/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/190422.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, April 22, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 80 Headlines AAA ELECTRICAL: Underpays Janitors, Hernandez Suit Claims ABC CORPORATION: Faces Salamanca Suit in E.D. New York AL HENDRICKSON: Newman Sues over Telemarketing Text Messages ALASKA: Sued Over Medicaid Application Backlog ALLERGAN USA: Website not Accessible to Blind People, Olsen Says ALLSTATE CORP: Court Grants Class Certification in Securities Case ALPINE SITE: Kelley Seeks Overtime Pay & Minimum Wage AMAZON.COM: Johnson-Hassan Seeks OT Wages for Delivery Drivers AMERICAN FOOTBALL: Roberson Sues over Abrupt Termination, Pay ARIZONA BEVERAGE: Faces False Advertising Class Action AT&T CORP: Removes Payton Suit to C.D. California BANK OF AMERICA: UFCW Alleges Fannie & Freddie Bonds Price-Fixing BE FREE: Taguacta Sues over Unwanted Cellular Phone Calls BEACON SALES: Andrade Seeks Unpaid Wages for Company Workers BIMBO BAKERIES: Peatry Sues over Collection of Biometric Data BOEING CO: Burke Files ERISA Class Action Over 737 Safety Problem BRAND NEW START: Pereira et al Seek Overtime Wages for Counselors BRAWLEY, CA: Rodriguez et al. Seek Overtime Pay BUTTS FOODS: Smith Seeks Overtime Pay for Vehicle Fueler CARNIVAL PLC: Bid to Dismiss Appeal in Wolfe Suit Underway CAS MEDICAL: Plaintiffs Agree to Withdraw Merger-Related Suits CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Orozco Seeks Unpaid Wages COMPLETE COMFORT: Wells Sues over Wrongful Discharge, Retaliation CORDISH COMPANIES: Marketti et al. Seek Unpaid Wages CORRECTIONS CORP: April 29 Filing Due of Gonzalez Deal Approval Bid COTY INC: Faces Rumsey Suit over Cash Tender Offer CREDIT LAW: Ensminger Sues over Debt Collection Practices DAVID MCGRATH: Quarberg Sues over Debt Collection Practices DELIVERY FACTORY: Pallas Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages ESSURE: Faces Class Action Over Implant Corrosion FIDELITY BANK: Conditional Class Certification Bid Granted in Part FLAGSTAR BANK: Underpays Mortgage Advisors, Walker Suit Alleges FORD MOTOR: Judge Approves $17.4MM MyFordTouch Settlement GENERAL REVENUE: Henderson Seeks to Certify Two Classes GERMAN CONSULATE: Rafael Peral Seeks Overtime Pay GORDON FLESCH: Cook Motion to Conditionally Certify Class Denied GRANGE INDEMNITY: Refuses to Pay Full Cash Value, Ostendorf Says GRISWORLD HOME CARE: Ionie Scott Seeks Unpaid Wages HEALTH CARE SERVICES: Settlement of Medi-Cal Suit Has Initial OK HEALTH INSURANCE: Schick et al. Sue over Unwanted Phone Calls HILL'S PET NUTRITION: Teegarden Sues over False Advertising HOMEAWAY INC: Consumers Sue over Fraudulent Activities HOT TOPIC: Soukhaphonh Seeks to Certify Class HYUNDAI: NHTSA to Probe Non-Crash Fires Following Complaints J JILL INC: Time to Appeal Pension Trust Suit Already Passed JACKSON HEWITT: Gibson Sues over No-Poach Agreement JAGUAR HEALTH: Bid to Dismiss Tony Plant Suit Underway JONES DAY: Female Attorneys File Gender Bias Class Action JORDAN HEALTH CARE: Underpays Home Health Nurses, Siemers Says JUST BORN: Suit over Slack-Filled Candies Wins Class Certification KUM GANG: Park Seeks Minimum & Overtime Pay KYMA NYC: Bermeo et al. Seek Minimum & OT Pay for Restaurant Staff LATSHAW DRILLING: Stegall Seeks Minimum and Overtime Pay LENDMARK FINANCIAL: Underpays Payroll Specialists, Bell Alleges LOANDEPOT.COM: Rosenberg Sues over TCPA Violations LORI LOUGHLIN: Among Defendants in Admission Scam Class Action LYONS & DOUGHTY: Hess Sues over Debt Collections Practices MANILA WATER: Lawmakers Mull Class Action Over Negligence MDL 2492: Harley Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated MDL 2492: Helminiak Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated MDL 2492: Milburn Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated MDL 2492: Pinkney Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated MDL 2492: Schmitz Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated MDL 2492: Stewart Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated MDL 2492: Stroughter Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated MDL 2492: Sweed Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated MDL 2492: Taylor Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated MDL 2492: Williams Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated MDL 2741: Somerlott Suit v Monsanto over Roundup Sales Moved MDL 2741: Whaley Suit v Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated MEX-DINING INC: Arevalo Seeks Minimum & Overtime Wages MIDLAND CREDIT: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed MONSANTO COMPANY: Balentines Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup MONSANTO COMPANY: Barnett Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup MONSANTO COMPANY: Grants Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup MONSANTO COMPANY: Murphys Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup MONSANTO COMPANY: Oldhams Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup MONSANTO COMPANY: Reed Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup MONSANTO COMPANY: Ruby Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup MONSANTO COMPANY: Swansons Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup MONSANTO COMPANY: Winterringer Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup MY EXPERT: Nowak Seeks Overtime Pay NATIONAL DEBT RELIEF: Faces Tabiei Suit over Autodialed Calls NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC: Disclosed Personal Reading Info, Markham Says NAVIHEALTH INC: Barbee Seeks to Certify Collective Action NCAA: Brown Sues Over Injuries Sustained as a Student-Athlete NCAA: Disregarded Student-Athletes Health & Safety, Busbee Asserts NCAA: Disregarded Student-Athletes' Health & Safety, Johnson Says NCAA: Escoffery Sues Over Disregard for Student-Athletes' Safety NCAA: Graham Sues for Injuries Sustained as a Student-Athlete NCAA: Miolen Sues over Safety of GSU Student-Athletes NCAA: Neglected Football Players' Health & Safety, Says Drake NEW HOLLAND RESIDENCES: Faces Zambrano et al. Labor Suit NEW ORLEANS: Declaration Against Jailing Indigents Sought NIKE INC: Court Denies Request to Dismiss Pay Equity Class Action NORTHSTAR LOCATION: Grego Sues over Debt Collection Practices OXFORD HOTELS: Taylor Sues over Collection of Biometric Data PHILLIPS 66: Green Suit Transferred to N.D. California PHOENIX FINANCIAL: O'Neill Sues over Debt Collection Practices PNC BANK: Homeowners Allege Mishandling of Mortgage Account PRIVILEGE UNDERWRITERS: MSP Sues over Reimbursement Obligations PROFESSIONAL ACCOUNT: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed ROCK N MASSAGE: Bolton Seeks to Certify Minimum & OT Wage Classes ROCKEFELLER UNIVERSITY: Faces Lawsuit Over Sexual Abuse Letters ROCKWELL AUTOMATION INC: Smith Sues over Pension Benefits SAFELIFE 365: Vantine Seeks Relief over Autodialed Calls SAGE SOFTWARE: Underpays Sales Representatives, Funna et al. Say SHUN LEE WEST: Faces Zhang et al. Labor Suit in NY SIBANYE GOLD: Continues to Defend Consolidated Class Suit in NY SOLUTION MECHANICAL: Walker Seeks Overtime Compensation SPLIT SECOND: Fails to Place Compliant "Tow Away Zone Sign" STAFF PRO: Glaspie Seeks Minimum & Overtime Wages TASTE OF NORTH CHINA: Yang Seeks Overtime Pay TASTES ON THE FLY: Faces Grillo Labor Suit in Massachusetts TGI FRIDAY'S: Troncoso Says Potato Skins Product Deceptive TIMM MEDICAL: Removes TCPA Suit to Eastern District of Missouri TRIVAGO N.V.: Court Tosses Securities Suit UNITED HEALTHCARE: Weissman Says Medical Plans Deceptive UNITED STATES: Loses Immigrant Juvenile Status Class Action UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN: Loughlin, Huffman Made Court Appearances US CORRECTIONS: White Seeks OT Pay for Extradition Officers WALMART INC: Removes Van Buren Case to District of Maryland WALT DISNEY: Faces Class Action Over Gender Pay Gap WAYFAIR INC: Johnson Fistel Files Securities Class Action Suit WELLS FARGO AUTO: Faces Harrington Suit over Debt Collection Calls WOODMAN'S FOOD: Wyngaard Seeks Overtime Pay YUCCA VALLEY FORD CENTER: Faces Allen Labor Suit in California ********* AAA ELECTRICAL: Underpays Janitors, Hernandez Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------- ANGEL HERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AAA ELECTRICAL COMMUNICATIONS, INC. D/B/A AAA COMPANIES; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV08097 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., March 7, 2019) is an action against the Defendants for unpaid regular hours, overtime hours, minimum wages, wages for missed meal and rest periods. The Plaintiff Hernandez was employed by the Defendants as janitor. AAA Electrical & Communications, Inc. provides electrical contracting services. The Company offers design build, emergency response, tenant improvement, site surveying, and conduit construction services. AAA Electrical & Communications serves clients in the State of California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nazo Koulloukian, Esq. KOUL LAW FIRM 3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1710 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 761-5484 Facsimile: (818) 561-3938 E-mail: nazo@koullaw.com - and - Sahag Majarian, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF SAHAG MAJARIAN III 18250 Ventura Blvd. Tarzana, CA 91356 Telephone: (818) 609-0807 Facsimile: (818) 609-0892 E-mail: Sahagii@aol.com ABC CORPORATION: Faces Salamanca Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against ABC Corporation. The case is captioned as WILLIAM SALAMANCA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ABC CORPORATION d/b/a GREEN VALLE TREE SERVICE; WALTER VALLE; and SANDRO FLORES, Defendants Case No. 2:19-cv-01335-JFB-SIL (E.D.N.Y., March 7, 2019). The case is assigned to Judge Joseph F. Bianco and referred to Magistrate Judge Steven I. Locke. ABC Corporation manufactures and markets housekeeping, janitorial, and engineering products for the cleaning industry. Corporation was formerly known as ABC Powdered Soap Factory. The company was founded in 1933 and is based in Waipahu, Hawaii with branch offices and warehouses in Kauai, Maui, and Hilo. [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 Facsimile: (718) 263-9598 E-mail: avshalumovr@yahoo.com AL HENDRICKSON: Newman Sues over Telemarketing Text Messages ------------------------------------------------------------ JARED NEWMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. AL HENDRICKSON JR. ENTERPRISES, INC., a Florida Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 0:19-cv-60788-MGC (S.D. Fla., March 26, 2019), seeks redress for Defendant's violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant is an automotive dealership that sells vehicles for individuals and businesses. To promote its services, the Defendant engages in unsolicited marketing, harming thousands of consumers in the process. On or about March 21, 2019, the Defendant sent telemarketing text messages to the Plaintiff's cellular telephone number ending in 7450. The Defendant's text messages were transmitted to the Plaintiff's cellular telephone, and within the time frame relevant to this action. Defendant's text messages constitute telemarketing because they encouraged the future purchase or investment in property, goods, or services, i.e., selling the Plaintiff an automobile, the lawsuit says. At no point in time did the Plaintiff provide Defendant with his express written consent to be contacted using an ATDS.[BN] Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Class: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. Garrett O. Berg, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE 14 NE 1 st Avenue, Suite 1205 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: 305 479-2299 E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com gberg@shamisgentile.com - and - Scott Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, PA 19495 Biscayne Blvd #607 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: 305 975-3320 E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com - and - Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: 954 400-4713 E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com ALASKA: Sued Over Medicaid Application Backlog ---------------------------------------------- Grant Robinson, writing for KTUU.com, reports that the state of Alaska is facing s a lawsuit for failing to process Medicaid applications in the time frame required by federal law. Medicaid applications are supposed to be processed within 45 days, or within 90 days if it involves determining a disability. As of February, at least 15,000 Alaskan have submitted an application that has not been processed. At least 10,000 of those applications were submitted in 2018. "We've been following the problem for some years and hoping that it would get redressed, and it seemed to be getting worse and worse no matter what issues are raised to the state," attorney James Davis, Esq. -- jad@jamesadavislaw.com -- said. Davis, an attorney with the Northern Justice Project civil rights law firm, filed the suit on behalf of one client with intent for it to be certified as a class-action case. Davis' client applied for Medicaid in November, but still has not had her application processed. "The state doesn't have to provide her with medical benefits. It could say, 'No, you're not eligible,' for one reason or another. It could just give her an answer, but the state hasn't either approved her or denied her, so she's just left in limbo, which is what literally tens of thousands of other applicants just like her are in a state of limbo," Davis said. No representative from the Department of Health and Social Services or the governor's office responded to requests for comment on March 1, but a webpage on the DHSS website is dedicated to information on the application backlog. The website states that applicants who have submitted an application in the last 90 days and have not received notice of their status do not need to submit a new application. The website states that the office will have limited services three days a week so staff can focus on addressing the out-of-date workload. "There is no factual debate," Davis said. "I think the state is going to concede that it's violating the law. The question is how best to fix it, and there has to be a will to fix it." Davis says the purpose of the lawsuit is to have the court order the state to comply with existing laws. "We're not saying, Give people Medicaid/Don't give them Medicaid,' but at least follow the law and give them a decision on whether or not they're entitled to Medicaid or not," Davis said. "It's just a matter of giving them a yes or a no. People have a right to a yes or no and I think people have a right to ask the state government to follow the law just like the rest of us."[GN] ALLERGAN USA: Website not Accessible to Blind People, Olsen Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit, THOMAS J. OLSEN, Individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. ALLERGAN USA, Inc., d/b/a CoolSculpting, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02723-JPO (S.D.N.Y., March 26, 2019), Mr. Olsen, who is legally blind, brings this civil rights action against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.CoolSculpting.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Olsen and other blind or visually-impaired people. The Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, asserts claims under the Americans With Disabilities Act, New York State Human Rights Law, and New York City Human Rights Law against Defendant.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: Christopher H. Lowe, Esq. Douglas B. Lipsky, Esq. LIPSKY LOWE LLP 630 Third Avenue, Fifth Floor New York, NY 10017-6705 Telephone: 212 392-4772 E-mail: chris@lipskylowe.com doug@lipskylowe.com ALLSTATE CORP: Court Grants Class Certification in Securities Case ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit re: THE ALLSTATE CORPORATION SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 1:16-cv-10510 (N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Robert W. Gettleman entered an order: 1. granting Allstate's motion for class certification and certifying a class consisting of: "all persons who purchased Allstate Securities between October 29, 2014 and August 3, 2015, inclusive and who were damaged thereby"; and 2. granting lead counsel's motion to appoint the law firm of Labaton, Sucharow, LLP, as class counsel. The Court said, "The law firm is experienced and competent to handle the case, and the Defendants' objection based on a fee sharing dispute in another case is, in this court's view, insufficient to disqualify that law firm. Of course, the Court will demand strict adherence to the Rules of Professional Conduct and all relevant ethical considerations. The parties are directed to submit a joint status report using this Court's form as a basis, consistent with this opinion. The court is aware that significant discovery has already been undertaken, and directs the parties to meet and confer and propose a comprehensive discovery plan. The court also directs class counsel to include in the status report a detailed proposal with respect to staffing, both internally and externally for the prosecution of this litigation. The joint status report shall be filed on or before April 25, 2019. This matter is set for a status hearing on May 1, 2019, at 9:10 a.m."[CC] ALPINE SITE: Kelley Seeks Overtime Pay & Minimum Wage ----------------------------------------------------- BEAU KELLEY, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. ALPINE SITE SERVICES, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-01152 (S.D. Tex., March 28, 2019), seeks to recover overtime pay and minimum wage under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, the Ohio Prompt Pay Act, the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law, the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act of 1968, and the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law. During Kelley's employment with Alpine, he regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week. Alpine, though, did not pay Kelley for all of the hours that he worked, and it did not count all of the hours that Kelley worked towards its obligation to pay overtime. Alpine knew or reasonably should have known that Kelley worked in excess of 40 hours per week. Alpine did not pay Kelley overtime as required by 29 U.S.C. section 207(a)(1) (and, when applicable, the OMFWSA, the OPPA, the NJWHL, the PMWA and/or PWPCL) for the hours he worked in excess of 40 per week. Instead, Alpine failed to pay for all of the hours that Kelley worked and to count all of the hours that Kelley worked towards its obligation to pay overtime, the lawsuit says. According to its website, Alpine tests and installs engineered screwpiles for commercial construction projects, including power stations, oil and gas refineries and natural gas plants.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: Melissa Moore, Esq. Curt Hesse, Esq. Bridget Davidson, Esq. MOORE & A SSOCIATES Lyric Centre 440 Louisiana Street, Suite 675 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 222-6775 Facsimile: (713) 222-6739 AMAZON.COM: Johnson-Hassan Seeks OT Wages for Delivery Drivers -------------------------------------------------------------- PORCHA JOHNSON-HASSAN, on Behalf of Herself and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. CHIVALRY LOGISTICS LLC and AMAZON.COM SERVICES, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-01142 (S.D. Tex., March 28, 2019), alleges that Defendants have failed to pay Plaintiff and other delivery drivers the appropriate overtime wages when they work more than 40 hours in a workweek as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants' pay practices and policies applied not only to the Plaintiff, but also to all Class Members. Therefore, the Plaintiff brings this suit on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated Delivery Drivers, the lawsuit says. The Plaintiff brings this suit as a collective action on behalf of herself and all other persons employed by Defendants as a delivery drivers within three years from the filing of this suit who, like the Plaintiff, have not been compensated at least the full overtime rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 each week. Amazon.com Services, Inc. provides an e-commerce marketplace for the purchase of products online. Amazon.com Services, Inc. delivers products directly to the customer's home via Delivery Drivers it jointly employs with local entities, such as Chivalry Logistics LLC. Attorneys for the Plaintiff and Class Members: Robert R. Debes, Jr., Esq. Ricardo Prieto, Esq. SHELLIST LAZARZ SLOBIN LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 621-2277 Facsimile: (713) 621-0993 E-mail: bdebes@eeoc.net rprieto@eeoc.net AMERICAN FOOTBALL: Roberson Sues over Abrupt Termination, Pay ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Alliance of American Football, Legendary Field Exhibitions, LLC, the Founders Fund, the Chernin Group, Jared Allen, Slow Ventures, Adrian Fenty, Charles King's M Ventures, Bill Polian, Troy Polamalu, MGM Resorts International and J.K. McKay to collect unpaid wages and benefits for 60 calendar days pursuant to the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act of 1988 (WARN). The case is captioned JAMES EARNEST ROBERSON, JR., on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. THE ALLIANCE OF AMERICAN FOOTBALL (AAF), LEGENDARY FIELD EXHIBITIONS, LLC, FOUNDERS FUND, THE CHERNIN GROUP, JARED ALLEN, SLOW VENTURES, ADRIAN FENTY, CHARLES KING'S M VENTURES, BILL POLIAN, TROY POLAMALU, MGM RESORTS INTERNATIONAL and J.K. MCKAY, Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-01893-DMR (N.D. Cal., April 8, 2019). Plaintiff James Earnest Roberson, Jr. was an employee of AAF until he, along with the other employees, was terminated as part of, or as a result of a mass layoff and cessation of operations ordered by AAF. As such, the Defendants are liable under the WARN Act for the failure to provide the Plaintiff and the other similarly situated former employees or their union representative at least 60 days' advance written notice of termination, as required by the WARN Act. The Defendants failed to comply with the requirements of the WARN Act by permanently closing the business operations of AAF and laying off AAF's employees nationwide. Founded by Charlie Ebersol and Bill Polian, Alliance of American Football is a professional American football league. It is composed of eight centrally owned and operated teams from the southern and western United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lee D. Winston, Esq. Roderick T. Cooks, Esq. WINSTON COOKS, LLC 505 20th Street North, Suite#815 Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 502-0970 Facsimile: (205) 278-5876 E-mail: lwinston@winstoncooks.com rcooks@winstoncooks.com - and - Perkins Law, LLC The Civic Center Medical Forum Bldg. 950 22nd Street North, Suite #825 Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 558-4696 ARIZONA BEVERAGE: Faces False Advertising Class Action ------------------------------------------------------ Courthouse News Service reported that Arizona Beverage Co. misrepresents its Green Tea With Ginseng and Honey, which "does not contain any detectable amounts of ginseng, if indeed it contains any ginseng at all," consumers claim in a federal class action. A copy of the Complaint is available at: https://is.gd/jYau0a AT&T CORP: Removes Payton Suit to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------- The Defendant in the case of JONATHAN PAYTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AT&T CORPORATION; and DOES 1-10, Defendants, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles (Case No. 19STCV04721) to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on March 15, 2019. The clerk of court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-01914. The case is assigned to Judge Stephen V. Wilson and referred to Magistrate Michael R. Wilner. AT&T Corp. provides voice, video, and data communications services to businesses, consumers, and governments worldwide. AT&T Corp. was formerly known as American Telephone & Telegraph Company and changed its name to AT&T Corp. in April 1994. The company was founded in 1885 and is based in Bedminster, New Jersey. AT&T Corp. operates as a subsidiary of AT&T Inc. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gleam Davis, Esq. AT&T SERVICES, INC. 2260 E. Imperial Hwy El Segundo, CA 90245 Telephone: (310) 964-5422 E-mail: Gd2521@att.com BANK OF AMERICA: UFCW Alleges Fannie & Freddie Bonds Price-Fixing ----------------------------------------------------------------- UFCW Local 1776 and Participating Employers Pension Fund has commenced a class action lawsuit against several financial institutions under the Sherman Antitrust Act, and the Clayton Antitrust Act, on behalf of itself and other similarly-situated investors that bought, from the Defendants, unsecured bonds issued by the Federal National Mortgage Association and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, alleging that the Defendants engaged in a collusive scheme to fix prices of those bonds. The Defendants unlawfully manipulated the FFB market in at least three ways: First, the Defendants charged customers artificially inflated, supra-competitive prices for newly-issued FFBs. This practice was highly profitable for the Defendants given that a large percentage of their overall FFB sales volume occurred in the days immediately following a new FFB issuance by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. Each Defendant was thus highly motived to artificially inflate prices for newly-issued FFBs by charging agreed-upon, supra-competitive prices to investors seeking to buy the new issue, the lawsuit says. The Defendants' alleged price-fixing in the secondary FFB market is also the subject of ongoing investigations by the U.S. Department of Justice. Despite the tremendous size and volume of the FFB market, it remains an over-the-counter ("OTC") market. As such, only certain entities are licensed to purchase newly-issued FFBs from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and resell them to investors, or to trade past issues of FFBs with investors, and investors must call a salesperson employed by one of these licensed dealers to get a price quote or engage in trading. The OTC secondary market for FFBs thus stands in sharp contrast to the New York Stock Exchange or NASDAQ, which enable banks and investors to see public information on stock prices in real-time, as trades occur. Unlike investors in those stock markets, investors in the secondary market for FFBs only have access to intermittent price information regarding their own trades (and not any other investors' transactions) and only through their dealers. The Defendants in this case are the select group of powerful financial firms licensed to deal FFBs to investors. During the Class Period, these firms were the largest resellers of FFBs to the secondary market. The Defendants collectively underwrote $486 billion of these securities, or a whopping 64% of the total number of FFBs underwritten. Given their massive share of the FFB market, the Defendants could manipulate the price of FFBs that they sold to investors. The Defendants could easily wield their control of the FFB supply to fix prices -- and they did. The case is captioned as UFCW LOCAL 1776 AND PARTICIPATING EMPLOYERS PENSION FUND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.; BARCLAYS BANK PLC; BARCLAYS CAPITAL INC.; BNP PARIBAS, S.A.; BNP PARIBAS SECURITIES CORP.; CITIGROUP, INC.; CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC.; CREDIT SUISSE AG; CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES (USA) LLC; DEUTSCHE BANK AG; DEUTSCHE BANK SECURITIES INC.; GOLDMAN, SACHS & CO. LLC; J.P MORGAN CHASE & CO.; J.P. MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.; J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC; MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INC.; UBS AG; and UBS SECURITIES LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02755-UA (S.D.N.Y., March 28, 2019)[BN]. Attorneys for Plaintiff UFCW Local 1776 and Participating Employers Pension Fund and the proposed Class: John Radice, Esq. Daniel Rubenstein, Esq. Eva Kane, Esq. Natasha Fernandez-Silber, Esq. RADICE LAW FIRM, P.C. 475 Wall Street Princeton, NJ 08540 Telephone: (646) 245-8502 Facsimile: (609) 385-0745 E-mail: jradice@radicelawfirm.com drubenstein@radicelawfirm.com ekane@radicelawfirm.com nsilber@radicelawfirm.com - and - Eric L. Young, Esq. Jayne A. Goldstein, Esq. SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH , LLP 35 East State Street Media, PA 19063 Telephone: (610) 891-9880 E-mail: eyoung@sfmslaw.com jgoldstein@sfmslaw.com - and - Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq. Bart D. Cohen, Esq. Fred T. Isquith, Esq. NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP, P.C. 1211 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Fl. New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (917) 438-9189 E-mail: lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com bcohen@nussbaumpc.com fisquith@nussbaumpc.com BE FREE: Taguacta Sues over Unwanted Cellular Phone Calls --------------------------------------------------------- Sophianne Taguacta, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. Be Free, Inc., C.K. Empowered Marketing, Inc., and Haworth Group Real Estate Trainers, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-08087-SPL (D. Ariz. March 26, 2019), seeks to recover damages, injunctive relief, and any other available legal or equitable remedies, resulting from the illegal of the Defendants, in negligently and/or intentionally contacting Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular telephone, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, thereby invading Plaintiff's privacy. On or about January 24, 2019, the Defendants sent an unsolicited text message to Plaintiff on her cellular telephone number ending in 9916 via a "automatic telephone dialing system". The impersonal nature of the text message suggests the use of an ATDS. For example, the message did not refer to Plaintiff by name nor reference a specific account. The message could have applied to anyone, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: David J. McGlothlin, Esq. HYDE & SWIGART 2633 E. Indian School Road, Ste. 460 Phoenix, AZ 85016 Telephone: (602) 265-3332 Facsimile: (602) 230-4482 E-mail: david@southwestlitigation.com - and - Ryan L. McBride, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 2633 E. Indian School Road, Ste. 460 Phoenix, AZ 85016 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: ryan@kazlg.com BEACON SALES: Andrade Seeks Unpaid Wages for Company Workers ------------------------------------------------------------ MANUEL ANDRADE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. BEACON SALES ACQUISITION, INC; BEACON ROOFING SUPPLY, INC.; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 19STCV10141 (Cal. Super., March 26, 2019), alleges that Defendants failed to provide meal periods, failed to provide rest periods, and failed to provide accurate written wage statements under the California Labor Code. The Plaintiffs allege that Defendants are liable to them and other similarly situated current and former truck drivers, administrative and office workers, including those paid in whole or in part on a commissioned basis, in California for unpaid wages and other related relief.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: Joshua Cohen Slatkin, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JOSHUA COHEN SLATKIN 11726 San Vicente Boulevard, Suite 200 Los Angeles, CA 90049 Telephone: (310) 627-2699 Facsimile: (310) 943-2757 E-mail: jcohenslatkin@jcslaw4you.com BIMBO BAKERIES: Peatry Sues over Collection of Biometric Data ------------------------------------------------------------- LISA PEATRY, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. BIMBO BAKERIES USA, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2019CH03945 (Cal. Cir., March 26, 2019), seeks to curtail Defendant's unlawful collection, use, storage of Plaintiffs sensitive and proprietary biometric data. According to the complaint, when Defendant hires an employee, including Plaintiff, he or she is enrolled in their employee database using a scan of his or her fingerprint to monitor the time worked by the hourly employees. While many employers use conventional methods for time tracking (such as ID badge or punch clocks), Defendant's employees are required to have their fingerprints scanned by a biometric timekeeping device. Unlike ID badges or time cards -- which can be changed or replaced if stolen or compromised -- fingerprints are unique, permanent biometric identifiers associated with each employee. This exposes Defendant's employees to serious and irreversible privacy risks. For example, if a database containing fingerprints or other sensitive, proprietary biometric data is hacked, breached, or otherwise exposed -- like in the recent Yahoo, eBay, Google, Equifax, Uber, Home Depot, Panera, Whole Foods, Chipotle, Trump Hotels, Facebook/Cambridge Analytica, and Marriott data breaches or misuses -- employees have no means by which to prevent identity theft, unauthorized tracking or other unlawful or improper use of this highly personal and private information.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: Ryan F. Stephan, Esq. James B. Zouras, Esq. Catherine T. Mitchell, Esq. STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP 100 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 2150 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: 312 233.1550 Facsimile: 312 233.1560 E-mail: rstephan@stephanzouras.com jzouras@stephanzouras.com cmitchell@stephanzouras.com BOEING CO: Burke Files ERISA Class Action Over 737 Safety Problem ----------------------------------------------------------------- Diane Burke and Blake Parra, as participants in and on behalf of the Boeing Voluntary Investment Plan, and on behalf of a class of all others who are similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. the Boeing Company, David A. Dohnalek, J. Michael Luttig, the Employee Benefit Plans Committee, the Employee Benefit Investment Committee, and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02203 (N.D. Ill., March 31, 2019) is an action under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"). In this complaint, Plaintiffs seek relief for Defendants' breaches of their ERISA fiduciary duties. The Boeing Voluntary Investment Plan (the "Plan") are plans designed to help Boeing's employees save for retirement. The Plans are defined contribution retirement plans. The Plans included as an investment option the VIP Stock Fund designed to invest in shares of stock of Boeing, the Plans' sponsor and the employer of the participants in the Plans. Plaintiffs invested in the VIP Stock Fund through their accounts in the Plan during the Class Period. However, for many years, Boeing's stock price has been artificially inflated. The 737 model commercial jet has been Boeing's bestselling aircraft for decades, and the recently developed Boeing 737 MAX series are the core of Boeing's growth plans. According to the complaint, the Defendants knew that Boeing's stock price was artificially inflated in value, and knew that many of the Plans' participants, including Plaintiffs, allocated significant portions of their retirement savings to Boeing stock and made additional purchases of Boeing stock for their retirement savings accounts in the Plans on an ongoing basis. However, the Defendants failed to take any action to protect the Plans and their participants. In particular, Defendants failed to disclose the truth about the safety problems with the 737 MAX publicly, even as it became inevitable that the public would learn about these safety problems Defendants stayed quiet as the Plans' participants, including Plaintiffs, continued to purchase and hold Boeing stock at the inflated price in their retirement savings accounts, says the complaint. Plaintiffs purchased and owned units of the Boeing stock fund through their accounts in the Plan during the Class Period. Boeing, together with its subsidiaries, is an American multinational corporation that designs, manufactures, and sells airplanes, rotorcraft, rockets, satellites, and missiles worldwide.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael M. Mulder, Esq. Elena N. Liveris, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL M. MULDER 1603 Orrington Avenue, Suite 600 Evanston, IL 60201 Phone: (312) 263-0272 Email: mmmulder@mmulderlaw.com eliveris@mmulderlaw.com - and - Todd Schneider, Esq. James A. Bloom, Esq. Kyle G. Bates, Esq. Ryan M. Hecht, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP 2000 Powell Street, Ste. 1400 Emeryville, CA 94608 Phone: (415) 421-7100 Email: tschneider@schneiderwallace.com jbloom@schneiderwallace.com kbates@schneiderwallace.com rhecht@schneiderwallace.com BRAND NEW START: Pereira et al Seek Overtime Wages for Counselors ----------------------------------------------------------------- NAMRATA PEREIRA and DENESE FAULKNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. BRAND NEW START TREATMENT CENTERS LLC, BRAND NEW START TREATMENT CENTER – PAULDING, LLC, GEORGIA TREATMENT CENTER, LLC, WOODSTOCK TREATMENT CENTER, LLC, WALTON COUNTY TREATMENT CENTER LLC, NALINI SINGH and SUNJAY SOOD, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01342-LMM (N.D. Ga., March 26, 2019), seeks to obtain full and complete relief on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated for the Defendants' failure to pay overtime wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants employed Plaintiffs and all those similarly situated as Counselors, Clinical Supervisors, Program Directors, and Clinical Directors at the Defendants' methadone/suboxone treatment facilities located in the State of Georgia. According to the complaint, the Defendants paid the Counselors on an hourly basis. In order to fully perform their job duties, the Counselors worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. The Defendants, however, did not compensate them with an overtime premium for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. Despite the Defendants' classification of Plaintiffs and others as non-exempt employees, they failed to pay the non-exempt employees overtime for hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs: Beth A. Moeller, Esq. Tracey T. Barbaree, Esq. MOELLER BARBAREE LLP 181 14 th Street NE, Suite 401 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 748-9122 E-mail: bmoeller@moellerbarbaree.com tbarbaree@moellerbarbaree.com BRAWLEY, CA: Rodriguez et al. Seek Overtime Pay ----------------------------------------------- An employment-related class action complaint has been filed against the city government of Brawley in California for violations of the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The case is captioned FRANKIE RODRIGUEZ, PABLO C. LOPEZ, MARCO A. GARCIA, OMAR BALDERAS, GERARDO VINDIOLA, DAVID VILLALOBOS, JULIAN JIMINEZ, RICARDO ROSALES, DANIEL ATONDO, DAVID SIQUIEROZ, JONATHAN GUTIERREZ, ANTHONY PADILLA, JULIO VELASQUEZ, ROBERTO OROZCO, MARIANO C. VALENZUELA, JR., RAUL BERNAL, RALPH WALKER, JOSE LIMON, and PETE GUZMAN, on behalf of themselves and all other employees similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF BRAWLEY, Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-00657-DMS-L (S.D. Cal., April 8, 2019). Accordingly, the Plaintiffs, who are current or former employees of the City of Brawley, seek to recover underpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys’ fees and costs. The City of Brawley is political subdivision of the state of California. Its government employs civil servants who work to promote public safety, public health and opportunity. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Fern M. Steiner, Esq. Dyland Griffith, Esq. SMITH STEINER VANDERPOOL, APC 401 West A Street, Suite 340 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: 619-756-7007 Facsimile: 619-501-8194 E-mail: fsteiner@ssvwlaw.com BUTTS FOODS: Smith Seeks Overtime Pay for Vehicle Fueler -------------------------------------------------------- RICHARD SMITH, izndividually, the Plaintiff, vs. BUTTS FOODS, INC., a Tennessee Corporation, RAY E. BUTTS III, an Individual and R.E. BUTTS IV, an Individual, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01060 (W.D. Tenn., March 26, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation and other damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Sims performed work for Defendants as a vehicle "fueler", and was classified as exempt from the payment of FLSA overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 within weekly pay periods. The Defendants misclassified Plaintiff as exempt from the payment of FLSA overtime for hours worked in excess of 40 within weekly pay periods when performing his various non-exempt job duties -- without compensating him fully at the applicable FLSA overtime rates of pay for such overtime work. The Plaintiff has never been paid overtime compensation for performing the non-exempt duties, in violation of the FLSA, the lawsuit says. Butts Foods, Inc. has its headquarters in Madison County, Tennessee and is a distributor of protein food products throughout multiple states with warehouses located in Birmingham, Alabama; Hattiesburg, Mississippi; Grenada, Mississippi; and Nashville, Tennessee; as well as in Jackson, Tennessee. Butts Foods owns and operates a mixed fleet of trucks and vans in which it transports food products to customers.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated current and former employees: Gordon E. Jackson, Esq. J. Russ Bryant, Esq. Paula R. Jackson, Esq. Robert E. Turner, Esq. Nathan A. Bishop, Esq. Robert E. Morelli, Esq. JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER & HOLT 262 German Oak Drive Memphis, TN 38018 Telephone: (901) 754-8001 Facsimile: (901) 759-1745 E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com rbryant@jsyc.com pjackson@jsyc.com rturner@jsyc.com nbishop@jsyc.com rmorelli@jsyc.com CARNIVAL PLC: Bid to Dismiss Appeal in Wolfe Suit Underway ---------------------------------------------------------- Carnival plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 9, 2019, for the quarterly period ended February 28, 2019, that Carnival Corporation has moved to dismiss the appeal made in the class action suit initiated by James Wolfe. On August 24, 2018, a proposed class-action lawsuit was filed by James Wolfe and others against Carnival Corporation relating to the marketing and sales of Carnival Cruise Line's Vacation Protection product. On January 3, 2019, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida granted Carnival Corporation's motion to stay proceedings and compel arbitration. The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Carnival Corporation has moved to dismiss the appeal. Carnival said, We believe we have meritorious defenses to the claim and that any liability which may arise as a result of this action will not have a material impact on our consolidated financial statements. Carnival plc operates as a leisure travel company in North America, Australia, Europe, and Asia. It operates in four segments: North America and Australia Cruise Operations, Europe and Asia Cruise Operations, Cruise Support, and Tour and Other. The company operates cruises under the Carnival Cruise Line, Princess Cruises, Holland America Line, P&O Cruises (Australia), Seabourn, Costa, AIDA, P&O Cruises (UK), and Cunard brand names. Carnival plc was founded in 1850 and is based in Southampton, the United Kingdom. CAS MEDICAL: Plaintiffs Agree to Withdraw Merger-Related Suits -------------------------------------------------------------- CAS Medical Systems, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed on April 9, 2019, that the plaintiffs in the class action suits related to the company's merger with Edwards Lifesciences Holding, Inc., have agreed to to withdraw their complaints with prejudice. On February 11, 2019, CAS Medical Systems, Inc. (the "Company" or "CASMED"), Edwards Lifesciences Holding, Inc., a Delaware corporation ("Edwards") and Crown Merger Sub, Inc., a Delaware corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of Edwards ("Merger Sub"), entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") pursuant to which, subject to the satisfaction or waiver of the conditions set forth therein, Merger Sub will merge with and into the Company (the "Merger"), with the Company continuing as the surviving company and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Edwards. As previously disclosed in CASMED's proxy statement filed on March 13, 2019 and mailed to stockholders on or about March 14, 2019 (the "Proxy Statement") and CASMED's Annual Report on Form 10-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 25, 2019, in connection with the Merger, on or about March 7, 14 and 21, 2019, three putative class action complaints challenging the Merger were filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, captioned Adam Franchi v. CAS Medical Systems, Inc., et al., Thomas Torreano v. CAS Medical Systems, Inc. et al. and Joseph Rish Jr. v. CAS Medical Systems, Inc. et al., respectively, and on or about March 11, 2019, an additional putative class action complaint challenging the Merger was filed in the Superior Court for the State of Connecticut, Judicial District of New Haven at New Haven, captioned Charles New v. CAS Medical Systems, Inc., et al. On March 11, 2019, an additional complaint challenging the Merger captioned Shiva Stein v. CAS Medical Systems, Inc., et al. was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaints were filed on behalf of the public shareholders of CASMED and name as defendants CASMED and the members of its board of directors. CASMED and the other defendants have vigorously denied, and continue to vigorously deny, any wrongdoing or liability with respect to the facts and claims asserted, or which could have been asserted, in the aforementioned lawsuits, including that they have committed any violations of law or breach of fiduciary duty, that they have acted improperly in any way, or that they have any liability or owe any damages of any kind to plaintiffs or to the purported class, and specifically deny that any further supplemental disclosure is required under any applicable rule, statute, regulation or law or that the CASMED directors failed to maximize stockholder value by entering into the Merger Agreement. However, to avoid the risk that the stockholder litigation might delay or otherwise affect the consummation of the transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement and to minimize the expense of defending such actions, CASMED has agreed to make certain supplemental disclosures to the Proxy Statement, which supplement the Proxy Statement and should be read in conjunction with the Proxy Statement. CAS Medical said, "In consideration for such supplemental disclosures by CASMED, all five plaintiffs have agreed to withdraw their complaints with prejudice following the filing of such supplemental disclosures." A copy of the supplemental disclosure is available at https://bit.ly/2UVaJ36. CAS Medical Systems, Inc., a medical technology company, develops, manufactures, and markets non-invasive patient monitoring products worldwide. CAS Medical Systems, Inc. was founded in 1984 and is headquartered in Branford, Connecticut. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Orozco Seeks Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------- HUMBERTO OROZCO, an individual on his own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC., a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 19STCV1Q589 (Cal. Super., March 28, 2019), alleges that Defendants failed to pay wages, failed to reimburse expenses, failed to pay wages at time of termination under the California Labor Code. Th suit is brought on behalf of all California-based non-exempt employees who were not properly paid all wages nor reimbursed expenses as required by the California Labor Code. In addition, they were not provided with proper paychecks nor provided final wages in a timely manner. The Plaintiff and the members of the putative class seek unpaid wages, penalties and other compensation from Defendants for the relevant time period because Defendants improperly. Charter Communications is a telecommunications and mass media company that offers its services to businesses and consumers. Defendants provide services to over 26 million customers in 41 states, including California, including Los Angeles County.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the Proposed Class: Marcus J. Bradley, Esq. Kiley L. Grombacher, Esq. Taylor L. Emerson, Esq. BRADLEY/GROMBACHER, LLP 2815 Townsgate Road, Suite 130 Westlake Village, CA 91361 Telephone: (805)270-7100 Facsimile: (805) 270-7589 E-mail: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher. com temerson@bradleygrombacher. com - and - Sahag Majarian II, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF SAHAG MAJARIAN 18250 Ventura Blvd. Tarzana, CA 91356 Telephone: (818) 609-0807 Facsimile: (818) 609-0892 E-mail: sahagii@aol.com COMPLETE COMFORT: Wells Sues over Wrongful Discharge, Retaliation ----------------------------------------------------------------- An employment-related class action complaint has been filed against Complete Comfort, Inc. for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA). The case is captioned BRUCE WELLS, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. COMPLETE COMFORT, INC., a Florida Corporation, and JASON SEVERINO, an individual, jointly and severally, Defendants, Case No. 9:19-cv-80470-XXXX (S.D. Fla., April 5, 2019). Plaintiff Bruce Wells, on his own behalf, seeks damages for unpaid minimum wages and for unlawful retaliation for being terminated after complaining to Defendants about not receiving overtime compensation. Pursuant to the FLSA, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated to them, seeks unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages or pre-judgment interest, post-judgment interest, attorneys’ fees and costs from Defendants Complete Comfort and Jason Severino. Complete Comfort, Inc. is a heating and air conditioning contractor based in Jupiter, Palm Beach County, Florida. It provides repair, replacement, and maintenance services of heating and air conditioning systems. The company is currently led by President and CEO Jason Severino. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert S. Norell, Esq. ROBERT S. NORELL, P.A. 300 N.W. 70th Avenue Suite 305 Plantation, FL 33317 Telephone: (954) 617-6017 Facsimile: (954) 617-6018 E-mail: rob@floridawagelaw.com CORDISH COMPANIES: Marketti et al. Seek Unpaid Wages ---------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit against The Cordish Companies, Inc., seeks to recover statutory and compensatory damages, costs and attorneys' fees under the Internal Revenue Code; unpaid wages, liquidated damages, interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938; unpaid wages, interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under Maryland Wage and Hour Law, Maryland Code Annotated, Labor and Employment Article; and unpaid wages, treble damages, interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law. The Cordish Companies own and operate a series of entertainment districts nationwide. One such district is Power Plant Live!, located in downtown Baltimore. Power Plant Live! is comprised of multiple bars and restaurants. The Plaintiffs and others similarly situated were all employed as bartenders at Power Plant!. The Defendant paid Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees an hourly tip-credit wage. They also received tips. However, a combination of these payments did not result in Defendant's bartenders being paid correctly. The Plaintiffs and other bartenders were paid well below the minimum wage rate for multiple hours of work. Employers are only permitted to pay tipped employees below the minimum wage when certain conditions are satisfied. These conditions are not satisfied if employees are required to perform work that is unrelated to their tipped occupation. They are also not satisfied if the untipped work related to their tipped occupation exceeds 20% of their time each week. Under these circumstances, the employer must pay the full minimum wage. Both circumstances exist in the present controversy, which makes clear that Plaintiffs and others similarly situated should have been paid the full minimum wage during certain periods. The Defendant's failure to do so was unlawful. Defendant promoted other unlawful practices that resulted in Plaintiffs' failure to receive the minimum wage. Defendant regularly staffed guest bartenders at its facilities whenever it hosted special events, the lawsuit says. The lawsuit is captioned as TESSA MARKETTI, 1733 Manor Road Baltimore, Maryland 21222 Resident of Baltimore County; STEVE ORTIZ, 9906 Cervidae Lane Randallstown, Maryland 21133 Resident of Baltimore County; ANGELA BOUGHNER, 48 Mapledale Avenue Glen Burnie, Maryland 21061 Resident of Anne Arundel County, Individually and on Behalf of All Similarly Situated Employees, the Plaintiffs, vs. THE CORDISH COMPANIES, INC., 601 East Pratt Street, Suite 600 Baltimore, Maryland 21202 Serve: CSC-Lawyers Incorporating Service 7 St. Paul Street Suite 820 Baltimore, Maryland 21202; and LUCKIES' BALTIMORE, LLC 601 East Pratt Street Suite 600, Baltimore, Maryland 21202 Serve: CSC-Lawyers Incorporating Service St. Paul Street Suite 820 Baltimore, Maryland 21202, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00904-ADC (D. Md., March 27, 2019).[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs: Benjamin L. Davis, III, Esq. Michael A. Brown, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF PETER T. NICHOLL 36 South Charles Street, Suite 1700 Baltimore, MD 21201 Telephone: (410) 244-7005 Facsimile: (410) 244-8454 E-mail: bdavis@nicholllaw.com mbrown@nicholllaw.com CORRECTIONS CORP: April 29 Filing Due of Gonzalez Deal Approval Bid ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JOSE GONZALEZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA, Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-01891 DAD JLT (E.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California continued the deadline for the Plaintiff to file the motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement to April 29, 2019. A full-text copy of the Court's March 27, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/03NLjw from Leagle.com. Jose Gonzalez, Plaintiff, represented by Peter R. Dion-Kindem -- Peter@Dion-KindemLaw.com -- Peter R. Dion-Kindem, P.C., Adrian R. Bacon, Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C., Jeff Holmes, Jeff Holmes, Esq., Lonnie C. Blanchard, III -- lonnieblanchard@gmail.com -- The Blanchard Law Group, APC & Todd M. Friedman, Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C. CoreCivic of Tennessee, LLC & CoreCivic, Inc., Defendants, represented by Paul M. Gleason -- pgleason@gleasonfavarote.com -- Gleason and Favarote LLP. COTY INC: Faces Rumsey Suit over Cash Tender Offer -------------------------------------------------- A securities class action lawsuit has been filed against Coty Inc. and its executives for alleged violations of Sections 14(e), 14(d), and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The case is captioned ROBERT RUMSEY, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. COTY INC., PETER HARF, PIERRE LAUBIES, SABINE CHALMERS, JOACHIM FABER, OLIVIER GOUDET, ANNA-LENA KAMENETZKY, ERHARD SCHOEWEL, ROBERT SINGER, and PAUL S. MICHAELS, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00650-UNA (D. Del., April 9, 2019). This action stems from a tender offer commenced by JAB Holding Company S.a.r.l. and its affiliates on Feb. 13, 2019 to purchase up to 150,000,000 of the outstanding shares of Coty Inc. at a price of $11.65 per share. On March 18, 2019, Coty filed a Solicitation/Recommendation Statement with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the tender offer. However, the Solicitation Statement omits material information with respect to the tender offer, which renders the Solicitation Statement false and misleading. The Solicitation Statement failed to disclose Coty's financial projections and the analyses performed by its financial advisor, Centerview Partners LLC, in connection with the tender offer. Coty is one of the world's largest beauty companies with over $9 billion in revenue and an iconic portfolio of brands. As the global leader in fragrance, a strong number two in professional salon hair color and styling, and number three in color cosmetics, Coty operates three divisions: (i)Consumer Beauty, which is focused on mass color cosmetics, mass retail hair coloring and styling products, body care, and mass fragrances with brands such as COVERGIRL, Max Factor, Sally Hansen, and Rimmel; (ii) Luxury, which is focused on prestige fragrances and skincare with brands such as Calvin Klein, Burberry, Marc Jacobs, Hugo Boss, Gucci, and philosophy; and (iii) Professional Beauty, which is focused on servicing salon owners and professionals in both hair and nail, with brands such as Wella Professionals, Sebastian Professional, OPI, and ghd. Coty has approximately 20,000 colleagues globally and its products are sold in over 150 countries. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian D. Long, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 295-5310 Facsimile: (302) 654-7530 Email: bdl@rl-legal.com gms@rl-legal.com CREDIT LAW: Ensminger Sues over Debt Collection Practices --------------------------------------------------------- MARK ENSMINGER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CREDIT LAW CENTER, LLC; and Thomas Addleman, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-02147-JWL-JPO (D. Kan., March 15, 2019) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. The case is assigned to District Judge John W. Lungstrum and referred to Magistrate Judge James P. O'Hara. Credit Law Center, LLC is engaged in the business as a credit collection agency. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alan J. Stecklein, Esq. Matthew S. Robertson, Esq. Michael H. Rapp, Esq. STECKLEIN & RAPP CHARTERED 748 Ann Avenue, Suite 101 Kansas City, KS 66101 Telephone: (913) 371-0727 Facsimile: (913) 371-0727 E-mail: aj@kcconsumerlawyer.com DAVID MCGRATH: Quarberg Sues over Debt Collection Practices ----------------------------------------------------------- A case, Lauren V. Quarberg, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. David M. McGrath and Angelina Tsu, the Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-00518 (D. Nev., March 26, 2019), challenges Defendants' debt collection attempts designed to unlawfully and abusively collect a debt allegedly owed by Plaintiff, causing Plaintiff and those similarly situated damages, under the Fair Debt Collection Practices. According to the complaint, any violations by Defendants were knowing, willful, and intentional, and Defendants did not maintain procedures reasonably adapted to avoid any such specific violation.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: Michael Kind, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 6069 South Fort Apache Road, Suite 100 Las Vegas, NE 89148 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: mkind@kazlg.com DELIVERY FACTORY: Pallas Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages ------------------------------------------------------------ TAMARA PALLAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. DELIVERY FACTORY NETWORK, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-21168-XXXX (S.D. Fla., March 27, 2019), seeks to recover damages, injunctive relief, and any other available legal or equitable remedies, resulting from the illegal actions of Delivery Factory Network, LLC in negligently or willfully contacting Plaintiff on her cellular telephone, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Delivery Factory utilizes bulk SPAM text messaging, or SMS marketing, to send unsolicited text messages, marketing and advertising Delivery Factory ’s delivery services, including at least 1 unsolicited text message to Plaintiff. The Plaintiff was at no time given an option to "opt-out" of receiving future unsolicited text messages from Delivery Factory. At no time did Plaintiff provide her cellular phone number to Delivery Factory through any medium, nor did Plaintiff consent to receive an unsolicited text message. The Plaintiff has never signed-up for, and has never used, Delivery Factory's services, and has never had any form of business relationship with Delivery Factory. Delivery Factory is in the business of providing delivery services for food ordered from restaurants, catering delivery, grocery delivery, flower delivery, and other delivery services. Delivery Factory promotes and markets its delivery services, in part, by sending unsolicited text messages to wireless phone users.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: Seth M. Lehrman (FBN 132896) EDWARDS POTTINGER LLC 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: 954-524-2820 Facsimile: 954-524-2822 E-mail: seth@epllc.com - and - Joshua H. Eggnatz, Esq. EGGNATZ | PASCUCCI 5400 S. University Drive, Ste. 417 Davie, FL 33328 Telephone: (954) 889-3359 Facsimile: (954) 889-5913 E-mail: JEggnatz@JusticeEarned.com ESSURE: Faces Class Action Over Implant Corrosion ------------------------------------------------- Sasha Chavkin, writing for ICIJ, reports that a fresh U.S. Food and Drug Administration probe into adverse patient reactions to materials in medical devices, including breast implants, metal-on-metal hips and the birth control coil Essure, has been announced. The FDA says it will hold a public hearing this fall into nitinol as part of the investigation into inflammatory and immune responses in patients; it will task its own scientists to conduct research on medical implant materials; and it will review published studies. Nitinol is an alloy containing nickel that is used in Essure. Many patients have reported allergic reactions to Essure and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control have estimated that between 10 and 20 percent of the population is allergic to nickel. The agency will also consider patient responses to the silicone contained in breast implants in a previously announced hearing on breast implant safety due to take place on March 25-26. "We believe the current evidence, although limited, suggests some individuals may be predisposed to develop an immune/inflammatory reaction when exposed to select materials," the FDA said in its statement. Last fall, the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists reported extensively on breast implants, Essure and metal-on-metal hips as part of the global Implant Files investigation of the medical device industry and its overseers. ICIJ's coverage examined regulators' refusal to recognize adverse reactions to these devices among patients, including breast implant illness, an ailment reported by many breast implant patients characterized by chronic fatigue, muscle pain and cognitive difficulties. The announcement marks a shift in the agency's approach toward breast implant illness in just the last six months. On Sept. 14, 2018, after a study by the respected MD Anderson Cancer Center found elevated risks of autoimmune disease among patients with breast implants, the FDA issued a statement indicating that agency officials "respectfully disagree with the authors' conclusions." In its March 15 announcement, the agency appeared more open to the possibility that breast implants could increase the risks of fatigue, muscle pain and cognitive issues among some patients. "While the FDA doesn't have definitive evidence suggesting breast implants are associated with these conditions, we're looking to gain a fuller understanding of this issue to communicate risk, minimize harm and help in the treatment of affected patients," it stated. The FDA is also increasing its scrutiny of nitinol. Last August, a law firm in Australia launched a class action lawsuit on behalf of patients alleging that their Essure implants corroded and caused them to suffer nickel poisoning. The suit is expected to be filed in May, said a spokeswoman for the law firm, Slater and Gordon. Essure was withdrawn from the market worldwide at the end of 2018. However, the FDA noted that nitinol is used in other implants such as cardiovascular stents and guidewires, and said that it will issue draft guidelines in the coming months for the use of nitinol in medical devices. Clarification, March 21, 2019: ICIJ has clarified this story to reflect that the Essure lawsuit in Australia was launched in August 2018 but has not yet been filed. [GN] FIDELITY BANK: Conditional Class Certification Bid Granted in Part ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit, Dustin McAlister, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Fidelity Bank, the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-02274-JWL-TJJ (D. Kan.), the Hon. Judge John W. Lungstrum entered an order: 1. granting, in part, and denying, in part, the request for conditional certification; 2. directing parties to meet and confer about the form and substance of notice and, if an agreement is reached, to submit the proposed notice to the court for approval no later than Monday, April 8, 2019. If the parties are unable to reach an agreement, then plaintiff shall file a motion no later than Monday, April 8, 2019 seeking approval of his proposed notice and notice plan; and 3. directing Defendant to file its objections to Plaintiff's proposed notice or notice plan no later than Friday, April 12, 2018. The court concludes that the Plaintiff has met his burden to show that this collective action should be certified for purposes of sending notice of the action to potential class members. The court grants conditional certification of a class of MLOs who worked in defendant's Internet Mortgage division. While plaintiff accurately highlights that the notice may properly reference the district court’s authorization of the notice, he does not discuss the Defendant's legitimate concern that including a reference to the district court at the top of the notice might give the appearance of judicial endorsement of the merits of the case. The parties are directed to meet and confer about this issue for it appears that the parties can come to an agreement on it. The only issue remaining is whether defendant should be required to produce social security numbers for putative class members. Because plaintiff has emphasized that such information would be utilized only in the event that mail is returned as undeliverable, the Court concludes that defendant will be required to provide that information if and when the Plaintiff indicates that a notice has been returned as undeliverable. Defendant must provide that information only if plaintiff stipulates to the confidentiality of such information consistent with an appropriate protective order.[CC] FLAGSTAR BANK: Underpays Mortgage Advisors, Walker Suit Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- ANDREA WALKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FLAGSTAR BANK, FSB; and DOES 1 through 50, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV09100 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., March 15, 2019) is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, and reimburse necessary business expenses. The Plaintiff Walker was employed by the Defendants as a mortgage advisor. Flagstar Bank, FSB provides banking products and services to individuals and businesses in Michigan. It offers personal banking products and services. Flagstar Bank, FSB was formerly known as First Security Savings Bank, FSB and changed its name to Flagstar Bank, FSB in January 1996. The company was founded in 1987 and is based in Troy, Michigan. Flagstar Bank, FSB operates as a subsidiary of Flagstar Bancorp Inc. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David G. Spivak, Esq. Maralle Messrelian, Esq. THE SPIVAK LAW FIRM 16530 Ventura Blvd., Suite 203 Encino, CA 91436 Telephone: (818) 582-3086 Facsimile: (818) 582-2561 FORD MOTOR: Judge Approves $17.4MM MyFordTouch Settlement --------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reported that a federal judge approved an estimated $17.4 million settlement of class claims that Ford's MyFordTouch "infotainment system" was so defective that it compromised the safety, reliability and operability of the vehicles. The judge did not set a cap on recovery. A copy of the Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement is available at: https://is.gd/K76dI0 GENERAL REVENUE: Henderson Seeks to Certify Two Classes ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit, WILLIE HENDERSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff, v. GENERAL REVENUE CORPORATION, PIONEER CREDIT RECOVERY, INC., And NAVIENT PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 7:17-cv-00292 (W.D. Va.), the Plaintiff moves the Court for entry of an order certifying two classes: Class A: "all natural persons who are residents of Virginia who are similarly situated to the Plaintiff in that, within one year of the commencement of this action and continuing to the date that an order is entered certifying this class"; and Class B: "all natural persons who are residents of Virginia who are similarly situated to the Plaintiff in that, within one year of the commencement of this action and continuing to the date that an order is entered certifying this class." The case alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Act.[CC] Counsel for the Plaintiff: John P. Fishwick, Jr., Esq. Monica L. Mroz, Esq. Carrol M. Ching, Esq. Daniel J. Martin, Esq. FISHWICK & ASSOCIATES PLC 30 Franklin Road, Suite 700 Roanoke, VA 24011 Telephone: (540) 345-5890 Facsimile: (540) 345-5789 E-mail: John.fishwick@fishwickandassociates.com Monica.mroz@fishwickandassociates.com Carrol.Ching@fishwickandassociates.com Daniel.martin@fishwickandassociates.com Counsel for the Defendants: Joshua F. P. Long, Esq. F. Elizabeth Burgin Waller, Esq. Joseph Walton Milam, III, Esq. WOODS ROGERS PLC 10 South Jefferson Street, Suite 1400 P.O. Box 14125 Roanoke, VA 24038 E-mail: jlong@woodsrogers.com bwaller@woodsrogers.com wmilam@woodsrogers.com - and - Lisa Marie Simonetti, Esq. Michael Adam Hass, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 1840 Century Park East, Suite 1900 Los Angeles, CA 90067 E-mail: simonettil@gtlaw.com hassm@gtlaw.com - and - Monica L. Mroz, Esq. FISHWICK & ASSOCIATES PLC 30 Franklin Road, Suite 700 Roanoke, VA 24011 Telephone: (540) 345-5890 Facsimile: (540) 345-5789 GERMAN CONSULATE: Rafael Peral Seeks Overtime Pay ------------------------------------------------- RAFAEL PERAL, on behalf of himself and FLSA Collective the Plaintiffs, the Plaintiffs, vs. CONSULATE GENERAL OF GERMANY IN NEW YORK d/b/a GERMAN HOUSE RESTAURANT, and FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY a/k/a GOVERNMENT OF GERMANY, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02682 (S.D.N.Y., March 26, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid overtime, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff and the other FLSA Collective the Plaintiffs are and have been similarly situated, have had substantially similar job requirements and pay provisions, and are and have been subjected to Defendants' decisions, policies, plans, programs, practices, procedures, protocols, routines, and rules, all culminating in a willful failure and refusal to pay them overtime premium at the rate of one and one half times the regular rate for work in excess of 40 hours per workweek, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff and FLSA Collective the Plaintiffs: C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 30 East 39 th Street, Second Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: 212 465-1188 Facsimile: 212 465-1181 GORDON FLESCH: Cook Motion to Conditionally Certify Class Denied ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit, CHARLES COOK, et al., the Plaintiffs, vs. GORDON FLESCH CO., INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-00711-ALM-CMV (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Algenon L. Marbley entered an order denying Plaintiffs' motion to conditionally certify a class based on alleged violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. The Court said, "Gordon Flesch argues that conditional certification is inappropriate in part because "plaintiffs offer no evidence to support the notion of a single decision, policy, or plan" that bases employee terminations on age. As Plaintiffs have acknowledged in their Reply, their declarations and other evidence were inadvertently omitted from their Motion for Conditional Certification. The Plaintiffs attempted to correct this oversight by adding the evidence to their Reply. But "a moving party may not raise new issues for the first time in its reply brief," this evidence is not rebuttal evidence. Rather, the Plaintiffs were required to submit the evidence prior to, or simultaneously with, their Motion for Conditional Certification." The Plaintiffs are former employees of Defendant. The Plaintiffs allege that they faced various types of discrimination, including but not limited to, age discrimination. The Plaintiffs allege that this discrimination led Gordon Flesch to terminate their employment.[BN] GRANGE INDEMNITY: Refuses to Pay Full Cash Value, Ostendorf Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- VICKI OSTENDORF, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. GRANGE INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY, an Ohio corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-01147-ALM-KAJ (S.D. Ohio, March 27, 2019), alleges that the Defendant systematically underpaid not just the Plaintiff, but thousands of other putative class members, amounts the Defendant owed its insureds for Actual Cash Value losses for total loss vehicles insured with comprehensive and collision coverage. The lawsuit is brought by the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated insureds, who suffered damages due to the Defendant's practice of refusing to pay full Actual Cash Value (ACV) payments or full total loss payments ("FTLP") to first-party total loss insureds on physical damage policies ("Policies") containing comprehensive and collision coverages. Specifically, as a matter of policy, the Defendant fails to include sales tax and/or vehicle title transfer and vehicle registration fees ("Vehicle Title and Registration Fees") in its calculation of ACV when paying FTLP to its insureds, the lawsuit says. The Defendant’s failure to pay FTLP for first-party total losses owed to the Grange insureds and to condition payment of sales tax and Vehicle Title and Registration Fees on actions not required by the policy itself is a breach of the policy agreement and a clear breach of contract as to the Plaintiff and each putative class member. The Defendant is a large private-passenger auto insurance carrier operating in Ohio. One of the coverages the Defendant offers is comprehensive and collision coverage.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: Stuart E. Scott, Esq. SPANGENBERG SHIBLEY & LIBER LLP 1001 Lakeside Avenue East, Suite 1700 Cleveland, OH 44114 Telephone: (216) 696-3232 Facsimile: (216) 696-3924 E-mail: sscott@spanglaw.com - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. Jonathan Streisfeld, Esq. Joshua Levine, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT 1 W. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: 954-525-5100 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com streisfeld@kolawyers.com tropin@kolawyers.com - and - Andrew Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 N.E 1 st Ave Ste. 1205 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: 305-479-2299 E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com - and - Scott Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, P.A. 19495 Biscayne Blvd. No. 607 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: 305-975-3320 E-mail: Scott@edelsberglaw.com GRISWORLD HOME CARE: Ionie Scott Seeks Unpaid Wages --------------------------------------------------- An employment-related class action complaint has been filed against Griswold Home Care, FMCH, Inc., Maria P. Malafronte, and Cathy Howard for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Title 31, Chapter 558 of the Connecticut General Statute. The case is captioned IONIE SCOTT, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. GRISWOLD HOME CARE, FMCH, INC., MARIA P. MALAFRONTE, in her individual capacity, CATHY HOWARD, in her individual capacity, all jointly and severally, Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-00527 (D. Conn., April 9, 2019). Plaintiff Ionie Scott seeks to recover unpaid wages from the Defendants. Griswold was a Pennsylvania-based corporation with a business address of 947 Penn Avenue, Wyomissing, Pennsylvania. It is the oldest non-medical home care franchise organization in the United States. It operates through more than one-hundred fifty (150) franchisees in 29 states, including Connecticut. FMCH, Inc. was a Connecticut domestic corporation, incorporated on or about May 1, 1991, and having a business and mailing address of 1122 Broadbridge Avenue, Stratford Connecticut 06615. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Getman, Esq. GETMAN, SWEENEY & DUNN, PLLC 260 Fair Street Kingston, NY 12401 Telephone: (845) 255-9370 Facsimile: (845) 255-8649 - and - Russell G. Wheeler, Esq. CHARNY & WHEELER P.C. 9 West Market Street Rhinebeck, NY 12572 Telephone: (845) 876-7500 Facsimile: (845) 876-7501 HEALTH CARE SERVICES: Settlement of Medi-Cal Suit Has Initial OK ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit' captioned as, I.N., a minor, by and through her mother and Guardian ad Litem, Zarinah F., and J.B., a minor, by and through his mother and Guardian ad Litem, Alisa B., the Plaintiffs, vs. JENNIFER KENT, Director of the Department of Health Care Services, and State of California DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH CARE SERVICES, the Defendants, Case 3:18-cv-03099-WHA (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge William Alsup entered an order: 1. granting Plaintiffs' motion for class certification for settlement purposes: "all Medi-Cal beneficiaries who are 'Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnostic, and Treatment' program eligible and for whom Medi-Cal Private Duty Nursing services have been approved"; 2. appointing I.N. and J.B. as class representative; 3. appointing Plaintiffs' counsel from Disability Rights California, National Health Law Program, the Western Center on Law and Poverty, and Browne George Ross LLP as class counsel; 4. granting joint motion for preliminary approval of settlement; and 5. preliminarily approving terms of the Parties’ settlement agreement. The Court said, "Setting deadline for filing objections to settlement is on July. The parties shall respond to any objections to the settlement by July 25. By this same date, the parties shall file a motion for final approval of the class settlement. A hearing to consider whether the class settlement should be given final approval, and to consider plaintiffs' motion for an award of attorney's fees and costs, is set for August 8 at 11:00 a.m. The final pretrial conference and trial dates are vacated and will be reset if final approval is not granted." California's Medicaid program, called "Medi-Cal," was codified in the California Welfare & Institutions Code. Defendant California Department of Health Care Services was the designated state agency that administered and supervised the program. DHCS did not provide services directly but rather contracted with and reimbursed participating providers for services. Under one aspect of the Medicaid program known as the Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnostic, and Treatment program ("EPSDT"), th Defendants provided certain services to eligible children under the age of 21. These services included medically necessary "private duty nursing services" and case management services.[CC] HEALTH INSURANCE: Schick et al. Sue over Unwanted Phone Calls ------------------------------------------------------------- SYLVIA SCHICK, JAMES NETHNAY, JAMES SCHAFFER, JOSEPH BOND, LISA GRAHAM, LYNNE CROWTON, MICHAEL SCOTT HOGE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. HEALTH INSURANCE INNOVATIONS, INC., and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, the Defendant, Case No. 8:19-cv-00588 (C.D. Cal., March 27, 2019), seeks damages and any other available legal or equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of the Defendant, in negligently, knowingly, and/or willfully contacting Plaintiffs on their cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, thereby invading Plaintiffs' privacy and causing her to incur unnecessary and unwanted expenses. According to the complaint, the Defendant contacted Plaintiff Nethnay's cellular telephone number ending in – 7319, in an attempt to solicit Plaintiff to purchase Defendant's services. The Defendant used an "automatic telephone dialing system" as defined 10 by 47 U.S.C. section 227(a)(1) to place its calls to Plaintiff Nethnay seeking to solicit its services, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: 323-306-4234 Facsimile: 866-633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@ toddflaw.com abacon@ toddflaw.com HILL'S PET NUTRITION: Teegarden Sues over False Advertising ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action complaint has been filed against Hill's Pet Nutrition, Inc., arising out of the manufacturing, marketing and sale of certain sizes and varieties of Hill's Prescription Diet and Hill's Science Diet dog foods. The case is captioned by CATHERINE TEEGARDEN, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. HILL'S PET NUTRITION, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-02181 (D. Kan., April 8, 2019). Teegarden alleges that the Defendant's marketing, promotion and sale of the Hill's Product's relies on false and misleading claims about the quality, composition, and suitability of its Hill's Products. Plaintiff purchased Hill's Products for her dog, King, on Jan. 23, 2019. After consumption of the Hill's Product, King experienced symptoms vitamin D poisoning, including excessive thirst and urination, loss of appetite, vomiting, and weight loss. Ultimately, King's health deteriorated to such an extent that Plaintiff's veterinarian was forced to euthanize King in February 2019. Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks relief in this action individually, and on behalf of all purchasers of Hill's Products for: Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act; negligence; unjust enrichment; breach of express warranty; breach of the implied warranty of merchantability; common law fraud; strict products liability; and violation of the Oregon Unlawful Trade Practices Act. Defendant Hill's Pet Nutrition, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at 400 SW 8th Avenue, Topeka, Kansas, 66603. Founded more than 75 years ago, Hill's bills itself as a world leader in specialty pet nutrition products for dogs and cats with products marketed in over 80 countries worldwide. Hill's boast that it employs more than 200 veterinarians, Ph.D. nutritionists and food scientists who continuously create new products and improve existing ones that will help your pet live a long, healthy and full life. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas P. Cartmell, Esq. Sarah S. Ruane, Esq. WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL LLP 4740 Grand Avenue, Suite 300 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: 816-701-1100 Facsimile: 816-531-2372 E-mail: tcartmell@wcllp.com sruane@wcllp.com - and – Antonio Vozzolo, Esq. VOZZOLO LLC 345 Route 17 South Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458 Telephone: 201-630-8820 Facsimile: 201-604-8400 E-mail: avozzolo@vozzolo.com HOMEAWAY INC: Consumers Sue over Fraudulent Activities ------------------------------------------------------ A class action complaint has been brought under Ohio Civ. R. 23 on behalf of a class of consumers against Vrbo.com and its parent company HomeAway, Inc. for violations of the United States Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, the United States Mail Fraud Act, the United States Wire Fraud Act, the Ohio Pattern of Corrupt Activities Act, the Ohio Consumer Fraud Act, and Common Law Fraud. The case is captioned, World, LLC Individually and as Representative Plaintiff on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated 5931 Brookside Road Independence, Ohio 44131 v. VRBO.COM, INC. and HOMEAWAY, INC. 1011 West Fifth St. #300 Austin, TEXAS, Defendants, Case No. CV 19 913545 (Ohio Com. Pleas, Cty. of Cuyahoga, April 5, 2019). The complaint asserts that defendants' illegal transactions consist of their agreeing to provide advertising and rental services to consumers of their residential realty, under a scheme by which (a) defendants make misrepresentations to consumers to act as their agent, and advertise and list their residential realty on defendants' internet websites at annual fees of $750; (b) defendants engage in conflicts of interest by acting as agents both for consumers and persons leasing consumer's realty ("Guests"); (c) defendants act against consumers on behalf of Guests in disputes between them; and (d) upon consumers discovering that defendants are acting against them on behalf of Guests, defendants suspend and terminate consumers advertising and listing agreement services, and convert consumer's annual fees to their own use. This case is assigned to Hon. Judge Brian J. Corrigan. VRBO.COM, INC. and HOMEAWAY, INC. are affiliate corporations that conduct internet advertising for short-term rentals primarily on the World Wide Web. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William F. Chinnock, Esq. 5931 Brookside Road Independence, OH 44131 Telephone: 720-504-6655 E-mail: judgewfc@aol .com HOT TOPIC: Soukhaphonh Seeks to Certify Class --------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit DIANA SOUKHAPHONH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. HOT TOPIC, INC., a California corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-05124-DMG-AGR (C.D. Cal.), Diana Soukhaphonh will move the Court on May 17, 2019, for an order granting class certification and appointing class counsel. Soukhaphonh proposes to certify a class defined as: "all persons whose cellular telephone numbers were contained in the file transmitted by Hot Topic to the company known as Impact Mobile identified as HT_IM-Opt_in_OneTime.ZIP on September 22, 2015 and who thereafter received one or more of the below described text messages from the shortcode telephone number 86742"; and Soukhaphonh proposes to certify a subclass consisting of: "all persons who received the following text message from the shortcode telephone number 86742: "Thanks! Ur subscribed to Hot Topic Alerts: 8msg/mo. Reply STOP to Cancel, HELP for Help. For info visit www.4u2entr.com/hottopic info. Msg&Data rates may apply" The action arises out of Defendant Hot Topic, Inc.'s practice of sending advertising and telemarketing text messages en masse to consumers and presents a textbook case for class certification. Hot Topic, a retail chain specializing in selling clothing through brick and mortar stores and a website, sent millions of impersonal an promotional advertising and telemarketing text messages to over one million cellular telephone numbers between November 1, 2015 and December 26, 2015.[CC] Attorneys for Diana Soukhaphonh And the Putative Class: David P. Milian, Esq. CAREY RODRIGUEZ MILIAN GONYA LLP 1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 700 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 372-7474 Facsimile: (305) 372-7475 E-mail: dmilian@careyrodriguez.com ecf@careyrodriguez.com - and - Robert Ahdoot, Esq. Tina Wolfson, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, P.C. 10728 Lindbrook Drive Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 Facsimile: (310) 474-8585 E-mail: rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com HYUNDAI: NHTSA to Probe Non-Crash Fires Following Complaints ------------------------------------------------------------ Courthouse News Service reported that following complaints of more than 3,100 fires and 103 injuries involving Hyundai and Kia vehicles, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said it will investigate. The NHTSA has already been probing the Korean automakers with regard to engine failures. The new investigations, which follow petitions by the Center for Auto Safety, will tackle non-crash fires in almost 3 million vehicles, including the Hyundai Sonata and Santa Fe and the Kia Optima, Sorento and Soul. J JILL INC: Time to Appeal Pension Trust Suit Already Passed ------------------------------------------------------------ J.Jill, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 8, 2019, for the fiscal year ended February 2, 2019, that the plaintiffs' to appeal the court's dismissal order has passed. On October 13, 2017, a securities lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts against the Company, several members of our Board of Directors and our Chief Financial Officer, among others. The complaint was brought under the Securities Act of 1933 and sought certification of a class of plaintiffs comprised of all shareholders that acquired stock issued by the Company in its initial public offering in March 2017. This lawsuit was eventually consolidated with two similar actions. On December 20, 2018, the court allowed the Company's motion to dismiss. The time for the plaintiffs to appeal the court's dismissal of the action has passed. J.Jill, Inc. operates as an omnichannel retailer for women's apparel under the J.Jill brand name in the United States. J.Jill, Inc. was founded in 1959 and is headquartered in Quincy, Massachusetts. JACKSON HEWITT: Gibson Sues over No-Poach Agreement --------------------------------------------------- NICOLE GIBSON, indivdually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. JACKSON HEWITT TAX SERVICE INC., JACKSON HEWITT INC., TAX SERVICES OF AMERICA, INC., BAYSIDE CAPITAL, INC., and CORSAIR CAPITAL, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-09070 (E.D. Va., March 28, 2019), alleges that the Defendant violated the Sherman Act, by incorporating and employee no-hiring and no-solicitation clause in its standard Franchise Agreement. The no-hiring and no-solicitation clause -- referred by the Department of Justice as a "no-poach agreement" -- pursuant to which Jackson Hewitt and its franchisees agree not to hire or solicit each other's employees is a naked restraint of competition and per se violation of the antitrust laws, the lawsuit contends. The Plaintiff and the Class are current and former employees of Jackson Hewitt who suffered reduced wages and benefits and diminished employment opportunities as a result of the unlawful contract, combination or conspiracy, the lawsuit adds. Jackson Hewitt is the second largerst tax preparation service in the United States.[BN] Counsel for the Plaintiff and Proposed Class: Conrad M. Shumadine, Esq. WILLCOX & SAVAGE, P.C. 440 Monticello Avenue, Suite 2200 Norfolk, VA 23510 Telephone: (757) 628 5500 Facsimile: (757) 628 5566 E-mail: cshumadine@wilsav.com - and - Tina Wolfson, Esq. Robert Ahdoot, Esq. Alex R. Straus, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 10728 Lindbrook Drive Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 Facsimile: (310) 474 8585 E-mail: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com astraus@ahdootwolfson.com - and - Douglas A. Millen, Esq. William H. London, Esq. Brian m. Hogan, Esq. FREED KANNER LONDON & M,MILLEN LLC 2201 Waukegan Road, Suite 130 Bannockburn, IL 60015 Telephone: (224) 632 4500 Facsimile: (224) 632 4521 E-mail: dmilen@fklmlaw.com wlondon@fklmlaw.com bhogan@fklmlaw.com JAGUAR HEALTH: Bid to Dismiss Tony Plant Suit Underway ------------------------------------------------------ Jaguar Health, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 10, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the motion to dismiss the amended class action suit entitled, Tony Plant v. Jaguar Animal Health, Inc., et al., is still pending. On July 20, 2017, a putative class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court, Northern District of California, Civil Action No. 3:17‑cv‑04102, by Tony Plant (the "Plaintiff") on behalf of shareholders of the Company who held shares on September 30, 2017 and were entitled to vote at the 2017 Special Shareholders Meeting, against the Company and certain individuals who were directors as of the date of the vote (collectively, the "Defendants"), in a matter captioned Tony Plant v. Jaguar Animal Health, Inc., et al., making claims arising under Section 14(a) and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a‑9, 17 C.F.R. Section 240.14a‑9, promulgated thereunder by the SEC. The claims alleged false and misleading information provided to investors in the Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus on Form S‑4 (File No. 333‑217364) declared effective by the SEC on July 6, 2017 related to the solicitation of votes from shareholders to approve the merger and certain transactions related thereto. The company accepted service of the complaint and summons on behalf of itself and the United States‑based director Defendants on November 1, 2017. The company have not accepted service on behalf of, and Plaintiff has not yet served, the non‑U.S.‑based director Defendants. On October 3, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking appointment as lead plaintiff and appointment of Monteverde & Associates PC as lead counsel. That motion was granted. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint against the Company and the United States‑based director Defendants on January 10, 2018. The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on March 12, 2018, for which oral arguments were held on June 14, 2018. The court dismissed the complaint on September 20, 2018. Plaintiff was entitled to amend the complaint within 20 days from the date of dismissal. On October 10, 2018, Plaintiff amended the complaint to focus on the company's commercial strategy in support of Equilevia. On November 6, 2018, the Defendants moved to dismiss the second amended complaint. The Defendants argue in their motion that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because the omissions and misrepresentations alleged in the complaint are immaterial as a matter of law. The court has elected to rule on Defendants' motion to dismiss without holding oral arguments. Jaguar Health said, "If the Plaintiff were able to prove its allegations in this matter and to establish the damages it asserts, then an adverse ruling could have a material impact on us. We believe that it is not probable that an asset has been impaired or a liability has been incurred as of the date of the financial statements and the amount of any potential loss is not reasonably estimable." Jaguar Health, Inc., a commercial stage natural-products pharmaceuticals company, focuses on developing gastrointestinal products for human prescription use and animals worldwide. The company, through its wholly-owned subsidiary, Napo Pharmaceuticals, Inc., focuses on developing and commercializing proprietary human gastrointestinal pharmaceuticals for the global marketplace from plants used traditionally in rainforest areas. Jaguar Health, Inc. is headquartered in San Francisco, California. JONES DAY: Female Attorneys File Gender Bias Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Alexandra Jones, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that six female attorneys filed a federal lawsuit on April 3 against the largest law firm in the nation, Jones Day, claiming pervasive gender discrimination and sexual harassment. In the $200 million class action filed on behalf of the woman by attorney Deborah Marcuse of the Baltimore firm Sanford Heisler Sharp, the women claim working at Jones Day is like working at a frat house. "Jones Day's fraternity culture presents female attorneys at Jones Day with an unpalatable choice: Participate in a culture that is at best inhospitable to women and at worst openly misogynistic or forego any hope of success at the firm," the women say in the complaint. "For a female associate to succeed at Jones Day, she must at least tolerate the stereotyped expectations of the firm's male powerbrokers." Plaintiffs include Nilab Rhayar Tolton and Andrea Mazingo, who recently worked as associates in Jones Day's Irvine California office -- Tolton for eight years, Mazingo for five. Four other women sued as Jane Doe. Their complaint paints a picture of a workplace where women are not valued for their professional accolades but are instead treated as sex objects, often forced to endure comments by male colleagues about their looks, relationship statuses and attire. At a firm event held at a partner's house, the women claim a male associate who pushed a female associate wearing a white dress into a pool was applauded and high-fived by male leadership. When female attorneys at Jones Day become pregnant or have children, the women say, it often ends their careers. Tolton says she was ordered to leave the firm a few months after returning from her second maternity leave. The women also say female attorneys are punished for taking time off for health reasons. Mazingo claims she was verbally abused by a male partner after she took a weekend off for health issues caused by the firm's sexist environment, and subsequently was forced to leave the firm. Meanwhile, they say, the men at Jones Day are favored, paid more than their female colleagues and receive promotions more quickly. Female attorneys generally receive inadequate work, mentorship, and support, and those who seek out mentors often face sexual harassment, according to the complaint. Additionally, because the firm uses a "black box" system that prevents colleagues from knowing how much others make, partner Stephen Brogan can systematically deny female associates equal pay without being held accountable, the women say. Brogan is based in the firm's Washington office. Sanford Heisler attorney Russell Kornblith says the women hope to bring transparency to the system. "Jones Day proudly touts that it is not like its peer firms, because it does not pay its associates in lockstep," Kornblith said in a statement on April 3. "However, plaintiffs allege that this ‘black box' compensation system masks gender discrimination in pay." Jane Doe 4 says she was paid about $400,000 less per year than a junior male associate at Jones Day, whose compensation became publicly available after he took a government position. Jones Day represented President Donald Trump in his 2016 campaign and more than a dozen of its former attorneys now work for Trump's administration. The firm employs more than 2,500 lawyers across the world. A request for comment sent through the firm's website was not returned by press time. The women seek class certification, a tolling of the statute of limitations where applicable, a court declaration that the employment practices laid out in the complaint violate the law, an injunction against Jones Day and its current practices, and a court order to start treating and paying female employees equitably. They also seek $50 million in lost pay, $50 million in compensatory damages and $100 million in punitive damages. JORDAN HEALTH CARE: Underpays Home Health Nurses, Siemers Says -------------------------------------------------------------- An employment-related class action complaint has been filed against Jordan Health Care, Inc. pursuant to theFair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The case is captioned MARIE SIEMERS, On Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, V. JORDAN HEALTH CARE, INC. (f/k/a Aspire Healthcare, a/k/a Jordan Health Service, and a/k/a a Part of the Elara Caring Network), Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-00851-B (N.D. Tex., April 5, 2019). Plaintiff Marie Siemers files this lawsuit individually and as a FLSA collective action on behalf of all other similarly situated current and/or former employees of Defendant who worked as home health nurses paid on a per visit basis, and like Plaintiff, were not paid time and one-half their respective regular rates of pay for all hours worked over 40 in each seven day workweek in the time period relevant to this lawsuit. Accordingly, Plaintiff and the collective action members seek all damages available under the FLSA, including back wages, liquidated damages, legal fees, costs and post-judgment interest. Jordan Health Care, Inc. is a home health service business entity with operations in numerous states, including Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Allen R. Vaught, Esq. BARON & BUDD, P.C. 3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100 Dallas, TX 75219 Telephone: (214) 521-3605 Facsimile: (214) 520-1181 E-mail: avaught@baronbudd.com JUST BORN: Suit over Slack-Filled Candies Wins Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit, Stephanie Escobar, the Plaintiff, vs. Just Born, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. CV 17-01826 TJH(PJW) (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Terry J. Hatter certifies a class consisting of: "all individuals that purchased Mike and Ikes 22 or Hot Tamales in California between February 6, 2013, to present, alleging that the non-functional slack-fill in the two products misrepresented the amount of actual candies in the boxes and, thereby, misled consumers in violation of California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, False Advertising Law, and Unfair Competition Law." In 2016, Escobar purchased one 5-oz. box of Mike & Ike candy during a visit to a Cinemark Cinemas movie theater in Los Angeles. The candy was in a glass showcase behind the concession counter. Escobar paid approximately $4.00 for the candy. After she got to her seat in the theater, Escobar discovered that the box was roughly half full. Escobar alleged that 46% of the Mike & Ike box was empty, and that there was no functional or lawful purpose for the empty space. The empty space is usually referred to as "non-functional slack fill." Escobar alleged that the 46% non-functional slack-fill violated: the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the California False Advertising Law, and the California Unfair Competition Law.[CC] KUM GANG: Park Seeks Minimum & Overtime Pay ------------------------------------------- Hyoung Wook Park, individually and on behalf all other employees similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Kum Gang Inc. (d/b/a Kum Gang San), Ji Sung Yoo, Ji Yong Yoo, Chunsik Yoo, and Myungja Lee, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01735 (E.D.N.Y., March 26, 2019), seeks to recover minimum wage and overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Defendants have willfully and intentionally committed widespread violations of the FLSA and NYLL by engaging in a pattern and practice of failing to pay their employees, including the Plaintiff, compensation for all hours worked, minimum wage, and overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 each workweek and "spread of hours" pay for each work day whose interval between beginning and end exceeds 10 hours, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: Ken H. Maeng, Esq. HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 136-20 38 th Ave., Suite No. 10G Flushing, NY 11354 Telephone: (718) 353-8588 E-mail: kmaeng@hanglaw.com KYMA NYC: Bermeo et al. Seek Minimum & OT Pay for Restaurant Staff ------------------------------------------------------------------ HUMBERTO MORALES BERMEO, LUIS ALBERTO CHINO AMBROSIO, and NILTON M. PAREDES, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. KYMA NYC, LLC (D/B/A KYMA), ERINEOS CHRISTOU, JOE RAGONESE, DINO KONSTANTATOS, DUNJA RADIN, DEJAN BAJKOVIC, and LILA HERTZ, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02685 (S.D.N.Y., March 26, 2019), seeks unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Defendants own, operate, or control a Greek restaurant, located at 15 West 18th Street, New York, New York 10011 under the name "Kyma". The Plaintiffs were ostensibly employed as busboys, barbacks, and food runners. However, they were required to spend a considerable part of their work day performing non-tipped duties, including but not limited to assisting the food runners, cleaning tables, bringing water to customers, preparing pita bread and sauce, cutting lemon, folding 50 sheets of napkin, putting away bottles of wine to the liquor room, bringing up square tables from the basement to the first floor, sweeping the outdoors, cleaning the windows and all three bathrooms, polishing silverware and cups, buying supplies for the bar and the office, and organizing the boxes of pita bread from incoming shipments. The Plaintiffs worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of hours 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 lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs: 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 LATSHAW DRILLING: Stegall Seeks Minimum and Overtime Pay -------------------------------------------------------- A wage and hour class action complaint has been filed against Latshaw Drilling Company, LLC for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act (NMMWA). The case is captioned JOHN STEGALL, Individually and On Behalf of Others Similarly Situated, v. LATSHAW DRILLING COMPANY, LLC., Case No. 5:19-cv-00432 (W.D. La., April 5, 2019). Plaintiff John Stegall asserts that Latshaw does not pay its oilfield mechanics overtime as required by the FLSA and the NMMWA but instead pays them a flat salary. Accordingly, Stegall seeks to recover unpaid overtime as well as other damages. Latshaw Drilling Company, LLC is an oil and gas contractor based in Tulsa Oklahoma with offices in Oklahoma City, Midland, and Houston. Founded in 1981, Latshaw drills oil and natural gas wells for energy exploration companies in the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Derrick G. Earles, Esq. LABORDE EARLES LAW FIRM 203 Energy Parkway, Building B Lafayette, LA 70508 Telephone: (337) 210-7292 Facsimile: (337) 253-7757 - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. 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: rburch@brucknerburch.com dmoulton@brucknerburch.com LENDMARK FINANCIAL: Underpays Payroll Specialists, Bell Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- KIMBERLY BELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LENDMARK FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01218-SCJ (N.D. Ga., March 15, 2019) is an action against the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. The Plaintiff Bell was employed by the Defendant as payroll specialist. Lendmark Financial Services, LLC, a consumer finance company, specializes in personal and automobile loans, and retail merchant sales finance services. Lendmark Financial Services, LLC was formerly known as Newsouth Financial Services, Inc. and changed its name to Lendmark Financial Services, LLC in August 2000. The company was founded in 1996 and is based in Lawrenceville, Georgia. Lendmark Financial Services Inc. is a former subsidiary of Branch Banking and Trust Company. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William S. Cleveland, Esq. Dustin L. Crawford, Esq. John L. Mays, Esq. PARKS, CHESIN & WALBERT, P.C. 75 Fourteenth Street, 26th Floor Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone:(404) 873-8000 Facsimile: (404) 873-8050 E-mail: wcleveland@pcwlawfirm.com dcrawford@ pcwlawfirm.com jmays@pcwlawfirm.com LOANDEPOT.COM: Rosenberg Sues over TCPA Violations -------------------------------------------------- A class action complaint has been filed against LoanDepot.com LLC and John Doe Corporation for alleged violations of the consumer-privacy provisions of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), a federal statute enacted in 1991 in response to widespread public outrage about the proliferation of intrusive, nuisance telemarketing practices. The case is captioned DOUGLAS E. ROSENBERG on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. LOANDEPOT.COM LLC and JOHN DOE CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-10661 (D. Mass., April 8, 2019). In violation of the TCPA, LoanDepot.com LLC hired the co-defendant, John Doe Corporation, who made automated telemarketing calls to a cellular telephone number of Rosenberg for the purposes of advertising LoanDepot.com goods and services using an automated dialing system, which is prohibited by the TCPA. Accordingly, Rosenberg seeks redress for the Defendants' wide scale illegal telemarketing practices. LoanDepot.com LLC is a foreign limited liability company that maintains its principal place of business in Foothill Ranch, CA. The company offers mortgage and non-mortgage lending products. It claimed to be the second largest non-bank provider of direct-to-consumer loans in America. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony I. Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Telephone: (508) 221-1510 E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com - and - Alex M. Washkowitz, Esq. Jeremy Cohen, Esq CW LAW GROUP, P.C. 188 Oaks Road Framingham, MA 01701 E-mail: alex@cwlawgrouppc.com LORI LOUGHLIN: Among Defendants in Admission Scam Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Rachel Desantis, writing for People, reports that a California mother who claims the alleged college admission cheating scam prevented her son from getting into an elite university has sued Lori Loughlin and Felicity Huffman, among others involved, for $500 billion, according to lawsuit documents published by Deadline. Jennifer Kay Toy, who identified herself as a teacher who previously taught in the Oakland Unified School District, filed the class-action suit in San Francisco County Superior Court on March 13, accusing the defendants of inflicting emotional distress, civil conspiracy and fraud, according to the suit obtained by Deadline. Toy alleges she raised her son, Joshua, with a good work ethic, and made various sacrifices over the years to ensure he would get into a good college. She claims he had a 4.2 GPA upon graduating high school and applied to "some" of the colleges involved in the scandal -- but did not get accepted. "Joshua and I beleived [sic] that he'd had a fair chance just like all other applicants but did not make the cut for some undisclosed reason. I'm now aware of the massive cheating scandal wherein wealthy people conspired with people in positions of power and authority at colleges in order to allow their chjldren [sic] to gain access to the very coHeges [sic] that Joshua was rejected from," Toy wrote in the lawsuit, according to the Los Angeles Times. She did not specify which colleges did not accept Joshua, but those named in the scandal include Yale, Georgetown, Stanford, the University of Southern California, UCLA, the University of Texas and Wake Forest. "I'm [out]raged and hurt because I feel that my son, my only child, was denied access to a college not because he failed to work and study hard enough but because wealthy individuals felt . . . . it was ok to lie, cheat, steal and bribe their children's way into a good college," Toy continued, according to the lawsuit published by Deadline. She also argued that her sons' opportunity for a fair chance to be accepted into a good school was "stolen" by the "despicable and illegal actions" of the defendants. Huffman, Loughlin and Loughlin's husband, fashion designer Mossimo Giannulli, were among 50 people named on March 12 in an alleged conspiracy to defraud and undermine competitive student admissions at elite colleges and universities, according to the U.S. Attorney's Office in Massachusetts. Huffman is accused of paying $15,000 in a scheme to fraudulently boost her daughter's SAT scores, according to an indictment obtained by PEOPLE. The actress -- who has been charged with conspiracy to commit mail fraud and honest services mail fraud -- was released on a $250,000 bond after her arrest on March 12 and appeared in a Los Angeles court on March 15. Huffman's next preliminary court hearing is scheduled for March 29 at a Boston court, according to the U.S. Attorney's Office. Loughlin and Giannulli, meanwhile, allegedly paid $500,000 in bribes to designate their daughters as recruits on the USC crew team -- even though they don't even row. The parents are charged with conspiracy to commit mail fraud and honest services mail fraud. Loughlin was taken into custody on March 13 and made her first appearance in federal court in Los Angeles hours later, where a judge set her bond at $1 million, according to the Associated Press, the Orange County Register and the San Gabriel Valley Tribune. Giannulli appeared in federal court on March 12 and was released after posting a $1 million bond. [GN] LYONS & DOUGHTY: Hess Sues over Debt Collections Practices ---------------------------------------------------------- Stephanie Hess, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Lyons, Doughty & Veldhuis, P.C. and John Does 1-25, the Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-09053 (D.N.J., March 28, 2019), seeks damages and declaratory relief under the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act. Some time prior to April 11, 2018, an obligation was allegedly incurred to TD Bank USA NA, as successor in interest to Target National Bank. The obligation arose out of transactions in which the funds obtained from the creditor were used primarily for personal, family or household purposes. The Defendant contracted with TD Bank to collect the alleged debt. LDV collects and attempts to collect debts incurred or alleged to have been incurred for personal, family or household purposes on behalf of creditors using the United States Postal Services, telephone and internet, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: 201 282-6500 Facsimile: 201 282-6501 E-mail: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com MANILA WATER: Lawmakers Mull Class Action Over Negligence --------------------------------------------------------- Jose Cielito Reganit, writing for PTV News, reports that lawmakers at the House of Representatives on March 18 said they are mulling the filing of a class suit against Manila Water for its alleged "negligence", which they described as the root cause of the week-long water crisis that affected around 1.2 million households in the east zone of Metro Manila. Negros Occidental Rep. Alfredo "Albee" Benitez, who chairs the House Committee on Housing and Urban Development, said Manila Water should, at the very least, compensate consumers for failing to provide 24/7 water service in accordance with its concession agreements. "Manila Water had admitted that obviously, they committed violations and the Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System (MWSS) Regulatory office has sent notice of violations to Manila Water," Benitez said in an interview after a congressional hearing on the water crisis. "As I see it, there is negligence on the part of Manila Water, so there should be proper compensation to customers," he added. He also said that he and his colleagues are rejecting the statement of MWSS chief regulator Patrick Ty that the agency has no power to impose fines and penalties against Manila Water. "Based on the provisions, the MWSS regulatory office can assess penalty if any of the concession agreement has been violated," Benitez said. "If we cannot agree, it might result in a class action suit," he said, adding that lawmakers will discuss the details of the class suit if Manila Water fails to give justice to the victims of water service interruption. He urged the water concessionaire not to take the problem lightly and begin thinking of the optimum amount that they should compensate their customers with. "We will wait for Manila Water's action. If they do not take any action to properly compensate their customers, we would be obliged to encourage a class action suit," Benitez said. Discount Meanwhile, Mandaluyong City Rep. Quennie Gonzales, whose district was hit badly since the start of the water crisis, agreed with Benitez as she demanded a refund from Manila Water for her constituents. "In the light of this extreme disturbance that our city was made to endure, I would like to appeal to the officials of Manila Water to seriously consider offering a rebate or a discount at the very least in the water bills of Mandaluyong residents for the month of March, and at best for the duration of the crisis," she said. "I think that, this is a fair enough compensation for Manila Water's customers for their inefficiency that has caused a lot of unnecessary suffering and discomfort in the lives of the people in Mandaluyong," Gonzales said. In the meantime, Speaker Gloria Macapagal Arroyo said that the Philippines' water concession law may need to be revised to penalize firms that fail to comply with distribution agreements, following Ty's assertion that MWSS cannot penalize Manila Water. She said a penalty provision should be added, recalling a conversation with Quezon City Rep. Winston Castelo, whose Committee on Metro Manila Development convened the March 18 hearing. "Perhaps in the law, we have to add a penalty provision for those who failed to comply with some parts of the concession agreement," Arroyo said in an interview. "He (Castelo) says that seems to be what's missing in the law," Arroyo noted. On the other hand, House senior Deputy Minority Leader and BUHAY Partylist Rep. Lito Atienza asked officials of Manila Water and MWSS to resign for their failure. "MWSS administrator Reynaldo Velasco and Manila Water CEO should resign immediately for their failure to deliver water! They should stop citing statistics and technical requirements for their disastrous non-performance. Obviously you have failed," Atienza said during the hearing. He also agreed with Gonzales that a refund to the customers of Manila Water is in order. "Are you willing to refund the consumers? Malinaw na talo sila dito. Walang tumutulong tubig pero magbabayad pa sila ng minimum amount," Atienza said. [GN] MDL 2492: Harley Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated ------------------------------------------------------------- The case, DEMETRICS HARLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-730 (Filed Feb. 18, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on Feb. 18, 2019. The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-02076 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff brings this class action complaint against NCAA to obtain redress for injuries sustained as result of Defendant's reckless disregard for the health and safety of generations of Fayetteville State University ("FSU") student-athletes. The Harley case is being consolidated with MDL No. 2492, Re: NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION STUDENT-ATHLETE CONCUSSION INJURY LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Dec. 18, 2013. These actions seek medical monitoring for putative classes of former student athletes at NCAA-member schools who allege they suffered concussions. The Plaintiffs allege that the NCAA concealed information about the risks of the long-term effects of concussion injuries. Opponents to centralization argue, inter alia, that (1) the putative classes and claims alleged in these actions do not sufficiently overlap; and (2) given the small number of actions pending, alternatives to centralization are preferable. Opponents' arguments, while persuasive when the Section 1407 motion was first filed, are less compelling now given the current state of the litigation, the Panel said. Since the motion for centralization was filed, an additional eight related actions have been filed, most alleging overlapping putative classes of former football players at NCAA-member schools. The Northern District of Illinois Arrington action involves student-athletes who participated in additional sports, and the putative class alleged in that action is more limited in scope. Most of the actions now pending, however, involve nearly completely overlapping putative classes and claims. Moreover, the Panel is persuaded that the overlap between Arrington and the remaining actions is sufficient to warrant centralization. Regardless of the scope of the putative classes alleged, all actions share common factual questions concerning the NCAA's knowledge of the risks of concussions in football players and its policies governing the protection of players from such injuries. Plaintiffs in all actions seek medical monitoring for putative class members. In its Dec. 18, 2013 Order, the MDL Panel found that the these actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Northern District of Illinois will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. These actions share factual questions relating to allegations against the NCAA stemming from injuries sustained while playing sports at NCAA-member institutions, including damages resulting from the permanent long-term effects of concussions. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge John Z. Lee Paul. The lead case is 1:16-cv-08727. NCAA is a non-profit organization which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American institutions and conferences.[BN] Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class: Jeff Raizner, Esq. RAIZNER SLANIA LLP 2402 Dunlavy Street Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (713) 554 9099 Facsimile: (713) 554 9098 E-mail: efile@raiznerlaw.com - and - Jay Edelson, Esq. Benjamin H. Richman, Esq. Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq. EDELSON PC 350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: 312.589.6370 Facsimile: 312.589.6378 E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com brichman@edelson.com rbalabanian@edelson.com MDL 2492: Helminiak Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case, MARK HELMINIAK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-711 (Filed Feb. 18, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on Feb. 18, 2019. The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-02057 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff brings this class action complaint against NCAA to obtain redress for injuries sustained as result of Defendant's reckless disregard for the health and safety of generations of University of North Dakota ("UND") student-athletes. The Helminiak case is being consolidated with MDL No. 2492, Re: NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION STUDENT-ATHLETE CONCUSSION INJURY LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Dec. 18, 2013. These actions seek medical monitoring for putative classes of former student athletes at NCAA-member schools who allege they suffered concussions. The Plaintiffs allege that the NCAA concealed information about the risks of the long-term effects of concussion injuries. Opponents to centralization argue, inter alia, that (1) the putative classes and claims alleged in these actions do not sufficiently overlap; and (2) given the small number of actions pending, alternatives to centralization are preferable. Opponents' arguments, while persuasive when the Section 1407 motion was first filed, are less compelling now given the current state of the litigation, the Panel said. Since the motion for centralization was filed, an additional eight related actions have been filed, most alleging overlapping putative classes of former football players at NCAA-member schools. The Northern District of Illinois Arrington action involves student-athletes who participated in additional sports, and the putative class alleged in that action is more limited in scope. Most of the actions now pending, however, involve nearly completely overlapping putative classes and claims. Moreover, the Panel is persuaded that the overlap between Arrington and the remaining actions is sufficient to warrant centralization. Regardless of the scope of the putative classes alleged, all actions share common factual questions concerning the NCAA's knowledge of the risks of concussions in football players and its policies governing the protection of players from such injuries. Plaintiffs in all actions seek medical monitoring for putative class members. In its Dec. 18, 2013 Order, the MDL Panel found that the these actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Northern District of Illinois will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. These actions share factual questions relating to allegations against the NCAA stemming from injuries sustained while playing sports at NCAA-member institutions, including damages resulting from the permanent long-term effects of concussions. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge John Z. Lee Paul. The lead case is 1:16-cv-08727. NCAA is a non-profit organization which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American institutions and conferences.[BN] Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class: Jeff Raizner, Esq. RAIZNER SLANIA LLP 2402 Dunlavy Street Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (713) 554 9099 Facsimile: (713) 554 9098 E-mail: efile@raiznerlaw.com - and - Jay Edelson, Esq. Benjamin H. Richman, Esq. Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq. EDELSON PC 350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: 312.589.6370 Facsimile: 312.589.6378 E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com brichman@edelson.com rbalabanian@edelson.com MDL 2492: Milburn Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated -------------------------------------------------------------- The case, RICHARD MILBURN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-684 (Filed Jan. 28, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on Feb. 15, 2019. The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-02044 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff brings this class action complaint against NCAA to obtain redress for injuries sustained as result of Defendant's reckless disregard for the health and safety of generations of University of Toledo ("UT) student-athletes. The Milburn case is being consolidated with MDL No. 2492, Re: NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION STUDENT-ATHLETE CONCUSSION INJURY LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Dec. 18, 2013. These actions seek medical monitoring for putative classes of former student athletes at NCAA-member schools who allege they suffered concussions. The Plaintiffs allege that the NCAA concealed information about the risks of the long-term effects of concussion injuries. Opponents to centralization argue, inter alia, that (1) the putative classes and claims alleged in these actions do not sufficiently overlap; and (2) given the small number of actions pending, alternatives to centralization are preferable. Opponents' arguments, while persuasive when the Section 1407 motion was first filed, are less compelling now given the current state of the litigation. Since the motion for centralization was filed, an additional eight related actions have been filed, most alleging overlapping putative classes of former football players at NCAA-member schools. The Northern District of Illinois Arrington action involves student-athletes who participated in additional sports, and the putative class alleged in that action is more limited in scope. Most of the actions now pending, however, involve nearly completely overlapping putative classes and claims. Moreover, the Panel is persuaded that the overlap between Arrington and the remaining actions is sufficient to warrant centralization. Regardless of the scope of the putative classes alleged, all actions share common factual questions concerning the NCAA's knowledge of the risks of concussions in football players and its policies governing the protection of players from such injuries. Plaintiffs in all actions seek medical monitoring for putative class members. In its Dec. 18, 2013 Order, the MDL Panel found that the these actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Northern District of Illinois will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. These actions share factual questions relating to allegations against the NCAA stemming from injuries sustained while playing sports at NCAA-member institutions, including damages resulting from the permanent long-term effects of concussions. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge John Z. Lee Paul. The lead case is 1:16-cv-08727. NCAA is a non-profit organization which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American institutions and conferences.[BN] Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class: Jeff Raizner, Esq. RAIZNER SLANIA LLP 2402 Dunlavy Street Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (713) 554 9099 Facsimile: (713) 554 9098 E-mail: efile@raiznerlaw.com MDL 2492: Pinkney Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated -------------------------------------------------------------- The case, ARRONN PINKNEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-683, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on Feb. 15, 2019. The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-02043 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff brings this class action complaint against NCAA to obtain redress for injuries sustained as result of Defendant's reckless disregard for the health and safety of generations of Washington State University ("WSU") student-athletes. The Pinkney case is being consolidated with MDL No. 2492, Re: NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION STUDENT-ATHLETE CONCUSSION INJURY LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Dec. 18, 2013. These actions seek medical monitoring for putative classes of former student athletes at NCAA-member schools who allege they suffered concussions. The Plaintiffs allege that the NCAA concealed information about the risks of the long-term effects of concussion injuries. Opponents to centralization argue, inter alia, that (1) the putative classes and claims alleged in these actions do not sufficiently overlap; and (2) given the small number of actions pending, alternatives to centralization are preferable. Opponents' arguments, while persuasive when the Section 1407 motion was first filed, are less compelling now given the current state of the litigation, the MDL Panel said. Since the motion for centralization was filed, an additional eight related actions have been filed, most alleging overlapping putative classes of former football players at NCAA-member schools. The Northern District of Illinois Arrington action involves student-athletes who participated in additional sports, and the putative class alleged in that action is more limited in scope. Most of the actions now pending, however, involve nearly completely overlapping putative classes and claims. Moreover, the Panel is persuaded that the overlap between Arrington and the remaining actions is sufficient to warrant centralization. Regardless of the scope of the putative classes alleged, all actions share common factual questions concerning the NCAA's knowledge of the risks of concussions in football players and its policies governing the protection of players from such injuries. Plaintiffs in all actions seek medical monitoring for putative class members. In its Dec. 18, 2013 Order, the MDL Panel found that the these actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Northern District of Illinois will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. These actions share factual questions relating to allegations against the NCAA stemming from injuries sustained while playing sports at NCAA-member institutions, including damages resulting from the permanent long-term effects of concussions. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge John Z. Lee Paul. The lead case is 1:16-cv-08727. NCAA is a non-profit organization which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American institutions and conferences.[BN] Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class: Jeff Raizner, Esq. RAIZNER SLANIA LLP 2402 Dunlavy Street Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (713) 554 9099 Facsimile: (713) 554 9098 E-mail: efile@raiznerlaw.com - and - Jay Edelson, Esq. Benjamin H. Richman, Esq. Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq. EDELSON PC 350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: 312.589.6370 Facsimile: 312.589.6378 E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com brichman@edelson.com rbalabanian@edelson.com MDL 2492: Schmitz Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated -------------------------------------------------------------- The case, YVONNE SCHMITZ, as Administrator of the Estate of Kurt M. Schmitz, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION and UNIVERSITY OF RICHMOND, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-689, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on Feb. 15, 2019. The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-02051 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff brings this class action complaint against NCAA to obtain redress for injuries sustained as result of Defendant's reckless disregard for the health and safety of generations of Richmond student-athletes. The Schmitz case is being consolidated with MDL No. 2492, Re: NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION STUDENT-ATHLETE CONCUSSION INJURY LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Dec. 18, 2013. These actions seek medical monitoring for putative classes of former student athletes at NCAA-member schools who allege they suffered concussions. The Plaintiffs allege that the NCAA concealed information about the risks of the long-term effects of concussion injuries. Opponents to centralization argue, inter alia, that (1) the putative classes and claims alleged in these actions do not sufficiently overlap; and (2) given the small number of actions pending, alternatives to centralization are preferable. Opponents' arguments, while persuasive when the Section 1407 motion was first filed, are less compelling now given the current state of the litigation. Since the motion for centralization was filed, an additional eight related actions have been filed, most alleging overlapping putative classes of former football players at NCAA-member schools. The Northern District of Illinois Arrington action involves student-athletes who participated in additional sports, and the putative class alleged in that action is more limited in scope. Most of the actions now pending, however, involve nearly completely overlapping putative classes and claims. Moreover, the Panel is persuaded that the overlap between Arrington and the remaining actions is sufficient to warrant centralization. Regardless of the scope of the putative classes alleged, all actions share common factual questions concerning the NCAA's knowledge of the risks of concussions in football players and its policies governing the protection of players from such injuries. Plaintiffs in all actions seek medical monitoring for putative class members. In its Dec. 18, 2013 Order, the MDL Panel found that the these actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Northern District of Illinois will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. These actions share factual questions relating to allegations against the NCAA stemming from injuries sustained while playing sports at NCAA-member institutions, including damages resulting from the permanent long-term effects of concussions. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge John Z. Lee Paul. The lead case is 1:16-cv-08727. NCAA is a non-profit organization which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American institutions and conferences.[BN] Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class: Jeff Raizner, Esq. RAIZNER SLANIA LLP 2402 Dunlavy Street Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (713) 554 9099 Facsimile: (713) 554 9098 E-mail: efile@raiznerlaw.com - and - Jay Edelson, Esq. Benjamin H. Richman, Esq. Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq. EDELSON PC 350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor Chicago, Illinois 60654 Telephone: 312.589.6370 Facsimile: 312.589.6378 E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com brichman@edelson.com rbalabanian@edelson.com MDL 2492: Stewart Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated -------------------------------------------------------------- The case, ANDREW STEWART, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-727 (Filed Feb. 18, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on Feb. 18, 2019. The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-02064 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff brings this class action complaint against NCAA to obtain redress for injuries sustained as result of Defendant's reckless disregard for the health and safety of generations of University of Cincinnati ("Cincinnati") student-athletes. The Stewart case is being consolidated with MDL No. 2492, Re: NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION STUDENT-ATHLETE CONCUSSION INJURY LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Dec. 18, 2013. These actions seek medical monitoring for putative classes of former student athletes at NCAA-member schools who allege they suffered concussions. The Plaintiffs allege that the NCAA concealed information about the risks of the long-term effects of concussion injuries. Opponents to centralization argue, inter alia, that (1) the putative classes and claims alleged in these actions do not sufficiently overlap; and (2) given the small number of actions pending, alternatives to centralization are preferable. Opponents' arguments, while persuasive when the Section 1407 motion was first filed, are less compelling now given the current state of the litigation, the Panel said. Since the motion for centralization was filed, an additional eight related actions have been filed, most alleging overlapping putative classes of former football players at NCAA-member schools. The Northern District of Illinois Arrington action involves student-athletes who participated in additional sports, and the putative class alleged in that action is more limited in scope. Most of the actions now pending, however, involve nearly completely overlapping putative classes and claims. Moreover, the Panel is persuaded that the overlap between Arrington and the remaining actions is sufficient to warrant centralization. Regardless of the scope of the putative classes alleged, all actions share common factual questions concerning the NCAA's knowledge of the risks of concussions in football players and its policies governing the protection of players from such injuries. Plaintiffs in all actions seek medical monitoring for putative class members. In its Dec. 18, 2013 Order, the MDL Panel found that the these actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Northern District of Illinois will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. These actions share factual questions relating to allegations against the NCAA stemming from injuries sustained while playing sports at NCAA-member institutions, including damages resulting from the permanent long-term effects of concussions. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge John Z. Lee Paul. The lead case is 1:16-cv-08727. NCAA is a non-profit organization which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American institutions and conferences.[BN] Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class: Jeff Raizner, Esq. RAIZNER SLANIA LLP 2402 Dunlavy Street Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (713) 554 9099 Facsimile: (713) 554 9098 E-mail: efile@raiznerlaw.com - and - Jay Edelson, Esq. Benjamin H. Richman, Esq. Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq. EDELSON PC 350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: 312 589-6370 Facsimile: 312 589-6378 E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com brichman@edelson.com rbalabanian@edelson.com MDL 2492: Stroughter Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case, CLIFTON STROUGHTER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-682, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on Feb. 15, 2019. The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-02042 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff brings this class action complaint against NCAA to obtain redress for injuries sustained as result of Defendant's reckless disregard for the health and safety of generations of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (“Illinois") student-athletes. The Stroughter case is being consolidated with MDL No. 2492, Re: NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION STUDENT-ATHLETE CONCUSSION INJURY LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Dec. 18, 2013. These actions seek medical monitoring for putative classes of former student athletes at NCAA-member schools who allege they suffered concussions. The Plaintiffs allege that the NCAA concealed information about the risks of the long-term effects of concussion injuries. Opponents to centralization argue, inter alia, that (1) the putative classes and claims alleged in these actions do not sufficiently overlap; and (2) given the small number of actions pending, alternatives to centralization are preferable. Opponents' arguments, while persuasive when the Section 1407 motion was first filed, are less compelling now given the current state of the litigation. Since the motion for centralization was filed, an additional eight related actions have been filed, most alleging overlapping putative classes of former football players at NCAA-member schools. The Northern District of Illinois Arrington action involves student-athletes who participated in additional sports, and the putative class alleged in that action is more limited in scope. Most of the actions now pending, however, involve nearly completely overlapping putative classes and claims. Moreover, the Panel is persuaded that the overlap between Arrington and the remaining actions is sufficient to warrant centralization. Regardless of the scope of the putative classes alleged, all actions share common factual questions concerning the NCAA's knowledge of the risks of concussions in football players and its policies governing the protection of players from such injuries. Plaintiffs in all actions seek medical monitoring for putative class members. In its Dec. 18, 2013 Order, the MDL Panel found that the these actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Northern District of Illinois will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. These actions share factual questions relating to allegations against the NCAA stemming from injuries sustained while playing sports at NCAA-member institutions, including damages resulting from the permanent long-term effects of concussions. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge John Z. Lee Paul. The lead case is 1:16-cv-08727. NCAA is a non-profit organization which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American institutions and conferences.[BN] Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class: Jeff Raizner, Esq. RAIZNER SLANIA LLP 2402 Dunlavy Street Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (713) 554 9099 Facsimile: (713) 554 9098 E-mail: efile@raiznerlaw.com - and - Jay Edelson, Esq. Benjamin H. Richman, Esq. Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq. EDELSON PC 350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor Chicago, Illinois 60654 Telephone: 312.589.6370 Facsimile: 312.589.6378 E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com brichman@edelson.com rbalabanian@edelson.com MDL 2492: Sweed Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated ------------------------------------------------------------ The case, LIMAS SWEED, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-688, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on Feb. 15, 2019. The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-02050 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff brings this class action complaint against NCAA to obtain redress for injuries sustained as result of Defendant's reckless disregard for the health and safety of generations of University of Texas at Austin (“Texas") student-athletes. The Sweed case is being consolidated with MDL No. 2492, Re: NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION STUDENT-ATHLETE CONCUSSION INJURY LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Dec. 18, 2013. These actions seek medical monitoring for putative classes of former student athletes at NCAA-member schools who allege they suffered concussions. The Plaintiffs allege that the NCAA concealed information about the risks of the long-term effects of concussion injuries. Opponents to centralization argue, inter alia, that (1) the putative classes and claims alleged in these actions do not sufficiently overlap; and (2) given the small number of actions pending, alternatives to centralization are preferable. Opponents' arguments, while persuasive when the Section 1407 motion was first filed, are less compelling now given the current state of the litigation. Since the motion for centralization was filed, an additional eight related actions have been filed, most alleging overlapping putative classes of former football players at NCAA-member schools. The Northern District of Illinois Arrington action involves student-athletes who participated in additional sports, and the putative class alleged in that action is more limited in scope. Most of the actions now pending, however, involve nearly completely overlapping putative classes and claims. Moreover, the Panel is persuaded that the overlap between Arrington and the remaining actions is sufficient to warrant centralization. Regardless of the scope of the putative classes alleged, all actions share common factual questions concerning the NCAA's knowledge of the risks of concussions in football players and its policies governing the protection of players from such injuries. Plaintiffs in all actions seek medical monitoring for putative class members. In its Dec. 18, 2013 Order, the MDL Panel found that the these actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Northern District of Illinois will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. These actions share factual questions relating to allegations against the NCAA stemming from injuries sustained while playing sports at NCAA-member institutions, including damages resulting from the permanent long-term effects of concussions. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge John Z. Lee Paul. The lead case is 1:16-cv-08727. NCAA is a non-profit organization which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American institutions and conferences.[BN] Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class: Jeff Raizner, Esq. RAIZNER SLANIA LLP 2402 Dunlavy Street Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (713) 554 9099 Facsimile: (713) 554 9098 E-mail: efile@raiznerlaw.com - and - Jay Edelson, Esq. Benjamin H. Richman, Esq. Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq. EDELSON PC 350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: 312.589.6370 Facsimile: 312.589.6378 E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com brichman@edelson.com rbalabanian@edelson.com MDL 2492: Taylor Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated ------------------------------------------------------------- A case, ROGER TAYLOR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-685, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on Feb. 15, 2019. The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-02045 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff brings this class action complaint against NCAA to obtain redress for injuries sustained as result of Defendant's reckless disregard for the health and safety of generations of University of Nebraska-Lincoln ("Nebraska") student-athletes. The Taylor case is being consolidated with MDL No. 2492, Re: NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION STUDENT-ATHLETE CONCUSSION INJURY LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Dec. 18, 2013. These actions seek medical monitoring for putative classes of former student athletes at NCAA-member schools who allege they suffered concussions. The Plaintiffs allege that the NCAA concealed information about the risks of the long-term effects of concussion injuries. Opponents to centralization argue, inter alia, that (1) the putative classes and claims alleged in these actions do not sufficiently overlap; and (2) given the small number of actions pending, alternatives to centralization are preferable. Opponents' arguments, while persuasive when the Section 1407 motion was first filed, are less compelling now given the current state of the litigation. Since the motion for centralization was filed, an additional eight related actions have been filed, most alleging overlapping putative classes of former football players at NCAA-member schools. The Northern District of Illinois Arrington action involves student-athletes who participated in additional sports, and the putative class alleged in that action is more limited in scope. Most of the actions now pending, however, involve nearly completely overlapping putative classes and claims. Moreover, the Panel is persuaded that the overlap between Arrington and the remaining actions is sufficient to warrant centralization. Regardless of the scope of the putative classes alleged, all actions share common factual questions concerning the NCAA's knowledge of the risks of concussions in football players and its policies governing the protection of players from such injuries. Plaintiffs in all actions seek medical monitoring for putative class members. In its Dec. 18, 2013 Order, the MDL Panel found that the these actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Northern District of Illinois will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. These actions share factual questions relating to allegations against the NCAA stemming from injuries sustained while playing sports at NCAA-member institutions, including damages resulting from the permanent long-term effects of concussions. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge John Z. Lee Paul. The lead case is 1:16-cv-08727. NCAA is a non-profit organization which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American institutions and conferences.[BN] Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class: Jeff Raizner, Esq. RAIZNER SLANIA LLP 2402 Dunlavy Street Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (713) 554 9099 Facsimile: (713) 554 9098 E-mail: efile@raiznerlaw.com - and - Jay Edelson, Esq. Benjamin H. Richman, Esq. Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq. EDELSON PC 350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: 312 589-6370 Facsimile: 312 589-6378 E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com brichman@edelson.com rbalabanian@edelson.com MDL 2492: Williams Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated --------------------------------------------------------------- The case, KEITH WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-709, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on Feb. 18, 2019. The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-02056 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff brings this class action complaint against NCAA to obtain redress for injuries sustained as result of Defendant's reckless disregard for the health and safety of generations of University of Nebraska-Lincoln ("Nebraska") student-athletes. The Williams case is being consolidated with MDL No. 2492, Re: NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION STUDENT-ATHLETE CONCUSSION INJURY LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Dec. 18, 2013. These actions seek medical monitoring for putative classes of former student athletes at NCAA-member schools who allege they suffered concussions. The Plaintiffs allege that the NCAA concealed information about the risks of the long-term effects of concussion injuries. Opponents to centralization argue, inter alia, that (1) the putative classes and claims alleged in these actions do not sufficiently overlap; and (2) given the small number of actions pending, alternatives to centralization are preferable. Opponents' arguments, while persuasive when the Section 1407 motion was first filed, are less compelling now given the current state of the litigation. Since the motion for centralization was filed, an additional eight related actions have been filed, most alleging overlapping putative classes of former football players at NCAA-member schools. The Northern District of Illinois Arrington action involves student-athletes who participated in additional sports, and the putative class alleged in that action is more limited in scope. Most of the actions now pending, however, involve nearly completely overlapping putative classes and claims. Moreover, the Panel is persuaded that the overlap between Arrington and the remaining actions is sufficient to warrant centralization. Regardless of the scope of the putative classes alleged, all actions share common factual questions concerning the NCAA's knowledge of the risks of concussions in football players and its policies governing the protection of players from such injuries. Plaintiffs in all actions seek medical monitoring for putative class members. In its Dec. 18, 2013 Order, the MDL Panel found that the these actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Northern District of Illinois will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. These actions share factual questions relating to allegations against the NCAA stemming from injuries sustained while playing sports at NCAA-member institutions, including damages resulting from the permanent long-term effects of concussions. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge John Z. Lee Paul. The lead case is 1:16-cv-08727. NCAA is a non-profit organization which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American institutions and conferences.[BN] Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class: Jeff Raizner, Esq. RAIZNER SLANIA LLP 2402 Dunlavy Street Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (713) 554 9099 Facsimile: (713) 554 9098 E-mail: efile@raiznerlaw.com - and - Jay Edelson, Esq. Benjamin H. Richman, Esq. Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq. EDELSON PC 350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: 312 589-6370 Facsimile: 312 589-6378 E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com brichman@edelson.com rbalabanian@edelson.com MDL 2741: Somerlott Suit v Monsanto over Roundup Sales Moved ------------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit titled RICHARD SOMERLOTT, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY and JOHN DOES 1-50, the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00103 (Filed Jan. 25, 2019), has been 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). 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 Somerlott 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: Kirk J. Goza, Esq. GOZA & HONNOLD LLC 9500 Nall Ave. Suite 400 Overland Park, KS 66207 Telephone: (913) 451-3433 Facsimile: (913) 839-0567 E-mail: kgoza@gohonlaw.com MDL 2741: Whaley Suit v Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled PEGGY WHALEY, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY and JOHN DOES 1-50, the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00101 (Filed Jan. 25, 2019), has been 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). The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-01564-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 Whaley 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: Kirk J. Goza, Esq. GOZA & HONNOLD LLC 9500 Nall Ave. Suite 400 Overland Park, KS 66207 Telephone: (913) 451-3433 Facsimile: (913) 839-0567 E-mail: kgoza@gohonlaw.com MEX-DINING INC: Arevalo Seeks Minimum & Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------ NOEL AREVALO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. MEX-DINING INC., a California corporation; AMADOR N. LOPEZ, an individual; and 16 DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 19STCV10273 (Cal. Super., March 26, 2019), alleges that Defendants failed to pay overtime wages, failed to pay minimum wages, and failed to provide meal under the California Labor Code. The Plaintiff and similarly situated employees routinely working over eight hours per day, 40 hours per week, and seven consecutive work days in a work week without being properly compensated for hours worked in excess. The Defendants fail to accurately track and/or pay for all hours actually worked.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: David D. Bibiyan, Esq. Diego Aviles, Esq. BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C. 1801 Century Park East, Suite 2600 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 438 5555 Facsimile: (310) 300 1705 E-mail: david@tomorrowlaw. com diego@tomorrowlaw. com MIDLAND CREDIT: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned JOSEPH FOTE, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC. and MIDLAND FUNDING, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-00431-JPS (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order certifying a class, appointing the Plaintiff as class representative, and appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as Class Counsel, and for such other and further relief as the Court may deem appropriate. The Plaintiff further asks that the Court stay this class certification motion until an amended motion for class certification is filed, and that the Court grant the parties relief from the local rules' automatic briefing schedule and requirement that Plaintiff file a brief and supporting documents in support of this motion. To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the certification motion. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) ("The pendency of that motion [for class certification] protects a putative class from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs."). While the Seventh Circuit has held that the specific procedure described in Campbell-Ewald cannot force the individual settlement of a class representative's claims, the same decision cautions that other methods may prevent a plaintiff from representing a class. Fulton Dental, LLC v. Bisco, Inc., 860 F.3d 541, 545-46 (7th Cir. 2017).[CC] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. John D. Blythin, Esq. Jesse Fruchter, Esq. Ben J. Slatky, Esq. ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482-8000 Facsimile: (414) 482-8001 E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com meldridge@ademilaw.com jfruchter@ademilaw.com bslatky@ademilaw.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Balentines Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup --------------------------------------------------------------- ERLINE S. BALENTINE and KENNETH B. BALENTINE, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00678 (E.D. Mo., March 28, 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 Plaintiffs maintain that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The Plaintiff'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: Barnett Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup ------------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT BARNETT, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00672 (E.D. Mo., March 27, 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 Plaintiffs' maintain that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The Plaintiff'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: Grants Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup ----------------------------------------------------------- NEIL A. GRANT AND DONNA GRANT, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00664 (E.D. Mo., March 27, 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: Murphys Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup ------------------------------------------------------------ CRAIG R. MURPHY AND DONNA MURPHY, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00665-AGF (E.D. Mo., March 27, 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: Oldhams Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup ------------------------------------------------------------ LORETTA J. OLDHAM AND LARRY OLDHAM,, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00675 (E.D. Mo., March 27, 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: Reed Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup ---------------------------------------------------------- JEAN L. REED, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00663 (E.D. Mo., March 27, 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: Ruby Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup ---------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT T. RUBY, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00662 (E.D. Mo., March 27, 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: Swansons Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup ------------------------------------------------------------- PATRICIA A. SWANSON AND DALE E. SWANSON, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00674 (E.D. Mo., March 27, 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: Winterringer Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup ------------------------------------------------------------------ BOBBY WINTERRINGER, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00661 (E.D. Mo., March 27, 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 MY EXPERT: Nowak Seeks Overtime Pay ----------------------------------- ADRIAN NOWAK, the Plaintiff, vs. MY EXPERT PERSONAL COMPUTER, LLC, dba ICITY REPAIR, dba THE FIX, and IAN SCHERZER, individually, the Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-08952 (D.N.J., March 26, 2019), seeks to recover overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law. The Plaintiff brings this lawsuit against Defendants as a collective action on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated -- who suffered damages as a result of Defendants' violations of the FLSA pursuant to the collective action provisions of 29 U.S.C. section 216(b). According to the complaint, the Defendants engaged in a policy and practice of requiring Plaintiff and members of the putative collective to regularly work in excess of 40 hours per week, without providing overtime compensation at one and one half times the regular rate of pay as required by applicable federal and New Jersey state law.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintff: Andrew I. Glenn, Esq. Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq. JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A. 301 N. Harrison Street, Suite 9F, No. 306 Princeton, NJ 08540 Telephone: (201) 687-9977 Facsimile: (201) 595-0308 E-mail: Aglenn@jaffeglenn.com jjaffe@JaffeGlenn.com NATIONAL DEBT RELIEF: Faces Tabiei Suit over Autodialed Calls ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action complaint has been filed against National Debt Relief LLC for its negligent and willful violations of Sections 227(b) and 227(c) of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The case is captioned OMEED TABIEI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL DEBT RELIEF LLC, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Defendant, Case 2:19-cv-02627 (C.D. Cal., April 5, 2019). Plaintiff Omeed Tabiei asserts that National Debt Relief LLC used an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice in making its numerous telemarketing/solicitation calls. Accordingly, Tabiei seeks redress over the Defendant's violations of TCPA's National Do-Not-Call provisions. Founded in 2008, National Debt Relief LLC is a debt settlement company based in New York, New York. It provides debt relief, bankruptcy, credit card debt, and debt consolidation services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. Meghan E. George, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: 323-306-4234 Facsimile: 866-633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@ toddflaw.com abacon@ toddflaw.com mgeorge@toddflaw.com NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC: Disclosed Personal Reading Info, Markham Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ The case, MARK MARKHAM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC PARTNERS, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00232 (W.D. Mich., March 26, 2019), targets National Geographic for its intentional and unlawful disclosure of its customers' Personal Reading Information in violation of the Michigan's Preservation of Personal Privacy Act. Between March 26, 2016 and July 30, 2016, National Geographic rented, exchanged, and/or otherwise disclosed personal information about Markham's National Geographic magazine subscription to data aggregators, data appenders, data cooperatives, and list brokers, among others, which in turn disclosed his information to aggressive advertisers, political organizations, and non-profit companies. As a result, Markham has received a barrage of unwanted junk mail. By renting, exchanging, and/or otherwise disclosing Markham's Personal Reading Information between March 26, 2016 and July 30, 2016, National Geographic violated Michigan's Preservation of Personal Privacy Act. By renting, exchanging, or otherwise disclosing -- rather than selling -- its customers' Personal Reading Information, National Geographic is able to disclose the information time and time again to countless third parties. National Geographic's disclosure of Personal Reading Information and other personal, demographic, and lifestyle information is not only unlawful, but also dangerous because it allows for the targeting of particularly vulnerable members of society. In fact, almost any organization can rent a customer list from National Geographic that contains a number of categories of detailed subscriber information. For example, almost any organization could rent a list with the names and addresses of all National Geographic customers who are African-American, Republican, over the age of 50, and with a net worth of greater than $500,000. While National Geographic profits handsomely from the unauthorized rental, exchange, and/or disclosure of its customers' Personal Reading Information and other personal information, it does so at the expense of its customers' privacy and statutory rights because National Geographic does not obtain its customers' written consent prior to disclosing their Personal Reading Information, the lawsuit says. National Geographic is an American digital cable and satellite television network and flagship channel that is owned by Walt Disney Television through National Geographic Partners, a joint venture between The Walt Disney Company and National Geographic Society.[BN] Counsel for the Plaintiff: Joseph I. Marchese, Esq. Philip L. Fraietta, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 888 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 Telephone: 646 837 7150 Facsimile: 212 989 9163 E-mail: jmarchese@bursor.com pfraietta@bursor.com - and - Frank S. Hedin, Esq. HEDIN HALL LLP 1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 900 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: 305 357 2107 Facsimile: 305 200 8801 E-mail: fhedin@hedinhall.com NAVIHEALTH INC: Barbee Seeks to Certify Collective Action --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit MAE BARBEE and DONNA TRONE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. NAVIHEALTH, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-00119 (M.D. Tenn.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order: 1. allowing the case to proceed as a collective action under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b); 2. directing Defendant to provide, within 14 days, the names, mailing addresses, and e-mail addresses of all current and former naviHealth employees who, at any time since February 6, 2016, worked in positions entitled "Utilization Review Coordinator," "Quality Improvement Organizational Appeals Coordinator," "Pre-service Care Coordinator," "Flex Team Pre-Service Care Coordinator," and in related positions, (collectively, "Care Coordinators") and were not compensated for hours of work in excess of forty (40) hours in a workweek at a rate of one-and-one-half times their regular rate of pay; 3. directng Plaintiffs' counsel to notify all such present and former employees on an expedited schedule by mail and by e- mail; and 4. directing all such present and former employees similarly situated to plaintiffs to have 90 days from the date defendant provides their names and address to plaintiffs' counsel to mail an opt-in form to plaintiffs' counsel for filing in the Court.[CC] Counsel for the Plaintiffs: Molly A. Elkin, Esq. Hillary D. LeBeau, Esq. WOODLEY & McGILLIVARY LLP 1101 Vermont Ave., N.W., Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 833-8855 Facsimile: (202) 452-1090 E-mail: mae@wmlaborlaw.com hl@wmlaborlaw.com - and - Charles P. Yezbak, III, Esq. N. Chase Teeples, Esq. YEZBAK LAW OFFICES PLLC 2002 Richard Jones Road, Suite B-200 Nashville, TN 37215 Telephone: (615) 250-2000 E-mail: yezbak@yezbaklaw.com teeples@yezbaklaw.com NCAA: Brown Sues Over Injuries Sustained as a Student-Athlete ------------------------------------------------------------- Morkeith Brown, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02059 (S.D. Ind., March 28, 2019) seeks redress for injuries sustained a result of Defendant's reckless disregard for the health and safety of generations of Temple University student-athletes. Despite knowing for decades of a vast body of scientific research describing the danger of traumatic brain injuries ("TBIs") like those Plaintiff experienced, Defendant failed to implement adequate procedures to protect Plaintiff and other Temple football players from the long-term dangers associated with them. They did so knowingly and for profit, says the complaint. As a direct result of Defendant's acts and omissions, Plaintiff and countless former Temple football players suffered brain and other neurocognitive injuries from playing NCAA football. As such, Plaintiff brings this Class Action Complaint in order to vindicate those players' rights and hold the NCAA accountable. Plaintiff Morkeith Brown is a natural person and citizen of the State of Pennsylvania. 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, including the football program at Hampton.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeff Raizner, Esq. RAIZNER SLANIA LLP 2402 Dunlavy Street Houston, TX 77006 Phone: 713.554.9099 Fax: 713.554.9098 Email: efile@raiznerlaw.com - and - Jay Edelson, Esq. Benjamin H. Richman, Esq. EDELSON PC 350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor Chicago, IL 60654 Phone: 312.589.6370 Fax: 312.589.6378 Email: jedelson@edelson.com brichman@edelson.com - and - Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq. EDELSON PC 123 Townsend Street, Suite 100 San Francisco, CA 94107 Phone: 415.212.9300 Fax: 415.373.9435 Email: rbalabanian@edelson.com NCAA: Disregarded Student-Athletes Health & Safety, Busbee Asserts ------------------------------------------------------------------ Ben Busbee, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02065 (S.D. Ind., March 28, 2019) seeks redress for injuries sustained a result of Defendant's reckless disregard for the health and safety of generations of University of South Florida ("USF") student-athletes. Despite knowing for decades of a vast body of scientific research describing the danger of traumatic brain injuries ("TBIs") like those Plaintiff experienced, Defendant failed to implement adequate procedures to protect Plaintiff and other USF football players from the long-term dangers associated with them. They did so knowingly and for profit, the complaint alleges. As a direct result of Defendant's acts and omissions, Plaintiff and countless former USF football players suffered brain and other neurocognitive injuries from playing NCAA football. As such, Plaintiff brings this Class Action Complaint in order to vindicate those players' rights and hold the NCAA accountable. Plaintiff Ben Busbee is a natural person and citizen of the State of Florida. 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, including the football program at Hampton.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeff Raizner, Esq. RAIZNER SLANIA LLP 2402 Dunlavy Street Houston, TX 77006 Phone: 713.554.9099 Fax: 713.554.9098 Email: efile@raiznerlaw.com - and - Jay Edelson, Esq. Benjamin H. Richman, Esq. EDELSON PC 350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor Chicago, IL 60654 Phone: 312.589.6370 Fax: 312.589.6378 Email: jedelson@edelson.com brichman@edelson.com - and - Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq. EDELSON PC 123 Townsend Street, Suite 100 San Francisco, CA 94107 Phone: 415.212.9300 Fax: 415.373.9435 Email: rbalabanian@edelson.com NCAA: Disregarded Student-Athletes' Health & Safety, Johnson Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- James Johnson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Defendants National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02052 (S.D. Ind., March 27, 2019) seeks redress for injuries sustained a result of Defendant's reckless disregard for the health and safety of generations of State University of New York, Morrisville ("SUNY Morrisville") student-athletes. Despite knowing for decades of a vast body of scientific research describing the danger of traumatic brain injuries ("TBIs") like those Plaintiff experienced, Defendant failed to implement adequate procedures to protect Plaintiff and other SUNY Morrisville football players from the long-term dangers associated with them. They did so knowingly and for profit, asserts the complaint. As a direct result of Defendant's acts and omissions, Plaintiff and countless former SUNY Morrisville football players suffered brain and other neurocognitive injuries from playing NCAA football. As such, Plaintiff brings this Class Action Complaint in order to vindicate those players' rights and hold the NCAA accountable. Plaintiff James Johnson is a natural person and citizen of the State of New York. 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, including the football program at Hampton.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeff Raizner, Esq. RAIZNER SLANIA LLP 2402 Dunlavy Street Houston, TX 77006 Phone: 713.554.9099 Fax: 713.554.9098 Email: efile@raiznerlaw.com - and - Jay Edelson, Esq. Benjamin H. Richman, Esq. EDELSON PC 350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor Chicago, IL 60654 Phone: 312.589.6370 Fax: 312.589.6378 Email: jedelson@edelson.com brichman@edelson.com - and - Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq. EDELSON PC 123 Townsend Street, Suite 100 San Francisco, CA 94107 Phone: 415.212.9300 Fax: 415.373.9435 Email: rbalabanian@edelson.com NCAA: Escoffery Sues Over Disregard for Student-Athletes' Safety ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Escoffery, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Defendants National Collegiate Athletic Association and Ithaca College, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02055 (S.D. Ind., March 27, 2019) seeks redress for injuries sustained as a result of Defendants' reckless disregard for the health and safety of generations of IC student-athletes. Despite knowing for decades of a vast body of scientific research describing the danger of traumatic brain injuries ("TBIs") like those Plaintiff experienced, Defendant failed to implement adequate procedures to protect Plaintiff and other IC football players from the long-term dangers associated with them. They did so knowingly and for profit, says the complaint. As a direct result of Defendants' acts and omissions, Plaintiff and countless former IC football players suffered and continue to suffer brain and other neurocognitive injuries. As such, Plaintiff brings this Class Action Complaint in order to vindicate those players' rights and hold the NCAA and IC accountable. Plaintiff Jonathan Escoffery is a natural person and citizen of the State of New York. 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, including the football program at Hampton.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeff Raizner, Esq. RAIZNER SLANIA LLP 2402 Dunlavy Street Houston, TX 77006 Phone: 713.554.9099 Fax: 713.554.9098 Email: efile@raiznerlaw.com - and - Jay Edelson, Esq. Benjamin H. Richman, Esq. EDELSON PC 350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor Chicago, IL 60654 Phone: 312.589.6370 Fax: 312.589.6378 Email: jedelson@edelson.com brichman@edelson.com - and - Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq. EDELSON PC 123 Townsend Street, Suite 100 San Francisco, CA 94107 Phone: 415.212.9300 Fax: 415.373.9435 Email: rbalabanian@edelson.com NCAA: Graham Sues for Injuries Sustained as a Student-Athlete ------------------------------------------------------------- Anderson Graham, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02063 (S.D. Ind., March 28, 2019) seeks redress for injuries sustained a result of Defendant's reckless disregard for the health and safety of generations of West Alabama University ("WAU") student-athletes. Despite knowing for decades of a vast body of scientific research describing the danger of traumatic brain injuries ("TBIs") like those Plaintiff experienced, Defendant failed to implement adequate procedures to protect Plaintiff and other WAU football players from the long-term dangers associated with them. They did so knowingly and for profit, the complaint notes. As a direct result of Defendant's acts and omissions, Plaintiff and countless former WAU football players suffered brain and other neurocognitive injuries from playing NCAA football. As such, Plaintiff brings this Class Action Complaint in order to vindicate those players' rights and hold the NCAA accountable. Plaintiff Anderson Graham is a natural person and citizen of the State of Alabama. 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, including the football program at Hampton.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeff Raizner, Esq. RAIZNER SLANIA LLP 2402 Dunlavy Street Houston, TX 77006 Phone: 713.554.9099 Fax: 713.554.9098 Email: efile@raiznerlaw.com - and - Jay Edelson, Esq. Benjamin H. Richman, Esq. EDELSON PC 350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor Chicago, IL 60654 Phone: 312.589.6370 Fax: 312.589.6378 Email: jedelson@edelson.com brichman@edelson.com - and - Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq. EDELSON PC 123 Townsend Street, Suite 100 San Francisco, CA 94107 Phone: 415.212.9300 Fax: 415.373.9435 Email: rbalabanian@edelson.com NCAA: Miolen Sues over Safety of GSU Student-Athletes ----------------------------------------------------- DOUG MIOLEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, and GSU COLLEGE, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01219-JPH-DLP (S.D. Ind., March 26, 2019), seeks redress for injuries sustained as a result of Defendant's reckless disregard for the health and safety of generations of Georgia Southern University ("GSU") student-athletes. While in school, GSU football players were under Defendant's care. Unfortunately, Defendant did not care about the off-field consequences that would haunt students for the rest of their lives. Despite knowing for decades of a vast body of scientific research describing the danger of traumatic brain injuries ("TBIs") like those Plaintiff experienced, Defendant failed to implement adequate procedures to protect Plaintiff and other GSU football players from the long-term dangers associated with them. They did so knowingly and for profit. As a direct result of Defendant's acts and omissions, Plaintiff and countless former GSU football players suffered brain and other neurocognitive injuries from playing NCAA football. As such, Plaintiff brings this Class Action Complaint in order to vindicate those players' rights and hold the NCAA accountable, the lawsuit says. NCAA is a non-profit organization which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American institutions and conferences.[BN] Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class: Jeff Raizner, Esq. RAIZNER SLANIA LLP 2402 Dunlavy Street Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (713) 554 9099 Facsimile: (713) 554 9098 E-mail: efile@raiznerlaw.com - and - Jay Edelson, Esq. Benjamin H. Richman, Esq. Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq. EDELSON PC 350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 589 6370 Facsimile: (312) 589 6378 E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com jedelson@edelson.com brichman@edelson.com NCAA: Neglected Football Players' Health & Safety, Says Drake ------------------------------------------------------------- Thomas Drake, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02047 (S.D. Ind., March 27, 2019) seeks redress for injuries sustained a result of Defendant's reckless disregard for the health and safety of generations of Glenville State College ("GSC") student-athletes. Despite knowing for decades of a vast body of scientific research describing the danger of traumatic brain injuries ("TBIs") like those Plaintiff experienced, Defendant failed to implement adequate procedures to protect Plaintiff and other GSC football players from the long-term dangers associated with them. They did so knowingly and for profit, notes the complaint. As a direct result of Defendant's acts and omissions, Plaintiff and countless former GSC football players suffered brain and other neurocognitive injuries from playing NCAA football. As such, Plaintiff brings this Class Action Complaint in order to vindicate those players' rights and hold the NCAA accountable. Plaintiff Thomas Drake is a natural person and citizen of the State of West Virginia. 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, including the football program at Hampton.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeff Raizner, Esq. RAIZNER SLANIA LLP 2402 Dunlavy Street Houston, TX 77006 Phone: 713.554.9099 Fax: 713.554.9098 Email: efile@raiznerlaw.com - and - Jay Edelson, Esq. Benjamin H. Richman, Esq. EDELSON PC 350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor Chicago, IL 60654 Phone: 312.589.6370 Fax: 312.589.6378 Email: jedelson@edelson.com brichman@edelson.com - and - Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq. EDELSON PC 123 Townsend Street, Suite 100 San Francisco, CA 94107 Phone: 415.212.9300 Fax: 415.373.9435 Email: rbalabanian@edelson.com NEW HOLLAND RESIDENCES: Faces Zambrano et al. Labor Suit -------------------------------------------------------- An employment-related class action complaint has been filed against New Holland Residences, LLC, NHR Human Resources, Juan Herrera, Monique Adderly, Marla Siegel, David Schorr, and Joel Davis for allegedly violating several provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New York State Labor Law. The case is captioned CARLOS ZAMBRANO, EDUARDO MEJIA, GLEN FORDE, RAMON REYES, and REINALDO LASSALLE NUNEZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, - against - NEW HOLLAND RESIDENCES, LLC (D/B/A NEW HOLLAND RESIDENCES), NHR HUMAN RESOURCES, LLC (D/B/A NEW HOLLAND RESIDENCES), JUAN HERRERA, MONIQUE ADDERLY, MARLA SIEGEL, DAVID SCHORR, and JOEL DAVIS, Case No. 1:19-cv-03056 (S.D.N.Y, April 5, 2019). Zambrano et al assert that the Defendants have violated the FLSA and NYLL provisions of minimum wage, overtime, notice and recordkeeping, wages statement, recovery of equipment cost and timely payment. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs seek for unpaid minimum wage and overtime compensation, and damages for any improper deductions or credits taken against wages under the FLSA. They also seek for pre-judgment and post-judgment interest as applicable and the expenses incurred in this action, including costs and attorneys' fees. New Holland Residences, LLC owns, operates, or controls residential buildings in the West Harlem and Morningside Heights sections of Manhattan in New York City. It maintains its principal place of business at 256 West 116th Street, 3rd Floor, New York, New York 10026. Juan Herrera, Monique Adderly, Marla Siegel, David Schorr, and Joel Davis, serve or served as owners, managers, principals, or agents of New Holland Residences, LLC. [BN] The Plaintiffs are 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 NEW ORLEANS: Declaration Against Jailing Indigents Sought --------------------------------------------------------- Kevin Mcgill, writing for Raleigh News & Observer, reports that civil rights attorneys want a federal judge to send a clearer, stronger message to state judges in New Orleans: People facing jail for court debts must get a fair chance to show whether they are able to pay. It's the latest wrinkle in an ongoing 2015 lawsuit that accused New Orleans courts of running what amounts to a "debtor's prison." That class-action lawsuit named six people who had been locked up for owing court debts and it said that over the years there had been thousands threatened with arrest for nonpayment of such debts. One result of the suit was that, U.S. District Judge Sarah Vance last August formally declared that "the judges' policy or practice of not inquiring into the ability to pay of such persons before they are imprisoned for nonpayment of court debts is unconstitutional." Although the judges have not appealed that finding, attorneys for the plaintiffs in the 2015 suit fear the message didn't sink in. In a motion and supporting documents filed on Feb. 25, they cite the case of Sheri Bell, ordered arrested in January by state District Judge Laurie White for failing to make restitution payments for a theft. The documents say Bell had been summoned to White's courtroom without being told the purpose of the hearing and was therefore unprepared to prove she was indigent after telling White she couldn't afford to pay the owed money. A state appeal court ordered Bell's release. But civil rights lawyers in the federal case want Vance to weigh in again. Their motion seeks another declaration, this one spelling out that the judges must make a "meaningful inquiry into the debtors ability to pay, preceded by notice of the importance of that issue and including an opportunity" for the debtor to be heard. "We're basically asking the court to make very clear that these procedural requirements in the case — that we detail in the brief — that those are required, and that Orleans Parish judges are required to comply," Marco Lopez, Esq. an attorney for Civil Rights Corps, said in an interview. The New Orleans judges had not filed a reply as of midday March 1, and their attorneys did not respond to an emailed query on March 1. Meanwhile, another aspect of Vance's ruling in the 2015 lawsuit is under appeal. Her declaration in August also said that in cases involving unpaid court fines and fees that go to the court's expense fund, the judges have an unconstitutional conflict of interest, and that there should be some kind of "neutral forum" to determine defendants' ability to pay in such cases. The judges say in briefs to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that they are able to impartially determine ability to pay, that it is common practice in various courts for judges to assess fines and fees and determine whether a defendant is indigent, and that it is the decision of the state Legislature, and not of the judges, to use a portion of criminal fines and fees to fund the court's operations. [GN] NIKE INC: Court Denies Request to Dismiss Pay Equity Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- Monica Snyder, Esq., at Fisher Phillips, writing for JDSupra, reported that an Oregon federal court just shot down Nike Inc.'s request to dismiss a pay equity class action claim fronted by four current and former Nike executives. In her February 26 ruling, a federal magistrate judge recommended that the case should proceed, as it adequately presented allegations that the company employed systemic practices that damaged all female employees. The ruling presents a stark reminder to all employers of the dangers of pay gaps while reinforcing the need to engage in critical compensation self-audits (with your counsel's assistance). Summary Of Claim The case was filed by four female executives: Heather Hender, a current senior process engineer; Sara Johnston, a former intermediate business systems analyst; Kelly Cahill, a former director and senior producer; and Lindsay Elizabeth, a former apparel designer. Their complaint alleges a whole host of allegations against Nike, centering on gender disparities in pay. For example: Pay Disparities They claim Nike engaged in systemic sex discrimination by paying them less than male employees with substantially equal job duties. They allege that Nike's annual salary increases and bonuses are disproportionally allocated to male employees. Salary History They allege that Nike has contributed to and perpetuated sex-based pay disparities through common policies, patterns, and practices, such as using salary history to establish salaries and compensation band levels. They admit that Nike announced in May 2018 that it would eliminate the collection of candidate salary history during its hiring process, but allege that the prior collection of such data caused women to receive lower starting salaries. Annual Performance Standards They claim that Nike's annual performance evaluation process is flawed because the ratings assigned to each employee force only a limited number of employees at the company headquarters into the top two levels. This, they claim, causes women to receive lower ratings than male colleagues. Their August 2018 lawsuit, however, doesn't just focus on their own experiences. They claim that 500 or more women have been harmed by Nike's practices. And it is the breadth of that class action allegation that Nike decided to attack with an early motion to dismiss. Legal Analysis And Decision Nike asked the court to dismiss the class action allegations as too broad, contending that the proposed class "weaves together thousands of women in hundreds of different job classifications and departments (and across various salary bands and levels), each with different duties, qualifications and experience." Their main argument at this early stage of the litigation centered around the fact that the plaintiffs could not establish they had all sustained the same harm -- a necessary component to any class action. But Magistrate Judge Jolie Russo disagreed, saying that the plaintiffs had alleged collective harm to the entire proposed class. "The allegations that defendant's systemic practices and policies discriminate across all job descriptions against women, at this stage, plausibly alleges that the purported collective members are similarly situated to the named plaintiffs," she said. What's Next? And What Does This Mean For You? This is just the first step in what could be a long and winding road for any piece of class litigation. And it may resolve, without any further clarification, important legal standards, just as the Boston Symphony Orchestra just settled a pay equity claim brought against it by its top flutist. If the case does continue, the next step could be a determination about class certification after the parties have engaged in a thorough discovery process. Any written published opinion by the judge would be of great interest to employers across the country as it could shed light on how today's courts are treating the issue of salary history as it relates to alleged pay discrimination. The lesson for employers is simple -- you cannot stick your head in the sand when it comes to your pay practices and how they relate to gender (and other protected categories). If you do, you could find yourself on the receiving end of a class action lawsuit such as this one. The first step is to contact your legal counsel and undergo a privileged pay audit to make sure that your compensation system would withstand legal scrutiny, and establish any corrective measures should you determine that adjustments need to be made. NORTHSTAR LOCATION: Grego Sues over Debt Collection Practices ------------------------------------------------------------- JEANETTE GREGO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NORTHSTAR LOCATION SERVICES, LLC; and JOHN DOES 1-25, Defendants, Case No.2:19-cv-08593-JLL-JAD (D.N.J., March 15, 2019) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. The case is assigned to Chief Judge Jose L. Linares and referred to Magistrate Judge Joseph A. Dickson. Northstar Location Services, LLC, doing business as The Northstar Companies, provides receivables debt collection services to customers in the United States, Canada, and internationally. Its services include first and third-party debt collections, customer care programs, and location services. The company was founded in 2000 and is based in Cheektowaga, New York with an additional office in Canada. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ben A. Kaplan, Esq. 280 Prospect Ave 6G Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 803-6611 Facsimile: (866) 596-4973 E-mail: ben@chulskykaplanlaw.com OXFORD HOTELS: Taylor Sues over Collection of Biometric Data ------------------------------------------------------------ HENRY TAYLOR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. OXFORD HOTELS & RESORTS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, the Defendant, Case No. 2019CH03909 (Ill. Cir., March 26, 2019), seeks to put a stop to Defendant's unlawful collection, use, and storage of Plaintiffs and the putative Class members' sensitive biometric data. Oxford owns, operates and/or manages large-scale hotels, resorts, and conference centers in major metropolitan markets across the United States. When employees first begin their jobs at Oxford, they are required to scan their fingerprint in its biometric time tracking system as a means of authentication, instead of using only key fobs or other identification cards. While there are tremendous benefits to using biometric time clocks in the workplace, there are also serious risks. Unlike key fobs or identification cards-which can bechanged or replaced if stolen or compromised -- fingerprints are unique, permanent biometric identifiers associated with the employee. This exposes employees to serious and irreversible privacy risks. For example, if a fingerprint database is hacked, breached, or otherwise exposed, employees have no means by which to prevent identity theft and unauthorized tracking. By the time the BIPA passed through the Illinois Legislature in mid-2008, many companies who had experimented with using biometric data as an authentication method stopped doing so, at least for a time. That is because Pay By Touch's bankruptcy was widely publicized and brought attention to consumers' discomfort with the use of their biometric data. Unfortunately, Oxford specifically failed to take note of the passage of the BIPA. Oxford continues to collect, store, and use its workers' biometric data in violation of the BIPA. Specifically, when employees work at Oxford, they are required to have their fingerprints scanned in order to enroll them in its fingerprint database. Oxford uses an employee time tracking system that requires employees to use their fingerprints as a means of authentication. Unlike a traditional time clock, employees have to use their fingerprint to "punch" in to or out of work.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: David Fish, Esq. Seth Matus, Esq. Kimberly Hilton, Esq. John Kunze, Esq. THE FISH LAW FIRM, P.C. 200 East Fifth Avenue, Suite 123 Naperville, IL 60563 Telephone: 630 355-7590 Facsimile: 630 778-0400 E-mail: admin@fishlawfirm.com dfish@fish lawfirm .com smatus@fishlawfirm.com khilton@fishlawfirm.com ikunze@fishlawfirm.com PHILLIPS 66: Green Suit Transferred to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ The case, TIMOTHY GREEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. PHILLIPS 66 COMPANY, a Delaware Corporation, and DOES 1 through 50, the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-09083, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco) on March 16, 2019. The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-01558-LB to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler. The complaint seeks recovery of monetary damages, statutory penalties, payment of attorneys' fees and costs, and other relief against Defendants in connection with individual and putative class claims for: failure to pay minimum wages; failure to pay state overtime wages; failure to provide meal periods; failure to provide rest periods; failure to timely pay wages; failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements; and unfair business practices.[BN] Attorneys for the Defendant: Michael S. Chamberlin, Esq. Annette Salazar-shreibati, Esq Matthew B. Seipel, Esq WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 333 S. Grand Ave. Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 615-1700 Facsimile: (213) 615-1750 E-mail: mchamberlin@winston.com ashreibati@winston.com mseipel@winston.com Attorneys for the Plaintiffs: James R. Hawkins, Esq. Michael J. S. Calvo, Esq. Gregory E. Mauro, Esq. JAMES HAWKINS APLC 9880 Research Drive Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92618 Telephone: (949) 387-7200 Facsimile: (949) 387-6676 E-mail: james@jameshawkinsaplc.com michael@jameshawkinsaplc.com greg@jameshawkinsaplc.com PHOENIX FINANCIAL: O'Neill Sues over Debt Collection Practices -------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL O'NEILL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PHOENIX FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC; and JOHN DOES 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-08684-ES-MAH (D.N.J., March 16, 2019) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. The case is assigned to Judge Esther Salas and referred to Magistrate Judge Michael A. Hammer. Phoenix Financial Services, LLC offers investment banking and financial advisory services to public and private growth companies and middle market corporations. The firm provides debt restructuring, mezzanine financing, corporate transitions, merger and acquisitions, leverage buy-out, divesture, strategic consulting, and valuation advisory services. Phoenix Financial Services, LLC is headquartered in Providence, Rhode Island. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ben A. Kaplan, Esq. 280 Prospect Ave. 6G Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 803-6611 Facsimile: (866) 596-4973 E-mail: ben@chulskykaplanlaw.com PNC BANK: Homeowners Allege Mishandling of Mortgage Account ----------------------------------------------------------- A consumer action by married homeowners has been filed against their mortgage servicer, PNC Bank, N.A. The case is captioned CHARLES L. WOTANIS and RENEE B. WOTANIS, Plaintiffs v. PNC BANK, N.A. Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-00588-ARC (M.D. Pa., April 5, 2019). Plaintiffs Charles and Renee Wotanis seek damages, attorney's fees and costs for themselves as a result of violations of the Notice of Error requirements, and, on behalf of a class of similarly situated homeowners, seeking statutory damages, attorney's fees and costs as a result of violations of the Requests for Information requirements. Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of all other PNC mortgage customers who, upon request, have also been denied copies of the entries in their own mortgage servicing accounts based on the purported confidentiality, lack of relevance, privilege or impropriety of the request. PNC Bank, N.A. is a national bank headquartered in Pennsylvania. It provides saving and current account, investment and financial services, online banking, mortgage and non-mortgage loan facilities. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Irv Ackelsberg, Esq. John Grogan, Esq. LANGER GROGAN & DIVER, PC 1717 Arch Street, Suite 4020 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 320-5660 Facsimile: (215) 320-5703 - and - Kristi Cahoon Kelly, Esq. KELLY GUZZO, PLC 3925 Chain Bridge Road Suite 202 Fairfax, VA 22030 Telephone: (703) 424-7570 Facsimile: (703) 591-0167 PRIVILEGE UNDERWRITERS: MSP Sues over Reimbursement Obligations --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit alleges that Privilege Underwriters Reciprocal Exchange failed to fulfill its statutory reimbursement obligations to Plaintiff's assignor, Connecticare, Inc. Connecticare, Inc., is a duly organized and existing Connecticut domestic stock insurance company and HMO/PPO Medicare Advantage Organization ("MAO"). On March 20, 2018, for good and valuable consideration, Connecticare, Inc. executed in favor of Series 15-09-157 and MSP Recovery LLC, subject only to specific assignor retained claims "all of Assignor's right, title, ownership and interest in and to all Assigned Medicare Recovery Claims, whether based in contract, tort, statutory right, and any and all rights (including, but not limited to subrogation) to pursue and/or recover monies that Assignor had, may have had, or has asserted against any party in connection with the Assigned Medicare Recovery Claims and all rights and claims against primary payers and/or subject to the definition of assigned Medicare Recovery Claims, third parties that may be liable to Assignor arising from or relating to the Assigned Medicare Recovery Claims, including claims under consumer protection statutes and laws, and all information relating thereto, as may be applicable." The case is captioned as MSP RECOVERY CLAIMS, SERIES LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, and SERIES 15-09-157, A SERIES OF MSP RECOVERY CLAIMS, SERIES LLC, Individually, AS ASSIGNEE OF MAO CONNECTICARE, INC., and ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED MAO SECONDARY PAYORS, the Plaintiffs, v. PRIVILEGE UNDERWRITERS RECIPROCAL EXCHANGE (PURE), the Defendant, Case No. 0:19-cv-60797-MGC (S.D. Fla., March 27, 2019.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs: Michael J. Salviano, Esq. GED LAWYERS, L.L.P. 7171 N. Federal Highway Boca Raton, FL, 33487 Telephone: (561) 995-1966 Facsimile: (561) 241-0812 Website: www.gedlawyers.com - and - Frank C. Corso, Esq. CORSO LAW, LLC 492 Winthrop Street, Suite 5 Rehoboth, MA 02769 Telephone: 774-901-2677 Facsimile: 774-901-2678 E-mail: fcc@corsolaw.com PROFESSIONAL ACCOUNT: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned KEANNA GOCHET, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. PROFESSIONAL ACCOUNT MANAGEMENT, LLC,, the Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-00433-LA (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order on March 26, 2019, certifying a class, appointing the Plaintiff as class representative, and appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as Class Counsel, and for such other and further relief as the Court may deem appropriate. The Plaintiff further asks that the Court stay this class certification motion until an amended motion for class certification is filed, and that the Court grant the parties relief from the local rules' automatic briefing schedule and requirement that Plaintiff file a brief and supporting documents in support of this motion. To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the certification motion. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) ("The pendency of that motion [for class certification] protects a putative class from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs."). While the Seventh Circuit has held that the specific procedure described in Campbell-Ewald cannot force the individual settlement of a class representative's claims, the same decision cautions that other methods may prevent a plaintiff from representing a class. Fulton Dental, LLC v. Bisco, Inc., 860 F.3d 541, 545-46 (7th Cir. 2017).[CC] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. John D. Blythin, Esq. Jesse Fruchter, Esq. Ben J. Slatky, Esq. ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482-8000 Facsimile: (414) 482-8001 E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com meldridge@ademilaw.com jfruchter@ademilaw.com bslatky@ademilaw.com ROCK N MASSAGE: Bolton Seeks to Certify Minimum & OT Wage Classes ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit, KIMBERLY BOLTON, the Plaintiff, vs. ROCK N MASSAGE, INC., STEPHANIE BRUDER, and HARRY BRUDER, the Defendants, Case No. 0:19-cv-60008-BB (S.D. Fla.), Ms. Bolton asks the Court for an order: 1. granting conditional certification of Putative Minimum Wage Class and Putative Overtime Wage Class pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act: Putative Minimum Wage Class: "all Massage Therapists who were classified by Defendants as an independent contractor for at least one (1) workweek during the three years preceding the filing of this lawsuit and did not receive proper minimum wages for all hours worked. This class excludes out-of-town therapists engaged by Defendants only for poker tournaments." Putative Overtime Wage Class: "all Massage Therapists who were classified by Defendants as an independent contractor for at least one (1) workweek during the three years preceding the filing of this lawsuit and did not receive proper overtime wages for all hours worked above 40 in any given week. This class excludes out- of-town therapists engaged by Defendants only for poker tournaments"; 2. requiring Defendants to identify all Putative Class Members by providing their last known address, telephone number, and e-mail within 10 days of an order granting certification; 3. approving notice of the collective action and consent to join form by email and U.S. Mail to each Putative Class Member; 4. requiring Defendants to post notice of the collective action and a consent to join form in a conspicuous place at Defendants' place of business; 5. requiring Defendants to include notice of the collective action and a consent to join form in the next paycheck/paystub provided to Putative Class Members; and 6. appointing J. Freddy Perera, Esq., Brody M. Shulman, Esq. and Valerie Barnhart, Esq. of Perera Barnhart as counsel for the Putative Classes. The Defendants' alleged violations center around FLSA's minimum wage and overtime provisions and are grounded in the Defendants' improper practice of classifying all Massage Therapists as independent contractors. The Defendants operate a massage therapist business within the confines of the Seminole Hard Rock Casino in Hollywood, Florida.[BN] Counsel for the Plaintiff: Valerie Barnhart, Esq. J. Freddy Perera, Esq. Brody M. Shulman, Esq. Waynice Green, Esq. PERERA BARNHART 12555 Orange Dr., Second Floor Davie, FL 33330 Telephone: 786-485-5232 E-mail: valerie@pererabarnhart.com freddy@pereralaw.com brody@pererabarnhart.com waynice@pererabarnhart.com Counsel for the Defendants: Mark Goldstein, Esq. 1835 NE Miami Gardens Drive, Suite 211 Miami, FL 33179 Telephone: (305) 342-4839 E-mail: markgoldsteinattorney@gmail.com ROCKEFELLER UNIVERSITY: Faces Lawsuit Over Sexual Abuse Letters --------------------------------------------------------------- Frank Esposito, writing for Rockland/Westchester Journal News, reports that when a high-profile New York City research hospital sent out letters to thousands of possible child abuse victims, one of those letters traumatized its recipient and set in motion a unique legal tactic. That man is now claiming in a class action lawsuit that the letter itself triggered long buried memories of sexual abuse at the hands of one of the hospital's most esteemed doctors. The suit was filed on the first day that New York signed into law the Child Victims Act, which extended the window in which victims of child sex abuse could file civil lawsuits. The class action nature of the suit worries some advocates for child sex abuse victims. Filed in the Southern District of New York, the suit was initiated by a former Union County, New Jersey, resident now living in South Florida, who said the letter stirred up so much past trauma for him, he filed a lawsuit against the hospital. "I don't think they had a desire to actually do anything to help the individuals," said Corey Stern, of Levy Konigsberg of Manhattan, who is the lead attorney on the case. "The case we filed isn't a sexual abuse lawsuit, it's a lawsuit based on the letter Rockefeller University sent out." The suit was filed against Rockefeller University Hospital and alleges that Dr. Reginald Archibald, now deceased but who lived for years in Westchester County, sexually abused children he treated for stunted growth, including fondling them during exams and photographing them naked. He was generally regarded as one of the leaders in this field in the metropolitan region. The letter asked the recipients to describe interactions they had with Archibald. Archibald, formerly of Pelham, treated more than 9,000 patients during his more than 40-year tenure at Rockefeller. He abused hundreds and likely thousands of children, the suit alleged. Archibald died in 2007, 20 years after he retired from Rockefeller. The hospital sent one of those letters to Jeffrey Poppel on Oct. 6, 2018. The letter shocked him. Poppel's suit claims it triggered him into reliving his experiences with Archibald, a trauma that left him with weeks of sleepless nights. When Poppel's family noticed his stress and sleeplessness, he told them -- for the first time -- what had happened to him. His mother and father were horrified, and his mother blamed herself for not preventing it, according to the suit. Poppel's long-term life partner was also horrified when he told her. From the letter's language, Poppel realized he might not have been the only one. "It was infuriating for Mr. Poppel to realize that he had been part of a factory of abuse," wrote Stern in the suit. "Mr. Poppel had no idea that Archibald had molested other children before reading the letter." Poppel now works as an attorney on the County Attorney Office legal staff at the Public Health Trust/Jackson Memorial Hospital in Miami-Dade County. While the suit claims the alleged abuse left him emotionally unable to have children of his own, he does have a stepdaughter. Problem letter In 2018, Rockefeller University Hospital hired a law firm to investigate claims about Archibald, and the letters stemmed from that investigation, said Stern. Stern argues that the letter made several critical failures, which is the basis for the suit. "It doesn't reference that the person sending it out is an attorney, or that they're an attorney for the hospital," Stern said. The letter, on hospital letterhead, asks the recipients to contact Helen Cantwell of Debevoise & Plimpton LLP, with any information about their visits with Archibald. "If you have any information you would like to share regarding you interactions with Dr. Archibald, please contact Helen," reads the final sentence of the letter. Stern said the letter asks people to give very sensitive personal information without saying with whom it will be shared, or for what purpose the information will be used. Stern saidhe thinks the letter was sent out to gauge the number of potential claims. "It's such an abomination of what you'd expect from a law firm like that, and an entity that was aware of rampant abuse for so many years," Stern said. "I think the purpose behind the letter was extremely self-serving." Stern is seeking more than $5 million in damages against Rockefeller University Hospital for the harm the letter has allegedly caused. The hospital found credible claims against Archibald in a 2004 internal investigation, but did not inform potential victims, according to the suit. In a statement, a hospital representative said they had reported the 2004 allegations to the authorities. Why Rockefeller University Hospital waited to ask former patients about possible instances of abuse is a question that Stern thinks he can answer. "It begs the question, why would you wait 14 years to send correspondence to a group of folks that you believe were abused," Stern said. "I think the easy answer to the why is because 14 years earlier there wasn't a prospect of the Child Victims Act passing, and there wasn't this fear that all these victims were going to have an avenue to sue for what happened to them." Months after it became clear that New York's governor and new progressive legislature were going to make the act a priority, Rockefeller took steps to get out in front of the possible claims, Stern said. Rockefeller University Hospital declined to comment on the suit. The hospital sent out follow-up letters in the fall of 2018 offering more information about the hospital's attempt to reach patients of Archibald. They also informed former patients that it set up a therapy fund for victims. Abuse claim detailed Most of Archibald's patients were young boys -- though he treated girls as well -- with growth problems. Court documents describe Poppel's first encounter with Archibald: Poppel had been living in Clark, New Jersey, about 25 miles from the hospital across the Hudson River, when his mother took him to see Archibald in 1975. He was 11 years old. Archibald assured Poppel's mother that a nurse would be present during the examination. When Archibald entered the room, he locked the door behind him. There was no nurse. According to the suit, Archibald instructed Poppel to remove his clothes. After photographing him, Archibald measured Poppel's genitals, then instructed the boy to masturbate. Poppel did not understand Archibald's command. “I need to determine your future height," Archibald allegedly told Poppel. "To do that, I need a semen sample.” Poppel attempted to fulfill Archibald's request, but was unable. Archibald then placed Poppel on his knee and began touching Poppel's genitals, according to the suit. Poppel would continue on as a patient at Rockefeller University Hospital until 1980, seeing Archibald several more times, according to court documents Others have claimed similar treatment at the hands of Archibald. Peter Katsikis described his single 1969 visit with Archibald, -- a story similar to Poppel's -- in December 2018 to the Associated Press. Archibald allegedly got Katsikis alone. He allegedly took pictures of Katsikis's naked body and engaged in sexual touching. Poppel didn't come forward then with Katsikis and others, making this lawsuit the first time he's publicly talked about the abuse. "Archibald stole something innocent, and sensitive, and sacred from every child he abused," wrote Stern. Possibly the first case under new act On Feb. 14, Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed the Child Victims Act, which extended by five years -- to age 28 from 23 -- New York's statute of limitations that allows victims of felony child sexual abuse tofile civil lawsuits. It also provided a one-year, one-time-only period to seek civil action, regardless of how long ago the abuse occurred. The act included a caveat that instituted a six-month hold after the act was signed before anyone could file a suit under the new law. But Poppel wanted to be the first to take ownership of the case against Rockefeller University Hospital and Archibald for the others. "It was important to our client that we file on, or about, the date that the governor was going to sign the legislation," Stern said. "He wanted to own this, he been living with this for over 40 years, he didn't want to be initials in the complaint." Stern plans on amending the case after the six-month moratorium. The suit will be against Archibald's estate and Rockefeller University Hospital for various claims, including sexual abuse, false imprisonment, battery, assault and gross negligence in hiring and supervision, he said. Where are the pictures? At Rockefeller University Hospital, Archibald took many nude pictures of his young patients. Some of which ended up in scientific publications. Poppel worries that his nude photos were published or are readily available on the internet, according to the suit. Poppel isn't alone in his worries about the photos. In December 2018, Michael Pfau an attorney who represents about 100 former patients of Archibald's went looking for answers Pfau, of Seattle-based firm of Pfau Cochran Vertetis Amala, told the Associated Press that the photos were a source of pain for his clients. “Finding these photos is critical for our clients,” he said. “Hopefully the hospital can do the right thing and accelerate the investigation. How it happened to so many If, as the suit claims, Archibald abused thousands of his patients during his time at Rockefeller University Hospital, that would make him one of the most prolific abusers in history. Stern thinks that Archibald's position allowed him access to more children than other known abusers. "With teachers, professors and coaches, as prolific as they may be, they're typically limited to a group of people, whereas Archibald was only limited to all the thousands of patients were seeing him," Stern said. Stern alleges that Archibald's expertise and prominence in his field afforded him an enormous patient list. "He was widely considered one of the best specialists in the northeast, if not the entire United States, for pediatric endocrinology," wrote Stern in the suit. High status masks crimes Other cases show how abusers use the status of their universities, and respect from colleagues to mask their crimes. Rockefeller University Hospital is one of the oldest biomedical research institutes in the United States. The hospital holds a $1.9 billion endowment, as of 2015. Past and current staff hold 36 Nobel prizes. Archibald was a widely recognized figure in the scientific community, having published numerous articles in his field. Rockefeller University Hospital bestowed the title of senior physician emeritus on Archibald before his retirement. News about alleged serial abusers -- including Penn State football defensive coach Jerry Sandusky and U.S. Olympic team doctor Larry Nassar -- shocked their communities, who had once held the men in high esteem. Experts question legal methods Poppel's suit bundles all the recipients of the letter into one group case, a questionable decision to some. Joelle Casteix, a leading expert in child sex abuse cover-ups and a survivor herself, thinks making the lawsuit a class action is a mistake. "Class actions, in sex abuses cases, only benefit the institution," Casteix said. Casteix said class actions can keep the potential scope of the abuse hidden. "They don't allow for a deep dive into the cover up," Casteix said. "Where there's one Archibald, there's five. If a system allowed one predator, there could be more." Such suits also limit individual input by victims, as they are filed on behalf of the group, Casteix said. "It's a great option for the hospital because it allows them to tidy up everything quickly," Casteix said. Stern, attorney for Poppel, stands by his case and is adamant that he's helping Poppel and the other potential victims. "I don't know if I've ever been more proud of something I've filed then when I've filed that on behalf of Jeffrey and all the other victims," Stern said. [GN] ROCKWELL AUTOMATION INC: Smith Sues over Pension Benefits --------------------------------------------------------- A class action complaint has been filed against Rockwell Automation, Inc. and its related entities for alleged violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). The case is captioned Rickie K. Smith, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. Rockwell Automation, Inc., the Rockwell Automation Employee Benefits Plan Committee, and John/Jane Does 1–20, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-00505 (E.D. Wis., April 8, 2019). Smith asserts that the Defendants failed to pay benefits under the Rockwell Automation Pension Plan in amounts that are actuarially equivalent to a single life annuity, as required by the ERISA. By not offering benefits that are actuarially equivalent to the single life annuity, Rockwell is causing retirees to lose part of their vested retirement benefits in violation of ERISA. Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks an order from the court reforming the plan and sub-plans to conform to ERISA, payment of future benefits in accordance with the reformed plan and sub-plans, as required under ERISA, payment of amounts improperly withheld, and such other relief as the court determines to be just and equitable. Rockwell is a manufacturer of industrial automation and information technology with its headquarters in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Rockwell sponsors a pension plan as part of the company's employee benefits. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles J. Crueger, Esq. Erin K. Dickinson, Esq. CRUEGER DICKINSON LLC 4532 North Oakland Avenue Whitefish Bay, WI 53211 Telephone: (414) 210-3868 Facsimile: (414) 433-4544 E-mail: cjc@cruegerdickinson.com ekd@cruegerdickinson.com - and - Robert A. Izard, Esq. Mark P. Kindall, Esq. Seth R. Klein, Esq. Douglas P. Needham, Esq. IZARD, KINDALL & RAABE LLP Oren Faircloth 29 South Main Street, Suite 305 West Hartford, CT 06107 Telephone: (860) 493-6292 Facsimile: (860) 493-6290 E-mail: rizard@ikrlaw.com mkindall@ikrlaw.com SAFELIFE 365: Vantine Seeks Relief over Autodialed Calls -------------------------------------------------------- A class action complaint has been filed against SafeLife 365, Inc. over alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The case is captioned JOANNE VANTINE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PREMIERE GUARDIAN PROTECTION, LLC d/b/a SAFELIFE 365, INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:19-cv-00170 (M.D. Fla., April 5, 2019). Vantine wants Defendant to stop its practice of placing calls using an automatic telephone dialing system (ATDS) and an artificial or prerecorded voice to the cellular telephones of consumers nationwide without their prior express written consent. Vantine also wants to enjoin Defendant from continuing to place calls using an ATDS to consumers who did not provide their prior express written consent to receive them; and to obtain redress for all persons injured by its conduct. Based in Shawnee, Kansas, SafeLife 360 provides medical alert systems. It describes itself as the fastest growing medical monitoring company in America. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott A. Bursor, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 2665 S. Bayshore Dr. Ste. 220 Miami, FL 33133-5402 Telephone: (305) 330-5512 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: scott@bursor.com SAGE SOFTWARE: Underpays Sales Representatives, Funna et al. Say ---------------------------------------------------------------- SOLOMON FUNNA; and GERTIE LEANO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SAGE SOFTWARE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01074-CAP (N.D. Ga., March 7, 2019) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as sales representatives. Sage Software, Inc. provides business management software and services. Sage Software, Inc. was formerly known as Best Software, Inc. and changed its name to Sage Software, Inc. in May 2005. The company was incorporated in 1982 and is based in Lawrenceville, Georgia. Sage Software, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Sage Group plc. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mitchell L. Feldman, Esq. FELDMAN LEGAL GROUP 1201 Peachtree Street, NE 400 Colony Square, Suite 200 Atlanta, GA 30361 Telephone: (813) 639-9366 Facsimile: (813) 639-9376 E-mail: mlf@feldmanlegal.us SHUN LEE WEST: Faces Zhang et al. Labor Suit in NY -------------------------------------------------- An employment class action complaint has been filed against T & W Restaurant, Inc. trading as Shun Lee West, Bin Wu, Michael Tong, T & W Payroll Services, Inc. for alleged violations of the Federal Labor Standards Act and of New York Labor Law, arising from their various willful and unlawful employment policies, patterns and/or practices. The case is captioned YA QIANG ZHANG, JUN LING ZHAO, HUI MIN ZHAO, JING GUAN, HUI LIANG ZHAO AND LI WENG, Plaintiffs, vs. T & W RESTAURANT, INC. TRADING AS SHUN LEE WEST, BIN WU, MICHAEL TONG AND T & W PAYROLL SERVICES, INC., Case No. 1:19-cv-03094 (S.D.N.Y, April 7, 2019). Plaintiffs seek to recover unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and/or attorney's fees and costs. Shun Lee West is an Asian restaurant located in 43 West 65th Street, New York, NY 10023. It describes itself as an upscale Chinese restaurant that specializes in serving trendy and eclectic cuisine. It has gross sales in excess of $500,000 per year. T&W Payroll Services is a corporation incorporated under the laws of New York and has its registered office at 97 Tennyson Drive, Nanuet, NY 10950. It offers a suite of payroll and employer service solutions. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jian Hang, Esq. HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 136-20 38th Avenue, Suite 10G Flushing, NY 11354 Telephone: (718) 353-8588 Facsimile: (718) 353-6288 E-mail: jhang@hanglaw.com SIBANYE GOLD: Continues to Defend Consolidated Class Suit in NY --------------------------------------------------------------- Sibanye Gold Limited said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 9, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company continues to defend a consolidated class action suit in the Eastern District of New York. Two purported class action lawsuits have been filed against Sibanye Gold Limited (Sibanye-Stillwater), Neal Froneman and Charl Keyter (collectively the Defendants) in the US District Court for the Eastern District of New York, alleging violations of the US securities laws. The first lawsuit, Case No. 18-cv-03721, was filed on 27 June 2018 by Kevin Brandel, individually and on behalf of all other persons who purchased Sibanye-Stillwater securities between 7 April 2017 and 26 June 2018, inclusive (the Class Period). The second lawsuit, Case No. 18-cv-03902, was filed on 6 July 2018 by Lester Heuschen, Jr., also individually and on behalf of members of the Class Period (collectively, the Class Actions). The Class Actions allege that certain statements by Sibanye-Stillwater in its annual reports filed with the US Securities and Exchange Commission were false and/or misleading. Specifically, the Class Actions allege that Sibanye-Stillwater made false and/or misleading statements about its safety practices and record and thereby violated the US securities laws. The Class Actions seek an unspecific amount of damages. The two lawsuits were consolidated into a single action, and lead plaintiff and lead counsel were appointed by the court, on 17 December 2018. Lead plaintiffs must file a consolidated amended complaint by 1 April 2019, and the Defendants must file an answer or otherwise request a pre-motion conference (which is procedurally required by the Court's rules before a motion to dismiss may be filed by 16 May 2019). Sibanye Gold said, "As the cases are still in the early stages, it is not possible to determine the likelihood of success on the merits or any potential liability from the Class Actions nor estimate the duration of the litigation. Sibanye-Stillwater intends to defend the cases vigorously." Sibanye Gold Limited operates as a precious metals mining company in South Africa, the United States, Zimbabwe, Canada, and Argentina. Sibanye Gold Limited was incorporated in 2002 and is headquartered in Weltevreden Park, South Africa. SOLUTION MECHANICAL: Walker Seeks Overtime Compensation ------------------------------------------------------- STEVEN WALKER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plainitff, vs. SOLUTION MECHANICAL CONTRACTOR, LLC, and JAMES WALKER, the Defednants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00204-DPM (E.D. Ark., March 26, 2019), seeks declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, costs, including a reasonable attorney's fee as a result of Defendant's failure to pay Plaintiff and other construction workers lawful overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week, under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act. Walker directly hired Plaintiff and other commercial heating and air workers, paid them wages and benefits, controlled their work schedules, duties, protocols, applications, assignments and employment conditions, and kept at least some records regarding their employment. The Plaintiff and other Commercial Heating and Air Employees regularly met at the shop in Beebe to load any necessary equipment, tools, and materials and to travel together in the company truck to the job site. The Plaintiff and other Commercial Heating and Air Employees regularly drove back to the Beebe shop after the work day was over, and from there, each worker traveled back home individually, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for STEVEN WALKER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated: Allison Koile, Esq. Josh West, Esq. Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC One Financial Center 650 South Shackleford Road, Suite 411 Little Rock, AR Z72211 Telephone: (501) 221-0088 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 E-mail: allison@sanfordlawfirm.com west@sanfordlawfirm.com josh@sanfordlawfirm.com SPLIT SECOND: Fails to Place Compliant "Tow Away Zone Sign" ----------------------------------------------------------- Samuel Mr. Oxedine, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. SPLIT SECOND TOWING & TRANSPORT, INC., and ASHBURN SQUARE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION INC., Filing No. 86824963 (13th Fla. Cir, Hillsborough County, March 13, 2019), seeks to recover actual damages, statutory damages, plus pre-judgment interest, as well as an award of reasonable attorneys' fees and litigation costs, due to Defendant's intentional disregard of Florida law including, without limitation, Florida Statutes section. Split Second is a towing company who, as part of its business model, removes vehicles from private property without the vehicle owner's consent in order to derive profit. On or around December 21, 2018, Mr. Oxedine parked his vehicle, a 2014 Chrysler 300, at the property located at or near 4542 Ashburn Square Drive, Tampa, Florida 33610. Mr. Oxedine, a real estate photographer, was at the Subject Property because he had been hired to take photographs of the unit located at 4542 Ashburn Square Drive, Tampa, Florida 33610 to assist in its sale. On December 21, 2018, without any justification or request by the owners and/or managers of the Subject Property, Split Second Towing performed a tow of Mr. Oxedine's vehicle. The lawsuit contends Split Second Towing allegedly performed the tow of Mr. Oxedine's vehicle in order to derive profit at the expense of Mr. Oxedine. On or about December 21, 2018, Mr. Oxedine went to Split Second's place of business at or near 9303 Stannum Street, Tampa, Florida 33619, to regain possession of his vehicle. Mr. Oxedine was charged $150 for the return of his vehicle. He was charged $125 "towing charge" and $25 "mileage." Mr. Oxedine was required to pay $150, in cash, as the agents/employees of Split Second indicated to him that they would not accept any other form of payment. After paying the amount demanded in the towing invoice and regaining possession of this vehicle, Mr. Oxedine discovered that expensive photography equipment (a drone) was missing from the trunk of his vehicle. The drone was located in the trunk of his vehicle at the time of the tow. He has since reported that item as stolen. The Defendant failed to place or cause to be placed a compliant Tow Away Zone Sign at the Subject Property.[BN] Counsel for the Plaintiff: Felipe B. Fulgencio, Esq. Megan N. Daniel, Esq. FULGENCIO LAW, PLLC 105 S. Edison Avenue Tampa, FL 33606 Telephone: 813 463 0123 Facsimile: 813 670 1288 E-mail: Felipe@FulgencioLaw.com MDaniel@FulgencioLaw.com STAFF PRO: Glaspie Seeks Minimum & Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------- RODNEY GLASPIE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. STAFF PRO, INC.; U.S. SECURITY ASSOCIATES, INC.; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 19STCV10271 (Cal. Super., March 26, 2019), alleges that Defendants failed to pay wages, failed to provide meal periods, failed to permit rest breaks, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failure to pay all wages due upon separation of employment, and failed to reimburse necessary business expenses under the California Labor Code. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants knew or should have known that Plaintiff and class members were entitled to receive wages for all time worked (including minimum wages and overtime wages) and that they were not receiving all wages earned for work that was required to be performed, including but not limited to time spent checking their schedules, among other tasks, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: Kashif Haque, Esq. Samuel A. Wong, Esq. Jessica L. Campbell, Esq. Fawn F. Bekam, Esq. AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC 9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92618 Telephone: (949) 379-6250 Facsimile: (949) 379-6251 E-mail: khaque@aegislawfirm .com swong@aegislawfirm.com jcampbell@aegislawfirm.com fbekam@aegislawfirm.com TASTE OF NORTH CHINA: Yang Seeks Overtime Pay --------------------------------------------- An employment-related class action complaint has been filed against Taste of North China, Yongbin Sun, Qimin Cai, Jianguo Zhao, and "John" Wang for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law (NJWHL). The case is captioned BAO YU YANG, on his own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. TASTE OF NORTH CHINA, LTD d/b/a Taste of North China; NEW TASTE OF NORTH CHINA INC. d/b/a Taste of North China; NORTH CHINA RESTAURANT, INC. d/b/a Taste of North China; YONGBIN SUN, QIMIN CAI, JIANGUO ZHAO, and "JOHN" WANG, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-09392 (D.N.J., April 8, 2019). Plaintiff Yang alleges that the Defendants willfully and intentionally committed widespread violations of the FLSA and NJWHL by engaging in pattern and practice of failing to pay its employees, including Plaintiff, minimum wage for each hour worked and overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 each workweek. Accordingly, Yang seeks to recover from the Defendants: unpaid minimum wage, unpaid overtime wages, out of pocket expenses to delivery experts on the road, liquidated damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; and or attorney's fees and cost. Taste of North China is a restaurant located at 75 Montgomery St, Jersey City, NJ 07302. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Aaron Schweitzer, Esq. John Troy, Esq. TROY LAW, PLLC 41-25 Kissena Boulevard Suite 119 Flushing, NY 11355 Telephone: (718) 762-1324 E-mail: troylaw@troypllc.com TASTES ON THE FLY: Faces Grillo Labor Suit in Massachusetts ----------------------------------------------------------- Stephen Grillo, a tipped wait staff employee at the Boston Beerworks restaurant, files an employment class action lawsuit against Tastes on the Fly Boston, LLC for alleged violation of Chapters 151 of the Massachusetts General Law. The case is captioned STEPHEN GRILLO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. TASTE ON THE FLY BOSTON, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 19-1073A (Mass. Cmmw., Cty. of Suffolk, April 5, 2019). Grillo asserts that the restaurant pays its employees, including him, an hourly wage that is less than the basic minimum wage required by law. In addition, Tastes on the Fly has required the wait staff employees who work at the Logan Airport Boston Beerworks, including Grillo, to participate in tip pools through which a portion of their tips are paid to individuals who do not qualify as wait staff employees under Massachusetts General Law, Chapter 149, Sec. 152A. On behalf of himself and that putative class, Grillo seeks to recover compensatory damages for the minimum wages he and the putative class members did not receive, as well as compensatory damages for the tips that were improperly remitted to ineligible, non-wait staff employees. Lastly, Grillo seeks an award of treble damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and interest, all as provided for by law. Tastes on the Fly Boston, LLC. is a limited liability company organized under the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. It operates the Boston Beerworks restaurant at Logan Airport, and maintains its principal office in San Mateo, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Hillary Schwab, Esq. Brant Casavant, Esq. FAIR WORK P.C. 192 South Street, Suite 450 Boston, MA 02111 Telephone. (617)607-3261 Facsimile. (617)488-2261 E-mail: hillary@fairworklaw.com brant@fairworklaw.com TGI FRIDAY'S: Troncoso Says Potato Skins Product Deceptive ---------------------------------------------------------- SOLANGE TRONCOSO on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. TGI FRIDAY'S INC., the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02735 (S.D.N.Y., March 27, 2019), seeks redress for, and a stop to, Defendant's unfair and deceptive practice of advertising and marketing its Potato Skins snacks as "potato skins" products. According to the complaint, Defendant's "Potato Skins" representations are deceptive because the snack products do not actually contain any potato skins. This labeling deceives consumers into believing that they are receiving a healthier snack, but Defendant's products do not live up to these claims. Conscious of consumers' increased interest in more nutritious snacks and willingness to pay more for products perceived to meet this preference, Defendant misleadingly, illegally, and deceptively seeks to capitalize on these consumer health trends. The Defendant sold and continues to sell products with deceptive or misleading labels. These are: TGI Fridays Potato Skins, Cheddar & Bacon; TGI Fridays Potato Skins, Bacon Ranch; TGI Fridays Potato Skins, Sour Cream & Onion; Any other TGI Fridays products representing that they contain potato skins despite not containing any genuine potato skins.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs and the Class: C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 30 East 39th Street, Second Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: 212-465-1188 Facsimile: 212-465-1181 TIMM MEDICAL: Removes TCPA Suit to Eastern District of Missouri --------------------------------------------------------------- TIMM Medical Technologies, Inc. removes case, RADHA GEISMANN, M.D., P.C., individually and on behalf of all others similarly-situated, the Plaintiff, vs. TIMM MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC. and JOHN DOES 1-10, the Defendants, Case No. 19SL-CC00385 (Filed Jan. 28, 2019), from the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri on March 27, 2019. The Eastern District of Missouri Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:19-cv-00676 to the proceeding. The complaint alleges that Defendant violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: Max G. Margulis, Esq. MARGULIS LAW GROUP 28 Old Belle Monte Road Chesterfield, MO 63017 E-mail: maxmargulis@margulislaw.com - and - Brian J. Wanca, Esq. ANDERSON + WANCA 3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500 Rolling Meadows, IL 60008 E-mail: bwanca@andersonwanca.com Attorneys for the TIMM Medical Technologies, Inc.: Eric M. Walter, Esq. Jonathan R. Shulan, Esq. ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP 7700 Forsyth Blvd., Suite 1800 St. Louis, MO 63105 Telephone: 314 621 5070 Facsimile: 314 621 5065 E-mail: ewalter@armstrongteasdale.com jshulan@armstrongteasdale.com - and - Ezra D. Church, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1701 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: 215 963 5000 E-mail: ezra.church@morganlewis.com TRIVAGO N.V.: Court Tosses Securities Suit ------------------------------------------ The Hon. Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald entered an order directing the Clerk of Court to enter judgment for Defendants and terminate the case and any motions pending in the case captioned, ANTHONY HOLBROOK, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. TRIVAGO N.V., ROLF SCHROMGENS, AXEL HEFER, NATIONAL CORPORATE RESEARCH, LTD., J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES, LLC, GOLDMAN, SACHS & CO., MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC, ALLEN & COMPANY LLC, MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INCORPORATED, CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., DEUTSCHE BANK SECURITIES INC., COWEN AND COMPANY, LLC, and GUGGENHEIM SECURITIES, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-08348-NRB (S.D.N.Y.) Plaintiffs allege that the Individual Defendants are liable under Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act because they acted as "controlling persons" of Trivago who participated in alleged securities fraud. The Court said, "to establish a prima facie case of control-person liability under sections 20(a), the Plaintiffs must sufficiently allege a primary violation by the controlled entity. Because plaintiffs have failed to plead a primary violation by Trivago, their Section 20(a) claims necessarily fail. NCR's motion to dismiss for insufficient service of process pursuant to Rule 12(b)(5) is denied, and Defendants' motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant Rule 12(b)(6) are granted in their entirety and with prejudice. We also dismiss the [Consolidated Amended Complaint] as to the unserved and non-moving Individual Defendants "because the issues concerning [the non-moving defendants] are substantially the same as those concerning the other defendants, and [plaintiffs] had notice and a full opportunity to make out [their] claim"." Dharmanand Shetty was named lead plaintiff in the case. The plaintiffs brought this federal securities class action on behalf of all individuals and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired american depositary shares of trivago, N.V. between December 16, 2016 and October 25, 2017, inclusive, pursuant or traceable to the registration statement issued in connection with the Company's initial public offering on or about December 16, 2016. Trivago operates a global hotel search platform that allows users of the Company's website or mobile application to search for and compare deals from a variety of hoteliers and online travel agencies. Trivago offered access to approximately 1.3 million hotels in over 190 countries as of December 31, 2016.[CC] UNITED HEALTHCARE: Weissman Says Medical Plans Deceptive -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit, KATE WEISSMAN, the Plaintiffs, vs. UNITED HEALTHCARE INSURANCE COMPANY, UNITED HEALTHCARE SERVICE, LLC, AND INTERPUBLIC GROUP OF COMPANIES, INC. CHOICE PLUS PLAN, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-10580 (D. Mass., March 26, 2019), Ms. Weissman challenges UnitedHealthcare's deceptive and fraudulent misrepresentations to the participants and beneficiaries of its employee plans under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). The company said it would deliver access to covered, medically necessary healthcare for the treatment of cancer, and to challenge UnitedHealthcare's deceptive and unfair administration of its ERISA plans, including its prior authorization and utilization review process for plan members seeking proton beam therapy, and its adjudication and administration of claims for proton beam therapy made under ERISA plans underwritten and administered by UnitedHealthcare. According to the complaint, UnitedHealthcare drafted and implemented medical policy no. T0132 for proton beam radiation therapy ("PBT") that relies upon outdated medical evidence, ignores contemporary medical evidence, and relies more heavily on actuarial calculation of risk pools insofar as policy no. T0132 provides that PBT is covered for insured members younger than 19 years of age and those 65 years of age and older. UnitedHealthcare drafted and implemented policies and procedures for prior authorization review and the adjudication of insured members' claims that provide for an inadequate review of clinical records by its medical directors prior to rendering a determination of coverage. UnitedHealthcare compounds its bad faith breach of fiduciary duties, and confounds learned health care providers, by having policy no. T0132 reviewed and applied to insured members' requests for prior authorization and in the adjudication of insured members' claims by medical directors who are unqualified to render determinations of coverage for PBT, including medical directors who are not board certified in the requisite specialty. This particular breach of fiduciary duty is the result of UnitedHealthcare's systemic, institutional abdication of its duty to screen, conduct background checks, review available public records through state medical licensing boards, and conduct meaningful interviews of qualified candidates before employing candidates as medical directors who are charged with making life and death decisions for members who are entirely reliant upon the Plan for timely access to medically necessary services, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: Mala M. Rafik, Esq. ROSENFELD & RAFIK, P.C. 184 High Street, Suite 503 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 723-7470 Facsimile: (617) 227-2843 E-mail: mmr@rosenfeld.com - and - Richard T. Collins, Esq. Damon D. Eisenbrey, Esq. CALLAHAN & BLAINE, APLC Hutton Centre Drive, Ninth Floor Santa Ana, CA 92707 Telephone: (714) 241-4444 Facsimile: (714) 241-4445 E-mail: rcollins@callahan-law.com deisenbrey@callahan-law.com - and - Lisa S. Kantor, Esq. KANTOR & KANTOR, LLP 19839 Nordhoff Street Northridge, CA 91324 Telephone: (818) 886-2525 Facsimile: (818) 350-6272 E-mail: lkantor@kantorlaw.net UNITED STATES: Loses Immigrant Juvenile Status Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Max Siegelbaum, writing for Documented, reports that a New York federal judge decided on March 15 that the Trump administration broke the law by denying immigrants Special Immigrant Juvenile Status. U.S. District Judge John Koeltl said only Congress and not immigration authorities can deny the status, which can provide a path to a green card, to immigrant adults under 21 years old. Early last year, the administration began systematically denying the status, which was created for children who were abused, neglected or abandoned by a parent to obtain green cards. Latham & Watkins and the Legal Aid Society filed a class action lawsuit challenging the apparent policy change last June on behalf of a plaintiff who had been beaten by relatives in Haiti. Another plaintiff said they fled to the US from El Salvador after receiving gang threats there. On March 15, the judge instructed lawyers to begin implementing his decision and granted class status to the plaintiffs. Legal Aid lawyers estimated that 3,000 people were affected by the policy change. [GN] UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN: Loughlin, Huffman Made Court Appearances ---------------------------------------------------------------- Zack Huffman, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that the actresses Felicity Huffman and Lori Loughlin made brief court appearances on April 3 three weeks after they were charged along with dozens of other wealthy parents in a nationwide college admissions scandal. Throngs of onlookers, including many self-proclaimed "Aunt Becky" fans, waited outside the Moakley Courthouse in South Boston for the stars to walk past. The homage is a reference to Loughlin's role on "Full House" in the early 1990s. Further fueling the case's Hollywood luster, the FBI has dubbed the investigation "Operation Varsity Blues." Loughlin, 54, and her 55-year-old husband, fashion designer Mossimo Giannulli, are accused of paying $500,000 to get their daughters scouted by the University of Southern California crew team. The April 3 hearing also involved charges against Huffman, 56, of "Desperate Housewives" fame. Huffman's husband, actor William H. Macy, is not facing any charges but the actress is accused of paying $15,000 to boost her oldest daughter's SAT score by having another individual correct her work. Three people charged in the case have already pleaded guilty, including ringleader, William Rick Singer, who ran a college admissions program called the Edge College & Career Network. Prosecutors say the Edge College & Career Network offered ambitious parents two options: one involved faking a learning disabilities to get students more time when taking the SAT and ACT college-entrance exams, and another involved bribing college coaches to designate students as athletes so that they would face a lower academic threshold for admission. Along with Loughlin, Giannulli and Huffman, 10 other parents made their first appearances in court this afternoon. Each of the parents brought before the court on April 3 faces charges of money laundering and conspiracy to commit fraud. The defendants made their initial appearances, but none were arraigned, so none was required to enter a plea. They instead were just required to affirm that they understood the charges they faced. Loughlin surrendered her passport in California, as per an order from U.S. District Judge Page Kelley that the defendants not travel internationally unless they must for business. "In general, I am discouraging that," said Kelley. "Business travel must be for a significant purpose." Homayoun Zadeh, the chair USC's dental school, was the sole defendant granted international travel. Judge Kelley also reversed one of her previous orders by stating that accused parents were now allowed to discuss the case with their family, though she cautioned against discussing possible obstruction charges with children who might get called to the witness stand. "I just don't think that's realistic, and I just don't think that's good for parents to not be able to speak to their children without counsel present," said Kelley. US CORRECTIONS: White Seeks OT Pay for Extradition Officers ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action complaint has been filed against U.S. Corrections LLC and South East Employee Leasing, Inc. for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) over the Defendants' failure to compensate overtime, failure to maintain accurate and pay records for Plaintiff and other similarly situated nonexempt employees. The case is captioned DANA WHITE, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. U.S. CORRECTIONS, LLC, US CORRECTIONS, LLC and SOUTH EAST EMPLOYEE LEASING, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00390-LY (W.D. Tex., April 5, 2019). US Corrections LLC is a fully licensed and fully insured armed security service, providing a wide range of correctional and security services to government agencies. South East Personnel Leasing, Inc., founded in 1986, is headquartered in the Tampa Bay area. The company provides payroll and workers' compensation solutions to small and medium-sized businesses. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Melissa Moore, Esq. Curt Hesse, Esq. MOORE & ASSOCIATES Lyric Centre 440 Louisiana Street, Suite 675 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 222-6775 Facsimile: (713) 222-6739 WALMART INC: Removes Van Buren Case to District of Maryland ----------------------------------------------------------- Walmart, Inc. removed the case, ROBERT VAN BUREN, for himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. Walmart, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. C-02-CV-19-000472 (Filed Feb. 13, 2019), from the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County, Maryland, to the United States District Court for the District of Maryland on March 27, 2019. The District of Maryland Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-00911-DKC to the proceeding. The complaint alleges that the Defendant misrepresented the price of sale-priced items purchased at Sam's Club in Maryland. Specifically, the Plaintiff alleges that when an item is on sale, sales tax should be calculated based on the reduced price. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant calculated the sales tax based on the original price (not the sales price) and thus improperly represented the price to induce members to make a purchase, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: Peter A. Holland, Esq. Emanwel J. Turnbull, Esq. THE HOLLAND LAW FIRM, P.C. 914 Bay Ridge Road, Suite 230 Annapolis, MD 21401 - and - Scott C. Borison, Esq. LEGG LAW FIRM, LLP 1900 S. Norfolk Road, Suite 350 San Mateo, CA 94403 - and - Robert Persante, Esq. Darren M. Stotts, Esq. PersanteZuroweste, Esq. 2555 Enterprise Road, Suite 15 Clearwater, FL 33763-1118 Attorney for WalMart Inc. Dawn A. Ellison, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP 2101 L Street N.W., Suite 1000 Washington, D.C. 20037 Telephone: (202) 331-3159 Facsimile: (202) 261-4792 E-mail: ellisond@gtlaw.com WALT DISNEY: Faces Class Action Over Gender Pay Gap --------------------------------------------------- Nathan Solis, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a gender discrimination lawsuit has landed at the House of Mouse, as two female employees claim they receive far less pay than their male co-workers at the Walt Disney Company and they are hoping to have their case certified as a class action because they say the problem is widespread. Disney, the entertainment conglomerate, now includes a roster with Pixar, Marvel Studios, Lucasfilm and most recently 20th Century Fox, with a bevy of intellectual properties, tent-pole blockbuster movie franchises and a group of 14 theme parks around the world. LaRonda Rasmussen and Karen Moore, both longtime Disney employees, filed the equal pay complaint in Los Angeles Superior Court on April 2, claiming their salaries are tens of thousands of dollars less than their male co-workers and management is aware of the pay gap. Rasmussen has worked for Disney more than 11 years and watched as female employees were underpaid, passed over for promotions and given extra work without just compensation, according to the complaint. Rasmussen, a product development manager, brought up the issue of unfair gender inequality to Disney's human resources department in 2017 and after an audit the company gave her a raise, but said the ongoing pay disparity within the company "was not due to gender." At the time, her base salary was $109,958, much less than six other men with the same job title. On average, Rasmussen's salary was about $26,000 less. According to the audit, the lowest-paid manager received $16,000 more, while the highest-paid received almost $40,000 more than her salary. A recently hired male manager who had less experience than Rasmussen received $20,000 more than her, according to the complaint. Two other female senior managers received equal pay raises around the same time, which Rasmussen says illustrates that Disney recognized a widespread pay disparity. Meanwhile, Moore worked at Disney for 23 years and currently works as a senior copyright administrator in the studio's music label. Moore said she was discouraged from applying for a manager's position, which was later filled by a man. Moore said she thinks he is making more money than her but performing similar job duties. The women allege the administrative body that decides initial pay, raises and bonuses is centralized within a "highly-concentrated and male-dominated management regime." Along with a lack of transparency over employee compensation, the women say this management regime determines an employee's growth and future within the highly-structured company and that this goes on to benefit men. With each major decision affecting an employee, Disney's management considers previous salaries before joining Disney. "In doing so, Disney's hiring policies and practices perpetuated gender discrimination, since women's salary history tends to reflect lower pay than men's," the women say. Rasmussen and Moore are represented by San Francisco-based attorney Lori Andrus with Andrus Anderson. In a statement, Disney said the allegations made in the complaint are uninformed and baseless. "Even before California's Fair Pay Act, Disney created a specialized team of Compensation professionals and lawyers to analyze and address the company's pay equity practices," the company said, adding Rasmussen's and Moore's allegations will be found baseless. WAYFAIR INC: Johnson Fistel Files Securities Class Action Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Johnson Fistel, LLP has filed a class action on behalf of purchasers of Wayfair Inc. (NYSE: W) Class A common stock during the period between August 2, 2018 and October 31, 2018 (the "Class Period"). The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased Wayfair Class A common stock during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing the litigation. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than March 11, 2019. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact Jim Baker (jimb@johnsonfistel.com) at 619-814-4471. If emailing, please include a phone number. Additionally, you can [click here to join this action]. There is no cost or obligation to you. The complaint charges Wayfair and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Wayfair is an online purveyor of household retail goods. The Company offers approximately 10 million products for the home sector under various brands. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants made false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose adverse information regarding Wayfair's business and prospects, including that Wayfair had been experiencing significantly diminished demand for its online product offerings and had significantly increased advertising spending to grow sales. As a result of defendants' false statements and/or omissions, the price of Wayfair stock was artificially inflated to more than $149 per share during the Class Period. Meanwhile, with the price of Wayfair common stock artificially inflated, certain of its senior executives and directors cashed in, selling more than $87.75 million worth of their personally held shares. Then, on November 1, 2018, before the open of trading, Wayfair issued a press release announcing its third quarter 2018 financial results. The Company reported a massive $151.7 million GAAP net loss for the quarter, or $(1.69) per share, compared with a GAAP loss of $76.4 million, or $(0.88) per share, for the third quarter of 2017. In reality, advertising expenses had skyrocketed in the third quarter to more than $202.5 million, an increase of 43%. Following this news, the price of Wayfair common stock declined, falling more than $14 per share, or nearly 13%, to close at $96.16 per share on November 1, 2018. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of Wayfair Class A common stock during the Class Period between August 2, 2018 and October 31, 2018. There is no cost or obligation to you. Jim Baker, Esq. Johnson Fistel, LLP Telephone: 619-814-4471 Email: jimb@johnsonfistel.com [GN] WELLS FARGO AUTO: Faces Harrington Suit over Debt Collection Calls ------------------------------------------------------------------ Shawn Harrington, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Wells Fargo Auto Finance, Inc., Civil Docket No. 19-996 (Mass. Cmmw., Cty. of Middlesex, April 8, 2019), accuses the Defendant of violating the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act and the Massachusetts Debt Collection Regulations in its illegal efforts to collect consumer debts. Allegedly, Wells Fargo's practice is to call Massachusetts consumers more than twice a week to attempt to collect consumer debts. The complaint also asserts that Wells Fargo placed more than two collection calls to Harrington within a seven-day period in an attempt to collect a debt. Accordingly, Harrington seeks to represent all consumers similarly situated and seeks injunctive relief to end Wells Fargo's illegal practice, declaratory relief to make Wells Fargo's violations known to the class, actual and statutory damages, as well as attorneys' fees and costs. Wells Fargo Auto Finance, Inc. is a California business entity with a principal address of 2501 Seaport Drive, Chester, Pennsylvania 19013. Founded in 1971, the company offers automobile financing. It operates as a subsidiary of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sergei Lemberg, Esq. LEMBERG LAW, LLC 43 Danbury Road Wilton, CT 06897 Telephone: (203) 653-2250 Facsimile: (203) 653-3424 E-mail: slemberg@lemberglaw.com WOODMAN'S FOOD: Wyngaard Seeks Overtime Pay ------------------------------------------- A class action complaint has been filed against Woodman's Food Market, Inc. for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA) and Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws (WWPCL). The case is captioned JESSE WYNGAARD on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. WOODMAN'S FOOD MARKET, INC. 2631 Liberty Lane Janesville, Wisconsin 53545, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-00493-PP (E.D. Wis., April 5, 2019). This complaint asserts that the Defendant operated an unlawful compensation system that deprived and failed to compensate all current and former hourly-paid, non-exempt Store employees for all hours worked and work performed each workweek, including at an overtime rate of pay. Woodman's Food Market, Inc. is a privately owned grocery store chain headquartered in Janesville, Wisconsin. It owns, operates, and manages approximately thirteen 13 store locations in Wisconsin and 4 store locations in Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James A. Walcheske, Esq. Scott S. Luzi, Esq. WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC 15850 W. Bluemound Road, Suite 304 Brookfield, WI 53005 Telephone: (262) 780-1953 Facsimile: (262) 565-6469 E-mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com YUCCA VALLEY FORD CENTER: Faces Allen Labor Suit in California -------------------------------------------------------------- An employment-related class action complaint has been filed against Yucca Valley Ford Center, Inc. for its alleged violations of the California Labor Code and the California Business & Professions Code. The case is captioned SAMUEL ALLEN, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. YUCCA VALLEY FORD CENTER, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV12118 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., April 9, 2019). Plaintiff says the action stems from Defendants' failure to pay minimum and straight time wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide meal 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. Yucca Valley Ford Center, Inc. is a California corporation with its principal place of business in Los Angeles, California. It is a Ford car dealer that also offers automobile financing, repair, and maintenance. It also sells a variety of car parts and accessories. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Allen Feghali, Esq. MOON & YANG, APC 1055 W. Seventh St., Suite 1880 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 232-3128 Facsimile: (213) 232-3125 E-mail: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com allen.feghali@moonyanglaw.com ********* 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 ***