/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/190530.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, May 30, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 108 Headlines 3M CO: 96 Suits Related to Aqueous Film Forming Foam Underway 3M CO: Minn. High Court Denies Petition for Review in Bair Hugger 3M CO: Suits over Defective Combat Earplugs Consolidated 3M COMPANY: Brock Sues over Defective Combat Arms Earplugs 3M COMPANY: Cohen Sues over Defective Combat Arms Earplugs 3M COMPANY: Fleuricourt Sues over Defective Combat Arms Earplugs 3M COMPANY: Hanson Sues over Defective Combat Arms Earplugs 3M COMPANY: Hieb Sues over Defective Combat Arms Earplugs 3M COMPANY: Hudgens Sues over Defective Combat Arms Earplugs 3M COMPANY: Pratt Sues over Defective Combat Arms Earplugs 71TH MNY CORP: Hernandez Seeks Spread of Hours Premium 801 CONKLIN: Estrada, Wright Seek Minimum Wage, Overtime Premium A/G 727: Khan Seeks Overtime Premium Pay AAC HOLDINGS: Caudle Hits Share Price Drop Over False Reports ABB OPTICAL: Removes Lewis Suit to N.D. California ACADIA PHARMA: Has Until May 31 to Respond to Amended Complaint ADJUSTABLE BEDDING: Faces Naiman Suit over Autodialed Calls ANTARES PHARMA: Motion to Dismiss Smith Class Suit Still Pending ANTHEM COMPANIES: Canaday Seeks Overtime Premium Pay APOGEE ENTERPRISES: Mayer Class Action Ongoing ARS NATIONAL: Deutsch Sues Over Confusing Collection Letters AUTO GALLERY OF TAMPA: Shiffman Sues over SUV Defective Brake BANK BRADESCO: Cert. Bid in Operacao Zelotes-Related Suit Underway BBVA COMPASS: Chattopadhyay Suit Asserts Discrimination BHARTI CORP: Kordbacheh Suit Removed to S.D. Florida BOB EVANS: Jensen Suit Alleges FLSA Violations BOX HOUSE EVENTS: Fischler Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website BRF SA: Bid to Amend Second Amended Complaint Pending BROWN DINING: Implements Policy Changes Following Class Action BUREAU OF ACCOUNTS: Lichter Sues Over FDCPA Violation BURGER KING: Kang Sues over Website's Limited Accessibility BURLINGTON COAT: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Kang Alleges CANADA: NDP MP Responds to Coerced Sterilization Amid Lawsuit CARRIAGE SERVICES: Court OK on Settlement of Faria Suit Underway CHARLOTTE TILBURY BEAUTY: Haggar Sues over ADA Violations CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Removes Marcelino Suit to S.D. California CHICO'S FAS: Fisher Sues over False Discounts CITIGROUP INC: Bid for Leave to Amend LIBOR Suit Narrowed CITIGROUP INC: Faces GSE Bonds Antitrust Suit CITIGROUP INC: Stachon Class Action Stayed CITIGROUP INC: Suits over ICE LIBOR Consolidated with Putnam Case CKE RESTAURANTS HOLDINGS: Chapman Sues over Inaccessible Premises COMMUNITY HEALTH: Cyber Attack Claims Due Aug. 1 CONTAINER STORE: Newman Sues over Autodialed Text Messages COOPER WORKS: Underpays Construction Workers, Rodriguez Alleges COSAN LIMITED: Employees Class Action Related Suits Ongoing COSAN LIMITED: Environmental Class Action in Brazil Still Stayed COSTCO: Employee Benefits Program Unlawful, Kimmel Suit Says CSX INTERMODAL TERMINALS: Rogers Suit Transferred to N.D. Ill. DCD CONSTRUCTION: Castillo, Merced Seek OT Premium Pay DERA RESTAURANT: Diaz Seeks Overtime, Minimum Pay DOUGLAS COUNTY, WA: Rivera-Ruiz Files Civil Rights Class Suit DOYLE'S WORK: Faces Olmos Labor Suit in California DYNAGAS LNG: Epelbaum Files Securities Suit Over Share Price Drop DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Auguste Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Florida EURO PAINTING AND WALLCOVERING: Veres Seeks OT, Minimum Pay EXLSERVICE HOLDINGS: Remainder of Settlement Amount Already Paid FAIRFAX BEHAVIORAL HEALTH: Faces Suit over ADA Violations FIC RESTAURANTS: Does not Pay Proper Wages, Lowe Suit Says FIDELITY NATIONAL: 401(k) Plan Related Suit v. Unit Ongoing FIRSTSOURCE ADVANTAGE: Faces Suit Over Confusing Collection Letter FRINGE BENEFIT GROUP: Fenello Sues over Automated Telemarketing Cal GARY'S KINGS'S: Burke Suit Alleges FLSA Violations GENERAL MOTORS: Parker Sues Over Defective Steering System GLOBAL NET: Dembski Files Suit in Arizona GRG USA LLC: Boling Files Tort Class Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. HILL'S PET: Connary Sues Over Product's False and Misleading Labels IMDB.COM INC: Jones Sues Over Deaf-Inaccessible Website INTEGRITY RECOVERY: Costa Suit Asserts FDCPA Violation ITURAN LOCATION: Court Hearing in Subscriber Suit Set for June 2019 JAB HOLDING: Pension Fund Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duties JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Abott Suit Transferred to C.D. Cal. JPAY INC: Inmates Sue over Digital Music, Audio Books Purchases KEN'S SUSHI: Zhang Suit Alleges FLSA Violations LEIDOS HOLDINGS: Settlement in NY Suit Still Awaits Court Approval LENNOX INDUSTRIES: Baker Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages, Damages LIBERTY CAPITAL: Ellis Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania LIFE ALERT EMERGENCY RESPONSE: Cinta Sues over Automatic Contract R LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Appeal in Formaldehyde & Abrasion MDL Pending LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Class Certification Bid in Mason Still Pending LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Court OKs Supervised Notice in A. Mason Suit LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: MOU Reached in Gold Class Action LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Steele Class Action Underway in Ontario LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Still Defending Kramer Class Action MARCOS: DOJ Backs OSG in Opposing Settlement Agreement MARKEL CORP: Class Suits in New York Consolidated MASTERCARD INC: ATM Surcharge-Related Suits Still Ongoing MASTERCARD INC: Canadian Suit over Point-of-Sale Acceptance Ongoing MASTERCARD INC: Final Settlement Approval Hearing in November MASTERCARD INC: Shift Fraud Liability Suit Still Ongoing MASTERCARD INC: TCPA Class Suit in Florida Still Stayed MDL 2433: Court Consolidates 5 C-8 PI Cases for Trial MDL 2741: Washington v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated MDL 2885: Matney Suit over Combat Arms Earplugs Consolidated MENDY'S ATRIUM: Pablo Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages MIAMI SWIM WEEK: Faces Acquamoda Suit over Breach of Contract MIDLAND CREDIT: Misreports Interest & Fees, Yavorka et al. Claim MIDLAND CREDIT: NJ Court Denies Arbitration Bid in Schultz MIDTOWN EAST: Clemente Suit Alleges FLSA Violation MIDTOWN LOFT: Fischler Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York MILLENIA HOUSING: Alexandre Seeks Overtime Pay MOLEX LLC: Gross Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation MOLINA HEALTHCARE: Appeal in Steamfitters Class Suit Pending MONSANTO COMPANY: Batherson Suit Moved to N.D. California MONSANTO COMPANY: Holts Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup MONSANTO COMPANY: Lovelace Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup MONSANTO COMPANY: Sanderses Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup MONSANTO COMPANY: Schwabs Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup MONSANTO COMPANY: Stone Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup MONSANTO COMPANY: Suit by Estate of James Hall Moved to C.D. Cal. MONSANTO COMPANY: Sutliff Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup MONSANTO COMPANY: Washington Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup MONSANTO COMPANY: Williams Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup MONSANTO COMPANY: Woodwards Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup MOSQUITO SQUAD: Lenorowitz Suit Asserts TCPA Breach NATIONAL PLAN ADVISORS: Davis Seeks Overtime Pay NATURAL HEALTH: Continues to Defend Kauffman Class Action NESTLE USA: Faces Walker Suit over Deceptive Labeling NFL: Concussion Claims Process Getting More Arduous NORTHLAND GROUP: George Sues over Unfair Debt Collection Practices NUTANIX INC: Mauter Sues over Artificially Inflated Stock Price NY BAGEL BOYS: Gitterman Seeks Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages OHIO BUREAU OF MOTOR VEHICLES: Ventura Sues over Lamination Fee ONTARIO: Collingwood Sued Over Coyote Co-Existence Policies PAPA MURPHY'S HOLDINGS: Swan Sues over Tender Offer PEE DEE CORP: Gabino Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Fike Sues Over Deceptive Proofs of Claim PORTLAND GENERAL: Appeal in Trojan Class Action Still Pending PRECISION CASTPARTS: Cottrell Seeks Overtime Pay PRO CUSTOM SOLAR: Murrell et al. Sue over Racist Conduct REBL CORP: Faces Class Action Following Collapse RED LION HOTEL: Lopez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ROHR INC: Morgan's Labor Suit Transferred to E.D. Calif. SJW GROUP: Suits Related to CTWS Merger Stayed SKECHERS USA: Guajardo Files Suit Over Defective Footwear for Kids SLEEP NUMBER: Continues to Defend Cassels and Cadenas Suit SLEEP NUMBER: Dismissal of Spade Class Action Now Final SODEXO INC: Cerrano Seeks Final Wages, Penalties SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON: Thomas & Koenigstein Fire Suits Ongoing SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON: Woolsey Fire Litigation Ongoing STEINHOFF INT'L: Opens Door for Settlements with Shareholders STERLING JEWELERS: Desmond, Lodge Sue over Deceptive Practices SYNERGETIC COMMUNICATIONS: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Suit Says THIRTYNINE COLLINS: Honeywell et al Sue over ADA Violations TORRENT PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Patras Suit over Defective Losartan UNITED PARCEL: Hughes Class Action Ongoing in Kentucky UNITED STATES: Class Actions Over PACER Fees Ongoing VANGELDEREN SERVICES: Solovey Sues over Debt Collection Practices VILLAGE SUPER MARKET: Lee et al. Seek OT Pay WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Settlement of Gas Price Index Suits Okayed WOLF AND SHEPHERD: Haggar et al. Sue over ADA Violations XEROX CORP: May 31 Oral Argument in 2nd Circuit Appeal YINGLI GREEN: Settlement in Calif. Consolidated Suit Wins Okay ZF FRIEDRICHSHAFEN: Croft Sues Over Defective Airbag Control Units [*] Legislation to Protect College Students from Fraud Passed [] Consumers Can't Create Class Actions Under Proposed Ill. Bill ********* 3M CO: 96 Suits Related to Aqueous Film Forming Foam Underway ------------------------------------------------------------- 3M Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 26, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that as of March 31, 2019, 96 putative class action and other lawsuits have been filed against 3M and other defendants in various state and federal courts related to its product Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF). 3M manufactured and marketed Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF) for use in firefighting at airports and military bases from approximately 1963 to 2000. As of March 31, 2019, 96 putative class action and other lawsuits have been filed against 3M and other defendants in various state and federal courts where current or former airports, military bases, or fire training facilities are or were located. In these cases, plaintiffs typically allege that certain PFAS used in AFFF contaminated the soil and groundwater where AFFF was used and seek damages for loss of use and enjoyment of properties, diminished property values, investigation costs, remediation costs, and in some cases, personal injury and funds for medical monitoring. Several companies have been sued along with 3M, including Ansul Co. (acquired by Tyco, Inc.), Angus Fire, Buckeye Fire Protection Co., Chemguard, National Foam, Inc., and United Technologies Corp. In December 2018, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation granted motions to transfer and consolidate all AFFF cases pending in federal courts to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina to be managed in a multi-district litigation (MDL) proceeding to centralize pre-trial proceedings. As of March 31, 2019, there were 88 cases in the MDL. 3M Company develops, manufactures, and markets various products worldwide. It operates through four business segments: Safety & Industrial, Transportation & Electronics, Health Care, and Consumer. 3M Company was founded in 1902 and is headquartered in St. Paul, Minnesota. 3M CO: Minn. High Court Denies Petition for Review in Bair Hugger ----------------------------------------------------------------- 3M Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 26, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the Minnesota Supreme Court has denied class action plaintiffs' petition for review. As of March 31, 2019, the Company is a named defendant in lawsuits involving approximately 5,080 plaintiffs (compared to approximately 5,015 plaintiffs at December 31, 2018) who allege the Bair Hugger(TM) patient warming system caused a surgical site infection. Nearly all of the lawsuits are pending in federal court in Minnesota. The plaintiffs claim they underwent various joint arthroplasty, cardiovascular, and other surgeries and later developed surgical site infections due to the use of the Bair Hugger(TM)patient warming system (the Bair Hugger(TM) product line was acquired by 3M as part of the 2010 acquisition of Arizant, Inc., a leading manufacturer of patient warming solutions designed to prevent hypothermia and maintain normal body temperature in surgical settings). The plaintiffs seek damages and other relief based on theories of strict liability, negligence, breach of express and implied warranties, failure to warn, design and manufacturing defect, fraudulent and/or negligent misrepresentation/concealment, unjust enrichment, and violations of various state consumer fraud, deceptive or unlawful trade practices and/or false advertising acts. The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) granted the plaintiffs' motion to transfer and consolidate all cases pending in federal courts to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota to be managed in a multi-district litigation (MDL) proceeding. In 2017, the U.S. District Court and the Minnesota state courts denied the plaintiffs' motions to amend their complaints to add claims for punitive damages. At a joint hearing before the U.S. District Court and the Minnesota State court, on the parties' motion to exclude each other's experts, and 3M's motion for summary judgment with respect to general causation, the federal court did not exclude the plaintiffs' experts and denied 3M's motion for summary judgment on general causation. The U.S. District Court is reconsidering that decision. In January 2018, the state court, after hearing the same arguments, excluded plaintiffs' experts and granted 3M's motion for summary judgment on general causation, dismissing all 61 cases pending before the state court in Minnesota. Plaintiffs appealed that ruling and the state court's punitive damages ruling. In January 2019, the Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the Minnesota state court orders in their entirety. The Minnesota Supreme Court denied plaintiffs' petition for review. 3M Company develops, manufactures, and markets various products worldwide. It operates through four business segments: Safety & Industrial, Transportation & Electronics, Health Care, and Consumer. 3M Company was founded in 1902 and is headquartered in St. Paul, Minnesota 3M CO: Suits over Defective Combat Earplugs Consolidated -------------------------------------------------------- 3M Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 26, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation granted motions to transfer and consolidate all cases pending in federal courts to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida to be managed in a multi-district litigation (MDL) proceeding to centralize pre-trial proceedings. Aearo Technologies sold Dual-Ended Combat Arms – Version 2 earplugs starting in 2006. 3M acquired Aearo Technologies in 2008 and sold these earplugs from 2008 through 2015, when the product was discontinued. In December 2018, a military veteran filed an individual lawsuit against 3M in the San Bernardino Superior Court in California alleging that he sustained personal injuries while serving in the military caused by 3M's Dual-Ended Combat Arms earplugs – Version 2. The plaintiff asserts claims of product liability and fraudulent misrepresentation and concealment. The plaintiff seeks various damages, including medical and related expenses, loss of income, and punitive damages. As of March 31, 2019, the Company is a named defendant in approximately 635 lawsuits (including 6 putative class actions) in various state and federal courts that purport to represent approximately 1,700 individual claimants making similar allegations. In April 2019, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation granted motions to transfer and consolidate all cases pending in federal courts to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida to be managed in a multi-district litigation (MDL) proceeding to centralize pre-trial proceedings. 3M Company develops, manufactures, and markets various products worldwide. It operates through four business segments: Safety & Industrial, Transportation & Electronics, Health Care, and Consumer. 3M Company was founded in 1902 and is headquartered in St. Paul, Minnesota. 3M COMPANY: Brock Sues over Defective Combat Arms Earplugs ---------------------------------------------------------- The case, ROBERT BROCK, the Plaintiff, vs. 3M COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-21689-XXXX (S.D. Fla., May 1, 2019), seeks to hold 3M liable for hearing loss or damage Plaintiff allegedly suffered while serving variously in the U.S. military, including during foreign conflicts. The Plaintiff contends that Combat Arms TM Earplugs, Version 2 ("CAEv2") manufactured and sold by Aearo were defectively designed and failed to provide adequate hearing protection. 3M denies these allegations. CAEv2, designed by Aearo in close collaboration with the U.S. military, represented a revolutionary breakthrough in hearing protection for service members. CAEv2 helped servicemembers better maintain situational awareness (e.g., to hear nearby voice commands) while also maintaining some protection from gunfire and other higher decibel sounds. CAEv2 met the U.S. military's specifications and helped the military provide hearing protection to service members. Despite knowing of the dangerous defects in its earplugs, Defendant sold the Dual-ended Combat ArmsTM earplugs to the branches of the U.S. military for more than a decade without providing the U.S. military and/or Plaintiff with any warning of said defects, causing Plaintiff and other service members similar permanent injuries, such as hearing loss.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: Roberto Martinez, Esq. Francisco R. Maderal, Esq. Lazaro Fields, Esq. COLSON HICKS EIDSON, P.A. 255 Alhambra Circle, Penthouse Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 476.7400 Facsimile: (305) 476.7444 E-mail: bob@colson.com frank@colson.com laz@colson.com 3M COMPANY: Cohen Sues over Defective Combat Arms Earplugs ---------------------------------------------------------- The case, MICHAEL COHEN, the Plaintiff, vs. 3M COMPANY, AEARO HOLDINGS, LLC, AEARO INTERMEDIATE, LLC, AEARO, LLC and AEARO TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-01346-RV-HTC (N.D. Fla., May 2, 2019), seeks to hold 3M liable for hearing loss or damage Plaintiff allegedly suffered while serving variously in the U.S. military, including during foreign conflicts. The Plaintiff contends that Combat Arms TM Earplugs, Version 2 ("CAEv2") manufactured and sold by Aearo were defectively designed and failed to provide adequate hearing protection. 3M denies these allegations. CAEv2, designed by Aearo in close collaboration with the U.S. military, represented a revolutionary breakthrough in hearing protection for service members. CAEv2 helped servicemembers better maintain situational awareness (e.g., to hear nearby voice commands) while also maintaining some protection from gunfire and other higher decibel sounds. CAEv2 met the U.S. military's specifications and helped the military provide hearing protection to service members. Despite knowing of the dangerous defects in its earplugs, Defendant sold the Dual-ended Combat ArmsTM earplugs to the branches of the U.S. military for more than a decade without providing the U.S. military and/or Plaintiff with any warning of said defects, causing Plaintiff and other service members similar permanent injuries, such as hearing loss.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: Michael W. Gaines, esq. Tim L. Bowden, esq. LAW OFFICES OF TIM BOWDEN 306 Northcreek Blvd., Suite 200 Goodlettsville, TN 37072 Telephone: (615) 859-1996 Facsimile: (615) 859-1921 E-mail: mwgaines01@gmail.com bowden_law@bellsouth.net 3M COMPANY: Fleuricourt Sues over Defective Combat Arms Earplugs ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case, GABRIELITA FLEURICOURT, the Plaintiff, vs. 3M COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 0:19-cv-61100-RKA (S. D. Fla., May 1, 2019), seeks to hold 3M liable for hearing loss or damage Plaintiff allegedly suffered while serving variously in the U.S. military, including during foreign conflicts. The Plaintiff contends that Combat Arms TM Earplugs, Version 2 ("CAEv2") manufactured and sold by Aearo were defectively designed and failed to provide adequate hearing protection. 3M denies these allegations. CAEv2, designed by Aearo in close collaboration with the U.S. military, represented a revolutionary breakthrough in hearing protection for service members. CAEv2 helped servicemembers better maintain situational awareness (e.g., to hear nearby voice commands) while also maintaining some protection from gunfire and other higher decibel sounds. CAEv2 met the U.S. military's specifications and helped the military provide hearing protection to service members. Despite knowing of the dangerous defects in its earplugs, Defendant sold the Dual-ended Combat ArmsTM earplugs to the branches of the U.S. military for more than a decade without providing the U.S. military and/or Plaintiff with any warning of said defects, causing Plaintiff and other service members similar permanent injuries, such as hearing loss.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: Roberto Martinez, Esq. Francisco R. Maderal, Esq. Lazaro Fields, Esq. COLSON HICKS EIDSON, P.A. 255 Alhambra Circle, Penthouse Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 476.7400 Facsimile: (305) 476.7444 E-mail: bob@colson.com frank@colson.com laz@colson.com 3M COMPANY: Hanson Sues over Defective Combat Arms Earplugs ----------------------------------------------------------- The case, SAMUEL HANSON, the Plaintiff, vs. 3M COMPANY, AEARO HOLDINGS, LLC, AEARO INTERMEDIATE, LLC AEARO, LLC and AEARO TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 0:19-cv-01161 (D. Minn., May 1, 2019), seeks to hold 3M liable for hearing loss or damage Plaintiff allegedly suffered while serving variously in the U.S. military, including during foreign conflicts. The Plaintiff contends that Combat Arms TM Earplugs, Version 2 ("CAEv2") manufactured and sold by Aearo were defectively designed and failed to provide adequate hearing protection. 3M denies these allegations. CAEv2, designed by Aearo in close collaboration with the U.S. military, represented a revolutionary breakthrough in hearing protection for service members. CAEv2 helped servicemembers better maintain situational awareness (e.g., to hear nearby voice commands) while also maintaining some protection from gunfire and other higher decibel sounds. CAEv2 met the U.S. military's specifications and helped the military provide hearing protection to service members. Despite knowing of the dangerous defects in its earplugs, Defendant sold the Dual-ended Combat ArmsTM earplugs to the branches of the U.S. military for more than a decade without providing the U.S. military and/or Plaintiff with any warning of said defects, causing Plaintiff and other service members similar permanent injuries, such as hearing loss.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: Yvonne M. Flaherty, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P. 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-6900 E-mail: ymflaherty@locklaw.com - and - Roberto Martinez, Esq. Francisco R. Maderal, Esq. COLSON HICKS EIDSON, P.A. 255 Alhambra Circle, Penthouse Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 476.7400 Facsimile: (305) 476.7444 E-mail: bob@colson.com frank@colson.com 3M COMPANY: Hieb Sues over Defective Combat Arms Earplugs --------------------------------------------------------- The case, Nathaniel F. Hieb, the Plaintiff, vs. 3M COMPANY and AEARO TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00239 (D.R.I., May 1, 2019), seeks to hold 3M liable for hearing loss or damage Plaintiff allegedly suffered while serving variously in the U.S. military, including during foreign conflicts. The Plaintiff contends that Combat Arms TM Earplugs, Version 2 ("CAEv2") manufactured and sold by Aearo were defectively designed and failed to provide adequate hearing protection. 3M denies these allegations. CAEv2, designed by Aearo in close collaboration with the U.S. military, represented a revolutionary breakthrough in hearing protection for service members. CAEv2 helped servicemembers better maintain situational awareness (e.g., to hear nearby voice commands) while also maintaining some protection from gunfire and other higher decibel sounds. CAEv2 met the U.S. military's specifications and helped the military provide hearing protection to service members. Despite knowing of the dangerous defects in its earplugs, Defendants sold the Dual-ended Combat ArmsTM earplugs to the branches of the U.S. military for more than a decade without providing the U.S. military and/or Plaintiff with any warning of said defects, causing Plaintiff and other service members similar permanent injuries, such as hearing loss.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: Jonathan D. Orent, Esq. MOTLEY RICE LLC 55 Cedar Street, Suite 100 Providence, RI 02903 Telephone: 401.457.7700 Facsimile: 401.457.7708 E-mail: jorent@motleyrice.com 3M COMPANY: Hudgens Sues over Defective Combat Arms Earplugs ------------------------------------------------------------ The case, GREG HUDGENS, the Plaintiff, vs. 3M COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 0:19-cv-01164-PJS-LIB (D. Minn., May 1, 2019), seeks to hold 3M liable for hearing loss or damage Plaintiff allegedly suffered while serving variously in the U.S. military, including during foreign conflicts. The Plaintiff contends that Combat Arms TM Earplugs, Version 2 ("CAEv2") manufactured and sold by Aearo were defectively designed and failed to provide adequate hearing protection. 3M denies these allegations. CAEv2, designed by Aearo in close collaboration with the U.S. military, represented a revolutionary breakthrough in hearing protection for service members. CAEv2 helped servicemembers better maintain situational awareness (e.g., to hear nearby voice commands) while also maintaining some protection from gunfire and other higher decibel sounds. CAEv2 met the U.S. military's specifications and helped the military provide hearing protection to service members. Despite knowing of the dangerous defects in its earplugs, Defendant sold the Dual-ended Combat ArmsTM earplugs to the branches of the U.S. military for more than a decade without providing the U.S. military and/or Plaintiff with any warning of said defects, causing Plaintiff and other service members similar permanent injuries, such as hearing loss.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: Yvonne M. Flaherty, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P. 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-6900 E-mail: ymflaherty@locklaw.com - and - Roberto Martinez, Esq. Francisco R. Maderal, Esq. COLSON HICKS EIDSON, P.A. 255 Alhambra Circle, Penthouse Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 476.7400 Facsimile: (305) 476.7444 E-mail: bob@colson.com frank@colson.com 3M COMPANY: Pratt Sues over Defective Combat Arms Earplugs ---------------------------------------------------------- The case, Ashley Pratt, the Plaintiff, vs. 3M COMPANY, AEARO HOLDINGS, LLC, AEARO INTERMEDIATE, LLC, AEARO, LLC and AEARO TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-01356-MCR-GRJ (N.D. Fla., May 2, 2019), seeks to hold 3M liable for hearing loss or damage Plaintiff allegedly suffered while serving variously in the U.S. military, including during foreign conflicts. The Plaintiff contends that Combat Arms TM Earplugs, Version 2 ("CAEv2") manufactured and sold by Aearo were defectively designed and failed to provide adequate hearing protection. 3M denies these allegations. CAEv2, designed by Aearo in close collaboration with the U.S. military, represented a revolutionary breakthrough in hearing protection for service members. CAEv2 helped servicemembers better maintain situational awareness (e.g., to hear nearby voice commands) while also maintaining some protection from gunfire and other higher decibel sounds. CAEv2 met the U.S. military's specifications and helped the military provide hearing protection to service members. Despite knowing of the dangerous defects in its earplugs, Defendant sold the Dual-ended Combat ArmsTM earplugs to the branches of the U.S. military for more than a decade without providing the U.S. military and/or Plaintiff with any warning of said defects, causing Plaintiff and other service members similar permanent injuries, such as hearing loss.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: Aaron Modiano, Esq. Nicholas R. Farnolo, Esq. Jennifer R. Liakos, Esq. NAPOLI SHKOLNIK, LLC 2665 S. Bay Shore Drive Coconut Grove, FL 33133 Telephone: (212) 397-1000 Facsimile: (646) 843-7619 E-mail: Amodiano@napolilaw.com nfarnolo@napolilaw.com jliakos@napolilaw.com 71TH MNY CORP: Hernandez Seeks Spread of Hours Premium ------------------------------------------------------ DANIEL HERNANDEZ, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. 71th MNY CORP. d/b/a AL'S DELICATESSEN, MARIANA D. RAMfREZ, and JOHN DOES 1-5, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-04481 (S.D. N.Y., May 16, 2019) alleges that, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), he is entitled to recover from Defendants unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid "spread of hours" premium for each day he worked a shift in excess of 10 hours, liquidated and statutory damages pursuant to the New York Labor Law and the New York State Wage Theft Prevention Act, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs. According to the complaint, Plaintiff worked over 40 hours per week. However, Plaintiff was not paid proper overtime compensation. During this period, Plaintiff was paid, partly by check and partly in cash, at the rate of $13 per hour straight time for all hours worked, and worked sixty 60 hours per week (and sometimes in excess thereof). Work performed above 40 hours per week was not paid at the statutory rate of time and one-half as required by state and federal law, says the complaint. AL'S DELI, owns and operates a restaurant known as Al's Delicatessen located at 458 Fashion Avenue. New York, New York 10001. Plaintiff was hired by Defendants to work as a non-exempt kitchen helper/food preparer at the Restaurant on or about April 1, 2018.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin Cilenti, Esq. Peter H. Cooper, Esq. CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC 10 Grand Central 155 East 44th Street - 6th Floor New York, NY 10017 Phone: (212) 209-3933 Fax: (212) 209-7102 Email: info@jcpclaw.com 801 CONKLIN: Estrada, Wright Seek Minimum Wage, Overtime Premium ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action complaint has been filed against 801 Conklin St. Ltd. d/b/a Crystal Cafe, Mitchell Putterman and Kristine Putterman for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New York Labor Law (NYLL). The case is captioned INGRID ESTRADA and RUTH WRIGHT, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, - against - 801 CONKLIN ST. LTD. d/b/a CRYSTAL CAFE, MITCHELL PUTTERMAN and KRISTINE PUTTERMAN, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-02410 (E.D.N.Y., April 25, 2019). Plaintiffs Ingrid Estrada and Ruth Wright allege that Defendants misclassified its dancers as independent contractors in order to avoid paying minimum wages and overtime premium pay. Accordingly, this lawsuit seeks to recover unpaid minimum wage, overtime, unlawful deductions and misappropriated tips for Plaintiffs and their similarly situated co-workers who worked for Defendants in the state of New York as dancers, based upon Defendants' violation of the FLSA and NYLL. 801 Conklin St. Ltd. was and still is doing business as Crystal Cafe. It maintains its principal place of business at 801 Conklin Street, Farmingdale, NY. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Troy L. Kessler, Esq. Saranicole A. Duaban, Esq. SHULMAN KESSLER LLP 534 Broadhollow Road, Suite 275 Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: (631) 499-9100 A/G 727: Khan Seeks Overtime Premium Pay ---------------------------------------- A class action complaint has been filed against A/G 727, Inc. and Nizar Ali for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The case is captioned Mohammad Zeeshan Khan, and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs v. A/G 727, Inc. and Nizar Ali, Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-01671 (S.D. Tex., May 6, 2019). Plaintiff Mohammad Zeeshan Khan contends that the Defendants' wide-spread policy and practice have violated the FLSA because it allows the Defendants not to pay their employees' overtime hours at the required premium overtime pay rate at time-and-one-half of the employee's base hourly rate. The Defendants allegedly failed to document the overtime pay owed to Plaintiff and to the Members of the Plaintiff Class, willfully violating the record-keeping requirements of the FLSA. A/G 727, Inc. is a corporation is engaged in business in the state of Texas by its ownership and operation of one or more gasoline stations and convenience stores, including the Shell branded gasoline station and convenience store doing business as "Timber Creek Food Mart", located at 5515 Highway 6 North, Houston, Texas. A/G 727 may be served with summons and complaint by serving its duly appointed registered agent, Mr. Nizar Ali, at his residence at 21606 Oleaster Springs Lane, Richmond, Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Salar Ali Ahmed, Esq. ALI S. AHMED, P.C. One Arena Place 7322 Southwest Frwy., Suite 1920 Houston, TX 77074 Telephone: (713) 223-1300 Facsimile: (713) 255-0013 E-mail: aahmedlaw@gmail.com AAC HOLDINGS: Caudle Hits Share Price Drop Over False Reports ------------------------------------------------------------- DAVID BROWN CAUDLE, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. AAC HOLDINGS, INC., MICHAEL T. CARTWRIGHT, KIRK R. MANZ, and ANDREW W. MCWILLIAMS, Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-00407 (M.D. Tenn., May 16, 2019) is a federal securities class action on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired AAC securities between March 8, 2017 and April 15, 2019, both dates inclusive, seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials. On April 16, 2019, AAC issued a press release, appended as an exhibit to the Company's Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC, announcing AAC's financial results for the fourth quarter and fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, and providing guidance for 2019 (the "April 2019 Press Release"). The April 2019 Press Release disclosed that the Company's annual reports for fiscal years 2017 and 2016, as well as all quarterly reports throughout 2017 and 2018, could no longer be relied upon, and stated that these financial statements would be restated to reflect adjustments related to estimates for accounts receivable, provision for doubtful accounts, and revenue. On this news, AAC's stock price fell $0.40 per share, or 18.69%, to close at $1.74 per share on April 16, 2019. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of AAC' securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, says the complaint. According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) AAC's internal control over financial reporting and disclosure controls and procedures was inadequate to accurately reflect adjustments related to estimates for accounts receivable, provision for doubtful accounts, and revenue; (ii) AAC consequently misstated financial and operating results in its annual reports for fiscal years 2016 and 2017, as well as all quarterly reports throughout 2017 and 2018; (iii) accordingly, those reports could not be relied upon, requiring AAC to restate the financial and operating results reflected therein; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. Plaintiff acquired AAC securities at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period and was damaged upon the revelation of the alleged corrective disclosures. AAC is a company who provides inpatient and outpatient substance use treatment services for individuals with drug addiction, alcohol addiction, and co-occurring mental/behavioral health issues in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul Kent Bramlett, Esq. Robert Preston Bramlett, Esq. BRAMLETT LAW OFFICES P. O. Box 150734 Nashville, TN 37215 Phone: 615.248.2828 Facsimile: 866.816.4116 Email: PKNASHLAW@aol.com Robert@BramlettLawOffices.com - and - Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. Jonathan Lindenfeld, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Phone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com jlindenfeld@pomlaw.com - and - Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Phone: (312) 377-1181 Facsimile: (312) 377-1184 Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com ABB OPTICAL: Removes Lewis Suit to N.D. California -------------------------------------------------- The Defendant in the case of AR'MANEY LEWIS, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff vs. ABB OPTICAL GROUP LLC; ABB CON-CISE OPTICAL GROUP LLC; and DOES 1 through 100, Defendants, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda (Case No. RG19008874) to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on April 29, 2019. The clerk of court for the Northern District of California assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-02311-LB. The case is assigned to Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. ABB Optical Group, LLC, through its subsidiaries, designs, manufactures and distributes soft contact lenses to eye care professionals in America. ABB Optical Group, LLC was formerly known as ABB CONCISE Optical Group, LLC and changed its name to ABB Optical Group, LLC in December 2012. The company was founded in 1989 and is based in Coral Springs, Florida with locations in Marshfield, Massachusetts; Hawthorne, New York; and San Ramon, California. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Christopher J. Banks, Esq. Karen Y. Cho, Esq. Maureen N. Beckley, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP One Market, Spear Street Tower San Francisco, CA 94105-1596 Telephone: (415) 442-1000 Facsimile: (415) 442-1001 E-mail: christopher.banks@morganlewis.com karen.cho@morganlewis.com maureen.beckley@morganlewis.com - and - Jacqueline Cookerly Aguilera, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 300 South Grand Avenue Twenty-Second Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132 Telephone: (213) 229-2500 Facsimile: (213) 229-2501 E-mail: jackie.aguilera@morganlewis.com ACADIA PHARMA: Has Until May 31 to Respond to Amended Complaint --------------------------------------------------------------- ACADIA Pharmaceuticals Inc.'s deadline to respond to the amended complaint in a consolidated class action case is May 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. Between July 19 and August 3, 2018, following negative publicity about NUPLAZID, three purported Company stockholders filed putative securities class action complaints (captioned Staublein v. ACADIA Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Case No. 18-cv-01647, Stone v. ACADIA Pharmaceuticals Inc., Case No. 18-cv-01672, and Barglow v. ACADIA Pharmaceuticals Inc., Case No. 18-cv-01812) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California against the Company and certain of the Company's current and former executive officers. The complaints generally allege that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and prospects by failing to disclose that adverse events and safety concerns regarding NUPLAZID threatened initial and continuing FDA approval, and by failing to disclose that the Company engaged in business practices likely to attract regulatory scrutiny. Several putative lead plaintiffs filed motions to consolidate the cases and to appoint a lead plaintiff. On January 3, 2019, the court consolidated the cases under Case No. 18-cv-01647 and took the lead plaintiff motions under submission. On February 26, 2019, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel. The lead plaintiff's consolidated complaint was filed on April 15, 2019. The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief. The defendants' deadline to respond to the consolidated complaint is May 31, 2019. The Company said, "Given the unpredictability inherent in litigation, we cannot predict the outcome of this matter. We are unable to estimate possible losses or ranges of losses that may result from this matter, and therefore we have not accrued any amounts in connection with this matter other than ongoing attorneys' fees." ACADIA Pharmaceuticals Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, focuses on the development and commercialization of small molecule drugs that address unmet medical needs in central nervous system disorders. The Company was founded in 1993 and is headquartered in San Diego, California. ADJUSTABLE BEDDING: Faces Naiman Suit over Autodialed Calls ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action complaint has been filed against Adjustable Bedding Concepts, Inc. for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The case is captioned Sidney Naiman, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Adjustable Bedding Concepts, Inc., d/b/a Easy Rest, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-00702-MCE-DB (E.D. Cal., April 25, 2019). Plaintiff Sidney Naiman alleges that the Defendant placed all its telemarketing calls using an automatic telephone dialing system. Despite Plaintiff's instruction to no longer call, Defendant allegedly continued to call Plaintiff's 6443 number for telemarketing purposes on numerous occasions thereafter, including on June 1, 2018, June 2, 2018. Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks money damages and injunctive relief against the Defendant's conduct. Headquartered in St. Paul, Minnesota, Easy Rest manufactures and sells adjustable bed frames and mattresses. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy S. Golden, Esq. GOLDEN & CARDONA-LOYA, LLP 3130 Bonita Road, Suite 200B Chula Vista, CA 91910 Telephone: (619) 476-0030 Facsimile: (775) 898-5471 E-mail: jeremy@goldencardona.com ANTARES PHARMA: Motion to Dismiss Smith Class Suit Still Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- A motion to dismiss the case entitled, Randy Smith, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Antares Pharma, Inc., Robert F. Apple and Fred M. Powell, remains pending, according to Antares Pharma, Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019. On October 23, 2017, Randy Smith filed a complaint in the District of New Jersey, captioned Randy Smith, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Antares Pharma, Inc., Robert F. Apple and Fred M. Powell ("Smith"), Case No. 3:17-cv-08945-MAS-DEA, on behalf of a putative class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Antares securities between December 21, 2016 and October 12, 2017, inclusive, asserting claims for purported violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, against Antares, Robert F. Apple and Fred M. Powell. The Smith complaint contends that defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Antares had provided insufficient data to the FDA in connection with the NDA for XYOSTEDTM; and (ii) accordingly, Antares had overstated the approval prospects for XYOSTEDTM. On July 27, 2018, the court entered an order appointing Serghei Lungu as lead plaintiff, Pomerantz LLP as lead counsel, and Lite DePalma Greenberg, LLC as liaison counsel for plaintiff. On August 3, 2018, the parties submitted a stipulation and proposed order, setting forth an agreed-upon schedule for responding to the complaint, which the court granted. Pursuant to that order, plaintiff filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint on October 9, 2018. On November 26, 2018, defendants filed a motion to dismiss. Plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion on January 10, 2019 and defendants filed a reply in support of their motion on February 25, 2019. The Company said it believes that the claims in the Smith action lack merit and intends to defend them vigorously. Antares Pharma, Inc. focuses on developing and commercializing self-administered parenteral pharmaceutical products and technologies worldwide. The company was founded in 1978 and is headquartered in Ewing, New Jersey. ANTHEM COMPANIES: Canaday Seeks Overtime Premium Pay ---------------------------------------------------- An employment-related class action complaint has been filed against The Anthem Companies, Inc. for an alleged violation of the overtime provision of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The case is captioned LAURA CANADAY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. THE ANTHEM COMPANIES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01084-STA-jay (W.D. Tenn., May 7, 2019). Plaintiff Laura Canaday, who was hired as a utilization management review nurse since approximately June 2017 to the present, routinely worked more than 40 hours in a workweek without overtime compensation. In addition, Anthem has allegedly failed to make, keep, and preserve records with respect to each of its employees sufficient to determine their wages, hours, and other conditions and practice of employment. The Anthem Companies, Inc. is a foreign limited liability company with its principal place of business located at 220 Virginia Ave., Indianapolis, Indiana. The company operates office locations in multiple states around the country, including an office located in Nashville, Tennessee. It is a multi-line health insurance company that provides managed care programs and related services. According to its website, Anthem provides healthcare benefits to more than 74 million members nationwide and serves one in eight Americans through their affiliated medical care coverage plans. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rachhana T. Srey, Esq. Neil Pederson, Esq. Nichols Kaster, PLLP 4600 IDS Center 80 South Eighth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 256-3200 Facsimile: (612) 338-4878 E-mail: srey@nka.com npederson@nka.com APOGEE ENTERPRISES: Mayer Class Action Ongoing ---------------------------------------------- Apogee Enterprises, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 26, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 2, 2019, that the company continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Murray Mayer v. Apogee Enterprises, Inc., et al On November 5, 2018, Murray Mayer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a purported class action lawsuit against the Company and our Chief Executive Officer and our Chief Financial Officer in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. The complaint generally alleges that, throughout the purported class period of June 28, 2018 to September 17, 2018, the Company and the named executive officers made materially false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects, particularly with respect to our Architectural Glass business segment, and further alleges that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint seeks unspecified sums of damages, award of counsel fees and costs, and equitable relief. The Company intends to vigorously defend against this matter. Apogee Enterprises, Inc. designs and develops glass and metal products and services in the United States, Canada, and Brazil. The company operates in four segments: Architectural Framing Systems, Architectural Glass, Architectural Services, and Large-Scale Optical Technologies (LSO). The company was founded in 1949 and is headquartered in Minneapolis, Minnesota. ARS NATIONAL: Deutsch Sues Over Confusing Collection Letters ------------------------------------------------------------ Shimon Deutsch, MD K. Shahin and Nirvana L. Bail, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. ARS National Services, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 7:19-cv-04508 (S.D. N.Y., May 16, 2019) seeks to recover for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"). In its efforts to collect an alleged Debt, Defendant contacted Plaintiffs by letter ("the Letter") dated November 2, 2018 and June 16, 2018. The Letter fails to instruct the consumer to which of the multiple addresses provided in them written disputes must be sent. As a result, the least sophisticated consumer would likely be confused as to which of the multiple addresses they should send their written dispute. The Defendant violated the FDCPA as the multiple addresses overshadow the disclosure of the consumer's right to dispute the debt provided, says the complaint. Plaintiffs are individuals who are natural persons allegedly obligated to pay a debt. Defendant is regularly engaged, for profit, in the collection of debts allegedly owed by consumers.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Craig B. Sanders, Esq. BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Phone: (516) 203-7600 Fax: (516) 706-5055 Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com AUTO GALLERY OF TAMPA: Shiffman Sues over SUV Defective Brake ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action complaint has been filed against Auto Gallery of Tampa LLC for violations of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, for fraud in the inducement, breach of written warranty, and for fraudulent concealment. The case is captioned GABRIELLA SCHIFFMAN, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. AUTO GALLERY OF TAMPA LLC, Defendants, Case No. 88547098 (Fla. Cir., 13th Judicial, Hillsborough Cty., April 25, 2019). Plaintiff Gabriella Schiffman alleges that Auto Gallery of Tampa LLC misrepresented the brake system's condition of the Ford Escape she purchased from the dealership. She also asserts that the dealership did not honor the warranty provided to her. Auto Gallery of Tampa LLC is a Florida corporation organized pursuant to the laws of the state of Florida and is authorized to do business in the state of Florida, with its principal place of business in Hillsborough County, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roger D. Mason, II, Esq. Elizabeth A. Buchwalter, Esq. 5135 West Cypress Street, Suite 105 Tampa, FL 33607 Telephone: (813) 304-2131 E-mail: rmason@flautolawyer.com ebuchwalter@flautolawyer.com admin@flautolawer.com BANK BRADESCO: Cert. Bid in Operacao Zelotes-Related Suit Underway ------------------------------------------------------------------ Bank Bradesco said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the motion for class certification in the class action suit related to the news of Operacao Zelotes is pending. On May 31, 2016, three members of the company's Board of Executive Officers have been charged by the Brazilian Federal Police under the so-called Operation Zelotes or "Operacao Zelotes", which investigates the alleged improper performance of members of CARF - Administrative Council of Tax Appeals. On July 28, 2016, the Public Prosecutor's Office filed charges against three members of the company's Board of Executive Officers, and a former member of its Board of Directors, which was received by the Federal District Judiciary Section's 10th Federal Court Judge. Currently, only two members of Bradesco's Board of Executive Officers remain in the process. The business executives presented their responses in the criminal case, pointing out facts and evidence demonstrating their innocence. The investigation phase of the process was already completed, and is currently waiting for the decision of the first degree court. The Company's Management conducted a careful internal evaluation of records and documents related to the matter and found no evidence of any illegal conduct practiced by its representatives. The company provided all of the information requested to the competent regulatory bodies, both in Brazil and abroad. As a result of the news of Operaçao Zelotes, a Class Action was filed against Bradesco and three members of its Board of Executive Officers before the District Court of New York, on June 3, 2016, based on Section 10 (b) and 20 (a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The action is based on the allegation that investors who purchased the company's preferred American Depositary Shares between April 30, 2012 and July 27, 2016 had suffered losses caused by alleged violation regarding the American laws of capital markets. On September 29, 2017, the Court limited the proposed class to investors who purchased preferred ADS Bradesco between August 8, 2014 and July 27, 2016, and excluding one of the executives of the action. The Class Action is in the phase of Pre-trial Discovery, and is awaiting a decision regarding the petition of Class Certification by the Lead Plaintiff, which the company had already contested. Bank Bradesco is a sociedade anonima organized under the laws of Brazil. The company operates and manages its business through two segments: (i) the banking segment; and (ii) the insurance, pension plans and capitalization bond segment. The company's headquarters are in Cidade de Deus, Vila Yara, 06029‑900, Osasco, Sao Paulo, Brazil. The company was founded in 1943 as a commercial bank under the name "Banco Brasileiro de Descontos S.A." In 1948, it began a period of aggressive expansion, which led to its becoming the largest private‑sector (non‑government‑controlled) commercial bank in Brazil by the end of the 1960s. BBVA COMPASS: Chattopadhyay Suit Asserts Discrimination -------------------------------------------------------- Amitabho Chattopadhyay, and Unite the People, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BBVA Compass Bancshares, Inc., Simple Finance Technology Corp. aka Simple Bank, BBVA Compass Financial Corporation, and Compass Bank, Case No. 3:19-cv-01541 (N.D. Calif. March 25, 2019), is brought against the Defendants for violations of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Unruh Civil Rights Act. The Defendants policy of refusing to allow non-citizen aliens to open a checking account with their "Simple Bank" service on the basis of their citizenship and/or immigration status is arbitrary, discriminatory and violates the above aforementioned Acts, asserts the complaint. The Plaintiff Chattopadhyay is a native and citizen of the Republic of Singapore and an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence. She has been issued a valid social security number by the Social Security Administration. The Plaintiff Unite the People is a non-profit social justice organization with members throughout the state of California, and files this action individually. Their advocacy is for the rights of non-citizens present in the United States and provides referral services to low-income both non-citizens and citizens, and extensive case management, administrative and paralegal services to public interest attorneys serving non-citizens and citizens at affordable rates. The Defendant BBVA Bancshares, Compass Bank and BBVA Compass are doing business under the name 'Simple', operating in the State of California under the trade name BBVA Compass, where it operates substantial business within the state of California, including both an online presence and physical branches. The Defendant Simple Finance Technology Corp. is an Oregon corporation operating in the State of California and a subsidiary of Compass Bank. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Erin L. Brinkman, Esq. UNITE THE PEOPLE 3003 W. Olympic Blvd Ste. 1031 Los Angeles, CA 90006 Tel: (888) 245-9393 E-mail: erin@unitethepeople.org BHARTI CORP: Kordbacheh Suit Removed to S.D. Florida ---------------------------------------------------- The case captioned ALI KORDBACHEH, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BHARTI CORP., a Florida Profit Corporation, d/b/a 7-ELEVEN, RUCHNAKS CORPORATION, a Florida Profit Corporation, d/b/ a 7-ELEVEN and BHARTIBEN SHAH, individually, Defendants, Case No. 50-2019-CA-004432-XXXX-MB was removed from the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for the Palm Beach County, Florida to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on May 16, 2019, and assigned Case No. 9:19-cv-80660-XXXX. In his Complaint, Plaintiff asserts causes of action pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, (the "FLSA"), seeking damages and other relief for alleged unpaid overtime wages and alleged unlawful retaliation. Plaintiff asserts his FLSA claims individually and on behalf of a proposed collective action of other current and former employees.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Freddy Perera, Esq. Valerie Barnhart, Esq. Brody M. Shulman, Esq. Waynice A. Green, Esq. PERERA BARNHART, P. A. 12555 Orange Drive, Suite 268 Davie, FL 33330 Phone: 786- 485- 5232 Email: freddy@pererabarnhart.com valerie@pererabarnhart.com brody@pererabamhart.com waynice@pererabarnhart.com The Defendants are represented by: Neil D. Kodsi, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF NEIL D. KODSI 1666 J.F. Kennedy Causeway, Suite 420 North Bay Village, FL 33141 Phone: 786-464-0841 Facsimile: 954-790-6722 Email: ndk@ndkodsilaw.com - and - Michael S. Elstein, Esq. ELSTEIN LAW FIRM 8401 Lake Worth Road, Suite 107 Wellington, FL 33467 Phone: 954.928.0990 Facsimile: 954.491.4555 Email: michael@elsteinlaw.com BOB EVANS: Jensen Suit Alleges FLSA Violations ---------------------------------------------- Regina Jensen, Vickie Rash, and Rebecca Bailey, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Bob Evans Farms, LLC and Bob Evans Restaurants, LLC, Case No. 2:19-cv-01090 (S.D. Ohio, March 23, 2019), is brought against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the West Virginia Wage Payment and Collection Act, and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act. The Defendants violated the FLSA, MFWSA and WPCA by failing to pay the Plaintiffs and other similarly-situated tipped employees all earned minimum wages, asserts the complaint. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as servers--Plaintiff Jensen for over 20 years, Plaintiff Rash approximately 28 years and Plaintiff Bailey for approximately 28 years. Founded and headquartered in Columbus, Ohio, the Defendants own and operate over 500 Bob Evans restaurants. The restaurants in Ohio and West Virginia are the subject of this lawsuit. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael L. Fradin, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL L. FRADIN 8 N. Court St. Suite 403 Athens, OH 45701 Tel: (847) 986-5889 Fax: (847) 673-1228 Email: mike@fradinlaw.com BOX HOUSE EVENTS: Fischler Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------------- Brian Fischler, Individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Box House Events Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02924 (E.D. N.Y., May 16, 2019) is a civil rights action against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website, www.theboxhousehotelevents.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff Fischler and other blind or visually-impaired people. Plaintiff Fischler asserts claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), New York State Human Rights Law ("NYSHRL"), and New York City Human Rights Law ("NYCHRL") against Defendant. Plaintiff Fischler seeks a permanent injunction to cause Defendant to change its corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, says the complaint. Plaintiff Fischler is blind, visually-impaired handicapped person. Defendant owns and operates a hotel located in Brooklyn, New York at 77 Box Street.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas B. Lipsky, Esq. Christopher H. Lowe, Esq. LIPSKY LOWE LLP 630 Third Avenue, Fifth Floor New York, NY 10017-6705 Phone: 212.392.4772 Email: doug@lipskylowe.com chris@lipskylowe.com BRF SA: Bid to Amend Second Amended Complaint Pending ----------------------------------------------------- BRF S.A. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the motion to amend the second amended complaint filed by the City of Birmingham Retirement and Relief System is pending. On March 12, 2018, a shareholder class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. Federal District Court in the Southern District of New York. On July 2, 2018, the Court appointed the City of Birmingham Retirement and Relief System lead plaintiff in the action. On August 31, 2018, the Lead Plaintiff filed an amended class action complaint. On December 5, 2018, the Lead Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint. The second amended complaint seeks to represent all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired BRF ADRs during the period from April 4, 2013, through and including March 2, 2018, alleging, among other things, that BRF and certain of its officers and/or directors engaged in securities fraud or other unlawful business practices related to the regulatory issues in connection with the Carne Fraca Operation and Trapaca Operation. A motion to dismiss briefing has been stayed pending the determination of Lead Plaintiff's motion to amend the second amended complaint, which was filed on April 1, 2019. BRF said, "Because this lawsuit is in its early stages, we believe the possible loss or range of losses, if any, arising from this litigation cannot be estimated. In the event that this litigation is decided against us, or we enter into an agreement to settle, there can be no assurance that an unfavorable outcome would not have a material impact on us." BRF S.A. focuses on raising, producing, and slaughtering poultry and pork for processing, production, and sale of fresh meat, processed products, pasta, frozen vegetables, and soybean by-products. The company was formerly known as BRF-Brasil Foods S.A. and changed its name to BRF S.A. in April 2013. BRF S.A. is headquartered in Itajai, Brazil. BROWN DINING: Implements Policy Changes Following Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Allie Reed, writing for The Brown Daily Herald, reports that following a number of changes to the policies and leadership of Brown Dining Services student employees, members of the BuDS Student Management Team have voiced fears that BDS is not prioritizing the needs of student workers. The Herald spoke to six of the 12 current members of the BuDS SMT and one former member of the team. Four students expressed concerns about the restrictive nature of the newly instated 20-hour-per-week cap for BuDS workers and an increase in mandatory shift lengths. The same four students also described their concerns about the replacement of student management positions with professional staff this semester, which they fear signals a shift away from a student-run organization. The University has not yet made a decision about the program's supervisory structure following the spring semester, wrote Director of News and Editorial Development Brian Clark in an email to The Herald. A working group made up of dining staff and student managers is currently reviewing the leadership program within BuDS. BDS expects to make "final decisions on the supervisory structure for 2019-20 over the summer," Clark wrote. These BuDS policy changes went into effect after two students filed a class action lawsuit alleging the University did not compensate them properly for their work. Fifteen current and former BuDS employees have since joined the lawsuit as of April 21, The Herald previously reported. Professional staff take over student management roles BuDS student management positions for this semester have been temporarily filled by Bobby Noyes, BDS assistant director for retail dining, and Sheila Coleman, director of human resources, Clark wrote. After former General Manager of BuDS Savanna Rilatos '20 and former Assistant General Manager of BuDS Benjamin Potee '19 left their positions this semester, the University chose to fill their positions with professional staff because the semester was already underway, Clark wrote. The past three general managers of BuDS did "not complete their traditional terms of service within BDS," wrote a former member of the SMT, who wishes to remain anonymous for fear of professional repercussions, in an email to The Herald. "There are good questions to be asked about the pressure this position puts on an individual." The assistant general manager and general manager positions "consist of responsibilities that are both administrative . . . and deeply interpersonal," the source wrote. By shifting these responsibilities to professional staff, BDS risks increasing the chance that students are uncomfortable reporting problems to their management, he added. Professional staff are removed from students' daily lives and problems, which increases the chance they will be unable to appropriately relate to or manage students, he wrote. In the past, students have come to the general manager and the assistant general manager about Title IX violations and mental health concerns, and the former member of the SMT believes "that it is less likely for a student to go to a less accessible administrator." Without students filling these two roles, there will be less accountability for BDS administrators, said another member of the SMT who wishes to remain anonymous for fear of professional repercussions. Students in the AGM and GM positions served as an essential buffer between BuDS and BDS and ensured students' concerns were heard, she said. By not replacing the AGM and GM with students, "it feel's like they're consolidating power," the source said. Furthermore, with professional staff taking on the duties of AGM and GM, BuDS "is technically not student-run," she added. But Clark wrote "the changes to the program made to date -- and any that may be made moving forward -- are focused on enabling students to effectively balance their academic study and other activities with their employment." Student working hours capped at 20 per week At the start of the semester, BDS implemented a new policy: BuDS workers are now limited to working "a maximum of 20 work hours per week," Clark wrote in an email to The Herald. Previously, there was no upper cap on working hours, and many students worked more than 20 hours per week, particularly in the supervisory and unit manager positions, The Herald previously reported. As a result, "last semester we asked to have a soft way to prevent students from over working," wrote Mathilde Barland '21, a member of the SMT, in an email to The Herald. BDS and BuDS previously made changes -- such as increasing wages for student workers and eliminating on-call hours -- to make BuDS a more desirable work environment and reduce the workload for supervisors and unit managers, The Herald previously reported. BDS set this cap "to ensure the ability for student workers to effectively balance their academic work and other activities with employment," Clark wrote. Students' requests to work more than 20 hours per week will be considered on an individual basis. BDS will approve students' requests to work beyond the 20-hour cap "only in exceptional circumstances," Clark wrote. But four students who spoke with The Herald said this system is both inefficient and can feel invasive. Students may feel uncomfortable sharing their personal reasons to justify their request to work beyond the cap, Barland wrote. For example, "people in the administration are not students or do not always understand that having to pay a $1,000 medical bill is actually a lot of money for someone whose only source of income is what they earn through BuDS," Barland wrote. Isabella Teran '19, a member of the SMT, said she had to go through an extensive process to get approval to work more than 20 hours in a week. Teran, who takes classes at both Brown and the Rhode Island School of Design, was hoping to "rack up hours" to help with her family's financial situation at home before her RISD classes began in the spring. "I thought I could work a ton, and it wouldn't necessarily impede academics. I just wanted to work more," she said. When Teran sent an email to administrators notifying them that she would be working more than 20 hours, she engaged in back and forth communication with administrators before being referred to the Office of Financial Aid. "There's a lot of stress for low-income students trying to balance financial circumstances and academics. But this wasn't one of those scenarios," Teran said. The Financial Aid Office offered to give Teran emergency funding, but she did not feel that her situation merited emergency funding and declined the offer. After speaking with the Financial Aid Office, Teran circled back to BDS and was then allowed to work more than 20 hours. "So much time was wasted on that. It should've been such an easy situation to handle," Teran said. Mandatory shift lengths increase The University has mandated an increase in shift lengths for many dining units. In the carts unit, shifts have increased from two hours to three or more hours. Four students on the SMT allege that the University is prioritizing the needs of temporary workers by increasing shift times, which they say is more convenient for those workers and more inconvenient for student workers due to their class schedules. "As a student, you don't have a three to four hour block in your day. A lot of the workforce is underclassmen," a member of the SMT said. In an email exchange reviewed by The Herald, a student involved in BuDS wrote to a BDS administrator criticizing the extended shift times. In response, the administrator explained that motivations for the change include demand from professional staff for longer shifts. There is "no effort underway in Dining to prioritize the needs of temporary employees over student workers," Clark wrote. "Adjustments to shift lengths are not intended to prioritize temporary employees over student workers, but rather to provide Dining with the ability to have the required staff on hand to meet campus dining needs." "Brown typically relies on temporary employees for short-term operational needs or instances in which significant flexibility is required," Clark wrote. Clark said their focus is on "addressing the concerns raised directly by the students themselves about work hours, compensation and employment structure." [GN] BUREAU OF ACCOUNTS: Lichter Sues Over FDCPA Violation ----------------------------------------------------- Joseph Lichter, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Bureau of Accounts Control, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 7:19-cv-04476 (S.D. N.Y., May 16, 2019) seeks to recover for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"). In its efforts to collect an alleged Debt, Defendant contacted Plaintiffs by letter ("the Letter") dated February 2, 2019. The Letter claims that Plaintiff owes an alleged Debt to Bergen Urological Assoc, PA. However, Plaintiff did not owe the alleged Debt to Bergen Urological Assoc, PA at the time the alleged Debt was assigned or otherwise transferred to Defendant for collection or at the time Defendant sent Plaintiff the Letter. Plaintiff was never indebted to Bergen Urological. The Defendant's representation that Plaintiff owed money to Bergen Urological is a false representation of the character, amount, or legal status of any debt in violation of the FDCPA, says the complaint. Plaintiffs Joseph Lichter is an individual and a natural person allegedly obligated to pay a debt. Defendant is regularly engaged, for profit, in the collection of debts allegedly owed by consumers.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Craig B. Sanders, Esq. BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Phone: (516) 203-7600 Fax: (516) 706-5055 Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com BURGER KING: Kang Sues over Website's Limited Accessibility ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action complaint has been filed against Burger King Corporation for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The case is captioned JACK KANG, Plaintiff, v. BURGER KING CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-21678-BB (S.D. Fla., April 30, 2019). Plaintiff Jack Kang brings this civil rights action against Burger King Corporation for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the ADA. Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Burger King is a corporation, incorporated in Florida and has its principal place of business in Miami, Florida. It is registered to do business in the state of California and has been doing business in the state of California, including this District. It operates over 40 locations in the County of Los Angeles. These restaurants provide to the public important goods such as hamburgers, soft drinks, milkshakes and an array of other services including menu prices. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yvette J. Harrell, Esq. LEGAL JUSTICE ADVOCATES, LLP 1629 K Street NW, Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 Telephone: (202) 803-4708 E-mail: yh@legaljusticeadvocates.com BURLINGTON COAT: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Kang Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- JACK KANG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BURLINGTON COAT FACTORY DIRECT CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-11752 (D.N.J., April 29, 2019) alleges that the Defendant's website, https://www.burlingtoncoatfactory.com is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. Burlington Coat Factory Direct Corporation engages in the retailing of branded apparel products. The company was incorporated in 1997 and is based in Burlington, New Jersey. Burlington Coat Factory Direct Corporation operates as a subsidiary of Burlington Coat Factory Investments Holdings, Inc. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stamatios Stamoulis, Esq. STAMOULIS & WEINBLATT LLC 800 N. West Street, Third Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 999-1540 E-mail: stamoulis@swdelaw.com - and - Yvette J. Harrell, Esq. LEGAL JUSTICE ADVOCATES, LLP 1629 K Street NW, Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 Telephone: (202) 290-6671 E-mail: yh@legaljusticeadvocates.com CANADA: NDP MP Responds to Coerced Sterilization Amid Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------- National Indigenous Times reports that it's completely unimaginable. You go to the hospital to give birth and leave never able to do so again. Over 100 women, mostly Indigenous, have come forward to say they were coerced, or forced, into sterilization. And mainly in Saskatchewan. "We should be outraged as Canadians that this is happening because this is about a value judgement about who gets to give birth in this country and who doesn't," said NDP MP Rachel Blaney on April 18 on Nation to Nation. A class-action lawsuit was filed in 2017 against Saskatchewan and its health authority, as well as several doctors in the province, and the federal government. It began with two woman but lawyer Alisa Lombard said that number has grown since word began to spread. Each woman is seeking $7 million in damages. "You have women who are going into have children, in publicly funded hospitals, hoping for that beautiful experience, having a child is or ought to be. And they're leaving unable to have any more, against their will," said Lombard of the Saskatoon-based law firm Semaganis Worme Lombard. Any woman that has given birth knows the moment following delivery is likely the worst time to be making life-altering decisions but that's what Lombard said women have told her. "It's chaotic. It's not a time when you can have these long, lengthy conversations about what you to do for the rest of your life," she said. It is also alleged to have happened while in labour according to one of the women who previously told APTN that staff at the Saskatoon Royal University Hospital pressured her into sterilization during the birth of her second child in 2008. While most of the cases date between 1990s to the early 2000s, Lombard said a woman came forward saying it happened to her just last December. And it could spread across the country. "We are examining the possibility of expanding and we will do so at a time and place that we think is appropriate," she said. The Senate's committee on human rights started looking at the matter to figure out the scope of the issue. It hasn't become a criminal investigation, yet. "If people were having things done without informed consent that's breaking the law," said Cathy McLeod, Conservative shadow critic on Indigenous Affairs. While Canada is a defendant in the class-action, Liberal MP Marc Miller encouraged people to come forward. "The fact that it is happening to Indigenous women makes it even more so despicable. We encourage anyone that has had this happen to them to step forward and contact the RCMP or authorities and report it," said Miller. [GN] CARRIAGE SERVICES: Court OK on Settlement of Faria Suit Underway ---------------------------------------------------------------- Carriage Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the accrued US$650,000 for the estimated settlement amount related to the case styled, Faria, et al. v. Carriage Funeral Holdings, Inc., Superior Court of California, Contra Costa County, Case No. MSC18-00606, is adequate at March 31, 2019. On March 26, 2018, six Plaintiffs filed a putative class action against Carriage Funeral Holdings, Inc., the Company's subsidiary, their alleged employer, on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated current and former employees. Plaintiffs seek monetary damages and claim that Carriage Funeral Holdings, Inc. failed to pay minimum wages, provide meal and rest breaks, provide accurately itemized wage statements, reimburse employees for required expenses, and provide wages when due. Plaintiffs also claim that Carriage Funeral Holdings, Inc. violated California Business and Professions Code Section17200 et seq. On June 5, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint to add a claim under the California Private Attorney General Act. On October 23, 2018, the parties mediated this matter and executed a Memorandum of Understanding for class settlement. In February 2019, a Class Action Settlement Agreement was fully executed, which will be submitted to the Court for preliminary approval. The Court has set a preliminary approval hearing date of May 9, 2019, which date is subject to change by the Court. The Company said, "We anticipate that the Court will preliminarily approve the Class Action Settlement Agreement. If the Class Action Settlement Agreement is preliminarily approved by the Court, the class claims process will then proceed. At December 31, 2018, we accrued US$650,000 for the estimated settlement amount related to this case. At March 31, 2019, we determined the accrual to be adequate." Carriage Services, Inc., provides funeral and cemetery services and merchandise in the United States. It operates through two segments, Funeral Home Operations and Cemetery Operations. The Company was founded in 1991 and is headquartered in Houston, Texas. CHARLOTTE TILBURY BEAUTY: Haggar Sues over ADA Violations --------------------------------------------------------- A class action complaint has been filed by Elia Haggar et al against the Charlotte Tilbury Beauty, Inc. for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The case is captioned Elia Haggar et al v. Charlotte Tilbury Beauty, Inc. et al, Case No. 2:19-cv-03696-RGK-KS (C.D. Cal., May 1, 2019). It is assigned to Hon. Judge R. Gary Klausner. Charlotte Tilbury Beauty manufactures skin care and beauty products. The company was incorporated in 2012 and is based in London, United Kingdom. Its head office in America is located at 148 Lafayette Street, 2nd Floor, New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Babak Bobby Saadian, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM 3055 Wilshire Boulevard 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 381-9988 Facsimile: (213) 381-9989 E-mail: bobby@wilshirelawfirm.com - and - Thiago Merlini Coelho, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM 3055 Wilshire Boulevard 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 381-9988 Facsimile: (213) 381-9989 E-mail: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Removes Marcelino Suit to S.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Defendant in the case of MICHAEL MARCELINO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, LLC; and DOES 1 through 50, Defendants, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Diego (Case No. 37-0201900016478-CU-OE-CTL) to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on April 29, 2019. The clerk of court for the Southern District of California assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-00783-L-MSB. The case is assigned to Judge M. James Lorenz and referred to Magistrate Michael Berg. Charter Communications, LLC was formerly known as Charter Communications, L.P. The company is based in Saint Louis, Missouri. Charter Communications, LLC operates as a subsidiary of Charter Communications Operating, LLC. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Max Fischer, Esq. Aimee Mackay, Esq. Megan McDonough, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 300 South Grand Avenue Twenty-Second Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132 Telephone: (213) 612-2500 Facsimile: (213) 612-2501 E-mail: max.fischer@morganlewis.com aimee.mackay@morganlewis.com megan.mcdonough@morganlewis.com CHICO'S FAS: Fisher Sues over False Discounts --------------------------------------------- A class action complaint has been filed against Chico's FAS, Inc. for violations of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and the Unfair Competition Laws and False Advertising Laws of the California Business & Professions Code. The case is captioned JACKIE FISHER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. CHICO'S FAS, INC., a Florida corporation, and DOES 1- 50, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-00856-DMS-MSB (S.D. Cal., May 7, 2019). Plaintiff Jackie Fisher alleges that Chico's false and misleading marketing, advertising, and pricing scheme have violated and continues to violate California and federal law prohibiting advertising goods for sale as discounted from former prices that are false, and prohibiting misleading statements about the existence and amount of price reductions. Chicos' has allegedly utilized a false and misleading reference price in the marketing and selling of its Chico's "direct to outlet" merchandise sold at its outlet stores. Accordingly, Plaintiff Jackie Fisher seeks to obtain damages, restitution, and other appropriate relief in the amount by which Chico's was unjustly enriched as a result of its sales of merchandise offered at a false discount. Chico's is a women's clothing store with over 600 Chico's boutiques nationwide. Chico's specializes in the sale of women's clothing, shoes, jewelry, accessories, and more. Chico’s directly markets its merchandise to consumers in the state of California and throughout the United States via its in-store advertisements and its e-commerce website (www.Chicos.com). Chico's sells its own branded merchandise at its retail stores, outlet stores, and through its e-commerce website. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd D. Carpenter, Esq. Alyshia K. Lord, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH LLP 1350 Columbia Street, Ste. 603 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 762-1910 Facsimile: (619) 756-6991 E-mail: tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com alord@carlsonlynch.com CITIGROUP INC: Bid for Leave to Amend LIBOR Suit Narrowed --------------------------------------------------------- Citigroup Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that on March 25, 2019, in IN RE LIBOR-BASED FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION, the court issued an opinion granting in part motions for leave to further amend complaints filed by certain plaintiffs asserting individual claims. Additional information concerning these actions is publicly available in court filings under the docket numbers 11 MD 2262 (S.D.N.Y.) (Buchwald, J.) and 17-1569 (2d Cir.). Citigroup Inc., a diversified financial services holding company, provides various financial products and services for consumers, corporations, governments, and institutions in North America, Latin America, Asia, Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. The company operates through two segments, Global Consumer Banking (GCB) and Institutional Clients Group (ICG). Citigroup Inc. was founded in 1812 and is headquartered in New York, New York. CITIGROUP INC: Faces GSE Bonds Antitrust Suit --------------------------------------------- Citigroup Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company has been named as a defendant in a consolidated class action suit entitled, IN RE GSE BONDS ANTITRUST LITIGATION. Between February 22 and April 11, 2019, 12 putative class actions, which have been consolidated under the caption IN RE GSE BONDS ANTITRUST LITIGATION, were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Citigroup, CGMI, and numerous other defendants, on behalf of purported classes of persons or entities that transacted in bonds issued by United States government-sponsored entities with one or more of the defendants. Plaintiffs assert claims under the Sherman Act and for unjust enrichment based on defendants' alleged conspiracy to manipulate the market for such bonds, and seek treble damages and injunctive relief. Additional information relating to this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 19 Civ. 1704 (S.D.N.Y.) (Rakoff, J.). Citigroup Inc., a diversified financial services holding company, provides various financial products and services for consumers, corporations, governments, and institutions in North America, Latin America, Asia, Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. The company operates through two segments, Global Consumer Banking (GCB) and Institutional Clients Group (ICG). Citigroup Inc. was founded in 1812 and is headquartered in New York, New York. CITIGROUP INC: Stachon Class Action Stayed ------------------------------------------ Citigroup Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the class action suit entitled, STACHON v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., ET AL., has been stayed. On February 7, 2019, a putative class action captioned STACHON v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., ET AL., was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Citigroup, Citibank, CGMI, and Citigroup Global Markets Limited (CGML) and other defendants, on behalf of indirect purchasers of supranational, sub-sovereign and agency (SSA) bonds. Plaintiffs assert claims under New York antitrust laws based on the same conduct alleged in the previously filed SSA bond lawsuits and seek treble damages and injunctive relief. The action is currently stayed pending a decision on the motion to dismiss in the consolidated direct purchaser action captioned IN RE SSA BONDS ANTITRUST LITIGATION. Additional information relating to these actions is publicly available in court filings under the docket numbers 19 Civ. 01205 (S.D.N.Y.) (Swain, J.), and 16-cv-03711 (S.D.N.Y.) (Ramos, J.). Citigroup Inc., a diversified financial services holding company, provides various financial products and services for consumers, corporations, governments, and institutions in North America, Latin America, Asia, Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. The company operates through two segments, Global Consumer Banking (GCB) and Institutional Clients Group (ICG). Citigroup Inc. was founded in 1812 and is headquartered in New York, New York. CITIGROUP INC: Suits over ICE LIBOR Consolidated with Putnam Case ----------------------------------------------------------------- Citigroup Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that on January 31 and on March 4, 2019, two additional putative class actions, which have been consolidated with PUTNAM BANK v. INTERCONTINENTAL EXCHANGE, INC., ET AL., were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against ICE, Citigroup, Citibank, CGMI, and various other banks. Each of these complaints asserts claims under the Sherman Act and for unjust enrichment based on alleged suppression of the ICE LIBOR and seeks disgorgement and treble damages where authorized by statute. Additional information relating to this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 19 Civ. 00439 (S.D.N.Y.) (Daniels, J.). Citigroup Inc., a diversified financial services holding company, provides various financial products and services for consumers, corporations, governments, and institutions in North America, Latin America, Asia, Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. The company operates through two segments, Global Consumer Banking (GCB) and Institutional Clients Group (ICG). Citigroup Inc. was founded in 1812 and is headquartered in New York, New York. CKE RESTAURANTS HOLDINGS: Chapman Sues over Inaccessible Premises ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action complaint has been filed against CKE Restaurants Holdings, Inc. for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and its implementing regulations, in connection with accessibility barriers in the parking lots and paths of travel at various public accommodations owned, operated, controlled, and/or leased by the company. The case is captioned RACHELLE CHAPMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CKE RESTAURANTS HOLDINGS, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 5:19-cv-00189-D (E.D.N.C., May 8, 2019). Plaintiff Rachelle Chapman asserts that the Defendant's centralized design, construction, alteration, maintenance, and operational policies and practices have systematically and routinely violated the ADA by designing, constructing, and altering facilities so that they are not readily accessible and are usable, by failing to remove architectural barriers, and by failing to maintain and operate facilities so that the accessible features of Defendant's facilities are maintained. CKE Restaurants Holdings, Inc. through its subsidiaries, owns, operates, and franchises quick-service restaurants under the Carl's Jr., Hardee's, Green Burrito, and Red Burrito names in the United States and internationally. As of October 18, 2016, it had a total of 3,729 franchised or company-operated restaurants in 44 states, U.S. territories, and 40 countries internationally. The company was founded in 1941 and is headquartered in Franklin, Tennessee. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kieran J. Shanahan, Esq. Nathaniel J. Pencook, Esq. 128 E. Hargett Street, Suite 300 Raleigh, NC 27601 Telephone: (919) 856-9499 Facsimile: (919) 856-9499 E-mail: kieran@shanahanlawgroup.com npencook@shanahanlawgroup.com COMMUNITY HEALTH: Cyber Attack Claims Due Aug. 1 ------------------------------------------------ Community Health Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the deadline for purported class members in the Cyber Attack related suit to submit claims is August 1, 2019. On August 18, 2014, the company's computer network was the target of an external, criminal cyber-attack that the company believe occurred between April and June, 2014. The company and Mandiant (a FireEye Company), the forensic expert engaged by the company in connection with this matter, believe the attacker was a foreign "Advanced Persistent Threat" group who used highly sophisticated malware and technology to attack our systems. The attacker was able to bypass the company's security measures and successfully copy and transfer outside the Company certain non-medical patient identification data (such as patient names, addresses, birthdates, telephone numbers and social security numbers), but not including patient credit card, medical or clinical information. The company worked closely with federal law enforcement authorities in connection with their investigation and prosecution of those determined to be responsible for this attack. Mandiant has conducted a thorough investigation of this incident and continues to advise the company regarding security and monitoring efforts. The company have provided appropriate notification to affected patients and regulatory agencies as required by federal and state law. The company have offered identity theft protection services to individuals affected by this attack. The company have incurred certain expenses to remediate and investigate this matter. In addition, multiple purported class action lawsuits have been filed against the company and certain subsidiaries. These lawsuits allege that sensitive information was unprotected and inadequately encrypted by the company. The plaintiffs claim breach of contract and other theories of recovery, and are seeking damages, as well as restitution for any identity theft. On February 4, 2015, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered the transfer of the purported class actions pending outside of the District Court for the Northern District of Alabama to the District Court for the Northern District of Alabama for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. A consolidated complaint was filed and the company filed a motion to dismiss on September 21, 2015, which was partially argued on February 10, 2016. In an oral ruling from the bench, the court greatly limited the potential class by ruling only plaintiffs with specific injury resulting from the breach had standing to sue. Further, on jurisdictional grounds, the court dismissed Community Health Systems, Inc. from all non-Tennessee based cases. Finally, the court set April 15, 2016 for further argument on whether the remaining plaintiffs have sufficiently stated a cause of action to continue their cases. On April 15, 2016 in an oral ruling from the bench, the court dismissed additional claims and following this oral ruling only eight of the forty plaintiffs remained, with significant limitations imposed on their ability to assert claims for damages. These oral rulings were confirmed in a written order filed on September 12, 2016. On October 20, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a renewed motion for interlocutory appeal from the motion to dismiss ruling and on February 15, 2017 this motion was denied. Plaintiffs refiled their motion for permission to seek interlocutory appeal on March 15, 2017, and that motion was also denied. The company have settled these class action lawsuits, and the settlement has been approved by the District Court. Notices of the settlement and claim forms have been mailed to purported class members. The deadline for purported class members to opt out of or object to the settlement is May 18, 2019. The deadline for purported class members to submit claims is August 1, 2019. Community Health Systems, Inc. is one of the largest publicly traded hospital companies in the United States and a leading operator of general acute care hospitals and outpatient facilities in communities across the country. The company provide healthcare services through the hospitals that we own and operate and affiliated businesses in non-urban and selected urban markets throughout the United States. The company is based in Franklin, Tennessee. CONTAINER STORE: Newman Sues over Autodialed Text Messages ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action complaint has been filed against The Container Store, Inc. for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The case is captioned JARED NEWMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. THE CONTAINER STORE, INC. a Texas corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-21587-BB (S.D. Fla., April 25, 2019). Plaintiff Jared Newman alleges that the Defendant used automatic telephone dialing system in transmitting impersonal and generic telemarketing text messages to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone number ending in 7450. The Container Store, Inc. is an American retail chain company that offers storage and organization products. It maintains its principal office at 500 Freeport PKWY, Coppell, Texas. This Texas corporation also directs, markets, and provides its business activities throughout the state of Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. Garrett O. Berg, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 1205 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: 305-479-2299 E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com gberg@shamisgentile.com - and - Scott Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, PA 19495 Biscayne Blvd #607 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: 305-975-3320 E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com COOPER WORKS: Underpays Construction Workers, Rodriguez Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- JOSE MANUEL RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COOPER WORKS INC.; and MICHAEL KATZ, Defendants, Case No. 7:19-cv-03815 (S.D.N.Y., April 29, 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 Rodriguez was employed by the Defendants as construction worker. Cooper & Company, Inc., doing business as Dakota Watch Company, manufactures watches for men, women, and kids. It sells products online, as well as through a catalogue. Cooper & Company, Inc. was founded in 1945 and is based in Cincinnati, Ohio. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brent E. Pelton, Esq. Taylor B. Graham, Esq. PELTON GRAHAM LLC 111 Broadway, Suite 1503 New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 385-9700 Facsimile: (212) 385-0800 E-mail: pelton@peltongraham.com graham@peltongraham.com COSAN LIMITED: Employees Class Action Related Suits Ongoing ----------------------------------------------------------- Cosan Limited said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company continues to defend class action suits initiated by its former employees and service providers. The company, its subsidiaries and jointly-controlled entities are also parties to a number of labor claims filed by former employees and service providers challenging, among other matters, the payment of overtime, night shift premiums and risk premiums, the recognition of employment relationships and the reimbursement of discounts from payroll, such as social contribution and trade union charges. Additionally, the company is involved in several labor administrative and judicial proceedings such as labor investigations and class actions filed by the labor prosecutor's office regarding alleged non-compliance with certain labor regulations, including work and safety rules, labor conditions and work environment, and social assistance plans. Moreover, we entered into certain consent orders (Termos de Ajustamento de Conduta) with Brazilian authorities and in the event the company fails to comply with such consent orders, the company could be subject to fines. Provisions for labor claims as of December 31, 2018 amounted to R$466.3 million and R$471.3 million as of December 31, 2017. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Cosan Limited, together with its subsidiaries, engages in fuel and natural gas distribution, logistics, lubricant, sugar and ethanol businesses primarily in Brazil and internationally. The company was incorporated in 2007 and is based in Sao Paulo, Brazil. COSAN LIMITED: Environmental Class Action in Brazil Still Stayed ---------------------------------------------------------------- Cosan Limited said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the environmental civil class action in Brazil against the company remains suspended. Cosan is being sued by the Municipality of Ulianopolis, by means of the civil class action No. 0000749-68.2011.8.14.0130, for environmental damages related to alleged irregular waste disposal in a landfill located in the Municipality of Ulianopolis, in the state of Para. Eight other companies are involved in the same lawsuit, and the plaintiff intends to declare all of them as jointly liable for restoring the environmental damage involved therein. The plaintiff seeks R$167.3 million but the specific amount needed to restore the damage cannot be estimated. It is also important to highlight that more than 50 companies are involved in the same matter by means of other lawsuits and a civil investigation currently being held by the state of Para's Public Prosecutor's Office. Therefore, it is expected by some of these companies that any settlement or condemnation in this matter should comprise all of them. The lawsuit is currently suspended due to a plea from the Public Prosecutor's Office. According to the Company's information, the amount under discussion in these proceedings is R$167.3 million, of which R$15.3 million is classified as a possible risk of loss and R$152 million is classified as a remote risk of loss. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Cosan Limited, together with its subsidiaries, engages in fuel and natural gas distribution, logistics, lubricant, sugar and ethanol businesses primarily in Brazil and internationally. The company was incorporated in 2007 and is based in Sao Paulo, Brazil. COSTCO: Employee Benefits Program Unlawful, Kimmel Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------ KIMMEL, CARTER, ROMAN, PELTZ & O'NEILL, P.A., on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION and the COSTCO EMPLOYEE BENEFITS PROGRAM, Defendants, Case No. 19-2-10456-2 SEA (Wash. Super. Ct., King Cty., May 16, 2019) is an action for classwide declaratory relief seeking a judicial declaration that the terms of the Costco Employee Benefits Program--and, more particularly, those terms that purportedly operate to extinguish or nullify the rights of the plaintiff, and of absent class members, to recovery under the common fund doctrine and the doctrine of quantum meruit--are unlawful, unenforceable, void against public policy, and of no effect as applied to the proposed class. The Costco Employee Benefits Program consists of or includes a self-funded benefits plan under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"). Kimmel Carter represents Ashli Gerlach, a Delaware personal injury claimant employed by defendant Costco Wholesale Corporation. Ms. Gerlach is alleged to have suffered injuries in a January 30, 2017 accident. On or about July 15, 2017, acting at the direction or request of her employer, Costco Wholesale Corporation, Ms. Gerlach executed the Costco Employee Benefits Program's Reimbursement Agreement (the "Reimbursement Agreement"). The Defendants contend that unless Kimmel Carter becomes a signatory to and agrees to be bound by the Reimbursement Agreement, the Costco Employee Benefits Program will (i) refuse to pay medical bills arising from Ms. Gerlach's accident-related medical treatment, and (ii) refuse to recognize Kimmel Carter's rights to compensation for its legal services under the common fund doctrine and the doctrine of quantum meruit. Kimmel Carter contends that (i) if Kimmel Carter becomes a party to the Reimbursement Agreement, it will thereby have violated (or risked violation ol) the Delaware Lawyers' Rules of Professional Conduct and the American Bar Association's Model Rules of Professional Conduct; (ii) by conditioning payment of Ms. Gerlach's accident-related medical bills on Kimmel Carter's signing the Reimbursement Agreement, the defendants are unlawfully interfering with Kimmel Carter's attorney-client relationship with Ms. Gerlach; (iii) the Defendants' conduct threatens to unlawfully restrict or impair the public's access to its choice of counsel in personal injury cases; and (iv) the defendants' conduct unlawfully threatens the rights of personal injury lawyers to recover for legal services rendered under the common fund doctrine and the doctrine of quantum meruit, says the complaint. Plaintiff Kimmel, Carter, Roman, Peltz & O'Neill, P.A. is a professional association incorporated in Delaware, and one of that state's leading plaintiffs' personal injury law firms. Costco Wholesale Corporation funds, operates and administers (or oversees the administration of) the Costco Employee Benefits Program.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Maria S. Diamond, Esq. DIAMOND MASSONG, PLLC 1215 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1275 Seattle, WA 98161 Phone: (206) 445-1258 - and - John S. Spadaro, Esq. JOHN SHEEHAN SPADARO, LLC 54 Liborio Lane Smyrna, DE 19977 Phone: (302) 235-7745 CSX INTERMODAL TERMINALS: Rogers Suit Transferred to N.D. Ill. -------------------------------------------------------------- The case, Rogers v. CSX Intermodal Terminals, Inc, Case No. 2019-CH-4168, was transferred from the Circuit Court of Cook County to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on May 1, 2019. This contract product liability-related case is assigned to Hon. Judge Marvin E. Aspen. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-02937 to the proceeding. Based in Jacksonville, Florida, CSX Intermodal Terminals, Inc. describes itself as one the nation's leading intermodal terminal operators, providing rail-to-truck and truck-to-rail transloading services. The company operates 40 terminals across the eastern United States and Canada. [BN] Attorneys for Defendant: Bonnie Keane DelGobbo, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 1 N. Wacker Dr., Suite 4500 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 416-8185 E-mail: bdelgobbo@bakerlaw.com - and - Joel Griswold, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER, LLP 200 S. Orange Avenue, SunTrust Center, Suite 2300 Orlando, FL 32801 Telephone: (407) 649-4088 E-mail: jcgriswold@bakerlaw.com - and - Joyce E Ackerbaum Cox, Esq. Baker & Hostetler LLP 200 South Orange Avenue, Suite 2300 Orlando, FL 32801 Telephone: (407) 649-4000 E-mail: jacox@bakerlaw.com DCD CONSTRUCTION: Castillo, Merced Seek OT Premium Pay ------------------------------------------------------ A class action complaint has been filed against DCD Construction, LLC, Denis Portaev, Igor Akopov, and Evgeny Makarin for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, Wage Theft Prevention Act, and New York Labor Law and the supporting New York State Department of Labor regulations. The case is captioned Luis Castillo and Saul Reyes Merced, on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, - vs. – DCD Construction, LLC, Denis Portaev, Igor Akopov, and Evgeny Makarin, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02689 (E.D.N.Y., May 7, 2019). Plaintiffs allege that defendants had a policy and practice of refusing to pay overtime compensation to their employees for hours they worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. In addition, Plaintiffs assert that the defendants have also failed to provide them with weekly wage statements. DCD Construction, LLC is a New York corporation with a place of business at 1209 Dekalb Avenue, Suite 207, Brooklyn, New York. The company was engaged in numerous construction projects in Brooklyn. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David Stein, Esq. SAMUEL & STEIN 38 West 32nd Street, Suite 1110 New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (212) 563-9884 E-mail: dstein@samuelandstein.com DERA RESTAURANT: Diaz Seeks Overtime, Minimum Pay ------------------------------------------------- A class action complaint has been filed against Dera Restaurant, Inc and Mohammad Saif Ullah for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, New York Labor Law, and the New York State Wage Theft Prevention Act. The case is captioned LUIS DIAZ, on behalf of himself, and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, -against- DERA RESTAURANT, INC.; DERA RESTAURANT NYC, INC.; and MOHAMMAD SAIF ULLAH, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02712 (E.D.N.Y., May 8, 2019). Plaintiff Luis Diaz alleges that the Defendants failed to pay minimum wage and overtime to its employees. Dera Restaurant, Inc. is a domestic business corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of New York, with a principal place of business at 72-09 Broadway, Jackson Heights, New York. The restaurant offers authentic Pakistani, Indian, Bengali, and Nepali food. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin Cilenti, Esq. Peter H. Cooper, Esq. CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC 708 Third Avenue – 6th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 209-3933 Facsimile: (212) 209-7102 E-mail: pcooper@jcpclaw.com DOUGLAS COUNTY, WA: Rivera-Ruiz Files Civil Rights Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Douglas County and some government officials. The case is styled as Jose Alfredo Rivera-Ruiz on behalf of himself and a class of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Douglas County, Gordon Edgar, Prosecuting Attorney for Douglas County, in his official and individual capacities, US Department of Homeland Security, Kevin McAleenan, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, United States of America, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-00170-SMJ (E.D. Wash., May 16, 2019). The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights. Douglas County is a county located in the U.S. state of Washington. As of the 2010 census, its population was 38,431. The county seat is Waterville, while its largest settlement is East Wenatchee Bench, although East Wenatchee is the commercial center.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jessica Talitha Hazelton, Esq. Espada Law Firm 1001 4th Avenue, Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98154 Phone: (206) 467-5987 Email: th@espadalaw.com DOYLE'S WORK: Faces Olmos Labor Suit in California -------------------------------------------------- A class action complaint has been filed against Doyle's Work Company, Inc. for violations of the California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions Code. The case is captioned JUAN OLMOS, an individual; and ADOLFO OLMOS, an individual, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated employees, Plaintiffs, v. DOYLE'S WORK COMPANY, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 19CV347006 (Cal. Super., Santa Clara Cty., April 30, 2019). The core violations Plaintiffs Joan Olmos and Adolfo Olmos allege are: (1) failing to provide meal periods and rest periods (and pay the statutory additional wages owed); (2) failing to pay all agreed upon, minimum and overtime wages owed; (3) failing to keep accurate time records and knowingly and intentionally failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements; (4) willfully failing to pay compensation owed for all hours worked (including unpaid overtime and meal and rest period compensation) in a prompt and timely manner to Plaintiffs upon termination of employment; (5) and failing to provide potable water. Defendants have also refused to pay the wages due and owed to Plaintiffs under the express provisions of the California Labor Code and the Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order No. 16, which in turn has resulted in additional Labor Code violations entitling Plaintiffs to prompt payment of wages, penalties, and interest. Defendants caused the violations at issue and benefitted financially from these violations. Doyle's Work Company, Inc. is a corporation incorporated under the laws of the state of California, with its principal place of business in the County of Santa Clara, in the State of California, and has expressly consented to jurisdiction in California. The company operates as an excavation contractor employing Plaintiffs and the aggrieved employees. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nina M. Patane, Esq. Anais Mora, Esq. PATANE GUMBERG AVILA, LLP 4 Rossi Circle, Suite 231 Salinas, CA 93907 Mailing: P.O. Box 3770, Salinas, CA 93912 Telephone: (831) 755-1461 Facsimile: (831) 755-1477 E-mail: npatane@pglawfirm.com amora@pglawfirm.com DYNAGAS LNG: Epelbaum Files Securities Suit Over Share Price Drop ----------------------------------------------------------------- MARIO EPELBAUM, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. DYNAGAS LNG PARTNERS LP, DYNAGAS GP, LLC, DYNAGAS HOLDING LTD., TONY LAURITZEN, MICHAEL GREGOS and GEORGE J. PROKOPIOU, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-04512 (S.D. N.Y., May 16, 2019) is an action pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against Defendants on behalf of all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Dynagas securities from February 16, 2018 through March 21, 2019, inclusive, excluding Defendants. Plaintiff and other members of the Class purchased Dynagas securities at prices that were inflated by misstatements, the omission of facts necessary to make those statements not misleading, and the failure to timely correct those misstatements, asserts the complaint. This is a case about a company that misled its investors regarding the terms of two key long-term contracts, and concealed the fact that its revenue derived from those contracts had been severely diminished and outright lied about its ability to continue to make substantial distributions to shareholders based on its current cash flow profile. Dynagas is a publicly traded company limited partnership that owns six tanker ships, designed for the transportation of liquified natural gas ("LNG"). These LNG tanker ships are operated by a Dynagas affiliate and are chartered to large energy companies including Statoil (now known as Equinor), Gazprom, and Yamal, typically for periods of eight to ten years. Since the completion of its initial public offering in 2013, and until recently, Dynagas attracted investors in its common stock by paying a substantial quarterly distribution (i.e. dividend). Dynagas was able to make the distribution consistently in part due to the highly predictable nature of revenue derived from long-term contracts with stable counterparties. In its press releases and public presentations and on conference calls with investors, Dynagas and its officers routinely touted the Company's long-term charter contracts and reminded investors that these contracts "provide steady, predictable cash flows." Indeed, prior to 2018, Dynagas had always paid holders of its common stock at least 36.5 cents per quarter per share. In early 2018, it became apparent, even to outside analysts, that Dynagas would need to reduce its quarterly distributions to maintain adequate liquidity to meet debt obligations and continue operations. The Company's management conducted a review and determined to reduce the quarterly distribution to 25 cents per share. However, unknown to investors, Dynagas and its senior management knew that the Company's predictable cash flow did not support even this (reduced) distribution, because Dynagas had already agreed to receive a reduced charter rate for two of its six LNG tanker ships, the Arctic Aurora and the Ob River, beginning in 2018 and continuing for years to come. The impact of the rate reduction for one third of Dynagas's fleet on the Company's cash flow would extend for years into the future, such that the Company would not be able to support even the 25-cent quarterly distributions. But instead of admitting this fact, Dynagas and its senior executives repeatedly assured investors that the new, somewhat lower, dividend was sustainable, and that further reductions would not be needed. Consequently, Dynagas's common stock declined 78.4% from its closing price on February 16, 2018 (the day after Dynagas's post-market-close misstatements about its charter contracts and the ability of the revenue derived therefrom to support its distributions) and its closing price on March 22, 2019 (the day it was fully revealed that the prior statements were false), Series A Preferred Units declined 24.7% during the same period, and other Dynagas securities suffered substantial price decreases as well. Plaintiff Mr. Epelbaum acquired Dynagas securities and has been damaged thereby, says the complaint. Dynagas, through its subsidiaries and affiliates, owns and operates six LNG tankers and derives substantially all of its revenue from charter contracts with natural gas producers to export their LNG products to markets around the world.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Entwistle, Esq. Robert N. Cappucci, Esq. Brendan J. Brodeur, Esq. Sean M. Riegert, Esq. ENTWISTLE & CAPPUCCI LLP 299 Park Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10171 Phone: (212) 894-7200 Facsimile: (212) 894-7272 Email: aentwistle@entwistle-law.com rcappucci@entwistle-law.com bbrodeur@entwistle-law.com sriegert@entwistle-law.com DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Auguste Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Florida ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dynamic Recovery Solutions, LLC. The case is styled as Sharon Auguste individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Dynamic Recovery Solutions, LLC, LVNV Funding, LLC, and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 0:19-cv-61236-RKA (S.D. Fla., May 16, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Dynamic Recovery Solutions, LLC is a full-service collection agency based in South Carolina. Dynamic Recovery Solutions is experienced in collecting late-stage debt for small, medium, and high-volume businesses.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin E. Zeig, Esq. Zeig Law Firm, LLC 3595 Sheridan Street, Suite 103 Hollywood, FL 33021 Phone: (754) 217-3084 Email: justin@zeiglawfirm.com EURO PAINTING AND WALLCOVERING: Veres Seeks OT, Minimum Pay ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action complaint has been filed against Szabolcs Z. Ulics dba Euro Painting and Wallcovering for violations of the California Labor Code, the California Business & Professions Code and the applicable IWC Wage Orders, and Code of Regulations, Title 8, section 11000 et seq. The case is captioned TIBOR VERES, Plaintiff, v. SZABOLCS Z. ULICS dba EURO PAINTING AND WALLCOVERING; SZABOLCS Z. ULICS; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV15093 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., May 1, 2019). Plaintiff Tibor Veres alleges eight causes of action including failure to pay all wages including minimum wage and overtime; failure to provide rest and meal periods; and failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements. Euro Painting does business in California, and renovates hotels throughout the United States by providing a wide variety of services from decorative painting to special wall covering installation. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin Mahoney, Esq. Atoy H. Wilson, Esq. MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC 249 E. Ocean Blvd., Suite 814 Long Beach, CA 90802 Telephone: (562) 590-5550 Facsimile: (562) 590-8400 E-mail: kmahoney@mahoney-law.net awilson@mahoney-law.net EXLSERVICE HOLDINGS: Remainder of Settlement Amount Already Paid ---------------------------------------------------------------- ExlService Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the remainder of the settlement amount in a California class action has been paid. In March 2017, the Company was named as a defendant in a putative class action lawsuit filed in California, which challenged the classification of independent contractors. The parties participated in a mediation in early 2018. As the result of the mediation, a settlement was reached pursuant to which the Company agreed, without admission of wrongdoing, to pay a total of $2,400, of which $1,200 was paid in 2018 and the remainder has been paid during the three months ended March 31, 2019. ExlService Holdings Inc. outsources business processes, including transaction processing and Internet and voice-based customer care services, to Global 1000 companies in banking, financial services, and insurance. ExlService also offers technical support and advisory services. The company's clients are located principally in the U.S. and Britain. The company was founded in 1999 and is headquartered in New York. FAIRFAX BEHAVIORAL HEALTH: Faces Suit over ADA Violations --------------------------------------------------------- A class action complaint has been filed against Fairfax Behavioral Health for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The case is captioned Doe v. Fairfax Behavioral Health, Case No. 2:19-cv-00635-TSZ (W.D. Wash., April 30, 2019). It is assigned to Hon. Judge Thomas S. Zilly. Founded in 1930, Fairfax Behavioral Health operates a 157-bed, standalone psychiatric hospital, located in Kirkland, WA. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexa Helen Polaski, Esq. DISABILITY RIGHTS WASHINGTON 315 5th Ave S, Ste 850 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: (206) 324-1521 E-mail: alexap@dr-wa.org - and – Shelby R. Smith, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP (WA) 1301 2nd Avenue, Ste 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 268-9370 E-mail: shelby@hbsslaw.com - and – Stacie Berger Siebrecht, Esq. DISABILITY RIGHTS WASHINGTON 315 5th Ave S, Ste 850 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: (206) 324-1521 E-mail: stacies@dr-wa.org - and – Steve W. Berman HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP (WA) 1301 2nd Avenue, Ste 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com FIC RESTAURANTS: Does not Pay Proper Wages, Lowe Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------- Dejanna Lowe, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FIC Restaurants, Inc., d/b/a Friendly's, John M. Maguire, T. Todd Schwendenmann, Defendants, Case No. 19-1397 (Mass. Commonwealth, Super. Ct., May 16, 2019) is an action brought on behalf of hourly restaurant workers of the Defendants who seeks damages, including treble damages, interest, costs, and attorneys' fees. According to the complaint, the Defendants violated the Massachusetts wage laws in multiple ways. First, Friendly's engaged in a systematic scheme to misrepresent or alter lime records, with the result that hourly restaurant workers were not properly paid for all of the time they worked. This scheme was undertaken at the direction of managers who oversaw multiple restaurants and was motivated by a desire to improve the company's financial performance, at the expense of hourly workers. Second, the Defendants failed to satisfy the minimum wage requirements of M.G.L. c. 151, both by failing to pay any wages for some work and by failing to satisfy the requirements for paying a tipped minimum wage, says the complaint. Plaintiff Ms. Lowe worked for the Defendants as an hourly employee from in or around August 2014 to in or around December 2018. FIC Restaurants, Inc., d/b/a Friendly's, is a Massachusetts corporation, with a principal place of business in Wilbraham, Massachusetts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen Churchill, Esq. FAIR WORK, P.C. 192 South Street, Suite 450 Boston, MA 02111 Phone: (617)607-3260 Fax: (617)488-2261 (fax) Email: sieve@fairworklaw.com FIDELITY NATIONAL: 401(k) Plan Related Suit v. Unit Ongoing ----------------------------------------------------------- Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that Reliance Trust Company ("Reliance"), the company's subsidiary continues to defend a class action suit related to its 401(k) Plan. Reliance Trust Company ("Reliance"), the Company's subsidiary, is named as a defendant in a class action arising out of its provision of services as the discretionary trustee for a 401(k) Plan (the "Plan") for one of its customers. Plaintiffs in the action seek damages and attorneys' fees, as well as equitable relief, on behalf of Plan participants for alleged breaches of fiduciary duty under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 against Reliance and the Plan's sponsor and record-keeper. Reliance is vigorously defending the action and believes that it has meritorious defenses. Pre-trial discovery has now been completed. Reliance contends that no breaches of fiduciary duty or prohibited transactions occurred and that the Plan suffered no damages. With respect to Plaintiffs' remaining claims, Plaintiffs allege damages of approximately $115 million against all defendants. Fidelity National said, "While we are unable at this time to estimate more precisely the potential loss or range of loss because of unresolved questions of fact and law, we believe that the ultimate resolution of the matter will not have a material impact on our financial condition. We do not believe a liability for this action is probable and, therefore, have not recorded a liability for this action." Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. operates as a financial services technology company in the United States and internationally. It operates through Integrated Financial Solutions and Global Financial Solutions segments. The company was founded in 1968 and is headquartered in Jacksonville, Florida. FIRSTSOURCE ADVANTAGE: Faces Suit Over Confusing Collection Letter ------------------------------------------------------------------ Ronald D Gentile, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Firstsource Advantage, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 0:19-cv-61237-XXXX (S.D. Fla., May 16, 2019) seeks to recover for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"). In its efforts to collect an alleged Debt, Defendant contacted Plaintiff by letter ("the Letter") dated May 29, 2018. The Letter contains multiple addresses for Defendant. The Letter fails to instruct the consumer to which of the multiple addresses provided written disputes must be sent. As a result of the foregoing, the least sophisticated consumer would likely be confused as to which of the multiple addresses she should send her written dispute. Thus, the Defendant violated the FDCPA as the multiple addresses overshadow the disclosure of the consumer's right to dispute the debt, says the complaint. Plaintiffs Ronald D Gentile is a natural person allegedly obligated to pay a debt. Defendant is regularly engaged, for profit, in the collection of debts allegedly owed by consumers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig B. Sanders, Esq. BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Phone: (516) 203-7600 Fax: (516) 706-5055 Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com FRINGE BENEFIT GROUP: Fenello Sues over Automated Telemarketing Cal ------------------------------------------------------------------- A class action complaint has been filed against Fringe Benefit Group, Inc. for violations of the consumer-privacy provisions of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The case is captioned JAY FENELLO, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. FRINGE BENEFIT GROUP, INC. D/B/A THE AMERICAN WORKER, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01971-ELR (N.D. Ga., May 1, 2019). Plaintiff Jay Fenello alleges that the Fringe Benefit Group, Inc. has automated the telemarketing calls to him and other putative class members without their prior express written consent. Fringe Benefit Group, Inc. d/b/a The American Worker is a Texas corporation with its principal place of business in Austin, TX. Fringe Benefit Group, Inc. d/b/a The American Worker is registered with the State of Georgia and has a registered agent of Mary B. Galardi, 1418 Dresden Dr., Suite 240, Atlanta, Georgia. [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 GARY'S KINGS'S: Burke Suit Alleges FLSA Violations -------------------------------------------------- Louise Burke and Nicole Willey, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Gary's Kings's Chef Diner LLC, King's Chef Diner 2 LLC, King's Chef Diner #3 LLC, and Gary A. Geiser, Case No. 1:19-cv-00889 (D. Colo., March 25, 2019), is brought against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Colorado Wage Claim Act, and the Fair Labor Standards Act. This case arises out of the Defendants' failure to pay minimum and overtime wages to the Plaintiffs. In addition, the Defendants use the tip money the Plaintiffs receive to pay non-tipped employees such as kitchen staff and to make up for shortages in the cash register, says the complaint. The Plaintiff Burke worked as a server for the Defendants in Colorado Springs in September 2017 and ended her employment in January 2019. The Plaintiff Willey worked as a server for the Defendants in Colorado Springs in March 2016 and continues to work for them in that capacity in Colorado Springs and Fountain. The Defendants operate three restaurants known as the King's Chef Diners in Colorado Springs. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mary Jo Lowrey, Esq. LOWREY PARADY LLC 1725 High Street, Suite 1 Denver, CO 80218 Tel: (303) 593-2595 Fax: (303) 502-9119 E-mail: MaryJo@lowrey-parady.com GENERAL MOTORS: Parker Sues Over Defective Steering System ---------------------------------------------------------- JAMES SCOTT PARKER, on his own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV17105 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., May 16, 2019) is an action seeking to redress KMA's violations of California consumer fraud statutes, and also seeks recovery for Defendant's breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, and common law fraud. General Motors was engaged in the business of designing, manufacturing, constructing, assembling, marketing, distributing, and selling automobiles and other motor vehicles and motor vehicle components in Los Angeles County. Plaintiff purchased a 2009 Chevrolet Traverse, vehicle identification number 1GNER23D79S109425 on or about October 26, 2008. Plaintiff received an express written warranty, including, the 3-year/36,000 mile basic bumper-to-bumper warranty, a 5-year/100,000 mile powertrain warranty which covers, inter alia, the engine and transmission, and subsequently received a 10-year/120,000 mile extended service coverage adjustment (e.g. extended warranty) which covers power steering system and/or related components. 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. The warranty provided, in relevant part, that in the event a defect developed with the Subject Vehicle during the warranty period, Plaintiff could deliver the Subject Vehicle for repair services to Defendant's representative and the Subject Vehicle would be repaired. During the warranty period, the Subject Vehicle contained or developed defects. Said defects substantially impair the use, value, or safety of the Subject Vehicle. GM knew since 2009 if not earlier, that the 2008-2012 Chevrolet Traverse vehicles, including the 2009 Chevrolet Traverse, contained one or more design and/or manufacturing defects in their integral steering system that could cause it to intermittently and drastically fail while the car is in motion, thus creating a serious safety risk. Plaintiff alleges that GM knew at the time the Subject Vehicle was manufactured and/or thereafter, if not before, that the Subject Vehicle and its Steering system suffered from an inherent defect, was defective, would fail prematurely, and was not suitable for its intended use. Despite Plaintiff's repeated presentments to repair the defects, the attempted repairs were unsuccessful in conforming the Subject Vehicle to the warranties provided by Defendant, as Plaintiff continued to experience problems with the Subject Vehicle. Throughout this period, Defendant continued to conceal from Plaintiff the existence and nature of the defects within the Subject Vehicle. Thus, Plaintiff could not have discovered the steering defect earlier, because Plaintiff was never informed at any repair visits, or any other time that Plaintiff's vehicle was defective. Further, Plaintiff could not have discovered the steering defect until the issues persisted after these repair attempts, says the complaint.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tionna Dolin, Esq. Daniel Tai, Esq. Esther Kim, Esq. Strategic Legal Practices A Professional Corporation 1840 Century Park East, Suite 430 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 929-4900 Facsimile: (310) 943-3838 Email: tdolin@slpattorney.com dtai@slpattorney.com ezkim@slpattorney.com GLOBAL NET: Dembski Files Suit in Arizona ----------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Global Net Communications. The case is styled as Fred Dembski Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Global Net Communications, Third Party Subpoena Recipient, Respondent, Case No. 2:19-mc-00014-DWL (D. Ariz., May 16, 2019). Global Net Communications provides data solutions for the telecommunications industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Avi Kaufman, Esq. Kaufman PA 400 NW 26th St. Miami, FL 33127 Phone: (305) 469-5881 Email: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com - and - Nathanael Melvin Brown, Esq. Brown Patent Law 15100 N 78th Way Scottsdale, AZ 85260 Phone: (602) 529-8347 Email: nathan.brown@brownpatentlaw.com - and - Stefan Louis Coleman, Esq. Law Offices of Stefan Coleman LLC 201 S Biscayne Blvd., 28th Fl. Miami, FL 33131 Phone: (877) 333-9427 Fax: (888) 498-8946 Email: law@stefancoleman.com GRG USA LLC: Boling Files Tort Class Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against GRG USA LLC. The case is styled as JESSICA BOLING, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF, THE GENERAL PUBLIC, AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff v. GRG USA LLC DOING BUSINESS AS THE GARAGE CLOTHING COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. BCV-19-101352 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., May 16, 2019). The case type is stated as "Business Tort - Civil Unlimited". Grg USA LLC is a privately held company in Minneapolis, MN. Categorized under Women's Clothing Stores.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by NEIL B FINEMAN, ESQ. HILL'S PET: Connary Sues Over Product's False and Misleading Labels ------------------------------------------------------------------- DONNA CONNARY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. HILL'S PET NUTRITION, INC. and COLGATE-PALMOLIVE COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 5:19-cv-00913 (C.D. Cal., May 16, 2019) seeks an order requiring Defendants to pay actual damages, statutory treble damages, attorneys' fees, and any other relief available for Defendants' material misrepresentations and omissions. The products at issue in this Class Action Complaint are various Science Diet and Prescription Diet brands (collectively, the "Products") that Defendants recalled on January 31, 2019 and further recalled to include additional Products on March 20, 2019. The Products were recalled because, contrary to their labeling, advertising, and marketing campaign which represents and warrants to consumers that the Products are safe, healthy, and/or specifically formulated for the unique health needs of canines, Defendants actually formulated, manufactured, distributed, and sold Products that contain an amount of Vitamin D that is extremely dangerous for dogs to consume. This amount of Vitamin D poses substantial and unreasonable health risks to dogs after exposure, including symptoms such as vomiting, loss of appetite, increased thirst, increased urination, excessive drooling, and weight loss. Prolonged exposure can lead to serious health issues in dogs including renal dysfunction, which can cause death. As a result of Defendants' false and misleading representations and warranties which conveyed that the Products were safe, many dog owners including Plaintiff and members of the Class and Subclass, watched as their dogs suffered from Vitamin D poisoning and its related symptoms after consuming the Products, says the complaint. Plaintiff Donna Connary regularly purchased several of the Products from retailers in Riverside County, California. Defendants formulated, designed, manufactured, advertised, marketed, labeled, offered for sale, sold, and distributed pet food products to consumers, including the Products, throughout the United States and California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin Blakeman, Esq. BLAKEMAN LAW 8383 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 510 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Phone: (213) 629-9922 Facsimile: (213) 232-3230 Email: ben@lifeinsurance-law.com IMDB.COM INC: Jones Sues Over Deaf-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------- KAHLIMAH JONES, Individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, v. IMDB.COM, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02903-LDH-VMS (E.D. N.Y., May 16, 2019) is a civil rights class action lawsuit against Defendant for failing to design, construct, and/or own or operate a website that is fully accessible to, and independently usable by, deaf and hard-of hearing people. The Defendant denies deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals throughout the United States equal access to the goods and services that it provides to non-disabled individuals, through http://www.imdb.com(hereinafter the "Website") and related domains owned by Defendant, asserts the complaint. The Website contains access barriers that make it difficult for deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals to use the Website. In fact, the access barriers make it impossible for deaf and hard-of-hearing users to comprehend the audio portion of videos that are posted on the Website. Defendant thus excludes the deaf and hard of hearing from the full and equal participation in the growing Internet economy that is increasingly a fundamental part of the common marketplace and daily living, the complaint says. Plaintiff is a deaf and hard-of hearing individual. Defendant provides a wide array of goods and services to the public through its Website.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Shaked, Esq. SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C. 44 Court Street, Suite 1217 Brooklyn, NY 11201 Phone: (917) 373-9128 Email: ShakedLawGroup@gmail.com INTEGRITY RECOVERY: Costa Suit Asserts FDCPA Violation ------------------------------------------------------ ANIA COSTA, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. INTEGRITY RECOVERY MANAGEMENT LLC and PERFECTION COLLECTION, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-21994-XXXX (S.D. Fla., May 16, 2019) is a class action brought under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), for the benefit of Florida consumers who have been subjected to improper debt collection efforts by Defendants. In connection with the collection of an alleged Debt, on November 19, 2018, "Alex Yates," a representative acting on behalf of IRM, placed a telephone call to Plaintiff and left a voice message. Later, on December 3, 2018, Mr. Yates placed another telephone call to Plaintiff and left a nearly identical voice message. IRM also sent Plaintiff a written communication dated December 11, 2018 in an attempt to collect the alleged Debt. By way of the December 11 letter, IRM seeks payment of $3,064.57 in connection with an account originating from "Apx Alarm aka Vivint Alarm." Mr. Yates and IRM contacted Plaintiff on behalf of Perfection Collection to collect the alleged Debt. Yet Mr. Yates's telephone voice messages to Plaintiff failed to advise her that IRM is a debt collector calling to collect a debt, and that any information obtained as a result of IRM's calls would be used for the purpose of collecting that debt. Instead, IRM's representative, "Alex Yates," simply professed to be a "private courier" with "sealed documents" for delivery, says the complaint. Plaintiff is obligated, or allegedly obligated, to pay a debt owed or due, or asserted to be owed or due, a creditor other than IRM. IRM is a limited liability company with its registration and principal place of business located in Nevada.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James L. Davidson, Esq. Jesse S. Johnson, Esq. Greenwald Davidson Radbil PLLC 7601 N. Federal Hwy., Suite A-230 Boca Raton, FL 33487 Phone: (561) 826-5477 Fax: (561) 961-5684 Email: jdavidson@gdrlawfirm.com jjohnson@gdrlawfirm.com ITURAN LOCATION: Court Hearing in Subscriber Suit Set for June 2019 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Ituran Location and Control Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that a court hearing on the purported class action suit initiated by the company's subscriber is set for June 2019. On July 13, 2015, the company received a purported class action lawsuit which was filed against the Company in the District Court of Central Region in Tel-Aviv by one plaintiff who is a subscriber of the Company, alleging that the Company, which was declared a monopoly under the Israeli Antitrust Law, unlawfully abused its power as a monopoly and discriminated between its customers. The lawsuit is yet to be approved as a class action. The total amount claimed if the lawsuit is approved as a class action was estimated by the plaintiff to be approximately NIS 300 million (approximately USD 80 million). Based on an opinion of its legal counsels, the Company believes that the lawsuit lacks substantiation, and that the Company has good defense arguments in respect of claims made by the plaintiff and that the chances that the suit will not be approved as a class action lawsuit are higher than it will be approved. Court hearing will take place on June 2019. Ituran Locatio said, "Notwithstanding the aforesaid, at this preliminary stage, the Company is unable to assess the lawsuit's chances of success. While we cannot predict the outcome of this case, if we are not successful in defending our claim, we could be subject to significant costs, adversely affecting our results of operations." Ituran Location and Control Ltd., together with its subsidiaries, provides location-based services and wireless communications products in Israel, Brazil, Argentina, and the United States. The company was founded in 1994 and is headquartered in Azor, Israel. JAB HOLDING: Pension Fund Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duties ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action complaint has been filed against Jab Holding Company S.a.r.l. et al for breach of fiduciary duties. The case is captioned Massachusetts Laborers' Pension Fund, on behalf of itself and all similarly situated holders of Coty Inc., Plaintiff v. Sabine Chalmers, Joachim Faber, Oliver Goudet, Peter Harf, Anna-Lena Kamenetzky, Pierre Laubies, Paul S. Michaels, Erhard Schoewel, Robert Singer, Jab Holding Company S.a.r.l., Jab Cosmetics B.V., and Cottage Holdco B.V., Defendants, Case No. 2019-0336 (Del. Ch., May 6, 2019). Jab Holding Company is a privately held group focused on long term investments in companies with premium brands. It operates offices in Europe, the US and South America. Its investments are overseen by two managing partners: Peter Harf and Olivier Goudet. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ned Weinberger, Esq. LABATON SUCHAROW LLP 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1340 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone No: (302) 573-2530 JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Abott Suit Transferred to C.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------ The case, DR. RICHARD ABBOTT, Individually and as Successor-In-Interest of the Estate of CECILIA ABBOTT, Deceased, Plaintiffs, v. COLGATE-PALMOLIVE COMPANY; JOHNSON & JOHNSON; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC., a subsidiary of JOHNSON & JOHNSON; and DOES 1-450, Defendants, Case No. JCCP 4674 / BC691327, was transferred from the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. In the complaint, Plaintiffs allege that Imerys Talc America's talc caused Decedent's injuries -- specifically, death due to mesothelioma. The United States District Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03681 to the proceeding. On April 18, 2019, Johnson and Johnson filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware a Motion to Fix Venue for Claims Related to Imerys's Bankruptcy Under 28 U.S.C. Sections 157(b)(5) and 1334(b). The aforementioned wrongful death claim was among those that Johnson and Johnson seeks to consolidate in the District of Delaware. Given the pendency of the Motion, Johnson and Johnson believes that the Central District Court of California cannot and, in any event, should not take any further action in this civil action until the District of Delaware has ruled on the Motion. Because the District of Delaware has the ultimate power to determine venue of the personal injury and wrongful death claims, the District of Delaware necessarily has authority to consider any procedural motions filed in this civil action if the resolution of such motions might have some bearing on the trial of the claims. Johnson & Johnson is a New Jersey Corporation doing business in the state of California. The company is engaged in substantial, continuous economic activity in California, including marketing, distribution, and sale of billions of dollars in products to Californians including, but not limited to, Shower to Shower body powder and Johnson & Johnson’s Baby Powder. [BN] Attorneys for Defendants: Alexander G. Calfo, Esq. Julia E. Romano, Esq. Bryan L. King, Esq. KING & SPALDING LLP 633 West 5th Street, Suite 1600 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: +1 (213) 443-4355 Facsimile: +1 (213) 443-4310 E-mail: acalfo@kslaw.com jromano@kslaw.com bking@kslaw.com JPAY INC: Inmates Sue over Digital Music, Audio Books Purchases --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action complaint has been filed against JPay, Inc. and Keefe Commissary Network, LLC for breach of contract and for engaging in deceptive trade practices that violated the Florida common law. The case is captioned MATTHEW RODRIGUEZ; and OTIS CLAYTON, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. JPAY, INC., and KEEFE COMMISSARY NETWORK, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-14137-XXXX (S.D. Fla., April 25, 2019). Plaintiffs Matthew Rodriguez and Otis Clayton allege that JPay, Inc. and Keefe Commissary Network, LLC engaged in scheme to intentionally deprive Plaintiffs and the members of the putative class, who are all inmates incarcerated by the Florida Department of Corrections (FLDOC), of digital music and/or audio books. Defendant Keefe and the FLDOC falsely and fraudulently represented to Plaintiffs and members of the putative class, that they would always own the digital media files purchased under the Digital Music Player Program. Keefe and FLDOC allegedly failed to disclose to the Plaintiffs and the members of the putative class that the said program contained an expiration date and that the digital media file purchases would only be available for use during the span of the FLDOC's contract with Keefe. Plaintiffs also accuse Jpay and FLDOC with a conspiracy that deprive them of their lawfully purchased property, without just compensation. Jpay and FLDOC have falsely assured Plaintiffs and the members of the putative class that they are entitled to transfer their digital media purchased under the Keefe's Digital Music Player Program to Jpay's Multimedia Tablet Program without additional costs. JPay is a wholly owned subsidiary of Securus Technologies, Inc., is incorporated in Delaware and located at 12864 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 243, Miami, Florida. JPay touts itself as "the most trusted name in corrections." The company offers myriad services to the correctional industry in over 30 states. Keefe Commissary Network, LLC, is a Missouri corporation that does business under various trade names, including Access Corrections. Keefe is located at 10880 Linpage Place, St. Louis, Missouri 63132. It is considered as the nation's largest operator of commissary stores inside correctional facilities. It offers a wide array of services to correctional institutions, including the sales of MP3 players and music. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Scott D. Hirsch, Esq. SCOTT HIRSCH LAW GROUP, PLLC 7301 W. Palmetto Park Road, Ste. 207A Boca Raton, FL 33433 Telephone: (561) 569-7062 Facsimile: (561) 278-6244 E-mail: Scott.Hirsch@ScottHirschLawGroup.com - and – Joshua M. Entin, Esq. ENTIN LAW GROUP, P.A. 633 S. Andrews, Ave Suite 500 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (964) 761-7201 Facsimile: (954) 764-2443 E-mail: Josh@entinlaw.com KEN'S SUSHI: Zhang Suit Alleges FLSA Violations ----------------------------------------------- Xing Dong Zhang, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Ken's Sushi Bistro Inc. dba Zenzo Sushi, Hong Zhang Chen, "John" Chen, and Xiaoxue Guan, Case No. 1:19-cv-02594 (S.D. N.Y., March 22, 2019), is brought against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The complaint asserts that the Defendants have willfully and intentionally committed widespread violations of the FLSA and NYLL by engaging in a pattern and practice of failing to pay their employees, including Plaintiff, compensation for all hours worked, minimum wage, and overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 each workweek and spread of hours, as well as failing to provide their employees, including the Plaintiff, with wage notice at the time of hiring and wage statements with each payment of wages with requisite information. The Plaintiff is a resident of Queens, New York. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as delivery person from March 4, 2015 to on around August 1, 2018. The Defendants own and operate a restaurant in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ge Qu, Esq. HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 136-18 39th Ave. Suite 1003 Flushing, NY 11354 Tel: (718) 353-8588 Fax: (718) 353-6288 E-mail: rqu@hanglaw.com LEIDOS HOLDINGS: Settlement in NY Suit Still Awaits Court Approval ------------------------------------------------------------------ Leidos Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 29, 2019, that the settlement in the case entitled, In Re: SAIC, Inc. Securities Litigation, still awaits court approval. Between February and April 2012, alleged stockholders filed three putative securities class actions against the Company and several former executives relating to the Company's contract to develop and implement an automated time and attendance and workforce management system for certain agencies of the City of New York ("CityTime"). One case was withdrawn and two cases were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in In Re: SAIC, Inc. Securities Litigation. The consolidated securities complaint asserted claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on allegations that the Company and individual defendants made misleading statements or omissions about the Company's revenues, operating income and internal controls in connection with disclosures relating to the CityTime project. The plaintiffs sought to recover from the Company and the individual defendants an unspecified amount of damages class members allegedly incurred by buying Leidos' stock at an inflated price. The District Court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims with prejudice and without leave to replead. The plaintiffs then appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which issued an opinion affirming in part, and vacating in part, the District Court's ruling. The Company filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court, which was granted on March 27, 2017. The District Court granted the Company's request to stay all proceedings, including discovery, pending the outcome at the Supreme Court. In September 2017, the parties engaged in mediation resulting in an agreement to settle all remaining claims for an immaterial amount to be paid by the Company. The amounts payable by the Company are covered by an insurance policy. The terms of the proposed settlement remain subject to court approval. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Leidos Holdings, Inc. provides services and solutions in the defense, intelligence, civil, and health markets in the United States and internationally. It operates through three segments: Defense Solutions, Civil, and Health. The company was founded in 1969 and is headquartered in Reston, Virginia. LENNOX INDUSTRIES: Baker Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages, Damages ------------------------------------------------------------- Ebony Baker, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Lennox Industries Inc., Defendant, Case No. 5:19-cv-00171-DPM (E.D. Ark., May 16, 2019) is an action under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act ("AMWA"), for unjust enrichment, declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest and costs, including a reasonable attorney's fee as a result of Defendant's failure to pay Plaintiff and other hourly-paid employees lawful overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. Plaintiff and other hourly-paid employees regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week throughout their tenure with Defendant. They were classified as hourly employees and paid an hourly rate and were also paid non-discretionary cash awards and bonuses on a regular basis when certain objective and measurable criteria were met. In addition, Defendant paid Plaintiff and other hourly-paid employees one-and one-half times their base hourly rate for each hour they worked over 40 in a workweek. The complaint alleges that Defendant did not include the bonuses and cash awards paid to Plaintiff and other hourly-paid employees in their regular rates of pay when calculating their overtime pay in violation of the FLSA and AMWA. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as an hourly-paid employee from approximately October of 2017 until May of 2019. Lennox Industries, Inc., operates multiple manufacturing facilities, and Lennox's Stuttgart facility builds a variety of commercial air conditioning and heating products including packaged rooftop units, and split system and unit heaters for both the domestic and international market.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chris Burks, Esq. Brandon M. Haubert, Esq. WH LAW,PLLC 1 Riverfront Pl. - Suite 745 North Little Rock, AR 72114 Phone: (501) 891-6000 Email: chris@whlawoffices.com brandon@whlawoffices.com LIBERTY CAPITAL: Ellis Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against LIBERTY CAPITAL GROUP INC. The case is styled as GLENN A. ELLIS INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF A CLASS OF ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff v. LIBERTY CAPITAL GROUP INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-02131-RK (E.D. Pa., May 16, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Liberty Capital Group, Inc. provides leasing and financing solutions for various types of new and used manufacturing equipment. It also provides private label, managed, or referral programs for suppliers and manufactures in various industries.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: JOSEPH MARANO, ESQ. LAYSER & FREIWALD, PC 1500 WALNUT STREET 18TH FLOOR PHILADELPHIA, PA 19102 Phone: (215) 875-8000 Email: jm@freiwaldlaw.com LIFE ALERT EMERGENCY RESPONSE: Cinta Sues over Automatic Contract R ------------------------------------------------------------------- A class action complaint has been filed against Life Alert Emergency Response, Inc. for its violations of the Illinois Automatic Contract Renewal and the Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. The case is captioned OFILIA CINTA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. LIFE ALERT EMERGENCY RESPONSE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2019L000485 (Ill. Cir., DuPage Cty., May 1, 2019). In violation of the Renewal Act and pursuant to its standard practice and policy of refusing to comply with the Renewal Act, Defendant Life Alert Emergency Response, Inc. did not notify Plaintiff Ofilia Cinta and the class in writing of the automatic renewal of their contract and did not furnish Plaintiff and the class any written notice of any cancellation deadline. In addition, the Defendant also did not provide Plaintiff and the class any clear and conspicuous details of the automatic renewal provision including any cancellation procedure. Founded in 1987, Life Alert Emergency Response, Inc. is a California corporation with its principal place of business at 16027 Ventura Boulevard, Encino, California. It is a personal emergency response and home medical alert system company that saves lives from catastrophic outcomes, using a unique technology to provide superior home audio monitoring protection. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Vincent L. DiTommaso, Esq James V. DiTommaso, Esq DITOMMASO LAW LLC 17W 220 22nd Street, Suite 410 Oakbrook Terrace, IL 60181 Telephone: (630) 333-0000 E-mail: vdt@ditommasolaw.com jvd@ditommasolaw.com eservice@ditommasolaw.com - and - Larry D. Drury, Esq. LARRY D. DRURY, LTD. 100 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2200 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 346-7950 E-mail: ldd@larrydrury.com LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Appeal in Formaldehyde & Abrasion MDL Pending ----------------------------------------------------------------- Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the consolidated appeal in the Formaldehyde & Abrasion multi-district litigation is pending. Beginning on or about March 3, 2015, numerous purported class action cases were filed in various U.S. federal district courts and state courts involving claims of excessive formaldehyde emissions from the Company's Chinese-manufactured laminate flooring products. The purported classes consisted of all U.S. consumers that purchased the relevant products during certain time periods. Plaintiffs in these cases challenged the Company's labeling of its products as compliant with the California Air Resources Board Regulation and alleged claims for fraudulent concealment, breach of warranty, negligent misrepresentation and violation of various state consumer protection statutes. The plaintiffs sought various forms of declaratory and injunctive relief and unquantified damages, including restitution and actual, compensatory, consequential and, in certain cases, punitive damages, as well as interest, costs and attorneys' fees incurred by the plaintiffs and other purported class members in connection with the alleged claims. The United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the "MDL Panel") transferred and consolidated the federal cases to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (the "Virginia Court"). The consolidated case in the Virginia Court is captioned In re: Lumber Liquidators Chinese-Manufactured Flooring Products Marketing, Sales, Practices and Products Liability Litigation (the "Formaldehyde MDL"). Beginning on or about May 20, 2015, multiple class actions were filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California and other district courts located in the place of residence of each non-California plaintiffs consisting of U.S. consumers who purchased the Company's Chinese-manufactured laminate flooring products challenging certain representations about the durability and abrasion class ratings of such products. These plaintiffs asserted claims for fraudulent concealment, breach of warranty and violation of various state consumer protection statutes. The plaintiffs did not quantify any alleged damages in these cases; however, in addition to attorneys' fees and costs, they did seek an order (i) certifying the action as a class action, (ii) adopting the plaintiffs' class definitions and finding that the plaintiffs are their proper representatives, (iii) appointing their counsel as class counsel, (iv) granting injunctive relief to prohibit the Company from continuing to advertise and/or sell laminate flooring products with false abrasion class ratings, (v) providing restitution of all monies the Company received from the plaintiffs and class members and (vi) providing damages (actual, compensatory and consequential), as well as punitive damages. On October 3, 2016, the MDL Panel transferred and consolidated the abrasion class actions to the Virginia Court. The consolidated case is captioned In re: Lumber Liquidators Chinese-Manufactured Laminate Flooring Durability Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation (the "Abrasion MDL"). On March 15, 2018, the Company entered into a settlement agreement to jointly settle the Formaldehyde MDL and the Abrasion MDL. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, the Company has agreed to fund $22 million (the "Cash Payment") and provide $14 million in store-credit vouchers for an aggregate settlement amount of $36 million to settle claims brought on behalf of purchasers of Chinese-made laminate flooring sold by the Company between January 1, 2009 and May 31, 2015. The $36 million aggregate settlement amount was accrued in 2017. On June 16, 2018, the Virginia Court issued an order that, among other things, granted preliminary approval of the settlement agreement. Following the preliminary approval, and pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement, the Company, in June, paid $0.5 million for settlement administration costs, which is part of the Cash Payment, to the plaintiffs' settlement escrow account. Subsequent to the Final Approval and Fairness Hearing held on October 3, 2018, the Court approved the settlement on October 9, 2018 and, as a result, the Company paid $21.5 million in cash into the plaintiffs' settlement escrow account. On November 8, 2018, an individual filed a Notice of Appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (the "Appeals Court") challenging the settlement. On December 14, 2018, another individual filed a Notice of Appeal in the Appeals Court. Subsequently, the Appeals Court consolidated both appeals and entered a briefing schedule. Vouchers, which generally have a three-year life, will be distributed by the administrator upon order of the Court. At December 31, 2018, the Company's obligations related to Formaldehyde MDL and Abrasion MDL consisted of a short-term payable of $35.5 million with $14 million expected to be satisfied by the issuance of vouchers. If the appeals were to result in the settlement being set aside, the Company would receive $21.5 million back from the escrow agent. Accordingly, the Company has accounted for the payment of $21.5 million as a deposit in the accompanying condensed consolidated financial statements. The Company has no liability accrued related to the appeals. Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a multi-channel specialty retailer of hard-surface flooring, and hard-surface flooring enhancements and accessories. The company also offers its products through its Website, catalogs, and call center. Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1994 and is headquartered in Toano, Virginia. LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Class Certification Bid in Mason Still Pending ------------------------------------------------------------------ Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that a motion requesting conditional certification in the class action suit initiated by Ashleigh Mason is still pending. On or about August 15, 2017, Ashleigh Mason, Dan Morse, Ryan Carroll and Osagie Ehigie filed a purported class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York on behalf of all current and former store managers, store managers in training, installation sales managers and similarly situated current and former employees holding comparable positions but different titles (collectively, the "Putative Class Employees") alleging that the Company violated the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and New York Labor Law ("NYLL") by classifying the Putative Class Employees as exempt. The alleged violations include failure to pay for overtime work. The plaintiffs seek certification of the Putative Class Employees for (i) a collective action covering the period beginning three years prior to the filing of the complaint (plus a tolling period) through the disposition of this action for the Putative Class Employees nationwide in connection with FLSA and (ii) a class action covering the period beginning six years prior to the filing of the complaint (plus a tolling period) through the disposition of this action for members of the Putative Class Employees who currently are or were employed in New York in connection with NYLL. The plaintiffs did not quantify any alleged damages but, in addition to attorneys' fees and costs, the plaintiffs seek class certification, unspecified amount for unpaid wages and overtime wages, liquidated and/or punitive damages, declaratory relief, restitution, statutory penalties, injunctive relief and other damages. In November 2018, the plaintiffs filed a motion requesting conditional certification for all store managers and store managers in training who worked within the federal statute of limitations period. The Company filed its opposition to this motion, which is now pending before the court. Lumber Liquidators said, "The Company disputes the Putative Class Employees' claims and intends to defend the matter vigorously. Given the uncertainty of litigation, the preliminary stage of the case and the legal standards that must be met for, among other things, class certification and success on the merits, the Company cannot estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss, if any, that may result from this action and therefore no accrual has been made related to this. Any such losses could, potentially, have a material adverse effect, individually or collectively, on the Company"s results of operations, financial condition and liquidity." Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a multi-channel specialty retailer of hard-surface flooring, and hard-surface flooring enhancements and accessories. The company also offers its products through its Website, catalogs, and call center. Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1994 and is headquartered in Toano, Virginia. LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Court OKs Supervised Notice in A. Mason Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York issued a Memorandum and Order granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Court-Supervised Notice to Putative Collective Action Members in the case captioned ASHLEIGH MASON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. LUMBER LIQUIDATORS, INC., Defendant. No. 17-CV-4780 (MKB). (E.D.N.Y.). Currently pending before this Court is plaintiffs' motion for court-supervised notice to putative collective action members, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b), and for disclosure of identifying information of potential collective action members. Plaintiffs Ashleigh Mason, Dan Morse, Ryan Carroll, Osagie Ehigie, and Travis Streeter bring this putative collective action against defendant Lumber Liquidators, Inc. (Lumber Liquidators), asserting claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New York Labor Law (NYLL), for unpaid overtime wages owed to store managers and managers in training, who are alleged to have been misclassified as exempt from overtime requirements. SCOPE OF NOTICE Defendant further argues that if the Court determines that notice should issue to potential collective action members, such notice should be limited to employees at the New York locations where the original four named plaintiffs worked. The Defendant offers no reason for limiting notice in that manner. In addition to the five named plaintiffs, plaintiffs have submitted declarations from thirteen opt-in plaintiffs who worked at various locations nationwide, from different regions in the country, who describe being subject to the same policies as the named plaintiffs with respect to the alleged FLSA overtime violation. The Plaintiffs' declarants further describe conversations they had with SMs from other locations around the country, who performed similar non-exempt duties but were not paid overtime for those hours in excess of 40 that they worked in a workweek. Many courts in this Circuit have conditionally certified nationwide collectives of managers or assistant managers alleged to have been misclassified as exempt, where the motions were supported by the declarations of plaintiffs and opt-in plaintiffs from various geographic locations, detailing their experiences and observations and/or conversations they had with employees from the defendants' other locations. Here, the similarities in the substance of the declarations of opt-in plaintiffs from across the country, in terms of the hours worked, the performance primarily of non-exempt duties, and the lack of discretion they were permitted to exercise, raises an inference of a common policy that violated the FLSA. Unlike the cases on which defendant relies, the declarations proffered by plaintiffs are numerous and represent a geographically diverse sampling, Here, in contrast, plaintiffs have submitted declarations from thirteen SMs, who worked at 37 of defendant's stores across thirteen states from different regions in the country. As in Costello, plaintiffs' submissions constitute actual evidence of a link' between plaintiffs and those across the nation. Accordingly, the Court authorizes plaintiffs to send notice to a nationwide collective of (a) Store Managers in Training (SMITs(, and (b) Store Managers (SMs) who worked at stores that generated, on average, less than $5 million in revenue during the notice period. DISCOVERY OF IDENTIFYING INFORMATION The Plaintiffs request that the Court direct defendant to produce the name, mailing address, email address (if any), telephone numbers, and the last four digits of Social Security numbers of each potential member of the collective. The Defendant argues that only mailing addresses and dates of employment are necessary. In general, it is appropriate for courts in collective actions to order the discovery of names, addresses, telephone numbers, email addresses, and dates of employment of potential collective members. On the other hand, courts are reluctant to require the disclosure of personally sensitive information, such as Social Security numbers, absent a showing that the information is necessary for plaintiffs to notify potential opt-ins of the litigation. Plaintiffs herein have not demonstrated the necessity for disclosure of partial social security numbers. Therefore, plaintiffs' request for the disclosure of social security numbers is denied, without prejudice to a further showing of necessity. Accordingly, subject to the confidentiality stipulation entered in this case, defendant is directed to produce to plaintiffs, in a computer-readable format, a list of the names, addresses, telephone numbers, email addresses, work locations and dates of employment for all potential collective action members during the relevant time period. METHODS OF PROVIDING NOTICE AND OPTING IN The Plaintiffs also request that the opt-in notice be sent by both regular mail and email, and be posted in the workplaces of defendant's employees, and that putative collective action members be permitted to opt-in by mailing, faxing, emailing or providing electronic consent through a dedicated website. The Defendant opposes the plaintiffs' request and contends that notice by first-class mail is sufficient. Courts in this District routinely authorize the posting of notice within the defendants' businesses. The Defendant therefore shall post copies of the Notice, in all relevant languages in non-public locations conspicuous to all relevant employees, for the duration of the opt-in period. Courts in this Circuit also regularly authorize notice by email. In the absence of any explanation by defendant as to why notice via email would be unreasonable, the Court grants plaintiffs' request to send notice by email, in addition to first-class mail. The Plaintiffs further request that opt-in plaintiffs be permitted to submit their consent forms to plaintiffs' counsel by mail, email or fax. Courts within this District have split on the issue of whether opt-in plaintiffs should be instructed to return their consent forms to the Clerk of the Court or to plaintiffs' counsel. In previous cases, this magistrate judge has had the forms sent to the Clerk of the Court, in order to avoid chilling the right of opt-in plaintiffs to select their own counsel. Other decisions in the Eastern District New York have held that where, as here, the Notice to the collective expressly states that opt-ins have the right to retain separate counsel, the risk that opt-in plaintiffs will be discouraged from selecting their own counsel is de minimis at best. REMINDER NOTICE The Plaintiffs request permission to send a reminder notice by regular mail and email to putative collective action members who, halfway through the opt-in period, have not opted in. Defendant opposes this request as duplicative, unreasonable and unnecessary. Plaintiffs' request is granted since it furthers the purpose of notice of a collective action under the FLSA. Although not specifically requested by defendant, the Court rules that, in order to avoid any unfair prejudice to defendant, the reminder notice must include a disclaimer that the Court neither encourages nor discourages participation in the action. DEADLINE TO OPT-IN The Plaintiffs request that putative collective action members be required to opt in to the litigation within 90 days. Defendant objects to a 90-day period and instead proposes a 60-day period. In the absence of any argument by plaintiffs as to why a longer period is necessary, this Court adheres to the more typical 60-day period from the date of dissemination of the Notice for opt-in plaintiffs to send in their consent forms. CONSENT FORM The Defendant further requests that language be inserted into the opt-in form to clarify that putative collective action members are opting into a lawsuit with respect to their federal claims.The Court does not find the existing language (without the three underscored words) to be problematic, especially since plaintiffs' proposed opt-in form does not even reference the NYLL. The Defendant's request is denied. RELEVANT TIME PERIOD FOR NOTICE The Plaintiffs request that the notice period be keyed to the date of the filing of plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification. In effect, plaintiffs ask this Court to exercise its discretion to toll the limitations period from the date the instant motion was filed until the date of this Memorandum and Order. In FLSA collective actions, the statute of limitations is automatically tolled for potential opt-in plaintiffs on the date on which their written consent is filed in the court in which the action was commenced. Nevertheless, courts in this District have frequently permitted equitable tolling while the motion for conditional certification was pending, to avoid attributing to the potential opt-ins the Court's deliberation period. It would be inequitable to charge the potential opt-in plaintiffs with the time during which the instant motion was pending before this Court. In addition, the parties agreed to toll the limitations period for 418 days as to the SMITs and 582 days as to the SMs. Defendant did not address the relevant notice period in its opposition papers. Accordingly, in the absence of any objection, this Court rules that notice may be sent to SMITs who were employed by defendants between November 22, 2014 and September 24, 2018 (three years from November 2, 2018 minus 345 days), and that notice be sent to SMs who were employed by defendant between June 11, 2014 to the present (three years from November 2, 2018, minus 509 days). The Court grants the application for court-supervised notice, authorizing notice to Store Managers (SMs) nationwide who, during the notice period, worked in a Lumber Liquidators store that generated less than $5,000,000 in annual revenue, on average over the notice period, and to Store Managers in Training (SMITs) nationwide who, during the period noted herein, were classified as exempt from overtime. A full-text copy of the District Court's May 13, 2019 Memorandum and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y572segy from Leagle.com. Jonathan Trafimow, Mediator, pro se. Ashleigh Mason, Dan Morse, Ryan Carroll, Osagie Ehigie & Travis Streeter, Plaintiffs, represented by John Russell Stevenson, Law Offices of J. R. Stevenson & Justin Robert Marino, Stevenson Marino LLP, 75 Maiden Lane, Suite 402, New York, NY, 10038 Lumber Liquidators, Inc., Defendant, represented by Lauren Beth Grassotti -- Lauren.Grassotti@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis P.C., Christine Lee Hogan -- clhogan@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C. & Kevin K. Yam -- kyam@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson P.C. LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: MOU Reached in Gold Class Action ---------------------------------------------------- Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the parties in the class action suit initiated by Dana Gold have entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (the "MOU"). In 2014, Dana Gold ("Gold") filed a purported class action lawsuit alleging that certain bamboo flooring that the Company sells (the "Strand Bamboo Product") is defective (the "Gold Litigation"). The plaintiffs sought financial damages and, in addition to attorneys' fees and costs, the plaintiffs wanted a declaration that the Company's actions violated the law. On March 15, 2019 prior to filing its Form 10-K, the Company entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (the "MOU"), which would resolve the Gold Litigation on a nationwide basis. Under the terms of the MOU, the Company will contribute $14 million in cash and provide $14 million in store-credit vouchers, with a potential additional $2 million in store-credit vouchers based on obtaining a claim's percentage of more than 7%, for an aggregate settlement of up to $30 million. The MOU is subject to certain contingencies, including the execution of a definitive settlement agreement, board approval and court approvals of the definitive settlement agreement. The entry into the MOU or any subsequent execution of a definitive settlement agreement does not constitute an admission by the Company of any fault or liability and the Company does not admit any fault or liability. There can be no assurance that a settlement will be finalized and approved or as to the ultimate outcome of the litigation. If a final, court-approved settlement is not reached, the Company will defend the matter vigorously and believes there are meritorious defenses and legal standards that must be met for, among other things, success on the merits. The Company accrued within SG&A a $28 million liability with the offset in the caption "other current liabilities" in its December 31, 2018 financial statements. The Company has notified its insurance carriers and continues to pursue coverage, but the insurers to date have denied coverage. As the insurance claim is still pending, the Company has not recognized any insurance recovery related to the Gold Litigation. Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a multi-channel specialty retailer of hard-surface flooring, and hard-surface flooring enhancements and accessories. The company also offers its products through its Website, catalogs, and call center. Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1994 and is headquartered in Toano, Virginia. LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Steele Class Action Underway in Ontario ----------------------------------------------------------- Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the class action suit initiated by Sarah Steele is still ongoing. On or about April 1, 2015, Sarah Steele ("Steele") filed a purported class action lawsuit in the Ontario, Canada Superior Court of Justice against the Company. In the complaint, Steele's allegations include strict liability, breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, fraud by concealment, civil negligence, negligent misrepresentation and breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Steele did not quantify any alleged damages in her complaint, but seeks compensatory damages, punitive, exemplary and aggravated damages, statutory remedies, attorneys' fees and costs. Lumber Liquidators said, "While the Company believes that a loss associated with the Steele litigation is possible, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate the amount or range of possible loss." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a multi-channel specialty retailer of hard-surface flooring, and hard-surface flooring enhancements and accessories. The company also offers its products through its Website, catalogs, and call center. Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1994 and is headquartered in Toano, Virginia. LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Still Defending Kramer Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company continues to defend a class action suit initiated by Robert J. Kramer. On or about November 17, 2017, Robert J. Kramer, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated (collectively, the "Kramer Plaintiffs") filed a purported class action lawsuit in the Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento on behalf of all current and former store managers, all others with similar job functions and/or titles and all current and former employees classified as non-exempt or incorrectly classified as exempt and who worked for the Company in the State of California (collectively, the "CSM Employees") alleging violation of the California Labor Code including, among other items, failure to pay wages and overtime and engaging in unfair business practices (the "Complaint"). The Kramer Plaintiffs seek certification of the CSM Employees for a class action covering the prior four-year period prior to the filing of the complaint through the disposition of this action for the CSM Employees who currently are or were employed in California (the "California SM Class"). On or about February 19, 2019, the Kramer Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint adding a claim for penalties under the California Private Attorney General Act for the same substantive alleged violations asserted in the Complaint. The Kramer Plaintiffs did not quantify any alleged damages but, in addition to attorneys' fees and costs, the Kramer Plaintiffs seek unspecified amounts for unpaid wages and overtime wages, liquidated and/or punitive damages, declaratory relief, restitution, statutory penalties, injunctive relief and other damages. The Company disputes the Kramer Plaintiffs' claims and intends to defend the matter vigorously. Lumber Liquidators said, "Given the uncertainty of litigation, the preliminary stage of the case and the legal standards that must be met for, among other things, class certification and success on the merits, the Company cannot estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss, if any, that may result from this action and therefore no accrual has been made related to this. Any such losses could, potentially, have a material adverse effect, individually or collectively, on the Company's results of operations, financial condition and liquidity." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a multi-channel specialty retailer of hard-surface flooring, and hard-surface flooring enhancements and accessories. The company also offers its products through its Website, catalogs, and call center. Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1994 and is headquartered in Toano, Virginia. MARCOS: DOJ Backs OSG in Opposing Settlement Agreement ------------------------------------------------------ Edu Punay, writing for The Philippine Star, reports that the Department of Justice has supported the Office of the Solicitor General in opposing the settlement agreement that allows the distribution of $20 million worth of Marcos assets seized in the United States to martial law victims. Justice Secretary Menardo Guevarra agreed with Solicitor General Jose Calida that the settlement agreement in the interpleader case pending at the New York District Court is disadvantageous to the Philippine government. "We are opposing the settlement agreement simply because it does not favor the interests of the government, which we are duty-bound to protect," Guevarra explained on April 21. He clarified, however, that the government does not exactly want to block the award of monetary compensation to the martial law victims but "simply wants that the Republic, as a whole, get a better deal." "The government's position is not antagonistic to the interests of martial law victims who are also citizens of our country, but to protect the interests of the republic as a whole," he explained. Guevarra also confirmed that his office reviewed the terms of the deal. Calida has revealed that the settlement agreement in the New York court case is grossly disadvantageous to the government that would get only $4 million from the proceeds from the sale of paintings recovered from an aide of former first lady and Ilocos Norte Rep. Imelda Marcos. The solicitor general pointed out that the deal is also for the best interest of 9,539 martial law victims in this case as they will receive a measly $1,500 each while their lawyer Robert Swift has sought a hefty $4.125 million in attorney's fees. Calida further explained that the proposed settlement required that the Philippine government grant immunity to Vilma Bautista and move to dismiss the cases against her in the Sandiganbayan. "The government cannot grant immunity to Vilma Bautista. She is a principal defendant in a case currently pending before the Sandiganbayan. The authority of the PCGG to grant such immunity is limited only to a witness who can provide material and relevant information or testify against a defendant in an ill-gotten wealth case," he added. The New York court presided by Judge Katherine Polk Failla has reportedly already approved the settlement deal and ordered its enforcement. Guevarra said that unless the government takes any further remedial action, the New York court order approving the settlement could be "immediately executed." "Note that the subject of this interpleader case (the proceeds of the auction sale of the disputed paintings) is in the custody of the District Attorney of New York, and not in the Philippines, and so execution of the judgment will be in the US," he added. The Presidential Commission on Good Government, an agency tasked to run after the ill-gotten wealth of the late strongman Ferdinand Marcos, earlier entered into negotiations with the camp of the martial law victims, represented by Swift, that won the $2-billion class action suit filed in Hawaii in 1995. The negotiations involved some $20 million worth of assets seized from former Marcos' aide Bautista in New York, including high value paintings. In the agreement, the government was set to receive $4 million while the victims in the class action would get $13.75 million. A third party, the Golden Buddha Corp. and the estate of Roger Roxas that allegedly discovered the Yamashita treasure, would also get a portion of the proceeds from the sale of some of the paintings. [GN] MARKEL CORP: Class Suits in New York Consolidated -------------------------------------------------- Markel Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the putative class action suits filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York have been consolidated. Between January 11, 2019 and March 7, 2019, several related putative class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against Markel Corporation and certain present or former officers and directors alleging violations of the federal securities laws relating to the matters that are the subject of the Markel CATCo Inquiries (the Markel Securities Litigation). Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of persons or entities that purchased Markel securities between July 26, 2017 and December 6, 2018. The actions have been consolidated. The Company believes that the claims against it are without merit. The Company further believes any material loss resulting from the suit to be remote. Markel Corporation, a diverse financial holding company, markets and underwrites specialty insurance products in the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, and internationally. Markel Corporation was founded in 1930 and is headquartered in Glen Allen, Virginia. MASTERCARD INC: ATM Surcharge-Related Suits Still Ongoing --------------------------------------------------------- Mastercard Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company continues to defend itself against class action lawsuits related to ATM Surcharge Fees. In October 2011, a trade association of independent Automated Teller Machine ("ATM") operators and 13 independent ATM operators filed a complaint styled as a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against both Mastercard and Visa (the "ATM Operators Complaint"). Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of non-bank operators of ATM terminals that operate in the United States with the discretion to determine the price of the ATM access fee for the terminals they operate. Plaintiffs allege that Mastercard and Visa have violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act by imposing rules that require ATM operators to charge non-discriminatory ATM surcharges for transactions processed over Mastercard's and Visa's respective networks that are not greater than the surcharge for transactions over other networks accepted at the same ATM. Plaintiffs seek both injunctive and monetary relief equal to treble the damages they claim to have sustained as a result of the alleged violations and their costs of suit, including attorneys' fees. Plaintiffs have not quantified their damages although they allege that they expect damages to be in the tens of millions of dollars. Subsequently, multiple related complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia alleging both federal antitrust and multiple state unfair competition, consumer protection and common law claims against Mastercard and Visa on behalf of putative classes of users of ATM services (the "ATM Consumer Complaints"). The claims in these actions largely mirror the allegations made in the ATM Operators Complaint, although these complaints seek damages on behalf of consumers of ATM services who pay allegedly inflated ATM fees at both bank and non-bank ATM operators as a result of the defendants' ATM rules. Plaintiffs seek both injunctive and monetary relief equal to treble the damages they claim to have sustained as a result of the alleged violations and their costs of suit, including attorneys’ fees. Plaintiffs have not quantified their damages although they allege that they expect damages to be in the tens of millions of dollars. In January 2012, the plaintiffs in the ATM Operators Complaint and the ATM Consumer Complaints filed amended class action complaints that largely mirror their prior complaints. In February 2013, the district court granted Mastercard's motion to dismiss the complaints for failure to state a claim. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the district court's order in August 2015 and sent the case back for further proceedings. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Mastercard Incorporated, a technology company, provides transaction processing and other payment-related products and services in the United States and internationally. The company was founded in 1966 and is headquartered in Purchase, New York. MASTERCARD INC: Canadian Suit over Point-of-Sale Acceptance Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------------------- Mastercard Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company continues to defend class action suits in Canada related to its rules related to point-of-sale acceptance, including the "honor all cards" and "no surcharge" rules. In December 2010, a proposed class action complaint was commenced against Mastercard in Quebec on behalf of Canadian merchants. The suit essentially repeated the allegations and arguments of a previously filed application by the Canadian Competition Bureau to the Canadian Competition Tribunal (dismissed in Mastercard's favor) concerning certain Mastercard rules related to point-of-sale acceptance, including the "honor all cards" and "no surcharge" rules. The Quebec suit sought compensatory and punitive damages in unspecified amounts, as well as injunctive relief. In the first half of 2011, additional purported class action lawsuits were commenced in British Columbia and Ontario against Mastercard, Visa and a number of large Canadian financial institutions. The British Columbia suit sought compensatory damages in unspecified amounts, and the Ontario suit sought compensatory damages of $5 billion on the basis of alleged conspiracy and various alleged breaches of the Canadian Competition Act. Additional purported class action complaints were commenced in Saskatchewan and Alberta with claims that largely mirror those in the other suits. In June 2017, Mastercard entered into a class settlement agreement to resolve all of the Canadian class action litigation. The settlement, which requires Mastercard to make a cash payment and modify its "no surcharge" rule, has received court approval in each Canadian province. Objectors to the settlement have sought to appeal the approval orders. In 2017, Mastercard recorded a provision for litigation of $15 million related to this matter. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Mastercard Incorporated, a technology company, provides transaction processing and other payment-related products and services in the United States and internationally. The company was founded in 1966 and is headquartered in Purchase, New York. MASTERCARD INC: Final Settlement Approval Hearing in November ------------------------------------------------------------- Mastercard Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the court has scheduled a final hearing in November 2019 to consider approval of the Damages Class settlement. In June 2005, the first of a series of complaints were filed on behalf of merchants (the majority of the complaints were styled as class actions, although a few complaints were filed on behalf of individual merchant plaintiffs) against Mastercard International, Visa U.S.A., Inc., Visa International Service Association and a number of financial institutions. Taken together, the claims in the complaints were generally brought under both Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, which prohibit monopolization and attempts or conspiracies to monopolize a particular industry, and some of these complaints contain unfair competition law claims under state law. The complaints allege, among other things, that Mastercard, Visa, and certain financial institutions conspired to set the price of interchange fees, enacted point of sale acceptance rules (including the no surcharge rule) in violation of antitrust laws and engaged in unlawful tying and bundling of certain products and services. The cases were consolidated for pre-trial proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York in MDL No. 1720. The plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint that seeks treble damages. In July 2006, the group of purported merchant class plaintiffs filed a supplemental complaint alleging that Mastercard's initial public offering of its Class A Common Stock in May 2006 (the "IPO") and certain purported agreements entered into between Mastercard and financial institutions in connection with the IPO: (1) violate U.S. antitrust laws and (2) constituted a fraudulent conveyance because the financial institutions allegedly attempted to release, without adequate consideration, Mastercard's right to assess them for Mastercard's litigation liabilities. The class plaintiffs sought treble damages and injunctive relief including, but not limited to, an order reversing and unwinding the IPO. In February 2011, Mastercard and Mastercard International entered into each of: (1) an omnibus judgment sharing and settlement sharing agreement with Visa Inc., Visa U.S.A. Inc. and Visa International Service Association and a number of financial institutions; and (2) a Mastercard settlement and judgment sharing agreement with a number of financial institutions. The agreements provide for the apportionment of certain costs and liabilities which Mastercard, the Visa parties and the financial institutions may incur, jointly and/or severally, in the event of an adverse judgment or settlement of one or all of the cases in the merchant litigations. Among a number of scenarios addressed by the agreements, in the event of a global settlement involving the Visa parties, the financial institutions and Mastercard, Mastercard would pay 12% of the monetary portion of the settlement. In the event of a settlement involving only Mastercard and the financial institutions with respect to their issuance of Mastercard cards, Mastercard would pay 36% of the monetary portion of such settlement. In October 2012, the parties entered into a definitive settlement agreement with respect to the merchant class litigation (including with respect to the claims related to the IPO) and the defendants separately entered into a settlement agreement with the individual merchant plaintiffs. The settlements included cash payments that were apportioned among the defendants pursuant to the omnibus judgment sharing and settlement sharing agreement described above. Mastercard also agreed to provide class members with a short-term reduction in default credit interchange rates and to modify certain of its business practices, including its "no surcharge" rule. The court granted final approval of the settlement in December 2013, and objectors to the settlement appealed that decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. In June 2016, the court of appeals vacated the class action certification, reversed the settlement approval and sent the case back to the district court for further proceedings. The court of appeals' ruling was based primarily on whether the merchants were adequately represented by counsel in the settlement. As a result of the appellate court ruling, the district court divided the merchants' claims into two separate classes - monetary damages claims (the "Damages Class") and claims seeking changes to business practices (the “Rules Relief Class”). The court appointed separate counsel for each class. Prior to the reversal of the settlement approval, merchants representing slightly more than 25% of the Mastercard and Visa purchase volume over the relevant period chose to opt out of the class settlement. Mastercard had anticipated that most of the larger merchants who opted out of the settlement would initiate separate actions seeking to recover damages, and over 30 opt-out complaints have been filed on behalf of numerous merchants in various jurisdictions. Mastercard has executed settlement agreements with a number of opt-out merchants. Mastercard believes these settlement agreements are not impacted by the ruling of the court of appeals. The defendants have consolidated all of these matters in front of the same federal district court that approved the merchant class settlement. In July 2014, the district court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the opt-out merchant complaints for failure to state a claim. In September 2018, the parties to the Damages Class litigation entered into a class settlement agreement to resolve the Damages Class claims. Mastercard increased its reserve by $237 million during 2018 to reflect both its expected financial obligation under the Damages Class settlement agreement and the filed and anticipated opt-out merchant cases. In January 2019, the district court issued an order granting preliminary approval of the settlement and authorized notice of the settlement to class members. Damages Class members will now have the opportunity to opt out of the class settlement agreement. If more than 25% of the merchant purchase volume opts out of the settlement, the defendants would have the option to terminate the settlement agreement. The court has scheduled a final approval hearing in November 2019. The settlement agreement does not relate to the Rules Relief Class claims. Separate settlement negotiations with the Rules Relief Class are ongoing. As of March 31, 2019 and December 31, 2018, Mastercard had accrued a liability of $916 million and $915 million, respectively, as a reserve for both the merchant class litigation and the filed and anticipated opt-out merchant cases. As of March 31, 2019 and December 31, 2018, Mastercard had $662 million and $553 million, respectively, in a qualified cash settlement fund related to the merchant class litigation and classified as restricted cash on its consolidated balance sheet. During the first quarter of 2019, Mastercard increased its qualified cash settlement fund by $108 million in accordance with the January 2019 preliminary approval of the settlement. Mastercard believes the reserve for both the merchant class litigation and the filed and anticipated opt-out merchants represents its best estimate of its probable liabilities in these matters. The portion of the accrued liability relating to both the opt-out merchants and the merchant class litigation settlement does not represent an estimate of a loss, if any, if the matters were litigated to a final outcome. Mastercard cannot estimate the potential liability if that were to occur. Mastercard Incorporated, a technology company, provides transaction processing and other payment-related products and services in the United States and internationally. The company was founded in 1966 and is headquartered in Purchase, New York. MASTERCARD INC: Shift Fraud Liability Suit Still Ongoing -------------------------------------------------------- Mastercard Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company continues to defend itself against a merchant class action involving conspiracy to shift fraud liabilty. In March 2016, a proposed U.S. merchant class action complaint was filed in federal court in California alleging that Mastercard, Visa, American Express and Discover (the "Network Defendants"), EMVCo, and a number of issuing banks (the "Bank Defendants") engaged in a conspiracy to shift fraud liability for card present transactions from issuing banks to merchants not yet in compliance with the standards for EMV chip cards in the United States (the "EMV Liability Shift"), in violation of the Sherman Act and California law. Plaintiffs allege damages equal to the value of all chargebacks for which class members became liable as a result of the EMV Liability Shift on October 1, 2015. The plaintiffs seek treble damages, attorney's fees and costs and an injunction against future violations of governing law, and the defendants have filed a motion to dismiss. In September 2016, the court denied the Network Defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint, but granted such a motion for EMVCo and the Bank Defendants. In May 2017, the court transferred the case to New York so that discovery could be coordinated with the U.S. merchant class interchange litigation. The plaintiffs have filed a renewed motion for class certification, following the district court's denial of their initial motion. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Mastercard Incorporated, a technology company, provides transaction processing and other payment-related products and services in the United States and internationally. The company was founded in 1966 and is headquartered in Purchase, New York. MASTERCARD INC: TCPA Class Suit in Florida Still Stayed ------------------------------------------------------- Mastercard Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") class action suit in Florida is still stayed. Mastercard is a defendant in a Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") class action pending in Florida. The plaintiffs are individuals and businesses who allege that approximately 381,000 unsolicited faxes were sent to them advertising a Mastercard co-brand card issued by First Arkansas Bank ("FAB"). The TCPA provides for uncapped statutory damages of $500 per fax. Mastercard has asserted various defenses to the claims, and has notified FAB of an indemnity claim that it has (which FAB has disputed). In June 2018, the court granted Mastercard's motion to stay the proceedings until the Federal Communications Commission makes a decision on the application of the TCPA to online fax services. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Mastercard Incorporated, a technology company, provides transaction processing and other payment-related products and services in the United States and internationally. The company was founded in 1966 and is headquartered in Purchase, New York. MDL 2433: Court Consolidates 5 C-8 PI Cases for Trial ----------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, issued an Order consolidating five cases in each trial in the case captioned IN RE: E. I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY C-8 PERSONAL INJURY LITIGATION. This document relates to: ALL POST-SETTLEMENT CASES. Civil Action 2:13-md-2433. (S.D. Ohio) In Pretrial Order No. 50, this Court directed the parties to meet and confer to offer the Court a proposed case management order regarding scheduling of the cases filed after the global settlement (Post-Settlement Cases), that the parties believe will total between 40 and 50. Rule 42 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides the authority to consolidate cases for trial. That Rule provides: (a) Consolidation. If actions before the court involve a common question of law or fact, the court may: (1) join for hearing or trial any or all matters at issue in the actions (2) consolidate the actions or(3) issue any other orders to avoid unnecessary cost or delay. While recognizing that consolidation is within the discretionary authority of the trial court, Cantrell v. GAF Corp., 999 F.2d 1007, 1011 (6th Cir. 1993), the Sixth Circuit has additionally considered other factors relevant to the exercise of that discretion: Whether the specific risks of prejudice and possible confusion [are] overborne by the risk of inconsistent adjudications of common factual and legal issues, the burden on parties, witnesses and available judicial resources posed by multiple lawsuits, the length of time required to conclude multiple suits as against a single one, and the relative expense to all concerned of the single-trial, multiple-trial alternatives. DuPont maintains that multiple plaintiff trials are not appropriate, arguing: Consolidating multiple plaintiffs for trial from the currently-pending cases in this MDL will not pay dividends in judicial economy sufficient to outweigh the unavoidable and unfair spill-over prejudice to Defendants on key issues of both liability and causation if jurors are permitted to consider complex evidence regarding highly individualized claims of multiple plaintiffs at the same time. Contrarily, the PSC posits: In short, the PSC is in support both of scheduling the totality of the pending cases for trial as expeditiously and efficiently as possible and setting these cases with multiple cases in each trial, as was done in Atwood [v. UC Health, Case No. 1:16-cv-593 (S.D. Ohio)]. Although this is a mature mass tort, there are currently no settlement negotiations occurring between the parties, despite the parties having successfully resolved over 3,500 cases in this multidistrict litigation (MDL) through a global settlement. With regard to DuPont's declination to engage in any settlement negotiations, the PSC further asserts: Although it is DuPont's right and prerogative to determine when/if it wants to engage in settlement discussions, it is also the right of the plaintiffs who still have cases pending in this MDL, and who have suffered terrible injury, to have their claims resolved in an expeditious manner. A number of these plaintiffs are part of an older population, and thus may be deceased before having their day in Court, should it take a decade to get through all the remaining trials. Because of this, a more aggressive trial timetable is necessary, rather than having cases sit in what would be a nearly endless holding pattern. Last, the PSC submits that the cases in this MDL are particularly well suited to be tried in multiple plaintiff trials because each case involves similar, if not identical, testimony from various experts and corporate witnesses, and the personal injury or wrongful death is in connection with one of only two cancer types. The PSC's arguments are well taken. As the PSC correctly points out, the majority of the time in the trials that have been held in this MDL was spent exploring what DuPont knew about the dangers of C-8, when it knew it, and what it did with the knowledge it had. The case-specific damages and causation testimony was but a small percentage of the testimony and evidence at trial. Courts have routinely consolidated multiple plaintiffs for joint trial because the benefits of consolidation outweigh any prejudice that a defendant may incur. Additionally, consolidation of cases for trial will benefit the parties through the sharing of trial expenses, benefit the witnesses by minimizing the inconvenience of duplicate testimony, and benefit the parties and the Court by resolving several cases during one trial setting. In the mass tort before this Court, the chemical exposure is specific, the defendant is known and does not contest that it is the entity that released the specific chemical into the plaintiffs' water supply, much testing and environmental protection agency involvement has occurred with respect to C-8, and there have been four trials and one appeal of the specified negligence claims filed by each plaintiff. While the instant mass tort is certainly not immature, determining the precise time when a mass tort reaches maturity is 'hard to pinpoint.' In re Dow Corning Corp. provided a lengthy discussion of the phases of mass torts, with the overarching view that while there are certain signposts, maturity is tied to the unique details of each mass tort, which dictate the process due to each party. The Court finds that this mass tort, as explained below, has reached maturity and is headed into its dotage. The cases upon which DuPont relies, however, are inapposite. In Kothe, at the pretrial conference, the trial judge recommended that the case be settled for between $20,000 and $30,000. He also warned the parties that, if they settled for a comparable figure after trial had begun, he would impose sanctions against the dilatory party, which he did impose when the case settled the second day of trial. This Court has never set a deadline for the parties to settle and has never suggested what the cases are worth for settlement. DuPont has every right to assess its settlement positions and engage in settlement discussions, or not engage in settlement discussions. The Court has been very clear that its focus in on its duty to provide the litigants before it an opportunity to have their case heard in a timely manner not punishing any party for its position on settlement. In any event, the point cannot be stressed enough that use of the only alternative to aggregation individualized adjudication of tort claims would be 'tantamount to denying [most] litigants their due process rights altogether.' Finally, unlike the asbestos litigation or most other mass torts, the cases that constitute this MDL will never be tried in a variety of tribunals. This MDL has a unique attribute that makes multi-plaintiff trials even more appropriate: The plaintiffs are almost exclusively from Ohio and West Virginia. As a result, the proper trial venue for nearly every case pending in this MDL is either this Court or the Southern District of West Virginia. Because there are only two viable trial venues, the available remand options for this Court are extremely limited, and thus remand likely would not accomplish the goal of quickly moving cases to trial. While the MDL strategy of remand has become an increasingly popular means to efficient resolution of an MDL, this strategy, which increases the litigation pressure on both parties by typically requiring both sides to try cases simultaneously all over the country, is not available here in its traditional framework. Because this tool is not available to this Court, alternative means to bring about resolution are necessary, including multi-plaintiff trials. In conclusion, the Court finds that this MDL, at this stage, calls for procedures that this Court did not find appropriate when the MDL was incipient. The Court is of the firm opinion that through the careful and prudent design and implementation of consolidated trials, the legitimate rights of all parties can be safeguarded. The Court additionally finds that any prejudice to DuPont will be eliminated or sufficiently mitigated by limiting instruction and is far outweighed by the prejudice the plaintiffs will suffer if no larger scale trial approach is taken. Consolidated multi-plaintiff trials will conserve the resources of the parties, conserve the scarce resources of this Court, and will promote the just, efficient, and fair resolution of the cases in this MDL, which all present the same claims for relief that have been extensively litigated and globally settled. Based on these, the Court will combine approximately five (5) cases in each trial of the Post-Settlement Cases. A full-text copy of the District Court's May 13, 2019 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y572segy from Leagle.com. Thomas Yakubik, Ronald Bachtel, Cheryl Durst, Robert Durst, Larry Turley, Linda Turley, Sharon Arnott, Kathy Willis & Troy Willis, Plaintiffs, represented by David G. Utley, Collins, Roche, Utley & Garner, LLC, 875 Westpoint Parkway, Suite 500, Cleveland, Ohio 44145, Jon C. Conlin, Cory Watson Crowder & DeGaris, Michael A. London, Douglas & London, PC, 59 Maiden Ln, 6th Floor, New York, NY 10038, pro hac vice, Ethan T. Vessels, Fields, Dehmlow & Vessels LLC, 309 2nd St., Marietta, OH 45750-2921 & Gregory Harold Collins, Collins, Roche, Utley & Garner, 875 Westpoint Parkway, Suite 500, Cleveland, Ohio 44145 Betty Bragg, Lotie Cline, Linda Davis, Crystal Forshey, Vicky Lightfritz, Willard Lightfritz, Kathy Lowe, Kit McPeek-Stalnaker, Thomas Eugene Molden, Jack Offenberger, Kay Sheridan, Herbert Short, John Wright & Amber Wriston, Plaintiffs, represented by Debra Anne Nelson dnelson@debranelsonlaw.com -- The Nelson Law Firm, LLC, Jon C. Conlin, Cory Watson Crowder & DeGaris, 875 Westpoint Parkway, Suite 500, Cleveland, Ohio 44145, Michael A. London, Douglas & London, PC, pro hac vice, Nina M. Towle, Cory Watson Attorneys, pro hac vice & Richard A. Wright, Cory Watson Attorneys, 875 Westpoint Parkway, Suite 500, Cleveland, Ohio 44145, pro hac vice. E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, Defendant, represented by Damond R. Mace -- damond.mace@squirepb.com -- Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP, Aaron Todd Brogdon -- aaron.brogdon@squirepb.com -- Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP, Aneca E. Lasley -- aneca.lasley@squirepb.com -- Squire Sanders (US) LLP, C. Craig Woods -- craig.woods@squirepb.com -- Squire Patton Boggs (US)LLP, Clifford F. Kinney, Jr. -- ckinney@spilman.com -- Spilman Thomas & Battle, PLLC, pro hac vice, D. Patrick Long -- patrick.long@squirepb.com -- Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP,David J. Millstone, pro hac vice, John K. Sherk -- jsherk@shb.com -- SHOOK, HARDY & BACON LLP, pro hac vice, Kevin T. Van Wart -- kevin.vanwart@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis, pro hac vice. MDL 2741: Washington v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated ---------------------------------------------------------------- PETER ANTHONY MAZZEO, an individual, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-00504 (Filed April 8, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, U.S. District Court for the District California Northern District (San Francisco) on April 30, 2019. The Northern District of California assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-02315-VC to the proceeding. The suit 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. Peter Anthony Mazzeo's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable. The Plaintiff brings this action for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA). As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma. Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products, including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide, Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN] The Mazzeo case is being consolidated with MDL 2741 in re: Roundup Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on October 3, 2016. These actions share common factual questions arising out of allegations that Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, particularly its active ingredient, glyphosate, causes non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. The Plaintiff alleges that they or their decedents developed non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after using Roundup over the course of several or more years. Plaintiff also alleges that the use of glyphosate in conjunction with other ingredients, in particular the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA), renders Roundup even more toxic than glyphosate on its own. Issues concerning general causation, the background science, and regulatory history will be common to all actions. In its October 3, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions in this MDL involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Northern District of California will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings (including with respect to discovery, privilege, and Daubert motion practice); and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria. The lead case is 3:16-md-02741-VC.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Corrie J. Yackulic, Esq. CORRIE YACKULIC LAW FIRM PLLC 705 Second Avenue, No. 1300 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: 206 787 1915 Facsimile: 206 299 9725 E-mail: Corrie@cjylaw.com MDL 2885: Matney Suit over Combat Arms Earplugs Consolidated ------------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit titled JOSEPH MATNEY, the Plaintiff, v. 3M COMPANY, AEARO HOLDINGS, LLC, AEARO INTERMEDIATE, LLC, AEARO, LLC, and AEARO TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 6:19-cv-03072 (Filed Feb. 19, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida (Pensacola) on May 1, 2019. The Northern District of Florida Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-00790-MCR-GRJ to the proceeding. The Plaintiff seeks to hold 3M liable for hearing loss or damage Plaintiff allegedly suffered while serving variously in the U.S. military, including during foreign conflicts. The Plaintiff contends that Combat Arms TM Earplugs, Version 2 ("CAEv2") manufactured and sold by Aearo were defectively designed and failed to provide adequate hearing protection. 3M denies these allegations. CAEv2, designed by Aearo in close collaboration with the U.S. military, represented a revolutionary breakthrough in hearing protection for service members. CAEv2 helped servicemembers better maintain situational awareness (e.g., to hear nearby voice commands) while also maintaining some protection from gunfire and other higher decibel sounds. 3M claims CAEv2 met the U.S. military's specifications and helped the military provide hearing protection to service members. The Matney case is being consolidated with MDL 2885 in re: 3M Combat Arms Earplug Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on April 3, 2019. These actions share common factual questions and centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings on Daubert issues and other pretrial matters; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. In the April 3, 2019 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions in this MDL involve common questions arising out of allegations that the Defendants' Combat Arms earplugs were defective, causing plaintiffs to develop hearing loss and/or tinnitus. Issues concerning the design, testing, sale, and marketing of the Combat Arms earplugs are common to all actions. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge M. Casey Rodgers. The lead case is 3:19-md-02885-MCR-GRJ.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: George A. Hanson, Esq. Norman E. Siegel, Esq. Abby E. McClellan, Esq. STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP Crystal Cook Leftridge, MO Bar # 66852 460 Nichols Road, Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: 816 714 7100 Facsimile: 816 714 7101 E-mail: hanson@stuevesiegel.com siegel@stuevesiegel.com mcclellan@stuevesiegel.com cook@stuevesiegel.com - and - Eric H. Gibbs, Esq. Amy M. Zeman, Esq. GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP 505 14th Street, Suite 1110 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: 510.350.9710 E-mail: ehg@classlawgroup.com amz@classlawgroup.com - and - Mark H. Troutman, Esq. Gregory M. Travalio, Esq. Shawn K. Judge, Esq. ISAAC WILES BURKHOLDER & TEETOR, LLC Two Miranova Place, Ste. 700 Columbus, OH 43215‐5098 Telephone: 614 221 2121 Facsimile: 614 365 9516 E-mail: mtroutman@isaacwiles.com gtravalio@isaacwiles.com sjudge@isaacwiles.com MENDY'S ATRIUM: Pablo Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Nicomedes Flores Pablo, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Mendy's Atrium LLC (d/b/a Mendy's), Mendy's Grand Corp. (d/b/a Mendy's), Mendy's Restaurant Inc. (d/b/a Mendy's), Mendy Merel, Menachem Merel, and Ethan Merrel, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-04458 (S.D. N.Y., May 16, 2019) seeks unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"), and for violations of the N.Y. Labor Law (the "NYLL"), including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. Plaintiff Flores worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage and overtime compensation for the hours that he worked, asserts the complaint. The Defendants maintained a policy and practice of requiring Plaintiff Flores and other employees to work in excess of 40 hours per week without providing the minimum wage and overtime compensation required by federal and state law and regulations. Plaintiff Flores was employed as a delivery and then as a food preparer at the restaurants. Defendants own, operate, or control three restaurants, located at 875 3rd Avenue, New York, New York 10022 (hereafter the "3rd Avenue location") under the name "Mendy's", at 109 East 42nd Street, New York, New York 10017 (hereafter the "Grand Central location") under the name "Mendy's", and at 61 East 34th Street, New York, New York 10016 (hereafter the "34th Street location") under the name "Mendy's".[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Phone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 MIAMI SWIM WEEK: Faces Acquamoda Suit over Breach of Contract ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action complaint has been filed Acquamoda S.A.S. d/b/a Doppia Swimwear against Miami Swim Week LLC for breach of contract. The case is captioned ACQUAMODA S.A.S. v. MIAMI SWIM WEEK LLC, Case No. 1:19-cv-21683-RNS (S.D. Fla., April 30, 2019) and is assigned to Hon. Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr. Miami Swim Week LLC organizes shows that features fashion collections of swimwear. The shows are held in Miami Beach, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bogdan Enica, Esq. 450 Paradise Isle Blvd Apt.203 Hallandale Beach, FL 33009 Telephone: (727) 225-2649 E-mail: bogdane@hotmail.com MIDLAND CREDIT: Misreports Interest & Fees, Yavorka et al. Claim ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action complaint has been filed against Midland Credit Management, Inc. and Midland Funding, LLC for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The case is captioned ANDREW YAVORKA, BARBARA YAVORKA, THOMAS WELSH, VEDA WELSH, and JACLYN FIKE individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., and MIDLAND FUNDING, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00122-SPB (W.D. Pa., April 24, 2019). Yavorka et al allege that the Defendants are engaged in false, deceptive, and misleading practice of misreporting interest and fees as principal on the proof of claims (POCs) they file in consumer bankruptcy cases. Midland Credit Management is a Delaware corporation based in San Diego, California. The company's sole business is collecting consumer debts owed to others. Midland Funding is a Delaware limited liability corporation with its principal place of business in San Diego, California. The company is engaged in the purchasing of consumer debt with the purpose of collecting on that debt. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark G. Moynihan, Esq. MOYNIHAN LAW, P.C. 2 Chatham Center, Suite 230 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Telephone: (412) 889-8535 E-mail: mark@moynihanlaw.net - and - Kevin Abramowicz, Esq. BCJ LAW LLC 186 42nd Street, P.O. Box 40127 Pittsburgh, PA 15201 Telephone: (412) 223-5740 E-mail: kevina@bcjlawyer.com MIDLAND CREDIT: NJ Court Denies Arbitration Bid in Schultz ---------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey issued an Opinion denying Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration in the case captioned ROBERT A. SCHULTZ, JR. and DONNA L. SCHULTZ, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., Defendant. Civil Action No. 16-4415 (JLL). (D.N.J.). Defendant is a California-based collection agency in the business of collecting debts owed to others that are past due. Defendant sent letters to Mr. Schultz for the purpose of collecting on outstanding debts from a variety of Mr. Schultz's accounts. Defendant sent separate letters to Ms. Schultz in order to collect on outstanding debts from her, as well. All relevant letters contained the following language: We are not obligated to renew this offer. We will report forgiveness of debt as required by Internal Revenue Service regulations. Reporting is not required every time a debt is cancelled or settled, and might not be required in your case Mr. Schultz brought this putative class action, alleging that the references to IRS reporting contained in the three July, September, and October 2015 letters were deceptive and misleading to the least sophisticated consumer in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), because no such reporting is required for debts under $600, and Mr. Schultz's debts were below that amount. The Defendant argues that the claims raised by Mr. Schultz in the Original Complaint are governed by a binding arbitration agreement between Mr. Schultz and Synchrony Bank, the original creditor. According to the Defendant, when Mr. Schultz opened a Lowe's credit card account with Synchrony Bank in April 2012, Mr. Schultz's credit card was mailed to his address, along with a copy of the effective credit card agreement, which provided that the resolution of most disputes between Mr. Schultz and Synchrony Bank would be subject to individual arbitration. The Defendant attaches a copy of a Synchrony Bank Lowe's Credit Card Agreement to its motion. The Defendant maintains that the arbitration provision is valid and enforceable by Defendant as the affiliate of the successor to the bank's rights, and that Mr. Schultz's FDCPA claims fall within the scope of that provision. The Plaintiffs do not argue that the arbitration provision is not enforceable by the Defendant, nor do the Plaintiffs argue that Mr. Schultz's claims fall outside the purview of the credit card agreement. Rather, the Plaintiffs argue that, in moving to dismiss the Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim and in continuing to litigate the merits of the Plaintiffs' claims on appeal and on remand, the Defendant has acted inconsistently with its right to arbitrate and has therefore waived that right. Waiver of Right to Arbitrate A court may refuse to enforce an arbitration agreement where a party has acted inconsistently with the right to arbitrate. Prejudice [against the party seeking to avoid arbitration] is the touchstone for determining whether the right to arbitrate has been waived by litigation conduct. The Third Circuit has identified six nonexclusive factors to guide the prejudice inquiry, which are known as the Hoxworth factors, Hayworth v. Blinder, Robinson & Co., Inc., 980 F.2d 912 926-27 (3d Cir. 1992), and which are generally indicative of whether a party opposing arbitration would suffer prejudice attributable to the other party's delay in seeking arbitration.' The six Hoxworth factors are as follows: (1) timeliness or lack thereof of the motion to arbitrate (2) extent to which the party seeking arbitration has contested the merits of the opposing party's claims (3) whether the party seeking arbitration informed its adversary of its intent to pursue arbitration prior to seeking to enjoin the court proceedings (4) the extent to which a party seeking arbitration engaged in non-merits motion practice (5) the party's acquiescence to the court's pretrial orders and (6) the extent to which the parties have engaged in discovery. Timeliness or lack thereof of the motion to arbitrate Mr. Schultz filed the Original Complaint on July 20, 2016. The Defendant filed its first dispositive motion a motion to compel arbitration on November 1, 2016. The Defendant has since renewed its arbitration motion twice first under two months after the Plaintiffs filed the Amended Complaint and second just over two months following the remand of this action from the Third Circuit. The Defendant has therefore been clear about its intent to seek arbitration throughout this litigation, filing its original arbitration motion within four months of the initiation of the lawsuit. A delay of under four months is shorter than the delay in cases in which the Third Circuit has found a waiver of the right to arbitrate. Accordingly, this factor weighs against a finding of waiver. Extent to which Defendant has contested the merits of Plaintiffs' claims The Defendant's November 2016 motion in response to the Original Complaint, though styled as a Motion to Compel and to Dismiss, sought only to compel arbitration. The final two pages of Defendant's 20-page brief sought dismissal not on the merits, but rather only as the appropriate remedy if all claims were arbitrable. The Defendant did, however, seek dismissal on the merits in its January 2017 combined Motion to Dismiss, and in the Alternative, to Compel Arbitration following the filing of the Amended Complaint. In fact, the Defendant prioritized its merits-based arguments, seeking dismissal of the Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) in Point I of its brief and arguing only in the alternative that Mr. Schultz's claims were subject to arbitration. As a result, this Court addressed the Defendant's merits arguments first, dismissing the Amended Complaint without reaching the arbitration issue. The merits dismissal led to an appeal, reversal, and remand on the merits. On remand, the Defendant filed the instant motion, seeking to compel arbitration of claims arising from the Synchrony Bank letters as Point I and raising timeliness arguments as to the Plaintiffs' non-arbitrable claims. That a party seeks dismissal on the merits under Rule 12 is not dispositive of the waiver inquiry. The Defendant's litigation of the merits must be weighed in light of any prejudice to the Plaintiffs, which is the touchstone for determining whether the right to arbitrate has been waived. The Plaintiffs argue that the Defendant's prioritization of its merits arguments in the January 2017 motion and the subsequent appeal have prejudiced Plaintiffs by forcing them to expend considerable time and resources litigating only the merits of their claims. Plaintiffs maintain that Defendant could have sought a remand from the Third Circuit for consideration of its arbitration motion but instead chose to argue the merits, which it continues to do in the instant motion. The Court concludes that this factor weighs slightly in favor of waiver. Whether Defendant informed Plaintiffs of its intent to pursue arbitration prior to seeking to enjoin the proceedings The parties do not raise any non-conclusory arguments as to this factor, and there is no information before the Court as to whether Defendant informed Plaintiffs of its intent to pursue arbitration prior to its November 2016 motion to compel. Accordingly, this factor is neutral. Extent to which Defendant engaged in non-merits motion practice. The Defendant has engaged in very limited non-merits motion practice. Following the filing of both the Original Complaint and the Amended Complaint, Defendant filed applications for a clerk's order automatically extending its time to respond under Local Civil Rule 6.1(b). The parties also jointly sought an adjournment of Defendant's January 2017 motion which was granted. On remand, Defendant sought an adjournment of the instant motion, effectively requesting an additional two weeks to file its reply brief which was also granted. These non-merits motions required no responses from Plaintiffs and resulted in only de minimis delays that did not prejudice Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs do not argue that Defendant's non-merits motion practice has prejudiced them. Accordingly, this factor weighs against a finding of waiver. Defendant's acquiescence to the Court's pretrial orders The Plaintiffs argue that Defendant's participation in the parties' joint filings and its consent to the Discovery Confidentiality Order and Pretrial Scheduling Order constitute acquiescence to pretrial orders that is inconsistent with Defendant's right to arbitrate. Defendant responds that it had already filed its motion to compel arbitration before entering into such orders and that Defendant only participated in these orders because it was required to do so by order of the Magistrate Judge. The Court agrees with Defendant. Defendant's participation in pretrial proceedings before Judge Mannion was not inconsistent with its right to arbitrate, given that Defendant pressed the issue of arbitration at every opportunity and complied with pretrial orders only to the extent Defendant was required to do so by the Court. As Plaintiffs were on notice of Defendant's intent to seek arbitration throughout the pretrial proceedings and were only awaiting a decision from this Court, Plaintiffs were not prejudiced by any acquiescence on Defendant's part to Judge Mannion's orders. Accordingly, this factor weighs against waiver. Extent to which the parties have engaged in discovery The parties have not exchanged meaningful discovery at this stage. The case was originally dismissed, and then reversed and remanded, following which Defendant promptly filed the instant motion. Since the remand, Defendant has objected to all discovery related to Mr. Schultz's allegedly arbitrable claims and has refused to answer interrogatories or produce documents pending a decision on the instant motion. Judge Mannion ordered the parties to "meet and confer regarding discovery focused on the enforceability of the arbitration provision as to Plaintiff Robert A. Schultz, Jr. and advise the Court within 21 days which of their present disputes remain. As of the date of this Opinion, the parties had not yet updated the Court regarding the limited discovery upon which Judge Mannion ordered them to meet and confer. As a result, this factor weighs against a finding of waiver. The Court concludes that Defendant has not waived its right to seek arbitration. The Defendant's motion to compel arbitration of Mr. Schultz's Synchrony Bank claims is denied without prejudice pending further development of the factual record. A full-text copy of the District Court's May 13, 2019 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/yxts39co from Leagle.com. ROBERT A. SCHULTZ, JR., On behalf of himself and those similarly situated & DONNA L SCHULTZ, Plaintiffs, represented by ANDREW M. MILZ, FLITTER MILZ, P.C., CARY L. FLITTER, FLITTER MILZ, P.C., JODY THOMAS LOPEZ-JACOBS, FLITTER MILZ, P.C. 1814 East Rt. 70, Suite 350, Cherry Hill, NJ 08003 & YONGMOON KIM, Kim Law Firm LLC, 411 Hackensack Ave Ste 701. Hackensack, New Jersey 07601-6328 MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., Defendant, represented by ELLEN BETH SILVERMAN -- esilverman@hinshawlaw.com -- HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP, HAN SHENG BEH -- hbeh@hinshawlaw.com -- HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP & MATTHEW BLAKE CORWIN -- mcorwin@hinshawlaw.com -- HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP. MIDTOWN EAST: Clemente Suit Alleges FLSA Violation -------------------------------------------------- Rogelio Villa Clemente, Osvaldo Villa Clemente, Jorge Raymundo Rivera, Jose Alberto Astudillo and Isaul Villa Medel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Midtown East NY LLC dba Bareburger, and Michael Pitsinos and George Hadjipanayi, Case No. 1:19-cv-02647 (S.D. N.Y., March 25, 2019), is brought against the Defendants for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The complaint asserts that Defendants failed to pay overtime wages; additional hour of pay at minimum wage for each day worked more than ten hours; and did not provide the Plaintiffs written notices of their rate of pay and regular pay day which violates the NYLL and the FLSA. The Plaintiffs are employed by the Defendants as dishwashers, food preparer, griller, cooks, cleaners, kitchen worker and other miscellaneous duties. The Defendant Midtown East dba Bareburger is a corporation organized under the laws of New York with a principal executive office at 251 East 52nd St. New York, NY 10022. The Defendants Pitsinos and Hadjipanayi own and operate Bareburger. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, PC 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Tel: (718) 263-9591 Fax: (718) 263-9598 MIDTOWN LOFT: Fischler Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midtown Loft, Inc. The case is styled as Brian Fischler Individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Midtown Loft, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-04526 (S.D. N.Y., May 16, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Midtown Loft, Inc. is an upscale venue in the heart of New York City in Midtown Manhattan, offering two distinctly elegant spaces.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq. Lipsky Lowe LLP 630 Third Avenue Fifth Floor New York, NY 10017 Phone: (212) 392-4772 Fax: (212) 444-1030 Email: doug@lipskylowe.com MILLENIA HOUSING: Alexandre Seeks Overtime Pay ---------------------------------------------- An employment-related class action complaint has been filed against Millenia Housing Management, Ltd. for violations of the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The case is captioned WIDLER ALEXANDRE, indivdually and on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, v. MILLENNIA HOUSING MANAGEMENT, LTD a/k/a MILLENNIA HOUSING MANAGEMENT, LTD. LLC, a foreign limited liability company, FRANK T. SINITO, individually and HARVEY H. MCCLINTOCK, individually, Defendants, Case No. 9:19-cv-80612-XXXX (S.D. Fla., May 7, 2019). Plaintiff Widler Alexandre alleges that the Defendants intentionally failed to pay Plaintiff one and one-half times his regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 hours per week. Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks to recover accumulated unpaid overtime for the three years preceding the filing of this action. Millennia is a foreign limited liability company duly authorized to conduct business in the State of Florida. Millennia's members and managers, according to the records filed with the Florida Department of State, Division of Corporations, are Frank T. Sinito of Cleveland, Ohio and Harvey H. McClintock of Pompano Beach, Florida. Millennia's website indicates it owns or manages real property in over twenty states. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Aloysius Cullen, Esq. THE CULLEN LAW FIRM, P.A. Clearlake Plaza 500 S. Australian Avenue, Suite 543 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Telephone: (561) 640-9191 Facsimile: (561) 214-4021 E-mail: mailbox@cullenlawfirm.net MOLEX LLC: Gross Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation ------------------------------------------------------- Rebecca Gross, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Molex, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-00355-BSM (E.D. Ark., May 16, 2019) is an action under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act ("AMWA"), for unjust enrichment, declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest and costs, including a reasonable attorney's fee as a result of Defendant's failure to pay Plaintiff and other hourly-paid employees lawful overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. Plaintiff and other hourly-paid employees regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week throughout their tenure with Defendant. Plaintiff and other hourly-paid employees were classified as hourly employees and paid an hourly rate. Plaintiff Rebecca Gross was employed by Defendant as an hourly-paid employee within the three years relevant to this lawsuit. Molex, LLC, is a provider of manufactured electronic solutions in a wide range of industries, including data communications, consumer electronics, industrial, automotive, commercial vehicle, and medical.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chris Burks, Esq. Brandon M. Haubert, Esq. WH LAW,PLLC 1 Riverfront Pl. - Suite 745 North Little Rock, AR 72114 Phone: (501) 891-6000 Email: chris@whlawoffices.com brandon@whlawoffices.com MOLINA HEALTHCARE: Appeal in Steamfitters Class Suit Pending ------------------------------------------------------------ Molina Healthcare, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the appeal made in the case, Steamfitters Local 449 Pension Plan v. Molina Healthcare, Inc., et al., is pending. On October 5, 2018, the Steamfitters Local 449 Pension Plan filed its first amended class action securities complaint in the Central District Court of California against the Company and its former executive officers, J. Mario Molina, John C. Molina, Terry P. Bayer, and Rick Hopfer, Case 2:18-cv-03579. The amended complaint purports to seek recovery on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased Molina common stock between October 31, 2014, and August 2, 2017, for alleged violations under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The plaintiff alleges the defendants misled investors regarding the scalability of the Company's administrative infrastructure during the identified class period. On December 13, 2018, the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss in its entirety and closed the case. On January 9, 2019, plaintiffs appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the alleged claims and intends to defend the matter vigorously. Molina Healthcare said, "At this time, we are not able to estimate a possible loss or range of loss that may result from this matter or to determine whether such loss, if any, would have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows." Molina Healthcare, Inc., a multi-state healthcare organization, provides managed health care services to low-income families and individuals under the Medicaid and Medicare programs and through the state insurance marketplaces. Molina Healthcare, Inc. was founded in 1980 and is headquartered in Long Beach, California. MONSANTO COMPANY: Batherson Suit Moved to N.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled GARLAND BATHERSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Case No. 1:19-cv-02285, was removed from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on April 23, 2019. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-02167 to the proceeding. The Case is assigned to the Hon. Vince Chhabria. 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: Ken Moll, Esq. Stephen Cady, Esq. MOLL LAW GROUP 22 W Washington Street, 15th Floor Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 462-1700 Facsimile: (312) 756-0045 E-mail: kmoll@molllawgroup.com scady@molllawgroup.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Holts Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup ---------------------------------------------------------- JACK L. HOLT and GWENDOLYN HOLT, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-01063 (E.D. Mo., April 30, 2019), seeks to recover damages suffered by the Plaintiffs, as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiffs maintain that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. Jack L. Holt's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable. The Plaintiffs bring this action for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA). As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma. Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products, including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide, Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Seth S. Webb, Esq. BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C. 211 North Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 222-2222 Facsimile: (314) 421-0359 E-mail: sethw@getbc.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Lovelace Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup -------------------------------------------------------------- RANDY S. LOVELACE, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-01070 (E.D. Mo., April 30, 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. Plaintiff's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable. The Plaintiff brings this action for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA). As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma. Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products, including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide, Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN] The 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: Sanderses Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup -------------------------------------------------------------- SHIRLEY A. SANDERS and JAMES SANDERS, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-01089-HEA (E.D. Mo., May 1, 2019), seeks to recover damages suffered by the Plaintiffs, as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiffs maintain that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. Shirley A. Sanders' injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable. The Plaintiffs bring this action for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA). As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma. Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products, including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide, Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs: Seth S. Webb, Esq. BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C. 211 North Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 222-2222 Facsimile: (314) 421-0359 E-mail: sethw@getbc.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Schwabs Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup ------------------------------------------------------------ KEVIN D. SCHWAB and CHRISTINE D. SCHWAB, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-01122 (E.D. Mo., May 1, 2019), seeks to recover damages suffered by the Plaintiffs, as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiffs maintain that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. Kevin D. Schwab's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable. The Plaintiffs bring this action for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA). As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma. Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products, including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide, Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs: Seth S. Webb, Esq. BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C. 211 North Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 E-mail: sethw@getbc.com Telephone: (314) 222-2222 Facsimile: (314) 421-0359 MONSANTO COMPANY: Stone Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup ----------------------------------------------------------- John Stone, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY and DOES 1 to 100, Inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-01159 (E.D. Mo., May 1, 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. Plaintiff's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable. The Plaintiff brings this action for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA). As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma. Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products, including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide, Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN] The 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: Suit by Estate of James Hall Moved to C.D. Cal. ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled ESTATE OF JAMES HALL, by and through Denise Kaufman, as Executrix, Plaintiff v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-00258, was removed from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District California on April 23, 2019. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-02171-VC to the proceeding. The Case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria. 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: Ashton R. Smith, Esq. Jennifer A. Moore, Esq. GROSSMAN & MOORE, PLLC 401 W. Main Street, Suite 1810 Louisville, KY 40202 Telephone: (502) 657-7100 Facsimile: (502) 657-7111 E-mail: asmith@gminjurylaw.com JMoore@gminjurylaw.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Sutliff Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup ------------------------------------------------------------ DONNA SUTLIFF, EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF TIMOTHY SUTLIFF, DECEASED, ROBERT TIGNOR, and RONNIE WYNNE, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-01129 (E.D. Mo., May 1, 2019), seeks to recover damages suffered by the Plaintiffs, as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiffs maintain that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. Timothy Sutliff's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable. The Plaintiffs bring this action for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA). As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma. Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products, including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide, Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs: James T. Corrigan, Esq. ONDER, SHELTON, CORRIGAN, PETERSON, DALTON & QUILLIN, LLC 1034 S. Brentwood Blvd. 23rd Floor Penthouse - 1A St. Louis, MO 63117 Telephone: (314) 405-9000 Facsimile: (314) 405-9999 E-mail: corrigan@osclaw.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Washington Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup ---------------------------------------------------------------- JOSEPH L. WASHINGTON, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY and DOES 1 to 100, Inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-02331-DMR (N.D. Cal., April 30, 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. Plaintiff's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable. The Plaintiff brings this action for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA). As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma. Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products, including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide, Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason L. Ribakoff, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JASON L. RIBAKOFF 4741 Laurel Canyon Blvd. No. 201 Valley Village, CA 91607 Telephone: 818-760-7242 Facsimile: 818-760-7297 E-mail: ribakoffjason@gmail.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Williams Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup ------------------------------------------------------------- Abraham Williams, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-01147 (E.D. Mo., May 1, 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. Plaintiff's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable. The Plaintiff brings this action for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA). As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma. Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products, including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide, Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: Kirk J. Goza, Esq. GOZA & HONNOLD LLC 9500 Nall Ave. Suite 400 Overland Park, KS 66207 Telephone: (913) 451-3433 Facsimile: (913) 839-0567 E-mail: kgoza@gohonlaw.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Woodwards Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup -------------------------------------------------------------- BILLIE WOODWARD, individually and on behalf of DAVID L. WOODWARD, (deceased), the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-01156 (E.D. Mo., May 1, 2019), seeks to recover damages suffered by the Plaintiffs, as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiffs maintain that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. David L. Woodward's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable. The Plaintiffs bring this action for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA). As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma. Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products, including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide, Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs: Seth S. Webb, Esq. BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C. 211 North Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 E-mail: sethw@getbc.com Telephone: (314) 222-2222 Facsimile: (314) 421-0359 MOSQUITO SQUAD: Lenorowitz Suit Asserts TCPA Breach --------------------------------------------------- SAMUEL LENOROWITZ, individually and of behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. MOSQUITO SQUAD FRANCHISING, LLC, MOSQUITO SQUAD OF FAIRFIELD AND WESTCHESTER COUNTY, and JOHN DOES 1-25 Defendants, Case No. 7:19-cv-04460 (S.D. N.Y., May 16, 2019) is a class action for damages, injunctive relief, and any other available legal or equitable remedies, resulting from the illegal actions of Mosquito Squad Franchising, LLC ("MSF"), Mosquito Squad of Fairfield and Westchester Country ("MSFW") and its related entities, subsidiaries and agents in negligently, knowingly, and/or willfully contacting Plaintiffs on Plaintiffs' cellular telephone and/or landlines, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), thereby invading Plaintiffs' privacy. The Defendant left a pre-recorded message with the hopes of soliciting business from the Plaintiff, on Plaintiff's telephone voicemail system. The Defendants used an automatic telephone dialing system ("ATDS"). Plaintiffs did not provide prior express written consent to receive telephone calls from Defendant using an artificial or prerecorded voice. The Defendant is and was aware that it was and is placing unsolicited robocalls and pre-recorded messages to Plaintiff and other consumers without their prior written express consent, says the complaint. Plaintiff Lenorowitz is an individual and citizen of Pomona, New York. MSF is and was at all relevant times a business entity duly formed under the laws of the State of Virginia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yitzchak Zelman, Esq. MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC 701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300 Asbury Park, NJ 07712 Phone: (732) 695-3282 Fax: (732) 298-6256 Email: YZelman@MarcusZelman.com NATIONAL PLAN ADVISORS: Davis Seeks Overtime Pay ------------------------------------------------ An employment-related class action complaint has been filed against the National Plan Advisors, Inc. for violations of the wage and hour provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The case is captioned KIRK DAVIS, on behalf of himself, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. NATIONAL PLAN ADVISORS, INC., a/k/a AMERICAN HEALTH REFORM SOLUTIONS, LLC, a/k/a SYNERGY MARKETING ASSOCIATES, INC, Defendant, Case No. 0:19-cv-61177-XXXX (S.D. Fla., May 8, 2019). Plaintiff Kirk Davis alleges that the Defendant's systems and practices relating to its non-payment of overtime to fronters have existed for at least three years through Defendant's businesses. Accordingly, this complaint seeks to recover unpaid compensation, in the form of overtime compensation, owed to the Plaintiff and all employees and former employees of Defendant who are similarly situated, pursuant to the FLSA. National Plan Advisors, Inc. is a corporation conducting business in the state of Florida. The company sells and markets health insurance plans, through its fronters and insurance agents, to insureds/customers and prospective insureds/customers in Florida as well as all or most of the other U.S. States, including Georgia, Alabama, Texas, and Oklahoma. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J.P. Salas, Esq. SALAS LAW FIRM, P.A. 8551 West Sunrise Boulevard, Suite 300 Plantation, FL 33322 Telephone: (954) 315-1155 Facsimile: (954) 452-3311 E-mail: jp@jpsalaslaw.com - and - Michael G. Green II, Esq. SALAS LAW FIRM, P.A. 8551 West Sunrise Boulevard, Suite 300 Plantation, FL 33322 Office: (954) 315-1155 Facsimile: (954) 452 -3311 E-mail: michael@jpsalaw.com NATURAL HEALTH: Continues to Defend Kauffman Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Natural Health Trends Corp. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 26, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company continues to defend itself against a class action suit entitled, Kauffman v. Natural Health Trends Corp. On January 8, 2019, the Company and its two executive officers were named in a putative securities class action filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, captioned Kauffman v. Natural Health Trends Corp., Case No. 2:19-cv-00163. The complaint purports to assert claims on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired our common stock between April 27, 2016 and January 5, 2019, inclusive, under (i) Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder against the Company and Chris T. Sharng and Timothy S. Davidson (together, the "Individual Defendants"), and (ii) Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the Individual Defendants. The complaint alleges, in part, that the Company made materially false and misleading statements regarding the legality of its business operations in China, including running an allegedly illegal multilevel marketing business. The complaint seeks an indeterminate amount of damages, plus interest and costs. Natural Health said, "Defendants believe that these claims are without merit and intend to vigorously defend against them." Natural Health Trends Corp., a direct-selling and e-commerce company, provides personal care, wellness, and lifestyle products under the NHT Global brand. Natural Health Trends Corp. was founded in 1988 and is headquartered in Kowloon, Hong Kong. NESTLE USA: Faces Walker Suit over Deceptive Labeling ----------------------------------------------------- A class action complaint has been filed against Nestle USA, Inc. for violations of the California's Business & Professions Code Sections 17200, et seq. (the Unfair Competition Law) and the California Civil Code Sections 1750, et seq. (the Consumers Legal Remedies Act). The case is captioned Renee Walker, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. Nestle USA, Inc., a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 to 100; Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-00723-L-KSC (S.D. Cal., April 19, 2019). Plaintiff Renee Walker alleges that Nestle's deceptive labeling misleads consumers into believing their cocoa and chocolate products are procured in accordance with environmentally and socially responsible standards, when it knows they are not. Ms. Walker was misled by the affirmative misrepresentations on Nestle's product packaging concerning the use of fair labor and environmental standards and practices. Nestle's products, such as Toll House Chocolate Chips and Nesquik chocolate milk, prominently feature the logo of the Nestle Cocoa Plan. The Cocoa Plan, instituted in 2009, is described as improving the lives of cocoa farmers and the quality of their chocolate. Nestle advertises the Nestle Cocoa Plan and claims to be working with UTZ in order to improve the lives of cocoa farmers. UTZ is a third-party certifier which holds itself out as the benchmark for the sustainable production of cocoa. In addition, UTZ certified products stand for ethical and sustainable farming, including better working conditions and better care for the natural environment. Nestle still has the audacity to place patently false seals on its products, despite the fact that its supply chain is inundated with child labor and child slave labor. Nestle USA is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at 1812 North Moore Street in Rosslyn, Virginia 22209. Nestle is one of the largest food and beverage companies in the world. Nestle purchases approximately 414,000 tons of cocoa annually. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: COAST LAW GROUP, LLP Helen I. Zeldes, Esq. Amy C. Johnsgard, Esq. Ben Travis, Esq. 1140 S. Coast Hwy 101 Encinitas, CA 92024 Telephone: (760) 942-8505 E-mail: helen@coastlaw.com amy@coastlaw.com ben@coastlaw.com - and - Paul L. Hoffman, Esq. Catherine Sweetser, Esq. SCHONBRUN SEPLOW HARRIS & HOFFMAN LLP 11543 W Olympic Blvd Los Angeles, CA 90064 Telephone: (310) 396-0731 E-mail: hoffpaul@aol.com catherine.sdshhh@gmail.com - and - Michael R. Reese, Esq. George V. Granade, Esq. REESE LLP 8484 Wilshire Blvd. Los Angeles, California 90211 Telephone: (212) 643-0500 E-mail: mreese@reesellp.com ggranade@reesellp.com NFL: Concussion Claims Process Getting More Arduous --------------------------------------------------- Lindsay Gibbs, writing for Think Progress, reports that hundreds of men will see their childhood dream become reality at the 2019 NFL Draft. But, beneath all the tears and cheers, the pomp and circumstance, the National Football League and its lawyers are battling hard to deny benefits and compensation to the players who sacrificed their bodies and minds to build that NFL dream into what it is today. At the beginning of 2017, a class-action lawsuit between the NFL and its former players was finalized for a settlement worth approximately $1 billion over the next 65 years. But instead of celebrating the outcome, retiring players and their families found themselves facing a marathon of paperwork and physicians, appeals and audits. By November of 2017, the New York Times reported that out of the 1,400 claims that had been submitted by retired players, only 140 had been approved. While the approvals have picked up a bit in the intervening 17 months, in April, Senior Judge Anita Brody of the U.S. Eastern District of Pennsylvania unveiled new rules that will make the already-arduous claims process even more excruciating. "The goal posts are continuously shifting," attorney Lance Lubel, who represents about 75 players involved in the settlement, told ThinkProgress. At the heart of this problem is the matter of a qualifying diagnosis of neurocognitive impairment, which is required for players to get money from the settlement. There are two ways for players to go about obtaining this diagnosis. One is the Baseline Assessment Program (BAP), which is free for the players. However, there are many catches involved. Players are only permitted to get one examination through the BAP, and the claims administrator chooses the doctor and location of the exam. The BAP has an extremely high bar for players to pass. So far, Lubel says, 95 percent of the players who have gone through the BAP exam have failed to obtain a qualifying diagnosis. The overwhelming sentiment is that the BAP is an impenetrable defensive line put in place by the league to guard its money. "The BAP protocols are not medical standards but rather settlement-engineered testing designed to weed out as many players as possible," writes Sheila Dingus, who has documented the case extensively on her website, Advocacy for Fairness in Sport. The other way for players to get a qualifying diagnosis is to go through the Monetary Award Fund (MAF). In this instance, players are responsible for paying for the tests, but they are permitted to pick the doctor and schedule the appointment on their own. And here is where the latest controversy has emerged. Last summer, the NFL filed an appeal that essentially sought to give league-trained physicians and administrators even more control over the process of determining a qualifying diagnosis. After a series of motions and closed-door hearings, on April 11, Judge Brody released updated MAF guidelines. "The first [MAF guidelines document] was five pages long and mostly derived from the settlement agreement," said Dingus. "This one . . . is a complete re-write." The new MAF guidelines are supposedly in place in order to prevent fraud and to bring the MAF standards more in line with the BAP standards. But, in practice, they seem to be geared toward preventing players from getting the relief they're entitled to under the settlement. According to the updated guidelines, the NFL-appointed and trained Appeal Advisory Panel (AAP) has much more control over the appeal process; retired players now must receive a diagnosis from a qualified MAF physician located within 150 miles of their primary residence; and neuropsychological exams must be conducted within 50 miles of the MAF physician. "This rule effectively eliminates any choice of doctors for players," Dingus said. Additionally, MAF physicians are now required to obtain their patients' "employment information and business activities" over the past five years, as well as "any social, community, recreational or other activities by the Retired NFL Football Player outside the home around the time of the MAF Examination, whether these activities have changed over the five years preceding the date of the MAF Examination and, if so, how they have changed." The NFL likes to tout the success of the settlement by advertising that it has already paid out $645 million in claims -- a significant amount of money that's nearly what the league planned to spend for the entire 65-year period of the agreement. However, the primary reason that total amount is so large is because individual pay-outs for advanced diseases such as death by CTE, ALS, and Parkinson's have been higher than expected. Meanwhile, retired players suffering from dementia -- a Level 1.5 of Level 2.0 neurocognitive impairment, according to the settlement -- are being systematically excluded from the approval process, despite the fact that they were initially expected to make up a sizable proportion of the settlement's beneficiaries. According to the most recent report, only 12.9% of the Level 1.5 and 2.0 claims have been paid out, compared to 59% of the CTE claims, 64.8% of the ALS claims, 50.6% of Alzheimer's claims, and 63.6% of Parkinson's claims. Lubel said that touting the $645 million figure occludes the real problem: The large number of retired players who are currently struggling and unable to get the assistance the settlement promised. "It doesn't do anything for the remaining guys that have not qualified yet, they're left out in the cold," he said. Christopher Seeger, the co-lead counsel who represents the settlement class, has been a controversial figure throughout the entire settlement process; many other attorneys in the case have criticized him for carrying water for the NFL, and for being more concerned about making money for himself than he is about earning justice for his clients. Seeger has not made a public statement since the new rules have been released. His most recent statement was issued to Deadspin through a spokesman earlier in April. "While we believe the settlement is working as intended with more than $645 million in approved claims, we respect the Court's view that these measures will, as Judge Brody stated, 'safeguard the integrity of the Settlement Program,'" Seeger said. "The rule regarding 'generally consistent' diagnoses is in fact administrative and will streamline the approval and payment of claims. The additional rules provided by the Judge appear to be aimed at addressing her previously expressed concerns regarding possible fraudulent claims. We will ensure these rules are implemented in a way that does not allow legitimate claims to be impeded in any way." That sounds reasonable. But lawyers and advocates who work with the suffering players and their families on a day-in-day-out basis have no way of holding Seeger to account. The entire claims process happens behind closed doors. "The process needs to be more transparent," Lubel said. "That's what's super frustrating about it, decisions are being made in a vacuum, and the stakeholders are not able to weigh in." The NFL will spend a lot of airtime talking about how it's a brotherhood. But its actions in this concussion settlement have spoken much louder than than their ad campaigns. [GN] NORTHLAND GROUP: George Sues over Unfair Debt Collection Practices ------------------------------------------------------------------ A consumer credit-related class action complaint has been filed against Northland Group, Inc. and Radius Global Solutions, LLC. The case is captioned George v. Northland Group, Inc. et al, Case No. 3:19-cv-00207 (W.D.N.C., May 1, 2019). Plaintiff Bernard L. George alleges that Northland Group, Inc. has violated the Fair Debt Collection Act. Northland Group, Inc. is a debt-collection agency founded in 1982 and based in Edina, Minnesota. As of Nov. 16, 2016, the company was acquired by Radius Global Solutions, LLC. It provides accounts receivable management and collection services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Arthur H. Piervincenti, Esq. ARTHUR H. PIERVINCENTI, P.A. 631-200B Brawley School Road, Box 225 Mooresville, NC 28117 Telephone: (704) 997-9529 Facsimile: (704) 230-0413 E-mail: arthur@lawahp.com NUTANIX INC: Mauter Sues over Artificially Inflated Stock Price --------------------------------------------------------------- A securities class action has been filed against Nutanix, Inc., Dheeraj Pandey and Duston M. Williams. The case is captioned TIM MAUTER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, vs. NUTANIX, INC., DHEERAJ PANDEY and DUSTON M. WILLIAMS, Defendants, Case No. 3:19 cv-02442 (N.D. Cal., May 6, 2019). Plaintiff Tim Mauter accuses the Defendants of making false statements and failing to disclose adverse facts known to them about Nutanix. Defendants' fraudulent scheme and course of business that operated as a fraud or deceit on purchasers of Nutanix stock have allegedly deceived the investing public regarding Nutanix's prospects and business and enabled defendant Duston M. Williams and other Nutanix insiders to collectively sell more than $156 million worth of their personally held Nutanix stock at artificially inflated prices and caused plaintiff and other members of the Class to purchase Nutanix common stock at artificially inflated prices. Nutanix provides a leading enterprise cloud platform that powers many of the world's business applications and end-user services by providing software solutions that digitize traditional silos of enterprise computing, converging compute, virtualization, storage, networking, desktop, governance and security services into one integrated solution. Nutanix primarily sells its products and services to end customers through distributors, resellers and original equipment manufacturers. Nutanix common stock trades under the ticker "NTNX" on the NASDAQ. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shawn A. Williams, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP Post Montgomery Center One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 288-4545 Facsimile: (415) 288-4534 E-mail: shawnw@rgrdlaw.com - and - Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. Vicki M. Diamond, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: (631) 367-7100 Facsimile: (631) 367-1173 E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com vdiamond@rgrdlaw.com - and - Frank J. Johnson, Esq. JOHNSON FISTEL, LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1400 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 230-0063 Facsimile: (619) 255-1856 E-mail: frankj@johnsonfistel.com NY BAGEL BOYS: Gitterman Seeks Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- NEIL H. GITTERMAN, on his own behalf and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. NY BAGEL BOYS, INC. DBA STRATHMORE BAGEL & DELI a Florida Profit Corporation, and PAULA B. STEUERMAN, an individual, Defendants, Case No. 9:19-cv-80661-XXXX (S.D. Fla., May 16, 2019) is an action on behalf of Plaintiff and other current and former employees of Defendants similarly situated to him seeking overtime compensation and minimum wage compensation and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). Plaintiff routinely worked more than 40 hours per week for Defendants. During certain pay periods of Plaintiff's employment, Plaintiff would average 20 hours of overtime. Yet, the Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiff for all overtime hours worked, and failed to properly credit Plaintiff for all hours worked, says the complaint. Plaintiff performed non-exempt work as a laborer and related activities in Palm Beach County, Florida. NY BAGEL BOYS, INC. DBA STRATHMORE BAGEL & DELI is a deli style restaurant.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Maguene D. Cadet, Esq. Law Office of Dieudonne Cadet, P.A. 2500 Quantum Lakes Drive, Suite 203 Boynton Beach, FL 33426 Phone: 561-853-2212 Facsimile: 561-853-2213 Email: Maguene@DieudonneLaw.com OHIO BUREAU OF MOTOR VEHICLES: Ventura Sues over Lamination Fee --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action complaint has been filed against the Ohio Department of Public Safety - Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles Division (BMV) for its unlawful practice of charging and collecting a lamination fee to all Ohioans applying for licenses permits and/or identification cards. The case is captioned NICHOLAS VENTURA, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. OHIO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY - OHIO BUREAU OF MOTOR VEHICLES DIVISION and TREASURER, STATE OF OHIO, Defendants, Case No. CV 19 914474 (Ct. Com. Pl, Cty. of Cuyahoga, April 25, 2019). Plaintiff Nicholas Ventura asserts that BMV has discontinued the lamination of such items since approximately July 2, 2018. However, BMV unlawfully continues to charge and collect from Plaintiff and the putative class the lamination fee. Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks equitable restitution and disgorgement of those monies from Defendant BMV and/or Defendant Treasurer, State of Ohio. BMV is the government agency responsible for the issuance of driver's licenses and permits and identification cards pursuant to Ohio Revised Code Chap. 4507. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Glenn D. Feagan, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF GLENN D. FEAGAN, PSC 101 W. Prospect Ave., Suite 1600 The Midland Building Cleveland, OH 44115 Telephone: (216) 926-75555 E-mail: gfeagan@feaganlaw.com ONTARIO: Collingwood Sued Over Coyote Co-Existence Policies ----------------------------------------------------------- Nicole Ireland, writing for CBC News, reports that Wayne Burley is on high alert when he takes his new pug Maya for a walk, especially if it's dusky or dark. He keeps her close on her leash with one hand, holding a ski pole with the other -- always ready to defend the small dog against a coyote attack. Until one terrible evening about a year ago, Burley said, he had no idea he had to be so vigilant. Since then he's supported the aims of a group that advocates coyotes be trapped and moved elsewhere. Other residents of Collingwood, Ont., go further, calling for a cull, while one man is launching a class action lawsuit against the town over the issue. Burley and his wife, Lois, were taking care of their son Craig's pug Wally. Like any other evening, they let Wally out to the back deck so he could "do his business" in the yard before bed. But the 12-year-old dog didn't come bounding back into the house when they called him. The family frantically searched the neighbourhood that night and the next day. The moment they learned he had been killed by coyotes is forever seared on Burley's memory. "I heard Craig come running upstairs, yelling, 'I found him, I found him. He's dead.'" Dog was 'badly mauled' Burley walked with his son over to the swamp wetlands, less than half a kilometre away from the house, where Wally's "badly mauled" body lay. "I said, 'well Craig, let me go and get him,'" Burley said, choking back emotion as he remembers his son's response. "He said, 'No Dad.' He said, 'I've seen him. And I don't want you to see him.'" Burley lives on the eastern side of the picturesque town about 150 kilometres north of Toronto, in a subdivision along Georgian Bay. "There seems to be a more significant population of coyotes in the east end of Collingwood, which is a more rural setting," municipal clerk Sara Almas confirmed to CBC News. Coyotes are predatory canids -- relatives of domestic dogs. They hunt rabbits, squirrels, rodents, snakes and birds, and also eat deer. Farmers must often take measures to protect their livestock, including sheep and chickens, from attacks. Discourage coyotes, municipalities advise But coyotes are increasingly settling into cities and towns across Canada, as people build homes in areas that weren't previously populated. Several Collingwood residents say they've seen more coyotes than ever before in the last couple of years. The town has adopted the same "co-existing" approach to the urban coyote issue that many other municipalities have. Provincial natural resources and environment ministries in several provinces, including Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta, have a "living with coyotes" policy, Municipal conservation officials say coyotes are an important part of the ecosystem, helping to control rodent and rabbit populations. People can protect their pets, the province says, by installing "proper fencing," keeping cats indoors, keeping dogs "on leashes or confined to a yard" and not feeding their pets outside. But Burley and other Collingwood residents are challenging these co-existence policies, saying they're not realistic and place an unfair burden on pet owners, who just want their dogs and cats to be safe around their own homes. 'Co-existence' not working, residents argue Jeff Brown, a homeowner who says he never saw this kind of problem with coyotes when he was growing up in Collingwood, is leading that charge. He runs an online group called Coyote Concerns Collingwood -- an advocacy effort he began last year. Wayne Burley met Brown after Wally's death -- and learned that other dogs and cats had been injured in coyote attacks or gone missing. "That's how I started to become an advocate to try and get the coyotes maybe trapped or moved out of subdivisions in here," Burley said. But the province prohibits relocating coyotes more than one kilometre away, meaning they would simply return. Ontario's Natural Resources ministry did not respond by deadline to a CBC News inquiry about the reason for the limit on relocation distance. Other wildlife experts say relocation breaks apart coyote family units, which can be damaging for pups. In addition, according to Alberta's Ministry of Environment and Parks, attempts to trap and relocate coyotes in some North American cities have failed, partly because other coyotes just move in to fill the vacancy. If coyotes can't be relocated to unpopulated wilderness areas hundreds of kilometres away, Brown argues, that leaves one only option -- no matter how "awful" it may sound. "They will [have to] be trapped and killed," he said. Ontario property owners are allowed to "capture or kill problem wildlife to prevent damage to your property," according to a Ministry of Natural Resources fact sheet. "You can invite a licensed small game hunter or a trapper to hunt or trap coyotes on your property where local bylaws permit. There is no closed season for coyotes in the majority of southern Ontario," it says. But Brown said it should be up to the town to take that initiative on a broader scale and that it has "essentially refused" to do that. 'Living in fear,' lawsuit alleges In early April, as a "last resort," he filed a class-action lawsuit against the town of Collingwood. In his statement of claim, Brown alleges that by "allowing urban coyotes to roam at large in Collingwood and knowing they have and will attack and kill pets," town officials are violating the animal cruelty section of the criminal code. He also alleges that they have failed their duty to protect the safety of residents and their property. And pets, he argues, constitute property. "Collingwood residents are living in fear of further coyote attacks," the claim says. The town has not yet been served with Brown's lawsuit and can't comment on it, said Sara Almas, the municipal clerk. The town is taking action with a coyote management plan Almas said, which asks homeowners to report any coyote sightings or attacks on pets so they can be tracked. Wildlife officers can also respond by checking people's property and advise if changes can be made to help deter coyotes and make sure they "don't get habituated" to the neighbourhood. Town working with conservation group As some other towns have done, Collingwood is working with conservation group Coyote Watch Canada, which strongly promotes the co-existence model. "The world has changed," said Lesley Sampson, Coyote Watch Canada's executive director. "Wildlife is interfacing more now with people, right? Urban and rural habitat, it's kind of getting grey." That means pet owners have to take precautions to keep their pets safe -- not only from coyotes, but other threats, such as birds of prey, she said. "The days of opening our doors and letting our dogs and cats roam at nighttime -- it's over," Sampson said. Brown and other members of Coyote Concerns Collingwood vehemently reject that argument -- saying it unfairly places blame on pet owners when coyotes shouldn't be in residential areas in the first place. Government websites advise that coyotes will be less likely to come into populated neighbourhoods if residents avoid inadvertently attracting them with "food." They advise enclosing garbage and compost, making sure seed isn't spilling out of birdfeeders, and cleaning up dog and cat feces from their yards. There's also a clear acknowledgement that coyotes can be a threat to pets. "Cats and small dogs may be seen as prey by coyotes, while larger dogs may be injured in a confrontation," a fact sheet from Ontario's Ministry of Natural Resources says. 'I'm very torn' Other Collingwood residents feel conflicted about the coyote issue. "I'm very torn," said Lisa Harrison, a dog owner whose yard backs on to the wetland where Wayne Burley's pug was found dead. "I'm an absolute nature and animal lover and so I think coyotes are beautiful and they have a right to existence," she said. "But I'm also a pet lover." "I feel like [my dogs] have the right to a backyard where they can go out and be safe and obviously that isn't realistic with the coyotes," she said. Her husband, Jim Harrison, captured a video of a coyote with his iPhone while standing on his deck. That time, the coyote was metres away in the marsh — but there are times when the animals have come up through their yard, right to the house. The fear in the community is getting worse, Harrison said. He knows neighbours who tied a knife to the end of a pole after their dog was attacked by a coyote -- and they now carry the homemade "spear" whenever they walk their pet. "When you've got people with spears in their backyard -- that's what we're dealing with," he said. [GN] PAPA MURPHY'S HOLDINGS: Swan Sues over Tender Offer --------------------------------------------------- A class action complaint has been filed against Papa Murphy's Holdings, Inc. and the members of its Board of Directors for their breaches of fiduciary duties arising out of their attempt to sell the company to MTY Food Group, Inc. The case is captioned ARNOLD SWAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PAPA MURPHY'S HOLDINGS, INC., JEAN M. BIRCH, NOAH A. ELBOGEN, BENJAMIN HOCHBERG, YOO JIN KIM, ALEXANDER C. MATINA, DAVID MOUNTS, JOHN SHAFER, KATHERINE L. SCHERPING, WELDON SPANGLER, ROB WEISBERG, MTY FRANCHISING USA, INC., and MTY COLUMBIA MERGER SUB, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2019-0343 (Del. Ch., May 7, 2019). Plaintiff Arnold Swan alleges that the Defendants failed to disclose material information to the company's stockholders necessary for them to determine whether to tender their shares or seek appraisal. The Defendants allegedly filed a recommendation statement that fails to include material information concerning them confidentiality agreements entered into with potential acquirers, as well as communications between MTY and the senior management of Papa Murphy's, during the process leading to the tender offer. Papa Murphy's is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of Delaware. It maintains its principal executive offices at 8000 NE Parkway Drive, Suite 350, Vancouver, Washington. MTY is a Quebec, Canada-based corporation who operates as a franchisor in the quick service and casual dining food industry. MTY has its headquarters at 8210, route Transcanadienne, St. Laurent, QC, H4S 1M5, Canada. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan M. Ernst, Esq. O'KELLY ERNST & JOYCE, LLC 901 Market Street, Suite 1000 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 778-4000 Facsimile: (302) 295-2873 E-mail: rernst@oelegal.com PEE DEE CORP: Gabino Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Estolfo Basurto Gabino, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Pee Dee Corp. (d/b/a Pee Dee Steak), Eun Sook Chu and Dong Yung Chu, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-04523 (S.D. N.Y., May 16, 2019) brought is an action on behalf of Plaintiff, and other similarly situated individuals, for unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"), and for violations of the N.Y. Labor Law (the "NYLL"), and the "spread of hours" and overtime wage orders of the New York Commissioner of Labor, including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. Plaintiff Basurto worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of hours compensation for the hours that he worked, asserts the complaint. Defendants own, operate, or control a steak house, located at 2006 Third Avenue New York, NY 10029 under the name "Pee Dee Steak". Plaintiff Basurto was employed as a delivery worker and dishwasher at the restaurant. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Phone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Fike Sues Over Deceptive Proofs of Claim ------------------------------------------------------------ JACLYN FIKE, ANDREW YAVORKA, and BARBARA YAVORKA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00144-SPB (W.D. Pa., May 16, 2019) seeks damages, attorneys' fees, and costs against Defendant for its violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"). In March and June 2018, Plaintiffs filed for protection under Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code (the "BKs"). On May 18, 2018, and on August 14, 2018, Defendant filed proof of claims in the BKs in an attempt to collect debts (collectively the "POCs"). With regard to the Plaintiffs, Defendant filed a POC for an open-end credit card account on a debt originally owed to Barclays Bank Delaware, which debt was incurred for family, personal and household purposes. The complaint asserts that the POCs filed by Defendant were false, misleading, and deceptive because the Debts included interest and fees, contrary to Defendant's representations. The Defendant knew the Debts included interest and fees because Defendant was given written records by the Creditors following the sale and purchase of the Debts. These records showed that the Debts included principal, interest, and fees. Moreover, Defendant knew the Debts concerned defaulted open-end credit card accounts, meaning Defendant knew the Debts included principal, interest, and fees, as do virtually all defaulted open-end credit card accounts, says the complaint. Plaintiff Jaclyn Fike is and was a resident of Venango County, Pennsylvania. Plaintiff Andrew Yavorka and Barbara Yavorka are residents of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania at all times relevant to this action. Portfolio Recovery Associates is a limited liability company whose sole business is the purchasing of consumer debt with the purpose of collecting on that debt.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin Abramowicz, Esq. BCJ Law LLC 186 42nd Street, P.O. Box 40127 Pittsburgh, PA 15201 Phone: (412) 223-5740 Email: kevina@bcjlawyer.com - and - Mark G. Moynihan, Esq. Moynihan Law, P.C. 2 Chatham Center, Suite 230 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Phone: (412) 889-8535 Email: mark@moynihanlaw.net PORTLAND GENERAL: Appeal in Trojan Class Action Still Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- Portland General Electric Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 26, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the Court of Appeals has yet to rule on an appeal from a decision in the Trojan Investment Recovery litigation. In 1993, Portland General Electric Company (PGE) closed the Trojan nuclear power plant (Trojan) and sought full recovery of, and a rate of return on, its Trojan costs in a general rate case filing with the Public Utility Commission of Oregon (OPUC). In 1995, the OPUC issued a general rate order that granted the Company recovery of, and a rate of return on, 87% of its remaining investment in Trojan. Numerous challenges and appeals were subsequently filed in various state courts on the issue of the OPUC's authority under Oregon law to grant recovery of, and a return on, the Trojan investment. In 2007, following several appeals by various parties, the Oregon Court of Appeals issued an opinion that remanded the matter to the OPUC for reconsideration. In 2003, in two separate legal proceedings, lawsuits were filed against PGE on behalf of two classes of electric service customers: i) Dreyer, Gearhart and Kafoury Bros., LLC v. Portland General Electric Company, Marion County Circuit Court; and ii) Morgan v. Portland General Electric Company, Marion County Circuit Court. The class action lawsuits seek damages totaling $260 million, plus interest, as a result of the Company's inclusion, in prices charged to customers, of a return on its investment in Trojan. In 2006, the Oregon Supreme Court (OSC) issued a ruling ordering the abatement of the class action proceedings. The OSC concluded that the OPUC had primary jurisdiction to determine what, if any, remedy could be offered to PGE customers, through price reductions or refunds, for any amount of return on the Trojan investment that the Company collected in prices. In 2008, the OPUC issued an order (2008 Order) that required PGE to provide refunds, including interest, which refunds were completed in 2010. Following appeals, the 2008 Order was upheld by the Oregon Court of Appeals in 2013 and by the OSC in 2014. In 2015, based on a motion filed by PGE, the Marion County Circuit Court (Circuit Court) lifted the abatement on the class action proceedings and, heard oral argument on the Company's motion for Summary Judgment. In March 2016, the Circuit Court entered a general judgment that granted the Company's motion for Summary Judgment and dismissed all claims by the plaintiffs. In April 2016, the plaintiffs appealed the Circuit Court dismissal to the Court of Appeals for the State of Oregon. A Court of Appeals decision remains pending. PGE believes that the 2014 OSC decision and the Circuit Court decisions that followed have reduced the risk of any loss to the Company beyond the amounts previously recorded and discussed above. However, because the class actions remain subject to a decision in the appeal, management believes that it is reasonably possible that such a loss to the Company could result. As these matters involve unsettled legal theories and have a broad range of potential outcomes, sufficient information is currently not available to determine the amount of any such loss. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Portland General Electric Company, an integrated electric utility company, engages in the generation, wholesale purchase, transmission, distribution, and retail sale of electricity in the state of Oregon. The company was founded in 1930 and is headquartered in Portland, Oregon. PRECISION CASTPARTS: Cottrell Seeks Overtime Pay ------------------------------------------------ A class action complaint has been filed against Precision Castparts Corp. and PCC Airfoils, LLC for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, and the Prompt Pay Act. The case is captioned STEPHEN COTTRELL, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. PRECISION CASTPARTS CORP., and PCC AIRFOILS, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01036 (N.D. Ohio, May 8, 2019). Plaintiff Stephen Cottrell alleges that the Defendants are engaged in unlawful rounding policy that consistently resulted in unpaid overtime wages to Plaintiff and the putative class members because it simply fails to pay its hourly, non-exempt employees for all compensable hours worked despite being fully aware of the exact times that the employees clock in/out. Precision Castparts Corp. is an Oregon corporation with its principal place of business at 4650 S.W. Macadam Ave., Suite 300, Portland, Oregon. The company is a worldwide, diversified manufacturer of complex metal components and products. PCC Airfoils is an Ohio Limited Liability Company with its principal place of business at 3401 Enterprise Parkway, Suite 200, Beachwood, Ohio 44122. It is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Precision Castparts. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq. COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC 1550 Old Henderson Road, Suite 126 Columbus, OH 43220 Telephone: (614) 949-1181 Facsimile: (614) 386-9964 E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com - and - Shannon M. Draher, Esq. Hans A. Nilges, Esq. NILGES DRAHER LLC 7266 Portage Street, N.W., Suite D Massillon, OH 44646 Telephone: (330) 470-4428 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 E-mail: sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com hans@ohlaborlaw.com PRO CUSTOM SOLAR: Murrell et al. Sue over Racist Conduct -------------------------------------------------------- A class action complaint has been filed against Pro Custom Solar LLC d/b/a Momentum Solar, Jessica Adams, Rajan Silberman and Adam Murawski for violations of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, New York State Human Rights Law, New York Executive Law, New York City Human Rights Law, N.Y.C. Administrative Code, Fair Labor Standards Act, and the New York Labor Law. The case is captioned GARRETH MURRELL, TEVIN BROWN, KENNETH SAPP, RAOUL GERDES, CHEVON RILEY and SHADDON BESWICK, on behalf of themselves and all similarly-situated employees, Plaintiffs, v. PRO CUSTOM SOLAR LLC d/b/a MOMENTUM SOLAR, JESSICA ADAMS, RAJAN SILBERMAN and ADAM MURAWSKI, in their individual and professional capacities, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02656 (E.D.N.Y., May 6, 2019). Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants have fostered, condoned, accepted, ratified and/or otherwise failed to prevent or remedy a hostile work environment and disparate treatment, including with respect to pay and other terms and conditions of employment, based on race and/or color. In addition to their racist conduct, the Defendants are allegedly engaged in blatant violations of the federal and state wage and hour laws, including requiring employees to work off-the-clock without pay and failing to reimburse employees for the costs of tools needed to perform their job. Pro Custom Solar LLC d/b/a Momentum Solar is a New Jersey limited liability company that conducts business in, inter alia, New York State and New York City. In New York State, Momentum’s principal place of business is located at 45 Fairchild Avenue, Suite B, Plainview, New York. Pro Custom Solar is one of the nation's most successful and fastest growing clean energy companies. It was recently ranked as the "#2" energy company in the nation, as well as the top company in New Jersey across all industries. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael J. Willemin, Esq. Tanvir H. Rahman, Esq. WIGDOR LLP 85 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 257-6800 Facsimile: (212) 257-6845 E-mail: mwillemin@wigdorlaw.com trahman@wigdorlaw.com REBL CORP: Faces Class Action Following Collapse ------------------------------------------------ Sunshine Coast Daily reports that a class-action is set to be launched for victims caught up in the collapse of Sunshine Coast business Rebl Corp. Six weeks after the doors of the Nicklin Way office closed for good, Gold Coast law firm Platinum Lawyers has announced it will take the plight of victims to the Federal Court. [GN] RED LION HOTEL: Lopez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Red Lion Hotels Corporation. The case is styled as Victor Lopez, On Behalf of Himself And All Other Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. Red Lion Hotels Corporation, Red Lion Hotels Management, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-04519-LTS (S.D. N.Y., May 16, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Red Lion Hotels Corporation, doing business as RLH Corporation, is an American hospitality corporation that primarily engages in the franchising, management and ownership of upscale, midscale and economy hotels.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: nyjg@aol.com ROHR INC: Morgan's Labor Suit Transferred to E.D. Calif. -------------------------------------------------------- The case, NATHANIEL MORGAN, an individual, and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ROHR, INC., a corporation; HAMILTON SUNDSTRAND, a corporation, d/b/a UTC AEROSPACE SYSTEMS d/b/a COLLINS AEROSPACE; UNITED TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION, a corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. FCS052589 (Filed on March 27, 2019), was transferred from the Superior Court of California for the Solano County to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on May 6, 2019. The removal is pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA). Under CAFA, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California has original jurisdiction because it is a purported class action with an amount in controversy exceeding $5,000,000, with at least one putative class member and one defendant being citizens of different states, and having at least 100 potential class members. Accordingly, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California assigned Case No. 2:19-at-00350 to the proceeding. In the complaint, Plaintiff Nathaniel Morgan alleged nine causes of action against the Defendants: (1) "Failure to Provide Required Meal Periods"; (2) "Failure to Provide Required Rest Periods"; (3) "Failure to Pay Overtime Wages"; (4) "Failure to Pay Minimum Wages"; (5) "Failure to Pay All Wages Due to Discharged and Quitting Employees"; (6) "Failure to Maintain Required Records"; (7) "Failure to Furnish Accurate Itemized Wage Statements"; (8) "Failure to Indemnify Employees for Necessary Expenditures Incurred in Discharge of Duties"; and, (9) "Unfair and Unlawful Business Practices." Operating as a subsidiary of United Technologies Corporation, Rohr, Inc. designs, manufactures, and integrates nacelles, thrust reversers, and pylons for commercial aircraft. Hamilton Sundstrand Corporation is a corporation formed under the laws of the state of Delaware with its principal place of business in the state of North Carolina. Hamilton Sundstrand designs, manufactures, and supports fuel and special fluid pumps, engine controllers, primary and secondary flight control and actuation systems, ram air turbine emergency equipment, and other related products. [BN] Attorneys for Defendant: Timothy M. Rusche, Esq. Christopher Im, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 601 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 3300 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 270-9600 Facsimile: (213) 270-9601 E-mail: trusche@seyfarth.com cim@seyfarth.com - and - Jonathan L. Brophy, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500 Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021 Telephone: (310) 277-7200 Facsimile: (310) 201-5219 E-mail: jbrophy@seyfarth.com SJW GROUP: Suits Related to CTWS Merger Stayed ---------------------------------------------- SJW Group, said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 26, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the court granted the parties' motion to continue the stay and ordered that the stay is to continue until May 29, 2019. On June 14, 2018, certain shareholders of Connecticut Water Service, Inc. (CTWS) filed two nearly identical class-action complaints in Connecticut state court against the CTWS board of directors, SJW Group, Eric W. Thornburg, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of SJW Group, and CTWS. The complaints, as amended on September 18, 2018 and September 20, 2018, allege that the CTWS board breached its fiduciary duties in connection with the Merger, that CTWS's preliminary proxy statement, filed with the SEC on August 20, 2018, omits certain material information and that SJW Group and Mr. Thornburg aided and abetted the alleged breaches by the CTWS board of directors. Among other remedies, the actions seek to recover rescissory and other damages and attorney's fees and costs. SJW Group believes the claims in these complaints are without merit and intends to vigorously defend this litigation. The parties to the lawsuits have agreed in principle to settle the lawsuits in exchange for the issuance of additional disclosures by CTWS. Pursuant to the agreements to settle the lawsuits, the plaintiffs have reserved the right to seek a mootness fee from CTWS. The parties moved to stay proceedings, other than fee-related proceedings, until such time as the transaction closes, and the court granted the parties' motion to stay on November 14, 2018. On November 20, 2018, the plaintiffs filed an opening brief in support of their fee application. The stay of proceedings expired on February 28, 2019. On March 1, 2019, the court granted the parties' motion to continue the stay and ordered that the stay is to continue until May 29, 2019. SJW said, "Pursuant to the agreement in principle to settle the litigation, the complaints will be dismissed at such time as the transaction closes. SJW Group has determined that the likelihood of loss related to these class-action complaints is remote." SJW Group, through its subsidiaries, provides water utility services in the United States. It engages in the production, purchase, storage, purification, distribution, wholesale, and retail sale of water. The company was formerly known as SJW Corp. and changed its name to SJW Group in November 2016. SJW Group was founded in 1866 and is headquartered in San Jose, California. SKECHERS USA: Guajardo Files Suit Over Defective Footwear for Kids ------------------------------------------------------------------ RIKKI GUAJARDO, on behalf of herself, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SKECHERS USA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-04104-SLD-JEH (C.D. Ill., May 16, 2019) is a class action involving Skechers's design, development, manufacture, marketing, distribution and sale of dangerous and defective children's footwear featuring S-Lights and rechargeable technology including, but not limited to, Skechers Energy Lights shoes, S Light Shoes, Twinkle Toes and Shopkins shoes. ("Lighted Shoes"). The complaint asserts that the Lighted Shoes contain a number of design or manufacturing flaws including, without limitation, an inadequate electrical system powered by batteries, which can lead to multiple failure modes, including a dangerous electrical or thermal event that can lead to heat, fire or the release of electrolyte vapors that can cause skin burns (the "Defect"). Skechers knew or should have known of the Defect, but nevertheless misrepresented to consumers that the Lighted Shoes were safe for their children to wear, when they were not. Skechers actively concealed and failed to disclose the Defect to Plaintiff and Class Members. As a direct and proximate result of Skechers' unlawful conduct, including its misrepresentations and, concealment regarding the inherent safety risk posed by the Defect in the Lighted Shoes, and its failure to recall the Lighted Shoes or remedy the Defect, Plaintiff and all Class Members purchased and used the dangerous and defective Lighted Shoes when they otherwise would have paid significantly less for the Lighted Shoes, or else would not have purchased and used them at all, says the complaint. Plaintiff Guajardo purchased the Lighted Shoes for her child upon the reasonable belief that they were safe and would function as intended. Skechers designs, develops, manufactures, markets, distributes and sells a diverse range of lifestyle footwear for men, women, and children, as well as performance footwear for men and women.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Katrina Carroll, Esq. Kyle A. Shamberg, Esq. LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC 111 West Washington Street, Suite 1240 Chicago, IL 60602 Phone: (312) 750-1265 Email: kcarroll@litedepalma.com kshamberg@litedepalma.com - and - Gregory F. Coleman, Esq. Adam A. Edwards, Esq. GREG COLEMAN LAW, PC First Tennessee Plaza 800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Phone: (865) 247-0080 Facsimile: (865) 522-0049 Email: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com adam@gregcolemanlaw.com SLEEP NUMBER: Continues to Defend Cassels and Cadenas Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Sleep Number Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 26, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company continues to defend a class action suit initiated by Donald Cassels and Jose Cadenas. On September 18, 2018, former Home Delivery Technician, Donald Cassels, and former Field Services Delivery Assistant, Jose Cadenas, filed suit in Superior Court in San Francisco County, California alleging representative claims on a purported class action basis under the California Labor Code Private Attorney General Act. While the two representative plaintiffs were in the Home Delivery workforce, the Complaint does not limit the purported plaintiff class to that group. The plaintiffs allege that Sleep Number failed or refused to adopt adequate practices, policies and procedures relating to wage payments, record keeping, employment disclosures, meal and rest breaks, among other claims, under California law. The plaintiffs purport to represent all former and current Sleep Number employees in the State of California aggrieved by the alleged practices. The Complaint seeks damages in the form of civil penalties and plaintiffs' attorneys' fees, and expressly disclaims the recovery of any purported individual specific relief or underpaid wages. After Sleep Number raised issues with the plaintiffs' choice of venue, the Court transferred venue from the Superior Court in San Francisco County to Superior Court in Fresno County. Sleep Number said, "We intend to vigorously defend this matter." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Sleep Number Corporation designs, manufactures, and markets a line of air bed mattresses. The Company provides a variety of beds, bedding, pillows, mattress pads and layers, sheets, duvets, bed skirts, bases, furniture, bed accessories, and kids blankets. Sleep Number serves customers in the United States. The company is based in Minneapolis, Minnesota. SLEEP NUMBER: Dismissal of Spade Class Action Now Final ------------------------------------------------------- Sleep Number Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 26, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the dismissal in the class action suit initiated by David and Katina Spade is final. On January 12, 2015, Plaintiffs David and Katina Spade commenced a purported class action lawsuit in New Jersey state court against Sleep Number alleging that Sleep Number violated New Jersey consumer statutes by failing to provide to purchasing consumers certain disclosures required by the New Jersey Furniture Regulations. It is undisputed that plaintiffs suffered no actual damages or in any way relied upon or were impacted by the alleged omissions. Nonetheless, on behalf of a purported class of New Jersey purchasers of Sleep Number beds and bases, plaintiffs sought to recover a $100 statutory fine for each alleged omission, along with attorneys’ fees and costs. Sleep Number removed the case to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, which subsequently granted Sleep Number's motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which certified two questions of law to the New Jersey Supreme Court relating to whether plaintiffs who have suffered no actual injury may bring claims. The New Jersey Supreme Court accepted the certified questions and on April 16, 2018, ruled in the company's favor on one of the two questions, holding that a consumer only has standing to bring a claim under the relevant statute if the consumer has been harmed by the defendant's conduct. The Third Circuit remanded the case to the federal district court, which dismissed the lawsuit on March 5, 2019. Plaintiffs' deadline to appeal the dismissal has passed and the dismissal is final. Sleep Number Corporation designs, manufactures, and markets a line of air bed mattresses. The Company provides a variety of beds, bedding, pillows, mattress pads and layers, sheets, duvets, bed skirts, bases, furniture, bed accessories, and kids blankets. Sleep Number serves customers in the United States. The company is based in Minneapolis, Minnesota. SODEXO INC: Cerrano Seeks Final Wages, Penalties ------------------------------------------------ ANTONIO LARA CERRANO, on his own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SODEXO, INC., a Delaware corporation; SDH EDUCATION WEST, LLC, a Delaware LLC; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-02660 (Cal. Super. Ct., Contra Costa Cty., May 16, 2019) is a class action brought on behalf of all California-based non-exempt employees who were not properly paid all wages as required by the California Labor Code, and were not provided with proper paychecks nor provided final wages in a timely manner. The Defendants improperly failed to pay all vacation wages due; failed to pay Plaintiff and the members of the putative class all wages owed at termination; and failed to provide Plaintiff and the members of the putative class with proper paychecks pursuant to Labor Code. Plaintiff and the members of the putative class seek unpaid wages, penalties and other compensation from Defendants for the relevant time period. Plaintiff is a former hourly employee of Defendants who ceased employment for Defendant in November 2018. Sodexo, Inc. is a Delaware Corporation doing business in the State of California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marcus J. Bradley, Esq. Kiley L. Grombacher, Esq. Taylor L. Emerson, Esq. BRADLEY/GROMBACHER, LLP 2815 Townsgate Road, Suite 130 Westlake Village, CA 91361 Phone: (805) 270-7100 Facsimile: (805) 270-7589 Email: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com temerson@bradleygrombacher.com - and - Sahag Majarian, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF SAHAG MAJARIAN II 18250 Ventura Boulevard Tarzana, CA 91356 Phone: (818) 609-0807 Facsimile: (818) 609-0892 Email: sahagii@aol.com SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON: Thomas & Koenigstein Fire Suits Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------------------- Southern California Edison Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company continues to defend class action suits related to the Thomas Fire and Koenigstein Fire Litigation. In December 2017, wind-driven wildfires impacted portions of Southern California Edison Company's (SCE's) service territory, causing substantial damage to both residential and business properties and service outages for SCE customers. The Ventura County Fire Department (VCFD) and the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) have determined that the largest of the 2017 fires originated on December 4, 2017, in the Anlauf Canyon area of Ventura County (the investigating agencies refer to this fire as the "Thomas Fire"), followed shortly thereafter by the Koenigstein Fire. According to CAL FIRE information, the Thomas and Koenigstein Fires burned over 280,000 acres, destroyed or damages an estimated 1,343 structures and resulted in two fatalities. As of April 26, 2019, SCE was aware of at least 151 lawsuits, representing approximately 2,300 plaintiffs, related to the Thomas and Koenigstein Fires naming SCE as a defendant. Seventy-eight of these lawsuits also name Edison International as a defendant based on its ownership and alleged control of SCE. At least four of the lawsuits were filed as purported class actions. The lawsuits, which have been filed in the superior courts of Ventura, Santa Barbara and Los Angeles Counties allege, among other things, negligence, inverse condemnation, trespass, private nuisance, and violations of the public utilities and health and safety codes. The lawsuits have been coordinated in the Los Angeles Superior Court. Southern California Edison Company, a public utility, engages in the generation, transmission, and distribution of electricity in Southern California. It generates electricity through hydroelectric, diesel/liquid petroleum gas, natural gas, nuclear, and photovoltaic resources. The company was founded in 1896 and is based in Rosemead, California. Southern California Edison Company is a subsidiary of Edison International. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON: Woolsey Fire Litigation Ongoing ----------------------------------------------------------- Southern California Edison Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the the company continues to defend class action suits related to the Woolsey Fire Litigation. In November 2018, wind-driven wildfires impacted portions of Southern California Edison Company's (SCE's) service territory and caused substantial damage to both residential and business properties and service outages for SCE customers. The largest of these fires, known as the Woolsey Fire, originated in Ventura County and burned acreage located in both Ventura and Los Angeles Counties. According to California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) information, the Woolsey Fire burned almost 100,000 acres, destroyed an estimated 1,643 structures, damaged an estimated 364 structures and resulted in three fatalities. As of April 26, 2019, SCE was aware of at least 72 lawsuits, representing approximately 1,100 plaintiffs, related to the Woolsey Fire naming SCE as a defendant. Fifty-eight of these lawsuits also name Edison International as a defendant based on its ownership and alleged control of SCE. At least two of the lawsuits were filed as purported class actions. The lawsuits, which have been filed in the superior courts of Ventura and Los Angeles Counties allege, among other things, negligence, inverse condemnation, personal injury, wrongful death, trespass, private nuisance, and violations of the public utilities and health and safety codes. The Woolsey Fire lawsuits have been coordinated in the Los Angeles Superior Court. Southern California Edison Company, a public utility, engages in the generation, transmission, and distribution of electricity in Southern California. It generates electricity through hydroelectric, diesel/liquid petroleum gas, natural gas, nuclear, and photovoltaic resources. The company was founded in 1896 and is based in Rosemead, California. Southern California Edison Company is a subsidiary of Edison International. STEINHOFF INT'L: Opens Door for Settlements with Shareholders ------------------------------------------------------------- Dewald van Rensburg, writing for City Press, reports that businessman Jayendra Naidoo announced that his Lancaster Group had laid a R12 billion claim against Steinhoff International Holdings, adding to the existing multibillion-rand barrage of lawsuits against the corrupt multinational. The claim is in the name of Lancaster 101, a special-purpose vehicle debt-funded by the Public Investment Corporation (PIC) in 2016 to buy shares in Steinhoff equalling 2.75% of the formidable -- at the time -- JSE-listed group. The Government Employees' Pension Fund (GEPF) owns 50% of Lancaster 101 while Naidoo owns 25% and the Lancaster Foundation owns the other 25%. The announcement on April 18 came after Steinhoff seemingly opened the door for negotiated settlements with shareholders who lost money instead of facing off against them in consolidated class-action lawsuits. In an announcement on the JSE news service, Sens, the company asked that "representatives of claimants [groups] disclose to the Company . . . relevant information on [among other things] the identity of claimants and the size of their shareholdings". "The Company wishes to emphasise that the fact that such requests have been made does not mean that negotiated settlements will eventually be agreed or are imminent." Naidoo's claim is not part of a group claim, but could signal that he is throwing his hat in the ring for a settlement negotiation. The 2016 Lancaster investment in Steinhoff was known as Project Sierra within the PIC. It involved the PIC lending Lancaster 101 R9.4 billion to buy its initial shares in Steinhoff, but the deal was fortuitously massively restructured in 2017 shortly before the crash of Steinhoff. At the time Steinhoff was merging African operations and Shoprite to create a new listed company initially called SteinhoffAfrica Retail. After the name Steinhoff became tainted, this company changed its name to Pepkor. The restructuring entailed the 2.75% ownership in Steinhoff falling to 1.2% while Lancaster 102 acquired 8.8% of Pepkor now worth about R5.3 billion. Highly placed sources in the PIC had previously told City Press that this restructuring was, in hindsight, a great deal considering what happened to Steinhoff. Earlier the PIC also separately acquired 6.35% of Steinhoff directly for the GEPF which was worth R15.5 billion before the crash of the company's share price at the end of 2017 when massive fraud to inflate profits was discovered. That investment is now worth R485 million -- a R15 billion loss. [GN] STERLING JEWELERS: Desmond, Lodge Sue over Deceptive Practices -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action complaint has been filed against Sterling Jewelers, Inc. and Comenity Bank for alleged violations of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act, Fair Credit Reporting Act, Delaware Consumer Fraud Act, and for the unauthorized issuance of credit cards under the Truth in Lending Act and Regulation Z. The case is captioned JACQUELINE L. DESMOND AND TARA D. LODGE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs, v. STERLING JEWELERS, INC.; AND COMENITY, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00866-UNA (D. Del., May 8, 2019). Plaintiffs Jacqueline L. Desmond and Tara D. Lodge allege that Sterling is engaged in unfair and deceptive acts and practices, including (1) submitting credit applications in the names of plaintiffs and class members without authorization and causing credit cards to be issued in their names without their consent; (2) deceiving consumers by stating that personal information was needed to update records or for other benign purposes, when Sterling employees actually used the information to submit unauthorized credit applications; (3) enrolling customers in payment-protection insurance without their consent; and (4) misrepresenting to consumers the financing terms associated with the credit-card accounts. Plaintiffs also accuses Comenity for committing acts of obtaining and using authorized credit reports and issuing unwanted credit cards. Sterling owns and operates some of the best-known jewelry stores in the United States, including Kay Jewelers, Jared, and a variety of mall-based regional brands. Comenity Bank is a major issuer of credit cards, focusing on co-branded retail store credit cards. In 2017, Comenity purchased the in-house credit card portfolio from Sterling. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chad J. Toms, Esq. WHITEFORD TAYLOR & PRESTON LLC The Renaissance Centre 405 N. King Street, Suite 500 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 357-3253 Facsimile: (302) 357-3273 E-mail: ctoms@wtplaw.com - and - KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. Derek W. Loeser, Esq. Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq. Gabriel E. Verdugo, Esq. 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-1900 Facsimile: (206) 623-3384 E-mail: dloeser@kellerrohrback.com gcappio@kellerrohrback.com gverdugo@kellerrohrback.com - and - Alison E. Chase, Esq. Matthew J. Preusch, Esq. 801 Garden Street, Suite 801 Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Telephone: (805) 456-1496 Facsimile: (805) 456-1497 E-mail: achase@kellerrohrback.com mpreusch@kellerrohrback.com SYNERGETIC COMMUNICATIONS: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- DANIEL KISSICK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SYNERGETIC COMMUNICATIONS CORP., Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-03586 (C.D. Cal., April 29, 2019) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls. Synergetic Communications Corp. provides collection and adjustment services on claims and other insurance related issues. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com - and - Scott A. Bursor, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 2665 S. Bayshore Dr. Ste. 220 Miami, FL 33133-5402 Telephone: (305) 330-5512 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: scott@bursor.com THIRTYNINE COLLINS: Honeywell et al Sue over ADA Violations ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action complaint has been filed by Chery Honeywell and Lainie Quarterman against Thirtynine Collins, LLC for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The case is captioned HONEYWELL et al v. THIRTYNINE COLLINS, LLC, Case No. 1:19-cv-21602-BB (S.D. Fla., April 25, 2019). It is assigned to Hon. Judge Beth Bloom. Thirtynine Collins, LLC is a privately-held company located in Miami Beach, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jessica Lynn Kerr, Esq. JESSICA L.KERR, P.A. 200 S.E. 6th Street, Suite 504 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 282-1858 Facsimile: (844) 786-3694 E-mail: service@advocacypa.com TORRENT PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Patras Suit over Defective Losartan ------------------------------------------------------------------ A class action complaint has been filed against Torrent Pharmaceuticals, Ltd., Torrent Pharma, Inc., Hetero Drugs, Ltd. and Hetero USA, Inc. for violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and the Oregon Unlawful Trade Practices Act. The case is captioned ARGYRE PATRAS, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. TORRENT PHARMACEUTICALS, LTD., a corporation, TORRENT PHARMA, INC., HETERO DRUGS, LTD., a corporation, HETERO USA, INC., a corporation, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-11497 (D.N.J., April 26, 2019). Plaintiff Argyre Patras also accuses the Defendants of breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranties of merchantability, negligence, fraud and unjust enrichment in connection with the defective or contaminated Losartan. Defendants allegedly designed, manufactured, warranted, advertised, marketed, supplied and sold the Defective Losartan tablets in all states and territories of the United States. Unbeknownst to Plaintiff and Class members, the Losartan tablets are contaminated with two dangerous carcinogens: N-nitrosodiethylamine and N-Methylnitrosobutyric acid. Torrent has world-class manufacturing facilities and a widespread global presence in over 40 countries. It has aggressively expanded into the US drug market, both in marketing and sales, and in actual production. In January 2018, Torrent acquired Bio-Pharm, Inc., acquiring an FDA-registered manufacturing facility based in Levittown, Pennsylvania. Hetero is a leading manufacturer of pharmaceutical products including generic drugs and active ingredients supplied to other manufacturers for use in their products. Hetero has manufacturing facilities in 36 countries and maintains a marketing presence in over 100 countries. It employs more than 15,000 people worldwide. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rosalee B.C. Thomas, Esq. Mila F. Bartos, Esq. Ebonie Branch, Esq. FINKELSTEIN THOMPSON LLP 3201 New Mexico Ave. NW, Suite 395 Washington, DC 20016 Telephone: (202) 337-8000 Facsimile: (202) 337-8090 E-mail: rbcthomas@finkelsteinthompson.com mbartos@finkelsteinthompson.com ebranch@finkelsteinthompson.com - and - Gordon M. Fauth, Jr., Esq. K. Hope Echiverri Ranoa, Esq. FINKELSTEIN THOMPSON LLP 15 Shattuck Square, Suite 245 Berkeley, CA 94704 Telephone: (415) 398-8700 Facsimile: (415) 398-8704 E-mail: gfauth@finkelsteinthompson.com hranoa@finkelsteinthompson.com UNITED PARCEL: Hughes Class Action Ongoing in Kentucky ------------------------------------------------------ United Parcel Service, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Hughes v. UPS Supply Chain Solutions, Inc. and United Parcel Service, Inc. Hughes v. UPS Supply Chain Solutions, Inc. and United Parcel Service, Inc. has been certified as a class action in Kentucky state court. In this action, Plaintiffs allege that they were not properly compensated for time entering and exiting security checkpoints and getting to their work areas at UPS's facilities. Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and interest. United Parcel said, "We have denied any liability and intend to vigorously defend ourselves in this case. There are multiple factors that prevent us from being able to estimate the amount of loss, if any, that may result from this matter, including: (1) we are vigorously defending ourselves and believe that we have a number of meritorious legal defenses; and (2) there are unresolved questions of law and fact that could be important to the ultimate resolution of this matter. Accordingly, at this time, we are not able to estimate a possible loss or range of loss that may result from this matter or to determine whether such loss, if any, would have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or liquidity." United Parcel Service, Inc. provides letter and package delivery, specialized transportation, logistics, and financial services. It operates through three segments: U.S. Domestic Package, International Package, and Supply Chain & Freight. United Parcel Service, Inc. was founded in 1907 and is headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia. UNITED STATES: Class Actions Over PACER Fees Ongoing ---------------------------------------------------- C.J. Ciaramella, writing for Reason, reports that if you want to find a federal court case -- say, to look up the latest juicy filing in the prosecution of one of Donald Trump's indicted cronies—odds are you'll hold your nose and log on to the Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) website, a system run by the federal judiciary. It's an old and clunky platform, running on the best interface the mid-1990s had to offer. Which might be excusable if it were free, but it's not. PACER charges 10 cents a page for court records and searches. There's a $3 cap on large documents, and users pay nothing if their bill is under $15 per quarter. This keeps most casual users from needing to pony up—but for news organizations, researchers, and legal professionals, costs can pile up quickly. According to the E-Government Act of 2002, PACER is only supposed to charge enough to cover its operating costs. Instead, it's a slush fund for the U.S. court system. PACER has raked in about $145 million annually over the last few years while incurring about $3 million per year in costs. Even the Justice Department has to pay to use PACER—124 million taxpayer dollars between 2010 and 2017. "PACER is the only major government system that charges by the click, and access to federal court dockets is one of the most important government databases we have," says Carl Malamud, a prominent public domain advocate. "Distribution of documents on the internet at costs that resemble 1970s copyshop fees is ridiculous in today's day and age." Several class-action lawsuits, backed by media outlets and pro-transparency groups, have been filed in recent years and are currently winding their way through the system. In the meantime, some vigilante coders have come up with workarounds to the PACER paywall. A project called RECAP created a browser extension that, when installed, uploads any court docket or document that a PACER user views to a free website and lists which filings are already available. USA Today investigative reporter Brad Heath created Big Cases Bot, an automated program that monitors notable cases, uploads filings to DocumentCloud (another free repository of public information), and tweets out newly added records almost as soon as they're available. But none of this fixes the fundamental problem, which is that PACER is operating beyond its charter to the detriment of public access to the law. [GN] VANGELDEREN SERVICES: Solovey Sues over Debt Collection Practices ----------------------------------------------------------------- A consumer credit-related class action complaint has been filed by Gordon Solovey against Vangelderen Services, Inc., a New York for-profit corporation. The case is captioned Solovey v. Vangelderen Services, Inc. et al. Plaintiff Gordon Solovey alleges that Vangelderen Services, Inc. has violated the Fair Debt Collection Act. The case is assigned to Hon. Judge Nelson Stephen Roman. Vangelderen Services, Inc. is a debt collection agency based in Spring Valley, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Abraham Kleinman, Esq. KLEINMAN LLC 626 RexCorp Plaza Uniondale, NY 11556-0626 Telephone: (516) 522-2621 Facsimile: (888) 522-1692 E-mail: akleinman@kleinmanllc.com VILLAGE SUPER MARKET: Lee et al. Seek OT Pay -------------------------------------------- A class action complaint has been filed against Village Super Market, Inc. and/or Village Super Market, L.P. for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law. The case is captioned CHUN T. LEE, LIPING SUN, on behalf of himself and other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, VILLAGE SUPER MARKET, INC. d/b/a ShopRite, RONALD L. GOLEY, HUA HUANG, JOHN DOE, JANE DOE, fictitiously named business entities, true name (s) unknown, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-11763 (D.N.J., April 30, 2019). Plaintiff Chun T. Lee and Liping Sun allege that Defendants failed to pay them statutory overtime compensation at rates not less than one-and-one-half times the regular rate of pay hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. Defendants allegedly violated multiple aspects of the federal and state laws by mishandling each plaintiff's personal days, sick days, holidays, vacation time, breaks, time spent in changing clothes and cleaning his person, and overtime compensation calculations. In addition, Defendants have failed to meet the statutory recordkeeping requirements under both the federal and state labor laws. Village Super Market is incorporated and regularly conducts business in the state of New Jersey. It owns and operates many ShopRite locations, including the Livingston, New Jersey location where the Plaintiffs were employed as chefs. It is engaged in the retail sale of food and nonfood products, including groceries, dairy and frozen, produce, meats, non-foods, deli and prepared food, pharmacy, seafood, bakery and liquor. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Heng Wang, Esq. WANG, GAO & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 36 Bridge Street Metuchen, NJ 08840 Telephone: (732) 767-3020 Facsimile: (732) 343-6880 E-mail: heng.wang@wanggaolaw.com WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Settlement of Gas Price Index Suits Okayed -------------------------------------------------------------- The Nevada federal district court on April 22, 2019, granted preliminary approval of The Williams Companies, Inc.'s settlements with Kansas and Missouri class members for two putative class actions related to alleged manipulation of published gas price indices, 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. Direct and indirect purchasers of natural gas in various states filed individual and class actions against the Company, its former affiliate WPX Energy, Inc. (WPX) and its subsidiaries, and others alleging the manipulation of published gas price indices and seeking unspecified amounts of damages. Such actions were transferred to the Nevada federal district court for consolidation of discovery and pre-trial issues. The Company has agreed to indemnify WPX and its subsidiaries related to this matter. In the individual action, filed by Farmland Industries Inc. (Farmland), the court issued an order on May 24, 2016, granting one of the Company's co-defendant's motion for summary judgment as to Farmland's claims. On January 5, 2017, the court extended such ruling to us, entering final judgment in the Company's favor. Farmland appealed. On March 27, 2018, the appellate court reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment, and on April 10, 2018, the defendants filed a petition for rehearing with the appellate court, which was denied on May 9, 2018. The case has been remanded to the Nevada federal district court. In the putative class actions, on March 30, 2017, the court issued an order denying the plaintiffs' motions for class certification. On June 13, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted the plaintiffs' petition for permission to appeal the order. On August 6, 2018, the Ninth Circuit reversed the order denying class certification and remanded the case to the Nevada federal district court. The Company reached an agreement to settle two of the actions, and on April 22, 2019, the court preliminarily approved the settlements, which are on behalf of Kansas and Missouri class members. The Company said, "Because of the uncertainty around the remaining pending unresolved issues, we cannot reasonably estimate a range of potential exposure at this time. However, it is reasonably possible that the ultimate resolution of these actions and our related indemnification obligation could result in a potential loss that may be material to our results of operations. In connection with this indemnification, we have an accrued liability balance associated with this matter, and as a result, have exposure to future developments." The Williams Companies, Inc. operates as an energy infrastructure company primarily in the United States. The Williams Companies, Inc. was founded in 1908 and is headquartered in Tulsa, Oklahoma. WOLF AND SHEPHERD: Haggar et al. Sue over ADA Violations -------------------------------------------------------- A class action complaint has been filed against Wolf and Shepherd, LLC for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is captioned Elia Haggar et al v. Wolf and Shepherd, LLC et al, Case No. 2:19-cv-03606-JFW-JPR (C.D. Cal., April 30, 2019). It is assigned to Hon. Judge John F. Walter. Wolf and Shepherd is a California corporation engaged in the production and sale of men's dress shoes and belts. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thiago Merlini Coelho, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM 3055 Wilshire Boulevard 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 381-9988 Facsimile: (213) 381-9989 E-mail: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com - and - Babak Bobby Saadian, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM 3055 Wilshire Boulevard 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 381-9988 Facsimile: (213) 381-9989 E-mail: bobby@wilshirelawfirm.com XEROX CORP: May 31 Oral Argument in 2nd Circuit Appeal ------------------------------------------------------ The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has set oral argument for May 31, 2019 regarding the appeal from the decision in the case, Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System v. Xerox Corporation, Ursula M. Burns, Luca Maestri, Kathryn A. Mikells, Lynn R. Blodgett, Robert K. Zapfel, David H. Bywater and Mary Scanlon. Xerox Corporation said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that on October 21, 2016, the Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System ("plaintiff") filed a purported securities class action complaint against Xerox Corporation, Ursula Burns, Luca Maestri, Kathryn Mikells, Lynn Blodgett and Robert Zapfel (collectively, "defendants") in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of the plaintiff and certain purchasers or acquirers of Xerox common stock. The complaint alleged that defendants made false and misleading statements, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5, relating to the operations and prospects of Xerox's Health Enterprise business. Plaintiff sought, among other things, unspecified monetary damages and attorneys' fees. Other similar lawsuits may follow. On December 28, 2016, the Court entered a stipulated order setting out a schedule for amendment of the complaint and for defendants' response to that complaint following the Court's appointment of lead plaintiff under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. On February 28, 2017, the Court issued an opinion and order appointing the Arkansas Public Employees Retirement System ("APERS") as lead plaintiff. On May 1, 2017, APERS filed an amended complaint, alleging substantially similar claims and seeking substantially similar relief, but adding David Bywater and Mary Scanlon as defendants. On June 30, 2017, defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint, and the motions were fully briefed on October 13, 2017. On March 20, 2018, the Court entered an opinion and order granting the motions, and on March 23, 2018, the Court entered a judgment of dismissal and closed the case. On April 20, 2018, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and the appeal was fully briefed as of November 28, 2018. The Second Circuit has set oral argument for May 31, 2019. The Company said, "Xerox will vigorously defend against this matter. At this time, it is premature to make any conclusion regarding the probability of incurring material losses in this litigation. Should developments cause a change in our determination as to an unfavorable outcome, or result in a final adverse judgment or settlement, there could be a material adverse effect on our results of operations, cash flows and financial position in the period in which such change in determination, judgment, or settlement occurs." Xerox Corporation designs, develops, and sells document management systems and solutions worldwide. It offers intelligent workplace services, including managed print services; digitization services; and digital solutions, such as workflow automation, personalization and communication software, and content management. Xerox Corporation was founded in 1906 and is headquartered in Norwalk, Connecticut. YINGLI GREEN: Settlement in Calif. Consolidated Suit Wins Okay -------------------------------------------------------------- Yingli Green Energy Holding Company Limited said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that a California court has entered an order approving the settlement of a class action. In May and June 2015, two individual plaintiffs respectively filed purported class action securities fraud lawsuits against the company, its chairperson and chief executive officer, Mr. Liansheng Miao, and its director and chief financial officer, Mr. Yiyu Wang, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, both alleging, among other things, that the company made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose certain material financial information. In October 2015, the cases were consolidated, and the court appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel. In November 2015, lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint. The complaint contended that the company and certain of its officers and directors made false or misleading statements between December 2, 2010 and May 15, 2015 regarding (i) the Chinese government's Golden Sun program, which provided subsidies for solar projects in China; and (ii) the company's accounts receivable attributable to Chinese customers. The complaint asserted a claim against our company for violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint also asserted a claim against Mr. Miao, Mr. Wang, and Mr. Zongwei "Bryan" Li for violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. In December 2015, the company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint, and, on May 10, 2016, the court granted that motion with leave to amend. On June 24, 2016, lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, again alleging that, between December 2, 2010 and May 15, 2015, Yingli's officers made false or misleading statements regarding Golden Sun and accounts receivables. On August 8, 2016, the company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, and, on March 15, 2017, the court dismissed the amended complaint with leave to amend. The plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on April 24, 2017. On May 26, 2017, the company filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. On August 15, 2017, the court issued an order dismissing the action against the company with prejudice and ordering the plaintiffs to show cause why the court should not dismiss the individual defendants based on the plaintiffs' failure to timely serve the individuals. Plaintiffs filed a response on August 18, 2017 stating that they do not oppose dismissal of the individual defendants without prejudice. On August 21, 2017, the court issued an order dismissing the individual defendants without prejudice. Also on August 21, 2017, the court issued a judgment dismissing plaintiffs' claims on the merits and awarding costs to our company. On September 15, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On April 4, 2018, the parties reached an agreement to settle the action on a class-wide basis for USD 1.2 million, plus the costs of administering the settlement, subject to the execution of a definitive settlement agreement and court approval. On August 29, 2018, the Court preliminarily approved the settlement and set a final settlement approval hearing for December 10, 2018, to give class members an opportunity to object to the potential settlement. After holding a final approval hearing on December 10, 2018, the Court entered an order approving the class action settlement. Yingli Green Energy Holding Company Limited, together with its subsidiaries, designs, develops, manufactures, assembles, sells, and installs photovoltaic (PV) products. The company offers polysilicon ingots and blocks, polysilicon wafers, PV cells, PV modules, and integrated PV systems; and develops and operates solar projects. Yingli Green Energy Holding Company Limited was founded in 1998 and is headquartered in Baoding, the People's Republic of China. ZF FRIEDRICHSHAFEN: Croft Sues Over Defective Airbag Control Units ------------------------------------------------------------------ STEVE CROFT AND JUDITH SERVIS, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. ZF FRIEDRICHSHAFEN AG, ZF TRW AUTOMOTIVE HOLDINGS CORP., TRW AUTOMOTIVE INC., TRW AUTOMOTIVE U.S. LLC, TRW VEHICLE SAFETY SYSTEMS INC., HONDA MOTOR CO., LTD., AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., HONDA OF AMERICA MFG. INC., HONDA R&D CO., LTD., TOYOTA MOTOR CORP., TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC., and TOYOTA MOTOR ENGINEERING & MANUFACTURING NORTH AMERICA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-04256 (C.D. Cal., May 16, 2019) seek redress for economic losses stemming from Defendants' manufacture, sale or lease, and false representations or omissions concerning Defective Airbag Control Units ("ACU") in the Class Vehicles, including, but not limited to, diminished value. In an automobile collision, the difference between life and serious injury or death often comes down to the effectiveness of airbags and seat belts. Auto manufacturers know this and relentlessly tout the safety records of their cars to bolster sales. Not surprisingly, reasonable consumers have come to expect that auto manufacturers will ensure that vehicles have functioning restraint systems in the event of a collision, and would not purchase a vehicle that is known to have a faulty restraint system. And yet, Defendants have prioritized profits over safety, leaving consumers with vehicles of diminished value and an increased risk of injury, and even death, notes the complaint. At issue in this case is a uniform design defect in the ACU designed by Defendant ZF Friedrichshafen AG ("ZF-TRW") to detect a collision, deploy airbags if necessary and engages other restraint systems as needed in a matter of milliseconds. This defect causes the application-specific integrated circuit ("ASIC"), a critical component that monitors signals from the crash sensors throughout the vehicle, to be unreasonably susceptible to damage from electrical overstress ("EOS"). If the ASIC becomes damaged, airbags will not inflate and the seatbelt pretensioner, an essential safety feature that locks a seatbelt into place when a crash is sensed, will not engage, endangering the safety of everyone in the vehicle. This defect, which resulted in the failure of airbags deploying in six frontal crashes and the death of four people and serious injuries in others, has been the subject of an ongoing investigation by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ("NHTSA") that is estimated to include 12.5 million vehicles. The defective ACU ("Defective ACU") is installed in several popular vehicles, including vehicles manufactured, sold, and/or leased by Defendants Honda and Toyota (collectively, the "Vehicle Manufacturer Defendants"). The Vehicle Manufacturer Defendants and ZF-TRW were involved in the design and testing of the defective ZF-TRW ACUs, and knew or should have known that there was a common uniform defect in the ACU. As a result of Defendants' 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; they were sold 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. Further, purchasers and lessees of the vehicles containing the ACU Defect paid more, in a higher purchase price or higher lease payments, than they would have had the ACU Defect been disclosed. The Defendants' false representations and omissions concerning the safety and reliability of those vehicles and their concealment of the known safety defects plaguing their vehicles and brands, caused Plaintiffs and Class members to purchase or retain vehicles of diminished value. Plaintiffs and the Classes were deprived of a safe and operative ACU installed in their vehicles, while Defendants have unjustly benefited from their unconscionable delay in recalling their defective products, as they simultaneously avoided incurring the costs associated with recalls and installing replacement parts for years, says the complaint. Plaintiffs purchased their 2014 Toyota Tacoma and 2016 Honda Fit EX ("Class Vehicles") primarily for personal, family, and household use. ZF-TRW is a worldwide supplier of driveline and chassis technology for cars and commercial vehicles, including active and passive safety technology.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: JONATHAN K. LEVINE, ESQ. ELIZABETH C. PRITZKER, ESQ. BETHANY CARACUZZO, ESQ. HEATHER P. HAGGARTY, ESQ. PRITZKER LEVINE LLP 180 Grand Avenue, Suite 1390 Oakland, CA 94612 Phone: (415) 692-0772 Facsimile: (415) 366-6110 Email: jkl@pritzkerlevine.com ecp@pritzkerlevine.com bc@pritzkerlevine.com hph@pritzkerlevine.com [*] Legislation to Protect College Students from Fraud Passed ------------------------------------------------------------- Patch reports that legislation to protect consumers from being defrauded by for-profit colleges and private occupational institutions passed the State Senate by a unanimous and bipartisan vote. State Senator Matt Lesser (D-Middletown) introduced this bill and provided public testimony for it as well. He said this legislation will provide students with important consumer protections. "There have been too many instances of for-profit colleges and occupational schools defrauding students in recent years," said Sen. Lesser. "Now they're forcing students to give up their rights to pursue justice." Co-chair of the Higher Education and Employee Advancement Committee, State Senator Will Haskell (D-Westport), said this bill establishes necessary consumer protections to ensure students are not being defrauded. "This bill puts important protections in place to keep consumers from being taken advantage of by private occupational and for-profit schools," said Sen. Haskell. "Students should know from the start whether their schools seek to limit their participations or claims, not learn about those clauses after they have been wronged. This bill serves to hold bad actors accountable and protect students who choose to invest in a degree." If enacted, Senate Bill No. 81, "An Act Making Certain Private Occupational Schools Ineligible for A Certificate of Authorization and Public Funds," would prevent private occupational schools and for-profit colleges that require students to waive certain rights as a condition of enrollment from receiving a certificate of authorization or public funds from the Office of Higher Education. "This bill provides students with trust in the notion of consumer protection and is an important win in the consumer battle against mandatory arbitration clauses," said Sen. Lesser. Senate Bill No. 81 would reject for-profit colleges and private occupational institutions from requiring students to give up their right to join in class action lawsuits in order to stay enrolled, limit any claim made against the institution or assert any claim in anything less than a judicial forum. The bill passed the Higher Education and Employment Advancement Committee by a 16-5 vote. It will now await further action in the State House of Representatives. [GN] [] Consumers Can't Create Class Actions Under Proposed Ill. Bill ---------------------------------------------------------------- Luis Velazquez, writing for The Daily Illini, reports that the state of Illinois has passed a bill that attempts to ban Internet device manufacturers from collecting audio from internet-connected devices without consumers' consent. On April 10, the Illinois Senate passed the Keep Internet Devices Safe Act. Essentially, if consumers know they are being recorded without their consent, they can sue companies. However, the wording of the bill underwent some changes while it was in the Senate due to lobbying by trade groups led by the Internet Association. These groups represent big companies such as Amazon, Microsoft and Google. Before the bill changed, it allowed users to file complaints to the Illinois attorney general's office that could lead to penalties of up to $50,000 for privacy violations. However, the Internet Association objected and claimed that the Senate's definition of a "digital device" in the bill was too broad. In its current form, the bill only allows the Attorney General to enforce the act. Consumers are not allowed to create class action lawsuits on their own if the bill is passed by Illinois' House of Representatives. Tarek Abdelzaher, professor in Engineering, said in an email that he hopes this new bill will calm people's fear about their devices tracking them. Abdelzaher said the bill intends to protect consumers from being recorded by a microphone on their digital devices without their prior consent. This applies to phones, chatbots and home controllers, such as Amazon Echo. "The overall intent is to improve privacy. It is a bit creepy to think that Alexa, Siri, Google Home or other such devices are listening in on you and using your data somehow (perhaps to push ads to you that you might be interested in, because of an overheard conversation you had). Gmail already does that with written text. The machine reads your mail and adjusts your ads accordingly," Abdelzaher said. Abdelzaher believes the new bill will not affect big companies. He thinks the biggest change people will see is the terms of use agreement and privacy policy people are required to sign when they install software. "Today, when I download apps to my phone, they ask for access to this or that device (like my camera, microphone, location, etc)," Abdelzaher said. "I have to say 'yes' or the app won't run. If the app really needs to record something, it will just ask me to consent to it when I install it, or it won't run. It's like cookies. Now many websites inform you of their cookie policies and ask for your consent." Aishwarya Shekara, sophomore in LAS, believes this new bill will not protect individuals from user data collection. "In terms of mobile service, I believe the National Security Agency will continue to watch and listen in the name of safety, which is still an invasion of privacy irrespective of the intention to 'keep Americans safe,'" Shekara said. Abdelzaher said the recording itself is not the problem, but it is the trust people have with new and advanced technology. "Do we trust (and approve of) the purpose of recording? Today, we give our credit card numbers to total strangers every day when we pay for purchases," Abdelzaher said. "Tomorrow we'll trust our phone with audio recording as long as we get something out of it, like a better travel recommendation or maybe advice on homework." [GN] ********* 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 ***