/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/190501.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, May 1, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 87 Headlines 450 S. WESTERN: Tak Seeks Unpaid Overtime Premiums, Reimbursements A A TOURIST: Chu Suit Alleges FLSA and NYLL Violations ABALUX INC: Collar Appeals S.D. Florida Ruling to 11th Circuit ABM INDUSTRY: Howard Files Time-shaving Class Action in Tenn. ADDICTION RESEARCH: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Young Suit Alleges ADVISORY BOARD: Court Narrows Claims in Plymouth County Suit AETNA INC: Class Certification Bid in Peters RICO/ERISA Suit Denied ALBUQUERQUE, NM: Faces Foster Suit in D.N. Mexico ALL WILL COUNTY: Ortiz Sues over Collection of Biometric Info ALLIED METRO: Sosa Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages and Damages ALTA MESA: Camelot Event Fund Files Securities Class Action in Tex. AMERICAN INSURANCE: Lashbrook Suit Asserts TCPA Violation AMERICO FINANCIAL: Amended Hancock Suit Dismissed With Prejudice AMERIGROUP CORP: Sued by Dennis Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls AMPLIPHI BIOSCIENCES: Midgarden Files Suit Over C3J Merger Deal ANDREW J. DICK: Faces Suit over Debt Collection Practices AON HEWITT: Failed to Provide Proper Wages, Calhoun Suit Alleges APPLE INC: Priano-Keyser Sues over Defective Smart Watches ARROW CONSULTATION: Does not Pay Overtime Wages, Gallant Suit Says ASPEN NATIONAL: Paul Sues over Debt Collection Practices ATLANTIC DIAGNOSTIC: Does not Properly Pay Overtime Wages AVALON HOLDINGS: Bid for Summary Judgment in Matusky Suit Granted B.C. LIBERALS: Faces Class Action Over Partisan Advertising BEMIS COMPANY: Dixon Files Securities Suit Over Amcor Merger Deal BERGEN SHIPPERS: Escamilla Sues Over Discriminatory Actions BLACK CAT: Hilmer Claims Overtime for Hrs Worked Over 40 per Week BOFA SECURITIES: PR GERS Sues Over GSE Bond Price-fixing BUDO MAINTENANCE: Martinez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages BULLDOG AMUSEMENTS: Munteanu Sues Over Unpaid Wages CANADA: Inmates Win Solitary Confinement Class Action v. CSC CANTON PEDIATRIC: Hopper Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages CARNIVAL PLC: Can Compel Arbitration in Moskalenko Suit CENTURION SECURITY: Sutherland Seeks Proper Overtime Wages CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Marcelino Says CHURCH & DWIGHT: Faces Mislabeling Suit Over Multivitamin Product CLARUS GROUP: Chavez Seeks Unpaid Overtime Premium Under FLSA CLUB EXPLORIA: Moore Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Practices CNX GAS: Summary Judgment Bid in Westmoreland Suit Partly Granted COLDWELL BANKER: Valdes Sues Over Unsolicited Autodialed Calls COMCAST CABLE: Azeveda Labor Suit Removed to N.D. Cal. COMMONWEALTH SERVICING: Hobbs Hits Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls CONAGRA BRANDS: Houston Municipal Employees Sue Over Share Drop COTTER CORP: Banks Remanded to Circuit Court of St. Louis County DAIMLER AG: Faces Callen Suit in Northern District of Georgia DANNY'S INC: Waitresses Hit Illegal Tip Pool, Late Wages DETROIT RENEWABLE: Opts to Close Incinerator Amid Class Action DOW JONES: Seeks 2nd Cir. Review of Order/Judgment in Horton Suit DP HOSPITALITY: Shushi Chef Seeks Pay for Hours Worked Over 40 DUTCH EXPRESS: Delivery Staff Seeks Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages EDS SERVICE: Martinez Hits Unpaid Overtime Wages, Missed Breaks ESTEBAN ESTEPA: Garcia Claims Unpaid Overtime Wages EVENTBRITE INC: Gomes Files Securities Suit Over Share Price Drop FELDMAN AUTOMOTIVE: Pastor Seeks Unpaid Wages & Overtime Pay FIRSTSOURCE ADVANTAGE: Walter Sues over Debt Collection Practices FREEDOM MORTGAGE: Gress Sues Over Unreasonable Default Charges FULTON COUNTY, GA: Summary Judgment Bid in Cunningham Wage Suit OKd GEO GROUP: Indiana Court Narrows Claims in Figgs Suit GLOBAL COURIER: Underpays Delivery Drivers, Nogales Claims GONGOS INC: Court Denies Kraft's Bid to Certify Class Under FLSA GREEN PATIO: O'Malley Hits Unpaid Wages, Tip Credits GTX INC: Miller Seeks More Info on Oncternal Merger HAIN CELESTIAL: Amended Consolidated Securities Suit Dismissed HARBOR LEGAL: Faces Inoue Suit in District of Hawaii HARCOURTS INT'L: Valdes Sues Over Unsolicited Autodialed Calls HARDEE'S: Settles Class Action Over Hepatitis A Outbreak HASS INTERESTS: Underpays Delivery Drivers, Polk Suit Says HEALTHALL CONSULTING: Dyse Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA HILL'S PET: Faces Conley Suit in E.D. Louisiana HIRERIGHT: Stanley Files FCRA Suit in E.D. Virginia HUNTLEIGH USA: Cole Seeks to Recoup Unpaid Overtime Wages HYUNDAI MOTOR: Abe Sues Over Illegal, Unsolicited Text Messages IMEX GLOBAL: Lyles Hits Employees' Biometrics Data Sharing INDECOMM HOLDINGS: Underpays Mortgage Underwriters, Engle Claims INTEL CORP: N.D. Cal. Dismisses Consolidated Securities Suit J & J & J PIZZA: Orth Seeks Proper Expense Reimbursements JACKSON HEWITT: Newbauer Suit Moved to District of New Jersey JBS USA FOOD: Duron Suit Removed to C.D. California JOHN JACOBS: Schuller Sues Over Unpaid Minimum Wages JOHNSTON NURSERIES: Faces Torres Suit in Kern County JOUDEH GHAWALI: Onyeneho Seeks Overtime Wages for Exotic Dancers JUUL LABS: Faces Nessmith Suit over Deceptive Marketing Practices KINJO INC: Delivery Staff Sacked for Claiming Overtime Pay KROGER CO: Cocomilk Product Hazardous to Health, Grausz Says KURTZMAN CARSON: Aetna Suit Moved to C.D. Calif. LAMBERT CONSTRUCTION: Nelson Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages LAWRENCE SCOTT: Class Certification Bid Granted in Settecasi Suit LEGENDARY FIELD: Muirbrook Sues Over WARN Act Violation LIFE CARE: Samuel Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. LYNEER STAFFING: Underpays Warehouse Workers, Vasquez Claims M & G PIZZA: Does not Properly Pay Deliver Drivers, Ownbey Says MANHATTAN LUXURY: Rosado Seeks Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages MARATHON FINANCIAL: Galloway Hits Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls MARCOS: OSG Blocks Martial Law Victims Settlement Agreement MARQUIS METAL: Foglesong Hits Misclassification, Seeks Overtime Pay MDL 2492: Akinbiyi Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated MDL 2492: Aldrich Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated MDL 2492: Council Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated MDL 2492: Divalentino Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated MDL 2492: Flasher Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated MDL 2492: Gray Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated MDL 2492: Leammon Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated MDL 2492: Lett Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated MDL 2492: Pacchioni Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated MDL 2573: Nicholson Appeals Decision in Silver Antitrust Litigation MDL 2885: 8 Suits vs. 3M Transferred to Northern Dist. of Florida MDL 2886: 7 Suits v. Allura, et al. Moved to South Carolina MERLOANDCO LLC: Mauriello Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA MORGREEN SOLAR: Court Grants Default Judgment Bids in Prescott Suit NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS: Faces Antitrust Case in Illinois NESTLE WATERS: Faces Poland Spring False Advertising Class Action NEW PRIME: Lewis Brisbois Discusses Arbitration Ruling NEW PRIME: Seyfarth Shaw Discusses Arbitration Ruling NGP MOTORS: Faces Miranda Wage-and-Hour Suit NPMC: Smith Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation NURSING HOME: Jetter Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA OFFICIAL PEST: Faces Malahy Suit in Sacramento Court OK GASMART: Underpays Gas Attendants, Hurtado Suit Alleges OLIN CORP: Finch Paper Suit Asserts Caustic Soda Price-fixing OPTIO SOLUTIONS: Ryu Sues over Debt Collection Practices PAFFORD EMS: Elizondo Seeks Proper Overtime Wages, Damages PAK RITE: Warehouse Staff Seeks Overtime Pay for Hrs Worked Over 40 PILLARS PROTECTION: O'Bryant Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages PREMIER COIL SOLUTIONS: Galvan Action to Recover Unpaid Overtime PRUDENTIAL LIGHTING: Perez Seeks Unpaid OT Wages, Missed Breaks PURDUE PHARMA: Hanlon et al. Sue over Sale of Opioid Drugs RJD CONSTRUCTION: Class in Neris FLSA Suit Conditionally Certified RUSHMORE ENERGY: Perrong Sues over Illegal Telemarketing Calls SCHLUMBERGER LIMITED: With et al. Seek Overtime Wages for Drivers SELECTION MANAGEMENT: White Sues over Background Checks SHARKS SPORTS: Faces Salsiccia et al. ADA suit in N.D. California SHARP ELECTRONICS: Sells Defective Microwave Ovens, Haight Says SHARP GROSSMONT: Sued for Secretly Recording Gynecology Surgeries SIMPLEHUMAN LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Fewtrell Claims SIX FLAGS: Masuda Funai Discusses Illinois Supreme Court Ruling SNIDER INTERESTS: Faces Esquivel et al. Suit in Kern County SOUTHERN VALLEY: Migrant Farm Workers Seek Unpaid Wages SOUTHWEST SYSTEMS: Does not Pay Installers OT Wages, Glessner Says SPIN EMPIRE: Construction Workers' Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages SUBARU OF AMERICA: May 22 Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set SYNERGY FINANCIAL: Estese Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls TABOR COMMUNITY PARTNERS: Shaw Seeks Overtime Premium Pay TAMPA BAY SPORTS: Hanley Sues Over SMS Ad Blasts TARONIS TECH: Hatten Files Class Action Over Misleading Statements TECTON CAFE: Does not Properly Pay Workers, Morales Suit Says TELIGENT INC: Mo-Kan Iron Workers Fund Sues Over Share Price Drop TWIN VILLAGE: Owes Sales Staff Overtime Pay, Says Smith TWO JINN: Does not Properly Pay Fin'l. Service Reps, Medina Says U.S. SOCCER FEDERATION: Ford & Harrison Discusses Pay Gap Suit UBER TECH: $20MM Settlement in O'Connor Suit Has Prelim Approval UNIFIED PARKING: Espinosa Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Cal. Labor Code UNITED MEDICAL: Gordon Sues Over FDCPA Violation UNITED STATES: ICE Blames Border Crisis on Flores Settlement UNITED TRANZACTIONS: Lewis Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Indiana VERSUM MATERIALS: Board Faces Suit for Breach of Fiduciary Duty VICTORIA'S SECRET: Szabados Suit Asserts Labor Code Violation VIP KIDZ: Curry Seeks Unpaid Overtime Under FLSA WELLS FARGO: Newsom Sues Over Unauthorized Credit Report Inquiries WORKHORSE RESTAURANT: Maldonado Seeks Minimum, Overtime Pay ZALE DELAWARE: Faces Leos Suit in Sacramento Court ZOGENIX INC: Lake Files Class Action Over Misleading, False Reports ********* 450 S. WESTERN: Tak Seeks Unpaid Overtime Premiums, Reimbursements ------------------------------------------------------------------ EUNICE Y. TAK, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. 450 S. WESTERN, LLC, a California limited liability company; GAJU MARKET CORPORATION, a California Corporation; HYUN SOON RHEE, an individual; and DOES 1 to 20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV12979 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., April 15, 2019) seeks unpaid overtime compensation and interest thereon, premiums for missed or interrupted rest period and meal periods, waiting time penalties, penalties and relief for failure to provide itemized statements of total hours worked, reimbursement for expenses, and non-economic damages where applicable. Furthermore, Plaintiff seeks reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under applicable labor law. Through Plaintiffs employment, she typically worked full-time in excess of 8 hours per day and 40 hours per week and often worked at all hours of the night and on her days off upon Defendant Rhee's demands. The Defendants initially misclassified Plaintiff as an independent contractor and later as an exempt employee for purposes of avoiding the employers required state and federal taxes, overtime wages, minimum wages, meal and rest periods, and other applicable labor laws. The Defendants failed to comply with any and all of the aforementioned provisions, says the complaint. Plaintiff was an employee of Defendants from November 8, 2016 through July 7, 2017. Defendant 450 Western is a California limited liability company, duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: W. Dan Lee, Esq. Sasha A. Struthers, Esq. Daniella Restrepo Orozco, Esq. M.E.T.A.L. LAW GROUP, LLP 725 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 3065 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: (323) 289-2260 Fax: (323) 289-2261 Email: dlee@metallawgroup.com sstruthers@metallawgroup.com drestrepo@metallawgroup.com A A TOURIST: Chu Suit Alleges FLSA and NYLL Violations ------------------------------------------------------ Wai Yee Chu, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. A A Tourist Inc. and Jamie Chung, Case No. 1:19-cv-02323 (S.D. N.Y., March 14, 2019), is brought against the Defendants for violations of the New York Labor Law and Federal Labor Standards Act. The Defendants have committed widespread violations of the FLSA and NYLL by engaging in pattern and practice of failing to pay their employees, including the Plaintiff, compensation for all hours worked, minimum wage, and overtime compensation, as well as failing to provide wage notice at the time of hiring and wage statements, notes the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed as an office clerk at the Defendants' tourism company from January 2, 2017 to December 31, 2018. The Defendant A A Tourist is a domestic business corporation organized under the laws of the State of New York with a principal business address at 149 Hester St., Suite 300, New York, NY 10002. The Defendant Jamie Chung is the owner, chief executive officer, and managing agent of AA Tourist. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Xiaoxi Liu, Esq. HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 136-20 38th Avenue, Suite 10G Flushing, NY 11354 Tel: (718) 353-8588 Fax: (718) 353-6288 ABALUX INC: Collar Appeals S.D. Florida Ruling to 11th Circuit -------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Jesus Lazaro Collar filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the lawsuit styled Jesus Collar v. Abalux, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-20872-JAL, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The appellate case is captioned as Jesus Collar v. Abalux, Inc., et al., Case No. 19-11217, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff appealed a District Court decision in 2018. That appellate case is titled Jesus Collar v. Abalux, Inc., et al., Case No. 18-10676, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. The lawsuit is brought against the Defendants for alleged failure to pay overtime wages in excess of 40 hours worked weekly in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- The appellant's brief is due on or before May 13, 2019; -- The appendix is due no later than 7 days from the filing of the appellant's brief; -- Appellee's Certificate of Interested Persons was due on or before April 29, 2019, as to Appellee Abalux, Inc.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant JESUS LAZARO COLLAR, and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(b), is represented by: Stephen Michael Fox, Jr., Esq. J. Paxton Marshall, Esq. Alejandro Guillermo Martinez-Maldonado, Esq. Natalie Ann Staroschak, Esq. Jamie H. Zidell, Esq. J.H. ZIDELL, PA 300 71st St., Suite 605 Miami Beach, FL 33141 Telephone: (305) 865-6766 Facsimile: (305) 865-7167 E-mail: stephen.fox.esq@gmail.com paxtonmarshall@yahoo.com martinez.zidelllaw@gmail.com nstar.zidellpa@gmail.com zabogado@aol.com Defendants-Appellees ABALUX, INC. and JUAN D. CABRAL are represented by: Leslie W. Langbein, Esq. LANGBEIN & LANGBEIN, PA 7480 Fairway Dr., Suite 209 Miami Lakes, FL 33014 Telephone: (305) 556-3663 E-mail: langbeinpa@bellsouth.net ABM INDUSTRY: Howard Files Time-shaving Class Action in Tenn. ------------------------------------------------------------- Charles Howard, Individually, and on behalf of himself and other similarly situated current and former employees, Plaintiff, v. ABM Industry Groups, LLC, and ABM Janitorial Services, Southeast, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-02228 (W.D. Tenn., April 11, 2019) is a lawsuit brought against Defendants as a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), to recover unpaid overtime compensation owed to Plaintiff and other similarly situated janitorial/grounds keeping employees who worked for Defendants in commercial buildings. As a consequence of Defendants' timekeeping records not reflecting actual hours worked, when the unpaid "off the clock" and "edited out/shaved" time are added to their recorded time, Plaintiffs and other members of the class have not been paid the applicable overtime rate of pay as required by the FLSA, during all times relevant to this action, asserts the complaint. The net effect of Defendants' aforementioned plan, policy and practice of requiring, inducing, suffering, or permitting, Plaintiff and class members to perform "off-the-clock" work and, "editing out/shaving" their compensable work time, saved Defendants' payroll costs and payroll taxes. As a consequence, Defendants willfully violated the FLSA and, thereby enjoyed ill-gained profits at the expense of Plaintiff and the class, the complaint says. Plaintiff Charles Johnson was employed by Defendants as an hourly-paid janitorial/grounds keeping employee. Defendants provide (and have provided) janitorial and related services to building owned by Highwood, throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gordon E. Jackson, Esq. J. Russ Bryant, Esq. Robert E. Turner, IV, Esq. Robert E. Morelli, III, Esq. JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER & HOLT 262 German Oak Drive Memphis, TN 38018 Phone: (901) 754-8001 Fax: (901) 759-1745 Email: gjackson@jsyc.com rbryant@jsyc.com rturner@jsyc.com rmorelli@jsyc.com ADDICTION RESEARCH: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Young Suit Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- LANA YOUNG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ADDICTION RESEARCH & TREATEMENT, INC. d/b/a BAART PROGRAMS; and DOES 1 through 100, Defendants, Case No. 19CIVO1804 (Cal. Super., San Mateo Cty., March 28, 2019) is an action against the Defendants for unpaid regular hours, overtime hours, minimum wages, wages for missed meal and rest periods. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as hourly-paid, non-exempt employee. Addiction Research and Treatment, Inc., doing business as Bay Area Addiction Research and Treatment, provides drug treatment services. The company was founded in 1977 and is headquartered in San Francisco, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edwin Aiwazian, Esq. LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE, PC 410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 265-1020 Facsimile: (818) 265-1021 ADVISORY BOARD: Court Narrows Claims in Plymouth County Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, PLYMOUTH COUNTY RETIREMENT ASSOCIATION, on Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. ADVISORY BOARD COMPANY, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 17-1940 (RC) (D. D.C.), Judge Rudolph Contreras of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' complaint. The co-lead Plaintiffs in the class action, the City of Atlanta Firefighters' Pension Fund and the City of Atlanta Police Officers' Pension Fund, assert that The Advisory Board, its CEO, Robert W. Musslewhite, and its CFO, Michael T. Kirshbaum, violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing a series of materially false and misleading public statements in 2015. Those statements concerned Advisory Board's acquisition of Royall & Co., and Royall's post-acquisition performance. According to them, the Defendants publicly touted the Royall acquisition's success and Royall's 2015 performance, knowing that the acquisition and Royall's performance were unlikely to meet the market's expectations. Based in part on information supplied by two confidential witnesses, the Plaintiffs allege that from Jan. 21, 2015 through Feb. 23, 2016, the Defendants made a series of false or misleading statements and omissions regarding Royall's performance and its integration into Advisory Board's business. The touchstone of these allegations is that the Defendants knew of certain developments that would cause Royall to underperform its revenue projections and fail to properly integrate with Advisory Board, at least in the short-term. The Plaintiffs claim that the Defendants delayed revealing these developments to investors, which caused Advisory Board's stock prices to remain higher than they would have been if the market had full information. When the other shoe dropped and the market caught wind of Royall's problems, Advisory Board's stock price plunged. The Defendants have asked the Court to dismiss the Plaintiffs' complaint. They argue that none of the challenged statements were materially false or misleading when made, even if the statements were wrong in hindsight. The Defendants further argue that to the extent their statements were materially false or misleading, they did not possess the state of mind necessary to hold them liable. Having combed through te Plaintiffs' voluminous allegations and the relevant record submissions, Judge Contreras agrees that most of the Defendants' statements were not false or misleading. The Plaintiffs' challenge of these statements amounts to inactionable "fraud by hindsight." On the other hand, certain statements about Advisory Board's projected 2015 revenues were rendered misleading by the Defendants' failure to tell investors that shortly before the statements were issued, key executives had left the company. Among other things, the Judge finds that despite the Plaintiffs' voluminous allegations, he concludes that the only actionable statements and omissions were those made on May 5, 2015, regarding Advisory Board's projected revenue. The Plaintiffs have also sufficiently alleged that Advisory Board's revenue guidance issued on May 5, 2015, and Mr. Kirshbaum's statement in support of that guidance, were materially misleading because they failed to account for the sudden departures of Royall's CEO and CFO. At the very least, those public statements were rendered misleading by the Defendants' failure to disclose the departures. On the other hand, the Plaintiffs have failed to identify any other statement or omission attributable to Defendants during the Class Period that was materially false or misleading. For these reasons, he granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' motion. He denied the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss with respect to Advisory Board's May 5, 2015 revenue guidance and Mr. Kirshbaum's statement, recounted in paragraph 83 of the Plaintiffs' amended complaint, regarding that guidance. The Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is granted as to the remainder of the Plaintiff's complaint. An order consistent with the Memorandum Opinion is separately and contemporaneously issued. A full-text copy of the Court's March 29, 2019 Memorandum Opinion is available at https://is.gd/z4fGza from Leagle.com. PLYMOUTH COUNTY RETIREMENT ASSOCIATION, on Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Steven J. Toll -- stoll@cohenmilstein.com -- COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC. CITY OF ATLANTA FIREFIGHTERS' PENSION FUND & CITY OF ATLANTA POLICE OFFICERS' PENSION FUND, Plaintiffs, represented by Nancy Meredith Juda -- nancyj@rgrdlaw.com -- ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP, Alan I. Ellman, ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP, pro hac vice, David A. Rosenfeld, ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP, pro hac vice & Samuel H. Rudman -- SRudman@rgrdlaw.com -- ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP. ADVISORY BOARD COMPANY, ROBERT W. MUSSLEWHITE & MICHAEL T. KIRSHBAUM, Defendants, represented by Jennifer L. Spaziano -- jen.spaziano@skadden.com -- SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP & Scott D. Musoff -- scott.musoff@skadden.com -- SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP, pro hac vice. AETNA INC: Class Certification Bid in Peters RICO/ERISA Suit Denied ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, SANDRA M. PETERS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. AETNA INC., AETNA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, and OPTUMHEALTH CARE SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendants, Civil Case No. 1:15-cv-00109-MR (W.D. N.C.), Judge Martin Reidinger of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, Asheville Division, denied the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification. On June 12, 2015, Plaintiff Peters filed the putative class action against the Defendants, asserting claims pursuant to the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO") and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"). In her Complaint, the Plaintiff alleged that Aetna engaged in a fraudulent scheme with Optum and other subcontractors, whereby insureds were caused to pay the subcontractors' administrative fees because the Defendants misrepresented such fees as medical expenses. The Plaintiff alleged that these misrepresentations allowed Aetna to illegally (i) obtain payment of the subcontractors' administrative fees directly from insureds when the insureds' deductibles have not been reached; (ii) use insureds' health spending accounts to pay for these fees; (iii) inflate insureds' co-insurance obligations using administrative fees; (iv) artificially reduce the amount of available coverage for medical services when such coverage is subject to an annual cap; and (v) obtain payment of the administrative fees directly from employers when an insured's deductible has been exhausted or is inapplicable. The Plaintiff asserted two claims based on RICO violations. In Count I of the Complaint, the Plaintiff alleged that Aetna and its subcontractors, including Optum, violated 18 U.S.C. Section 1962(c) by engaging in acts of mail and wire fraud in furtherance of a common purpose to collect administrative fees from Aetna insureds and plans by improperly characterizing them as payment for covered medical expenses, and as such, constitute an associated-in-fact "enterprise" as defined in 18 U.S.C. Section 1961(4). Alternatively, she alleged that Aetna has conducted multiple bilateral association-in-fact RICO enterprises with each of its subcontractors. In Count II of the Complaint, the Plaintiff alleged that the Defendants conspired to violate 18 U.S.C. Section 1962(c), in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 1962(d). She also asserted two claims under ERISA, alleging that the Defendants breached their fiduciary duties as plan administrators, in violation of 29 U.S.C. Section 1132(a)(2) (Count III) and 29 U.S.C. Section 1132(a)(1), (a)(3), and/or 29 U.S.C. Section 1104 (Count IV). Aetna and Optum moved to dismiss the action pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing that the Plaintiff lacked standing to assert her claims and that her Complaint otherwise failed to state claims upon which relief can be granted. On Aug. 31, 2016, the Court entered an Order granting in part and denying in part the Defendants' motions. Specifically, the Court concluded that the Plaintiff had standing to assert claims regarding Aetna's actions with respect to Optum but that the Plaintiff lacked standing to assert any claims with respect to Aetna's interactions with other subcontractors. Further, the Court granted the Defendants' motions with respect to the Plaintiff's RICO claims and dismissed those claims with prejudice. The Court denied the Defendants' motions with respect to the Plaintiff's ERISA claims. The Plaintiff now moves the Court to grant class certification pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(1) and (b)(3), or in the alternative, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(4). The Plaintiff seeks to represent the following class for purposes of her claims under 29 U.S.C. Section 1132(a)(2) and (a)(3): - Plan Claim Class: All participants or beneficiaries of self-insured ERISA health insurance plans administered by Aetna for which plan responsibility for a claim was assessed using an agreed rate between Optum and Aetna that exceeded the provider's contracted rate with Optum for the treatment provided. The Plaintiff also seeks to represent the following class for purposes of her claims under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B) and (a)(3): - Member Claim Class: All participants or beneficiaries of ERISA health insurance plans insured or administered by Aetna for whom coinsurance responsibility for a claim was assessed using an agreed rate between Optum and Aetna that exceeded the provider's contracted rate with Optum for the treatment provided. The Defendants oppose the Plaintiff's motion for class certification, arguing that: (1) the proposed classes do not satisfy Rule 23(a)'s commonality requirement; (2) the Plaintiff cannot demonstrate through classwide evidence that all proposed class members suffered injury; (3) the proposed classes do not satisfy Rule 23(a)'s typicality and adequacy requirements; (4) the Plaintiff does not specify what "equitable" relief the proposed members seek or how they would prove their entitlement to it; (5) the proposed classes do not satisfy Rule 23(b)(1); (6) the proposed classes fail Rule 23(b)(3)'s predominance and superiority requirements because individualized inquiries would overwhelm any "class" proceeding; and (7) because the proposed classes are overrun with individualized issues of liability, causation, and injury, there is no basis for issue certification under Rule 23(c)(4). The Court held a hearing on the motion for class certification on March 1, 2019. Judge Reidinger concludes that the Plaintiff has not offered the Court a reliable and administratively feasible mechanism for determining which plans and participants fall within the proposed class definitions. To ascertain the members of the proposed classes, the Court would be forced to engage in a highly individualized inquiry of every plan, every participant and every claim in those participants' claim histories, taking into account the impact of each participant's deductible, copayments, coinsurance, and out-of-pocket maximum. As the Fourth Circuit has noted, certification of a class action is inappropriate where identifying the class members would require extensive and individualized fact-finding or mini-trials. Moreover, the Plaintiff's flawed methodology for determining class membership also reflects a lack of commonality among the putative class members. Commonality requires the Plaintiff to demonstrate that the class members have suffered the same injury. The evidence indicates that, in the aggregate, the Aetna-Optum contracts saved plans and their participants millions of dollars. Indeed, many proposed class members would be worse off if their claims were reassessed using the Plaintiff's methodology of using only the Optum Downstream Rates. A proposed class challenging conduct that did not harm -- and in fact benefitted -- some proposed class members fails to establish the commonality required for certification. For all these reasons, Judge Reidinger in the exercise of his discretion denied the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. A full-text copy of the Court's March 29, 2019 Memorandum Decision and Order is available at https://is.gd/qMpYGD from Leagle.com. Sandra M. Peters, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by D. Brian Hufford -- dbhufford@zuckerman.com -- Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, pro hac vice, David M. Wilkerson -- dwilkerson@vwlawfirm.com -- The Van Winkle Law Firm, Heather Whitaker Goldstein -- HGoldstein@vwlawfirm.com -- The Van Winkle Law Firm, Jason S. Cowart -- jcowart@zuckerman.com -- Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, pro hac vice, Jason M. Knott -- mclark@zuckerman.com -- Zuckerman Spaeder, LLP, pro hac vice, Nell Z. Peyser -- npeyser@zuckerman.com -- Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, pro hac vice, Richard Miles Clark, Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, pro hac vice & Larry S. McDevitt -- lmcdevitt@vwlawfirm.com -- The Van Winkle Law Firm. Aetna Inc. & Aetna Life Insurance Company, Defendants, represented by E. Thomison Holman, Holman Law, PLLC, Geoffrey Manson Sigler -- gsigler@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, pro hac vice, Jason N. Kleinwaks -- jkleinwaks@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, pro hac vice, Jason E. Neal, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, pro hac vice, Matthew Scott Roberson -- mroberson@mwblawyers.com -- Adams Hendon Carson Crow & Saenger, P.A. & Richard Joseph Doren -- rdoren@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, pro hac vice. OptumHealth Care Solutions, Inc., Defendant, represented by Brian D. Boone, Alston & Bird LLP, Emily Claire McGowan -- emily.mcgowan@alston.com -- Alston & Bird LLP, Mark Timothy Calloway -- mark.calloway@alston.com -- Alston & Bird LLP, Michael R. Hoernlein -- michael.hoernlein@alston.com -- Alston & Bird LLP, Rebecca L. Gauthier -- rebecca.gauthier@alston.com -- Alston & Bird LLP & Jahnisa T. Loadholt -- jahnisa.loadholt@alston.com -- Alston & Bird LLP, pro hac vice. ALBUQUERQUE, NM: Faces Foster Suit in D.N. Mexico ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against the City Of Albuquerque. The case is captioned as COURTNEY FOSTER; and MATTHEW KISCADEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00270-SCY-KBM (D.N.M., March 26, 2019). The case is assigned to Magistrate Judge Steven C. Yarbrough and referred to Magistrate Judge Karen B. Molzen. Albuquerque, New Mexico's largest city, sits in the high desert. Its modern Downtown core contrasts with Old Town Albuquerque, dating to the city's 1706 founding as a Spanish colony. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph P. Kennedy Adam C. Flores, Esq. Shannon L Kennedy, Esq. KENNEDY KENNEDY & IVES, LLC 1000 2nd Street, N.W. Albuquerque, NM 87102 Telephone: (505) 244-1400 Facsimile: (505) 244-1406 E-mail: jpk@civilrightslaw.com acf@civilrightslaw.com slk@civilrightslawnewmexico.com ALL WILL COUNTY: Ortiz Sues over Collection of Biometric Info ------------------------------------------------------------- The case, Edwin Ortiz and Leopoldo Reyes individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. All Will County Auto Parts and Wreckers, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2019CH04187 (Ill. Cir., April 1, 2019), seeks to stop Defendant's capture, collection, use and storage of customers' biometric identifiers and/or biometric information in violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act and to obtain redress for all persons injured by Defendant's conduct. The case concerns Defendant's conduct of capturing, collecting. storing, and using Plaintiffs and other customer's biometric identifiers and/or biometric information without regard to BIPA and the concrete privacy rights and pecuniary interests Illinois' BIPA protects. The Defendant does this in the form of finger scans, which capture a person's fingerprint. Following the 2007 bankruptcy of a company specializing in the collection and use of biometric information, which risked the sale or transfer of millions of fingerprint records to thehighest bidder, the Illinois Legislature passed detailed regulations addressing the collection, use and retention of biometric information by private entities, such as Defendant. The Defendant has implemented an invasive program that captures, collects, stores and uses customer's fingerprints. While disregarding the applicable Illinois statute and the privacy interests it protects. When visiting Defendant's place of business, Defendant's customers in Illinois have been required to scan their fingerprints. BIPA expressly obligates Defendant to obtain an executed, written release from an individual, as a condition of employment, in order to capture, collect and store an individual's biometric identifiers, especially a fingerprint, and biometric information derived from it. BIPA further obligates Defendant to inform individuals in writing that a biometric identifier or biometric information is being collected or stored; to tell the individuals in writing for how long it will store their biometric information and any purposes for which biometric information is being captured, collected, and used; and to make available a written policy disclosing when it will permanently destroy such information. In direct violation of the foregoing provisions, Defendant actively captures, collects, stores. and uses. without obtaining informed written consent or publishing its data and retention and deletion policies, the biometrics of hundreds of individuals throughout the State of Illinois whose fingerprints are captured and stored by Defendant, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs: James X. Bonnes, Esq. Catherine P. Sons, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JAMES X. BORMES, P.C. 8 S. Michigan Ave., Suite 2600 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: 312 201 0575 Facsimile: 312 332 0600 E-mail: bormeslaweasbcglobal.net cpsons@bormeslaw.com - and - Thomas M. Ryan, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS M. RYAN, P.C. 35 E. Wacker Drive, Suite 650 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: 312 726 3400 Facsimile: 312 782 4519 E-mail: tom@tomryanlaw.com ALLIED METRO: Sosa Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages and Damages ------------------------------------------------------ JOSE ENRIQUE SOSA, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class Members, Plaintiffs v. ALLIED METRO EQUIPMENT CO, INC., ALLIED METRO EQUIPMENT COMPANY II, INC. and ALLIED METRO EQUIPMENT COMPANY III, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-02108 (E.D. N.Y., April 11, 2019) alleges that, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), he is entitled to recover from the Defendants: unpaid wages, unpaid overtime compensation; damages for failure to issue wage statements, liquidated damages; prejudgment and post-judgment interest; and attorneys' fees and costs. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff performed work above 40 hours per week but was not paid at the statutory rate of time and one-half as required by state and federal law. The Defendants also made improper and unlawful deductions from Plaintiff's pay. Moreover, the Defendants did not comply with the NYLL's wage statement and wage notice provision. The Defendants did not issue wage notices to employees as required by law. The Defendants are liable for damages for each employee pursuant to the NYLL, says the complaint. Plaintiff was employed by Defendants to work as a tailor from 2003 through present. Allied has multiple locations where they provide dry cleaning and tailoring services to the public.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Aneeba Rehman, Esq. Nadia M. Pervez, Esq. Pervez & Rehman, P.C. 68 South Service Road, Suite 100 Melville, NY 11747 Phone: (631) 427-0700 Email: arehman@pervezrehman.com ALTA MESA: Camelot Event Fund Files Securities Class Action in Tex. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Camelot Event Driven Fund, a Series of Frank Funds Trust, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Alta Mesa Resources, Inc. fka Silver Run Acquisition Corporation II, Harlan H. Chappelle, James T. Hackett, Thomas J. Walker, Michael A. McCabe, William D. Gutermuth, Jeffrey H. Tepper, Diana J. Walters, and Riverstone Investment Group LLC, Case No 4:19-cv-00957 (S.D. Tex., March 14, 2019), is brought against the Defendants for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The action is brought on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Silver Run II securities between March 24, 2017 and February 25, 2019, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), against Silver Run II and the Officer Defendants. The Plaintiff also brings claims on behalf of investors who held Silver Run II Class A common stock as of the record date on January 22, 2018 (the "Record Date") and were entitled to vote with respect to Silver Run II's acquisition of Alta Mesa Holdings, LP and Kingfisher Midstream LLC, against Silver Run II, Riverstone Investment Group LLC, and the Individual Defendants. On January 19, 2018, in order to secure shareholder support for the Acquisition, Silver Run II issued a materially false and misleading Definitive Merger Proxy Statement, asserts the complaint. Among other misrepresentations, the Proxy materially overstated the value of the assets to be acquired via the Acquisition and claimed that both Alta Mesa and Kingfisher were poised for substantial near-term growth. The Plaintiff purchased Silver Run II stock between March 24, 2017 and February 25, 2019. The Defendant Silver Run II is an oil and natural gas company incorporated in Delaware focused on the acquisition, development, exploration and exploitation of unconventional onshore oil and natural gas reserves in the eastern portion of the Anadarko Basin in Oklahoma. The Individual Defendants Harlan H. Chappelle, James T. Hackett, et. al., are its Officers. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas R. Ajamie, Esq. AJAMIE LLP Pennzoil Place South Tower 711 Louisiana, Suite 2150 Houston, TX 77002 Tel: (713) 860-1600 Fax: (713) 860-1699 E-mail: tajamie@ajamie.com - and - Christopher J. Keller, Esq. Eric J. Belfi, Esq. David Schwartz, Esq. Francis P. McConville, Esq. LABATON SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Tel: (212) 907-0700 Fax: (212) 818-0477 E-mail: ckeller@labaton.com ebelfi@labaton.com dschwartz@labaton.com fmcconville@labaton.com AMERICAN INSURANCE: Lashbrook Suit Asserts TCPA Violation --------------------------------------------------------- Caroline Lashbrook, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. American Insurance Agencies Direct, LLC, Foreign Limited Liability Company, Defendant, Case No. 0:19-cv-60956-BB (S.D. Fla., April 12, 2019) is a class action under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure against Defendant for its violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"). AIA utilizes bulk SPAM text messaging, or SMS marketing, to send unsolicited text messages, marketing and advertising AIA's insurance services, including at least 1 unsolicited text message to Plaintiff. Plaintiff at no time was given an option to "opt-out" of receiving future unsolicited text messages from AIA. At no time did Plaintiff provide Plaintiff's cellular phone number to AIA through any medium, nor did Plaintiff consent to receive such unsolicited text messages. Plaintiff has never signed-up for, and has never used, AIA's services, and has never had any form of business relationship with AIA. Through the unsolicited SPAM text messages, AIA contacted Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular telephone regarding an unsolicited service via an "automatic telephone dialing system" ("ATDS"). AIA is and was aware that it is placing unsolicited text messages to Plaintiff and other consumers without their prior express consent. Plaintiff was damaged by AIA's text message. In addition to using Plaintiff's cellular data, her privacy was wrongfully invaded, and Plaintiff has become understandably aggravated with having to deal with the frustration of repeated, unwanted robo-text messages forcing her to divert attention away from her work and other activities, says the complaint. Plaintiff is a citizen of the state of Florida. AIA employs insurance agents to promote and sell insurance products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth M. Lehrman, Esq. EDWARDS POTTINGER LLC 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: 954-524-2820 Facsimile: 954-524-2822 Email: seth@epllc.com AMERICO FINANCIAL: Amended Hancock Suit Dismissed With Prejudice ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, WILLIAM T. HANCOCK, SR., Individually and in a representative capacity on behalf of a class of persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. AMERICO FINANCIAL LIFE AND ANNUITY INSURANCE COMPANY, INVESTORS LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, and AMERICO LIFE, INC., Defendants, Case No. 7:16-CV-350-FL (E.D. N.C.), Judge Louise W. Flanagan of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, Southern Division, granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's amended complaint for failure to state a claim. The case returns to the Court following dismissal of the Plaintiff's original complaint, in order entered July 25, 2017, and mandate of the Fourth Circuit, dismissing appeal and remanding to the Court, with instructions to allow the Plaintiff to amend his complaint. In accordance with that mandate, the Plaintiff filed amended complaint on July 11, 2018. The Plaintiff commenced the action on Oct. 14, 2016, asserting claims against the Defendants arising from the sale by Defendant Investors Life of a "Flexible Premium Adjustable Life Insurance Policy" to the Plaintiff in February 1985, policy number 303 1163280, and collection of premiums thereunder through October 2013. The Plaintiff claims that Defendant Investors Life, in conjunction with the other Defendants who are allegedly affiliated entities, breached the terms of the policy. In his original complaint, the Plaintiff asserted claims for breach of contract; declaration and injunction; equitable rescission; unjust enrichment and constructive trust; fraudulent suppression and concealment; fraud; breach of duties of good faith and fair dealing; as well as violations of North Carolina's Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act ("UDTPA") and Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations ("RICO") act. In his amended complaint, plaintiff again asserts claims for breach of contract; declaration and injunction; equitable rescission; unjust enrichment and constructive trust; as well as violation of UDTPA. He has not reasserted the remaining tort claims from the original complaint. Plaintiff continues to seek compensatory, trebled, and punitive damages and certification of the case as a class action on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, as well as attorney's fees. As before, plaintiff attaches a copy of the policy to the amended complaint. He also relies in this instance upon a declaration of Tim Cody Ryles, Ph.D., an accredited advisor in insurance. The Defendants filed the instant motion to dismiss on Aug. 24, 2018, asserting that all claims fail as a matter of law and should be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The Court stayed scheduling activities pending decision on the motion. The Plaintiff responded in opposition to the instant motion on Oct. 5, 2018, and the Defendants replied on Oct. 19, 2018. The Plaintiff asserts that Defendants breached the terms of the policy by: (1) assessing or requiring premium payments in amounts higher than rightfully owed by the Plaintiff; (2) by wrongfully and improperly drafting the policy to be ambiguous and indecipherable with regard to key provisions; and (3) by assessing or requiring cost of insurance charges in excess of those permitted by certain mortality tables. Judge Flanagan finds that none of these asserted actions, however, constitutes a breach of the policy. She holds that the Plaintiff's breach of contract claim must be dismissed as a matter of law for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Where the Plaintiff has already been given an opportunity to amend his complaint to allege facts constituting a breach of contract, and the Plaintiff has failed to do so, dismissal is with prejudice because any further amendment would be futile. In addition, the Plaintiff's claims for declaration and injunction (count 2), equitable rescission (count 3), and unjust enrichment and constructive trust (count 4), premised upon the same contractual arguments must be dismissed. Next, the Plaintiff claims that the Defendants breached duties of good faith and fair dealing by drafting and marketing of universal life insurance policies which were misleading, ambiguous and essentially indecipherable to the Plaintiff. He suggests that an insurance company owes an exceptional duty of good faith under the law towards its insured, which th Defendants breached in the case. As a general rule, however, an insurance company is not a trustee for its insured. The Judge holds that the case cited by the Plaintiff for a contrary rule, Richardson v. Bank of Am., N.A., is inapposite because it involved the sale of insurance products that undisputedly were illegal. Accordingly, the Plaintiff's claim for breach of implied duty of good faith and fair dealing fails as a matter of law. Where he has already been given an opportunity to amend his complaint to allege facts constituting a claim of breach of good faith and fair dealing, and the Plaintiff has failed to do so, dismissal is with prejudice because any further amendment would be futile. The Plaintiff asserts the Dfendants engaged in unfair and deceptive trade practices by failing to give him adequate warnings and notice that his policy was an investment product highly sensitive to interest rate markets and that as a result, his premiums were substantially certain to increase even though Defendants knew or should have known this was certain to happen. The Judge holds that the Plaintiff fails to state a claim for a violation of the UDTPA. Accordingly, this claim must be dismissed as a matter of law. Where he has already been given an opportunity to amend his complaint to allege facts constituting a UDTPA violation, and the Plaintiff has failed to do so, dismissal is with prejudice because any further amendment would be futile. Based on the foregoing, Judge Flanagan granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss. She dismissed the Plaintiff's claims for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The dismissal is with prejudice, where the Judge has determined that no further amendment will cure the defects in the complaint, for the reasons set forth. The Clerk is directed to close the case. A full-text copy of the Court's March 29, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/7odBsb from Leagle.com. William T. Hancock, Sr., Individually and in a representative capacity on behalf of a class of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by H. Forest Horne, Jr., Martin & Jones, PLLC, Karl Joseph Amelchenko -- email@m-j.com -- Martin & Jones, PLLC & John Alan Jones, Martin & Jones, PLLC. Americo Financial Life and Annuity Insurance Company & Americo Life, Inc., Defendants, represented by Carl C. Scherz -- cscherz@lockelord.com -- Locke Lord LLP, Debbie Weston Harden -- dharden@wcsr.com -- Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, LLP, Jackson R. Price -- japrice@wcsr.com -- Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, LLP, Meredith J. McKee, Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, LLP, Roger B. Cowie -- rcowie@lockelord.com -- Locke Lord LLP & Taylor F. Brinkman, Locke Lord LLP. Investors Life Insurance Company of North America, Defendant, represented by Debbie W. Harden -- debbie.harden@wbd-us.com -- Jackson R. Price -- jackson.price@wbd-us.com -- WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE, PLLC, Charlotte, North Carolina; Roger B. Cowie -- rcowie@lockelord.com -- Carl C. Scherz -- cscherz@lockelord.com -- Taylor F. Brinkman -- tbrinkman@lockelord.com -- LOCKE LORD LLP. AMERIGROUP CORP: Sued by Dennis Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls ---------------------------------------------------------------- David Dennis, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Amerigroup Corp., Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-05165 (W.D. Wash., March 5, 2019), seeks statutory damages, permanent injunction to enjoin Defendants' and their agents' violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of this action, plus statutory prejudgment interest and such other relief. Amerigroup is a health insurance and managed health care provider operating in Washington, Nevada, Texas, Kansas, Iowa, Louisiana, Tennessee, Georgia, Florida, Maryland, and New Jersey. Defendants or its agents place telephone calls to consumers using autodialers and/or leave prerecorded telephone messages to solicit customers. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel M. Hutchinson, Esq. Evan J. Ballan, Esq. LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-3339 Tel. (415) 956-1000 Email: dhutchinson@lchb.com eballan@lchb.com - and - Michael C. Subit, Esq. FRANK FREED SUBIT & THOMAS LLP 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1200 Seattle, WA 98104 Phone: (206) 682-6711 Email: msubit@frankfreed.com - and - Jonathan D. Selbin, Esq. LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10013-1413 Tel. (212) 355-9500 Email: jselbin@lchb.com - and - Gary M. Klinger, Esq. KOZONIS LAW, LTD 4849 N. Milwaukee Ave., Ste. 300 Chicago, IL 60630 Phone: (773) 545-9607 Fax: (773) 496-8617 Email: gklinger@kozonislaw.com AMPLIPHI BIOSCIENCES: Midgarden Files Suit Over C3J Merger Deal --------------------------------------------------------------- Erik Midgarden, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. AMPLIPHI BIOSCIENCES CORP., PAUL GRINT, JEREMY C. COOK, LOUIS DRAPEAU, WENDY JOHNSON, MICHAEL PERRY, and VIJAY SAMANT, Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-00684-WQH-BLM (S.D. Cal., April 15, 2019) is a class action on behalf of the public shareholders of AmpliPhi Biosciences against the Company's Board of Directors for their violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and SEC Rule in connection with the proposed merger of the Company with C3J Therapeutics, Inc. On January 4, 2019, AmpliPhi Biosciences entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with C3J, pursuant to which a wholly owned subsidiary of AmpliPhi Biosciences, Ceres Merger Sub, Inc. ("Merger Sub"), will merge with C3J in an all-stock transaction after which C3J stockholders will own 76% of the combined company and AmpliPhi Biosciences stockholders will own 24% (the "Merger"). The transaction will account for a $10 million investment by certain C3J investors. On April 04, 2019, in order to convince the Company's stockholders to vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction, the Board authorized the filing of a materially incomplete and misleading proxy statement with the SEC in violation of the Exchange Act, asserts the complaint. For these reasons, Plaintiff asserts claims against AmpliPhi Biosciences and the Board for violations of Sections the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9. Plaintiff seeks to enjoin Defendants from taking any steps to consummate the Proposed Transaction unless and until the material information is disclosed to AmpliPhi Biosciences stockholders before the vote on the Proposed Transaction or, in the event the Proposed Transaction is consummated, recover damages resulting from the Defendants' violations of the Exchange Act, adds the complaint. Plaintiff is, and has been at all times relevant hereto, the owner of AmpliPhi Biosciences common stock. Defendant AmpliPhi Biosciences is a California corporation. The Company's common stock is traded on the NYSE under the symbol "APHB".[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marc G. Reich, Esq. Adam T. Hoover, Esq. REICH RADCLIFFE & HOOVER LLP 4675 MacArthur Court, Suite 550 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Phone: (949) 975-0512 Fax: (949) 208-2839 Email: mgr@reichradcliffe.com adhoover@reichradcliffe.com - and - Joshua M. Lifshitz, Esq. LIFSHITZ & MILLER LLP 821 Franklin Ave., Suite 209 Garden City, NY 11530 Phone: (516) 493-9780 Fax: (516) 280-7376 Email: jml@jlclasslaw.com ANDREW J. DICK: Faces Suit over Debt Collection Practices --------------------------------------------------------- TASHIA KNICKERBOCKER; CRAIG AUSTIN SIKES; and BARBARA WINSTEAD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ANDREW J DICK, Defendant, Case No. 6:19-cv-06231-CJS (W.D.N.Y., March 28, 2019) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. The case is assigned to Hon. Charles J. Siragusa.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexander Jerome Douglas, Esq. DOUGLAS FIRM, P.C. 36 West Main Street, Suite 500 Rochester, NY 14614 Telephone: (585) 703-9783 E-mail: alex@lawroc.com AON HEWITT: Failed to Provide Proper Wages, Calhoun Suit Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- Linda J. Calhoun, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Aon Hewitt Health Market Insurance Solutions, Inc. and Synectics, Inc., Case No. 1:19-cv-01810 (N.D. Ill., March 14, 2019), is brought against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an hourly, non-exempt, telephone-dedicated employee approximately from August 20, 2018 to December 10, 2018. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants failed to provide the agreed-upon hourly rates, overtime pays and failed to maintain true and accurate time records. The Defendant Aon Hewitt Health Insurance Market Solutions, Inc. is a Delaware corporation qualified to transact business in Illinois. Aon Hewitt Health Insurance Market Solutions, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Aon plc. Aon plc is a global professional services firm providing a broad range of risk, retirement and health solutions. The Defendant Synectics provided the Defendant Aon with staffing and in-house services related to the human resources processes, from worker recruitment and selection to introduction, planning and management of workers. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James X. Bormes, Esq. Catherine P. Sons, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JAMES X. BORMES, P.C. 8 South Michigan Avenue, Ste 2600 Chicago, IL 60603 Tel: (312) 201-0575 - and - Thomas M. Ryan, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS M. RYAN, P.C. 35 East Wacker Drive, Ste 650 Chicago, IL 60601 Tel: (312) 726-3400 APPLE INC: Priano-Keyser Sues over Defective Smart Watches ---------------------------------------------------------- GINA PRIANO-KEYSER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. APPLE, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-09162 (D.N.J., April 1, 2019), seeks to remedy violations of the New Jersey consumer protection law in connection with Apple's misconduct, including its conscious effort to conceal material facts concerning defects during the distribution, marketing, sale and advertisement of watches, as well the consumer and warranty as a result of Apple's conduct performed with respect to the Watches. The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of the proposed class, for the benefit and protection of all current and former owners of the Second Generation ("Series 1" and "Series 2"), and Third Generation ("Series 3") models of the Apple Watch purchased in New Jersey. Apple started selling the Watches in April 2015, when it introduced its "First Generation" Apple Watch. Since April 2015, Defendant has released additional "generations" of the Apple Watch: the Series 1 and Series 2 Watches; and the Series 3 Watch; and the Series 4 Watch. The Watches all contain the same defect and/or flaw, specifically, swelling lithium-ion batteries, which in turn cause Apple Watch screens to crack, shatter, or detach from the body of the Watch, through no fault of the wearer, oftentimes only days or weeks after purchase. The Defect is caused by aging or otherwise faulty li-on batteries, or by defective internal components of the Watches that regulate temperature, electrical currents, charging, and other mechanisms that could affect the Watches' li-on batteries. Apple knew that the Watches were defective at or before the time it began selling them to the public. Furthermore, consumers complained to Apple about the Defect almost immediately after Apple released the Series 1, Series 2, and Series 3 Watches. According to the complaint, Apple has persistently denied any widespread issue with Series 1 or Series 2 Watches, but, in April 2017, Apple acknowledged a swelling battery defect in certain first-generation Watches and extended its Limited Warranty for qualifying first generation Watches from one year to three years. Similarly, in April 2018, Apple acknowledged a swelling battery defect in certain Series 2 Watches and extended its Limited Warranty for qualifying Series 2 Watches from one year to three years. Apple knew that purchasers of the Watches would reasonably expect the screens to function in a predictable and expected manner during normal use, and Plaintiff and other consumers have precisely that expectation. Apple was also aware that purchasers of the Watches would reasonably expect that they would not pose a safety risk, and Plaintiff and other consumers have that expectation. Further, Apple knew that purchasers of the Watches would reasonably expect that the Defect -- when it manifested itself -- would be covered under its Limited Warranty, and again, Plaintiff and other consumers did have that expectation, the lawsuit says. Had Plaintiff and other Class members known about the Defect at the time of purchase, they would not have bought the Watches, or would have paid less for them. As a result of the Defect in the Watches and monetary costs associated with repair, replacement, or lost use of the Watches, Plaintiff and Class members have suffered injury in fact, incurred ascertainable loss and damages, and have otherwise been harmed by Apple's conduct.[BN] Attorneys for Gina Priano-Keyser, On Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated: James C. Shah, Esq. Natalie Finkelman Bennett, Esq. SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP 475 White Horse Pike Collingswood, NJ 08107 Telephone: 856/858-1770 Facsimile: 866/300-7367 E-mail: jshah@sfmslaw.com nfinkelman@sfmslaw.com - and - John F. Edgar, Esq. Brendan M. McNeal, Esq. EDGAR LAW FIRM LLC 1032 Pennsylvania Ave. Kansas City, MO 64105 Telephone: 816-531-0033 E-mail: jfe@edgarlawfirm.com bmm@edgarlawfirm.com ARROW CONSULTATION: Does not Pay Overtime Wages, Gallant Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ Joseph Gallant, Tina Hasenour and Susan Blankenberger, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Arrow Consultation Services, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-00925, (S.D. Ind., March 5, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Arrow Consultation provides supported living services in clients' own homes, structured family caregiving homes, or other similar environments. Plaintiff are "home managers" who assist clients in personal hygiene, housekeeping, cooking, purchasing groceries, unskilled nursing care, and transportation. They claim to have worked 80 consecutive hours and workweeks of up to 120 hours without overtime pay. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Scott D. Gilchrist, Esq. Richard E. Shevitz, Esq. COHEN & MALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 636-6481 Fax: (317) 636-2593 Email: rshevitz@cohenandmalad.com sgilchrist@cohenandmalad.com - and - Molly Brooks, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 245-1000 Fax: (646) 509-2060 Email: mb@outtengolden.com ASPEN NATIONAL: Paul Sues over Debt Collection Practices -------------------------------------------------------- Carrell Paul, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Aspen National Financial, Inc. d/b/a Aspen National Collections, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01871 (E.D.N.Y., April 1, 2019), seeks to recover damages for Defendant's violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant is regularly engaged, for profit, in the collection of debts allegedly owed by consumers. The Defendant alleges the Plaintiff owes a debt ("the Debt"). The Debt was primarily for personal, family or household purposes and is therefore a "debt" as defined by 15 U.S.C. section 1692a(5) and Fla. Stat. Section 559.55(6). Sometime after the incurrence of the Debt, the Plaintiff fell behind on payments. Thereafter, at an exact time known only to Defendant, the Debt was assigned or owed, otherwise transferred to Defendant for collection. In its efforts to collect the debt, Defendant contacted the Plaintiff by letter dated July 23, 2018. The Letter is a "communication" as defined by 15 U.S.C. section 1692a(2). The Letter provides for "Fees" of $310.80. Because the Letter can reasonably be read by the least sophisticated consumer to have two or more meanings, one of which is inaccurate, as described, it is deceptive within the meaning of 15 U.S.C. section 1692e. Because the Letter is reasonably susceptible to an inaccurate reading by the least sophisticated consumer, as described, it is deceptive within the meaning of 15 U.S.C. section 1692e. The least sophisticated consumer would likely be deceived by the Letter. The least sophisticated consumer would likely be deceived in a material way by the Letter. The Defendant violated section 1692e by using a false, deceptive and misleading representation in its attempt to collect a debt, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: Craig B. Sanders, Esq BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: (516) 203-7600 Facsimile: (516) 706-5055 E-mail: ConsumerRights@BarshaySanders.com ATLANTIC DIAGNOSTIC: Does not Properly Pay Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------- Olumide Ogunlana, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Atlantic Diagnostic Laboratories LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-01545-MSG (E.D. Pa., April 11, 2019) is a lawsuit against Defendant, seeking all available relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act ("PMWA"). The FLSA and PMWA both require that employees receive overtime premium pay for hours worked over 40 per week. In determining couriers' eligibility for overtime premium pay, the Defendant did not credit the time couriers spent performing job-rate activities, asserts the complaint. Instead, Defendant paid couriers overtime premium pay only if they spent over 40 hours on activities associated with their hourly pay, the complaint relates. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a courier from March 2016 until early-2019. The Defendant, according to its website, "is a full-service laboratory providing microbiology, chemistry, toxicology, immunology, and virology testing in the Northeast Region" of the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter Winebrake, Esq. R. Andrew Santillo, Esq. Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq. Winebrake & Santillo, LLC 715 Twinning Road, Suite 211 Dresher, PA 19025 Phone: (215) 884-2491 AVALON HOLDINGS: Bid for Summary Judgment in Matusky Suit Granted ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JESSICA MATUSKY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. AVALON HOLDINGS CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:17CV1535 (N.D. Ohio), Judge Benita Y. Pearson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Ohio, Eastern Division, granted Defendants Avalon Holdings, The Avalon Resort and Spa, LLC, Avalon Golf and Country Club, Inc., Avalon Country Club at Sharon, Inc., and Ronald Klingle's Motion for Summary Judgment. In the three-year period preceding the filing of the Class and Collective Action Complaint, the Defendants employed approximately 242 people as banquet servers, banquet bartenders, and banquet bussers. Plaintiff Matusky worked for them as a banquet server, a banquet bartender, and as a set-up person from October 2014 to April 2017. While working as a banquet server, Matusky was paid at a rate of $6.50 per hour and Defendants used a tip credit to make up the difference between that rate and the minimum wage. While working as a banquet bartender, Matusky was paid at a rate of $4.05 or $4.08 per hour, depending upon the Ohio minimum wage then in effect, during the time she worked for the Defendants and the Defendants used a tip credit to make up the difference between this rate and the minimum wage. Plaintiff John Stahl worked for Defendants as a banquet server or busser and a set-up person from May, 2015 to May, 2017. While working as a banquet server, Stahl was paid at a rate of $6.50 per hour and Defendants used a tip credit to make up the difference between that rate and the minimum wage. Plaintiff Zackary Kerr worked for the Defendants in various positions, including banquet server and banquet bartender from November 2014 to present. The Plaintiffs base their Amended Collective Action Complaint on the fact that, as banquet employees, they were required to perform final preparatory work prior to and clean up after events held at the Defendants' resorts and the Defendants took a tip credit on their wages for this time. As admitted by the Plaintiffs, restaurants are very different from banquet halls. There are fundamental differences between the banquet setting and the restaurant setting. In a restaurant, the tables and chairs are in place before the customer arrives for the first time and are usually set with napkins, glasses, and silverware. The set-up of the restaurant is the same day to day. The customer pays the bill and adds a tip on top of the total amount. The tip is based on a percentage of the total bill, which is usually between 10% to 20%. The amount of tips a restaurant server receives can increase based on the number of customers they serve and the amount of food and drink each customer orders. In the banquet setting, the party host chooses a banquet facility months in advance of the event when the room where the event is to take place is generally empty of any chairs, tables, or decorations. The customer determines the amount of food and drinks based on the total number of guests, so the menu for the event is set early. Because every event has a different number of guests and different needs to cater to, the set-up for each event is significantly different. As a result, the rooms do not remain set between events but are torn down and then re-set for the next event. The bill for the customer includes a total charge and a line to include an optional tip. When a customer leaves a tip, it is based on a percentage of the total charge, which is usually 10% to 20% of the total. This tip is then divided among the tipped banquet employees, i.e., the banquet servers and bartenders. On occasion, the party host does not provide a tip or the tip that is provided is insufficient to cover Defendants' tip credit. In those instances, the Defendants pay the employee an additional amount to ensure that each banquet employee is paid at least the minimum wage for all hours worked in a workweek. Thus, no banquet employee makes less than minimum wage for all hours worked. Unlike restaurant employees, a banquet employee's tip does not come from the individual guests attending the event, but from the party host. The amount of the food is preselected, so the guests cannot increase the bill by ordering more food. As a result, a banquet server's tips do not increase based on the amount of food or guests she serves. One exception to this is banquet bartenders, who may be able to increase tips based on the amount of drinks and guests served, if a tip jar is allowed. If there is a tip jar, individual guests can tip the bartenders based on the number of drinks they order. At the end of the event, bartenders are given the option of adding the tip jar amount to the total tip and receiving a portion of the total tip or dividing the tip jar amount amongst themselves. In most cases, banquet bartenders decide to split the tip jar amongst themselves and do not participate in the overall tip because it results in more money for each of them. If a tip jar is not allowed, the customer includes a tip of $75 per bartender in the total, which is provided to the bartender as a tip. During the period covered by this litigation, all three Plaintiffs made at or above the minimum wage in every workweek they worked for the Defendants. In the case of Matusky, her average hourly rate was $11.44 and that rate increased to $12.94 per hour when factoring in only her tipped work. Similarly, Stahl's average hourly rate was $11.06 and that rate increased to $12.28 per hour when factoring in only work for which Defendants took a tip credit. And, in the case of Kerr, his average hourly rate was $12.80 and that rate increased to $15.87 when factoring in only his tipped work. As banquet servers and bartenders, the Plaintiffs would work at catered events at the Defendants' different locations. Such events included corporate parties, weddings, baby/bridal showers, and anniversary parties. While the events would generally last from four to six hours, the Plaintiffs would typically be scheduled to work two hours prior to the actual start of the event. For work performed on the same day both before and after the event, the Defendants took a tip credit on the Plaintiffs' wages. All banquet employees are paid minimum wage for set-up work performed the day before and the day after an event. The Defendants have a category in their timekeeping system for set-up and pay employees minimum wage for time spent clocked-in under this category. In July 2017, Plaintiff Matusky brought the (1) collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), for minimum wage pay and (2) the class action under the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act and Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act for minimum wage pay. An Amended Collective Action Complaint, which added Opt-in Plaintiffs John Stahl and Zackary Kerr, was deemed served and filed as of Feb. 22, 2018. The Amended Collective Action Complaint alleges additional facts obtained through discovery. The amended pleading also reduced the number of allegations and claims at issue by removing the Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 class action allegations entirely. It narrows the focus of the case at bar to tip credit violations, already alleged in the Class and Collective Action Complaint, for both regular and overtime hours. It further restricts the class definition to the tipped banquet servers at the Defendants' four banquet facilities in Ohio and Pennsylvania based on the testimony of Avalon Holding's designated Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) representative that there are other tipped employees employed elsewhere in the Defendants' organization. The Plaintiffs' FLSA claims are based on their allegations that the Defendants improperly take a tip credit the day of an event for work they perform before and after the banquet or party. The Plaintiffs assert that, during those times, the duties they perform are non-tipped duties and that work takes up more than 20% of their workweek. The Defendants move for summary judgment on the Plaintiffs' FLSA claims based on their allegations that the Defendants improperly take a tip credit the day of an event for work the Plaintiffs perform before and after the banquet or party. The FLSA tip-credit exemption applies to tipped employees. Judge Pearson recognizes that the Sixth Circuit has not afforded the Field Operations Handbook ("FOH"), created by the Department of Labor ("DOL") in 1988, any type of deference or binding effect in relation to its interpretation of the FLSA. There is no reason for the Court to deviate from the holdings of the Sixth Circuit based on non-binding decisions by other courts outside the Circuit. Indeed, this is consistent with the Wage and Hour Division of the DOL itself, which states that the FOH is not used as a device for establishing interpretative policy. Finally, the FOH interpretation is inconsistent with the plain language of the FLSA and related DOL regulations in that it focuses on an employee's individual duties instead of her overall occupation. Both the FLSA and the DOL regulations are written in terms of "occupation" as opposed to "duty." Viewing the Plaintiffs' probative evidence and all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the Plaintiffs, Judge Judge Pearson granted the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. A full-text copy of the Court's March 29, 2019 Memorandum of Opinion and Order is available at https://is.gd/IeQ2wa from Leagle.com. Jessica Matusky, On behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, John R. Stahl & Zackary Kerr, Plaintiffs, represented by Joseph F. Scott -- jscott@ohiowagewlawyers.com -- Scott & Winters, Ryan A. Winters -- rwinters@ohiowagelawyers.com -- Scott & Winters & Kevin M. McDermott, II, Scott & Winters. Avalon Holdings Corporation, Avalon Resort and Spa LLC, Avalon Golf and Country Club, Inc., Avalon Country Club at Sharon, Inc. & Ronald Klingle, Defendants, represented by Anastasia J. Wade -- awade@brouse.com -- Brouse McDowell, Peter B. Grinstein, Nadler, Nadler & Burdman & Christopher John Carney -- ccarney@brouse.com -- Brouse McDowell. B.C. LIBERALS: Faces Class Action Over Partisan Advertising ----------------------------------------------------------- Sean Boynton, writing for Global News, reports that a radio ad created by the BC NDP Caucus is being called out as partisan by the BC Liberals -- who also faced criticism for partisan ads when they were in power. Paul Johnson has more. Nearly two years after vowing to eliminate partisan advertising funded by taxpayers, the B.C. NDP is under fire for running a campaign-style ad of its own. A radio ad from the B.C. NDP Caucus has been playing on Global News Radio CKNW and other B.C. radio stations promoting the government's accomplishments while disparaging the Opposition B.C. Liberals -- something the NDP spent years criticizing the Liberals for doing when the parties' roles were reversed. "B.C. Liberal Leader Andrew Wilkinson wants to give a tax cut to the richest two per cent. John Horgan is working for everyone," the ad says before running through a list of the premier's accomplishments: reducing health-care wait times, new schools, eliminating MSP premiums and more, all with a balanced budget. "Instead of just working for the very rich, John Horgan is working for all of us," the ad concludes. B.C. Liberal MLA Jas Johal was quick to pounce on the ad. "These are partisan ads basically attacking the B.C. Liberals and basically talking about how great a job the NDP are doing," he said. In a phone conversation, NDP Caucus chair Jagrup Brar said the ad, like others produced by the caucus, was paid for out of the predetermined caucus budget, which means it's technically free from taxpayer scrutiny. READ MORE: Proportional representation backers outspent opponents by nearly $500K in failed B.C. referendum He also pushed back against the idea that the ad violates the NDP's promises during the 2017 election to set new, stricter standards for spending on partisan advertising. "The language we used is very consistent with the material we produce every day," the Surrey-Fleetwood MLA said. "We're doing nothing wrong here." Brar said he was aware of the ad before it was delivered to radio stations. He said the purpose is simply to let people know what the government is doing for British Columbians. "It's also important to note that the B.C. Liberals create ads every day putting forth their perspective, and they probably spend the same amount of money as we do," he said. He added that he didn't find it inappropriate to mention Wilkinson's position in the ad. Brar said he wasn't aware of any upcoming legislation aimed at tackling government advertising. UBC political scientist Stewart Prest said that by claiming the ads aren't partisan in nature, the NDP is "risking losing the moral high ground." "They're opening themselves up to charges of hypocrisy," Price said. The debate over partisan ads has been ongoing for years between the two major parties, and the criticism hasn't just come from lawmakers. In March 2017, auditor general Carol Bellringer held a meeting with Wilkinson, then the education minister, over his approval of advertising that crossed the line into partisanship. The ad in question touted the Liberal government's budget surplus and plans to make cuts to MSP premiums, which Bellringer said exceeded guidelines for what should be included in government messages. The NDP didn't waste any time commenting on the meeting, demanding the Liberals pay back the $15 million in taxpayer money budgeted for the ads. "It's not appropriate use of tax dollars, and the way I read that, the way the NDP reads that … the way British Columbians read that is that money belongs to the people of B.C.," future housing minister Selina Robinson said then. The meeting with the auditor general also came a week after lawyers in Vancouver launched a proposed class-action lawsuit against the Liberals and Christy Clark's government alleging misuse of taxpayer dollars for partisan advertising. The suit, which alleged the government used the ads to enhance the party's image while promoting the province right before the 2017 campaign, was tossed out the following year. At the time, Horgan said the lawsuit wasn't a surprise. "I know I can't watch hockey games anymore because I just can't stomach watching every time the puck is not being dropped, having to hear about how great the Liberals are," he told reporters. The NDP later came under fire for a series of Facebook ads it launched in September 2017, just months after the party came into power, that repeated its campaign slogans. With files from Paul Johnson and the Canadian Press [GN] BEMIS COMPANY: Dixon Files Securities Suit Over Amcor Merger Deal ----------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Dixon, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. BEMIS COMPANY, INC., WILLIAM F. AUSTEN, KATHERINE C. DOYLE, ADELE M. GULFO, DAVID S. HAFFNER, TIMOTHY M. MANGANELLO, ARUN NAYAR, GUILLERMO NOVO, MARRAN H. OGILVIE, DAVID T. SZCZUPAK, HOLLY A. VAN DEURSEN, PHILIP G. WEAVER, GEORGE W. WURTZ III, and ROBERT H. YANKER, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-03356 (S.D. N.Y., April 15, 2019) is a stockholder class action brought by Plaintiff on behalf of himself and all other public stockholders of Bemis Company, Inc. against Bemis and the members of its Board of Directors for their violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act"), and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC"). On August 6, 2018, Bemis and Amcor Limited issued a joint press release announcing they had entered into a Transaction Agreement dated August 6, 2018 (the "Transaction Agreement"). Pursuant to the terms of the Transaction Agreement, each share of Bemis common stock will be converted into the right to receive 5.1 New Amcor shares (the "Merger Consideration"). Based on the closing price of Amcor common stock of A$15.28 per share on August 3, 2018, the implied value of the Merger Consideration is $57.75 per share. As a result of the transaction, each of Amcor and Bemis will become a direct wholly-owned subsidiary of New Amcor. Former Amcor stockholders are expected to hold approximately 71% of New Amcor and former Bemis stockholders are expected to hold approximately 29% of New Amcor. On March 27, 2019, Bemis filed a Definitive Proxy Statement on Form DEFM 14A ("Proxy Statement") with the SEC in connection with the Proposed Transaction. The Proxy Statement, which recommends that Bemis stockholders vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction, omits or misrepresents material information concerning, among other things: (i) the financial analyses performed by the Company's financial advisor Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC; (ii) the background of the Proposed Transaction; and (iii) Bemis insiders' and Goldman's potential conflicts of interest. The failure to adequately disclose such material information constitutes a violation the Exchange Act as Bemis stockholders need such information in order to make a fully-informed voting or appraisal decision in connection with the Proposed Transaction, says the complaint. Plaintiff is, and has been continuously throughout all times relevant hereto, a continuous stockholder of Bemis. Bemis, a Missouri corporation, is a supplier of flexible and rigid plastic packaging used by leading food, consumer products, healthcare, and other companies worldwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard A. Acocelli, Esq. WEISSLAW LLP 1500 Broadway, 16th Floor New York, NY 10036 Phone: (212) 682-3025 Fax: (212) 682-3010 Email: racocelli@weisslawllp.com - and - Melissa A. Fortunato, Esq. BRAGAR EAGEL & SQUIRE, P.C. 885 Third Avenue, Suite 3040 New York, NY 10022 Phone: (212) 308-5858 Fax: (212) 486-0462 Email: fortunato@bespc.com BERGEN SHIPPERS: Escamilla Sues Over Discriminatory Actions ----------------------------------------------------------- GINA ESCAMILLA, an individual, and as Class Representative; JOSETTE GOGUE, an individual, and as Class Representative; Plaintiffs, v. BERGEN SHIPPERS CORP., A NEW JERSEY CORPORATION; and DOES 1 through 50, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV12976 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., April 15, 2019) is a class action, under California Code of Civil Procedure seeking economic and non-economic damages, unpaid wages, and interest thereon, waiting time penalties, liquidated damages and other penalties, injunctive and other equitable relief and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, under the Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order. The Defendant has had a consistent policy of, terminating and constructively terminating, discriminating, harassing, and retaliatory conduct towards Female employees over the age of 45 including the denial of promotions and transfer opportunities within the company, discriminatory, harassing, and retaliatory comments, and a failure to respond or reprimand to their younger counterparts who engaged in said conduct, asserts the complaint. Plaintiff alleges that officers and directors of BERGEN knew of these facts and legal mandates yet, repeatedly authorized and/or ratified the violation of the laws cited herein. Despite DEFENDANTS' knowledge of the Class' entitlement to damages for all, DEFENDANTS failed and continues to fail to provide the same benefits, rights, and protections to all classes of workers during all applicable work periods in willful violation of California state statutes, Industrial Welfare Commission Order No. 9 and Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations, says the complaint. Plaintiffs are females over the age of 45 who were employed by Defendants as a senior account manager and a facility manager since 2017. BERGEN is a New Jersey Corporation doing in business in the State of California in the County of Los Angeles.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan F. Rayas, Esq. Rayas Law One World Trade Center 8th Floor Long Beach, CA 90831 Phone: (562) 269-4607 Fax: (562) 2694620 Email: Jonathan@RavasLaw.com BLACK CAT: Hilmer Claims Overtime for Hrs Worked Over 40 per Week ----------------------------------------------------------------- Daniel Hilmer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Black Cat Security, Johnathan Elliott and Stephen Martin, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-00545 (N.D. Tex., March 5, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wage and overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. Black Cat Security is a security company owned by Elliott and Martin. Hilmer worked as a security guard for Black Cat for 3 years. He claims to have worked hours longer than forty hours in a single workweek but was not paid one-and-one-half his regular rate of pay. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Drew N. Herrmann, Esq. Pamela G. Herrmann, Esq. HERRMANN LAW, PLLC 801 Cherry Street, Suite 2365 Fort Worth, TX 76102 Telephone: (817) 479-9229 Fax: (817) 887-1878 Email: drew@herrmannlaw.com pamela@herrmannlaw.com BOFA SECURITIES: PR GERS Sues Over GSE Bond Price-fixing -------------------------------------------------------- Puerto Rico Government Employees and Judiciary Retirement Systems Administration, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BOFA SECURITIES, INC., MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INC., BARCLAYS CAPITAL INC., BNP PARIBASSECURITIES CORP., CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES (USA) LLC, DEUTSCHE BANK SECURITIES INC., FTN FINANCIAL SECURITIES CORP., GOLDMAN SACHS & CO. LLC, J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC, AND UBS SECURITIES LLC Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-03261 (S.D. N.Y., April 11, 2019) is a class action seeking to hold Defendants accountable for the injuries they have caused. Over the past ten years the Defendants have been accused of manipulating or conspiring to manipulate a vast array of financial rates, benchmarks, and instruments. This case arises out of a conspiracy to fix the prices and restrain competition in the market for unsecured bonds issued by Government Sponsored Entities ("GSEs"). A GSE is a quasi-governmental entity established to enhance the flow of credit to specific sectors of the American economy. GSEs, like the FHLB, FFCB, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac were all created by acts of Congress. The Federal Home Loan Banks ("FHLB") were chartered by Congress in 1932 to provide member financial institutions with products and services that facilitate the financing of housing and community lending. The Federal Farm Credit Banks Funding Corporation ("FFCB"), is the leading provider of loans, leases, and services to rural communities. The Federal National Mortgage Association ("Fannie Mae") was created by Congress in 1938 to provide local banks with federal money to finance home loans to raise the rate of home ownership and the availability of affordable housing. In 1968, President Lyndon B. Johnson privatized Fannie Mae. Two years later the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation ("Freddie Mac") was started, in part to prevent monopolization of the market. The FHLB, FFCB, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac are all GSEs. Rather than compete for customers' business by tightening spreads, which benefits customers but reduces the dealers' profits, Defendants conspired to manipulate the prices and spreads of GSE bonds, asserts the complaint. The traders involved in this conspiracy operated out of standing electronic chat rooms on Bloomberg, which facilitated their conspiracy. In these chat rooms the traders shared highly sensitive trading information about their client orders and about the trading strategies of their customers. Defendants also conspired through other means, such as emails, text messages, and telephone calls. The Defendants' clients, of course, had no idea that Defendants had secretly agreed not to compete. Investors often engaged in extensive efforts to drive competition among Defendants to secure better price terms for their GSE bonds. As a result of Defendants' abandonment of competition, and their extensive efforts to harm their customers, every GSE bond transaction in which Class members engaged with Defendants was impacted by the conspiracy, asserts the complaint. It is well known in the academic literature, that a reduction in competition among dealers harms investors who purchase the financial product for which competition was reduced. Defendants' conspiracy offends the very core of the antitrust laws. Defendants were supposed to be aggressively competing for the business of their customers, not secretly conspiring to achieve profits they could not have achieved on their own, says the complaint. Plaintiff PR GERS is a pension fund with its headquarters in Hato Rey, Puerto Rico, who transacted in approximately $14.9 million of GSE bonds with one or more Defendants. BofA Securities, Inc., which was formerly known as BofAML Securities, Inc. before being rebranded in February 2019, is a corporation organized under the laws of Delaware with its principal place of business in New York, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mitchell M.Z. Twersky, Esq. Atara Hirsch, Esq. Matthew E. Guarnero, Esq. ABRAHAM FRUCHTER & TWERSKY, LLP One Penn Plaza, Suite 2805 New York, NY 10119 Phone: (212) 279-5050 Fax: (212) 279-3655 Email: MTwersky@aftlaw.com AHirsch@aftlaw.com Mguarnero@aftlaw.com BUDO MAINTENANCE: Martinez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------- Orlando Martinez, on of behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. BUDO MAINTENANCE CORP., NEW HOPE FUND, LLC, and SHERMAN MANAGEMENT A/K/A SHERMAN PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-03302 (S.D. N.Y., April 12, 2019) is action on behalf of plaintiff and all others similarly situated, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and specifically the collective action provision of the FLSA, to remedy violations of the wage and hour provisions of the FLSA by Defendants that have deprived the Plaintiff and others similarly situated of their lawful wages. Throughout the course of his employment, Plaintiff regularly worked in excess of 40 hours each week without regularly receiving accurate pay for the actual hours he worked. Defendants, during the course of his employment, did not pay Plaintiff the required minimum wage, under federal and state law, says the complaint. Plaintiff was a residential building Superintendent who worked for the Defendants from July 2016 until December 16, 2018. Defendants operate as an enterprise, owning and managing multiple residential buildings in the Bronx.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chaya M. Gourarie, Esq. JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC 225 Broadway, Suite 2700 New York, NY 10007 Phone: (212) 227-5700 Fax: (212) 406-6890 BULLDOG AMUSEMENTS: Munteanu Sues Over Unpaid Wages --------------------------------------------------- Ligia Munteanu, On Behalf of Herself and All Other Similarly Situated Individuals, PLAINTIFF, v. Bulldog Amusements IV, Inc. d/b/a Club Venus, DEFENDANT, Case No. 2:19-cv-11085-MAG-MKM (E.D. Mich., April 15, 2019) is a class and collective action against Defendant seeking damages, back-pay, restitution, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, reasonable attorney's fees and costs, and all other relief that the Court deems just, reasonable and equitable in the circumstances. Specifically, Plaintiff complains that Defendant and predecessor entities doing business as Club Venus (or under similar names) at the location 9506 Michigan Avenue Detroit, Michigan 48210 misclassified Plaintiff and all other members of the class and collective as "independent contractors" at all times in which they worked as dancers at Defendant's, Detroit, Michigan-based gentlemen's club. As a result, Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff and all other members of the class and collective minimum wage compensation they were entitled to under the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the Michigan Minimum Wage Law ("MMWL"), asserts the complaint. Plaintiff was employed as an exotic dancer by Club Venus and prior entities doing business under the Club Venus trade name at the Club Venus gentlemen's club in Detroit, Michigan, for the period of about August 2012 through about July 2017. Club Venus is a corporation formed in the State of Michigan that operates as a gentlemen's club featuring female exotic dancers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Clifford Neubauer, Jr., Esq. Erskine Law 342 S. Main Street Rochester, MI 48307 Phone: (248) 601-4499 (ph) Email: cneubauer@erskinelaw.com - and - Gregg C. Greenberg, Esq. Zipin, Amster & Greenberg, LLC 8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 400 Silver Spring, MD 20910 Phone: (301) 587-9373 (ph) Email: GGreenberg@ZAGFirm.com CANADA: Inmates Win Solitary Confinement Class Action v. CSC ------------------------------------------------------------ The Globe and Mail reports that finally, a Canadian court has reached a conclusion that long seemed inevitable: putting a prison inmate in solitary confinement for more than 15 days constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, in violation of Section 12 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Not only did the Ontario Court of Appeal make this landmark ruling, it also gave Correctional Service Canada an April 13 deadline to bring the new limit into effect. Barring a stay of the ruling based on a request by Ottawa to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court, it has barely two weeks to implement a major policy change. Given that an appeal is expected, the CSC may have more time than that. But also given the evolution of this issue, it is now fairly certain that the days of isolating federal inmates for weeks, months or even years are officially over. The ruling joins two other recent ones that put the federal solitary regime into doubt. Last year, a B.C. court said parts of the law governing solitary violated the Charter; federal inmates won a class-action lawsuit against the CSC, when a judge found that the practice of isolating seriously mentally ill inmates was cruel and unusual. Those rulings are an extension of a decades-old international movement to end the use of solitary confinement around the world. In 2012, the United Nations Committee Against Torture called on Canada to abolish solitary for youths and prisoners with mental-health issues. The UN considers solitary a form of torture that should only be used in exceptional circumstances, and never as a routine aspect of prison life. As well, federal and provincial human-rights and prison watchdogs have repeatedly called out the CSC, as well as provincial prison systems, for the dangerous overuse of solitary confinement as a convenient means of segregating unruly or dangerous inmates. And then, of course, there were those two shocking deaths in federal prisons: Ashley Smith, a teenager who displayed obvious signs of mental illness but still spent more than 1,000 days in solitary before taking her own life in 2007, at the age of 19; and Edward Snowshoe, an Indigenous man who took his own life in 2010 after 162 consecutive days in solitary. At the provincial level, no story better illustrates the psychological harm of long stays in solitary than that of Adam Capay. He spent 1,647 days in isolation in an Ontario prison, most of them in a cell that was perpetually lit. This inhumane treatment exacerbated his mental illness to the point that he began mutilating his face, torso and genitals with a pencil. And so now the CSC has a short window to figure out how to manage its inmate populations without reflexively resorting to lengthy stays in solitary confinement. It's hard not to sympathize with the CSC. Like all prison systems, it is handed convicted criminals and told to rehabilitate them while overseeing their sentences. It has no control over how many people it must manage, and little control of its budgets. Some of the inmates have mental illnesses that may have been behind the reason for their incarceration. Prison officials have to keep all inmates safe, and so must find a way to segregate the most dangerous ones from the general population. It's not easy, and it wasn't helped by the tough-on-crime years of the last Conservative government, with its emphasis on mandatory minimum sentences that put more pressure on the federal prison system. And yet, the CSC has responded to calls to reduce the number of inmates in solitary, cutting the total from 800 in 2014 to 322. As well, the Trudeau government is closing in on the adoption of Bill C-83, a proposed law that would create separate units for inmates who can't be housed with the general population, whether for their safety or that of others, while offering them more health and rehabilitation services than are currently available. If that came with enough money, it could be a workable solution. If it simply amounts to the cosmetic renaming of one part of every prison, it will be yet another failed attempt to address a pressing issue. And C-83 does not respond to what now appears to be inevitable, and which could come into effect in a matter of weeks: a constitutional ban on stays in federal solitary that exceed 15 days. The court ruling is welcome, because it will finally force Ottawa and the CSC to do something they could, and should, have done long ago. [GN] CANTON PEDIATRIC: Hopper Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------- HEATHER HOPPER, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CANTON PEDIATRIC DENTISTRY P.C., PEDIATRIC DENTISTRY AND ORTHODONTICS P.C., and VISHANT NATH, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01071-STA-jay (W.D. Tenn., April 12, 2019) is an action brought individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated Dental Insurance Verification Specialists to recover unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and declaratory relief, all pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The Defendants violated the FLSA overtime requirements by misclassifying Plaintiff and other Dental Insurance Verification Specialists as independent contractors and failing to pay them wages for hours worked over 40 in a workweek, even though Plaintiff and other Dental Insurance Verification Specialists regularly worked over 40 hours in a workweek. As a result, there were many weeks in which Defendants owed but did not pay Plaintiff and the other Dental Insurance Verification Specialists overtime compensation at 1.5 times their regular rate of pay, in violation of the FLSA, says the complaint. Plaintiff was employed by Defendants from approximately January 27, 2019 through March 6, 2019 as a Dental Insurance Verification Specialist and was misclassified as an Independent contractor. Defendants are providers of primary and specialty oral care for infants and children through adolescence.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory F. Coleman, Esq. Lisa A. White, Esq. Justin G. Day, Esq. GREG COLEMAN LAW PC 800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Phone: (865)-247-0080 Fax: (865)-522-0049 Email: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com lisa@gregcolemanlaw.com justin@gregcolemanlaw.com - and - Nicholas Conlon, Esq. Lotus Cannon, Esq. Jason T. Brown, Esq. BROWN, LLC 111 Town Square Pl Suite 400 Jersey City, NJ 07310 Phone: (877) 561-0000 Fax: (855) 582-5297 Email: nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com lotus.cannon@jtblawgroup.com jtb@jtblawgroup.com CARNIVAL PLC: Can Compel Arbitration in Moskalenko Suit ------------------------------------------------------- In the case, TETYANA MOSKALENKO, on her own behalf and on behalf of all other Seafarers similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CARNIVAL PLC and FLEET MARITIME SERVICES INTERNATIONAL, LTD., Defendants, Case No. 17-CV-6947 (NGG) (CLP) (E.D. N.Y.), Judge Nicholas H. Garaufis of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted the Defendants' motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, and its implementing legislation, Chapter Two of the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA"), and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3). Moskalenko brings the putative class action under the Seaman's Wage Act, New York Labor Law, and the Declaratory Judgment Act. Moskalenko is a citizen of Ukraine. Defendant Carnival is a corporation organized under the laws of England and Wales, with its principal place of business in Southampton, England. Defendant Fleet Maritime Services, Ltd. is a subsidiary of Defendant Carnival. Between 2007 and 2018, Defendant Fleet Maritime Services employed the Plaintiff to serve as a Bedroom Stewardess on the ocean liner, Queen Mary 2. Queen Mary 2 operates a route between New York and Southampton, England, and calls on ports in New York, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Maine. Red Hook, Brooklyn is considered one of the ship's home ports. The Plaintiff asserts claims based on the Defendants' alleged failures to: (1) properly compute her share of the gratuities/service charges collected from passengers; (2) appropriately staff the ship such that the Plaintiff was forced to hire and personally pay for helpers to complete her assigned tasks; and (3) timely pay the Plaintiff's wages. The Plaintiff alleges that over the course of her employment, she entered into nine "similarly-worded Seafarer's Employment Agreements with Defendant Fleet Maritime Services," each of which covered a period of eight-to-ten months. The Plaintiff and another seafarer, who wishes to join the action, signed nearly identical boilerplate declarations stating that these contracts were never explained to them, that they were not permitted to negotiate the terms, and that their principal reason for signing the contracts was to ensure that they could provide for their families. The Defendants aver that crewmembers signed Part A of the agreements and that Part B, which contained the standard terms and conditions of their employment, was retained by crewmembers. The Plaintiff commenced the action on Nov. 29, 2017. She asserts five causes of action. First, she alleges that the Defendants failed to fully or properly pay her wages in violation of the Seaman's Wage Act. She also asserts three claims under New York Labor Law Article 6 based on the Defendants' alleged failure to pay her agreed-upon wages, unauthorized deductions from the Plaintiff's wages, and unlawful retention of gratuities or service charges meant to be paid to the Plaintiff. Finally, the Plaintiff seeks a declaration pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 2201 that the arbitration clause and choice of law provisions in Part B of the Seafarer Agreements are unenforceable because they operate as a prospective waiver of the Plaintiff's rights and are therefore against public policy. The Defendants now move to compel arbitration and dismiss pursuant to the Convention, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3),3 and the terms of the Seafarer Agreements on the grounds that the agreements require that any disputes with the Defendants be arbitrated in Bermuda under Bermuda law. The Plaintiff opposes the motion on several grounds, including that the agreement to arbitrate, which is contained in a standard terms and provisions document, was not properly incorporated by reference into the portion of her contracts that she executed. Judge Garaufis agrees with the Defendants and finds that there was a written agreement to arbitrate between the parties during all relevant periods. The Defendants do not contest that Part A lacked an arbitration provision, but they insist that each Part A signed by the Plaintiff expressly incorporated the Standard Terms and Conditions in Part B, which did include an arbitration provision. The Judge finds that the executed portion of the Plaintiff's contracts -- the "Part A's" -- clearly and unambiguously reference and describe Part B, which contained an arbitration provision. Part A informs employees that Part B of the Employment Agreement is attached setting out all the standard terms and conditions of employment relating to one's rank and position, referenced as B3. Part A also states that by signing all of the terms and conditions set out and referred to in Parts A, B, and, where applicable, Part C of the Agreement, the employee freely accepts them. These clauses, the Judge finds, each incorporate Part B into Part A. Part B includes a clear arbitration clause. He thus concludes that Part B's arbitration clause is incorporated by reference into Part A. The Judge disagrees with the Plaintiff's contention that she cannot be bound by the provisions of Part B because she did not sign it. The Plaintiff argues that the following language, located above the signature line in Part A, signifies that she needed to sign Part B to be bound by it. The Judge is not convinced by the Plaintiff's interpretation; on the contrary, he finds that this language actually further serves to incorporate the provisions of Part B into Part A. As Defendants note, Part B does not even contain a signature line. Because he finds that Part B's arbitration agreement was incorporated by reference into the portion of the employment agreements that Plaintiff signed, the Judge finds that a written agreement to arbitrate existed between the parties. The jurisdictional requirements of the Convention are thus satisfied. Next, the Judge finds that the Plaintiff's asserted affirmative defenses fail. He finds that the Plaintiff has failed to show that the choice-of-law and choice-of-forum provisions operate in tandem as a prospective waiver of a party's right to pursue statutory damages. Indeed, the Defendants provide an affidavit from an Acting Judge of the Supreme Court of Bermuda, explaining that Bermuda law provides for a choice-of-law analysis, that Bermuda judges and arbitrators have extensive experience applying international law, and that parties appearing in a Bermuda court or arbitration proceeding may argue that there are grounds to apply other laws. This declarant also states that Bermuda law provides remedies for seafaring employees claiming breaches of the duty to fully and timely pay salary and gratuities. The Plaintiff has failed to establish either that a Bermuda arbitrator would categorically refuse to apply New York law, or that application of Bermuda law would be "fundamentally unfair." For the reasons he stated, Judge Garaufis granted the Defendants' Motion to Compel Arbitration. The Court retains limited jurisdiction to enforce any award resulting from the arbitration. The parties are directed to file a letter notifying the Court of the results of the arbitration and their intent to enforce any arbitral award before the Court. A full-text copy of the Court's March 29, 2019 Memorandum and Order is available at https://is.gd/57UMr6 from Leagle.com. Tetyana Moskalenko, Plaintiff, represented by Felix Q. Vinluan -- fqvinluan@yahoo.com -- Lw Office of Felix Q. Vinkuan. Carnival PLC & Fleet Maritime Services International, Ltd., Defendants, represented by Edgar R. Nield, Maltzman & Partners, pro hac vice & Jeffrey B. Maltzman, Maltzman & Partners, pro hac vice. CENTURION SECURITY: Sutherland Seeks Proper Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- Ryan Sutherland, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. Centurion Security, L.L.C., and Professional Security, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 5:19-cv-05071-PKH (W.D. Ark., April 11, 2019) is an action under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act, Ark. ("AMWA"), for declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees as a result of Defendants' failure to pay Plaintiff and other hourly paid employees proper overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. The Defendants did not pay Plaintiff and other hourly employees a lawful overtime premium of 1.5 times their regular rate for all hours in excess of 40 in one or more weeks during the period of time relevant to this lawsuit, asserts the complaint. Plaintiff worked for Defendants during a portion of 2017 and again in 2018 until August. Plaintiff was rehired by Defendants in December 2018 after returning from military duty, and continues to work for Defendants. Centurion Security, L.L.C. is a domestic limited liability company that provides security services in Northwest Arkansas and PSI being listed as providing security services in Western Arkansas and Eastern Oklahoma.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Josh West, Esq. Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC One Financial Center 650 South Shackleford, Suite 411 Little Rock, AR 72211 Phone: (501) 221-0088 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 Email: west@sanfordlawfirm.com josh@sanfordlawfirm.com CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Marcelino Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL MARCELINO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, LLC; and DOES 1 through 50, Defendants, Case No. 37-2019-00016478-CU-OE-CTL (Cal. Super., San Diego Cty., March 28, 2019) is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal and rest periods, and provide itemize wage statements. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an hourly-paid, non-exempt employee. Charter Communications LLC provides broadband communications services. The Company offers traditional cable video programming, high-speed Internet access, telephone services, advanced broadband services including high definition television service, and digital video recorder service to residential and commercial customers. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jean-Claude Lapuyade, Esq. JCL LAW FIRM, APC 3990 Old Town Avenue, Suite C204 San Diego, CA 92110 Telephone: (619) 599-8292 Facsimile: (619) 599-8291 E-mail: jlapuyade@jcl-lawfirm.com CHURCH & DWIGHT: Faces Mislabeling Suit Over Multivitamin Product ----------------------------------------------------------------- Tammy DeVane, Plaintiff, v. Church & Dwight Co., Inc., Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-09899 (D. N.J., April 15, 2019) is a class action on behalf of Plaintiff and a nationwide class of purchasers of Defendant's Vitafusion and L'il Critters multivitamin products asserting: (a) breach of express warranty, (b) breach of implied warranty, (c) violation of New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act; and (d) violation of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. Church & Dwight is a large Delaware corporation who manufactures a wide variety of household products, including a line of multivitamin products under the Vitafusion and L'il Critters brand names. As part of the labeling for these products, Church & Dwight identifies its multivitamin products as being "complete" and containing the "essential" nutrients expressly on the products' packaging and labels. Despite the representations and warranties contained on its products packaging and labels, Church & Dwight's products are not, in fact, "complete" by any definition of the word as they are lacking several of the essential vitamins identified by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as being necessary for human health. Specifically, these products all lack vitamin K, thiamin (vitamin B-1), and riboflavin (vitamin B-2), while many of the products additionally lack niacin (vitamin B-3), says the complaint. Plaintiff Tammy DeVane has been purchasing Defendant's L'il Critters Gummy Vites Complete Multivitamin products for at least six months, with refills approximately every three months. Church & Dwight is a major American manufacturer of household products that is best known for its Arm & Hammer line of products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Taylor C. Bartlett, Esq. Mark R. Ekonen, Esq. Heninger Garrison Davis, LLC 220 Saint Paul Street Westfield, NJ 07090 Phone: 205-326-3336 Email: taylor@hgdlawfirm.com mark@hgdlawfirm.com CLARUS GROUP: Chavez Seeks Unpaid Overtime Premium Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------- Adolfo Chavez III, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Clarus Group, LLC, and Cerner Corporation, Case No. 3:02-at-06000 (M.D. Pa., March 14, 2019), is brought against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act of 1968. The Plaintiff brings this action to redress common policies and practices by which the Defendants, jointly and severally, suffered and permitted Plaintiff and other similarly-situated employees to work in excess of 40 hours per week without properly compensating them at an overtime premium rate for all of their overtime hours. The Plaintiff is a resident of Placentia, California who worked for Defendants as an At-The-Elbow Clinical Support Specialist at the Penn State Health Milton S. Hershey Medical Center in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania during the relevant period. The Defendant Clarus is a Kansas limited liability company with a principal place of business in Overland Park, Kansas. Clarus provides information technology support services to the healthcare industry in this District and nationwide. The Defendant Cerner is a Delaware corporation with a principal place of business in North Kansas City, Missouri. Cerner also provides information technology support services in the healthcare industry in this District and nationwide. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David J. Cohen, Esq. STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP 604 Spruce Street Philadelphia, PA 19106 Tel: (215) 873-4836 Fax: (312) 233-1560 - and - Ryan F. Stephan, Esq. James B. Zouras, Esq. STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP 100 North Riverside Plaza, Ste 2150 Chicago, IL 60606 Tel: (312) 233-1550 Fax: (312) 233-1560 CLUB EXPLORIA: Moore Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Practices -------------------------------------------------------------- George Moore on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CLUB EXPLORIA, LLC and YODEL TECHNOLOGIES, LLC D/B/A HELPING HANDS ASSOCIATION, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02504 (N.D. Ill., April 12, 2019) seeks to enforce the consumer privacy provisions of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), a federal statute enacted in 1991 in response to widespread public outrage about the proliferation of intrusive, nuisance telemarketing practices. Yodel Technologies, LLC D/B/A Helping Hands Association ("Yodel") themselves, or through a vendor of theirs, made pre-recorded telemarketing calls to the cellular telephone number of Plaintiff to promote Club Exploria, LLC ("Club Exploria") in violation of the TCPA. Club Exploria hired Yodel to originate new customers and is vicariously liable for their illegal telemarketing conduct, asserts the complaint. The Plaintiff alleges that he never consented to receive the calls. Because telemarketing campaigns generally place calls to hundreds of thousands or even millions of potential customers en masse, the Plaintiff bring this action against Club Exploria on behalf of a proposed nationwide class of other persons who received illegal telemarketing calls from or on behalf of the Defendants. Plaintiff George Moore is a resident of Illinois. Club Exploria themselves, and through third parties, place telemarketing calls into this District.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Keith J. Keogh, Esq. KEOGH LAW, LTD. 55 W. Monroe St. Suite 3390 Chicago, IL 60603 Email: Keith@KeoghLaw.com CNX GAS: Summary Judgment Bid in Westmoreland Suit Partly Granted ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, MUNICIPAL AUTHORITY OF WESTMORELAND COUNTY, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CNX GAS COMPANY, L.L.C. and NOBLE ENERGY, INC., Defendants, Civil Action No. 2:16-CV-422 (W.D. Pa.), Judge Christopher C. Conner of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (i) denied MAWC's motion for partial summary judgment; and (ii) granted in part and denied in part Lessees CNX's and Noble's motions for summary judgment on all claims against them. Plaintiff MAWC owns approximately 2,255 acres of land in Western Pennsylvania that it has leased for oil and gas production. The current lessees are the Defendants. MAWC contends that the Lessees have breached the terms of their contract with MAWC and tortiously converted portions of MAWC's royalty payments. MAWC filed the instant putative class action on behalf of itself and other similarly situated leaseholders. MAWC commenced the action in state court in February 2016. CNX, with Noble's consent, removed the case to the Court. In its amended complaint, MAWC asserts claims for breach of contract and conversion on its own behalf against CNX and Noble. MAWC also seeks class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 for similarly situated oil and gas leaseholders. Discovery has been bifurcated at the parties' agreement: the parties have completed discovery on the merits of MAWC's claims; class certification discovery is deferred until after resolution of dispositive motions on those claims. CNX and Noble move for summary judgment on all claims against them. MAWC moves for summary judgment on its breach of contract claims (Counts I, II, IV, and V of the amended complaint), and as to damages against Noble on Counts IV and V. The facts in the case are largely undisputed. Three predominantly legal questions remain: first, whether CNX and Noble breached the Lease when they assessed post-production costs on MAWC in general (Counts I and IV); second, assuming assessment of post-production costs was permissible, whether the actual costs the Lessees charged MAWC were appropriate and reasonable (Counts II and V); and third, whether the Lessees' reduction of royalty payments for post-production costs constituted conversion (Counts III and VI). Judge Conner granted the summary judgment motions filed by CNX and Noble as to Counts I, III, IV, and VI of the amended complaint and denied the motions as to Counts II and V. The Judge also denied MAWC's motion for partial summary judgment in its entirety. He finds that neither CNX nor Noble has identified any authority, binding or persuasive, that would permit them to average wet and dry gas gathering costs and proportionately distribute them to every lessor regardless of whether the lessors' wells produced wet or dry gas. He concludes that MAWC has proffered sufficient evidence to create a genuine dispute of material fact on its breach of contract claim regarding the $0.46 gathering fee. A reasonable jury could find that lessees—through their blended fee assessment—improperly charged MAWC for wet gas processing, thereby assessing a post-production cost that was not "actually incurred" under the Lease. Assuming arguendo that (1) CONE Gathering and CONE Midstream charged Noble for electricity only for compression purposes, (2) this was the lone electricity charge Noble passed on to MAWC, and (3) none of MAWC's gas was produced using electrical compression, it is likely that Noble wrongfully assessed electricity charges on MAWC because that category of cost was not actually incurred under the Lease. Nonetheless, because the record is unclear as to the composition and proportions of the electricity charges at issue, summary judgment on this claim is inappropriate for either Noble or MAWC. He therefore denied the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment on Counts II and V. He also finds that receiving significantly more gas royalty revenue than forecast despite the assessment of post-production costs does not implicate detrimental reliance. In other words, MAWC has not explained how it materially changed its position in reliance on gas royalty projections that excluded post-production costs and then suffered detriment based on that position. Without being able to prove such reliance, MAWC cannot show that lessees' prospective assessment of post-production costs beginning in November 2011 (i.e., retraction of their implied waiver) is unjust. MAWC has failed to carry its burden at summary judgment -- as movant or nonmovant -- on its claims of breach of contract concerning the general deduction of post-production costs from royalties. The Lease explicitly permits assessment of such costs, and MAWC has not adduced adequate evidence to sustain a judgment in its favor on its claims of modification, waiver, or equitable estoppel. An appropriate order will issue. A full-text copy of the Court's March 29, 2019 Memorandum is available at https://is.gd/ssyay7 from Leagle.com. MUNICIPAL AUTHORITY OF WESTMORELAND COUNTY, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by David A. McGowan -- dmcgowan@cbmclaw.com -- Caroselli, Beachler, McTiernan & Coleman, Robert C. Sanders -- rcsanders@rcsanderslaw.com -- Law Office of Robert C. Sanders & Susan A. Meredith -- smeredith@cbmclaw.com -- Caroselli, Beachler, McTiernan & Conboy. CNX GAS COMPANY, L.L.C., Defendant, represented by Lucas Liben -- lliben@reedsmith.com -- Reed Smith LLP, Nicolle R. Snyder Bagnell -- nbagnell@reedsmith.com -- Reed Smith & Thomas J. Galligan -- tgalligan@reedsmith.com -- Reed Smith LLP. NOBLE ENERGY, INC., Defendant, represented by John K. Gisleson -- john.gisleson@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP & Matthew H. Sepp -- matthew.sepp@morganlewis.com -- One Oxford Centre. CONE MIDSTREAM PARTNER LP, CONE GATHERING LLC & JOSEPH FINK, Movants, represented by Rodger L. Puz -- rpuz@dmclaw.com -- Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote. COLDWELL BANKER: Valdes Sues Over Unsolicited Autodialed Calls -------------------------------------------------------------- Jorge Valdes, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. COLDWELL BANKER REAL ESTATE, LLC, a California limited liability company, and NRT, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-02822 (C.D. Cal., April 11, 2019) is a Class Action Complaint against Defendants to stop both Defendants from directing realtors to violate the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") by making unsolicited autodialed calls to consumers without their consent, including calls to consumers registered on the national Do Not Call registry ("DNC"), and to otherwise obtain injunctive and monetary relief for all persons injured by the conduct of Defendants. Coldwell Banker and NRT jointly train NRT's realtors. Through this training, Coldwell Banker and NRT direct realtors to cold call consumers to sell them Coldwell Banker's realty services. This includes specific instructions to call consumers who have previously listed their properties for sale with other realtors, but whose listings with those other realtors expired without a sale of the property. This is troubling since cold calling consumers without consent violates the TCPA. In Plaintiff Valdes' case, Coldwell Banker's marketing plan resulted in him receiving unsolicited, autodialed calls from 3 different Coldwell Banker and NRT realtors to his cellular phone number registered on the DNC. This all occurred after the multiple listing service listing for Plaintiff's property, which was maintained by Plaintiff's former realtor and which did not include any of Plaintiff's telephone numbers, was removed from the multiple listing service without Plaintiff having sold his home, says the complaint. Plaintiff Jorge Valdes is a resident of Tustin, California. Coldwell Banker provides training and direction to all of Coldwell Banker branded brokerages, including NRT, which operates Coldwell Banker brokerages throughout the US and does business as "Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage".[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: AFSHIN SIMAN, ESQ. LAW OFFICE OF AFSHIN SIMAN 11040 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 212 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Phone: (424) 229-7339 Email: siman@simnalwfirm.com - and - RACHEL KAUFMAN, ESQ. KAUFMAN, P.A. 400 NW 26th Street Miami, FL 33127 Phone: (305) 469-5881 Email: rachel@kaufmanpa.com COMCAST CABLE: Azeveda Labor Suit Removed to N.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned Mario Azeveda, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Comcast Cable Communications Management, LLC and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 19CV341868 (Cal. Super., March 19, 2018), was removed to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on March 6, 2019, under Case No. 19-cv-01225. Azeveda seeks unpaid overtime wages and interest thereon, redress for failure to authorize or permit required meal periods, statutory penalties for failure to provide accurate wage statements, waiting time penalties in the form of continuation wages for failure to timely pay employees all wages due upon separation of employment, reimbursement of business-related expenses, injunctive relief and other equitable relief, reasonable attorney's fees, costs and interest under California Labor Code, Unfair Competition Law, the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the California Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act and the California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act. Azeveda worked for Comcast as a non-exempt, hourly employee from 1999 through May 19, 2016. Aside from being denied overtime pay, when Azeveda applied for employment, Comcast performed a background investigation on Azeveda despite not providing legally compliant disclosure and authorization forms to Aceveda.[BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Shaun Setareh, Esq. H. Scott Leviant, Esq. William M. Pao, Esq. SETAREH LAW GROUP 9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 907 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (310) 888-7771 Facsimile: (310) 888-0109 Email: shaun@setarehlaw.com scott@setarehlaw.com william@setarehlaw.com Comcast is represented by: Daryl S. Landy, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 600 Anton Boulevard, Suite 1800 Costa Mesa, CA 92626-7653 Tel: (714) 830-0600 Fax: (714) 830-0700 Email: daryl.landy@morganlewis.com - and - Andrew P. Frederick, Esq. Aleksandr Markelov, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1400 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, CA 94304 Tel: (650) 843-4000 Fax: (650) 843-4001 Email: andrew.frederick@morganlewis.com aleksandr.markelov@morganlewis.com COMMONWEALTH SERVICING: Hobbs Hits Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls ------------------------------------------------------------------ Keith Hobbs, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Commonwealth Servicing Group, LLC and DMB Financial, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-10408, (D. Mass., March 5, 2019), seeks statutory damages, together with costs and reasonable attorney's fees for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act including attorneys' fees and costs. Commonwealth is a debt settlement business while DMB is a financial services company that also claims it assists consumers in restructuring and reducing their existing debts. In an attempt to promote their businesses and to generate leads for their debt management services, they conduct unsolicited calls to consumers' telephones, including cellular, while utilizing an artificial or prerecorded voice without consent. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Steven Woodrow, Esq. Woodrow & Peluso, LLC 3900 E. Mexico Avenue, Suite 300 Denver, CO 80210 Phone: (720) 213-0675 Email: swoodrow@ppeluso.com - and - J. Steven Foley, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF J. STEVEN FOLEY 11 Pleasant St. #100 Worcester, MA 01609 Phone: (508) 754-1041 Fax: (508) 739-4051 Email: jsteven@attorneyfoley.com CONAGRA BRANDS: Houston Municipal Employees Sue Over Share Drop --------------------------------------------------------------- Houston Municipal Employees Pension System, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. CONAGRA BRANDS, INC., SEAN M. CONNOLLY, and DAVID S. MARBERGER, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02550 (N.D. Ill., April 15, 2019) is a federal securities class action against Conagra and certain of its officers for violations of the federal securities laws. Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Conagra common stock from June 27, 2018 through December 19, 2018, inclusive, including legacy Pinnacle Foods, Inc. ("Pinnacle") common stock holders who received Conagra common stock in exchange for their Pinnacle shares on October 26, 2018 upon completion of Conagra's acquisition of Pinnacle, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). The Exchange Act claims allege that defendants engaged in a fraudulent scheme to artificially inflate the Company's stock price. In January 2013, Conagra acquired Ralcorp Holdings, Inc., a manufacturer of private branded food, for $6.8 billion including debt. After trying and failing to address executional shortfalls and customer service issues, Conagra divested its Private Brands business in February 2016 to TreeHouse Foods for $2.7 billion, recognizing a substantial loss. Less than two years later, Conagra was again acquiring another large publicly traded food service company. On June 27, 2018, Conagra announced the acquisition of Pinnacle, in a cash and stock transaction valued at approximately $10.9 billion (the "Transaction"). Pursuant to the terms of the Transaction, Conagra was to pay approximately $5.1 billion in cash and issue approximately 77.45 million Company shares out of the Company's treasury to former holders of Pinnacle common stock. The issuance of Conagra common stock in connection with the Transaction was registered under the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act") pursuant to the Company's registration statement on Form S-4, which included a prospectus and proxy statement declared effective by the SEC on September 17, 2018. In accompanying proxy statement, Pinnacle urged investors who held Pinnacle common stock as of September 4, 2018 to vote "FOR" the Transaction at the special meeting of Pinnacle shareholders to be held on October 23, 2018. Unbeknownst to shareholders, however, Conagra and its management were aware or recklessly disregarded that the Transaction would not result in anywhere near the sort of benefits that defendants had publicly represented. As a result of corrective disclosure, on December 20, 2018, Conagra's stock price fell $4.81 per share to $24.28, or nearly 17%, wiping out over $2.3 billion in Conagra's market capitalization. On the next trading day, Conagra's stock declined an additional $2.13 per share or 8.8%. In fact, in three trading sessions, Conagra stock declined $8.13 or 30%, to close at $20.96 on December 24, 2018. As a result of defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's common stock, Plaintiff and the other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, says the complaint. Plaintiff Houston Municipal Employees Pension System purchased Conagra common stock during the Class Period. Conagra manufactures and markets packaged foods for retail consumers, restaurants and institutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carol V. Gilden, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 190 South LaSalle Street, Suite 1705 Chicago, IL 60603 Phone: (312) 629-3737 Facsimile: (312) 357-0369 Email: cgilden@cohenmilstein.com - and - Christopher J. Keller, Esq. Eric J. Belfi, Esq. Francis P. McConville, Esq. LABATON SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Phone: (212) 907-0700 Facsimile: (212) 818-0477 Email: ckeller@labaton.com ebelfi@labaton.com fmcconville@labaton.com COTTER CORP: Banks Remanded to Circuit Court of St. Louis County ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge John A. Ross of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, remanded the case, TAMIA BANKS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. COTTER CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:18-CV-00624 JAR (E.D. Mo.), to the Circuit Court of St. Louis County under 28 U.S.C. Section 1447(c). From 1942 to 1957, uranium ore was processed in association with the Manhattan Project to develop nuclear weapons in a facility in downtown St. Louis City known as the St. Louis Downtown Site ("SLDS"). In the late 1940's, the Manhattan Project acquired a tract of land near Lambert Airport known as the St. Louis Airport Site ("SLAPS") to store radioactive waste from the uranium processing operations at SLDS. In 1957, approximately 60 truckloads of contaminated scrap metal, several contaminated vehicles, in addition to miscellaneous radioactive wastes were buried on the western portion of SLAPS adjacent to Coldwater Creek, a tributary of the Missouri River which runs throughout North St. Louis County. In the 1960's, some of the radioactive waste that had been stored at SLAPS was moved to a storage site on Latty Avenue in Hazelwood, Missouri, a part of which later became the Hazelwood Interim Storage Site ("HISS"). In the late 1960's, Cotter purchased the radioactive waste stored at both SLAPS and the Latty Avenue Site. Between 1969 and 1973, Cotter stored, processed and transported radioactive waste at the SLAPS and Latty Avenue sites. In 1973, SLAPS was sold to the Airport Authority. The Latty Avenue Site was sold to Futura Coatings, now known as DJR. Plaintiff Banks owns property located within the 100-year flood plain of Coldwater Creek. On April 2, 2018, the Plaintiff filed her amended class action petition in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri. She alleges that, as a result of the Defendants' collective conduct over several decades, radioactive wastes were released into the environment in and around Coldwater Creek, resulting in the contamination of her home and property, as well as the property of the other class members, and leading to various forms of property damage. The Plaintiff asserts state-law claims against Cotter, ComEd, Exelon, DJR, and the Airport Authority for: (1) trespass; (2) permanent nuisance; (3) temporary nuisance; (4) negligence; (5) negligence per se; (6) strict liability/absolute liability; (7) injunctive relief seeking medical monitoring; (8) punitive damages; and (9) civil conspiracy; and (10) against the Airport Authority only for inverse condemnation; (11) violation of the Missouri State Constitution's due process guarantee; and (12) violation of the Missouri State Constitution's takings and just compensation clause. The Plaintiff seeks damages resulting from the loss of use and enjoyment of her property; annoyance and discomfort; damage to her personal property; diminution in the market value of her property; costs and expenses incurred as a result of her exposure to radioactive emissions, including the cost of remediation and relocation; statutory damages under Missouri state law; punitive and exemplary damages; costs and attorneys' fees; and interest on the above amounts. She also seeks injunctive relief in the form of medical and scientific monitoring of her home and property, as well as environmental testing, clean-up, and continued medical testing. On April 18, 2018, the Defendants removed the action to the Court on the grounds that the Plaintiff's action arises out of the Price-Anderson Act ("PAA"), and that, therefore, the Court has subject matter jurisdiction. On May 25, 2018, the Defendants moved to dismiss the Plaintiff's claims. The Plaintiff filed her motion to remand on May 29, 2018, asserting that she has pled only state law causes of action and that her original and amended petitions raise no claims under federal law. She specifically alleges that her claims do not fall within the scope of the PAA because (i) Coldwater Creek is not and never has been a licensed nuclear facility; (ii) the Defendants have never received a license to possess, transport, or dispose of any radioactive waste on or in Coldwater Creek; (iii) the Defendants did not have a license to dispose of radioactive wastes in Coldwater Creek; (iv) the Defendants did not have a license to handle the particular materials they handled as alleged herein, including enriched thorium; and (v) the Defendants have never entered into an indemnification agreement with the United States government under 42 U.S.C. Section 2210 with respect to the complained activities. On June 14, 2018, the Court granted the Plaintiff's motion to stay the Defendants' motions to dismiss pending resolution of her motion to remand and stayed proceedings for 60 days. Following a hearing on the Plaintiff's motion to remand on Aug. 8, 2018, the Court extended the stay until further order of the Court. Judge Ross finds that the Defendants have failed to meet their burden of establishing federal subject matter jurisdiction for purposes of the PAA and that the matter should be remanded to state court. Given this finding, he need not address the merits of the Plaintiff's due process argument. Finally, because the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the action, the Defendants' pending motions to dismiss will be denied without prejudice. Accordingly, the Judge granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for Remand, and the matter is remanded to the Circuit Court of St. Louis County under 28 U.S.C. Section 1447(c). He denied the Defendants' motions to dismiss without prejudice to refiling in state court. A full-text copy of the Court's March 29, 2019 Memorandum and Order is available at https://is.gd/6BGgji from Leagle.com. Tamia Banks, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander L. Braitberg -- alex@keanelawllc.com -- KEANE LAW LLC, Celeste Brustowicz, THE COOPER LAW FIRM, LLC, pro hac vice, Ryan A. Keane, KEANE LAW LLC, & Victor T. Cobb, COOPER LAW FIRM, LLC, pro hac vice. Cotter Corporation, Defendant, represented by Dale A. Guariglia -- daguariglia@bclplaw.com -- BRYAN CAVE LLP, Erin Lynn Brooks -- erin.brooks@bclplaw.com -- BRYAN CAVE LLP, John McGahren -- john.mcgahren@morganlewis.com -- MORGAN AND LEWIS LLP, pro hac vice, Stephanie Feingold -- stephanie.feingold@morganlewis.com -- MORGAN AND LEWIS LLP, pro hac vice & Su Jin Kim -- su.kim@morganlewis.com -- MORGAN AND LEWIS LLP, pro hac vice. Commonwealth Edison Company, Defendant, represented by Alexander L. Braitberg, KEANE LAW LLC, Dale A. Guariglia, BRYAN CAVE LLP, Erin Lynn Brooks, BRYAN CAVE LLP, John McGahren, MORGAN AND LEWIS LLP, pro hac vice, Ryan A. Keane, KEANE LAW LLC, Stephanie Feingold, MORGAN AND LEWIS LLP, pro hac vice & Su Jin Kim, MORGAN AND LEWIS LLP, pro hac vice. Exelon Corporation & Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Defendants, represented by Dale A. Guariglia, BRYAN CAVE LLP, Erin Lynn Brooks, BRYAN CAVE LLP, John McGahren, MORGAN AND LEWIS LLP, pro hac vice, Ryan A. Keane, KEANE LAW LLC, Stephanie Feingold, MORGAN AND LEWIS LLP, pro hac vice & Su Jin Kim, MORGAN AND LEWIS LLP, pro hac vice. DJR Holdings, Inc., formerly known as Futura Coatings, Inc., Defendant, represented by Ryan A. Keane, KEANE LAW LLC & Saturnin Martin Jansky, MARTIN JANSKY LAW FIRM, PC. St. Louis Airport Authority, A Department of the City of St. Louis, Defendant, represented by John F. Cowling, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP. DAIMLER AG: Faces Callen Suit in Northern District of Georgia ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Daimler AG. The case is captioned as TERI CALLEN, formerly known as: Teri Kimball-Callen Stomski, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DAIMLER AG; and MERCEDES BENZ USA, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01411-TWT (N.D. Ga., March 28, 2019). The case is assigned to Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. Daimler AG develops, manufactures, distributes, and sells a wide range of automotive products such as passenger cars, trucks, vans, and buses. The Company also provides financial and other services relating to its automotive businesses.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James F. McDonough, III, Esq. HENINGER GARRISON & DAVIS, LLC –ATL 3621 Vinings Slope, Suite 4320 Atlanta, GA 30339 Telephone: (404) 996-0869 Facsimile: (205) 380-8076 E-mail: jmcdonough@hgdlawfirm.com - and - Jonathan Robert Miller, Esq. HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS, LLC 3621 Vinings Slop,e Suite 4320 Atlanta, GA 30339 Telephone: (404) 996-0863 E-mail: jmiller@hgdlawfirm.com - and - Taylor C. Bartlett, Esq. HENINGER GARRISON & DAVIS, LLC – AL 2224 1st Avenue North Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 326-3336 Facsimile: (205) 326-3332 E-mail: taylor@hgdlawfirm.com - and - Travis Edward Lynch, Esq. HENINGER GARRISON & DAVIS, LLC –ATL 3621 Vinings Slope, Suite 4320 Atlanta, GA 30339 Telephone: (404) 996-0867 Facsimile: (205) 380-8076 E-mail: tlynch@hgdlawfirm.com - and - W. Lewis Garrison, Jr., Esq. HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS, L.L.C. 2224 First Avenue North Birmingham, AL 35202-1310 Telephone: (205) 326-3336 Facsimile: (205) 326-3332 E-mail: wlgarrison@hgdlawfirm.com DANNY'S INC: Waitresses Hit Illegal Tip Pool, Late Wages -------------------------------------------------------- Vickie Himes, Marsha Stamm and Falon Clark, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs, v. Danny's Inc., The Tackle Box, Danny Stephens and Sereta Stephens, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-00494 (N.D. Ohio, March 5, 2019), seeks money damages, liquidated damages, costs, attorneys' fees and other relief for failure to pay wages and overtime compensation due in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Ohio labor laws. Defendants operate a bar/restaurant located in Sandusky Avenue in Fremont where Plaintiffs worked as waitresses/bartenders. They claim their wages were subjected to an illegal tip pool policy, that they were denied overtime premiums, and that they were paid late, in violation of the Ohio Prompt Pay Act. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Kera L. Paoff, Esq. Marilyn L. Widman, Esq. Widman & Franklin, LLC 405 Madison Ave., Suite 1550 Toledo, OH 43604 Tel: (419) 243-9005 Fax: (419) 243-9404 Email: kera@wflawfirm.com marilyn@wflawfirm.com DETROIT RENEWABLE: Opts to Close Incinerator Amid Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- FOX 2 reports that Detroit will no longer burn its trash. In a press release, Detroit Renewable Energy announced its intention to close its "waste-to-energy facility" at 2 p.m. "Now that the company has decided to close the incinerator, the city will soon have the ability to influence the future use of this property," said Mayor Mike Duggan in a statement. The facility, located near Interstates 94 and 75 and long known for emitting odors that have upset residents in the surrounding area, will be switching to natural gas for its energy production, using steam to heat buildings downtown. CEO Todd Grzech described the move as underscoring the company's commitment to the city's economy and environment. "Serving our community and being a good neighbor for years to come is our number one priority," he said. "The decision ends the odor, noise and other community nuisances, and allows Detroit Thermal to focus on investing where it matters." Detroit Thermal, which is owned by Detroit Renewable Energy, supplies steam heat from the incinerator through underground pipes to more than 100 buildings in the city, including the Renaissance Center and the Detroit Medical Center. The switch to natural gas will not interrupt power flow to those buildings. About 150 employees received their layoff notices on March 27 as well. The site has struggled to keep up with environmental regulations after foul odors and noises for years, including a class-action lawsuite against the facility. Following more than $23 million in improvements, the CEO decided that enough was enough. "You look at it from an engineering perspective, we have to fix the noise, we have to fix the odor and you add it all in and it doesn't make sense any more," said Grzech. For these reasons, Duggan mentioned the city has little intention for the site to feature a waste-incinerator in the future. "We will be pursuing our legal options to make sure this remains the case," said Duggan. The incinerator took on more than 3,000 pounds of garbage a day. That trash will now be sent to a landfill. For anyone concerned about a change in rates, the city's contract with Detroit Renewable Energy is locked in which means that rates won't change. [GN] DOW JONES: Seeks 2nd Cir. Review of Order/Judgment in Horton Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant Dow Jones & Company, Inc., filed an appeal from the District Court's opinion and order dated February 27, 2019, and judgment dated February 28, 2019, in the lawsuit entitled Horton v. Dow Jones & Company, Inc., Case No. 18-cv-4027, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York City). The appellate case is captioned as Horton v. Dow Jones & Company, Inc., Case No. 19-832, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on March 29, 2019, Plaintiff Robert Jeremy Horton filed an appeal from the District Court's opinion and order dated February 27, 2019, and judgment dated February 28, 2019. That appellate case is styled Horton v. Dow Jones & Company, Inc., Case No. 19-527. The nature of suit is stated as torts property-fraud.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellee Robert Jeremy Horton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Frank S. Hedin, Esq. CAREY RODRIGUEZ MILIAN GONYA LLP 1395 Brickell Avenue Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 357-2107 E-mail: fhedin@careyrodriguez.com Defendant-Appellant Dow Jones & Company, Inc., DBA The Wall Street Journal, is represented by: Sandra Hauser, Esq. DENTONS US LLP 1221 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 768-6700 E-mail: sandra.hauser@dentons.com DP HOSPITALITY: Shushi Chef Seeks Pay for Hours Worked Over 40 -------------------------------------------------------------- Chunhong Mei, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. DP HOSPITALITY GROUP, LLC., d/b/a "Brooklyn Chop House", ROBERT CUMMINS a/k/a Robert "Don Pooh" Cummins, STRATIS MORFOGEN, and "John Doe" No. 1-2, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-03309 (S.D. N.Y., April 12, 2019) is an action brought by the Plaintiff, on behalf of herself as well as other employees similarly situated, against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), arising from Defendants' various willful and unlawful employment policies, patterns and practices. The Defendants have willfully and intentionally committed widespread violations of the FLSA and NYLL by engaging in a pattern and practice of failing to pay its employees, including the Plaintiff, legally required wages and overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 each workweek, says the complaint. Plaintiff was employed by Defendants to work as a Sushi Chef from October 1, 2018 to March 8, 2019. DP HOSPITALITY GROUP, LLC d/b/a Brooklyn Chop House operated and continues to operate a restaurant located at 150 Nassau Street, New York, NY.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ricardo R. Morel, Esq. 39-15 Main Street, Suite 318 Flushing, NY 11354 Phone: (454) 362-8960 Email: Esquire1998@gmail.com DUTCH EXPRESS: Delivery Staff Seeks Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------ HENRY FRANKLIN and KENDY CRAWFORD, on behalf of themselves, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class, Plaintiffs, v. DUTCH EXPRESS LLC d/b/a as Dutch Express, MARCUS HOED, ARIELLA AZOGUI, and AVIV SISO, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-03329 (S.D. N.Y., April 15, 2019) alleges, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), that they and others similarly situated are entitled to recover from Defendants: unpaid overtime, unpaid wages due to time shaving, statutory penalties, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs. Plaintiffs and the other FLSA Collective Plaintiffs 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 (i) overtime premium at the rate of one and one half times the regular rate for work in excess of 40 hours per workweek, and (ii) compensation for all regular and overtime hours worked due to a policy of time shaving, says the complaint. Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants as delivery persons. DUTCH EXPRESS LLC d/b/a as Dutch Express is a foreign limited liability company organized under the laws of the State of Delaware.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 30 East 39th Street, Second Floor New York, NY 10016 Phone: 212-465-1188 Fax: 212-465-1181 EDS SERVICE: Martinez Hits Unpaid Overtime Wages, Missed Breaks --------------------------------------------------------------- JUAN MARTINEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EDS SERVICE SOLUTIONS, LLC and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV12 958 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., April 15, 2019) is a class action against Defendant to challenge its policies and practices of (1) failing to compensate Plaintiff and putative Class members for all hours worked; (2) failing to pay Plaintiff and putative Class members minimum wage as required by California law; (3) failing to pay Plaintiff and putative Class members overtime wages; (4) failing to authorize and permit Plaintiff and putative Class members to take meal and rest breaks to which they are entitled by law and pay premium compensation for missed breaks; (5) failing to reimburse Plaintiff and putative Class members for necessary business expenditures; (6) failing to provide Plaintiff and putative Class members accurate, itemized wage statements; and (7) failing to timely pay Plaintiff and putative Class members wages owed upon the termination of employment. The Defendant fails to pay Plaintiff and putative Class members for all hours worked. In particular, Defendant instructs these workers to remain at their assigned rental car company facility after the scheduled shift ends and to clock out and continue working. This gives rise to off-the-clock work, for which the aggrieved employees are uncompensated, asserts the complaint. The Defendant also fails to properly pay minimum and overtime wages according to California law, the complaint relates. When uncompensated time is factored in, Plaintiff and putative Class members regularly work over eight hours per day, necessitating the payment of overtime compensation for some of the time that they work. Moreover, Plaintiff and putative Class members are paid nominal rates at or just above the California minimum wage. When the daily pay for these workers is divided by the actual hours that they worked, and off-the-clock work, unpaid overtime, and required missed break premiums are factored in, the effective hourly rate of pay often falls below the California minimum, says the complaint. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant from approximately 2015 until April 2018. Defendant is a Delaware limited liability company with its Principal Executive Office in Atlanta, Georgia and is a service provider to the rental car industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carolyn Hunt Cottrell, Esq. David C. Leimbach, Esq. Scott L. Gordon, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP 2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400 Emeryville, CA 94608 Phone: (415)421-7100 Facsimile: (415)421-7105 - and - Zorik Mooradian, Esq. Haik Hacopian, Esq. MOORADIAN LAW, APC 5023 North Parkway Calabasas Calabasas, CA 91302 Telephone: (818) 876-9627 Facsimile: (888) 783-1030 ESTEBAN ESTEPA: Garcia Claims Unpaid Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------- Jason Garcia, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, known and unknown, Plaintiff, v. Esteban Estepa, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-01565, (N.D. Ill., March 5, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages for all time worked in excess of forty hours in individual work weeks, liquidated damages, costs of this action, including reasonable allowance for plaintiff's attorneys' and experts' fees, and such other and further relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act, Illinois Minimum Wage Law, Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act and the Illinois Employee Classification Act. Esteban Estepa operates as "Stevens Painting" who employed Garcia as a painter. Plaintiff claims overtime pay for all time worked in excess of forty hours.[BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Lydia Colunga-Merchant, Esq. Javier Castro, Esq. RAISE THE FLOOR ALLIANCE - LEGAL DEPT. 1 N. LaSalle St., Suite 1275 Chicago, IL 60602 Tel: (312) 795-9115 Email: lcmerchant@raisetheflooralliance.org EVENTBRITE INC: Gomes Files Securities Suit Over Share Price Drop ----------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL GOMES, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. EVENTBRITE, INC., JULIA HARTZ, RANDY BEFUMO, KATHERINE AUGUST-DEWILDE, ROELOF BOTHA, ANDREW DRESKIN, KEVIN HARTZ, SEAN P. MORIARTY, LORRIE M. NORRINGTON, HELEN RILEY, STEFFAN C. TOMLINSON, GOLDMAN SACHS & CO. LLC, J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, ALLEN & COMPANY LLC, RBC CAPITAL MARKETS, LLC, SUNTRUST ROBINSON HUMPHREY, INC., and STIFEL, NICOLAUS & COMPANY, INCORPORATED, Defendants, Case No. 5:19-cv-02019-EJD (N.D. Cal., April 15, 2019) is a class action on behalf of persons and entities that: a) purchased or otherwise acquired Eventbrite securities pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's false and/or misleading registration statement and prospectus issued in connection with the Company's September 2018 initial public offering ("IPO" or the "Offering"); and/or b) purchased or otherwise acquired Eventbrite securities between September 20, 2018 and March 7, 2019, inclusive. Plaintiff pursues claims against the Defendants, under the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act") and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). In September 2017, Eventbrite acquired Ticketfly, LLC from Pandora Media, Inc. for $201.1 million purportedly to expand the Company's solutions for music-related events. On September 20, 2018, the Company filed its prospectus on Form 424B4 with the SEC, which forms part of the Registration Statement. In the IPO, the Company sold 11.5 million shares of Class A common stock at a price of $23.00 per share. The Company received proceeds of approximately $246.0 million from the Offering, net of underwriting discounts and commissions. The proceeds from the IPO were purportedly to be used to repay certain debts, including $30 million of indebtedness incurred to finance the Company's acquisition of Ticketfly, and for working capital and other general corporate purposes. On March 7, 2019, in connection with its full year 2018 results, the Company stated that integrating Ticketfly would be a headwind impacting the Company's future growth and revenue. On this news, the Company's share price fell $7.96 per share, or over 24%, to close at $24.46 per share on March 8, 2019, on unusually high trading volume. The complaint asserts that the Registration Statements filed in connection with the IPO were false and misleading and omitted to state material adverse facts. Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that the Company's migration of customers from Ticketfly to Eventbrite was progressing slower than expected; (2) that, as a result, the Ticketfly integration would take longer than expected; (3) that, as a result, the Company's revenue and growth would be negatively impacted; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis, says the complaint. Plaintiff Michael Gomes purchased Eventbrite securities during the Class Period and/or pursuant and/or traceable to the Registration Statement issued in connection with the Company's IPO. Eventbrite purportedly provides a platform to enable creators to plan, promote, and produce live events.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq. Robert V. Prongay, Esq. Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq. Charles H. Linehan, Esq. Pavithra Rajesh, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 Email: info@glancylaw.com FELDMAN AUTOMOTIVE: Pastor Seeks Unpaid Wages & Overtime Pay ------------------------------------------------------------ MICHAEL-JOHN PASTOR, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, known and unknown, the Plaintiff, vs. FELDMAN AUTOMOTIVE, INC., a Michigan for-profit company, MARTY FELDMAN CHEVROLET, INC., a Michigan for-profit company, and JAY FELDMAN, a corporate officer, the Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-10957-NGE-MKM (E.D. Mich., April 1, 2019), seeks to recover benefits due to Plainitff from Defendants under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Michigan Workforce Opportunity Act as a result of Defendants' failure to pay at least one and one-half his regular rate of pay for hours worked over 40 hours in a workweek. Pastor worked as a Quick Service Manager. Despite the title of "manager," the Plaintiff did not have perform management tasks as his primary duty. Rather, Mr. Pastor spent significantly more than half of his shifts performing routine, manual labor tasks, including oil changes, for Defendants' customers. As seen on his paystubs, the Plaintiff was paid through a combination of salary, flat rate, and bonus pay. In no week did any bonus consist of 50% or more of his weekly pay. The Pastor was paid on a biweekly basis. The Plaintiff Pastor worked between 42 hours and 53 hours of overtime hours per pay period. Although the Plaintiff regularly worked over 40 hours per week, he was never paid one and one-half his regular rate of pay for hours worked over 40 hours in a workweek, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: Bryan Yaldou, Esq. Elaina Bailey, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF BRYAN YALDOU, PLLC 23000 Telegraph, Suite 5 Brownstown, MI 48134 Telephone: (734) 692-9200 Facsimile: (734) 692-9201 E-mail: Bryan@yaldoulaw.com FIRSTSOURCE ADVANTAGE: Walter Sues over Debt Collection Practices ----------------------------------------------------------------- CHANA WALTER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FIRSTSOURCE ADVANTAGE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01798-PKC-LB (E.D.N.Y., March 28, 2019) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. Firstsource Advantage, LLC offers collections and recovery solutions. It provides debt recovery services for credit card issuers, retail banking and mortgage. Firstsource Advantage, LLC was formerly known as Firstsource LLC and changed its name in February, 2007. The company was founded in 1995 and is based in Amherst, New York. As of October 8, 2004, Firstsource Advantage, LLC operates as a subsidiary of Firstsource Solutions Limited. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel C. Cohen, Esq. COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Telephone: (929) 575-4175 Facsimile: (929) 575-4195 E-mail: dan@cml.legal FREEDOM MORTGAGE: Gress Sues Over Unreasonable Default Charges -------------------------------------------------------------- Michael J. Gress and Brandy L. Gress and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Freedom Mortgage Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-00375 (M.D. Pa., March 5, 2019), seeks injunctive relief and damages for unreasonable and inappropriate property inspection fees in breach of contract, unjust enrichment and for violation of Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law and various state consumer protection statutes and Pennsylvania Fair Credit Extension Uniformity Act. Freedom Mortgage is a mortgage lender in the United States. It services Plaintiffs' home in Mercersburg PA. Gress claims that the mortgage agreements preclude the assessment of fees for post-default services that are not "reasonable or appropriate" after defaulting on their payment on several occasions. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Gary F. Lynch, Esq. Edwin J. Kilpela, Jr., Esq. CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER, LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Tel: (412) 322-9243 Fax: (412) 231-0246 Email: ekilpela@carlsonlynch.com glynch@carlsonlynch.com - and - D. Greg Blankinship, Esq. Todd S. Garber, Esq. Bradley F. Silverman, Esq. FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP, FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP 445 Hamilton Avenue, Suite 605 White Plains, NY 10605 Telephone: (914) 298-3281 Facsimile: (914) 824-1561 Email: gblankinship@fbfglaw.com tgarber@fbfglaw.com bsilverman@fbfglaw.com - and - Matthew D. Schultz, Esq. Bill Cash, Esq. LEVIN, PAPANTONIO, THOMAS, MITCHELL, RAFFERTY & PROCTOR 316 S. Baylen St., Suite 600 Pensacola, FL 32502 Telephone: (850) 435-7140 Facsimile: (850) 436-7141 Email: mschultz@levinlaw.com bcash@levinlaw.com FULTON COUNTY, GA: Summary Judgment Bid in Cunningham Wage Suit OKd ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, Tracey Cunningham, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Fulton County, Georgia, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00533 (N.D. Ga.), Judge Michael L. Brown of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, (i) granted the County's motion for summary judgment; (ii) granted the County's motion for sanctions; (iii) denied the Plaintiffs' cross-motion and partial cross-motion for summary judgment; (iv) denied the Plaintiffs' cross motion for sanctions; and (v) denied the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class as moot. The Plaintiffs are over 500 current and former Fulton County Sheriff's Office employees, including deputy sheriffs, custodial officers, clerks, and other non-emergency administrative employees. They sued Fulton County claiming the county violated the federal Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and breached contracts in the manner it applied credits for overtime, vacation time, holiday pay, and sick leave. The Plaintiffs seek $6 million in damages, attorneys' fees, and revisions to the County's personnel policies about the accrual of these benefits. Fulton County has policies about holiday pay, vacation leave, sick leave, and compensatory time for employees of the Sheriff's Office. Its policies trump any conflicting Standing Operation Procedures ("SOPs"), directives, memorandums, or orders from the Sheriff's Office. The Plaintiffs work or worked for the Fulton County Sheriff's Office and earned holiday pay, vacation leave, sick leave, and compensatory time under these policies. Some of them received copies of the County's policies and procedures and the Sheriff's Office's SOPs when hired. The County updated its policies and procedures in November 2013, December 2015, and March 2017. The Plaintiffs routinely received emails about updates to the County policies and procedures and the Sheriff's Office SOPs. In February 2016, the Plaintiffs filed the action alleging that the Defendants use a "rollover" provision to deprive them of pay for accumulated overtime, vacation, holiday, and sick time. Specifically, they allege the County unjustly enriches itself by rolling over the employee's compensatory time, overtime, and vacation time into a category labeled sick time and then requiring the employee to forfeit all, or part of, the sick time upon leaving. The Plaintiffs claim this practice violates the FLSA and breaches contracts. The Plaintiffs first sued the Fulton County Sheriff, seven Fulton County Commissioners, and the County. They filed an amended complaint and then a second amended complaint. The Court dismissed all claims against the individual Defendants and the FLSA claims against the County, leaving only breach of contract claims against the County. Both the County and the Plaintiffs have filed motions for summary judgment on the remaining claims. The Plaintiffs have also filed a partial cross-motion for summary judgment and a third motion to certify class. The parties have filed cross-motions for sanctions for discovery violations. In response to the County's motion for summary judgment, Judge Brown finds that the Plaintiffs cited no evidence to support their claim that the County applied its policy in this way. First, the policy shows otherwise. A non-exempt employee earns 1.5 compensatory hours for each overtime hour worked under the policy. An employee thus would only need to work 26 2/3 hours of overtime to acquire 40 hours of compensatory time for a week-long vacation. Second, Kenneth Hermon, the County's Chief Human Resources Officer, explained this concept during his deposition. In response to the County's motion for summary judgment, the Plaintiffs failed to present any evidence contradicting this testimony. They presented no payroll records to challenge this assertion about how the County's policy works or to suggest that their hypothetical happened to anyone. At most, they show that they are dissatisfied with the County's policies about over-time and compensatory pay, but dissatisfaction alone cannot support their breach of contract claim. The Plaintiffs also contend that they receive holiday pay under this policy but are charged against their compensatory time for the hours. The County counters that any employee requests for leave on a holiday outside the context of this policy are charged to the employee's compensatory time balance. The Judge finds that the Plaintiffs failed to present any evidence that this application violates the County's policy on holiday pay or that the County violated this policy for any Plaintiff in any other way. As to sick leave, he finds the County has not violated its policy on sick leave, PR-1200-3. While the policy requires the County to pay employees for all accrued vacation, compensatory, and holiday leave they have accrued, it does not obligate the County to compensate employees for accrued sick leave. The Plaintiffs have not shown that the County violates this policy. The Plaintiffs have also failed to carry their burden of showing that there is a genuine issue of material fact about whether the County has breached the terms of its policies on holiday pay, sick leave, vacation leave, or compensatory time. And because the Plaintiffs have failed to prove that the County breached any of the terms of its policies, or any other contract, the Judge does not reach the damages issue. Because the Judge grants Fulton County's motion for summary judgment, he denies the Plaintiffs' certification motion as moot. The County moved for sanctions against the Plaintiffs and their counsel under Rules 30 and 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because two Plaintiffs failed to appear for their depositions. The Plaintiffs say the Court should sanction the individuals but not counsel. They also moved for sanctions against the County for a "pattern of bad faith during discovery." The Judge finds that the County expressly provided Mr. Hermon to testify about the County's policies (including those affecting Sheriff's Office employees) and a second witness to testify about exclusively Sheriff's Office policies. It properly objected to the Plaintiffs' question to Mr. Hermon about Sheriff's Office policies -- that should have been directed to the other 30(b)(6) designee. The Plaintiffs have not shown that the County or its witnesses defied any court order or prevented them from obtaining discovery. The Plaintiffs' motion for sanctions is denied. Based on the foregoing, Judge Brown granted Defendant Fulton County's Motion for Sanctions, and Motion for Summary Judgment. He denied the Plaintiffs' Cross Motion for Sanctions, Cross Motion for Summary Judgment, and Cross Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. He also denied as moot the Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Class. The Judge ordered Plaintiff Lundie, Plaintiff Clark, Clifford Harold Hardwick, and the County to meet and confer within 30 days of the Order to agree on the appropriate costs. If the parties cannot, the County may move for specific costs. A full-text copy of the Court's March 29, 2019 Opinion and Order is available at https://is.gd/vXK0AJ from Leagle.com. Tracey Cunningham, Adriana Christopher, Cassandra Crawford, Dwayne Bowie, Shirley Hall, Avis Ryan, Dante Pounds, Tawona Lowery, Scott Reese, Terri Harris, Faith Hampton, Wardell Jennings, Karland Stokes, Lura Baxter, Christopher Ryles, Sandra Baylock, Zelena Brown, Sasha Harris, Calvin Scofield, Eric McKinnon, Clarence Underwood, Brandon Robertson, Alden Waters, Montrice Johnson, Amy Morgan, Daniel Bell, Tinakorn Nalampoon, Gwendale Strozier, Tammy Payton, Gail Goggins-Holder, Troy Wilson, Areial Simmons, Marc E. Scotton, Sr., Maurice Love, Emmit C. Stringer, Darcy Patterson, Rosa Truitt, Annette Gilbert, Savoya B. Lemon, Jimmy Parr, Frank Stradford, Dominic Anah, Michael Mitchell, Veronica Kelley-Austin, Carter Berysce, Wanaada Murray, Maurice Arnold, Avis Lofton, Billy Lowry, Kenneth Oliver, Barron Ross, Michael Pritchett, Dexter Mabry, Shicana Brown, Shecobia McCoy, Ector Walker, Troy Coston, Temika Tillman, Hector Caballero, Chelanda Harper, Frank Jones, III, Raymond Baulding, Evelyn Davis, Steve Betts, Johanne Francois, Tiece West, Yowanda Culler, Taylor Nayman, Twantta Clerk-Jennings, Kenneth Shropshire, Norman Gipson, Jacqueline Underwood, Pearlie Young, Leatra Dennard, Lashondra Childs, Angela McCoy, Sonji Blount, Ruby Smith, Tricia Foster, Michelle Livingston, Mary Jordan, Anthony Burgess, Richard Turnbull, Tequicha Thompson, Ann'na Henry, Cory Miller, Betty Manney, Tameka Davis, Steven Daley, William Sanders, William Carter, Byron McMullen, Fatou Mballow, Kevin Morton, Stephanie Morton, Aronne Carey, Philip Dunn, Marion Griffin, III, Felisha Higdon, Shannon Roberson, Brandy Colton, Damien Bulter, Chante Harris, Carey Steele, Antron Shumpert, Gwendolyn Devereaux, David Wells, Frederick Banks, Jerel Climpson, Lorna Heath, Monsuru Kotun, Beverly Taylor, Necola Elvine, Michael Potrubacz, Ozz Durrah, Felix Mordi, Shelby Reid, Leroy Pena, Bayunka Culberson, Lue King, Makisha Adams, Pamela Sheffield, Pamela Murry, Russell Stokes, Derric Chamblee, Rodney Harp, Beatrice Mans, Tameka Cherry, Thomas Addy, Lashonta McEldery, Aaron Wofford, Cheryl Limehouse, Yolanda Johnson, Evan Shaw, Donnell Cockhren, Denise Bennett, T.J. Cowins, Judson Byrant, Sherry Hines, Carol Tuitt, Johnnie Moore, Taibatu Oloutu, Felicia Hidgon, Jessica Finch, Ashley Thornton, Corey Robbins, Serber Clark-Kendle, Erica Coston, James Conklin, Sarah Jones-Vie, Byran Turner, Janet Jones, Jeffery Moffett, Anthony Williams, Wanda Barnard, Hilda Wiggins, Dwayne Harris, Nina Mayo, Larhonda Holiday, Francisca Florent, Marquitas Liverman, William Carmichae, Carmen Ruff, Teresa Daniels, Arquette Oliver, Clifton Morris, Hester Lee, Dominique Couch, Tamenika Delgado, Alvin Slocum, Marquez Bogle, Shawanda Thomas, Jennifer Marlow, Richard Jackson, Marcus Presbury-Lomax, Kenya Brooks, Shameka Escoffery, Charlotte Callaway, Melinda Alexander, Jacquelyn Brooks, Linda Holmes, Zania Benjamin, Irvelt Barolette, Kaashif Estrada, Joseph Lovejoy, Jr., Donald Bramblett, Ashley Hightower, Cherryl Milton, Margaret Woods, Tarshia Lee, Keisha Hebert, Anthony Matthews, Daniel Medrano, Sean Wade, Crystal Daugherty, Latisha Gerald, Debra Green, Markennis Jackson, Kenya Edwards, Luaquarius Doyle, Latashia Adams, Lucy Johnson, Brain Martin, Coretta Hart, Levar Hamm, Jimmy Kennedy, George Tharpe, Raquel Howell, Margaret Ware, George Allen, Earl Smith, Jr., Angela Daniel, John Starks, Vincent Cosby, Marcus Woods, Cheryl Page, Mario Simmons, Marilyn Levo, Keteria Wynn, Xavier Cherry, Kelly Reeves, Priscilla Orr, Tyrone Ingram, Christopher Baker, William Angry, Stanley P.J. Mays, Rosalyn Goolsby, Nattaly Lundie, Keith Battle, Reginald Turner, Eugene Hamm, Vincent Willis, Kenneth Feagins, Dorthy Abner, Dorothy Williams, Tracy Harper, Vince Williams, Melvin Smith, Donna Williams, Bridgette Dzah-Franks, Jolene Poon, Alshaday Abate, Pamela Austin, Cedric Walters, Khalid Wise, Jacqueline Thompson, Jennifer Brown, Maxine Blount, Marcia Baugh, Brenda Burroughs, Lula Williams, Monica Woodward, Santrice Hunt, Linda Plummer, Jahid Abdulshalid, Nitosha Riley, Brenda Johnson, Bruce Alford, Kimberly Arnold, Geneva Gooden, Wanda Smith-Ceesay, Monica Woodard, Kyna Wynn, Denita Watkins, Paulette Wildy, Teresa Knox, Belinda Zackary, Lachonda Johnson, Tina Ponder-Long, Marissa Nelson, Aloysious Nash, Sharon Winston, Felicia Ivey, Stephanie Barnes, Rochelle Washington, Linda Henderson, Philomena Ottoo, Edwena Roach, Danyell Boyd, Dana Singleton, Shurmetria Freeman & Cynthia Blutt, Plaintiffs, represented by Clifford Harold Hardwick -- chh@bellsouth.net -- Office of Clifford H. Hardwick. Fulton County, Georgia, Defendant, represented by Carmen L. Alexander, The Employment Law Solution: McFadden Davis, LLC, Ernest L. Greer -- greere@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Jamala S. McFadden, The Employment Law Solution: McFadden Davis, LLC, Janna Satz Nugent -- nugentj@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Mellori Evonn Lumpkin-Dawson, Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Natasha Wilson -- wilsonn@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Raquel Hoover Crump -- rcrump@theemploymentlawsolution.com -- McFadden Davis, LLC & Sumaya Shawqi Ellard, Greenberg Traurig, LLP. GEO GROUP: Indiana Court Narrows Claims in Figgs Suit ----------------------------------------------------- In the case, DAMARCUS FIGGS individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and DAVID CORBIN individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. GEO GROUP, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00089-TWP-MPB (S.D. Ind.), Judge Tanya Walton Pratt of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, granted in part and denied in part GEO's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). On Dec. 13, 2017, the Plaintiffs and the proposed class representatives, Figgs and David Corbin, filed a class action complaint in the Henry County Circuit Court asserting claims against GEO for labor trafficking, discrimination, cruel and unusual punishment, false imprisonment, confinement, unjust enrichment, and negligence. On Jan. 11, 2018, GEO removed the action to the Court. GEO is a Florida-based international conglomerate and publicly traded for-profit corporation founded in 2003. It knowingly and exclusively for financial benefit and profit, operates the largest and only privately-owned state prison in Indiana. GEO has collected more than $100 million in benefit and value in its operations concerning the proposed class members (mentally disabled prisoners). The Plaintiffs are, or were, inmates in the "Mental Health Unit" at New Castle Correctional Facility, a prison GEO privately owns and operates in Henry County Indiana. The Mental Health Unit is a maximum-security facility that holds up to 128 mentally disabled and mentally ill prisoners. The inmates in the Mental Health Unit engage in daily labor, performing tasks such as cleaning, completing reports, and assisting nondisabled employees in their work maintaining the Mental Health Unit. GEO pays inmates in the Mental Health Unit approximately $10 per month for their services. GEO typically takes possession of any given class members after they have suffered a serious injury or trauma while held at a prison facility that is publicly owned and operated. It then recruits and arranges for proposed class members to be held at its privately held facility, ostensibly to "stabilize" the prisoner in a three-month program not to exceed six months. The Plaintiffs have been restrained in the Mental Health Unit usually longer than six months and at times for years, and repeatedly prevented from transferring from the unit and ceasing labor for GEO. The conditions in the Mental Health Unit are poor. GEO isolates inmates in small rooms for approximately 20 hours per day. It retaliates against inmates who suffer injury or object to the conditions of the Mental Health Unit by extending their time in isolation. It promises inmates breaks from their small rooms, but regularly cancels those breaks. And it routinely chains and shackles inmates when they are working outside of their rooms. The Plaintiffs make five separate claims in their Complaint: (1) GEO violated the Trafficking Victims Protection Act ("TVPA") by subjecting the proposed class to peonage, involuntary servitude, and forced labor; (2) GEO violated the Plaintiffs' Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection of the laws by discriminating against them without a reason rationally related to a legitimate government interest; (3) GEO violated the Plaintiffs' Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment by subjecting them to cruel and uncivilized conditions of confinement; (4) GEO discriminated against the proposed class members due to their mental disabilities in violation of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Americans with Disabilities Act; and (5) GEO committed false imprisonment, confinement, unjust enrichment, and negligence against the proposed class—torts under Indiana law. The Plaintiffs ask the Court for preliminary and permanent injunctions transferring the proposed class out of the Mental Health Unit, compensatory and punitive damages, treble damages, and legal costs, attorney fees, and expert witness costs and fees. GEO moves to dismiss, arguing the proposed class' claims are both legally deficient and unsupported by sufficient factual allegations. Judge Pratt concludes that a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) does not test whether the Plaintiff will prevail on the merits but instead whether the claimant has properly stated a claim. She granted in part and denied in part GEO's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. In addition, she granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Cite Supplemental Authority in Support of Their Response in Opposition to Defendant the GEO Group, Inc.'s 12(B)(6) Motion to Dismiss. She granted the Motion to Dismiss as to the Plaintiffs' claims for peonage under the TVPA, equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment, cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment, discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act, false imprisonment, confinement, and negligence. Those claims are dismissed. GEO's Motion to Dismiss is denied as to the Plaintiffs' claims for forced labor and trafficking under the TVPA, and state law claim of unjust enrichment. These claims have survived the initial hurdle of a motion to dismiss. Whether or not these claims will survive summary judgment is a matter for another day. Among other things, the Judge finds that (i) although the Court can determine as a matter of law whether the Plaintiffs have alleged sufficient facts that would give rise to a statutory duty on the part of the Defendants, whether that statute has been violated is a question for the trier of fact; (ii) the Complaint sufficiently states a claim under Section 1590; and (iii) the Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claim is adequately pled and does not fail as a matter of law. A full-text copy of the Court's March 29, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/JiJfFX from Leagle.com. DAMARCUS FIGGS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated & DAVID CORBIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Christopher Carson Myers -- cmyers@myers-law.com -- CHRISTOPHER C. MYERS & ASSOCIATES & David W. Frank, CHRISTOPHER C. MYERS & ASSOCIATES. GEO GROUP, INC., Defendant, represented by Adam Garth Forrest -- aforrest@bbkcc.com -- BOSTON BEVER KLINGE CROSS & CHIDESTER, Charles Deacon -- charlie.deacon@nortonrosefulbright.com -- NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP, pro hac vice & Mark Thomas Emery -- mark.emery@nortonrosefulbright.com -- NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP, pro hac vice. GLOBAL COURIER: Underpays Delivery Drivers, Nogales Claims ---------------------------------------------------------- CARLOS ANTONIO PAVON NOGALES and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(b), the Plaintiff, vs. GLOBAL COURIER SERVICES, INC. and HERIBERTO CAZANAS, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-21222-XXXX (S.D. Fla., April 1, 2019), seeks to recover overtime and/or minimum wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a courier driver from March 5, 2012 through January 31, 2019. As a courier driver, the Plaintiff's job duties required of him by Defendants, along with other courier drivers, included but were not limited to, picking up medical supplies such as vials for specimens such as blood specimens, and medicines from pharmacies; packages from attorneys offices, banks, Rooms to Go and pick up cash from doctor offices to take to banks; driving to specific locations to deliver medical supplies and packages; and delivering gifts toys wine toys and flowers. The Defendants have employed several other similarly situated employees like the Plaintiff (i.e. excavator operators, excavation crew members, etc.) who have not been paid overtime and/or minimum wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly ,the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorney For the Plaintiff: J.H. Zidell, Esq. J.H. ZIDELL, P.A. 300 71 st Street, Suite 605 Miami Beach, FL 33141 Telephone: (305) 865-6766 Facsimile: (305) 865-7167 GONGOS INC: Court Denies Kraft's Bid to Certify Class Under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Victoria A. Roberts issued an order and opinion in the lawsuit entitled HEATHER KRAFT v. GONGOS, INC., GONGOS RESEARCH, INC., and DEBRA POMORSKI, Case No. 2:18-cv-10745-VAR-SDD (E.D. Mich.), denying without prejudice the Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification of an FLSA collective action and for an order for notice to the class. The Plaintiff asked the Court to conditionally certify a class of: All current and former employees of Defendants Gongos, Inc., Gongos Research Inc., and Debra Pomorski, who worked as Research Coordinators and who worked hours in excess of forty per week but were not paid 1 1/2 times their regular rate for overtime hours. Heather Kraft is a former employee of the Defendants. She says she and others who were employed as Research Coordinators for Defendants were not properly compensated for overtime work as required under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). Judge Roberts opines that Ms. Kraft has not met her burden for conditional certification. Despite minimal requirements, Ms. Kraft fails to meet her burden to show she is similarly situated to other potential plaintiffs, Judge Roberts states.[CC] GREEN PATIO: O'Malley Hits Unpaid Wages, Tip Credits ---------------------------------------------------- MEGAN O'MALLEY, on behalf of Herself and those similarly-situated, Plaintiff, v. GREEN PATIO, LLC, a Domestic Limited Liability Company, and RAWNAG SHABA, Individually, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-11070-DML-MKM (E.D. Mich., April 12, 2019) is a Collective Action Complaint against Defendants pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). Plaintiff worked in excess of 40 hours in various weeks throughout the duration of her employment with Defendant but was not properly compensated for all her overtime hours worked during the relevant time period, asserts the complaint. The Defendants compensated Plaintiff a base pay based upon the tipped minimum wage, rather than the Michigan Minimum wage, and therefore, took a tip credit toward its minimum wage obligation to Plaintiff. Despite the fact that Defendants purport to take the tip credit with respect to Plaintiff and its other server employees, it fails to adequately put them on notice of its intent to take the tip credit throughout times within the relevant time period, the complaint relates. Plaintiff worked for Defendants' restaurant as a nonexempt server from approximately November 2016 to July 2018. Green Patio, LLC, is a Michigan limited liability Company and owns Bombshells Bar & Eats, a restaurant located in Warren, Michigan.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael N. Hanna, Esq. Morgan & Morgan, P.A. 2000 Town Center, Suite 1900 Southfield, MI 48075 Phone: (313) 739-1950 Email: MHanna@forthepeople.com GTX INC: Miller Seeks More Info on Oncternal Merger ---------------------------------------------------- LEE MILLER, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. GTX, INC., ROBERT J. WILLS, MARC S. HANOVER, J.R. HYDE, III, MICHAEL G. CARTER, J. KENNETH GLASS, GARRY A. NEIL, KENNETH S. ROBINSON, ONCTERNAL THERAPEUTICS, INC., and GRIZZLY MERGER SUB, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00676-UNA (D. Del., April 11, 2019) is an action that stems from a proposed transaction announced on March 7, 2019, pursuant to which GTx, Inc. will merge with Oncternal Therapeutics, Inc. On March 6, 2019, GTx's Board of Directors (the "Board" or "Individual Defendants") caused GTx to enter into an agreement and plan of merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Oncternal and Grizzly Merger Sub, Inc. ("Merger Sub"). Under the exchange ratio formula in the Merger Agreement, as of immediately after the merger, the former Oncternal stockholders are expected to own approximately 75% of the aggregate number of shares of GTx's common stock issued and outstanding following the consummation of the merger, and the stockholders of GTx as of immediately prior to the merger are expected to own only approximately 25% of the outstanding shares of common stock of the combined company (the "Proposed Transaction"). On April 8, 2019, defendants filed a Form S-4 Registration Statement (the "Registration Statement") with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission the "SEC") in connection with the Proposed Transaction. The Plaintiff asserts that the Registration Statement omits material information with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the Registration Statement false and misleading. Accordingly, plaintiff alleges that defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the Registration Statement, says the complaint. Plaintiff is, and has been continuously throughout all times relevant, an owner of GTx common stock. Defendant GTx is a Delaware corporation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gina M. Serra, Esq. Brian D. Long, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220 Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 295-5310 Facsimile: (302) 654-7530 Email: bdl@rl-legal.com gms@rl-legal.com HAIN CELESTIAL: Amended Consolidated Securities Suit Dismissed -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, In Re The Hain Celestial Group Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 2:16-cv-04581 (ADS) (SIL) (E.D. N.Y.), Judge Arthur D. Spatt of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted the Defendants to dismiss the amended consolidated class action complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure. The case involves allegations that the Hain and certain of its current and former officers and directors made materially false and misleading statements concerning Hain's inventory and revenues by allegedly engaged in the practice of "channel stuffing" in violation of sections 10(b), Rule 10(b)-5 promulgated thereunder, and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Hain manufactures, markets, distributes, and sells organic and natural products in the United States and several other countries. During the Class Period, 55-60% of Hain's net sales were generated within the United States. Hain's products are marketed as "better for you" foods, and its product line includes brands such as Almond Dream, Arrowhead Mills, BluePrint, Celestial Seasonings, Coconut Dream, Earth's Best, Garden of Eatin', Hain Pure Foods, Joya, MaraNatha, Rice Dream, Soy Dream, Terra Chips, The Greek Gods, and WestSoy. Hain's largest customer during the Class Period was United Natural Foods, Inc. ("UNFI"), a distributor that accounted for 12% of Hain's net sales during the Class Period. Lead Plaintiffs Rosewood Funeral Home and Salamon Gimpel, along with the members of the proposed class, purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded common stock of Hain, and call and put options on the publicly traded common stock, during the period from Nov. 5, 2013 through Feb. 10, 2017. By the early 2010s, Hain allegedly began suffering from stiff competition as generic brands and chain stores began to offer natural and organic foods. As a result, Hain could no longer meet its revenue targets or Wall Street's projections. In order to meet those targets and projections, the Defendants allegedly engaged in a "channel stuffing" scheme. Channel stuffing is the practice of intentionally oversupplying distributors with products in order to artificially inflate sales and revenue. In so doing, a company that stuffs its distribution channels essentially "robs Peter to pay Paul" -- that is, the company inflates revenue for one financial quarter by stealing revenue from a future financial quarter or quarters; and it misrepresents the company's financial status. The complaint alleges that the Defendants engaged in channel stuffing by shipping extra inventory to its distributors with financial incentives; offering discounts to distributors for accepting extra product beyond the distributors' needs; and offering distributors an absolute right to return the products. The Lead Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding their sales in SEC filings between November 2013 and May 2016, including the representation of Hain's sales numbers in the 8-K and 10-K forms. The individual Defendants purportedly made misrepresentations during conference calls with investors between Jan. 14, 2014 and May 4, 2016 wherein the individual Defendants misconstrued the nature of their increased sales. Furthermore, the complaint alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading statements in various filings with the SEC as to Hain's accounting practices. Namely, that the Defendants failed to disclose that they were classifying inventory forced onto distributors as revenue even though the distributors were not obligated to pay for the shipments, and had an absolute right to return the products the next quarter. In support of its allegations, the complaint relies upon six confidential witnesses ("CWs"). Presently before the Court is a motion by the Defendants to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure. Judge Spatt granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), and dismissed without prejudice the complaint. Among other thigns, he finds that (i) the Lead Plaintiffs fail to adequately allege that the Defendants engaged in a fraudulent channel stuffing scheme; (ii) the Lead Plaintiffs have failed to plead a strong inference of scienter; and (iii) the complaint has not stated a primary violation under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5. The Lead Plaintiffs represent that they have acquired information from additional former employees that were uncovered during the Lead Plaintiffs' investigation, and requested leave to amend in the event that the Court found that they did not adequately plead any of their claims. The Judge finds that this is sufficient reason to grant leave to amend the complaint. The Lead Plaintiffs are directed to file a second amended complaint within 30 days of entry of the Order. A full-text copy of the Court's March 29, 2019 Memorandum and Decision Order is available at https://is.gd/iCmLq9 from Leagle.com. Grace Omura, Movant, represented by Phillip Kim -- pkim@rosenlegal.com -- Rosen Law Firm, P.A. P.C. Salamon Gimpel, Movant, represented by Gregory B. Linkh -- GLINKH@GLANCYLAW.COM -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Robert Prongay -- RPRONGAY@GLANCYLAW.COM -- Glancy Prongay & Murray, pro hac vice, Howard G. Smith, Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, pro hac vice, Joshua Lon Crowell -- JCROWELL@GLANCYLAW.COM -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP & Leanne H. Solish -- LSOLISH@GLANCYLAW.COM -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, pro hac vice. Thomas Dorsey, Movant, represented by Gerald Harlan Silk, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP. Rosewood Funeral Home, Movant, represented by Christopher Joseph Keller, Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff LLP, Eric J. Belfi, Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff LLP, Francis P. McConville, Labaton Sucharow LLP, Jonathan Gardner , Labaton Sucharow, Seth Morgan Jessee, Labaton Sucharow LLP, Christopher Lawrence Mooney , Labaton Sucharow, Howard G. Smith, Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, pro hac vice, Joshua Lon Crowell, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Leanne H. Solish, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, pro hac vice & Michael P. Canty, Labaton Sucharow. Xiaolin Wang, Movant, represented by J. Alexander Hood -- ahood@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP. Bradley D. Flora, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by J. Alexander Hood, Pomerantz LLP, Patrick V. Dahlstrom -- pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross, Peretz Bronstein -- peretz@bgandg.com -- Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC & Jeremy Alan Lieberman -- jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP. Rodney Lynn, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Laurence Matthew Rosen -- lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. & Phillip Kim, Rosen Law Firm, P.A. P.C. The Hain Celestial Group, Inc., Irwin D. Simon, Pasquale Conte, John Carroll & Stephen J. Smith, Defendants, represented by John M. Hillebrecht -- john.hillebrecht@dlapiper.com -- DLA Piper LLP US. HARBOR LEGAL: Faces Inoue Suit in District of Hawaii ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Harbor Legal Group. The case is captioned as NORMAN INOUE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HARBOR LEGAL GROUP; and LAW OFFICES OF G ANTHONY YUTHAS, Defendants, Case No. 1CC191000495 (D. Haw., Island, March 27, 2019). Harbor Legal Group provides legal services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by Justin Adam Brackett, Esq. HARCOURTS INT'L: Valdes Sues Over Unsolicited Autodialed Calls -------------------------------------------------------------- Jorge Valdes, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Harcourts International USA, Inc., a California corporation, Defendant, Case No. 8:19-cv-00701-AG-DFM (C.D. Cal., April 12, 2019) seeks to stop Harcourts from directing realtors to violate the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by making unsolicited autodialed calls to cellular telephone numbers and/or unsolicited calls to consumers who have registered their telephone numbers on the national Do Not Call (DNC) registry, and to otherwise obtain injunctive and monetary relief for all persons injured by Harcourts's conduct. Although Harcourts is composed of various franchises, Harcourt provides training directly to all Harcourts realtors. Through this training, Harcourt directs realtors to cold call consumers to sell them Harcourt's realty services. This includes specific instructions to call consumers who have previously listed their properties for sale with other realtors, but whose listings with those other realtors expired without a sale of the property and never included their personal phone numbers. In Plaintiff Valdes's case, Harcourts's marketing plan for realtors resulted in him receiving unsolicited, autodialed calls from 6 different Harcourts realtors to his cellular phone number registered on the DNC. This all occurred after the multiple listing service listing for Plaintiff's property, which was maintained by Plaintiff's former realtor and which did not include any of Plaintiff's telephone numbers, was removed from the multiple listing service without Plaintiff having sold his home. In response to these calls, Plaintiff Valdes files this lawsuit seeking injunctive relief, requiring Defendant to cease from directing realtors to violate, and otherwise ratifying realtors' violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by placing unsolicited autodialed calls to consumers, including consumers that have registered their telephone numbers on the DNC, as well as an award of statutory damages to the members of the Classes and costs, says the complaint. Plaintiff Jorge Valdes is a resident of Tustin, California. Harcourts is the United States affiliate of an international real estate franchise.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Afshin Siman, Esq. Law Office of Afshin Siman 11040 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 212 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Phone: (424) 229-9778 Email: siman@simanlawfirm.com - and - Rachel E. Kaufman, Esq. Avi R. Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN P.A. 400 NW 26th Street Miami, FL 33127 Phone: (305) 469-5881 Email: rachel@kaufmanpa.com kaufman@kaufmanpa.com - and - Stefan Coleman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN, P.A. 201 S. Biscayne Blvd, 28th Floor Miami, Fl 33131 Phone: (877) 333-9427 Facsimile: (888) 498-8946 Email: law@stefancoleman.com HARDEE'S: Settles Class Action Over Hepatitis A Outbreak -------------------------------------------------------- FOX 46 CHARLOTTE reports that Hardee's has reached a settlement in the class action lawsuit filed against them over a Hepatitis A outbreak that occurred last summer. Qualified members in the settlement would recieve a share of $246,000 from a 'general damages fund' if they submitted a claim. Right now, the number of accepted claims is at 909. If that number stays the same, each person would receive about $270. In addition to their share of the nearly $250,000, the named plaintiffs will each receive $1,000 in compensation. This lawsuit claims breach of warranties and negligence on Hardee's part, and aims to compensate customers for physical injury and loss of money. Eligible claimants are those who ate at the restaurant between June 13 and June 23, 2018, and had blood tests done or were vaccinated before July 7. The deadline was Feb. 28 and the final approval hearing in the settlement was scheduled to be held on April 1. [GN] HASS INTERESTS: Underpays Delivery Drivers, Polk Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------- AUBREY POLK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HASS INTERESTS, LLC d/b/a TEXAS EXECUTIVE COURIERS; and AMAZON.COM SERVICES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-01149 (S.D. Tex., March 28, 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 Polk was employed by the Defendants as delivery driver. Amazon Fulfillment Services, Inc. provides e-commerce services. The Company retails books, diamond jewelry, electronics, appliances, apparels, and accessories. Amazon Fulfillment Services distributes its products worldwide. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: 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 HEALTHALL CONSULTING: Dyse Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------------- Heather Dyse, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. HealthAll Consulting, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-10704 (D. Mass., April 12, 2019) is an action brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"), seeking payment of unpaid overtime wages. Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and other similarly situated, also seeks liquidated damages for the Defendant's failure to pay overtime wages, as well as attorneys' fees and costs. Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a consultant providing support and training to Defendant's clients in using a new recordkeeping system in Huntsville, Alabama between July 2018 and March 2019. Plaintiff alleges that she and other similarly situated consultants were knowingly and improperly classified as independent contractors, and, as a result, did not receive overtime pay for hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek. HealthAll Consulting, LLC is a Massachusetts corporation which provides information technology educational services for the healthcare industry across the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Olena Savytska, Esq. Harold Lichten, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston St., Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Phone: (617) 994-5800 Facsimile: (617) 994-5801 Email: osavytska@llrlaw.com hlichten@llrlaw.com HILL'S PET: Faces Conley Suit in E.D. Louisiana ----------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hill's Pet Nutrition, Inc. The case is captioned as STANLEY CONLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HILL'S PET NUTRITION, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-04363-LMA-MBN (E.D. La., March 28, 2019). the case is assigned to Judge Lance M Africk and referred to Magistrate Judge Michael North. The Conley suit is a member case in the multi-district litigation proceeding, MDL No. 2887. Hill's Pet Nutrition, Inc. produces and markets pet food. The company was founded in 1939 and is headquartered in Topeka, Kansas. Hill's Pet Nutrition, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Colgate-Palmolive Co. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Allen Lemmon, Esq. LEMMON LAW FIRM (HAHNVILLE) 15058 River Road Hahnville, LA 70057 Telephone: (985) 783-6789 E-mail: andrew@lemmonlawfirm.com - and - Danielle L. Perry, Esq. WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP 5101 Wisconsin Ave., NW, Suite 305 Washington, DC 20016 Telephone: (202) 429-2290 E-mail: dperry@wbmllp.com - and - Gary E. Mason, Esq. WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP 5101 Wisconsin Ave., NW, Suite 305 Washington, DC 20016 Telephone: (202) 429-2290 Facsimile: (202) 429-2294 E-mail: gmason@wbmllp.com - and - John Hunter Bryson, Esq. WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP (RALEIGH) 900 W. Morgan Street Raleigh, NC 27605 Telephone: (919) 600-5000 E-mail: hunter@wbmllp.com HIRERIGHT: Stanley Files FCRA Suit in E.D. Virginia --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against HIRERIGHT, LLC. The case is styled as WILLIE STANLEY, JR. on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HIRERIGHT, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-00297-HEH (E.D. Va., April 18, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. HireRight, LLC develops and provides on-demand employment background checks, and drug and health screening solutions that help employers to automate, manage, and control background screening and related programs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Leonard Anthony Bennett, Esq. Consumer Litigation Associates 763 J Clyde Morris Boulevard, Suite 1A Newport News, VA 23601 Phone: (757) 930-3660 Fax: (757) 930-3662 Email: lenbennett@clalegal.com HUNTLEIGH USA: Cole Seeks to Recoup Unpaid Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------- Domonique Cole, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated Plaintiff, v. Huntleigh USA Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-00816, (S.D. Tex., March 6, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, meal and rest period, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. Huntleigh is in the business of providing aviation security solutions and other services to commercial and private airline companies where Cole currently works as an aircraft technician for Huntleigh at William P. Hobby Airport in Houston. She claims to have regularly worked more than 8 hours per day and 40 hours per week but not paid any additional wages for overtime due to being misclassified as independent contractors. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Robert R. Debes, Jr., Esq. Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq. SHELLIST LAZARZ SLOBIN LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 621-2277 Facsimile: (713) 621-0993 Email: bdebes@eeoc.net rprieto@eeoc.net HYUNDAI MOTOR: Abe Sues Over Illegal, Unsolicited Text Messages --------------------------------------------------------------- June Abe, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Hyundai Motor America, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 8:19-cv-00699 (C.D. Cal., April 15, 2019) seeks legal and equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of the Defendant in transmitting unsolicited, autodialed SMS or MMS text messages, en masse, to Plaintiff's cellular device and the cellular devices of numerous other individuals across the country, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"). Shortly after visiting the Garden Grove Dealership, Defendant transmitted or caused to be transmitted, by itself or through an intermediary or intermediaries, including without limitation one or more of its agent(s) at the Garden Grove Dealership, one or more SMS or MMS text messages to the 3021 Number without Plaintiff's prior express written consent. Neither Plaintiff nor any members of the proposed Class provided their "prior express written consent" to Defendant or any of Defendant's agent(s) or affiliate(s), including without limitation the Garden Grove Dealership, to permit Defendant or any such agent(s) or affiliate(s) to transmit text messages to the 3021 Number or to any of the Class's telephone numbers using an "automatic telephone dialing system", says the complaint. Plaintiff is a citizen and resident of Irvine, California. Defendant maintains its corporate headquarters in Fountain Valley, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Frank S. Hedin, Esq. David W. Hall, Esq. Hedin Hall llp Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94104 Phone: (415) 766-3534 Facsimile: (415) 402-0058 Email: fhedin@hedinhall.com dhall@hedinhall.com IMEX GLOBAL: Lyles Hits Employees' Biometrics Data Sharing ---------------------------------------------------------- Darryl Lyles, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. IMEX Global Solutions, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2019CH02967 (Ill. Cir., March 6, 2019), seeks an injunction requiring Defendants to cease all unlawful activity related to the capture, collection, storage and use of biometrics; as well as statutory damages together with costs and reasonable attorneys' fees for violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. IMEX provides enhanced business mail, parcels and publications consolidation and distribution. Lyles was required to "clock-in" and "clock-out" using a timeclock that scanned fingerprints. He alleges that IMEX improperly disclosed employees' fingerprint data to a third-party company without informed consent. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Brandon M. Wise, Esq. Paul A. Lesko, Esq. PEIFFER WOLF CARR & KANE, APLC 818 Lafayette Ave., Floor 2 St. Louis, MO 63104 Tel: (314) 833-4825 Email: bwise@pwcklegal.com plesko@pwcklegal.com INDECOMM HOLDINGS: Underpays Mortgage Underwriters, Engle Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- REBECCA ENGLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INDECOMM HOLDINGS, INC.; FLAGSTAR BANK; FLAGSTAR BANCORP, INC.; and DOES 1 through 100, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV10621 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., March 27, 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 Engle was employed by the Defendants as mortgage underwriter. Indecomm Holdings, Inc., doing business as Indecomm Global Services, Inc., provides consulting, outsourcing, learning, and technology solutions in the United States and internationally. Indecomm Holdings, Inc. was founded in 2003 and is based in Edison, New Jersey. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas Han, Esq. Shunt Tatavos-Gharajeh, Esq. Daniel J. Park, Esq. JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION 751 North Fair Oaks Ave., Suite 101 Pasadena, CA 91103 Telephone: (818) 230-7502 Facsimile: (818) 230-7259 INTEL CORP: N.D. Cal. Dismisses Consolidated Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, IN RE INTEL CORPORATION SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 18-cv-00507-YGR (N.D. Cal.), Judge Yvonne Gonzales Rogers of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Consolidated Complaint, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a), 9(b), and 12(b)(6), and the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, with laeve to amend. Lead plaintiff Louisiana Sheriffs' Pension & Relief Fund brings the securities class action litigation alleging false and misleading statements and omissions between Oct. 27, 2018 and Jan. 9, 2018, against Defendants Intel, and three individual Defendants, namely Brian M. Krzanich (former CEO), Robert H. Swan ("CFO"), and Navin Shenoy (Executive VP). Specifically, the Plaintiff raises the following causes of action: (i) violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act ("Exchange Act") against all Defendants and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and (ii) violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the individual defendants. The Plaintiff alleges that Intel continued to promote the security and performance of its processors to investors in various contexts throughout the Class Period without disclosing Spectre and Meltdown. Specifically, the Plaintiff alleges myriad false and misleading statements in relation to the security and performance of Intel's processors. As pled in the Consolidated Class Action Complaint ("CCAC"), the Plaintiff's securities fraud claim centers on seven categories of statementso. Each category addresses a specific context in which statements were made. The Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss. Therein, they challenge the Plaintiff's Section 10(b) claim on two grounds. First, the Plaintiff fails to identify any statements which were false or misleading when made. Second, the Plaintiff has not established a strong inference of scienter. With regard to the Plaintiff's Section 20(a) claim against the individual Defendants, the Defendants argue that the Plaintiff has not shown an underlying predicate violation under Section 10(b) or facts establishing the element of control as to Shenoy. Judge Rogers concludes that having failed to allege a materially false or misleading statement, the Plaintiff's claim under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder must be dismissed. Moreover, the Plaintiff's failure to plead a primary violation of Section 10(b) requires the dismissal of the Section 20(a) claim against the individual Defendants. Based upon the foregoing, she granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss the CCAC. Although the Judge harbors doubts that the Plaintiff can cure the deficiencies, in an abundance of caution, and because the Judge has not provided the Plaintiff with a prior opportunity to amend, the Plaintiff is given leave to amend. The Plaintiff will file an amended complaint within 28 days from the date of the Order. The Defendants will file responsive pleadings within 28 days after service. The Order terminates Docket Number 67. A full-text copy of the Court's March 29, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/tezu3R from Leagle.com. Meerain Ali, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by J. Alexander Hood, II -- ahood@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, Jeremy A. Lieberman -- jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, Patrick V. Dahlstrom -- pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP & Jennifer Pafiti -- jpafiti@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP. Intel Corporation, Defendant, represented by Margaret Ann Keeley -- mkeeley@wc.com -- Williams and Connolly, John Michael Gildersleeve -- John.Gildersleeve@mto.com -- Munger, Tolles, Olson LLP & Xiao Wang -- xwang@wc.com -- Williams and Connolly LLP. Brian M. Krzanich & Robert H. Swan, Defendants, represented by Margaret Ann Keeley, Williams and Connolly & Xiao Wang, Williams and Connolly LLP. Louisiana Sheriffs' Pension & Relief Fund, Movant, represented by David Ronald Stickney -- davids@blbglaw.com -- Bernstein, Litowitz, Berger & Grossmann & David Reuven Lev Kaplan -- davidk@blbglaw.com -- Bernstein Litowitz Berger and Grossmann LLP. Daniel E. Tavares & Meerain Ali, Movants, represented by Jennifer Pafiti, Pomerantz LLP & Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Pomerantz LLP. J & J & J PIZZA: Orth Seeks Proper Expense Reimbursements ---------------------------------------------------------- Michael Orth, individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, v. J & J & J Pizza, Inc. d/b/a Domino's Pizza and Carlos Ferreira, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-10709 (D. Mass., April 12, 2019) is a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and as a class action under Massachusetts Minimum Wage Law, ("Massachusetts Wage Law") and common law to recover unpaid minimum wages owed to plaintiff and similarly situated persons employed by Defendants at their Domino's Pizza stores. The Defendants employ delivery drivers who use their own automobiles to deliver pizza and other food items to their customers. However, instead of reimbursing delivery drivers for the reasonably approximate costs of the business use of their vehicles, Defendants use a flawed method to determine reimbursement rates that provides such an unreasonably low rate--beneath any reasonable approximation of the expenses that drivers incur--that the drivers' unreimbursed expenses cause their wages to fall below the federal minimum wage during some or all workweeks, says the complaint. Plaintiff Michael Orth was employed by Defendants from approximately June 2017 to March 2018 as a delivery driver at Defendants' Domino's Pizza store. Defendants operate numerous Domino's Pizza franchise stores.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony A. Orlandi, Esq. Joe P. Leniski, Jr., Esq. J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC 223 Rosa Parks Ave. Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Phone: 615/254-8801 Facsimile: 615/255-5419 Email: gerards@bsjfirm.com joeyl@bsjfirm.com aorlandi@bsjfirm.com - and - Matthew Haynie, Esq. Jay Forester, Esq. FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC 1701 N. Market Street, Suite 210 Dallas, TX 75202 Phone: (214) 210-2100 Fax: (214) 346-5909 Email: matthew@foresterhaynie.com jay@foresterhaynie.com JACKSON HEWITT: Newbauer Suit Moved to District of New Jersey ------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled CARSON NEWBAUER, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JACKSON HEWITT TAX SERVICE INC.; JACKSON HEWITT INC.; TAX SERVICES OF AMERICA, INC.; BAYSIDE CAPITAL, INC.; and CORSAIR CAPITAL, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-09069, was removed from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on March 28, 2019. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-09069 to the proceeding. Jackson Hewitt Tax Service Inc. provides legal services. The Company offers tax return preparation, computerized preparation of income tax returns, and electronic filing services. Jackson Hewitt Tax Service serves federal, state, and local individual throughout the United States and Puerto Rico. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Condrad M. Schumadine, 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 – Joseph R. Saveri, Esq. Steve N. Williams, Esq. Jiamin Chen. Esq. V Prentice, Esq. JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, INC. 601 California Street, Suite 1000 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 500-6800 Facsimile: (415) 395-9940 E-mail: jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com swilliams@saverilawfirm.com jchen@saverilawfirm.com vprentice@saverilawfirm.com JBS USA FOOD: Duron Suit Removed to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------- The case captioned EDDIE DURON, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. JBS USA FOOD COMPANY HOLDINGS, an unknown entity; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. RIC1901863 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Riverside to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on April 17, 2019, and assigned Case No. 5:19-cv-00702. Plaintiff asserts these causes of action on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated against Defendant: Violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act; Violation of California Civil Code (Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act); Violation of the Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act; Failure to Provide Meal Periods; Failure to Provide Rest Periods; Failure to Pay Hourly Wages; Failure to Provide Accurate Written Wage Statements; Failure to Timely Pay All Final Wages; and Unfair Competition.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: TRITIA M. MURATA, ESQ. NEIL SCOTT TYLER, ESQ. MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 707 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90017-3543 Phone: 213.892.5200 Facsimile: 213.892.5454 Email: TMurata@mofo.com NTyler@mofo.com JOHN JACOBS: Schuller Sues Over Unpaid Minimum Wages ---------------------------------------------------- Victoria Schuller, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. John Jacobs Golf Schools, Inc., an Arizona Corporation, Shelby Futch and Jane Doe Futch, a married couple, and Gordon Petrie and Jane Doe Petrie, a married couple, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-02368-DLR (D. Ariz., April 11, 2019) is an action against Defendants for their unlawful failure to pay minimum wage in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (the "FLSA"), and wages due and owing Plaintiffs and others similarly-situated in violation of Arizona Wage Act ("AWA"), and Arizona Revised Statutes ("A.R.S."). Rather than pay their employees the full minimum wage, Defendants imposed a tip credit upon all of their tipped employees, including Plaintiff, the Collective Members, and the Class Members. Defendants violated the FLSA by paying their tipped employees, including Plaintiff and the Collective Members, sub-minimum, tip-credit wages without informing them of the tip-credit provisions of the FLSA, notes the complaint. The Defendants also refused and/or failed to properly disclose to or apprise Plaintiff and the Collective Members of their rights under the FLSA. The Defendants wrongfully withheld wages from Plaintiff and the Collective Members by failing to pay all wages due for hours worked by Plaintiff, the Collective Members, and the Class Members, adds the complaint. Plaintiff was hired by Defendants and worked for Defendants between approximately December 1, 2015 through approximately September 1, 2018. Defendants own and/or operate as John Jacobs Golf School Inc., an enterprise located in Maricopa County, Arizona.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Clifford P. Bendau, II, Esq. Christopher J. Bendau, Esq. BENDAU & BENDAU PLLC P.O. Box 97066 Phoenix, AZ 85060 Phone: (480) 382-5176 Fax: (480) 304-3805 Email: cliffordbendau@bendaulaw.com chris@bendaulaw.com JOHNSTON NURSERIES: Faces Torres Suit in Kern County ---------------------------------------------------- An employment-related class action lawsuit has been filed against Johnston Nurseries, FLP. The case is captioned as FERNANDO TORRES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JOHNSTON NURSERIES, FLP; DENNIS JOHNSTON; and STACEY JOHNSTON, Defendants, Case No. BCV-19-100830 (Cal. Super., Kern Cty., March 26, 2019). The case is assigned to Thomas S. Clark. Johnston Nurseries, FLP is a limited partnership organized under the laws of the State of California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jasmin K. Gill, Esq. J. GILL LAW GROUP, PC 515 S Flower St., 18th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (909) 631-6581 JOUDEH GHAWALI: Onyeneho Seeks Overtime Wages for Exotic Dancers ---------------------------------------------------------------- LYNDA ONYENEHO, the Plaintiff, v. TRIPLE D PRODUCTIONS, LLC., a Florida limited liability company, and JOUDEH GHAWALI, individually, the Defendants, Case No. 9:19-cv-80454-XXXX (S.D. Fla., April 1, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, and reasonable attorney's fee and costs from Defendants for violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant misclassified Exotic Dancers as Independent Contractors and/or Licensees and set the policy of not directly compensating Plaintiff and other like workers. The Defendant is ultimately responsibility, on behalf of Defendant TRIPLE D PRODUCTIONS LLC., to compensate Plaintiff and other like workers pursuant to the FLSA, the lawsuit says.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: MILITZOK LAW, P.A. Wells Fargo Building 4600 Sheridan Street, Suite 402 Hollywood, FL 33021 Telephone: (954) 780-8228 Facsimile: (954) 719-4016 E-mail: bjm@militzoklaw.com JUUL LABS: Faces Nessmith Suit over Deceptive Marketing Practices ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action complaint has been filed against JUUL Labs, Inc., Altria Group, Inc. and Philip Morris USA, Inc. for violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. The case is captioned ERIN NESSMITH and JARED NESSMITH, individually, and as guardians of their minor child, A. N., on behalf of themselves and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, JUUL LABS INC., ALTRIA GROUP, INC., and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 8:19-cv-00884 (M.D. Fla., April 15, 2019). Plaintiffs Erin and Jared Nessmith accuse Defendants of using fraudulent and deceptive youth marketing business practices adjudged to violate federal racketeering laws. Juul Labs, they claim, misrepresented the amount of nicotine contained in its products. Accordingly, they bring this lawsuit to redress the harm already sustained and prevent future harm to others. Such harm includes exposure to significant toxic substances, which may cause or contribute to causing disease and nicotine addiction. JUUL Labs, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. JUUL originally operated under the name PAX Labs, Inc. In 2017, it was renamed JUUL Labs, Inc. JUUL manufactures, designs, sells, markets, promotes and distributes JUUL e-cigarettes. Tobacco giant Altria recently acquired a 35% stake in JUUL, the country's lead e-cigarette seller. Altria Group, Inc, is a Virginia corporation with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria. Philip Morris is engaged in the manufacture and sale of cigarettes in the United States. It is considered as the largest cigarette company in the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott P. Schlesinger, Esq. Jonathan R. Gdanski, Esq. Jeffrey L. Haberman, Esq. SCHLESINGER LAW OFFICES, P.A. 1212 SE Third Avenue Ft. Lauderdale, FL 3316 Telephone: 954-467-8800 E-mail: scott@schlesingerlaw.com jgdanski@schlesingerlaw.com jhaberman@schlesingerlaw.com KINJO INC: Delivery Staff Sacked for Claiming Overtime Pay ---------------------------------------------------------- Manuel Cruz and Fernando Perez, on behalf of themselves, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class, Plaintiff, v. Kinjo, Inc., Andy Lau and Raymond Doe, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-02085, (S.D. N.Y., March 6, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid overtime, compensation for retaliation, liquidated damages, statutory penalties and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the New York Labor Law and the Fair Labor Standards Act. Kinjo operates as "Gunbae," a restaurant located at 67 Murray Street, New York. Cruz and Perez worked as delivery personnel and claim to be compensated only for their scheduled shift and never received overtime compensation for pre-shift and post-shift work. They were eventually terminated for complaining about this. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 30 East 39th Street, Second Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 465-1188 Fax: (212) 465-1181 KROGER CO: Cocomilk Product Hazardous to Health, Grausz Says ------------------------------------------------------------ Eva Grausz, on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated and the general public, Plaintiff, v. The Kroger Co., Defendant, Case 19-cv-00449 (S.D. Cal., March 6, 2019) seeks disgorgement of all monies, revenues and profits obtained illegally, restitution to restore all funds acquired by means of unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business acts or practices, actual and punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs and any other and further relief for violations of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Law and False Advertising Law of the California Business and Professions Code and for breach of express and implied warranties. Kroger markets, distributes, and sells the "Simple Truth" Coconutmilk Product, a drink that is primarily coconut oil suspended in water. Grausz claims that that the oil or fat from coconuts increases risk of heart disease. [BN] Plaintiffs are represented by: Paul K. Joseph, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF PAUL K. JOSEPH, PC 4125 W. Point Loma Blvd., No. 206 San Diego, CA 92110 Phone: (619) 767-0356 Fax: (619) 331-2943 Email: paul@pauljosephlaw.com KURTZMAN CARSON: Aetna Suit Moved to C.D. Calif. ------------------------------------------------ Judge Juan R. Sanchez of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania transferred the case, AETNA INC., v. KURTZMAN CARSON CONSULTANTS, LLC, Civil Action No. 18-470 (E.D. Pa.), to the Central District of California. Plaintiff Aetna brings the action against Kurtzman seeking indemnity, contribution, reimbursement, and damages for liability Aetna has incurred and continues to incur as a result of Kurtzman's acts, errors, omissions, and gross negligence in handling Aetna insureds' protected health information while serving as settlement administrator for two lawsuits filed against Aetna in California and Florida ("Doe lawsuits"). The action arises from Kurtzman's service as settlement administrator for the Doe lawsuits, two putative class actions filed against Aetna and certain of its subsidiaries and affiliates in federal district court in California and Florida, in which the plaintiffs challenged Aetna's alleged requirement that members of its health plans obtain HIV medications through the mail instead of a retail pharmacy. Although the Doe lawsuits were filed as putative class actions, the cases did not settle on a class-wide basis. Rather, the settlement was among the four individuals named as plaintiffs in the Doe lawsuits and Aetna and its affiliates. Nevertheless, as part of the settlement, Aetna agreed to provide written notice to certain putative class members advising them of their options when filling prescriptions for HIV medications. Aetna also agreed to provide a separate written notice to certain putative class members regarding their right to file a claim for refunds of certain out-of-pocket costs under the settlement agreement. In early August 2017, Aetna began receiving calls and emails from putative class members who had received the Member Notice, reporting that the words "HIV Medications" could be seen through the window in the envelope, below the recipient's name and address. On Aug. 28, 2017, Andrew Beckett, a recipient of a Member Notice with the words "HIV Medications" visible, filed a putative nationwide class action lawsuit against Aetna in the Court, alleging, inter alia, that the positioning of the Member Notice in window envelopes allowed unauthorized persons to view the recipients' confidential HIV-related information, causing the recipients substantial damage and harm. Six additional class action lawsuits were filed against Aetna in the Court, in federal courts in California, Connecticut, and Missouri, and in California state court. All of those cases were ultimately joined and/or consolidated with the Beckett action in the district. In addition to the class actions, three individual actions concerning the Member Notice have been filed against Aetna in state and federal court in California and federal court in New Jersey. Aetna is also the subject of investigations by several state attorneys general and the United States Department of Health and Human Services, which could potentially lead to civil penalties against Aetna. In October 2017 and January 2018, Aetna sent letters to Kurtzman, demanding that Kurtzman defend, indemnify, and/or hold Aetna harmless from and against any liability, damages, payments, penalties, claims, losses, and costs and expenses relating to the privacy incident involving the Member Notice and the lawsuits and investigations to which Aetna has been subject as a result of the privacy incident. It has also made numerous requests since August 2017 for Kurtzman to return, delete, and destroy certain confidential data and information about putative class members in the Doe lawsuits. Kurtzman, however, refused these demands and requests, prompting Aetna to file the instant lawsuit in February 2018. The liabilities for which Aetna seeks indemnification include, but are not limited to, the $17,162,000 settlement in Beckett v. Aetna Inc., a nationwide class action filed against Aetna in the Court on behalf of Aetna insureds who received a notice regarding the settlement of the Doe lawsuits on which their confidential HIV-related information was visible to third parties. Aetna also seeks injunctive relief and/or replevin requiring Kurtzman to return its insureds' protected health information to Aetna and to delete and destroy any copies of such information. Kurtzman moves to dismiss the case for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) and (b)(3), to transfer the case to the Central District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a), or, alternatively, to dismiss or transfer the case in deference to a similar action that a related entity -- KCC Class Action Services, LLC -- filed against Aetna in the Central District of California. Judge Sanchez concludes that Kurtzman is subject to general jurisdiction in Pennsylvania by consent. Kurtzman's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction will be denied. Because Kurtzman is subject to personal jurisdiction in the district with respect to the action, it is deemed to reside under Section 1391(c)(2). Hence, venue is proper in the district under Section 1391(b)(1), and its motion to dismiss for improper venue will also be denied. Finally, although Aetna's choice to file suit in the district carries significant weight in the transfer analysis, several other private and public interests -- including where the claim arose, the convenience of witnesses, judicial economy, and, to a lesser extent, Kurtzman's forum preference -- weigh in favor of transfer. After considering all of the relevant private and public interests, the Judge is persuaded that, on balance, the action would more conveniently proceed and the interests of justice be better served by transfer to the Central District of California. Accordingly, Kurtzman's motion to transfer will be granted. Judge Sanchez concludes that Kurtzman is subject to personal jurisdiction in Pennsylvania and that venue is proper in the district, but that transfer to the Central District of California is warranted upon consideration of the relevant private and public interests. He granted Kurtzman's motion insofar as the case will be transferred to the Central District of California. An appropriate order follows. A full-text copy of the Court's March 29, 2019 Memorandum is available at https://is.gd/RIT8y7 from Leagle.com. AETNA INC., Plaintiff, represented by BRANDON P. REILLY -- breilly@manatt.com -- MANATT PHELPS & PHILLIPS LLP, DONNA L. WILSON -- dlwilson@manatt.com -- MANATT PHELPS & PHILLIPS, FREDERICK P. SANTARELLI, ELLIOTT GREENLEAF, P.C., MATTHEW P. KANNY, MANATT PHELPS & PHILLIPS, CRAIG RUTENBERG, MANATT PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP, DIANA LAUREN EISNER, Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP & THOMAS J. ELLIOTT -- tje@elliottgreenleaf.com -- ELLIOTT GREENLEAF, P.C. KURTZMAN CARSON CONSULTANTS, LLC, Defendant, represented by BLAINE C. KIMREY -- bkimrey@vedderprice.com -- VEDDER PRICE PC, BRYAN CLARK -- bclark@vedderprice.com -- VEDDER PRICE PC, JEANAH PARK -- jpark@vedderprice.com -- VEDDER PRICE PC & ROBERT M. CAVALIER -- rcavalier@lucascavalier.com -- LUCAS & CAVALIER LLC. LAMBERT CONSTRUCTION: Nelson Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------- Eddie Nelson, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. Lambert Construction Company, Inc., and Gary Lambert, Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00260-SWW (E.D. Ark., April 15, 2019) is a collective action brought by Eddie Nelson, individually and on behalf of the collective members against Defendants for violations of the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and the overtime provisions of the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act ("AMWA"). In several workweeks, Plaintiff performed his delivery duties for more than 40 hours per week. Nelson worked more than forty hours per week from time to time, or even regularly but Defendant did not pay Plaintiff an overtime premium for the commissions Plaintiff earned, says the complaint. Plaintiff Eddie Nelson entered into an employer-employee relationship with Lambert Construction and Lambert in approximately 2012. Lambert Construction operates a construction company based in Little Rock.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sean Short, Esq. Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC One Financial Center 650 South Shackleford Road, Suite 411 Little Rock, AR 72211 Phone: (501) 221-0088 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 Email: sean@sanfordlawfirm.com josh@sanfordlawfirm.com LAWRENCE SCOTT: Class Certification Bid Granted in Settecasi Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as VINCENT SETTECASI, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LAWRENCE SCOTT EVENTS, LTD.; L S EVENTS INC.; and LAWRENCE GOTTESMAN, Defendants, Case No. 601674/2018 (N.Y. Sup., Nassau Cty., March 27, 2019), the New York Supreme Court, Nassau County, has granted a motion to certify the case as a class action. The case is assigned to Judge Jeffrey S. Brown. Lawrence Scott Events, Ltd. is engaged in the restaurant and catering business. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. One Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Telephone: (516) 873-9550 The Defendants are represented by: FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP 101 Park Avenue, 17th Floor New York, NY 10178 Telephone No: (212) 878-7900 LEGENDARY FIELD: Muirbrook Sues Over WARN Act Violation ------------------------------------------------------- Richard Muirbrook, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Legendary Field Exhibitions, LLC d/b/a Alliance of American Football, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-00242-PMW (D. Utah, April 11, 2019) is an action on behalf of plaintiff and other similarly situated former employees who worked for the Company for at least six of the last 12 months and who were terminated as part of, or as the result of, mass layoffs or plant closings ordered by the Company without 60 days advance written notice of their terminations as required by the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act ("WARN Act"). On April 2, 2019, the Company notified Plaintiff and the Claimants that they would be terminated as of April 3, 2019. Accordingly, Plaintiff and Claimants were not provided the 60 days notice mandated under the WARN Act. The lack of notice of termination caused significant harm to Plaintiff and Claimants who were unable to properly plan for a job transition or make plans for the unexpected and immediate lack of income caused by the reckless actions of the Company, asserts the complaint. Plaintiff and all similarly situated employees seek to recover 60 days wages, benefits, attorneys' fees and other damages for the Company's reckless conduct. Plaintiff Richard Muirbrook worked as a full-time salaried employee with the Company from September 10, 2018, until he was terminated on April 3, 2019. The Company operated football teams in various cities throughout the United States, including in Salt Lake City, under the name "Alliance of American Football".[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher B. Snow, Esq. Jonathan D. Bletzacker, Esq. Katherine E. Pepin, Esq. CLYDE SNOW & SESSIONS One Utah Center, Ste. 1300 201 South Main Street Salt Lake City, UT 84111-2216 Phone 801.322.2516 Facsimile 801.521.6280 Email: cbs@clydesnow.com jdb@clydesnow.com kep@clydesnow.com LIFE CARE: Samuel Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. --------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against LIFE CARE SERVICES, INC. The case is styled as SAMUEL, AGATHA JEAN, MARIA MENA, AND MICHELINE CANTAVE, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. LIFE CARE SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 21318/2019 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Bronx Cty., April 18, 2019). Life Care Services LLC owns and manages retirement and senior living communities.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM C. RAND 501 FIFTH AVE, 15TH FL NEW YORK, NY 10017 Phone: (212) 286-1425 The Defendant is represented by: PECKAR & ABRAMSON, P.C. 1325 AVE. OF AMERICAS, 10TH FL NEW YORK, NY 10019 Phone: (212) 382-0909 LYNEER STAFFING: Underpays Warehouse Workers, Vasquez Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ REINA PALACIOS VASQUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LYNEER STAFFING SOLUTIONS, LLC; and DOES 1 through 50, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV10628 (Cal. Super, Los Angeles Cty., March 28, 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 Vasquez was employed by the Defendants as warehouse worker. Lyneer Staffing Solutions, LLC provides temporary, temp-to-perm, and permanent staffing solutions to accounting and finance, administrative and clerical, hospitality, information technology, legal, light industrial, and medical sectors. The company is based in Ewing Township, New Jersey. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin Mahoney, Esq. Katherine J. Odenbreit, Esq. Alexander Perez, Esq. MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC 249 E. Ocean Blvd., Ste. 814 Long Beach, CA 90802 Telephone: (562) 590-5550 Facsimile: (562) 590-8400 M & G PIZZA: Does not Properly Pay Deliver Drivers, Ownbey Says --------------------------------------------------------------- Samuel Ownbey, Christopher Smith, and Lee Seaton, Each Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. M & G Pizza Enterprises, LLC, and Brent Medders, Defendants, Case No. 5:19-cv-05074-TLB (W.D. Ark., April 11, 2019) is an action under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act, Ark. ("AMWA"), for declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees as a result of Defendants' failure to pay Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated as delivery drivers the legal minimum hourly wage and overtime compensation for all hours that Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated worked. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants' stores do not track their delivery drivers' actual expenses, nor do they keep records of all of those expenses. Defendants did not reimburse delivery drivers for their actual expenses or a reasonable approximation of the drivers' expenses. Neither did Defendants reimburse delivery drivers at the IRS standard business mileage rate, asserts the complaint. As a result of the automobile and other job-related expenses incurred by Plaintiffs and other similarly situated delivery drivers, they were deprived of minimum wages guaranteed to them by the FLSA and AMWA, the Plaintiff contends. At all relevant times, Defendants have applied the same pay policies, practices, and procedures to all delivery drivers at their stores. Plaintiffs worked for Defendant as hourly-paid delivery driver employees at Defendants' pizza store located in Fayetteville from approximately May of 2014 until present. Defendants own and operate multiple Domino's pizza franchises throughout Arkansas.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Steve Rauls, Esq. Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC One Financial Center 650 South Shackleford, Suite 411 Little Rock, AR 72211 Phone: (501) 221-0088 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 Email: steve@sanfordlawfirm.com josh@sanfordlawfirm.com MANHATTAN LUXURY: Rosado Seeks Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as, NICOLAS LOPEZ ROSADO, on behalf of himself, and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. MANHATTAN LUXURY AUTOMOBILES, INC., dba LEXUS OF MANHATTAN, or any other business entity doing business as "LEXUS OF MANHATTAN", located at 627 Eleventh Avenue, New York, NY 10036; ERNIE'S AUTO DETAILING, INC., ERNESTO DECENA and CARMINE PENELLA, individually, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02899 (S.D.N.Y., April 1, 2019), seeks recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and minimum wages, unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and the New York Wage Theft Prevention Act. During the last five years of Plaintiff's employment, he was paid an hourly wage of $8.50 per hour; prior to that, the Plaintiff was paid an hourly wage of $8.25 per hour. He was paid weekly, by check. The Plaintiff worked nine days, for which he was not paid any wages. The Plaintiff was paid the same regular rate for all hours worked, without an overtime premium for hours worked in excess of 40 per week. The Plaintiff did not receive tips in connection with his employment. The Defendants knowingly and willfully operated their businesses with a policy of not paying either the FLSA minimum wage or the New York State minimum wage to the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees. Defendants knowingly and willfully operated their businesses with a policy of not paying Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees either the FLSA overtime rate (of time and one-half), or the New York State overtime rate (of time and one-half), in violation of the FLSA and New York Labor Law and the supporting federal and New York State Department of Labor Regulations. Manhattan Luxury Automobiles, Inc. was founded in 1994. The Company's line of business includes the retail sale of new and used automobiles.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: Justin Cilenti, Esq. Peter H. Cooper, Esq. CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC 708 Third Avenue, 6th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 209-3933 Facsimile: (212) 209-7102 E-mail: pcooper@jcpclaw.com MARATHON FINANCIAL: Galloway Hits Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jason Galloway, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Marathon Financial Insurance Company, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-00264 (S.D. Ill., March 5, 2019), seeks statutory and treble damages, injunctive relief, compensation and attorney fees for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991. Marathon is a financial services company offering insurance products to consumers. In an effort to effectuate their business, they utilize telemarketing to reach consumers, often without the recipients' consent. Galloway is on the National Do Not Call Registry. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Joel S. Halvorsen, Esq. HALVORSEN KLOTE 680 Craig Road, Suite 104 St. Louis, MO 63141 Tel: (314) 451-1314 Fax: (314) 787-4323 Email: joel@hklawstl.com - and - Steven L. Woodrow, Esq. Patrick H. Peluso, Esq. WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC 3900 East Mexico Ave., Suite 300 Denver, CO 80210 Telephone: (720) 213-0675 Facsimile: (303) 927-0809 Email: swoodrow@woodrowpeluso.com ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com MARCOS: OSG Blocks Martial Law Victims Settlement Agreement ----------------------------------------------------------- Janvic Mateo, writing for The Philippine Star, reports that the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) has not authorized the settlement agreement that will allow the distribution of funds to martial law victims using ill-gotten assets recovered in the United States. Reynold Munsayac, acting chairman of the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG), on March 31 said the Philippine government will instead pursue its claim to all of the recovered properties of the Marcoses in the cases pending before the Sandiganbayan. He said they informed New York district court Judge Katherine Polk Failla that the court failed to secure the authority of the OSG that would allow implementation of the settlement agreement, which would divide the proceeds from the sale of paintings recovered from an aide of former first lady and Ilocos Norte Rep. Imelda Marcos. Munsayac disputed the claim of American human rights lawyer Robert Swift that the agreement has been finalized and that the New York judge already approved the release of the funds. "Not true. The proposed settlement agreement was approved by Judge Failla subject to certain conditions like the presentation of the Republic of the Philippines of authority to enter into the same," he told The STAR. "We just submitted a letter to Judge Failla manifesting that the required authority from the Office of the Solicitor General was not secured, thus, the implementation of the settlement agreement cannot proceed. In fact, (PCGG) commissioner Rey Bulay is in New York right now to inform the court of this development," he added. The PCGG earlier entered into negotiations with the camp of the martial law victims, represented by Swift, that won the $2-billion class action suit filed in Hawaii in 1995. The negotiations involved some $20 million worth of assets seized from former Marcos' aide Vilma Bautista in New York, including high value paintings. In the draft agreement, the government was set to receive $4 million while the victims in the class action would get $13.75 million. A third party, the Golden Buddha Corp. and the estate of Roger Roxas that allegedly discovered the Yamashita treasure, would also get a portion of the proceeds from the sale of some of the paintings. In a statement on March 29, Swift said California district court judge Manuel Real, who handled the Hawaii case, has already approved the distribution of $1,500 each to some 6,600 members of the class action. Swift told The STAR in an e-mail exchange that the settlement has been finalized and that the New York court issued a ruling providing for the release of the funds in January. But that ruling may not be implemented, Munsayac said, as one of its conditions is securing the approval of the OSG. Swift has yet to comment on this new development. Earlier this year, the PCGG chief said they have received authorization from Malacañang to negotiate for a compromise agreement on how to divide ill-gotten assets of the Marcoses that were recovered in the US. It was a deviation from the previous position of the government, which refused to implement the $2-billion class action award and insisted on recovering all of the assets in favor of the Philippine government. Munsayac at the time said Malacañang approved the negotiations as the compromise agreement would still benefit martial law victims. With the OSG decision to disapprove the terms of the settlement, it appears that the government has reverted to its previous position of claiming the ill-gotten assets in its favor. The PCGG was created in 1986 to run after the ill-gotten wealth of the Marcoses and their cronies, which is estimated to reach as much as $10 billion. Some P170 billion (around $3.4 billion) have already been recovered. [GN] MARQUIS METAL: Foglesong Hits Misclassification, Seeks Overtime Pay ------------------------------------------------------------------- Jeff Foglesong, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Marquis Metal Works, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-00048 (D. N.D., March 6, 2019), seeks to recover overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, litigation costs, costs of court, and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest under the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, North Dakota Century Code and the North Dakota Minimum Wage and Work Conditions Order. Marquis is a welding and fabrication company based in Williston, North Dakota that specializes in manufacturing skid facilities for the oilfield industry. Foglesong worked for Marquis as a welder, welder's helper, fabricator and heavy equipment operator in which he claims that he was misclassified as an independent contractor. He regularly worked in excess of 50 hours per week during his employment with Marquis but was never compensated for his overtime hours, says the complaint. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: David I. Moulton, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Telecopier: (713) 877-8065 Email: dmoulton@brucknerburch.com MDL 2492: Akinbiyi Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated --------------------------------------------------------------- The case, KEVIN AKINBIYI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION and SAINT PETER'S UNIVERSITY, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02064 (Filed March 1, 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 April 1, 2019. The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-02104 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 SPU student-athletes. The Akinbiyi 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: Aldrich Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated -------------------------------------------------------------- The case, CHARLES ALDRICH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-777 (Filed March 1, 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 April 1, 2019. The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-02080 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 Wayne State University student-athletes. The Aldrich 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: Council Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated -------------------------------------------------------------- The case, MATTHEW COUNCIL, and ALESIA WALLER, as attorney-in-fact of DeSwann Waller, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION and LIBERTY UNIVERSITY, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-817 (Filed Feb. 25, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on April 1, 2019. The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-02097 to the proceeding. The Plaintiffs bring 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 Liberty student-athletes. The Council 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 Plaintiffs and the Putative Class: Jeff Raizner, Esq. RAIZNER S LANIA LLP 2402 Dunlavy Street Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: 713 554 9099 Facsimile: 713 554 9098 E-mail: jefile@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: Divalentino Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated ------------------------------------------------------------------ The case, ROBERT DIVALENTINO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-818 (Filed Feb. 25, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on April 1, 2019. The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-02098 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 Tennessee Technological University student-athletes. The Divalentino 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 S LANIA LLP 2402 Dunlavy Street Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: 713 554 9099 Facsimile: 713 554 9098 E-mail: jefile@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: Flasher Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated -------------------------------------------------------------- The case, TIMOTHY FLASHER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-896 (Filed March 1, 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 April 1, 2019. The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-02103 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 Florida State University student-athletes. The Flasher 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 Plaintiffs and the Putative Class: Jeff Raizner, Esq. RAIZNER S LANIA LLP 2402 Dunlavy Street Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: 713 554 9099 Facsimile: 713 554 9098 E-mail: jefile@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: Gray Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated ----------------------------------------------------------- The case, SCOTT GRAY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION and BUTLER UNIVERSITY, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-812 (Filed Feb. 25, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on April 1, 2019. The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-02094 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 of Butler student-athletes. The Gray 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 S LANIA LLP 2402 Dunlavy Street Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: 713 554 9099 Facsimile: 713 554 9098 E-mail: jefile@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: Leammon Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated -------------------------------------------------------------- The case, WILFRIED LEAMMON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-786 (Filed Feb. 22, 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 April 1, 2019. The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-02088 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 Chadron State College student-athletes. The Leammon 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 S LANIA LLP 2402 Dunlavy Street Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: 713 554 9099 Facsimile: 713 554 9098 E-mail: jefile@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: Lett Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated ----------------------------------------------------------- The case, ELAINE LETT, as attorney-in-fact of Earl Lett, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-815 (Filed Feb. 25, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on April 1, 2019. The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-02096 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 Chadron State College student-athletes. The Lett 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 S LANIA LLP 2402 Dunlavy Street Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: 713 554 9099 Facsimile: 713 554 9098 E-mail: jefile@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: Pacchioni Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case, VICTOR PACCHIONI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION and WILKES UNIVERSITY, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-814 (Filed Feb. 25, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on April 1, 2019. The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-02095 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 Wilkes student-athletes. The Pacchioni 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 S LANIA LLP 2402 Dunlavy Street Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: 713 554 9099 Facsimile: 713 554 9098 E-mail: jefile@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 2573: Nicholson Appeals Decision in Silver Antitrust Litigation ------------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Norman Bailey, Robert Ceru, Christopher Depaoli, John Hayes, Laurence Hughes, KPFF Investment, Inc., Kevin Maher, Eric Nalven, J. Scott Nicholson and Don Tran filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the multidistrict litigation titled In re: London Silver Fixing, Ltd., Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 14-md-2573, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York City). As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuits in the litigation arise from largely similar allegations that the Defendant Banks conspired to manipulate the prices of silver and silver derivatives through their membership on The London Silver Fixing, Ltd., a panel that meets privately on a daily basis to determine the market price of silver. The appellate case is captioned as In re: London Silver Fixing, Ltd., Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 19-815, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN] Plaintiffs-Petitioners J. Scott Nicholson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, et al., are represented by: Vincent Briganti, Esq. LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C. 44 South Broadway, Suite 1100 White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: (914) 997-0500 Facsimile: (914) 997-0035 E-mail: vbriganti@lowey.com Defendants-Respondents HSBC Bank PLC, HSBC Bank USA, N.A., HSBC Holdings PLC, HSBC North America Holdings Inc. and HSBC USA Inc. are represented by: Damien J. Marshall, Esq. BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP 55 Hudson Yards New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (212) 446-2300 E-mail: dmarshall@bsfllp.com Defendant-Respondent The Bank of Nova Scotia, AKA Scotiabank, AKA Scotiamocatta, is represented by: Stephen Ehrenberg, Esq. SULLIVAN AND CROMWELL LLP 125 Broad Street New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 558-3269 Facsimile: (212) 558-3588 E-mail: ehrenbergs@sullcrom.com MDL 2885: 8 Suits vs. 3M Transferred to Northern Dist. of Florida ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, IN RE: 3M COMBAT ARMS EARPLUG PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL No. 2885, Judge Sarah S. Vance of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has entered an order transferring eight actions to the Northern District of Florida, and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable M. Casey Rodgers for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. The eight actions are: Central District of California * KENNEDY v. 3M COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 5:19-00128 District of Minnesota * CIACCIO v. 3M COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 0:19-00179 * PEEK v. 3M COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 0:19-00192 * LARKIN v. 3M COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 0:19-00194 * PULLIUM v. 3M COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 0:19-00603 Western District of Oklahoma * STINE v. 3M COMPANY, C.A. No. 5:19-00058 * WERNER v. 3M COMPANY, C.A. No. 5:19-00059 Western District of Texas * ROWE v. 3M COMPANY, C.A. No. 6:19-00019 Plaintiff in one District of Minnesota action moves under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407 to centralize this litigation in the District of Minnesota. In movant's reply brief, he supports centralization in the Western District of Missouri, in the alternative. Common defendant 3M Company and plaintiffs in more than 45 actions and potential tag-along actions support centralization in the District of Minnesota. This litigation currently consists of eight actions pending in four districts. The Panel also has been notified of 635 related federal actions filed in 33 districts. All responding parties support centralization, but they do not all agree on the appropriate transferee district. In addition to the District of Minnesota and the Western District of Missouri, suggested districts are the Central District of California, the Southern District of California, the District of District of Columbia, the Northern District of Florida, the Southern District of Florida, the Middle District of Georgia, the Southern District of Georgia, the Northern District of Illinois, the Southern District of Indiana, the Eastern District of Louisiana, the District of New Jersey, the Eastern District of North Carolina, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the District of South Carolina, the Middle District of Tennessee, and the Western District of Texas. Judge Vance finds find that these actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. All actions involve common factual questions arising out of allegations that defendants' Combat Arms earplugs were defective, causing plaintiffs to develop hearing loss and/or tinnitus. Issues concerning the design, testing, sale, and marketing of the Combat Arms earplugs are common to all actions. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings on Daubert issues and other pretrial matters; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. After weighing the relevant factors, Judge Vance selects the Northern District of Florida as the transferee district for this litigation. Centralization in this district, Judge Vance explains, allows the Panel to assign this nationwide litigation to a forum with the necessary judicial resources and expertise to manage this litigation efficiently and in a manner convenient for the parties and witnesses. Judge M. Casey Rodgers, to whom the Panel assigns these proceedings, is an able jurist with experience in presiding over a large products liability MDL. Judge Vance is confident that Judge Rodgers will steer these proceedings on a prudent course. A full-text copy of the Court's April 3, 2019 Transfer Order is available at https://is.gd/1scbWS MDL 2886: 7 Suits v. Allura, et al. Moved to South Carolina ----------------------------------------------------------- In the case, IN RE: ALLURA FIBER CEMENT SIDINGPRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL No. 2886, Judge Sarah S. Vance of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has entered an order transferring seven actions to the District of South Carolina and, with the consent of that court, assigned them to the Honorable David C. Norton for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. These seven actions are: * Southern District of Iowa - DEVRIES, ET AL. v. ALLURA USA LLC, ET AL., C.A. No. 4:19-00014 * District of Kansas - FRIDAY v. ALLURA USA LLC, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:18-02701 * District of Massachusetts - LUONGO v. ALLURA USA LLC, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:19-10143 * District of Minnesota - JUVLAND v. ALLURA USA LLC, ET AL., C.A. No. 0:18-03492 * Western District of North Carolina - JOHNS, ET AL. v. ALLURA USA LLC, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:18-00669 * Southern District of Ohio - GUINN v. ALLURA USA LLC, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:18-00858 * District of South Carolina - LOWE, ET AL. v. ALLURA USA LLC, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:18-03160 Plaintiff in one action in the Southern District of Ohio moved under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407 to centralize this litigation in the Southern District of Ohio. This litigation currently consists of seven actions pending in seven districts. Since the filing of the motion, the Panel has been notified of two additional related federal actions. All responding plaintiffs support centralization in the Southern District of Ohio. Defendants Plycem USA LLC, Elementia USA, Inc., and Elementia S.A.B. de C.V. oppose centralization and, alternatively, propose the District of South Carolina as the transferee district. Judge Vance says the actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. All actions share factual questions concerning alleged defects in exterior fiber cement siding products manufactured and sold by common defendants Plycem USA, LLC, Elementia USA, LLC, and Elementia S.A.B. de C.V., which allegedly are close corporate affiliates and act as alter egos of one another. More specifically the actions commonly allege that (1) defendants' fiber cement siding products sold under the names Allura and Maxitile are defective because they have a propensity to crack, peel, warp, and break off soon after installation; (2) defendants misrepresent that the products have a service life of fifty years, but fail in less than five years; and (3) defendants uniformly misrepresent to customers that the problems are caused by improper installation, rather than a known product defect. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, especially with respect to class certification and Daubert motions; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel and the judiciary. In opposing centralization, defendants principally argue that the actions lack common factual issues based on the assertion that they involve two materially different brands of fiber cement siding -- the Allura product line in three actions, and the Maxitile product line in four actions -- and they intend to assert case-specific defenses that focus on alleged improper installation of their products in plaintiffs' homes. Defendants further contend that informal coordination of common discovery is preferable to centralization. Judge Vance holds that the involvement of two product lines in this litigation and case-specific installation issues do not preclude centralization, considering that the products and alleged failures are substantially similar in all actions -- all involve fiber cement siding products allegedly made by the same group of affiliated defendants, and the products allegedly fail in the same manner. Additionally, the defendants allegedly followed a common course of conduct in their marketing of the durability and expected life of the products and in handling claims submitted under their warranty program. Informal coordination of the common issues does not appear practicable given the number of involved districts and counsel. The actions (including potential tag-along actions) are pending in eight dispersed districts, and plaintiffs are represented by eight distinct counsel. Defendants also object to centralization based on the asserted likelihood their pending and anticipated motions to compel individual arbitration will be granted, obviating the need for further pretrial proceedings in any of these actions. But such an assessment of the merits of the actions is beyond the Panel's authority. Thus, where the litigation involves common factual questions, centralization may be appropriate even though defendants predict that they will prevail on dispositive motions prior to commencement of discovery. Judge Vance concludes that the District of South Carolina is an appropriate transferee forum. One action on the motion is pending there, and the district is conveniently located for a number of parties and potential witnesses in the southeastern region of the country. Defendants support this district if centralization is granted over their objection. Further, centralization in the District of South Carolina enables the Panel to assign the litigation to Judge David C. Norton, an experienced transferee judge with the willingness and ability to manage this litigation. Judge Vance is confident Judge Norton will steer this matter on a prudent course. A full-text copy of the Court's April 2, 2019 Transfer Order is available at https://is.gd/EAPTWZ MERLOANDCO LLC: Mauriello Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------------- Rocco Mauriello, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MERLOANDCO LLC, a Florida limited liability company, and TULLIA GASPAROTTO, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-21375-RNS (S.D. Fla., April 11, 2019) is a complaint against the Defendants under the the Fair Labor Standard Act. During his employment with Defendants, Mauriello regularly worked an average of 70 hours per week, 40 regular hours and 30 overtime hours. Notwithstanding, Defendants willfully and intentionally failed/refused to pay to Mauriello the federally required overtime rate for the overtime hours he worked, the complaint alleges. Defendants knew of the overtime requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act yet they willfully, intentionally, and recklessly failed to investigate whether their payroll practices were in accordance with the Fair Labor Standards Act. As a result, Mauriello suffered damages and is entitled to receive overtime compensation, asserts the complaint. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a non-exempt laborer from approximately January 2017 through approximately November 2018. MerloandCo is a Florida limited liability company, authorized to conduct and conducting business in Miami-Dade County, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Monica Espino, Esq. Espino Law 2655 Lejeune Road. Suite 802 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Phone: 305.704.3172 Fax: 305.722.7378 Email: me@espino-law.com MORGREEN SOLAR: Court Grants Default Judgment Bids in Prescott Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, CHARLES PRESCOTT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. MORGREEN SOLAR SOLUTIONS, LLC; DARRIN GREEN; VAUGHN INDUSTRIES, LLC, Defendants. VAUGHN INDUSTRIES, LLC, Counter Claimant, v. CHARLES PRESCOTT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Counter Defendant. VAUGHN INDUSTRIES, LLC, Cross-Claimant, v. MORGREEN SOLAR SOLUTIONS, LLC; DARRIN GREEN, Cross-Defendants. MORGREEN SOLAR SOLUTIONS, LLC; DARRIN GREEN, Counter Claimants, v. CHARLES PRESCOTT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Counter Defendant, Case No. 5:17-CV-365-FL (E.D. N.C.), Judge Louise W. Flanagan of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, Western Division, granted both (i) the Plaintiff's motion for entry of default judgment; and (ii) cross-claimant Vaughn's motion for entry of default judgment. The Plaintiffs filed complaint July 21, 2017, claiming the Defendants misclassified them as independent contractors, willfully failed to remit compensation for all hours worked, willfully failed to remit required overtime pay, and violated statutory record-keeping requirements. S Count one alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and the Plaintiffs proceeded on that claim in the posture of a proposed FLSA collective action. Count two alleges violations of the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act, and the Plaintiffs proceeded on that claim in the posture of a putative class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. Cross-claimant Vaughn answered the Plaintiffs' complaint Sept. 28, 2017, and initiated cross-claims against MorGreen Defendants. No answer having been filed by Defendant Green or Defendant MorGreen, on Jan. 26, 2018, the Plaintiffs moved for entry of default against the MorGreen Defendants, which was granted on March 16, 2018, by the clerk of the Court. On March 15, 2018, cross-claimant Vaughn also filed motion for entry of default on its cross-claims against MorGreen Defendants. On March 26, 2018, the Plaintiff filed instant motion for entry of default judgment. In support, the Plaintiffs have submitted their pro-rated damages and declaration of attorney Gilda A. Hernandez. During this time period, on March 14, 2018, the MorGreen Defendants' attorney filed notice of appearance, and, without seeking leave of the court, on April 12, 2018, the MorGreen Defendants filed answer to complaint. Also during this period, on April 17, 2018, the Court granted the Plaintiffs and cross-claimant Vaughn's joint motion for settlement approval, resolving all claims as to those parties. It dismissed all claims of the Plaintiffs who submitted individually executed settlement agreements in the matter, as they relate to Defendant Vaughn only, based on or arising out of any acts, facts, transactions, occurrences, representations or omissions alleged in the Complaint in the matter on the merits and with prejudice and without costs to any of the parties as against any other settling party, except as provided in the parties' mediation agreement and individually-executed settlement agreements. Both the Plaintiffs and cross-claimant Vaughn filed motions to strike the MorGreen Defendants' answer on April 16, 2018 and April 20, 2018, respectively. The MorGreen Defendants did not file response to the motions to strike, but on April 17, 2018, filed motion to set aside order on motion for entry of default, alleging the Defendants had consulted with several law firms, none of which were willing and/or able to take them on as clients, and that the Defendants filed an Answer with the Court on April 12, 2018, which was as early as they could possibly find counsel. On Aug. 27, 2018, the Court issued order, holding resolution of ripe motions in abeyance pending further briefing, directing the MorGreen Defendants to submit additional information to the Court regarding when they contacted law firms, what was the response of the law firms including terms and deadlines, and any communication between the parties. In response, they filed timely affidavit and memorandum, in which Defendant Green provided some, but not all, of the information requested by the Court, stating in part that two of the law firms contacted informed the MorGreen Defendants to do nothing in response to the lawsuit since they were a startup company with no assets and were protected because of being a LLC. On Nov. 29, 2018, the Court granted cross-claimant Vaughn's motion for entry of default, granted the Plaintiffs' and cross-claimant Vaughn's motions to strike, and denied the MorGreen Defendants' motion to set aside order on motion for entry of default. It also noted that the Plaintiffs' motion for entry of default judgment was ripe and pending, but where it appeared that cross-claimant Vaughn would also file motion for entry of default judgment, the court would take up and address both of these motions together under separate order. Time elapsed with no motion for entry of default judgment filed by cross-claimant Vaughn. On Jan. 14, 2019, the Court entered order directing cross-claimant Vaughn to proceed to reduce the matter to judgment. On Feb. 4, 2019, cross-claimant Vaughn filed the instant motion for entry of default judgment. In support, cross-claimant Vaughn filed 1) declarations of attorneys David Andrews and Patrick Lawler 2) copies of checks mailed to the settlement agreement administrator in the amount of $149,501.50, which is the sum of the settlement agreement payment and the employers matching taxes, and 3) subcontract agreement between cross-claimant Vaughn and the MorGreen Defendants. On March 27, 2019, the Court held hearing regarding the instant motions for entry of default judgment in which all parties provided the Court with argument. At the hearing, the MorGreen Defendants argued that pursuant to Frow v. De La Vega, they cannot be held liable to the Plaintiffs, only cross-claimant Vaughn. Judge Flanagan rejects the MorGreen Defendants' argument that Frow limits the ability of the Court to enter default judgment against them. She holds that the MorGreen Defendants have not cited cases, nor is the Court aware of any, applying Frow to a situation the same or even similar to the current situation before the Court. Instead, the only case the Court could find analogous to the present situation held, Frow not applicable. Indeed, application of Frow in such a situation would discourage settlement between parties and encourage tardiness in litigation, where the MorGreen Defendants would receive a windfall of an adjudication of no liability simply because the Plaintiffs and cross-claimant Vaughn engaged in fruitful settlement negotiations while the MorGreen Defendants failed to plead or otherwise defend the lawsuit and failed to show good cause for so doing. Having accepted the well-pleaded allegations of fact in the Plaintiffs' complaint and cross-claimant Vaughn's answer and cross-claims as true, the Judge must still determine whether those allegations support the relief sought. She finds that the allegations support the relief sought and notes that the MorGreen Defendants have not argued otherwise. Based on the foregoing, Judge Flanagan granted (i) the Plaintiff's motion for entry of default judgment, and (ii) cross-claimant Vaughn's motion for entry of default judgment. She awarded the Plaintiffs $257,613.60 in damages and attorneys' fees from the MorGreen Defendants, and aawarded cross-claimant Vaughn $191,363.50 in damages and attorneys' fees from the MorGreen Defendants. The clerk is directed to enter judgment for the Plaintiffs and cross-claimant Vaughn in these amounts. The clerk is directed to close the case. A full-text copy of the Court's March 29, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/UEtPBC from Leagle.com. Charles Prescott, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Gilda A. Hernandez -- ghernandez@gildahernandezlaw.com -- The Law Offices of Gilda A. Hernandez, PLLC. MorGreen Solar Solutions, LLC & Darrin Green, Defendants, represented by David Eugene Dean, Heritage Law Firm. Vaughn Industries, LLC, Defendant, represented by Kerry A. Shad -- kshad@smithlaw.com -- Smith, Anderson, Blount, Dorsett, Mitchell & Jernigan, LLP & Patrick D. Lawler -- plawler@smithlaw.com -- Smith, Anderson, Blount, Dorsett, Mitchell & Jernigan, LLP. Vaughn Industries, LLC, Cross Claimant, represented by Kerry A. Shad, Smith, Anderson, Blount, Dorsett, Mitchell & Jernigan, LLP & Patrick D. Lawler, Smith, Anderson, Blount, Dorsett, Mitchell & Jernigan, LLP. Vaughn Industries, LLC, Counter Claimant, represented by Kerry A. Shad, Smith, Anderson, Blount, Dorsett, Mitchell & Jernigan, LLP & Patrick D. Lawler, Smith, Anderson, Blount, Dorsett, Mitchell & Jernigan, LLP. Charles Prescott, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Counter Defendant, represented by Gilda A. Hernandez, The Law Offices of Gilda A. Hernandez, PLLC. Darrin Green & MorGreen Solar Solutions, LLC, Counter Claimants, represented by David Eugene Dean, Heritage Law Firm. NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS: Faces Antitrust Case in Illinois ------------------------------------------------------------------ A class action complaint has been filed against the National Association of Realtors (NAR), as well as four national real estate broker franchisors: HomeServices of America, Inc., Keller Williams Realty, Inc., Realogy Holdings Corp., and RE/MAX Holdings, Inc. Plaintiff Sawbill Strategic, Inc. brings this action on behalf of itself individually and on behalf of a Plaintiff class consisting of all persons and entities who listed properties on one of 20 Multiple Listing Services and paid a broker commission from at least April 15, 2015 until the present. Plaintiff brings this action for injunctive relief under Sec. 1 of the Sherman Act, and for treble damages under the federal antitrust laws against the Defendants. The case is captioned SAWBILL STRATEGIC, INC., Plaintiff, v. THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS, HOMESERVICES OF AMERICA, INC., KELLER WILLIAMS REALTY, INC., REALOGY HOLDINGS CORP., and RE/MAX HOLDINGS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02544(N.D. Ill., April 15, 2019). Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants have violated federal antitrust law by conspiring to require property sellers to pay the broker representing the buyer of their properties, and to pay an inflated amount. The National Association of Realtors is America's largest trade association, representing 1.3 million members, including NAR's institutes, societies, and councils, involved in all aspects of the residential and commercial real estate industries. Headquartered in Chicago, Illinois, NAR oversees fifty-four state and territorial realtor associations and over 1,200 local realtor associations. HomeServices of America is one of the nation's largest real estate brokerages and is headquartered in Minneapolis, Minnesota. HomeServices owns, operates, and franchises many real estate brokerage firms, including HomeServices, Prudential Real Estate, Long & Foster, Real Living, and Edina Realty. HomeServices is an affiliate of Berkshire Hathaway. Keller Williams Reality, Inc. is a privately-held company headquartered in Austin, Texas that is one of the nation's largest real estate brokerages. Realogy Holdings Corp. is a publicly traded company headquartered in Madison, New Jersey that owns, operates, and franchises many real estate brokerage firms, including Century 21, Coldwell Banker, Sotheby's International Realty, The Corcoran Group, Better Homes and Garden Real Estate, ZipRealty, ERA Real Estate, Citi Habitats, and Climb Real Estate. Realogy is the nation’s largest real estate brokerage company. RE/MAX Holdings, Inc. is a publicly traded company headquartered in Denver, Colorado that is one of the nation's largest real estate brokerages. There are approximately 6,800 offices and more than 100,000 sales associates at franchised RE/MAX locations around the country. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth A. Wexler, Esq. Mark R. Miller, Esq. Thomas A. Doyle, Esq. WEXLER WALLACE LLP 55 W. Monroe Street, Suite 3300 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 346-222 Facsimile: (312) 346-0022 Email: kaw@wexlerallace.com mrm@wexlerwallace.com tad@wexlerwallace.com - and - Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq. Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq. Daniel J. Nordin, Esq. Kaitlyn L. Dennis, Esq. GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC Canadian Pacific Plaza 120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 333-8844 Facsimile: (612) 339-6622 Email: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com dnordin@gustafsongluek.com kdennis@gustafsongluek.com NESTLE WATERS: Faces Poland Spring False Advertising Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- Nathan Francis, writing for Inquisitr, reports that a group of bottled water drinkers are taking Poland Spring to court, claiming that the company is using deceptive advertising to make consumers think that the water is coming from a spring when it's really not. As the New York Times reported, the company is facing a class action lawsuit claiming that Nestle Waters is advertising the product as "100% Natural Spring Water," but it's actually a "colossal fraud" perpetrated on consumers. The bottled water brand says in advertising that its water comes from a natural spring in the state of Maine, but the lawsuit contends that the spring actually ran dry nearly 50 years ago. The lawsuit claims that "not one drop" of Poland Spring water actually qualifies as spring water, as it is actually common groundwater. As a result, Poland Spring has been able to dominate the market for spring water, even though it does not actually belong among competitors selling water that actually comes from natural springs. As NBC News noted, Poland Spring has between $400 million and $800 million in sales each year. Poland Springs maintains that its water is 100 percent natural spring water, saying that its water met all FDA relations defining spring water. "Nothing in the Court's recent decision undermines our confidence in our overall legal position," a Nestlé Waters spokesperson said in a statement. "We will continue to defend our Poland Spring Brand vigorously against this meritless lawsuit." This is the second food-related lawsuit to gain some viral attention in the past few days. Another customer is suing the restaurant chain TGI Fridays claiming that the product marketed as potato skins are actually "potato flakes" or "potato starch." As Fox News noted, a New York woman took the chain to court claiming she was deceived into buying the $1.99 bag of snacks, which are sold in the restaurant locations and vending machines. As the report noted, Solange Troncoso, from the Bronx, filed a claim that TGI Fridays is bound by federal law to let consumers know that the potato skins are actually an imitation of another product. She claimed that the company is trying to trick snackers into thinking that the product is made of real potato skins, which are seen as a bit healthier than potato chips. "The Idaho Potato Commission and others inside and outside the industry have associated potato skins with healthy eating since they started appearing on restaurant menus a half-century ago," the lawsuit claimed. The lawsuit against TGI Fridays is seeking $5 million in damages. [GN] NEW PRIME: Lewis Brisbois Discusses Arbitration Ruling ------------------------------------------------------ Ashley Jessica Giannetti, Esq. -- Ashley.Giannetti@lewisbrisbois.com -- of Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, in an article for Mondaq, reports that in an 8-0 opinion, the Supreme Court ruled that New Prime, a Springfield, Missouri-based interstate trucking company cannot force its drivers to settle disputes through arbitration. See New Prime, Inc. v. Oliveira, No. 17-340, 2019 WL 189342 (U.S. Jan. 15, 2019). Dominic Oliveira works as a driver for New Prime. At least on paper, Mr. Oliveira is not an employee. The contracts between him and New Prime designate Mr. Oliveira as an independent contractor. The agreements also contained a delegation clause, stating that any disputes arising out of the parties' relationship should be resolved by an arbitrator, including disputes over the scope of the arbitrator's authority. [GN] NEW PRIME: Seyfarth Shaw Discusses Arbitration Ruling ----------------------------------------------------- Kyle Petersen, Esq., and Cheryl A. Luce, Esq., of Seyfarth Shaw LLP, in an article for Mondaq, report that in January, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled in New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira that the Federal Arbitration Act's ("FAA" or the "Act") exclusion for transportation workers engaged in interstate commerce applied not just to employees, but also to independent contractors. This ruling got the attention of those within the transportation and logistics industry, many of whom have longstanding mandatory arbitration programs with their independent contractors. While the FAA no longer provides a mechanism for enforcing mandatory arbitration agreements with transportation contractors, there are a number of strategies that can be implemented to ensure the enforceability of arbitration programs and minimize the risk of nationwide class or collective actions. The New Prime Decision The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the FAA reflects a liberal federal policy favoring arbitration agreements. Section 1 of the FAA, however, provides a narrow exception for "contracts of employment of seamen, railroad employees, or any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce." In recent years, much debate has turned on whether the phrase "contracts of employment" extends to independent contractor agreements or if the Section 1 exclusion only applies to transportation employees engaged in interstate commerce. In January 2019, the Supreme Court decisively resolved the debate with an 8-0 decision (Justice Kavanaugh recused) in New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira. Before examining the meaning of the word "employment," the Supreme Court first considered whether the applicability of the Section 1 exclusion was a question for the court or arbitrator. The Supreme Court concluded that the question of whether the contract triggers FAA's coverage was an "antecedent determination" for the Court to make and was not delegable to an arbitrator. The Court then turned to whether "contracts of employment" applies to independent contractors as well as traditional employees. After much discussion about the meaning and usage of the term "employment" in 1925 when the FAA was enacted, the Supreme Court concluded that employment was essentially a synonym for work at that time. Although the Court acknowledged the evolution of the terminology over time, it ultimately concluded that Congress's use of the term "workers" as opposed to "employees" or "servants" meant a broader interpretation was intended and Section 1 extended to independent contractors. What Should Transportation and Logistics Companies Do Now The New Prime decision presents a bump in the road for transportation and logistics companies who want to include arbitration and class action waivers in their services contracts. But with proper navigation, New Prime should not serve as an absolute bar to enforcing mandatory arbitration agreements with transportation workers. Below we offer strategies for logistics and transportation industry companies to preserve their arbitration agreements and otherwise protect against crippling nationwide class and collective actions. Rely on State Arbitration Laws—But Choose the Right Ones To be sure, New Prime prevents a court from relying on the FAA as a mechanism for enforcing an arbitration agreement involving transportation workers. Critically, however, neither New Prime nor the FAA actually prohibits private arbitration of disputes involving transportation workers. Courts should still enforce agreements to arbitrate under state arbitration laws. It is good news then that all 50 states have arbitration laws empowering courts to stay a judicial proceeding and enforce an agreement to arbitrate. The majority of states have adopted some version of the Uniform Arbitration Act or the Revised Uniform Arbitration Act, neither of which includes an exemption for transportation workers. These state arbitration laws therefore provide a basis for enforcing arbitration agreements that is independent of the FAA. The plaintiffs' bar may try to thwart reliance on state arbitration laws by arguing they are preempted by the FAA. The FAA, however, only preempts state arbitration laws that put arbitration agreements on unequal footing with other contracts and impose special restrictions on them or that apply a general doctrine (such as duress and unconscionability) in a way that disfavors arbitration. State arbitration laws that are broader than the FAA are permissible in the same way that state overtime laws that are more protective are not preempted by the FLSA. When selecting the applicable state arbitration law for an arbitration agreement involving transportation workers, beware of potential choice-of-law principles that could impact a court's decision. Moreover, as we have seen in the wake of Epic Systems v. Lewis, expect challenges to enforcement on public policy and unconscionability grounds. It is also worth noting that many state laws (for example, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, and New Hampshire) explicitly exempt contracts between employers and employees. While such exclusions would normally be preempted by the FAA, the FAA's exclusion of transportation workers will limit the FAA's preemptive effect, at least as to employees. However, because these state arbitration laws do not have similar exclusions for independent contractors, the New Prime decision should not prevent companies from entering into arbitration agreements with contractors for transportation services pursuant to state law in those jurisdictions. Rethink The Forum Selection Clause Most dispute resolution agreements contain a forum selection provision establishing the locale in which the parties agree to adjudicate their disputes. Traditionally, companies select a forum that is tied to their corporate headquarters or state of incorporation. This means that no matter where the workers are located across the country, they must come to the company's backyard to arbitrate (or litigate). While there are obvious advantages to this approach, New Prime highlights a significant downside: choosing the company's locale provides a single forum in which all workers across the country can come together and sue the company on a collective basis. Companies should therefore give serious consideration to reversing course and requiring transportation workers to adjudicate their disputes in the worker's own home state. Doing so would preclude workers from opting in to a collective outside of their chosen forum and therefore provides a significant defense to nationwide collective actions in the event their disputes are litigated in court. This is an arrow that can even be in the quiver of companies with transportation workers in California. The California Labor Code prohibits forum selection provisions that require employees who primarily reside and work in California to litigate or arbitrate outside of California. See Labor Code 925. Requiring they arbitrate or litigate in their home state of California is entirely consistent with the Code. Include a Standalone Class and Collective Action Waiver Historically, class and collective action waivers have been included in arbitration agreements. Indeed, getting a case into bilateral arbitration in order to avoid the possibility of a nationwide class or collective is a driving force behind implementation of arbitration programs. A less common and admittedly less universally accepted approach is a standalone class and collective action waiver not contingent on arbitration. Few courts have addressed the issue and those that have are in conflict. The Sixth Circuit, for example, ruled in Killion v. KeHE Distributors LLC, 761 F.3d 574 (6th Cir. 2014), that "a plaintiff's right to participate in a collective action cannot normally be waived" unless an "arbitration clause is involved," whereas the Fifth Circuit came out the other way and found a class action waiver outside of an arbitration agreement to be enforceable in Convergys Corporation v. NLRB, 866 F.3d 635 (5th Cir. 2017). For workers outside of the Sixth Circuit (and most likely outside of California), standalone class and collective action waivers may provide another layer of protection in the event their arbitration agreements are not enforceable under New Prime. Ensure Arbitration Agreements Contain a Severability Clause In addition to shoring up arbitration agreements with language that it is subject to a particular state arbitration statute, choosing the appropriate forum, and requiring a class and collective action waiver, transportation companies should be sure to include a severability clause. A severability clause allows a court to carve out invalid, illegal, or unenforceable contract terms while preserving the other provisions. To the extent that any of the above safeguards are rejected by a court, a broad severability clause should allow for enforcement of other key provisions. Segregate Intrastate and Interstate Work Plaintiffs' attorneys are likely to read the New Prime decision as opening up the door to lawsuits by gig economy workers who perform some transportation-related duties pursuant to independent contractor agreements, even if they are not directly involved in the interstate transportation of goods. Indeed, federal courts have held that even occasional interstate transportation can trigger the FAA Section 1 exemption, so long as the worker is actually engaged in moving goods in interstate commerce. Additionally, courts have found the FAA Section 1 exemption applies to supervisors and managers who do not by themselves transport goods, but are critical to the operations of the company that provides transportation services. But if the work performed is related to nothing more than local deliveries, they are not within the category of workers "engaged in interstate commerce" that are exempt from the FAA. If a transportation and logistics company provides both intrastate and interstate services, segregating the workers who perform only intrastate services from those performing interstate services will at least shield the intrastate workers who only make local deliveries from being swept into the FAA Section 1 exemption. Conclusion Although New Prime took a little air out of the tires of companies who have elected arbitration as the preferred method of alternative dispute resolution with transportation contractors, all is not lost. As detailed above, state arbitration statutes provide an alternative avenue for implementing an enforceable arbitration program. In addition, forum selection, severability, and class/collective waivers are important provisions that can be inserted into contractor agreements to minimize the threat of a class or collective action in the event that claims must be litigated in court. As companies invoke state arbitration laws to enforce arbitration agreements, we may see legal challenges from a creative plaintiff's bar, making the inclusion of severability clauses, reverse forum selection clauses, and standalone class and collective action waivers all the more important. [GN] NGP MOTORS: Faces Miranda Wage-and-Hour Suit -------------------------------------------- An employment-related class action lawsuit has been filed against NGP Motors, Inc. for alleged violations of the California Labor Code. The case is captioned RICKY MIRANDA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public, Plaintiff, vs. NGP MOTORS, INC., a California Corporation and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV13033 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., April 15, 2019). Plaintiff Ricky Miranda alleges that NGP Motors, Inc. has failed to provide rest periods or compensation in lieu thereof, failed to pay all wages, to comply with itemized employee wage statement provisions, failed to reimburse for business expenses, and failed to pay wages due at the time of discharge. Based in Hollywood California, NGP Motors, Inc. operates as automobile dealer. It is engaged in the retail sale of new and used automobiles. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Otkupman, Esq. Meghan Maertz, Esq. OTKUPMAN LAW FIRM, A LAW CORPORATION 28632 Roadside Dr., Suite 203 Agoura Hills, CA, 91301 Telephone: (818) 293-5623 Facsimile: (888) 850-1310 E-mail: Roman@OLFLA.com Meghan@OLFLA.com NPMC: Smith Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation -------------------------------------------------- Amy Smith, Leslie Turner, and Kelsi Frachiseur, Each Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. NPMC, Home Health, LLC, and Trinity River Valley Home Health, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00245-BSM (E.D. Ark., April 11, 2019) is an action under the Fair Labor Standards Act, ("FLSA") and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act, Ark. ("AMWA"), for 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 Home Health Care Workers lawful overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. Plaintiffs and other similarly-situated employees worked in excess of 40 hours per week throughout their tenure with Defendant. However, the Defendant did not pay Plaintiffs or similarly-situated employees one and one-half times their regular rate for hours worked in excess of 40 in a week. According to the complaint, it was Defendant's commonly applied policy to only pay Plaintiffs and other Home Health Care Workers for the hours in which they billed Defendant's patients. The Defendant knew, or showed reckless disregard for whether, the way it paid Plaintiffs and other Mental Health Professionals violated the FLSA, it adds. Plaintiffs worked for Defendant as Home Health Care Workers within the 3 years preceding the filing of this Complaint. Defendant NPMC, Home Health, LLC, is a domestic limited liability company, providing home health care services to clients throughout Arkansas.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Daniel Ford, Esq. Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC One Financial Center 650 South Shackleford, Suite 411 Little Rock, AR 72211 Phone: (501) 221-0088 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 Email: sean@sanfordlawfirm.com josh@sanfordlawfirm.com NURSING HOME: Jetter Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------------- Maurice Jetter, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. NURSING HOME CARE MANAGEMENT INC. d/b/a PRESTIGE HOME CARE AGENCY, ALEXANDER GOROSHOVSKY, ALLA DORFMAN, and DOE DEFENDANTS 1-10. Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-01611-ER (E.D. Pa., April 12, 2019) is a collective action seeking to recover unpaid overtime wages, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The complaint asserts that Defendants systematically and willfully deprived Plaintiff and other Caregivers of their overtime wages in violation of the FLSA and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act ("PMWA") by, among other things, failing to compensate these employees at 1.5 times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. Due to Defendants' unlawful failure to properly pay overtime due and owing, Defendants have improperly withheld wages due and owing from Plaintiff and current and former Caregivers. Plaintiff Maurice Jetter was employed by Defendants as a Caregiver. Nursing Home Care Management Inc is a Pennsylvania corporation, and operates under the fictitious name Prestige Home Care Agency.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald D Wells, III, Esq. Robert J. Gray, Esq. 2200 Renaissance Blvd , Suite 275 King of Prussia, PA 19406 Phone: 610-822-3700 Facsimile: 610-822-3800 Email: gwells@cwglaw.com rgray@cwglaw.com OFFICIAL PEST: Faces Malahy Suit in Sacramento Court ---------------------------------------------------- An employment-related class action lawsuit has been filed against Official Pest Prevention Inc. The case is captioned as JAMES MALAHY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OFFICIAL PEST PREVENTION INC.; and DOES 1-100, Defendants, Case No. 34-2019-00253374-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., March 27, 2019). Official Pest Prevention Inc. provides pest control services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John T. Stralen, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JOHN T. STRALEN 1810 S. St. Sacramento, CA 95811 Telephone: (916) 971-3100 OK GASMART: Underpays Gas Attendants, Hurtado Suit Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------- JONATHAN HERRERA HURTADO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OK GASMART INC.; and ABEDI FARHANG, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-01741 (E.D.N.Y., March 27, 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 Plaintiff Hurtado was employed by the Defendants as gas attendant. OK Gasmart Inc. operates a commercial gas station. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher K. Collotta, Esq. ZABELL & COLLOTTA, P.C. 1 Corporate Drive, Suite 103 Bohemia, NY 11716 Telephone: (631) 589-7242 Facsimile: (631) 563-7475 E-mail: CCollotta@laborlawsny.com OLIN CORP: Finch Paper Suit Asserts Caustic Soda Price-fixing ------------------------------------------------------------- Finch Paper, LLC, On Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. Olin Corporation, K.A. Steel Chemicals, Inc., Occidental Petroleum Corporation, Occidental Chemical Corporation (d/b/a OxyChem), Westlake Chemical Corporation, Shin-Etsu Chemical Co., Ltd., Shintech Incorporated, Formosa Plastics Corporation, and Formosa Plastics Corporation, U.S.A., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00480 (W.D. N.Y., April 12, 2019) is a civil antitrust action seeking damages and injunctive relief arising out of the collusive and concerted restraint of trade in sodium hydroxide, commonly known as Caustic Soda, by the Defendants during a period spanning from at least October 1, 2015, to the present (the "Class Period"). Caustic Soda is a commodity chemical sold in solid and liquid forms that is produced as a co-product of chlorine production from the electrolysis of brine or salt water. From approximately 2012 until the fourth quarter of 2015, Caustic Soda prices were either declining or flat, and industry margins were poor, given industry overcapacity and flat demand. These conditions motivated the Defendants to conspire and combine to restrict domestic supply; to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize the price at which Caustic Soda was and continues to be sold; and to allocate customers in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, asserts the complaint. Beginning in the fourth quarter of 2015, the Defendants announced Caustic Soda price increases in a coordinated fashion and began increasing Caustic Soda prices despite sluggish demand, stable or declining costs, and excess capacity. They also at times refused to supply customers, put them on allocation, or refused to bid on contracts while falsely claiming supply was tight or scarce. Defendants' market shares have been relatively stable since 2015, with customer turnover lower in the years since the fourth quarter of 2015 than before that quarter. In sum, Defendants entered into an agreement or understanding to increase prices of Caustic Soda and not to compete on price for the business of each other's customers, the complaint relates. According to the Plaintiff, the alleged conspiracy was facilitated by secret co-producer supply agreements; by exchanges of nonpublic, commercially sensitive information (including future strategy, supply, capacity, and price information) between and among Defendants and their agents, both directly with each other, and indirectly through third parties; by manipulation of a price index; and by the characteristics of the industry: high market concentration, high barriers to entry, interchangeability of Defendants' products, inelastic demand, weak demand, a larger number of purchasers with limited buying power, and relatively easy information exchanges among the Defendants. As a result of Defendants' unlawful conduct, and their transition from passive members of an oligopoly to active coordinators of supply and pricing, Caustic Soda prices in the United States paid by Plaintiff and other members of the Class have been artificially increased by a substantial amount, and maintained during the Class Period above levels that would be expected due to supply and demand conditions. Therefore, Plaintiff and the other members of the Class have been injured and have suffered damages, and they continue to suffer such injuries as a direct and proximate result of Defendants' actions, asserts the complaint. Plaintiff purchased Caustic Soda directly from one or more Defendants during the Class Period. Defendants are direct competitors and leading manufacturers of Caustic Soda in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony Rupp, Esq. Marco Cercone, Esq. Arthur N. Bailey, Esq. RUPP BAASE PFALZGRAF CUNNINGHAM LLC 1600 Liberty Building 424 Main Street Buffalo, NY 14202 Phone: (716) 854-3400 Facsimile: (716) 332-0336 Email: rupp@ruppbaase.com cercone@ruppbaase.com bailey@ruppbaase.com - and - Eric L. Cramer, Esq. Ruthanne Gordon, Esq. Candice J. Enders, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: 215-875-3000 OPTIO SOLUTIONS: Ryu Sues over Debt Collection Practices -------------------------------------------------------- Cindy Ryu, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Optio Solutions LLC d/b/a Qualia Collection Services, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01868 (E.D.N.Y., April 1, 2019), seeks to recover damags for Defendant's violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Defendant is regularly engaged, for profit, in the collection of debts allegedly owed by consumers. The debt was primarily for personal, family or household purposes and is therefore a “debt" as defined by 15 U.S.C. section 1692a(5). Sometime after the incurrence of the debt, the Plaintiff fell behind on payments. Thereafter, at an exact time known only to Defendant, the Debt was assigned or owed, otherwise transferred to Defendant for collection. Accoridng to the complaint, in its efforts to collect the debt, Defendant contacted the Plaintiff by letter dated July 12, 2018. The Letter fails to disclose whether the amount stated may increase due to additional interest. The Letter also fails to disclose whether the amount stated may increase due to additional fees. The least sophisticated consumer could also reasonably read the Letter to mean that the amount stated was dynamic due to the continued accumulation of interest and/or fees. Because the Letter can reasonably be read by the least sophisticated consumer to have two or more meanings, one of which is inaccurate, as described, it is deceptive under 15 U.S.C. section 1692e.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: (516) 203-7600 Facsimile: (516) 706-5055 E-mail: ConsumerRights@BarshaySanders.com PAFFORD EMS: Elizondo Seeks Proper Overtime Wages, Damages ---------------------------------------------------------- Jessie Elizondo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Pafford EMS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-00250-KGB (E.D. Ark., April 12, 2019) is action under the Fair Labor Standards Act, ("FLSA") and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act, Ark. ("AMWA"), for 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 Emergency Medical Transportation workers lawful overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. It was Defendant's commonly applied practice to not pay Plaintiff and other Emergency Medical Transportation workers time-and-a-half for all of the hours over 40 hours each week during which they were performing labor for Defendant, asserts the complaint. As a result, Defendant did not pay Plaintiff or other Emergency Medical Transportation workers a lawful overtime wage of 1.5 times their regular rate for all hours in excess of 40 in a week. The Defendant knew, or showed reckless disregard for whether, the way it paid Plaintiff and other Emergency Medical Transportation workers violated the FLSA and AMWA, the complaint relates. Plaintiff worked for Defendant as an Emergency Medical Transportation worker within the 3 years preceding the filing of this Complaint. Pafford EMS, LLC, is an Arkansas limited liability company, providing Emergency Medical Transportation services in Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Oklahoma.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Chris W. Burks, Esq. Brandon M. Haubert, Esq. WH LAW,PLLC 1 Riverfront Pl., Suite 745 North Little Rock, AR 72114 Phone: (501) 891-6000 Email: brandon@whlawoffices.com chris@whlawoffices.com PAK RITE: Warehouse Staff Seeks Overtime Pay for Hrs Worked Over 40 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Orlando De La Rosa and Ubaldo Coneo, on behalf of themselves, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class, Plaintiff, v. Pak Rite Express Inc., Calmar Enterprises, Inc., Arthur Munsch and Tom Cali, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-02085, (S.D. N.Y., March 6, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid overtime, compensation for retaliation, liquidated damages, statutory penalties and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the New York Labor Law and the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendants operate a warehouse business located at 155-06 South Conduit Avenue, Jamaica, New York. De La Rosa and Coneo worked as work as warehouse packers and claim to be compensated only for their scheduled shift and never received overtime compensation for pre-shift and post-shift work. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 30 East 39th Street, Second Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 465-1188 Fax: (212) 465-1181 PILLARS PROTECTION: O'Bryant Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------- Robert Brandon Cavaness O'Bryant, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Pillars Protection Services, LLC Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-01354-GCS-KAJ (S.D. Ohio, April 11, 2019) is an action brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act. Defendant is in the business of providing security and private investigation services to the central Ohio region. Security Guards regularly work more than 40 hours per week, but they are not paid for all time spent performing compensable work in excess of 40 hours per week, notes the complaint. At the conclusion of their shifts, Security Guards are required to drive from their assigned site back to Defendant's office in order to drop off the site materials. Security Guards are not compensated for this time spent driving. Instead, Security Guards are required to clock out when they leave their assigned site. Plaintiff O'Bryant was hired by Defendant on May 29, 2018, and has worked in the position of Security Guard.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Greg R. Mansell, Esq. Carrie J. Dyer, Esq. Kyle T. Anderson, Esq. Mansell Law, LLC 1457 S. High St. Columbus, OH 43207 Phone: 614-610-4134 Fax: 614-547-3614 Email: Greg@MansellLawLLC.com Carrie@MansellLawLLC.com Kyle@MansellLawLLC.com PREMIER COIL SOLUTIONS: Galvan Action to Recover Unpaid Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------------- Oswaldo Galvan, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Premier Coil Solutions, Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-00771 (S.D. Tex., March 5, 2019), seeks overtime pay at the correct overtime rate, liquidated damages, all costs and attorneys' fees incurred prosecuting this claim, prejudgment interest and all further relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Premier Coil misclassified their Field Service Technicians as independent contractors instead of as employees, thus denying them overtime pay, says the complaint. Galvan worked for the Premier at its Waller TX location. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Taft L. Foley, II, Esq. THE FOLEY LAW FIRM 3003 South Loop West, Suite 108 Houston, TX 77054 Phone: (832) 778-8182 Facsimile: (832) 778-8353 Email: Taft.Foley@thefoleylawfirm.com PRUDENTIAL LIGHTING: Perez Seeks Unpaid OT Wages, Missed Breaks --------------------------------------------------------------- Jose Perez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public, Plaintiff, v. PRUDENTIAL LIGHTING CORPORATION, a California Corporation and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV13079 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., April 15, 2019) seeks the overtime payment and payment of all meal and rest period compensations, which Plaintiff was owed since he commenced to work for Defendant. Additionally, Plaintiff is entitled to, and seeks, attorney's fees and costs, and prejudgment interest. Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all other California employees of Defendant, claims that Defendant has failed to pay all overtime wages due to non-exempt employees. Defendant pays their employees bonuses and commissions which are not included in the employees' regular rate of pay for purposes of computing the proper overtime rate. As a result, employees are not properly compensated for work performed in excess of 8 hours in a workday and work performed in excess of 40 hours in a workweek at a rate of no less than one and one-half times the regular rate of pay. These failures to pay all overtime wages constitute violations of Labor Code, says the complaint. Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a non-exempt, hourly employee in California. PRUDENTIAL LIGHTING CORPORATION is a California Corporation doing business in Vernon, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Otkupman, Esq. Meghan Maertz, Esq. OTKUPMAN LAW FIRM, A LAW CORPORATION 28632 Roadside Dr., Suite 203 Agoura Hills, CA, 91301 Phone: (818) 293-5623 Facsimile: (888) 850-1310 Email: Roman@OLFLA.com Meghan@OLFLA.com PURDUE PHARMA: Hanlon et al. Sue over Sale of Opioid Drugs ---------------------------------------------------------- AMANDA HANLON; and AMY GARDNER, on behalf of her minor daughter A.L.D., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PURDUE PHARMA L.P.; PURDUE PHARMA, INC.; THE PURDUE FREDERICK COMPANY, INC.; TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES, LTD.; TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC.; CEPHALON, INC.; JOHNSON & JOHNSON; JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; ORTHO-MCNEIL-JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. n/k/a JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICA INC. n/k/a JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; ENDO HEALTH SOLUTIONS INC.; ENDO PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; ALLERGAN PLC f/k/a ACTAVIS PLC; WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. n/k/a ACTAVIS, INC.; WATSON LABORATORIES, INC.; ACTAVIS LLC; and ACTAVIS PHARMA, INC. f/k/a WATSON PHARMA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-op-45206-DAP (N.D. Ohio., March 28, 2019) is an action against the Defendants for selling and marketing an addictive opioid drug OxyContin. According to the complaint, Purdue misleadingly promoted OxyContin as being unique among opioids in providing 12 continuous hours of pain relief with one dose. In fact, OxyContin does not last for 12 hours – a fact that Purdue has known at all relevant times. According to Purdue's own research, OxyContin wears off in under six hours in one quarter of patients and in under 10 hours in more than half. This is because OxyContin tablets release approximately 40% of their active medicine immediately, after which release tapers. This triggers a powerful initial response, but provides little or no pain relief at the end of the dosing period, when less medicine is released. This phenomenon is known as "end of dose" failure, and the FDA found in 2008 that a "substantial number" of chronic pain patients taking OxyContin experience it. This not only renders Purdue's promise of 12 hours of relief false and negligent, it also makes OxyContin more dangerous because the declining pain relief patients experience toward the end of each dosing period drives them to take more OxyContin before the next dosing period begins, quickly increasing the amount of drug they are taking and spurring growing dependence. The Defendants' negligent marketing scheme caused and continues to cause doctors to prescribe opioids to patients, including pregnant mothers, for chronic pain conditions such as back pain, headaches, arthritis, and fibromyalgia. Absent these Defendants' negligent marketing scheme, these doctors would not have prescribed as many opioids. These Defendants' negligent marketing scheme also caused and continues to cause patients, including pregnant mothers, to purchase and use opioids for their chronic pain believing they are safe and effective. Purdue Pharma L.P. engages in research, development, production, and distribution of prescription and over-the-counter prescription and non-prescription medicines and healthcare products. The company offers a portfolio of medical products in various categories, including prescription opioids, sleep, laxatives, antiseptics, and dietary supplement. It serves healthcare professionals, patients, and caregivers in the United States and internationally. The company has strategic research collaboration agreement with Exicure Inc. and Ocular Therapeutix, Inc. Purdue Pharma L.P. was formerly known as The Purdue Frederick Company and changed its name to Purdue Pharma L.P. in January, 1991. The company was founded in 1892 and is based in Stamford, Connecticut. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Celeste Brustowicz, Esq. Stephen Wussow, Esq. COOPER LAW FIRM 1525 Religious Street New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 399-0009 Facsimile: (504) 309-6989 Email: cbrustowicz@sch-llc.com - and - Kevin Thompson, Esq. David R. Barney, Jr., Esq. THOMPSON BARNEY LAW FIRM 2030 Kanawha Boulevard, East Charleston, WV 25311 Telephone: (304) 343-4401 Facsimile: (304) 343-4405 Email: kwthompson@gmail.com - and - Donald E. Creadore, Esq. CREADORE LAW FIRM 450 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1408 New York, NY 10123 Telephone: 212-355-7200 Email: donald@creadorelawfirm.com - and - Scott R. Bickford, Esq. Spencer R. Doody, Esq. MARTZELL, BICKFORD & CENTOLA 338 Lafayette Street New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 581-9065 Facsimile: (504) 581-7635 Email: srb@mbfirm.com - and - Kent Harrison Robbins, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF KENT HARRISON ROBBINS, P.A. 242 Northeast 27 th Street Miami, FL 33137 Telephone: (305) 532-0500 Facsimile: (305) 531-0150 Email: khr@khrlawoffices.com ereyes@khrlawoffices.com assistant@khrlawoffices.com RJD CONSTRUCTION: Class in Neris FLSA Suit Conditionally Certified ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, EDGAR NERIS on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. R.J.D. CONSTRUCTION, INC., and RICHARD J. DAILEY, individually, Defendants, CV 18-1701 (ADS) (AKT) (E.D. N.Y.), Judge A. Kathleen Tomlinson of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted the Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification, subject to the directives in the Memorandum and Order. Neris commenced the putative collective and class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the New York Labor Law, and the New York Codes, Rules, and Regulations ("NYCRR"). He seeks to recover, among other things, for the Defendants' alleged failure to pay overtime wages and failure to provide mandated wage notices and wage statements. The Defendants are engaged in the construction business. The Plaintiff worked for them as a manual laborer from around February 2001 until January 2016. While working for the Defendants, the Plaintiff regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week. During the busy months of the year, the Plaintiff regularly worked Monday through Saturday, beginning work at approximately 6:30 a.m. each morning. The Defendants did not pay the Plaintiff overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times his regular pay for hours worked in excess of 40 per week. The Defendants also failed to maintain accurate records of the hours worked by the Plaintiff, and failed to provide him with any wage notice or wage statements. He also states that there are many current and former employees of the Defendants who were treated in the same manner as he was. The Plaintiff now moves for conditional certification as a collective action and for permission to disseminate court-authorized notice, pursuant to Section 216(b) of the FLSA. He seeks, among other relief, to conditionally certify as a collective all construction workers who give their consent in writing to become a party Plaintiff and who worked for the Defendants at any time during the three years prior to the filing of their respective consent forms. The Plaintiff has attempted to meet his modest factual burden for conditional certification by way of (i) a declaration as to his own observations and his conversations with co-workers, and (ii) copies of time sheets and wage statements he received while employed for Defendants, which he has attached to his declaration. The Defendants oppose tje Plaintiff's motion solely in an Attorney Affirmation, arguing primarily that the only evidence the Plaintiff has provided in support of certification is articulated by means of vague, general and ambiguous hearsay. Judge Tomlinson disagrees. He finds that the Plaintiff's declaration sets forth facts sufficient to meet his modest factual burden at this point in the litigation. The Plaintiff's assertions are sufficient to meet the Plaintiff's "lenient" evidentiary showing: they set forth a plausible factual nexus connecting the Plaintiff and other specifically named employees of the Defendants by way of the Defendants' failure to pay each of them overtime wages. Moreover, the Judge finds that the Plaintiff's assertions are supported by information about how he learned what he learned, as well as with copies of actual time sheets the Plaintiff and other employees were allegedly forced to sign in furtherance of the Defendants' unlawful policy. These facts are sufficient to support a grant of conditional certification as a collective action at this time. As to the opt-in notice period, the Judge finds that the Plaintiff has provided with his declaration what he claims are copies of the time sheets which the Defendants directed him to complete in furtherance of their unlawful policy. She credits these time sheets as substantial evidence of willfulness. With respect to the calculation of the limitations period, courts often begin counting back from the date of the conditional certification order since the statute of limitations on FLSA claims continues to run until a plaintiff consents to join the action. She will permit notice to be keyed to the six-year period prior to the date the Complaint was filed -- March 19, 2018. Therefore, based on the foregoing discussion, she grants the Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification as a collective action. The collective is designated as follows: All hourly construction workers employed by R.J.D. Construction, Inc., or Richard J. Dailey since March 19, 2012. It is not clear what purpose inclusion of the contact information for the Defendants' counsel in the Notice of Pendency would serve. The Judge therefore declines to Order that this information be included. However, she does think that a separate heading should be inserted on the notice, titled "Right to Retain Other Counsel." She directs that the proposed Notice be amended so that the two sentences on page (2) of the Notice addressing opt-in Plaintiffs' rights to obtain other counsel or proceed pro se be moved from their current location and placed under a separate heading reading "RIGHT TO RETAIN OTHER COUNSEL," which will appear as Section (5), immediately following Section 4, titled "CONSENT TO JOIN FORM." Having considered the case law in the Circuit on both sides of the issue and the policy concerns which underlie these decisions, the Judge, in her discretion and consistent with the Court's prior decisions, directs opt-in forms be mailed to the Clerk of the Court. She is also directing the Clerk of the Court to redact the address and telephone number of each opt-in prior to filing the forms on ECF. The Clerk's Office will need to retain the unredacted originals in order to provide them to the Plaintiff's counsel. The Defendants will provide the names, last known mailing addresses, last known telephone numbers, and dates of employment of all potential opt-ins to the extent they have this information. They are not required and will not provide social security number or dates of birth. The Defendants will provide this information to the Plaintiff's counsel within 21 days of this Order. In light of the length of time that has passed since the instant motion was filed, and the diligence of the Plaintiff's counsel in pursuing certification (the instant motion was filed less than two months after the Complaint), the Judge is granting equitable tolling from the date the motion was filed. Finally, the Plaintiff requests that the Notice of Pendency be circulated in both English and Spanish. Generally, courts permit notice to be translated into the mother tongue of non-English speaking groups of potential plaintiffs. Accordingly, the Notice of Pendency will be circulated in both English and Spanish. For the foregoing reasons, Judge Tomlinson granted the Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification as an FLSA collective action pursuant to Section 216(b) in accordance with this Memorandum and Order. She set the matter down for an in-person conference on June 13, 2019 at 11 a.m. which will give the counsel time to circulate the Notice of Pendency and receive any opt-in responses. At that point, further discovery will be scheduled and the counsel should be prepared to discuss the calendar at the conference. To the extent that there are any other outstanding issues at this time, the counsel should submit a brief letter to the Court outlining what else needs to be addressed. A full-text copy of the Court's March 29, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/MUlcik from Leagle.com. Edgar Neris, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Peter Arcadio Romero -- promero@romerolawny.com -- Law Office of Peter A. Romero PLLC. R.J.D. Construction, Inc. & Richard J. Dailey, Individually, Defendants, represented by James J. O'Rourke -- info@jjoi.com -- James J. O'Rourke & Associates, PLLC. RUSHMORE ENERGY: Perrong Sues over Illegal Telemarketing Calls -------------------------------------------------------------- ANDREW PERONG, individually and on ehalf of a class of all persons and entities similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. RUSHMORE ENERGY, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-01367-JP (E.D. Pa., April 1, 2019), seeks to recover damages under the Telephone Cosumer Protection Act. Rushmore made a pre-recorded telemarketing call to Mr. Perrong's residential telephone number, which is prohibited by the TCPA. Mr. Perrong's telephone number is charged per call and making an automated and telemarketing call to such a number is separately prohibted bt the TCPA, the lawsuit says. The Plaintiff never consented to receive the call, which was placed to him for telemarketing proposes. Because telemarketing campaigns generally place calls to hundreds of thousands or even millions of potential customer en masse, the Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of proposed nationwide class of other persons who received illegal telemarketing calls from the Defendant.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: Clayton S. Morrow, Esq. MORROW & ARTIN, PC 304 Ross Street, 7th Floor Pittsburg, PA 15129 Telephone: (412) 281 1250 E-mail: csm@consumerlaw365.com SCHLUMBERGER LIMITED: With et al. Seek Overtime Wages for Drivers ----------------------------------------------------------------- PAMELA WITH; JACQUELINE CHRISTIANSEN; AND GLENWOOD JOHNSTON; on behalf of themselves and similarly situated employees, the Plaintiffs, v. SCHLUMBERGER LIMITED, the Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-00358-NBF (W.D. Pa., April 1, 2019), seeks recover damages for non-payment of wages owed to the Plaintiffs and all similarly situated employees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. The Plaintiffs and members of the Class worked in excess of 40 hours in one or more workweeks. The Defendant's failure to pay overtime wages to Plaintiffs and members of the Class violated the overtime provisions of the FLSA. Under the FLSA, Plaintiffs and members of the Class are entitled to recover from Defendant the overtime pay improperly withheld by Defendant, plus interest, attorney's fees, and costs, the lawsuit says. Schlumberger owns, leases and/or operates a "mixed fleet" of vehicles, i.e., vehicles with less than 10,000 lbs. GVWR and more than 10,000 lbs. GVWR, and/or assigns its drivers to operate a "mixed fleet" of vehicles owned, leased and/or operated by others. The Plaintiffs were employed by Defendant as drivers for all or part of the time from in or about May 2017 until in or about October 2018. They were employed as part of Defendant's so-called "Driver Outsource Program." The purpose of the Driver Outsource Program, which has been in place by Defendant since at least April 2016 and remains in place, was to have designated drivers for Defendant's oil and gas field work. The Plaintiffs normally worked seven days each week, with few if any days off during their employment. As drivers, the Plaintiffs regularly worked more than 40 hours in a single week, frequently in excess of 60 hours. The Plaintiffs regularly drove smaller vehicles to transport personnel, equipment and supplies to and from locations as needed to support Defendant's operations. Schlumberger Limited is the world's largest oilfield services company providing services including, but not limited to, drilling, production and well intervention.[BN] Counsel for the Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated: Joseph H. Chivers, Esq. THE EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS GROUP LLC 100 First Avenue, Suite 650 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 227-0763 E-mail: jchivers@employmentrightsgroup.com SELECTION MANAGEMENT: White Sues over Background Checks ------------------------------------------------------- TASHANA WHITE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SELECTION MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01372-ELR-CMS (N.D. Ga., March 27, 2019) alleges violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The case is assigned to Judge Eleanor L. Ross and referred to Magistrate Judge Catherine M. Salinas. Selection Management Systems, Inc., doing business as SELECTiON.COM, provides background checking services. Selection Management Systems, Inc. was founded in 1991 and is based in Cincinnati, Ohio. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Weiner, Esq. Jeffrey Sand, Esq. WEINER & SAND LLC 7 Piedmont Center, 3rd Floor Atlanta, GA 30305 Telephone: (404) 205-5029 Facsimile: (866) 800-1482 E-mail: aw@atlantaemployeelawyer.com js@atlantaemployeelawyer.com SHARKS SPORTS: Faces Salsiccia et al. ADA suit in N.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------------- MARCO SALSICCIA; and SCOTT BLANKS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SHARKS SPORTS & ENTERTAINMENT, LLC; THE CITY OF SAN JOSE; and THE SAN JOSE ARENA AUTHORITY, Defendants, Case No. 5:19-cv-01546-NC (N.D. Cal., March 26, 2019) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is assigned to Judge Nathanael M. Cousins. Sharks Sports & Entertainment LLC operates sports and entertainment facilities in the United States. The company was formerly known as Silicon Valley Sports & Entertainment LLC and changed its name to Sharks Sports & Entertainment LLC in August 2011. The company was founded in 2000 and is based in San Jose, California. As of March 20, 2002, Sharks Sports & Entertainment LLC operates as a subsidiary of San Jose Sports & Entertainment Enterprises. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Meredith Jayne Weaver, Esq. Stuart John Seaborn, Esq. DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 Center St., Fourth Floor Berkeley, CA 94704 Telephone: (510) 665-8644 Facsimile: (510) 665-8511 E-mail: mweaver@dralegal.org sseaborn@dralegal.org SHARP ELECTRONICS: Sells Defective Microwave Ovens, Haight Says --------------------------------------------------------------- ERIN HAIGHT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SHARP ELECTRONICS CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-371 (N.D.N.Y., March 27, 2019) alleges that the Defendant designs, manufactures and sells defective microwave ovens. According to the complaint, the microwave ovens all contain a defect that makes them unreasonably dangerous, as they are susceptible to catching fire, and unsuitable for their intended use. More specifically, the ovens are defectively designed and manufactured such that, under normal and intended use, the electromagnetic waves generated by the magnetron tube are unable to properly move through the waveguide into the cooking cavity, resulting in buzzing, smoking, overheating, and eventual destruction of the magnetron, leading to scorching of the waveguide. Sharp Electronics Corporation manufactures, distributes, markets, sells, and services electronic products and solutions in the United States. The company was founded in 1962 and is based in Montvale, New Jersey. Sharp Electronics operates as a subsidiary of Sharp Corporation. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan K. Tycko, Esq. Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq. Andrea Gold, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 1828 L. Street, NW,Suite 1000 Washington, D.C 20036 Telephone: (202) 973-0900 Facsimile: (202) 973-0950 E-mail: jtycko@tzlegal.com hzavareei@tzlegal.com agold@tzlegal.com - and - Gregory F. Coleman, Esq. Rachel Soffin, Esq. Lisa A. White, Esq. Adam A. Edwards, Esq. GREG COLEMAN LAW PC 800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Telephone: (865) 247-0080 Facsimile: (865) 522-0049 E-mail: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com rachel@gregcolemanlaw.com lisa@gregcolemanlaw.com adam@gregcolemanlaw.com - and - Daniel K. Bryson, Esq. Harper T. Segui, Esq. WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON, LLP 900 W. Morgan Street Raleigh, NC 27603 Telephone: (919) 600-5000 E-mail: dan@wbmllp.com harper@wbmllp.com SHARP GROSSMONT: Sued for Secretly Recording Gynecology Surgeries ----------------------------------------------------------------- Azeen Ghorayshi, writing for BuzzFeed News, reports that eighty-one women are suing Sharp Grossmont Hospital in San Diego, California, after learning that they were secretly recorded by hidden cameras installed in the hospital's gynecology operating rooms, according to a complaint filed in California Supreme Court. From July 17, 2012, to June 30, 2013, roughly 1,800 women were recorded in the three operating rooms at the hospital's women's center, the complaint stated. The motion-sensing cameras recorded video of births, emergency C-sections, miscarriages, hysterectomies, sterilizations, and a variety of other procedures. The videos depicted the women's faces as they entered the hospital rooms for their operations, some were recorded undressing, and some were unconscious during the course of their procedures. None of the women were told they were being recorded. "It's such a shocking breach of patient privacy," Allison Goddard, the attorney representing the women in the case, told BuzzFeed News. "I've talked to hundreds of women who were affected by it. The response is nearly universal: They just can't believe it happened." The laptop cameras were installed on anesthesia carts in the operating rooms to address a drug theft issue at the hospital, Sharp Grossmont spokesperson John Cihomsky told BuzzFeed News. "The purpose of the three cameras was to ensure patient safety by determining the cause of drugs missing from the carts," Cihomsky said. Due to the pending litigation, Cihomsky declined to comment further on the case. A class-action lawsuit against the hospital was originally filed in 2016. The court denied its class certification, as well as the hospital's motion for a summary judgment, so 81 plaintiffs refiled. Goddard said they were expecting more women to join the lawsuit. In addition to the breach of privacy involved in filming the women without their consent, the complaint also alleges that the hospital was "grossly negligent" in storing and protecting the recordings. The videos were stored on desktop computers, some of which were not password-protected, the complaint states. Also, the hospital did not log who accessed the recordings, or when they accessed it. In addition, the hospital destroyed at least half of the recordings, but could not confirm whether the files were recoverable. "Sharp violated their right to privacy and breached its fiduciary duty in the most egregious way by secretly recording them, allowing non-medical personnel to view the recordings without making any effort to track who was viewing them, and then destroying some of the recordings," the complaint states. The videos were typically filmed from behind the women's heads during their procedures, Goddard said, sometimes depicting the women's bellies, and the tops of their thighs. In some of the videos, surgeries are visible, as well as parents meeting their babies for the first time. "For some women it was the happiest day of their lives, and for some it was the saddest," Goddard said. [GN] SIMPLEHUMAN LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Fewtrell Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- STACEY FEWTRELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SIMPLEHUMAN, LLC; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV10651 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., March 28, 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 Fewtrell was employed by the Defendants as hourly-paid, non-exempt employee. Simplehuman, LLC provides home furnishing products, including trash cans, soap pump, sensor mirrors, kitchen and bath tools. Simplehuman serves customers in the State of California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edwin Aiwazian, Esq. LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE,PC 410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 265-1020 Facsimile: (818) 265-1021 SIX FLAGS: Masuda Funai Discusses Illinois Supreme Court Ruling --------------------------------------------------------------- Kenton P. Knop, Esq. -- kknop@masudafunai.com -- of Masuda, Funai, Eifert & Mitchell, Ltd., in an article for Mondaq, reports that the Illinois Supreme Court's recent ruling that actual harm is not required to establish a cause of action for a violation of Illinois's Biometric Information Privacy Act ("BIPA") affirmed BIPA's "preventative and deterrent" purposes. Businesses that anticipate coming into contact with biometric identifiers or biometric information of Illinois residents should conduct an immediate review of their biometric data collection and handling policies and practices, and take appropriate action to ensure that they are in full compliance with BIPA's requirements. On January 25, 2019, the Illinois Supreme Court issued its ruling in the Rosenbach v. Six Flags Entertainment Corp. case (2019 IL 123186). [GN] SNIDER INTERESTS: Faces Esquivel et al. Suit in Kern County ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Snider Interests, LLC. The case is captioned as JORGE ESQUIVEL; CRYSTAL RAMOS; OMAR AGUILAR MAGANA; SELINA MOLINA; DOMINGO AGUIRRE, Jr.; EMMALINDA AYON; NATO G. BARAJAS; ROSANGELA BENITEZ; JULIO BECERRIL; REBECCA BECERRIL; WALTER BENITEZ; JARED BENNETT; EMMANUEL BERMUDEZ; YAJAIRA M. BERMUDEZ; LAZARO BOJORQUEZ; ANGEL CABRAL; ALEXANDER DELCID; JUAN CORONA; LOURDES DELGADO; FRANCISCO RODRIGUEZ EDEZA; TOMASA RODRIGUEZ; CYNTHIA CARILLO; LOAYSA ESCOBAR; LUIS E. FUENTES; RAUL ALCARAZ GARCIA; MANUEL DE JESUS GARZA,, III; JUAN SALDANA; ARACELI HEREDIA; JOSE G. HERNANDEZ; RODOLFO INIGUEZ; ISMAEL LARRALDE; ELIAZAR R.; YESENIA K. LUIS; SILVIA MACHADO; SILVANO DUARTE; JORGE MARTINEZ; NOE MENDEZ; EDITH MENDEZ; RODOLFO MORFIN; JESUS MOTA; SALEH MUTHANA; MARIA NAVARRO; ERIK NAVARRO; MIGUEL PELAYO; MARIA DE JESUS GONZALEZ; JOSE ALEJANDRO PEREZ; JUANITO RAMIREZ; ALEJANDRO ROSAS; EDWIN SANCHEZ; JOSE SANCHEZ; IVAN SIERRA; TERESA SIERRA; CHRISTOPHER M. SOTO; ASHLEY L. SOTO; MIGUEL PELAYO; MARIA DE JESUS GONZALEZ; JOSE ALEJANDRO PEREZ; JUANITO RAMIREZ; ALEJANDRO ROSAS; EDWIN SANCHEZ; JOSE SANCHEZ; IVAN SIERRA; TERESA SIERRA; CHRISTOPHER M. SOTO; ASHLEY L. SOTO; FELIPE TORRES; SHANNA J. CEBALLO; DANIEL WILSON; JUANA WILSON; SERGIO ZAMORA; NORMA ZAMORA; ALFONSO ZAVALA; ROSA ZAVALA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SNIDER INTERESTS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. BCV-19-100852 (Cal. Super., Kern Cty., March 27, 2019). The case is assigned to Judge David R. Lampe. The Plaintiff is represented by: Danil J Monteleone, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF DANIL MONTELEONE 8132 Tunney Ave. Reseda Ranch, CA 91335 Tel: (818) 349-9666 Fax: (818) 998-4735 SOUTHERN VALLEY: Migrant Farm Workers Seek Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------- JESUS BEJINES-GONZALEZ, ABRAHAAM SAYAGO-HERNANDEZ and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SOUTHERN VALLEY FRUIT & VEGETABLE, INC.; HAMILTON GROWERS, INC.; KENT HAMILTON; HAMILTON FARMS MEX, L.P.; HAMILTON PRODUCE, L.P.; KENDA PROPERTIES, L.P.; WK HOLDINGS, LLC; WK MEX PROPERTIES, L.P.; and WKW, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 7:19-cv-00055-HL (M.D. Ga., April 11, 2019) seeks to secure and vindicate their rights under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), under the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act ("AWPA"), under Georgia contract law, and the common law of fraud. According to the complaint, the Defendants violated the FLSA by willfully failing to pay at least the required hourly wage for every compensable hour of labor performed in a workweek (including by failing to reimburse their employment related expenses as required by law) to each Plaintiff, to each individual who may opt into this action as allowed by the FLSA ("Opt In Plaintiff"), and to other similarly-situated workers. Defendants further violated the FLSA by willfully failing to pay each Plaintiff, Opt-In Plaintiff, and other similarly-situated worker employed in Defendants' packing shed operations overtime wages for hours worked in excess of forty hours in a workweek, adds the complaint. Plaintiffs are agricultural workers employed by Defendants during the past six years to work at Defendants' operations. Defendants imported H-2A workers under job order contracts to plant, harvest, and pack produce.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Dawson Morton, Esq. Dawson Morton, LLC 1003 Freedom Blvd. Watsonville, CA 95076 Phone: (404) 590-1295 Email: dawson@dawsonmorton.com SOUTHWEST SYSTEMS: Does not Pay Installers OT Wages, Glessner Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ William Glessner, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Southwest Systems Enterprise Communications, L.L.C., Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-00213-EJM (D. Ariz., April 15, 2019) is a collective action seeking to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages owed to workers under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the Arizona Wage Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant SSEC did not pay overtime to its "Field Network Engineers." Instead, SSEC pays these blue-collar computer network installation employees a flat weekly rate, even though they routinely work over 40 hours per week in violation of the overtime provisions of the FLSA, the requirements of Arizona's wage statutes, and California's Labor Code, says the complaint. Glessner and the Class Members were employed by SSEC to install computer networks. SSEC is a computer network installation company based in Arizona.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel L. Bonnett, Esq. Martin & Bonnett, P.L.L.C. 4647 N. 32nd Street, Suite 185 Phoenix, AZ 85018 Phone: (602) 240-6900 Facsimile: (602) 240-2345 Email: dbonnett@martinbonnett.com - and - David I. Moulton, Esq. Bruckner Burch PLLC 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: (713)877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 Email: dmoulton@brucknerburch.com SPIN EMPIRE: Construction Workers' Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------- Eric Donaldson, Winston Bradbury, Quasheca Wright and Richard Franklin, individually and on behalf of FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class, Plaintiff, v. Spin Empire LLC and Tony Clanton, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-01309 (E.D. N.Y., March 6, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wage, unpaid overtime, unpaid wages, spread-of-hours, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Laws. Spin Empire performed subcontracting work at 546 Gulf Avenue, Staten Island NY, where Plaintiffs worked in construction. They claim to be denied overtime pay for hours rendered in excess of 40 hours per week, spread-of-hours and wage statements. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Robert D. Salaman, Esq. AKIN LAW GROUP PLLC 45 Broadway, Suite 1420 New York, NY 10006 Tel: (212) 825-1400 Email: rob@akinlaws.com SUBARU OF AMERICA: May 22 Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set --------------------------------------------------------------- Denis Flierl, writing for Torque News, reports that Subaru WRX/STI owners who had engine failure have benefits coming. Here are the steps you should take. If you own a 2012-2017 Subaru WRX or WRX STI with an EJ25 2.5-liter turbo engine, you could have an issue with engine failure. A class action lawsuit was filed against Subaru of America (SOA) because of a defect within the engine manufacturing which could lead to premature engine failure. It was settled by the Camden, N.J. automaker recently, and the suit estimates the number of WRX/STI owners effected could number more than 100,000. What should you do if you own a 2012-2017 Subaru WRX/STI? The settled lawsuit contends the problem in the WRX/STI 2.5-liter engine was caused by "inadequate oil lubrication to the bearings and crankshaft" causing "sudden and catastrophic engine self-destruction as overheated internal parts seize" and by "severe driving conditions." If your EJ25 engine fails in your WRX or STI, it could cost you $6,000 or more to get your 2.5-liter turbo Boxer engine repaired. The recent settlement allows for WRX/STI owners to receive from $3,500 up to $6,500 if they had this problem and if they got it repaired at an independent repair shop, but you must produce your receipts. WRX/STI owners who had engine repairs made at an authorized Subaru dealer can get 100% reimbursement for out-of-pocket expenses. Subaru is also extending the powertrain warranty up to an additional eight years on 2012-2017 model years or up to 100,000 miles. Who is eligible? Anyone who leased or purchased a 2012-2017 Subaru Impreza WRX or WRX STI with an EJ-series 2.5-liter turbocharged engine is eligible to get these settlement benefits. Your WRX/STI must be manufactured between October 11, 2011, and November 16, 2016, with bearing vehicle identification numbers (VIN) ending with CG203168 and up for 5-door models, and CG006225 through H9826807 for 4- door models. What should WRX/STI owners do? Owners can file a claim here and it must be done by May 22, 2019. You are not required to submit a claim form to receive the benefit of the 8 year/100,000 mile extended warranty. 2012-2017 WRX/STI owners are automatically eligible. It would also be a good idea if you own a 2012-2017 Subaru WRX or STI with the EJ25 2.5-liter engine, to make an appointment with your Subaru dealer to get it checked out. Your engine may not have failed, but one way to determine if you could be having a problem is if you begin to experience a slight decrease in power which could be a sign of major issues ahead. [GN] SYNERGY FINANCIAL: Estese Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls --------------------------------------------------------------- Renee Estese, Plaintiff, v. Synergy Financial Partners Inc. and Does 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-01618, (N.D. Ill., March 6, 2019), is a class action suit seeking damages, injunctive relief, and any other available legal or equitable remedies, for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Synergy is engaged in the marketing and solicitation of financial and/or loan services. Estese claims to have received unsolicited telemarketing calls from Synergy. She is registered with the National Do-Not-Call Registry. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Levin, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 333 Skokie Blvd., Suite 103 Northbrook, IL 60062 Phone: (224) 218-0882 Fax: (866) 633-0228 Email: dlevin@toddflaw.com TABOR COMMUNITY PARTNERS: Shaw Seeks Overtime Premium Pay --------------------------------------------------------- A class action complaint has been filed against Tabor Community Partners (TCP) for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act. The case is captioned TAISHA SHAW, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. TABOR COMMUNITY PARTNERS, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-01620-HB (E.D. Pa., April 15, 2019). Plaintiff Taisha Shaw alleges that TCP has violated the FLSA by failing to pay Plaintiff and the FLSA collective overtime premium compensation for all hours worked over 40 per week. Accordingly, Plaintiff Shaw seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and prejudgment interest, liquidated damages, litigation costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees, and such other and further relief as the court deems just and proper. TCP contracts with the Philadelphia Department of Human Services to serve as the Community Umbrella Agency (CUA). As a CUA, TCP manages cases in the 5th and 14th police districts in the Northwest Section of Philadelphia, providing community-based service delivery to vulnerable children and families. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter Winebrake, Esq. R. Andrew Santillo, Esq. Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq. WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC 715 Twining Road, Suite 211 Dresher, PA 19025 Telephone: (215) 884-2491 TAMPA BAY SPORTS: Hanley Sues Over SMS Ad Blasts ------------------------------------------------ Bryan Hanley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Tampa Bay Sports and Entertainment LLC, Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-00550, (M.D. Fla., March 5, 2019), seeks statutory damages and other legal and equitable remedies resulting from the transmittal of advertising and telemarketing text messages, en masse through the use of an automatic telephone dialing system without any of the recipients' prior express written consent, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Defendant owns the Tampa Bay Lightning, a professional ice hockey team based in Tampa. It allegedly uses SMS ads sent en masse to convince fans to sign up to enter into prize sweepstakes or otherwise to receive purely informational texts. [BN] Plaintiffs are represented by: David P. Milian, Esq. Ruben Conitzer, Esq. Juan J. Rodriguez, Esq. CAREY RODRIGUEZ MILIAN GONYA LLP 1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 700 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 372-7474 Facsimile: (305) 372-7475 Email: dmilian@careyrodriguez.com rconitzer@careyrodriguez.com jrodriguez.@careyrodriguez.com TARONIS TECH: Hatten Files Class Action Over Misleading Statements ------------------------------------------------------------------ Chad Hatten, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. TARONIS TECHNOLOGIES, INC., ROBERT L DINGESS, SCOTT MAHONEY, ERMANNO P. SANTILLI, KEVIN POLLACK, and WILLIAM W. STAUNTON, Defendants, Case No. 8:19-cv-00889-CEH-TGW (M.D. Fla., April 15, 2019) is a federal securities class action on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Taronis common stock between January 28, 2019 and February 12, 2019, both days inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by the Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), against the Company and certain of its top officials. On January 28, 2019, the Company announced a purported contract for use of its metal cutting fuel by the City of San Diego, which received widespread attention. On this news, the Company's stock rapidly increased over 25% in the following two days. On January 29, 2019, the Company amended its certificate of incorporation to effectuate a reverse stock split, with every 20 shares of outstanding Company stock becoming 1 share of Company stock at the close of business on January 30, 2019. On January 31, 2019, the Company changed its name from MagneGas Applied Technology Solutions, Inc. to Taronis. On February 6, 2019, the Company announced a secondary stock offering registering over 3 million shares. According to the complaint, the statements issued by the Plaintiffs were materially false and/or misleading because they misinterpreted and failed to disclose adverse facts pertaining to the Company's business and operations which were known to Defendants or recklessly disregarded by them. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Company did not have a contract with the City of San Diego; (ii) the Company or its management had engaged in a scheme to defraud; and (iii) that as a result of the foregoing, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times, says the complaint. Plaintiff purchased Taronis securities during the Class Period at artificially inflated prices. Defendant Taronis is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Clearwater, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth A. Tomchin, Esq. Brett P. Abner, Esq. TOMCHIN & ODOM, P.A. 6816 Southpoint Parkway, Suite 400 Jacksonville, FL 32216 Phone: (904) 353-6888 Fax: (904) 353-0188 Email: tomchin@tomchinandodom.com pleadings@tomchinandodom.com - and - Matthew M. Guiney, Esq. Kevin G. Cooper, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP 270 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016 Phone: 212-545-4600 Fax: 212-686-0114 Email: Guiney@whafh.com kcooper@whafh.com TECTON CAFE: Does not Properly Pay Workers, Morales Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------- Esteban Morales and Jorge Raymundo Rivera, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Tecton Cafe Inc. (d/b/a Estancia 460), ("Defendant Corporation"), Stacey Sosa and Elias Sosa, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-03303 (S.D. N.Y., April 12, 2019) seeks unpaid minimum wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"), and for violations of the N.Y. Labor Law ("NYLL"), and the "spread of hours" and overtime wage orders of the New York Commissioner of Labor, including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. The Defendants maintained a policy and practice of requiring Plaintiffs and other employees to work without providing the minimum wage compensation required by federal and state law and regulations, says the complaint. In addition, Defendants maintained a policy and practice of unlawfully appropriating Plaintiffs' and other tipped employees' tips and made unlawful deductions from these Plaintiffs' and other tipped employees' wages. Plaintiffs are former employees of Defendants Tecton Cafe Inc. (d/b/a Estancia 460), Stacey Sosa, and Elias Sosa. Defendants own, operate, or control an Argentinian bistro, located at 460 Greenwich Street, New York, NY 10013 under the name "Estancia 460".[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Phone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 TELIGENT INC: Mo-Kan Iron Workers Fund Sues Over Share Price Drop ----------------------------------------------------------------- Mo-Kan Iron Workers Pension Fund, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. Teligent, Inc. and JASON GRENFELL GARDNER, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-03354 (S.D. N.Y., April 15, 2019) is a securities class action on behalf of Plaintiff and all other persons or entities, except for Defendants, who purchased or otherwise acquired Teligent common stock between May 2, 2017 and November 7, 2017, inclusive. This action is brought on behalf of the Class for violations the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational, and compliance policies, asserts the complaint. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements regarding, and/or failed to disclose, product non-conformities in research and development ("R&D") and non-compliance with applicable regulations. According to the complaint, the Company continued to mislead investors until November 6, 2017, when the truth began to emerge. That day, after the market closed, Teligent issued a press release disclosing its third quarter 2017 ("Q3 2017") results, which exposed the depths of Teligent's R&D, production, and legal issues. According to the press release and Form 10-Q filed shortly thereafter on November 9, 2017 ("Q3 2017 10-Q"), total revenue fell to $13.7 million, a 15.4% drop from the prior year's Q3 revenue of $16.2 million. The Company's revenue was also off 25.5% from its second quarter 2017 revenue of $18.4 million. On this news, Teligent's share price fell $2.29 on November 7, 2017. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, says the complaint. Plaintiff Mo-Kan acquired Teligent common stock at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period and was damaged due to the federal securities violations and related misstatements. Teligent is a specialty generic pharmaceutical company incorporated under the laws of the province of Delaware and is headquartered in Buena, New Jersey.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas L. Laughlin, IV, Esq. Donald A. Broggi, Esq. Rhiana L. Swartz, Esq. Jeffrey P. Jacobson, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP The Helmsley Building 230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor New York, NY 10169 Phone: 212-223-6444 Facsimile: 212-223-6334 Email: tlaughlin@scott-scott.com dbroggi@scott-scott.com rswartz@scott-scott.com jjacobson@scott-scott.com TWIN VILLAGE: Owes Sales Staff Overtime Pay, Says Smith -------------------------------------------------------- RUSSELL BRANDON SMITH, Individually and on Behalf of Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs. v. Twin Village Management LLC d/b/a Sundance Memory Care, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00406 (W.D. Tex., April 11, 2019) is a collective action complaint against Defendants to recover unpaid overtime wages owed to sales staff pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Mr. Smith regularly worked more than 40 hours a week, without receiving overtime pay required by federal law, notes the complaint. Mr. Smith regularly worked more than 40 hours in a workweek. On average, he worked in excess of 55 hours per week, but he never received overtime compensation for his time. Mr. Smith's supervisors were aware that he regularly worked more than 40 hours in a workweek, because it was expected from sales employees, says the complaint. Plaintiff Russell Smith was the Regional Community Liaison for Sundance from April 28, 2018, until March 18, 2019. Twin Village Management LLC owns, manages, and supports memory care communities in Texas, including Sundance Memory Care, in Cypress, Katy, Cedar Park, and Austin, Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicholas R. Lawson, Esq. MCDOWELL HETHERINGTON LLP 1001 Fannin Street, Suite 2700 Houston, TX 77002 Phone: (713) 337-5580 Telecopy: (713) 337-8850 Email:Nick.Lawson@mhllp.com TWO JINN: Does not Properly Pay Fin'l. Service Reps, Medina Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- SARA MEDINA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. TWO JINN, INC., dba ALADDIN BAIL BONDS, a California corporation; TRITON MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 25, Defendants, Case No. 37-2019-00018891-CU-OE-CTL (Cal. Super. Ct., San Diego Cty., April 11, 2019) is brought as a "Representative Action" arising from Defendants' violations of the Private Attorney General Act ("PAGA") of 2004, California Labor Code and is filed on behalf of Plaintiff and all non-exempt, hourly-paid financial service representatives, sales representatives, or other non-exempt, hourly-paid office employees who are employed by, or formerly were employed by, Defendants within the State of California during the relevant time period. As a result of Defendants' failure to pay Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees for all hours worked, including straight pay, overtime and/or double-time, and Defendants' failure to pay Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees meal and rest break premiums, Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees' wage statements were inaccurate, in violation of the Labor Code, says the complaint. Plaintiff was employed by Defendants in Defendants' corporate office in Carlsbad, California from approximately November 2011 to approximately April 2017, as a non-exempt, hourly-paid financial service representative. Defendants are in the Bail Bonds Services industry. Defendants provide bail bonds services, including providing consulting and customized payment services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David R. Markham, Esq. Maggie Realin, Esq. Michael J. Morphew, Esq. THE MARKHAM LAW FIRM 750 B Street, Suite 1950 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (619) 399-3995 Facsimile: (619) 615-2067 Email: dmarkham@markham-law.com mrealin@markham-law.com mmorphew@markham-law.com - and - Matthew Wilson, Esq. WILSON LAW GROUP, PC 11622 El Camino Real, Suite 100 San Diego, CA 92130 Phone: (858) 777-9815 Facsimile: (858)777-9812 Email: matthew@wilsonlawcorp.com U.S. SOCCER FEDERATION: Ford & Harrison Discusses Pay Gap Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Kristin Starnes Gray, Esq., of Ford & Harrison LLP, in an article for Mondaq, reports that on March 8, 2019, all 28 players on the women's national team initiated a proposed class and collective action in federal court against the U.S. Soccer Federation. Their action alleged discrimination based on sex in violation of the Equal Pay Act (EPA) and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended (Title VII). Notably, the players chose to file suit on International Women's Day, which is intended to celebrate the social, economic, cultural, and political achievements of women, as well as to raise awareness of gender equality issues. On March 8, 2019, all 28 players on the women's national team initiated a proposed class and collective action in federal court against the U.S. Soccer Federation. Their action alleged discrimination based on sex in violation of the Equal Pay Act (EPA) and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended (Title VII). Notably, the players chose to file suit on International Women's Day, which is intended to celebrate the social, economic, cultural, and political achievements of women, as well as to raise awareness of gender equality issues. Litigation Background As previously reported, several players filed charges of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in March 2016 alleging discrimination based on sex. After completing its investigation, on February 5, 2019, the EEOC (the federal agency charged with investigating allegations of employment discrimination) issued the players’ Notices of Right to Sue, allowing them to file the instant lawsuit within 90 days of receipt. The lawsuit alleges that "the female players have been consistently paid less money than their male counterparts. This is true even though their performance has been superior to that of the male players—with the female players, in contrast to the male players, becoming world champions." The complaint alleges that the women outperformed the men's team in terms of revenue, profit, and performance. The complaint goes on to state that the female players spend more time practicing for and playing in matches, training in camps, traveling, and participating in media sessions than similarly situated male players -- all while earning less pay. The complaint further alleges that the female players have endured other less favorable terms and conditions of employment than their male counterparts, such as having to play on inferior surfaces (i.e., artificial turf) with a greater chance of serious injury. Meanwhile, at the administrative phase, the Federation denied the pay discrimination allegations and pointed out that the female players receive benefits that the male players do not, such as severance pay, medical insurance, maternity leave, child care, and a relocation allowance. The Federation also pointed out that the men's and women's teams have separately negotiated collective bargaining agreements governing pay and other issues. Legal Framework Federal law generally prohibits discriminatory employment practices based on sex. Under the EPA, men and women in the same workplace must be given equal pay for equal work. Title VII also makes it unlawful to discriminate based on sex regarding pay and benefits. Once a plaintiff establishes a prima facie case of salary discrimination, the burden shifts to the employer to prove, by a preponderance of evidence, that the pay differential is justified by the existence of one of the four statutory exceptions: (1) a seniority system; (2) a merit system; (3) a system that measures earnings by quantity or quality of production; or (4) a differential based on any factor other than sex. Bottom Line The bottom line for employers is to regularly audit pay practices and policies to prevent and correct potential pay disparity issues. Consistency and training are key to avoiding not only legal missteps but also serious employee morale issues. This lawsuit comes less than 3 months before the reigning world champions will defend their title at the Women's World Cup in France beginning on June 7. It remains to be seen whether these athletes will still be locked in litigation at that time, but they are reportedly not considering any boycott or protest during (or leading up to) the tournament. However, the litigation proceeds, this writer (and long-time soccer fan) is hoping they bring home a 4th world championship. [GN] UBER TECH: $20MM Settlement in O'Connor Suit Has Prelim Approval ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, DOUGLAS O'CONNOR, et al., Plaintiffs, v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., Defendants. HAKAN YUCESOY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., Defendants, Case Nos. 13-cv-03826-EMC, 15-cv-00262-EMC (N.D. Cal.), Judge Edward M. Chen of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement. The Plaintiffs brought two lawsuits -- O'Connor v. Uber Techs., Inc. and Yucesoy v. Uber Techs., Inc. -- against Defendant Uber, alleging that Uber misclassifies its drivers as independent contractors rather than employees. Five years of contentious litigation ensued. The parties eventually entered into an agreement to settle both suits in March 2019. The Settlement Agreement covers all Drivers in California and Massachusetts who have used the Uber App at any time since Aug. 16, 2009, up to and including Feb. 28, 2019, and who have validly opted out of arbitration or for whom Uber has no record of acceptance of an arbitration agreement. Thus, the settlement class does not include drivers who must pursue their claims against Uber in individual arbitration following the Ninth Circuit's rulings in Mohamed v. Uber Techs., Inc. and O'Connor v. Uber Techs., Inc. Although the O'Connor and Yucesoy cases were limited to claims based on expense reimbursement and tips, the Settlement Agreement contains an expansive release provision: it requires settlement class members to release "any and all" claims based on or reasonably related to the claims asserted in O'Connor and Yucesoy, including claims for unpaid minimum and overtime wages, interest, and penalties. The Settlement Agreement requires that the Plaintiffs file amended complaints expanding the causes of action to include all claims related to the alleged misclassification of drivers as independent contractors. As a result, the Settlement Agreement covers claims that are brought in at least eight other lawsuits against Uber currently pending in federal and California and Massachusetts state courts, effectively terminating those suits. Unlike the First Proposed Settlement, the Settlement Agreement does not include any PAGA claims and would not release any PAGA claims. Nor does it purport to resolve the key underlying dispute whether Uber drivers are employees or independent contractors. In exchange for the Class Members' release of their claims, the Settlement provides monetary and non-monetary consideration. The monetary component of the Settlement is a $20 million non-reversionary fund. From the fund, $5 million will be deducted for attorneys' fees, $146,000 for costs of claims administration, and $40,000 for incentive awards for the settlement class representatives. The remainder -- an estimated $14,814,000 -- will be distributed to the Class Members who timely submit claims. Assuming a 50% claim rate -- which the Plaintiffs' counsel represents has been typical in similar settlements -- the Class Members who drove 0 to 1,000 miles would receive approximately $360, those who drove 10,000 miles would receive $4,000, and those who drove 100,000 miles would receive $36,000. The average settlement share for each claiming class member, after attorneys' fees are deducted, would be approximately $2,206. If the claim rate is 100%, these numbers would be halved. After an initial distribution is made to drivers whose claims are approved by the Settlement Administrator, a second distribution of uncashed checks will be made to claimants who cashed their checks, in proportion to their on-trip mileage. Any funds remaining after the second distribution will be distributed to two cy pres beneficiaries: Legal Aid at Work, for unclaimed funds in the California settlement pool, and Greater Boston Legal Services, for unclaimed funds in the Massachusetts settlement pool. Uber also has agreed to modify its business practices in three ways. First, Uber will maintain a comprehensive, written policy governing the deactivation of drivers' accounts that will be easily accessible online. Second, the deactivation policy will provide several safeguards to drivers: low passenger acceptance rates will not be grounds for deactivation; Uber will provide advance warning before a driver is deactivated for reasons other than safety issues, physical altercation, discrimination, fraud, sexual misconduct, harassment, or illegal conduct; if a driver is deactivated, Uber will provide the driver with an explanation for the deactivation; and Uber will institute a formal appeals process for deactivation decisions. Third, except for the excluded matters, drivers whose accounts are deactivated will have the opportunity to take a "quality course" and be "eligible for consideration for reactivation" upon completion of the course. It appears that drivers will be required to pay for these courses, although Uber states it will work with third-party providers to help lower the cost of these courses. These policy modifications "shall expire" upon either two years after Final Approval, or changes to any applicable statute, regulation, or other law that Uber reasonably believes would require a modification to any of the provisions, whichever is earlier. Thus, the modifications will remain in effect for at most two years. Judge Chen concludes that the Settlement Agreement is fair, adequate, and reasonable. Accordingly, he granted the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval. Leave is granted for the Plaintiffs to file the proposed Amended Complaints for Settlement attached as Exhibits A and B to the Settlement Agreement. Named Plaintiffs Matthew Manahan, Elie Gurfinkel, Mokhtar Talha, Pedro Sanchez, Aaron Dulles, and Antonio Oliveira are designated as the representatives of the provisionally certified Settlement Class. Shannon Liss-Riordan and Adelaide Pagano of the law firm of Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C., whom the Court finds are experienced and adequate counsel for purposes of these settlement approval proceedings, are designated as the Class Counsel. The form and content of the proposed Summary Notice,and the notice methodology described in the Settlement Agreement are approved. The reminders described in Paragraph 137 of the Settlement Agreement will be sent to all the settlement class members who have yet to submit claims, regardless of the size of their Settlement share. The form and content of the revised proposed Long Form Notice, filed by the parties at Docket No. 928-2, is approved. The language on the first page describing the average and estimated amounts class members may receive will be put in bold. The deadlines set by the Order are as follows: a. The Long Form Notice will be disseminated within 21 days after the entry of the Order; b. The Summary Notice will be disseminated within 21 days after the entry of the Order; c. Motion in support of the Final Approval of the Settlement will be filed on or before 35 days before the Fairness Hearing; d. The Class Counsel will file their Fee Application on or before 35 days before the Exclusion/Objection Deadline; e. The Settlement Class members who desire to be excluded will submit requests for exclusion postmarked (or the equivalent for e-mail) no later than 60 days after the Notice Date (the Exclusion/Objection Deadline); f. All written objections to the Settlement Agreement and the Fee and Service Application and written notices of the objecting class member's intention to appear at the Fairness Hearing will be filed with the Court and postmarked and mailed to the Settlement Administrator no later than the Exclusion/Objection Deadline; g. Any opposition to the Motion in support of the Final Approval of the Settlement will be filed with the Court on or before 21 days before the Fairness Hearing; h. All documents in support of final approval of the Settlement Agreement, and in response to objections to the Settlement Agreement or the Fee and Service Application, will be filed with the Court on or before 14 days before the Fairness Hearing; and i. The Fairness Hearing will be held before the Court on July 18, 2019, at 1:30 p.m. In consultation with and with the approval of Uber, the Class Counsel is authorized to establish the means necessary to administer the proposed settlement and implement the claim process, in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. The Order disposes of O'Connor Docket No. 915 and Yucesoy Docket No. 321. A full-text copy of the Court's March 29, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/3vKzSh from Leagle.com. Hakan Yucesoy, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Abdi Mahammd, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Mokhtar Talha, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Brian Morris, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Pedro Sanchez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Antonio Oliveira, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, & Aaron Dulles, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Shannon Liss-Riordan -- sliss@llrlaw.com -- Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C. & Adelaide Pagano -- apagano@llrlaw.com -- Lichten and Liss-Riordan, P.C., pro hac vice. Uber Technologies, Inc., Defendant, represented by Debra Wong Yang -- dwongyang@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn Crutcher LLP, Marcellus Antonio McRae -- mmcrae@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr. -- tboutrous@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Dhananjay Saikrishna Manthripragada, Gibson Dunn and Crutcher LLP, Joshua Seth Lipshutz -- jlipshutz@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher LLP, Peter C. Squeri, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Theane Evangelis , Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP & Theane D. Evangelis -- tevangelis@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP. Travis Kalanick, Defendant, represented by Dhananjay Saikrishna Manthripragada -- dmanthripragada@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn and Crutcher LLP, Joshua Seth Lipshutz, Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher LLP, Peter C. Squeri, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Theane Evangelis, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP & Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr., Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP. UNIFIED PARKING: Espinosa Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Cal. Labor Code ------------------------------------------------------------------ ROBERTO CARMONA ESPINOSA, an individual, RENE MANUEL VALENCIA CAMPOS, an individual, FERNANDO GARCIA GUZMAN, an individual, Plaintiffs, v. UNIFIED PARKING SERVICE INC., a California Corporation, and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV12502 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., April 11, 2019) is a class action on behalf of Plaintiffs and other similarly situated current and former non-exempt hourly wage earners employed in the State of California of Defendant and other as of yet unnamed Defendants for violations of the California Labor Code. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that Defendant UNIFIED is in possession of the relevant records that will enable an accurate calculation of the time worked and wages owed to Plaintiffs. At all times relevant to this action, Plaintiffs were full-time, non-exempt employees. At no time were Plaintiffs paid withheld or unpaid wages due and owing to them, says the complaint. Plaintiff Espinosa began working for Defendant in 2010 as a supervisor until October 2018. Plaintiffs Campos and Guzman began working for Defendant as parking attendants or November 11, 2014 until October 3, 2018. Defendant is in the business of parking management and valet parking.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: A. Jacob Nalbandyan, Esq. Raina Singer. Esq. LEVIN & NALBANDYAN, LLP 811 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 800 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: (213)232-4848 Fax: (213)232-4849 Email: jnalbandyan@LNtriallawyers.com rsinger@LNtriallawyers.com UNITED MEDICAL: Gordon Sues Over FDCPA Violation ------------------------------------------------ Mikhail Gordon, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. UNITED MEDICAL RECOVERY, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-00259-HTW-LRA (S.D. Miss., April 12, 2019) is a putative class action against Defendant pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"). The Defendant sent Plaintiff initial written communication dated May 25, 2018. This letter was Defendant's initial communication with Plaintiff with respect to a debt. However, the May 25, 2018 letter failed to convey that Plaintiff must dispute the debt in writing in order to require Defendant to obtain and mail Plaintiff verification of the Debt, says the complaint. Plaintiff is a natural person allegedly obligated to pay a debt. Defendant is a Mississippi Limited Liability Company who was engaged, by use of the mails and telephone, in the business of attempting to collect a "debt".[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Curtis R. Hussey, Esq. Hussey Law Firm, LLC 82 Plantation Pointe Road, No. 288 Fairhope, AL 36532-1896 Phone: (251) 928-1423 Facsimile: (866) 317-2674 Email: chussey@ThompsonConsumerLaw.com UNITED STATES: ICE Blames Border Crisis on Flores Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------ The Monitor reports that officials with U.S. Customs and Border Protection as well as Immigration and Customs Enforcement pointed their fingers squarely at lawmakers for what they call a humanitarian, operational and policy crisis at the southwestern border; this as detention facilities reach as much as 300 percent over capacity. The lack of accommodations to appropriately manage the numbers prompted ICE's announcement on March 29 that, beginning April 1, the agency will house about 700 adult females at the Karnes detention facility in Karnes City, Texas. This is due to the current volume of families surrendering to U.S. Border Patrol agents at the southwest border, with ICE and CBP officials agreeing that the situation has left ICE's "limited transportation resources" overwhelmed. ICE officials said in a news release that the move would be temporary, and would last "about 90 days." ". . . . ICE is currently only able to route a limited number of families apprehended at that border to the one other family residential center in Texas -- the South Texas Family Residential Center in Dilley, TX," the release stated. "Additionally, ICE adult detention space is near capacity. As such, ICE has determined that, at this time, Karnes will better meet operational needs by also serving partially as an adult detention facility." The decision by ICE officials comes more than a week after CBP confirmed it was releasing immigrant families with a notice to appear due to lack of space in the detention facilities in the Rio Grande Valley sector, with El Paso, Yuma, San Diego and Del Rio, facilities ready to do the same. The strain on the immigration system itself is due to a growing number of immigrant families arriving in and around ports of entry, which CBP Chief Operating Officer John P. Sanders said will push the total number of apprehensions in March past the 100,000 mark. Sanders said of those 100,000 apprehensions expected for March, roughly 58 percent, or 58,000 will be comprised of families and another 9,000, or nearly 10 percent, will be made up of unaccompanied children. ". . . By any definition I cannot look at this and say that it is not a humanitarian crisis; there are other parts to this crisis… There's the humanitarian crisis, there is the operational crisis, and of course there is the policy crisis that we're facing in terms of the laws that need to be changed -- all very important," Sanders said. Ronald D. Vitiello, deputy director of ICE, said they're limited in what they can do because of laws and guidelines like the Flores settlement. The Flores Settlement is an agreement put in place to protect children taken into custody at the southern border that was established more than 20 years ago as part of a class-action lawsuit first filed in 1985. The settlement agreement stipulated among other things how long the government can detain immigrants, dictating a 20-day maximum detention period for immigrant families. It was reached between the federal government and child welfare and legal advocates who had demanded government officials address child welfare violations within the immigration detention system Vitiello said if agents could detain the migrant families longer, that would allow for them to get their due process, including taking care of any immigration status-related issues before being released. "A fix to Flores that allows us to maintain the high standards we have for family detention, but enough capacity across the continuum in order for people to go through their due process claims — be heard," Vitiello said. "If they have the right to asylum, that the judge adjudicates as such, then we welcome them. But if not, they're returned. "In my career, what I've seen, if you hand out a consequence for illegal behavior, you get less (of the behavior), and right now that loophole is so open that people are sending their children, or coming to the border with their children, and we don't have a way to address that operationally." That option would require additional funding for bed space, and on the judicial end, hiring of more immigration officers to help expedite an asylum process that can currently take anywhere from six months to several years. Vitiello, who in the past has worked in the RGV sector as the chief Border Patrol agent, said there is no doubt that there's a crisis at the U.S.-Mexico border, stating that ICE has released more than 108,000 immigrants since December 2018. "There's absolutely an unmitigated crisis going on on the southwest border, and it's not about how many people are being arrested. That number is significantly higher than it was just a year ago, but it's what has happened to the people," Vitiello said during a panel at the expo, adding that Border Patrol stations are not designed to house children regardless of how long they're kept. With regard to ICE, Vitiello described the operational aspects of current laws as "a terrible scenario" when considering the limited resources and accommodations. "The Flores settlement agreement and subsequent court cases that have been lost as it relates to the government -- we can't keep families in detention," Vitiello said. "There's not enough space. There's not enough time for them under the terms of the agreement to have their cases heard, whether for asylum claims or removal purposes. "We're in a situation where we're encouraging people to take this dangerous journey." Despite prior instances of surges in both unaccompanied minor children and families arriving at the southwest border -- and most recently in 2014 when a surge of unaccompanied minor children started arriving in droves, leading to the utilization of emergency shelters in places like California, Texas and Arizona, to name a few -- ICE and CBP officials said the blame lies with how the laws are currently written. Laws they say that need to be changed. In fiscal year 2014, Border Patrol agents apprehended more than 68,500 unaccompanied children who arrived at the southwest border — the highest number of apprehensions since CBP began recording that demographic in 2010. This was a more than 75 percent increase in unaccompanied minor apprehensions at the southwest border from just the year before in 2013, when agents apprehended 38,759 unaccompanied children, according to the agency's website. In fiscal year 2019, CBP is reporting just through February, at about the half-year mark, nearly 27,000 unaccompanied children apprehensions at the southwest border -- nearly half of the number of apprehensions made during the highest mark in 2014, which saw 68,500. CBP recorded the highest number of family apprehensions last year, fiscal year 2018, with 107,212 apprehensions at the southwest border -- a more than 40 percent increase in family apprehensions from fiscal year 2017, when agents apprehended more than 75,000 families. This was a slight decrease from fiscal year 2016. So far this fiscal year, CBP is reporting through February that they have apprehended 136,150 families at the southwest border, which already surpasses the 2018 mark. Locally, the mayor of Brownsville said CBP conveyed to him on March 29 that they would release thousands of immigrants throughout Brownsville, Harlingen and McAllen over the next few days. Hidalgo County Judge Richard F. Cortez said the county would hold the federal government responsible for any "adverse consequences" resulting from the release of more than 2,000 asylum seekers thus far. "We are calling on the federal government to act responsibly along this nation's southern border. Reckless rhetoric and irresponsible policy decisions have real impact on our communities," Cortez said in a prepared statement. "Over 2,000 asylum seekers have been released on our streets. We commend the tireless efforts of local CBP, ICE, DHS and other law enforcement officials and call on the federal government to support these brave men and women by stopping unnecessary fear-mongering and providing them the resources necessary to address this humanitarian crisis." CBP officials stated that in order to avoid a safety risk to the migrants, and their own agents due to facilities that were overcapacity, they had started releasing families from their detention facilities with a notice to appear. They were hoping to alleviate a system that was "overwhelmed" by the number of families and unaccompanied minors surrendering to agents at the southwest border. President Trump threatened via Twitter on March 29 to shutdown the southwest border if Mexico does not stop undocumented immigrants from entering the U.S. "The DEMOCRATS have given us the weakest immigration laws anywhere in the World. Mexico has the strongest, & they make more than $100 Billion a year on the U.S. Therefore, CONGRESS MUST CHANGE OUR WEAK IMMIGRATION LAWS NOW, & Mexico must stop illegals from entering the U.S.," Trump tweeted on March 29. On March 28, it was announced that Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen was expected to ask Congress, as part of a legislative proposal, for more bed space, the ability to hold families past the 20-day period established by the Flores agreement, and the authority to deport unaccompanied minor children. [GN] UNITED TRANZACTIONS: Lewis Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Indiana ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against UNITED TRANZACTIONS, LLC. The case is styled as JULIAN T. LEWIS on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNITED TRANZACTIONS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01564-TWP-MJD (S.D. Ind., April 18, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. United TranzActions, LLC provides payment solutions for automotive, furniture, building materials and supplies, equipment sales and rentals, trucking, retail, manufacturing, healthcare and hospitality, and distribution industries.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric D. Coleman, Esq. Taxiarchis Hatzidimitriadis, Esq. Nathan C. Volheim, Esq. SULAIMAN LAW GROUP LTD. 2500 South Highland Avenue, Suite 200 Lombard, IL 60148 Phone: (630) 575-8151 Fax: (630) 575-8188 Email: ecoleman@sulaimanlaw.com thatz@sulaimanlaw.com nvolheim@sulaimanlaw.com VERSUM MATERIALS: Board Faces Suit for Breach of Fiduciary Duty --------------------------------------------------------------- City of Providence, on behalf of itself and all other similarly situated stockholders v. Versum Materials, Inc., Seifolla Ghasemi, Guillermo Novo, Jacques Croisetiere, Yi Hyon Paik, Thomas J. Riordan, Susan C. Schnabel, Alejandro D. Wolff, and Broadridge Corporate Issuer Solutions, Inc., Case No. 2019-0206 (Del. Chancery Ct., March 14, 2019), is brought against the Defendants for breaches of fiduciary duty in the negotiation, approval and disclosure of a merger with Entegris, Inc. and the Board's response to a third-party, all-cash all-shares offer, including implementation of a Shareholder Rights Plan (the "Rights Plan" or the "Poison Pill"). The Defendants breached their fiduciary duty of loyalty, care and disclosure by entering into merger and employment discussions and a confidentiality and standstill agreement with Entegris without Board authorization and without full and prompt disclosure to the Board, asserts the complaint. The Plaintiff City of Providence, the capital city of the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, is a beneficial owner of Versum stock and has beneficially owned shares of Versum common stock at all relevant times. Headquartered in Tempe, Arizona, the Defendant Versum is a global provider of innovative solutions to the semiconductor and display industries with expertise in the development, manufacturing, transportation and handling of specialty materials such as high-purity chemicals and gases. The Individual Defendants are members of the board of directors of Versum. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Hanrahan, Esq. Paul A. Fioravanti, Jr., Esq. PRICKETT, JONES & ELLIOTT, P.A. 1310 N. King Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Tel: (302) 888-6500 VICTORIA'S SECRET: Szabados Suit Asserts Labor Code Violation ------------------------------------------------------------- KATALIN SZABADOS, individually, and as a representative of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. VICTORIA'S SECRET STORES, LLC and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. 19STCV12879 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., April 12, 2019) is a representative action for recovery of civil penalties pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 ("PAGA"). Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order No. 7 covers retail employees. That order governs the provision of suitable seats in employment in the workplace. Plaintiff alleges that Victoria's Secret failed to provide her and other fitting room attendants with seats as required by section 14. By failing to provide seats, Victoria's Secret violated Labor Code section 1198, asserts the complaint. Plaintiff alleges she is an aggrieved employee and that other fitting room attendants who were employed by Victoria's Secret in California are also negatively impacted by the aforementioned Victoria's Secret policies. A violation of Labor Code Section 1198 provides a private right of action under PAGA to recover civil penalties, relates the complaint. Plaintiff has been employed by Defendant as a fitting room attendant and doing other duties in the County of Los Angeles. Victoria's Secret is a statewide retail chain operation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andre E. Jardini, Esq. K.L. Myles, Esq. Michael D. Carr, Esq. KNAPP, PETERSEN & CLARKE 550 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 1500 Glendale, CA 91203-1922 Phone: (818) 547-5000 Facsimile: (818) 547-5329 Email: aej@kpclegal.com klm@kpclegal.com mdc@kpclegal.com VIP KIDZ: Curry Seeks Unpaid Overtime Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------ SYKRA CURRY, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. VIP KIDZ LLC, and MARIA A. MANTILLA, individually Defendants, Case No. 9:19-cv-80508-RLR (S.D. Fla., April 12, 2019) is an action for unpaid overtime compensation, declaratory relief, and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). When Plaintiff worked in excess of 40 hours during a pay week, Plaintiff was paid only her straight, regular hourly rate for all hours worked, with no additional compensation for the overtime hours worked, asserts the complaint. The Defendants failed to comply with the FLSA by failing to pay Plaintiff and all similarly situated employees complete overtime compensation for overtime hours worked, the complaint relates. Plaintiff worked for Defendants in this capacity from August 28, 2016, through February 8, 2019 as a Medical Assistant. VIP KIDZ LLC was a Florida limited liability company doing business in Palm Beach County, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary A. Isaacs, Esq. Gary A. Isaacs, P.A. 712 U.S. Highway One, Suite 400 North Palm Beach, FL 33401 Phone: (561) 844-3600 Email: gai@fcohenlaw.com WELLS FARGO: Newsom Sues Over Unauthorized Credit Report Inquiries ------------------------------------------------------------------ KEISHA NEWSOM, Individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. WELLS FARGO & COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 5:19-cv-00709 (C.D. Cal., April 18, 2019) seeks damages arising out of Defendant's systematic unauthorized credit inquiries. Congress enacted the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"), to insure fair and accurate reporting, promote efficiency in the banking system, and protect consumer privacy. At no point prior to or after June 8, 2016, did Plaintiff have an account with Defendant. At no point prior to or after June 8, 2016, did Plaintiff inquire about Defendant's services. Nonetheless, on June 8, 2016, Defendant pulled Plaintiff's Equifax credit report without a permissible purpose. Despite the fact that Plaintiff did not have an account with Defendant, Defendant submitted an unauthorized account review credit report inquiry to Equifax. Upon review of Plaintiff's Equifax credit report dated April 28, 2017, Plaintiff discovered Defendant's unauthorized credit inquiry. Defendant's inquiry was unauthorized and illegal. Plaintiff did not seek out nor inquire about Defendant's services or credit extensions. Therefore, inquiry was not promotional. Furthermore, Plaintiff did not have an account with Defendant and thus, had no reason to pull Plaintiff's credit report or collect on a debt, says the complaint. Plaintiff is a natural person who resided in the City and County of Riverside, State of California, whose credit report(s) were affected by at least one unauthorized inquiry by Defendant. Defendant is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua B. Swigart, Esq. HYDE & SWIGART, APC 2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101 San Diego, CA 92108-3609 Phone: (619) 233-7770 Fax: (619) 297-1022 Email: josh@westcoastlitigation.com - and - Daniel G. Shay, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL G. SHAY 409 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101B San Diego, CA 92108 Phone: (619) 222-7429 Fax: (866) 431-3292 Email: danielshay@tcpafdcpa.com WORKHORSE RESTAURANT: Maldonado Seeks Minimum, Overtime Pay ----------------------------------------------------------- Simon Marquez Maldonado, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Workhorse Restaurant Inc. (d/b/a Regional), Dario Arenella, Pietro Arenella (a.k.a. Pierpaolo), and Jody Arenella, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-03300 (S.D. N.Y., April 12, 2019) seeks unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"), and for violations of the N.Y. Labor Law ("NYLL"), and the "spread of hours" and overtime wage orders of the New York Commissioner of Labor codified, including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. Plaintiff Marquez worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of hours compensation for the hours that he worked, asserts the complaint. The Defendants maintained a policy and practice of requiring Plaintiff Marquez and other employees to work in excess of 40 hours per week without providing the minimum wage and overtime compensation required by federal and state law and regulations, the complaint relates. Plaintiff Marquez was employed as a cook and a salad preparer at the restaurant. Defendants own, operate, or control an Italian restaurant, located at 2607 Broadway, New York, NY 10025 under the name "Regional".[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Phone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 ZALE DELAWARE: Faces Leos Suit in Sacramento Court -------------------------------------------------- An employment-related class action lawsuit has been filed against Zale Delaware Inc. The case is captioned as CAROLINA LEOS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ZALE DELAWARE INC.; and DOES 1-100, Defendants, Case No. 34-2019-00253281-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., March 26, 2019). Zale Delaware, Inc. provides retail sale of jewelry. The Company operates stores that offer diamond jewelry, watches, cultured pearls, gemstones, gold, silver, and platinum for men and women. Zale offers its products for sale in retail locations and through the internet. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jordan D. Bello, Esq. LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 W Olympic Blvd, Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA Telephone: (310) 432-0000 Facsimile: (310) 432-0001 ZOGENIX INC: Lake Files Class Action Over Misleading, False Reports ------------------------------------------------------------------- Immanuel Lake, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. ZOGENIX, INC., STEPHEN J. FARR, and MICHAEL P. SMITH, Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-01975 (N.D. Cal., April 12, 2019) is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class consisting of all persons other than defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired Zogenix's securities between February 6, 2019 through April 8, 2019, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). Zogenix is a pharmaceutical company that develops and commercializes therapies for the treatment of transformative central nervous system disorders in the United States. The Company was formerly known as SJ2 Therapeutics, Inc. and changed its name to Zogenix, Inc. in August 2006. Its lead product candidate is ZX008, which is also known commercially by its trademarked name "FINTEPLA." FINTEPLA is a low-dose fenfluramine that is in Phase III clinical trials for the treatment of seizures associated with Dravet syndrome. On February 6, 2019, Zogenix announced the submission of its New Drug Application ("NDA") to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") for FINTEPLA. Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Zogenix's NDA for FINTEPLA contained inadequate non-clinical data and an incorrect version of a clinical dataset; (ii) consequently, Zogenix's NDA for FINTEPLA was unlikely to gain FDA approval; and (iii) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. Plaintiff acquired Zogenix securities at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period and was damaged upon the revelation of the alleged corrective disclosures. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, says the complaint.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jennifer Pafiti, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90024 Phone: (310) 405-7190 Email: jpafiti@pomlaw.com - and - Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. Jonathan D. Lindenfeld, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Phone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com jlindenfeld@pomlaw.com - and - Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Phone: (312) 377-1181 Facsimile: (312) 377-1184 Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com ********* 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 ***