Huddleston, Tony D Humdy, Tyrone Morrow and Wayne Williams, on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs v. Delynn Fudge, Executive Director, Oklahoma Pardon and Parole Board and Joe Allbaugh, Director, Oklahoma Department of Corrections, Defendants, Case No. 5:19-cv-00310-HE (W.D. Okla., April 4, 2019). The lawsuit arises under the Civil Rights Act. The Defendants are Government Representative.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ronald Kelly, Esq. 205 NW 63rd St, Suite 150 Oklahoma City, OK 73116 Tel: (405) 235-1976 Fax: (405) 286-6316 Email: kellyron01@yahoo.com ORACLE CORP: Fights Plaintiffs' Jury Demand in ERISA Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- Rebecca Hill, writing for The Register, reports that Oracle is fighting back against tens of thousands of former staffers with pension plans who want to take the firm to a jury trial. Not satisfied with a judgment earlier in March that saw it fend off a number of accusations from the group, Oracle is ploughing ahead in a bid to have the case decided out of the spotlight. The lawsuit was brought in the US District Court of Colorado in January 2016 by a group of complainants who said Oracle had breached the US Employee Retirement Income Security Act through a number of failures in the management of its employees' 401(k) plan. The complaint alleged that Oracle had allowed the plan to pay record-keeping and administrative fees that were "multiples" of the market rates offered for the same services by others. It also claimed Big Red had failed to monitor service providers to the plan and investment options in the plan. Overall, the group said the firm did not act in the best interests of the plan's participants, and prevented those staffers from discovering the breaches of ERISA "through a series of false and misleading communications". After the case had lumbered on for many years, the federal judge overseeing it, Robert Blackburn, earlier in March issued an order that trimmed several of the specific claims in the complaint. There are still three claims left to be determined, the allegations of: imprudent investment in a particular fund; imprudent retention of another fund; and failures to monitor the breach of fiduciary duty in the retention of these two allegedly imprudent investments. But Oracle would prefer if these were tried by the court, and not a jury (the plaintiffs want a jury) on the grounds that there is no precedent for this under US law. Indeed, the firm pointed out that judges had rejected demands for jury trials in at least 18 ERISA cases in the past two years. "Plaintiffs' jury demand contradicts well-settled authority, including Tenth Circuit precedent, holding that jury trials are unavailable under ERISA," the firm said in its latest submission to the court. "The Tenth Circuit is not alone: every US Court of Appeals that has considered the question has held that no such right exists. Based on this same authority, over the past two years, no less than seven district courts have rejected jury demands in similar ERISA breach-of-fiduciary duty cases brought by Plaintiffs' same counsel." Judge Blackburn said in his March 1 order that there would be a call on March18 for the parties to schedule a final pretrial conference, trial preparation conference and trial in the case. [GN] OSIRIS THERAPEUTICS: LaBarbara Brings Securities Class Action in Md ------------------------------------------------------------------- Richard LaBarbara, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. OSIRIS THERAPEUTICS, INC., PETER FRIEDLI, THOMAS KNAPP, WILLI MIESCH and CHARLES A. REINHART, III, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00993-ELH (D. Md., April 2, 2019) seeks to enjoin the Defendants from taking any steps to consummate a transaction or, in the event the transaction is consummated, to recover damages resulting from the Defendants' wrongdoing. This action concerns an Agreement and Plan of Merger announced on March 12, 2019 (the "Merger Agreement"), pursuant to which Osiris Therapeutics Inc., will be acquired by Smith & Nephew plc by way of a tender offer ("Tender Offer"). On March 12, 2019, Osiris's board of directors caused the Company to enter into the Merger Agreement. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Smith & Nephew will purchase each issued and outstanding share of Osiris's common stock for $19 per share in cash (the "Merger Consideration"). On March 20, 2019, Osiris filed a Solicitation/Recommendation Statement on a Schedule 14D-9 (the "Solicitation Statement") with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") in connection with the Tender Offer. The complaint asserts that the Solicitation Statement omits material information with respect to the Tender Offer, which renders it false and misleading in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). Plaintiff is and has been at all relevant times the owner of Osiris common stock. Osiris is a Maryland corporation with its principal executive offices located in Columbia, Maryland. Osiris's common stock is listed on the NASDAQ under the symbol "OSIR".[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas J. Minton, Esq. GOLDMAN & MINTON, P.C. 3600 Clipper Mill Rd., Suite 201 Baltimore, MD 21211 Phone: (410) 783-7575 Fax: (410) 783-1711 Email: tminton@charmcitylegal.com - and - Carl L. Stine, Esq. Sean M. Zaroogian, Esq. WOLF POPPER LLP 845 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: (212) 759-4600 Fax: (212) 486-2093 Email: cstine@wolfpopper.com OSIRIS THERAPEUTICS: Scarantino Balks at Smith & Nephew Merger -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit seeks to enjoin Osiris Therapeutics, Inc., and all persons acting in concert with it from proceeding with, consummating, or closing a proposed transaction, and in the event the Defendants consummate the Proposed Transaction, rescinding it and setting it aside or awarding rescissory damages. On March 12, 2019, Osiris's Board of Directors caused the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger, wherein Osiris will be acquired by Smith & Nephew plc and Papyrus Acquisition Corp., as merger sub. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub commenced a tender offer to acquire all of Osiris's outstanding common stock for $19.00 per share in cash. The Tender Offer is set to expire on April 17. On March 20, 2019, Defendants filed a Solicitation/Recommendation Statement with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the Proposed Transaction. The Solicitation Statement omits material information with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the Solicitation Statement false and misleading. Accordingly, the Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated Sections 14(e), 14(d), and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the Solicitation Statement, the lawsuit says. The case is captioned RICHARD SCARANTINO, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Milton, Pennsylvania 17847 Plaintiff, v. OSIRIS THERAPEUTICS, INC. 7015 ALBERT EINSTEIN DR. COLUMBIA, MD 21046; PETER FRIEDLI 7015 ALBERT EINSTEIN DR. COLUMBIA, MD 21046; THOMAS KNAPP 7015 ALBERT EINSTEIN DR. COLUMBIA, MD 21046; WILLI MIESCH 7015 ALBERT EINSTEIN DR. COLUMBIA, MD 21046; CHARLES A. REINHART, III 7015 ALBERT EINSTEIN DR. COLUMBIA, MD 21046; SMITH & NEPHEW PLC 15 ADAM STREET LONDON WC2N 6LA UK; SMITH & NEPHEW CONSOLIDATED, INC., CORPORATION TRUST CENTER 1209 ORANGE STREET WILMINGTON, DE 19801; and PAPYRUS ACQUISITION CORP. 2405 YORK ROAD, SUITE 201 LUTHERVILLE TIMONIUM, MD 21093-2264, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00876-DKC (D. Md., March 25, 2019).[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: Thomas J. Minton, Esq. GOLDMAN & MINTON, P.C. 3600 Clipper Mill Road, Suite 201 Baltimore, MD 21211 Telephone: (410) 783-7575 E-mail: tminton@charmcitylegal.com - and - RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 295-5310 - and - RM LAW, P.C. 1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300 Berwyn, PA 19312 Telephone: (484) 324-6800 PERMCO INC: Claudio Pop Seeks Overtime Compensation --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit alleges that Permco, Inc., shortchanged its employees and avoided paying overtime in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Specifically, the Plaintiff and other hourly employees were denied significant amounts of overtime compensation because of the Defendants' failure to pay the Plaintiff and other hourly employees for the unlawfully automatically deducted meal periods during weeks in which Plaintiff and other hourly employees worked in excess of 40 hours. The Defendants knowingly and willfully failed to pay Plaintiff, the FLSA Collective, and Ohio Class for automatically deducted meal periods during which Plaintiff, the FLSA Collective, and Ohio Class performed work. The Defendants are a "leading manufacturer of high-pressure hydraulic gear/vane pumps and motors, flow dividers, intensifiers, and accessories." The Defendants' manufactured products include displacement pumps and motor. The case is captioned as CLAUDIO POP, 9402 Pleasant Lake Blvd. Parma, OH 44130, On behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. PERMCO, INC. c/o Statutory Agent Highland Park Service Corp. 28601 Chagrin Boulevard, Suite 600 Cleveland, OH 44122; GUYAN INTERNATIONAL, INC. c/o Statutory Agent Peter Turner 28601 Chagrin Blvd. - No. 500 Cleveland, OH 44122, the Defendants, Case No. 5:19-cv-00659 (N.D. Ohio, March 25, 2019).[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: Kevin M. McDermott II, Esq. Joseph F. Scott, Esq. Ryan A. Winters, Esq. SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM , LLC The Caxton Building 812 Huron Rd. E., Suite 490 Cleveland, OH 44115 Telephone: (216) 912-2221 Facsimile: (216) 350-6313 E-mail: jscott@ohiowagelawyers.com rwinters@ohiowagelawyers.com kmcdermott@ohiowagelawyers.com PERSONAL TOUCH: Short-Jones Seeks Overtime Wages for Clinicians --------------------------------------------------------------- The case, LATOSHA SHORT-JONES, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. PERSONAL TOUCH HOME CARE IPA, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-00323-LPL (W.D. Pa., March 25, 2019), targets Personal Touch's failure to properly pay overtime wages for all hours worked in violation of the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act and Fair Labor Standards Act Personal Touch has maintained a corporate policy of paying its Registered Nurses, Physical Therapists, Occupational Therapists, Speech Language Pathologists and Home Health Aids in its home health division (Clinicians) pursuant to a compensation method which includes hourly payments. Personal Touch pays Clinicians at an hourly rate for some of their work, including, but not limited to, time spent in case conferences, staff meetings, trainings and recertifications. Personal Touch compensates Clinicians for hours worked. Personal Touch did not compensate the Plaintiff for all overtime wages earned. Accordingly, Personal Touch is liable for its failure to pay the Plaintiff and members of the putative class for all hours worked and time and one-half for hours in excess of 80 of their bi-weekly work week at their regular rate, the lawsuit says. Personal Touch provides home health care services, including mental health, pediatric, rehabilitation, and hospice services to individuals.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: D. Aaron Rihn, Esq. ROBERT PEIRCE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 707 Grant Street, Suite 2500 Pittsburgh, PA 15219-1918 Telephone: 412-281-7229 Facsimile: 412-281-4229 E-mail: arihn@peircelaw.com - and - Daniel C. Levin, Esq. LEVIN, FISHBEIN, SEDRAN & BERMAN 510 Walnut Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: 215-592-1500 Facsimile: 215-592-4663 - and - Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq. MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP 412 H Street N.E., Suite 302 Washington, D.C. 20002 Telephone: 202-470-3520 Facsimile: 202-800-2730 PRATT INDUSTRIES: Brzozowski Suit Alleges FLSA Violation -------------------------------------------------------- Eugene Brzozowski, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Pratt Industries, Inc. and Pratt Paper (OH), LLC, Case No. 3:19-cv-00523 (N.D. Ohio, March 8, 2019), is brought against the Defendants for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Prior to officially beginning their employment at the paper mills, Production Engineers are required to undergo mandatory training, referred to as "bootcamp." Participation in training and homework completion is not voluntary. Homework is mandatory. Production Engineers who fail to complete homework assignments or fail examinations face discipline--up to and including termination. The Defendants were aware that the Plaintiff and the Production Engineers were required to complete homework assignments, but they were not paid for this compensable time. The Plaintiff and the Production Engineers were told that they could only report working 40 hours per week, regardless of the time spent actually performing work either in the plant or doing homework outside of the sessions. Plaintiff Brzozowski was hired as a production engineer by the Defendants in late October 2018. The Defendants are in the business of a recycling, and is one of the largest recycled paper and packaging companies in the United States. The Defendant Pratt Industries, Inc. owns and operates paper mills in: Conyers, Georgia; New York City, New York; Valparaiso, Indiana, and; Shreveport, Louisiana. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Greg R. Mansell, Esq. Carrie J. Dyer, Esq. Kyle T. Anderson, Esq. MANSELL LAW, LLC 1457 S. High St. Columbus, OH 43207 Tel: (614) 610-4134 Fax: (614) 547-3614 E-mail: Greg@MansellLawLLC.com Carrie@MansellLawLLC.com Kyle@MansellLawLLC.com PROFESSIONAL FREEZING: Like Sues Over Biometric Data Retention -------------------------------------------------------------- Clifford Like, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PROFESSIONAL FREEZING SERVICES, LLC, an Illinois company, Defendant, Case No. 2019CH04194 (Circuit Ct., Cook Cty., Ill., April 1, 2019) seeks to put a stop to Defendant's unlawful collection, use, and storage of Plaintiffs and the putative Class members' sensitive biometric data. Despite the Biometric Information Privacy Act ("BIPA"), PFS disregards its employees' statutorily protected privacy rights and unlawfully collects, stores, and uses their biometric data in violation of the BIPA. PFS never informed Plaintiff of the specific limited purposes or length of time for which it collected, stored, or used handprints. Similarly, PFS never informed Plaintiff of any biometric data retention policy it developed, nor whether it will ever permanently delete handprints. Plaintiff never signed a written release allowing PFS to collect or store handprints. Plaintiff has continuously and repeatedly been exposed to the risks and harmful conditions created by PFS's violations of the BIPA, says the complaint. Plaintiff worked for PFS during a portion of the year 2018. Defendant PFS is a cold storage warehouse and processing company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Fish, Esq. Seth Matus, Esq. Kimberly Hilton, Esq. John Kunze, Esq. THE FISH LAW FIRM. P.C. 200 East Fifth A venue, Suite 123 Naperville, IL 60563 Phone: 630.355.7590 Fax: 630.778.0400 Email: dfish@fishlawfirm.com smatus@fishlawfirm.com khilton@fishlawfirm.com kunze@fishlawfirm.com adminr@fishlawtirm.com QUINCY BIOSCIENCE: Engert Sues Over Ineffective Memory Drug ----------------------------------------------------------- Max Engert, Jack Purchase and Ronald Atkinson on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Quincy Bioscience, LLC,, Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-00183 (W.D. Tex., February 25, 2019), seeks to recover their economic losses, treble damages, exemplary damages, attorney's fees, costs and interests and all other relief under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act and the Texas Business and Commerce Code for breach of express and implied warranties and under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. Quincy manufactured, marketed, distributed, and sold Prevagen, a memory-enhancing drug. Plaintiffs claim that it has no effect on the brain and provides no benefit to the body, let alone, improve memory. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Don J. Foty, Esq. KENNEDY HODGES, L.L.P. 4409 Montrose Blvd, Ste. 200 Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (713) 523-0001 Facsimile: (713) 523-1116 Email: DFoty@kennedyhodges.com RESOLUTE BANK: Faces Schick Suit over Autodialed Calls ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Resolute Bank John Doe Corporation doing business as Reverse Mortgage Savings Center under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), a federal statute enacted in response to widespread public outrage about the proliferation of intrusive, nuisance telemarketing practices. The case is captioned Deborah Schick, individually and on behalf of a class of all persons and entities similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. Resolute Bank and John Doe Corporation d/b/a Reverse Mortgage Savings Center, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-02218-DLR (D. Ariz., April 5, 2019). Schick alleges that Defendant Resolute Bank hired the co-defendant, Reverse Mortgage Savings Center, which made automated telemarketing calls to her cellular telephone number of for the purposes of advertising Resolute goods and services using an automated dialing system, which is prohibited by the TCPA. Schick recalls that Resolute Bank made repeated follow up calls to her in January of 2019. Accordingly, Schick seeks redress for the Defendant's wide scale illegal telemarketing practices. Resolute Bank is an FDIC-insured bank founded in 2006 and currently headquartered at 3425 Briarfield Blvd Ste 100, Maumee, OH 4353. It provides reverse mortgage business, personal and mortgage solutions to its customers. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Trinette G. Kent, Esq. KENT LAW OFFICES 3219 E Camelback Rd #588 Phoenix, AZ 85018 Telephone: (480) 247-9644 Facsimile: (480) 717-4781 E-mail: tkent@lemberglaw.com - and – Anthony Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Telephone: (508) 221-1510 E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com RESTAURANT 597: Sanchez Suit Alleges FLSA Violation --------------------------------------------------- Luis Adorno Sanchez, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Restaurant 597 Inc. dba Bus Stop Cafe, Anastasions Hatziioannidis, Georgia Hatziioannidis, and Spiro Doe, Case No. 1:19-cv-02178 (S.D. N.Y., March 8, 2019), is brought against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff allege that the Defendants maintained a policy and practice of requiring Plaintiff Adorno and other employees to work without providing the minimum wage compensation required by federal and state law and regulations. The Plaintiff was employed as a busboy and a delivery worker at the Defendants' restaurant located at 597 Hudson Street, New York. The Defendants own, operate, or control a restaurant diner, located at 597 Hudson Street, New York under the name "Bus Stop Cafe". [BN] The 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 Fax: (212) 317-1620 ROBERTSON'S READY MIX: Soriano Labor Suit Transferred to C.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------------------ The case, FERNANDO SORIANO, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. ROBERTSON'S READY MIX, LTD, a California Limited Partnership; and DOES 1-50 inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 30-2019-01045061-CU-OE-CXC (Filed Jan. 18, 2019), was transferred from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Orange to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Soriano contends that Defendant failed to pay him, and the group of persons he seeks to represent, all wages owed in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Since the complaint arises under the laws of the United States in that Plaintiff's claims in part are expressly premised on the alleged violation of a federal law, i.e., the FLSA, it is then properly removed from the state court, Defendant contends. The court clerk of the United States District Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 5:19-cv-00605 to the proceedings. Based in Corona California, Robertson's Ready Mix, Ltd. produces ready-mixed concrete and construction aggregates. It also sells equipment and mixer trucks. [BN] Attorneys for Defendant: Stephen L. Berry, Esq. PAUL HASTINGS LLP 695 Town Center Drive Seventeenth Floor Costa Mesa, CA 92626-1924 Telephone: (714) 668-6200 Facsimile: (714) 979-1921 RVR RANCHO: Soto Sues Over Denied Labor Code Benefits &Protection ----------------------------------------------------------------- MICHELLE SOTO, in a Representative capacity only, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. RVR RANCHO VALENCIA RESORT PARTNERS, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company, and RVR RANCHO VALENCIA HOLDINGS PARTNERS, L.P., a California Limited Partnership, and DOES 1-10, inclusive Defendants, Case No. 37-2019-00017152-CU-OE-CTL (Cal. Super. Ct., San Diego Cty., April 2, 2019) seeks an award of statutory civil penalties for each underpaid employee of Defendants pursuant to Labor Code. Throughout the term of her employment, Plaintiff and all other aggrieved employees were and currently are denied the benefits and protections of the Labor Code due to Defendants institutionalized pay practices, standard as to all of Defendants' California-based employees. Throughout the operative limitations period, Plaintiff and all other aggrieved employees were denied the protections and benefits of the Labor Code and IWC Wage Order(s) due to Defendants standard practices, says the complaint. Plaintiff MICHELLE SOTO commenced working for Defendants in 2011 and continued working for Defendants until January of 2019. RVR RANCHO VALENCIA RESORT PARTNERS, LLC was and is a California Limited Liability Company doing business throughout the state.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William B. Sullivan, Esq. Eric K. Yaeckel, Esq. Ryan T. Kuhn, Esq. Andrea J. Torres Figueroa, Esq. SULLIVAN LAW GROUP, APC 2330 Third Avenue San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (619) 702-6760 Fax: (619) 702-6761 Email: helen@sullivanlawgroupapc.com yaeckel@sullivanlawgroupapc.com ryan@sullivanlawgroupapc.com atorres@sullivanlawgroupapc.com SAN DIEGO CREDIT: Beltran Seeks Overtime Pay -------------------------------------------- RINA BELTRAN, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. SAN DIEGO COUNTY CREDIT UNION, a California Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 37-2019-00015722-CU-OE-CTL (Cal. Super., March 25, 2019), seeks to recover overtime pay under the California Labor Code. The Defendants hired Plaintiff and the other class members and classified them as hourly-paid or non-exempt employees, and failed to properly calculate and compensate them for all hours worked, missed meal periods and/or rest breaks. The Plaintiff and the other class members worked over eight hours in a day, and/or 40 hours in a week during their employment with the Defendants, the lawsuit states.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: Douglas Han, Esq. Shunt Tatavos-Gharajeh, Esq. Daniel J. Park, Esq. Arsine Grigoryan, Esq. JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION 751 N. Fair Oaks Avenue, Suite 101 Pasadena, CA 91103 Telephone: (818) 230-7502 Facsimile: (818) 230-7259 SAN DIEGO, CA: Kelley Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------- ERIC KELLEY, PATRICK HESTERS, and ERIC DUNNICK, on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs v. CITY OF SAN DIEGO, Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-00622-AJB-MDD (S.D. Cal., April 2, 2019) is an action brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") to recover unpaid overtime and other compensation, interest thereon, liquidated damages, costs of suit, reasonable attorney fees, and other relief. This action arises from Defendant's failure to properly calculate the "regular rate" of pay used to calculate Plaintiffs' overtime compensation under the FLSA and its failure to properly compensate employees for compensatory time off. Plaintiffs are or were employed by the City of San Diego. The Defendant required or permitted Plaintiffs to work overtime hours under the FLSA, says the complaint. Defendant is a political subdivision of the State of California.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: William B. Aitchison, Esq. Public Safety Labor Group 3021 NE Broadway Street Portland, OR, 97232 Phone: (866) 486-5556 Fax: (866) 401-2201 Email: Will@PSLGlawyers.com - and - James J. Cunningham, Esq. Law Offices of James J Cunningham 10405 San Diego Mission Rd, Ste 201, San Diego, CA 92108-2174 Phone: (858) 693-8833 Fax: (858) 693-8834 Email: jimcunninghamlaw@gmail.com SCOTT DOLICH: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in Allison FLSA Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Nancy Allison and Holly Burney filed an appeal from a Court ruling in their lawsuit styled Nancy Allison, et al. v. Scott Dolich, et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-01005-AC, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, Portland. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, liquidated damages and declaratory relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The appellate case is captioned as Nancy Allison, et al. v. Scott Dolich, et al., Case No. 19-35259, 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 26, 2019; -- Transcript is due on May 28, 2019; -- Appellants Nancy Allison and Holly Burney's opening brief is due on July 8, 2019; -- Appellees Scott Dolich, Anna Josephson, Park Kitchen LLC and The Bent Brick, LLC's answering brief is due on August 8, 2019; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants NANCY ALLISON and HOLLY BURNEY, both in her individual capacity and, in addition, as a collective action on behalf of others similarly situated, are represented by: Jon M. Egan, Esq. JON M. EGAN, PC 547 Fifth Street Lake Oswego, OR 97034-3009 Telephone: (503) 697-3427 Facsimile: (866) 311-5629 E-mail: jegan@eganlegalteam.com Defendants-Appellees SCOTT DOLICH, an individual; ANNA JOSEPHSON, an individual; PARK KITCHEN LLC, an Oregon limited liability company; and THE BENT BRICK, LLC, an Oregon limited liability company, are represented by: John Baird Dudrey, Esq. Karen L. O'Connor, Esq. STOEL RIVES LLP 760 SW Ninth Avenue, Suite 3000 Portland, OR 97205 Telephone: (503) 224-3380 E-mail: john.dudrey@stoel.com karen.oconnor@stoel.com SELECTIVE NURSING: Illinik Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- Pamela Illinik, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Selective Nursing, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-00093-TMR (S.D. Ohio, April 1, 2019) is a "collective action" instituted by Plaintiff as a result of Defendant's failure to pay Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for the hours they worked over 40 each workweek, and for all hours worked in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), as well as a "class action" to remedy violations of the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act ("OMFWSA"). Rather than paying overtime compensation, Defendant paid Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees straight time for the hours they worked over 40 each workweek. Defendants knowingly and willfully failed to pay Plaintiff overtime compensation for the overtime hours she worked, says the complaint. Plaintiff Illinik is a Licensed Practical Nurse ("LPN") and was employed by Defendant as an LPN between June 2016 and June 2018. Defendant provides home care and health care assistance to patients.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lori M. Griffin, Esq. Chastity L. Christy, Esq. Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq. The Lazzaro Law Firm, LLC 920 Rockefeller Building 614 W. Superior Avenue Cleveland, OH 44113 Phone: 216-696-5000 Facsimile: 216-696-7005 Email: lori@lazzarolawfirm.com chastity@lazzarolawfirm.com anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com SEMORAN AUTO: Rosado Sues over Telemarketing Calls -------------------------------------------------- JOSE ROSADO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. SEMORAN AUTO ACQUISITIONS, INC. D/B/A ORLANDO KIA EAST, a Florida Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 6:19-cv-00577 (M.D. Fla., March 25, 2019), contends that, to gain an advantage over its competitors and increase its revenue, the Defendant engages in unsolicited telemarketing with no regard for consumers' privacy rights in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Defendant is an automotive dealership that sells vehicles for individuals and businesses. The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt the Defendant's illegal conduct which has resulted in the invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of thousands of individuals. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of himself and members of the class, and any other available legal or equitable remedies.[BN] Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Class: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. Garrett O. Berg, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1 st Avenue, Suite 1205 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: 305 479-2299 E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com gberg@shamisgentile.com - and - Michael Eisenband, Esq. EISENBAND LAW, P.A. 515 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 120 Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301 E-mail: MEisenband@Eisenbandlaw.com Telephone: 954.533.4092 - and - Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: 954 400 4713 E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com - and - Scott Edelsberg, Esq. Jordan D. Utanski, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, P.A. 19495 Biscayne Blvd No. 607 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: 305-975-3320 E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com utanski@edelsberglaw.com - and - Ignacio J. Hiraldo, Esq. IJH LAW 14 NE First Ave. 10th Floor Miami, FL 33132 E-mail: ijhiraldo@ijhlaw.com Telephone: 786.351.8709 SIERRA INCOME: Faces Anderson et al. Suit over Merger Transaction ----------------------------------------------------------------- A securities class action lawsuit has been filed against Sierra Income Corp, Sierra Management, Inc, and their executives. The case is captioned ROGER ANDERSON and JAMES T. BISCHOF, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, against STEPHEN R. BYERS, OLIVER T. KANE, VALERIE LANCASTER-BEAL, BROOK TAUBE, SETH TAUBE, SIERRA INCOME CORP and SIERRA MANAGEMENT, INC, Defendants, Index No. 652006/2019 (N.Y. Sup., Cty of New York, April 5, 2019). This class action is brought on behalf of all persons who, like Plaintiffs, hold Sierra Income Corp's common stock as of April 5, 2019. Plaintiffs Roger Anderson and the James T. Bischof, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, bring this action to remedy Defendants' breaches of their fiduciary duties in connection with a proposed merger transaction whereby Sierra is proposed to combine with Medley Capital Corp., a company under common management with Sierra. In breach of their duties, the Directors of Sierra have rubber stamped a merger transaction that, if completed, will enrich the controlling shareholders of Sierra and Medley Capital affiliate Medley Management Inc. ("MDLY") by causing MDLY Class A shareholders to receive cash payments totaling $4.09 a share. MDLY insiders own 81.4% of MDLY Class A shares and stand to receive over $101 million in cash if the merger transaction is completed. Sierra shareholders, who have suffered for years due to management underperformance, would suffer further due to the entrenchment of existing management via onerous employment contracts, the elimination of Sierra's right guaranteed in its charter to terminate its investment manager on 60 days' advance written notice, and an increase in already-substantial management fees. Accordingly, Plaintiffs seek to enjoin the merger transaction or, in the alternative, for money damages. Sierra Income Corporation is a business development company specializing in first lien senior secured debt, second lien secured debt and, to a lesser extent, subordinated debt of middle market companies in the United States. The firm invests in companies with annual revenue between $50 million and $1 billion. Sierra Income Corporation was founded in 2012 and is based in New York, New York. Sierra is a Maryland corporation maintaining its executive offices at 280 Park Avenue, 6th Floor East, New York, New York. Sierra is a non-traded business development company specializing in first lien, second lien, and subordinated debt of middle market companies with annual revenue between $50 million and $1 billion. Sierra is externally managed by a Medley Capital subsidiary known as SIC Advisors LLC, which is a registered investment adviser. The company has 96,784,857 common shares issued and outstanding. Sierra Management, Inc. is a Delaware corporation and is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Sierra. It was formed for the purpose of the merger transaction. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Christopher J. Gray, Esq. Michael J. DeRienzo, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF CHRISTOPHER J. GRAY, P.C. 360 Lexington Avenue, 14th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 838-3221 Facsimile: (212) 837-3139 E-mail: chris@investorlawvers.net mike@investorlawvers.net - and - Donald J. Enright, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP 1101 30th Street, NW, Ste. 115 Washington, DC 20007 Telephone: (202) 524-4292 Facsimile: (202) 333-2121 E-mail: denright@zlk.com SIERRA PACIFIC: Borrowers File RICO Suit Over Excessive Prices -------------------------------------------------------------- David K. and Debra L. Bailey, Heller Batton, Gregory P. Dopkowski, Samuel And Beverly Patterson, Jr., Raheim and Syreeta Patterson and Arnold N. and Lois A. Welsh, Jr, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Sierra Pacific Mortgage Company, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-00595 (D. Md., February 25, 2019), seeks damages, reasonable attorneys' fees, interest and costs and such other and further relief for violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Plaintiffs are borrowers who currently have or had a residential mortgage loan originated and/or brokered by Sierra Pacific Mortgage Company secured by their residential real property. They claim that Sierra Pacific and All Star Title, Inc., a Maryland-based title and settlement services company are involved in a price fixing scheme, imposing excessive prices for title and settlement services charged to Sierra Pacific borrowers financed into their loans, and which Sierra Pacific charges and earns interest. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy F. Maloney, Esq. Veronica B. Nannis, Esq. Megan A. Benevento, Esq. JOSEPH, GREENWALD & LAAKE 6404 Ivy Lane, Suite 400 Greenbelt, MD 20770 Telephone: (301) 220-2200 Facsimile: (301) 220-1214 Email: 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, MD 21202 Telephone: (410) 821-0070 Facsimile: (410) 821-0071 Email: mpsmith@sgs-law.com menglish@sgs-law.com szadrozny@sgs-law.com SIKA CORP: Vieyara-Flores Labor Suit Transferred to C.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------------- The case, SARAH VIEYARA-FLORES on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public, Plaintiffs, v. SIKA CORPORATION and DOES 1-100, Defendants, Case No. CIVDS1906249 (Filed February 28, 2019), was transferred on April 4, 2019 from Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of San Bernardino to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The District Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 5:19-cv-00606 to the proceedings. The complaint sets forth nine causes of action: (1) Failure to Pay All Straight Time Wages; (2) Failure to Pay All Overtime Wages; (3) Failure to Provide Meal Periods; (4) Failure to Authorize and Permit Rest Periods; (5) Knowing and Intentional Failure to Comply with Itemized Employee Wage Statement Provisions; (6) Failure to Pay All Wages Due at the Time of Termination of Employment; (7) Failure to Reimburse/Illegal Deductions; (8) Violations of the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004; and (9) Violation of Unfair Competition Law. Sika is a corporation formed under the laws of the State of New Jersey. Its principal place of business and corporate headquarters is located in Lyndhurst, New Jersey. [BN] Attorneys for the Defendant: Thomas G. Mackey, Esq. Nima Darouian, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2500 Los Angeles, CA 90017-5408 Telephone: (213) 689-0404 Facsimile: (213) 689-0430 E-mail: thomas.mackey@jacksonlewis.com nima.darouian@jacksonlewis.com SIMPLEXGRINNELL LP: Rodriguez to Seek Summary Judgment ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit Bert Rodriguez, et al., individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. SimplexGrinnell LP, a Delaware limited partnership, d/b/a Tyco SimplexGrinnell, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-09605 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court on May 21, 2019, for an order granting a motion for summary judgment on liability.[CC] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs: David L. Lee, Esq. Jennifer Claire Weiss, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF DAVID L. LEE 542 S. Dearborn St., Suite 660 Chicago, IL 60605 E-mail: staff@davidleelaw.com Telephone: 312-347-4400 - and - Bruce E. Menken, Esq. Jason J. Rozger, Esq. BERANBAUM MENKEN LLP 80 Pine St., 33rd Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: 212-509-1616 E-mail: bmenken@nyemployeelaw.com jrozger@nyemployeelaw.com SINH SINH RESTAURANT: Tepaz Seeks OT Pay and Unpaid Minimum Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- A wage and hour class action complaint has been filed against Sinh Sinh Restaurant. The case is captioned CRISTOBAL TEPAZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SINH SINH RESTAURANT CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-1236 (S.D. Tex., April 4, 2019). Plaintiff Cristobal Tepaz asserts that Defendant Sinh Sinh Restaurant Corporation failed to pay minimum wage and overtime compensation to their kitchen workers, including Plaintiff Tepaz, as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Instead, Sinh Sinh paid Tepaz and his coworkers a salary so low that their weekly pay did not cover the minimum wage and overtime pay required by the FLSA. Further, Sinh Sinh paid Tepaz and his coworkers less than the minimum wage required under the Texas Minimum Wage Act. Accordingly, Tepaz brings this action on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated kitchen workers to recover unpaid minimum wages, overtime pay, and other damages. Sinh Sinh is an Asian restaurant located in Houston, Texas. It had a gross annual sales in excess of $750,000 during at least the last three years. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David I. Moulton, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: dmoulton@brucknerburch.com STAFFMORE LLC: Wahpoe Seeks OT Pay for Therapeutic Staff Supports ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit, ALEXANDER WAHPOE, individually and on behalf of all others simialrly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. STAFFMORE, LLC, AND COMMUNITY COUNCIL HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-01268-MSG (E.D. Pa. March 25, 2019), Mr. Wahpoe contends that Defendants have unlawfully failed to pay him and other similarly-situated individuals employed in the position of Therapeutic Staff Support overtime compensation pursuant to the Faie Labor Standards Act and Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act. Wahpoe asserts that Defendants failed to pay him roughly 387 hours he worked from April 1, 2017 through June 22, 2017. Wahpoe and the Class Plaintiffs regularly worked more than 40 hours per week, bit were not properly compensated for their work in that Plaintiff and Class Plaintiffs were not paid an overtime premium at 1.5 times their regular rate of pay fvor each hour worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, the lawsuit states. Staffmore, LLC provides staffing and back office solutions.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: Michael Murphy, Esq. Michael GRoh, Esq. MURPHY LAW GROUP, LLC Eight Penn Center, Suite 2000 1628 John F. Kennedy Blvd. Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: 267 273 1054 E-mail: murphy@phillyemploymentlawyer.com mgroh@phillyemploymentlawyer.com STAMPS.COM INC: Scott+Scott Files Securities Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP, a national securities and consumer rights litigation firm, has filed a class action lawsuit against Stamps.com, Inc. ("Stamps.com" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: STMP) and certain of its executives (collectively, "Defendants"). The action, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), 15 U.S.C. Sec. 78j(b) and 78t(a), and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, 17 C.F.R. §240.10b-5, on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Stamps.com common stock between May 3, 2017 and February 21, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Stamps.com is a provider of Internet-based mailing and shipping solutions in the United States. The complaint alleges that Defendants violated provisions of the Exchange Act by issuing false and misleading statements to investors, including in filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC"). Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Company's financial results depended on the manipulation of a USPS program that cost USPS an estimated $235 million per year; and (ii) as a result, the Company's business was unsustainable and its financial results were highly misleading. On February 21, 2019, after the market closed, Stamps.com held a conference call to discuss its financial results from the 4th quarter of 2018 and fiscal year 2018. On the call, the Company's Chairman and Chief Executive Officer ("CEO"), Kenneth McBride stated that the Company was discontinuing its shipping partnership with USPS despite the fact that USPS-related business accounts for 87 percent of the Company's revenue. The Company further announced that 2019 revenue was expected to decline 5.4%. On this news, the Company's stock plummeted to a close price of $83.65 on February 21, 2019, a decline of over 57% from the previous close price of $198.08. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later 60 days from the date of this notice. Any member of the proposed class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain a member of the proposed class. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please Joe Pettigrew, Esq. Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP 230 Park Ave, 17th Floor New York, NY 10169 Email:jpettigrew@scott-scott.com [GN] SUBWAY FRANCHISEE: Fishman Sues Over TCPA Violation --------------------------------------------------- MALKA L. FISHMAN, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. SUBWAY FRANCHISEE ADVERTISING FUND TRUST, LTD. d/b/a SUBWAY, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-02444 (C.D. Cal., April 1, 2019) seeks damages, injunctive relief, and any other available legal or equitable remedies, resulting from the illegal actions of the Defendant in negligently and/or intentionally contacting Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular telephone, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), thereby invading Plaintiff's privacy. On or about September 3, 2016, Subway sent a text message to Fishman's cellular telephone number using an "automatic telephone dialing system," ("ATDS"). The Defendant did not have prior express written consent to send the marketing text message to Plaintiff's cell phone. The text message advertising for Subway was unwanted by Plaintiff and falls outside the scope of any consent that Plaintiff may have provided to T-Mobile to receive text message from T-Mobile concerning its wireless telephone services such as important account notifications. Plaintiff had not installed the T-Mobile Tuesdays mobile application on Plaintiff's cellular telephone prior to receiving the SPAM text message. Through Defendant's aforementioned conduct, Plaintiff suffered an invasion of a legally protected interest in privacy, which is specifically addressed and protected by the TCPA, says the complaint. Fishman is a citizen and resident of the State of California, County of Los Angeles. Subway operates several fast food restaurants located in the County of Los Angeles.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. Jason A. Ibey, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Phone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 Email: ak@kazlg.com jason@kazlg.com - and - Jack J. Gindi, Esq. ABRAMSON LABOR GROUP LLP 3580 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1260 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Phone: (213) 493-6300 Email: jack@abramsonlabor.com SYNEOS HEALTH: Wolf Haldenstein Probes Potential Securities Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP disclosed that it is investigating a potential federal securities class action lawsuit on behalf of investors who purchased shares of Syneos Health, Inc. (NASDAQ: SYNH) ("Syneos" or the "Company"). Investors who have purchased shares of Syneos Health, Inc. are urged to contact the firm immediately at classmember@whafh.com or (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774. You may obtain additional information concerning the action on our website www.whafh.com. On February 27, 2019, during aftermarket hours, Syneos disclosed that "on February 21, 2019, the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") notified the Company that it has commenced an investigation into the Company's revenue accounting policies, internal controls and related matters, and requested that the Company retain certain documents for the periods beginning with January 1, 2017. As an additional measure prior to the Company filing the Form 10-K, the Audit Committee of the Company's Board of Directors is conducting an independent review of the Company's revenue accounting policies, internal controls and related matters with the assistance of outside counsel and accounting advisors." On the next trading day, February 28, 2019, the stock was trading as low as $36.72, a decline of $15.29 per share from the prior day's close of $52.01 Kevin Cooper, Esq. Gregory Stone Director of Case and Financial Analysis Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP Email: gstone@whafh.com kcooper@whafh.com classmember@whafh.com [GN] TOUCHSTONES MUSIC: Kelley Drye Attorney Discusses Court Ruling -------------------------------------------------------------- Jeffrey S. Jacobson, Esq. -- jjacobson@kelleydrye.como -- of Kelley Drye, reports that in Cline v. Touchtunes Music Corp., No. 18-1756, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a Manhattan district judge's decision to approve a low-cost class action settlement in what the judge termed a "nuisance" case, while basically zeroing out the $100,000 fee requested by the plaintiffs' class counsel. The Defendants who have faced silly but not entirely motionable class actions can momentarily enjoy the schadenfreude of watching a plaintiff's law firm come away with nothing for its efforts. The problem with decisions like Cline, however, is that they may make plaintiffs' counsel more hesitant to settle a cheap case on cheap terms. For the class action defense bar, raising potential settlement costs is nothing to celebrate. The facts of Cline are almost too silly to merit repeating. The defendant provided a digital jukebox application to (for example) bars and restaurants. Patrons could pay money to play songs, and the app's terms told the patrons clearly that their songs weren't guaranteed to play and that no refunds would be provided under any circumstances. What the terms didn't disclose, however, is that the restaurant manager had the ability to manually skip songs. The plaintiff, ostensibly on behalf of a class of people whose songs were skipped, sued for the lost value -- about 40 cents each -- of not hearing the songs be played. The defendant, after two tries, couldn't quite get the whole suit dismissed. A highly experienced district judge left alive a false advertising claim for the non-disclosure. At that point, early last year, the parties agreed to a settlement. About 166,000 patrons whose songs weren't played, and for whom the defendant had contact information, received a code by email good for one free song play on any of the defendant's jukeboxes. Other people could file claims for codes, and 2,200 people did so. The plaintiff's counsel sought a $100,000 fee for themselves and a $2,000 incentive fee for the plaintiff. The judge approved the settlement but not these fees. He rejected the incentive award and, in place of the $100,000 fee, which plaintiffs' counsel contended was their "lodestar" of hours worked, the judge instead granted a fee of 20 cents per song code that class members actually redeem within the one-year expiration period. That fee is likely to be less than $1,000. The plaintiffs' counsel appealed that reduction, but the Second Circuit upheld it in a summary order, finding that the district judge acted within his discretion, especially in a "coupon"-type settlement. What should not be lost in any analysis of Cline is this key statement in the Second Circuit's opinion: "[C]lass counsel's lodestar fee application was not supported by contemporaneous billing records, and . . . no substantial explanation had been provided for a $10,000 'consulting fee' for which reimbursement was sought." The Second Circuit thus reinforced that plaintiffs' counsel absolutely can still seek lodestar-based fees even when settling for coupons or in-kind goods, provided that they support those fees with appropriate billing detail. If plaintiffs' counsel try to tell you that they don't want to enter into a coupon or in-kind settlement because Cline makes them fearful of receiving no fee in the case, therefore, remind them that the problem in Cline wasn't the settlement structure; it was the law firm's failure to document its fees. Don't make that mistake, and Cline shouldn't be an issue. Low-value cases like Cline still should be able to settle on low-value terms. [GN] TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Baker Sues over Debt Collection Practices ------------------------------------------------------------- CANDISS BAKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS INC.; PENDRICK CAPITAL PARTNERS LLC; and JOHN DOES 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-00104 (S.D. Tex., March 14, 2019) seeks to stop the Defendants' unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. The case is assigned to Judge George C. Hanks, Jr. Transworld Systems Inc. provides accounts receivable, debt recovery, and past due accounts services for businesses, medical companies, dental companies, education facilities, Fortune 500 companies, and small businesses in the United States and internationally. Transworld Systems Inc. was founded in 1970 and is based in Santa Rosa, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shawn Jaffer, Esq. SHAWN JAFFER LAW FIRM PLLC 6136 Frisco Square Blvd., Suite 400 Frisco, TX 75034 Telephone: (214) 210-9910 Facsimile: (214) 594-6100 E-mail: shawn@jafflaw.com UNITED STATES SOCCER: Morgan Suit Alleges Equal Pay Act Violation ----------------------------------------------------------------- Alex Morgan, Megan Rapinoe, Becky Sauerbrunn, Carli Lloyd, Morgan Brian, Jane Campbell, Danielle Colaprico, Abby Dahlkemper, Tierna Davidson, Crystal Dunn, Julie Ertz, Adrianna Franch, Ashlyn Harris, Tobin Heath, Lindsey Horan, Rose Lavelle, Allie Long, Merritt Mathias, Jessica McDonald, Samantha Mewis, Allyssa Naeher, Kelley O'Hara, Christen Press, Mallory Pugh, Casey Short, Emily Sonnet, Andi Sullivan and McCall Zerboni v. United States Soccer Federation, Inc., Case No. 2:19-cv-01717 (C.D. Calif., March 8, 2019), is a collective action complaint for violations of the Equal Pay Act and class action complaint for violations of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This action seeks to end the USSF's discriminatory practices, and an award to make the Plaintiffs and the class whole, as well as to provide for liquidated and punitive damages and all other appropriate relief. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant continues to practice gender-based discrimination against its champion female employees in the United States Senior Women's National Soccer Team in comparison to its less successful male employees in the United States Senior Men's National Soccer Team. The Plaintiffs were employed by the USSF as members of the WNT. The Defendant United States Soccer Federation, Inc. is the single, common employer of female and male professional soccer players who play in the United States Senior Women's National Soccer Team and the United States Senior Men's National Soccer Team. The Defendant is a not-for-profit corporation domiciled in the State of New York, headquartered in Chicago, Illinois and with operations throughout the United States, including in Los Angeles County, California. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Diana Hughes Leiden, Esq. WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 333 South Grand Avenue, 38th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-1543 Tel: (213) 615-1700 Fax: (213) 615-1750 E-mail: dhleiden@winston.com UNIVERSAL MUSIC: Kiler Sues Over Blind-inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------- MARION KILER, Individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, v. Universal Music Investments, Inc. d/b/a ShawnMendesOfficial.com and UMG Commercial Services, Inc. d/b/a Shop.ShawnMendesOfficial.com, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01844 (E.D. N.Y, April 1, 2019) is a civil rights action against Universal for their failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendants' denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), asserts the complaint. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Universal's policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendants' websites will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen reading software to read website content using her computer. ShawnMendesOfficial.com and Shop.ShawnMendesOfficial.com provide to the public a wide array of the goods, services, price specials, and other programs offered by Universal.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Shaked, Esq. SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C. 44 Court St., Suite 1217 Brooklyn, NY 11201 Phone: (917) 373-9128 Email: ShakedLawGroup@Gmail.com UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS: Responds to Admissions Scandal Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- FOX 7 Austin and KTVU report that the University of Texas at Austin has responded to the recent lawsuit over the college admissions bribery scandal. UT spokesperson JB Bird issued this statement March 14: Like many students and families across the country, we are also outraged that parents, outside actors and university employees may have committed fraud surrounding admissions at universities. The University of Texas has a thorough, holistic admissions process. The actions alleged by federal prosecutors against one UT employee were not in line with that policy and may have been criminal. They do not reflect our admissions process. The University of Texas at Austin was named in a class action suit by two Stanford University students filed March 14 in Santa Clara County Superior Court. Erica Olsen and Kalea Woods filed suit against William "Rick" Singer, the Key WorldWide Foundation, the Edge College and Career Network, Stanford University, Yale University, the University of Southern California, UCLA, the University of San Diego, the University of Texas at Austin, Wake Forest University and Georgetown University. While they are now attending a prestigious school, Olsen and Woods said they had nearly perfect test scores and had plenty of athletic skills. When they applied to Yale and USC, respectively, for example, the application fees were $80 and $85, only to be rejected. Their suit alleges they were not given a fair chance at admission because of the alleged bribes. Olsen, from Henderson, Nevada, and Woods of San Diego, both attend Stanford. Neither woman could be immediately reached for comment. A Stanford spokesperson said the "suit is under review." This appears to be the first lawsuit filed following federal prosecutors' announcement on March 12 unraveling a nationwide admissions scandal where parents would pay Singer, an admissions consultant, millions of dollars to bribe their children's way into college. Some of the payouts went to coaches and administrators to falsely make their children look like star athletes, and Singer also hired ringers to take college entrance exams for students and paid off insiders at testing centers to correct students' answers, authorities said. Singer began cooperating with authorities in September 2018 and he pleaded guilty on March 12. "Each of the qualified, rejected students was damaged by the fraudulent and negligent conduct of the defendants, in that, at a minimum, each class member paid college admission application fees to the defendant universities without any understanding or warning that unqualified students were slipping in through the back door of the admissions process by committing fraud, bribery, cheating and dishonesty," the suit contends. The suit alleges that as a result of the fraudulent bribery schemes, unqualified students got into these highly selective universities while "those students who played by the rules and did not have college-bribing parents were denied admission." The universities, the suit contends, were "negligent in failing to maintain adequate protocols and security measures in place to guarantee the sanctity of the college admissions process and to ensure that their own employees were not engaged in these type of bribery schemes." Stanford University was specifically caught up in the scandal after the school's now-fired sailing coach John Vandemoer pleaded guilty on March 12 to accepting bribes. MORE: UT Austin dismisses head men's tennis coach amid widespread admissions bribery scandal According to a federal complaint announced on March 12, the 41-year-old coach agreed to hold open coveted admission spots at the highly competitive university for two applicants falsely portrayed as competitive sailors in exchange for payments to the sailing program. The students ultimately declined to enroll at Stanford, but the indictment alleges the sailing program received payments totaling $270,000 to fraudulently admit an unworthy applicant. Stanford was not charged in the case, being prosecuted out of Boston, and neither were any of the schools or students where the alleged bribes took place. In a statement on March 12, President Marc Tessier-Lavigne and Provost Persis Drell, wrote: "Let us be clear: The conduct reported in this case is absolutely contrary to Stanford's values, and to the norms this university has lived by for decades. The news is a shock exactly because it so clearly violates our institutional expectations for ethical conduct." [GN] VANDA PHARMACEUTICALS: Brower Piven Files Class Action Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- The securities litigation law firm of Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation, disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc. (Nasdaq: VNDA) ("Vanda" or the "Company") securities during the period between November 4, 2015 to February 11, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors who wish to become proactively involved in the litigation have until April 26, 2019 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. If you wish to choose counsel to represent you and the class, you must apply to be appointed lead plaintiff and be selected by the Court. The lead plaintiff will direct the litigation and participate in important decisions including whether to accept a settlement for the class in the action. The lead plaintiff will be selected from among applicants claiming the largest loss from investment in Vanda securities during the Class Period. Members of the class will be represented by the lead plaintiff and counsel chosen by the lead plaintiff. No class has yet been certified in the above action. The complaint accuses the defendants of violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by virtue of the defendants' failure to disclose during the Class Period that Vanda was engaged in a fraudulent scheme in which the Company promoted the off-label use of its two drugs, Fanapt and Hetlioz, that Vanda was fraudulently receiving drug reimbursements from the government by abusing Medicare, Medicaid, and Tricare programs, and that Vanda's promotional materials for Fanapt and Hetlioz were false and misleading, garnering regulatory scrutiny from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA"). According to the complaint, following an October 22, 2018 Warning Letter from the FDA, and a February 11, 2019 report announcing a previous unreported qui tam lawsuit which disclosed Vanda's years of fraudulent promotion of Fanapt and Hetlioz, as well as Vanda's scheme to defraud the government with fraudulent reimbursements, the value of Vanda shares declined significantly. If you have suffered a loss in excess of $100,000 from investment in Vanda securities purchased on or after November 4, 2015 and held through the revelation of negative information during and/or at the end of the Class Period and would like to learn more about this lawsuit and your ability to participate as a lead plaintiff, without cost or obligation to you please; Charles J. Piven, Esq. Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation 1925 Old Valley Road Stevenson, Maryland 21153 Telephone: 410-415-6616 Email: hoffman@browerpiven.com [GN] VANDA PHARMACEUTICALS: RM LAW Files Securities Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- RM LAW, P.C. disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc. ("Vanda" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: VNDA) between November 4, 2015 and February 11, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Vanda shareholders may, no later than April 26, 2019, move the Court for appointment as a lead plaintiff of the Class. If you purchased shares of Vanda and would like to learn more about these claims or if you wish to discuss these matters and have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights, contact Richard A. Maniskas, Esquire toll-free at (844) 291-9299 This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint alleges that throughout the class period defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Vanda was engaged in a fraudulent scheme in which it promoted the off-label use of Fanapt and Hetlioz; (2) Vanda was fraudulently receiving drug reimbursements from the government by abusing Medicare, Medicaid, and Tricare programs; (3) as a result of the scheme, Vanda faced legal action from the government; (4) Vanda's promotional materials for Fanapt and Hetlioz were false and misleading, garnering regulatory scrutiny from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration; and (5) as a result, defendants' statements about Vanda's business, operations and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. On October 22, 2018, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") sent Vanda a Warning Letter, addressed to the Company's founder and Chief Executive Officer, Mihael H. Polymeropoulos. The Warning Letter discussed the FDA's review of Vanda's website, which the FDA found "false and misleading" due to its failure to disclose risks associated with the Company's products Fanapt and Hetlioz, and in violation of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. On this news, Vanda's stock price fell $2.00 per share, or over 9%, over the next two trading days, closing at $20.00 per share on October 24, 2018. Then, on February 11, 2019, Aurelius Value published a report entitled, "Vanda: In the Land of The Blind, The One-Eyed Man in King." This report discussed a previously unreported qui tam lawsuit which alleged that Vanda had engaged in the fraudulent promotion of Fanapt and Hetlioz for years, and further alleged that Vanda had schemed to defraud the government with fraudulent reimbursements. On this news, Vanda's stock price fell $0.95 per share, or over 5%, to close at $18.00 per share on February 11, 2019. If you are a member of the class, you may, no later than April 26, 2019, request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff of the class. A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will adequately represent the class. Under certain circumstances, one or more class members may together serve as "lead plaintiff." Your ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. You may retain RM LAW, P.C. or other counsel of your choice, to serve as your counsel in this action. Richard A. Maniskas, Esq. RM LAW, P.C. 1055 Westlakes Dr., Ste. 300 Berwyn, PA 19312 Telephone: 484-324-6800 844-291-9299 Email: rm@maniskas.com [GN] VERSUM MATERIALS: City of Providence Sues over Entegris Merger -------------------------------------------------------------- CITY OF PROVIDENCE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VERSUM MATERIALS, INC.; SEIFOLLAH GHASEMI; GUILLERMO NOVO; JACQUES CROISETIÈRE; YI HYON PAIK; THOMAS J. RIORDAN; SUSAN C. SCHNABEL; ALEJANDRO D. WOLFF; and BROADRIDGE CORPORATE ISSUER SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2019-0206 (Del. Ch., March 14, 2019) is an action against the Defendants for breach of fiduciary duty in the negotiation, approval and disclosure of a merger deal with Entegris, Inc., and the Defendants' response to a third-party, all-cash all shares offer, including implementation of a Shareholder Rights Plan. According to the complaint, on January 28, 2019, Versum and Entegris, announced an all-stock merger, in which Versum stockholders are promised 1.12 shares of Entegris for each Versum share, in a deal currently worth about $40 per share. Entegris and Versum estimated $75 million in annual synergies following closing. The companies expect the Merger to close in the second-half of 2019. The Merger is subject to, among other conditions, the approval of Versum's stockholders. A month after the Merger's announcement, on February 28, 2019, Versum and Entegris filed a preliminary registration statement on form S-4 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. On February 27, 2019, Merck KGaA delivered its $48 per share, all-cash acquisition proposal to Versum's Board, seeking to engage with the Board and commence due diligence. Merck also stated that it would accept, except as to price, all the terms of Versum's Merger Agreement with Entegris. Rather than a thorough review of the Merck offer, the Versum Board on the same day, February 27, implemented a "poison pill" stockholder rights plan, and within hours of learning of the Merck offer, Versum promptly filed an 8-K and 8-A with the SEC, including a Rights Agreement dated February 28, 2019, between Versum and Broadridge, governed by Delaware law. Under the Poison Pill's terms, the Board declared a dividend of one preferred share purchase right (a "Right") for each share of common stock. Each Right entitles the holder to acquire from the Company for $200 one one-thousandth of a share of Series A Junior Participating Preferred Stock (the "Preferred Stock"), "subject to adjustment." In a merger not authorized by the Board, each one one-thousandth of a share of Preferred Stock would be entitled to the same per-share consideration as a whole Versum common share. The Poison Pill contains a "flip in" provision, entitling all Rights holders other than an Acquiring Person to buy $400 worth, at market value, of Versum common stock for $200. It also contains a "flip-over" provision, allowing stockholders of the Company to purchase, again at half-price, $400 worth, at market value, of stock of another company that acquires Versum after someone becomes an Acquiring Person. On March 1, 2019, one day after announcing the Poison Pill, Versum announced the Board had rejected Merck's $48 per share all-cash proposal, claiming that "[a]fter careful review and consideration" Merck's bid was "not a superior proposal." The Board did not explain the rationale for its determination that $48 in cash was not superior to the Merger, which even the Board's financial advisor said was less valuable. Versum Materials, Inc. develops, manufactures, transports, and handles specialty materials for the semiconductor and display industries in the United States, Taiwan, South Korea, China, Europe, and rest of Asia. Versum Materials, Inc. was founded in 2015 and is headquartered in Tempe, Arizona. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Hanrahan, Esq. Paul A. Fioravanti, Jr., Esq. Corinne Elise Amato, Esq. Kevin H. Davenport, Esq. Eric J. Juray, Esq. PRICKETT JONES & ELLIOTT, P.A. 1310 N. King Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 888-6500 - and - Lee D. Rudy, Esq. Michael C. Wagner, Esq. Grant D. Goodhart, III, Esq. KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Telephone:(610) 667-7706 - and - Patrick C. Lynch, Esq. LYNCH & PINE 1 Park Row 5th Floor Providence, RI 02903 WALT DISNEY: Rasmussen Asserts Gender Pay Discrimination -------------------------------------------------------- LaRonda Rasmussen and Karen Moore, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE WALT DISNEY COMPANY, WALT DISNEY PICTURES, HOLLYWOOD RECORDS, INC., and DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV10974 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., April 2, 2019) seeks to address the rampant gender pay discrimination at Disney. Because Disney's pay practices negatively affect their female co-workers throughout The Walt Disney Studios, they bring this case as a class action. When it comes to paying women fairly, The Walt Disney Company, nearing its 100th year is woefully behind the times. Put simply, Disney refuses to pay its women employees equal to men doing the same work. In many instances, Disney is paying women workers tens of thousands of dollars less than their male counterparts. Disney caused, attempted to cause, contributed to, or caused the continuation of, the wage rate discrimination based on sex in violation of the California Fair Pay Act. Moreover, Disney willfully violated the California Fair Pay Act by intentionally, knowingly, and deliberately paying Plaintiffs and Class members less than similarly situated males. As a result of Disney's conduct and/or Disney's willful, knowing and intentional discrimination, Plaintiffs and the Class members have suffered and will continue to suffer harm, including but not limited to, lost earnings, lost benefits, and other financial loss, as well as non-economic damages, says the complaint. Plaintiffs are women of color over the age of 18 who worked for the Defendant. The Walt Disney Company is the world's largest media company.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Lori E. Andrus, Esq. Jennie Lee Anderson, Esq. ANDRUS ANDERSON LLP 155 Montgomery Street, Suite 900 San Francisco, CA 94104 Phone: (415) 986-1400 Facsimile: (415) 986-1474 Email: lori@andrusanderson.com jennie@andrusanderson.com WESTCO CHEMICALS: Mismanaged Employees' Fund, Draney Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- Daniel Draney, individually and on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated non-exempt former and current employees, Plaintiffs, v. Westco Chemicals, Inc., Ezekiel "Alan" Zwillinger and Steven Zwillinger, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-01405, (C.D. Cal., February 25, 2019), seeks to restore their "plans" to the position they would have been, enjoin Defendants from further violations of their fiduciary responsibilities, obligations and duties pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. Daniel Draney is a participant in the Westco Chemicals, Inc. Profit Sharing 401(k) Plan and Westco Chemicals Defined Benefit Pension Plan. He alleges that the plan management failed to provide participants with statutorily required disclosures about the Plans' terms, holdings, investments, fees and performance, failed to fund the Plans as required by law; forfeited participants' accounts that should have otherwise been 100% vested; failed to provide the 401(k) Plan participants with adequate and prudent investment options and regularly monitor investment performance and replace poorly performing investments. Plaintiff is represented by: Shoham J. Solouki, Esq. Grant Joseph Savoy, Esq. SOLOUKI SAVOY, LLP 316 W. 2nd Street, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90012 Tel: (213) 814-4940 Fax: (213) 814-2550 Email: shoham@soloukisavoy.com grant@soloukisavoy.com - and - Michael C. McKay, Esq. MCKAY LAW LLC 7702E Doubletree Ranch Rd., Ste. 300 Scottsdale, AZ 85258 Telephone: (480) 681-7000 Facsimile: (480) 348-3999 Email: mmckay@mckaylaw.us WHIRLPOOL CORP: Seeks 2nd Circuit Review of Order in Famular Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant Whirlpool Corporation filed an appeal from the District Court's opinion and order issued on March 18, 2019, in the lawsuit entitled Famular v. Whirlpool Corporation, Case No. 16-cv-944, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (White Plains). The appellate case is titled Famular v. Whirlpool Corporation, Case No. 19-838, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Whirlpool appealed from the District Court's amended opinion and order, and judgment, both dated June 7, 2017. That appellate case is styled Famular v. Whirlpool Corporation, Case No. 17-1918. The lawsuit alleges that Whirlpool falsely labeled as energy-efficient certain of its washing machines.[BN] Plaintiff-Respondent Walter Famular, On behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, is represented by: Neal J. Deckant, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Boulevard Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (646) 837-7165 E-mail: ndeckant@bursor.com Defendant-Petitioner Whirlpool Corporation is represented by: Meir Feder, Esq. JONES DAY 250 Vesey Street New York, NY 10281 Telephone: (212) 326-7870 E-mail: mfeder@jonesday.com YRC WORLDWIDE: Block & Leviton Files Securities Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Block & Leviton LLP, a securities litigation firm representing investors nationwide, informs investors that there has been a class action lawsuit filed against YRC Worldwide Inc. ("YRC" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: YRCW) and certain of its officers alleging violations of the federal securities laws. Shareholders are encouraged to contact Block & Leviton LLP to learn more. The Complaint that was filed in the Northern District of New York alleges that the Government was systematically overcharged by YRC for freight carrier services and that YRC entities made false statements to the Government and to investors that hid their misconduct. If you purchased or otherwise acquired YRC securities between March 10, 2014, and December 14, 2018, and have questions about your legal rights, or possess information relevant to this investigation, you are encouraged to contact Block & Leviton LLP at (617) 398-5660, by email at info@blockesq.com, or by visiting http://shareholder.law/yrc[GN] ZHENJIANG HUAHAI PHARMA: Silberman Sues over Tainted Valsartan -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against several generic Valsartan drug manufacturers, including Zhejiang Huahai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd, Huahai US Inc, and Prinston Pharmaceutical Inc, raising five causes of action: negligence, breach of express warranties, breach of implied warranty of merchantability and fitness for ordinary purpose, manufacturing defect, and failure to warn. The case is captioned PAULETTE SILBERMAN, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ZHEJIANG HUAHAI PHARMACEUTICAL CO., LTD.; HUAHAI US INC.; PRINSTON PHARMACEUTICAL INC. d/b/a SOLCO HEALTHCARE LLC; SOLCO HEALTHCARE U.S., LLC; TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LTD.; ACTAVIS LLC; TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC.; CARDINAL HEALTH, INC.; THE HARVARD DRUG GROUP, L.L.C.; MAJOR PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; ARROW PHARM (MALTA) LTD.; ACTAVIS PHARMA, INC.; TORRENT PRIVATE LIMITED; TORRENT PHARMACEUTICALS, LTD.; TORRENT PHARMA, INC.; AUROBINDO PHARMA, LIMITED; AUROBINDO PHARMA USA, INC.; AUROLIFE PHARMA LLC; AND JOHN DOES 1-100, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-09348-RBK-JS (D.N.J., April 5, 2019). Plaintiff Paulette Silberman brings this action on behalf of herself and other Valsartan consumers who consumed Defendants' generic Valsartan that was contaminated with an IARC- and EPA-listed probable human carcinogen known as N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA), and/or an IARC- and EPA-listed probable human carcinogen known as N-nitrosodiethylamine (NDEA), and who suffered cellular damage, genetic harm, developed cancer, and/or are at an increased risk of developing cancer as a result, but have not yet been diagnosed with cancer. Silberman seeks injunctive and monetary relief, including creation of a fund to finance independent medical monitoring services, including but not limited to notification to all people exposed to this contamination, examinations, testing, preventative screening, and care and treatment of cancer resulting, at least in part, from the exposure to the NDMA or NDEA contamination. Zhejiang Huahai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. provides formulations, active pharmaceutical ingredients, and intermediates in China and internationally. It was founded in 1989 and is based in Linhai, China. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam M. Slater, Esq. MAZIE SLATER KATZ & FREEMAN, LLC 103 Eisenhower Parkway, 2nd Floor Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 228-9898 Facsimile: (973) 228-0303 E-mail: aslater@mazieslater.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 ***