/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/190510.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, May 10, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 94 Headlines ACTIVISION: Kuznicki Law Files Class Action Suit Over Bungie Split AKIMA LLC: Underpays Maintenance Laborers, Avery Suit Alleges ALIERA HEALTHCARE: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Newell Suit Claims AMERICAN FINANCE: Callaway Files Securities Class Action AMERICAN RENAL: Block & Leviton Files Securities Fraud Suit AMERICAN RENAL: Kaskela Law Files Securities Fraud Class Suit APEX SYSTEMS: Dietrick Suit Transferred From Maryland to Virginia ASECOEXPORT: Martinez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation BEVERAGE MARKETING: Faces Lockhart et al. Suit in N.D. California BLACK HORSE: Tims Files Suit Over Illegal Biometric Data Retention BLACK TIE MANAGEMENT: Underpays Overtime Wages, Bailey Suit Says BLOOMBERG LP: Underpays Data Analysts, Doe Suit Alleges BOB MOORE AUTO: Lawrence Files FDCPA Suit in W.D. Oklahoma BOULDER BJ: Fails to Pay Proper Minimum Wages, Knerr Suit Says BP EXPLORATION: Denial of Bid to Dismiss Farmer BELO Suit Endorsed BP EXPLORATION: Pinsdorf BELO Complaint Dismissed With Prejudice BROOKS BROTHERS: Court Enters Stipulated Protective Order in Phipps BROTHERS CAR WASH: Does not Pay Overtime Premium, Arredondo Says CARTER'S INC: Aguilar Brings Class Action Over Misleading Info CHARTER COMMS: Marcelino Wage & Hour Suit Remanded to State Court CHICAGO GUEST: Knowles Brings Suit Over Blind-inaccesible Website CLEAR VIEW BUILDING: Underpays Manual Laborers, Rojas Alleges CLOUD NINE SHOW: Bennett Suit Seeks Damages and Back-pay COMMUNITY ASSISTANCE: Carrillo Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages, Damages CREDIT BUREAU: Class Notice in Bassett FDCPA-NCPA Suit Approved CREDIT CONTROL: New York Court Dismisses Nardino FDCPA Suit DIPLOMAT PHARMACY: Prentice Suit Transferred N.D. Illinois DIPLOMAT PHARMACY: Riehm Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois DRILTEK INC: 9th Cir. Affirms Summary Judgment in Willis Wage Suit EASTPOINTE, MI: Bid to Dismiss KBT Suit Denied as Moot EDR ASSETS: Denial of Bid to Dismiss Hess Suit Affirmed w/o Costs EVEREST HOTEL: Underpays Kitchen Staff, Baker et al. Say FCR COLLECTION: Ortz Sues over Debt Collection Practices FINANCE OF AMERICA: Faces Burkart Labor Suit in Sacramento FINANCE SYSTEM: Bid to Certify Class in Boucher FDCPA Suit Denied FOUR SEASONS: Ill. App. Affirms Arbitration Bid Denial in Liu Suit GANNETT COMPANY: Hall FLSA Suit Moved From Arizona to Kentucky GOOGLE INC: Freedom Watch Appeals Case Dismissal Ruling HILL'S PET: McIlvaine Files Fraud Class Suit in W.D. Pa. HILL'S PET: Rider et al. Sue over Contaminated Dog Food HOME DEPOT: Court Enters Confidentiality Order in C. Golden's Suit HOMETOWN AMERICA: Craw's Bid for Class Certification Terminated HOSOPO CORP: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Gonzalez TCPA Suit HYUNDAI MOTOR: Hernandez Files Suit Over Deadly Airbag Defect INTERNATIONAL LASER: Alvarado's Bid to Certify Class Continued INVENTION SUBMISSION: Claims in Amended Calhoun TCPA Suit Narrowed J-B WELD COMPANY: Faces Baum Suit in N.D. California JAIL HILL INN: Knowles Files ADA Suit in N.D. Illinois JAN-PRO FRANCHISING: Dynamex Retroactively Applies to Franchisors JONATHAN NEIL: Court Dismisses Brown FDCA Suit With Prejudice KIA MOTORS: Cox Sues over Vehicle Design Defect KIA MOTORS: Ramos Sues over Sale of Defective GDI Engines LAKE GROVE: Mendoza Seeks Damages Over Unpaid Wages LYFT INC: Gupta, et al. Bring Class Action in Cal. Super. Ct. MDL 2741: Bellanger Suit Consolidated in Roundup Products Lit. MDL 2741: Gurley Suit Consolidated in Roundup Products Litigation MDL 2741: Ludovicy Suit Consolidated in Roundup Products Lit. MDL 2741: Mansfield Suit Consolidated in Roundup Products Lit. MDL 2741: Moore Suit Consolidated in Roundup Products Litigation MDL 2741: Neill Suit Consolidated in Roundup Products Litigation MDL 2741: Oliver Suit Consolidated in Roundup Products Litigation MDL 2741: Tebay Suit Consolidated in Roundup Products Litigation MIDLAND CREDIT: Ruiz FDCPA Class Suit Removed to E.D. New York MIDWAY RENT: Faces Machuca Labor Suit in Los Angeles California MOBILE TELESYSTEMS: May 20 Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set MODIS INC: Faces Victorio Suit over Background Checks MONSANTO COMPANY: Ashley Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup MONSANTO COMPANY: Austin Files Suit Over Roundup-related Injuries MONSANTO COMPANY: Ball Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup MONSANTO COMPANY: Banker Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup MONSANTO COMPANY: Binneboese Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup MONSANTO COMPANY: Brown Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup MONSANTO COMPANY: Holmes et al. Suit Moved to N.D. California MONSANTO COMPANY: Ridner Suit Moved to N.D. California MOWI ASA: Schneider's Alleges Price-Fixing of Salmon MUSE GALLERY: West Files ADA Suit in W.D. Wisconsin NILKANTH PIZZA: Failed to Pay Overtime Wages, Burton Suit Says ORANGE COUNTY, CA: Faces Carroll et al. Suit in C.D. California PETLAND MALL: Faces Suit over Sale of Bacteria-Infected Puppies PLYCEM USA: Harmel Sues over Sale of Defective Allura Siding PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Court Grants Bis to Dismiss Pozzuolo FDCPA Suit POWER MACHINERY: Faces Meyers Labor Suit in Kern County PROMISED LAND: Underpays Medical Assistants, Thomas Alleges ROACH & MURTHA: Clute Sues over Debt Collection Practices SAN JOSE RESTAURANT: Bid to Compel Discovery in Pontones Denied SCHRA LODI: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Lane Suit Alleges SCHWEBEL PETROLEUM: Faces Gonzalez Labor Suit in Kern County SECURE PARKING: Seeks Appellate Review of Order in Liotta Suit SERVICELINK FIELD: Collins Remanded to San Diego Superior Court SOFTWARE GUIDANCE: King Seeks Pay for Excess Worktime SOURCE CONSTRUCTION: Sastre Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages SPRINT CORP: Baron Suit Alleges Customer Privacy Rights Breach STARBUCKS CORP: Rosario FCRA Suit Transferred to N.D. Georgia STATE FARM: Removes Palmer Suit to District of New Mexico TARGET CORPORATION: Thomas Suit Transferred to E.D. California TATE & KIRLIN: Shelton Sues over Unwanted Telephone Calls TITAN GAS: Frey Sues Over Nuisance Telemarketing Practices TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Popp Sues over Defaulted Consumer Debt TRUMMER'S INC: Restaurant Workers Win Conditional Certification U.S. SECURITY: Scott Suit Removed to S.D. New York UBER TECH: Dismissal of Anderson Suit Recommended UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE: Bauserman Timely Notice Ruling Partly OK'd UNITED RENTALS: Court Denies Bid to Remand Elizarraz Labor Suit UNITED STATES: Acadiana et al. Hit Bankruptcy Fees UNITED STATES: Bid for Attorneys' Fees in McCarty Suit Partly OK'd UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Manley Suit Transferred to W.D. Ark. UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA: 3d Cir. Restores 2 Counts in ERISA Suit VARSITY PRODUCED: Carrillo Files Class Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. VESTIAIRE COLLECTIVE: Bid to Enforce Steamer Suit Settlement Denied WHOLE FOODS: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Scott Suit under NYLL WISCONSIN: King Files Prisoner Civil Rights Suit WM. BOLTHOUSE: Carrillo Files Class Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: 200+ Teachers Died From Asbestos in UK ASBESTOS UPDATE: Arcata Bowl Owner's Family Awarded $4.4MM ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found at Durham Gas Explosion ASBESTOS UPDATE: Blue Mountains Council Sued Over Asbestos ASBESTOS UPDATE: City of Eau Claire, Contractor Could be Fined ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Disregarded Experts in Issuing Asbestos Rule ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ex-Bord na Mona Worker Dies from Asbestos Exposure ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Faces Suit on Bendix Claims Accounting ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Had $1.6BB Bendix Liabilities at Mar.31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lennox Int'l Paid $1.4MM for Lawsuits in 1Q 2018 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Parsons Corp. Faces PI Suits at April 12 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Researcher Says Asbestos in Baby Powder ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rockwell Automation Still Faces Suits at March 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Roofer's Mesothelioma Suit to Proceed ASBESTOS UPDATE: Swindon Records 248 Mesothelioma Deaths ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Shakes Take Home Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Workers, Students Exposed to Shed 26 Asbestos ********* ACTIVISION: Kuznicki Law Files Class Action Suit Over Bungie Split ------------------------------------------------------------------ Matthew Wilson, writng for KitGuru, reports that in a surprise move earlier this year, Bungie and Activision split up, allowing Bungie to go independent once again with the Destiny IP in hand. At the time, investors called for a third-party investigation into the situation and now, a class-action lawsuit is being pursued. Kuznicki Law PLLC, a California-based law firm, is currently seeking shareholders to join a class action lawsuit against Activision. Those participating will need to have purchased shares between the 2nd of August 2018 and the 10th of January 2019-- just one day before the split was made official. The complaint alleges that Activision made "materially false and/or misleading statements" to share holders prior to the break up with Bungie. The complaint also says that Activision failed to disclose that the termination of the Bungie partnership with imminent, which would have had a "significant negative impact" on revenues. Activision was never thrilled with Destiny's sales, which came to a head after Destiny 2: Forsaken launched. At the time, Activision executives expressed disappointment, meanwhile Bungie seemed pleased with the work it was doing. A recent SEC filing notes that Destiny 2 generated $164 million throughout 2018.[GN] AKIMA LLC: Underpays Maintenance Laborers, Avery Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- DEVIER AVERY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AKIMA, LLC; AKIMA SUPPORT OPERATIONS, LLC; and DOES 1 through 50, Defendants, Case No. STK-CV-UOE2019-4271 (Cal. Super., San Joaquin Cty., April 3, 2019) is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal and rest periods, and provide accurate wage statements. The Plaintiff Avery was employed by the Defendants as ground maintenance laborer. Akima, LLC, through its subsidiaries, engages in construction, information technology, data communications, systems engineering, software development, cyber security, space operations, aviation, fabrication, facility management, hospitality, and logistics businesses. Akima, LLC was formerly known as Akima Management Services, LLC and changed its name to Akima, LLC in October 2012. The company was founded in 1995 and is headquartered in Herndon, Virginia. Akima, LLC operates as a subsidiary of NANA Development Corporation, Inc. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Spivak, Esq. Stephanie Greenberg, Esq. THE SPIVAK LAW FIRM 1650 Ventura Blvd., Ste 203 Encino, CA 91436 Telephone: (818) 582-3086 Facsimile: (818) 582-2561 ALIERA HEALTHCARE: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Newell Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- JOUREY NEWELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALIERA HEALTHCARE, INC.; and INSURANCE CARE NOW, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01489-SCJ (N.D. Ga., April 2, 2019) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls. Aliera Healthcare offers affordable alternatives to health insurance through our unique healthcare plans for individuals and employee groups. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven H. Koval, Esq. THE KOVAL FIRM, LLC 3575 Piedmont Road Building 15, Suite 120 Atlanta, GA 30305 Telephone: (404) 513-6651 Facsimile: (404) 549-4654 E-mail: shkoval@aol.com AMERICAN FINANCE: Callaway Files Securities Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- LYNDA CALLAWAY, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN FINANCE TRUST, INC., AMERICAN FINANCE ADVISORS, LLC, AR GLOBAL INVESTMENTS, LLC, NICHOLAS S. SCHORSCH, WILLIAM M. KAHANE, EDWARD M. WEIL, JR., NICHOLAS RADESCA, DAVID GONG, STANLEY R. PERLA, LISA D. KUBNICK, Defendants, Case No. 652523/2019 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty., April 30, 2019) is a securities class action arising from the issuance of shares of American Finance Trust, Inc. ("AFIN") to Plaintiff and members of the class in AFIN's merger with/takeover of Retail Centers of America ("RCA") in 2017. According to the complaint, the AFIN shares that Plaintiff and the other class members received in the merger were registered with the SEC pursuant to defective registration statements, issued on December 2016 and supplemented thereafter through February 9, 2017 (the "Registration Statement"). Specifically, the Registration Statement contained materially incomplete and misleading information concerning: (a) the financial impact to AFIN and its shareholders of the changes in 2015 to the Advisory Agreement ("2nd Advisory Agreement") between AFIN and Defendant American Finance Advisors, Inc. ("Advisor") and the additional changes to the Advisory Agreement in 2016, which were conditioned upon approval of a "Merger" of AFIN and Retail Centers of America ("RCA") in early 2017 (the "3rd Advisory Agreement") (under the same control as Advisor); (b) the material negative impact of the 2nd and 3rd Advisory Agreements upon AFIN and its shareholders for a public listing liquidity event; and (c) the material risk that upon a public listing of AFIN shares, the market price would plunge to reflect a material discount to NAV due to AFIN's external management structure. The Defendants also failed to disclose in the Registration Statement that public markets discount the value of externally managed REITs like AFIN. When AFIN, then known as American Realty Capital Trust V, Inc., went public in 2013, it filed a Form S-l registration statement/prospectus on March 6, 2013 that disclosed the higher advisory fees and market discounts for externally managed REITs. Those facts remained true through the date of the merger and issuance of AFIN shares to Plaintiff and the class. Yet when AFIN filed the Registration Statements on October 21, 2016, November 23, 2016 and December 16, 2016, and supplements thereafter, Defendants omitted those disclosures or any warning that a public listing could result in the public valuation of AFIN shares at a deep discount to their net asset value due to issues surrounding AFIN's external management by AR Global and affiliates. The Registration Statements also omitted material information about AFIN's inability to obtain a public listing of its stock in 2015 and 2016 despite a direction from the SEC to make such disclosure. Defendants Weil, Radesca, Gong, Perla and Kubnick signed the false and misleading Registration Statement pursuant to which the AFIN stock was issued and Advisor, AR Global Investments, LLC ("AR Global"), Schorsch and Kahane were controlling persons of the issuer, AFIN. For these reasons, Plaintiff asserts claims against Defendants for violations of the Securities Act. Plaintiff Lynda Callaway received AFIN shares in the AFIN RCA merger issued pursuant to the defective Registration Statements. AFIN is a publicly registered, non-traded real estate investment trust formerly known as American Realty Capital Trust V, Inc. It is "externally managed" and under the complete control of Advisor, Schorsch and Kahane.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Olimpio Lee Squitieri, Esq. SQUITIERI & FEARON, LLP 32 East 57th Street 12th Floor New York, NY 10022 Phone: (212)421-6492 Fax: (212)421-6553 AMERICAN RENAL: Block & Leviton Files Securities Fraud Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Block & Leviton LLP (http://www.blockesq.com/),a securities litigation firm representing investors nationwide, informs investors that there has been a class action lawsuit filed against American Renal Associates Holdings Inc. (NYSE:ARA) and certain of its officers alleging violations of the federal securities laws. Shareholders are encouraged to contact Block & Leviton LLP to learn more. The complaint that was filed in the District of New Jersey, and captioned Vandevar v. American Renal Associates Holdings Inc. et al., 2:19-cv-09074, relates to the announcement that certain of American Renal's annual and quarterly reports which were filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission could no longer be relied upon and would have to be restated. A judge has not yet been assigned to the case. On this news, the Company's stock price fell more than 38%. If you have purchased or otherwise acquired American Renal securities between August 10, 2016 and March 27, 2019, and have questions about your legal rights, or possess information relevant to this investigation, you are encouraged to contact Attorney Dan DeMaria at (888) 868-2385, by email at dan@blockesq.com, or by visiting http://shareholder.law/cases/?case=americanrenal. Additionally, those interested in serving as lead Plaintiff must apply to do so before the May 27, 2019, lead plaintiff deadline. Contact: Dan DeMaria, Esq. BLOCK & LEVITON LLP 155 Federal Street, Suite 400 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 398-5660 phone (888) 868-2385 Email: info@blockesq.com dan@blockesq.com [GN] AMERICAN RENAL: Kaskela Law Files Securities Fraud Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Kaskela Law LLC announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against American Renal Associates Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: ARA) on behalf of investors who purchased shares of the Company's common stock between August 10, 2016 and March 27, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). To learn how to participate in this action please visit http://kaskelalaw.com/case/american-renal/ On March 8, 2019, American Renal disclosed that it was delaying the filing of its fiscal 2019 Annual Report, and that the Company's Audit Committee was "examining reserve computations and other accounting practices that could have an impact on accounts receivable and revenue for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, as well as the previously reported fiscal years..." Following this news, shares of the Company's stock declined $2.05 per share, or over 16% in value, to close on March 8, 2019 at $10.46 per share, on heavy trading volume. Subsequently, on March 27, 2019, American Renal disclosed that the Company's previously issued financial statements for fiscal years 2014-2017 "should be restated and should no longer be relied upon," and that the Company's Chief Financial Officer had "resigned" effective March 26, 2019. Following this additional news, shares of the Company's stock declined a an additional $3.69 per share, or 38% in value, to close on March 28, 2019 at $6.01 per share, again on heavy trading volume. Among other things, the shareholder class action complaint alleges that defendants made materially false and misleading statements to investors during the Class Period, and failed to disclose to investors that: (i) the Company's financial statements were false and could not be relied upon; and (ii) American Renal had material weaknesses in its internal controls over financial reporting. The complaint further alleges that, as a result of the foregoing, investors purchased American Renal's common stock at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period and suffered investment losses as a result of the defendants' conduct. IMPORTANT DEADLINE: Investors who purchased American Renal's common stock during the Class Period may, no later than May 28, 2019, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of class. Contact: D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq. KASKELA LAW LLC 18 Campus Boulevard, Suite 100 Newtown Square, PA 19073 Telephone: (484) 258-1585 (888) 715-1740 Website: www.kaskelalaw.com Email: skaskela@kaskelalaw.com [GN] APEX SYSTEMS: Dietrick Suit Transferred From Maryland to Virginia ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Dietrick, et al. v. Apex Systems, LLC, Case No. 1:19-cv-00006, was transferred on April 19, 2019, from the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (Richmond). The Virginia District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-00299-JAG to the proceeding. The lawsuit alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.[BN] Plaintiffs Emily Dietrick, Steven Connell, Brock Deel, Monica Jones, Tyler Suite and Allie Bruno are represented by: Benjamin L. Davis, III, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF PETER T. NICHOLL Charles Center South 36 South Charles Street, Suite 1700 Baltimore, MD 21201 Telephone: (410) 244-7005 Facsimile: (410) 244-8454 E-mail: bdavis@nicholllaw.com Defendant Apex Systems, LLC, is represented by: John Brian Cashmere, Esq. WILLIAMS MULLEN 8300 Greensboro Drive, Suite 1100 Tysons Corner, VA 22102 Telephone: (703) 760-5232 Facsimile: (703) 748-0244 E-mail: bcashmere@williamsmullen.com ASECOEXPORT: Martinez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation ------------------------------------------------------------ JUDITH GABRIELA MARTINEZ, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ASECOEXPORT INTERNATIONAL INC, JAIME DIAZ, Defendants, Case No 1:19-cv-21674-KMW (S.D. Fla., April 30, 2019) is an action arising under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The Defendants willfully and intentionally refused to pay Plaintiff's overtime wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act as Defendants knew of the overtime requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act and recklessly failed to investigate whether Defendants' payroll practices were in accordance with the Act, says the complaint. Plaintiff worked for Defendants as an assistant and secretary from January 12, 2013 through April 5, 2019. ASECOEXPORT INTERNATIONAL INC is a corporation that regularly transacts business within Dade County.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J.H. Zidell, Esq. J.H. Zidell, P.A. 300 71st Street, Suite 605 Miami Beach, FL 33141 Phone: (305) 865-6766 Fax: (305) 865-7167 Email: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM BEVERAGE MARKETING: Faces Lockhart et al. Suit in N.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Beverage Marketing USA, Inc. The case is captioned as NICOLE LOCKHART; BOBBI O'SULLIVAN; and ALEXIS JADE HUNTER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BEVERAGE MARKETING USA, INC.; ARIZONA BEVERAGE COMPANY LLC; ARIZONA BEVERAGES USA LLC; ARIZONA ICED TEA LLC; and HORNELL BREWING CO., INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-01711-JSC (N.D. Cal., April 2, 2019). The case is assigned to Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley. Beverage Marketing USA, Inc. produces and distributes beverages including Arizona Iced Tea. The company was founded in 1992 and is based in Woodbury, New York. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Marie Ann McCrary, Esq. Adam Gutride, Esq. Seth Adam Safier, Esq. GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP 100 Pine Street, Suite 1250 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 789-6390 Facsimile: (415) 449-6469 E-mail: marie@gutridesafier.com adam@gutridesafier.com seth@gutridesafier.com BLACK HORSE: Tims Files Suit Over Illegal Biometric Data Retention ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jorome Tims, individually and all others similarly situated v. Black Horse Carriers Inc., Case No. 2019CH03522 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., March 18, 2019), is brought against the Defendant for violation of the Biometric Information Privacy Act. The Plaintiff seeks to redress and curtail Defendant's unlawful collection, use, storage, and disclosure of the Plaintiffs sensitive and proprietary biometric data. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a Supervisor from June of 2017 until January of 2018, at the Defendant's facility located at 680 Remington Blvd, Bolingbrook, IL 60440. The Defendant Black Horse Carriers is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Illinois, with a principal place of business located at 150 Village Court, Carol Stream, IL 60188. The Defendant is a company that provides trucking services to companies in a variety of industries. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan F. Stephan, Esq. James B. Zouras, Esq. Catherine T. Mitchell, Esq. STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP 100 N. Riverside Plaza, Ste 2150 Chicago, IL 60606 Tel: (312) 233-1550 Fax: (312) 233-1560 E-mail: rstephan@stephanzouras.com jzouras@stephanzouras.com cmitchell@stephanzouras.com BLACK TIE MANAGEMENT: Underpays Overtime Wages, Bailey Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jordan Bailey, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Black Tie Management Company LLC, Black Tie Moving Services LLC, Black Tie Moving Columbus LLC, Black Tie Moving Cleveland LLC, Black Tie Moving Cincinnati LLC, James Dustin Black, and Christopher Hess, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-01677-EAS-KAJ (S.D. Ohio, April 29, 2019) is a case challenging policies and practices of Defendants that violate the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the Ohio Wage Laws; and concerns the underpayment of overtime and/or minimum wages to non-exempt employees. According to the complaint, Plaintiff and others similarly situated regularly worked more than 40 hours in a workweek. However, they are not paid at least one and one-half times their regular rates for hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek. The unpaid meeting time and travel time further increases the amount of time over 40 hours per week that Defendants did/do not pay Plaintiff and others similarly situated overtime compensation at a rate of at least one and one-half times their regular rates, says the complaint. Plaintiff was jointly employed by Defendants from approximately November 2018 through March 2019. Black Tie Management Company LLC d/b/a Black Tie Moving Services is a Texas limited liability company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robi J. Baishnab, Esq. NILGES DRAHER LLC 34 N. High St., Ste. 502 Columbus, OH 43215 Phone: (614) 824-5770 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 Email: rbaishnab@ohlaborlaw.com - and - Hans A. Nilges, Esq. Shannon M. Draher, Esq. NILGES DRAHER LLC 7266 Portage Street, N.W., Suite D Massillon, OH 44646 Phone: (330) 470-4428 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 Email: hans@ohlaborlaw.com sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com BLOOMBERG LP: Underpays Data Analysts, Doe Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------- JANE DOE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BLOOMBERG L.P., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02920 (S.D.N.Y., April 2, 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 was employed by the Defendant as data analyst. Bloomberg L.P. is a privately held financial, software, data, and media company headquartered in Midtown Manhattan, New York City. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Getman, Esq. Artemio Guerra, Esq. GETMAN SWEENEY & DUNN PLLC 260 Fair St. Kingston, NY 12401 Telephone: (845) 255-9370 Facsimile: (845) 255-8649 E-mail: dgetman@getmansweeney.com - and – Michael Korik, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF CHARLES A. GRUEN 381 Broadway, Suite 300 Westwood, NJ 07675 Telephone: (201) 342-1212 Facsimile: (201) 342-6474 E-mail: mkorik@gruenlaw.com BOB MOORE AUTO: Lawrence Files FDCPA Suit in W.D. Oklahoma ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bob Moore Auto Group LLC et al. The case is styled as Vernon Lawrence, Winnie Lawrence, individually and On behalf of all other putative plaintiffs similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Bob Moore Auto Group LLC a Domestic Limited Liability Company, BMAG Luxury 1 LLC doing business as: Bob Moore Land Rover doing business as: Bob Moore Maserati doing business as: Bob Moore Audi a Domestic Limited Liability Company, Jozef Dabrowski Individually and acting in his official capacity as an agent of Bob Moore Auto Group, L.L.C. and BMAG Luxury 1, L.L.C., and all Bob Moore d/b/a subsidiaries, Jeremy Freeman Individually and acting in his official capacity as an agent of Bob Moore Auto Group, L.L.C. and BMAG Luxury 1, L.L.C., and all Bob Moore d/b/a subsidiaries, Kendrick Neal Individually and acting in his official capacity as an agent of Bob Moore Auto Group, L.L.C. and BMAG Luxury 1, L.L.C., and all Bob Moore d/b/a subsidiaries, Defendants, Case No. 5:19-cv-00395-PRW (W.D. Okla., April 30, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Bob Moore Auto Group, LLC operates as an automotive dealer in Greater Oklahoma City, Tulsa, Edmond, Norman, and Moore, Oklahoma. It offers new and used cars, trucks, and SUVs; parts and accessories, as well as services; and finance options.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Laurence K Donahoe, Esq. LKDLAW PC PO Box 31375 Edmond, OK 73003-0023 Phone: (405) 282-1225 Fax: (405) 282-1298 Email: lkdlaw BOULDER BJ: Fails to Pay Proper Minimum Wages, Knerr Suit Says -------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Knerr, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated, v. Boulder BJ, LLC, BlackJack Enterprises, LLC, et.al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00799 (D. Colo., March 18, 2019), is brought against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Colorado Wage Claim Act and the Colorado Minimum Wage Act. The Defendants violated the FLSA and Colorado law by failing to adequately reimburse delivery drivers for their delivery-related and other work related expenses, thereby failing to pay delivery drivers the legally mandated minimum wage wages for all hours worked. The Plaintiff worked as a delivery driver at one of Defendants' Blackjack stores located in Boulder, Colorado from approximately 2015 to approximately May 2017. The Defendants operate approximately 42 Blackjack Pizza restaurants in Colorado, Wyoming, Montana, Arizona, Utah, and Florida (the "Blackjack stores"). The Defendants also own and operate a number of other food chains, including Papa Romano's, Papa's Pizza, Breadeaux Pizza, and Mr. Pita. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew P. Kimble, Esq. BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC 3825 Edwards Road, Suite 650 Cincinnati, OH 45209 Tel: (513) 715-8711 Fax: (614) 340-4620 E-mail: akimble@billerkimble.com BP EXPLORATION: Denial of Bid to Dismiss Farmer BELO Suit Endorsed ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, LANEY FARMER, v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INC. ET AL., SECTION "J" (2). Related to 12-968 BELO in MDL 10-2179, Civil Action No. 19-1572 (E.D. La.), Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Wilkinson, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana recommended that BP's motion to dismiss be denied. Farmer was employed as a clean-up worker along the Florida Gulf coast, where she also lived, after the BP/Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill on April 20, 2010. On Feb. 20, 2019, the Plaintiff filed her complaint pursuant to the Back-End Litigation Option ("BELO") provisions of the BP/Deepwater Horizon Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement Agreement. She timely filed her BELO lawsuit within the requisite six-month period from the date of receiving notice of the Defendants' Election Not to Mediate on Aug. 24, 2018. As a member of the BELO settlement class, the Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages and related costs for later-manifested physical conditions that she allegedly suffered as a result of exposure to substances released after the oil spill. On March 15, 2019, the Plaintiff filed and the Court accepted her first amended complaint, which corrected a typographical error in her original complaint that inadvertently alleged her diagnosis as "neuropathy" rather than the intended diagnosis of reactive airway disease. BP's notice of its Election Not to Mediate clearly indicates that in assessing the Plaintiff's claim, the Deepwater Horizon Medical Benefits Claims Administrator considered reactive airway disease -- not neuropathy -- which suggests that the Plaintiff's typographical error was confined to her original complaint and did not pre-date the filing of this lawsuit. On March 29, 2019, Defendants, BP Exploration and BP America Production Co., filed their answer to the Plaintiff's first amended complaint. BP filed a motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's complaint, asserting that the Plaintiff failed under Rule 15 to seek leave of the Court or dthe Dfendants' consent to file her first amended complaint and that the Court had not accepted the Plaintiff's first amended complaint at the time the instant motion was filed. Based on the premise that the Plaintiff's first amended complaint was filed in a procedurally improper manner and/or not filed at all, the Defendants argue that dismissal of the Plaintiff's original complaint without prejudice is justified in light of (1) the Plaintiff's failure to identify neuropathy as a claimed condition in her notice of intent to sue; (2) the Claims Administrator's inability to review plaintiff's neuropathy claim; and (3) BP's lack of opportunity to decide whether to mediate the neuropathy claim prior to the filing of the lawsuit. The Plaintiff filed a timely opposition memorandum. Because the Plaintiff's first amended complaint, properly filed, alleges the condition of reactive airway disease, Judge Wilkinson does not accept the Defendants' arguments in favor of dismissal because (1) the Plaintiff's alleged condition of reactive airway disease was properly identified in her notice of intent to sue; (2) the Claims Administrator reviewed the Plaintiff's claim of reactive airway disease; and (3) BP had an opportunity to decide whether to mediate the reactive airway disease claim before the Plaintiff filed her BELO complaint. For all the forgoing reasons, he recommended that the Defendants' motion be denied. A party's failure to file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation in a magistrate judge's report and recommendation within 14 days after being served with a copy will bar that party, except upon grounds of plain error, from attacking on appeal the unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the district court, provided that the party has been served with notice that such consequences will result from a failure to object. A full-text copy of the Court's April 10, 2019 Report and Recommendation is available at https://is.gd/GNA4V6 from Leagle.com. Laney Farmer, Plaintiff, represented by Craig Downs, Downs Law Group, PA, Michael Dewayne Dunlavy, Downs Law Group, PA & Nathan Lee Nelson, Downs Law Group, PA. BP Exploration & Production, Inc. & BP America Production Company, Defendants, represented by Don Keller Haycraft -- dkhaycraft@liskow.com -- Liskow & Lewis, Catherine Pyune McEldowney -- CPM@maronmarvel.com -- Maron Marvel Bradley and Anderson LLC, Devin C. Reid, Liskow & Lewis, Georgia Lee Lucier, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP, Kevin Michael Hodges -- khodges@wc.com -- Williams & Connolly, LLP & Scott C. Seiler -- scseiler@liskow.com -- Liskow & Lewis. BP EXPLORATION: Pinsdorf BELO Complaint Dismissed With Prejudice ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, PATTI J. PINSDORF, v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INC., ET AL., SECTION J (2). Related to: 12-968 BELO in MDL 10-2179, Civil Action No. 18-14315 (E.D. La.), Judge Carl Barbier of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana granted BP's Motion to Dismiss, and (ii) dismissed with prejudice the Plaintiff's Back-End Litigation Option ("BELO") complaint. Before the Court is the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, which recommends that the Court grants BP's motion and dismiss with prejudice the Plaintiff's BELO complaint as untimely. The Plaintiff filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation, and BP responded. Judge Barbier has considered the Report and Recommendation de novo. The Deepwater Horizon Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement Agreement permits a class member to file a BELO lawsuit for a Later-Manifested Physical Condition. However, a BELO lawsuit must be filed in accordance with the provisions of Section VIII.G of the Medical Settlement. Relevant in the complaint is the Medical Settlement's requirement that any BELO Lawsuit must be filed within six months of notice by the Claims Administrator to the Medical Benefits Settlement Class Member of the election of all BP defendants named in the Notice of Intent to Sue not to mediate. As the Magistrate Judge correctly pointed out, the six-month deadline is not a mere case management tool, but is required by the court-approved Medical Settlement Agreement and is not subject to alteration. Indeed, the Medical Settlement explicitly states that a class member's claim for a Later-Manifested Physical Condition is released and forever discharged" if the class member "fails timely and properly to file the BELO lawsuit as provided in Section VIII.G.1.b. The parties agree that the Claims Administrator's notice issued on June 22, 2018, making Dec. 22, 2018 the deadline for the Plaintiff to file her BELO case. The Plaintiff concedes that her BELO complaint was filed on Jan. 2, 2019, eleven days after the December 22nd deadline. Therefore, the Plaintiff's BELO complaint is untimely and will be dismissed with prejudice. Accordingly, Judge Barbier overruled the Plaintiff's objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, and accepted the recommended disposition. He (i) granted BP's Motion to Dismiss, and (ii) dismissed with prejudice the Plaintiff's Complaint. A full-text copy of the Court's April 9, 2019 Order and Reasons is available at https://is.gd/H7B4Iz from Leagle.com. Patti J Pinsdorf, Plaintiff, represented by Timothy John Falcon, Falcon Law Firm, Allen W. Lindsay, Jr. -- awl@lal-law.com -- Lindsay & Andrews, PA, Jarrett S. Falcon, Falcon Law Firm & Jeremiah A. Sprague, Falcon Law Firm. BP Exploration & Production, Inc. & BP America Production Company, Defendants, represented by Don Keller Haycraft -- dkhaycraft@liskow.com -- Liskow & Lewis. BROOKS BROTHERS: Court Enters Stipulated Protective Order in Phipps ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, DELINA PHIPPS, an individual, and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BROOKS BROTHERS GROUP, INC., a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2-18-cv-10010-SJO (RAOx) (C.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Rozella A. Oliver of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California entered the Parties' Stipulation Re Protective Order and FRE 502(D) and (E) Clawback Order in its entirety as the order of the Court. A full-text copy of the Court's April 9, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/e2ptKm from Leagle.com. Delina Phipps, an individual, and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew John Matern -- mmatern@maternlawgroup.com -- Matern Law Group PC & Scott Ashford Brooks -- sbrooks@maternlawgroup.com -- Matern Law Group PC. Brooks Brothers Group, Inc., a Delaware limited liability company, Defendant, represented by Amy Schaefer Ramsey -- aramsey@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson PC & Bennett Kaspar -- bkaspar@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson PC. BROTHERS CAR WASH: Does not Pay Overtime Premium, Arredondo Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Juan Antonio Barrientos Arredondo, an individual, on behalf of himself and all other plaintiffs similarly situated, known and unknown, Plaintiff, v. Brothers Car Wash, Inc. an Illinois corporation, Antonio German, an individual, Mauricio Mora, an individual and Faustino Mora, an individual, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02850 (N.D. Ill., April 29, 2019) is a lawsuit arising under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law ("IMWL"), for Defendants' failure to pay Plaintiff an overtime premium for hours worked over 40 in a workweek. The Defendants did not compensate Plaintiff and other car washers, dryers and detailers at one and one-half times their hourly rates of pay for hours worked in excess 40 in individual workweeks. The Defendants never paid them an overtime premium, says the complaint. Plaintiff worked as a car washer, dryer and detailer at Defendants' car wash from approximately May 2013 through February 19, 2019. Brothers Car Wash, Inc. is an Illinois corporation that operates the Brothers Car Wash business.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy M. Nolan, Esq. NOLAN LAW OFFICE 53 W. Jackson Blvd., Ste. 1137 Chicago, IL 60604 Phone: (312) 322-1100 Fax: (312) 322-1106 Email: tnolan@nolanwagelaw.com CARTER'S INC: Aguilar Brings Class Action Over Misleading Info -------------------------------------------------------------- MARIBELL AGUILAR, for Herself, as a Private Attorney General, and/or On Behalf Of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. CARTER'S, INC., and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-03088-SMJ (E.D. Wash., April 29, 2019) alleges that Carter's violated and continues to violate the Washington Consumer Protection Act, and/or the Washington Commercial Electronic Mail Act, by transmitting to Washington consumers emails which contain false or misleading information in the subject lines. On February 16, 2019, Carter's initiated the transmission of a commercial email to Plaintiff Maribell Aguilar (and to a class of Washington consumers similarly situated to Ms. Aguilar) with a subject line which read in its entirety: "50-70% OFF EVERTHING." This transmission is referred to herein as the "Email." The subject line of the Email did not contain an asterisk or other indication that the words in the subject line had a special or invented meaning. Relying on Carter's representation of "50-70% OFF EVERTHING" in the subject line of the Email, Ms. Aguilar believed that Carter's was holding a sale at its retail stores and website at which Ms. Aguilar would receive a discount of 50% to 70% off Carter's regular or prevailing prices for all of its products. In response to Carter's representations in the Email subject line, Ms. Aguilar visited and made purchases on February 19, 2019, at the Carter's retail store located at 1602 E. Washington Avenue, Union Gap, Washington. However, Ms. Aguilar did not receive the actual discounts she was promised in the Email subject line, and which she had reasonably expected, because in fact the representations of the discounts were false, says the complaint. Plaintiff Maribell Aguilar is a citizen of the United States of America. Carter's is a retailer and manufacturer of baby and young children's clothing.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Che Corrington, Esq. HATTIS & LUKACS 400 108th Avenue, Suite 500 Bellevue, WA 98004 Phone: 425.233.8650 Facsimile: 425.412.7171 Email: che@hattislaw.com CHARTER COMMS: Marcelino Wage & Hour Suit Remanded to State Court ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge M. James Lorenz of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California remanded to the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Diego the putative wage and hour class action styled MICHAEL MARCELINO, Plaintiff, v. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, LLC ET AL., Defendants, Case No. 19cv783-L-MSB (S.D. Calif.), after determining that the Defendant, as the removing party, has not met its burden to affirmatively allege the citizenship of all relevant parties. The notice of removal therefore fails to establish federal jurisdiction, Judge Lorenz held. A full-text copy of the Order dated May 2, 2019, is available at https://tinyurl.com/y6l2oz55 from Leagle.com. Michael Marcelino, an individual, on behalf of himself, and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jean-Claude Lapuyade, JCL Law Firm. Charter Communications, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendant, represented by Aimee G. Mackay, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP. CHICAGO GUEST: Knowles Brings Suit Over Blind-inaccesible Website ----------------------------------------------------------------- Carlton Knowles, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Chicago Guest House, LLC, Case No. 1:19-cv-01868 (N.D. Ill., March 18, 2019), is brought against the Defendant for violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. This class action seeks to put an end to systemic civil rights violations committed by the Defendant against the blind in Illinois State and across the United States. Defendant is denying blind individuals throughout the United States equal access to the goods and services Defendant provides to its non-disabled customers through www.chicagoguesthouse.com, notes the complaint. The Plaintiff is blind and a member of a protected class under the ADA. The Plaintiff is a resident of Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. The Defendant owns and operates three full service hotels under the name Chicago Guest House, which are places of public accommodation located in Illinois State. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. LEE LITIGATIN GROUP, PLLC 73 West Monroe Street Chicago, IL 60603 Tel: (212) 465-1188 Fax: (212) 465-1181 CLEAR VIEW BUILDING: Underpays Manual Laborers, Rojas Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- LILIAN PALOMINO ROJAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CLEAR VIEW BUILDING SERVICES, INC.; JOHN ELARDE; and ERIC ELARDE, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-01863 (E.D.N.Y., April 1, 2019) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff Rojas was employed by the Defendants as manual laborer. Clear View Building Services, Inc. is engaged in the building maintenance industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter A. Romero, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF PETER A. ROMERO PLLC 825 Veterans Highway Suite B Hauppauge, NY 11788 Telephone: (631) 257-5588 E-mail: Promero@RomeroLawNY.com CLOUD NINE SHOW: Bennett Suit Seeks Damages and Back-pay -------------------------------------------------------- CHEA BENNETT On Behalf of Herself and All Other Similarly Situated Individuals, Plaintiff v. CLOUD NINE SHOW BAR, INC. d/b/a CLOUD NINE SHOW BAR AND DIAMOND GIRLS OF FLINT AND THE DIAMOND GIRLS SHOWBAR, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-11224-AJT-MKM (E.D. Mich., April 29, 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. Plaintiff complains that Defendant and any predecessor or successor entities doing business as Cloud Nine Show Bar, Diamond Girls of Flint, The Diamond Girls Showbar (or under similar names) at the location 1714 South Saginaw Street Flint, Michigan 48503 misclassified her and all other members of the class and collective as "independent contractors" at all times in which they worked as dancers at Defendant's Flint, Michigan based gentlemen's club. As a result, Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff and all other members of the class and collective minimum wages they were entitled to under the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the Michigan Minimum Wage Law ("MMWL"), says the complaint. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as an exotic dancer at Defendant's gentlemen's club during the period of about 1997 through about November 2018. Cloud Nine 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 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 Email: GGreenberg@ZAGFirm.com COMMUNITY ASSISTANCE: Carrillo Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages, Damages ------------------------------------------------------------------- CARMEN CARRILLO, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. COMMUNITY ASSISTANCE HEALTHCARE SERVICES LLC, a Texas Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 5:19-cv-00443 (W.D. Tex., April 29, 2019) is an action on behalf of plaintiff and all other similarly situated collective members to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs as a result of Defendant's willful violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The Defendant required the hourly-paid home care workers to perform work for over 40 hours a week but it failed to pay overtime wages at a rate of not less than 1.5 times the regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek, asserts the complaint. Specifically, Defendant impermissibly paid overtime at a straight rate of pay without adding a premium, it adds. Plaintiff Ms. Carrillo is employed by Defendant as an hourly-paid home care worker from approximately August 2017 to the present. Defendant is a non-medical home care agency providing in home companion and personal care services to physically-challenged and dependent individuals of all ages in their own home.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles W. Branham, III, Esq. DEAN OMAR BRANHAM SHIRLEY, LLP 302 N. Market Street, Suite 300 Dallas, TX 75202 Phone: (214) 722-5990 Fax: (214) 722-5991 Email: tbranham@dobslegal.com - and - Jason T. Brown, Esq. BROWN, LLC 111 Town Square Place, Suite 400 Jersey City, NJ 07310 Phone: (877) 561-0000 Fax: (855) 582-5297 Email: jtb@jtblawgroup.com CREDIT BUREAU: Class Notice in Bassett FDCPA-NCPA Suit Approved --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, KELLY M. BASSETT, individually and as heir of James M. Bassett, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated; Plaintiff, v. CREDIT BUREAU SERVICES, INC., and C. J. TIGHE, Defendants, Case No. 8:16CV449 (D. Neb.), Judge Joseph F. Bataillon of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska granted the Plaintiff's motion for approval of class notice. The matter is before the Court on the Plaintiff's motion for approval of class notice; the Defendants' motion to stay; and the Plaintiff's objections thereto. The matter is a certified class action for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and the Nebraska Consumer Practices Act. The Plaintiff challenges a collection letter sent to her by the Defendants. In conformity with the Court's order granting the Plaintiff's motion for class certification, the Plaintiff moves for approval of class notice. The Defendants oppose the motion, contending that notice is premature, pending permission to pursue an interlocutory appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The Eighth Circuit has now denied the Defendants' motion for an interlocutory appeal and their motion for a stay and the Plaintiff's objections thereto are moot. Judge Bataillon has reviewed the Plaintiff's proposed form of notice and finds that the notice by first class mail to the class members constitutes the best notice practicable under the circumstances. Because the notice program will provide direct notice to all the class members the requirements of Rule 23 and due process are met. The proposed notice provides all the information required by the rule, along with a plain language description of the case and an explanation of what a class action is and what the case is about. He finds the motion for approval of class action notice should be granted and the proposed notice should be approved. Accordingly, Judge Bataillon denied as moot the Defendants' motion to stay and the Plaintiff's objection. He granted the Plaintiff's motion for approval of class notice, and approved the Plaintiff's proposed notice to the class. The Plaintiff will issue notice to be delivered to the class members by First Class United States Mail, based on address information gathered from business records of the Defendants. The Defendants will provide the names and addresses of the class members to the class counsel within four weeks of the date of the Order; the Plaintiff will mail the Notice to the class members within 21 days of receipt of the information from the Defendants; the class members will be directed to opt-out or intervene within 60 days of the date of mailing the Notices. The Judge appointed First Class, Inc. as the class administrator. The parties are directed to contact the chambers of U.S. Magistrate Judge Susan Bazis within seven days of the date of the Order to schedule a status conference to discuss further progression of the case. A full-text copy of the Court's April 9, 2019 Memorandum and Order is available at https://is.gd/fnV5vN from Leagle.com. Kelly M. Bassett, individually and as heir of James M. Bassett, on behald of herself and all other similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by O. Randolph Bragg -- rand@horwitzlaw.com -- HORWITZ, HORWITZ LAW FIRM, Pamela A. Car -- pacar@cox.net -- CAR, REINBRECHT LAW FIRM & William L. Reinbrecht, CAR, REINBRECHT LAW FIRM. Credit Bureau Services, Inc. & C. J. Tighe, Defendants, represented by Joshua C. Dickinson -- jdickinson@spencerfane.com -- SPENCER, FANE LAW FIRM & Shilee T. Mullin -- smullin@spencerfane.com -- SPENCER, FANE LAW FIRM. CREDIT CONTROL: New York Court Dismisses Nardino FDCPA Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- In the case, CAROLINE NARDINO, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff, v. CREDIT CONTROL, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-3772 (ADS) (AKT) (E.D. N.Y.), Judge Arthur D. Spatt of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York (1) denied the Defendant's motion to strike; (2) granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss; and (3) denied as moot the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. On June 22, 2017, Nardino commenced the putative class action against Credit Control for damages stemming from alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. On April 30, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a motion or class certification pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedur. In responding to the Plaintiff's motion, the Defendant cross-moved to dismiss the complaint, pursuant to Rule 12. The Defendant further moved to strike the Affidavit of Richard Jacoby, Esq., which was submitted by the Plaintiff in support of her opposition to the Defendant's motion to dismiss. On Sept. 10, 2018, the Court referred the matter to U.S. Magistrate Judge A. Kathleen Tomlinson for a recommendation as to whether the motions for any party should be granted, and if so, what relief should be awarded. On March 26, 2019, Judge Tomlinson issued a Report & Recommendation ("R&R") recommending that (1) the Defendant's motion to strike be denied; (2) the Defendant's motion to dismiss be granted; and (3) the Plaintiff's motion for class certification be denied as moot. More than 14 days have elapsed since service of the R&R on the parties, who have failed to file an objection. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, Judge Spatt has reviewed the R&R for clear error, and finding none, now concurs in both its reasoning and its result. Accordingly, he adopted the R&R in its entirety. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to close the case. A full-text copy of the Court's April 10, 2019 Adoption Order is available at https://is.gd/jYEreX from Leagle.com. Caroline Nardino, On Behalf of Herself and All Others Similiarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Mitchell L. Pashkin. Credit Control, LLC, Defendant, represented by Thomas R. Dominczyk -- tdominczyk@MauriceWutscher.com -- Maurice Wutscher, LLP. DIPLOMAT PHARMACY: Prentice Suit Transferred N.D. Illinois ---------------------------------------------------------- The purported class action lawsuit captioned DAVID PRENTICE, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. DIPLOMAT PHARMACY, INC., BRIAN T. GRIFFIN, JEFFREY PARK, and ATUL KAVTHEKAR, Case No. 2:19-cv-01642, was transferred on April 18, 2019, from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-02635 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensable damages caused by the Defendants' alleged violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.[BN] Plaintiff David Prentice, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, is represented by: Jennifer Pafiti, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 1100 Glendon Avenue, Suite 1558 Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (818) 532-6499 E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com - and - Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. POMERANTZ, LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com - and - Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP Ten South La Salle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 377-1181 Facsimile: (312) 377-1184 E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com - and - Corey D. Holzer, Esq. HOLZER & HOLZER, LLC 1200 Ashwood Parkway, Suite 410 Atlanta, GA 30338 Telephone: (770) 392-0090 Facsimile: (770) 392-0029 E-mail: cholzer@holzerlaw.com Defendants Diplomat Pharmacy, Inc., Brian T. Griffin, Jeffrey Park and Atul Kavthekar are represented by: Jodi E. Lopez, Esq. SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 555 West Fifth Street, Suite 4000 Los Angeles, CA 90013 Telephone: (213) 896-6000 E-mail: jlopez@sidley.com DIPLOMAT PHARMACY: Riehm Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois ---------------------------------------------------------- The putative class action lawsuit styled WILLIAM RIEHM, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DIPLOMAT PHARMACY, INC., BRIAN T. GRIFFIN, JEFFREY PARK, and ATUL KAVTHEKAR, Case No. 2:19-cv-01369, was transferred on April 18, 2019, from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago). The Illinois District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-02631 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensable damages caused by the Defendants' alleged violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.[BN] Plaintiff William Riehm, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 355 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 2450 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 785-2610 Facsimile: (213) 226-4684 E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com Defendants Diplomat Pharmacy, Inc., Brian T. Griffin, Jeffrey Park and Atul Kavthekar are represented by: Jodi E. Lopez, Esq. SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 555 West Fifth Street, Suite 4000 Los Angeles, CA 90013 Telephone: (213) 896-6000 E-mail: jlopez@sidley.com DRILTEK INC: 9th Cir. Affirms Summary Judgment in Willis Wage Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the cases, KENNETH WILLIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DRILTEK, INC., Defendant-Appellee. KENNETH WILLIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ENTERPRISE DRILLING FLUIDS, INC.; DRILTEK, INC.; JAMES JOSLYN, Defendants-Appellees, Case Nos. 17-17397, 17-17472 (9th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's order granting summary judgment in favor of DrilTek in Willis' putative class action claiming violations of state and federal wage and hour laws. Willis is seeking to recover overtime pay from DrilTek on the theory that DrilTek was a joint employer with Enterprise, the company that hired him. The Ninth Circuit holds that the district court correctly rejected that theory. At most, DrilTek criticized work done by one or two of Enterprise's engineers. Because DrilTek was the subcontractor in charge of overseeing operations, it scheduled work to be done by Enterprise's employees. DrilTek did not hire, fire, or control the wages and hours and working conditions of Willis and other engineers employed by Enterprise. DrilTek therefore did not exercise the requisite degree of control required by federal or California law to make DrilTek an employer. Accordingly, the Appellate Court affirmed. A full-text copy of the Court's April 10, 2019 Memorandum is available at https://is.gd/m2kOyg from Leagle.com. EASTPOINTE, MI: Bid to Dismiss KBT Suit Denied as Moot ------------------------------------------------------ In the case, KBT GROUP, LLC, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF EASTPOINTE, Defendant, Case No. 18-10409 (E.D. Mich.), Judge Arthur J. Tarnow of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, (a) orverruled the Defendant's Objection to the Order on Motion to Substitute Party; and (b) denied as moot (i) the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss,a nd (ii) the Plaintiff's Motion to Stay. The Plaintiff brings the suit against the City of Eastpointe for taking what it alleges are illegal and unconstitutional regulatory actions against its property at 23155 Beechwood, after the City deemed it a "dangerous property." The Plaintiff brings the suit as a putative class action and challenges both the means by which the "dangerous property" designation is assigned and the City's actions in furtherance of its scheme. On Feb. 2, 2018, Plaintiff, H&J Solutions, brought the action against the City of Eastpointe. On March 19, 2018, the Defendant filed an Answer stating that it lacked knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the matter asserted in regard to the Plaintiff's assertion that jurisdiction by the Court is proper, and in regard to the portion of the complaint that described the injuries H&J suffered as a result of the City's actions. On Sept. 21, 2018, after some discovery, the Plaintiff moved to substitutein KBT as the Plaintiff. It noted that both H&J and KBT are controlled by the same people, and that it was KBT, not H&J, who had title to the property at issue prior to the invoice being issued for the City's unlawful fees. The Defendant filed a response to that Motion on Oct. 5, 2018 stating that the City of Eastpointe does not object to the substitution, but also reserving additional defenses created by the substitution created by the transfer of a property interest during the pendency of the litigation. Among these defenses was that KBT does not have standing, because it did not participate in the Dangerous Buildings hearing. On Oct. 29, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an Amended Motion to Amend, clarifying that H&J was the manager of KBT and that the property was transferred on Feb. 10, 2017 for liability purposes and in order to put title in a Michigan company. On Feb. 15, 2019, after another three months of discovery, the Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss Due to Lack of Standing. It argued that H&J Solutions lacked standing to bring the suit because KBT, not H&J, sustained the alleged injuries giving rise to the suit. On Feb. 21, 2019, the Plaintiff filed a Motion to Stay the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss pending the outcome of its motions for Leave to File an Amended Complaint. The Defendant filed a Response to the Motion to Stay on Feb. 27, 2019. On March 14, 2019, the Magistrate Judge granted the Plaintiff's First Motion to Substitute Party. The Magistrate Judge noted that the Defendant did not object to the substitution in its response and ordered the Plaintiff to file an amended complaint within 10 days. The Amended Complaint was filed on March 19, 2019. The Defendant objected to the Order on March 18, 2019. It argued that the Court's lack of subject matter jurisdiction cannot be waived, and that the Magistrate Judge's Order is a "nullity," because the Court never had jurisdiction. Judge Tarnow finds that the Defendant is correct that defects in subject matter jurisdiction cannot be waived and mandate dismissal even when not raised until the Supreme Court. In the case though, the Court never found that it lacked jurisdiction, because it never adjudicated the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. Far from the Defendant's assertion that the Plaintiff is a complete stranger to the case, it seems that H&J and KBT are closely related, and that the standing question would be resolved in the normal course of things, after briefing by the parties and a hearing. This was never necessary, of course, because the Magistrate Judge decided the outstanding motion to amend before briefing was even completed on the motion to dismiss. In addition, the Judge finds that there is no rule that courts must prioritize adjudicating Rule 12(b)(1) motions to dismiss over earlier-filed procedural motions that may moot those motions. The Plaintiff filed a motion to amend; the Defendant didn't object; and then the Defendant turned the basis of that motion into its own motion to dismiss. The equities weighed towards granting leave to amend, and the Magistrate Judge's Decision to do so, despite the pending motion to dismiss, was not erroneous. The Plaintiff's March 19, 2019 Amended Complaint now supersedes its original complaint. Based on the foregoing, Judge Tarnow (a) orverruled the Defendant's Objection to the Order on Motion to Substitute Party; and (b) denied as moot (i) the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss,a nd (ii) the Plaintiff's Motion to Stay. A full-text copy of the Court's April 10, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/iv4AyP from Leagle.com. H&J Solutions, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Mark K. Wasvary -- mark@wasvarylaw.com -- Becker and Wasvary & Aaron D. Cox -- aaron@aaroncoxlaw.com -- Law Offices of Aaron D. Cox PLLC. KBT Group, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Mark K. Wasvary, Becker and Wasvary. City of Eastpointe, Defendant, represented by Timothy S. Ferrand -- tferrand@cmda-law.com -- Cummings, McClorey. EDR ASSETS: Denial of Bid to Dismiss Hess Suit Affirmed w/o Costs ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, MICHELE E. HESS, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. EDR ASSETS LLC, ET AL., Defendants-Appellants, Case 8940, 160494/17 (N.Y. App. Div.), Judge Dianne Renwick of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department, unanimously affirmed, without costs, the order Judge Frank P. Nervo of the New York County Supreme Court entered on Sept. 7, 2018, which denied the Defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint or, in the alternative, to dismiss the class action allegations of the complaint. She finds that the court properly found that the second and third causes of action of the complaint were not moot because there was a justiciable issue regarding the proper method of calculating the amount of the rent overcharges, which, based on the record before the court, DHCR did not determine. She also finds that the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the Plaintiffs' cross motion for class action status with leave to renew following discovery, based on issues raised by defendants concerning the typicality of a named representative. The court correctly determined that there were common questions of law and fact that predominated over individual issues, such as the proper method of calculating the amount of the rent overcharges and whether defendants engaged in a fraudulent scheme to deregulate the apartments. Moreover, the Court of Appeals has found that class action treatment was superior to individual adjudication in similar situations. The Judge rejects respondent's request for dismissal of the action on the ground that DHCR has primary jurisdiction since the action raises legal issues, including class certification, that must be addressed in the first instance by the court. She has considered the Defendants' remaining arguments and find them unavailing. A full-text copy of the Court's April 9, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/6JrUas from Leagle.com. Katsky Korins LLP, New York (Adrienne B. Koch -- akoch@katskykorins.com -- of counsel), for appellants. Newman Ferrara LLP, New York (Roger Sachar -- rsachar@nfllp.com -- of counsel), for respondents. EVEREST HOTEL: Underpays Kitchen Staff, Baker et al. Say -------------------------------------------------------- LATEE BAKER; BRADLEY CROWE; STEVEN CAMACHO; and KATINA MURRAY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE EVEREST HOTEL GROUP, LLC; RAJUMAANAR ENTERPRISES CORP.; AMIR KHAN; SUNNY KHAN; and BETH ANNE SMITH, Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-00390-FJS-DEP (N.D.N.Y., April 2, 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 Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as kitchen staff. The Everest Hotel Group, LLC is engaged in the hotel business. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Stan Matusz, Esq. 29 Murfield Drive Ithaca, NY 14850 Telephone: (607) 319-5513 E-mail: stanmatusz@gmail.com FCR COLLECTION: Ortz Sues over Debt Collection Practices -------------------------------------------------------- DAWN STEPHENSON ORTIZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FCR Collection Services, Inc., Case No. 1:19-cv-01936-RJD-SMG (E.D.N.Y., April 3, 2019) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. The case is assigned to Judge Raymond J. Dearie and referred to Magistrate Judge Steven M. Gold FCR Collection Services, founded in 2001 is a corporation located in Foothill Ranch, California, and is engaged as a debt collection company. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jacob Silver, Esq. JACOB SILVER, ATTORNEY AT LAW 237 Club Dr Woodmere, NY 11598 Telephone: (718) 855-3834 Facsimile: (718) 534-0057 E-mail: silverbankruptcy@gmail.com FINANCE OF AMERICA: Faces Burkart Labor Suit in Sacramento ---------------------------------------------------------- An employment-related class action lawsuit has been filed against Finance of America Mortgage LLC. The case is captioned as ANNETTE BURKART, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FINANCE OF AMERICA MORTGAGE LLC; and DOES 1-100, Defendants, Case No. 34-2019-00253677-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., April 2, 2019). Finance Of America Mortgage LLC provides mortgage solutions in the United States. It offers home loans, such as Federal Housing Administration, VA, interest-only, jumbo, fixed rate, and adjustable rate loans; reverse mortgages; and other services. The company was founded in 1994 and is based in Horsham, Pennsylvania with office locations in the United States. As per the transaction announced on June 2, 2015, Finance Of America Mortgage LLC operates as a subsidiary of Finance of America Holdings LLC. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas Han, Esq. JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION 751 North Fair Oaks Ave., Suite 101 Pasadena, CA 91103 Telephone: (818) 230-7502 Facsimile: (818) 230-7259 FINANCE SYSTEM: Bid to Certify Class in Boucher FDCPA Suit Denied ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, RYAN BOUCHER, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. FINANCE SYSTEM OF GREEN BAY, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 17-C-132 (E.D. Wis.), Judge William C. Griesbach of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin (a) denied the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification; and (b) granted (i) FSGB's motion for leave to file a sur-reply, (ii) the Plaintiffs' motion to file a response to FSGB's sur-reply, and (iii) FSGB's motion for leave to file papers under seal. The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") action is before the Court on the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The case arises out of a form debt collection letter that Defendant FSGB sent to the named Plaintiffs in an effort to collect debts they had incurred for medical services. The Plaintiffs allege that the letter was false, deceptive and misleading, and therefore violated the FDCPA, because FSGB could neither legally, nor contractually impose "late charges and other charges" on debts for medical services. Reasoning that the letter substantially met the "safe-harbor" rule created by the Court in Miller v. McCalla, Raymer, Padrick, Cobb, Nichols, & Clark, LLC, the Court originally dismissed the action and denied the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification as moot. The Seventh Circuit held that the statement did not comply with Miller, however, and reversed. On remand, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint which added four new Plaintiffs who had received similar letters and renewed their motion for certification of a class consisting of all persons with Wisconsin addresses to whom FSGB mailed an initial written communication between Jan. 30, 2016 and Feb. 20, 2017, which was not returned as undeliverable by the U.S. Postal Service, and which sought to collect a debt on behalf of the following creditors: (i) Barker Physical Therapy Clinic; (ii) Fox Valley Emergency Medicine; (iii) Orthopedic Sports Medicine; (iv) Hand to Shoulder Center of Wisconsin; or (v) The Center for Anesthetics and Plastic Surgery and the collection letter: (i) stated, because of interest, late charges and other charges that may be assessed by your creditor that vary from day to day, the amount due on the day you pay, may be greater; and (ii) late charges and other charges were not subsequently added to the amount of the debt. FSGB opposes the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification on the ground that class treatment is not superior to individual treatment for three separate reasons: (1) class recovery would be de minimus, (2) the policies underlying class treatment are not implicated in this case, and (3) the Plaintiffs' narrowed class definition will expose FSGB to successive class action lawsuits on the same grounds. FSGB also argues that the Plaintiffs and their attorneys are not adequate class representatives as evidenced by their decision to cut out nearly 90% of the individuals falling within the class as defined by the Amended Complaint. Judge Griesbach finds that Rule 23(a)'s typicality requirement is satisfied. The same standardized letter FSGB mailed to each class member on behalf of medical providers is the source of each member's claim. He also finds that the Plaintiffs are adequate class representatives. The Plaintiffs' decision to limit the class size is justified; they limited the class to those they could establish were liable on the same grounds as liability was found for Boucher, not as the result of deficiency in representation. Having satisfied the four requirements of Rule 23(a) by a preponderance of the evidence, the Plaintiffs must satisfy at lease one of Rule 23(b)'s provisions. The Judge finds that the issue -- the use of language that implied late charges and other charges could be assessed when in fact they could not -- predominates over any individual questions of the class members as each class member received a letter containing the exact same language that gives rise to FSGB's liability. The Plaintiffs have therefore met their burden of establishing the predominance element of Rule 23(b)(3). It is over the superiority requirement that FSGB makes its strongest argument. Given the peculiar posture of the case -- FSGB's liability has already been established -- and in light of FSGB's net worth, FSGB contends that a class action is not the superior method to resolve the individual class members' disputes. The Judge finds it true that without a class notice, many of those who received an offending letter from FSGB may never know they have a claim. But this is really a consequence of the fact that they sustained no actual damages. They would gain nothing of any significance from a de minimus recovery. The only way they would truly benefit is by bringing an individual lawsuit, which flies in the face of the primary purpose underlying Rule 23. When one adds the additional expense of mailing notices and the costs of administration (estimated at $12,500), along with the additional attorneys' fees that would be incurred, it seems clear that class treatment is not a superior method of adjudicating the Plaintiffs' claims unless the purpose is simply to punish FSGB. Having also concluded that discovery on the issue was unnecessary because it was not relevant to the issue of class certification, the Plaintiffs have waived any objection to the financial disclosures FSGB provided for purposes of deciding the motion seeking such certification. FSGB requests that its balance sheet, filed in conjunction with its response brief to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, be filed under seal and that it be allowed to file a redacted response brief that excludes references to its financial condition. Upon review of the document, the Judge finds that it appears to only contain sensitive financial information. As a result, he is satisfied that good cause exists to seal the document and keep references to the information contained therein restricted except as disclosed in the briefs of the parties and the decision of the Court. For the foregoing reasons, Judge Griesbach denied the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. He granted FSGB's motion for leave to file a sur-reply, the Plaintiffs' motion to file a response to FSGB's sur-reply, and FSGB's motion for leave to file papers under seal. Dkt. Nos. 55 and 57-4 will remain restricted. The Clerk is directed to schedule this matter for a status conference to discuss further proceedings. A full-text copy of the Court's April 9, 2019 Decision and Order is available at https://is.gd/FXKPic from Leagle.com. Ryan Boucher, Heather L Boucher, Adam W Duch & Christopher W Dettloff, Plaintiffs, represented by Andrew T. Thomasson -- Andrew@SternThomasson.com -- Stern Thomasson LLP, Daniel A. Edelman -- dedelman@edcombs.com -- Edelman Combs Latturner & Goodwin LLC, Francis R. Greene -- fgreene@edcombs.com -- Stern Thomasson LLP, Philip D. Stern -- Philip@SternThomasson.com -- Stern Thomasson LLP & Heather B. Jones, Stern Thomasson LLP. Tom E Bremer, Michelle R Bremer, Mark Tessen & Brenda J Chambers, Plaintiffs, represented by Philip D. Stern, Stern Thomasson LLP & Andrew T. Thomasson, Stern Thomasson LLP. Finance System of Green Bay Inc, Defendant, represented by Brett B. Larsen -- blarsen@hinshawlaw.com -- Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, David M. Schultz -- dschultz@hinshawlaw.com -- Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP & Elizabeth A. Odian -- eodian@hinshawlaw.com -- Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP. FOUR SEASONS: Ill. App. Affirms Arbitration Bid Denial in Liu Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Michael B. Hyman of the Appellate Court of Illinois for the First District, Second Division, affirmed the trial court's order denying Four Seasons' motion to compel arbitration in the case, TONY LIU and CATHY LI, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. FOUR SEASONS HOTEL, LTD., and 900 HOTEL VENTURE, LLC, d/b/a FOUR SEASONS HOTEL, CHICAGO, Defendants-Appellants, Case No. 1-18-2645 (Ill. App.). In the interlocutory appeal, the Court is asked to decide one issue: whether an arbitrator or the trial court should determine whether hotel employees' claims under the Biometric Information Privacy Act constitute "wage or hour violations." The Four Seasons, a luxury hotel in downtown Chicago, offers newly-hired employees an employment agreement called "EmPact." The EmPact agreement includes a six-step "Complaint, Arbitration & Review for Employees," (C.A.R.E.) process for dispute resolution. The Plaintiffs filed a class action complaint, alleging that their employer, Four Seasons, violated the Act in its method of collecting, using, storing, and disclosing their biometric data, namely, their fingerprints for timekeeping purposes. Four Seasons filed a motion to compel arbitration, arguing that the Plaintiffs signed an employment agreement that required four types of employment disputes, including "wage or hour violation" claims, be submitted to an arbitrator. The trial court denied the motion to compel arbitration on the grounds that a claim under the Act is not one of the types of disputes the parties agreed to arbitrate. Four Seasons argues that (i) the Plaintiffs' claims constitute "wage or hour violation" claims because Four Seasons used the fingerprint data to track employees' work hours, (ii) the arbitration provision was not unconscionable, (iii) the class action waiver provision does not affect the enforceability of the arbitration provision, and (iv) the question of arbitrability should be decided by an arbitrator. Judge Hyman affirmed. He opines that the Plaintiffs' claim does not involve a "wage or hour violation" subject to arbitration. Instead, it alleges Four Seasons violated their privacy rights by requiring them to submit to fingerprint scanning as a timekeeping method, squarely a matter under the Act. In short, the Act is a privacy rights law that applies inside and outside the workplace. Neither party cites Illinois cases defining the phrase "wage or hour violations" in the context of mandatory arbitration. Further, under the employment agreement, which limits the types of disputes that must be arbitrated, arbitrability lies within the domain of the trial court. The Judge holds that the language in the C.A.R.E. process is neither broad nor unclear, and specifies four types of arbitratable disputes. Collecting fingerprint data does not fall into any of the four categories. A full-text copy of the Court's April 9, 2019 Opinion is available at https://is.gd/qnr3jb from Leagle.com. GANNETT COMPANY: Hall FLSA Suit Moved From Arizona to Kentucky -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Hall, et al. v. Gannett Company Incorporated, Case No. 2:19-cv-00339, was transferred on April 19, 2019, from the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky (Louisville). The Kentucky District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-00296-JHM-RSE to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.[BN] Plaintiffs Grace Hall, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Darren Brasher and Nicole Love are represented by: Austin W. Anderson, Esq. William C. Alexander, Esq. ANDERSON2X, PLLC 819 N. Upper Broadway Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Telephone: (361) 452-1279 Facsimile: (361) 452-1284 E-mail: austin@a2xlaw.com clif@a2xlaw.com - and - Corey R. Feltre, Esq. Nicholas Jason Enoch, Esq. Stanley Lubin, Esq. LUBIN & ENOCH, P.C. 349 N. Fourth Avenue Phoenix, AZ 85003 Telephone: (602) 234-0008 Facsimile: (602) 626-3586 E-mail: corey@lubinandenoch.com nick@lubinandenoch.com stan@lubinandenoch.com Defendant Gannett Company, Inc., An Arizona Corporation, is represented by: Andrew Lylburn Scroggins, Esq. Camille A. Olson, Esq. Richard B. Lapp, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 233 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 8000 Chicago, IL 60606-6448 Telephone: (312) 460-5275 Facsimile: (312) 560-7000 E-mail: ascroggins@seyfarth.com colson@seyfarth.com rlapp@seyfarth.com GOOGLE INC: Freedom Watch Appeals Case Dismissal Ruling ------------------------------------------------------- Freedom Watch, Inc. and Laura Loomer filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit from the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia's order dated March 14, 2019, granting the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the case captioned Freedom Watch, Inc. et al., Plaintiffs, v. Google, Inc. et al, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-02030-TNM. Freedom Watch, Inc. and Laura Loomer appeals the March 14 Order and all other orders and rulings adverse to them in this matter. Plaintiffs Freedom Watch, Inc. and Laura Loomer are represented by: Larry Klayman, Esq. KLAYMAN LAW GROUP, P.A. 2020 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20006 Phone: (310) 595-0800 Fax: (202) 379-9289 Email: leklatman@gmail.com The Defendant Google, Inc. is represented by: John E. Schmidtlein, Esq. Thomas Goodman Hentoff, Esq. WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP 725 12th St. NW Washington, DC 20005 Phone: (202) 434-5000 Fax: (202) 434-5029 Email: jschmidtlein@wc.com thentoff@wc.com - and - Kannon K. Shanmugam, Esq. PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP 2001 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006 Phone: (202) 223-7300 Fax: (202) 223-7420 Email: kshanmugam@paulweiss.com The Defendant Facebook, Inc. is represented by: Craig S. Primis, Esq. Kenneth Winn Allen, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 1301 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20004 Phone: (202) 389-5921 Fax: (202) 389-5200 Email: craig.primis@kirkland.com winn.allen@kirkland.com - and - Mary Elizabeth Miller, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 655 15th Street, NW, Suite 1200 Washington, DC 20005 Phone: (202) 879-5933 Fax: (202) 879-5200 Email: mary.miller@kirkland.com The Defendant Twitter, Inc. is represented by: Brian M. Willen, Esq. Jonathan M. Jacobson, Esq. WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI 1301 Avenue of the Americas 40th Floor New York, NY 10019 Phone: (650) 849-3340 Fax: (650) 493-6811 Email: bwillen@wsgr.com jjacobson@wsgr.com The Defendant Apple, Inc. is represented by: James Adam Kraechenbuehl, Esq. Joshua P. Riley, Esq. BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP 1401 New York Ave, NW Washington, DC 20005 Phone: (202) 237-1146 Fax: (202) 237-6131 Email: jkraechenbuehl@bsfllp.com jriley@bsfllp.com - and - Michael J. Gottlieb, Esq. WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER, LLP 1875 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006 Phone: (202) 303-1442 Fax: (202) 303-2442 Email: mgottlieb@willkie.com - and - William A. Isaacson, Esq. BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP 1401 New York Ave, NW 11th Floor Washington, DC 20005 Phone: (202) 237-9604 Fax: (202) 237-6131 Email: wisaacson@bsfllp.com HILL'S PET: McIlvaine Files Fraud Class Suit in W.D. Pa. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against HILL'S PET NUTRITION, INC. The case is styled as JOHN MCILVAINE on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HILL'S PET NUTRITION, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-00497-AJS (W.D. Pa., April 30, 2019). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Hill's Pet Nutrition, Inc, marketed simply as "Hills", is an American pet food company that produces dog and cat foods. The company is a subsidiary of Colgate-Palmolive.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Clayton S. Morrow, Esq. Morrow & Artim, PC 304 Ross Street 7th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Phone: (412) 209-0656 Fax: (412) 386-3184 Email: cmorrow@allconsumerlaw.com HILL'S PET: Rider et al. Sue over Contaminated Dog Food ------------------------------------------------------- SHARON RIDER and PATRICIA MAXWELL, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. HILL'S PET NUTRITION, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-02206 (D. Kan., April 29, 2019), seeks injunctive relief requiring Defendant to fully comply with proper quality and safety standards in its manufacturing processes for its dog food before resuming sales of its Science Diet and Prescription Diet dog foods; seeks damages to reimburse for the worthless and dangerous cans of Science Diet and Prescription Diet dog food Plaintiffs purchased, and/or any statutory damages available; and seeks award of damages to Plaintiffs to reimburse for veterinary and other economic expenses caused by Defendant's dangerous dog food. According to the complaint, over the years, Rider has been known to take in older dogs who needed homes due to neglect or abuse. Rider is a former employee of a veterinary clinic and provides her dogs with a nutritious, balanced diet and regular veterinary care and checkups. Rider purchased cans of Hill's dog food, which were later recalled, and ultimately caused Hemi's health to deteriorate to the point that Hemi had to be put down. She did not learn about Hill's dog food recall until March 16, 2019 when she went to PetSmart to return Defendant's canned food because Hemi kept vomiting it up. Hemi was the first dog in several years that Rider raised from a pupp. At that time, Rider learned that some of the cans of Science Diet dog food she had purchased had been recalled on January 31, 2019. Several of the cans of Science Diet that Rider purchased on January 15, 2019 were not added to Hill's product recall until March 20, 2019. Rider had no way of knowing that she was feeding Hemi toxic dog food. Hill's could have prevented this vitamin D contamination. However, Hill's did not have the proper quality controls in place to identify and stop the vitamin D contamination. Even after Hill's issued a product recall on January 31, 2019, Hill's took until March 20, 2019 to test its products and expan Dogs are considered and treated as beloved family members for many pet owners. Recently, an unfortunate number of these cherished pets became violently ill and some perished after eating tainted dog food manufactured by Hill's, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs: Sarah S. Ruane, Esq. Thomas P. Cartmell, Esq. Sarah S. Ruane, Esq. 4740 Grand Ave., Ste 300 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: 816-701-1100 Facsimile: 816-531-2372 E-mail: tcartmell@wcllp.com sruane@wcllp.com bwicklund@wcllp.com HOME DEPOT: Court Enters Confidentiality Order in C. Golden's Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, Bakersfield Division, entered the Agreed Confidentiality Order in the case, CLYDE GOLDEN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED Plaintiff, v. HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC. Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00033-LJO-JLT (E.D. Cal.). All materials produced or adduced in the course of discovery, including initial disclosures, responses to discovery requests, deposition testimony and exhibits, and information derived directly therefrom, will be subject to the Order concerning Confidential Information. The Order is subject to the Local Rules of this District and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on matters of procedure and calculation of time periods. It governs the named Plaintiff as well as Defendant Home Depot. As used in the Order, "Confidential Information" will mean all non-public material which contains or discloses information relating to, referencing, or pertaining to: proprietary or commercially sensitive information that could do harm to the designating party's business advantage (e.g., marketing documents, business relationships with other parties and other similar information); research, technical, commercial or financial information that the party has maintained as confidential; personal information, as defined in Cal. Civ. Code Section 1798.3, or other personally sensitive information; information received in confidence from third parties; and any other material that is Confidential pursuant to applicable law. All Confidential Information exchanged pursuant to the Order will be used by the receiving party solely for purposes of the Litigation, will not be used by the receiving party for any other purpose, and will not be disclosed by the receiving party to anyone other than those identified in subparagraph (b). In a putative class action, Confidential Information may be disclosed only to the named Plaintiff(s) and not to any other member of the putative class unless and until a class including the putative member has been certified. The counsel for the parties will make reasonable efforts to prevent unauthorized or inadvertent disclosure of Confidential Information. The counsel will maintain the originals of the forms signed by persons acknowledging their obligations under the Order for a period of three years after the termination of the case. The designation of any material or document as Confidential Information is subject to challenge by any party. Applications to the Court for an order relating to materials or documents designated Confidential Information will be by motion. The Order will take effect when entered and will be binding upon all counsel of record and their law firms, the parties, and persons made subject to this Order by its terms. A full-text copy of the Court's April 9, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/Wah7bJ from Leagle.com. Clyde Golden, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Keith L. Altman -- kaltman@lawampmmt.com -- Keith Altman, Excolo Law PLLC. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., Defendant, represented by Jennifer Virostko -- jvirostko@kslaw.com -- King & Spalding LLP, pro hac vice, John R. Lawless -- jlawless@kslaw.com -- King & Spalding LLP, Marisa C. Maleck -- mmaleck@kslaw.com -- King & Spalding LLP, pro hac vice & Sidney Stewart Haskins -- shaskins@kslaw.com -- King & Spalding, pro hac vice. HOMETOWN AMERICA: Craw's Bid for Class Certification Terminated --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit, BARBARA CRAW, et al., the Plaintiffs, v. HOMETOWN AMERICA, LLC, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-12149-LTS (D. Mass.), the Hon. Judge Leo T. Sorokin entered an order terminating, without prejudice, Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Court held that, at any point, the Plaintiffs may file a renewed motion or a request to restore the original motion to the Court's active motions list. The Court adopted the schedule for initial disclosures, discovery on the Plaintiffs' individual claims, and summary judgment briefing that the Defendants propose in the parties' joint status report. Barbara Craw and Joan Shurtleff allege, on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated current and former residents of two manufactured housing communities, that the Defendants unlawfully refused to make necessary repairs to the infrastructure on their homesites, resulting in damage to their homes and dangerous conditions on their homesites. On November 2, 2018, shortly after this case was removed to federal court, the plaintiffs moved for class certification. On November 21, 2018, the defendants moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim. Before the Court ruled on the Defendants' motion to dismiss, the Plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment. Because of the pending motion to dismiss, the Court extended defendants' deadlines to oppose the motions for class certification and partial summary judgment until after the resolution of the motion to dismiss. The Court then denied the Defendants' motion to dismiss in its entirety. The parties have now filed a joint status report that includes their separate proposals for a schedule for the remainder of this litigation, including discovery and the briefing of the still-pending motions for class certification and partial summary judgment.[CC] HOSOPO CORP: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Gonzalez TCPA Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- In the case, WILLIAM GONZALEZ and JEREMIAH DAVILA-LYNCH, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. HOSOPO CORPORATION d/b/a HORIZON SOLAR POWER; TMI 4 U COMM LLC; DAVID GOODSTEIN; and FLOWMEDIA SOLUTIONS LLC, Defendants, Civil Action No. 18-10072-FDS (D. Mass.), Judge F. Dennis Saylor, IV of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts denied HOSOPO's motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The case is a putative class action under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"). Plaintiffs Davila-Lynch and Gonzalez allege that they received telemarketing phone calls from Defendants Horizon Solar, Flowmedia, and TMI 4 that violated the TCPA and Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A. The Plaintiffs are residents of Massachusetts whose cell phone numbers have a "508" area code. Horizon Solar designs and installs residential solar-power systems. To generate new clients, it makes telemarketing calls and hires third parties, including Flowmedia and TMI 4 to make telemarketing calls on its behalf. In November and December 2017, Davila-Lynch received at least five calls from Solar Spectrum, a company he contends is the "same" as Horizon Solar. He alleges that the calls included "pre-recorded messages" offering to save him money by using solar-generated electricity. He also alleges that heard a "click and pause" sound upon answering each of those calls, a fact that he contends "indicates" the calls were made using an Automatic Telephone Dialing System ("ATDS"). In January 2018, Gonzalez received an unidentified number of calls on his cell phone from TMI. He contends that those calls included "scripted telemarketing pitches" on behalf of Horizon Solar, and were made by a "ViciDial predictive dialer," a type of ATDS. Finally, during the end of January, and at times through February and March 2018, Gonzalez received at least eight telemarketing phone calls directly from Horizon Solar. Gonzalez alleges that these calls were made with Five9, yet another type of ATDS. On Jan. 15, 2018, Davila-Lynch filed a complaint against Horizon Solar and "John Doe Corp." on behalf of a proposed nationwide class of other persons who received illegal telemarketing calls from or on behalf of the Defendants. On April 25, 2018, Davila-Lynch filed an amended complaint that added Flowmedia as a Defendant. On Aug. 31, 2018, Davila-Lynch, now joined by Gonzalez, filed a second amended complaint. The second amended complaint added TMI and David Goodstein as Defendants and alleges two counts: (1) a violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act; and (2) a violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A. Defendants Horizon Solar and Flowmedia both moved to dismiss the complaint under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. On Jan. 30, 2019, Flowmedia filed a suggestion of bankruptcy. Judge Saylor finds that Gonzalez does not allege that he heard a "click and pause" after he answered any of the calls. Nonetheless, the allegations are sufficient, if barely so, to raise a plausible inference that an ATDS was used. He alleges the use of a specific type of predictive dialer and dialing system, not simply a generic ATDS, and further alleges that the calls contained a scripted pitch. More significantly, the high number of calls in a short period of time, all for the same purpose, raises a plausible inference that an automated system was used. In short, therefore, Gonzalez has raised at least a plausible claim of TCPA violation. The Judge further finds that the only potentially economic injury alleged is the claimed charges for calls. The complaint does not allege a specific dollar amount, and presumably such charges are imposed only with certain types of cell phone plans. That is, to say the least, a slender thread on which to hang a Chapter 93A claim. Nonetheless, it is at least a plausible claim of economic injury, sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss. To the extent, however, the complaint alleges other injuries, such as annoyance or frustration, they are not legally cognizable under Chapter 93A, at least in an action brought by a consumer. Accordingly, Horizon Solar's motion to dismiss will be denied as to the claim brought under Chapter 93A, but the claim may proceed only on a theory of economic injury, based on charges incurred for receiving the calls. For the foregoing reasons, Judge Saylor denied the motion of Defendant HOSOPO to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. A full-text copy of the Court's April 9, 2019 Memorandum and Order is available at https://is.gd/s8RhI6 from Leagle.com. Jeremiah Davila-Lynch, On behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony I. Paronich, Paronich Law, P.C., Alex M. Washkowitz -- Alex@cwlawgrouppc.com -- CW Law Group, P.C., Edward A. Broderick, The Law Office of Edward A. Broderick & Jeremy A. Cohen -- Jeremy@cwlawgrouppc.com -- CW Law Group, P.C. William Gonzalez, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony I. Paronich, Paronich Law, P.C. HOSOPO Corporation, doing business as Horizon Solar Power, Defendant, represented by Greil I. Roberts -- groberts@grsm.com -- Gordon & Rees LLP & Thomas C. Blatchley -- tblatchley@grsm.com -- Gordon & Rees LLP, pro hac vice. Flowmedia Solutions, LLC, Defendant, represented by John J. O'Connor -- joconnor@peabodyarnold.com -- Peabody & Arnold LLP. HYUNDAI MOTOR: Hernandez Files Suit Over Deadly Airbag Defect ------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL HERNANDEZ & TAMMY TYLER, individually, and on behalf of other members of the public similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA, INC., a Delaware corporation, KIA MOTOR AMERICA, INC., a Delaware corporation, and ZF TRW AUTOMOTIVE HOLDINGS CORP., a Delaware corporation, Defendants, Case No. 8:19-cv-00782 (C.D. Cal., April 29, 2019) is a case presenting yet another example of an airbag manufacturer and automakers conspiring to conceal a deadly airbag defect, once again putting profits ahead of safety. According to the complaint, over the past five years, tens of millions of U.S. consumers have seen their Takata-manufactured airbags recalled for a deadly defect resulting in seven automakers paying a collective $1.5 billion in class action settlements. In this case, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ("NHTSA") estimates some 12.5 million vehicles may contain a defective Airbag Control Unit ("ACU") designed and manufactured by ZF-TRW and supplied to numerous vehicle manufacturers, including Hyundai, Kia, Mitsubishi, Toyota, Honda and Fiat Chrysler US ("FCA"). The defect in the ACU occurs because the application-specific integrated circuit ("ASIC") becomes over stressed by excess electrical energy generated during the crash. This ASIC defect then causes a failure in the ACU and neither the airbags nor the seat belt pretensioners will deploy. ZF-TRW, Hyundai, and Kia became aware of the ACU defect as early as 2011, but did nothing to protect consumers or warn of the product dangers until 2018, says the complaint. From 2011 through 2015, ZF-TRW, Hyundai, and Kia investigated airbag non-deployments in several Kia and Hyundai vehicles but failed to inform NHTSA that there was an issue until the end of 2015. Even after advising NHTSA in 2015, each of these companies downplayed the severity and frequency of these non-deployment crashes. It was not until February and June of 2018 that Hyundai and Kia, respectively, issued product recalls as to a small segment of their vehicles. Throughout this nearly decade long period, unsuspecting U.S. consumers purchased Class Vehicles with defective ACUs which indisputably pose a grave safety risk. As a result of this misconduct, Plaintiffs and members of the proposed Classes were harmed and suffered actual damages. Plaintiffs and the Classes did not receive the benefit of their bargain; rather, they purchased or leased vehicles that are of a lesser standard, grade, and quality than represented, and they did not receive vehicles that met ordinary and reasonable consumer expectations regarding safe and reliable operation, asserts the complaint. Purchasers or lessees of the Class Vehicles (refers to the: (a) Kia Forte 2013; (b) Kia Forte Koup 2013; (c) Kia Optima 2013-2019; (d) Kia Optima Hybrid 2012-2016; (e) Kia Sedona 2014; (f) Hyundai Sonata 2013-2019; (g) Hyundai Sonata Hybrid 2013-2019) paid more, either through a higher purchase price or higher lease payments, than they would have had the ASIC Defect been disclosed. Plaintiffs and the Classes were deprived of having a safe, defect-free airbag installed in their vehicles, and ZF-TRW, Hyundai, and Kia unjustly benefited from their unconscionable delay in recalling its defective products, as they avoided incurring the costs associated with recalls and installing replacement parts for years, says the complaint. Plaintiffs owned and purchased the Class Vehicles from Defendant. Hyundai Motor America, Inc. ("HMA") is a Delaware corporation.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Roland Tellis, Esq. David Fernandes, Esq. Elizabeth Smiley, Esq. BARON & BUDD, P.C. 15910 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1600 Encino, CA 91436 Phone: (818) 839-2333 Facsimile: (214) 520-1181 Email: rtellis@baronbudd.com dfernandes@baronbudd.com esmiley@baronbudd.com - and - Elizabeth Cabraser, Esq. Nimish R. Desai, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN AND BERNSTEIN, LLP 275 Battery St., 29th Fl San Francisco, CA 94111-3339 Phone: 415-956-1000 Facsimile: 415-956-1008 Email: ecabraser@lchb.com ndesai@lchb.com - and - David Stellings, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN AND BERNSTEIN, LLP 250 Hudson Street, 8th Fl New York, NY 10012 Phone: 212-355-9500 Facsimile: 212-355-9592 Email: dstellings@lchb.com INTERNATIONAL LASER: Alvarado's Bid to Certify Class Continued -------------------------------------------------------------- The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois made a docket entry on April 22, 2019, in the case captioned Josue Alvarado v. International Laser Products, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-07756 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the Honorable Rebecca R. Pallmeyer. The minute entry states that: -- Plaintiff's motion for leave to file excess pages is granted; -- Plaintiff's motion to authorize notice pursuant to Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act and for class certification is entered and continued for briefing; -- Response to be filed by or on May 13, 2019; -- Reply to be filed by or on May 20, 2019; -- Status hearing set for June 3, 2019, is stricken and re−set to May 30, 2019, at 9:00 a.m.[CC] INVENTION SUBMISSION: Claims in Amended Calhoun TCPA Suit Narrowed ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, ETTA CALHOUN, Plaintiff, v. INVENTION SUBMISSION CORPORATION, et al., Defendant, Civil Action No. 18-1022 (W.D. Pa.), Judge cathy Bissoon of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' Motions to Dismiss. The case was referred to U.S. Magistrate Judge Robert C. Mitchell for pretrial proceedings in accordance with the Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. Sections 636(b)(1)(A) and (B), and Local Rules 72.C and 72.G. Pending before the Court are two motions to dismiss the Plaintiff's putative Amended Class Action Complaint filed by two groups of the Defendants: the InventHelp Defendants and the Attorney Defendants. The first Motion to Dismiss, which also contains a Motion to Strike, was filed by Defendants Invention Submission Corp., doing business as InventHelp, Western Invention Submission Corp, doing busienss as Western InventHelp, Technosystems Consolidated Corp., Technosystems Service Corp., Universal Payment Corporation, Intromark Inc., and Robert J. Susa ("InventHelp Defendants"). The second Motion to Dismiss was filed by Defendants Thomas Frost, Thomas Frost, P.A., Kyle Fletcher, the Law Office of Kyle Fletcher, P.C., and Kaufhold & Dix ("Attorney Defendants"). On Jan. 3, 2019, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendatio recommending that both Motions to Dismiss be granted in part and denied in part. On Jan. 17, 2019, the InventHelp Defendants filed timely Objections to the Report, as did Defendants Thomas Frost and Thomas Frost, P.A. The Plaintiff timely opposed both the InventHelp Objections, and the Frost Objections on Jan. 31, 2019. On March 22, 2019, the Frost Defendants filed a Motion to Leave to Supplement their Objections, which the Court denied on March 26, 2019 after finding that the Frost Defendants had waived the argument raised in their proposed supplement concerning Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b). The Court has conducted a de novo review of the pleadings and documents in the case, including the Report, the Defendants' Objections and tge Plaintiff's Oppositions. The InventHelp Defendants raise several objections to the Report, arguing that: (1) the action is time-barred; (2) the Plaintiff has failed to set forth sufficient facts to establish a claim under the American Inventors Protection Act ("AIPA"); (3) the Plaintiff has failed to set forth sufficient facts to establish a claim under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"); and (4) the Report misapplied the gist of the action doctrine and the parol evidence rule in concluding that the Plaintiff's fraud and negligent misrepresentation claims are sufficiently pleaded. Judge Bissoon finds that although the limitations period for the Plaintiff's tort claims is only two years, there is likewise no indication on the face of the Amended Complaint that the Plaintiff should have been aware of the Defendants' alleged scheme prior to June 1, 2016. She thus agrees with the Report's conclusion on this point as well, and cannot conclude that these claims are time-barred. As to whether the Plaintiff's AIPA claims are sufficient under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), the Judge finds tha the Plaintiff has sufficiently pleaded an AIPA claim based on materially false representations (or omissions) unrelated to the AIPA-mandated disclosures, but she has not sufficiently pleaded an AIPA claim related to the AIPA-mandated disclosures. The Judge rejects the Report's recommendation as to TCPA claim under Rule 12(b)(6), and grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss the claim. She finds that there are no other facts alleged in the Complaint that would suggest the use of an ATDS, particularly given the prior relationship the Plaintiff alleges she had with the InventHelp Defendants. While the Plaintiff does allege harassing and unwanted contact over the phone from the Defendants, none of her allegations imply to any degree that the people who called her used an ATDS to do so. The Judge agrees with the Report's conclusion that the parol evidence rule does not bar the Plaintiff's tort claims at the motion to dismiss stage under the Rule 12(b)(6) standard; the Court may revisit the viability othe Plaintiff's tort claims at a later stage if the Plaintiff fails to adduce evidence to support the specific nature of her claims. She agrees also with the Report's analysis and conclusion concerning the gist of the action: the primary nature of the duty that the Plaintiff alleges the Defendants violated is a general societal duty not to defraud others, which exists apart from any contract. As a result, the gist of the action doctrine does not bar the Plaintiff's tort claims. The Frost Defendants object to the Report on two grounds: (1) the Plaintiff's allegations are insufficient to give rise to specific personal jurisdiction over the Frost Defendants in Pennsylvania; and (2) all of the Plaintiff's claims against the Frost Defendants should be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6). The Judge finds that (i) the Plaintiff's allegations are sufficient at this stage for the Court to exercise specific personal jurisdiction over the Frost Defendants under the absent co-conspirator doctrine; (ii) the Plaintiff makes her relevant allegations against all the Defendants, and these allegations include an allegation of a conspiracy involving all the Defendants; (iii) the Plaintiff has sufficiently pleaded breach of contract against the Frost Defendants as an alternative theory of liability; (iv) the Plaintiff cannot plead breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing as a standalone claim, but has pleaded this claim as part of her breach of contract claim; and (v) the Plaintiff has sufficiently pleaded unjust enrichment and breach of fiduciary duty against the Frost Defendants as alternative theories of liability. Accordingly, for the she reasons stated, Judge Bissoon adopted in part, modified in part, and rejected in part, the Report. She granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' Motions to Dismiss as follows: a. The InventHelp Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is: (i) granted to dismiss Robert J. Susa as a party; (ii) granted ith respect to Counts II, III, VII, VIII, and IX of the Amended Complaint; (iii) granted with respect to Count I insofar as that Count rests on AIPA-mandated disclosures; (iv) denied with respect to the remainder of Count I, as well as Counts IV, V and VI of the Amended Complaint; and (v) denied as to the Motion to Strike. b. The Attorney Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is: (i) granted to dismiss Kyle A. Fletcher, the Law Office of Kyle Fletcher, P.C., and Kaufhold & Dix as parties; (ii) denied as to Thomas Frost and Thomas Frost, P.A.; (iii) granted as to Counts II and VII of the Amended Complaint; and (iv) denied s to Counts IV, V, VI, VIII and IX such that those Counts remain against Thomas Frost and Thomas Frost, P.A. All of the dismissals are without prejudice. If the Plaintiff wishes to file a second amended complaint to address any of the pleading deficiencies identified, she may do so by April 30, 2019. This will be Plaintiff's last and final opportunity to amend her complaint. If the Plaintiff does not file a second amended complaint by April 30, 2019, all of the claims dismissed above will be dismissed with prejudice. A full-text copy of the Court's April 9, 2019 Memorandum and Order is available at https://is.gd/hKDonc from Leagle.com. ETTA CALHOUN, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff, represented by Julie Pechersky Plitt , Oxman Law Group, PLLC, pro hac vice, Richard A. Levan , Klehr, Harrison, Harvey, Branzberg & Ellers, Jon-Jorge Aras -- jjaras@levan.legal -- Levan Legal LLC, Marc S. Oxman -- moxman@oxmanlaw.com -- Oxman Law Group, PLLC, pro hac vice & Stanley W. Greenfield, Greenfield and Kraut. INVENTION SUBMISSION CORPORATION, doing business as INVENTHELP, TECHNOSYSTEMS CONSOLIDATED CORP., TECHNOSYSTEMS SERVICE CORP., WESTERN INVENTION SUBMISSION CORP., UNIVERSAL PAYMENT CORPORATION, INTROMARK INCORPORATED & ROBERT J. SUSA, Defendants, represented by David J. Garraux -- dgarraux@foxrothschild.com -- FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP. THOMAS FROST, THOMAS FROST, P.A., LAW OFFICE OF KYLE FLETCHER, P.C., KYLE A. FLETCHER & KAUFHOLD & DIX, Defendants, represented by James W. Kraus -- JWK@Pietragallo.com -- Pietragallo Gordon Alfano Bosick & Raspanti. J-B WELD COMPANY: Faces Baum Suit in N.D. California ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against J-B Weld Company, LLC. The case is assigned to FELIX BAUM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. J-B WELD COMPANY, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-01718-SK (N.D. Cal., April 3, 2019). The case is assigned to Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim. J-B Weld Company, LLC manufactures cold weld products. J-B Weld Company, LLC was founded in 1968 and is based in Sulphur Springs, Texas, with an additional office in London, United Kingdom. It has operations in the United States and internationally. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patricia Nicole Syverson Manfred Patrick Muecke, Esq. BONNETT FAIRBOURN FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C. 600 West Broadway, Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 798-4593 E-mail: psyverson@bffb.com mmuecke@bffb.com - and - Carrie Ann Laliberte, Esq. Elaine A. Ryan, Esq. BONNETT FAIRBOURN FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C. 2325 E Camelback Road, Suite 300 Phoenix, AZ 85016 Telephone: (602) 274-1100 E-mail: claliberte@bffb.com eryan@bffb.com - and - Stewart M. Weltman, Esq. Todd Lawrence McLawhorn, Esq. SIPRUT PC 17 North State Street, Suite 1600 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 236-0000 E-mail: sweltman@siprut.com tmclawhorn@siprut.com JAIL HILL INN: Knowles Files ADA Suit in N.D. Illinois ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jail Hill Inn, Inc. The case is styled as Carlton Knowles on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Jail Hill Inn, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02913 (N.D. Ill., April 30, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Jail Hill Inn is a member of the prestigious Select Registry collection of inns. The organization represents 350 of the top inns from around the country that offer the best service and amenities.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: CK Lee, Esq. Lee Litigation Group PLLC 30 E 39th St-2nd Fl New York, NY 10016 Phone: (212) 465-1188 Fax: (212) 465-1181 Email: cklee@leelitigation.com JAN-PRO FRANCHISING: Dynamex Retroactively Applies to Franchisors ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the appellate case captioned GERARDO VAZQUEZ, GLORIA ROMAN, and JUAN AGUILAR, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. JAN-PRO FRANCHISING INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant-Appellee, No. 17-16096 (9th Cir.), the United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, was tasked with having to decide the applicability of a recent decision by the high court of California, Dynamex Ops. W. Inc. v. Superior Court, 416 P.3d 1 (Cal. 2018) -- postdating the district court's decision. This case dates back over a decade. In 2008, a putative class action was filed in the District of Massachusetts by a Massachusetts plaintiff, Giovani Depianti, and two Pennsylvania plaintiffs, against the Defendant-Appellee, Jan-Pro International Franchising, Inc., a Georgia corporation. By the end of that year, there was an additional plaintiff from Massachusetts plus seven more from other states, including the three individual Plaintiffs-Appellants in this case, who are California residents. They all had a common cause to pursue: that Jan-Pro, a major international janitorial cleaning business, had developed a sophisticated "three-tier" franchising model to avoid paying its janitors minimum wages and overtime compensation by misclassifying them as independent contractors. Dynamex adopted the so-called "ABC test" for determining whether workers are independent contractors or employees under California wage order laws. Jan-Pro principally argued that "the Dynamex decision should not be applied retroactively," and that, in any event, it should prevail under the doctrines of the law of the case and res judicata. The Ninth Circuit holds that the test does apply in this case, vacated the lower court's grant of summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and remanded this appeals case for further proceedings. As Depianti-SJC explained, the ABC test applies to a dispute between a putative employee and a hiring entity even if they are not parties to the same contract. As long as the putative employee was providing a service to the hiring entity even indirectly, the hiring entity can fail the ABC test and be treated as an employer. A copy of the Opinion filed May 2, 2019, is available at https://tinyurl.com/y4qslftm from Leagle.com. Shannon Liss-Riordan (argued), Esq. -- sliss@llrlaw.com -- Lichten & Liss-Riordan P.C., Boston, Massachusetts, for Plaintiffs-Appellants. Jeffrey M. Rosin (argued), Esq. -- jrosin@ohaganmeyer.com -- O'Hagan Meyer PLLC, Boston, Massachusetts, for Defendant-Appellee. Catherine K. Ruckelshaus and Najah A. Farley, National Employment Law Project, New York, New York, for Amici Curiae National Employment Law Project, Equal Rights Advocates, Dolores Street Community Services, Legal Aid at Work, and Worksafe, Inc. Norman M. Leon, Esq. -- norman.leon@dlapiper.com -- DLA Piper LLP, Chicago, Illinois; Jonathan Solish, Esq. -- jonathan.solish@bclplaw.com -- Bryan Cave LLP, Santa Monica, California; James F. Speyer, Esq. -- james.speyer@arnoldporter.com -- Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, Los Angeles, California; for Amicus Curiae The International Franchise Association. JONATHAN NEIL: Court Dismisses Brown FDCA Suit With Prejudice ------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California dismissed with prejudice the case, TERI BROWN, Plaintiff, v. JONATHAN NEIL AND ASSOCIATES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00675-SAB (E.D. Cal.). On Feb. 14, 2019, the parties joint motion for final approval of the class action settlement was granted. On Feb. 25, 2019, the Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the award of attorney fees. On March 12, 2019, the motion for reconsideration was denied and the parties were ordered to file a stipulation for dismissal of the action within 14 days. On April 2, 2019, an order issued requiring the parties to show cause why sanctions should not issue for the failure to file dispositive documents in compliance with the March 12, 2019 order. On April 5, 2019, the parties filed a response to the order to show cause and a proposed order for final judgment. The parties response to the order to show cause informs the Court that an additional four class notices were returned after the final approval order issued. The class administrator was able to locate addresses for these class members and the delay in filing dispositive documents was due to the parties discussing how to address these late returned notices. The parties seek the Court's advice on whether the class notices should be re-sent or the funds should be donated to the cy press beneficiary. An informal teleconference was held to address the late returned notices on April 9, 2019. Counsel Ari Marcus appeared for the class and counsel Gnekow appeared for the Defendants. At the informal telephonic conference, the parties stated that the notices that have been returned are from the second notices that were sent after the original notice was returned. New addresses have been discovered for all four class members. In granting the parties' joint motion for preliminary approval of the class action settlement, the Court considered that notice requirement under Rule 23 and found that the parties had proposed the best notice practicable under the circumstances. It also addressed notice in the order approving the final settlement of the matter. Magistrate Judge Boone finds that each absent class member was mailed a notice of the class action settlement. Those notices that were returned and for which updated addresses were discovered were re-mailed. Of the 23 notices that were re-mailed, four were returned after final approval of the class action settlement was granted. In this instance, the time to opt-out of the settlement has passed and final approval of the class action settlement has been granted. The four class members did not receive the class action notice, but the class administrator has obtained new addresses for them. The Judge finds that the notice provided has complied with the requirements of Rule 23 and the settlement checks should be mailed to the four class members for whom the notice has been returned. Additionally, he finds that the matter has settled and the settlement funds have been distributed to the class members. Therefore, he will order the action dismissed with prejudice. Accordingly, Magistrate Judge Boone discharged the to show cause filed April 2, 2019. The class administrator will mail t he settlement check to the four class members who have had their class notice returned. He dismissed the action withprejudice. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close the matter. A full-text copy of the Court's April 10, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/N78n3Rs from Leagle.com. Teri Brown, Plaintiff, represented by Ari Marcus -- Ari@MarcusZelman.com -- Marcus & Zelman, LLC, pro hac vice, Yitzchak Zelman -- Yzelman@MarcusZelman.com -- Marcus & Zelman, LLC, pro hac vice & Tammy L. Hussin -- Tammy@HussinLaw.com -- Hussin Law. Jonathan Neil and Associates, Inc., Defendant, represented by Christopher Michael Egan -- cegan@porterscott.com -- Porter Scott, APC, Derek Joseph Haynes -- dhaynes@porterscott.com -- Porter Scott, PC & Lynette Mary Komar, Porter Scott. KIA MOTORS: Cox Sues over Vehicle Design Defect ----------------------------------------------- The case, RUTH COX, the Plaintiff, vs. KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. 19STCV14749 (Cal. Super. Ct.), seeks appropriate injunctive or declaratory relief, including, without limitation, an Order that requires Defendant to repair, recall, or replace the Class Vehicles and extent the applicable warranties to a reasonable period of time or, at a minimum, to provide Plaintiffs and Class members with appropriate curative notice regarding the existence and cause of the design Defect. On March 26, 2012, the Plaintiff purchased a 2012 Kia Sorento vehicle identification number 5XYKT3A64CG308937, which was manufactured and/or distributed by the Defendant. The Subject Vehicle was purchased or used primarily for personal, family, or household purposes. The Plaintiff purchased the Subject Vehicle from a person or entity engaged in the business of manufacturing, distributing, or selling consumer goods at retail. In connection with the leased and/or purchase, the Plaintiff received an express written warranty, including, a 5-year/60,000 mile express bumper to bumper warranty, a 10-year/100,000 mile powertrain warranty which, inter alia, covers the engine and transmission, and 10-year/120,000 miles extended warranty on the engine. Defendant undertook to preserve or maintain the utility or performance of the Subject Vehicle or to provide compensation if there is a failure in utility or performance for a specified period of time. During the warranty period, the Subject Vehicle contained or developed defects, including but not limited to, latent defects causing oil flow to become restricted through vital areas of the engine resulting in stalling while in operation; defects related to the engine's rod bearings; defects related to the engine; defects causing the Subject Vehicle to surge; defects causing the AC to shut off and/or be inoperable; defects requiring performance of Recall SC147, related to the engine; defects requiring performance of Recall PI1803, related to the engine; defects requiring reprogramming of the engine control unit (ECU); defects related to the transmission; defects requiring performance of recall SC124; defects requiring brake lamp bulb replacement; and/or any other defects described in the repair history for the Subject The defects substantially impair the use, value, or safety of theSubject Vehicle, the lawsuit says. Under the tolling rule articulated in Am. Pipe & Const. Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S., the filing of a class action lawsuit in federal court tolls the statute of limitations for the claims of unnamed class members until the class certification issue is resolved. In applying American Pipe tolling to California cases, the California Supreme Court summarized the tolling rule derived from American Pipe and stated that the statute of limitations is tolled from the time of commencement of the suit to the time of denial of certification for all purported members of the class. KMA is engaged in the design, development, manufacture, distribution, marketing, selling, leasing, warranting, servicing, and repair of automobiles, including the Subject Vehicle. KMA is responsible for the distribution, 15 service, repair, installation, and decisions regarding the GDI engines and ultimately, the Engine Defect, in Kia Vehicles, including the Subject Vehicle.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: Tionna Dolin, Esq. Sean Crandall, Esq. STRATEGIC LEGAL PRACTICES A Professional Corporation 1840 Century Park East, Suite 430 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 929-4900 Facsimile: (310) 943-3838 E-mail: tdolin@slpattorney.com scrandall@slpattorney.com KIA MOTORS: Ramos Sues over Sale of Defective GDI Engines --------------------------------------------------------- DAISY RAMOS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.; and DOES 1 through 10, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV11677 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., April 3, 2019) alleges that the Defendants' vehicle and its 2.0 gasoline direct injection (GDI) engine were defective and susceptible to sudden and catastrophic failure. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant knew since 2009, if not earlier, that the 2011-2019 KIA Optima, 2011 2019 KIA Sportage, 2012-2019 KIA Sorento, 2011-2019 Hyundai Sonata, and 2013-2019 Hyundai Santa Fe vehicles equipped with a 2.0 or 2.4L engine, including the 2012 Kia Optima contained one or more design and/or manufacturing defects in their engines that results in the restriction of oil flow through the connecting rod bearings, as well as to other vital areas of the engine. This defect -- which typically manifests itself during and shortly after the limited warranty period has expired -- will cause the KIA Vehicle to experience catastrophic engine failure, stalling while in operation and poses an unreasonable safety risk of non-collision fires all due to inadequate lubrication. Furthermore, engine seizure often causes internal parts, such as the connecting rods, to break and a knock hole in the engine, permitting fluids to leak and ignite a fire. Kia Motors America, Inc. operates as an automobile dealer. The Company offers passenger cars, minivans, sports utility vehicles, crossovers, sedans, vans, and cargo trucks. Kia Motors serves customers worldwide. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd D. Carpenter, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER, LLP 402 W Broadway, 29th Floor San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 756-6994 Facsimile: (619) 756-6991 E-mail: tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com - and - Edwin J. Kilpela, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER, LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 Facsimile: (412) 231-0246 E-mail: ekilpela@carlsonlynch.com - and - Jason P. Sultzer, Esq. Adam Gonnelli, Esq. THE SULTZER LAW GROUP, P.C. 85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 104 Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 Telephone: (854) 705-9460 Facsimile: (888) 749-7747 E-mail: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com Gonnellia@thesultzerlawgroup.com - and - Melissa W. Wolchansky, Esq. Amy E. Boyle, Esq. HALUNEN LAW 80 South 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 605-4098 Facsimile: (612) 605-4099 E-mail: Wolchansky@halunenlaw.com boyle@halunenlaw.com - and - Bonner C. Walsh, Esq. WALSH PLLC PO Box 7 Bly, OR 97622 Telephone: (541) 359-2827 Facsimile: (866) 503-8206 E-mail: bonner@walshpllc.com LAKE GROVE: Mendoza Seeks Damages Over Unpaid Wages --------------------------------------------------- Raymundo Martinez Mendoza, individually and on behalf of those individuals similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Lake Grove Ventures, Inc., and Frank Buongervino, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-02527 (E.D. N.Y., April 30, 2019) is an action seeking monetary damages, declaratory relief, and affirmative relief based upon Defendants' violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"). The Defendants' have decisions, policies, plans and common policies, programs, practices, procedures, protocols, routines, and rules willfully failing and refusing to pay Plaintiff overtime pay at a rate of 1.5 times their regular hourly rate for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week, asserts the complaint. Plaintiff was hired by Defendants in or around June 2007 as a "laborer". Defendant operates as a landscaping and masonry business.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher K. Collotta, Esq. Rolando Delacruz, Esq. ZABELL & COLLOTTA, P.C. 1 Corporate Drive, Suite 103 Bohemia, NY 11716 Phone: (631) 589-7242 Fax: (631) 563-7475 Email: CCollorra@laborlawsny.com RDelacruz@laborlawsny.com LYFT INC: Gupta, et al. Bring Class Action in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against LYFT INC. ET AL. The case is styled as NARENDRA GUPTA, LIANG XUE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff v. LYFT INC., ACADEMY SECURITIES INC, BLAYLOCK VAN LLC, C.L. KING & ASSOCIATES INC, C.L. KING & ASSOCIATES INC, CASTLEOAK SECURITIES L.P., COWEN AND COMPANY LLC, CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES LLC (USA), DOES 1 TO 25, INCLUSIVE, DREXEL HAMILTON LLC, EVERCORE GROUP LLC, EVERCORE GROUP LLC, GREEN, LOGAN, HOROWITZ, BEN, JARRETT, VALERIE, JEFFERIES LLC, JMP SECURITIES LLC, JP MORGAN SECURITIES, LLC, KEYBANC CAPITAL MARKETS INC., KKR CAPITAL MARKETS LLC, KKR CAPITAL MARKETS LLC, LOOP CAPITAL MARKETS LLC, MIKITANI, HIROSHI, MISCHLER FINANCIAL GROUP INC., MIURA-KO, ANN, PENSERRA SECURITIES LLC, PIPER JAFFRAY & CO., PRASHANT, AGGARWAL (SEAN), RAKUTEN, INC., RAYMOND JAMES & ASSOCIATES, INC., RBC CAPITAL MARKETS, LLC., SAMUEL A RAMIREZ & COMPANY INC., SIEBERT CISNEROS SHANK & CO. LLC, STIFEL, NICHOLAUS & COMPANY, INCORPORATED, T ESSLAUS & CO. LLC., THE WILLIAMS CAPITAL GROUP L.P., TIGRESS FINANCIAL PARTNERS LLC, UBS SECURITIES LLC, WILDEROTTER, MARY AGNES (MAGGIE), ZIMMER, JOHN, Defendants, Case No. CGC19575644 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., April 30, 2019). The case type is stated as "Securities/Investments". Lyft, Inc. operates a peer-to-peer marketplace for on-demand ridesharing in the United States and Canada. It provides Ridesharing Marketplace, which facilitates lead generation, billing and settlement, support, and related activities to enable drivers to provide their transportation services to riders.[BN] MDL 2741: Bellanger Suit Consolidated in Roundup Products Lit. -------------------------------------------------------------- The lawsuit titled DAVID BELLANGER and BERNADETTE BELLANGER v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Case No. 4:19-cv-00547, was transferred on April 18, 2019, from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-02060-VC to the proceeding. The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation titled In re: Roundup Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 3:16-md-02741-VC. The lawsuits in the litigation arise from the Plaintiffs' alleged Roundup(R)-related injuries. The Plaintiffs seek damages for the injuries they allegedly suffered as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup(R), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiffs maintain that Roundup(R) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. Monsanto Company is a Delaware corporation with a principal place of business in St. Louis, Missouri. Monsanto is a multinational agricultural biotechnology corporation and the world's leading producer of glyphosate.[BN] Plaintiffs David Bellanger and Bernadette Bellanger are represented by: Seth S. Webb, Esq. BROWN AND CROUPPEN P.C. One Metropolitan Square 211 N. Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 222-2222 Facsimile: (314) 421-0359 E-mail: sethw@getbc.com MDL 2741: Gurley Suit Consolidated in Roundup Products Litigation ----------------------------------------------------------------- The lawsuit entitled RUTH GURLEY, Individually and as ADMINISTRATOR of the Estate of DOUGLAS N. GURLEY v. MONSANTO COMPANY and JOHN DOES 1-50, Case No. 4:19-cv-00192, was transferred on April 18, 2019, from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-02048-VC to the proceeding. The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation titled In re: Roundup Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 3:16-md-02741-VC. The lawsuits in the litigation arise from the Plaintiffs' alleged Roundup(R)-related injuries. The Plaintiffs seek damages for the injuries they allegedly suffered as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup(R), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiffs maintain that Roundup(R) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. Monsanto Company is a Delaware corporation with a principal place of business in St. Louis, Missouri. Monsanto is a multinational agricultural biotechnology corporation and the world's leading producer of glyphosate.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric D. Holland, Esq. HOLLAND LAW FIRM 300 North Tucker, Suite 801 St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 241-8111 Facsimile: (314) 241-5554 E-mail: eholland@allfela.com - and - Jessica L. Richman, Esq. PARKER WAICHMAN LLP 6 Harbor Park Drive Port Washington, NY 11050 Telephone: (516) 723-4627 Facsimile: (516) 723-4727 E-mail: jrichman@yourlawyer.com MDL 2741: Ludovicy Suit Consolidated in Roundup Products Lit. ------------------------------------------------------------- The lawsuit styled PETER LUDOVICY and MARY J. LUDOVICY v. MONSANTO COMPANY and JOHN DOES 1-50, Case No. 4:19-cv-00195, was transferred on April 18, 2019, from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-02051-VC to the proceeding. The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation titled In re: Roundup Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 3:16-md-02741-VC. The lawsuits in the litigation arise from the Plaintiffs' alleged Roundup(R)-related injuries. The Plaintiffs seek damages for the injuries they allegedly suffered as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup(R), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiffs maintain that Roundup(R) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. Monsanto Company is a Delaware corporation with a principal place of business in St. Louis, Missouri. Monsanto is a multinational agricultural biotechnology corporation and the world's leading producer of glyphosate.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Eric D. Holland, Esq. HOLLAND LAW FIRM 300 North Tucker, Suite 801 St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 241-8111 Facsimile: (314) 241-5554 E-mail: eholland@allfela.com - and - Jessica L. Richman, Esq. PARKER WAICHMAN LLP 6 Harbor Park Drive Port Washington, NY 11050 Telephone: (516) 723-4627 Facsimile: (516) 723-4727 E-mail: jrichman@yourlawyer.com MDL 2741: Mansfield Suit Consolidated in Roundup Products Lit. -------------------------------------------------------------- The lawsuit titled PHILLIP MANSFIELD AND SCHARLENE MANSFIELD v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Case No. 4:19-cv-00332, was transferred on April 18, 2019, from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-02058-VC to the proceeding. The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation titled In re: Roundup Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 3:16-md-02741-VC. The lawsuits in the litigation arise from the Plaintiffs' alleged Roundup(R)-related injuries. The Plaintiffs seek damages for the injuries they allegedly suffered as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup(R), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiffs maintain that Roundup(R) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. Monsanto Company is a Delaware corporation with a principal place of business in St. Louis, Missouri. Monsanto is a multinational agricultural biotechnology corporation and the world's leading producer of glyphosate.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Seth S. Webb, Esq. BROWN AND CROUPPEN P.C. One Metropolitan Square 211 N. Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 222-2222 Facsimile: (314) 421-0359 E-mail: sethw@getbc.com MDL 2741: Moore Suit Consolidated in Roundup Products Litigation ---------------------------------------------------------------- The lawsuit captioned MARJORIE MOORE v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Case No. 4:19-cv-00279, was transferred on April 18, 2019, from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-02055-VC to the proceeding. The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation titled In re: Roundup Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 3:16-md-02741-VC. The lawsuits in the litigation arise from the Plaintiffs' alleged Roundup(R)-related injuries. The Plaintiffs seek damages for the injuries they allegedly suffered as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup(R), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiffs maintain that Roundup(R) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. Monsanto Company is a Delaware corporation with a principal place of business in St. Louis, Missouri. Monsanto is a multinational agricultural biotechnology corporation and the world's leading producer of glyphosate.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth S. Webb, Esq. BROWN AND CROUPPEN P.C. One Metropolitan Square 211 N. Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 222-2222 Facsimile: (314) 421-0359 E-mail: sethw@getbc.com MDL 2741: Neill Suit Consolidated in Roundup Products Litigation ---------------------------------------------------------------- The lawsuit entitled RONALD L. NEILL and CONNIE NEILL v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Case No. 4:19-cv-00322, was transferred on April 18, 2019, from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-02057-VC to the proceeding. The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation titled In re: Roundup Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 3:16-md-02741-VC. The lawsuits in the litigation arise from the Plaintiffs' alleged Roundup(R)-related injuries. The Plaintiffs seek damages for the injuries they allegedly suffered as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup(R), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiffs maintain that Roundup(R) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. Monsanto Company is a Delaware corporation with a principal place of business in St. Louis, Missouri. Monsanto is a multinational agricultural biotechnology corporation and the world's leading producer of glyphosate.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Seth S. Webb, Esq. BROWN AND CROUPPEN P.C. One Metropolitan Square 211 N. Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 222-2222 Facsimile: (314) 421-0359 E-mail: sethw@getbc.com MDL 2741: Oliver Suit Consolidated in Roundup Products Litigation ----------------------------------------------------------------- The lawsuit styled RITA L. OLIVER and KEVIN OLIVER v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Case No. 4:19-cv-00321, was transferred on April 18, 2019, from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-02056-VC to the proceeding. The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation titled In re: Roundup Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 3:16-md-02741-VC. The lawsuits in the litigation arise from the Plaintiffs' alleged Roundup(R)-related injuries. The Plaintiffs seek damages for the injuries they allegedly suffered as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup(R), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiffs maintain that Roundup(R) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. Monsanto Company is a Delaware corporation with a principal place of business in St. Louis, Missouri. Monsanto is a multinational agricultural biotechnology corporation and the world's leading producer of glyphosate.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Seth S. Webb, Esq. BROWN AND CROUPPEN P.C. One Metropolitan Square 211 N. Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 222-2222 Facsimile: (314) 421-0359 E-mail: sethw@getbc.com MDL 2741: Tebay Suit Consolidated in Roundup Products Litigation ---------------------------------------------------------------- The lawsuit entitled DORIS TEBAY AND RODNEY TEBAY v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Case No. 4:19-cv-00452, was transferred on April 18, 2019, from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-02059-VC to the proceeding. The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation titled In re: Roundup Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 3:16-md-02741-VC. The lawsuits in the litigation arise from the Plaintiffs' alleged Roundup(R)-related injuries. The Plaintiffs seek damages for the injuries they allegedly suffered as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup(R), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiffs maintain that Roundup(R) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. Monsanto Company is a Delaware corporation with a principal place of business in St. Louis, Missouri. Monsanto is a multinational agricultural biotechnology corporation and the world's leading producer of glyphosate.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Seth S. Webb, Esq. BROWN AND CROUPPEN P.C. One Metropolitan Square 211 N. Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 222-2222 Facsimile: (314) 421-0359 E-mail: sethw@getbc.com MIDLAND CREDIT: Ruiz FDCPA Class Suit Removed to E.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned Robert Ruiz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., Case No. 623491/2018, was removed on April 18, 2019, from the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Suffolk, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-02262 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff accuses the Defendant of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.[BN] Defendant Midland Credit Management, Inc., is represented by: Matthew B. Corwin, Esq. HINSHAW & CULBERTSON, LLP 800 Third Avenue, 13th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 471-6200 Facsimile: (212) 935-1166 E-mail: mcorwin@hinshawlaw.com MIDWAY RENT: Faces Machuca Labor Suit in Los Angeles California --------------------------------------------------------------- An employment-related class-action lawsuit has been filed against Midway Rent A Car, Inc. The case is captioned as CHRISTIAN MACHUCA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MIDWAY RENT A CAR, INC., Defendant, Case No. 19STCV11346 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., April 3, 2019). The case is assigned to Stanley Mosk Courthouse. Midway Rent-A-Car, Inc. provides car rental services in Los Angeles. The company provides exotic, luxury and standard car rentals. Midway Rent-A-Car, Inc. was founded in 1972 and is based in Los Angeles, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by Roman Shkodnik, Esq. MOBILE TELESYSTEMS: May 20 Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set ------------------------------------------------------ Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds purchasers of the securities of Mobile TeleSystems PJSC (NYSE:MBT) from March 19, 2014 through March 7, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period") of the important May 20, 2019 lead plaintiff deadline in the action. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Mobile TeleSystems investors under the federal securities laws. To join the Mobile TeleSystems class action, go to https://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1531.html or call Phillip Kim, Esq. or Zachary Halper, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or zhalper@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF. According to the lawsuit, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Mobile TeleSystems and its subsidiary were involved in a scheme to pay $420 million in bribes in Uzbekistan; (2) consequently, Mobile TeleSystems knew or should have known it would be forced to pay substantial fines to the U.S. government after disclosing in 2014 that the U.S. Department of Justice and Securities and Exchange Commission were investigating its Uzbekistan operations; (3) Mobile TeleSystems' level of cooperation with the U.S. government and remediation was lacking; (4) due to the aforementioned misconduct, Mobile TeleSystems would be forced to pay approximately $850 million in criminal penalties to the U.S. government; and (5) as a result, defendants' public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than May 20, 2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to https://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1531.html Contact: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. Zachary Halper, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 34thFloor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 Website: www.rosenlegal.com Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com zhalper@rosenlegal.com [GN] MODIS INC: Faces Victorio Suit over Background Checks ----------------------------------------------------- DANILO VICTORIO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MODIS INC., d/b/a MODIS IT, Inc.; and MODIS E&T, Defendants, Case No. 5:19-cv-01713-VKD (N.D. Cal., April 2, 2019) alleges that the Defendants routinely obtain consumer reports from consumer reporting agencies in connection with their hiring practices, and use those consumer reports as a basis to take adverse action against job applicants and their employees, all without complying with the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Modis, Inc. provides information technology (IT) staffing services to Fortune 1000, mid-market, and government entities in the United States, Canada, and Europe. Modis, Inc. was formerly known as Computer Professionals, Inc. and changed its name to Modis, Inc. in December 1997. The company was founded in 1986 and is headquartered in Jacksonville, Florida. It has locations in the United States, Canada, and Europe. Modis, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Adecco Inc. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark D. Potter, Esq. James M. Treglio, Esq. POTTER HANDY LLP 9845 Erma Road, Suite 300 San Diego, CA 92131 Telephone: (858) 375-7385 Facsimile: (888) 422-5191 E-mail: mark@potterhandy.com jimt@potterhandy.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Ashley Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup ------------------------------------------------------------ The case, Helen Ashley, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-01025 (E.D. Mo., April 29, 2019), seeks to recover damages suffered by the Plaintiff, as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The Plaintiff's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable. The Plaintiff brings this action for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA). As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the Plaintiffs developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma. Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products, including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide, Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kirk J. Goza, Esq. GOZA & HONNOLD LLC 9500 Nall Ave. Suite 400 Overland Park, KS 66207 E-mail: kgoza@gohonlaw.com Telephone: (913) 451-3433 Facsimile: (913) 839-0567 MONSANTO COMPANY: Austin Files Suit Over Roundup-related Injuries ----------------------------------------------------------------- BRENDA J. AUSTIN and GARY W. AUSTIN, Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-01034-PLC (E.D. Mo., April 29, 2019) is an action for damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup, containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Defendant discovered the herbicidal properties of glyphosate during the 1970's and subsequently began to design, research, manufacture, sell and distribute glyphosate based "Roundup" as a broad-spectrum herbicide. Glyphosate is the active ingredient in Roundup. Plaintiff maintains that Roundup and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. Plaintiff's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable. According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to appropriately and adequately test Roundup, Roundup's adjuvants and "inert" ingredients, and/or the surfactant POEA to protect Plaintiff from Roundup. Rather than performing appropriate tests, Defendant relied upon flawed industry-supported studies designed to protect Defendant's economic interests rather than Plaintiff and the consuming public. Despite its knowledge that Roundup was considerably more dangerous than glyphosate alone, Defendant continued to promote Roundup as safe, the complaint relates. Plaintiffs have been injured by direct exposure to Defendant's products. Defendant advertises and sells goods, specifically Roundup, in the State of Missouri.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Seth S. Webb, Esq. BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C. 211 North Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Phone: (314) 222-2222 Facsimile: (314) 421-0359 Email: sethw@getbc.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Ball Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup ---------------------------------------------------------- The case, FRANK E. BALL, JR., the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-01037-HEA (E.D. Mo., April 29, 2019), seeks to recover damages suffered by the Plaintiff, as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The Plaintiff's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable. The Plaintiff brings this action for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA). As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the Plaintiffs developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma. Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products, including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide, Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth S. Webb, Esq. BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C. 211 North Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 222-2222 Facsimile: (314) 421-0359 E-mail: sethw@getbc.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Banker Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup ------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as, ROBERT L. BANKER, SR., the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-01039 (E.D. Mo., April 29, 2019), seeks to recover damages suffered by the Plaintiff, as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The Plaintiff's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable. The Plaintiff brings this action for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA). As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the Plaintiffs developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma. Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products, including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide, Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth S. Webb, Esq. BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C. 211 North Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 222-2222 Facsimile: (314) 421-0359 E-mail: sethw@getbc.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Binneboese Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case, Harold Binneboese, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-01018 (E.D. Mo., April 29, 2019), seeks to recover damages suffered by the Plaintiff, as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The Plaintiff's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable. The Plaintiff brings this action for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA). As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the Plaintiffs developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma. Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products, including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide, Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kirk J. Goza, Esq. GOZA & HONNOLD LLC 9500 Nall Ave. Suite 400 Overland Park, KS 66207 E-mail: kgoza@gohonlaw.com Telephone: (913) 451-3433 Facsimile: (913) 839-0567 MONSANTO COMPANY: Brown Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup ----------------------------------------------------------- The case, Samuel Brown, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-01036-JAR (E.D. Mo., April 29, 2019), seeks to recover damages suffered by the Plaintiff, as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The Plaintiff's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable. The Plaintiff brings this action for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA). As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the Plaintiffs developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma. Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products, including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide, Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kirk J. Goza, Esq. GOZA & HONNOLD LLC 9500 Nall Ave. Suite 400 Overland Park, KS 66207 E-mail: kgoza@gohonlaw.com Telephone: (913) 451-3433 Facsimile: (913) 839-0567 MONSANTO COMPANY: Holmes et al. Suit Moved to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled BARRY HOLMES; and PATRICIA HOLMES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-00353, was removed from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on April 2, 2019. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-01742 to the proceeding. Monsanto Company, together with its subsidiaries, provides agricultural products for farmers worldwide. The company was formerly known as Monsanto Ag Company and changed its name to Monsanto Company in March 2000. Monsanto Company was founded in 2000 and is based in St. Louis, Missouri. As of June 7, 2018, Monsanto Company operates as a subsidiary of Bayer Aktiengesellschaft. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Seth S. Webb, Esq. BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C. 211 North Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 222-2222 Facsimile: (314) 421-0359 E-mail: sethw@getbc.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Ridner Suit Moved to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit titled MARK RIDNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-00351, was removed from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on April 5, 2019. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-01740 to the proceeding. Monsanto Company, together with its subsidiaries, provides agricultural products for farmers worldwide. The company was formerly known as Monsanto Ag Company and changed its name to Monsanto Company in March 2000. Monsanto Company was founded in 2000 and is based in St. Louis, Missouri. As of June 7, 2018, Monsanto Company operates as a subsidiary of Bayer Aktiengesellschaft. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth S. Webb, Esq. BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C. 211 North Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 222-2222 Facsimile: (314) 421-0359 E-mail: sethw@getbc.com MOWI ASA: Schneider's Alleges Price-Fixing of Salmon ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit against Mowi ASA (fka Marine Harvest ASA), Marine Harvest USA, LLC, and others seeks damages, injunctive relief, and other relief pursuant to the federal antitrust laws. The suit arises from unlawful coordination of the prices charged to direct purchasers of farm-raised salmon and salmon products derived therefrom (such as salmon fillets or smoked salmon) that were sold directly by the Defendants between July 1, 2015 and the present, in violation of Sections 1 and 3 of the Sherman Act. According to the complaint, monopolistic behavior in the salmon market has had and continues to have a significant impact on south Florida. The National Marine Fisheries Services reports that, between 2015 and 2019, approximately 895 million pounds of Atlantic salmon were imported through the Port of Miami, with a value of approximately $4.217 billion. Of this total amount of imported salmon, approximately 86% was farm-raised. During this same period, the Defendants colluded to increase the price of farm-raised Atlantic salmon to the expense of consumers, including many in south Florida. Moreover, unless and until the Court puts an end to Defendants' anti-competitive behavior, the impacts on the market for farm-raised Atlantic salmon in south Florida will continue to increase. There can therefore be no doubt that each of the Defendants have significant, ongoing contacts with the Southern District of Florida and that their behavior negatively impacts the local and national markets for farm-raised Atlantic salmon, the lawsuit says. The case is captioned as Schneider's Fish and Sea Food Corp., on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Mowi ASA (fka Marine Harvest ASA), Marine Harvest USA, LLC, Marine Harvest Canada, Inc., Ducktrap River of Maine LLC, Grieg Seafood ASA, Grieg Seafood BC Ltd., Bremnes Seashore AS, Ocean Quality AS, Ocean Quality North America Inc., Ocean Quality USA Inc., Ocean Quality Premium Brands, Inc., SalMar ASA, Leroy Seafood Group ASA, Leroy Seafood USA Inc., and Scottish Sea Farms Ltd., the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-21652-XXXX (S.D. Fla., April 29, 2019).[BN] Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Proposed Class: Adam M. Moskowitz, Esq. Howard M. Bushman, Esq. Adam A. Schwartzbaum, Esq. THE MOSKOWITZ LAW FIRM, PLLC Alhambra Plaza, Suite 601 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 740-1423 E-mail: adam@moskowitz-law.com howard@moskowitz-law.com adams@moskowitz-law.com - and - Arthur N. Bailey, Esq. Marco Cercone, Esq. R. Anthony Rupp, III, Esq. RUPP BAASE PFALZGRAF CUNNINGHAM, LLC 1600 Liberty Building, 424 Main Street Buffalo, NY 4202 Telephone: (716) 854-3400 E-mail: bailey@ruppbaase.com cercone@ruppbaase.com rupp@ruppbaase.com - and - Allan Steyer, Esq. Jill M. Manning, Esq. D. Scott Macrae, Esq. STEYER LOWENTHAL BOODROOKAS ALVAREZ & SMITH, LLP 235 Pine Street, 15 th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 421-3400 E-mail: asteyer@steyerlaw.com jmanning@steyerlaw.com smacrae@steyerlaw.com MUSE GALLERY: West Files ADA Suit in W.D. Wisconsin --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against THE MUSE GALLERY GUESTHOUSE, LLC. The case is styled as Mary West on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE MUSE GALLERY GUESTHOUSE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-00626-DEJ (W.D. Wis., April 30, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Muse Gallery Guesthouse is a Bed and Breakfast/Vacation Rental Home occupying a Victorian Style home built in 1889.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: CK Lee, Esq. Lee Litigation Group PLLC 30 E 39th St-2nd Fl New York, NY 10016 Phone: (212) 465-1188 Fax: (212) 465-1181 Email: cklee@leelitigation.com NILKANTH PIZZA: Failed to Pay Overtime Wages, Burton Suit Says -------------------------------------------------------------- Sahara Burton, Individually and on Behalf of All Those Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. Nilkanth Pizza, Inc., and Jenny Patel, Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00307-SWW (E.D. Ark., April 29, 2019) is an action under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act ("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 all others similarly situated as delivery drivers the legal minimum hourly wage and overtime compensation for all hours that Plaintiff and all others similarly situated worked. At times during the three years prior to the filing of this lawsuit, Defendants required Plaintiff and other delivery drivers to work more than 40 hours in a workweek. However, the Defendants did not pay Plaintiff or other delivery drivers an overtime premium for hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek; rather, Defendants paid Plaintiff and other delivery drivers their regular rates of pay for all hours worked, says the complaint. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant for periods in 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019, as an hourly paid delivery driver. Defendants own and operate Papa John's pizza franchises.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steve Rauls, 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: steve@sanfordlawfirm.com josh@sanfordlawfirm.com ORANGE COUNTY, CA: Faces Carroll et al. Suit in C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Orange County. The case is captioned as SHAWN CARROLL; LAKOTA ARNELL; and MARK JUHL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ORANGE COUNTY; and ORANGE COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICE AGENCY, Defendant, Case No. 8:19-cv-00614-DOC-KES (C.D. Cal., April 1, 2019). The case is assigned to Judge David O. Carter and referred to Magistrate Judge Karen E. Scott. Orange County is a region in Southern California. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Carol A Sobel, Esq. CAROL A SOBEL LAW OFFICES 725 Arizona Avenue Suite 300 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 393-3055 Facsimile: (310) 451-3858 E-mail: carolsobellaw@gmail.com - and - Brooke Alyson Weitzman, Esq. William R Wise, Jr., Esq. ELDER LAW AND DISABILITY RIGHTS CENTER 1535 East 17th Street Suite 110 Santa Ana, CA 92705 Telephone: (714) 617-5353 E-mail: bweitzman@eldrcenter.org bwise@eldrcenter.org - and - Catherine Elizabeth Sweetser, Esq. Colleen Marika Mullen, Esq. Paul L Hoffman, Esq. SCHONBRUN SEPLOW HARRIS AND HOFFMAN LLP 11543 West Olympic Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90064 Telephone: (310) 396-0731 Facsimile: (310) 399-7040 E-mail: csweetser@sshhlaw.com cmullen@sshhlaw.com hoffpaul@aol.com - and - Monique Amanda Alarcon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF CAROL SOBEL 725 Arizona Avenue Suite 300 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 393-3055 Facsimile: (310) 451-3858 E-mail: monique.alarcon8@gmail.com PETLAND MALL: Faces Suit over Sale of Bacteria-Infected Puppies --------------------------------------------------------------- DAWN SINGLETON, for and in behalf of Katie Singleton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PETLAND MALL OF GEORGIA LLC; PETLAND INC. A/K/A SOLUTIONS PET; BRAD PARKER; DEBRA PARKER; LAMAR PARKER; and KRISTEN PARKER, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-014777-ELR (N.D. Ga., April 2, 2019) alleges that the puppies sold by the Defendants were infected with the Campylobacter bacteria. According to the complaint, the illnesses and congenital or hereditary conditions suffered by the puppies the Defendants sold to the Plaintiffs and class members were the result of substandard housing conditions, a disregard for proper canine husbandry practices, and irresponsible breeding practices. The particular diseases and defects suffered by the Plaintiffs' and class members' puppies -- including, but not limited to, parvovirus, hip dysplasia, respiratory disease, hypoglycemia, heart conditions, and compromised immune systems -- are typical of those found in dogs bred in puppy mills and other substandard breeding facilities. Petland, Inc. owns and operates retail pet stores. The company also provides franchising services. Petland, Inc. was formerly known as Petland of Chillicothe, Inc. and changed its name to Petland, Inc. in February 1973. The company was founded in 1967 and is headquartered in Chillicothe, Ohio. It has stores in the United States, Japan, South Africa, China, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, and El Salvador. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David J. Worley, Esq. James M. Evangelista, Esq. Georgia Bar No. 707807 EVANGELISTA WORLEY, LLC 8100 A. Roswell Road, Suite 100 Atlanta, GA 30350 Telephone: (404) 205-8400 E-mail: david@ewlawllc.com jim@ewlawllc.com - and - Irwin M. Ellerin, Esq. ELLERIN LAW FIRM 1050 Crown Pointe Pkwy. #400 Atlanta, GA 30338 Telephone: (404) 239-9100 E-mail: imellerin@ellerinlaw.com PLYCEM USA: Harmel Sues over Sale of Defective Allura Siding ------------------------------------------------------------ ANDREW HARMEL, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individual, Plaintiff v. PLYCEM USA, LLC; PLYCEM USA, INC.; ELEMENTIA USA, INC.; and ELEMENTIA, S.A.B. DE C.V., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01476-CAP (N.D. Ga., April 2, 2019) alleges that the Defendants manufactured, advertised, marketed, and sold defective Allura fiber cement exterior siding. According to the complaint, the Defendants have marketed and represented the siding as a durable, aesthetically pleasing, and lasting exterior building product. The siding has not lived up to the Defendants' representations, given the early and severe failure, and given that the siding requires unexpected maintenance, premature repair, and replacement within the first 5 years of its service life. The siding prematurely fails, causing damage to the underlying structures and other property of the Plaintiff and members of the Class and lowers the value of the property. Plycem USA, Inc. manufactures and sells fiber cement exterior trims for construction projects in the United States and Costa Rica. Its projects include sustainable concept houses, single family homes and attached villas, and condominiums. The company serves contractors. It offers its products through distributors. The company was founded in 2008 and is based in Alpharetta, Georgia. Plycem USA, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Elementia, S.A. de C.V. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Harper T. Segui, Esq. Daniel K. Bryson, Esq. Scott C. Harris, Esq. WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP 900 W Morgan St. Raleigh, NC 27603 Telephone: (919) 600-5000 Facsimile: (919) 600-5035 E-mail: harper@wbmllp.com scott@wbmllp.com dan@wbmllp.com PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Court Grants Bis to Dismiss Pozzuolo FDCPA Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Timothy J. Savage of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania dismissed the case, ROBERT J. POZZUOLO, and All Others Similarly Situated, v. PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC, Civil Action No. 18-1797 (E.D. Pa.). In the putative class action brought under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), the Court must determine whether the Plaintiff suffered an injury-in-fact necessary to confer standing. The issue is whether one who has not suffered actual harm or was not at risk of harm as a result of a procedural violation of 15 U.S.C. Section 1692g has standing to assert a claim for that violation. Plaintiff Pozzuolo alleges that on March 30, 2018, the Defendant debt collector, Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC ("PRA"), sent him an initial collection letter regarding a debt originally owed to Capital One Bank (USA), N.A.. He alleges the letter violated the validation notice requirement of Section 1692g. The letter advised him that he could dispute the debt by telephoning PRA even though only a written dispute suffices to trigger the debt collector's obligations under Section 1692g(b) to cease collection and provide verification of the debt to the consumer. In moving to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1), PRA argues that Pozzuolo does not have standing because he has not suffered and was not at risk of suffering a concrete injury. It cites Pozzuolo's deposition testimony that he merely skimmed the letter and had no intention to dispute the debt. PRA also contends that there was no risk of harm because it treats telephonic and written disputes the same. PRA maintains that the validation notice informing Pozzuolo that he could dispute the debt telephonically was a mere procedural violation of Section 1692g(a). Judge Savage holds that PRA's letter to Pozzuolo constituted a procedural violation of the FDCPA. A debt collection letter, like the one in the instant case that creates the impression that the debtor can dispute the debt by calling the debt collector violates Section 1692g. Even though there was a violation of Section 1692g, Pozzuolo cannot show actual harm or a material risk of harm. By his own admission, he was not hurt as a result of receiving the letter. Indeed, he merely scanned over the letter before forwarding it to the counsel. Although the letter stated that he could call or write PRA to dispute the letter, Pozzuolo did neither. Nor did he dispute the debt with any of the credit reporting agencies. He had no reason to do so. He acknowledges the debt and the amount. Thus, because he never intended to dispute the debt, the violation did not harm or present a material risk of harm to Pozzuolo. Judge Savage concludes that Pozzuolo lacks standing. Because he never intended to dispute the debt, PRA's violation of Section 1692g by failing to inform him that only written disputes are legally effective neither harmed him nor created a material risk of harm. Accordingly, he granted PRA's motion to dismiss. A full-text copy of the Court's April 9, 2019 Memorandum Opinion is available at https://is.gd/NcEPnN from Leagle.com. ROBERT J. POZZUOLO, AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff, represented by CARY L. FLITTER -- cflitter@consumerslaw.com -- FLITTER MILZ, P.C. & ANDREW M. MILZ, FLITTER MILZ, P.C. PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC, Defendant, represented by LAUREN M. BURNETTE -- lburnette@messerstrickler.com -- MESSER STRICKLER LTD, ADAM T. SIMONS -- asimons@mcguirewoods.com -- MCGUIREWOODS LLP & JARROD SHAW -- jshaw@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP. POWER MACHINERY: Faces Meyers Labor Suit in Kern County ------------------------------------------------------- An employment-related class action lawsuit has been filed against Power Machinery Center. The case is captioned as LIAM MEYERS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. POWER MACHINERY CENTER, Defendant, Case No. BCV-19-100897 (Cal. Super., Kern Cty., April 2, 2019). The case is assigned to David R. Lampe. Power Machinery Center sells power equipment for construction. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas Han, Esq. JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION 751 North Fair Oaks Ave., Suite 101 Pasadena, CA 91103 Telephone: (818) 230-7502 Facsimile: (818) 230-7259 PROMISED LAND: Underpays Medical Assistants, Thomas Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------- LATORIA THOMAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PROMISED LAND WOMEN'S CENTER INCORPORATED, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01487-AT (N.D. Ga., April 2, 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 Thomas was employed by the Defendants as medical assistant. Promised Land Women's Center Incorporated is Georgia corporation with its principal place of business in Fulton County, Georgia, at 550 Peachtree Street, Suite 1220, Atlanta, Georgia 30308.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin M. Scott, Esq. SCOTT EMPLOYMENT LAW, P.C. 246 Sycamore Street, Suite 150 Decatur, GA 30030 Telephone: (678) 780-4880 Facsimile: (478) 575-2590 E-mail: jscott@scottemploymentlaw.com ROACH & MURTHA: Clute Sues over Debt Collection Practices --------------------------------------------------------- KENDAHL CLUTE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ROACH & MURTHA ATTORNEYS AT LAW, P.C., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00391-BKS-ATB (N.D.N.Y., April 2, 2019) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. The case is assigned to Judge Brenda K. Sannes and referred to US Magistrate Judge Andrew T. Baxter. Roach & Murtha Attorneys at Law, P.C. is a law firm engaged as a collection agent. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig B. Sanders, Esq. BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza-Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: (516) 203-7600 Facsimile: (516) 281-7601 E-mail: csanders@barshaysanders.com - and - David Michael Barshay, Esq. BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza-Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: (516) 741-4799 Facsimile: (516) 706-5055 E-mail: dbarshay@barshaysanders.com SAN JOSE RESTAURANT: Bid to Compel Discovery in Pontones Denied --------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Robert B. Jones, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, Western Division, denied the Plaintiff's motion to compel discovery and sanctions in the case, LAURA PONTONES, Plaintiff, v. SAN JOSE RESTAURANT INCORPORATED, et al., Defendants, Case No. 5:18-CV-219-D (E.D. N.C.). The Plaintiff alleges the Defendants failed to pay her and the other similarly situated employees the requisite minimum wage and overtime compensation and unlawfully withheld a portion of her tips in violation of state and federal wage and hour laws, specifically the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act ("NCWHA"). She seeks to bring a collective action under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) and a class action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. Am. Compl. The parties engaged in pre-certification discovery limited to the factual circumstances underlying a potential motion for class certification. In the course of pre-certification discovery, the Plaintiff served on the Defendants a First Set of Request for Production of Documents and a First Set of Interrogatories. The Defendants produced written responses, including objections, and later produced amended responses. After unsuccessful attempts by the counsel to resolve the Plaintiff's perceived deficiencies, the Plaintiff filed the instant motion to compel, which asserts that the Defendants inadequately responded to 14 interrogatories and 10 document requests. In their response, the Defendants endorsed some of their prior objections and noted that the Plaintiff's meet-and-confer letter and memorandum in support did not address several of the Defendants' objections, but they also indicated they would supplement their prior responses to a number of the Plaintiff's requests. The Plaintiff then filed an amended memorandum in support of the motion, which asserted that no additional information or documents had been produced by the Defendants at that time. The Court ordered counsel for the parties to engage in further meet-and-confer efforts regarding the matters raised in the Plaintiff's motion and to file a status report with the Court detailing which matters had been resolved and which remained in dispute for the Court's determination. The parties have now informed the Court that there remain in dispute two interrogatories, Nos. 3 and 13, and two document requests, Nos. 7 and 12. The Court commends the counsel on their work in resolving several of the issues originally presented. In Interrogatory No. 3, the Plaintiff seeks information to identify potential putative class members. -- INTERROGATORY NO. 3: During the Relevant Time Period, identify all putative plaintiffs/class members or current and/or former employees who performed work for Defendants. This includes, but is not limited to, those individuals who were non-exempt, paid a salary, or only received tips as wages, and/or were charged any percentage of total sales from each table. In so identifying these individuals, include the individual's full name, last known address, telephone number (including cell phone number) and e-mail address. Magistrate Judge Jones agrees with the Defendants that the information sought is not relevant to the certification motion, and Plaintiff has merely stated in a conclusory fashion that the information is highly relevant to the certification issue, thus failing to demonstrate with specificity how the identifying information is necessary pre-certification. The Defendants have provided the Plaintiff with information relevant to the certification question, including a sample of payroll and time records, information related to the number of positions at each restaurant, and information about which restaurants use a tip pool and which do not. Accordingly, it is not apparent how the information Plaintiff seeks in Interrogatory No. 3 is necessary to the conditional certification motion, and the motion to compel as to this request is denied as premature. In Interrogatory No. 13, the Plaintiff seeks information regarding Defendants,' annual gross volume of sales. -- INTERROGATORY NO. 13: For each calendar year that falls either wholly or partially within the Relevant Time Period, please separately provide the annual gross volume of sales (including charges or automatic gratuities for services provided) made or provided by the Defendants in each of those same calendar years. The Magistrate Judge finds that the FLSA applies to a business, or enterprise, only if it has employees engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce, or has employees handling, selling, or otherwise working on goods or materials that have been moved in or produced for commerce by any person; and its annual gross volume of sales made or business done is not less than $500,000. The later requirement he says, known as enterprise coverage, constitutes an element of an FLSA claim. The Defendants concede this element, and the Plaintiff has stated no other need for the information. Accordingly, the motion to compel as to this request is denied. In Document Request No. 7, the Plaintiff seeks correspondence and other documents related to any investigation of any Defendant related to Named Plaintiff, Opt-in, and the putative Plaintiffs' claims. -- REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7: Produce copies of all correspondence and other documents sent to or received from the U.S. Department of Labor, N.C. Department of Labor, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, or any other governmental bodies, concerning any investigation of any Defendant related to Named Plaintiff, Opt-in, and putative Plaintiffs' claims. The Magistrate finds it unclear that the requested subset of investigation documents necessarily exists, and the Defendants assert they are unaware of any such documents. Accordingly, the Defendants' response to the request as drafted appears sufficient, and the, motion to compel as to this request is denied. In Document Request No. 12, the Plaintiff seeks a variety of financial documents that show, in part, the Defendants' annual gross volume of sales. -- REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12: For each calendar year that falls either wholly or partially in the four (4) years immediately preceding the date on which this action was filed, in addition to each calendar year from that period up to and including the date of the instant set of Requests for Production, the profit and loss statements, balance sheets, cash flow statements, statements of changes in equity (if applicable), federal income tax return(s), and all other applicable financial statements for each calendar year or fiscal year falling in part or in whole in that same time period, which show, in part, the annual gross volume of sales (including charges for services provided) made or provided by the Defendants and all related legal entities in each of those same calendar years. As explained with respect to Interrogatory No. 13, which sought similar information, the Magistrate Judge finds that the Defendants concede the enterprise coverage element, and the Plaintiff has stated no other need for these documents in precertification discovery. Accordingly, the motion to compel as to this request is denied. The Plaintiff seeks sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 against the Defendants for unjustifiably resisting discovery. The Magistrate finds that sanctions are not warranted where the court determined further meet-and-confer efforts were required after the motion to compel was filed; the Defendants subsequently supplemented their discovery responses, resolving the majority of issues in dispute; and the Defendants' responses to the issues remaining in dispute were substantially justified. For the reasons he stated, Magistrate Judge Jones denied the motion to compel and for sanctions. A full-text copy of the Court's April 9, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/IvF8xu from Leagle.com. Laura Pontones, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Gilda A. Hernandez, The Law Offices of Gilda A. Hernandez, PLLC. San Jose Restaurant, Incorporated, San Jose Management, Inc, San Jose Mexican Restaurant #2 of Lumberton, Inc., San Jose Mexican Restaurant of Elizabethtown, Inc., San Jose Mexican Restaurant of N.C. Inc, San Jose Mexican Restaurant of Oak Island, Inc, San Jose Mexican Restaurant of Pembroke, NC, Inc., San Jose Mexican Restaurant of Raleigh Inc, San Jose Mexican Restaurant of Shallotte, Inc, San Jose of Rocky Mount #2 Inc, San Jose of Zebulon, Inc, San Jose of Roanoke Rapids, Inc, Hector Flores, Alberto Flores, Josue Flores, Jose Perez, Vicente Perez, Pablo Meza, Edgardo Flores, Edgar Flores, San Jose Wakefield, Inc. & Plaza Azteca Raleigh, Inc., Defendants, represented by James Larry Stine -- jls@wimlaw.com -- Wimberly, Lawson, Steckel, Schneider & Stine, P.C., Henry W. Jones, Jr. -- HJones@jordanprice.com -- Jordan Price Wall Gray Jones & Carlton, PLLC & Lori Peoples Jones -- LJones@jordanprice.com -- Jordan Price Wall Gray Jones & Carlton, PLLC. SCHRA LODI: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Lane Suit Alleges -------------------------------------------------------- WILLIAM LANE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SCHRA LODI, LP; NCBT, LLC; REDARHCS, INC.; and DOES 1 through 50, Defendants, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2019-4287 (Cal. Super., San Joaquin Cty., April 3, 2019) is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal and rest periods, and provide accurate wage statements. Mr. Lane was employed by the Defendants as non-exempt, hourly employee. Redarhcs, Inc. owns and operates restaurants. The company is based in Stockton, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shaun Setareh, Esq. Thomas Segal, Esq. SETAREH LAW GROUP 315 South Beverly Drive, Suite 315 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (310) 888-7771 Facsimile: (310) 888-0109 E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com thomas@setarehlaw.com SCHWEBEL PETROLEUM: Faces Gonzalez Labor Suit in Kern County ------------------------------------------------------------ An employment-related class action lawsuit has been filed against Schwebel Petroleum Co., Inc. The case is captioned as PASCUAL GONZALEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SCHWEBEL PETROLEUM CO., INC., Defendant, Case No. BCV-19-100934 (Cal. Super., Kern Cty., April 3, 2019). The case is assigned to Stephen D. Schuett. Schwebel Petroleum Co., Inc. operates as an integrated oil producer. The Company serves customers in the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by Louis Benowitz, Esq. SMITH & BENOWITZ, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 15303 Ventura Boulevard, 9th Floor Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Telephone: (818)839-7800 Facsimile: (818)839-9700 E-mail: louis@smithbenowitz.com SECURE PARKING: Seeks Appellate Review of Order in Liotta Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant Secure Parking Enforcement, LLC, filed an appeal from a Court order dated March 25, 2019, entered in the lawsuit titled MATT LIOTTA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF A SIMILARLY SITUATED PERSONS v. SECURE PARKING ENFORCEMENT, LLC, Case No. 16EV005868, in the Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia. The appellate case is captioned as SECURE PARKING ENFORCEMENT, LLC v. MATT LIOTTA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF SIMILARLY SITUATED PERSONS, Case No. A19I0217, in the Court of Appeals, State of Georgia.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellee MATT LIOTTA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF A SIMILARLY SITUATED PERSONS is represented by: Matthew Quinn Wetherington, Esq. WERNER WETHERINGTON, PC 2860 Piedmont Rd. NE Atlanta, GA 30305 Telephone: (404) 793-1693 Facsimile: (855) 873-2090 E-mail: Matt@WernerLaw.com Defendant-Appellant SECURE PARKING ENFORCEMENT, LLC, is represented by: Frank C. Bedinger III, Esq. HAWKINS PARNELL & YOUNG LLP 303 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 4000 Atlanta, GA 30308 Telephone: (404) 614-7400 Facsimile: (404) 614-7500 E-mail: fbedinger@hpylaw.com SERVICELINK FIELD: Collins Remanded to San Diego Superior Court --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge M. James Lorenz of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California granted the Plaintiff's motion to remand the the case, JOSEPH COLLINS, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SERVICELINK FIELD SERVICES, LLC, and DOES 1-50, Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-02142-L-MDD (S.D. Cal.), to the San Diego Superior Court. According to the First Amended Complaint, Collins and the members of the proposed class are current and former employees of erviceLink who worked as non-exempt residential inspectors. ServiceLink dictated the inspection locations, the inspection process, the proper procedure for meeting with the homeowners, and the applicable deadlines for completing inspections. After the inspections were complete, inspectors were required to write and upload detailed reports. Collins alleges that he and over 300 class members were treated as independent contractors by ServiceLink. Collins typically received $3 to $5 per inspection and alleges that ServiceLink did not withhold money from these payments for tax purposes. The inspectors were not paid for travel time, work performed from home, maintenance of personal vehicles used for work, time spent interacting with vendors, or time spent reviewing work policy changes. When working over four hours in a day, the inspectors did not receive paid rest breaks. Inspectors were not reimbursed for equipment costs or costs incurred when utilizing their own vehicles or phones while on the job. Neither Collins nor the proposed class members were paid for time spent working for ServiceLink outside actual residential inspections. Collins and the class members also did not receive: (1) premium pay for ServiceLink's alleged noncompliance with rest and meal break requirements; (2) communication regarding a meal break policy; (3) accurate and itemized wage statements; (4) wages following voluntary or involuntary employment separations; or (5) paid sick leave. On Aug. 10, 2018, Collins, on behalf of himself and other members of his class, brought an action against ServiceLink for: (1) unpaid minimum wages; (2) failure to provide paid rest periods; (3) failure to provide meal periods; (4) failure to provide itemized wage statements; (5) failure to reimburse business expenses; (6) unpaid wages in violation of Cal. Lab. Section Code 2810.3; (7) unfair competition; and (8) failure to provide paid sick leave. On Sep. 14, 2018, ServiceLink filed a notice of removal to remove the action from the San Diego Superior Court based on original and diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sections 1332, 1441, 1446, and 1453. On Oct. 12, 2018, Collins filed an amended complaint and a motion to remand alleging that ServiceLink improperly overestimated the amount in controversy for Collins' individual claims and the claims under the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"). The dispositive questions presented are whether ServiceLink met its burden to show that: (1) the amount in controversy as to Collins' individual claims exceeds $75,000, (2) the amount in controversy as to the claims under CAFA exceeds $5 million, and (3) it is allowed to amend its original calculations via ServiceLink's opposition to Collins' remand motion. Collins argues that ServiceLink failed to meet its burden, and therefore, this Court must remand for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. ServiceLink argues the opposite. Collins does not dispute any other jurisdictional requirements. Because the majority of ServiceLink's calculations involve unreasonable assumptions that are unsupported by allegations in the original state court complaint, Judge Lorenz holds that ServiceLink did not meet its burden to show that the amount in controversy as to Collins' individual claims is met. ServiceLink offers various authority stating that the proper benchmark multiplier for estimating attorneys' fees in class actions is either 25% or 33%. However, these amounts would be a percentage of the total estimated class settlement, which, in this case, would be the $53 million asserted by ServiceLink. As discussed, the settlement amount is unsupported by any summary-judgment-type evidence and cannot be used to estimate an accurate anticipation of attorneys' fees. In the notice of removal, ServiceLink calculated the total amounts in controversy for Collins' individual claims at approximately $177,000 and for the CAFA claims at over $53 million, not including attorneys' fees or the alleged unpaid sick time. These calculations assume that Collins incurred eight hours of unpaid minimum wages and meal and rest period penalties on each possible work day during the entire four-year liability period. However, ServiceLink offers new damage calculations in its opposition to Collins' motion to remand. In accordance with Gaus v. Miles, Inc., the Judge rejects federal jurisdiction in light of the overwhelming doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance. He finds that the new calculations reduce the original amount in controversy estimates by over $60 million. This kind of drastic change more so reflects substantive modification of prior allegations rather than a mere clarification. For the reasons he stated, Judge Lorenz granted the Plaintiff's motion, and remanded the matter to the San Diego Superior Court. He denied as moot the Defendant's pending motion to dismiss. A full-text copy of the Court's April 9, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/mwKkZF from Leagle.com. Joseph Collins, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Dennis F. Moss -- dennisfmoss@yahoo.com -- Moss Bollinger LLP & Jeremy F. Bollinger, Moss Bollinger LLP. ServiceLink Field Services, LLC, Defendant, represented by Anthony Gerald Ly -- aly@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson PC & Curtis Alan Graham -- cagraham@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C.. SOFTWARE GUIDANCE: King Seeks Pay for Excess Worktime ----------------------------------------------------- Walter King, individually and on behalf all others similarly situated v. Software Guidance & Assistance, Inc., and Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., Case No. 1:19-cv-02417 (S.D. N.Y., March 18, 2019), is brought against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The class action stems from the Defendants' policy and practice of only paying the System Analysts/LAN Admins for up to the daily scheduled work hours but refusing and failing to pay for work time in excess of the scheduled hours. The Plaintiff is a resident of Kings County, New York. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an hourly-paid System Analyst/LAN Admin from approximately November 2014 to July 6, 2018. The Defendant Software Guidance specializes in providing technology, engineering, and business resource solutions for an established book of clients across the United States and maintains its headquarters in 200 White Plains Road, Tarrytown, NY 10591 and supporting offices coast to coast. The Defendant Consolidated Edison operates one of the world's largest energy delivery systems and its electric, gas, and steam service now provides energy for the 10 million people who live in New York City and Westchester County. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason T. Brown, Esq. Ching-Yuan Teng, Esq. BROWN, LLC 111 Town Square Place, Suite 400 Jersey City, NJ 07310 Tel: (877) 561-0000 Fax: (855) 582-5297 E-mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com tonyteng@jtblawgroup.com SOURCE CONSTRUCTION: Sastre Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------- GABRIEL SASTRE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SOURCE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTING, INC, and GERALD V CLACY, as an individual, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02508 (E.D. N.Y., April 29, 2019) seeks to recover damages for egregious violations of state and federal wage and hour laws arising out of Plaintiff's employment under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"). Although Plaintiff GABRIEL SASTRE worked approximately 90 or more hours per week during his employment by Defendants, Defendants did not pay Plaintiff time and a half for hours worked over 40, blatant violation of a the overtime provisions contained in the FLSA and NYLL, asserts the complaint. Moreover, the Defendants willfully failed to post notices of the minimum wage and overtime wage requirements in a conspicuous place at the location of their employment as required by both the NYLL and the FLSA. Upon information and belief, Defendants willfully failed to keep accurate payroll records as required by both NYLL and the FLSA, says the complaint. Plaintiff GABRIEL SASTRE was employed by Defendants at SOURCE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTING, INC from in or around October 2018 until in or around March 2019. SOURCE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTING, INC. is a corporation organized under the laws of New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. Helen F. Dalton & Associates, P.C. 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Phone: 718-263-9591 SPRINT CORP: Baron Suit Alleges Customer Privacy Rights Breach -------------------------------------------------------------- PAUL BARON on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SPRINT CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01255-JKB (D. Md., April 29, 2019) seeks to secure redress against Sprint for its reckless and negligent violations of customer privacy rights. This action arises out of Defendant's collection of geolocation data and the unauthorized dissemination to third-parties of the geolocation data collected from its users' cell phones. Sprint admittedly sells customer geolocation data to third-parties, including but not limited to data aggregators, who in turn, are able to use or resell the geolocation data with little or no oversight by Sprint. This is an action seeking damages for Sprint's gross failure to safeguard highly personal and private consumer geolocation data in violation of federal law, says the complaint. Plaintiff and Class Members are Sprint customers. Sprint Corporation is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Overland Park, Kansas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Cory L. Zajdel, Esq. Jeffrey C. Toppe, Esq. David M. Trojanowski, Esq. Z LAW, LLC 2345 York Road, Ste. B-13 Timonium, MD 21093 Phone: (443) 213-1977 Email: clz@zlawmaryland.com jct@zlawmaryland.com dmt@zlawmaryland.com STARBUCKS CORP: Rosario FCRA Suit Transferred to N.D. Georgia ------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Rosario v. Starbucks Corporation, Case No. 2:16-cv-01951, was transferred on April 18, 2019, from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta). The Georgia District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-01730-CAP-CMS to the proceeding. The lawsuit arises from alleged violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.[BN] Plaintiff Jonathan Santiago Rosario, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: James A. Francis, Esq. John Soumilas, Esq. Lauren KW Brennan, Esq. FRANCIS & MAILMAN, P.C. 1600 Market St., Suite 2510 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 735-8600 Facsimile: (215) 940-8000 E-mail: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com lbrennan@consumerlawfirm.com Defendant Starbucks Corporation is represented by: James E. Howard, Esq. Lauren Burdette Rainwater, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE, LLP 950 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98104-1610 Telephone: (206) 757-8336 Facsimile: (206) 757-7700 E-mail: jimhoward@dwt.com laurenrainwater@dwt.com STATE FARM: Removes Palmer Suit to District of New Mexico --------------------------------------------------------- The Defendants in the case of FREEMAN J PALMER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY; STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY; and STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the State Court of New Mexico (Case No. D-202-CV-2019-01228) to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico on April 2, 2019. The clerk of court for the District of New Mexico assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-00301-RB-KBM. The case is assigned to Sr. District Judge Robert C. Brack and referred to Magistrate Judge Karen B. Molzen. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company provides various insurance and financial services in the United States and Canada. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company was founded in 1922 and is based in Bloomington, Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Corbin Hildebrandt, Esq. CORBIN HILDEBRANDT, P.C. 1400 Central Ave. S.E. Albuquerque, NM 87106 Telephone: (505) 998-6626 Facsimile: (505) 998-6628 E-mail: corbin@hildebrandtlawnm.com - and - Kedar Bhasker, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF KEDAR BHASKER, LLC 1400 Central Avenue SE, Suite 2000 Albuquerque, NM 87106 Telephone: (505) 720-2113 Facsimile: (505) 998-6628 E-mail: kedar@bhaskerlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Terry R. Guebert, Esq. GUEBERT BRUCKNER P.C. P.O. Box 93880 Albuquerque, NM 87199-3880 Telephone: (505) 823-2300 Facsimile: (505) 823-9600 E-mail: tguebert@guebertlaw.com - and - Elizabeth M. Piazza, Esq. GUEBERT BRUCKNER PC 6801 Jefferson Street NE, Suite 400 Albuquerque, NM 87109 Telephone: (505) 823-2300 Facsimile: (505) 823-9600 E-mail: epiazza@guebertlaw.com TARGET CORPORATION: Thomas Suit Transferred to E.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit, MARIAH D. THOMAS, on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. TARGET CORPORATION, a Minnesota corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-01155 (Filed March 1, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on April 29, 2019. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Troy L. Nunley. The Plaintiff asserts claims for wrongful termination in violation of public policy; wrongful termination in violation of California constitution; intentional infliction of emotional distress; and unfair business practices. She seeks compensation for lost past and future wages, earnings, bonuses, loss of job security, and other employment benefits.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: Alexandra Rochelle McIntosh, Esq. Chaim Shaun Setareh, Esq. SETAREH LAW GROUP 315 South Beverly Drive, Suite 315 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (310) 888-7771 Facsimile: (310) 888-0109 E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com - and - William P. Pao, Esq. JENNER AND BLOCK LLP 633 West 5th Street, Suite 3500 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 239-5157 Facsimile: (213) 239-5167 E-mail: wpao@jenner.com Attorneys for Target Corporation: Samantha C. Grant, Esq. Sami Hasan, Esq. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP A Limited Liability Partnership Including Professional Corporations 1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1600 Los Angeles, CA 90067-6055 Telephone: 310 228 3700 Facsimile: 310 228 3701 E-mail: SGrant@sheppardmullin.com SHasan@sheppardmullin.com TATE & KIRLIN: Shelton Sues over Unwanted Telephone Calls --------------------------------------------------------- The case, DAWN SHELTON, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. TATE & KIRLIN ASSOCIATES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-443 (M.D.N.C., April 29, 2019), contends that the Defendant violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by making calls to the Plaintiff and Class Members using an "automatic telephone dialing system" as described in 47 U.S.C. section 227(b)(1), without the Plaintiff's and Class Members' prior express consent within the meaning of the TCPA. The Plaintiff brings this action for injunctive relief and statutory damages to hold Defendant accountable for its illegal activities in utilizing automatically dialed calls to solicit payment from individuals it presumably (but wrongfully) believed to be debtors.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the Proposed Class: Wesley S. White, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF WESLEY S. WHITE 2300 E. 7th Street, Suite 101 Charlotte, NC 28204 Telephone: (702) 824-1695 E-mail: wes@weswhitelaw.com - and - Gary M. Klinger, Esq. KOZONIS & KLINGER, LTD. 4849 N. Milwaukee Ave., Ste. 300 Chicago, IL 60630 Telephone: 312 283 3814 Facsimile: 773 496 8617 E-mail: gklinger@kozonislaw.com - and - Michael L. Greenwald, Esq. GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC 7601 N. Federal Highway, Ste. A-230 Boca Raton, FL 33487 Telephone: 561.826.5477 Facsimile: 561.961.5684 E-mail: mgreenwald@gdrlawfirm.com TITAN GAS: Frey Sues Over Nuisance Telemarketing Practices ---------------------------------------------------------- John Frey, individually and on behalf of a class of all persons and entities similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Titan Gas, LLC d/b/a Titan Gas and Power, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-01843-MSG (E.D. Pa., April 29, 2019) is an action under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 ("TCPA"), a federal statute enacted in response to widespread public outrage about the proliferation of intrusive, nuisance telemarketing practices. The complaint relates that the Defendant made a pre-recorded telemarking call to Plaintiff's residential telephone number, which is prohibited by the TCPA. Plaintiff's telephone number is charged per call and making an automated and telemarketing call to such number is separately prohibited by the TCPA. The complaint further notes that the Plaintiff never consented to receive the call, which was placed to him for telemarketing purposes. Because telemarketing campaigns generally place calls to hundreds of thousands or even millions of potential customers en masse, the Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of a proposed nationwide class of other persons who received illegal telemarketing calls from or on behalf of Defendant. Plaintiff is a Pennsylvania resident, and a resident of this District. Titan Gas, LLC d/b/a Titan Gas and Power is a Texas limited liability company with its principal place of business in Houton, Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Clayton S. Morrow, Esq. MORROW & ARTIM, PC 304 Ross Street, 7th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Phone: (412) 281-1250 Email: csm@consumerlaw365.com TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Popp Sues over Defaulted Consumer Debt ---------------------------------------------------------- Tammy Popp, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Transworld Systems, Inc., a California corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01727-JMS-MPB (S.D. Ind., April 29, 2019), seeks to recover statutory damages, costs, and reasonable attorneys' fees under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is residing in the Southern District of Indiana, from whom Defendant attempted to collect a defaulted consumer debt, which was allegedly owed for a Reflex Mastercard account. The Defendant is a California corporation that acts as a debt collector. It regularly uses the mails and/or the telephone to collect, or attempt to collect, defaulted consumer debts. The Defendant operates a nationwide debt collection business and attempts to collect debts from consumers in virtually every state, including consumers in the State of Indiana. In fact, Defendant Transworld was acting as a debt collector as to the defaulted consumer debt it attempted to collect from the Paintiff. According to the complaint, Ms. Popp fell behind on paying her bills, and after she defaulted on one that she owed for a Reflex brand credit card account, Defendant Transworld tried to collect it by sending Ms. Popp an initial form collection letter, dated December 25, 2018.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: David J. Philipps, Esq. Mary E. Philipps, Esq. Angie K. Robertson, Esq. PHILIPPS & PHILIPPS, LTD. 9760 S. Roberts Road, Suite One Palos Hills, IL 60465 Telephone: (708) 974-2900 Facsimile: (708) 974-2907 E-mail: davephilipps@aol.com mephilipps@aol.com angie@philippslegal.com - and - John T. Steinkamp, Esq. SAWIN, SHEA & STEINKAMP, LLC 5214 S. East Street, Suite D1 Indianapolis, IN 46227 Telephone: (317) 255-2600 Facsimile: (317) 255-2905 E-mail: john@sawinlaw.com TRUMMER'S INC: Restaurant Workers Win Conditional Certification --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned Jillian Pettit, Plaintiff, v. Trummer's Incorporated, et al., Defendants, No. CV-19-01227-PHX-DWL (D. Ariz.), Judge Dominic W. Lanza of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona conditionally certifies the matter as a collective action under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) with respect to all current and former restaurant workers as described in the Plaintiff's motion who worked for the Defendants at any time from three years prior to February 22, 2019, and directed the Defendants to provide the names, all known mailing addresses, last four digits of social security numbers, and dates of employment for all Collective Members. The motion for conditional certification is granted, except to the extent it seeks email addresses. A full-text copy of the Order dated May 2, 2019, is available at https://tinyurl.com/y5yfos7y from Leagle.com. Jillian Pettit, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jason Saul Barrat, Zoldan Law Group PLLC & Michael David Zoldan, Zoldan Law Group PLLC. Trummer's Incorporated, an Arizona corporation, Kimberly Troub, an Arizona resident & Marty Troub, an Arizona resident, Defendants, represented by John T. Gilbert, Radix Law PLC & Michelle Lynn Swann, Radix Law PLC. U.S. SECURITY: Scott Suit Removed to S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------- The case captioned NICHELLE SCOTT, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. U.S. SECURITY ASSOCIATES, INC. d/b/a ANDREWS INTERNATIONAL, LLC, Defendant, was removed from the Supreme Court of the State of New York in Westchester County to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on April 29, 2019, and assigned Case No. 7:19-cv-03817. In the complaint, Plaintiff asserts claims under New York Labor Law, alleging that U.S. Security failed to properly pay for uniform maintenance ("Count One"), failed to reimburse for uniforms ("Count Two"), and failed to properly pay overtime ("Count Three").In support of Count Three, Plaintiff specifically alleges that U.S. Security allocated worked hours to the incorrect week in order to avoid paying overtime.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Riyaz G. Bhimani, Esq. Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC 10 Bank Street, Suite 700 White Plains, NY 10606 Phone: (914) 949-2909 Email: rbhimani@eckertseamans.com - and - Evan S. Weiss, Esq. Elizabeth Bulat Turner, Esq. W. Brian Holladay, Esq. Martenson, Hartenson, Hasbrouck, & Simon LLP 3379 Peachtree Road, N.E., Suite 400 Atlanta, GA 30326 Phone: (404) 909-8100 Facsimile: (404) 909-8120 UBER TECH: Dismissal of Anderson Suit Recommended ------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Elizabeth M. Timothy of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida, Pensacola Division, recommended the dismissal of the case, TIMOTHY ANDERSON, Plaintiff, v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:17cv878/RV/EMT (N.D. Fla.). On Dec. 7, 2017, Anderson, who is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a Class Action Complaint on behalf of himself, two other individuals, and a Nationally Growing Class of Permitted Hired Auto Drivers. The Court entered an order directing the United States Marshals Service to serve a copy of the complaint on Anderson's behalf. After the Court entered the order but before service was effected, Anderson was arrested for the murder of an Uber driver. He is currently awaiting trial on capital murder charges in Okaloosa County, Florida. Prior to his arrest, Anderson was a taxi driver. His claims stem from his belief that Uber, and the competition it engendered, cost him his livelihood. Specifically, Anderson alleges Ubers rules were different than the rules that applied to taxi. According to him, these rules gave Uber a competitive advantage in the taxi market because they were able to charge less than the Plaintiffs and had no permits. He also claims that internet search engines, primarily Google, cause persons who are searching for traditional taxis and cabs (and who are using search terms such as "taxi" or "cab") to be routed to Uber's "application" where they are ultimately connected with an Uber driver instead of a taxi driver. As a result, Anderson contends, permitted taxi drivers such as himself were finding less people who needed rides and losing the income they had the right to earn. Anderson claims he and other permitted hired auto drivers have been uniformly deprived of their income (estimated $150 billion dollars) that was primarily collected by Uber and distributed to drivers they recruited who have not been permitted to operate a hired auto. Anderson sets forth three counts in his complaint: (1) Violation of 15 U.S. Code Section 52 - Dissemination of False Advertisements (Anderson claims that Uber, in efforts to avoid regulation, purposely does not advertise as a "taxi" service but should); (2) Violation of 15 U.S. Code Section 45 - Unfair Methods of Competition; and (3) Violation of 18 U.S. Code Section 1341 - FRAUD - obtaining money by means of false or fraudulent pretenses. As relief Anderson seeks monetary damages and related relief aimed at determining the amount of damages and how compensation should be distributed among affected permitted drivers. Magistrate Judge Timothy finds that Anderson has failed to state a viable claim against Uber because none of the statutes he invokes provides for a private cause of action. A private individual may bring suit under a federal statute only when Congress intended to create, either expressly or by implication, a private right of action for civil parties in the statute. Anderson, a private citizen, has thus failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted in Counts I and II of his complaint. The same is true with regard to Count III. As indicated, 18 U.S.C. Section 1341 prohibits mail fraud. Violations of the mail fraud statute are criminal in nature and punishable by fines and imprisonment. Generally speaking, a private citizen lacks a judicially cognizable interest in prosecution or non-prosecution of another. Because Anderson is a private citizen, he has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted in Count III of his complaint. In summary, because Anderson has plainly failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted (and has not provided any legal support as to why the cause should not be dismissed despite being given the opportunity to do so, the action should be dismissed. Accordingly, Magistrate Judge Timothy directed the Clerk of Court to modify the docket to reflect that the Defendant in the case is Uber Technologies, Inc. She respectfully recommended that Uber's Motion be granted, and the Plaintiff's complaint be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The Clerk be directed to enter judgment accordingly and close the file. Objections to these proposed findings and recommendations may be filed within 14 days after being served a copy thereof. A full-text copy of the Court's April 9, 2019 Order, Report and Recommendation is available at https://is.gd/nOe9xZ from Leagle.com. TIMOTHY ANDERSON, Plaintiff, pro se. UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE: Bauserman Timely Notice Ruling Partly OK'd ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, GRANT BAUSERMAN, KARL WILLIAMS, and TEDDY BROE, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE AGENCY, Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 156389 (Mich.), Judge Stephen Markman of the Supreme Court of Michigan affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the Court of Appeals that the Plaintiffs' claims accrued when they received the original redetermination notices alleging fraudulent conduct and explaining the effect that would have on their unemployment compensation. The case involves a narrow, but practically consequential, issue: whether the Plaintiffs gave timely notice of their due-process claims to Defendant, the Michigan Unemployment Insurance Agency, and therefore are entitled to consideration of the merits of those claims. More specifically, the issue concerns whether the Plaintiffs filed notices of intention to file their claims or the claims themselves within six months following the happening of the event giving rise to the cause of action. The Plaintiffs are former recipients of unemployment compensation benefits who allege that the Agency unlawfully seized their property without affording due process of law. Plaintiff Bauserman received unemployment compensation from October 2013 through March 2014. In October 2014, the Agency sent Bauserman and his former employer, Eaton Aeroquip, a questionnaire regarding suspected unreported earnings that Bauserman received while he was receiving unemployment compensation. Both Bauserman and Eaton responded that Bauserman had not worked for Eaton at the time. On Dec. 3, 2014, the Agency sent Bauserman two notices of redetermination, one claiming that he had received unemployment compensation for which he was ineligible and the other claiming that he had intentionally misled the Agency or concealed information from it to obtain compensation for which he was not eligible. As a result, the Agency informed Bauserman that he owed $19,910 in overpayments, penalties, and interest. The next day, Bauserman submitted an online appeal through the Agency's website regarding its assertion that he had committed fraud, but did not submit a separate appeal regarding the Agency's determination that he had received compensation for which he was not eligible. From January 2015 through June 2015, the Agency sent Bauserman multiple notices stating the amount he owed to the Agency, informing him of missed payments on his debt, and raising the possibility that his wages would be garnished or his tax refunds seized. Around this same time, Bauserman sent multiple letters to the Agency attempting to explain the situation, two of which included an attached letter from Eaton explaining that Bauserman received one payment in 2014 for work performed in 2013 but was not employed by Eaton during the time he was receiving unemployment compensation. Finally, on June 16, 2015, the Agency intercepted Bauserman's state and federal income tax refunds. On Sept. 9, 2015, Bauserman filed a putative class action against the Agency in the Court of Claims, alleging that the Agency had deprived him of his property without providing due process of law. More specifically, he alleged that "Michigan's unemployment fraud detection, collection, and seizure practices fail to comply with minimum due process requirements. On Sept. 30, 2015, the Agency issued two new notices of redetermination, rendering its Dec. 3, 2014 redeterminations null and void," and the Agency has since returned all monies seized from Bauserman. On Oct. 19, 2015, Bauserman filed an amended complaint, which added Teddy Broe and Karl Williams as named Plaintiffs to the class action. Broe had received unemployment compensation from April 2013 to August 2013, and he had initially been determined eligible on the basis that he had been laid off by his employer, Fifth Third Bank. However, Fifth Third challenged that determination, alleging that Broe voluntarily terminated his employment to attend school. The Agency then sent requests for information to Broe regarding his eligibility for compensation, and on July 15, 2014, it sent two notices of redetermination to Broe, the first claiming that he had received compensation for which he was ineligible because his termination of employment at Fifth Third "was voluntary and not attributable to the employer," and the second claiming that he had intentionally misled the agency or concealed information from it to obtain compensation that he was not eligible to receive. As a result, the Agency informed Broe that he owed $8,302 in overpayments, penalties, and interest. From August 2014 through April 2015, the Agency sent Broe multiple notices stating the amount owed to the Agency, informing him of missed payments on the debt and raising the possibility that his wages would be garnished or his tax refunds seized. Specifically, on Sept. 2, 2014, the Agency sent Broe a notice of intent to reduce/withhold federal income tax refund that was materially identical to the notice provided to Bauserman. In April 2015, Broe sent the Agency a letter appealing its redeterminations and claiming that he had not received the Agency's previous communications because they had been sent to him through his online account with the Agency, which he no longer accessed because he was reemployed and no longer seeking unemployment compensation. The Agency denied the appeal as untimely and, in May 2015, intercepted Broe's state and federal tax refunds. On Nov. 4, 2015, the Agency issued two notices of redetermination, reversing its July 15, 2014 redeterminations that Broe was ineligible for compensation and had committed fraud. The Agency has since returned all monies seized from Broe. Williams started working at Wingfoot Commercial Tire System in May 2011. When his employment with Wingfoot began, Williams was receiving unemployment compensation from a previous employer. Williams alleges that he advised the Agency that he was now receiving wages from Wingfoot, yet his unemployment compensation had not been altered; Williams believed that he was still entitled to unemployment compensation because his wages from Wingfoot were less than 1 1/2 times his weekly compensation. The Agency sent Williams a request to provide information regarding his employment with Wingfoot. On June 22, 2012, the Agency issued redeterminations that (1) terminated Williams's receipt of future unemployment compensation, (2) asserted that he had already received compensation for which he was ineligible due to his employment with Wingfoot, and (3) alleged that he had intentionally misled the Agency or concealed information from it to obtain compensation for which he was not eligible. On Oct. 29, 2013, the Agency sent Williams a "notice of garnishment" stating that, if the amount owed was not provided to the Agency within 30 days, his employer would be required to deduct and send to the Agency up to 25% of his disposable earnings each pay period until the debt is paid in full. Williams' wages were first garnished, at the latest, on May 16, 2014,1 and on May 27, 2014, the Agency sent Williams a notice of intent to reduce/withhold federal income tax refund that was materially identical to the notices provided to Bauserman and Broe. Williams sent a letter appealing the Agency's redeterminations on May 22, 2014. The Agency denied Williams's appeal as untimely, as did an administrative law judge. Finally, on Feb. 19, 2015, the Agency seized Williams's federal income tax refund and continues to collect his debt by this means. The Plaintiffs' amended complaint alleges that the Agency violated the class members' due-process rights by (1) depriving them of property without providing adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard and (2) engaging in unlawful collection practices by, among other things: (a) imposing a higher level of interest than permitted, (b) collecting interest on penalties, and (c) employing wage garnishments. The Agency moved for summary disposition on a number of grounds, including that the Plaintiffs failed to comply with the notice provision of MCL 600.6431(3) because they had not filed the complaint within six months following the happening of the event giving rise to the cause of action. The Court of Claims denied the Agency's motion, concluding that the Plaintiffs' claims accrued when they received the Agency's redetermination notices that rendered its previous fraud findings null and void and that the Plaintiffs' claims had been filed within six months of that event. The Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that the Plaintiffs' claims accrued when they received the original redetermination notices alleging fraudulent conduct and explaining the effect that would have on their unemployment compensation. It reasoned that the hallmark of a due-process claim is inadequate process and therefore that was the "actionable harm" for the purposes of accrual; the subsequent seizing of the Plaintiffs' property merely reflected the damage resulting from that deprivation and did not establish the date of accrual. The Plaintiffs thereafter filed an application for leave to appeal in the Court, and it scheduled oral argument on the application, instructing the parties to address whether the happening of the event giving rise to the Appellants' cause of action for the deprivation of property without due process occurred when the appellee issued its allegedly wrongful notice of redetermination, or when the Appellee actually seized the Appellants' property. Judge Markman holds that the "happening of the event giving rise to the cause of action" for a claim seeking monetary relief is when the claim accrues, and a procedural-due-process claim seeking monetary relief accrues when the deprivation of life, liberty, or property has occurred. In the instant case, the Plaintiffs were deprived of their property when their tax refunds were seized or their wages garnished. He concludes that it is yet to be determined whether the Plaintiffs will succeed on their claims against the Agency. However, Plaintiffs Bauserman and Broe did timely comply with the notice requirements of MCL 600.6431(3) and therefore are not procedurally barred on that basis from the substantive consideration of their claims. The Judge thus affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remanded to that court for further proceedings consistent with his Opinion. A full-text copy of the Court's April 5, 2019 Opinion is available at https://is.gd/xQIUsn from Leagle.com. KEVIN M. CARLSON -- kevin@kevincarlsonlaw.com -- for GRANT BAUSERMAN, Plaintiff-Appellee. DEBBIE K. TAYLOR, for UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE AGENCY, Defendant-Appellant. UNITED RENTALS: Court Denies Bid to Remand Elizarraz Labor Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, RAMON ELIZARRAZ, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. UNITED RENTALS, INC., a Delaware corporation, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-CV-09533-ODW (JC) (C.D. Cal.), Judge Otis D. Wright of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California denied the Plaintiff's Motion to Remand. The Plaintiff brought the putative class action against the Defendant. He filed his Complaint on Oct. 9, 2018 in Los Angeles Superior Court alleging eight causes of action: (1) Unpaid Overtime; (2) Unpaid Meal Period Premiums; (3) Unpaid Rest Period Premiums; (4) Unpaid Minimum Wages; (5) Final Wages Not Timely Paid; (6) Non-Compliant Wage Statements; (7) Unreimbursed Business Expenses; and (8) Unfair Competition/Unfair Business Practices. The Plaintiff brought the class action against the Defendant on behalf of himself and the class he seeks to represent. The Class consists of all current and former California-based hourly-paid or non-exempt employees employed by Defendant within the State of California at any time during the period from four years preceding the filing of the Complaint to final judgment in the case The Plaintiff is a citizen of California. The Defendant is a Delaware Corporation. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant hired Plaintiff and the other class members and classified them as hourly-paid, non-exempt employees, and failed to compensate them for all hours worked, missed meal periods, and/or missed breaks. The Plaintiff does not allege a specific number of violations, nor a specific amount of damages, but he alleges that the aggregate claims are below the $5 million threshold for federal jurisdiction. On Nov. 9, 2018, the Defendant removed the case, claiming federal jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"). The parties do not dispute that the Plaintiff Class is made of more than 100 individuals and that the parties are minimally diverse as required by CAFA. Thus, the only issue is whether the Defendant has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy ("AIC") is greater than $5 million. The Defendant calculated the amount owed in penalties for missed meal and rest period violations at $16,131,402, which is based on a violation rate of 50% for missed meal periods and 25% for missed rest breaks. In other words, it assumed the Plaintiff Class missed 2.5 out of 5 meal periods per week and 2.5 out of 10 missed rest periods per week. The Plaintiff contests this calculation and argues that the Court should calculate the amount of damages in terms of the number of workdays per workweek an employee is deprived of meal and rest breaks. Judge Wright finds that the Defendant used the Plaintiff's allegations of a "pattern and practice" to assume violation rates of 50% for the meal period claim and 25% for the rest period claim. Courts have found violation rates of 50% proper with language such as "policy and practice." In light of the Plaintiff's allegations of a "pattern and practice" of meal and rest period violations, and the calculations of Cary Elliott, the Judge finds a violation rate of 50% for the meal period claim and 25% for the rest period claim reasonable. Since these claims alone put the AIC over the jurisdictional threshold, he declines to analyze whether the rest of the Plaintiff's claims satisfy the AIC. For the foregoing reasons, Judge Wright concludes that jurisdiction exists under CAFA and denied the Plaintiff's Motion to Remand. A full-text copy of the Court's April 9, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/M7oFM6 from Leagle.com. Ramon Elizarraz, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Han -- dhan@justicelawcorp.com -- Justice Law Corporation, Arsine Grigoryan, Justice Law Corporation, Daniel J. Park, Justice Law Corporation & Shunt Tatavos-Gharajeh -- statavos@justicelawcorp.com -- Justice Law Corporation. United Rentals North America, Inc., Erroneously Sued As United Rentals, Inc., Defendant, represented by Paul Rodriguez -- paulrodriguez@dwt.com -- Davis Wright Tremaine LLP & Julie M. Capell -- juliecapell@dwt.com -- Davis Wright Tremaine LLP. UNITED STATES: Acadiana et al. Hit Bankruptcy Fees -------------------------------------------------- The case, ACADIANA MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC; ALBUQUERQUE-AMG SPECIALTY HOSPITAL, LLC; CENTRAL INDIANA-AMG SPECIALTY HOSPITAL, LLC; LTAC HOSPITAL OF EDMOND, LLC; HOUMA-AMG SPECIALTY HOSPITAL, LLC; LTAC OF LOUISIANA, LLC; and LAS VEGAS-AMG SPECIALTY HOSPITAL, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendants, Case No. 19-496C (Fed. Cl., April 3, 2019) alleges that the increased quarterly fees charged to the Plaintiffs are unconstitutional. According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs are seven reorganized debtors whose Chapter 11 cases were filed in June 2017 (before the 2017 Act was signed into law), whose joint plan was confirmed in February 2018 (after the 2017 Act was signed into law), and whose joint plan was effective in May 2018. The Plaintiffs' Chapter 11 cases were closed in June 2018 with a final decree. Plaintiffs' cases were pending in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Louisiana, which is part of Region 5 of the USTP. As such, the Plaintiffs paid first and second quarter fees in 2018. Plaintiffs paid $216,784.69 more in quarterly fees than they would have paid if their cases were pending in Alabama or North Carolina. Given the non-uniformity of fees charged to Chapter 11 debtors, the Defendant has implemented a non-uniform bankruptcy law in violation of the Constitution of the United States. Alternatively, the Plaintiffs allege that the increased quarterly fees charged to them are unconstitutional as applied to them due to retroactive application of the increased quarterly fees to cases filed prior to the Bankruptcy Judgeship Act of 2017. The Plaintiffs, on their own behalf and on behalf of those similarly situated, ask the Court to find 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1930(a)(6)(B) unconstitutional as applied to Chapter 11 debtors whose cases were filed before October 26, 2017, and who paid the increased quarterly fee, and to award them a judgment in the amount of the increased quarterly fees paid, based on a cause of action for illegal exaction under the Tucker Act.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Bradley L. Drell, Esq. Heather M. Mathews, Esq. Chelsea M. Tanner, Esq. Lauren LaRavia, Esq. GOLD WEEMS BRUSER SUES & RUNDELL, APLC 2001 MacArthur Drive Alexandria, LA 71307-6118 Telephone: (318) 445-6471 Facsimile: (318) 445-6476 E-mail: bdrell@goldweems.com - and - August Rantz, IV, Esq. RANTZ IV, LLC 101 La Rue France, Ste. 500 Lafayette, LA 70508 Telephone: (337) 269-9566 Facsimile: (337) 269-6375 UNITED STATES: Bid for Attorneys' Fees in McCarty Suit Partly OK'd ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, DAN McCARTY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant, Case No. 14-316L (Fed. Cl.), Judge Mary Ellen Coster Williams of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims granted in part the Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Expenses. The rails-to-trails takings case comes before the Court on the Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Expenses. The Plaintiffs, 66 landowners, settled the merits of their Fifth Amendment taking claims for $957,273 including interest. They request fees of $2,092,464 and expenses of $232,994. Their counsel, Arent Fox LLP, worked a total of 3,855.1 hours over the course of the litigation claiming hourly rates ranging from $285 for paralegals to $855 for their most senior partner. The Defendant contends that the hours claimed and fees requested are excessive and requests that the Court reduces both the billing rates and the number of hours to be reimbursed. Judge Williams finds that the record as a whole, in particular the Plaintiffs' persuasive evidence that the disparity between their firm's D.C. rates and St. Louis rates is 15%, does not show that there is a "very significant difference" between St. Louis rates and the forum rate warranting application of the Davis County locality-rate exception. Upon considering the Kavanaugh Matrix and the USAO Matrix, the Judge is persuaded that the USAO Matrix is more appropriate, as that matrix is based on changes in prices for goods and services, including legal services in Washington, D.C. and is applying that forum rate. The Defendant will reimburse the Plaintiffs' counsel their hourly forum rates determined according to the USAO Matrix. The Plaintiffs' rates will be calculated based upon historic, not current, rates. Next, the Judge agrees with the Defendant that a reduction is warranted, but not to the extent requested. She reduces the 214.9 hours spent on the Plaintiffs' fee application by 50%, and awards reimbursement for 107.5 hours. Such a reduction takes into account the fact that work done in the case was duplicative of work performed in Biery, Campbell, and Whispell. The Judge holds it was reasonable for the Plaintiffs' counsel to treat a Rails-to-Trails case initially involving over 200 properties and 66 Plaintiffs as a candidate for a class action. The fact that such procedure ultimately became untenable as the litigation ran its course is not reason to deny fees. The 54 hours expended on class certification and decertification are reimbursable. The Judge grants reimbursement for the 31.5 hours the Defendant challenges exclusively on grounds of client development. She denied the Defendant's challenge to the remaining 297.8 hours on the unsupported ground that these hours "include" client development activities. The Judge reduces by 25% the 1,110.5 hours claimed in 205 of the Plaintiffs' counsel's billing entries on grounds of block billing. The Court therefore deducts 277.6 hours, awarding the Plaintiffs' counsel reimbursement for 832.9 hours the Defendant attributed to block billing. Finally, as a condition of settlement, the Government agreed to pay the landowners before the end of October 2016, but did not pay the landowners until January 2017, which required additional work by the Plaintiffs' counsel and involvement of the Court. Judge Williams granted in part the Plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees and expenses. She awarded the Plaintiffs reimbursement for 2,821.9 hours of attorneys' fees and adjusted in accordance with the USAO Matrix. The Plaintiffs are awarded their requested costs in the amount of $232,994. The Plaintiffs will submit a revised fee application to Defendant consistent with the Opinion within 30 days, and the Defendant will promptly consider and process such request. The parties will file a notice with the Court once the fees and costs have been paid. A full-text copy of the Court's April 9, 2019 Opinion and Order is available at https://is.gd/AHIUzc from Leagle.com. DAN McCARTY, JEAN McCARTY, GARY O McPHERSON, VICKI McPHERSON, HIRAM SANDERS, PATRICIA S SANDERS, ALAN THORP, STEVEN THORP, CHRISTOPHER AMSTUTZ, SHERRY AMSTUTZ, ROBERT DILLON, as power of attorney for Mary L. Baker, ROMA BATEMAN, JUSTIN BLACKWELL, LANA BLACKWELL, JEFF D. BLEVINS, CAROL E. BLEVINS, FRAN O. BOND, RAY E. CHENAULT, LYNDA G. CHENAULT, WILLIAM MATTHEW, ROSE ANN BRENNER, NANCY ELLEN BROCK, GARY L. BULLOCK, PATSY J. BULLOCK & ROSELYN JEAN WILLIAMS, Administratix of the Estate of Beulah Margaret Armstrong, Plaintiffs, represented by Mark Fernlund Hearne, II -- thor@larsonobrienlaw.com -- Larson O'Brien, LLP. DAVID PARKER, Plaintiff, pro se. MICHAEL CHASTAIN, Plaintiff, pro se. SUSAN CHASTAIN, Plaintiff, pro se. USA, Defendant, represented by David Allen Harrington, U.S. Department of Justice. UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Manley Suit Transferred to W.D. Ark. -------------------------------------------------------- The case, DEBORAH MANLEY, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INC.; UNITED HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC.; UNITEDHEALTHCARE, INC.; UNITEDHEALTHCARE INSURANCE CO.; UMR, INC.; UNITED HEALTHCARE OF ARKANSAS; JOHN DOE CORPORATIONS 1 THROUGH 10; AND JOHN DOE ENTITIES 1 THROUGH 10, Case No. 5:19-cv-05078-PKH (Filed on March 13, 2019), was transferred from Washington County Circuit Court, State of Arkansas, to the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas on April 17, 2019. In the complaint, Plaintiff seeks declaratory and other relief under Arkansas law in connection with alleged enforcement of subrogation and reimbursement clauses within various health insurance plans in which Plaintiff and a purported class of individuals participated. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants collected reimbursement or subrogation from an insured's or a covered person's settlement with a third party tortfeasor, prior to reaching an agreement or receiving a judicial determination that the insured or covered person was made whole. UnitedHealth Group provides health care coverage and insurance benefits services in the United States. It was founded in 1974 and is based in Minnetonka, Minnesota. [BN] Attorneys for Defendants: Eva C. Madison, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 217 E. Dickson Street, Suite 204 Fayetteville, AR 72701 Telephone: (479) 582-6100 Facsimile: (479) 582-6111 E-mail: emadison@littler.com UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA: 3d Cir. Restores 2 Counts in ERISA Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the appeals case styled JENNIFER SWEDA; BENJAMIN A. WIGGINS; ROBERT L. YOUNG; FAITH PICKERING; PUSHKAR SOHONI; REBECCA N. TONER, individually and as representatives of a class of participants and beneficiaries on behalf of the University of Pennsylvania Matching Plan, Appellants, v. UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA; INVESTMENT COMMITTEE; JACK HEUER, No. 17-3244 (3rd Cir.), the United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, reversed the District Court's dismissal of the breach of fiduciary duty claims at Counts III and V only and remanded the case for further proceedings. Plaintiffs Jennifer Sweda, Benjamin Wiggins, Robert Young, Faith Pickering, Pushkar Sohoni, and Rebecca Toner, representing a class of participants in the University of Pennsylvania's 403(b) defined contribution, individual account, employee pension benefit plan, sued Defendants, the University of Pennsylvania and its appointed fiduciaries, for breach of fiduciary duty, prohibited transactions, and failure to monitor fiduciaries under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. Sections 1001-1461. Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendants, among other things, failed to use prudent and loyal decision making processes regarding investments and administration, overpaid certain fees by up to 600%, and failed to remove underperforming options from the retirement plan's offerings. The District Court dismissed Sweda's complaint in its entirety. The Third Circuit finds that Sweda plausibly alleged breach of fiduciary duty. Sweda's factual allegations are not merely "unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation[s]." They are numerous and specific factual allegations that Penn did not perform its fiduciary duties with the level of care, skill, prudence, and diligence to which Plan participants are statutorily entitled under Section 1104(a)(1). Sweda offered specific comparisons between returns on Plan investment options and readily available alternatives, as well as practices of similarly situated fiduciaries to show what plan administrators "acting in a like capacity and familiar with such matters would [do] in the conduct of an enterprise of a like character and with like aims." The allegations plausibly allege that Penn failed to "defray[] reasonable expenses of administering the plan" and otherwise failed to "discharge [its] duties" according to the prudent man standard of care. The Third Circuit further held that in dismissing the claims in Counts III and V, the District Court erred by "ignor[ing] reasonable inferences supported by the facts alleged," and by drawing "inferences in [Defendants'] favor, faulting [Plaintiffs] for failing to plead facts tending to contradict those inferences." While Sweda may not have directly alleged how Penn mismanaged the Plan, she provided substantial circumstantial evidence from which the District Court could "reasonably infer" that a breach had occurred. Based on her allegations, the claims in Counts III and V should not have been dismissed. Jerome J. Schlichter, Esq. -- aschlichter@uselaws.com -- Sean E. Soyars, Esq. -- ssoyars@uselaws.com -- Kurt C. Struckhoff, Esq. -- kstruckhoff@uselaws.com -- Michael A. Wolff, Esq. [ARGUED] -- mwolff@uselaws.com -- Schlichter Bogard & Denton, 100 South 4th Street, Suite 1200, St. Louis, MO 63102, Counsel for Appellants. Brian T. Ortelere [ARGUED], Esq. -- brian.ortelere@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis & Bockius, 1701 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103. Christopher J. Boran, Esq. -- christopher.boran@morganlewis.com -- Matthew A. Russell, Esq. -- matthew.russell@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis & Bockius, 77 West Wacker Drive, Chicago, IL 60601. Michael E. Kenneally, Esq. -- michael.kenneally@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis & Bockius, 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 800 North, Washington, DC 20004, Counsel for Appellees. Brian T. Burgess, Jaime A. Santos, Goodwin Procter, 901 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 900 East, Washington, DC 20001. Alison V. Douglass, James O. Fleckner, Goodwin Procter, 100 Northern Avenue, Boston, MA 02210, Counsel for Chamber of Commerce of The United, States of America and American Benefits Council, Amicus, Appellees. Brian D. Netter, Mayer Brown, 1999 K Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20006, Counsel for American Association of State Colleges, and Universities, American Council on Education, Association of American Universities, Association of, Community College Trustees, Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities, College and University, Professional Association For Human Resources, Council of, Independent Colleges, National Association of Independent, Colleges and Universities, Amicus Appellees. Lori A. Martin, WilmerHale, 7 World Trade Center, 250 Greenwich Street, New York, NY 10007. Seth P. Waxman, Paul R. Wolfson, WilmerHale, 1875 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20006, Counsel for Teachers Insurance & Annuity, Association of America, Amicus Appellee. VARSITY PRODUCED: Carrillo Files Class Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against VARSITY PRODUCED, INC. ET AL. The case is styled as RHINA BEATRIZ CARRILLO, INDIVIDUALLY, AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff v. VARSITY PRODUCED, INC., A BUSINESS FORM UNKNOWN, VARSITY PRODUCE SALES, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, MA MEDINA FARM LABOR SERVICES, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. BCV-19-101198 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., April 30, 2019). The case type is stated as "Other Complaint - Civil Unlimited". Varsity Produce Inc. is a privately held company in Bakersfield, CA and is a Single Location business, categorized under Fresh Fruits.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by MATTHEW J MATERN, ESQ. VESTIAIRE COLLECTIVE: Bid to Enforce Steamer Suit Settlement Denied ------------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Jesse M. Furman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York denied the Defendants' motion to enforce the settlement in the case, JULIE STEAMER, individually on behalf of herself and the plaintiff class, Plaintiff, v. VESTIAIRE COLLECTIVE USA, INC., and VESTIAIRE COLLECTIVE, SA, Defendants, Case No. 18-CV-10739 (JMF) (S.D. N.Y.). The putative class action was dismissed when the parties reported that they had reached a settlement in principle, but was reopened when Plaintiff Steamer reported that the parties had failed to memorialize the terms of their settlement. Thereafter, the Defendants filed a motion to enforce the parties' purported settlement. In evaluating whether parties to a lawsuit intended to be bound by a settlement agreement in the absence of a mutually executed document, courts (applying federal or New York law) consider the following factors: (1) whether there has been an express reservation of the right not to be bound in the absence of a signed writing; (2) whether there has been partial performance of the contract; (3) whether all of the terms of the alleged contract have been agreed upon; and (4) whether the agreement at issue is the type of contract that is usually committed to writing. Applying those factors in the case, Judge Furman denief the Defendants' motion to enforce the settlement. First, although there was no express reservation of the right not to be bound absent a written agreement, the counsel's communications throughout the settlement process -- including submissions to this Court, both before and after the agreement in principle -- made clear that both parties expected a written settlement agreement. With respect to the second factor, the Defendants provide no evidence of partial performance of the settlement agreement, which weighs against enforcement. With respect to the third, although the counsel appeared to believe that they had agreed to material terms of a settlement in emails dated January 17 and 18, the subsequent arguments about the differences between the Plaintiff's and the Defendants' draft agreements reveal that they did not. Finally, as to the fourth factor, settlement agreements -- particularly those with "numerous provisions that will apply into perpetuity" -- are generally required to be in writing, and in the case, the drafted settlement agreements included provisions applying into perpetuity. All together, because each factor weighs against finding that the parties intended to be bound to a settlement without a written contract, the parties' purported settlement is not enforceable. That said, the Judge holds that the materials submitted in connection with the Defendants' motion reveal that the parties agree on much more than they disagree and, in the Court's view, suggest that they can and should resolve their disagreements without the need for further litigation, whether in the Court or elsewhere. To that end, by separate Order to be entered today, the Judge is referring the case to Magistrate Judge Debra C. Freeman for settlement purposes. He ordered the parties to conduct an in-person settlement conference with Magistrate Judge Freeman no later than May 24, 2019. Additionally, the parties are ordered to submit a joint status letter by no later than one week after the settlement conference occurs. He will defer ruling on the Defendants' other pending motion -- to compel arbitration -- until it receives the joint status letter. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate Docket No. 22. A full-text copy of the Court's April 9, 2019 Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at https://is.gd/FlWtDz from Leagle.com. Julie Steamer, individually on behalf of herself and the plaintiff class, Plaintiff, represented by Hendrick Vandamme, Vandamme Law Firm. P.C. & Steven Altman, Altman & Company P.C. Vestiaire Collective USA, INC. & Vestiaire Collective SA, Defendants, represented by John Edward MacDonald -- jmacdonald@constangy.com -- Constangy, Brooks & Smith, L.L.C.. WHOLE FOODS: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Scott Suit under NYLL -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Sandra J. Feuerstein of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss the case, DWAYNE J. SCOTT and DERRELL J. MEYNARD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. WHOLE FOODS MARKET GROUP, INC., Defendant, Case No. 18-CV-0086 (SJF) (AKT) (E.D. N.Y.), pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The named Plaintiffs commenced the diversity, putative class action against the Defendant Whole Foods, asserting a single claim for failure to timely pay wages pursuant to New York Labor Law ("NYLL"). The Plaintiffs worked at the Whole Foods location in Manhasset, New York. Scott was employed from approximately July 2011 until December 2015, and Meynard worked there between June 24, 2010 and July 13, 2013. Each of the Plaintiff claims to have spent at least 25% of his time engaged in physical labor, claims to be a "manual worker," and alleges that he was paid on a bi-weekly basis during his entire employment. Prior to Dec. 11, 2011, Whole Foods had a uniform, national practice of paying all its employees every two weeks. The Plaintiffs allege that at some time prior to Dec. 22, 2011, Whole Foods became aware NYLL Section 191 required that manual workers be paid on a weekly basis and not later than seven calendar days after the end of the week in which the wages are earned. The statute further provides that an employer may obtain authorization from the commissioner of labor to pay manual workers in accordance with the agreed terms of employment, but not less frequently than semi-monthly. Until April 27, 2012, Whole Foods was not authorized to pay manual workers, including the Plaintiffs, on a bi-weekly basis and thus was required to pay them weekly. The Plaintiffs seek to bring the action on behalf of a putative class consisting of all manual workers employed by Whole Foods at any time from Dec. 11, 2011 until April 27, 2012. They claim that as of Dec. 11, 2011, Whole Foods employed approximately 3,300 people in New York state, and that the "overwhelming majority" of those employees were manual workers. The Plaintiffs filed the complaint on Jan. 5, 2018, alleging violations of NYLL Sections 191 and 198 for Whole Foods's willful failure to pay manual workers, including the Plaintiffs, on a weekly basis as required. They claim they are "entitled to recover from the Defendant liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees, costs, and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest. The Defendant has moved for dismissal, arguing inter alia, that there is no private right of action under New York law for the relief sought. Judge Feuerstein finds that while the New York Court of Appeals does not appear to have directly addressed the issue of whether an employee has a private right of action under Section 191 redressable under Section 198, it has addressed an unrelated issue on such a claim without expressing any concern as to the right of the employee to assert it. In Bynog v. Cipriani Grp., Inc., the contested legal issue was whether the plaintiffs were employees or independent contractors. The Appellate Division found that the plaintiffs were employees, and reinstated the cause of action under Labor Law Section 191 and the associated claim for costs and fees under Labor Law Section 198. On appeal, the Court of Appeals concluded that the plaintiffs were independent contractors not employees, and on that basis, dismissed the cause of action under Labor Law Section 191 and the associated claim under Labor Law Section 198. Significantly, neither the Second Department nor the Court of Appeals suggested, let alone held, that the plaintiffs did not have a right to bring a claim under Section 191 in the first instance. The Judge also finds that there is nothing in the statutory scheme authorizing the Commissioner of Labor to take action that suggests that a private action is barred or would otherwise run counter to the legislative scheme. To the contrary, Section 198 refers to civil actions brought by the commissioner, the employee, or both, and states that the remedies provided by this article may be enforced simultaneously or consecutively so far as not inconsistent with each other. The discretionary nature of the Commissioner's authority coupled with the references to employee actions in Section 198 compels the conclusion that a private action under Section 191 is consistent with the legislative scheme. Moreover, the interpretation urged by Whole Foods leaves an aggrieved employee with no recourse, but rather allows an employer to perpetually violate Section 191 simply by paying the employee, in full, after a delay beyond the one-week period set by statute. Permitting an employer to flout the requirements of Section 191 with impunity, so long as it eventually pays its employee the wages owed, is inconsistent with the stated purposes of the NYLL. Finally, in its reply, Whole Foods argues for the first time that there can be no class action that seeks liquidated damages alone. The Judge explains that it is well-established that arguments may not be made for the first time in a reply brief. If a party does so, the Court may choose not to consider those arguments. As the Defendant's challenge was first raised in its reply, depriving the Plaintiffs of the opportunity to respond, the Judge declines to address it. For the foregoing reasons, Judge Feuerstein denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss. A full-text copy of the Court's April 9, 2019 Memorandum and Order is available at https://is.gd/aiXkGH from Leagle.com. Dwayne J. Scott & Derell J. Meynard, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Steven John Moser -- smoser@moseremploymentlaw.com -- Moser Law Firm PC. Whole Foods Market Group, Inc., Defendant, represented by Christopher Michael Pardo, Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete, LLP & Michael James Slocum -- slocumm@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig. WISCONSIN: King Files Prisoner Civil Rights Suit ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Landreman, Steven et al. The case is styled as Carlos King, Thaddeus Karow, James Price, Craig Alan Sussek, Victoriano Heredia, On behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Steven Landreman As Acting Chairperson and Commissioner of the Wisconsin Parole Commission, Danielle LaCost As Commissioner of the Wisconsin Parole Commission, Douglas Drankiewicz As Commissioner of the Wisconsin Parole Commission, Kevin Carr As Secretary-Designee of the Wisconsin Department of Corrections, Mark Heise As Director of the Bureau of Classification and Movement, Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-00338-jdp (W.D. Wis., April 30, 2019). The nature of suit is stated as Prisoner Civil Rights. Steven Landreman is an acting Chairperson and Commissioner of the Wisconsin Parole Commission.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Asma Imtiazali Kadri, Esq. American Civil Liberties Union of Wisconsin Foundation 207 E. Buffalo Street Suite 325 Milwaukee, WI 53202 Phone: (414) 272-4032 Email: akadri@aclu-wi.org - and - Avery Gilbert, Esq. 15 Shatzell Avenue, Suite 232 Rhinecliff, NY 12574 Phone: (845) 380-6265 Email: avery@agilbertlaw.com - and - Carly S. Conway, Esq. Quarles & Brady P.O. Box 2113 33 East Main St, Ste 900 Madison, WI 53701 Phone: (608) 251-5000 Email: carly.levin@quarles.com - and - Emma Smith Shakeshaft, Esq. ACLU of Wisconsin Foundation, Inc. 207 East Buffalo Street, Suite 325 Milwaukee, WI 53202 Phone: (414) 272-4032 x230 Fax: (414) 272-0182 Email: eshakeshaft@aclu-wi.org - and - Gregory T. Everts, Esq. Quarles & Brady P.O. Box 2113 33 East Main St, Ste 900 Madison, WI 53701 Phone: (608) 283-2460 Fax: (608) 294-4911 Email: greg.everts@quarles.com - and - Heather Holden Brooks, Esq. Foley & Lardner LLP 777 East Wisconsin Avenue Milwaukee, WI 53202 Phone: (414) 297-5711 Fax: (414) 297-4900 Email: hbrooks@foley.com - and - Issa Kohler-Hausmann, Esq. Yale Law School 127 Wall St. New Haven, CT 06511 Phone: (347) 856-6376 Email: issa.kohler-hausmann@yale.edu - and - Joseph R. Santeler, Esq. Quarles & Brady 411 E Wisconsin Ave Milwaukee, WI 53202 Phone: (414) 277-5281 Email: Joseph.Santeler@quarles.com - and - Laurence J. Dupuis, Esq. Aclu of Wisconsin Foundation, Inc. 207 East Buffalo Street, Suite 325 Milwaukee, WI 53202 Phone: (414) 272-4032 ext 212 Fax: (414) 272-0182 Email: ldupuis@aclu-wi.org - and - Maria Lyon, Esq. Foley & Lardner 150 East Gilman St. P.O. Box 1497 Madison, WI 53701 Phone: (608) 258-4235 Fax: (608) 258-4258 Email: mlyon@foley.com - and - Martha Jahn Snyder, Esq. Quarles & Brady P.O. Box 2113 33 East Main St, Ste 900 Madison, WI 53701 Phone: (608) 283-2429 Fax: (608) 251-5000 Email: mjahn@quarles.com - and - Patrick John Proctor-Brown, Esq. Quarles & Brady LLP 411 East Wisconsin Ave., Suite 2350 Milwaukee, WI 53202 Phone: (414) 277-5000 Email: patrick.proctor-brown@quarles.com - and - R Timothy Muth, Esq. Aclu of Wisconsin Foundation, Inc. 207 East Buffalo Street, Suite 325 Milwaukee, WI 53202 Phone: (414) 272-4032 x222 Fax: (414) 272-0182 Email: tmuth@aclu-wi.org WM. BOLTHOUSE: Carrillo Files Class Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against WM. BOLTHOUSE FARMS, INC. ET AL. The case is styled as RHINA BEATRIZ CARRILLO, INDIVIDUALLY, AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff v. WM. BOLTHOUSE FARMS, INC., A MICHIGAN CORPORATION, BOLTHOUSE FARMS, AN UNKNOWN BUSINESS FORM, BOLTHHOUSE FARMS CUYAMA CUYAMA, AN UNKNOWN BUSINESS FORM, BOLTHHOUSE FARMS KERN COUNTY, AN UNKNOWN BUSINESS FORM, MA MEDINA FARM LABOR SERVICES, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. BCV-19-101199 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., April 30, 2019). The case type is stated as "Other Complaint - Civil Unlimited". Wm. Bolthouse Farms, Inc. produces fresh produce and beverages.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by MATTHEW J MATERN, ESQ. Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: 200+ Teachers Died From Asbestos in UK ------------------------------------------------------- Mark Ellis, writing for Mirror.co.uk, reported that more than 200 teachers have died in the past 10 years from the effects of being exposed to asbestos. And for each teacher fatality, nine ex-pupils can also be expected to fall victim to the silent killer, a study claims -- an average of almost 200 per year. Breathing in asbestos fibres can lead to mesothelioma, a cancer that develops in the lining of the lungs and can strike years or even decades after exposure. Dr Mary Bousted of the National Education Union said: "These figures are shocking. No one should have to suffer an early death because the building they work in contains asbestos. "Education staff are at risk but of even greater concern are children, who are more vulnerable to developing mesothelioma if exposed at a young age. "The only certain way to prevent future deaths is to rid our educational buildings of this deadly material." Some 86% of schools contain asbestos, a study found in 2015. The material was typically used in buildings between the 1940s and 1970s. Experts say it is a greater health risk as it gets older and starts to degrade. A total of 211 teachers died of mesothelioma in 10 years, figures from the Office for National Statistics show. Of these, 128 died after the retirement age of 65 -- showing the delayed effect. Teachers' unions have called on the Government to pay for asbestos to be safely removed from school buildings. The Mirror's Asbestos Timebomb campaign for a national audit of all 23,000 schools in England has been backed by Britain's biggest unions. Mesothelioma claims 2,400 lives across the country every year. In 2016 an inquest heard primary school teacher Sue Stephens, 68, died from mesothelioma after teaching at schools in Buckinghamshire. The coroner said she had likely suffered fatal exposure to asbestos during building work at one of them. And Michele Reed, 63, of St Helens, Merseyside, died of mesothelioma in 2017 after teaching in the North West. A study last year by the American Environmental Protection Agency estimated that for each school staff member lost to mesothelioma, nine former pupils can be also expected to die. The Department for Education said: "Since 2015, we've allocated more than £7.4billion to maintain and improve the school estate, including removing asbestos when it is the safest course of action. Asbestos is a factor in choosing which schools to re-build through the Priority School Building Programme." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Arcata Bowl Owner's Family Awarded $4.4MM ---------------------------------------------------------- Lost Coast Outpost reported that in recent years the nondescript Ten Pin Building, located at 793 K Street in Arcata, has been primarily utilized as the North Coast Co-op's warehouse. But longtime locals will remember the meaning behind the building's name: For decades the location was home to Arcata Bowl, a bowling alley that closed way back in 2000 and, for a time, apparently unknowingly handled countless deadly, industrial waste-filled bowling balls. A jury in Los Angeles County ruled against asbestos supplier Honeywell International Inc. and awarded $4.4 million to the family of the late Donald Vanni who co-owned Arcata Bowl from 1957 to 1986. Donald died in 2013, the result of mesothelioma caused by years drilling out custom-sized finger holes in asbestos-filled bowling balls. Here's the story, courtesy a celebratory press release issued by the Vanni family's legal team at law firm Waters Kraus & Paul: Donald worked at the bowling alley seven days a week trading off opening and closing shifts with his brother. One of Donald's responsibilities was drilling custom-fit finger holes in the bowling balls that the Arcata Bowl sold. Asbestos, used as a filler in plastic Ebonite bowling balls, was supplied by Honeywell in the form of discarded brake lining dust. The brake dust was the waste product of Honeywell's Bendix brake manufacturing plant in Troy, New York. In the late 1960s, documents show that the Bendix plant was generating 15 tons of asbestos-laden brake dust each day. But, rather than pay money to safely dispose of this asbestos-laden waste, Honeywell opted to sell it as a filler in commercial products, including Ebonite bowling balls. Ebonite was one of the most popular balls in the 1960s and 1970s, including at the Arcata Bowl, and was endorsed by professional bowlers such as Don Carter and Earl Anthony. Donald Vanni routinely drilled Ebonite balls in a small room, with no protection, for years. No one ever told the Vannis that the Ebonite balls contained asbestos. Donald was in good health until he was diagnosed with pericardial mesothelioma in 2012. He and his wife had lived an active lifestyle. They would regularly go fishing, golf, and were active members in their Church. The Vannis also enjoyed sporting and entertainment events, and visiting their grandchildren. Donald died of mesothelioma in 2013, leaving behind two adult sons and his wife of 55 years. The jury found that Honeywell's asbestos waste presented "a danger to persons using the products as intended." They said that Defendant Honeywell failed to adequately warn of the potential risks and Honeywell's negligence was a substantial contributor to Donald's mesothelioma. "This was completely preventable," said Sam Iola, an attorney at Waters Kraus & Paul who represented the Vannis family. "The Vanni family should not have lost Don nine years early due to Honeywell's greed. Asbestos brake dust should have never gone into a single bowling ball." "Honeywell refused to take responsibility here, and we held them accountable," said another WKP attorney, Peter Kraus, in the release. "I am so happy for the Vanni family." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found at Durham Gas Explosion ------------------------------------------------------- Jacob Maslow, writing for Legal Scoops, reported that asbestos-containing materials were found at the site of a gas explosion in downtown Durham, North Carolina. State health officials warn that first responders may have been exposed to the material during the explosion, and may be at minimal risk of developing lung cancer or other asbestos-related diseases. The explosion occurred on April 10 when a gas leak triggered the blaze on North Duke Street. Two people were killed and two dozen injured in the incident. The NC Division of Public Health said in a statement that they "cannot know for sure" whether any person was exposed to asbestos. The department added that the potential for public exposure was minimal based on their test results. Officials put air-quality monitors in place before workers removed debris from the site on Wednesday. Rubble piles were soaked with water to minimize the amount of dust stirred up by the debris that was loaded. Few people will become ill after short-term exposure to asbestos fibers, the NC Division of Public Health said in its statement. Problems typically occur in people are regularly exposed to the material at work. In the UK, for example, more than 200 teachers have died in the last decade due to asbestos exposure. For every teacher fatality, nine former students can expect to be diagnosed with asbestos-related diseases, the study found. Approximately 86% of the schools in the UK contain asbestos, according to a study from 2015. The material was commonly used in buildings from the 1940s through the 1970s. Over the last decade, 211 teachers died from mesothelioma in the UK, according to the Office for National Statistics. Among these, 128 died after retirement age, demonstrating the delayed effect of the disease. Teachers' unions are calling on the government to have the deadly substance removed from school buildings. Mesothelioma kills 2,400 people in the UK each year. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Blue Mountains Council Sued Over Asbestos ---------------------------------------------------------- Ray Hadley, writing for 2GB.com, reported that Safework NSW has launched legal action against the disgraced Blue Mountains City Council over asbestos mismanagement. Ray Hadley first exposed the council's extensive failings in November 2017 and has continued to reveal further incidents over the past 18 months. One such case saw council staff forced to dig up soil at the Lawson Mechanic's Institute, despite council allegedly knowing it was contaminated with asbestos. At the time, council claimed, "a person or persons are actively engaged" in framing the council by planting asbestos. Safework NSW jas launched legal action in relation to "eight breaches of the asbestos provisions of the Work Health and Safety Regulation" act. A whistleblower has leaked an all-staff email from Blue Mountains City Council General Manager Rosemary Dillion sent yesterday. In it, Ms Dillion claims council "worked tirelessly to address all asbestos management issues . . . .". The council has repeatedly fought claims it mismanaged asbestos, costing taxpayers more than $1 million of ratepayers' money. The commissioner overseeing the inquiry says the cost seems excessive… but isn't investigating it because he hasn't received any complaints from the public. Well, Blue Mountains residents, all you just have to do is email your complaint to this address bluemountainspublicinquiry@olg.nsw.gov.au ASBESTOS UPDATE: City of Eau Claire, Contractor Could be Fined -------------------------------------------------------------- WQOW.com reported that the City of Eau Claire and its contractor could be fined up to $75,000 for violating air pollution control laws during the city hall renovation. According to the DNR, Brack Thermal Systems Incorporated was hired in November to handle asbestos found during the renovation. The DNR claims the company mishandled the asbestos removal and returned to work one day before the state-required waiting period was scheduled to end. According to the City Risk Manager Colleen Schian, the city was not informed about violations until the middle of April. She said the investigation is still in the preliminary stages and the city is working with Brack Thermal Systems to gather more information. They will discuss the violations at an enforcement conference with the DNR. That meeting was originally scheduled for May 8 but was postponed. Schian told News 18 that if the city is found to be in violation, they expect to hold the contractor responsible. Brack Thermal Systems declined comment to News 18, other than to say they are waiting more information from the DNR. Schian said the issue is not expected to impact the city hall renovation which is scheduled to be complete by Labor Day. The Wisconsin DNR provided News 18 the following statement: "The department confirms that an inspection was conducted at the City of Eau Claire City Hall associated with asbestos removal operations being conducted by Brack Thermal Systems. Results of the inspection found potential concerns. The department is currently in discussion with the City of Eau Claire and Brack Thermal Systems to evaluate the data and determine next appropriate steps." ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Disregarded Experts in Issuing Asbestos Rule ----------------------------------------------------------------- Lisa Friedman, writing for The New York Times, reported that senior officials at the Environmental Protection Agency disregarded the advice of their own scientists and lawyers in April when the agency issued a rule that restricted but did not ban asbestos, according to two internal memos. Because of its fiber strength and resistance to heat, asbestos has long been used in insulation and construction materials. It is also is a known carcinogen. April's rule kept open a way for manufacturers to adopt new uses for asbestos, or return to certain older uses, but only with E.P.A. approval. Andrew Wheeler, the E.P.A. administrator, said when the rule was issued that it would significantly strengthen public health protections. But in the memos, dated Aug. 10, more than a dozen of E.P.A.'s own experts urged the agency to ban asbestos outright, as do most other industrialized nations. "Rather than allow for (even with restrictions) any new uses for asbestos, E.P.A. should seek to ban all new uses of asbestos because the extreme harm from this chemical substance outweighs any benefit -- and because there are adequate alternatives to asbestos," staff members wrote. It was not the first time administration has sidelined government scientists. Under President Trump, the E.P.A. has rolled back environmental protections and come under criticism for relaxing rules on toxic chemicals. In April, the agency weakened a proposed standard for cleaning up groundwater pollution caused by toxic chemicals. In March, it scaled back a proposed ban on a deadly chemical in paint strippers. And it has rejected a proposed ban on the use of chlorpyrifos, a pesticide that has sickened farm workers and been linked to developmental disabilities in their children. Even so, one former E.P.A. official said, disregarding the advice of career scientists on an issue as complex as asbestos risk was still unusual. "It's really unprecedented for political leaders to fail to pay attention to any of the scientists in either regional offices or headquarters," said Betsy Southerland, former director of science and technology in the E.P.A. department responsible for water. Michael Abboud, an E.P.A. spokesman, declined to address why the Trump administration had acted against the advice of the agency's in-house experts, saying in a statement, "We don't comment on deliberative intra-agency comments." He referred The New York Times to the agency's news release about the rule. Asbestos production in the United States stopped in 2002 but it is still imported to produce chemicals used in manufacturing items like household bleach, bulletproof vests and electrical insulation. Inhaling asbestos fibers, even in small amounts, is the primary cause of a cancer called malignant mesothelioma. Mike Walls, vice president of regulatory and technical affairs at the American Chemistry Council, an industry trade group, said his organization objected to any effort to impose a ban before the completion of a separate, congressionally mandated evaluation of asbestos. The conclusions of that review, due by December, could help determine if there will be further regulation or a ban. He said the industries that still used asbestos in the United States operated under strict safety regulations. "The risks of asbestos can be managed," Mr. Walls said. "We ought not to be imposing regulation simply on the basis of hazard." The internal memos show that E.P.A. staff members considered the agency's review process and the rule itself seriously flawed. They were first obtained by the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization, an advocacy group, and shared with The New York Times. Their authenticity was confirmed by people inside the E.P.A. Specifically, agency experts criticized the evaluation for studying only six fibers of asbestos, a scientific approach they said was "decades old," and said the process had disregarded other fiber types that are known to be harmful. They also criticized the review for considering only lung cancer and mesothelioma as possible harmful effects of asbestos exposure. Of greatest concern, they wrote, was the fact that the evaluation excluded the so-called legacy effects from the mishandling of asbestos. For example, the staff members pointed to a $45 million cleanup of a former Marine barracks in Oregon that was contaminated with asbestos when old buildings were improperly demolished. "Regulated industries contact E.P.A. when they have been surprised to find out that their buildings and other facilities were constructed with asbestos, when they had been assuming asbestos had been banned a long time before. If asbestos was banned, then these surprises would not continue to take place," the staff members wrote. On Wednesday the E.P.A. assistant administrator for chemical safety, Alexandra Dunn, testified before the House Energy and Commerce Committee against legislation that aims to ban asbestos. She said the agency must be allowed to finish the congressionally mandated review before taking further action in the matter. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ex-Bord na Mona Worker Dies from Asbestos Exposure ------------------------------------------------------------------- RTE.ie reported that an inquest into the death of a former Bord na Mona employee, who died from an asbestos-related cancer, heard claims today the deceased was exposed to asbestos while working at one of the company's briquette factories over 50 years ago. Jim O'Dwyer, 80, was diagnosed with an asbestos-related tumour last August. The father of six died last October. Mr O'Dwyer, from Shannon, Co Clare, was employed as an electrical maintenance worker at Bord na Mona's briquette factory at Derrinlough, Co Offaly, from 1960-1965. His family claimed during the inquest hearing at Limerick Coroner's Court that he was exposed to asbestos at the Offaly plant and that he was also exposed to asbestos while working in the UK around the same time. One of Mr O'Dwyer's relatives claimed in the hearing that Mr O'Dwyer told him he had been exposed to asbestos while "mixing the asbestos by hand and forming it into lagging pipes". The deceased started showing symptoms 30 years after, his family said. The results of Mr O'Dwyer's post mortem showed he died from Mesothelioma, an "aggressive form of cancer", which the inquest heard is specifically associated with asbestos exposure. Limerick City Corner John McNamara said: "Mesothelioma is an aggressive form of cancer, and it is a marker for asbestos exposure. It is a dormant killer that manifests itself many years later." Mr McNamara pondered during the hearing, whether or not others, who worked at the Offaly plant could potentially have been exposed to asbestos. The jury's findings were that Mr O'Dwyer's death was "due to occupational hazard" involving "asbestos". As a "rider" linked to its verdict, the jury foreman called on the coroner to contact Bord na Mona to investigate if there was any present potential asbestos-related safety matters at the plant. Mr McNamara said the jury's verdict of "occupational related death" was an "appropriate one". "The findings are in accordance with the medial evidence that James died as a result of exposure to asbestos. I will contact Bord na Mona in Co Offaly, advising them of James's case, and the fact it was felt he was exposed to asbestos while he worked in their plant," Mr McNamara said. "I will ask them to confirm, if they haven't already, that they have commenced an investigation to confirm there is no further risk to members of the public or employees of Bord na Mona at their plant in Co Offaly. "I'm assuming at this stage that any asbestos-related issue has been removed from the factory...because it is over 50 years ago," Mr McNamara added. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Faces Suit on Bendix Claims Accounting ----------------------------------------------------------------- Honeywell International Inc. is defending itself in a putative class action alleging violations of securities law over prior accounting matters on asbestos claims related to Bendix Friction Materials business, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019. The Company states, "On September 13, 2018, following completion of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Division of Corporation Finance's review of our prior accounting for liabilities for unasserted Bendix-related asbestos claims, the SEC Division of Enforcement advised that it has opened an investigation related to this matter. Honeywell intends to provide requested information and otherwise fully cooperate with the SEC staff. On October 31, 2018, David Kanefsky, a Honeywell shareholder, filed a putative class action complaint alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 related to the prior accounting for Bendix asbestos claims. We believe the complaint has no merit." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/rZqoZL ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Had $1.6BB Bendix Liabilities at Mar.31 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Honeywell International Inc. recorded US$1,594 million at March 31, 2019, in asbestos-related liabilities involving predecessor company Bendix Friction Materials (Bendix) business, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019. The Company also disclosed that it had 6,214 unresolved Bendix-related claims at March 31. The Company states, "Bendix manufactured automotive brake linings that contained chrysotile asbestos in an encapsulated form. Claimants consist largely of individuals who allege exposure to asbestos from brakes from either performing or being in the vicinity of individuals who performed brake replacements. "It is not possible to predict whether resolution values for Bendix-related asbestos claims will increase, decrease or stabilize in the future. "Our consolidated financial statements reflect an estimated liability for resolution of asserted (claims filed as of the financial statement date) and unasserted Bendix-related asbestos claims and excludes the Company's legal fees to defend such asbestos claims which will continue to be expensed by the Company as they are incurred. We have valued Bendix asserted and unasserted claims using average resolution values for the previous five years. We update the resolution values used to estimate the cost of Bendix asserted and unasserted claims during the fourth quarter each year. "Honeywell reflects the inclusion of all years of epidemiological disease projection through 2059 when estimating the liability for unasserted Bendix-related asbestos claims. Such liability for unasserted Bendix-related asbestos claims is based on historic and anticipated claims filing experience and dismissal rates, disease classifications, and resolution values in the tort system for the previous five years. "Our insurance receivable corresponding to the liability for settlement of asserted and unasserted Bendix asbestos claims reflects coverage which is provided by a large number of insurance policies written by dozens of insurance companies in both the domestic insurance market and the London excess market. Based on our ongoing analysis of the probable insurance recovery, insurance receivables are recorded in the financial statements simultaneous with the recording of the estimated liability for the underlying asbestos claims. This determination is based on our analysis of the underlying insurance policies, our historical experience with our insurers, our ongoing review of the solvency of our insurers, judicial determinations relevant to our insurance programs, and our consideration of the impacts of any settlements reached with our insurers." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/rZqoZL ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lennox Int'l Paid $1.4MM for Lawsuits in 1Q 2018 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Lennox International Inc. has recorded US$1.4 million expense, net of probable insurance recoveries, for known and future asbestos-related litigation for the three months ended March 31, 2019, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019. The Company states, "We are involved in a number of claims and lawsuits incident to the operation of our businesses. Insurance coverages are maintained and estimated costs are recorded for such claims and lawsuits, including costs to settle claims and lawsuits, based on experience involving similar matters and specific facts known. "Some of these claims and lawsuits allege personal injury or health problems resulting from exposure to asbestos that was integrated into certain of our products. We have never manufactured asbestos and have not incorporated asbestos-containing components into our products for several decades. A substantial majority of these asbestos-related claims have been covered by insurance or other forms of indemnity or have been dismissed without payment. The remainder of our closed cases have been resolved for amounts that are not material, individually or in the aggregate. Our defense costs for asbestos-related claims are generally covered by insurance; however, our insurance coverage for settlements and judgments for asbestos-related claims varies depending on several factors and are subject to policy limits, so we may have greater financial exposure for future settlements and judgments. "For the three months ended March 31, 2019 and 2018, expense for asbestos-related litigation was US$1.4 million and US$2.1 million, respectively, net of probable insurance recoveries, for known and future asbestos-related litigation and is recorded in Losses (gains) and other expenses, net in the Consolidated Statements of Operations." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/FaZsMV ASBESTOS UPDATE: Parsons Corp. Faces PI Suits at April 12 --------------------------------------------------------- Parsons Corporation disclosed in its Form S-1 filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 12, 2019, that it been named as a defendant in lawsuits alleging personal injuries as a result of contact with asbestos products at various project sites. Parsons Corporation states, "The Company is subject to various lawsuits, claims and assessments which are routine to the nature of its business. Additionally, the Company has been named as a defendant in lawsuits alleging personal injuries as a result of contact with asbestos products at various project sites. The Company believes that any significant costs relating to these claims will be reimbursed by applicable insurance. Although there can be no assurance that these matters will be resolved favorably, management believes that their ultimate resolution will not have a material adverse impact on the Company's consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. The Company accrues a liability when management believes it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated. The Company records a corresponding receivable for costs covered under the insurance policies." A full-text copy of the Form S-1 is available at https://is.gd/a1IrqI ASBESTOS UPDATE: Researcher Says Asbestos in Baby Powder -------------------------------------------------------- John Sammon, writing for Northern California Record, reported that a microscope researcher called by attorneys representing plaintiff Patricia Schmitz said he found asbestos in Johnson & Johnson talc powder samples while Schmitz's relatives told a jury how mesothelioma had robbed the woman of her quality of life. "Did you evaluate 16 samples of Shower to Shower?" asked Schmitz's attorney, Joseph Satterley. "Yes," responded Lee Poye, a Houston-based microscope researcher who runs an independent testing analytics lab called J3 Resources. "I was able to detect asbestos in 11 samples." "Did the samples come from Johnson & Johnson?" "That is correct." Shower to Shower is an after-shower product marketed for adults by Johnson & Johnson in addition to the company's baby powder. The trial in the Alameda Superior Court is being streamed live courtesy of Courtroom View Network. Alameda County has been the origin of lawsuits against Johnson & Johnson, but this is only the second case to go to trial in the area. Most past asbestos trials have been held in Los Angeles courts. Schmitz is suing Johnson & Johnson for its baby powder and Colgate-Palmolive for a product called Cashmere Bouquet (bath bar soap), claiming the products caused her to develop mesothelioma, a rare cancer of the linings of the lungs. Johnson & Johnson is based in New Jersey and Colgate-Palmolive in New York. Schmitz, a former teacher and Alameda resident, reportedly used the J&J baby powder beginning as an infant powdered by her mother and continuing for 40 years as an adult. During witness testimony Schmitz's older sister Joanne Tylant told the jury she (Schmitz) had used both J&J baby powder and the Cashmere Bouquet products. Plaintiff attorney Denise Clancy displayed family photos of Schmitz and asked Tylant what mesothelioma had done to her sister's vitality. "She has lost a lot of energy," Tylant said. "The chemotherapy really made her sick. She quit teaching. She can't eat. She's skinny, now she's bones. She's fighting hard but she's not the same." Schmitz's younger sister Susan Bader also testified. She was asked if she had seen warning labels on Johnson & Johnson baby powder bottles. "I did not," Bader said. "Were you aware that Johnson & Johnson baby powder could contain asbestos fibers?" Clancy asked. "No," Bader answered. Bader, describing how Schmitz had devoted her life to teaching and how her students loved her, wept during her testimony. "She is less than half the size she was," Bader said of Schmitz. "She's gotten frail. She was such an independent person and now she has to ask people to do simple things for her." Bader said her sister has gone through four rounds of chemotherapy treatments. "She is incredibly sick, she spends 14 hours in bed, she can't get up the stairs at home and has to stop and catch her breath. She cried on the phone and apologized for breaking down. I'm getting married on May 4 and she can't make it to the wedding. "She tries to be stoic," Bader added. During his testimony Poye was asked by Satterley how many samples his firm had tested for possible contaminant substances. "Hundreds of thousands," Poye answered. Poye said he was experienced in microscope analysis using instruments such as the analytical transmission microscope (ATM). His firm also used the transmission electron microscope (TEM) and X-ray diffraction techniques. Satterley asked Poye to explain the "concentration method," a way of pre-screening talc powder before examining it under a microscope, developed during the 1970s. Johnson & Johnson officials declined to use the method claiming it was ineffective; however critics of the company have contended in this and other asbestos trials that it should have been used. Poye said the method uses a heavy liquid substance with the same density as talc fibers and spins it in a tube separating the talc from heavier materials such as iron or asbestos which sink to the bottom. Using a filter the bottom materials can be analyzed for identification. "You get rid of the talc plates," Poye explained. Poye was asked by Satterley if asbestos had been found in the Shower to Shower products. "There's no doubt in my mind," Poye said. He said he was being paid $500 per hour to testify. Under cross examination defense attorneys questioned Poye about his expertise. "You are not a PLM analyst?" he was asked. "Correct," Poye responded. Poye said his expertise was with the ATM microscope. "You're not a geologist, or mineralogist?" Poye agreed. "You didn't go to school to study asbestos?" "Correct." "You haven't published any (scientific) papers in relation to cosmetic talc?" "I believe so," Poye responded. "You're not a medical doctor?" "Correct." Poye agreed that the rise of asbestos-related court cases was an opportunity for a lucrative market analyzing substances. "The bread and butter of your business is asbestos?" "I would agree with that," Poye said. Poye was asked if he had designed his testing methods for the case based on directives from Satterley. He said as with all clients he had held a consultation and determined the best methods to use. Poye added that the liquid concentration technique was not effective in spotting one form of asbestos called chrysotile. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rockwell Automation Still Faces Suits at March 31 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Rockwell Automation, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that "currently there are a few thousand claimants" in asbestos-related lawsuits that name the Company as defendants, together with hundreds of other companies. The Company states, "We (including our subsidiaries) have been named as a defendant in lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos that was used in certain components of our products many years ago. Currently there are a few thousand claimants in lawsuits that name us as defendants, together with hundreds of other companies. In some cases, the claims involve products from divested businesses, and we are indemnified for most of the costs. However, we have agreed to defend and indemnify asbestos claims associated with products manufactured or sold by our former Dodge mechanical and Reliance Electric motors and motor repair services businesses prior to their divestiture by us, which occurred on January 31, 2007. We are also responsible for half of the costs and liabilities associated with asbestos cases against our former Rockwell International Corporation's divested measurement and flow control business. But in all cases, for those claimants who do show that they worked with our products or products of divested businesses for which we are responsible, we nevertheless believe we have meritorious defenses, in substantial part due to the integrity of the products, the encapsulated nature of any asbestos-containing components, and the lack of any impairing medical condition on the part of many claimants. We defend those cases vigorously. Historically, we have been dismissed from the vast majority of these claims with no payment to claimants. "We have maintained insurance coverage that we believe covers indemnity and defense costs, over and above self-insured retentions, for claims arising from our former Allen-Bradley subsidiary. Following litigation against Nationwide Indemnity Company (Nationwide) and Kemper Insurance (Kemper), the insurance carriers that provided liability insurance coverage to Allen-Bradley, we entered into separate agreements on April 1, 2008 with both insurance carriers to further resolve responsibility for ongoing and future coverage of Allen-Bradley asbestos claims. In exchange for a lump sum payment, Kemper bought out its remaining liability and has been released from further insurance obligations to Allen-Bradley. Nationwide entered into a cost share agreement with us to pay the substantial majority of future defense and indemnity costs for Allen-Bradley asbestos claims. We believe that this arrangement with Nationwide will continue to provide coverage for Allen-Bradley asbestos claims throughout the remaining life of the asbestos liability. "We also have rights to historic insurance policies that provide indemnity and defense costs, over and above self-insured retentions, for claims arising out of certain asbestos liabilities relating to the divested measurement and flow control business. Following litigation against several insurers to pursue coverage for these claims, we entered into separate agreements with the insurers that resulted in both lump sum payments and coverage-in-place agreements. We believe these arrangements will provide substantial coverage for future defense and indemnity costs for these asbestos claims throughout the remaining life of asbestos liability. "The uncertainties of asbestos claim litigation make it difficult to predict accurately the ultimate outcome of asbestos claims. That uncertainty is increased by the possibility of adverse rulings or new legislation affecting asbestos claim litigation or the settlement process. Subject to these uncertainties and based on our experience defending asbestos claims, we do not believe these lawsuits will have a material effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations. "We have, from time to time, divested certain of our businesses. In connection with these divestitures, certain lawsuits, claims and proceedings may be instituted or asserted against us related to the period that we owned the businesses, either because we agreed to retain certain liabilities related to these periods or because such liabilities fall upon us by operation of law. In some instances the divested business has assumed the liabilities; however, it is possible that we might be responsible to satisfy those liabilities if the divested business is unable to do so. "In connection with the spin-offs of our former automotive business, semiconductor systems business and Rockwell Collins avionics and communications business, the spun-off companies have agreed to indemnify us for substantially all contingent liabilities related to the respective businesses, including environmental and intellectual property matters. "In conjunction with the sale of our Dodge mechanical and Reliance Electric motors and motor repair services businesses, we agreed to indemnify Baldor Electric Company for costs and damages related to certain legal, legacy environmental and asbestos matters of these businesses arising before January 31, 2007, for which the maximum exposure would be capped at the amount received for the sale." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/dEKfzs ASBESTOS UPDATE: Roofer's Mesothelioma Suit to Proceed ------------------------------------------------------ Terri Oppenheimer, writing for Mesothelioma.net, reported that when roofer Stephen Jackson was diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma in January of 2017, he immediately knew that his asbestos exposure came from his longtime work with asbestos-contaminated roofing materials. He filed a lawsuit against CertainTeed Corporation in February and died in December of that same year. Recently, CertainTeed attempted to have the case dismissed, asserting that they had stopped using asbestos in their products years earlier, but Judge Manuel J. Mendez of the New York Asbestos Litigation Court determined that the case should proceed. Asbestos roofing company's products blamed for mesothelioma death According to testimony Mr. Jackson provide prior to his mesothelioma death, he had worked with CertainTeed roofing products throughout his roofing and construction career, in large part because he found its roof coating more to his liking. He testified that he believed that the company’s shingles exposed him to asbestos through the dust that was generate when they were cut, as well as from having ripped off existing shingles before installing new roofs. Testimony submitted about use of older roofing products Based on the years that Mr. Jackson described working, CertainTeed moved to have the case dismissed, claiming that during the years described the company's products no longer contained asbestos. But part of Mr. Jackson's testimony described years-long projects for which the products had been purchased earlier, as well as that almost 100 cans of old roof coating that had remained at one of his jobs were used for other jobs throughout the years. Based on this testimony, as well as the stringent requirements that need to be met for a case to be dismissed, the judge determined that the case should go to a jury, and Mr. Jackson's family will be able to pursue justice for their lost loved one. Asbestos has caused countless tragic losses for families like the Jacksons, whose loved ones have died of malignant mesothelioma, asbestosis, and other asbestos-related diseases. To learn more about the resources that are available to asbestos victims, contact the Patient Advocates at Mesothelioma.net at 1-800-692-8608. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Swindon Records 248 Mesothelioma Deaths -------------------------------------------------------- Swindon Reporter reported that almost 250 people in Swindon have died since 1981 from exposure to asbestos, figures show. The death toll was labelled a terrible legacy of the use of the material in workplaces. In Swindon, many of those who have died from mesothelioma, a form of cancer linked to exposure to asbestos, worked in the GWR Works. Across the south west, 5,000 people have lost their lives to mesothelioma, according to Health and Safety Executive figures. Speaking ahead of Workers' Memorial Day on Sunday, asbestos lawyer Virginia Chalmers of firm Irwin Mitchell said: “The reality is thousands of people are dying due to asbestos exposure in the past. The majority of those were exposed at work, and were completely unaware of the dangers of the hazardous material. "There has also been a rise in the past five years of people becoming ill who simply washed the clothes of workers decades ago as the harmful asbestos fibres were thrown into the air." For more information about asbestos, visit www.mesothelioma.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Shakes Take Home Suit ---------------------------------------------------- Bloomberg Law reported that Union Carbide Corp. escaped liability in a couple's suit alleging the wife developed mesothelioma from exposure to asbestos-containing products associated with multiple defendants. Jane and Douglas Rowland failed to show Jane Rowland was exposed to products containing Union Carbide asbestos fiber, the Delaware Superior Court said. Rowland alleged she was exposed while laundering her husband’s clothing and participating in the clean-up of certain home renovation projects in Ohio during the 1970s. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Workers, Students Exposed to Shed 26 Asbestos -------------------------------------------------------------- Bension Siebert, writing for InDaily.com, reported that CFMEU national assistant secretary Andrew Sutherland told InDaily union officials this morning found broken up suspected asbestos, some of which had been swept up and some placed in a bucket inside historic Shed 26 on the Port Adelaide dock. He said the worker or workers who swept it up have likely been exposed to asbestos, the fibres of which can cause lung cancer, mesothelioma and asbestosis if inhaled. Sutherland said it was also possible that his officials and others in the area -- including children in nearby Le Fevre Peninsula Primary School -- had been exposed to asbestos. CFMEU footage obtained by InDaily appears to show workers sweeping the floor of the building. "What we've already found is broken pieces of suspected asbestos on the floor, in piles that have been swept up," Sutherland told InDaily. "It's been disturbed not once but twice. "(Workers have been) potentially exposed to asbestos … it potentially just shortened their life by 30 years." Sutherland said the video was shot during the union's inspection of the site this morning. UPDATE: SafeWork SA this afternoon confirmed it is attending the site today, is aware of the CFMEU's issues and will be assessing work safety and legal compliance at Shed 26. In a statement, a spokesperson said: "SafeWork SA is aware of the issues raised by the CFMEU and have inspectors attending the site today. Methodology of demolition, safe systems of work and compliance with the WHS legislation will be the focus". The contractor on the site is Old Red Brick Co. A letter, supplied by the union, signed by Old Red Brick Co director Charles Jeffries and addressed to Le Fevre Peninsula Primary School says the type of asbestos on the site is "relatively safe" but that workers will take precautions including the use of respirators and coveralls. The video, supplied by the CFMEU, shows workers not wearing respirators or coveralls. "The type of asbestos to be removed is referred to as bonded or non-friable … this type of asbestos does not readily become airborne and is relatively safe," Jeffries' letter to the school reads. "However given the risks associated with this material, we still take all the necessary precautions during its removal including the use of respirators, coveralls and air-monitoring to detect high reading levels. The letter says works on the site are expected to run between 1 May and 24 May this year. "Relevant approvals have been obtained and the works will be undertaken in accordance with all current staturory requirements and under our SafeWork SA Asbestos Removal Licence No 690141," it reads. Developer Cedar Woods said in a statement this morning that Old Red Brick Co is a licensed asbestos removalist with more than 20 years experience in the safe removal of asbestos, and that all works are being carried out according to the law. "All works are being carried out according to regulations under the control of an Asbestos Removal Control Plan which governs all safety procedures and precautions for the site," a spokesperson for the company said. "All the asbestos removal is being undertaken with air-monitoring set up and monitored by an independent hygienist. "Last week, Cedar Woods also invited SafeWork SA to attend the site and inspect the works, and a scheduled visit had been pre-arranged for tomorrow (May 8)." The letter says consultancy Dems Environmental was conducting air monitoring on the site. A representative for the firm declined to comment when contacted by InDaily. The CFMEU is part of a community protest against demolition of the building. Sutherland said that the suspected asbestos discovery could delay the demolition by weeks. But he said the stop-work was "not about that … it's about saving people's lives". He said the suspected fibres of the suspected asbestos "could've been blown in any direction … potentially the local kids across the road have been exposed to asbestos." He said work had stopped on the site and SafeWork SA was expected to attend today. "We aren't going to stand by and let workers be exposed to asbestos," said Sutherland. There's no signage to say there's asbestos there "The workplace is unsafe . . . there is no way they should be in there doing any kind of work. "There are people being exposed . . . this is about saving people's lives." Sutherland said the site clearly breached work safety legislation requiring signage to warn of the asbestos and requiring that all asbestos be logged and registered. "There's no signage to say there's asbestos there," he said. "There's no emergency plan. "It's nothing like a (compliant) worksite." In its statement, Cedar Woods also said CFMEU representatives had entered the Shed 26 site "without notice or authority". "The demolition contractors escorted the union officials around Shed 26 to allow them to view the works being undertaken," the developer's spokesperson said. "Work on the demolition ceased while the union officials were on site. It was then decided that because of the disruption and imminent rain that work would cease for the day." InDaily contacted SafeWork SA for comment but has yet to receive a response. We also contacted Old Red Brick Co. The planned demolition of Shed 26 has been controversial, with heritage advocates and a Port Adelaide community campaign arguing its destruction would erase irreplaceable local history. Cedar Woods has said there is no "viable" way to keep the shed. The development involves 500 architecturally-designed houses, waterfront promenade parks, refurbishment of the original Fletcher's Slip slipway and the refurbishment of existing State Heritage-listed buildings. ********* 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 ***