/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/190621.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, June 21, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 124 Headlines 321 HENDERSON: Pennsylvania Court Trims Claims in Dockery Suit 3M COMPANY: Hill Suit Transferred to Northern District of Florida 3M COMPANY: Johnson Suit Transferred to Northern Dist. of Florida 3M COMPANY: Johnston Suit Transferred to Northern Dist. of Florida A-1 HEALTH CARE: Does not Pay Overtime Wages, Burson Suit Says ADP SCREENING: Fifer Sues Over FCRA Violation ALEXIS BITTAR: Delacruz Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ALJ REGIONAL: Bid to Remand Marshall Class Suit Granted ALTERNATIVE BEHAVIOR STRATEGIES: Vega Seeks Overtime Pay AMERICAN HONDA: Carroll Files Class Action Over Defective Airbags AMPCO-PITTSBURGH: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set for July 22 ANOVOS PRODUCTIONS: Dalton Sues over Upfront Charges AO SMITH CORP: Bleier Sues over Artificially Inflated Revenues APPLE INC: Faces Class Suit from App Developers AQUANTIA CORP: Carter Balks at Merger Deal with Marvell Technology ART VAN FURNITURE: Reid Files Suit Over ADA Violations BA&SH AMERICA: Website not Accessible to Blind Person, Diaz Says BARING BDC: Triangle Capital Corp. Securities Suit Ongoing BE AMAZED: Has Until June 24 to Respond to Lynch Suit BELHURST ESTATE: Olsen Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York BIO-KEY INT'L: Hayes Sues over Collection of Biometrics Data BODY FIRM: Bunting Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website BOX INC: Duvnjak Files Suit Over Share Price Drop BOXY CHARM: Vasquez-Cossio Sues Over Automatic Renewal of Services CAMPING WORLD: Bid to Dismiss Geis Class Action Underway CAMPING WORLD: Bid to Dismiss IUOE Complaint Pending CAMPING WORLD: Ronge & Strougo Suit Underway in Illinois CBL & ASSOCIATES: $88,150 Litigation Expense in Salon Adrian's Suit CENTURYLINK INC: Continues to Defend Houser Class Action CENTURYLINK INC: Objector's Appeal in Tomasulo Settlement Underway CHICAGO BOARD: Judge Dismisses Index Manipulation Claims CHICAGO INSURANCE: Abramson Sues over Unwanted Telemarketing Calls CINEMARK USA: Settlement Agreement in Brown Suit Has Initial OK CITIBANK N.A.: Akbar Sues over Unsolicited Cellular Phone Calls CLECO CORP: Exception Of No Cause of Action & Res Judicata Denied CLOUDERA INC: Christie Sues Over Share Price Drop CONTEXTLOGIC INC: Olsen Sues over Spam Text Messages CREATIVE BIOSCIENCE: Bauman Sues over Garcinia Cambogia Diet Pills CREE INC: Young's Class Cert. Bid Denied; Compliance Hearing Today DIPLOMAT PHARMACY: Asks Court to Transfer Suits to N.D. Illinois DIPLOMAT PHARMACY: Final Settlement Approval Hearing on Aug. 20 DOMINO'S PIZZA: Judge Refuses to Dismiss Antitrust Class Action EBIX INC: Settlement of Stockholders Litigation Has Final Approval EDCO DISPOSAL: Fuentes Seeks Minimum Wage & and Overtime Pay ELBIT IMAGING: Court Declares Gadish Settlement Final EMCOR SERVICES: Persaud Seeks Unpaid Wages Under NYLL EQUIFAX INC: Appeal in Saskatchewan Cybersecurity Suit Underway EQUIFAX INC: Consolidated Securities Class Suit in Georgia Ongoing EQUIFAX INC: Data Breach Suits in Georgia Underway EQUIFAX INC: Preliminary Approval of Thomas Case Settlement Sought ESSA BANCORP: Appellate Court Remands Suit over RESPA Violations EVOQUA WATER: McWilliams Class Action Re-Captioned FACEBOOK INC: Awaits Decision on Data Breach Class Action FICOHSA EXPRESS: Coello Suit Asserts TCPA Breach FIFTH THIRD: Appeal in Early Access Cash Advance Lawsuit Ongoing FIFTH THIRD: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set for Nov. 7 FINANCIAL RECOVERY: Thompson Sues Over Debt Collection Practices FIRST AMERICAN: Barajases Sue over Data Breach FIRST SOURCE: Ulrich Sues Over Illegal Collection Activities FORD MOTOR: Dawson Files Product Liability Suit in E.D. Michigan FORD MOTOR: Hubert Files Suit Over Erroneous Fuel Economy Ratings GAMESTOP CORP: Baker Seeks Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages GEICO INDEMNITY: Jimenez Files Class Action in Connecticut GENIE ENERGY: IDT Energy Still Defends Mackey & Hernandez Suit GENIE ENERGY: Says Remaining Class Action Liability Totals $400,000 GOLDEN EMPIRE: Coffman Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. GOPRO INC: Settlement in N.D. Cal. Class Suit Wins Preliminary OK GOPRO INC: Shareholders Won't File Amended Complaint H.E.B. INC: Cung Seeks Damages for Unpaid Wages HARTFORD CASUALTY: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Class Action HARTZ HOTEL: Murtadha Seeks Minimum Pay, Withheld Gratuities HEALTH INSURANCE: Mislead Consumers, Belin Suit Says HECLA MINING: Continues to Defend Lawson Class Suit ICU MEDICAL: Bid to Dismiss Saline Solution-Related Suit Pending IMPERIAL GUARD: Faces Sharp Suit in Western District of Tennessee INSYS THERAPEUTICS: Settlement Reached in New York Class Suit INSYS THERAPEUTICS: Still Defends Di Donato Class Action INSYS THERAPEUTICS: Trial in Opioid-Related Suits to Begin October INTELEMEDIA COMMS: Cunningham Sues over Telemarketing Calls INTERACTIVE BROKERS: Bid to Dismiss Connecticut Class Suit Pending INTERMOLECULAR INC: Franchi Sues over False Proxy Statements J & J SNACK: Botello Sues over Collection of Biometric Identifiers JONES FINANCIAL: Bland Discrimination Class Suit Ongoig JONES FINANCIAL: Consolidated McDonald Suit Concluded JONES FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Anderson Class Action JONES FINANCIAL: Wins Dismissal of Bland FLSA Class Action JORDAN'S FURNITURE: Donlan Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages JPMORGAN CHASE: Settles Dads' Parental-Leave Class Action for $5MM LA RUTA 75: De La Ossa Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages LG ELECTRONICS: Bentley Brings Suit Over Defective Refrigerators LION RAISINS: Summary Judgment Rulings in Mason Upheld LVNV FUNDING: Misreported Interests & Fees, Howard et al. Claim LYFT INC: Oliver Suit Transferred to Southern District of Georgia MCDONALD'S USA: Refused to Pay Minimum Wages for Service Crew MDL 2492: Banks Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated MDL 2492: Boose Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated MDL 2492: Chipps Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated MDL 2492: Miolen Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated MDL 2492: Proebstle Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated MDL 2672: Settlement in ASHERS Clean Diesel Suit Has Final Approval MDL 2741: Salah v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated MDL 2741: Shockey v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated MDL 2804: Suit by Blue Cross and Blue Shield of LA Ongoing MERCOLA.COM: Brown Files Suit Over Unsolicited Marketing MONSANTO COMPANY: Ibroms Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup MONSANTO COMPANY: Nightingale Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup MONSANTO COMPANY: Thompson Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup MONSANTO COMPANY: Wauters Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup NABRIVA THERAPEUTICS: Faces Enriquez Securities Class Suit NATERA INC: Appeal from IPO Case Decision Still Pending NATERA INC: Faces TCPA Class Action in N.D. California NATIONAL VISION: De La Cruz Suit Asserts FCRA Violation NCAA: Grant Sues over Grand Valley State Student-Athletes' Safety NEW INDUSTRIES: Court Narrows Claims in Lawrence FLSA Suit NIGHTSTAR THERAPEUTICS: Wheby Class Suit Voluntarily Dismissed NOVA LIFESTYLE: Continues to Defend Barney Class Action NOVATION COMPANIES: Appeal in NJ Carpenters' Suit Still Pending NOVUS THERAPEUTICS: Discovery to be Completed by July 12 ORCHIDS OF ASIA: Class Action Over Video Recordings Pending PAPA MURPHY'S: Brown Files Securities Class Action in Wash. PETEYS LIC: Hernandez Seeks Minimum & OT Pay for Restaurant Staff PINNACLE FOODS: Hawaii Court Narrows Claims in Amended Maeda Suit POPULAR INC: Awaits New Briefing Schedule in Camacho Suit POPULAR INC: Bid for Reconsideration in Maura Class Suit Pending POPULAR INC: Court to Rule on Validity of Endorsement in "Torres" POPULAR INC: Status and Settlement Conference Set for Oct. 22 PRO AM AUTOS: Does Not Pay Overtime, Hawkins et al Say PROTECTIVE LIFE: Advance Trust Suit in Alabama Ongoing PROVIDENT TRUST: Response to First Amended Murray Suit Due June 21 QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Fernandez Sues over Data Breach QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Grauberger Sues over Personal Medical Info QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Mayer Sues over Data Breach QUORUM HEALTH: Discovery Ongoing in Suit v. Watsonville Community QUORUM HEALTH: Discovery Ongoing in Zwick Partners Class Suit R. CARTER PATE: Schmidt Sues Board for Breach of Fiduciary Duties RA MEDICAL SYSTEMS: Derr Sues Over Share Price Drop RADIUS HOLDINGS: Eilbacher Sues over Debt Collection Practices RECRO PHARMA: Bid to Dismiss IV Meloxicam-Related Suit Pending REDBOX AUTOMATED: Ebanks Files Suit Over Spam Messages REGULUS THERAPEUTICS: Polat Class Action Ongoing RESIDENTIAL PROGRAMS: Foster Seeks OT Wages for Sales Reps REYNOLDS MACHINE: Rounds Off Work Time & Avoids OT Pay, Abukar Says ROLEX WATCH USA: Gabriyelian Sues over ADA Violations ROUND SKY: Made Unauthorized Phone Calls, Bezdikian Suit Says SERVICE LIGHTING: Reid Files Suit Over ADA Violations SIGNAL HILL: Virtual Auditors, Inspectors Seek Overtime Pay SIGNATURE FLIGHT: Boddie Seeks Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages SINCLAIR BROADCAST: Continues to Defend 22 Price-Fixing Class Suits SINCLAIR BROADCAST: Komito Class Action Suit Re-Captioned SPARK THERAPEUTICS: Defending Against Suits over Roche Merger STERLING JEWELERS: Berg Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages SUN LIFE: Glidewell Sues over Denial of Disability Benefits SWITCH INC: Bid to Dismiss Cai Class Action Pending T-MOBILE USA: Persichetti Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages TARGET CORPORATION: Montgomery Sues Over Unpaid Wages TAUNTON PRESS: Sued for Automatic-Renewal of Magazine Subscriptions TELIGENT INC: Bid to Dismiss Econazole Antitrust Suit Pending TELIGENT INC: Continues to Defend Mo-Kan Iron Workers Class Suit TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces 2 Shareholder Class Actions TIFFANY & CO: Gabriyelian Sues over ADA Violations TRIBUNE MEDIA: Antitrust Suits over TV Ad Rates Consolidated TRIBUNE MEDIA: Bid to Dismiss Arbitrage Event-Driven Suit Pending TUBBY TODD BATH: Shami Sues Over Deceptive Product Ads TUPAZ HOMES: Cevallos Files Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages TWILIO INC: Settlement in Flowers Suit Wins Final Court Approval TWO BROTHERS: Illegally Retained Tips, Branch Claims UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Judge Refuses to Approve Settlement UBIQUITI NETWORKS: Mulls Bid to Dismiss New York Suit UMA EDUCATION: Aylor Sues Over Illegal Use of Consumer Reports UNITED STATES: Inmates Hit Solitary Confinement, Lack of Med. Care VICE MEDIA: Website not Accessible to Deaf People, Jones Says VIRTU FINANCIAL: Faces Bittner and Mareno Class Suits VIRTU FINANCIAL: Faces Ford Class Action in New York VIRTU FINANCIAL: Retirement Fund's Suit Still Ongoing VOLKSWAGEN: Parrish Sues Over Vehicle Transmission Defects W14 MARKET: Washington Sues over Time Shaving Violation WASHINGTON MTA: Harriott et al. Allege Discriminatory Termination WILHELMINA INTERNATIONAL: Discovery Still Ongoing in Shanklin Suit WILHELMINA INTERNATIONAL: Discovery Underway in Pressley Suit WLP EXECUTIVE: Does not Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Bird Suit Says ZEE.DOG LLC: Fischler Says Web Site Not Accessible to Blind ZF TRW: Deadline of Copley Class Suit Reply Continued to July 1 ZION OIL: Bid to Dismiss Texas Class Suit Underway Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: 4 Asbestos Cases Filed in Calif. Court on May 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found After Senior Living Complex Fire ASBESTOS UPDATE: CBS Corp. Had 31,840 Claims Pending at March 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Columbus McKinnon Has $5.7MM Liability at Mar. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Defendants Get Negative Ruling from Pa. Court ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Makes Action Plan for B.F. Goodrich Site ASBESTOS UPDATE: FDA Finds Asbestos in More Claire's Cosmetics ASBESTOS UPDATE: Flowserve Still Defends PL Lawsuits at March 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Graham Corp. Still Faces Lawsuits at March 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: HII Still Defends PI Claims at March 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hospital Worker Wins GBP235K Payout ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Remains Obliged to Indemnify Xylem at Mar. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: J&J Suit Sent Back to Mass. State Court ASBESTOS UPDATE: Jury Deliberating in Calif. Woman's Talc Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Magnetek Has $889,000 Liability at March 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Navistar Still Defends Claims at April 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: NHS Employees Exposed to Asbestos ASBESTOS UPDATE: OI Inc. Accrues $5-Bil. in 1993-2019 Period ASBESTOS UPDATE: Olin Corp., Units Still Face Suits at March 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Owens-Illinois Defends 1,070 Suits at March 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Quaker Chemical Unit Defends Suits at March 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: San Diego Firefighters Exposed to Asbestos ASBESTOS UPDATE: Steel Partners Unit Has 30 Claims at March 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Faces 12,594 Claims at March 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Has $1.2-Bil. Liability at March 31 ********* 321 HENDERSON: Pennsylvania Court Trims Claims in Dockery Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, LARRY G. DOCKERY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. STEPHEN E. HERETICK, et al., Defendants, And NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Nominal Defendants, Civil Action No. 17-4114 (E.D. Pa.), Judge Michael M. Baylson of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' Motions to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Class Action Complaint. An oral argument on the Motions was held on Feb. 19, 2019. Judge Baylson (i) denied the Defendants' Motions as to Counts I, II, III, IV, and V; and (ii) granted the Defendants' Motions as to Counts VI, VII, and VIII. He dismissed without prejudice the Plaintiff's claims under Counts VI, VII, and VIII. A full-text copy of the Court's May 14, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/MExu2L from Leagle.com. LARRY G. DOCKERY, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff, represented by JEROME M. MARCUS -- jmarcus@marcusauerbach.com -- MARCUS & AUERBACH LLC, JONATHAN AUERBACH -- auerbach@marcusauerbach.com -- MARCUS & AUERBACH LLC, DAVID S. PEGNO -- dpegno@dpklaw.com -- DEWEY PEGNO & KRAMARSKY LLP, LEE LARSON HULSEBUS -- lhulsebus@dpklaw.com -- DEWEY PEGNO & KRAMARSKY LLP & THOMAS E.L. DEWEY -- tdewey@dpklaw.com -- DEWEY PEGNO & KRAMARSKY LLP. STEPHEN E. HERETICK, Defendant, represented by JEFFREY B. MCCARRON -- jmccarron@swartzcampbell.com -- SWARTZ CAMPBELL LLC & KATHLEEN M. CARSON -- kcarson@swartzcampbell.com -- SWARTZ CAMPBELL LLC. 321 HENDERSON RECEIVABLES LLC & J.G. WENTWORTH ORIGINATIONS LLC, Defendants, represented by A. CHRISTOPHER YOUNG -- youngac@pepperlaw.com -- PEPPER HAMILTON LLP, CHARLES S. MARION, BLANK ROME LLP, JOSEPH C. CRAWFORD, PEPPER HAMILTON LLP & SAMUEL D. HARRISON -- harrisons@pepperlaw.com -- PEPPER HAMILTON LLP. SENECA ONE FINANCE, INC., Defendant, represented by SAMUEL W. CORTES -- scortes@foxrothschild.com -- FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP & MELISSA E. SCOTT, FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP. NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY & METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Nominal Defendants, represented by STEPHEN R. HARRIS -- sharris@cozen.com -- COZEN O'CONNOR & SUSAN J. STAUSS , COZEN O'CONNOR. 3M COMPANY: Hill Suit Transferred to Northern District of Florida ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case, NATHANIEL E. HILL, the Plaintiff, vs 3M COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 0:19-cv-01355-DSD-LIB (Filed May 23, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida (Pensacola) on June 5, 2019. The Northern District of Florida Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-01639-MCR-GRJ to the proceeding. The case 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 service members 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] Attorney for the Plaintiff is: Stacy Kathryn Hauer, Esq. JOHNSON BECKER PLLC - SAINT PAUL MN 444 Cedar Street, Suite 1800 Saint Paul, MN 55101 Telephone: (612) 436-1806 Facsimile: (612) 436-1801 E-mail: shauer@johnsonbecker.com Attorneys for 3M are: Jerry W. Blackwell, Esq. Benjamin W. Hulse, Esq. S. Jamal Faleel, Esq. BLACKWELL BURKE P.A. 431 South Seventh Street, Suite 2500 Minneapolis, MN 55415 Telephone: (612) 343 3248 Facsimile: (612) 343 3205 E-mail: blackwell@blackwellburke.com bhulsew@blackwellburke.com jfaleel@blackwellburke.com 3M COMPANY: Johnson Suit Transferred to Northern Dist. of Florida ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case, JEFFREY E.S. JOHNSON, the Plaintiff, vs 3M COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-01354 (Filed May 23, 2019), was transfferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida (Pensacola) on June 5, 2019. The Northern District of Florida Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-01638-MCR-GRJ to the proceeding. The case 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] Attorney for the Plaintiff is: Stacy Kathryn Hauer, Esq. JOHNSON BECKER PLLC 444 Cedar Street, Suite 1800 Saint Paul, MN 55101 Telephone: (612) 436-1806 Facsimile: (612) 436-1801 E-mail: shauer@johnsonbecker.com Attorneys for 3M are: Jerry W. Blackwell, Esq. Benjamin W. Hulse, Esq. S. Jamal Faleel, Esq. BLACKWELL BURKE P.A. 431 South Seventh Street, Suite 2500 Minneapolis, MN 55415 Telephone: (612) 343 3248 Facsimile: (612) 343 3205 E-mail: blackwell@blackwellburke.com bhulsew@blackwellburke.com jfaleel@blackwellburke.com 3M COMPANY: Johnston Suit Transferred to Northern Dist. of Florida ------------------------------------------------------------------ The case, KENNETH JOHNSTON, the Plaintiff, vs 3M COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-01357 (Filed May 23, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida (Pensacola) on June 5, 2019. The Northern District of Florida Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-01640-MCR-GRJ to the proceeding. The case 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 service members 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] Attorney for the Plaintiff: Stacy Kathryn Hauer, Esq. JOHNSON BECKER PLLC 444 Cedar Street, Suite 1800 Saint Paul, MN 55101 Telephone: (612) 436-1806 Facsimile: (612) 436-1801 E-mail: shauer@johnsonbecker.com Attorneys for 3M are: Jerry W. Blackwell, Esq. Benjamin W. Hulse, Esq. S. Jamal Faleel, Esq. BLACKWELL BURKE P.A. 431 South Seventh Street, Suite 2500 Minneapolis, MN 55415 Telephone: (612) 343 3248 Facsimile: (612) 343 3205 E-mail: blackwell@blackwellburke.com bhulsew@blackwellburke.com jfaleel@blackwellburke.com A-1 HEALTH CARE: Does not Pay Overtime Wages, Burson Suit Says -------------------------------------------------------------- Andre Burson, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated employees, Plaintiff, v. A-1 HEALTH CARE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01330 (N.D. Ohio, June 10, 2019) is a collective action complaint pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The complaint says the Plaintiff and similarly situated employees regularly worked over 40 hours per week for Defendant. However, the Defendant violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by not paying Plaintiff and similarly situated employees time-and-a-half overtime wages for all hours worked over a regular 40-hour workweek. The Defendant's conduct with regard to not paying overtime to Plaintiff and similarly situated employees was willful. Plaintiff and similarly situated employees have been damaged by Defendant's nonpayment of overtime wages, says the complaint. Plaintiff was hired by Defendant in December 2018 and worked for Defendant as Staffing Coordinators. Defendant is an enterprise engaging in interstate commerce.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephan I. Voudris, Esq. Christopher M. Sams, Esq. Voudris Law LLC 8401 Chagrin Road, Suite 8 Chagrin Falls, OH 44023 Phone: 440-543-0670 Fax: 440-543-0721 Email: svoudris@voudrislaw.com csams@voudrislaw.com ADP SCREENING: Fifer Sues Over FCRA Violation --------------------------------------------- DESTINY FIFER and CATRINA R. RODRIGUEZ, on behalf of themselves, all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. ADP SCREENING AND SELECTION SERVICES, INC., a Colorado corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 5:19-cv-03174 (Cal. Super. Ct., Santa Clara Cty., June 6, 2019) is a class action against Defendant for alleged violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant routinely provide consumer, investigative consumer and/or consumer credit reports--"credit and background reports"--to end-users that conduct background checks on applicants and other prospective, current and former employees and use information from credit and background reports in connection with their hiring process without obtaining certification that the end-user has complied with the stand alone disclosure and authorization requirements, says the complaint. Plaintiffs applied for employment with Defendants. ADP SCREENWG AND SELECTION SERVICES, INC. is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Colorado and doing business in the State of California.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Shaun Setareh, Esq. Thomas Segal, Esq. Farrah Grant, Esq. Ashley N. Batiste, Esq. SETAREH LAW GROUP 315 South Beverly Drive, Suite 315 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Phone (310) 888-7771 Facsimile (310) 888-0109 Email: shaun@setarehlaw.com william@setarehlaw.com farrah@setarehlaw.com ashley@setarehlaw.com ALEXIS BITTAR: Delacruz Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------ EMANUEL DELACRUZ and on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ALEXIS BITTAR, LLC, ALEXIS BITTAR RETAIL, LLC AND ALEXIS BITTAR HOLDINGS LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-05381 (S.D. N.Y., June 7, 2019) is a civil rights action against Defendant 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. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its goods and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), says the complaint. 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. Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using his computer. Alexis Bittar, LLC operates the Alexis Bittar stores across the United States, including its store located at 465 Broome St., New York, NY. These retail stores constitute places of public accommodations. Defendant’s retail stores provides to the public important goods and services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003-2461 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Email: nyjg@aol.com danalgottlieb@aol.com ALJ REGIONAL: Bid to Remand Marshall Class Suit Granted ------------------------------------------------------- ALJ Regional Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 13, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the motion to remand the class action suit entitled, Marshall v. Faneuil, Inc., has been granted. On July 31, 2017, plaintiff Donna Marshall ("Marshall"), filed a proposed class action lawsuit in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Sacramento against Faneuil and ALJ. Marshall, a previously terminated Faneuil employee, alleges various California state law employment-related claims against Faneuil. Faneuil has answered the complaint and removed the matter to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California; however, Marshall filed a motion to remand the case back to state court, which has been granted. ALJ said, "The case is in early discovery at this time. Faneuil believes this action is without merit and intends to defend it vigorously." ALJ Regional Holdings, Inc. provides call center, back-office, staffing, and toll collection services to government and commercial clients in the healthcare, utility, consumer goods, toll, and transportation industries in the United States. It operates through three segments: Faneuil, Carpets, and Phoenix. The company was formerly known as YouthStream Media Networks, Inc. and changed its name to ALJ Regional Holdings, Inc. in October 2006. ALJ Regional Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1995 and is based in New York, New York. ALTERNATIVE BEHAVIOR STRATEGIES: Vega Seeks Overtime Pay -------------------------------------------------------- A class action complaint has been filed against Alternative Behavior Strategies, Inc. and Alternative Behavior Strategies, LLC for violations of the California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions Code. The case is captioned JASMINE VEGA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. ALTERNATIVE BEHAVIOR STRATEGIES, INC., a California Corporation; ALTERNATIVE BEHAVIOR STRATEGIES, LLC, a Utah Limited Liability Corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 37-2019-00027085-CU-OE-CTL (Cal. Super., San Diego Cty., May 28, 2019). Plaintiff Jasmine Vega alleges seven causes of her action: failure to pay all wages owed, including overtime; failure to provide lawful meal periods; failure to authorize and permit lawful rest periods; failure to timely pay wages owed upon separation from employment; failure to reimburse necessary expenses; and knowing and intentional failure to comply with accurate itemized wage statement provisions; and violation of the Unfair Competition Law. Alternative Behavior Strategies, Inc. is a California corporation that is authorized to do business throughout the state. The company's headquarters are located at 16255 Ventura Blvd., Suite 830. Alternative Behavior Strategies, LLC is a Utah corporation that is authorized to do business throughout the state. The company's headquarters are located at 515 South 700 East; Suite 2A; Salt Lake City, Utah. These companies provide psychological services to children with developmental delays and their families. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James R. Hawkins, Esq. Christina M. Lucio, Esq. JAMES HAWKINS APLC 9880 Research Drive, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92618 Telephone: (949) 387-7200 Facsimile: (949) 387-6676 E-mail: James@Jameshawkinsaplc.com Christina@Jameshawkinsaplc.com AMERICAN HONDA: Carroll Files Class Action Over Defective Airbags ----------------------------------------------------------------- JAMES CARROLL, MD ULLAH, and ELDON PAINTER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR COMPANY, INC., HONDA MOTOR CO. LTD., HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA, HYUNDAI MOTOR COMPANY, TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC., TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION, ZF TRW AUTOMOTIVE HOLDINGS CORP., and ZF FRIEDRICHSHAFEN AG, Defendants, Case No. 8:19-cv-01155 (C.D. Cal., June 10, 2019) seeks to force Defendants to fix defective airbags in its vehicles, as well as pay appropriate compensation for all those affected. The complaint says the affected vehicles' airbag and seatbelt pretensioners (which pull seatbelts tight during a crash) are deployed by an airbag control unit. This unit must instantaneously detect collisions, trigger the seatbelts, and deploy the airbags. But as ZF-TRW (the manufacturer of the control unit) and various vehicle manufacturers all know, the airbag control unit in these vehicles fails to reliably deploy the vehicles' airbags during collisions. Instead, the units frequently experience "electrical overstress," with the electrical signals exceeding system capacity, causing the systems to fail when they are needed most. The complaint alleges that Defendants have known about this defect for years. ZF-TRW began reporting problems as early as 2013 and vehicle manufacturers have been notified of numerous collisions involving failed airbag systems with ZF-TRW airbag control units. Some have even conducted safety recalls--but on a far too limited scale. For the most part, despite the known safety risk, Defendants have issued no warnings and drivers around the country continue to drive their vehicles unaware that their airbags may not deploy in a crash, says the complaint. Plaintiffs purchased vehicles with the same defective airbag systems. American Honda Motor Company, Inc. is a California corporation with its headquarters and principal place of business in Torrance, California.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Eric H. Gibbs, Esq. David Stein, Esq. Jeffrey Kosbie, Esq. GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP 505 14th Street, Suite 1110 Oakland, CA 94612 Phone: (510) 350-9700 Facsimile: (510) 350-9701 Email: ehg@classlawgroup.com ds@classlawgroup.com jbk@classlawgroup.com - and - W. Mark Lanier, Esq. Alex J. Brown, Esq. Richard D. Meadow, Esq. THE LANIER LAW FIRM 10940 W. Sam Houston Pkwy North #100 Houston, TX 77064 Phone: (713) 659-5200 Facsimile: (713) 659-2204 Email: mark.lanier@lanierlawfirm.com alex.brown@lanierlawfirm.com richard.meadow@lanierlawfirm.com AMPCO-PITTSBURGH: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set for July 22 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the final hearing to consider approval of the settlement reached in the retired employees' suit is scheduled for July 22, 2019. In February 2017, the Corporation, its indirect subsidiary Akers National Roll Company, as well as the Akers National Roll Company Health & Welfare Benefits Plan were named as defendants in a class action complaint filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, where the plaintiffs (currently retired former employees of Akers National Roll Company and the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial, and Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO) alleged that the defendants breached collective bargaining agreements and violated the benefit plan by modifying medical benefits of the plaintiffs and similarly situated retirees. The defendants moved to dismiss the case, and plaintiffs petitioned the court to compel arbitration. On June 13, 2017, the District Court compelled arbitration and denied the defendants' motion to dismiss as moot. Defendants appealed this decision to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals on June 21, 2017. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's decision to compel arbitration on August 29, 2018. The plaintiffs filed a petition for rehearing, which was denied. Rather than litigating the merits of the case at the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, the Corporation reached a settlement agreement in principle with the plaintiffs, which has been preliminarily approved by the court but remains subject to the court's final approval subsequent to a hearing to be held on July 22, 2019. Ampco-Pittsburgh said, "As expected, the final resolution of this settlement agreement will not have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial position, liquidity or capital resources." Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation manufactures engineered equipment. The Company produces finned tube heat exchange coils, large standard and custom air handling systems, centrifugal pumps, feed screws, hardened steel rolls, and heat transfer rolls. Ampco's products are used in the construction, power generation, refrigeration, chemical processing, marine defense, and steel industries. The company is based in Carnegie, Pennsylvania. ANOVOS PRODUCTIONS: Dalton Sues over Upfront Charges ---------------------------------------------------- Richard Dalton, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the the Plaintiff, v. Anovos Productions, LLC; Disney Lucasfilm Ltd.; NBCUniversal Media, LLC; and CBS Studios, Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-04821 (C.D. Cal., June 3, 2019), seeks damages arising out of Defendants' practice of charging consumers upfront costs for licensed products and shipping, despite the fact these products were never delivered and monies never refunded. The Defendants collectively engaged in fraudulent practices in connection with their licensing and or marketing of products to consumers. At all times material to this complaint, Disney, NBCU, and CBS (collectively Licensors) controlled the acts and practices of Anovos. Specifically, Licensors licensed the right to sell their products with their logos and despite having knowledge of Anovos' fraudulent scheme to abscond with consumers' money, Licensors continued to reap profits from their licensing agreements. Employing this strategy Defendants profited for years at the expense of Plaintiff and consumers alike. Anovos has charged the Plaintiff nearly $40,000 for Anovos Products licensed by Licensors. Anovos has required the Plaintiff and consumers alike to pay upfront this total cost, which includes prices for shipping, the lawsuit says. Anovos operates anovos.com, which sells accurate uniforms and prop replicas from movies, television, and contemporary media, all of which are manufactured and marketed by Anovos.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: Joshua B. Swigart, Esq. Yana A. Hart, Esq. HYDE & SWIGART, APC 2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (619) 233-7770 Facsimile: (619) 297-1022 E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com yana@westcoastlitigation.com - and - Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: ak@kazlg.com - and - Kevin R. Duck, Esq. DUCK LAW FIRM, L.L.C. 5040 Ambassador Caffery Parkway, Suite 200 Lafayette, LA 70508 Telephone: (337) 406-1144 Facsimile: (337) 406-1050 AO SMITH CORP: Bleier Sues over Artificially Inflated Revenues -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action complaint has been filed against A.O. Smith Corporation and certain of its executive officers for alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The case is captioned HENRY BLEIER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, vs. A.O. SMITH CORPORATION, AJITA RAJENDRA, KEVIN WHEELER, and JOHN KITA, Defendants, Case 2:19-cv-00786-NJ (E.D. Wis., May 28, 2019). Plaintiff Henry Bleier alleges that A.O. Smith used its undisclosed relationship with Jiangsu UTP Supply Chain to artificially inflate its gross margins and mask its actual China revenue and earnings slowdown through distributor-financed channel stuffing. A.O. Smith is a Milwaukee-based manufacturer of gas and electric water, heaters, boilers, tanks and water treatment products. The company's common stock trades on the New York Stock Exchange under ticker symbol AOS. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: K. Scott Wagner, Esq. Shauna D. Manion, Esq. MALLERY & ZIMMERMAN S.C. K. SCOTT WAGNER 731 North Jackson Street, Suite 900 Milwaukee, WI 53202 Telephone: (414) 271-2424 E-mail: swagner@mzmilw.com - and – Brian E. Cochran, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 200 South Wacker Drive, 31st Floor Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 674-4674 Facsimile: (312) 674-4676 E-mail: bcochran@rgrdlaw.com - and – Samuel H. Rudman, 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 - and – Corey D. Holzer, Esq. HOLZER & HOLZER, LLC 1200 Ashwood Parkway, Suite 410 Atlanta, GA 30338 Telephone: (770) 392-0090 E-mail: cholzer@holzerlaw.com APPLE INC: Faces Class Suit from App Developers ----------------------------------------------- DONALD R. CAMERON, a California resident; and PURE SWEAT BASKETBALL, INC., an Illinois corporation, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. APPLE INC., a California corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-03074-DMR (N.D. Cal., June 4, 2019), seeks monetary recovery and injunctive relief for harm caused by Apple's violations of federal antitrust law and California's Unfair Competition Law -- harm that persists and will never abate unless Apple is called to account for its anti-competitive behavior. Donald R. Cameron and Pure Sweat Basketball, Inc., are application developers for the iPhone, a device powered by Apple's iOS operating system. iOS developers create the applications and in-app products that bring Apple iPhones, iPads, and iPod touch music players to life. Their apps allow users to play games while on line at the grocery store, to edit documents, to make exercise more fun, to help meditate, and so much more. The Plaintiffs and their fellow iOS developers sell their iOS apps via Apple's App Store. They have no choice in the matter, but not because Apple built an app store that beat all comers fair and square. Instead, from the outset, Apple attained monopoly power in the U.S. market for iOS app and in-app-product distribution services by slamming the door shut on any and all potential competitors. And it has barred the door ever since. On the thinnest of pretenses -- that somehow it is uniquely qualified to ensure the safety and device-compatibility of apps -- Apple has never permitted anyone else to distribute apps and related digital products to the many millions of U.S. owners of its mobile devices. Further, Apple's market power has allowed it to charge developers a supra-competitive 30% commission on the sale of paid apps and in-app products for almost 11 years now, despite the inevitable accrual of experience and economies of scale. Additionally, it collects a $99 annual fee from all developers who wish (and must) sell their products through the App Store. Apple also dictates minimum and greater price points, which prevent developers from offering paid products at less than $.99 or at price points ending in anything other than $0.99. And so, while Apple is fond of pointing to impressive-sounding sales numbers and dollars earned by developers, nonetheless, its exorbitant fee for distribution (or retail sales) services, coupled with its $99 annual fee and pricing mandates, have cut unlawfully into what would have been developers' earnings in a competitive landscape. Also, Apple's overly expensive 30% commission, its $99 annual developer fee, and its pricing mandate have depressed output of paid app and in-app-product transactions. The consumer apps marketplace, which gives rise to the sale of Apple's distribution or retail-sales services to iOS developers, resoundingly favors low-priced or free apps. Developers and would-be developers, who can only earn 70% on the dollar on each paid app or product, in addition to paying $99 annually to gain entry to the App Store, undoubtedly think very hard about whether to spend the effort, time, and energy that is required to design and program an app or related product, bring it to market in the single store available, and hope to recoup costs and make a reasonable profit. For many, the calculus makes no economic sense. This process, which is ongoing, leads to less output in sales, and ergo, distribution transactions. But for those who nonetheless soldier on towards offering paid products in the App Store, they face yet another output-depressing scenario: the sheer number of apps in the App Store, together with the number of new weekly entrants, means that most apps and in-app products will never be discovered by consumers. Because there are so many apps available in the one iOS App Store that exists, due to Apple's usurpation of the entire marketplace, huge numbers of apps necessarily get lost. Apps buried among the 2 million+ available apps do not sell because no one sees them, leading to less distribution transactions for apps and in-app products. If Apple did not shut out all competition from access to iOS device owners, there would be more stores that could feature more apps, as well as stores that would specialize in certain kinds of apps. Overall, this would boost output in and sale distribution transactions because more apps could be featured, such that more buyers would see and buy them. The only solution for this output-depressing condition is to allow other providers of distribution services, including those who undoubtedly would specialize in certain kinds of apps, to compete for app and in-app product sales to iOS consumers. More exposure for more apps would mean more transactions. And relatedly, with competition, Apple and other market entrants would be incentivized to innovate in developing better technology to pair users with the applications that they are looking for and need. By way of the same anti-competitive conduct, Apple has improperly attained and exercised monopsony power -- buy-side monopoly power -- as the sole retailer of iOS apps and in-app products. It uses this immense power to force iOS developers to take 70% on the dollar for their paid products by way of subtracting its supra-competitive 30% commission. This practice is analogous to a monopsonist retailer paying artificially low wholesale prices to its suppliers. In both paradigms a competitive market would yield better post-commission or wholesale prices, and fairer profit, for developers' digital products. It would also mean higher, and fairer, profits for developers as Apple's $.99 and end-in-$.99 pricing mandates were extinguished by competitive forces, such that developers could price at lower and different price points in order to maximize volumes. Apple's conduct has harmed competition, consumers of its distribution services, and even consumers of iOS apps, in-app products, and subscriptions. Developers have overpaid for distribution services (or Apple's retail commission) due to Apple's actions as alleged herein. Developers have no alternative but to distribute their wares through the App Store and to pay Apple's supra-competitive fees. Apple exploits this state of affairs. But for Apple's anti-competitive and abuse behavior, the cost of distribution services would have been lower than what it was, the lawsuit says. The Plaintiffs and the proposed classes contend they are entitled to recover restitution in at least the amount of the difference between the supra-competitive distribution fees they have paid Apple on the one hand and what the fees would be but for Apple's unlawful, inequitable, and unjustified behavior, including abuses of its market power.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs and the Proposed Classes: Shana E. Scarlett, Esq. Steve W. Berman, Esq. Robert F. Lopez, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202 Berkeley, CA 94710 Telephone: (510) 725-3000 Facsimile: (510) 725-3001 E-mail: shanas@hbsslaw.com steve@hbsslaw.com robl@hbsslaw.com AQUANTIA CORP: Carter Balks at Merger Deal with Marvell Technology ------------------------------------------------------------------ BRIAN CARTER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. AQUANTIA CORP., FARAJ AALAEI, LIP-BU TAN, SAM S. SRINIVASAN, KENNETH R. PELOWSKI, GEOFFREY G. RIBAR, DR. BAMDAD BASTANI, DMITRY S. AKHANOV, MAXIMILIANE C. STRAUB, and ANDERS SWAHN, the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-03092-JSW (N.D. Cal., June 4, 2019), seeks to enjoin Defendants from holding a shareholder vote on a proposed merger transaction and from taking steps to consummate the Proposed Transaction unless, and until, the material information is disclosed to Aquantia shareholders sufficiently in advance of the vote on the Proposed Transaction or, in the event the Proposed Transaction is consummated, to recover damages resulting from the Defendants' violations of the Exchange Act. The action is brought as a class action by Plaintiff on behalf of himself and the other public holders of the common stock of Aquantia Corp. against the Company and the members of the Company's board of directors for their violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, in connection with the proposed merger between Aquantia and Marvell Technology Group Ltd. On May 6, 2019, the Board caused the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger, pursuant to which the Company's shareholders stand to receive $13.25 in cash for each share of Aquantia stock they own. On May 29, 2019, in order to convince Aquantia shareholders to vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction, the Board authorized the filing of a materially incomplete and misleading Form PREM14A Preliminary Proxy Statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission, in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The materially incomplete and misleading Proxy violates both Regulation G (17 C.F.R. section 244.100) 21 and SEC Rule 14a-9 (17 C.F.R. 240.14a-9), each of which constitutes a violation of Section 14(a) 22 and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. While touting the fairness of the Merger Consideration to the Company's shareholders in the Proxy, Defendants have failed to disclose certain material information that is necessary for shareholders to properly assess the fairness of the Proposed Transaction, thereby violating SEC rules and regulations and rendering certain statements in the Proxy materially incomplete and misleading. In particular, the Proxy contains materially incomplete and misleading information concerning: (i) the financial projections for the Company that were prepared by the Company and relied on by Defendants in recommending that Aquantia shareholders vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction; and (ii) the summary of certain valuation analyses conducted by Aquantia's financial advisor, Barclays Capital Inc., in support of its opinion that the Merger Consideration is fair to shareholders, on which the Board relied. It is imperative that the material information that has been omitted from the Proxy is disclosed prior to the forthcoming vote to allow the Company's shareholders to make an informed decision regarding the Proposed Transaction, the lwsuit says. Aquantia Corporation is a manufacturer of high-speed transceivers. In 2004, Aquantia was founded to revolutionize Ethernet and accelerate connectivity. Aquantia first delivered products for Data Center connectivity, and in 2012 developed the world's first integrated 10GBASE-T MAC/PHY for servers.[BN] Attorney for Brian Carter: Benjamin Heikali, Esq. Nadeem Faruqi, Esq. James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 10866 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1470 Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (424) 256-2884 Facsimile: (424) 256-2885 E-mail: bheikali@faruqilaw.com nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com jwilson@faruqilaw.com ART VAN FURNITURE: Reid Files Suit Over ADA Violations ------------------------------------------------------ Valentin Reid, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Art Van Furniture, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-04179 (S.D. N.Y., May 8, 2019) is a class action suit over violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Art Van Furniture Inc. is a furniture retail store chain headquartered in Warren, Michigan. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Dov Michael Mittelman, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Tel: (201) 282-6500 Email: mittelmandov@yahoo.com BA&SH AMERICA: Website not Accessible to Blind Person, Diaz Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- EDWIN DIAZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. BA&SH AMERICA CORP., the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-05191 (S.D.N.Y., June 3, 2019), seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website at www.ba-sh.com will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using his computer. The Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or "visually-impaired" to refer to all people with visual impairments who meet the legal definition of blindness in that they have a visual acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200. Some blind people who meet this definition have limited vision. Others have no vision. Based on a 2010 U.S. Census Bureau report, approximately 8.1 million people in the United States are visually impaired, including 2.0 million who are blind, and according to the American Foundation for the Blind's 2015 report, approximately 400,000 visually impaired persons live in the State of New York. The Plaintiff brings this civil rights action against Defendant for its failure 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. Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its goods and services offered thereby and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of the Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because Defendant's website is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA, the lawsuit says. BA&Sh S.A.S. designs and manufactures apparel for women. Its products include jackets and coats, knitwear, dresses, skirts and shorts, tops and shirts, tee-shirts, pants and jeans, and accessories.[BN] Attorneys for Paintiff: Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq. COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Fl. Brooklyn, NY 11201 Telephone: (929) 575-4175 Facsimile: (929) 575-4195 E-mail: Joseph@cml.legal - and - Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003-2461 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 E-mail: nyjg@aol.com danalgottlieb@aol.com BARING BDC: Triangle Capital Corp. Securities Suit Ongoing ---------------------------------------------------------- Barings BDC, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the case entitled, In re Triangle Capital Corp. Securities Litigation, Master File No. 5:18-cv-00010-FL, is underway. The company and certain of its former executive officers have been named as defendants in two putative securities class action lawsuits, each filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (and then transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina) on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the company's common stock between May 7, 2014 and November 1, 2017. The first lawsuit was filed on November 21, 2017, and was captioned Elias Dagher, et al., v. Triangle Capital Corporation, et al., Case No. 5:18-cv-00015-FL (the "Dagher Action"). The second lawsuit was filed on November 28, 2017, and was captioned Gary W. Holden, et al., v. Triangle Capital Corporation, et al., Case No. 5:18-cv-00010-FL (the "Holden Action"). The Dagher Action and the Holden Action were consolidated and are currently captioned In re Triangle Capital Corp. Securities Litigation, Master File No. 5:18-cv-00010-FL. On April 10, 2018, the plaintiff filed its First Consolidated Amended Complaint. The complaint, as currently amended, alleges certain violations of the securities laws, including, among other things, that the defendants made certain materially false and misleading statements and omissions regarding the Company's business, operations and prospects between May 7, 2014 and November 1, 2017. The plaintiff seeks compensatory damages and attorneys’ fees and costs, among other relief, but did not specify the amount of damages being sought. On May 25, 2018, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On March 7, 2019 the court entered an order granting the defendants' motion to dismiss. On March 28, 2019, the plaintiff filed a motion seeking leave to file a Second Consolidated Amended Complaint. On April 18, 2019, the defendants filed a response in opposition to the plaintiff's motion for leave. Barings BDC said, "We intend to defend ourselves vigorously against the allegations in the aforementioned actions. Neither the outcome of the lawsuits nor an estimate of any reasonably possible losses is determinable at this time. An adverse judgment for monetary damages could have a material adverse effect on our operations and liquidity. Except as discussed above, neither we nor our subsidiaries are currently subject to any material pending legal proceedings, other than ordinary routine litigation incidental to our business." Barings BDC, Inc. is a business development company specializing in private equity and mezzanine investments. Triangle Capital Corporation was incorporated on October 10, 2006 and is based in Raleigh, North Carolina. BE AMAZED: Has Until June 24 to Respond to Lynch Suit ----------------------------------------------------- In the case, DALLAS LYNCH, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated; Plaintiff, v. BE AMAZED SANDWICH CO., INC. d/b/a AND a/k/a CAPRIOTTI'S SANDWICH SHOP; MICHAEL SOLOMON, an individual; DOES 1 through 50; inclusive, Defendant(s), Case No. 2:18-cv-2425-APG-GWF (D. Nev.), Magistrate Judge George Foley, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada extended the Defendants' time up to and including June 24, 2019 to answer or otherwise respond to Complaint. The Complaint sets forth a purported wage and hour class action. On May 15, 2019, the Plaintiff sent the Defendant a new type of settlement proposal, along with sample motions and orders relating thereto. The Defense counsel will need further time to analyze the proposal and then review it with the Defendants. The parties' counsel of record have stipulated and agreed that the Defendants will have an extension of time up to and including June 24, 2019 to answer or otherwise respond to the Plaintiff's Complaint. It is the fifth request for an extension of the deadline. Magistrate Foley granted and so ordered. A full-text copy of the Court's May 22, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/76RUYK from Leagle.com. Dallas Lynch, Plaintiff, represented by Christian James Gabroy, Gabroy Law Offices & Kaine M. Messer -- kmesser@gabroy.com -- Gabroy Law Offices. Be Amazed Sandwich Co., Inc., also known as Capriotti's Sandwich Shop, Capriotti's Sandwich Shop & Michael Solomon, Defendants, represented by Scott M. Mahoney -- smahoney@fisherphillips.com -- Fisher & Phillips, LLP. BELHURST ESTATE: Olsen Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Belhurst Estate Winery, Inc. The case is styled as Thomas J. Olsen, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Belhurst Estate Winery, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-03433 (E.D. N.Y., June 10, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Belhurst Castle has been adapted for hotel and retail uses. It holds a hotel with three choices of lodging (Vinifera Inn, Chambers in the Castle, and White Springs Manor); two ballrooms to host weddings, two restaurants (Edgar's Restaurant and Stonecutters); spa, and a winery.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq. Lipsky Lowe LLP 630 Third Avenue New York, NY 10017-6705 Phone: (212) 392-4772 Fax: (212) 444-1030 Email: doug@lipskylowe.com BIO-KEY INT'L: Hayes Sues over Collection of Biometrics Data ------------------------------------------------------------ DAVID HAYES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. BIO-KEY INTERNATIONAL, INC., the Defendant, Case 2019CH06712 (Ill. Cir., June 3, 2019), alleges that, in violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act, the Defendant collected, stored, and/or used Plaintiffs and the Class members' biometric identifiers and/or biometric information without developing a written policy, made available to the public, establishing a retention schedule and guidelines for permanently destroying biometric information, as required by 740 ILCS 14/l5(a); without first informing Plaintiff and class the specific purpose and length of term for which the biometric identifiers or biometric information was being collected, stored, and/or used, as required by 740 ILCS 14/l S(b)(2); and without first obtaining the written release required by 740 TLCS 14/15(b)(3). The BIPA was designed to encourage the public trust in biometric technology and the use and adoption of biometric identifier-facilitated transactions, and to prevent harm to individuals by requiring companies to adopt and publish retention schedules and guidelines for permanently destroying biometrics. BIO-key International, Inc. develops and markets fingerprint biometric identification and identity verification technologies, authentication-transaction security technologies, and related identity management and credentialing biometric hardware and software solutions.[BN] Attorney for the Plaintiff: David B. Levin, Esq. Steven G. Perry, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 333 Skokie Blvd., Suite 103 Northbrook, IL 60062 Telephone: (224) 218-0882 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: dlevin@toddflaw.com sperry@toddflaw.com BODY FIRM: Bunting Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------- RASHETA BUNTING, Individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, v. THE BODY FIRM, LLC d/b/a Crepe Erase and GUTHY-RENKER LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-03415 (E.D. N.Y., June 10, 2019) is a civil rights action against Crepe Erase for their failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and services Crepe Erase provides to their non-disabled customers through http//:www.Crepeerase.com. The Defendants' denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act, says the complaint. Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen reading software to read website content using her computer. Crepeerase.com provides to the public a wide array of the goods, services, price specials, employment opportunities and other programs.[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 BOX INC: Duvnjak Files Suit Over Share Price Drop ------------------------------------------------- SIMO DUVNJAK, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. BOX, INC., AARON LEVIE, DYLAN SMITH, and DANIEL J. LEVIN, Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-03173-PJH (N.D. Cal., June 6, 2019) is a class action on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Box securities between November 28, 2018 and June 3, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). On February 27, 2019, the Company reported fourth quarter revenue that fell below investors' expectations, citing longer sales cycles for seven-figure deals. On this news, the Company's share price fell $4.64, or nearly 19%, to close at $20.24 on February 28, 2019, on unusually heavy trading volume. On June 3, 2019, after the market closed, the Company lowered its fiscal 2020 revenue outlook to a range of $688 million to $692 million, from previous guidance of $700 million to $704 million, again citing longer sales cycles for its larger deals. On this news, the Company's share price fell as much as $1.30, or more than 7%, to close at $17.18 per share on June 4, 2019, on unusually heavy trading volume. According to the complaint, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that the Company was unable to close large deals within the quarter; (2) that, as a result, the Company's revenue would be materially impacted; and (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages. Plaintiff Simo Duvnjak purchased Box securities during the Class Period. Box provides a cloud content management platform that enables secure access to content.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq. Robert V. Prongay, Esq. Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq. Charles H. Linehan, Esq. Pavithra Rajesh, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 Email: info@glancylaw.com BOXY CHARM: Vasquez-Cossio Sues Over Automatic Renewal of Services ------------------------------------------------------------------- Inez Vasquez-Cossio, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Boxy Charm, Inc. and Does 1–10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-00869 (C.D. Cal., May 8, 2019) seeks injunctive relief, statutory damages, treble damages and all other relief for breach of implied and express warranty and for violation of Automatic Renewal Law and Unfair Competition Law. Boxy Charm operates a website, www.boxycharm.com, which markets boxes of cosmetic products of which Vasquez-Cossio purchased a subscription plan. She alleges that Boxy Charm continues to automatically renew the service offers without providing an acknowledgment that includes the automatic renewal or continuous service offer terms, cancellation policy and information regarding how to cancel. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS - A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 4100 Newport Place, Ste. 800 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Tel: (949) 706-6464 Fax: (949) 706-6469 Email: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com CAMPING WORLD: Bid to Dismiss Geis Class Action Underway -------------------------------------------------------- Camping World Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the Company, along with the other defendants, is seeking dismissal of the class action suit entitled, Daniel Geis v. Camping World Holdings, Inc., et al. On February 22, 2019, a putative class action complaint styled Daniel Geis v. Camping World Holdings, Inc., et al. was filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery Division, on behalf of all purchasers of Camping World Class A common stock in and/or traceable to the Company's initial public offering on October 6, 2016 ("Geis Complaint"). The Geis Complaint names as defendants the Company, certain of our officers and directors, and the underwriters of the offering, and alleges violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 based on allegedly materially misleading statements or omissions of material facts necessary to make certain statements not misleading. The Geis Complaint seeks compensatory damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs, and any other and further relief the court deems just and proper. On April 19, 2019, the Company, along with the other defendants, moved to dismiss this action. The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the claims of the plaintiff and members of the putative class, and any liability for the alleged claims is not currently probable or reasonably estimable. Camping World Holdings, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as an outdoor and camping retailer. The company operates through three segments: Consumer Services and Plans, Dealership, and Retail. Camping World Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1966 and is headquartered in Lincolnshire, Illinois. CAMPING WORLD: Bid to Dismiss IUOE Complaint Pending ---------------------------------------------------- Camping World Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the motion to dismiss filed in International Union of Operating Engineers Benefit Funds of Eastern Pennsylvania and Delaware v. Camping World Holdings Inc., et al., is pending. On December 12, 2018, a putative class action complaint styled International Union of Operating Engineers Benefit Funds of Eastern Pennsylvania and Delaware v. Camping World Holdings Inc., et al. was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, on behalf of all purchasers of Camping World Class A common stock issued pursuant and/or traceable to a secondary offering of such securities in October 2017 ("IUOE Complaint"). The IUOE Complaint names as defendants the Company, and certain of its officers and directors, among others, and alleges violations of Sections 11, 12(a), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 based on allegedly materially misleading statements or omissions of material facts necessary to make certain statements not misleading and seeks compensatory damages, including prejudgment and post-judgement interest, attorneys' fees and costs, and any equitable or injunctive relief the court deems just and proper, including rescission. On February 28, 2019. the Company, along with the other defendants, moved to dismiss this action. The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the claims of the plaintiffs and members of the putative class, and any liability for the alleged claims is not currently probable or reasonably estimable. Camping World Holdings, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as an outdoor and camping retailer. The company operates through three segments: Consumer Services and Plans, Dealership, and Retail. Camping World Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1966 and is headquartered in Lincolnshire, Illinois. CAMPING WORLD: Ronge & Strougo Suit Underway in Illinois -------------------------------------------------------- Camping World Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company continues to defend a consolidated class action suit in the Northern District of Illinois. On October 19, 2018, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a putative class action lawsuit, captioned Ronge v. Camping World Holdings, Inc. et al., in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against the Company, certain of its officers and directors, and Crestview Partners II GP, L.P. and Crestview Advisors, L.L.C. (the "Ronge Complaint"). On October 25, 2018, a different purported stockholder of the Company filed a putative class action lawsuit, captioned Strougo v. Camping World Holdings, Inc. et al., in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against the Company, certain of its officers and directors, and Crestview Partners II GP, L.P. and Crestview Advisors, L.L.C. (the "Strougo Complaint"). The Ronge and Strougo Complaints were consolidated and lead plaintiffs appointed by the court. On February 27, 2019, lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint against the Company, certain of its officers, directors, Crestview Partners II GP, L.P. and Crestview Advisors, L.L.C., and the underwriters of the May and October 2017 secondary offerings of the Company's Class A common stock. The consolidated complaint alleges violations of Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, as well as Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and rule 10b-5 thereunder, based on allegedly materially misleading statements or omissions of material facts necessary to make certain statements not misleading related to the business, operations, and management of the Company. Additionally, it alleges that certain of the Company's officers and directors, Crestview Partners II GP, L.P., and Crestview Advisors, L.L.C. violated Section 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, by allegedly acting as controlling persons of the Company. The lawsuit brings claims on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of the Company's Class A common stock between March 8, 2017 and August 7, 2018, and seeks compensatory damages, rescission, attorneys' fees and costs, and any equitable or injunctive relief the court deems just and proper. The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the claims of the plaintiffs and members of the putative class, and any liability for the alleged claims is not currently probable or reasonably estimable. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Camping World Holdings, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as an outdoor and camping retailer. The company operates through three segments: Consumer Services and Plans, Dealership, and Retail. Camping World Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1966 and is headquartered in Lincolnshire, Illinois. CBL & ASSOCIATES: $88,150 Litigation Expense in Salon Adrian's Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- CBL & Associates Properties, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company accrued a litigation settlement expense of $88,150 in the class action suit initiated by Wave Lengths Hair Salons of Florida, Inc. d/b/a Salon Adrian. In April 2019, the Company entered into a settlement agreement and release with respect to the class action lawsuit filed on March 16, 2016 in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida by Wave Lengths Hair Salons of Florida, Inc. d/b/a Salon Adrian. The settlement agreement states that the Company is to set aside a common fund with a monetary and non-monetary value of $90,000 to be disbursed to class members in accordance with an agreed-upon formula that is based upon aggregate damages of $60,000. Class members will be comprised of past and current tenants at certain of the Company's shopping centers that it owns or formerly owned during the class period, which will extend from January 1, 2011 through the date of court preliminary approval. Class members who are past tenants and make a claim will receive payment of their claims in cash. Class members who are current tenants will receive monthly credits against rents and future charges, beginning no earlier than January 1, 2020 and continuing for the following five years. Any amounts under the settlement allocated to tenants with outstanding amounts payable to the Company, including tenants which have declared bankruptcy or declare bankruptcy over the relevant period, will first be deducted from the amounts owed to the Company. All attorney's fees and associated costs to be paid to class counsel (up to a maximum of $28,000), any incentive award to the class representative (up to a maximum of $50), and class administration costs (which are expected to not exceed $100), will be funded by the common fund, but must be approved by the court. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, the Company will not pay any dividends to holders of its common shares payable in the third and fourth quarters of 2019. The settlement agreement does not restrict the Company's ability to declare dividends payable in 2020 or in subsequent years. The Company recorded an accrued liability and corresponding litigation settlement expense of $88,150 in the three months ended March 31, 2019 related to the settlement agreement. CBL & Associates Properties, Inc. is a self managed and self administered real estate investment trust. The Company owns regional shopping malls and community shopping centers in the United States. The company is based in Chattanooga, Tennessee. CENTURYLINK INC: Continues to Defend Houser Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- CenturyLink, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Houser et al. v. CenturyLink, et al. CenturyLink and certain CenturyLink board members and officers were named as defendants in a putative shareholder class action lawsuit filed on June 12, 2018 in the Boulder County District Court of the state of Colorado, captioned Houser et al. v. CenturyLink, et al. The complaint asserts claims on behalf of a putative class of former Level 3 shareholders who became CenturyLink shareholders as a result of the transaction. It alleges that the proxy statement provided to the Level 3 shareholders failed to disclose material information of several kinds, including information about strategic revenue, customer loss rates, and customer account issues, among other items. The complaint seeks damages, costs and fees, rescission, rescissory damages, and other equitable relief. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. CenturyLink, Inc. provides various communications services to residential, business, wholesale, and governmental customers in the United States and internationally. The company operates in two segments, Business and Consumer. CenturyLink, Inc. was founded in 1968 and is based in Monroe, Louisiana. CENTURYLINK INC: Objector's Appeal in Tomasulo Settlement Underway ------------------------------------------------------------------ CenturyLink, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that an objector's appeal from the court's final judgment approving the settlement in the case, Jeffery Tomasulo v. CenturyLink, Inc., et al., remains pending. CenturyLink and certain members of the CenturyLink Board of Directors have been named as defendants in a putative shareholder class action lawsuit filed on January 11, 2017 in the 4th Judicial District Court of the State of Louisiana, Ouachita Parish, captioned Jeffery Tomasulo v. CenturyLink, Inc., et al. The complaint asserts, among other things, that the members of CenturyLink's Board allegedly breached their fiduciary duties to the CenturyLink shareholders in approving the Level 3 merger agreement and, more particularly, that: the consideration that CenturyLink agreed to pay to Level 3 stockholders in the transaction is allegedly unfairly high; the CenturyLink directors allegedly had conflicts of interest in negotiating and approving the transaction; and the disclosures set forth in our preliminary joint proxy statement/prospectus filed in December 2016 are insufficient in that they allegedly fail to contain material information concerning the transaction. The complaint seeks, among other things, a declaration that the members of the CenturyLink Board have breached their fiduciary duties, corrective disclosure, rescissory or other damages and equitable relief, including rescission of the transaction. On February 13, 2017, the parties entered into a memorandum of understanding providing for the settlement of the lawsuit. In January 2019, the court approved the settlement and entered final judgment. An objector filed an appeal, and that appeal is pending. CenturyLink said, "The costs of the settlement are not material to our consolidated financial statements." CenturyLink, Inc. provides various communications services to residential, business, wholesale, and governmental customers in the United States and internationally. The company operates in two segments, Business and Consumer. CenturyLink, Inc. was founded in 1968 and is based in Monroe, Louisiana. CHICAGO BOARD: Judge Dismisses Index Manipulation Claims -------------------------------------------------------- Lorraine Bailey, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a federal judge dismissed investor claims that the Chicago Board Options Exchange knowingly allowed Wall Street traders to manipulate a key measure of stock market volatility. "Though CBOE may have designed a process with features that made it vulnerable to manipulation, the facts alleged in complaint do not support the conclusion that CBOE knew about these flaws at the time it designed the VIX enterprise or that it purposefully designed the market to facilitate manipulation," U.S. District Judge Manish Shah said in a 32-page opinion published on May 29. Last year, an anonymous whistleblower sent a letter to U.S. regulators claiming that large trading firms were manipulating the CBOE's Volatility Index (VIX), Wall Street's most widely followed gauge of future stock market volatility. The letter said that a flaw in the calculation of the VIX allowed trading firms to manipulate the volatility index by posting quotes for S&P 500 options without actually trading. The whistleblower further claimed that such manipulation was at least partially responsible for the stock market's 10% plunge in February 2018. The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority and Securities and Exchange Commission opened investigations based on the allegations, but the agencies have since made no announcement about their findings. Taking matters into his own hands, lead plaintiff John Pels filed a federal class action against CBOE Global Markets, CBOE Exchange, CBOE Futures Exchange and unnamed John Doe trading firms. "There is abundant evidence that the John Doe defendants have colluded to manipulate VIX and, in doing so, have reaped hundreds of millions (if not billions) of ill-gotten profits due to their holdings of derivatives linked to VIX," the complaint stated. (Parentheses in original.) Pels accused the CBOE of being aware of the manipulation while allegedly turning a blind eye because it is a major profit generator. But Judge Shah dismissed the investors' claims on May 29, finding that the evidence is not sufficient enough to show that CBOE intended to manipulate the market. Even if the CBOE knew of the trading firms' allegedly fraudulent conduct, "Knowing that certain market participants acted fraudulently through one course of conduct does not suggest that the exchange intended to cheat through its behavior," Shah said. "Passive acquiescence is just as strong an inference." In September, the CBOE announced that it is testing the use of artificial intelligence software to enhance surveillance of the VIX settlement auctions and catch nefarious traders more quickly, but it did not offer any specifics about its plan. A copy of the Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at: https://is.gd/rGgQGU CHICAGO INSURANCE: Abramson Sues over Unwanted Telemarketing Calls ------------------------------------------------------------------ STEWART ABRAMSON, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. CHICAGO INSURANCE AGENCY, INC. d/b/a CONNECTED LEADS, THE PROSSEN AGENCY, LLC, and THE ALLSTATE CORPORATION, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-03711 (N.D. Ill., June 4, 2019), seeks to enforce the consumer-privacy provisions of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act in response to widespread public outrage about the proliferation of intrusive, nuisance telemarketing practices. According to the complaint, The Allstate Corporation offers its services through a series of captive insurance agents, such as The Prossen Agency, LLC. Prossen Agency hired Chicago Insurance Agency, Inc., who made a telemarketing call to a cellular telephone number of Mr. Abramson for the purposes of advertising Allstate goods and services using an automated dialing system, which is prohibited by the TCPA. The Plaintiff never consented to receive the calls, which were placed to him for telemarketing purposes. Because telemarketing campaigns generally place calls to thousands or even millions of potential customers en masse, the Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of a proposed nationwide class of other persons who received illegal telemarketing calls from or on behalf of the Defendants, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: Brian K. Murphy, Esq. Jonathan P. Misny, Esq. MURRAY MURPHY MOUL + BASIL LLP 1114 Dublin Road Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 488-0400 Facsimile: (614) 488-0401 E-mail: murphy@mmmb.com misny@mmmb.com - and - Lauren E. Urban, Esq. 2425 N. Spaulding Ave., Floor 2 Chicago, IL 60647 Telephone: (419) 344-1146 E-mail: lauren.elizabeth.urban@gmail.com CINEMARK USA: Settlement Agreement in Brown Suit Has Initial OK --------------------------------------------------------------- Cinemark USA, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the settlement agreement in the case, Silken Brown v. Cinemark USA, Inc., has been preliminarily approved by the Court and is subject to final approval later this year. Silken Brown v. Cinemark USA, Inc., Case No. 3:13cv05669, In the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division, presents putative class action claims for penalties and attorney's fees arising from alleged violations of the California wage statement law. The claim is also asserted as a representative action under the California Private Attorney General Act (PAGA) for penalties. The Court granted class certification. The company denies the claims, denies that class certification is appropriate, denies that the plaintiff has standing to assert the claims alleged and is vigorously defending against the claims. The Company denies any violation of law; however, to avoid the cost and uncertainty associated with litigation the Company and the plaintiff entered into a Joint Stipulation of Class Action Settlement and Release of Claims (the "Settlement Agreement") to fully and finally dismiss all claims that would be brought in the case. The Settlement Agreement was preliminarily approved by the Court and is subject to final approval later this year. During 2018, the Company recorded a litigation reserve based on the proposed Settlement Agreement. Cinemark USA, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates in the motion picture exhibition industry. The company operates in two segments, U.S. Markets and International Markets. As of December 31, 2018, it operated 546 theatres and 6,048 screens in the United States and Latin America. The company was incorporated in 1984 and is headquartered in Plano, Texas. Cinemark USA, Inc. is a subsidiary of Cinemark Holdings, Inc. CITIBANK N.A.: Akbar Sues over Unsolicited Cellular Phone Calls --------------------------------------------------------------- KHOSRAW AKBAR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. CITIBANK, N.A., the Defendants, Case No. 8:19-cv-01103 (C.D. Cal., June 4, 2019), seeks to recover for damages, injunctive relief, and any other available legal or equitable remedies, resulting from the illegal actions of the Defendant in negligently and/or knowingly contacting Plaintiff, without implied or express consent, on Plaintiff's cellular telephone, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, thereby invading Plaintiff's privacy. The Plaintiff additionally brings this lawsuit to challenge the actions of Defendant with regard to attempts by Defendant, a debt collector, to unlawfully and abusively collect a debt allegedly owed by Plaintiff in violation of the California Rosenthal Act and this conduct caused Plaintiff damages. According to the complaint, sometime prior to May 2019, the Plaintiff allegedly incurred financial obligations to the Defendant, an original creditor, that were money, property, or their equivalent which are due or owing, or alleged to be due or owing, from a natural person to another person and were therefore "debt(s)" as that term is defined by Cal. Civ. Code section 1788.2(d) and a "consumer debt" as that term is defined by California Civil Code section 1788.2(f). Sometime after allegedly incurring the alleged debt, Plaintiff allegedly fell behind on the payments allegedly owed on the debt. As a result of Plaintiff's alleged delinquency in payments on the alleged debt, the Plaintiff received numerous telephonic communications from Defendant attempting to collect payment on the alleged debt. These communications requesting payment from the Plaintiff constitute "debt collection" as that phrase is defined by Civ. Code section 1788.2(b). During May 2019, Defendant sent Plaintiff numerous text messages to Plaintiff's cellular telephone number ending in "6690" from SMS short code number 692-13484 informing Plaintiff of declined credit card transactions, and requesting payment from the Plaintiff. Despite Plaintiff's written request that Defendant cease further communications and Plaintiff's express revocation of any prior-existing purported consent to receive such automated text messages, Defendant continued to repeatedly send the same form text messages to Plaintiff, the lawsuit says. The lawsuit notes that California legislature has determined that the banking and credit system and grantors of credit to consumers are dependent upon the collection of just and owing debts and that unfair or deceptive collection practices undermine the public confidence that is essential to the continued functioning of the banking and credit system and sound extensions of credit to consumers. Citibank is the consumer division of financial services multinational Citigroup. Citibank was founded in 1812 as the City Bank of New York, and later became First National City Bank of New York. Citibank provides credit cards, mortgages, personal loans, commercial loans, and lines of credit.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. Mona Amini, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: ak@kazlg.com mona@kazlg.com - and - Joshua B. Swigart, Esq. HYDE & SWIGART 2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101 San Diego, CA 92108-3551 Telephone: (619) 233-7770 Facsimile: (619) 297-1022 E-miail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com CLECO CORP: Exception Of No Cause of Action & Res Judicata Denied ----------------------------------------------------------------- Cleco Corporate Holdings LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 13, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that a Louisiana state court has denied the exceptions of no cause of action and res judicata lodged by the company. In connection with a 2016 merger, four actions were filed in the Ninth Judicial District Court for Rapides Parish, Louisiana and three actions were filed in the Civil District Court for Orleans Parish, Louisiana. The petitions in each action generally alleged, among other things, that the members of Cleco Corporation's Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties by, among other things, conducting an allegedly inadequate sale process, agreeing to the 2016 Merger at a price that allegedly undervalued Cleco, and failing to disclose material information about the 2016 Merger. The petitions also alleged that Cleco Partners, Cleco Corporation, Merger Sub, and in some cases, certain of the investors in Cleco Partners, either aided and abetted or entered into a civil conspiracy to advance those supposed breaches of duty. The petitions seek various remedies, including monetary damages, which includes attorneys' fees and expenses. The four actions filed in the Ninth Judicial District Court for Rapides Parish are captioned as follows: -- Braunstein v. Cleco Corporation, No. 251,383B (filed October 27, 2014), -- Moore v. Macquarie Infrastructure and Real Assets, No. 251,417C (filed October 30, 2014), -- Trahan v. Williamson, No. 251,456C (filed November 5, 2014), and -- L'Herisson v. Macquarie Infrastructure and Real Assets, No. 251,515F (filed November 14, 2014). In November 2014, the plaintiff in the Braunstein action moved for a dismissal of the action without prejudice, and that motion was granted in November 2014. In December 2014, the Court consolidated the remaining three actions and appointed interim co-lead counsel. Also in December 2014, the plaintiffs in the consolidated action filed a Consolidated Amended Verified Derivative and Class Action Petition for Damages and Preliminary and Permanent Injunction (the Consolidated Amended Petition). The consolidated action named Cleco Corporation, its directors, Cleco Partners, and Merger Sub as defendants. The Consolidated Amended Petition alleged, among other things, that Cleco Corporation's directors breached their fiduciary duties to Cleco's shareholders and grossly mismanaged Cleco by approving the 2016 Merger Agreement because it allegedly did not value Cleco adequately, failing to structure a process through which shareholder value would be maximized, engaging in self-dealing by ignoring conflicts of interest, and failing to disclose material information about the 2016 Merger. The Consolidated Amended Petition further alleged that all defendants conspired to commit the breaches of fiduciary duty. Cleco believes that the allegations of the Consolidated Amended Petition are without merit and that it has substantial meritorious defenses to the claims set forth in the Consolidated Amended Petition. The three actions filed in the Civil District Court for Orleans Parish are captioned as follows: -- Butler v. Cleco Corporation, No. 2014-10776 (filed November 7, 2014), -- Creative Life Services, Inc. v. Cleco Corporation, No. 2014-11098 (filed November 19, 2014), and -- Cashen v. Cleco Corporation, No. 2014-11236 (filed November 21, 2014). Both the Butler and Cashen actions name Cleco Corporation, its directors, Cleco Partners, Merger Sub, Macquarie Infrastructure and Real Assets Inc. (MIRA), British Columbia Investment Management Corporation (BCI), and John Hancock Financial as defendants. The Creative Life Services action names Cleco Corporation, its directors, Cleco Partners, Merger Sub, MIRA, and Macquarie Infrastructure Partners III, L.P., as defendants. In December 2014, the plaintiff in the Butler action filed an Amended Class Action Petition for Damages. Each petition alleged, among other things, that the members of Cleco Corporation's Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties to Cleco's shareholders by approving the Merger Agreement because it allegedly did not value Cleco adequately, failing to structure a process through which shareholder value would be maximized and engaging in self-dealing by ignoring conflicts of interest. The Butler and Creative Life Services petitions also allege that the directors breached their fiduciary duties by failing to disclose material information about the 2016 Merger. Each petition further alleged that Cleco, Cleco Partners, Merger Sub, and certain of the investors in Cleco Partners aided and abetted the directors' breaches of fiduciary duty. In December 2014, the directors and Cleco filed declinatory exceptions in each action on the basis that each action was improperly brought in Orleans Parish and should either be transferred to the Ninth Judicial District Court for Rapides Parish or dismissed. Also in December 2014, the plaintiffs in each action jointly filed a motion to consolidate the three actions pending in Orleans Parish and to appoint interim co-lead plaintiffs and co-lead counsel. In January 2015, the Court in the Creative Life Services case sustained the defendants' declinatory exceptions and dismissed the case so that it could be transferred to the Ninth Judicial District Court for Rapides Parish. In February 2015, the plaintiffs in Butler and Cashen also consented to the dismissal of their cases from Orleans Parish so they could be transferred to the Ninth Judicial District Court for Rapides Parish. In February 2015, the Ninth Judicial District Court for Rapides Parish held a hearing on a motion for preliminary injunction filed by plaintiffs Moore, L'Herisson, and Trahan seeking to enjoin the shareholder vote for approval of the Merger Agreement. Following the hearing, the Court denied the plaintiffs' motion. In June 2015, three of the plaintiffs filed their Second Consolidated Amended Verified Derivative and Class Action Petition. This will be considered according to a schedule established by the Ninth Judicial District Court for Rapides Parish. Cleco filed exceptions seeking dismissal of the amended petition in July 2015. In March 2016 and May 2016, the plaintiffs filed their Third Consolidated Amended Verified Derivative Petition for Damages and Preliminary and Permanent Injunction and their Fourth Verified Consolidated Amended Class Action Petition, respectively. The fourth petition eliminated the request for preliminary and permanent injunction and also named an additional executive officer as a defendant. Cleco filed exceptions seeking dismissal of the amended Petition. A hearing was held in September 2016, and the District Court granted the exceptions filed by Cleco and dismissed all claims asserted by the former shareholders. The plaintiffs appealed the District Court's ruling to the Louisiana Third Circuit Court of Appeal. The Third Circuit Court of Appeal heard oral arguments in the case in September 2017. In December 2017, the Third Circuit Court of Appeal issued an order reversing and remanding the case to the District Court for further proceedings. In January 2018, Cleco filed a writ with the Louisiana Supreme Court seeking review of the Third Circuit Court of Appeal's decision. The writ was denied in March 2018 and the parties are engaged in discovery in the District Court. On November 2, 2018, Cleco filed exceptions of no cause of action and res judicata, seeking to dismiss all claims. The District Court denied the exceptions on January 14, 2019. Cleco believes that the allegations of the petitions in each action are without merit and that it has substantial meritorious defenses to the claims set forth in each of the petitions. Cleco Corporate Holdings LLC operates as a public utility holding company primarily in Louisiana. The company, through its subsidiary, operates as a regulated electric utility, which owns nine generating units with a total capacity of 3,310 megawatts and serves approximately 291,000 customers in Louisiana through its retail business; and supplies wholesale power in Louisiana and Mississippi. The company was formerly known as Cleco Corporation and changed its name to Cleco Corporate Holdings LLC in April 2016. Cleco Corporate Holdings LLC was founded in 1934 and is based in Pineville, Louisiana. CLOUDERA INC: Christie Sues Over Share Price Drop ------------------------------------------------- SHANICE CHRISTIE, Individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CLOUDERA, INC., THOMAS J. REILLY, JIM FRANKOLA, AND MICHAEL A. OLSON, Defendants, Case No. 5:19-cv-03221 (N.D. Cal., June 7, 2019) is a securities class action on behalf of all purchasers of Cloudera common stock between April 28, 2017 and June 5, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The claims asserted herein are alleged against Cloudera, the Company's former Chief Executive Officer, Thomas J. Reilly, Chief Financial Officer, Jim Frankola, and Michael A. Olson, the Company's founder and former Chairman, and arise under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. According to the complaint, throughout the Class Period, defendants failed to disclose adverse facts pertaining to the Company’s business, operations, and financial condition, which were known to or recklessly disregarded by Defendants. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose that: (i) Cloudera was finding it increasingly difficult to identify large enterprises interested in adopting the Company's Hadoop-based platform; (ii) Cloudera needed to expend an increasing amount of capital on sales and marketing activities to generate new revenues, even as new revenue opportunities were diminishing; and (iii) Cloudera had materially diminished sales opportunities and prospects and could not generate annual positive cash flows. The truth began to be revealed on April 3, 2018 when, in connection with its Q4 and FY 2018 financial results, the Company provided a disappointing outlook for fiscal 2019 along with missed revenue numbers. This news contradicted Defendants' prior positive statements and were all the more surprising as they had come less than a year after Cloudera had gone public. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of Cloudera's stock, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, says the complaint. Plaintiff Shanice Christie purchased Cloudera common stock on the public market during the Class Period. Defendant Cloudera is a data management and software company incorporated under the laws of Delaware.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Frank J. Johnson, Esq. Brett M. Middleton, Esq. JOHNSON FISTEL, LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1400 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (619) 230-0063 Facsimile: (619) 255-1856 Email: FrankJ@johnsonfistel.com BrettM@johnsonfistel.com CONTEXTLOGIC INC: Olsen Sues over Spam Text Messages ---------------------------------------------------- IAN OLSEN; ADAM HANEY; SHARON MOTLEY; and MEMARY LAROCK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. CONTEXTLOGIC INC., the, Defendant, Case No. 2019CH06737 (Ill. Cir., June 3, 2019), alleges that the Defendant transmitted unsolicited, autodialed SMS text message advertisements to Plaintiffs' cellular telephone numbers and the cellular telephone numbers of numerous other consumers across the country, in violation of the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"). For example, in or about September and October 2018 (and at various other times during the statutory period as well), Defendant transmitted or caused to be transmitted several SMS text message advertisements to Plaintiff Olsen's 9633 Number without his prior express written consent.[BN] Counsel for the Plaintiffs and Putative Class: Eugene Y. Turin, Esq. MCGUIRE LAW, P.C. 55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th Fl. Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 893 7002 Facsimile: (312) 275 7895 E-mail: eturin@mcgpc.com - and - Frank S. Hedin, Esq. David W. hall, Esq. HEDIN HALL LLP 1395 Brickell Ave, Suite 900 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 357-2107 Facsimile: (305) 200-8801 E-mail: fhedin@hedinhall.com dhall@hedinhall.com CREATIVE BIOSCIENCE: Bauman Sues over Garcinia Cambogia Diet Pills ------------------------------------------------------------------ The case, BARBARA BAUMAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. CREATIVE BIOSCIENCE LABORATORIES, LLC, and CREATIVE BIOSCIENCE, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-11642-AC-DRG (E.D. Mich., June 4, 2019), alleges that Defendants' efficacy claims for Garcinia Cambogia 1234 are false and misleading. The Defendants do not include the represented amount of the active ingredient, hydroxycitric acid ("HCA"), in the Product. The case is a class action brought individually by the Plaintiff and on behalf of a class of persons similarly situated, who purchased the weight-loss dietary supplement BioScience Laboratories Garcinia Cambogia 1234. The Defendants advertise, manufacture, market, sell and distribute the Product in the growing and extremely competitive diet/weight-loss dietary supplement industry as a highly effective appetite suppressant, fat burner, and weight-loss pill. Although Defendants boast about the Product's efficacy on their labeling and in their advertising, none of the promised benefits are or can be delivered by the Product. To make matters worse, the Defendants only provide approximately 6.93% of the total amount of HCA they have claimed is in each serving of the Product on its label. In late 2012, Dr. Mehmet Oz of the highly popular TV show, "The Dr. Oz Show," claimed on his website that Garcinia Cambogia was the "Newest, Fastest Fat-Buster" and that, "Thanks to brand new scientific research, I can tell you about a revolutionary fat buster" with the words "No Exercise. No Diet. No Effort" on the screen behind him. According to the complaint, in June 2014, these representations regarding weight-loss products, including Garcinia Cambogia, were called into question by the United States Senate's Subcommittee on Consumer Protection, Product Safety, and Insurance, where Dr. Oz was called to testify. When presented with studies refuting the efficacy of Garcinia Cambogia, Dr. Oz testified that he could not be held responsible for what companies say about their products, that he had toned down some of his language, and that he would publish a list of products he believes can actually help people lose weight. With all the notoriety surrounding this new "miracle" diet pill, many dietary supplement manufacturers, including Defendants, exploited this opportunity to make money off unassuming consumers, regardless of the scientific research refuting claims regarding the Product. As a result of Defendants' unfair, deceptive, fraudulent, and misleading practices, the Plaintiff and Class Members were deceived into purchasing the Product they would not otherwise have purchased, denied the benefit of their bargain, or would have only purchased it at a substantially lower price than that charged by Defendants, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the Class: Nick Suciu III, Esq. BARBAT, MANSOUR & SUCIU PLLC 1644 Bracken Rd. Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302 Telephone: (313) 303-3472 Facsimile: (248) 698-8634 E-mail: nicksuciu@bmslawyers.com - and - Jonathan Shub, Esq. Kevin Laukaitis, Esq. KOHN, SWIFT & GRAF, P.C. 1600 Market Street, Suite 2500 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 238-1700 Facsimile: (215) 238-1968 E-mail: jshub@kohnswift.com klaukaitis@kohnswift.com - and - Gregory F. Coleman, Esq. Rachel Soffin, Esq. GREG COLEMAN LAW PC First Tennessee Plaza 800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Telephone: (865) 247-0080 Facsimile: (865) 533-0049 E-mail: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com rachel@gregcolemanlaw.com CREE INC: Young's Class Cert. Bid Denied; Compliance Hearing Today ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Hon. Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers issued an order in the lawsuit captioned JEFF YOUNG v. CREE, INC., Case No. 4:17-cv-06252-YGR (N.D. Cal.), denying the Plaintiff's motion for class certification and denying as moot motions to strike and exclude. On May 28, 2019, the Court heard oral argument on plaintiff's motion for class certification, which was fully briefed. As stated on the record, and confirmed herein, having carefully considered the briefing and arguments submitted in this matter, the Plaintiff's motion for class certification is denied without prejudice. Accordingly, and as noted on the record, the Court sets a compliance hearing for June 21, 2019. The parties shall file a joint statement outlining a proposed schedule. The Order also terminates Docket Numbers 79, 82, 85, 90, 93, and 105.[CC] DIPLOMAT PHARMACY: Asks Court to Transfer Suits to N.D. Illinois ---------------------------------------------------------------- Diplomat Pharmacy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the Company has filed unopposed motions seeking to transfer two complaints pending in the Central District of California to the Northern District of Illinois. On February 24, 2019 and March 6, 2019, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California and on March 12, 2019 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, putative class actions complaints were filed against Diplomat Pharmacy, Inc. and certain current and former officers of the Company. The complaints allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the company's public filings made between February 26, 2018 and February 21, 2019 (the "potential class period"). The plaintiffs each seek to represent a class of shareholders who purchased stock in the potential class period. The complaints seek unspecified monetary damages and other relief. The Company has filed unopposed motions to transfer the two complaints pending in the Central District of California to the Northern District of Illinois. The Company believes the complaints and allegations to be without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself against the actions. Diplomat said, "The Company is unable at this time to determine whether the outcome of the litigation would have a material impact on its results of operations, financial condition or cash flows." Diplomat Pharmacy, Inc. operates as an independent specialty pharmacy in the United States. The company operates through Specialty and PBM (pharmacy benefit management) segment. The company was founded in 1975 and is headquartered in Flint, Michigan. DIPLOMAT PHARMACY: Final Settlement Approval Hearing on Aug. 20 --------------------------------------------------------------- Diplomat Pharmacy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that a final settlement approval hearing in a Michigan class action suit is scheduled for August 20, 2019. On November 10, 2016, a putative class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan against Diplomat Pharmacy, Inc. and certain former officers of the Company. Following the appointment of lead plaintiffs and lead counsel, an amended complaint was filed on April 11, 2017. The amended complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with public filings made between February 29, 2016 and November 2, 2016 (the "potential class period"). The plaintiffs seek to represent a class of shareholders who purchased stock in the potential class period. The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on May 24, 2017. The court issued orders denying the Company's motion to dismiss on January 19, 2018 and the Company's motion for reconsideration of its motion to dismiss on August 9, 2018. The parties reached an agreement-in-principle on April 22, 2019 to resolve the litigation. The court preliminarily approved the settlement on May 7, 2019, and a final settlement approval hearing is scheduled for August 20, 2019. Diplomat said, "If approved by the court, the settlement would not have a material impact on the Company's results of operations, financial condition or cash flows." Diplomat Pharmacy, Inc. operates as an independent specialty pharmacy in the United States. The company operates through Specialty and PBM (pharmacy benefit management) segment. The company was founded in 1975 and is headquartered in Flint, Michigan. DOMINO'S PIZZA: Judge Refuses to Dismiss Antitrust Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reported that a federal judge refused to dismiss an antitrust class action against Domino's Pizza Franchising over its allegedly horizontal restraint of trade between competing franchises through no-hire agreements. A copy of Opinion and Order Denying Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is available at: https://is.gd/LbYl5d EBIX INC: Settlement of Stockholders Litigation Has Final Approval ------------------------------------------------------------------ Ebix, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the court has entered an Order and Final Judgment approving the settlement in the case entitled, In re Ebix, Inc. Stockholder Litigation, CA No. 8526-VCS. In May 2013, twelve putative class action complaints were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery against the Company and its board of directors challenging a proposed merger between the Company and an affiliate of Goldman Sachs & Co. On June 10, 2013, the Court entered an Order of Consolidation and Appointment of Lead Plaintiffs and a Leadership Structure consolidating the twelve actions and appointing lead plaintiffs ("Plaintiffs") and lead counsel in the litigation, captioned In re Ebix, Inc. Stockholder Litigation, Consol. C.A. No. 8526-VCS (the "Litigation"). On June 19, 2013, the Company announced that the merger agreement had been terminated. Thereafter, on August 27, 2013, Plaintiffs filed a Verified Amended and Supplemented Class Action and Derivative Complaint (the "First Amended Complaint"), which defendants moved to dismiss on September 26, 2013. On July 24, 2014, the Court issued a Memorandum Opinion granting in part and denying in part the motions to dismiss the First Amended Complaint and subsequently entered an implementing order on September 15, 2014. On January 16, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a Verified Second Amended and Supplemented Class Action and Derivative Complaint (the "Second Amended Complaint"). On February 10, 2015, defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint, which was granted in part and denied in part in a Memorandum Opinion and Order issued on January 15, 2016. On October 26, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a Verified Third Amended and Supplemented Class Action and Derivative Complaint (the "Third Amended Complaint"), which, among other things, added certain directors of the Company as defendants. On January 5, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to join an additional plaintiff as co-lead plaintiff in this action (collectively, "Plaintiffs," and together with all defendants, the "Parties"), which was granted on April 2, 2018. On January 19, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a Fourth Amended and Supplemented Class Action and Derivative Complaint (the "Fourth Amended Complaint"), which asserted claims against the defendants, including: breach of fiduciary duty claims for improperly maintaining an acquisition bonus agreement between the Company and its Chief Executive Officer, dated July 15, 2009 (the "ABA") (Count I); disclosure claims relating to the 2010 Proxy Statement and the Company's 2010 Stock Incentive Plan (the "2010 Plan") (Count II); a derivative claim for breach of fiduciary duty based on awards made pursuant to 2010 Plan (Count III); a breach of fiduciary duty claim for implementing purported additional entrenchment measures (Count IV); a claim seeking to declare the invalidity of certain bylaws adopted by the Company in 2014 (Count V); a claim seeking to declare the invalidity of the ABA (Count VI); a breach of fiduciary duty claim related to public disclosures about the ABA (Count VII); a claim seeking to declare the invalidity of the 2008 stockholder meeting, a 2008 Certificate amendment (the "Certificate Amendment") and a 2008 stock split (the "Stock Dividend"), among other corporate acts, including the Company's ratification of these 2008 corporate acts (Count VIII); a claim seeking to declare the invalidity of the CEO Bonus Plan (Count IX); and a claim for breach of fiduciary duty for deliberately inserting additional terms when calculating a potential bonus under the ABA (Count X). The Fourth Amended Complaint sought declaratory relief, compensatory damages, interest, and attorneys' fees and costs, among other things. On March 7, 2018, defendants filed motions for summary judgment on all counts in the Fourth Amended Complaint. In connection with the Litigation, the Company's Chief Executive Officer asserted a cross-claim for reformation of the ABA. The terms of the ABA generally provided that if Mr. Raina was employed by the Company upon the occurrence of: (i) an event in which more than 50% of the voting stock of the Company was sold, transferred, or exchanged, (ii) a merger or consolidation of the Company, (iii) the sale, exchange, or transfer of all or substantially all of the Company's assets, or (iv) the acquisition or dissolution of the Company (each, an "Acquisition Event"), the Company would pay Mr. Raina a cash bonus based on a formula that was disputed by Plaintiffs in the Litigation and a tax gross-up payment for excise taxes that would be imposed on Mr. Raina for the cash bonus payment. Upon the execution of a Stock Appreciation Right Award Agreement between the Company and its Chief Executive Officer, dated April 10, 2018 (the "April SAR Agreement"), the ABA was terminated and each party relinquished their respective rights and benefits under the ABA. Upon the effective date of the April SAR Agreement, Mr. Raina received 5,953,975 stock appreciation rights with respect to the Company’s common shares (the "SARs"). Upon an Acquisition Event, each of the SARs entitle Mr. Raina to receive a cash payment from the Company equal to the excess, if any, of the net proceeds per share received in connection with the Acquisition Event over the base price of $7.95 per share. Although the SARs were not granted under the 2010 Plan, the April SAR Agreement incorporates certain provisions of the 2010 Plan, including the provisions requiring equitable adjustment of the number of SARs and the base price in connection with certain corporate events (including stock splits). Under the terms of the April SAR Agreement, Mr. Raina is entitled to receive full payment with respect to the SARs if either (i) he is employed by the Company on the closing date of an Acquisition Event or (ii) has been involuntarily terminated by the Company without cause (as defined in the April SAR Agreement) within the 180-day period immediately preceding an Acquisition Event. All of the SARs are forfeited if Mr. Raina's employment is terminated for any other reason prior to the closing date of an Acquisition Event. In addition, while Mr. Raina is employed by the Company and prior to an Acquisition Event, the April SAR Agreement provides that the Company's Board of Directors (the "Board") will determine annually whether a "shortfall" (as described below) exists as of the end of the immediately preceding fiscal year. In the event the Board determines that a shortfall exists, Mr. Raina will be granted additional SARs (or, in the Board’s sole discretion, additional restricted shares or restricted stock units (each a "Share Grant")) in an amount sufficient to eliminate such shortfall (each a "Shortfall Grant"). Under the terms of the April SAR Agreement, a shortfall exists if: (A) the sum of (i) the number of common shares deemed to be owned by Mr. Raina as of the effective date of the April SAR Agreement, plus (ii) the number of SARs granted to Mr. Raina (including any Shortfall Grants), plus (iii) the number of shares underlying any previously granted Share Grant, was less than 20% of (B) the sum of (i) the number of SARs granted to Mr. Raina (including any Shortfall Grants), plus (ii) the number of outstanding shares reported by the Company in its audited financial statements as of the end of the immediately preceding fiscal year. Under the terms of the April SAR Agreement, if the Board elects to make a Shortfall Grant in respect of such shortfall, such SARs will be subject to the same terms and conditions as the SARs initially granted under the April SAR Agreement. If the Board elects to make a Share Grant in respect of such shortfall, such restricted shares or restricted stock units will have such terms and conditions as determined by the Board, but generally will follow the terms of the restricted shares or restricted stock units granted to other executives of the Company at or about the time of such Share Grant, but no Share Grant will vest more rapidly than one-third of such Share Grant prior to the first anniversary of the grant date, with the remainder vesting in eight equal quarterly installments following the first anniversary of the grant date. The April SAR Agreement also provides for the Company to make tax gross-up payments for excise taxes that would be imposed on Mr. Raina in respect of any payments (other than any payments with respect to any Share Grants) made in connection with a change in control of the Company under Section 4999 of the Internal Revenue Code. On May 31, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a Verified Supplement to the Fourth Amended Complaint (the "Supplement"), which asserted three additional counts related to the April SAR Agreement, including: a claim seeking to declare the April SAR Agreement invalid (Count XI); a claim for breach of fiduciary duty for adopting the April SAR Agreement (Count XII); and a claim for breach of fiduciary duty for improperly adopting the SAR Agreement as an “anti-takeover device” (Count XIII). The Supplement sought declaratory relief, compensatory damages, interest, and attorneys' fees and costs, among other things. On June 18, 2018, defendants moved to dismiss the claims asserted in the Supplement. Also on June 18, 2018, the Court entered a joint stipulation and order declaring the 2008 Certificate Amendment and Stock Dividend valid and effective pursuant to 8 Del. C. Section 205 and subsequently dismissed Count VIII of the Fourth Amended Complaint on July 5, 2018. On July 17, 2018, following briefing and argument, the Court issued an Order granting in part and denying in part defendants' motions for summary judgment on all remaining counts of the Fourth Amended Complaint. The Court granted summary judgment as to all defendants on Counts I, IV, V, VI, VII, and X and denied summary judgment as to Counts II and III. The Court granted summary judgment as to certain defendants on Count IX, and granted in part and denied in part Count IX with respect to the Firm Clients. On July 24, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a second supplement to the Fourth Amended Complaint related to certain disclosures issued in connection with the Company's 2018 annual meeting, which the Court denied at a pretrial conference held on August 15, 2018. On August 9, 2018, following briefing and argument, the Court issued a bench ruling granting in part and denying in part defendants' motion to dismiss the Supplement. A three-day trial on all remaining claims was held on August 20, 21, and 23, 2018. In connection with the foregoing Litigation, on January 23, 2019, the parties entered into a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement (the "Settlement Agreement") pursuant to which the parties agreed, subject to approval by the Delaware Court of Chancery, to settle and resolve the Litigation pursuant to the terms set forth in the Settlement Agreement (the "Litigation Settlement"). Thereafter, notice of the Litigation Settlement was prepared and mailed on February 4, 2019 (the "Notice"). An Amended Stock Appreciation Right Award Agreement (the "Amended SAR Agreement") was negotiated as part of the Litigation Settlement and will become effective upon Final Approval (as defined in the Settlement Agreement) of the Litigation Settlement, and includes the following changes and modifications to the April SAR Agreement: (a) Mr. Raina will commit to continue to serve and not resign as the Company's Chief Executive Officer for at least two years following Final Approval of the Litigation Settlement; (b) any shares paid, awarded or otherwise received by Mr. Raina as compensation after the effective date of the April SAR Agreement, including any shares received by Mr. Raina from the exercise of any options granted after the effective date of the April SAR Agreement or from the grant or vesting of any restricted shares or settlement of any restricted stock units granted after the effective date of the April SAR Agreement (but excluding any shares received as a result of the grant, vesting or settlement of any Share Grants), will be excluded from the outstanding shares for purposes of the Board’s annual shortfall determination; (c) if an Acquisition Event occurs more than 180 days after, but not later than the tenth anniversary of, the date that Mr. Raina's employment is involuntarily terminated by the Company without Cause (as defined in the Amended SAR Agreement), 1,000,000 SARs will be deemed accrued and will be eligible to vest on the closing date of the Acquisition Event, which number will be increased by 750,000 SARs beginning on the first anniversary of Final Approval of the Litigation Settlement and each anniversary thereafter (subject in each case to Mr. Raina's continued employment on each anniversary date), until 100% of the SARs (including any Shortfall Grants) have accrued and are eligible to vest on the closing date of an Acquisition Event that occurs more than 180 days after, but not later than the tenth anniversary of, the date that Mr. Raina's employment is involuntarily terminated by the Company without Cause; provided, however, that, (i) no additional SARs will accrue following the date that Mr. Raina's employment is involuntarily terminated by the Company without Cause, (ii) any accrued SARs will be forefited if an Acquisition Event does not occur prior to the tenth anniversary of the date that Mr. Raina's employment is involuntarily terminated by the Company without Cause, and (iii) all of the SARs will be forfeited if Mr. Raina's employment terminates for any other reason prior to the closing date of an Acquisition Event; and (d) The obligation of the Company to make tax gross-up payments for excise taxes that would be imposed on Mr. Raina in respect of any payments made in connection with a change in control of the Company will be eliminated. The foregoing description does not purport to be complete and is qualified in its entirety by reference to the Amended SAR Agreement. On April 5, 2019, the Delaware Court of Chancery determined that the Litigation Settlement was fair, reasonable, adequate and in the best interest of the plaintiffs, the class and the Company and awarded to plaintiffs' counsel attorneys' fees and expenses in the sum of $19.65 million, payable by the Company within 20 days, and entered an Order and Final Judgment (the "Order") approving the Litigation Settlement. The Order provides for full settlement, satisfaction, compromise and release of all claims that were asserted or could have been asserted in the Litigation, whether on behalf of the class or the Company. The Order is publicly available for inspection at the Office of the Register in Chancery, and on the Court's online electronic filing system, File & ServeXpress. The Litigation Settlement includes, among other things, the adoption and entry into the Amended SAR Agreement, as well as certain governance measures set forth in the Settlement Agreement, in each case, effective upon the later of (i) expiration of the period for taking an appeal of the Order, or (ii) final resolution of any such appeal (excluding any appeal from the Order that relates solely to the issue of plaintiffs' counsels' application for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses). The Settlement contains no admission of wrongdoing or liability, and may not be deemed to be a presumption as to the validity of any claims, causes of action or other issues. Ebix, Inc. provides software and e-commerce solutions to insurance, finance, healthcare, and e-learning industries. The company was formerly known as Delphi Systems, Inc. and changed its name to Ebix, Inc. in December 2003. Ebix, Inc. was founded in 1976 and is headquartered in Johns Creek, Georgia. EDCO DISPOSAL: Fuentes Seeks Minimum Wage & and Overtime Pay ------------------------------------------------------------ GABRIEL FUENTES, individually, and on behalf of all other similarly situated current and former employees of Defendants, the Plaintiff, vs. EDCO DISPOSAL CORPORATION, a California Corporation; and EDCO TRANSPORT SERVICES, LLC, a California limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 37-2019-0028578-CU-OE-CTL (Cal. Super., June 4, 2019), alleges that Defendants failed to provide all timely meal and rest period; pay for all hours worked, including minimum wage, straight time, and overtime pay; timely pay all wages to terminated employees; and furnish accurate statements and maintain required records, in accordance with California Labor Code and the Industrial Welfare Commission. The Defendants also have wrongfully failed to provide Plaintiff and the Class with timely, adequate, and duty-free meal periods, by way of specific classwide company policies and practices, including, but not limited to, their shift and meal period scheduling policies and practices, and the lack of express meal period policies. According to the complaint, the Defendants regularly required Plaintiff and the Class to work in excess of five consecutive hours a day without providing a 30-minute, continuous and uninterrupted, meal period for every five hours of work, or without compensating Plaintiff and the Class for meal periods that were not provided by the end of the fifth hour of work or tenth hour of work. The Defendants did not inform Plaintiff and the Class of their right to take a meal period by the end of the fifth hour of work. The Defendants did not inform Plaintiff and the Class of their right to take a second meal break for shifts longer than 10 hours. The Defendants did not inform Plaintiff and the Class of their right, for shifts of more than hours, to take a second meal break by the end of the 10th hour. Moreover, the Defendants did not have legally compliant policies or practices providing adequate and duty-free meal periods for Plaintiff and the Class, nor did Defendants have legally compliant policies or practices regarding the timing of meal periods, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: Farzad Rastegar, Esq. Joshua Lange, Esq. RASTEGAR LAW GROUP, A.P.C. 22760 Hawthorne Boulevard, Suite 200 Torrance, CA 90505 Telephone: (310) 961-9600 Facsimile: (310) 961-9094 E-mail: farzad@rastegarlawgroup.com josh@rastegarlawgroup.com ELBIT IMAGING: Court Declares Gadish Settlement Final ----------------------------------------------------- Elbit Imaging Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on May 13, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that an Israeli Supreme Court has decided to reject a class action appeal, making the settlement in Gadish et al v. Elscint et al., final. On September 27, 2017, the company announced that the district court in Israel approved in principle a settlement with the plaintiffs in a November 1999 claim initiated against the company and certain other third parties, including former directors of the Company and Elscint Ltd. (the company's former subsidiary), in connection with the change of control in the Company and in Elscint and the acquisition of the hotel businesses and the Arena Commercial Center in Israel by Elscint in September 1999 from Europe Israel (our former controlling shareholder) (Gadish et al v. Elscint et al). This lawsuit was later certified in part as a class action. According to the settlement, the plaintiffs will receive compensation in the total amount of NIS 50 million (approximately $14 million). The Company is expected to pay NIS 4.65 million (approximately $1.3 million) of the said amount. On January 17, 2018 the Company announced that the court has given its final approval of the settlement. However, one of the plaintiffs initiated a motion for leave to appeal against the settlement. In August 2018 the Supreme Court decided to reject the appeal and the settlement became final. Elbit Imaging Ltd. hold investments in real estate and medical companies. The Company, through its subsidiaries, also develop shopping and entertainment centers in Central Europe and invest in and manage hotels. EMCOR SERVICES: Persaud Seeks Unpaid Wages Under NYLL ----------------------------------------------------- Jagdesh Persaud, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. EMCOR SERVICES NEW YORK/NEW JERSEY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 710098/2019 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Queens Cty., June 10, 2019) is an action against Defendant pursuant to New York Labor Law. The Defendants has engaged and continues to engage in illegal and improper wage practices, notes the complaint. These practices include requiring Maintenance Workers to perform work without compensation during meal breaks; failing to pay Maintenance Workers overtime of time and one-half their regular of rate of pay for all hours worked over forty in a week; and failing to provide accurate wage statements, says the complaint. Plaintiff Jagdesh Persaud was employed by Defendant as a Maintenance Worker from 2002 until May 20, 2019. Defendant employed Plaintiff out of its offices located at 5 Dakota Drive, Suite 111m Lake Success, New York 11042.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Louis Ginsberg, Esq. THW LAW FIRM OF LOUIS GINSBERG, P.C. 1613 Northern Boulevard Roslyn, NY 11567 Phone: (516) 625-0105 x. 18 EQUIFAX INC: Appeal in Saskatchewan Cybersecurity Suit Underway --------------------------------------------------------------- Equifax Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the Court's order staying a case in Saskatchewan related to the 2017 cybersecurity incident is on appeal. Eight Canadian class actions, six of which are on behalf of a national class of approximately 19,000 Canadian consumers, have been filed against the company in Ontario, Saskatchewan, Quebec, British Columbia and Alberta. Each of the proposed Canadian class actions asserts a number of common law and statutory claims seeking monetary damages and other related relief in connection with the 2017 cybersecurity incident. The plaintiffs in each case seek class certification/authorization on behalf of Canadian consumers whose personal information was allegedly impacted by the 2017 cybersecurity incident. In some cases, plaintiffs also seek class certification on behalf of Canadian consumers who had contracts for subscription products with Equifax around the time of the incident. All purported class actions are at preliminary stages, and we are opposing class certification or authorization in cases where such motions are pending. In addition, one of the cases in Ontario as well as the Saskatchewan case have been stayed. The Court's order staying the Saskatchewan case is on appeal. Equifax Inc. provides information solutions and human resources business process outsourcing services for businesses, governments, and consumers. The company operates through four segments: U.S. Information Solutions (USIS), International, Workforce Solutions, and Global Consumer Solutions. Equifax Inc. was founded in 1899 and is headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia. EQUIFAX INC: Consolidated Securities Class Suit in Georgia Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------------------ Equifax Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company continues to defend a consolidated securities class action suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. A consolidated putative class action lawsuit alleging violations of various federal securities laws in connection with statements and alleged omissions regarding the company's cybersecurity systems and controls is pending against the company and certain of its current and former executives, officers and directors in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. The consolidated complaint seeks certification of a class of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Equifax securities from February 25, 2016 through September 15, 2017 and unspecified monetary damages, costs and attorneys' fees. The Company moved to dismiss the consolidated class action complaint in its entirety. On January 28, 2019, the court dismissed claims against certain individual defendants and claims challenging certain statements, but allowed other claims against Equifax and the company's former Chairman and Chief Executive Officer to proceed. Pursuant to scheduling and case management orders issued by the court, pre-trial proceedings, including discovery between the parties, are moving forward on the remaining claims. Equifax Inc. provides information solutions and human resources business process outsourcing services for businesses, governments, and consumers. The company operates through four segments: U.S. Information Solutions (USIS), International, Workforce Solutions, and Global Consumer Solutions. Equifax Inc. was founded in 1899 and is headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia. EQUIFAX INC: Data Breach Suits in Georgia Underway -------------------------------------------------- Equifax Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company continues to defend class action suits related to cybersecurity incident in Georgia. Four putative class actions arising from the 2017 cybersecurity incident were filed against the company in Fulton County Superior Court and Fulton County State Court in Georgia based on similar allegations and theories as alleged in the U.S. consumer class actions pending in the MDL Court and seek monetary damages, injunctive relief and other related relief on behalf of Georgia citizens. These cases have been transferred to a single judge in the Fulton County Business Court and three of the cases were consolidated into a single action. On July 27, 2018, the Fulton County Business Court granted the Company's motion to stay the remaining single case, and on August 17, 2018, the Fulton County Business Court granted the Company's motion to stay the consolidated case. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Equifax Inc. provides information solutions and human resources business process outsourcing services for businesses, governments, and consumers. The company operates through four segments: U.S. Information Solutions (USIS), International, Workforce Solutions, and Global Consumer Solutions. Equifax Inc. was founded in 1899 and is headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia. EQUIFAX INC: Preliminary Approval of Thomas Case Settlement Sought ------------------------------------------------------------------ Equifax Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the plaintiffs are seeking preliminary approval of a nationwide class action settlement in the case titled Mark William Thomas, et al. v. Equifax Information Services LLC. Equifax has been named as a defendant in 19 putative class action lawsuits pending in federal courts across the country relating to its reporting of civil judgments and tax liens on consumers' credit files. In October 2018, Equifax and the plaintiffs' attorneys who filed the lawsuits reached an agreement in principle to settle the public records-related claims at issue on behalf of a nationwide class of consumers and we accrued an estimate of $18.5 million for our liability for these matters in the third quarter of 2018. The amount accrued represents our best estimate of the liability related to this matter. The parties have filed notices of settlement in the pending lawsuits, and on April 17, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of the nationwide class action settlement in the case titled Mark William Thomas, et al. v. Equifax Information Services LLC. Equifax said, "If the settlement is not ultimately approved by the court, Equifax believes it has valid defenses to each of these actions and will continue to defend against them." Equifax Inc. provides information solutions and human resources business process outsourcing services for businesses, governments, and consumers. The company operates through four segments: U.S. Information Solutions (USIS), International, Workforce Solutions, and Global Consumer Solutions. Equifax Inc. was founded in 1899 and is headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia. ESSA BANCORP: Appellate Court Remands Suit over RESPA Violations ---------------------------------------------------------------- ESSA Bancorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the appellate court reversed the district court's order dismissing the plaintiff's class action over violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) against the Bank, and remanded the case back to the district court. The Bank was named as a defendant in an action commenced on December 8, 2016 by one plaintiff who will also seek to pursue this action as a class action on behalf of the entire class of people similarly situated. The plaintiff alleges that a bank previously acquired by ESSA Bancorp in the process of making loans, received unearned fees and kickbacks in violation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act. In an order dated January 29, 2018, the district court granted the Bank's motion to dismiss the case. The plaintiff appealed the court's ruling. In an opinion and order dated April 26, 2019, the appellate court reversed the district court's order dismissing the plaintiff's case against the Bank, and remanded the case back to the district court in order to continue the litigation. ESSA Bancorp said, "The Bank will continue to vigorously defend against such allegations. To the extent that pending or threatened litigation could result in exposure to the Bank, the amount of such exposure is not currently estimable." ESSA Bancorp, Inc. operates as the holding company for ESSA Bank & Trust that provides a range of financial services to individuals, families, and businesses in Pennsylvania. ESSA Bancorp, Inc. was founded in 1916 and is based in Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania. EVOQUA WATER: McWilliams Class Action Re-Captioned -------------------------------------------------- Evoqua Water Technologies Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the class action entitled, McWilliams v. Evoqua Water Technologies Corp., et al. has been recaptioned as In re Evoqua Water Technologies Corp. Securities Litigation," Master File No. 1:18-CV-10320. On or around November 6, 2018, a purported shareholder of the Company filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned McWilliams v. Evoqua Water Technologies Corp., et al., Case No. 1:18-CV-10320, alleging that the Company and senior management violated federal securities laws. On January 31, 2019, the court appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel in connection with the action and captioned the action "In re Evoqua Water Technologies Corp. Securities Litigation," Master File No. 1:18-CV-10320." On March 28, 2019, lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which asserts claims pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Securities Act of 1933 against the Company, members of the Company's Board of Directors, senior management, other executives and/or employees, AEA Investors LP and a number of its affiliated entities, and the underwriters of the Company's initial public offering and secondary public offering. The amended complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing false, misleading, and/or omissive disclosures concerning the Company's integration of acquired companies, the Company's reduction-in-force, and the Company's accounting practices. The lawsuit seeks compensatory damages in an unspecified amount to be proved at trial, an award of reasonable costs and expenses to the plaintiff and class counsel, and such other relief as the court may deem just and proper. The Company believes that this lawsuit is without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself against the allegations. Evoqua Water Technologies Corp. provides a range of water and wastewater treatment systems and technologies, and mobile and emergency water supply solutions and services. It operates in three segments: Industrial, Municipal, and Products. The company has operations in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Germany, Australia, China, and Singapore. Evoqua Water Technologies Corp. was incorporated in 2013 and is headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. FACEBOOK INC: Awaits Decision on Data Breach Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a federal judge in California must consider whether personal information is a form of currency and determine whether to advance a class action over a massive Facebook data breach. Fighting litigation over a September 2018 hack that affected 29 million users, Facebook argues a liability-limiting clause in its terms of service is particularly strong and enforceable for a company that provides a free service, as the Ninth Circuit held last year in Darnaa LLC v. Google. But five named plaintiffs say they pay for access to Facebook's social network in the form of valuable personal data, which the company uses for targeted advertising and sells to third parties to make more than $40 billion in 2017 alone. "Is it a cost to the consumer that they hand over all this personal information which is used by Facebook to sell to other people?" U.S. District Judge William Alsup asked in court on May 2. Last year, hackers managed to infiltrate millions of Facebook accounts by exploiting a vulnerability in its "View As" feature for user profiles. Facebook initially said the breach affected 50 million users but has since downgraded that estimate to 29 million users, including 4 million in the U.S. Hackers swiped the names and contact information -- such as phone numbers or email addresses -- of 2.7 million U.S. users, and infiltrated the profiles of an additional 1.2 million U.S. users, gaining access to usernames, birthdates, workplaces, hometowns, schools attended and other personal information, including places where they recently "checked in" or were "tagged." In a hearing on May 2 at the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, lawyers for a proposed class of hacked Facebook users urged Alsup to take a long, hard look at the social network's business model as he decides whether the service is actually free of charge. "The notion that this is a free service is a little outdated," plaintiffs' attorney Douglas McNamara said. "The currency is your information." McNamara, of Cohen Milstein Sellers Toll in New York, insisted that Facebook's limitation-of-liability clause should be deemed "unconscionable" and "unenforceable" because it directly contradicts pledges the company has made about protecting user privacy. Quoting the "Privacy Principles" posted on Facebook's website, McNamara cited representations that the company "work[s] hard to keep your information secure" and is "accountable." Alsup did not seem particularly persuaded that such comments can be interpreted as promises to protect private user data. "It says, 'We work hard to keep your information secure,'" Alsup said. "That's not quite the same as saying, 'We guarantee it will always be secure.'" After pressing both sides to identify an "on-point" court ruling on whether personal information can count as a "cost" of service, Alsup concluded he is in uncharted territory. The judge asked Facebook's legal team to explain why there should not be "bone-crushing discovery" to determine how valuable Facebook users' information is and whether its social network can truly be considered a "free service." Facebook lawyer Andrew Clubok, of Latham & Watkins in Washington, D.C., insisted that courts have not recognized the type of information taken in the 2018 data breach as particularly valuable. He further argued that users voluntarily add that data to their profiles. The only information required to open an account is a name, birth date, gender and phone number or email address. Given the nature of the online social network, Aslup did not put much weight on the fact that users volunteer to post personal information there. "What's the point of opening account other than sharing private information?" Alsup asked. The judge also acknowledged his own personal discomfort with the Menlo Park-based company's business model. "For me, I would not like the places I like going on vacation being spread across the country so people can send me ads about it," Alsup said. After 90 minutes of debate, Alsup took the arguments under submission. He also ordered plaintiffs' lawyers to make their five clients available for depositions by May 10, and he asked Facebook to file supplemental briefs on any evidence uncovered in those interviews. Started in 2004 by Harvard dropout Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook remains the world's largest online social network with 1.56 billion daily active users and nearly 2.4 billion monthly active users as of March 31, 2019. FICOHSA EXPRESS: Coello Suit Asserts TCPA Breach ------------------------------------------------ LESLY COELLO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. FICOHSA EXPRESS, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-22383-JEM (S.D. Fla., June 10, 2019) seeks to secure redress for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. To promote its services, Defendant engages in unsolicited marketing, harming thousands of consumers in the process. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's illegal conduct, which has resulted in the invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of thousands of individuals. Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of himself and members of the class, and any other available legal or equitable remedies. Plaintiff is a natural person was a resident of Jefferson Parish, Louisiana. Defendant owns and operates a money transfer service.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. Garrett O. Berg, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 1205 Miami, FL 33132 Phone (305) 479-2299 Facsimile (786) 623-0915 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com gberg@shamisgentile.com - and - Scott Edelsberg, Esq. Jordan D. Utanski, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, PA 19495 Biscayne Blvd. #607 Aventura, FL 33180 Phone: (305) 975-3320 Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com utanski@edelsberglaw.com - and - Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: 954.400.4713 Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com FIFTH THIRD: Appeal in Early Access Cash Advance Lawsuit Ongoing ---------------------------------------------------------------- Fifth Third Bancorp said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the appeal in the case entitled, In re: Fifth Third Early Access Cash Advance Litigation (Case No. 1:12-CV-00851), is ongoing. On August 3, 2012, William Klopfenstein and Adam McKinney filed a lawsuit against Fifth Third Bank in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio (Klopfenstein et al. v. Fifth Third Bank), alleging that the 120% APR that Fifth Third disclosed on its Early Access program was misleading. Early Access is a deposit-advance program offered to eligible customers with checking accounts. The plaintiffs sought to represent a nationwide class of customers who used the Early Access program and repaid their cash advances within 30 days. On October 31, 2012, the case was transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. In 2013, four similar putative class actions were filed against Fifth Third Bank in federal courts throughout the country (Lori and Danielle Laskaris v. Fifth Third Bank, Janet Fyock v. Fifth Third Bank, Jesse McQuillen v. Fifth Third Bank, and Brian Harrison v. Fifth Third Bank). Those four lawsuits were transferred to the Southern District of Ohio and consolidated with the original lawsuit as In re: Fifth Third Early Access Cash Advance Litigation (Case No. 1:12-CV-00851). On behalf of a putative class, the plaintiffs sought unspecified monetary and statutory damages, injunctive relief, punitive damages, attorney's fees, and pre- and post-judgment interest. On March 30, 2015, the court dismissed all claims alleged in the consolidated lawsuit except a claim under the TILA. On January 10, 2018, plaintiffs filed a motion to hear the immediate appeal of the dismissal of their breach of contract claim. On March 28, 2018, the court granted plaintiffs' motion and stayed the TILA claim pending that appeal. On April 26, 2018, plaintiffs filed their notice of appeal for the breach of contract claim with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Oral argument on plaintiffs' appeal was held on January 29, 2019. Fifth Third Bancorp operates as a diversified financial services company in the United States. Fifth Third Bancorp was founded in 1858 and is headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio. FIFTH THIRD: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set for Nov. 7 ------------------------------------------------------------- Fifth Third Bancorp said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that a hearing to consider final approval of the settlement resolving the Plaintiff Damages Class is scheduled for November 7, 2019. In April 2006, the Bancorp was added as a defendant in a consolidated antitrust class action lawsuit originally filed against Visa(R), MasterCard(R) and several other major financial institutions in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (In re: Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 05-MD-1720). The plaintiffs, merchants operating commercial businesses throughout the U.S. and trade associations, claimed that the interchange fees charged by card-issuing banks were unreasonable and sought injunctive relief and unspecified damages. In addition to being a named defendant, the Bancorp is currently also subject to a possible indemnification obligation of Visa and has also entered into judgment and loss sharing agreements with Visa, MasterCard and certain other named defendants. In October 2012, the parties to the litigation entered into a settlement agreement. On January 14, 2014, the trial court entered a final order approving the class settlement. A number of merchants filed appeals from that approval. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held a hearing on those appeals and on June 30, 2016, reversed the district court's approval of the class settlement, remanding the case to the district court for further proceedings. On March 27, 2017, the Supreme Court of the United States denied a petition for writ of certiorari seeking to review the Second Circuit's decision. Pursuant to the terms of the overturned settlement agreement, the Bancorp had previously paid $46 million into a class settlement escrow account. Approximately 8,000 merchants requested exclusion from the class settlement, and therefore, pursuant to the terms of the overturned settlement agreement, approximately 25% of the funds paid into the class settlement escrow account had been already returned to the control of the defendants. The remaining approximately 75% of the settlement funds paid by the Bancorp are currently maintained in the escrow account. More than 500 of the merchants who requested exclusion from the class filed separate federal lawsuits against Visa, MasterCard and certain other defendants alleging similar antitrust violations. These individual federal lawsuits were transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. While the Bancorp is only named as a defendant in one of the individual federal lawsuits, it may have obligations pursuant to indemnification arrangements and/or the judgment or loss sharing agreements. On June 5, 2018, the defendants in the consolidated class action reached an agreement to settle in principle with the proposed plaintiffs' class seeking monetary damages (the "Plaintiff Damages Class"). On September 17, 2018, those parties signed a settlement agreement (the "Amended Settlement Agreement") superseding the original settlement agreement entered into in October 2012. The Amended Settlement Agreement included, among other terms, a release from participating class members for liability for claims that accrue no later than five years after the Amended Settlement Agreement becomes final. The Amended Settlement Agreement provided for a total payment by all defendants of $6.24 billion, composed of approximately $5.3 billion held in escrow and an additional $900 million. The Bancorp's allocated share of the putative settlement is within existing reserves. If more than 15% of class members (by payment volume) opt out of the class, up to $700 million of the settlement payment may be returned to the defendants. On September 18, 2018, the Plaintiff Damages Class filed a Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Amended Settlement Agreement. On January 24, 2019, the Court issued an order preliminarily approving the settlement. A hearing on final approval of the settlement is scheduled for November 7, 2019. This settlement does not resolve the claims of the separate proposed plaintiffs' class seeking injunctive relief or the claims of merchants who are pursuing separate lawsuits. The ultimate outcome in this matter, including the timing of resolution, therefore remains uncertain. Fifth Third Bancorp operates as a diversified financial services company in the United States. Fifth Third Bancorp was founded in 1858 and is headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio. FINANCIAL RECOVERY: Thompson Sues Over Debt Collection Practices ---------------------------------------------------------------- Julia Thompson a/k/a Julia Penamon, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Financial Recovery Services, Inc., LVNV Funding, LLC and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-12291 (D. N.J., May 8, 2019), seeks damages and declaratory relief under the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act. Financial Recovery Services is a debt collector with address at 4510 W. 77th St., Ste. 200, Edina, MN 55435 who was assigned to collect an obligation owed by Thompson to Citifinancial, Inc. It sent a collection letter that omitted the requirement that a consumer must dispute the debt in writing. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. YAAKOV SAKS Stein Saks, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Tel: (201) 282-6500 Fax: (201) 282-6501 Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com FIRST AMERICAN: Barajases Sue over Data Breach ---------------------------------------------- ANTONIO BARAJAS and KATHLEEN BARAJAS, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. FIRST AMERICAN FINANCIAL CORPORATION and FIRST AMERICAN TITLE COMPANY, the Defendants, Case 8:19-cv-01078 (C.D. Cal., June 3, 2019), seeks damages and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under applicable law including Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, California Code of Civil Procedure, and Catalyst Theory. First American has admitted that its current and former customers' personally identifiable information (PII) were exposed as a result of their system. As a result of First American's negligence, Plaintiffs and members of the Class and Subclass have suffered and will suffer injury. The Plaintiffs relied upon First American's representations that it would maintain Plaintiffs' information securely, and reasonably expected that First American would take reasonable measures to ensure data security of sensitive information. As of the filing of this complaint, First American has not provided Plaintiffs with any notice of the existence of the data breach, the lawsuit says. First American's extensive advertising on the security of its systems shows that First American understood the value this creates for a consumer. However, First American was not running even the most basic of security tests. Beginning in June 2004, the Plaintiffs entered the market to buy Plaintiffs' home. Utilizing First American's services, the Plaintiffs purchased or refinanced several of their residential homes between June 2004 and February 2016. In the process of using First American's services, Plaintiffs received several documents electronically from First American. These documents contained Plaintiffs' personally identifiable information (PII). These documents were allegedly made publicly accessible on the internet due to First American's negligent use of URLs.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs: Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. Jason A. Ibey, Esq. Nicholas R. Barthel, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: ak@kazlg.com jason@kazlg.com nicholas@kazlg.com - and - Matt Schultz, Esq. Bill Cash, Esq. Brenton Goodman, Esq. LEVIN, PAPANTONIO, THOMAS, MITCHELL, RAFFERTY & PROCTOR, P.A. Pro Hac Vice to be filed 316 S Baylen St Ste 600 Pensacola, FL 32502-5996 Telephone: (850) 435-7140 Facsimile: (850) 436-6140 E-mail: mschultz@levinlaw.com bcash@levinlaw.com bvigodsky@levinlaw.com - and - HYDE & SWIGART Joshua B. Swigart, Esq. 2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-7770 Facsimile: (619) 297-1022 E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com FIRST SOURCE: Ulrich Sues Over Illegal Collection Activities ------------------------------------------------------------ Carl Ulrich individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff, v. First Source Advantage, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-12377 (D. N.J., May 21, 2019) is a class action suit seeking redress for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Act. First Source Advantage is a debt collections service provider headquartered in Amherst, New York. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: David Paul Force, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Tel: (201) 282-6500 Ext. 107 Fax: (201) 282-6501 Email: dforce@steinsakslegal.com FORD MOTOR: Dawson Files Product Liability Suit in E.D. Michigan ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ford Motor Company. The case is styled as Dustin Dawson, Rick Shawley on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Ford Motor Company, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-11728-BAF-RSW (E.D. Mich., June 10, 2019). The nature of suit is stated as Motor Vehicle Product Liability. Ford Motor Company, incorporated on July 9, 1919, is a global automotive and mobility company. The Company's business includes designing, manufacturing, marketing, and servicing a line of Fordcars, trucks, and sport utility vehicles (SUVs), as well as Lincoln luxury vehicles.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Lynn L. Sarko, Esq. Keller Rohrback 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 623-1900 Email: lsarko@kellerrohrback.com FORD MOTOR: Hubert Files Suit Over Erroneous Fuel Economy Ratings ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ryan Hubert, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Ford Motor Company, Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-02125 (C.D. Ill., May 9, 2019) seeks redress for Defendant's breach of express warranties and for violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. Hubert purchased a new 2018 Ford F-150 XL from Heller Ford, an authorized Ford dealership, located in El Paso, Illinois. He claims that Ford's fuel economy ratings were erroneous and overstated. Ford engaged in the business of designing, manufacturing, marketing, warranting, distributing, selling, and leasing automobiles. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Adam J. Levitt, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT & CASEY LLC 11th Floor, 10 North Dearborn Street Chicago, IL 60602 Tel: (312) 214-7900 Email: alevitt@dlcfirm.com - and - Joel E. Brown, Esq. Suite 1300, 416 Main St Peoria, IL 61602 Tel: (309) 673-4357 Fax: (309) 673-6119 Email: jebrownlaw@sbcglobal.net GAMESTOP CORP: Baker Seeks Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------- MARK BRANDON BAKER and JACOB O'BRYANT, Individually, and on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated current and former employees, Plaintiffs, v. GAMESTOP CORP. d/b/a Spring Mobile, a Delaware Corporation, and SPRING COMMUNICATIONS HOLDINGS, LLC, d/b/a Spring Mobile, formerly Spring Communications Holdings, Inc., a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-02375-SHM-jay (W.D. Tenn., June 7, 2019) is a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), to recover unpaid minimum wages, overtime compensation and other damages owed to Plaintiffs and other similarly situated current and former employees who are members of a class and currently or previously employed by Defendants. The Defendants have and continue to employ a uniform payment structure for its retail sales associates which violates the FLSA's overtime policies because the commission payments and/or non-discretionary bonuses earned by Plaintiffs and those similarly situated employees are not included in such employees' regular rate when overtime payments are calculated, says the complaint. Moreover, the Defendants failed to include commission payments and/or nondiscretionary bonuses in the regular rate of pay for Plaintiffs and those similarly situated resulting in underpayment of overtime. Overtime was paid solely on Plaintiffs' base hourly rate rather than Plaintiffs regular rate, which generally requires the inclusion of commission payments and non-discretionary bonuses in the regular rate when calculating overtime, adds the complaint. Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants as sales persons on an hourly-plus-commission basis. Spring Mobile was also known as Technology Brands, a division, or segment, of GameStop that sells AT&T compatible phones, AT&T data plans, cell phone accessories and DirectTV Service.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gordon E. Jackson, Esq. J. Russ Bryant, Esq. Robert E. Turner IV, Esq. Nathaniel A. Bishop, Esq. JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER & HOLT 262 German Oak Drive Memphis, TN 38018 Phone: (901) 754-8001 Fax: (901) 759-1745 Email: gjackson@jsyc.com rbryant@jsyc.com rturner@jsyc.com nbishop@jsyc.com GEICO INDEMNITY: Jimenez Files Class Action in Connecticut ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Geico Indemnity Co. The case is styled as Josee Jimenez, Maryana Glas and all other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. Geico Indemnity Co, Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-00897-MPS (D. Conn., June 10, 2019). The nature of suit is stated as Insurance. The Government Employees Insurance Company (GEICO) is an American auto insurance company with headquarters in Chevy Chase, Maryland.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: William E. Murray, Esq. Law Offices of William E. Murray, LLC 41 North Main Street, Suite 204 West Hartford, CT 06107 Phone: (860) 969-0619 Fax: (860) 969-0554 Email: bill@billmurraylegal.com GENIE ENERGY: IDT Energy Still Defends Mackey & Hernandez Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Genie Energy Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that IDT Energy continues to defend a class action lawsuit initiated by Scott Mackey and Daniel Hernandez. On October 5, 2018, named plaintiffs Scott Mackey and Daniel Hernandez filed a putative class action complaint against IDT Energy in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 227 et seq. The named plaintiffs filed the suit on behalf of: (1) a putative Cell Phone class consisting of all persons in the U.S. to whom IDT Energy and/or a third party acting on IDT Energy's behalf allegedly made one or more telemarketing calls promoting IDT Energy's goods or services to their cellular telephone number through the use of an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice within the four year period preceding the filing of the complaint and (2) a putative Do-Not-Call class consisting of all persons in the U.S. who allegedly received more than one call from IDT Energy and/or some party acting on IDT Energy's behalf promoting IDT Energy's goods or services in a 12-month period on their cellular phone or residential telephone line and whose number appears on the National Do-Not-Call registry within the four year period preceding the filing of the complaint. On November 30, 2018, IDT Energy filed its Answer and Defenses to the complaint and the parties are now engaged in discovery. IDT Energy denies the allegations in the complaint, which it believes to be completely, meritless and plans to vigorously defend this action. Based upon the Company's preliminary assessment of this matter, a loss based on the merits is not considered probable, nor is the amount of loss, if any, estimable as of March 31, 2019. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Genie Energy Ltd., through its subsidiaries, operates as a retail energy provider; and an oil and gas exploration company. The company operates through three segments: Genie Retail Energy; Genie Energy Services; and Genie Oil and Gas, Inc. Genie Energy Ltd. was incorporated in 2001 and is headquartered in Newark, New Jersey. GENIE ENERGY: Says Remaining Class Action Liability Totals $400,000 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Genie Energy Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the remaining balance of the company's liability related to a class-action lawsuit was $0.4 million. On March 13, 2014, July 2, 2014 and July 15, 2014, named plaintiffs in Pennsylvania, New York and New Jersey commenced three separate putative class-action lawsuits against IDT Energy, Genie Retail Energy (GRE), Genie Energy International Corporation (GEIC), and Genie (collectively, "IDTE") contending, among other things, that they and other former and current customers of IDTE were injured as a result of IDTE's allegedly unlawful sales and marketing practices. The Company denied any basis for those allegations and/or wrongdoing. On July 5, 2017, the Company entered into a settlement of all three actions to further its efforts to address its customers' concerns. On July 31, 2018, the Magistrate Court issued a report and recommendation recommending approval of the settlement and reduction of the attorneys' fees. On October 18, 2018, the Court entered a final order approving the Settlement Agreement. Under the Settlement Agreement, the Company agreed to pay certain amounts to resolve the lawsuits and obtain a release of claims that were, or could have been, asserted in the lawsuits or that are related to, or arise out of the conduct alleged in the lawsuits or similar conduct, wherever it may have occurred. The settlement payment includes payments to customers who timely made a claim, class counsel, and the named plaintiffs, as well as the cost of a claims administrator for administrating the claims process. The period for class members to make claims has expired, and in first quarter of 2018, based on the claims received and related administrative costs, the Company estimated that the total settlement payment will be approximately $7.6 million. At March 31, 2019, the remaining balance of the liability related to the class-action lawsuit was $0.4 million included in other current liabilities in the consolidated balance sheet. Genie Energy Ltd., through its subsidiaries, operates as a retail energy provider; and an oil and gas exploration company. The company operates through three segments: Genie Retail Energy; Genie Energy Services; and Genie Oil and Gas, Inc. Genie Energy Ltd. was incorporated in 2001 and is headquartered in Newark, New Jersey. GOLDEN EMPIRE: Coffman Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against GOLDEN EMPIRE TOWING, INC. The case is styled as CRAIG COFFMAN ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF, ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, AND ON BEHALF OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC, Plaintiff v. GOLDEN EMPIRE TOWING, INC., Defendants, Case No. BCV-19-101600 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., June 10, 2019). The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited". Golden Empire Towing, Inc. was founded in 1994. The company's line of business includes furnishing automotive services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by DAVID T. MARA, ESQ. GOPRO INC: Settlement in N.D. Cal. Class Suit Wins Preliminary OK ----------------------------------------------------------------- GoPro, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the Court has issued an order granting the lead plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval of the settlement in the shareholder class action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On November 16, 2016, a purported shareholder class action lawsuit (the 2016 Shareholder Class Action) was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company and Nicholas D. Woodman, the company's Chairman and CEO, Brian McGee, the company's CFO, and Anthony Bates, the company's former President (Defendants). The complaint purports to bring suit on behalf of shareholders who purchased the Company's publicly traded securities between September 19, 2016 and November 4, 2016. The complaint purports to allege that Defendants made false and misleading statements about the Company's business, operations and prospects in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and seeks unspecified compensatory damages, fees and costs. On February 6, 2017, the court appointed lead plaintiff and lead counsel. On March 14, 2017, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint against the Company and certain of its officers (GoPro Defendants) on behalf of shareholders who purchased the Company's publicly traded securities between September 19, 2016 and November 8, 2016. On April 13, 2017, the GoPro Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On July 26, 2017, the court denied that motion and directed the plaintiff to amend its complaint to add all defendants the plaintiff intended to sue. On August 4, 2017, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint, which Defendants answered on September 8, 2017. On September 11, 2018, the parties participated in a mediation session and following the mediation, reached an agreement in principle to settle the action. On April 26, 2019, the Court issued an order granting the lead plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval of the settlement. GoPro said, "The settlement, which is subject to final approval of the Court, among other conditions, will be funded entirely by the Company's insurance carriers." GoPro, Inc. develops and sells cameras, drones, and mountable and wearable accessories in the United States and internationally. The company was formerly known as Woodman Labs, Inc. and changed its name to GoPro, Inc. in February 2014. GoPro, Inc. was founded in 2004 and is headquartered in San Mateo, California. GOPRO INC: Shareholders Won't File Amended Complaint ---------------------------------------------------- GoPro, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the plaintiffs' counsel filed a notice of intention not to file an amended complaint. Beginning on January 9, 2018, the first of four purported shareholder class action lawsuits (the 2018 Shareholder Class Action) was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company, Nicholas D. Woodman, the company's Chairman and CEO, Brian McGee, the company's CFO. Similar complaints were filed on January 11, 2018 and January 24, 2018. On April 20, 2018, the court consolidated the four cases and appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel. On June 18, 2018, the plaintiffs filed their Consolidated Amended Complaint (the Complaint). The Complaint purports to bring suit on behalf of shareholders who purchased the Company's publicly traded securities between November 2, 2017 and January 5, 2018. The Complaint adds Mr. Prober, GoPro's former COO, as a defendant (together with GoPro, Mr. Woodman and Mr. McGee (Defendants)), and purports to allege that the Defendants made false and misleading statements about the Company's business, operations and prospects in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the 1934 Act), asserts claims under Section 20A of the 1934 Act against Mr. Woodman and Mr. McGee, and seeks unspecified compensatory damages, fees and costs. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint on August 17, 2018 and the hearing on the motion to dismiss took place on November 5, 2018. On March 15, 2019, the Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss with leave to amend. The plaintiffs' amended complaint was due on or before April 29, 2019. On April 26, 2019, the plaintiffs' counsel filed a notice of intention not to file an amended complaint. GoPro, Inc. develops and sells cameras, drones, and mountable and wearable accessories in the United States and internationally. The company was formerly known as Woodman Labs, Inc. and changed its name to GoPro, Inc. in February 2014. GoPro, Inc. was founded in 2004 and is headquartered in San Mateo, California. H.E.B. INC: Cung Seeks Damages for Unpaid Wages ----------------------------------------------- Thang Cung, Individually and on behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. H.E.B., Inc.; H-E-B, LP; Tokyo Gardens Catering, L.L.C.; and Thang Mawi, Defendants, Case No. 5:19-cv-00637 (W.D. Tex., June 7, 2019) is an action under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), for declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees as a result of Defendants' failure to pay Plaintiff and other salaried cooks lawful overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. Plaintiff was required to work more than 40 hours a week; however, Defendants did not compensate Plaintiff for all time worked up to 40 hours nor for time worked over 40 hours a week. Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees regularly worked 60 hours per week throughout their tenure with Defendants. Plaintiff and other sushi employees did not receive an overtime premium of one and one-half times the minimum wage for their hours worked during weeks in which they worked more than 40 hours for Defendants, says the complaint. Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a sushi preparer from March 3, 2019, until May 31, 2019. H.E.B., Inc. and/or H-E-B, LP own(s) and/or operate(s) more than 340 grocery stores across the state of Texas and Mexico, and engage TGC to prepare sushi under HEB's registered Sushiya brand and in HEB's grocery stores.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Merideth Q. McEntire, Esq. Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC One Financial Center 650 South Shackleford Road, Suite 411 Little Rock, AR 72211 Phone: (501) 221-0088 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 Email: steve@sanfordlawfirm.com merideth@sanfordlawfirm.com HARTFORD CASUALTY: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reported that a federal judge ruled for Hartford Casualty Insurance in a case where it refused to defend a law firm against a class action accusing it of culling names and addresses from accident reports to mail advertisements, as such acts were excluded from the policy. A copy of the Order is available at: https://is.gd/Zb1fOr HARTZ HOTEL: Murtadha Seeks Minimum Pay, Withheld Gratuities ------------------------------------------------------------ AL SADIK MURTADHA, on behalf of himself and the Class, Plaintiff, v. HARTZ HOTEL SERVICES, INC., TRIBECA GRAND HOTEL, INC. d/b/a THE ROXY HOTEL, SOHO GRAND HOTEL, INC. d/b/a SOHO GRAND HOTEL, and CONSTANTINO MILANO, Defendant, Case No. 155757/2019 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. New York Cty., June 10, 2019) seeks to recover from Defendants unpaid minimum wage due to an invalid tip credit deduction, improper meal credit deductions, unlawfully retained gratuities, statutory penalties, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs, pursuant to the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"). The complaint says the Plaintiff MURTADHA did not receive a proper wage and hour notice or proper wage statements with his wage payments each period. Plaintiff MURTADHA and Class members did not receive proper notice that Defendants were claiming a tip credit. The Defendants deducted a meal credit from Plaintiff MURTADHA's wages every day, although he was not given time to eat at least three times per week. During Plaintiff's employment, Defendants unlawfully retained tips that were owed to Plaintiff and Class members, in violation of NYLL, says the complaint. Plaintiff AL SADIK MURTADHA was hired by Defendants and/or their predecessors, as applicable, to work as a server and room service worker in May 2012. Defendants operate two hotels in New York City under the trade names "The Roxy Hotel" located at 2 6th Avenue, New York, NY 10013 and "Soho Grand Hotel" at 310 West Broadway, New York, NY 10013.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10011 Phone: 212-465-1180 Fax: 212-465-1181 HEALTH INSURANCE: Mislead Consumers, Belin Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------- ELIZABETH E. BELIN and CHRISTOPHER MITCHELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. HEALTH INSURANCE INNOVATIONS, INC. and HEALTH PLAN INTERMEDIARIES HOLDINGS, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 0:19-cv-61430-FAM (S.D. Fla., June 7, 2019) is a case stemming from fraudulent misrepresentations and omissions made for the purpose of leading consumers, including Class Plaintiffs and class members, to believe they were purchasing comprehensive medical insurance, when they instead were purchasing limited benefit indemnity plans, medical discount plans and other non-ACA-compliant products. Unscrupulous health insurance scammers continue to besiege American consumers. One such scam involves the marketing and sale of "limited benefit indemnity plans" and "medical discount plans." These plans are not comprehensive, "major medical" insurance. They do not comply with the Affordable Care Act ("ACA"). At best, they are supplemental products that defray a fraction of the out-of-pocket costs, such as deductibles, coinsurance and copays, that sometimes arise from ACA compliant plans. These products represent less than 1% of the health insurance marketplace. Two groups of Florida companies, working together, defrauded hundreds of thousands of consumers nationwide, by leading those consumers to believe that their limited benefit indemnity plans and medical discount plans were major medical insurance. This lawsuit takes aim at the second group of companies that directed, aided and abetted the Simple Health fraud: Health Insurance Innovations, Inc. ("HIIQ") and Health Plan Intermediaries Holdings, LLC ("HPIH") (collectively, "Defendants"). The Defendants developed the limited benefit indemnity plans and the distribution channel through which consumers were defrauded. In connection with the fraudulent scheme, Defendants paid Simple Health extremely generous commissions and plied it with millions of dollars in financing. As a result, Simple Health developed into Defendants' largest and most profitable third-party distributor of limited benefit indemnity plans, medical discount plans and other products, generating hundreds of millions of dollars in fees and premiums — nearly 50% of all revenues generated by Defendants. This happened by defrauding that vulnerable group of Americans who do not have comprehensive medical insurance. Consumers were told, through a uniform script read to them by Simple Health's sales agents, a set of lies and omissions that included, among other falsehoods, the misrepresentation that they were purchasing a "PPO" from a reputable, "A-rated" insurance carrier. In truth, consumers received "virtually worthless" limited indemnity plans and medical discount plans. For Defendants' knowing and substantial assistance to Simple Health, and for their part in the enterprise they developed and directed, Defendants must be held to account to consumers like Class Plaintiffs Elizabeth Belin and Chris Mitchell, says the complaint. Plaintiffs are residents of the State who purchased Defendants' health insurance. Health Insurance Innovations, Inc. ("HIIQ") is distributor of health and life insurance products.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jason R. Doss, Esq. THE DOSS FIRM, LLC The Brumby Building 127 Church Street, Suite 220 Marietta, GA 30060 Phone: (770) 578-1314 Facsimile: (770) 578-1302 Email: jasondoss@dossfirm.com - and - Jeffrey C. Schneider, Esq. Jason K. Kellogg, Esq. Alexander Strassman, Esq. Tal Aburos, Esq. LEVINE KELLOGG LEHMAN SCHNEIDER + GROSSMAN LLP 201 South Biscayne Boulevard Citigroup Center, 22nd Floor Miami, FL 33131 Phone: (305) 403-8788 Facsimile: (305) 403-8789 Primary email: jcs@lklsg.com jk@lklsg.com ags@lklsg.com ta@lklsg.com Secondary email: mt@lklsg.com mco@lklsg.com ah@lklsg.com HECLA MINING: Continues to Defend Lawson Class Suit --------------------------------------------------- Hecla Mining Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company continues to defend a consolidated class action suit entitled, Lawson v. Klondex Mines Ltd., et al., No. 3:18-cv-00284. On July 20, 2018, the company acquired all of the issued and outstanding common shares of Klondex Mines Ltd. ("Klondex") for consideration valued at $2.27 per Klondex share (the "Arrangement"). The acquisition resulted in our 100% ownership of three land packages in northern Nevada totaling approximately 110 square miles and containing operating or previously-operating mines with a history of high-grade gold production, along with various other gold properties. Following the announcement of the company's proposed acquisition of Klondex, Klondex and members of the Klondex board of directors were named as defendants in several putative stockholder class actions brought by purported stockholders of Klondex challenging the proposed merger. The lawsuits were all filed in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada. On December 18, 2018, the remaining three cases were consolidated into a single case, Lawson v. Klondex Mines Ltd., et al., No. 3:18-cv-00284 (D. Nev. June 15, 2018). The plaintiffs generally claim that Klondex issued a proxy statement that included misstatements or omissions, in violation of sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The plaintiffs seek, among other things, to obtain rescissory damages and recover attorneys' fees and costs. Hecla said, "Although it is not possible to predict the outcome of litigation matters with certainty, each of Klondex and its directors believe that each of the lawsuits are without merit, and the parties intend to vigorously defend against all claims asserted." Hecla Mining Company, together with its subsidiaries, discovers, acquires, develops, and produces precious and base metal properties worldwide. The company offers lead, zinc, and bulk flotation concentrates to custom smelters and brokers; and unrefined gold and silver bullion bars to precious metals traders. Hecla Mining Company was founded in 1891 and is headquartered in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho. ICU MEDICAL: Bid to Dismiss Saline Solution-Related Suit Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- ICU Medical, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the defendants are awaiting a court order on their motion for dismissal of the second amended complaint in the intravenous saline solutions class action suit. Beginning in November 2016, purported class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against Pfizer, Inc. subsidiaries, Hospira, Inc., Hospira Worldwide, Inc. and certain other defendants relating to the intravenous saline solutions part of the HIS business. Plaintiffs seek to represent classes consisting of all persons and entities in the U.S. who directly purchased intravenous saline solution sold by any of the defendants from January 1, 2013 until the time the defendants' allegedly unlawful conduct ceases. Plaintiffs allege that U.S. manufacturer defendants conspired together to restrict output and artificially fix, raise, maintain and/or stabilize the prices of intravenous saline solution sold throughout the U.S. in violation of federal antitrust laws. Plaintiffs seek treble damages (for themselves and on behalf of the putative classes) and an injunction against defendants for alleged price overcharges for intravenous saline solution in the U.S. since January 1, 2013. On July 5, 2018, the District Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss the operative complaint for failing to state a valid antitrust claim, but allowed the plaintiffs to file a second amended complaint. On September 6, 2018, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint adding new allegations in support of their conspiracy claims and adding ICU as a defendant. All defendants have filed a motion to dismiss this second amended complaint. Briefing is complete and we are awaiting the Court's ruling. ICU Medical said, "On February 3, 2017, we completed the acquisition of the HIS business from Pfizer. This litigation is the subject of a claim for indemnification against us by Pfizer and a cross-claim for indemnification against Pfizer by us under the HIS stock and asset purchase agreement." ICU Medical, Inc. develops, manufactures, and sells medical devices used in vascular therapy, critical care, and oncology applications worldwide. ICU Medical, Inc. was founded in 1984 and is headquartered in San Clemente, California. IMPERIAL GUARD: Faces Sharp Suit in Western District of Tennessee ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Imperial Guard and Detective Services, Inc. The case is captioned as Robert Sharp on his own behalf and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, vs. Imperial Guard and Detective Services, Inc. also known as: Imperial Security Services, Inc. also known as: Imperial Guard Service, Inc. also known as: Imperial Detective and Guard Services, Inc.; and Brewer Guard and Detective Services, Inc. also known as: Brewer Detective Service also known as: Brewer Detective Worldwide Investigations, the Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-02332-JTF-cgc (W.D. Tenn., May 24, 2019). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge John T. Fowlkes, Jr. Imperial Guard And Detective Services, Inc. was founded in 1968. The Company's line of business includes providing detective, guard, and armored car services.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: Marc Reed Edelman, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, PA - Tampa 201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 577-4722 Facsimile: (813) 257-0572 E-mail: medelman@forthepeople.com INSYS THERAPEUTICS: Settlement Reached in New York Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Insys Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 13, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company has agreed to a settlement with the plaintiff in the consolidated class action suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, subject to negotiation of, and agreement upon, additional terms. On or about March 17, 2017, a complaint (captioned Kayd Currier v. Insys Therapeutics, Inc., et al., Case 1:17-cv-01954-PAC) was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the company and certain of its then-current and former officers. The complaint was brought as a purported class action on behalf of purchasers of the company's securities between February 23, 2016, and March 15, 2017. In general, the plaintiffs allege that the defendants violated the anti-fraud provisions of the federal securities laws by making materially false and misleading statements regarding the company's business and financial results during the class period, thereby artificially inflating the price of our securities. On or about March 28, 2017, a second complaint making similar allegations (captioned Hans E. Erdmann v. Insys Therapeutics, Inc., et al., Case 1:17-cv-02225-PAC) was filed in the same Court. On May 31, 2017, the Court consolidated the first and second complaint and appointed lead counsel in the consolidated action. On July 31, 2017, the lead counsel filed a consolidated complaint. On October 11, 2017, the Court held a pre-motion conference, at which the Court granted leave to plaintiffs to again amend the complaint. The amendment was filed on October 27, 2017, and the company moved to dismiss. The Court subsequently dismissed the complaint as to Santosh Vetticaden, the company's former Interim CEO and Chief Medical Officer, and otherwise denied our motion to dismiss. Insys filed its answer on June 26, 2018. The plaintiffs in both actions seek unspecified monetary damages and other relief. Insys Therapeutics said, "We have agreed to a settlement with the plaintiff, subject to negotiation of, and agreement upon, additional terms." Insys Therapeutics, Inc., a specialty pharmaceutical company, focuses on cannabinoids and drug delivery systems that address unmet patient needs. Insys Therapeutics, Inc. is headquartered in Chandler, Arizona. On June 10, 2019, INSYS Therapeutics, Inc., along with its affiliates, filed a voluntary petition for reorganization under Chapter 11 in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. INSYS THERAPEUTICS: Still Defends Di Donato Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- Insys Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 13, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Richard Di Donato v. Insys Therapeutics, Inc., et al. On or about February 2, 2016, a complaint (captioned Richard Di Donato v. Insys Therapeutics, Inc., et al., Case 2:16-cv-00302-NVW) was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona against the company and certain of its current and former officers. The complaint was brought as a purported class action on behalf of purchasers of the company's common stock between March 3, 2015 and January 25, 2016. In general, the plaintiffs allege that the defendants violated the anti-fraud provisions of the federal securities laws by making materially false and misleading statements regarding our business, operations and compliance with laws during the class period, thereby artificially inflating the price of our common stock. On June 3, 2016, the Court appointed Clark Miller to serve as lead plaintiff. On June 24, 2016, the plaintiff filed a first amended complaint naming a former employee of Insys Therapeutics, Inc. as an additional defendant and extending the class period. On December 22, 2016, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint, primarily to add allegations relating to an indictment of Michael L. Babich and certain of our former employees announced on December 8, 2016, and to extend the class period from August 12, 2014 through December 8, 2016. On January 12, 2017, the defendants moved to dismiss the second amended complaint. Oral arguments were heard by the Court on July 28, 2017, and the Court granted the motion in part and denied it in part. T he plaintiff subsequently moved for leave to further amend the complaint, which the company opposed. The Court denied plaintiff's motion on March 31, 2018, and Insys filed its answer on April 15, 2018. Plaintiff subsequently filed a motion to certify class, which the company opposed. The plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief. Insys Therapeutics said, "We continue to vigorously defend this matter." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Insys Therapeutics, Inc., a specialty pharmaceutical company, focuses on cannabinoids and drug delivery systems that address unmet patient needs. Insys Therapeutics, Inc. is headquartered in Chandler, Arizona. On June 10, 2019, INSYS Therapeutics, Inc., along with its affiliates, filed a voluntary petition for reorganization under Chapter 11 in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. INSYS THERAPEUTICS: Trial in Opioid-Related Suits to Begin October ------------------------------------------------------------------ Insys Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 13, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the Court has set certain opioid-related class actions cases for a litigation track, and those cases will move forward toward trial, which is scheduled to commence October 21, 2019. The company been named along with various other opioid manufacturers, opioid distributors, prescribers, pharmacies, and others in complaints focused on the national opioid epidemic filed by various cities, counties, states, Native American tribes, and third-party payers in many state and federal courts in Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah and West Virginia. The company is involved in more than 800 of these cases, the majority of which have been consolidated into multi-district litigation (MDL No. 2804) in the Northern District of Ohio. Most of the cases in the multi-district litigation are presently stayed while the Court seeks to facilitate a resolution. On April 2, 2018, the United States filed a motion to participate in settlement discussions and as a friend of the court. Additionally, the Court set certain cases for a litigation track, and those cases will move forward toward trial, which is scheduled to commence on October 21, 2019. Additionally, the Court recently set another set of cases for a subsequent litigation track. The company has also been named, along with various other opioid manufacturers and distributors, in putative class action complaints that seek to assert claims allegedly related to the national opioid epidemic on behalf of (1) purchasers of health insurance between 1996 and the present, and (2) children born addicted to opioids. Most of these cases have been consolidated into MDL No. 2804. Finally, Insys has been named in at least one lawsuit in which a personal injury plaintiff sued Insys and other opioid manufacturers for harm allegedly caused by a tortfeasor who was addicted to opioids. Insys Therapeutics, Inc., a specialty pharmaceutical company, focuses on cannabinoids and drug delivery systems that address unmet patient needs. Insys Therapeutics, Inc. is headquartered in Chandler, Arizona. On June 10, 2019, INSYS Therapeutics, Inc., along with its affiliates, filed a voluntary petition for reorganization under Chapter 11 in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. INTELEMEDIA COMMS: Cunningham Sues over Telemarketing Calls ----------------------------------------------------------- CRAIG CUNNINGHAM, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. INTELEMEDIA COMMUNICATIONS, INC., INTELEMEDIA PREMIER LEADS LLC, JOHN DOE ALLSTATE AGENCY, and THE ALLSTATE CORPORATION, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-03713 (N.D. Ill., June 4, 2019), seeks to enforce the consumer-privacy provisions of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act in response to widespread public outrage about the proliferation of intrusive, nuisance telemarketing practices. According to the complaint, the Allstate Corporation offers its services through a series of captive insurance agents, such as the Defendant John Doe Allstate Agency. John Doe Agent hired Intelemedia Premier Leads LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Intelemedia Communications, Inc., who made a pre-recorded telemarketing call to a cellular telephone number of Mr. Cunningham for the purposes of advertising Allstate goods and services using an automated dialing system, which is prohibited by the TCPA. The Plaintiff never consented to receive the call, which was placed to him for telemarketing purposes. Because telemarketing campaigns generally place calls to thousands or even millions of potential customers en masse, the Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of proposed nationwide classes of other persons who received illegal telemarketing calls from or on behalf of the Defendants.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: Brian K. Murphy, Esq. Jonathan P. Misny, Esq. Murray Murphy Moul + Basil LLP 1114 Dublin Road Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 488-0400 Facsimile: (614) 488-0401 E-mail: murphy@mmmb.com misny@mmmb.com - and - Lauren E. Urban, Esq. 2425 N. Spaulding Ave., Floor 2 Chicago, IL 60647 Telephone: (419) 344-1146 E-mail: lauren.elizabeth.urban@gmail.com - and - Anthony I. Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Telephone: (508) 221-1510 E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com INTERACTIVE BROKERS: Bid to Dismiss Connecticut Class Suit Pending ------------------------------------------------------------------ Interactive Brokers Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company is awaiting a court decision on its motion to dismiss the new complaint in the Connecticut class action suit. On December 18, 2015, a former individual customer filed a purported class action complaint against Interactive Brokers LLC (IB LLC), Interactive Brokers Group, Inc. (IBG, Inc.), and Thomas Frank, PhD, the Company's Executive Vice President and Chief Information Officer, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. The complaint alleges that the purported class of IB LLC's customers were harmed by alleged "flaws" in the computerized system used to close out (i.e., liquidate) positions in customer brokerage accounts that have margin deficiencies. The complaint seeks, among other things, undefined compensatory damages and declaratory and injunctive relief. On September 28, 2016, the District Court issued an order granting the Company's motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety, and without providing plaintiff leave to amend. On September 28, 2017, plaintiff appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. On September 26, 2018, the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff's claims of breach of contract and commercially unreasonable liquidation but vacated and remanded back to the District Court plaintiff's claims for negligence. On November 30, 2018, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the new complaint on January 15, 2019 requesting that the District Court dismiss the remaining negligence claims. Interactive Brokers said, "Regardless of the ultimate outcome of the motion to dismiss, the Company does not believe that a purported class action is appropriate given the great differences in portfolios, markets and many other circumstances surrounding the liquidation of any particular customer’s margin-deficient account." IB LLC and the related defendants intend to continue to defend themselves vigorously against the case and, consistent with past practice in connection with this type of unwarranted action, any potential claims for counsel fees and expenses incurred in defending the case may be fully pursued against the plaintiff. Interactive Brokers Group, Inc. operates as an automated electronic broker worldwide. It specializes in executing and clearing trades in securities, futures, foreign exchange instruments, bonds, and mutual funds. Interactive Brokers Group, Inc. was founded in 1977 and is headquartered in Greenwich, Connecticut. INTERMOLECULAR INC: Franchi Sues over False Proxy Statements ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action complaint has been filed against Intermolecular, Inc. and its Board of Directors for alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1943 in connection with the a merger transaction's proxy statement. The case is captioned ADAM FRANCHI, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. INTERMOLECULAR, INC., KENNETH H. TRAUB, CHRIS KRAMER, IRWIN FEDERMAN, MARVIN D. BURKETT, GEORGE SCALISE, MATTHEW S. FURNAS, ADAM SCHEER, and JONATHAN SCHULTZ, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01054-UNA (D. Del., June 6, 2019). On May 28, 2019, defendants filed a proxy statement with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the proposed transaction on May 6, 2019, pursuant to which Intermolecular, Inc. will be acquired by affiliates of Merck KGaA, EMD Group Holding II, Inc. and EMD Performance Semiconductor Services Corp. However, the proxy statement has omitted material information with respect to the proposed transaction, which renders the proxy statement false and misleading. The proxy statement failed to disclose Intermolecular's financial projections and the analyses performed by its financial advisor, Cowen and Company, in connection with the proposed transaction. Intermolecular is a Delaware corporation and maintains its principal executive offices at 3011 N. First Street, San Jose, California. Intermolecular's common stock is traded on the NASDAQ Global Select Market under the ticker symbol IMI. According to its website, Intermolecular is the trusted partner for advanced materials innovation. The company has a ten-year track record helping leading companies accelerate and de-risk materials innovation. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian D. Long, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 295-5310 Facsimile: (302) 654-7530 E-mail: bdl@rl-legal.com gms@rl-legal.com J & J SNACK: Botello Sues over Collection of Biometric Identifiers ------------------------------------------------------------------ DOMINIC BOTELLO, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, known and unknown, the Plaintiff, vs. J & J SNACK FOODS CORP., the Defendant, Case No. 2019CH06790 (Ill. Cir., June 4, 2019), alleges that Defendant violated the Biometric Information Privacy Act and compromised the privacy and security of the biometric identifiers and information of Plaintiff and other similarly-situated workers. The Defendant is a publicly-traded company that produces various food items, including soft pretzels, Italian ice, ICEEs, and baked goods. On August 16, 2017, the Defendant acquired the Labriola Baking Company in Alsip, Illinois. Labriola Baking Company primarily produced soft pretzels at its Alsip facility. From approximately April 2017 to September 2018, Plaintiff worked as a crew lead at the Alsip, Illinois facility. Starting in approximately January 2018, the Defendant required Plaintiff and other workers to use a biometric time clock system to record their time worked. The Defendant required Plaintiff and other workers to scan their fingerprints in one of Defendant's biometric time clocks each time they started and finished working a shift. Unlike an employee identification number or employee identification card, fingerprints are unique and permanent identifiers. By requiring workers to scan their fingerprints to record their time, instead of using identification numbers or badges only, Defendant ensured that one worker could not clock in for another. Thus, there's no question that Defendant benefited from using biometric time. But there's equally no question that Defendant placed workers at risk by using their clocks. As a result, Illinois restricted private entities, like Defendant, from collecting, storing, using, or transferring a person's biometric identifiers and information without adhering to strict informed-consent procedures established by the Biometric Information Privacy Act. Defendant collected, stored, used, and transferred the unique biometric fingerprint identifiers, or information derived from those identifiers of the Plaintiff and others similarly situated without following the detailed requirements of the Biometric Information Privacy Act, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: Douglas M. Werman, Esq. Zachary C. Flowerree, Esq. WERMAN SALAS P.C. 77 West Washington St., Suite 1402 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 419-1008 E-mail: dwerman@flsalaw.com zflowerree@flsalaw.com JONES FINANCIAL: Bland Discrimination Class Suit Ongoig ------------------------------------------------------- The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the discrimination class action suit entitled, Bland v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., et al., is ongoing. On May 24, 2018, Edward Jones and JFC were named as defendants in a putative class action lawsuit (Bland v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., et al.) filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois by a former financial advisor. An amended complaint was filed on September 24, 2018, under 42 U.S.C. Section 1981, alleging that the defendants discriminated against the former financial advisor and financial advisor trainees on the basis of race. On November 26, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint adding an allegation of discrimination of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The lawsuit seeks equitable and injunctive relief, as well as compensatory and punitive damages. Edward Jones and JFC deny the allegations and intend to vigorously defend this lawsuit. The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P., through its subsidiary, Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., operates as a registered broker-dealer. The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. was founded in 1871 and is based in Des Peres, Missouri. JONES FINANCIAL: Consolidated McDonald Suit Concluded ----------------------------------------------------- The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the court in the consolidated McDonald and Schultz suits has granted final approval to the parties' settlement and dismissed the consolidated suit with prejudice. On August 19, 2016, The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. (JFC), Edward Jones and certain other defendants were named in a putative class action lawsuit (McDonald v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., et al.) filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri brought under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended, by a participant in the Edward D. Jones & Co. Profit Sharing and 401(k) Plan (the "Retirement Plan"). The lawsuit alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties to Retirement Plan participants and seeks declaratory and equitable relief and monetary damages on behalf of the Retirement Plan. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the McDonald lawsuit which was granted in part dismissing the claim against JFC, and denied in part as to all other defendants on January 26, 2017. On November 11, 2016, a substantially similar lawsuit (Schultz, et al. v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., et al.) was filed in the same court. The plaintiffs consolidated the two lawsuits by adding the Schultz plaintiffs to the McDonald case, and the Schultz action was dismissed. The plaintiffs filed their first amended consolidated complaint on April 28, 2017. On December 13, 2018, the court entered a preliminary order approving a class action settlement agreement reached among the parties. Following a fairness hearing held on April 18, 2019, the court entered judgment on April 22, 2019 in which it granted final approval of the settlement, effected a full release of claims by the settlement class in favor of the defendants, and dismissed the consolidated lawsuit with prejudice. The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P., through its subsidiary, Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., operates as a registered broker-dealer. The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. was founded in 1871 and is based in Des Peres, Missouri. JONES FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Anderson Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Anderson, et al. v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., et al. On March 30, 2018, Edward Jones and its affiliated entities and individuals were named as defendants in a putative class action (Anderson, et. al. v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., et. al.) filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. The lawsuit was brought under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"), and the Exchange Act, as well as Missouri and California law and alleges that the defendants inappropriately transitioned clients from commission-based accounts to fee-based programs. The plaintiffs have requested declaratory, equitable, and exemplary relief, and compensatory damages. Edward Jones and its affiliated entities and individuals deny the allegations and intend to vigorously defend this lawsuit. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P., through its subsidiary, Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., operates as a registered broker-dealer. The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. was founded in 1871 and is based in Des Peres, Missouri. JONES FINANCIAL: Wins Dismissal of Bland FLSA Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the court in the case, Bland, et al. v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P, et. al., has entered an order granting the defendants' motion to dismiss all claims, but permitting the plaintiffs to amend and re-file certain of their claims. On March 13, 2018, The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. (JFC) and Edward Jones were named as defendants in a purported collective and class action lawsuit (Bland, et al. v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P, et al.) filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois by four former financial advisors. The lawsuit was brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act as well as Missouri and Illinois law and alleges that the defendants unlawfully attempted to recoup training costs from departing financial advisors and failed to pay all overtime owed to financial advisor trainees among other claims. The lawsuit seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, compensatory and liquidated damages. JFC and Edward Jones deny the allegations and intend to vigorously defend against the allegations in this lawsuit. On March 19, 2019, the court entered an order granting the defendants' motion to dismiss all claims, but permitting the plaintiffs to amend and re-file certain of their claims. The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P., through its subsidiary, Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., operates as a registered broker-dealer. The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. was founded in 1871 and is based in Des Peres, Missouri. JORDAN'S FURNITURE: Donlan Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages -------------------------------------------------------- AMIE DONLAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated. Plaintiffs, v. JORDAN'S FURNITURE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 19-1614 (Mass. Commonwealth, June 7, 2019) seeks to recover unpaid wages owed to Plaintiff and all other similarly situated individuals who have worked as sales representatives for Defendant. Although the sales representatives often work more than 40 hours in a week, and routinely work Sundays and holidays, Jordan's does not pay its sales representatives any overtime compensation or other premium pay. In addition, Jordan's has required its sales representatives to work Sundays without paying them 1.5 times their regular hourly rate. As a result of these practices, Jordan's has violated the overtime provision of the Massachusetts Minimum Fair Wage Law and the Massachusetts Wage Act, says the complaint. Plaintiff Donlan worked for Jordan's at its store in Natick, Massachusetts, as a sales representative from about December 2018 to about April 2019. Jordan's owns and operates a chain of furniture and mattress retail stores in Massachusetts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Hillary Schwab, Esq. Brant Casavani, Esq. FAIR WORK P.C. 192 South Street. Suite 450 Boston, MA 02111 Phone: (617)607-3261 Fax: (617)488-2261 Email: hillary@fairworklaw.com brant@fairworklaw.com JPMORGAN CHASE: Settles Dads' Parental-Leave Class Action for $5MM ------------------------------------------------------------------ Matt Reynolds, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that JPMorgan Chase agreed on May 30 to pay $5 million to settle a class action brought by male employees who said the bank denied them equal paid parental leave after their children were born. Chase employee Derek Rotondo, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union and attorneys with Outten & Golden, filed both the complaint and proposed settlement on May 30 in Cincinnati federal court. He says that after the birth of his children, Chase discriminated against him by limiting his paid parental leave. He had asked Chase to give him 14 weeks leave after the birth of his son. "I love my children, and all I wanted was to spend time with them when they were born," Rotondo said in a statement. "I'm proud that since I filed my charge, Chase has clarified its policy to ensure that both male and female employees who wish to be the primary parental caregiver have equal access to those benefits." Under its former policy, Chase let biological mothers take 16 weeks of paid parental leave while fathers were only eligible to take two weeks off. Rotondo first filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in 2017. Chase quickly clarified its policy giving him 16 weeks of leave later that same year as well as making sure that primary caregiver status was gender-neutral. His attorney Freda Levenson, legal director for the ACLU of Ohio, said she hopes other companies follow Chase's example. "It's up to the family, not the employer, to determine what their caregiving arrangements will look like. In order for women to compete on an even playing field at work, we need to be sure men can play an active role at home. American companies need to implement policies that don't promote gender stereotypes," Levenson said in a phone interview. The $5 million settlement will compensate up to 5,000 dads denied paid primary caregiver leave from 2011 to 2017 and will cover their legal fees and administrative costs. A class member with more than one child could receive compensation for multiple claims, Levenson said. Chase has agreed to continue its gender-neutral policy on paid parental leave and to train its employees on how to administer it. "We are pleased to have reached an agreement in this matter and look forward to more effectively communicating the policy so that all men and women employees are aware of their benefits," JPMorgan Chase's counsel Reid Broda said. "We thank Mr. Rotondo for bringing the matter to our attention." The advocacy group Paid Family and Medical Leave for Everyone Working in the U.S. released an employer scorecard last year finding that 72% of the nation's largest employers offer equal paid leave to both parents. The group's spokeswoman Meshal DeSantis said the shift represents changing attitudes toward gender roles, adding that millennial men view parenting as a central part of their identity. "I think it was a win for dads and a win for dads at Chase," DeSantis said in a phone interview. "Categorizing one parent as primary and one as secondary is just not the way people think in 2019." A copy of the Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement, Conditional Certification of the Settlement Class, Appointment of Plaintiff's Counsel as Class Counsel, and Approval of the Proposed Notice of Settlement and Class Action Settlement Procedure ("Motion"), and Memorandum in Support is available at: https://is.gd/5USeou LA RUTA 75: De La Ossa Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------- ANGELICA DE LA OSSA, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. LA RUTA 75, LLC a Florida Limited Liability Company, RICARDO MARTINEZ MELO, individually Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-22386-DPG (S.D. Fla., June 10, 2019) is a Complaint against Defendants under the provisions of the Fair Labor Standard Act of 1938. Throughout her employment with La Ruta, Plaintiff routinely worked for La Ruta on Monday through Sunday, for a total of 63 hours per week, 40 regular hours and eight hours overtime. Notwithstanding, La Ruta, willfully and intentionally failed/refused to pay to Plaintiff the federally required minimum and overtime rates for all hours she worked, says the complaint. La Ruta knew of the overtime requirements of the FLSA and willfully/intentionally/recklessly failed to investigate whether their payroll practices were in accordance with the FLSA. As a result, Plaintiff has suffered damages and is entitled to receive overtime and minimum wage compensation, the complaint asserts. Plaintiff De La Ossa was employed by Defendants as a Waitress at the restaurant located in Hialeah Gardens, Florida. La Ruta operated a restaurant business in Miami-Dade County.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Henry Hernandez, Esq. Law Office of Henry Hernandez, P.A. 2655 Le Jeune Road, Suite 802 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Phone: 305.771.3374 Email: Henry@HHLAWFLORIDA.com - and - Monica Espino, Esq. Espino Law, PL 2655 S. LeJeune Road, Suite 802 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Phone: 305.704.3172 Fax: 305.722.7378 Email: me@espino-law.com LG ELECTRONICS: Bentley Brings Suit Over Defective Refrigerators ---------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL BENTLEY, ROBERT DEGNER, CHERYL ERVIN, AND SAM LEE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. LG ELECTRONICS U.S.A., INC. Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-13554-MCA-MAH (W.D. Tenn., June 7, 2019) is a class action brought on behalf of individuals who purchased refrigerators manufactured by LG that are equipped with linear compressors. According to the complaint, a latent defect causes failure of the refrigerator's linear compressor--a central component responsible for cooling. The compressor defect renders the LG Refrigerators unable to perform their most basic function: cooling and preserving food and beverages. When the compressor defect manifests, the refrigerator warms and its perishable contents spoil, unless they are moved to a working refrigerator or cooler. Although refrigerators last 13 years on average, the LG Refrigerators have been failing en masse within 36 months. LG previously settled a class action alleging its refrigerators are defective. The claims extinguished by the judgment in that case, however, are limited to those involving purchases before January 29, 2014, which marks the beginning of the class period in this case. LG has continued selling defective refrigerators that have failed at extremely high rates--a "pandemic," according to one news report. Despite its knowledge of the compressor defect, LG sold and continues to sell the LG Refrigerators without alerting purchasers to the problem, the complaint asserts. When consumers have made warranty claims for malfunctioning LG Refrigerators, LG has not replaced them with working units or offered refunds, the complaint adds. Instead, LG has attempted futile repairs or replaced defective compressors with other defective compressors, a practice that, for many, has resulted in repeated refrigerator failures. Consumers who bought LG Refrigerators have been forced to live out of coolers or prematurely buy replacement refrigerators. The compressor defect existed in each LG Refrigerator at the time it was sold. Plaintiffs were deprived of the benefit of their bargain and bring this action to obtain relief for themselves and others who purchased an LG Refrigerator. Plaintiffs purchased Kenmore-branded LG Refrigerators manufactured by Defendant. LG designed, manufactured, promoted, distributed, and sold the LG Refrigerators, pricing them in the range of $1,400 to $7,000.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin F. Johns, Esq. CHIMICLES SCHWARTZ KRINER & DONALDSON-SMITH LLP One Haverford Centre 361 West Lancaster Avenue Haverford, PA 19041 Phone: (610) 642-8500 Email: bfj@chimicles.com - and - Daniel C. Girard, Esq. Jordan Elias, Esq. Adam E. Polk, Esq. Simon S. Grille, Esq. GIRARD SHARP LLP 601 California Street, 14th Floor San Francisco, CA 94108 Phone: (415) 981-4800 Email: dgirard@girardsharp.com jelias@girardsharp.com apolk@girardsharp.com sgrille@girardsharp.com LION RAISINS: Summary Judgment Rulings in Mason Upheld ------------------------------------------------------ In the case, JEREMY MASON, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LION RAISINS, INC., Defendant and Appellant, Case No. F076202 (5th Cir.), Judge Bert Levy of the Court of Appeals of California for the Fifth District affirmed the trial court's orders denying the motion for summary judgment and the petition to compel arbitration. Plaintiff Mason brought the class action lawsuit against his former employer, Defendant Lion Raisins, asserting statutory claims for alleged violations of the Labor Code relating to wages, overtime, rest and meal periods, wage records, and other related statutory claims. His original class action complaint for damages was filed on March 4, 2015. In the second amended complaint, the Plaintiff asserts on his own behalf and on behalf of the purported class members, a number of specific violations of the Labor Code by the Defendant, including as follows: unpaid overtime, unpaid meal period premiums, unpaid rest period premium, unpaid minimum wage, final wages not timely paid, noncompliant wage statements, failure to keep required payroll records, and unreimbursed business expenses. Based on the above violations, the Plaintiff also asserted a violation of California's unfair competition law. The prayer for relief sought, among other things, declaratory relief, recovery of damages resulting from the violations, statutory penalties and statutory attorney fees. In response, after first participating in the litigation of the case for a substantial period of time, the Defendant filed (i) a motion for summary judgment and (ii) a petition to compel arbitration, contending in both instances that the Plaintiff failed to follow the grievance and arbitration procedure set forth in a collective bargaining agreement ("CBA") applicable to his. The trial court denied both motions because, among other reasons, the relevant language of the CBA did not reflect an agreement to arbitrate the Plaintiff's statutory claims. The Defendant appeals. The Defendant's notice of appeal also sought review of the trial court's order denying its motion for summary judgment, even though not itself an appealable order, because it constituted an intermediate ruling involving the merits of the issues that were at stake in, and potentially affected, the petition to compel arbitration. Judge Levy holds that the CBA in the case did not contain an agreement requiring arbitration of the Plaintiff's statutory claims, which means that the trial court properly denied the Defendant's motion for summary judgment and petition to compel arbitration. He also concludes that substantial evidence supported the trial court's finding of waiver. The Defendant's extensive litigation over a period of two years, when viewed in its nature and entirety, in combination with the substantial delay and expense thereof, was inconsistent with an intent to pursue arbitration and was prejudicial to the Plaintiff's ability to obtain any meaningful benefits of arbitration. Therefore, he affirms the trial court's finding that the Defendant waived any right it may have had to obtain arbitration of the parties' dispute under the CBA arbitration provision. He further concludes that the trial court correctly denied the Defendant's motion for summary judgment on the ground that it failed to prove the existence of the CBA and/or its applicability to the Plaintiff. Since the declaration showed at least some foundational grounds upon which the declarant would have personal knowledge of the CBA and its contents, the Judge thinks it was arguably minimally sufficient. But even if the trial court erred in ruling that the declaration was insufficient to authenticate the CBA, no reversible or prejudicial error has been shown because of the other clear and persuasive grounds for affirming the trial court's denial of the petition as discussed in the Opinion, including (i) the failure to show the arbitration provision clearly and unmistakably applied to statutory claims and (ii) waiver. Finally, he need not consider the question of whether the arbitration provision is unconscionable, because he has concluded that other compelling grounds exist for affirming the trial court's orders. Based on the foregoing, Judge Levy affirmed the orders denying the motion for summary judgment and the petition to compel arbitration. Costs on appeal are awarded to the Plaintiff. A full-text copy of the Court's May 10, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/hFOfex from Leagle.com. Keith C. Rickelman -- rickek1@nationwide.com -- and Bertram T. Kaufmann for Defendant and Appellant. Lawyers for Justice, Edwin Aiwazian -- edwin@lfjpc.com -- Arby Aiwazian -- arby@lfjpc.com -- Elizabeth Parker-Fawley -- elizabeth@lfjpc.com; Girardi/Keese and V. Andre Sherman for Plaintiff and Respondent. LVNV FUNDING: Misreported Interests & Fees, Howard et al. Claim --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action complaint has been filed against LVNV Funding, LLC and Resurgent Capital Services, LP for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The case is captioned TRAVIS HOWARD, VANESSA HOWARD, WILLIAM SIMMS, CHARLES NEFF, STACY ADAMS-NEFF, and GWEN SNYDER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. LVNV FUNDING, LLC, and RESURGENT CAPITAL SERVICES, LP, Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-00093-KRG (W.D. Pa., June 6, 2019). Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants are engaged in false, deceptive, and misleading practice of misreporting interest and fees as principal on the proof of claims it files in consumer bankruptcy cases. LVNV Funding, LLC is a limited liability company with its principal place of business in Greenville, South Carolina. LVNV is engaged in purchasing consumer debts with the purpose of collecting on that debt. Resurgent Capital Services LP is a limited partnership with its principal place of business in Greenville, South Carolina. Resurgent's sole business is collecting debts owed to others. [BN] The Plaintiffs are 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 LYFT INC: Oliver Suit Transferred to Southern District of Georgia ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case, ANTHONY A. OLIVER, individually and on behalf of a class similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, vs. Lyft, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, the Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-01488 (Filed March 21, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia (Savannah) on June 4, 2019. The Southern District of Georgia Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:19-cv-00125-WTM-CLR to the proceeding. The Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated individuals, brings this class action complaint against Lyft, Inc. to stop Defendant's practice of making unauthorized text message calls to consumer’s cellular telephones, and to obtain redress for all persons injured by its conduct. Lyft, Inc. is a transportation network company based in San Francisco, California and operating in 640 cities in the United States and 9 cities in Canada. It develops, markets, and operates the Lyft mobile app, offering car rides, scooters, and a bicycle-sharing system.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members: Edwin I. Aimufua, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF EDWIN I. AIMUFUA 11150 Sepulveda Blvd, Suite # A Mission Hills, CA 91345-1126 Telephone: (747) 246 – 4141 Facsimile: (818) 855 – 1118 E-mail: eia@aimufualaw.com Attorneys for the Defendant: Daniel Paul Hart, Esq. Kerry McCoy Friedrichs, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 1075 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 2500 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 885-1500 Facsimile: (404) 892-7056 MCDONALD'S USA: Refused to Pay Minimum Wages for Service Crew ------------------------------------------------------------- RENAND BIENNESTIN, and other similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. McDonald's USA, LLC, an Illinois Company d/b/a Heisner Enterprises Partnership, the Defendant, Case No. 9:19-cv-80726-DMM (S.D. Fla., June 3, 2019), seeks recover money damages for unpaid minimum wages and for retaliation under the laws of the United States and the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff, and those similarly situated, performed services for Defendant and did not get paid what they were owed, and in the case of the Plaintiff, not even minimum wages. The additional persons who may become the Plaintiffs in this action are weekly-paid employees and/or former employees of Defendant who are and who were subject to the unlawful payroll practices and procedures of Defendant and were not properly paid minimum wages. The Defendant knew and/or showed reckless disregard for the provisions of the Act concerning the payment of minimum wages and remains owing the Plaintiff, and those similarly situated, these minimum wages since the commencement of the Plaintiff's and those similarly situated employees' employment with Defendant, and the Plaintiff, and those similarly situated, are entitled to recover double damages. The Defendant willfully and intentionally refused to pay the Plaintiff minimum wages as required by the laws of the United States as set forth above and remains owing the Plaintiff the minimum wages since the commencement of the Plaintiff's employment with Defendant, the lawsuit says. McDonald's USA, LLC operates and franchises restaurants in the United States. It also provides nutrition information to its customers. The company was incorporated in 2004 and is based in Oak Brook, Illinois. McDonald's USA, LLC operates as a subsidiary of McDonald's Corp.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: R. Martin Saenz, Esq. SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC 20900 N.E. 30 th Avenue, Ste. 800 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (305) 503 5131 Facsimile: (888) 270 5549 E-mail: msaenz@saenzanderson.com MDL 2492: Banks Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated ------------------------------------------------------------ The case, RODNEY BANKS, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01599 (Filed April 22, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on June 4, 2019. The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-03633 the proceeding. The Plaintiff brings this class action complaint against NCAA to obtain redress for injuries sustained as result of Defendant's reckless disregard for the health and safety of generations of student-athletes. The Banks case is being consolidated with MDL No. 2492, Re: NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION STUDENT-ATHLETE CONCUSSION INJURY LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Dec. 18, 2013. These actions seek medical monitoring for putative classes of former student athletes at NCAA-member schools who allege they suffered concussions. The Plaintiffs allege that the NCAA concealed information about the risks of the long-term effects of concussion injuries. Opponents to centralization argue, inter alia, that (1) the putative classes and claims alleged in these actions do not sufficiently overlap; and (2) given the small number of actions pending, alternatives to centralization are preferable. Opponents' arguments, while persuasive when the Section 1407 motion was first filed, are less compelling now given the current state of the litigation, the Panel said. Since the motion for centralization was filed, an additional eight related actions have been filed, most alleging overlapping putative classes of former football players at NCAA-member schools. The Northern District of Illinois Arrington action involves student-athletes who participated in additional sports, and the putative class alleged in that action is more limited in scope. Most of the actions now pending, however, involve nearly completely overlapping putative classes and claims. Moreover, the Panel is persuaded that the overlap between Arrington and the remaining actions is sufficient to warrant centralization. Regardless of the scope of the putative classes alleged, all actions share common factual questions concerning the NCAA's knowledge of the risks of concussions in football players and its policies governing the protection of players from such injuries. Plaintiffs in all actions seek medical monitoring for putative class members. In its Dec. 18, 2013 Order, the MDL Panel found that the these actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Northern District of Illinois will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. These actions share factual questions relating to allegations against the NCAA stemming from injuries sustained while playing sports at NCAA-member institutions, including damages resulting from the permanent long-term effects of concussions. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge John Z. Lee Paul. The lead case is 1:16-cv-08727. NCAA is a non-profit organization which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American institutions and conferences.[BN] Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class: Jeff Raizner, Esq. RAIZNER S LANIA LLP 2402 Dunlavy Street Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: 713 554 9099 Facsimile: 713 554 9098 E-mail: jefile@raiznerlaw.com - and - Jay Edelson, Esq. Benjamin H. Richman, Esq. Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq. EDELSON PC 350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: 312 589-6370 Facsimile: 312 589-6378 E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com brichman@edelson.com rbalabanian@edelson.com MDL 2492: Boose Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated ------------------------------------------------------------ The case, BRENDA BOOSE, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Dorian Boose, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-1234 (Filed March 27, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on June 4, 2019. The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-03625 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff brings this class action complaint against NCAA to obtain redress for injuries sustained as result of Defendant's reckless disregard for the health and safety of generations of Washington State University student-athletes. The Boose case is being consolidated with MDL No. 2492, Re: NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION STUDENT-ATHLETE CONCUSSION INJURY LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Dec. 18, 2013. These actions seek medical monitoring for putative classes of former student athletes at NCAA-member schools who allege they suffered concussions. The Plaintiffs allege that the NCAA concealed information about the risks of the long-term effects of concussion injuries. Opponents to centralization argue, inter alia, that (1) the putative classes and claims alleged in these actions do not sufficiently overlap; and (2) given the small number of actions pending, alternatives to centralization are preferable. Opponents' arguments, while persuasive when the Section 1407 motion was first filed, are less compelling now given the current state of the litigation, the Panel said. Since the motion for centralization was filed, an additional eight related actions have been filed, most alleging overlapping putative classes of former football players at NCAA-member schools. The Northern District of Illinois Arrington action involves student-athletes who participated in additional sports, and the putative class alleged in that action is more limited in scope. Most of the actions now pending, however, involve nearly completely overlapping putative classes and claims. Moreover, the Panel is persuaded that the overlap between Arrington and the remaining actions is sufficient to warrant centralization. Regardless of the scope of the putative classes alleged, all actions share common factual questions concerning the NCAA's knowledge of the risks of concussions in football players and its policies governing the protection of players from such injuries. Plaintiffs in all actions seek medical monitoring for putative class members. In its Dec. 18, 2013 Order, the MDL Panel found that the these actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Northern District of Illinois will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. These actions share factual questions relating to allegations against the NCAA stemming from injuries sustained while playing sports at NCAA-member institutions, including damages resulting from the permanent long-term effects of concussions. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge John Z. Lee Paul. The lead case is 1:16-cv-08727. NCAA is a non-profit organization which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American institutions and conferences.[BN] Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class: Jeff Raizner, Esq. RAIZNER S LANIA LLP 2402 Dunlavy Street Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: 713 554 9099 Facsimile: 713 554 9098 E-mail: jefile@raiznerlaw.com - and - Jay Edelson, Esq. Benjamin H. Richman, Esq. Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq. EDELSON PC 350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: 312 589-6370 Facsimile: 312 589-6378 E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com brichman@edelson.com rbalabanian@edelson.com MDL 2492: Chipps Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated ------------------------------------------------------------- The case, DALE CHIPPS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-1594 (Filed April 22, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on June 4, 2019. The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-03628 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff brings this class action complaint against NCAA to obtain redress for injuries sustained as result of Defendant's reckless disregard for the health and safety of generations of Towson University student-athletes. The Chipps case is being consolidated with MDL No. 2492, Re: NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION STUDENT-ATHLETE CONCUSSION INJURY LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Dec. 18, 2013. These actions seek medical monitoring for putative classes of former student athletes at NCAA-member schools who allege they suffered concussions. The Plaintiffs allege that the NCAA concealed information about the risks of the long-term effects of concussion injuries. Opponents to centralization argue, inter alia, that (1) the putative classes and claims alleged in these actions do not sufficiently overlap; and (2) given the small number of actions pending, alternatives to centralization are preferable. Opponents' arguments, while persuasive when the Section 1407 motion was first filed, are less compelling now given the current state of the litigation, the Panel said. Since the motion for centralization was filed, an additional eight related actions have been filed, most alleging overlapping putative classes of former football players at NCAA-member schools. The Northern District of Illinois Arrington action involves student-athletes who participated in additional sports, and the putative class alleged in that action is more limited in scope. Most of the actions now pending, however, involve nearly completely overlapping putative classes and claims. Moreover, the Panel is persuaded that the overlap between Arrington and the remaining actions is sufficient to warrant centralization. Regardless of the scope of the putative classes alleged, all actions share common factual questions concerning the NCAA's knowledge of the risks of concussions in football players and its policies governing the protection of players from such injuries. Plaintiffs in all actions seek medical monitoring for putative class members. In its Dec. 18, 2013 Order, the MDL Panel found that the these actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Northern District of Illinois will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. These actions share factual questions relating to allegations against the NCAA stemming from injuries sustained while playing sports at NCAA-member institutions, including damages resulting from the permanent long-term effects of concussions. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge John Z. Lee Paul. The lead case is 1:16-cv-08727. NCAA is a non-profit organization which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American institutions and conferences.[BN] Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class: Jeff Raizner, Esq. RAIZNER S LANIA LLP 2402 Dunlavy Street Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: 713 554 9099 Facsimile: 713 554 9098 E-mail: jefile@raiznerlaw.com - and - Jay Edelson, Esq. Benjamin H. Richman, Esq. Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq. EDELSON PC 350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: 312 589-6370 Facsimile: 312 589-6378 E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com brichman@edelson.com rbalabanian@edelson.com MDL 2492: Miolen Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated ------------------------------------------------------------- The case, DOUG MIOLEN, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01219 (Filed March 26, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on June 4, 2019. The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-03624 the proceeding. The Plaintiff brings this class action complaint against NCAA to obtain redress for injuries sustained as result of Defendant's reckless disregard for the health and safety of generations of student-athletes. The Miolen case is being consolidated with MDL No. 2492, Re: NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION STUDENT-ATHLETE CONCUSSION INJURY LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Dec. 18, 2013. These actions seek medical monitoring for putative classes of former student athletes at NCAA-member schools who allege they suffered concussions. The Plaintiffs allege that the NCAA concealed information about the risks of the long-term effects of concussion injuries. Opponents to centralization argue, inter alia, that (1) the putative classes and claims alleged in these actions do not sufficiently overlap; and (2) given the small number of actions pending, alternatives to centralization are preferable. Opponents' arguments, while persuasive when the Section 1407 motion was first filed, are less compelling now given the current state of the litigation, the Panel said. Since the motion for centralization was filed, an additional eight related actions have been filed, most alleging overlapping putative classes of former football players at NCAA-member schools. The Northern District of Illinois Arrington action involves student-athletes who participated in additional sports, and the putative class alleged in that action is more limited in scope. Most of the actions now pending, however, involve nearly completely overlapping putative classes and claims. Moreover, the Panel is persuaded that the overlap between Arrington and the remaining actions is sufficient to warrant centralization. Regardless of the scope of the putative classes alleged, all actions share common factual questions concerning the NCAA's knowledge of the risks of concussions in football players and its policies governing the protection of players from such injuries. Plaintiffs in all actions seek medical monitoring for putative class members. In its Dec. 18, 2013 Order, the MDL Panel found that the these actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Northern District of Illinois will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. These actions share factual questions relating to allegations against the NCAA stemming from injuries sustained while playing sports at NCAA-member institutions, including damages resulting from the permanent long-term effects of concussions. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge John Z. Lee Paul. The lead case is 1:16-cv-08727. NCAA is a non-profit organization which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American institutions and conferences.[BN] Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class: Jeff Raizner, Esq. RAIZNER S LANIA LLP 2402 Dunlavy Street Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: 713 554 9099 Facsimile: 713 554 9098 E-mail: jefile@raiznerlaw.com - and - Jay Edelson, Esq. Benjamin H. Richman, Esq. Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq. EDELSON PC 350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: 312 589-6370 Facsimile: 312 589-6378 E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com brichman@edelson.com rbalabanian@edelson.com MDL 2492: Proebstle Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case, MICHAEL PROEBSTLE, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Richard Proebstle, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-1791 (Filed May 2, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on June 4, 2019. The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-03635 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff brings this class action complaint against NCAA to obtain redress for injuries sustained as result of Defendant's reckless disregard for the health and safety of generations of Michigan State University student-athletes. The Proebstle case is being consolidated with MDL No. 2492, Re: NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION STUDENT-ATHLETE CONCUSSION INJURY LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Dec. 18, 2013. These actions seek medical monitoring for putative classes of former student athletes at NCAA-member schools who allege they suffered concussions. The Plaintiffs allege that the NCAA concealed information about the risks of the long-term effects of concussion injuries. Opponents to centralization argue, inter alia, that (1) the putative classes and claims alleged in these actions do not sufficiently overlap; and (2) given the small number of actions pending, alternatives to centralization are preferable. Opponents' arguments, while persuasive when the Section 1407 motion was first filed, are less compelling now given the current state of the litigation, the Panel said. Since the motion for centralization was filed, an additional eight related actions have been filed, most alleging overlapping putative classes of former football players at NCAA-member schools. The Northern District of Illinois Arrington action involves student-athletes who participated in additional sports, and the putative class alleged in that action is more limited in scope. Most of the actions now pending, however, involve nearly completely overlapping putative classes and claims. Moreover, the Panel is persuaded that the overlap between Arrington and the remaining actions is sufficient to warrant centralization. Regardless of the scope of the putative classes alleged, all actions share common factual questions concerning the NCAA's knowledge of the risks of concussions in football players and its policies governing the protection of players from such injuries. Plaintiffs in all actions seek medical monitoring for putative class members. In its Dec. 18, 2013 Order, the MDL Panel found that the these actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Northern District of Illinois will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. These actions share factual questions relating to allegations against the NCAA stemming from injuries sustained while playing sports at NCAA-member institutions, including damages resulting from the permanent long-term effects of concussions. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge John Z. Lee Paul. The lead case is 1:16-cv-08727. NCAA is a non-profit organization which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American institutions and conferences.[BN] Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class: Jeff Raizner, Esq. RAIZNER S LANIA LLP 2402 Dunlavy Street Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: 713 554 9099 Facsimile: 713 554 9098 E-mail: jefile@raiznerlaw.com - and - Jay Edelson, Esq. Benjamin H. Richman, Esq. Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq. EDELSON PC 350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: 312 589-6370 Facsimile: 312 589-6378 E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com brichman@edelson.com rbalabanian@edelson.com MDL 2672: Settlement in ASHERS Clean Diesel Suit Has Final Approval ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, IN RE: VOLKSWAGEN "CLEAN DIESEL" MDL MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, This Order Relates To: City of St. Clair Shores, 15-6167 Travalio, 15-6168 George Leon Family Trust, 15-6168 Charter Twp. of Clinton, 16-190 Wolfenbarger, 16-184, Case No. 2672 CRB (JSC) (N.D. Cal.), Judge Charles R. Breyer of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted (i) the Plaintiffs' motion for final approval of the settlement, and (ii) the Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and costs. In November 2018, the Court preliminarily approved a class settlement between the parties in the American Depository Receipts ("ADRs") class action. The claims administrator subsequently mailed notice of the settlement to potential class members, and the deadline for potential class members to file claims, opt out, or object to the settlement has now passed. On May 10, 2019, the Court held a hearing on the Plaintiffs' motion for final approval of the settlement and on Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and costs. In the Preliminary Approval Order, the Court conditionally certified the class. The class definition has not changed and the Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) requirements remain satisfied. Judge Breyer accordingly certified the class for purposes of the settlement and appointed ASHERS and Miami Police as te Class Representatives, and James A. Harrod of Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP as the Class Counsel. The Lead Counsel seeks an attorneys' fees award equal to 25% of the settlement fund, net of expenses, which equates to approximately $11.92 million. The Lead Counsel also seeks reimbursement of $4,940.49 for ASHERS' and $2,387.50 for Miami Police's costs and expenses related to their representation of the settlement class. The Judge concludes that final approval of the settlement is appropriate. The settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable. He also concludes that the Plaintiffs' Counsel vigorously litigated the action, and the requested award reflects their effort, the contingency risks they assumed, and the results they achieved. He has reviewed ASHERS's and Miami Police's declarations and their expense records, and is satisfied that their reimbursement requests are reasonable. For the reasons stated, Judge Breyer granted the Plaintiffs' motion for final approval of the settlement agreement. He confirmed the appointment (i) of James A. Harrod of Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP as the Lead Counsel; (ii) of Epiq Class Action & Claims Solutions, Inc. as the Claims Administrator; and (iii) of Arkansas State Highway Employees' Retirement System and Miami Police Relief and Pension Fund as the Class Representatives. The Judge granted the Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and expenses. A separate judgment consistent with the Order, and an attached list of the persons and entities that have requested exclusion from the settlement class, will be issued. A full-text copy of the Court's May 10, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/J7myKp from Leagle.com. Nicholas Benipayo, Plaintiff, represented by Robert B. Carey -- rob@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice, Steve W. Berman -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice & Thomas Eric Loeser -- toml@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice. Nadine Bonda, Plaintiff, represented by Adam M. Stewart -- astewart@shulaw.com -- Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP & Thomas G. Shapiro -- tshapiro@shulaw.com -- Shapiro Haber and Urmy, LLP. Brian Connelly, Plaintiff, represented by Thomas G. Shapiro, Shapiro Haber and Urmy, LLP. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., a New Jersey Corporation, Defendant, represented by Amie Adelia Vague -- avague@lightfootlaw.com -- Lightfoot Franklin & White, Casey Erin Lucier -- clucier@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP, Charles J. Baker, III -- chuck.baker@wbd-us.com -- Womble Carlyle Sandridge and Rice, Colin Hampton Tucker -- ctucker@rhodesokla.com -- Rhodes Hieronymus Jones Tucker & Gable, Dana Woodrum Lang -- dana.lang@wbd-us.com -- Womble Carlyle Sandridge and Rice, David M. Eisenberg -- eisenberg@bscr-law.com -- Sterchi, Cowden & Rice, LLC, Henry Buist Smythe, Jr. -- henry.smythe@wbd-us.com -- Womble Carlyle Sandridge and Rice, Howard Feller -- hfeller@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP, William R. Scherer -- wscherer@conradscherer.com -- Conrad and Scherer, LLP, J. Randolph Bibb, Jr. -- rbibb@lewisthomason.com -- Lewis, Thomason, King, Krieg & Waldrop, P.C., James K. Toohey -- tooheyj@jbltd.com -- Johns & Bell LTD, Jeffrey Lance Chase -- JChase@herzfeld-rubin.com -- Chase Kurshan Herzfeld & Rufin LLC, Jeffrey S. Rugg -- jrugg@bhfs.com -- Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP, Jennifer Marino Thibodaux -- jthibodaux@gibbonslaw.com -- Gibbons PC. MDL 2741: Salah v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated ----------------------------------------------------------- YASER M. SALAH and SUMAR SALAH, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, a Delaware Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-00785 (Filed March 29, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco) on May 23, 2019. The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-03079-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. Plaintiff' 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 Salah 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. The 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 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 MDL 2741: Shockey v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated ------------------------------------------------------------- LEROY SHOCKEY and BARBARA J. SHOCKEY, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, a Delaware Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-00788 (Filed March 29, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco) on May 23, 2019. The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-03080-VC to the proceeding. The suit 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. Leroy Shockey'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 Salah 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 Plaintiffs allege that they or their decedents developed non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after using Roundup over the course of several or more years. The 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 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 MDL 2804: Suit by Blue Cross and Blue Shield of LA Ongoing ---------------------------------------------------------- Insys Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 13, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company continues to defend a class action suit initiated by Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Louisiana and HMO Louisiana, Inc. On December 10, 2018, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Louisiana and HMO Louisiana, Inc., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, filed a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court, District of Massachusetts, against Insys Therapeutics, Inc. Plaintiffs bring claims for violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 1962(c) (RICO), violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 1962(d) (RICO conspiracy), civil conspiracy, unjust enrichment, and violation of the Alaska Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act, the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act, the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the California Unfair Competition Law, the Colorado Consumer Protection Act, the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, the Delaware Consumer Fraud Act, the District of Columbia Consumer Protection Procedures Act, the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, the Idaho Consumer Protection Act, the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, the Indiana Deceptive Consumer Sales Act, the Kentucky Consumer Protection Act, the Maine Unfair Trade Practices Act, the Maryland Consumer Protection Act, the Michigan Consumer Protection Act, the Minnesota Prevention of Consumer Fraud Act, the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, the Nebraska Consumer Protection Act, the Nevada Deceptive Trade Practices Act, the New Hampshire Consumer Protection Act, the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, the New Mexico Unfair Trade Practices Act, New York General Business Law Section 349, the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, the North Dakota Unlawful Sales or Advertising Practices Act, the Ohio Deceptive Trade Practices Act, the Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act, the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, the Rhode Island Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act, the South Dakota Deceptive Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, the Virginia Consumer Protection Act, the Washington Consumer Protection Act, the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act, and the Wisconsin Deceptive Trade Practices Act. Insys said, "We tagged this case for inclusion in MDL No. 2804, to which the plaintiff objected. We intend to vigorously defend this matter." Insys Therapeutics, Inc., a specialty pharmaceutical company, focuses on cannabinoids and drug delivery systems that address unmet patient needs. Insys Therapeutics, Inc. is headquartered in Chandler, Arizona. On June 10, 2019, INSYS Therapeutics, Inc., along with its affiliates, filed a voluntary petition for reorganization under Chapter 11 in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. MERCOLA.COM: Brown Files Suit Over Unsolicited Marketing -------------------------------------------------------- RUSSELL BROWN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MERCOLA.COM HEALTH RESOURCES, LLC a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-00385 (M.D. Fla., June 10, 2019) seeks to secure redress for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. To promote its services, Defendant engages in unsolicited marketing, harming thousands of consumers in the process. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's illegal conduct, which has resulted in the invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of thousands of individuals. Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of himself and members of the class, and any other available legal or equitable remedies. Plaintiff is a natural person who was a resident of Yavapai County, Arizona. Defendant is an online store that sells health-related products and supplements.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. Garrett O. Berg, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 1205 Miami, FL 33132 Phone (305) 479-2299 Facsimile (786) 623-0915 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com gberg@shamisgentile.com - and - Scott Edelsberg, Esq. Jordan D. Utanski, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, PA 19495 Biscayne Blvd. #607 Aventura, FL 33180 Phone: (305) 975-3320 Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com utanski@edelsberglaw.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Ibroms Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup ----------------------------------------------------------- LARRY IBROM and LORRAINE IBROM, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-02823-VC (E.D. Mo., April 25, 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. Larry Ibrom'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 Telephone: (314) 222-2222 Facsimile: (314) 421-0359 E-mail: sethw@getbc.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Nightingale Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup ----------------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT E. NIGHTINGALE III, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-03078-VC (E.D. Mo., March 29, 2019), seeks to recover damages suffered by the Plaintiff, as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. 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: Thompson Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup -------------------------------------------------------------- ROGER THOMPSON, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-02822-VC (E.D. Mo., April 25, 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: 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: Wauters Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup ------------------------------------------------------------- GERALD J. WAUTERS, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-02796-VC (E.D. Mo., April 23, 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: 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 NABRIVA THERAPEUTICS: Faces Enriquez Securities Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Nabriva Therapeutics plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company has been named as a defendant in a class action suit entitled, Larry Enriquez v. Nabriva Therapeutics PLC, and Ted Schroeder, Case No. 19-cv-04183 (S.D.N.Y.). The putative class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and its Chief Executive Officer on May 8, 2019. The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of shareholders who purchased the Company's securities between November 1, 2018 and April 30, 2019. The complaint generally alleges that the Company and its Chief Executive Officer violated Sections 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making allegedly false and/or misleading statements and omitting to disclose material facts concerning the Company's submission of an New Drug Application (NDA) to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for marketing approval of CONTEPO for the treatment of cUTI in the United States and the likelihood of such approval. The complaint seeks unspecified damages, attorneys' fees, and other costs. The case is still in its initial stage and a lead plaintiff has not yet been appointed. Nabriva Therapeutics plc, a biopharmaceutical company, engages in the research and development of anti-infective agents to treat infections in humans. The company was formerly known as Nabriva Therapeutics Forschungs GmbH and changed its name to Nabriva Therapeutics plc in 2007. Nabriva Therapeutics plc was incorporated in 2005 and is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland. NATERA INC: Appeal from IPO Case Decision Still Pending ------------------------------------------------------- Natera, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the plaintiffs' appeal from the court's order granting the company's motion for judgment on the pleadings in a California class action lawsuit over the company's initial public offering remains pending. On each of February 17, 2016, March 10, 2016, March 28, 2016 and April 4, 2016, purported class action lawsuits were filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Mateo (the "San Mateo Superior Court"), against Natera, its directors, certain of its officers and 5% stockholders and their affiliates, and each of the underwriters of the Company's July 1, 2015 initial public offering (the "IPO"). The complaints assert claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. The complaints allege, among other things, that the Registration Statement and Prospectus for the Company's IPO contained materially false or misleading statements, and/or omitted material information that was required to be disclosed, about the Company's business and prospects. Among other relief, the complaints seek class certification, unspecified compensatory damages, rescission, attorneys' fees, and costs. The Company removed these actions to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, and the actions were subsequently remanded back to the San Mateo Superior Court. The Company has appealed the remand and discovery has been stayed, or held, pending the appeal. The Company also filed a demurrer, or a request for dismissal as a matter of law, in the San Mateo Superior Court, which was granted on October 23, 2017. The San Mateo Superior Court demurred the claims under Sections 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, without leave to re-file. The San Mateo Superior Court granted the demurrer as to Section 11 of the Act with leave to re-file. Plaintiffs refiled an amended complaint on November 22, 2017. The Company filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings under the amended complaint on January 25, 2018, which the plaintiffs opposed. Hearings on the motion were held in May and July of 2018. On August 7, 2018 the judge granted the Company's motion for judgment on the pleadings, without leave to amend, and ordered that judgment be entered in favor of the defendants. Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on or about October 18, 2018. The Company intends to continue to defend the matter vigorously, but cannot provide any assurance as to the ultimate outcome or that an adverse resolution would not have a material adverse effect on its financial condition and results of operations. The Company is unable to predict the ultimate outcome and is unable to make a meaningful estimate of the amount or range of loss, if any, that could result from any unfavorable outcome. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Natera, Inc., a diagnostics company, provides preconception and prenatal genetic testing services. The company was formerly known as Gene Security Network, Inc. and changed its name to Natera, Inc. in 2012. Natera, Inc. was founded in 2003 and is headquartered in San Carlos, California. NATERA INC: Faces TCPA Class Action in N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ Natera, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company has been named as a defendant in a purported Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) class action suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On March 15, 2019, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against the company in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging that the plaintiff received an unauthorized text message to her cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Among other relief, the complaint seeks statutory and other damages, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, and costs. Natera said, "The Company intends to vigorously defend the matter but cannot provide any assurance as to the ultimate outcome or that an adverse resolution would not have a material adverse effect on its financial condition and results of operations. The Company is unable to predict the ultimate outcome and is unable to make a meaningful estimate of the amount or range of loss, if any, that could result from any unfavorable outcome." Natera, Inc., a diagnostics company, provides preconception and prenatal genetic testing services. The company was formerly known as Gene Security Network, Inc. and changed its name to Natera, Inc. in 2012. Natera, Inc. was founded in 2003 and is headquartered in San Carlos, California. NATIONAL VISION: De La Cruz Suit Asserts FCRA Violation ------------------------------------------------------- LUIS A. DE LA CRUZ, an individual, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NATIONAL VISION, INC.; and DOES 1 thru 50, Inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-01062-BEN-KSC (S.D. Cal., June 6, 2019) is a class action against the Defendants to seek punitive damages for their willful violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff filled out Defendant's standard "Application for Employment" ("standard FCRA form"), which form permits Defendant to obtain a consumer report verifying Plaintiff's background and experience. This form is a single "document" for purposes of the FCRA and consists of a purported disclosure and authorization. However, the complaint says the Defendant's FCRA disclosure is invalid on two separate grounds. First, Defendant's FCRA disclosure violates the "standalone" disclosure requirement in the FCRA (the FCRA disclosure must be "in a document that consists solely of the disclosure"). Second, Defendant's FCRA disclosure violates the "clear and conspicuous disclosure" requirement in the FCRA because Defendant's FCRA disclosure combines other information including a liability release provision and is not "clear" or "conspicuous" as required by law. Since Defendant's standard FCRA disclosure is non-complaint, Plaintiff was confused regarding the nature of his rights under the FCRA and accordingly did not give valid authorization for Defendant to procure a consumer report in violation of the FCRA, says the complaint. Plaintiff applied, was hired and performed work for Defendant in California from August 22, 2017 through February 20, 20 19 as a non-exempt hourly employee. Defendant is an optical retailer specializing m providing health maintenance organization, vision care, benefit plan, and optometric services, including offering optical accessory products, eyeglasses and contact lenses primarily in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric B. Kingsley, Esq. Kelsey M. Szamet, Esq. Kingsley & Kingsley, APC 16133 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1200 Encino, CA 91436 Phone: (818) 990-8300 Fax: (818) 990-2903 Email: eric@kingsleykingsley.com kelsey@kingsleykingsley.com NCAA: Grant Sues over Grand Valley State Student-Athletes' Safety ----------------------------------------------------------------- ANDREW GRANT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02208-JRS-MPB (S.D. Ind., June 3, 2019), seeks redress for injuries sustained a result of Defendant's reckless disregard for the health and safety of generations of Grand Valley State University (GVSU) student-athletes. According to the complaint, nearly 100,000 student-athletes sign up to compete in college football each year, and it's no surprise why. Football is America's sport and Plaintiff and a Class of football players were raised to live and breathe the game. During football season, there are entire days of the week that millions of Americans dedicate to watching the game. On game days, hundreds of thousands of fans fill stadium seats and even more watch around the world. Before each game, these players -- often mere teenagers -- are riled up and told to do whatever it takes to win and, when playing, are motivated to do whatever it takes to keep going. But up until 2010, NCAA kept players and the public in the dark about an epidemic that was slowly killing college athletes. During the course of a college football season, athletes absorb more than 1,000 impacts greater than 10 Gs (gravitational force) and, worse yet, the majority of football-related hits to the head exceed 20 Gs, with some approaching 100 Gs. To put this in perspective, if you drove your car into a wall at 25 miles per hour and weren't wearing a seatbelt, the force of you hitting the windshield would be around 100 Gs. Thus, each season these 18, 19, 20, and 21-year-old student-athletes are subjected to repeated car accidents. Over time, the repetitive and violent impacts to players' heads led to repeated concussions that severely increased their risks of long-term brain injuries, including memory loss, dementia, depression, Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy ("CTE"), Parkinson's disease, and other related symptoms. Meaning, long after they played their last game, they are left with a series of neurological events that could slowly strangle their brains. For decades, NCAA knew about the debilitating long-term dangers of concussions, concussion-related injuries, and sub-concussive injuries (referred to as "traumatic brain injuries" or "TBIs") that resulted from playing college football, but recklessly disregarded this information to protect the very profitable business of "amateur" college football. While in school, Grand Valley football players were under Defendant's care. Unfortunately, Defendant did not care about the off-field consequences that would haunt students, like Plaintiff Geist, for the rest of their lives. Despite knowing for decades of a vast body of scientific research describing the danger of traumatic brain injuries ("TBIs") like those Plaintiff experienced, Defendant failed to implement adequate procedures to protect Plaintiff and other Grand Valley football players from the long-term dangers associated with them. They did so knowingly and for profit. As a direct result of Defendant's acts and omissions, Plaintiff and countless former Grand Valley football players suffered brain and other neurocognitive injuries from playing NCAA football. As such, Plaintiff brings this Class Action Complaint in order to vindicate those players' rights and hold the NCAA accountable, the lawsuit says. NCAA is a non-profit organization which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American institutions and conferences.[BN] Counsel for Plaintiff and the Putative Class: Jeff Raizner, Esq. RAIZNER SLANIA LLP 2402 Dunlavy Street Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (713) 554 9099 Facsimile: (713) 554 9098 E-mail: efile@raiznerlaw.com - and - Jay Edelson, Esq. Benjamin H. Richman, Esq. Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq. EDELSON PC 350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 589 6370 Facsimile: (312) 589 6378 E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com jedelson@edelson.com brichman@edelson.com NEW INDUSTRIES: Court Narrows Claims in Lawrence FLSA Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana issued an Order granting in part and denying in part Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment in the case captioned JERKYLE LAWRENCE, et al., v. NEW INDUSTRIES, LLC. Civil Action No. 16-994. (W.D. La.). The Plaintiffs, 17 individuals who were employed as laborers by Defendant New Industries, LLC (Defendant), allege that the Defendant did not pay overtime wages or minimum wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Plaintiffs also allege that Defendant violated Louisiana Revised Statute Section 23:1163(A) by requiring employees to contribute $1 for every hour worked into a pool of money called the safety pool, which the Plaintiffs allege the Defendant used to satisfy workers' compensation obligations. The Defendant raises two issues in the motion for summary judgment. First, the Defendant argues that summary judgment should be granted with respect to the Plaintiffs' FLSA claims because time the Plaintiffs allegedly spent putting on and taking off PPE, walking to the time clock, and gathering tools is not compensable under the PPA and/or the de minimum rule. Second, the Defendant contends that the Plaintiffs' state law claims must be dismissed because there is no evidence establishing that the Defendant's employees contributed to the safety pool. In reply, the Defendant contends that these claims must be dismissed because they were not raised in either the Complaint or the Amended Complaint. Alternatively, the Defendant argues that the Plaintiffs have not presented sufficient evidence to survive summary judgment. Accordingly, the Court will address each of these issues in turn. As an initial matter, the Court notes that Plaintiffs do not oppose dismissal of the state law claims. Additionally, Plaintiffs do not oppose dismissal of the FLSA claims of Plaintiffs Jerkyle Lawrence, Craig Reaux, Trevor Alcina, Dontrell Brown, Dale Mitchell, Cody Chauvin, Leroy Jones, Joaquin Mirajes, Freddie Lewis, Christobal Lopez, and Anthony Lightfoot. Accordingly, the Court will grant summary judgment with respect to the state law claims and the FLSA claims of Plaintiffs Jerkyle Lawrence, Craig Reaux, Trevor Alcina, Dontrell Brown, Dale Mitchell, Cody Chauvin, Leroy Jones, Joaquin Mirajes, Freddie Lewis, Christobal Lopez, and Anthony Lightfoot. The Plaintiffs originally opposed dismissal of the FLSA claims brought by Plaintiffs Stanley King, Norman Lightfoot, Kevin Jennings, Alvin Griffin, and Ray Aucoin. However, on June 4, 2019, the parties filed a notice of voluntary dismissal and dismissed the claims of Alvin Griffin, Norman Lightfoot, and Raymond Aucoin with prejudice. Plaintiffs Stanley King and Kevin Jennings also dismissed their claims that they were not paid by Defendant for work they performed during lunch periods with prejudice, but maintained their claims that they were not paid for setting up and putting away tools before and after their workshifts. On June 5, 2019, the Court granted a Motion for Discovery Sanctions Pursuant to FRCP Rule 37 and dismissed the claims of Plaintiff Arthur Thompson without prejudice. Therefore, the only claims that remain are Plaintiffs Kevin Jennings and Stanley King's claims that they were not paid for setting up and putting away tools before and after their workshifts. Claims Raised for the First Time in Opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment The Defendant contends that the Plaintiffs have improperly raised new claims in opposition to the motion for summary judgment. Specifically, the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiffs did not allege in either the Complaint or the Amended Complaint that they were not paid for work performed during their lunch breaks. The Defendant also asserts that the claim that the Plaintiffs were not paid for time spent setting up equipment was not alleged in either the Complaint or the Amended Complaint. A properly pleaded complaint must give fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests. Accordingly, the Fifth Circuit has stated that district courts do not abuse their discretion when they disregard claims or theories of liability not present in the complaint and raised first in a motion opposing summary judgment. The Defendant asserts that the claim that the Plaintiffs were not paid for time spent setting up equipment was not alleged in either the Complaint or the Amended Complaint. However, the Court finds this argument unavailing. In the Amended Complaint, the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant requires its laborers to gather the tools that they will need and meet at 6:00 am for a safety meeting. The Amended Complaint also alleges that at the end of the day employees must put away Defendant's tools. In opposition to the motion for summary judgment, Plaintiffs present declarations of Stanley King and Kevin Jennings, stating that they were not paid for setting up and/or putting away their equipment, including a sub arc welding machine, rope, come along tools, and welding equipment. Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines a tool as something such as an instrument or apparatus used in performing an operation or necessary in the practice of a vocation or profession. Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines equipment as the set of articles or physical resources serving to equip a person or thing. The items described in Plaintiffs' declarations appear to fall under the common definition of both tools and equipment. Therefore, the Court concludes that this claim was properly raised in the Amended Complaint. Accordingly, the Court will proceed to address whether Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiffs' claims that they were not paid for time spent setting up and putting away tools or equipment. Whether Defendants are Entitled to Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs' Claims that They were not Paid for Time Spent Setting Up and Putting Away Tools or Equipment The FLSA mandates that no employer shall employ any of his employees for a workweek longer than forty hours unless such employee receives compensation for his employment in excess of the hours above specified at a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular rate at which he is employed. In opposition to the motion for summary judgment, Plaintiffs present declarations of Stanley King and Kevin Jennings, stating that they were not paid for setting up and/or putting away their equipment. The Defendant argues that the Plaintiffs presented insufficient evidence to overcome summary judgment because the Plaintiffs have not pointed to any evidence establishing that the alleged unpaid work put them above 40-hours per week or reduced their pay below minimum wage. The Court finds this argument unavailing because the FLSA generally requires employers to pay employees for all hours worked.119 Furthermore, it is undisputed that each Plaintiff clocked in when he came to work but was not paid until the safety meeting began. Therefore, the amount of overtime work performed by each Plaintiff can readily be calculated at trial. The Defendant contends that these tasks are not compensable under the PPA because they are preliminary and postliminary activities. The Defendant also asserts that the time spent performing these activities was de minimis. The Defendant contends that the Plaintiffs' declarations do not establish that the Defendant had actual or constructive knowledge that the Plaintiffs performed the work without pay, as required by the FLSA. Whether the Activities are Excluded from Coverage under the PPA In particular, the Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947 amended the FLSA to provide that employers are not required to compensate employees for: (1) walking, riding, or traveling to and from the actual place of performance of the principal activity or activities which such employee is employed to perform and (2) activities which are preliminary to or postliminary to said principal activity or activities,which occur either prior to the time on any particular workday at which such employee commences, or subsequent to the time on any particular workday at which he ceases, such principal activity or activities. In this case, Kevin Jennings states that he was employed as a rigger and was responsible for cutting new rope lengths and selecting and testing the come-along tools required for the workday. Stanley King states that he set up his welding equipment before the shift began, and that he needed more time than the five minutes allotted to return his equipment. The Plaintiffs have presented evidence showing that they could not complete their job duties as riggers and welders without first completing these preliminary and postliminary activities. Plaintiffs have presented evidence to show that these preliminary or postliminary activities are integral and indispensable to the principal activities that Plaintiffs are employed to perform in that the activities were ones that Plaintiffs could dispense with if they were to perform their principal activities. Therefore, the Court concludes that these activities are compensable under the FLSA. Whether Time Spent Performing these Activities was De Minimis Even if an activity might otherwise be compensable, courts may disregard de minimis claims concerning only a few seconds or minutes of work beyond the scheduled working hours. As the Fifth Circuit has recognized, most courts have found daily periods of approximately 10 minutes de minimus even though otherwise compensable. Kevin Jennings and Stanley King have presented evidence showing that they were not compensated for 10 to 15 minutes per day. Specifically, Kevin Jennings states that it took him 10 to 15 minutes per day to cut the rope lengths and 5 minutes to select the come-along tools, and he was not paid for this time.147 Finally, Stanley King states that it took him 10 to 15 minutes to set up the welding equipment and 10 to 15 minutes to put the equipment away, and he was not paid for this time. Accordingly, the Court concludes that these tasks may have involved more than a de minimis amount of time and may be compensable. Therefore, Defendant is not entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law with respect to the FLSA claims of Kevin Jennings and Stanley King. Whether Defendant had Actual or Constructive Knowledge of the Work The Fifth Circuit has determined that a plaintiff must show that he or she was employed during the time period for which he or she seeks overtime compensation, which requires the plaintiff to show that the employer had actual or constructive knowledge that the plaintiff was working overtime. Constructive knowledge exists if an employer exercising reasonable diligence would become aware that an employee is working overtime. In this case, the parties do not dispute that each Plaintiff clocked-in when he arrived at work but was not paid until the morning safety meeting began. Defendant asserts that Plaintiffs did not begin working until after the morning meeting. In opposition, Plaintiffs have presented declarations of Kevin Jennings and Stanley King showing that they performed work before the morning meeting began. Considering that Defendant was aware of the times that Plaintiffs clocked into work each day, there is a disputed issue of material fact as to whether Plaintiffs were working during the time-period between when they clocked in and when the morning safety meeting began and whether Defendant had actual or constructive knowledge that Plaintiffs were working during that period. Accordingly, the Court denies the motion for summary judgment as to the FLSA claims of Kevin Jennings and Stanley King. A full-text copy of the District Court's June 6, 2019 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y6bp8bko from Leagle.com. Kevin R Jennings & Stanley King, Plaintiffs, represented by William Henry Beaumont, William H. Beaumont Law, Jonathan Mille Kirkland, Beaumont Costales, R. Brent Cueria, Cueria Law Firm & Roberto Luis Costales, Costales Law Office, 3801 Canal Street, New Orleans, LA, 70119 New Industries L L C, Defendant, represented by Joel P. Babineaux, Babineaux Poche et al &Karen T. Bordelon, Babineaux Poche et al., 1201 Camellia BoulevardThird FloorLafayette, LA 70508 NIGHTSTAR THERAPEUTICS: Wheby Class Suit Voluntarily Dismissed -------------------------------------------------------------- Nightstar Therapeutics plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the class action suit entitled, Earl M. Wheby, Jr. v. Nightstar Therapeutics plc et al., has been voluntarily dismissed. Three shareholder complaints have been filed in connection with the pending acquisition of the Company by Biogen (the "Acquisition"). On April 23, 2019, Stephen Bushansky, a purported holder of American Depositary Shares ("ADSs") of the Company, filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, captioned Stephen Bushansky v. Nightstar Therapeutics plc et al., Civil Action No. 1:19-cv-10903, against the Company and each member of its board of directors (the "Board"). On April 26, 2019, Earl Wheby, a purported Company shareholder, filed a putative federal securities class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, captioned Earl M. Wheby, Jr. v. Nightstar Therapeutics plc et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00761-UNA, against the Company, each member of the Board and Biogen Inc. Also on April 26, 2019, Brennan Evans, a purported Company shareholder, filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned Brennan Evans v. Nightstar Therapeutics plc et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-03743, against the Company and each member of the Board. On May 1, 2019, the plaintiff in Wheby voluntarily dismissed his complaint without prejudice. The complaints generally allege, among other things, that the defendants violated federal securities laws and regulations by disseminating or allowing to be disseminated a proxy statement in connection with the Acquisition that purportedly omits or misrepresents material information. The complaints seek, among other things, relief enjoining the defendants from proceeding with the Acquisition and any vote on the Acquisition; or, in the event the Acquisition is completed, rescinding the Acquisition and setting it aside or awarding rescissory damages. The Company believes that the plaintiffs' allegations are without merit and intends to vigorously defend against them. Nightstar said, "It is possible that additional lawsuits related to the Acquisition may be filed in the future." Nightstar Therapeutics plc, a clinical-stage gene therapy company, focuses on developing and commercializing novel one-time treatments for patients suffering from rare inherited retinal diseases in the United Kingdom. The company was incorporated in 2017 and is headquartered in London, the United Kingdom. As of June 7, 2019, Nightstar Therapeutics plc operates as a subsidiary of Biogen Inc. NOVA LIFESTYLE: Continues to Defend Barney Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- Nova LifeStyle, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 13, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company continues to defend a federal class action suit initiated by George Barney. On December 28, 2018, a Federal class action complaint was filed by George Barney against the Company and its former and current CEOs and CFOs (Thanh H. Lam, Ya Ming Wong, Jeffery Chuang and Yuen Ching Ho) in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, claiming the Company violated federal securities laws and pursuing remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Security Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 (the "Complaint"). The Complaint seeks to recover compensatory damages caused by the Company's alleged violations of federal security laws during the period from December 3, 2015 through December 20, 2018. In reliance solely on a blog appearing in Seeking Alpha on December 21, 2018, the Complaint states that the Company made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company overstated its purported strategic alliance with a customer in China to operate as lead designer and manufacturer for all furnishings in such customer's planned $460 million senior care center in China; (2) the Company inflated its reported sales in 2016 and 2017 with the Company's two major customers; and (3) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. The Audit Committee engaged the Company's auditor to perform special procedures to confirm the reported sales. Those procedures included but were not limited to the examination and testing of relevant documentation relating to the sales made by the Company to the customers identified in the purported research report for the periods 2015-2018, and 100% sampling of all transactions between the Company and the subject customers. The Audit Committee finished its special procedures in March 2019 and the Company's independent auditor has reported to the Audit Committee that, regarding the four subject customers mentioned in the purported research report, the special procedures resulted in no evidence of fictitious sales or of fictitious customers. Pursuant to a Stipulation approved by the Court, any amendment to the complaint must be filed by May 29, 2019 and no response is required until the earlier of 45 days after an amended complaint is filed or May 29, 2019 (should no amendment be filed). Nova LifeStyle, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, designs, manufactures, markets, and sells residential and commercial furniture for middle and upper middle-income consumers worldwide. Nova LifeStyle, Inc. was founded in 2003 and is headquartered in Commerce, California. NOVATION COMPANIES: Appeal in NJ Carpenters' Suit Still Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- Novation Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 13, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the appeal from the court's order approving the settlement of the class action lawsuit by the New Jersey Carpenters' Health Fund remains pending. On May 21, 2008, a purported class action case was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, by the New Jersey Carpenters' Health Fund, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated. Defendants in the case included NovaStar Mortgage Funding Corporation ("NMFC") and NovaStar Mortgage, Inc. ("NMI"), wholly-owned subsidiaries of the Company, and NMFC's individual directors, several securitization trusts sponsored by the Company ("affiliated defendants") and several unaffiliated investment banks and credit rating agencies. The case was removed to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On June 16, 2009, plaintiff filed an amended complaint. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages, alleging that the defendants violated Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, by making allegedly false statements regarding mortgage loans that served as collateral for securities purchased by plaintiff and the purported class members. On August 31, 2009, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's claims, which the court granted on March 31, 2011, with leave to amend. Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on May 16, 2011, and the Company again filed a motion to dismiss. On March 29, 2012, the court dismissed plaintiff's second amended complaint with prejudice and without leave to replead. Plaintiff filed an appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (the "Appellate Court"). On March 1, 2013, the Appellate Court reversed the judgment of the lower court, which had dismissed the case. Also, the Appellate Court vacated the judgment of the lower court which had held that plaintiff lacked standing, even as a class representative, to sue on behalf of investors in securities in which plaintiff had not invested, and the appellate court remanded the case back to the lower court for further proceedings. On April 23, 2013 plaintiff filed its memorandum with the lower court seeking a reconsideration of the earlier dismissal of plaintiff's claims as to five offerings in which plaintiff was not invested, and on February 5, 2015, the lower court granted plaintiff's motion for reconsideration and vacated its earlier dismissal. On March 8, 2017, the affiliated defendants and all other parties executed an agreement to settle the action, with the contribution of the affiliated defendants to the settlement fund being paid by their insurance carriers. The court certified a settlement class and granted preliminary approval to the settlement on May 10, 2017. One member of the settlement class objected to the settlement and sought a stay of the final settlement approval hearing on the ground that it did not receive notice of the settlement and had no opportunity to timely opt out of the class. After the court rejected the motion for a stay, the objector filed an appeal and requested a stay of the district court proceedings pending disposition of the appeal. The court of appeals denied the temporary stay of the district court proceedings and on October 19, 2018 dismissed the appeal as moot. Following the court of appeals' denial of the objector's petition for rehearing, the district court on March 7, 2019 held a fairness hearing. On March 8, 2019, the district court issued a memorandum and order approving the settlement as fair, reasonable and adequate, and dismissing the action with prejudice. Following entry of judgment, the objector filed a notice of appeal on March 26, 2019. Novation Companies said, "Assuming the settlement approval becomes final, which is expected, the Company will incur no loss. The Company believes that the affiliated defendants have meritorious defenses to the case and, if the settlement approval does not become final, expects them to defend the case vigorously." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Novation Companies, Inc., through its subsidiary, Healthcare Staffing, Inc., provides outsourced health care staffing and related services primarily to Community Service Boards in Georgia. It also owns a portfolio of mortgage securities. The company was formerly known as NovaStar Financial, Inc. and changed its name to Novation Companies, Inc. in May 2012. Novation Companies, Inc. was founded in 1996 and is based in Kansas City, Missouri. NOVUS THERAPEUTICS: Discovery to be Completed by July 12 -------------------------------------------------------- Novus Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 14, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that discovery related to a motion for class certification and standing issues in the case, Wu v. Tokai Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., must be completed by July 12, 2019. On December 5, 2016, a putative securities class action was filed in the Massachusetts State Court, entitled Wu v. Tokai Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., 16-3725 BLS. The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of purchasers of Tokai common stock in or traceable to Tokai's initial public offering (IPO). On December 19, 2016, defendants removed the Wu Action to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, where it was captioned Wu v. Tokai Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., 16-cv-12550. On January 6, 2017, plaintiff filed a motion to remand the Wu Action to Massachusetts State Court. On September 28, 2017, the court stayed the case pending a decision by the United States Supreme Court in Cyan, Inc. v. Beaver County Employees Retirement Fund, S. Ct. Case No. 15-1439. On March 20, 2018, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Cyan that state courts have subject matter jurisdiction over covered class actions alleging only Securities Act claims and that such actions are not removable to federal court. On March 22, 2018, plaintiff moved for leave to submit the Cyan decision in support of plaintiff's remand motion. On March 27, 2018 the Wu Action was remanded to the Massachusetts State Court. On May 3, 2018, plaintiff filed an amended class action complaint. Following the refiling of the Jackie888 Action in Massachusetts State Court, on June 28, 2018, plaintiff Wu moved to consolidate the Jackie888 Action with the Wu Action. On June 29, 2018, plaintiffs Jackie888 and Wu filed a consolidated complaint. On July 6, 2018, the Jackie888 Action was consolidated with the Wu Action. Defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint on August 15, 2018, plaintiffs filed their opposition thereto on September 28, 2018, and defendants filed their reply in support of their motion on October 19, 2018. In addition, Defendants moved to strike the class allegations in the consolidated complaint on August 15, 2018, plaintiffs filed their opposition thereto on September 11, 2018, and defendants filed their reply in support of their motion on September 21, 2018. The court held a hearing on November 15, 2018 on defendants' motion to strike. On December 20, 2018, the court denied defendants' motion to strike. The court held a hearing on December 20, 2018 on defendants' motion to dismiss. On January 8, 2019, the court denied defendants' motion to dismiss. On February 6, 2019, the court entered a scheduling order, pursuant to which discovery on merits issues was stayed pending the court's resolution of class certification. On April 18, 2019, the court held a hearing as to plaintiff Wu's failure to respond to defendant’s discovery requests. The court issued an order requiring plaintiff Wu to serve written responses to the pending discovery requests by May 10, 2019. According to the order, if plaintiff Wu fails to do so, her individual action will be subject to dismissal with prejudice. Discovery on class certification and standing issues must be completed by July 12, 2019. Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of standing shall be filed on or by August 22, 2019, oppositions thereto shall be filed on or by September 19, 2019, and replies in support shall be filed on or by October 10, 2019. The court scheduled a hearing for October 23, 2019 on the motions. Headquartered in Irvine, California, Novus Therapeutics, Inc., is a pharmaceutical company that focuses on developing products for patients with disorders of ear, nose, and throat. Its lead product is (OP-02), a surfactant-based combination drug product for patients at risk for, or with, otitis media (OM) (middle ear inflammation with or without infection). The company also has a foam-based drug delivery technology (OP-01) that could be used to deliver drugs into the ear, nose, and sinus cavities. ORCHIDS OF ASIA: Class Action Over Video Recordings Pending ----------------------------------------------------------- Izzy Kapnick, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that attorneys defending New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft against solicitation-of-prostitution charges convinced a Florida judge to suppress video evidence that police claim shows Kraft engaging in paid sex acts at a day spa. Palm Beach County Circuit Judge Leonard Hanser ruled on May 13 evening that the Jupiter Police Department's collection of undercover video in a day spa prostitution sting was unconstitutional because detectives did little to minimize recording of disrobed patrons who were getting legal massages. Though he found Jupiter police established probable cause, Hanser wrote that officers ran afoul of Fourth Amendment protections by not establishing written surveillance guidelines that would avoid the recording of partly naked, innocent customers. "The fact that some totally innocent women and men had their entire lawful time spent in a massage room fully recorded and viewed intermittently by a detective-monitor is unacceptable and results from the lack of sufficient pre-monitoring written guidelines," the judge wrote. The months-long investigation yielded misdemeanor solicitation-of-prostitution charges against Kraft and more than 20 other men who are accused of paying for sexual gratification at the now-shuttered Orchids of Asia massage parlor in Jupiter. Hua Zhang and Lei Wang are charged with felonies for allegedly deriving proceeds from prostitution at the spa. Jupiter police had applied for a so-called "sneak-and-peak" warrant for the spa in January after obtaining statements from spa patrons who purportedly admitted to engaging in sexual activity at Orchids of Asia. Once they secured the warrant, police reported a fake suspicious-package threat as a way to evacuate the premises before slipping in and placing hidden cameras to record the alleged sexual activity, according to Kraft's attorneys. Prosecutors argued to the court in April that the search warrant application was "exhaustive" and included "strict guidelines" to limit camera placement to areas where criminal activity was believed to be occurring. But Hanser found that police still fell short of the minimization requirements for electronic surveillance laid out in federal case law. He wrote that the department improperly allowed video monitoring of disrobed women in the spa even though the pre-warrant investigation had yielded evidence of only male clientele engaged in solicitation. The judge added that over the five days of secret video-monitoring, police failed to cut off surveillance of certain customers who were keeping their underpants on during their massages, a sign Hanser said should've indicated to police that prostitution was not taking place in those instances. Under the judge's the May 13 order, the video of Kraft allegedly getting manually pleasured at the spa cannot be used as evidence against him. Kraft is represented by Alex Spiro and William Burck from the Quinn Emanuel firm, along with Jack Goldberger as local counsel. In a parallel criminal case against the alleged spa operators, Palm Beach County Circuit Judge Joseph Marx granted a motion for a protective order to seal all video evidence collected by police at Orchids of Asia until the fair trial rights of those defendants are not at risk – until a jury is sworn in, or the case is resolved pre-trial. Meanwhile, a class action lawsuit filed by customers of the spa is pending in Palm Beach court over the allegedly illegal recordings. Media companies have argued to the court that the Kraft video should be released under Florida's Public Records Act regardless of whether it is suppressed as evidence. PAPA MURPHY'S: Brown Files Securities Class Action in Wash. ----------------------------------------------------------- EVAN BROWN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. PAPA MURPHY'S HOLDINGS INC., JEAN M. BIRCH, WELDON SPANGLER, NOAH A. ELBOGEN, BENJAMIN HOCHBERG, YOO JIN KIM, ALEXANDER C. MATINA, DAVID MOUNTS, JOHN SHAFER, KATHERINE L. SCHERPING, ROB WEISBERG and NORTH POINT ADVISORS LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-05514 (W.D. Wash., June 7, 2019) is a class action brought by Plaintiff against Papa Murphy's Holdings Inc., the Company's financial advisor, North Point Advisors LLC, and the members of the Company's board of directors for their violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On April 10, 2019, Papa Murphy's entered into an agreement and plan of merger, whereby shareholders of Papa Murphy's common stock will receive $6.45 in cash for each share of Papa Murphy's stock they own (the "Offer Price"). On April 25, 2019, in order to convince Papa Murphy's shareholders to tender their shares, the Board authorized the filing of a materially incomplete and misleading Schedule 14D-9 Solicitation/Recommendation Statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Therein, the Defendants touted the fairness of the Offer Price to the Company's shareholders, but misled investors with respect to the Company's financial projections, the value of the Company, and the fairness of the Offer Price, notes the complaint. The Defendant North Point created a downwardly revised set of projections (the "Base Case") to illegitimately lower management's significantly higher projections (the "Management Case") for use in the valuation analyses underlying their fairness opinion. Without the use of these adulterated projections, North Point would not have been able to find the Offer Price "fair" to Papa Murphy's shareholders. The Board, aware of the illegitimate alterations, touted North Point's misleading fairness opinion as a positive factor and recommended Papa Murphy's shareholders tender their shares in the Tender Offer based on the misleading fairness opinion. The Tender Offer expired at one minute after 11:59 p.m. (12:00 midnight), New York City time, on May 22, 2019 (the "Expiration Date") and Papa Murphy's shareholders were cashed out of their shares for the inadequate Offer Price. For these reasons, Defendants have violated the Exchange Act. Accordingly, Plaintiff seek to recover damages resulting from Defendants' violations of the Exchange Act, says the complaint. Plaintiff is a shareholder of Papa Murphy’s. Papa Murphy’s, incorporated on March 29, 2010, is a holding company. The Company, together with its subsidiaries, is a franchisor and operator of the Take 'N' Bake pizza chain in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roger M. Townsend, Esq. BRESKIN JOHNSON TOWNSEND, PLLC 1000 Second Avenue, Suite 3670 Seattle, WA 98104 Phone: 206-652-8660 Fax: 206-652-8290 Email: rtownsend@bjtlegal.com - and - Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4405 New York, NY 10118 Phone: 212-971-1341 Fax: 212-202-7880 Email: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com PETEYS LIC: Hernandez Seeks Minimum & OT Pay for Restaurant Staff ----------------------------------------------------------------- LUIS ALBERTO HERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. PETEYS LIC LLC (D/B/A PETEY'S BURGER), PETER NICHOLAS KARALEKAS, and GEORGE KAROLHIS, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-03299 (E.D.N.Y., June 3, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the New York Labor Law. According to the complaint, Mr. Hernandez is a former employee of Defendants. The Defendants own, operate, or control a fast food restaurant, located at 3017 30th Avenue, Astoria, NY 11102 under the name "Petey's Burger". Mr. Hernandez was employed as a delivery worker, a dishwasher, and a food preparer at the restaurant. The Plaintiff was ostensibly employed as a delivery worker. However, he was required to spend a considerable part of his work day performing non-tipped duties, including but not limited to dishwashing, preparing food, cutting potatoes, tomatoes and onions, sweeping and mopping, organizing the inventory when the delivery came, bringing up ingredients for the cooks from the basements, taking out the garbage, and wiping down the windows (non-tipped duties). Hernandez worked in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of hours compensation for the hours that he worked. Rather, the Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked and failed to pay Plaintiff Hernandez appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium. Further, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff Hernandez the required "spread of hours" pay for any day in which he had to work over 10 hours a day. The Defendants employed and accounted for Plaintiff Hernandez as a delivery worker in their payroll, but in actuality his duties required a significant amount of time spent performing the non-tipped duties alleged above. The Defendants paid Plaintiff Hernandez at a rate that was lower than the required tip-credit rate. However, under both the FLSA and NYLL, Defendants were not entitled to take a tip credit because Plaintiff Hernandez's non-tipped duties exceeded 20% of each workday, or 2 hours per day, whichever is less in each day. The Defendants employed the policy and practice of disguising Plaintiff Hernandez's actual duties in payroll records by designating him as a delivery worker instead of as a non-tipped employee. This allowed Defendants to avoid paying Plaintiff Hernandez at the minimum wage rate and enabled them to pay him at the lower tip-credit rate (which they still failed to do), the lawsuit says. In addition, the Defendants maintained a policy and practice of unlawfully appropriating Plaintiff Hernandez's and other tipped employees’ tips and made unlawful deductions from Plaintiff Hernandez's and other tipped employees' wages [BN]. Attorneys for the Plaintiff: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 E-mail: Faillace@employmentcompliance.com PINNACLE FOODS: Hawaii Court Narrows Claims in Amended Maeda Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, MCHAEL MAEDA and ILIANA SANCHEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. PINNACLE FOODS INC.; DOES 1 THROUGH 50, Defendants, Civil No. 18-00459 JAO-RLP (D. Haw.), Judge Jill A. Otake of the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Class Action Complaint. The putative consumer class action arises out of the sale and marketing of Defendant Pinnacle's Hawaiian brand snacks, including: Hawaiian Kettle Style Potato Chips, Original; Hawaiian Kettle Style Potato Chips, Luau BBQ; Hawaiian Kettle Style Potato Chips, Sweet Maui Onion; Hawaiian Kettle Style Potato Chips, Ginger Wasabi; Hawaiian Kettle Style Potato Chips, Hulapeno; Hawaiian Kettle Style Potato Chips, Mango Habanero; Hawaiian Luau Barbeque Rings; and Hawaiian Sweet Maui Onion Rings. The Plaintiffs allege that they purchased these snacks due to false and deceptive labeling, packaging, and advertising, which misled them into believing that the snacks are made in Hawai`i from local ingredients. The Plaintiffs commenced the action on Oct. 12, 2018 in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit, State of Hawai'i. The Defendant removed the action on Nov. 23, 2018. The Plaintiffs allege that although the Hawaiian Snacks are manufactured in Algona, Washington, Defendant markets them in such a manner as to mislead consumers into believing that they were manufactured in Hawai'i. The Plaintiffs assert the following claims: (1) violation of Hawai'i's made in Hawai'i statute; (2) violation of Hawai'i's Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act (Haw. Rev. Stat. Chapter 480); (3) violation of Hawai'i's false advertising law; (4) violation of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act; (5) violation of California's unfair competition law; (6) violation of California's false advertising law; (7) breach of express warranty; (8) breach of implied warranty; (9) common law fraud; (10) intentional misrepresentation; (11) negligent misrepresentation; and (12) quasi-contract/unjust enrichment/restitution. The three proposed classes identified by the Plaintiffs are as follows: a. Hawaii Class: All persons, who, within the relevant statute of limitations period, purchased any of the Hawaiian Snacks, in the State of Hawai'i. b. California Class: All persons, who, within the relevant statute of limitations period, purchased any of the Hawaiian Snacks, in the State of California. c. California Consumer Subclass: All persons, who, within the relevant statute of limitations period, purchased any of the Hawaiian Snacks for personal, family, or household purpose, in the State of California. In their prayer for relief, the Plaintiffs request a declaration that the Defendant's conduct violates the law; restitution; damages; punitive damages; attorneys' fees and costs; and pre and post judgment interest. The Defendant moves to dismiss. It seeks dismissal of the Complaint with prejudice on the following grounds: (1) the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over the claims asserted by Plaintiff Iliana Sanchez; (2) the Plaintiffs' consumer protection claims fail because the Plaintiffs have not alleged an actionable misrepresentation; (3) the Plaintiffs' common law claims fail as a matter of law; and (4) the Plaintiffs lack standing to seek prospective injunctive relief. Judge Otake granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Class Action Complaint. Plaintiff Sanchez's claims are dismissed with prejudice for lack of personal jurisdiction. The Made in Hawaii claim (Count 1) is dismissed with prejudice. The UDAP claim (Count 2), California consumer protection claims (Counts 4-6), breach of warranty claims (Counts 7 and 8), and fraud/intentional misrepresentation claims (Count 9 and 10) are dismissed with leave to amend. The Judge denied the Motion as to the unnamed non-resident class members, the Hawai'i false advertising claim (Count 3), the negligent misrepresentation claim (Count 11), the quasi-contact/unjust enrichment/restitution claim (Count 12), and the request for injunctive relief. Among other things, the Judge finds that Plaintiff Maeda adequately states a claim for false advertising. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has represented and continues to represent to the public, through deceptive packaging and marketing, that the Hawaiian Snacks are products made in Hawaii which is misleading because the Hawaiian Snacks are made in the continental United States. He asserts that the Defendant has violated HRS Section 708-871 by disseminating misleading information when it knows, knew, or should have known through the exercise of reasonable care that the representation was and continues to be misleading. He also finds that under ordinary notice pleading standards, and accepting Plaintiff Maeda's factual allegations as true, the Plaintiff adequately states a claim for negligent misrepresentation. Plaintiff Maeda asserts that the Defendant made misrepresentations concerning the origin of the Hawaiian Snacks knowing they were false, to induce him and other consumers to rely on the representations, upon which they relied, and he suffered damages as a result. He further finds that while Plaintiff Maeda asserts breach of warranty claims, an express contract does not exist between the parties. Even if a contract existed, Plaintiff Maeda may set out two or more statements of a claim or defense alternatively or hypothetically, either in a single count or defense or in separate ones. If a party makes alternative statements, the pleading is sufficient if any one of them is sufficient. The Judge additionally finds that Plaintiff Maeda's allegations adequately state a quasi-contract/unjust enrichment/restitution claim under both Hawai'i and California law. Plaintiff Maeda may file an amended pleading by June 10, 2019 correcting the deficiencies identified herein and in conformance with the Order. Failure to do so will result in the dismissal of the action. A full-text copy of the Court's May 10, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/rEIBkL from Leagle.com. Michael Maeda & Iliana Sanchez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Brandee J. Faria -- bjkfaria@perkinlaw.com -- Perkin & Faria & Aubry Wand, The Wand Law Firm, P.C. Pinnacle Foods Inc., Defendant, represented by Andrew G. Phillips -- andrew.phillips@alston.com -- Alston & Bird LLP, pro hac vice, Angela M. Spivey, Alston & Bird LLP, pro hac vice, Jesse J.T. Smith, McCorriston Miller Mukai MacKinnon LLP & David J. Minkin -- info@m4law.com -- McCorriston Miller Mukai MacKinnon. POPULAR INC: Awaits New Briefing Schedule in Camacho Suit --------------------------------------------------------- Popular, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the Court of Appeals has entered an order where it consolidated three pending appeals related to the same subset of facts in Lilliam Gonzalez Camacho, et al. v. Banco Popular de Puerto Rico, et al., thus, the briefs filed by the Appellants were vacated and the Clerk of the Court has yet to set a new briefing schedule. Banco Popular de Puerto Rico (BPPR) has been named a defendant in a putative class action captioned Lilliam Gonzalez Camacho, et al. v. Banco Popular de Puerto Rico, et al., filed before the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico on behalf of mortgage-holders who have allegedly been subjected to illegal foreclosures and/or loan modifications through their mortgage servicers. Plaintiffs maintain that when they sought to reduce their loan payments, defendants failed to provide them with such reduced loan payments, instead subjecting them to lengthy loss mitigation processes while filing foreclosure claims against them in parallel (or dual tracking). Plaintiffs assert that such actions violate the Home Affordable Modification Program ("HAMP"), the Home Affordable Refinance Program ("HARP") and other federally sponsored loan modification programs, as well as the Puerto Rico Mortgage Debtor Assistance Act and the Truth in Lending Act ("TILA"). For the alleged violations stated above, plaintiffs request that all defendants (over 20, including all local banks), be held jointly and severally liable in an amount no less than $400 million. BPPR waived service of process in June 2017 and filed a motion to dismiss in August 2017, as did most co-defendants. In March 2018, the District Court dismissed the complaint in its entirety. After being denied reconsideration by the District Court, on August 2018, plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. On January 22, 2019, the Appellants filed their brief. Appellees' filed a request for extension of time to file their brief, until March 27, 2019. However, on March 12, 2019, the Court of Appeals entered an order where it consolidated three pending appeals related to the same subset of facts. Thus, the briefs filed by the Appellants were vacated and the Clerk of the Court has yet to set a new briefing schedule. Popular, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides various retail, mortgage, and commercial banking products and services. Popular, Inc. was founded in 1893 and is headquartered in Hato Rey, Puerto Rico. POPULAR INC: Bid for Reconsideration in Maura Class Suit Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- Popular, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that plaintiffs are awaiting a court ruling on their motion for reconsideration in the case, Yiries Josef Saad Maura v. Banco Popular, et al. Banco Popular de Puerto Rico (BPPR) has also been named a defendant in another putative class action captioned Yiries Josef Saad Maura v. Banco Popular, et al., filed by the same counsel who filed the Gonzalez Camacho action, on behalf of residential customers of the defendant banks who have allegedly been subject to illegal foreclosures and/or loan modifications through their mortgage servicers. As in Gonzalez Camacho, plaintiffs contend that when they sought to reduce their loan payments, defendants failed to provide them with such reduced loan payments, instead subjecting them to lengthy loss mitigation processes while filing foreclosure claims against them in parallel, all in violation of the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA"), the Equal Credit Opportunity Act ("ECOA"), the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"), the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") and other consumer-protection laws and regulations. Plaintiffs did not include a specific amount of damages in their complaint. After waiving service of process, BPPR filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the same grounds as those asserted in the Gonzalez Camacho action (as did most co-defendants, separately). BPPR further filed a motion to oppose class certification, which the Court granted, denying the motion for class certification in September 2018. On April 5, 2019, the Court entered an Opinion and Order granting BPPR's and several other defendants' motions to dismiss with prejudice. Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Reconsideration on April 15, 2019, which Popular timely opposed and which remains pending. Popular, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides various retail, mortgage, and commercial banking products and services. Popular, Inc. was founded in 1893 and is headquartered in Hato Rey, Puerto Rico. POPULAR INC: Court to Rule on Validity of Endorsement in "Torres" ----------------------------------------------------------------- Popular, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the court overseeing the case, Ramirez Torres, et al. v. Banco Popular de Puerto Rico, et al., has agreed to first rule on the validity of the endorsement and set an injunction hearing for September 2019 in case the validity of the endorsement is upheld. Banco Popular de Puerto Rico (BPPR) has separately been named a defendant in a putative class action complaint captioned Ramirez Torres, et al. v. Banco Popular de Puerto Rico, et al, filed before the Puerto Rico Court of First Instance, San Juan Part. The complaint seeks damages and preliminary and permanent injunctive relief on behalf of the purported class against the same Popular Defendants, as well as other financial institutions with insurance brokerage subsidiaries in Puerto Rico. Plaintiffs essentially contend that in November 2015, Antilles Insurance Company obtained approval from the Puerto Rico Insurance Commissioner to market an endorsement that allowed its customers to obtain reimbursement on their insurance deductible for good experience, but that defendants failed to offer this product or disclose its existence to their customers, favoring other products instead, in violation of their duties as insurance brokers. Plaintiffs seek a determination that defendants unlawfully failed to comply with their duty to disclose the existence of this new insurance product, as well as double or treble damages (the latter subject to a determination that defendants engaged in monopolistic practices in failing to offer this product). Between late March and early April of 2017, co-defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint and opposed the request for preliminary injunctive relief. A co-defendant filed a third-party Complaint against Antilles Insurance Company. A preliminary injunction and class certification hearing originally scheduled for April 6, 2017 was subsequently postponed, pending resolution of the motions to dismiss. In July 2017, the Court dismissed the complaint with prejudice. In August 2017, plaintiffs appealed this judgment and, in March 2018, the Court of Appeals reversed the Court of First Instance's dismissal. In May 2018, all defendants filed their respective Petitions of Certiorari to the Puerto Rico Supreme Court, which denied review. On May 2, 2019, a hearing was held in the Court of First Instance, where the parties requested that the Court first determine the validity of the endorsement obtained by Antilles Insurance Company and approved by the Puerto Rico Insurance Commissioner, which was challenged by the co-defendant in the third-party complaint. The Court agreed to first rule on the validity of the endorsement and set an injunction hearing for September 2019 in case the validity of said endorsement is upheld. Popular, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides various retail, mortgage, and commercial banking products and services. Popular, Inc. was founded in 1893 and is headquartered in Hato Rey, Puerto Rico. POPULAR INC: Status and Settlement Conference Set for Oct. 22 ------------------------------------------------------------- Popular, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that a status and settlement conference in the Hazard Insurance Commission-Related Litigation is set for October 22, 2019. Popular, Inc., Banco Popular de Puerto Rico (BPPR) and Popular Insurance, LLC (the "Popular Defendants") have been named defendants in a putative class action complaint captioned Perez Diaz v. Popular, Inc., et al., filed before the Court of First Instance, Arecibo Part. The complaint seeks damages and preliminary and permanent injunctive relief on behalf of the purported class against the Popular Defendants, as well as Antilles Insurance Company and MAPFRE-PRAICO Insurance Company (the "Defendant Insurance Companies"). Plaintiffs allege that the Popular Defendants have been unjustly enriched by failing to reimburse them for commissions paid by the Defendant Insurance Companies to the insurance agent and/or mortgagee for policy years when no claims were filed against their hazard insurance policies. They demand the reimbursement to the purported "class" of an estimated $400 million plus legal interest, for the "good experience" commissions allegedly paid by the Defendant Insurance Companies during the relevant time period, as well as injunctive relief seeking to enjoin the Defendant Insurance Companies from paying commissions to the insurance agent/mortgagee and ordering them to pay those fees directly to the insured. A motion for dismissal on the merits, which the Defendant Insurance Companies filed shortly before hearing, was denied with a right to replead following limited targeted discovery. The Court of Appeals and then the Puerto Rico Supreme Court, both denied the Popular Defendants' request to review the lower court’s denial of the motion to dismiss. In December 2017, plaintiffs sought to amend the complaint and, on January 2018, defendants filed an answer thereto. Separately, in October 2017, the Court entered an order whereby it broadly certified the class after which the Popular Defendants filed a certiorari petition before the Puerto Rico Court of Appeals in relation to the class certification, which the Court declined to entertain. In November 2018 and in January 2019, Plaintiffs filed voluntary dismissal petitions against MAPFRE-PRAICO Insurance Company and Antilles Insurance Company, respectively. Hence, now the Popular Defendants remain the sole defendants in this action. A status conference was held in March 2019, where, among other things, plaintiffs stated that they sought to make changes to the certified class that seek to better define the size of the class as well as the scope of the remedies sought by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs submitted their proposed changes to the class on April 8, 2019, which were timely opposed by Popular. A status and settlement conference is set for October 22, 2019. Popular, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides various retail, mortgage, and commercial banking products and services. Popular, Inc. was founded in 1893 and is headquartered in Hato Rey, Puerto Rico. PRO AM AUTOS: Does Not Pay Overtime, Hawkins et al Say ------------------------------------------------------ An employment-related class action complaint has been filed against Anthony Birdsong and Pro Am Autos, LLC d/b/a Hampstead Pre-Owned for alleged violations of the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act, the Maryland Wage and Hour Law and the Maryland Wage Payment Collection Law. The case is captioned DALTON J. HAWKINS - and - TERRELL MOORE, For themselves and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs, v. ANTHONY BIRDSONG – and - PRO AM AUTOS, LLC d/b/a HAMPSTEAD PRE OWNED, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01685-RDB (D. Md., June 6, 2019). Plaintiff Dalton J. Hawkins alleges the Defendants failed to pay appropriate overtime compensation to its employees who worked more than 40 hours per week. Pro Am Autos, LLC d/b/a Hampstead Pre-Owned is a limited liability company organized under the laws of the State of Maryland. Pro Am operates a used car sales lot and maintenance service that includes auto body repair services. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Andreas N. Akaras, Esq. Stephen J. Whelan, Esq. BREGMAN, BERBERT, SCHWARTZ & GILDAY, LLC 7315 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 800 West Bethesda, MD 20814 Telephone: (301) 656-2707 PROTECTIVE LIFE: Advance Trust Suit in Alabama Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------ Protective Life Insurance Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 13, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Advance Trust & Life Escrow Services, LTA, as Securities Intermediary of Life Partners Position Holder Trust v. Protective Life Insurance Company, Case No. 2:18-CV-01290. Advance Trust & Life Escrow Services, LTA, as Securities Intermediary of Life Partners Position Holder Trust v. Protective Life Insurance Company, Case No. 2:18-CV-01290, is a putative class action that was filed on August 13, 2018 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. Plaintiff alleges that the Company required policyholders to pay unlawful and excessive cost of insurance charges. Plaintiff seeks to represent all owners of universal life and variable universal life policies issued or administered by the Company or its predecessors that provide that cost of insurance rates are to be determined based on expectations of future mortality experience. The plaintiff seeks class certification, compensatory damages, pre-judgment and post judgment interest, costs, and other unspecified relief. Protective Life said, "The Company is vigorously defending this matter and cannot predict the outcome of or reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss that might result from this litigation." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Protective Life Insurance Company, a stock life insurance company, provides financial services through the production, distribution, and administration of insurance and investment products primarily in the United States. The company operates through Life Marketing, Acquisitions, Annuities, Stable Value Products, and Asset Protection segments. The company was founded in 1907 and is based in Birmingham, Alabama. Protective Life Insurance Company is a subsidiary of Protective Life Corporation. PROVIDENT TRUST: Response to First Amended Murray Suit Due June 21 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, NOEL C. MURRAY, DR. SWARNA PERERA, and JOYCE E. FRIEDMAN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. PROVIDENT TRUST GROUP, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-01382-MMD-GWF (D. Nev.), Magistrate Judge George Foley, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada ordered that that Defendant will have up to, and including, June 21, 2019, to respond to the First Amended Class Action Complaint. The parties stipulate and request that the Court extends the time by which the Defendant must respond to the First Amended Class Action Complaint by 30 days up to, and including, June 21, 2019. The Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Class Action Complaint on May 8, 2019, in which they allege the Defendant breached contractual duties as custodian of their Individual Retirement Accounts. They seek certification to represent a class of similarly situated individuals across the country. The Defendant was served with the First Amended Class Action Complaint via PACER on May 8, 2019, and the Defendant's response is currently due May 22, 2019. The Counsel for the Defendant has requested additional time to evaluate the Plaintiffs' allegations and prepare a response, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. The Counsel for the Plaintiffs has agreed to the request. In light of the foregoing, the parties agreed and Magistrate Judge Foley granted, that the Defendant will have up to, and including, June 21, 2019, to respond to the First Amended Class Action Complaint. It is the first request for an extension of time in this regard. The Stipulation is entered into in good faith and not for purposes of delay. A full-text copy of the Court's May 15, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/hk6SBD from Leagle.com. Noel C. Murray & Swarna Perera, Dr., Plaintiffs, represented by Christopher J. Gray, Law Office of Christopher J. Gray, P.C., pro hac vice, Joshua Kons -- Practic -- Law Offices of Joshua B. Kons, LLC, pro hac vice, Michael James Giarrusso, Law Office of Christopher J. Gray, P.C., pro hac vice & Martin L. Welsh, Law Office of Hayes & Welsh. Joyce E. Friedman, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher J. Gray, Law Office of Christopher J. Gray, P.C., pro hac vice, Joshua B. Kons, Law Offices of Joshua B. Kons, LLC, pro hac vice & Martin L. Welsh, Law Office of Hayes & Welsh. Provident Trust Group, LLC, 1AC, Defendant, represented by Michael James Slocum -- slocumm@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig LLP, pro hac vice, Robert Harris Bernstein -- bernsteinrob@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig LLP, pro hac vice, Jason Hicks -- hicksja@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig, LLP & Mark E. Ferrario -- ferrariom@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig. QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Fernandez Sues over Data Breach -------------------------------------------------- JORGE M. FERNANDEZ, JR. and HECTOR J. VALDES, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. AMERICAN MEDICAL COLLECTION AGENCY, INC., OPTUM360 SERVICES, INC., QUEST DIAGNOSTICS INCORPORATED, and DOES 1-10, the Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-13398 (D.N.J., June 4, 2019), alleges that Defendants failed to protect the confidential information of millions of patients -- including financial information (e.g., credit card numbers and bank account information), medical information, personal information (e.g., Social Security Numbers), and/or other protected health information as defined by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 ("HIPAA"). The Defendants' wrongful disclosure has harmed Plaintiffs and the Classes, believed to include thousands of individuals. Quest is a provider of medical diagnostic testing services. It performs medical tests that aid in the diagnosis or detection of diseases, and that measure the progress of or recovery from a disease. On June 3, 2019, Quest publicly admitted in a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission that: "On May 14, 2019, American Medical Collection Agency (AMCA), a billing collections vendor, notified Quest and Optum360 LLC, [Quest's] revenue cycle management provider," of a massive data breach compromising the Sensitive Information of 11.9 million Quest patients, and most likely others (the "Data Breach"). Quest's SEC filing disclosed that, "between August 1, 2018 and March 30, 2019 an unauthorized user had access to AMCA's system that contained information that AMCA had received from various entities, including Quest Diagnostics, and information that AMCA collected itself, include[ing] financial information (e.g., credit card numbers and bank account information), medical information, and other personal information (e.g., Social Security Numbers)." Quest apparently allowed hackers to access Plaintiffs' and other Class Members' Sensitive Information for some seven months and did nothing to let the victims know about the Data Breach for nearly a year after it began. Although Quest knew of the Data Breach at least as of May 14, 2019, and although AMCA knew of it even earlier, neither took any steps to notify patients whose information was affected until June 3, 2019, at which point Quest only did so through an SEC filing, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for the the Plaintiff: Christopher A. Seeger, Esq. Parvin Aminolroaya, Esq. SEEGER WEISS LLP 55 Challenger Road, 6th Floor Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660 Telephone: (973) 639-9100 - and - Jennifer Scullion, Esq. SEEGER WEISS LLP 77 Water Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 584-0700 - and - Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq. Bart D. Cohen, Esq. NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP, P.C. 1211 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Floor New York, NY 10036-8718 Telephone: (917) 438-9189 - and - Michael E. Criden, Esq. CRIDEN & LOVE, P.A. 7301 SW 57th Court, Ste. 515 South Miami, FL 33143 Telephone: (305) 357-9000 - and - Paul J. Geller, Esq. Stuart A. Davidson, Esq. Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. Mark S. Reich, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Telephone: (561) 750-3000 QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Grauberger Sues over Personal Medical Info ------------------------------------------------------------- EMORY GRAUBERGER, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. QUEST DIAGNOSTICS INCORPORATED; OPTUM360 SERVICES, INC.; and AMERICAN MEDICAL COLLECTION AGENCY, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-03102 (N.D. Cal., June 4, 2019), alleges that Defendants have violated Civil Code section 56.101 of the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, through their failure to maintain and preserve preserves the confidentiality of the medical information of Plaintiff and Class and Subclass. Quest is a large provider of medical diagnostic testing services, touching the lives of 30% of American adults each year. On June 3, 2019, in a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Quest admitted that on May 14, 2019, AMAC had notified Quest and Optum360 LLC of the existence of a massive data breach comprising the personal information of 11.9 million Quest patients. Between August 1, 2018 and March 30, 2019, an unauthorized third party had access to AMCA's system, which contained information that AMCA had received from Quest Diagnostics and which AMCA collected itself. Personal information that was located in these systems included financial information, medical information, and other personal information. The Defendants allowed hackers to access Plaintiff's and putative class members' personal information for seven months without notifying the victims about the breach over a year. The Plaintiff utilized Quests' services over several years, including most recently in or around January of 2019. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff's personal and/or financial information was disclosed and released during this breach. As of the filing of this Complaint, Defendants have yet to notify Plaintiff of the alleged data breach, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. Jason A. Ibey, Esq. Nicholas R. Barthel, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: ak@kazlg.com jason@kazlg.com nicholas@kazlg.com - and - Matt Schultz, Esq. Bill Cash, Esq. Brenton Goodman, Esq. LEVIN, PAPANTONIO, THOMAS, MITCHELL, RAFFERTY & PROCTOR, P.A. 316 S Baylen St Ste 600 Pensacola, FL 32502-5996 Telephone: (850) 435-7140 Facsimile: (850) 436-6140 E-mail: mschultz@levinlaw.com bcash@levinlaw.com bvigodsky@levinlaw.com - and - Joshua B. Swigart, Esq. HYDE & SWIGART 2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-7770 Facsimile: (619) 297-1022 E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Mayer Sues over Data Breach ---------------------------------------------- JOHANNA A. MAYER, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. QUEST DIAGNOSTICS, INC.; OPTUM360 SERVICES, INC.; AMERICAN MEDICAL COLLECTION AGENCY and DOES 1 through 100, the Defendants, Case No. 5:19-cv-01029-JGB-SHK (C.D. Cal., June 5, 2019), alleges that Defendants failed to maintain reasonable and/or adequate security measures to protect Plaintiff's and other Class members' personally identifiably information (PII)/protected health information (PHI) from unauthorized access and disclosure, apparently lacking, at a minimum: (1) reasonable and adequate security measures designed to prevent this attack even though Defendants knew or should have known that it was a prized target for hackers; and (2) reasonable and adequate security protocols to promptly detect the unauthorized intrusion into and removal of PII/PHI from its provider database pertaining to nearly 12 million Data Breach victims. On June 3, 2019, Quest Diagnostics, one of the largest blood testing providers in the country, announced a data breach whereby nearly 12 million of its customers, including Plaintiff and putative Class members, had their PII and PHI accessed by unauthorized parties due to the negligent data security of AMCA, one if its billing collections vendors. Specifically, the PII and PHI accessed included, but was not limited to, Plaintiff's and Class members' personal information (e.g. Social Security Numbers), financial information (credit card numbers and bank account information), and medical information. In its SEC filing relating to the Data Breach, Quest Diagnostics announced that unauthorized parties accessed between August 1, 2018 and March 30, 2019 AMCA's system, which contained Plaintiff's and Class members' PII and PHI. AMCA only learned of the Data Breach as a result of receiving information from a security compliance firm that works with credit card companies. Given AMCA's relationship to Quest Diagnostics -- AMCA provides services to Optum360, which in turn provides payment services to Quest Diagnostics -- Plaintiff and Class members were blindsided by the Data Breach announcement given most have never heard of AMCA or Optum360 and were unaware that their information would be shared with these entities, causing additional emotional harm. AMCA first learned of the Data Breach on or around March 30, 2019 but waited more than three months to notify Plaintiff and Class members of the Data Breach. While nearly 12 million Data Breach victims sought out and/or paid for diagnostics testing and medical care from Defendants, thieves were hard at work, stealing and using their hard-to-change Social Security numbers and highly sensitive PII/PHI for nearly one year without the victims' knowledge. Defendants' lax security practices that allowed this intrusion to occur have worsened Plaintiff's and other Class members' lives by, among other injuries: (a) adding to their already heightened financial obligations by placing them at increased risk of fraudulent charges; (b) complicating diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment for their severe medical conditions by placing them at increased risk of having inaccurate medical information in their files; and/or (c) increasing the risk of other potential personal, professional, or financial harms that could be caused as a result of having their PII/PHI exposed. Prior to the Data Breach, Quest Diagnostics acknowledged in its Notice of Privacy Practices that it is "committed to protecting the privacy of your identifiable health information" and that it would only use Plaintiff and Class members PII/PHI for certain limited purposes, such as for treatment, payment, or healthcare operations purposes and for other purposes permitted or required by law. Quest Diagnostics represented that it would abide by these obligations, but failed to live up to its own promises as well as its duties and obligations required by law and industry standards. Contrary to its promises to help patients improve the quality of their lives through secure data practices, Defendants' conduct has instead been a direct cause of the ongoing harm to Plaintiff and other Class members whose suffering has been magnified by the Data Breach, and who will continue to experience harm and data insecurity for the indefinite future, the lawsuit says. As a result of Defendants' willful failure to prevent the Data Breach, Plaintiff and Class members are more susceptible to identity theft and have experienced, will continue to experience, and face an increased risk of financial harms, in that they are at substantial risk of identity theft, fraud, and other harm [BN]. Counsel for Plaintiff and Putative Class: Brian D. Chase, Esq. Jerusalem F. Beligan, Esq. Ian M. Silvers, Esq. BISNAR | CHASE LLP 1301 Dove Street, Suite 120 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 752-2999 Facsimile: (949) 752-2777 E-mail: bchase@bisnarchase.com jbeligan@bisnarchase.com isilvers@bisnarchase.com - and - Robert L. Esensten, Esq. Jordan S. Esensten, Esq. ESENSTEN LAW 12100 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1660 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (310) 279-3090 Facsimile: (310) 207-5969 E-mail: resensten@esenstenlaw.com jesensten@esenstenlaw.com QUORUM HEALTH: Discovery Ongoing in Suit v. Watsonville Community ----------------------------------------------------------------- Quorum Health Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that discovery is ongoing in the class action suit entitled, Mary Della-Maggiora, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Watsonville Community Hospital, entity unknown, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive (Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Santa Cruz). On January 22, 2018, Plaintiff filed a purported class action alleging violations of California Labor Code Section 226(a). On May 14, 2018, Plaintiff filed her Second Amended Class Action Complaint. The Second Amended Class Action Complaint contains two causes of action. The first cause of action is brought by Plaintiff in her individual capacity and as potential class representative for all other Watsonville Community Hospital employees for alleged violations of Labor Code Section 226(a), subsections (6), (8), and (9). The second cause of action is brought under the California Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 by Plaintiff in her individual capacity and as "appointed" representative of the State of California Labor and Workforce Development Agency, for alleged violations of Labor Code Section 226(a), subsection (9). Plaintiff generally alleges that the paystubs issued to Watsonville employees did not include all information required by California Labor Code Section 226(a). The case is in discovery, and Watsonville Community Hospital is vigorously defending itself in this matter. The Company is unable to predict the outcome of this matter. However, it is reasonably possible that the Company may incur a loss in connection with this matter. The Company is unable to reasonably estimate the amount or range of such reasonably possible loss because discovery has only recently started and the case remains in its early stages. Under some circumstances, losses incurred in connection with adverse outcomes in this matter could be material. Quorum Health Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, provides hospital and outpatient healthcare services in the United States. Its hospital and outpatient healthcare services include general and acute care, emergency room, general and specialty surgery, critical care, internal medicine, diagnostic, obstetric, psychiatric, and rehabilitation services. The company was incorporated in 2015 and is headquartered in Brentwood, Tennessee. QUORUM HEALTH: Discovery Ongoing in Zwick Partners Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Quorum Health Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that discovery is ongoing in the case, Zwick Partners LP and Aparna Rao, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Quorum Health Corporation, Community Health Systems, Inc., Wayne T. Smith, W. Larry Cash, Thomas D. Miller and Michael J. Culotta. On September 9, 2016, a shareholder filed a purported class action in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee against the Company and certain of its former officers. On April 17, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint adding additional defendants, Community Health Systems, Inc. (CHS), Wayne T. Smith and W. Larry Cash. The Second Amended Complaint alleges claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and is brought on behalf of a class consisting of all persons (other than defendants) who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of the Company between May 2, 2016 and August 10, 2016. On June 23, 2017, the Company filed a motion to dismiss, which Plaintiff opposed on August 22, 2017. On April 19, 2018, the Court denied the Company's motion to dismiss, and the Company filed its answer to the Second Amended Complaint on May 18, 2018. On July 13, 2018, Plaintiff filed its motion for class certification, which Defendants opposed on August 31, 2018. On March 29, 2019, the Court granted the motion and certified the class. Defendants have filed a petition for permission to appeal the class certification decision with the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, which petition is currently pending. On September 14, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Third Amended Complaint adding additional alleged misstatements. On October 12, 2018, Defendants moved to dismiss the new allegations, and, on March 29, 2019, the Court granted the motion and dismissed the new allegations. The case is in discovery, and the Company is vigorously defending itself in this matter. The Company is unable to predict the outcome of this matter. Quorum Health said, "However, it is reasonably possible that the Company may incur a loss in connection with this matter. The Company is unable to reasonably estimate the amount or range of such reasonably possible loss because discovery has only recently started and the case remains in its early stages. Under some circumstances, losses incurred in connection with adverse outcomes in this matter could be material." Quorum Health Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, provides hospital and outpatient healthcare services in the United States. Its hospital and outpatient healthcare services include general and acute care, emergency room, general and specialty surgery, critical care, internal medicine, diagnostic, obstetric, psychiatric, and rehabilitation services. The company was incorporated in 2015 and is headquartered in Brentwood, Tennessee. R. CARTER PATE: Schmidt Sues Board for Breach of Fiduciary Duties ----------------------------------------------------------------- ERIK SCHMIDT, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated stockholders of BIOSCRIP, INC., Plaintiff, v. R. CARTER PATE, DANIEL E. GREENLEAF, DAVID GOLDING, MICHAEL GOLDSTEIN, CHRISTOPHER SHACKELTON, MICHAEL G. BRONFEIN and STEVEN NEUMAN, Defendants, Case No. 2019-0430 (Del. Chancery Ct., June 7, 2019) is a Verified Class Action Complaint against the members of the board of directors of BioScrip for breaching their fiduciary duties. On March 14, 2019, BioScrip and Option Care entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger pursuant to which BioScrip and Option Care agreed to combine their respective businesses in an all-stock transaction. Under the Merger Agreement, BioScrip will issue over 542 million new shares of common stock to Option Care's sole shareholder, HC I (a/k/a Omega Parent, which is owned by investment funds affiliated with Madison Dearborn Partners, LLC ("Madison Dearborn Partners") and Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. ("Walgreens")). Upon completion of the Proposed Transaction, Madison Dearborn Partners (and affiliated entities) and Walgreens will beneficially own approximately 80% of the combined publicly traded company on a fully diluted basis, and current BioScrip shareholders will own the remaining 20% (the "Exchange Ratio"). The transaction is expected to be completed "in the second half of 2019," and the combined company's common stock will continue to be listed on the Nasdaq Global Market. Because BioScrip will issue additional shares totaling more than 20% of its current outstanding common stock, and because applicable stock exchange rules require an issuer, such as BioScrip, to obtain stockholder approval before such issuances, the Merger Agreement provides that the approval of the Share Issuance Proposal by BioScrip's stockholders is a necessary condition to closing the Proposed Transaction. The Merger Agreement also provides that the approval of the Amended Charter Proposal and Series A COD Amendment Proposal are necessary conditions to closing the Proposed Transaction. On April 30, 2019, BioScrip filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission a Preliminary Proxy Statement on Schedule 14A, which serves to solicit BioScrip stockholder votes in favor of the Proposals. According to the Proxy Statement, Jefferies LLC and Moelis & Company LLC acted as financial advisors to BioScrip in connection with the Proposed Transaction, but only Moelis provided the BioScrip Board with an opinion that the Exchange Ratio was purportedly fair, from a financial point of view, to BioScrip. The complaint asserts that the Proxy Statement fails to properly disclose to BioScrip stockholders (i) Moelis' conflicts of interests with respect to certain entities involved with or interested in the Proposed Transaction and (ii) the potential amount (or circumstances for the receipt) of a "discretionary fee" that Moelis may receive in connection with the Proposed Transaction. This omitted information is patently material because it is imperative for BioScrip stockholders to be able to understand what factors might have influenced Moelis' analytical efforts in providing an opinion concerning the fairness of the Exchange Ratio to BioScrip. In order to fairly assess the Proposed Transaction and decide how to vote on the Proposals, and to assess whether to rely on Moelis' fairness opinion in casting those votes, BioScrip stockholders, such as Plaintiff, are entitled to know all material information concerning Moelis' merger-related compensation and conflicts of interest. Further, BioScrip stockholders voting on the Proposals would find the omitted information concerning Moelis merger-related compensation and conflicts of interest material in determining how to vote. Without disclosure of this information, BioScrip stockholders are left guessing as to whether Moelis' conflicts of interest tainted the process, and will be unable to cast informed votes on the Proposals and fully exercise their franchise rights in connection with the Proposed Transaction, says the complaint. Plaintiff is a stockholder of BioScrip, and has owned BioScrip common stock at all material times alleged in this Complaint. Defendant R. Carter Pate is Chairman of the BioScrip Board.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq. KASKELA LAW LLC 18 Campus Boulevard, Suite 100 Newtown Square, PA 19073 Phone: (888) 715-1740 - and - Blake A. Bennett, Esq. COOCH AND TAYLOR, P.A. The Brandywine Building 1000 West Street, 10th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 984-3800 RA MEDICAL SYSTEMS: Derr Sues Over Share Price Drop --------------------------------------------------- ERVIN DERR, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. RA MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC., DEAN IRWIN, ANDREW JACKSON, MELISSA BURSTEIN, MARTIN BURSTEIN, RICHARD HEYMANN, MAURICE BUCHBINDER, MARTIN COLOMBATTO, RICHARD MEJIA, JR., PIPER JAFFRAY & CO., CANTOR FITZGERALD & CO., SUNTRUST ROBINSON HUMPHREY, INC., NOMURA SECURITIES INTERNATIONAL, INC., and MAXIM GROUP LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-01079-LAB-NLS (S.D. Cal., June 7, 2019) is a class action on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Ra Medical securities pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement and prospectus (collectively, the "Registration Statement") issued in connection with the Company’s September 2018 initial public offering. Plaintiff pursues claims against the Defendants, under the Securities Act of 1933. On September 27, 2018, the Company filed its prospectus on Form 424B4 with the SEC, which forms part of the Registration Statement. In the IPO, the Company sold 4,485,000 shares of common stock at a price of $17.00 per share. The Company received proceeds of approximately $67.6 million from the Offering. The proceeds from the IPO were purportedly to be used for expansion of its direct sales force and marketing of its products; clinical studies for new products and product enhancements; and other research and development activities, working capital, and general corporate purposes. On March 14, 2019, the Company revealed that the fourth quarter 2018 financial results were negatively impacted by issues related to the hiring and training of qualified sales personnel as well as production limitations in the Company's manufacturing process. On this news, the Company’s share price fell $2.14, nearly 33%, to close at $4.43 per share on March 15, 2019, on unusually heavy trading volume. By the commencement of this action, Ra Medical stock was trading as low as $4.00 per share, a nearly 77% decline from the $17 per share IPO price. The complaint asserts that the Registration Statement was false and misleading and omitted to state material adverse facts. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that the Company's evaluation of sales personnel candidates was inadequate; (2) that the Company's training program for sales personnel was inadequate; (3) that, as a result, the Company could not reasonably assure that its newly hired sales personnel were adequately experienced; (4) that, as a result, the Company would suffer a shortage of qualified sales personnel; (5) that the Company's manufacturing process could not reasonably support increased catheter production; (6) that, as a result, the Company would suffer production delays; and (7) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants’ positive statements about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, says the complaint. Plaintiff Ervin Derr purchased or otherwise acquired Ra Medical securities pursuant and/or traceable to the Registration Statement issued in connection with the Company's IPO. Ra Medical is a medical device company that purports to use its excimer laser-based platform for treatment of vascular and dermatological immune mediated inflammatory diseases.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq. Robert V. Prongay, Esq. Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq. Charles H. Linehan, Esq. Pavithra Rajesh, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 Email: info@glancylaw.com RADIUS HOLDINGS: Eilbacher Sues over Debt Collection Practices -------------------------------------------------------------- MARYANN EILBACHER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. RADIUS HOLDINGS, LLC f/k/a RADIUS GLOBAL SOLUTIONS, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-14193-XXXX (S.D. Fla., June 3, 2019), seeks to recover damages resulting from Defendant's violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant regularly uses the United States Postal Service and telephone in the collection of consumer debts. Defendant is registered in the State of Florida as a consumer collection agency, license number CCA0900498. The Defendant regularly collects or attempts to collect consumer debts for other parties. The Defendant sought to collect a consumer debt from the Plaintiff arising from an alleged delinquency on a credit card debt. The alleged debt was incurred by the Plaintiff at Sears department stores for household goods and personal items. On or about August 8, 2018, November 30, 2018 and December 30, 2018, the Defendant mailed, or caused to be mailed to the Plaintiff's attorney, Demand Letters seeking payment of the alleged debt. Pursuant to the FDCPA, the Plaintiff is entitled to be free from the use of false, deceptive or misleading means in Defendant's attempts to collect a debt from the Plaintiff. The Defendant's Demand Letters falsely and misleadingly pronounce the Plaintiff's rights as it pertains to whether the Defendant may contact her at her place of employment regarding the debt, the lawsuit says. The Plaintiff is a resident of the State of Florida in Saint Lucie County. The Defendant is a Pennsylvania limited liability company and is engaged in the business of collecting consumer debts. The Defendant operates from offices located at 50 W. Skippack Drive, Ambler, Pennsylvania 19002.[BN] Attorney for the Plaintiff: Leo W. Desmond, Esq. DESMOND LAW FIRM, P.C. 5070 Highway A1A, Suite D Vero Beach, FL 32963 Telephone: 772.231.9600 Facsimile: 772.231.0300 E-mail: lwd@desmondlawfirm.com RECRO PHARMA: Bid to Dismiss IV Meloxicam-Related Suit Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- Recro Pharma, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the parties in a class action lawsuit pending before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania are awaiting the court's decision on a motion to dismiss. On May 31, 2018, a securities class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and certain of its officers and directors in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Case No. 2:18-cv-02279-MMB) that purported to state a claim for alleged violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10(b)(5) promulgated thereunder, based on statements made by the Company concerning the NDA for IV meloxicam. The complaint seeks unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees and other costs. On December 10, 2018, lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint that asserted the same claims and sought the same relief but included new allegations and named additional officers and directors as defendants. On February 8, 2019, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint in its entirety, which the lead plaintiff opposed on April 9, 2019. On May 9, 2019, the Company filed its response and briefing was completed on the motion to dismiss. No hearing date has been set. The Company believes that the lawsuit is without merit and intends to vigorously defend against it. Recro Pharma said, "The lawsuit is in the early stages and, at this time, no assessment can be made as to its likely outcome or whether the outcome will be material to the Company." Recro Pharma, Inc. operates as a specialty pharmaceutical company. It operates through two divisions, an Acute Care, and Contract Development and Manufacturing (CDMO). The company was formerly known as Recro Pharma I, Inc. and changed its name to Recro Pharma, Inc. in August 2008. Recro Pharma, Inc. was founded in 2007 and is based in Malvern, Pennsylvania. REDBOX AUTOMATED: Ebanks Files Suit Over Spam Messages ------------------------------------------------------ SHAW AND EBANKS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. REDBOX AUTOMATED RETAIL, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2019CH06908 (Circuit Ct. Cook Cty., Ill., June 6, 2019) seeks to stop Defendant's practice of making unsolicited text message calls to cellular telephones, and to obtain redress for all persons injured by its conduct under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. In an effort to promote its business, Defendant engaged in an invasive and unlawful form of marketing: the transmission of unauthorized advertisements in the form of "text message" calls to the cellular telephones of consumers throughout the nation. By effectuating these unauthorized text message calls--"wireless spam" or "SMS Messages"--Defendant has violated consumers' statutory and privacy rights and has caused consumers actual harm, not only because consumers were subjected to the aggravation and invasion of privacy that necessarily accompanies wireless spam, but also because consumers have to pay their cell phone service providers for the receipt of such wireless spam, says the complaint. Plaintiff is now and was at all times relevant to this lawsuit, a resident of Maryland. Defendant is the operator of a national DVD, Btu-ray, and video game rental service.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eugene Y. Turin, Esq. MCGUIRE LAW, P.C. 55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th Fl. Chicago, IL 6060l Phone: (312) 893-7002 Fax: (312) 275-7895 Email: eturin@mcgpc.com REGULUS THERAPEUTICS: Polat Class Action Ongoing ------------------------------------------------ Regulus Therapeutics Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company continues to defend a consolidated class action suit initiated by Baran Polat and Li Jin. On January 31, 2017, a putative class action complaint was filed by Baran Polat in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, or District Court, against the company, Paul C. Grint (the company's former Chief Executive Officer), and Joseph P. Hagan (then the company's Chief Operating Officer and currently the company's President and Chief Executive Officer). The complaint includes claims asserted, on behalf of certain purchasers of the company's securities, under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. In general, the complaint alleges that, between January 21, 2016, and June 27, 2016, the defendants violated the federal securities laws by making materially false and misleading statements regarding the company's business and the prospects for RG-101, thereby artificially inflating the price of our securities. The plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief. On February 10, 2017, a second putative class action complaint was filed by Li Jin in the District Court against the Company, Mr. Hagan, Dr. Grint, and Timothy Wright, the Company's Chief Research and Development Officer. The Complaint alleges claims similar to those asserted by Mr. Polat. The actions have been related. On February 17, 2017, the District Court entered an order stating that defendants need not answer, or otherwise respond, until the District Court enters an order appointing, pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, lead plaintiff and lead counsel, and the parties then submit a schedule to the District Court for the filing of an amended or consolidated complaint and the timing of defendants' answer or response. On April 3, 2017, two motions for consolidation of the two actions, appointment of lead plaintiff and approval of counsel were filed in the actions, or the Consolidation and Lead Plaintiff Motions. On October 26, 2017, the District Court entered an order consolidating the cases, appointing lead plaintiffs, and appointing lead counsel for lead plaintiffs. On December 22, 2017, lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint against the Company, Dr. Grint, Mr. Hagan, and Michael Huang (the company's former Vice President of Clinical Development). The consolidated complaint alleges that between February 17, 2016 and June 12, 2017, the Defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, by making materially false and misleading statements regarding RG-101. The consolidated complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and an award of attorneys' fees and costs. On February 6, 2018, defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the Consolidated Complaint. On March 23, 2018, plaintiff filed their opposition to the motion and on April 24, 2018, defendants filed their response. No hearing date has been set. Regulus said, "We intend to vigorously defend this matter." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Regulus Therapeutics Inc. operates within the biopharmaceutical industry. The Company's products aim to treat and prevent hepatitis C infections, cardiovascular, fibrosis, oncology, immuno-inflammatory, and metabolic diseases. Regulas Therapeutics offers its services worldwide. Regulus Therapeutics Inc. was founded in 2007 and is headquartered in San Diego, California. RESIDENTIAL PROGRAMS: Foster Seeks OT Wages for Sales Reps ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit against Residential Programs, Inc., et al., targets Defendants' practices and policies of not paying its non-exempt employees, including Plaintiff and other similarly-situated employees, for all hours worked, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Ohio Constitution, and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act. According to the complaint, RPI operates a for-profit fund-raising telemarketing business. RPI solicits donations for various organizations, often political, and generally pays approximately 10-15% of the money raised to the intended recipient of the donations and retains approximately 85-90% of the money raised. The call center operated by Defendant RPI is in Athens, Ohio. The Defendant also employs telephone sales representatives who work remotely and perform the same tasks as the telephone sales representatives who work in the Athens call center. The Plaintiff is employed by Defendant RPI at the Athens, Ohio call center. The Plaintiff and other similarly-situated employees were employed as telephone sales representatives. The Plaintiff and other similarly-situated employees are non-exempt employees under the FLSA. The Defendants' practice and policy of not paying Plaintiff and other similarly-situated employees overtime compensation at a rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all of the hours they worked over 40 in a workweek violated the OMFWSA. By failing to pay Plaintiff and other similarly-situated employees’ overtime compensation, Defendants willfully, knowingly and/or recklessly violated the provisions of the OMFWSA and the Ohio Constitution, the lawsuit says. The case is captioned as Troy Foster, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Residential Programs, Inc. Christopher Way Eatontown, NJ 07724; Robert Bayer 1006 C East State Street Athens, OH 45701; Lee Ostrowsky Christopher Way Eatontown, NJ 07724; and Dan Lass 1006 C East State Street Athens, OH 45701, the Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-02358-GCS-KAJ (S.D. Ohio., June 4, 2019).[BN] Attorneys for the the Plaintiff: Michael L. Fradin, Esq. FRADIN LAW 8401 Crawford Ave. Ste. 104 Skokie, IL 60076 E-mail: mike@fradinlaw.com Telephone: 847 986-5889 Facsimile: 847 673-1228 REYNOLDS MACHINE: Rounds Off Work Time & Avoids OT Pay, Abukar Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- ABDIFATAH ABUKAR individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. REYNOLDS MACHINE CO. LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 19-CV-838 (E.D. Wisc., June 5, 2019), alleges that Reynolds Machine has a common policy and practice of impermissibly rounding the start and end times of its hourly employees' work hours so as to deny employees for compensation for all hours worked. As a result, Reynolds Machine has denied Plaintiff Abdifatah Abukar and the putative class members of overtime pay in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as well as overtime pay and agreed-upon wages in violation of Wisconsin law. The Plaintiff and the putative class members are, or were, hourly employees of Defendant Reynolds Machine Company, LLC at times since June 5, 2016. The Plaintiff Abukar and the Rounding Class have sustained losses in their compensation as a proximate result of Reynolds Machine's violations, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are: Larry A. Johnson, Esq. Summer H. Murshid, Esq. Timothy P. Maynard, Esq. HAWKS QUINDEL S.C. 222 East Erie Street, Suite 210 PO Box 442 Milwaukee, WI 53201-0442 Telephone: 414-271-8650 Facsimile: 414-271-8442 E- mail: ljohnson@hq-law.com smurshid@hq-law.com tmaynard@hq-law.com ROLEX WATCH USA: Gabriyelian Sues over ADA Violations ----------------------------------------------------- A class action complaint has been filed against Rolex Watch U.S.A., Inc. for violations of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA). The case is captioned Sedrak Gabriyelian v. Rolex Watch U.S.A., Inc., et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-04577-JAK-MAA (C.D. Cal., May 27, 2019). This civil rights-related case is assigned to Hon. Judge John A. Kronstadt. Rolex Watch U.S.A. manufactures and sells luxury timepieces for men and women. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason Christopher Martinez, Esq. RM LAW GROUP LLP 3200 Guasti Road Suite 100 Ontario, CA 91761 Telephone: (714) 975-4811 Facsimile: (866) 494-2073 E-mail: jmartinez@rmlawgroupllp.com ROUND SKY: Made Unauthorized Phone Calls, Bezdikian Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------- HARO BEZDIKIAN, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. ROUND SKY, INC. d/b/a CASH ADVANCE USA, LTD., a Nevada corporation, and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-05047-DMG-RAO (C.D. Cal., June 10, 2019) is a class action against Defendants who have violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act through their unauthorized contact of consumers on the consumers' respective cellular telephones. The Defendants have violated the TCPA by negligently, knowingly, willfully, and/or intentionally causing an automatic dialer to dial Plaintiff's cellular phone line, and using a pre-recorded voice message in the inception of the same phone calls, in violation of the TCPA despite Plaintiff's registration of his number on the National Do Not Call Registry, thereby violating Plaintiff's federal statutory rights, and invading his right to privacy, without his express written, implied, and/or oral consent, says the complaint. Plaintiff is, and at all times relevant to this action was, a California resident of the County of Los Angeles. ROUND SKY, INC. is a Nevada corporation doing business as "Cash Advance".[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael H. Boyamian, Esq. BOYAMIAN LAW, INC. 550 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 1500 Glendale, CA 91203-1922 Phone: 818.547.5300 Facsimile: 818.547.5678 Email: michael@boyamianlaw.com SERVICE LIGHTING: Reid Files Suit Over ADA Violations ----------------------------------------------------- Valentin Reid, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Service Lighting and Electrical Supplies, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-04166 (S.D. N.Y., May 8, 2019), is a class action suit over violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Service Lighting and Electrical Supplies, Inc. -- http://www.1000bulbs.com/-- sells replacement lighting products, as well as residential, commercial, and industrial lighting fixtures on the Internet in the United States. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Dov Michael Mittelman, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Tel: (201) 282-6500 Email: mittelmandov@yahoo.com SIGNAL HILL: Virtual Auditors, Inspectors Seek Overtime Pay ----------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTOPHER DUNSTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SIGNAL HILL TELECOM SERVICES US, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-00877 (W.D. Wash., June 6, 2019) seeks to recover for Defendant's willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and other applicable rules, regulations, statutes, and ordinances. Plaintiff, and those similarly situated, were subjected to Defendant's policy and practice of failing to properly compensate its Virtual Quality Auditors and Virtual Cellular Installation Inspectors (collectively, "VQAs"), for overtime premiums as required pursuant to the FLSA. Plaintiff has not been compensated for overtime premiums for any hours worked over 40 in a workweek. Instead, Plaintiff only receives his day rate of pay for work completed, says the complaint. Plaintiff Dunston is currently employed by Defendant as an at-home VQA. Defendant "offers virtual inspection solutions with 20+ years experience of over 200,000 physical inspections" and has "conducted over 30,000 virtual inspections since 2016".[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam J. Berger, Esq. SCHROETER GOLDMARK & BENDER 810 Third Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle, WA 98194 Phone: 206-622-8000 Email: berger@sgb-law.com - and - Jacob R. Rusch, Esq. JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC 444 Cedar Street, Suite 1800 Saint Paul, MN 55101 Phone: (612) 436-1800 Fax: (612) 436-1801 Email: jrusch@johnsonbecker.com SIGNATURE FLIGHT: Boddie Seeks Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- MIKKI BODDIE, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. SIGNATURE FLIGHT SUPPORT CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation; BBA AVIATION USA. INC.; a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case 4:19-cv-03044-DMR (Cal. Super., June 3, 2019), seeks to recover wages and penalties from unpaid wages earned and due, including but not limited to unpaid minimum wages, unpaid and illegally calculated overtime compensation, illegal meal and rest period policies, failure to pay all wages due to discharged and quitting employees, failure to indemnify employees for necessary expenditures and/or losses incurred in discharging their duties, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failure to maintain required records, and interest, attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses under the California Labor Code. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and Class Members were employed by Defendants under employment agreements that were partly written, partly oral, and partly implied. The Defendants acted pursuant to their policies and practices of not paying Plaintiffs all wages earned and due, through methods and schemes which include, but are not limited to, failing to pay overtime premiums; failing to provide rest and meal periods; failing to properly maintain records; failing to provide accurate itemized statements for each pay period; failing to properly compensate for necessary expenditures; and requiring, permitting or suffering the employees to work off the clock, in violation of the California Labor Code and the applicable Welfare Commission Order. As a direct and proximate result of the unlawful actions of Defendants, the Plaintiffs have suffered, and continue to suffer, from loss of earnings in amounts as yet unascertained, but subject to proof at trial, and within the jurisdiction of the Court, the lawsuit says. Signature Flight Support Corporation, a fixed base operator, provides support services for business and private aviation. Its services include refueling, hangarage, technical aircraft maintenance, repair and overhaul, aircraft charter and management, commercial flights, and hotel reservation services.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Matthew J. Matern, Esq. Mikael H. Stahle, Esq. MATERN LAW GROUP, PC 1230 Rosecrans Ave. No. 200 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266, Telephone: 855 888-2166 E-mail: maternlawgroup.com SINCLAIR BROADCAST: Continues to Defend 22 Price-Fixing Class Suits ------------------------------------------------------------------- Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc. said it is aware of 22 putative class action lawsuits against it, the company disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019. Most of these lawsuits were also brought against other broadcasters and other defendants, including, in certain cases, unidentified "John Doe" defendants. The lawsuits allege that the defendants conspired to fix prices for commercials to be aired on broadcast television stations throughout the United States, in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act, and, in one case, state consumer protection and tort laws. The lawsuits seek damages, attorneys' fees, costs and interest, as well as injunctions against adopting practices or plans that would restrain competition in the ways the plaintiffs have alleged. The lawsuits followed published reports of a DOJ investigation last year into the exchange of pacing data within the industry. The Company believes the class action lawsuits are without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself against all such claims. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc. operates as a television broadcasting company in the United States. It owns or provides various programming, operating, sales, and other non-programming operating services to television stations. The company was founded in 1986 and is headquartered in Hunt Valley, Maryland. SINCLAIR BROADCAST: Komito Class Action Suit Re-Captioned --------------------------------------------------------- Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company continues to defend a class action suit initiated by Edward Komito but is now captioned In re Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, case No. 1:18-CV-02445-CCB. On August 9, 2018, Edward Komito, a putative Company shareholder, filed a class action complaint (the "Initial Complaint") in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland (the "District of Maryland") against the Company, Christopher Ripley and Lucy Rutishauser, which action is now captioned In re Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, case No. 1:18-CV-02445-CCB (the "Securities Action"). On March 1, 2019, lead counsel in the Securities Action filed an amended complaint, adding David Smith and Steven Marks as defendants, and alleging that defendants violated the federal securities laws by issuing false or misleading disclosures concerning (a) the Merger prior to the termination thereof; and (b) the DOJ investigation concerning the alleged exchange of pacing information. The Securities Action seeks declaratory relief, money damages in an amount to be determined at trial, and attorney's fees and costs. The Company believes that the allegations in the Securities Action are without merit and intends to vigorously defend against the allegations. Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc. operates as a television broadcasting company in the United States. It owns or provides various programming, operating, sales, and other non-programming operating services to television stations. The company was founded in 1986 and is headquartered in Hunt Valley, Maryland. SPARK THERAPEUTICS: Defending Against Suits over Roche Merger ------------------------------------------------------------- Spark Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company is defending against multiple class action suits related to its merger with Roche Holdings, Inc. On February 22, 2019, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the Merger Agreement) with Roche Holdings, Inc. (Roche) and 022019 Merger Subsidiary, Inc. (Merger Sub). Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, and upon the terms and subject to the conditions thereof, Merger Sub has commenced a cash tender offer (the Tender Offer) to acquire all of the issued and outstanding shares of the Company's common stock at a price per share of $114.50, net to the seller of such shares in cash, without interest, subject to any withholding of taxes required by applicable law. On March 7, 2019, a putative securities class action complaint, Wang v. Spark Therapeutics, Inc. et al., No. 1:19-cv-00479, or the Wang Complaint, was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware by purported company stockholder Elaine Wang against the company and its directors in connection with the merger. On March 11, 2019, a putative securities class action complaint, Kent v. Spark Therapeutics, Inc. et al., No. 1:19-cv-00485, or the Kent Complaint, was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware by purported company stockholder Michael Kent against the company, its directors, the Merger Sub, and Roche in connection with the merger. On March 18, 2019, a putative securities class action complaint, Newman v. Spark Therapeutics, Inc. et al., No. 1:19-cv-00528, or the Newman Complaint, was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware by purported company stockholder Arthur Newman against the company and its directors in connection with the merger. On March 20, 2019, a putative securities class action complaint, Gomez v. Spark Therapeutics, Inc. et al., No. 1:19-cv-02487, or the Gomez Complaint, was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York by purported company stockholder Zarrin Gomez against the company and its directors in connection with the merger. The Wang Complaint, the Kent Complaint, the Newman Complaint and the Gomez Complaint allege that the Schedule 14D-9 filed on March 7, 2019 in connection with the merger omitted certain supposedly material information. The Wang Complaint, the Kent Complaint, the Newman Complaint and the Gomez Complaint assert claims against all the defendants for violation of Section 14(e) of the Exchange Act, and against our directors, and in the case of the Kent Complaint, Roche, and in the case of the Gomez Complaint, our company, for violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The Wang Complaint, the Kent Complaint and the Gomez Complaint also assert claims against all defendants for violation of Section 14(d) of the Exchange Act. The Wang Complaint, the Kent Complaint, the Newman Complaint and the Gomez Complaint seek declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as damages and attorneys' fees and costs. On April 18, 2019, a complaint, Grant v. Bennett, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-02615, or the Grant Complaint, was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against certain trustees at the University of Pennsylvania, the company and Roche, alleging intellectual property infringement and false claims by the trustees and seeks, among other relief, to enjoin the licensing of all adeno-associated virus patents by the University of Pennsylvania to the company and the consummation of the transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement. Spark Therapeutics said, "We, and our board, believe that the Wang Complaint, the Kent Complaint, the Newman Complaint, the Gomez Complaint and the Grant Complaint are without merit and we, our board, the Merger Sub, and Roche intend to defend vigorously against such claims. Additional similar cases may also be filed in connection with the tender offer or the merger." Spark Therapeutics, Inc. focuses on the development of gene therapy products for patients suffering from debilitating genetic diseases. Spark Therapeutics, Inc. was founded in 2013 and is headquartered in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. STERLING JEWELERS: Berg Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages ----------------------------------------------------------- BARBARA BERG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. STERLING JEWELERS, INC. d/b/a KAY JEWELERS, a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-22396-XXXX (S.D. Fla., June 10, 2019) is an action for statutory damages and other legal and equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of Defendant in transmitting advertisement and telemarketing text messages to the cell phones belonging to Plaintiff and numerous other similarly situated persons using an automatic telephone dialing system without anyone's prior express written consent, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. To combat decreasing diamond sales caused by the "blood diamond" effect and to offset costs incurred in civil litigation alleging it fostered sexual harassment in the workplace, Defendant resorted to unsolicited text message marketing campaigns to sustain its revenues and harmed thousands of innocent consumers in the process, says the complaint. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to halt Defendant's illegal conduct, which has resulted in the invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of thousands of individuals. Plaintiff is citizen and resident of Miami-Dade County, Florida. Defendant is one of the world's largest retailers of diamond jewelry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David P. Milian, Esq. Ruben Conitzer, Esq. CAREY RODRIGUEZ MILIAN GONYA LLP 1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 700 Miami, FL 33131 Phone: (305) 372-7474 Facsimile: (305) 372-7475 Email: dmilian@careyrodriguez.com rconitzer@careyrodriguez.com Secondary: ecf@careyrodriguez.com cperez@careyrodriguez.com SUN LIFE: Glidewell Sues over Denial of Disability Benefits ----------------------------------------------------------- ROBIN GLIDEWELL, the Plaintiff, v. SUN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA, the Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-00210 (E.D. Tex., June 4, 2019), alleges that Defendant wrongfully denied benefits to the Plaintiff under the governing long-term disability benefits policy. The Defendant is accordingly liable under Section 1132(a)(l)(B) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act for all benefits due but not paid to Plaintiff under the policy, prejudgment interest thereon and her attorney's fees and expenses and costs of court. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was employed as a Pre-Funding QC Auditor, and covered by a short-term disability benefits policy and a long-term disability benefits policy administered and insured by Defendant. Beginning on November 14, 2016, the Plaintiff could no longer continue to work because of medical conditions associated with scoliosis, multiple herniated discs and related back and arm pain. After November 14, 2016, the Plaintiff applied for and received short-term disability benefits. The Plaintiff then further applied for long-term disability benefits. Such benefits were payable through November 14, 2018 under an "own occupation" disability standard focusing on the ability of Plaintiff to perform the material and substantial duties of her occupation, but were paid only from February 13, 2017 through July 31, 2018. By letter dated August 1, 2018, Defendant denied, as of that date, continued long-term disability benefits to the Plaintiff. By letter dated October 8, 2018, Plaintiff appealed the August 1, 2018 denial. By letter dated January 11, 2019, Defendant upheld its decision to deny continued long-term disability benefits to Plaintiff after August 1, 2018. The Defendant denied continued long-term disability benefits to Plaintiff despite a September 6, 2018 physician's note of Michael Hisey, M.D., her orthopedic surgeon, indicating that Plaintiff could not sit, stand, or walk longer than 20 minutes at a time and that Plaintiff was in constant pain. Dr. Hisey also emphasized that Plaintiff's condition would prohibit Plaintiff from most jobs, even sedentary jobs, given her inability to perform multiple activities typically required in such jobs, in light of her multiple multilevel spine fusions. By its denial letters dated August 1, 2018 and January 11, 2019, the Defendant improperly relied upon a standard of disability distinct from the applicable own occupation standard provided for in the long-term disability benefits policy, improperly ignored Plaintiff's medical condition reflected in certain medical records of Plaintiff, improperly misrepresented certain medical records of Plaintiff, improperly dismissed the significance of other medical records of Plaintiff and improperly ignored statements of Plaintiff's impairments received from her treating physician, Dr. Hisey or as of September 6, 2018. The Defendant further ignored the findings of a physician it engaged to review Plaintiff's claim, Dr. William Sligar, M.D., who, in light of Dr. Hisey's assessment of Plaintiff's restrictions and limitations as of September 6, 2018, the lawsuit says.[BN] Counsel for the Plaintiff: Robert E. Goodman, Jr. KILGORE & KILGORE, PLLC 3109 Carlisle Street Dallas, TX 75204 Telephone: (214) 379-0823 Facsimile: (214) 379-0840 E-mail: reg@kilgorelaw.com SWITCH INC: Bid to Dismiss Cai Class Action Pending --------------------------------------------------- Switch, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the parties in the case, Cai v. Switch, Inc. et al., are awaiting the court's decision on a motion to dismiss. Four substantially similar putative class action complaints, captioned Martz v. Switch, Inc. et al. (filed April 20, 2018); Palkon v. Switch, Inc. et al. (filed April 30, 2018); Chun v. Switch, Inc. et al. (filed May 11, 2018); and Silverberg v. Switch, Inc. et al. (filed June 6, 2018), were filed in the Eighth Judicial District of Nevada, and subsequently consolidated into a single case (the "State Court Securities Action"). Additionally, on June 11, 2018, one putative class action complaint captioned Cai v. Switch, Inc. et al. was filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (the "Federal Court Securities Action," and collectively with the State Court Securities Action, the "Securities Actions") and subsequently transferred to the Eighth Judicial District of Nevada in August 2018 and the federal court appointed Oscar Farach lead plaintiff. These lawsuits were filed against Switch, Inc., certain current and former officers and directors and certain underwriters of Switch, Inc.'s initial public offering (IPO) alleging federal securities law violations in connection with the IPO. These lawsuits were brought by purported stockholders of Switch, Inc. seeking to represent a class of stockholders who purchased Class A common stock in or traceable to the IPO, and seek unspecified damages and other relief. In October 2018, the state court granted defendants motion to stay the State Court Securities Action in favor of the Federal Court Securities Action. In November 2018, the plaintiffs in the State Court Securities Action filed a petition for writ of mandamus challenging the stay order. In February 2019, Switch, Inc. filed an answer to this petition and plaintiffs in the State Court Securities Action filed their reply in March 2019. The Supreme Court of Nevada has not yet issued its ruling on this petition. In October 2018, the lead plaintiff of the Federal Court Securities Action filed an amended complaint. In November 2018, Switch, Inc. and other defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and a motion to strike. Switch, Inc. believes that these lawsuits are without merit and intends to continue to vigorously defend against them. Switch, Inc., through its subsidiary, Switch, Ltd., provides colocation space and related services primarily to technology and digital media companies in the United States. It develops and operates data centers in Nevada and Michigan. Switch, Inc. was founded in 2000 and is headquartered in Las Vegas, Nevada. T-MOBILE USA: Persichetti Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action complaint has been filed against T-Mobile USA, Inc. for alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The case is captioned WILLIAM PERSICHETTI, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. T-MOBILE USA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02424-WMR (N.D. Ga., May 28, 2019). Plaintiff William Persichetti alleges that T-Mobile is engaged in sending unsolicited text message calls for telemarketing purposes without instituting procedures for maintaining a list of persons who request not to receive such text message calls. T-Mobile is a Delaware corporation with headquarters at 12920 SE 38th Street Bellevue, Washington. The company provides wireless voice and data services in the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin T. Holcombe, Esq. Kris Skaar, Esq. SKAAR & FEAGLE, LLP 133 Mirramont Lake Drive Woodstock, GA 30189 Telephone: (770) 427-5600 Facsimile: (404) 601-1855 E-mail: jholcombe@skaarandfeagle.com kskaar@skaarandfeagle.com - and - James M. Feagle, Esq. Cliff R. Dorsen, Esq. SKAAR & FEAGLE, LLP 2374 Main Street, Suite B Tucker, GA 30084 Telephone: (404) 373-1970 Facsimile: (404) 601-1855 E-mail: jfeagle@skaarandfeagle.com cdorsen@skaarandfeagle.com - and - Daniel C. Girard, Esq. Simon S. Grille, Esq. GIRARD SHARP LLP 601 California Street, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 981-4800 Facsimile: (415) 981-4846 E-mail: dgirard@girardsharp.com sgrille@girardsharp.com TARGET CORPORATION: Montgomery Sues Over Unpaid Wages ----------------------------------------------------- SHERRY MONTGOMERY and YESENIA ALBA, on behalf of themselves, all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. TARGET CORPORATION, a Minnesota corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-04924 (C.D. Cal., June 6, 2019) is a class action against Defendants for alleged violations of the Labor Code and Business and Professions Code. Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid wages, restitution and related relief on behalf of themselves, all others similarly situated. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants have failed to provide them and all other similarly situated individuals with meal periods; failed to provide them with rest periods; failed to pay them premium wages for missed meal and/or rest periods; failed to pay them premium wages for missed meal and/or rest periods at the regular rate of pay; failed to pay them at the designated wage scale; failed to reimburse them for all necessary business expenses; failed to provide them with accurate written wage statements; and failed to pay them all of their final wages following separation of employment, says the complaint. Plaintiffs worked for Defendants as non-exempt, hourly employees. TARGET CORPORATION is, and at all relevant times mentioned herein, a Minnesota corporation doing business in the State of California.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Shaun Setareh, Esq. William M. Pao, Esq. Alexandra R. Mclntosh, Esq. SETAREH LAW GROUP 315 South Beverly Drive, Suite 315 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Phone (310) 888-7771 Facsimile (310) 888-0109 Email: shaun@setarehlaw.com william@setarehlaw.com alex@setarehlaw.com TAUNTON PRESS: Sued for Automatic-Renewal of Magazine Subscriptions ------------------------------------------------------------------- DAVID MITCHELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. THE TAUNTON PRESS, INC., a Connecticut corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 37-2019-00029474-CU-BT-CTL (Cal. Super. Ct., San Diego Cty., June 10, 2019) is an action alleging that The Taunton Press, Inc. violates California law by enrolling consumers in automatic-renewal magazine subscriptions and posting charges to consumers' credit cards, debit cards, or third-party payment accounts without providing the "clear and conspicuous" disclosures required by the California Automatic Renewal Law. The same course of conduct also violates the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and the Unfair Competition Law. Traditionally, magazine publishers sold subscriptions on the basis of a schedule that reflects a fixed price for a definite term (such as one, two, or three years). Under that arrangement, the consumer selects the desired price/term combination and submits payment. Later, when the end of the term is approaching, the consumer is notified that the subscription will soon come to an end and is provided with a renewal offer. If the consumer wishes to renew, he or she selects the desired price/term combination for the renewal period and submits the corresponding payment. Alternatively, if the consumer does not renew, the subscription comes to an end. During the 1990s, some marketers came to view the traditional model as a constraint on sales and profits and advocated instead adoption of a "negative option" model. In a "negative option," the seller "interprets a customer's failure to take an affirmative action, either to reject an offer or cancel an agreement, as assent to be charged for goods or services". One variety of the negative option model is an arrangement in which a magazine subscription will be "automatically renewed" and thus continue indefinitely unless and until the consumer takes affirmative steps to cancel. The Defendants have implemented a negative option model in which they "automatically renew" subscriptions, and they do so in a way that violates California law, says the complaint. Unbeknownst to Plaintiff and without his consent, Defendants enrolled Plaintiff in a program under which his subscription would automatically renew. Thereafter, in or about April 2018, without Plaintiff's authorization, Defendants posted a charge to Plaintiff's credit card in the amount of $34.95. If Plaintiff had known that Defendants were going to enroll him in an automatic renewal program, he would not have requested any subscription and would not have paid any money to Defendants, adds the complaint. Plaintiff David Mitchell is an individual residing in San Diego County, California. The Taunton Press, Inc. is a Connecticut corporation that does business in San Diego County, including the marketing of magazine subscriptions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: JAMES T. HANNINK, ESQ. ZACH P. DOSTART, ESQ. DOSTART HANNINK & COVENEY LLP 4180 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 530 La Jolla, CA 92037-1474 Phone: 858-623-4200 Fax: 858-623-4299 Email: jhannink@sdlaw.com zdostart@sdlaw.com TELIGENT INC: Bid to Dismiss Econazole Antitrust Suit Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- Teligent, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the motion to dismiss the class action suit entitled, In re Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation, is pending. To date, thirteen putative class action antitrust lawsuits have been filed against the Company along with co-defendants, including Taro Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc. and Perrigo New York Inc., regarding the pricing of generic econazole nitrate cream ("econazole"). The class plaintiffs seek to represent nationwide or state classes consisting of persons who directly purchased, indirectly purchased, paid and/or reimbursed patients for the purchase of generic econazole from July 1, 2014 until the time the defendants' allegedly unlawful conduct ceased or will cease. The class plaintiffs seek treble damages for alleged overcharges for econazole during the alleged period of conspiracy, and certain of the class plaintiffs also seek injunctive relief against the defendants. All actions have been consolidated by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for pre-trial proceedings as part of the In re Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation matter. On October 16, 2018 the court dismissed the class plaintiffs' claims against the Company with leave to replead. On December 21, 2018 the class plaintiffs filed amended complaints, which the Company moved to dismiss on February 21, 2019. This motion remains pending. Teligent, Inc., a specialty generic pharmaceutical company, develops, manufactures, markets, and sells generic topical, branded generic, and generic injectable pharmaceutical products in the United States and Canada. The company was formerly known as IGI Laboratories, Inc. and changed its name to Teligent, Inc. in October 2015. Teligent, Inc. was founded in 1977 and is based in Buena, New Jersey. TELIGENT INC: Continues to Defend Mo-Kan Iron Workers Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Teligent, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company continues to defend a class action suit initiated by Mo-Kan Iron Workers Pension Fund. On April 15, 2019, Mo-Kan Iron Workers Pension Fund, on behalf of itself and all other persons or entities, except defendants, who purchased Teligent common stock between May 2, 2017 and November 7, 2017, commenced a putative class action against the Company and its CEO, Jason Grenfell-Gardner, alleging violations of the securities laws. The complaint alleges that the defendants made materially misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance policies. The plaintiff has agreed to adjourn the response date until after the completion of the lead plaintiff appointment process under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Teligent said, "Due to the early stage of the case, we are unable to form a judgment at this time as to whether an unfavorable outcome is either probable or remote or to provide an estimate of the amount or range of potential loss. We believe the claims are without merit, and we intend to vigorously defend against them." Teligent, Inc., a specialty generic pharmaceutical company, develops, manufactures, markets, and sells generic topical, branded generic, and generic injectable pharmaceutical products in the United States and Canada. The company was formerly known as IGI Laboratories, Inc. and changed its name to Teligent, Inc. in October 2015. Teligent, Inc. was founded in 1977 and is based in Buena, New Jersey. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces 2 Shareholder Class Actions ------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reported that shareholder claim in two federal class actions that Teva Pharmaceuticals juggled its books to appear more profitable than it was, and fixed prices, costing investors when the share price tanked. A copy of the Complaint is available at: https://is.gd/UtxfE6 TIFFANY & CO: Gabriyelian Sues over ADA Violations -------------------------------------------------- A class action complaint has been filed against Tiffany and Co. for alleged violations of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA). The case is captioned Sedrak Gabriyelian v. Tiffany and Company, et al, Case No. 2:19-cv-04578-AB-SK (C.D. Cal., May 27, 2019). This civil rights-related case is assigned to Hon. Judge Andre Birotte Jr. Headquartered in New York City, Tiffany & Co. is a luxury jewelry and specialty retailer. The company is engaged in selling jewelry, sterling silver, china, crystal, stationery, fragrances, water bottles, watches and personal accessories, as well as some leather goods. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason Christopher Martinez, Esq. RM LAW GROUP LLP 3200 Guasti Road Suite 100 Ontario, CA 91761 Telephone: (714) 975-4811 Facsimile: (866) 494-2073 E-mail: jmartinez@rmlawgroupllp.com TRIBUNE MEDIA: Antitrust Suits over TV Ad Rates Consolidated ------------------------------------------------------------ Tribune Media Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that an amended consolidated complaint has been filed in the litigation over alleged price-fixing of television advertising rates. Starting in July 2018, a series of plaintiffs filed putative class action lawsuits against the company, Tribune Broadcasting Company, Sinclair, and other named and unnamed defendants (collectively, the "Defendants") alleging that the Defendants coordinated their pricing of television advertising, thereby harming a proposed class of all buyers of television advertising time from one or more of the Defendants since at least January 1, 2014. The plaintiff in each lawsuit seeks injunctive relief and money damages caused by the alleged antitrust violations. Currently, twenty-two lawsuits have been filed, and were consolidated in the Northern District of Illinois. Lead counsel for the plaintiffs was appointed on January 23, 2019. The plaintiffs then filed an amended, consolidated complaint on April 3, 2019. Tribune Media said, "We believe the above lawsuits are without merit and intend to defend them vigorously." Tribune Media Company, through its subsidiaries, operates as a diversified media and entertainment company in the United States. The company was formerly known as Tribune Company and changed its name to Tribune Media Company in July 2014. Tribune Media Company was founded in 1847 and is based in Chicago, Illinois. TRIBUNE MEDIA: Bid to Dismiss Arbitrage Event-Driven Suit Pending ----------------------------------------------------------------- Tribune Media Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the motion to dismiss the amended complaint filed by The Arbitrage Event-Driven Fund is ongoing. On September 10, 2018, The Arbitrage Event-Driven Fund filed a putative securities class action complaint (the "Securities Complaint") against the company and members of its senior management in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The Securities Complaint alleges that Tribune Media Company and its senior management violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act by misrepresenting and omitting material facts concerning Sinclair's conduct during the Sinclair Merger approval process. On December 18, 2018, the Court appointed The Arbitrage Event-Driven Fund and related entities as Lead Plaintiffs. On January 31, 2019, Lead Plaintiffs and two other named plaintiffs filed an amended complaint (the "Amended Complaint"). The Amended Complaint eliminates the claim under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act and adds a claim under Section 11 of the Securities Act related to a November 29, 2017 public offering of the company's Class A Common Stock by Oaktree Tribune, L.P. ("Oaktree"). The Amended Complaint also names certain members of the Board of Directors of Tribune Media Company as defendants. The Amended Complaint also includes claims against Oaktree, Oaktree Capital Management, L.P. and Morgan Stanley & Co, LLC. The lawsuit is purportedly brought on behalf of purchasers of the company's Class A Common Stock between November 29, 2017 and July 16, 2018, contemporaneously with Oaktree's sales in the November 29, 2017 public offering or pursuant or traceable to that offering. Plaintiffs seek damages in an amount to be determined at trial. On March 29, 2019, the Company and the individual Tribune Media Company defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint. The Court has set a deadline of May 10, 2019 for the Plaintiffs to file their opposition brief and June 7, 2019 for the Company and the individual Tribune Media Company defendants to file a reply. Tribune Media said, "We believe this lawsuit is without merit and intend to defend it vigorously. Tribune Media Company, through its subsidiaries, operates as a diversified media and entertainment company in the United States. The company was formerly known as Tribune Company and changed its name to Tribune Media Company in July 2014. Tribune Media Company was founded in 1847 and is based in Chicago, Illinois. TUBBY TODD BATH: Shami Sues Over Deceptive Product Ads ------------------------------------------------------ EZRA SHAMI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. TUBBY TODD BATH CO., Defendant, Case No. 155757/2019 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Kings Cty., June 10, 2019) is a class action arising out of the fraudulent, deceptive and misleading conduct of Defendant. Specifically, for years Defendant has represented that its consumer-oriented products, all of which target children and/or women, are "100% Natural" and "Gentle." In fact, however, TTB's's products (including those purchased by Plaintiff) contain a number of non-natural, synthetic, harsh and unsafe ingredients that are not disclosed to--and, in fact, are concealed from--the online customer at the time of purchase. Although at times TTB uses the word "Natural" instead of "100% Natural," a reasonable consumer acting reasonably under the circumstances believes that TTB's products contain only natural, as opposed to synthetic, ingredients. In addition to "100% Natural," TTB represents that its products are safe and gentle. But TTB's purportedly "100% natural" and "gentle" products, including those that Plaintiff purchased, contain numerous synthetic chemicals, including some that are toxic and many that are known irritants. Indeed, some are suspected carcinogens or otherwise carry a high risk of harm to product users. Not only are such products not "100% natural" and not "gentle" but, moreover, they are potentially harmful to consumers, with no warning of the danger posed, notes the complaint. As a result of Defendant's unfair, unlawful, fraudulent and deceptive practices, Defendant uniformly misled Plaintiff and other consumers into believing that (a) TTB products were gentle, and (b) that TTB products were "100% Natural." If not for the Defendant's false representations, Plaintiff and other consumers would not have purchased such products, and certainly not at the price they paid, says the complaint. Plaintiff purchased a set of three Tubby products. Defendant marketed, advertised, and/or distributed the products during the Class Period throughout the United States, including in New York and all of its counties.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Schlachet, Esq. Law Offices of Mark Schlachet 3515 Severn Road Cleveland, OH 44118 Phone: (216) 225-7559 Facsimile: (216) 932-5390 Email: Email: markschlachet@me.com - and - Brittany Weiner, Esq. Imbesi Law P.C. 450 7th Avenue, Suite 1408 New York, NY 10123 Phone: (646) 767-2271 Facsimile: (212) 658-9177 Email: brittany@lawicm.com TUPAZ HOMES: Cevallos Files Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- GLORIA CUBANGBANG CEVALLOS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. TUPAZ HOMES LLC; ROSARIO TUPAZ; and DOES 1 to 100, Defendants, Case No. 19CV348681 (Cal. Super. Ct., Santa Clara Cty., June 7, 2019) is a class action in response to Defendants' failure to pay Plaintiff overtime wages in violation of Labor Code; failure to furnish Plaintiff accurate itemized statements of true wages earned and true hours worked in violation of Labor Code. All such failures also constitute violations of Business and Professions Code. The Defendants employed Plaintiff but was not and is not paid the applicable overtime rate/double time rate for all hours worked over eight hours in any workday and for all hours worked more than 40 hours in the workweek, and/or was not provided accurate itemized wage statements, all as required by California law, says the complaint. Plaintiff is an individual and during the four years preceding the Complaint was continuously employed by Defendants as a caregiver. Defendants own, run, operate, and manage several care homes in the County of Santa Clara, State of California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Allan A. Villanueva, Esq. Law Office of Allan A. Villanueva 6701 Koll Center, Suite 250 Pleasanton, CA 94566 Phone (925) 968-4326 Facsimile (650) 479-3086 TWILIO INC: Settlement in Flowers Suit Wins Final Court Approval ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Brad Seligman of the Alameda County Superior Court in California entered an order of final approval and judgment dated June 13 to the $10 million settlement of the case, Angela Flowers v. Twilio Inc. Twilio Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that on February 18, 2016, a putative class action complaint was filed in the Alameda County Superior Court in California, entitled Angela Flowers v. Twilio Inc. The complaint alleges that the Company's products permit the interception, recording and disclosure of communications at a customer's request and are in violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act. The complaint seeks injunctive relief as well as monetary damages. On January 2, 2018, the court issued an order granting in part and denying in part the plaintiff’s class certification motion. The court certified two classes of individuals who, during specified time periods, allegedly sent or received certain communications involving the accounts of three of the Company's customers that were recorded. Following mediation, on January 7, 2019, the parties signed a long form settlement agreement, providing for a payment of $10 million into a common fund and injunctive relief involving certain updates to Twilio's Acceptable Use Policy and customer documentation. The total Settlement Fund will be distributed in the following amounts: (1) approximately $5.886 million for the Settlement Class of over 400,000; (2) estimated settlement administration expenses of $410,000; (3) $20,000 to the Class Representative for her work in creating the Settlement; and (4) up to $3,333,333.33 in attorneys' fees and a separate amount for out-of-pocket litigation costs (expected to be no more than $350,000) as awarded by the Court. In addition to the monetary relief, for a period of two years following Final Judgment, Twilio will update its Acceptable Use Policy to specify that its customers must secure all legally required consents prior to using Twilio's services to record communications. On January 15, 2019, the court entered an order granting preliminary approval of the settlement, and the parties signed an amended settlement agreement to conform to the court's order. A final approval hearing was scheduled for June 11, 2019. Twilio said, "Given insurance coverage, the Company continues to estimate its potential liability in the Flowers matter to be $1.7 million and carries this reserved amount in its condensed consolidated balance sheet as of March 31, 2019, presented elsewhere in this Quarterly Report on Form 10‑Q." Twilio Inc. provides a cloud communications platform that enables developers to build, scale, and operate communications within software applications in the United States and internationally. The company's programmable communications cloud provides a set of application programming interfaces that enable developers to embed voice, messaging, and video capabilities into their applications. Twilio Inc. was founded in 2008 and is headquartered in San Francisco, California. TWO BROTHERS: Illegally Retained Tips, Branch Claims ---------------------------------------------------- NADIA BRANCH, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. TWO BROTHERS ENTERTAINMENT CONSULTANTS LLC D/B/A GENTLEMEN’S QUARTERS, SUMMIT ENTERTAINMENT CORPORATION, JURY TRIAL REQUESTED PHILLIP TRICOLLA and ERIC TRICOLLA, the Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-03291 (E.D.N.Y., June 3, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid wages, illegally retained tips, liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, and all other appropriate legal and equitable relief, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York State Labor Law. According to the complaint, the Defendants have engaged in a policy and practice of requiring the Plaintiff and others similarly situated to regularly work without being paid any hourly wages as required by applicable federal and state law, as Plaintiff was only permitted to retain the tips she received as a dancer at Defendants' establishment. At no time was Plaintiff provided with any records concerning the wages she was to or did receive. The Defendants own and operate GQ in Baldwin, New York. The Plaintiff was hired in January 2017 to work as a dancer for Defendants in GQ. The Plaintiff's duties consisted of, among other things, dancing for customers at GQ. At the time of her hire, Plaintiff received no notices from Defendants concerning information such as a rate of pay, overtime rate of pay, frequency of payment, regular pay day, or other information as required by the NYLL. During her employment with Defendants, Plaintiff worked a consistent schedule. The Plaintiff generally worked Wednesdays through Saturdays, and some Sundays, from 10:00 p.m. until 4:00 a.m.. During her employment, Plaintiff only received tips as her compensation, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff, the FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class Members: Yale Pollack, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF YALE POLLACK, P.C. 66 Split Rock Road Syosset, NY 11791 Telephone: (516) 634-6340 Facsimile: (516) 634-6341 E-mail: ypollack@yalepollacklaw.com UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Judge Refuses to Approve Settlement ------------------------------------------------------ Courthouse News Service reported that taking back his preliminary approval of a class action settlement between Uber and its drivers over the "upfront" pricing model, a federal judge said on May 7 he won't approve a deal in which many of the drivers will receive "less than the administrative costs of mailing the check." A copy of the Order Rejecting Proposed Class Settlement is available at: https://is.gd/Vs3TwN UBIQUITI NETWORKS: Mulls Bid to Dismiss New York Suit ----------------------------------------------------- Ubiquiti Networks, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the defendants in the consolidated class action suit in New York are preparing to move to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint but will refrain from filing such motion pending receipt of further guidance from the court. On February 21, 2018, a purported class action, captioned Paul Vanderheiden v. Ubiquiti Networks, Inc. et al., No. 18-cv-01620 (the "Vanderheiden Action"), was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and certain of its current and former officers. The Vanderheiden Action complaint alleges that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making false and/or misleading statements, including purported overstatements of the Company's online community user engagement metrics and accounts receivable. On February 28, 2018 and March 13, 2018, substantially similar purported class actions, captioned Xiya Qian v. Ubiquiti Networks, Inc. et al., No. 18-cv-01841 (the "Qian Action") and John Kho v. Ubiquiti Networks, Inc. et al., No. 18-cv-02242 (the "Kho Action", together with the Vanderheiden Action and the Qian Action, the "Class Action"”), respectively, were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On October 24, 2018, the court consolidated the Class Actions and appointed lead plaintiff and lead counsel (the "Consolidated Class Action"). Plaintiff filed its Consolidated Amended Complaint on December 24, 2018. On March 21, 2019, Defendants informed the Court that they were prepared to move to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint but that, consistent with the Court's individual practices, they would refrain from filing that motion pending receipt of further guidance from the Court. Ubiquiti said, "While the Company believes that the Consolidated Class Action is without merit and plans to vigorously defend itself, there can be no assurance that the Company will prevail. The Company cannot currently estimate the possible loss or range of losses, if any, that it may experience in connection with this litigation." Ubiquiti Networks, Inc. develops networking technology for service providers, enterprises, and consumers. It focuses on three principal technologies, including high-capacity distributed Internet access, unified information technology, and consumer electronics for home and personal use. The company was formerly known as Pera Networks, Inc. and changed its name to Ubiquiti Networks, Inc. in 2005. Ubiquiti Networks, Inc. was incorporated in 2003 and is headquartered in New York, New York. UMA EDUCATION: Aylor Sues Over Illegal Use of Consumer Reports -------------------------------------------------------------- BRANDON AYLOR, on his own behalf and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. UMA EDUCATION, INC., a Foreign Not For-Profit Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 8:19-cv-01398 (M.D. Fla., June 7, 2019) is a Class Action Complaint against Defendant, including subsidiaries, divisions and affiliates under the Fair Credit Reporting Act of 1970, as amended. The Defendant routinely obtains and uses information in consumer reports to conduct background checks on prospective employees and existing employees, and frequently relies on such information, in whole or in part, as a basis for adverse employment action, such as denying employment, removal from job assignments, and denying promotions or other job related opportunities. The Defendant violated the FCRA by procuring consumer reports on Plaintiff and other putative class members for employment purposes, without first providing a clear and conspicuous disclosure before procuring the report. The Defendant also violated the FCRA by obtaining consumer reports on Plaintiff and other putative class members without proper authorization, due to the fact that its disclosure forms fail to comply with the requirements of the FCRA. Based on these violations, Plaintiff asserts FCRA claims against Defendant on behalf of himself and classes consisting of Defendant's employees and prospective employees, says the complaint. Plaintiff is a consumer/applicant who was the subject of a consumer report used for employment purposes by Defendant. Defendant is a corporation and user of consumer reports as contemplated by the FCRA.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marc R. Edelman, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 201 N. Franklin Street, Suite 700 Tampa, FL 33602 Phone 813-223-5505 Fax: 813-257-0572 Email: MEdelman@forthepeople.com UNITED STATES: Inmates Hit Solitary Confinement, Lack of Med. Care ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jac'quann Harvard, J.H., a minor, by and through his parent and natural guardian, Valentine Robinson, Angel Meddler, Juan Espinosa, Jerome Burgess (a/k/a Sham'la God Allah) and James W. Kendrick, Jr., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Mark Inch, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Florida Department of Corrections and Florida Department of Corrections, an Agency of the State of Florida Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-00212 (N.D. Fla., May 8, 2019) seeks declaratory and injunctive relief to address violations of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. Plaintiffs are inmates at the Florida Department of Corrections. Harvard, 18 years old, is diagnosed with bipolar disorder and prescribed anti-anxiety medications. Defendants refused to modify their isolation policies and practices to accommodate Ms. Harvard's disability and protect her from harm caused by isolation. J.H., 17 years old, is a black teenager in isolation at Florida State Prison. Defendants removed him from a housing unit with other teenage boys to serve 90 days in disciplinary confinement. He has now suicidal tendencies and suffers from depression. Meddler, 21 years old, is diagnosed her with asthma, anxiety and mood disorders. She has now suicidal tendencies, anxiety, mental agitation, poor impulse control, disturbed sleep, and paranoia. Espinosa, 58 years old, is diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia, major depressive disorder and bipolar disorder and also suffers from tumors in his throat that impede his ability to eat and swallow. In January 2019, he permanently and completely lost his voice after a surgical procedure to remove one of the tumors. He can no longer speak. Burgess, 46 years old, is paralyzed on the left side and cannot urinate without the assistance of a catheter. He is diagnosed with seizure disorder and major depressive disorder. He has been in isolation since September 25, 2017. Kendrick, 39 years old, is diagnosed with diabetes, high blood pressure and obesity and has also developed depression in isolation. Mark Inch is the Secretary of Corrections for the Florida Department of Corrections. [BN] Plaintiffs are represented by: Kelly Knapp, Esq. SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER 4770 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 760 Miami, FL 33137 Telephone: (786) 347-2056 Email: kelly.knapp@splcenter.org - and - Shalini Goel Agarwal, Esq. Sumayya Saleh, Esq. SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER 106 East College Ave., #1010 Tallahassee, FL 32302 Telephone: (850) 521-3024 Email: shalini.agarwal@splcenter.org sumayya.saleh@splcenter.org - and - Lisa Graybill, Esq. SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER 201 St. Charles Avenue, Suite 2000 New Orleans, LA 70170 Telephone: (334) 549-0498 Email: lisa.graybill@splcenter.org - and - Andrea Costello, Esq. Christopher M. Jones, Esq. Jennifer Painter, Esq. FLORIDA LEGAL SERVICES 122 E. Colonial Drive, Suite 100 Orlando, FL 32801 Telephone: (407) 801-0332 Email: andrea@floridalegal.org christopher@floridalegal.org jennifer.painter@floridalegal.org - and - Dante P. Trevisani, Esq. FLORIDA JUSTICE INSTITUTE, INC. 100 SE 2nd St., Ste. 3750 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 358-2081 Email: dtrevisani@floridajusticeinstitute.org VICE MEDIA: Website not Accessible to Deaf People, Jones Says ------------------------------------------------------------- KAHLIMAH JONES, Individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. VICE MEDIA LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-03283 (E.D.N.Y., June 3, 2019), contends that 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.Vice.com(Website) and related domains owned by Defendant. The Defendant provides a wide array of goods and services to the public through its Website. However, 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. In the wave of technological advances in recent years, assistive technology is becoming an increasingly prominent part of everyday life, allowing deaf and hard-of-hearing people to fully and independently access a variety of services, including online videos. The Plaintiff, who currently lives in New York City, is a deaf individual. She brings this 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.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the Class: Dan Shaked, Esq. SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C. 44 Court Street, Suite 1217 Brooklyn, NY 11201 Telephone (917) 373-9128 E-mail: ShakedLawGroup@gmail.com VIRTU FINANCIAL: Faces Bittner and Mareno Class Suits ----------------------------------------------------- Virtu Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company, together with ProShares Trust I, has been named as a defendant in the cases, Bittner v. ProShares Trust II, et al., and Mareno v. ProShares Trust II, et al. On February 27, 2019, and March 1, 2019, the Company was named as a defendant in Bittner v. ProShares Trust II, et al., No. 19-cv-1840, and Mareno v. ProShares Trust II, et al., No. 19-cv-1955, respectively. The complaints were filed in federal district court in New York on behalf of putative classes, and have been designated as related to the Ford v. ProShares Trust II, et al., No. 19-cv-886 action because they assert substantially similar allegations to those in the Ford complaint. The complaints do not specify the amount of alleged damages. The Company believes that the claims are without merit and intends to defend itself vigorously. Virtu Financial, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provides market making and liquidity services through its proprietary, multi-asset, and multi-currency technology platform to the financial markets worldwide. Virtu Financial, Inc. was founded in 2008 and is headquartered in New York, New York. VIRTU FINANCIAL: Faces Ford Class Action in New York ---------------------------------------------------- Virtu Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company, together with ProShares Trust II, is facing a class action suit entitled, Ford v. ProShares Trust II, et al. On January 29, 2019, the Company was named as a defendant in Ford v. ProShares Trust II, et al., No. 19-cv-886. The complaint was filed in federal district court in New York on behalf of a putative class, and asserts claims against the Company and numerous other financial institutions under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 in connection with trading in a ProShares inverse-volatility ETF. The complaint does not specify the amount of alleged damages. The Company believes that the claims are without merit and intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously. Virtu Financial, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provides market making and liquidity services through its proprietary, multi-asset, and multi-currency technology platform to the financial markets worldwide. Virtu Financial, Inc. was founded in 2008 and is headquartered in New York, New York. VIRTU FINANCIAL: Retirement Fund's Suit Still Ongoing ----------------------------------------------------- Virtu Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company continues to defend itself from a class action suit entitled, Chester County Employees' Retirement Fund v. KCG Holdings, Inc., et al. On July 20, 2017 (the "KCG Closing Date"), the Company completed the all-cash acquisition of KCG Holdings, Inc. ("KCG") (the "Acquisition of KCG"). In connection with the Acquisition of KCG, a previously filed complaint, which was initially captioned Greenway v. KCG Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No. 2017-421-JTL and filed on behalf of a putative class in Delaware Chancery Court, was recaptioned Chester County Employees' Retirement Fund v. KCG Holdings, Inc., et al., amended and refiled on February 14, 2018 to include claims for the alleged breach of fiduciary duties against former KCG board members, claims against each of the Company and Jefferies LLC for allegedly aiding and abetting the KCG board members' alleged breaches of fiduciary duty and a claim against the Company and Jefferies LLC for alleged civil conspiracy. The amended complaint was again amended on July 16, 2018 with the filing of the Verified Second Amended Class Action Complaint (the "Second Amended Complaint") to include additional factual allegations. No amount of damages is stated in the Second Amended Complaint, against which Virtu is defending itself vigorously. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Virtu Financial, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provides market making and liquidity services through its proprietary, multi-asset, and multi-currency technology platform to the financial markets worldwide. Virtu Financial, Inc. was founded in 2008 and is headquartered in New York, New York. VOLKSWAGEN: Parrish Sues Over Vehicle Transmission Defects ---------------------------------------------------------- DOMINIQUE PARRISH and EVAN WOOD, individually, and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs, v. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC. a Delaware limited liability company, Defendant, Case No. 8:19-cv-01148-AG-KES (C.D. Cal., June 10, 2019) is a consumer class action concerning a failure to disclose material facts and a safety concern to consumers for Plaintiffs and on behalf of all persons in the United States who purchased or leased any 2019 Seventh Generation (A7) Volkswagen Jetta vehicle equipped with an Aisin AWF8F35 8-Speed Automatic Transmission ("Class Vehicles"). The complaint contends that Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. manufactured, marketed, distributed, and sold the Class Vehicles without disclosing that the Class Vehicles' Aisin AWF8F35 8-Speed Automatic Transmission was defective. The all-new 2019 Volkswagen Jetta made its global debut at the 2018 North American International Auto Show in Detroit Michigan. Dr. Matthias Erb, Volkswagen Chief Engineering Officer, North American Region, said that VWGoA "knew buyers demand good value, and our innovations will prove their value in everyday use." One of those innovations was the Transmission, which Defendant said was a "major boost which provides a wide band of drive ratios that allow more efficient running at higher speeds." However, in everyday use, the Class Vehicles have proven to be unreliable, far from an efficiently running vehicle, and a safety hazard to its drivers and others. Indeed, the Transmission is defective in that it grates, scuffs, scrapes, grinds, and ultimately suffers broken seals and oil leaks, resulting in catastrophic failure, asserts the complaint. On information and belief, the Transmission Defect arises from the torque converter. The Transmission Defect is inherent in each Class Vehicle and was present at the time of sale. VWGoA undertook affirmative measures to conceal the Transmission Defect and other malfunctions through, among other things, "Technical Tips" issued to its authorized repair facilities. These Technical Tips confirmed VWGoA's knowledge of the Transmission Defect, but disregarded its importance and cited it as "normal operating characteristics". The Transmission Defect is material because it poses a serious safety concern, the complaint says. As attested by Class Members in scores of complaints to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and other online forums, the Transmission Defect can impair any driver's ability to control his or her vehicle and greatly increase the risk of collision. The Transmission Defect is also material because consumers incur significant and unexpected repair costs. VWGoA's failure to disclose, at the time of purchase, the Transmission's marked tendency to fail is material because no reasonable consumer expects to spend hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars to repair or replace essential transmission components. Had VWGoA disclosed the Transmission Defect, Plaintiffs and Class Members would not have purchased the Class Vehicles or would have paid less for them, notes the complaint. Plaintiffs purchased new 2019 Volkswagen Jetta equipped with the Transmission. VWGoA designs, manufactures, markets, distributes, services, repairs, sells, and leases passenger vehicles, including the Class Vehicles, nationwide, and in California and Pennsylvania.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mark A. Ozzello, Esq. Tarek H. Zohdy, Esq. Cody R. Padgett, Esq. Trisha K. Monesi, Esq. Capstone Law APC 1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 556-4811 Facsimile: (310) 943-0396 Email: Mark.Ozzello@capstonelawyers.com Tarek.Zohdy@capstonelawyers.com Cody.Padgett@capstonelawyers.com Trisha.Monesi@capstonelawyers.com - and - Russell D. Paul, Esq. Amey J. Park, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE P.C. 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 875-3000 Facsimile: (215) 875-4604 Email: rpaul@bm.net apark@bm.net W14 MARKET: Washington Sues over Time Shaving Violation ------------------------------------------------------- JUSTIN WASHINGTON, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class, the Plaintiff, vs. W14 MARKET LLC d/b/a GANSEVOORT MARKET, JOHN DOE CORPORATION d/b/a GANSEVOORT MARKET, CHRISTOPHER REDA, and JINSUP AN, the Defendants, Case No. 155527/2019 (N.Y. Sup., June 3, 2019), want the Defendants to pay for unpaid wages due to time shaving, unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, statutory penalties and attorneys' fees and costs under the New York Labor Law and the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants knew of and/or showed a willful disregard for the provisions of the FLSA as evidenced by their failure to compensate Plaintiff and FLSA Collective Plaintiffs for all hours worked, including overtime hours, when Defendants knew or should have known such was due. The Defendants failed to properly disclose or apprise Plaintiff and FLSA Collective Plaintiffs of their rights under the FLSA. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' willful disregard of the FLSA, Plaintiff and FLSA Collective Plaintiffs are entitled to liquidated (i.e., double) damages pursuant to the FLSA. Due to the intentional, willful and unlawful acts of Defendants, Plaintiff and FLSA Collective Plaintiffs suffered damages in an amount not presently ascertainable of unpaid wages and unpaid overtime wages, plus an equal amount as liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Sec. 216(b). All the Class members were subject to the same corporate practices of Defendants, as alleged, (i) failing to pay proper wages due to time-shaving, (ii) failing to pay proper overtime premium for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, including those due to time-shaving, (iii) failing to provide Class members with proper wage statements with every payment of wages, and (iv) failing to properly provide notices to Class members, at date of hiring and annually, per requirements of the New York Labor Law, the lawsuit says. The Defendants operate a food services market under the trade name "Gansevoort Market," currently located at 353 W. 14th Street, New York, New York 10014.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 30 East 39th Street, Second Floor New York, NY 10016 WASHINGTON MTA: Harriott et al. Allege Discriminatory Termination ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action complaint has been filed against Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) for the anti-discrimination provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The case is captioned KENNETH HARRIOTT and TONY OJOH, On behalf of themselves and all those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01656 (D.D.C., June 6, 2019). Plaintiffs brings this lawsuit on behalf of all others similarly situated: African-American and foreign-born persons of color in Office of Quality Assurance, Internal Compliance & Oversight (QICO) terminated under Angel Pena, the managing Director of the QICO. WMATA has allegedly engaged in systemic discrimination in favor of white employees. WMATA is an interstate compact agency that operates transit service in Washington metropolitan area. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bruce A. Fredrickson, Esq. Cedar P. Carlton, Esq. Geoffrey H. Simpson, Esq. WEBSTER& FREDRICKSON, PLLC 1775 K Street, NW, Suite 600 Washington, DC 20006 WILHELMINA INTERNATIONAL: Discovery Still Ongoing in Shanklin Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Wilhelmina International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 13, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that discovery is still ongoing in the putative class action lawsuit initiated by Alex Shanklin. On October 24, 2013, a putative class action lawsuit was brought against the Company by former Wilhelmina model Alex Shanklin and others (the "Shanklin Litigation"), in New York State Supreme Court (New York County) by the same lead counsel who represented plaintiffs in a prior, now-dismissed action brought by Louisa Raske (the "Raske Litigation"). The claims in the Shanklin Litigation initially included breach of contract and unjust enrichment allegations arising out of matters similar to the Raske Litigation, such as the handling and reporting of funds on behalf of models and the use of model images. Other parties named as defendants in the Shanklin Litigation include other model management companies, advertising firms, and certain advertisers. On January 6, 2014, the Company moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint in the Shanklin Litigation for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and other grounds, and other defendants also filed motions to dismiss. On August 11, 2014, the court denied the motion to dismiss as to Wilhelmina and other of the model management defendants. Further, on March 3, 2014, the judge assigned to the Shanklin Litigation wrote the Office of the New York Attorney General bringing the case to its attention, generally describing the claims asserted therein against the model management defendants, and stating that the case "may involve matters in the public interest." The judge's letter also enclosed a copy of his decision in the Raske Litigation, which dismissed that case. Plaintiffs retained substitute counsel, who filed a Second and then Third Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint asserts causes of action for alleged breaches of the plaintiffs' management contracts with the defendants, conversion, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment. The Third Amended Complaint also alleges that the plaintiff models were at all relevant times employees, and not independent contractors, of the model management defendants, and that defendants violated the New York Labor Law in several respects, including, among other things, by allegedly failing to pay the models the minimum wages and overtime pay required thereunder, not maintaining accurate payroll records, and not providing plaintiffs with full explanations of how their wages and deductions therefrom were computed. The Third Amended Complaint seeks certification of the action as a class action, damages in an amount to be determined at trial, plus interest, costs, attorneys' fees, and such other relief as the court deems proper. On October 6, 2015, Wilhelmina filed a motion to dismiss as to most of the plaintiffs’ claims. The Court entered a decision granting in part and denying in part Wilhelmina's motion to dismiss on May 26, 2017. The Court (i) dismissed three of the five New York Labor Law causes of action, along with the conversion, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing and unjust enrichment causes of action, in their entirety, and (ii) permitted only the breach of contract causes of action, and some plaintiffs' remaining two New York Labor Law causes of action to continue, within a limited time frame. The plaintiffs and Wilhelmina each appealed and the decision was affirmed on May 24, 2018. On August 16, 2017, Wilhelmina timely filed its Answer to the Third Amended Complaint, and discovery in this action is continuing. The Company believes the claims asserted in the Third Amended Complaint are without merit, and intends to continue to vigorously defend the action. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Wilhelmina International, Inc. primarily engages in the fashion model management business. It specializes in the representation and management of models, entertainers, artists, athletes, and other talent to various clients, including retailers, designers, advertising agencies, print and electronic media and catalog companies. Wilhelmina International, Inc. was founded in 1967 and is headquartered in Dallas, Texas. WILHELMINA INTERNATIONAL: Discovery Underway in Pressley Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Wilhelmina International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 13, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that discovery is proceeding in the lawsuit initiated by former Wilhelmina model Shawn Pressley. The case is now led by Roberta Little as sole named plaintiff. On June 6, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit was brought against the Company by former Wilhelmina model Shawn Pressley and others (the "Pressley Litigation"), in New York State Supreme Court (New York County) by the same counsel representing the plaintiffs in the Shanklin Litigation, and asserting identical, although more recent, claims as those in the Shanklin Litigation. The Amended Complaint, asserting essentially the same types of claims as in the Shanklin action, was filed on August 16, 2017. Wilhelmina filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint on September 29, 2017, which was granted in part and denied in part on May 10, 2018. Some New York Labor Law and contract claims remain in the case. Discovery is proceeding, and Ms. Pressley has withdrawn from the case, leaving Roberta Little as the sole named plaintiff in the Pressley Litigation. The Company believes the claims asserted in the Pressley Litigation are without merit, and intends to continue to vigorously defend the action. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Wilhelmina International, Inc. primarily engages in the fashion model management business. It specializes in the representation and management of models, entertainers, artists, athletes, and other talent to various clients, including retailers, designers, advertising agencies, print and electronic media and catalog companies. Wilhelmina International, Inc. was founded in 1967 and is headquartered in Dallas, Texas. WLP EXECUTIVE: Does not Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Bird Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL BIRD, DARRIUS WILLIAMS, and DONTAE TRAVIER, on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated employees, Plaintiffs, v. WLP EXECUTIVE PROTECTION GROUP, LLC, RON WARE, JAMES PITTS, and JEFFREY LILLARD, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00442 (W.D. Mich., June 7, 2019) is a collective action brought by Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated current and/or former hourly employees of Defendants to recover damages for Defendants' willful violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and its attendant rules and regulations. The Defendants willfully violated the FLSA by knowingly suffering or permitting Plaintiffs to work in excess of 40 hours per week without paying overtime compensation at a rate of one-and-one-half times the regular rate, says the complaint. Plaintiffs currently work for Defendants as hourly, non-exempt employees. Defendants are in the business of providing security services to their customers, including the deployment of security guards.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jesse L. Young, Esq. Thomas J. Cedoz, Esq. KREIS ENDERLE, P.C. 8225 Moorsbridge, P.O. Box. 4010 Kalamazoo, MI 49003-4010 Phone: (269) 324-3000 Email: jyoung@kehb.com tcedoz@kehb.com ZEE.DOG LLC: Fischler Says Web Site Not Accessible to Blind ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action complaint has been filed against Zee.Dog, LLC for alleged violations of the Americans With Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and New York City Human Rights Law. The case is captioned BRIAN FISCHLER, Individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ZEE.DOG, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-03377 (E.D.N.Y., June 6, 2019). Plaintiff Brian Fischler alleges that Zee.Dog, LLC failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.zeedog.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the blind or visually-impaired people. Accordingly, 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. Zee.Dog, LLC is a foreign limited liability company that is organized under Florida law and is authorized to do business in New York. The company designs and builds dog accessories and other pet products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher H. Lowe, Esq. Douglas B. Lipsky, Esq. LIPSKY LOWE LLP 630 Third Avenue, Fifth Floor New York, NY 10017-6705 Telephone: (212) 392-4772 E-mail: chris@lipskylowe.com doug@lipskylowe.com ZF TRW: Deadline of Copley Class Suit Reply Continued to July 1 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, THOMAS COPLEY, MARVIN COYNER, and ELIZABETH EVANS, Plaintiffs, v. ZF TRW AUTOMOTIVE HOLDINGS CORP., HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA, INC., AND KIA MOTOR AMERICA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-00707-RSL (W.D. Wash.), Judge Robert S. Lasnik of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle, continued the deadline for the ZF Defendants to answer, move, or otherwise plead in response to the Plaintiffs' Class Action Complaint to July 1, 2019. On May 10, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed a Class Action Complaint. In telephonic and written communication thereafter, the counsel for Plaintiffs and the counsel for the ZF Defendants agreed to an extension of time for the ZF Defendants to answer, move, or otherwise plead in response to the Plaintiffs' Class Action Complaint. Such pleading will be filed by July 1, 2019. The parties agree and stipulate that there is good cause to continue the deadline for the ZF Defendants to respond in light of other recently-filed lawsuits that raise similar allegations. Judge Lasnik granted and so ordered. A full-text copy of the Court's May 21, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/7hmk5v from Leagle.com. Thomas Copley, Marvin Coyner & Elizabeth Evans, Plaintiffs, represented by Erika M. Keech, KELLER ROHRBACK LLP, Gretchen Freeman Cappio -- gcappio@KellerRohrback.com -- KELLER ROHRBACK LLP, Lynn Lincoln Sarko -- lsarko@KellerRohrback.com -- KELLER ROHRBACK LLP & Ryan McDevitt -- rmcdevitt@KellerRohrback.com -- KELLER ROHRBACK LLP. ZF TRW Automotive Holdings Corp, Defendant, represented by William Randolph Squires, III -- rsquires@corrcronin.com -- CORR CRONIN, LLP. ZION OIL: Bid to Dismiss Texas Class Suit Underway -------------------------------------------------- Zion Oil & Gas, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 14, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that defendants are seeking to dismiss a class action suit pending before the the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. Following the commencement of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) investigation, on August 9, 2018, a putative class action (the "class action") Complaint was filed against Zion, Victor G. Carrillo, the Company's Chief Executive Officer at such time, and Michael B. Croswell Jr., the Company's Chief Financial Officer (collectively, the "Defendants") in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. On November 16, 2018, the Court entered an Order in the class action appointing lead plaintiffs and approving lead counsel and on January 22, 2019, an Amended Complaint was filed. On February 1, 2019, a Corrected Amended Class Action Complaint was filed. The suit alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the SEC and Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act") against all defendants and alleges violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Section 15 of the Securities Act against the individual defendants. The alleged class period is from February 13, 2018 through November 20, 2018. On March 13, 2019, a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Corrected Amended Complaint was filed on behalf of Zion, Victor Carrillo and Michael B. Croswell, Jr., pleading numerous grounds in support of their Motion to Dismiss. Zion Oil & Gas, Inc. operates as an oil and gas exploration company in Israel. It holds a petroleum exploration license onshore Israel, the Megiddo-Jezreel License that covers an area of approximately 99,000 acres. The company was founded in 2000 and is headquartered in Dallas, Texas. Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: 4 Asbestos Cases Filed in Calif. Court on May 31 ----------------------------------------------------------------- The following cases categorized as "asbestos" cases were on the docket in the Superior Court of California for San Francisco County on May 31. All case details are allegations only and should not be taken as fact: (1) Dalal Metwally v. Avon Products Inc.; Bechtel Corp.; Bechtel Power Corp.; Brenntag North America Inc.; Brenntag Specialties Inc.; Bristol-Myers Squibb Company; Bristol-Myers Squibb Company (sued Individually; CVS Health Corp.; Charles B.; Christian Dior Perfumes LLC; Cyprus Amax Minerals Company (sued Individually; Cyprus Mines Corp.; Dap Products Inc.; Fremont Investors Inc.; Fremont Properties Inc.; Golden Gate Drywall; Home Depot USA Inc.; Johnson &; Johnson & Johnson; Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.; Kelly Moore; Longs Drug; Longs Drug Stores L.L.C.; Lowe's Companies Inc.; Mary Kay Inc.; Nina Ricci USA Inc.; Pfizer Inc.; Puig USA Inc.; R.T. Vanderbilt Holding Company Inc.; Revlon Consumer Products Corp.; Sequoia Ventures; The Sherwin-Williams Co.; Union Carbide Corp.; Vanderbilt Minerals LLC; Whittaker Clark; Yves Saint Laurent America Inc.; unnamed defendants, Case No. CGC19276780 Macy M Chan; Charles P. Murrin; Bradford J Dejardin; William Murray Hake; Alexander G Calfo; James Patrick Cunningham; Bill D. Fountain; Karl R. Loureiro (defendant's attorneys) and Stuart J. Purdy (plaintiff's attorney) (2) Billie Nichols; Eric Nichols; Jennifer Nichols; Stacey Nichols v. 3 M Company; A.W. Chesterton Company; Armstrong International Inc.; Asbestos Companies; Astra Flooring Company; Atwood & Morrill Co.; CBS Corp.; Cleaver-Brooks Inc.; Crane Co.; Crown Cork & Seal Company Inc. I; FMC Corp.; General Electric Company; Goulds Pumps LLC; Greene Tweed & Co.; Hill Brothers Chemical Company; Honeywell International Inc.; Imo Industries Inc.; Imo Industrites; Ingersoll-Rand Company; Owens-Illinois Inc.; Parker-Hannifin Corp.; The Goodyear; Trane USA Inc.; Union Carbide Corp.; York International Corp.; one or more unnamed defendant, Case No. CGC19276776 Mordecai D. Boone; Gary D Sharp; Frank D Pond; Charles T Sheldon; Julie Ann Torres; Alice Wong; Bobbie R. Bailey; Kenneth B Prindle; Meghan R. Mcmeel; Jennifer A. Cormier; Florence A Mcclain; Marte Joseph Bassi (defendant's attorneys) and Roger E Gold (plaintiff's attorney) (3) James Hilburn Sr v. Asbestos Corp.; CBS Corp.; Crown Cork; Foster Wheeler LLC; General Electric Company; Honeywell International Inc.; Hopeman Brothers Inc.; Metropolitan Life Insurance Company; Owens-Illinois Inc.; Parker-Hannifin Corp.; unnamed defendants, Case No. CGC19276783 Plaintiff's attorney: Alan Richard Brayton, Esq. Brayton Purcell LLP Tel: 800-598-0314 800-720-4981 866-259-5044 Fax: 415-898-1247 (4) Chick Dee v. Allwood Door Company; American Biltrite Inc.; Bradley & Son; Crown Cork; International Paper Company; Mindor Inc.; Weyerhaeuser Company; unnamed defendants, Case No. CGC19276784 Alan Richard Brayton (plaintiff's attorney) ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found After Senior Living Complex Fire ---------------------------------------------------------------- CBS Denver reported that the more than 100 residents of a senior living complex in Colorado Springs who were evacuated because of a fire won't be able to return for at least two months. The Gazette reports officials told tenants of the 11-story Regency Tower Apartments on Wednesday that the top two floors of the building are contaminated by airborne asbestos. The tower has asbestos ceilings and flooring that were installed when it was built in 1965. Crews are expected to start removing the asbestos. Officials say some residents will be allowed to retrieve their belongings. A blaze erupted on the 10th floor in May. Authorities are still investigating the cause of the fire. The fire hospitalized two people for smoke inhalation, including 89-year-old Darlyne Justesen. She died a few days later. ASBESTOS UPDATE: CBS Corp. Had 31,840 Claims Pending at March 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- CBS Corporation had pending approximately 31,840 asbestos claims as of March 31, 2019, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019. CBS Corporation states, "The Company is a defendant in lawsuits claiming various personal injuries related to asbestos and other materials, which allegedly occurred as a result of exposure caused by various products manufactured by Westinghouse, a predecessor, generally prior to the early 1970s. Westinghouse was neither a producer nor a manufacturer of asbestos. The Company is typically named as one of a large number of defendants in both state and federal cases. In the majority of asbestos lawsuits, the plaintiffs have not identified which of the Company's products is the basis of a claim. Claims against the Company in which a product has been identified most commonly relate to allegations of exposure to asbestos-containing insulating material used in conjunction with turbines. "Claims are frequently filed and/or settled in groups, which may make the amount and timing of settlements, and the number of pending claims, subject to significant fluctuation from period to period. The Company does not report as pending those claims on inactive, stayed, deferred or similar dockets that some jurisdictions have established for claimants who allege minimal or no impairment. As of March 31, 2019, the Company had pending approximately 31,840 asbestos claims, as compared with approximately 31,570 as of December 31, 2018 and 31,600 as of March 31, 2018. During the first quarter of 2019, the Company received approximately 750 new claims and closed or moved to an inactive docket approximately 480 claims. The Company reports claims as closed when it becomes aware that a dismissal order has been entered by a court or when the Company has reached agreement with the claimants on the material terms of a settlement. Settlement costs depend on the seriousness of the injuries that form the basis of the claims, the quality of evidence supporting the claims and other factors. The Company's total costs for the years 2018 and 2017 for settlement and defense of asbestos claims after insurance recoveries and net of tax were approximately US$45 million and US$57 million, respectively. The Company's costs for settlement and defense of asbestos claims may vary year to year and insurance proceeds are not always recovered in the same period as the insured portion of the expenses. "Filings include claims for individuals suffering from mesothelioma, a rare cancer, the risk of which is allegedly increased by exposure to asbestos; lung cancer, a cancer which may be caused by various factors, one of which is alleged to be asbestos exposure; other cancers, and conditions that are substantially less serious, including claims brought on behalf of individuals who are asymptomatic as to an allegedly asbestos-related disease. The predominant number of pending claims against the Company are non-cancer claims. The Company believes that its reserves and insurance are adequate to cover its asbestos liabilities. This belief is based upon many factors and assumptions, including the number of outstanding claims, estimated average cost per claim, the breakdown of claims by disease type, historic claim filings, costs per claim of resolution and the filing of new claims. While the number of asbestos claims filed against the Company has remained generally flat in recent years, it is difficult to predict future asbestos liabilities, as events and circumstances may occur, including, among others, the number and types of claims and average cost to resolve such claims, which could affect the Company's estimate of its asbestos liabilities." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/FM5EzS ASBESTOS UPDATE: Columbus McKinnon Has $5.7MM Liability at Mar. 31 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Columbus McKinnon Corporation has US$5,697,000 asbestos-related aggregate liability that is probable and estimable as of March 31, 2019, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2019. The Company states, "Like many industrial manufacturers, the Company is involved in asbestos-related litigation. In continually evaluating costs relating to its estimated asbestos-related liability, the Company reviews, among other things, the incidence of past and recent claims, the historical case dismissal rate, the mix of the claimed illnesses and occupations of the plaintiffs, its recent and historical resolution of the cases, the number of cases pending against it, the status and results of broad-based settlement discussions, and the number of years such activity might continue. Based on this review, the Company has estimated its share of liability to defend and resolve probable asbestos-related personal injury claims. This estimate is highly uncertain due to the limitations of the available data and the difficulty of forecasting with any certainty the numerous variables that can affect the range of the liability. The Company will continue to study the variables in light of additional information in order to identify trends that may become evident and to assess their impact on the range of liability that is probable and estimable. "Based on actuarial information, the Company has estimated its asbestos-related aggregate liability including related legal costs to range between US$4,100,000 and US$8,000,000 using actuarial parameters of continued claims for a period of 37 years from March 31, 2019. The Company's estimation of its asbestos-related aggregate liability that is probable and estimable, in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles approximates US$5,697,000, which has been reflected as a liability in the consolidated financial statements as of March 31, 2019. The recorded liability does not consider the impact of any potential favorable federal legislation. This liability will fluctuate based on the uncertainty in the number of future claims that will be filed and the cost to resolve those claims, which may be influenced by a number of factors, including the outcome of the ongoing broad-based settlement negotiations, defensive strategies, and the cost to resolve claims outside the broad-based settlement program. Of this amount, management expects to incur asbestos liability payments of approximately US$2,000,000 over the next 12 months. Because payment of the liability is likely to extend over many years, management believes that the potential additional costs for claims will not have a material effect on the financial condition of the Company or its liquidity, although the effect of any future liabilities recorded could be material to earnings in a future period. "The Company believes that a share of its previously incurred asbestos-related expenses and future asbestos-related expenses are covered by pre-existing insurance policies. The Company has engaged in a legal action against the insurance carriers for those policies to recover these expenses and future costs incurred. When the Company resolves this legal action, it is expected that a gain will be recorded for previously expensed cost that is recovered. During fiscal 2019 and fiscal 2018, the Company received settlement payments US$484,000 and US$2,362,000, respectively, net of legal fees, from its insurance carriers as partial reimbursement for asbestos-related expenses. These partial payments have been recorded as gains in cost of products sold. The Company is continuing its actions to recover further past costs and to cover future costs." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://is.gd/7aJOUW ASBESTOS UPDATE: Defendants Get Negative Ruling from Pa. Court -------------------------------------------------------------- Charmaine Little, writing for PennRecord, reported that the Superior Court of Pennsylvania has overturned summary judgment for two companies sued over alleged asbestos exposure that possibly led to a man's death. Judge Victor P. Stabile authored the May 22 opinion and judges Paula Francisco Ott and Maria McLaughlin concurred. Marc Lee Lamson, who is the succeeding executor of Franklin Lamson's estate, filed the appeal after the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County ruled in favor of International Paper Co. and Weyerhaeuser Co. in Lamson's lawsuit. While the lower court said the Franklin Lamson didn't submit enough evidence, the Superior Court disagreed. "We hold that [Lamson] submitted sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact on this question," said Stabile wrote. Stabile determined if the evidence presented proved that the fire doors Franklin Lamson worked with that contained asbestos were manufactured by IP and Weyerhaeuser. The judge pointed out that Franklin Lamson testified that he had a lot of experience fixing and installing fire doors. The ruling states one of his colleagues, who is also a carpenter, backed the testimony and also said Weyerhaeuser was the supplier for the fire doors. While they didn't give a specific number, Stabile said those details are more vital for trial. "We realize appellees did not admit that every fire door they manufactured contained asbestos; nor did appellant (Franklin Lamson) demonstrate that every fire door he worked on contained asbestos. Nevertheless, appellant did not need to demonstrate that every fire door contained asbestos in order to survive summary judgment," the ruling states. Stabile pointed out that since Franklin Lamson was diagnosed with mesothelioma, all his estate had to do was prove that IP and Weyerhaeuser manufactured even some of the doors. The court also disagreed with the appellees that even if their fire doors had asbestos, they didn't emit asbestos-filled dust. Franklin Lamson previously testified that he often drilled into the fire doors, which could generate dust that included asbestos. The judge said all of this was enough for Franklin Lamson to survive summary judgment. Franklin Lamson worked at the Philadelphia Navy Yard from 1967 until he retired in 1994, first as an inspector and then as a general foreman. As a part of his job, Franklin Lamson often fixed fire doors, some that were manufactured by defendant Weyerhaeuser. Weyerhaeuser and IP admitted that a number of their fire doors had asbestos, the ruling states. One physician determined that Franklin Lamson's regular exposure to asbestos was a factor in his mesothelioma diagnosis. Lamson responded with a lawsuit and jury demand. The lower court granted Weyerhaeuser and IP their motions for summary judgment shortly after the discovery phase, and Lamson appealed. ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Makes Action Plan for B.F. Goodrich Site ------------------------------------------------------------- Kate Kelley, writing for KOAM News Now, reported that the Environmental Protection Agency is beginning a cleanup plan to remove dangerous levels of asbestos from B.F. Goodrich, the former tire plant in Miami, Oklahoma. A community meeting is shedding light on the EPA's plan of action. When Carol Benton moved into the area, her neighbors warned her to keep her children out of the dirt, fearing contamination from the nearby decommissioned tire plant. "That was a concern for me because I have four kids that play in the dirt all the time, you know, so that's always on my mind," said Benton. It's on the minds of many Miami citizens present at the EPA's meeting, discussing their plan of action since taking over the site last November when it was abandoned in 2014. "Unfortunately, the owner, the company went into bankruptcy, walked away from the site and left what we see behind us here which is about 20 piles, roughly 16,000 cubic yards of demolition debris contaning asbestos," said Mike McAteer, On Scene Coordinator for the EPA. Officials are stepping up security in the area, adding a guard at night to cut down on trespassers exposing themselves to the harmful material. "It can cause lung cancer, obviously, if it gets inhaled. It can cause non-cancer health affects suchs as asbestosis which is a scarring of the lungs and a difficulty breathing," said McAteer. Two building will be wet-demolished to keep any asbetos from traveling through the air and officials are taking extra precautions. "Not only are we keeping it wet, but we're gonna be doing air monitoring on the perimeter. We have samplers set up that measure dust that come off the site and we're going to be measuring for asbestos on a daily basis through the entire cleanup process," McAteer explained. Even so, Benton feels like the EPA should've stepped in a long time ago. "I mean it's been closed down for years and they're just now doing it, I am still concerned because they should've been on it years ago," said Benton. The hazardous material will be taken to Prairie View dump in Lamar, Missouri. The EPA expects to finish their cleanup efforts by September. Nearly 200 residents impacted by pollution in the area are still in litigation with Michelin North America, the company that purchased BF Goodrich in 1988. ASBESTOS UPDATE: FDA Finds Asbestos in More Claire's Cosmetics -------------------------------------------------------------- Kate Gibson, writing for CBS News, reported that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has found asbestos in more cosmetics sold by Claire's Stores and Beauty Plus Global, with the agency warning consumers to steer clear of the products. Both companies voluntarily recalled products that tested positive for the known carcinogen during the agency's ongoing testing of cosmetics for asbestos, the FDA stated in its alert. The recalled products include: -- Beauty Plus Global Contour Effects Palette 2, Batch No. S1603002/PD-C1179 -- Claire's JoJo Siwa Makeup Set, SKU #888711136337, Batch/Lot No. S180109 The alert issued by the FDA comes three months after the agency urged the public to toss out three makeup products sold by Claire's that tested positive for asbestos. Claire's, a retailer that markets cosmetics and accessories to adolescent girls, initially disputed the FDA's findings, but then agreed to pull the products out of stores. Claire's products have been under scrutiny since 2017, and U.S. Public Interest Research Group, a non-profit, also found "high levels of asbestos" in three of the company's products, it said late last year. In an emailed statement, Claire's said it recalled the JoJo Cosmetic Kit after FDA tests "indicated the possible presence of trace amounts of asbestos fibers in the powder eyeshadow element of the kit." But the company also said it "stands behind the safety of this item and all other Claire's cosmetic items, as such small trace amounts are considered acceptable under European and Canadian cosmetic safety regulations." In addition, last year Claire's moved to talc-free cosmetic manufacturing to prevent any further concerns about talc contamination, said the company, which added it would provide refunds to anyone who purchased the recalled products. Shanghai-based Beauty Plus' U.S. subsidiary did not immediately return a request for comment. Not banned in U.S. There is no safe level of exposure to asbestos, according to the World Health Organization. Inhaling or consuming asbestos can lead to serious respiratory diseases including lung cancer and mesothelioma. Banned in the European Union, Canada and the U.K., efforts to prohibit asbestos in the U.S. have been blocked amid lobbying by asbestos suppliers. A mineral fiber at one time commonly found in construction materials, asbestos can occur naturally in talc, a mineral also used in powder-based products such as cosmetics and baby powder. Consumer products company Johnson & Johnson faces legal claims that its baby powder and a defunct shower product caused ovarian cancer and another cancer linked to asbestos. J&J denies its products ever contained the carcinogen. Claire's emerged from bankruptcy in October after unloading about $1.9 billion in debt. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Flowserve Still Defends PL Lawsuits at March 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Flowserve Corporation remains a defendant in a "substantial number of lawsuits" that seek to recover damages for personal injury allegedly caused by exposure to asbestos-containing products manufactured and/or distributed by our heritage companies in the past, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019. The Company states, "While the overall number of asbestos-related claims has generally declined in recent years, there can be no assurance that this trend will continue, or that the average cost per claim will not further increase. Asbestos-containing materials incorporated into any such products were encapsulated and used as internal components of process equipment, and we do not believe that any significant emission of asbestos fibers occurred during the use of this equipment. "Our practice is to vigorously contest and resolve these claims, and we have been successful in resolving a majority of claims with little or no payment. Historically, a high percentage of resolved claims have been covered by applicable insurance or indemnities from other companies, and we believe that a substantial majority of existing claims should continue to be covered by insurance or indemnities, in whole or in part. Accordingly, we have recorded a liability for our estimate of the most likely settlement of asserted claims and a related receivable from insurers or other companies for our estimated recovery, to the extent we believe that the amounts of recovery are probable. While unfavorable rulings, judgments or settlement terms regarding these claims could have a material adverse impact on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows, we currently believe the likelihood is remote. "Additionally, we have claims pending against certain insurers that, if resolved more favorably than reflected in the recorded receivables, would result in discrete gains in the applicable quarter. We are currently unable to estimate the impact, if any, of unasserted asbestos-related claims, although we expect that future claims would also be subject to then-existing indemnities and insurance coverage." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/JGAAmD ASBESTOS UPDATE: Graham Corp. Still Faces Lawsuits at March 31 -------------------------------------------------------------- Graham Corporation remains a defendant in lawsuits alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos allegedly contained in or accompanying its products, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the For the fiscal year ended March 31, 2019. The Company states, "We have been named as a defendant in lawsuits alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos allegedly contained in, or accompanying, our products. We are a co-defendant with numerous other defendants in these lawsuits and intend to vigorously defend ourselves against these claims. The claims are similar to previous asbestos lawsuits that named us as a defendant. Such previous lawsuits either were dismissed when it was shown that we had not supplied products to the plaintiffs' places of work or were settled by us for immaterial amounts. We cannot provide any assurances that any pending or future matters will be resolved in the same manner as previous lawsuits." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://is.gd/oOrU4A ASBESTOS UPDATE: HII Still Defends PI Claims at March 31 -------------------------------------------------------- Huntington Ingalls Industries, Inc. still defends itself against asbestos-related claims alleging various injuries, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019. The Company states, "HII and its predecessors-in-interest are defendants in a longstanding series of cases that have been and continue to be filed in various jurisdictions around the country, wherein former and current employees and various third parties allege exposure to asbestos containing materials while on or associated with HII premises or while working on vessels constructed or repaired by HII. "The cases allege various injuries, including those associated with pleural plaque disease, asbestosis, cancer, mesothelioma, and other alleged asbestos related conditions. In some cases, several of HII's former executive officers are also named as defendants. In some instances, partial or full insurance coverage is available to the Company for its liability and that of its former executive officers. The costs to resolve cases during the three months ended March 31, 2019 and 2018, were immaterial individually and in the aggregate. The Company's estimate of asbestos-related liabilities is subject to uncertainty because liabilities are influenced by numerous variables that are inherently difficult to predict. Key variables include the number and type of new claims, the litigation process from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from case to case, reforms made by state and federal courts, and the passage of state or federal tort reform legislation. "Although the Company believes the ultimate resolution of current cases will not have a material effect on its consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows, it cannot predict what new or revised claims or litigation might be asserted or what information might come to light and can, therefore, give no assurances regarding the ultimate outcome of asbestos related litigation." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/7eAsEw ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hospital Worker Wins GBP235K Payout ---------------------------------------------------- Joseph Laws, writing for Daily Mail, reported that a hospital worker won a GBP235,000 payout from the NHS after his job gave him cancer. Wayne Churches, 73, was exposed to asbestos while working as a hospital engineer for 40 years. But after retiring, grandfather Mr Churches was diagnosed with mesothelioma, an aggressive form of cancer, in 2017. The Aneurin Bevan University Health Board admitted liability over his disease because he worked in asbestos-clad buildings at Nevill Hall hospital in Abergavenny, south Wales. Mr Churches said: 'Back then I just didn't know how much of a problem it was -- nobody told me. 'I remember going into work at Nevill Hall, and one of the jobs I had to do regularly was clearing out the air ducts which I now know were full of asbestos. 'The only equipment I was given was a torch -- nobody wore protective masks. After I'd finished, I'd just brush the dust off my clothes and clean myself up as much as I could.' Father-of-three Mr Churches, from Abergavenny, retired in 2010 but his health soon began to deteriorate and he was diagnosed with mesothelioma in June 2017. He said: 'When you retire you think, 'Now I'm comfortable and I can do the things I want to do', but mesothelioma starts later in life, and it lay dormant for years without me knowing. 'The diagnosis was devastating for all of us. I'd always been in good health and I'd never smoked. I'd taken it in good faith that the environments I worked in were safe.' Mr Churches is now undergoing immunotherapy treatment in the hope it could improve the length and quality of his life. The treatment is not currently available on the NHS. He said: 'That's why it was so disappointing that when I most needed the NHS, there wasn't any help available for me. 'I was only given chemotherapy, but this was never going to get rid of the mesothelioma. I'm not ready to give up. I want more time with my wife, children and grandchildren.' 'I've been awarded some financial compensation, but money isn't everything. We might use some of it to go on holiday -- it's a lot more expensive for me to go anywhere now because of the equipment I need for my lungs -- but apart from that we'll probably use it to help our children out financially or put it into university funds for our grandchildren.' 'I want others like me, who were exposed to asbestos through their work, to hear my story and realise immunotherapy is an option, so that they have more time to spend with the people they love.' A Welsh Government spokeswoman said: 'Mesothelioma immunotherapy is still being developed in clinical trials and is not yet ready to be used as a routine treatment by the NHS.' ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Remains Obliged to Indemnify Xylem at Mar. 31 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Xylem Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that ITT Corporation (now ITT LLC) is still obligated to indemnify the Company from liabilities associated with asbestos matters. The Company states, "From time to time claims may be asserted against Xylem alleging injury caused by any of our products resulting from asbestos exposure. We believe there are numerous legal defenses available for such claims and would defend ourselves vigorously. Pursuant to the Distribution Agreement among ITT Corporation (now ITT LLC), Exelis and Xylem, ITT Corporation (now ITT LLC) has an obligation to indemnify, defend and hold Xylem harmless for asbestos product liability matters, including settlements, judgments, and legal defense costs associated with all pending and future claims that may arise from past sales of ITT's legacy products. We believe ITT Corporation (now ITT LLC) remains a substantial entity with sufficient financial resources to honor its obligations to us. "As part of our 2011 spin-off from our former parent, ITT Corporation (now ITT LLC), Exelis Inc. and Xylem will indemnify, defend and hold harmless each of the other parties with respect to such parties' assumed or retained liabilities under the Distribution Agreement and breaches of the Distribution Agreement or related spin agreements. The former parent's indemnification obligations include asserted and unasserted asbestos and silica liability claims that relate to the presence or alleged presence of asbestos or silica in products manufactured, repaired or sold prior to October 31, 2011, the Distribution Date, subject to limited exceptions with respect to certain employee claims, or in the structure or material of any building or facility, subject to exceptions with respect to employee claims relating to Xylem buildings or facilities. The indemnification associated with pending and future asbestos claims does not expire. Xylem has not recorded a liability for material matters for which we expect to be indemnified by the former parent or Exelis Inc. through the Distribution Agreement and we are not aware of any claims or other circumstances that would give rise to material payments from us under such indemnifications. "On May 29, 2015, Harris Inc. acquired Exelis. As the parent of Exelis, Harris Inc. is responsible for Exelis's indemnification obligations under the Distribution Agreement." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/dXSMhU ASBESTOS UPDATE: J&J Suit Sent Back to Mass. State Court -------------------------------------------------------- Law360 reported that a federal judge remanded a woman's asbestos-related lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson to Massachusetts state court, rejecting the company's argument that the case belongs in federal court because it is connected to a bankruptcy proceeding involving J&J's talc supplier, Imerys. The Defendants removed the case pursuant to federal "related to" jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sections 1452(a) and 1334(b). The Court strongly questioned whether Johnson & Johnson has carried its burden of demonstrating "related to" jurisdiction for the reasons articulated by Judge Sorokin in a related remanded action. See Mem. & Order at 4-5, Rivera, No. 19-cv-10747-LTS (D. Mass. May 31, 2019) (remanding related case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction). Specifically, that Imerys apparently disputes indemnification and the existence of shared insurance suggests that the present lawsuit would not "affect [Imerys'] bankruptcy without the intervention of yet another lawsuit," thereby defeating "related to" jurisdiction under long-standing case law. The Court found it unnecessary for the Court to resolve these factual and legal issues, however, because equity counsels remand here. To determine whether equitable grounds exist, courts consider the following factors: (1) the effect of the action on the administration of the bankruptcy estate; (2) the extent to which issues of state law predominate; (3) the difficulty of applicable state law; (4) comity; (5) the relatedness or remoteness of the action to the bankruptcy case; (6) the existence of a right to a jury trial; and (7) prejudice to the party involuntarily removed from state court. The Court ruled that consideration of these factors strongly weighs in favor of remand: -- First, trying this case in Superior Court in Massachusetts will not impact the efficient administration of Imerys' bankruptcy estate. -- Second, state law issues predominate because the Complaint asserts only state-law claims. -- Third, although the state law to be applied in this action is only of moderate difficulty, "comity counsels in favor of state-court resolution of state-law claims." -- Fourth, Plaintiff's case is only remotely related to the Imerys bankruptcy proceeding. -- Finally, removal will cause significant prejudice to Plaintiff where her case was nearly trial-ready in Superior Court after pending for almost two years. The Plaintiff is slated to have a December 4, 2019 trial date, which is significantly sooner than any trial would occur were the Plaintiff's case heard in Delaware, and that trial will be presided over by Judge Heidi Brieger, who oversees the Asbestos Litigation docket and therefore has deep familiarity with this case and others like it. For these reasons, the Plaintiff's case is best resolved in the Superior Court. Accordingly, the Plaintiff's motion to remand is granted. This action is remanded to the Massachusetts Superior Court for Middlesex County. The case is LORRAINE O'RIORDEN, Plaintiff, v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 19-cv-10751-ADB (D. Mass.). A full-text copy of the Memorandum and Order penned by Judge Allison D. Burroughs is available at https://tinyurl.com/y2t6v9hb from Leagle.com. Lorraine O'Riorden, Plaintiff, represented by Leah M. McMorris , Thornton Law Firm LLP, Andrea Marino Landry , Thornton Law Firm LLP, David Bricker, Esq. -- dbricker@tenlaw.com -- Thornton Law Firm, Evan R. Hoffman, Esq. -- ehoffman@tenlaw.com -- Thornton Law Firm LLP & Leslie-Anne Taylor, Thornton Law Firm LLP. Johnson & Johnson & Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc., Defendants, represented by Daniel P. McCarthy, Esq. -- dmccarthy@mgmlaw.com -- Manning Gross Massenburg LLP & Marisa K. Pearson, Esq. -- mpearson@mgmlaw.com -- Manning Gross Massenburg LLP. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Jury Deliberating in Calif. Woman's Talc Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Terri Oppenheimer, writing for Mesothelioma.net, reported that in defending Johnson & Johnson's Baby Powder from accusations of selling talc-based products contaminated with asbestos the company's attorneys claimed that Patricia Schmitz's mesothelioma arose spontaneously. This totally belies all previous understanding of the fatal disease's origin. The occasion for the claim was closing arguments in Mrs. Schmitz's mesothelioma lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson and Colgate-Palmolive. Over the past seven weeks, attorneys representing the 61-year-old former teacher have provided evidence that the companies were aware that their product contained asbestos and provided no warnings to the public, and that her 40 years of talc powder use is what caused her asbestos-related disease. With her physicians testifying that she is unlikely to survive the summer and that she has endured tremendous pain and hardships, she is seeking compensation for her medical costs, pain and suffering. Mrs. Schmitz is not alone in her accusations against Johnson & Johnson's: there have already been several mesothelioma and ovarian cancer lawsuits heard across the country, with a New York woman being awarded $325 million in compensatory and punitive damages. A group of 22 women diagnosed with ovarian cancer was awarded over $4 billion in damages, and there are over 14,000 similar lawsuits pending against the company. Much of the evidence presented included internal company documents that referenced concern about asbestos in the product. Johnson & Johnson has not only denied those claims, but has also attacked the expert witnesses who have identified asbestos in their products, as well as providing the novel argument that Mrs. Schmitz's body spontaneously generated malignant mesothelioma. David Siegel, writing for Courtroom View Network, reported that the California state court jury began deliberations in the first lawsuit to go to trial involving claims that asbestos allegedly present in both Colgate-Palmolive's and Johnson & Johnson's cosmetic talc products caused a woman's fatal cancer. Schmitz's attorney Joseph Satterley of Kazan Mcclain Satterley & Greenwood, told jurors during his closing argument that evidence shown during the trial proved both companies knew their talc products contained asbestos but didn't warn their customers. "To continue to sell for years and years a product knowing there is a cancer risk is not reasonable," Satterley said. Satterley also represented the plaintiff in the only other J&J talc case to go to trial in Alameda County, which ended earlier this year with a $35 million verdict. J&J attorney Alex Calfo of King & Spalding slammed the scientific underpinning of the plaintiffs case, arguing Schmitz's mesothelioma is naturally occurring. "Not one published study concluded talc causes mesothelioma," Calfo said, while also calling into question the credibility of the plaintiff's experts. "Not one single plaintiff witness said Johnson & Johnson baby powder had asbestos until they were hired by plaintiff lawyers." Two other cosmetic talc cases reached a verdict during the long-running trial. On May 31 the first J&J talc trial in New York City ended in a $325 million verdict, including $300 million in punitive damages. Another trial in South Carolina, the third J&J talc trial in the state so far, ended last month in a defense verdict after just a few hours of jury deliberations. Numerous other cosmetic talc cases throughout the country were slated for trial in recent weeks, but the defendants sought removals to federal court due to the recent bankruptcy of Imerys, J&J's talc supplier. They argue cosmetic talc claims should be consolidated in federal court in Delaware where Imerys bankruptcy proceedings will play out, but to date federal judges have largely rejected that position and remanded numerous cases to state courts. While the removal delay scuttled a number of trial dates, a few cases are potentially going forward in the coming weeks. A case involving J&J could begin in early July in New Jersey, followed by what will be the first cosmetic talc case in Georgia that same month. The current case in California is captioned Patricia Schmitz v. Johnson & Johnson, et al, case number RG18923615 in Alameda County Superior Court. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Magnetek Has $889,000 Liability at March 31 ------------------------------------------------------------ Columbus McKinnon Corporation's subsidiary, Magnetek, recorded approximately US$889,000 for asbestos-related liability as of March 31, 2019, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2019. The Company states, "Magnetek has been named, along with multiple other defendants, in asbestos-related lawsuits associated with business operations previously acquired but which are no longer owned. During Magnetek's ownership, none of the businesses produced or sold asbestos-containing products. For such claims, Magnetek is uninsured and either contractually indemnified against liability, or contractually obligated to defend and indemnify the purchaser of these former business operations. The Company aggressively seeks dismissal from these proceedings. Based on actuarial information, the asbestos related liability including legal costs is estimated to be approximately US$889,000 which has been reflected as a liability in the consolidated financial statements at March 31, 2019." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://is.gd/7aJOUW ASBESTOS UPDATE: Navistar Still Defends Claims at April 30 ---------------------------------------------------------- Navistar International Corporation continues to defend itself against asbestos claims related to its facilities and older vehicle models, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended April 30, 2019. The Company states, "Along with other vehicle manufacturers, we have been subject to an increased number of asbestos-related claims in recent years. In general, these claims relate to illnesses alleged to have resulted from asbestos exposure from component parts found in older vehicles, although some cases relate to the alleged presence of asbestos in our facilities. In these claims, we are generally not the sole defendant, and the claims name as defendants numerous manufacturers and suppliers of a wide variety of products allegedly containing asbestos. "We have strongly disputed these claims, and it has been our policy to defend against them vigorously. Historically, the actual damages paid out to claimants have not been material in any year to our financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows. It is possible that the number of these claims will continue to grow, and that the costs for resolving asbestos related claims could become significant in the future." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/kguxYl ASBESTOS UPDATE: NHS Employees Exposed to Asbestos -------------------------------------------------- Health & Safety Matters reported that Shewsbury and Telford Hospital NHS Trust has been fined after refurbishment work undertaken in an accommodation block at Royal Shrewsbury Hospital exposed Trust employees and contractors to asbestos. Telford Magistrates' Court heard how in June 2012 Trust employees were removing fixtures and fittings from the empty flat when they disturbed asbestos containing materials (ACMs). The Trust then failed to take adequate measures to deal with the initial release of asbestos, exposing other contractors who later worked in the flat. An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) found that the Trust did not properly record ACM on their estate. The Trust had arrangements in place to manage asbestos, however, the overall management plan for dealing with asbestos was not recorded in a clear and concise manner or effectively communicated to its employees and contractors working on site. The Trust had insufficient auditing procedures to ensure that the arrangements contained in the policy and management plan were fully implemented, working properly and effective. The procedures in place upon the discovery of asbestos were inadequate and the Trust failed to prevent re-entry into the contaminated area by other workers. Shrewsbury and Telford Hospitals NHS Trust of Mytton Oak Rd, Shrewsbury pleaded guilty to two breaches of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012 and fined GBP16,000 and ordered to pay costs of GBP18,385.80. After the hearing HSE inspector David Kivlin said: "The Trust should have controlled this potentially lethal risk by identifying the type, location and condition of any asbestos-containing-materials within the accommodation block at the Royal Shrewsbury Hospital, by implementing suitable precautions to prevent its disturbance. "Although there is no indication that members of the public at the hospital were exposed as a result of the failings, asbestos related diseases are currently untreatable and claim the lives of an estimated 5,000 people per year in the UK. "This prosecution should act as a reminder, not just to Hospitals but to anyone in control of the repair and maintenance of non-domestic premises, of the need to ensure that correct control measures are put in place to ensure that exposure to asbestos is prevented, so far as is reasonably practicable." ASBESTOS UPDATE: OI Inc. Accrues $5-Bil. in 1993-2019 Period ------------------------------------------------------------ Owens-Illinois Group, Inc.'s parent company, Owens-Illinois, Inc. ("OI Inc."), has accrued a total of approximately US$5.0 billion beginning with the initial liability of US$975 million established in 1993 through March 31, 2019, for its asbestos-related liability before insurance recoveries. The Group disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that although OI Inc. does not conduct any operations, it has substantial obligations related to asbestos-related payments. OI Inc. relies primarily on distributions from its direct and indirect subsidiaries to meet these obligations. The Company states, "From 1948 to 1958, one of OI Inc.'s former business units commercially produced and sold approximately US$40 million of a high-temperature, calcium-silicate based pipe and block insulation material containing asbestos. OI Inc. sold its insulation business unit in April 1958. OI Inc. receives claims from individuals alleging bodily injury and death as a result of exposure to asbestos from this product ("Asbestos Claims"). Some Asbestos Claims are brought as personal injury lawsuits that typically allege various theories of liability, including negligence, gross negligence and strict liability and seek compensatory and, in some cases, punitive damages. Predominantly, however, Asbestos Claims are presented to OI Inc. under administrative claims-handling agreements, which OI Inc. has in place with many plaintiffs' counsel throughout the country ("Administrative Claims"). "Since receiving its first Asbestos Claim, as of March 31, 2019, OI Inc. in the aggregate has disposed of approximately 400,600 Asbestos Claims at an average indemnity payment of approximately US$10,000 per claim. OI Inc.'s asbestos indemnity payments have varied on a per-claim basis and are expected to continue to vary considerably over time. "Asbestos-related cash payments for 2018, 2017, and 2016 were US$105 million, US$110 million, and US$125 million, respectively. OI Inc.'s cash payments per claim disposed (inclusive of legal costs) were approximately US$86,000, US$83,000 and US$71,000 for the years ended December 31, 2018, 2017, and 2016, respectively. "OI Inc.'s objective is to achieve, where possible, resolution of Asbestos Claims pursuant to claims-handling agreements. Failure of claimants to meet certain medical and product exposure criteria in claims-handling agreements generally has reduced the number of claims that would otherwise have been received by OI Inc. in the tort system. In addition, changes in jurisdictional dynamics, legislative acts, asbestos docket management and procedures, the substantive law, the co-defendant pool, and other external factors have affected lawsuit volume, claim volume, qualification rates, claim values, and related matters. Collectively, these variables generally have had the effect of increasing OI Inc.'s per-claim average indemnity payment over time. "Beginning with the initial liability of US$975 million established in 1993, OI Inc. has accrued a total of approximately US$5.0 billion through March 31, 2019, before insurance recoveries, for its asbestos-related liability. OI Inc.'s estimates of its liability have been significantly affected by, among other factors, the volatility of asbestos-related litigation in the United States, the significant number of co-defendants that have filed for bankruptcy, changes in mortality rates, the inherent uncertainty of future disease incidence and claiming patterns against OI Inc., the significant expansion of the types of defendants that are now sued in this litigation, and the continuing changes in the extent to which these defendants participate in the resolution of cases in which OI Inc. is also a defendant. "OI Inc. continues to monitor trends that may affect its ultimate liability and analyze the developments and variables likely to affect the resolution of Asbestos Claims against OI Inc. The material components of OI Inc.'s total accrued liability are determined by OI Inc. in connection with its annual comprehensive legal review and consist of the following estimates, to the extent it is probable that such liabilities have been incurred and can be reasonably estimated: (i) the liability for Asbestos Claims already asserted against OI Inc.; (ii) the liability for Asbestos Claims not yet asserted against OI Inc.; and (iii) the legal defense costs estimated to be incurred in connection with the Asbestos Claims already asserted and those Asbestos Claims OI Inc. believes will be asserted. "OI Inc. conducts an annual comprehensive legal review of its asbestos-related liabilities and costs in connection with finalizing and reporting its annual results of operations, unless significant changes in trends or new developments warrant an earlier review. As part of its annual comprehensive legal review, OI Inc. provides historical Asbestos Claims' data to a third party with expertise in determining the impact of disease incidence and mortality on future filing trends to develop information to assist OI Inc. in estimating the total number of future Asbestos Claims likely to be asserted against OI Inc. OI Inc. uses this estimate, along with an estimation of disposition costs and related legal costs, as inputs to develop its best estimate of its total probable liability. If the results of the annual comprehensive legal review indicate that the existing amount of the accrued liability is lower (higher) than its reasonably estimable asbestos-related costs, then OI Inc. will record an appropriate charge (credit) to OI Inc.'s results of operations to increase (decrease) the accrued liability." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/d6aZ9N ASBESTOS UPDATE: Olin Corp., Units Still Face Suits at March 31 --------------------------------------------------------------- Olin Corporation and its subsidiaries remain defendants in legal proceedings on alleged asbestos exposures, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019. The Company states, "We, and our subsidiaries, are defendants in various other legal actions (including proceedings based on alleged exposures to asbestos) incidental to our past and current business activities. As of March 31, 2019, December 31, 2018 and March 31, 2018, our condensed balance sheets included accrued liabilities for these legal actions of US$15.8 million, US$15.6 million and US$13.3 million, respectively. These liabilities do not include costs associated with legal representation. "Based on our analysis, and considering the inherent uncertainties associated with litigation, we do not believe that it is reasonably possible that these legal actions will materially adversely affect our financial position, cash flows or results of operations. "In connection with the October 5, 2015 acquisition of Dow's U.S. Chlor Alkali and Vinyl, Global Chlorinated Organics and Global Epoxy businesses, the prior owner of the businesses retained liabilities related to litigation to the extent arising prior to October 5, 2015." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/DYwOfp ASBESTOS UPDATE: Owens-Illinois Defends 1,070 Suits at March 31 --------------------------------------------------------------- Owens-Illinois Group, Inc.'s parent company, Owens-Illinois, Inc. ("OI Inc."), had approximately 1,070 asbestos lawsuits pending as of March 31, 2019, according to the Group's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019. Although OI Inc. does not conduct any operations, it has substantial obligations related to asbestos-related payments. OI Inc. relies primarily on distributions from its direct and indirect subsidiaries to meet these obligations. The Group states, "From 1948 to 1958, one of OI Inc.'s former business units commercially produced and sold approximately US$40 million of a high-temperature, calcium-silicate based pipe and block insulation material containing asbestos. OI Inc. sold its insulation business unit in April 1958. OI Inc. receives claims from individuals alleging bodily injury and death as a result of exposure to asbestos from this product ("Asbestos Claims"). Some Asbestos Claims are brought as personal injury lawsuits that typically allege various theories of liability, including negligence, gross negligence and strict liability and seek compensatory and, in some cases, punitive damages. "Predominantly, however, Asbestos Claims are presented to OI Inc. under administrative claims-handling agreements, which OI Inc. has in place with many plaintiffs' counsel throughout the country ("Administrative Claims"). Administrative Claims require evaluation and negotiation regarding whether particular claimants qualify under the criteria established by the related claims-handling agreements. The criteria for Administrative Claims include verification of a compensable illness and a reasonable probability of exposure to a product manufactured by OI Inc.'s former business unit during its manufacturing period ending in 1958. Plaintiffs' counsel present, and OI Inc. negotiates, Administrative Claims under these various agreements in differing quantities, at different times, and under a variety of conditions. "As of March 31, 2019, OI Inc. had approximately 1,070 asbestos lawsuits pending. These pending lawsuits do not include an estimate of potential Administrative Claims that may be presented under a claims-handling agreement due to the uncertainties around presentation timing, quantities, or qualification rates. OI Inc. considers Administrative Claims to be filed and disposed when they are accepted for payment." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/d6aZ9N ASBESTOS UPDATE: Quaker Chemical Unit Defends Suits at March 31 --------------------------------------------------------------- Quaker Chemical Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the Company currently estimates its subsidiary's total liability over the next 50 years for existing and anticipated future asbestos-related claims to be approximately US$1.7 million (excluding costs of defense). The Company states, "The Company previously disclosed in its Annual Report filed on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2018 that an inactive subsidiary of the Company that was acquired in 1978 sold certain products containing asbestos, primarily on an installed basis, and is among the defendants in numerous lawsuits alleging injury due to exposure to asbestos. "During the three months ended March 31, 2019, there have been no significant changes to the facts or circumstances of this previously disclosed matter, aside from on-going claims, immaterial settlements and routine payments associated with this litigation. "Based on a continued analysis of the existing and anticipated future claims against this subsidiary, it is currently projected that the subsidiary's total liability over the next 50 years for these claims is approximately US$1.7 million (excluding costs of defense)." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/uiUD5k ASBESTOS UPDATE: San Diego Firefighters Exposed to Asbestos ----------------------------------------------------------- Jane Mundy, writing for Lawyers and Settlements, reported that hundreds of firefighters exposed to asbestos for nearly two decades at a training facility might be eligible for asbestos compensation in the future. San DiegoUntil last summer, San Diego firefighters were training in a facility built with asbestos. Because their training activities involving breaching walls and doors, some firefighters were exposed to asbestos for hundreds of hours over two decades. Now almost 1,000 firefighters have filed documents to ensure their right to financial compensation for asbestos cancer. San Diego Fire Fighters File Asbestos LawsuitFortunately, no active or retired firefighters have been diagnosed with asbestos-related cancer and no asbestos lawsuits have been filed -- yet. Rather, firefighters have filed documents just in case anyone gets sick. Jesse Connor, union president, said it is just a form that all employees can submit to risk management to officially record that they had some type of minor injury or exposure. Asbestos exposure is far from minor. First responders were constantly exposed to asbestos in floors, ceilings and walls without knowing they were at risk for this deadly disease -- asbestos mesothelioma. But some "officials" knew the buildings contained asbestos and the health hazards they posed, according to NBC 7 News. FIREFIGHTER ASBESTOS RISK IGNORED Thousands of first responders face an added, avoidable health risk. Firefighters told the news station that they were furious when they discovered they were exposed to asbestos -- and for such a long time. The city responded slowly, maybe as long as 15 years to fix the problem. An investigation by NBC 7 revealed that the fire department was aware of asbestos risk since at least 2002, and they "failed to act quickly and decisively to protect first responders training at San Diego's Fire Academy." City Councilman Chris Cate criticized city officials. He told the San Diego Herald Tribune that the city has handled facilities for public safety training in the "same shortsighted way it's handled other infrastructure challenges in recent decades, that is, instead of focusing on long-term solutions that might be more expensive, city officials have opted for cheaper fixes that come with problems." Another councilman said that proper facilities for firefighter training should be a priority. And Connor encourages retired firefighters who trained in these facilities to join the 908 firefighters who have already signed these documents. "If you had an exposure in that 20-plus years, then you could potentially be eligible for some type of recovery if you come down with symptoms," the union president said. Research published in 2013 from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health found that firefighters die from certain types of cancer at higher rates than the general U.S. population. "There were about twice as many fire fighters with malignant mesothelioma, a rare type of cancer caused by exposure to asbestos . . . . Exposure to asbestos while fire fighting is the most likely explanation for this," said researchers. Although the San Diego training facility was closed last summer -- and not until pressured by the Union, it doesn't close the book on firefighters who are asking for long-term medical testing. And possibly legal help should they develop asbestos-related cancer. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Steel Partners Unit Has 30 Claims at March 31 -------------------------------------------------------------- A subsidiary of Steel Partners Holdings L.P. has approximately 30 pending asbestos claims as of March 31, 2019, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019. The Company states, "A subsidiary of BNS Holdings Liquidating Trust ("BNS Sub") has been named as a defendant in multiple alleged asbestos-related toxic-tort claims filed over a period beginning in 1994 through March 31, 2019. In many cases these claims involved more than 100 defendants. Of the claims settled, the average settlement was less than US$3,000. There remained approximately 30 pending asbestos claims as of March 31, 2019. BNS Sub believes it has significant defenses to any liability for toxic-tort claims on the merits. None of these toxic-tort claims has gone to trial and, therefore, there can be no assurance that these defenses will prevail. "BNS Sub has insurance policies covering asbestos-related claims for years beginning 1974 through 1988. BNS Sub annually receives retroactive billings or credits from its insurance carriers for any increase or decrease in claims accruals as claims are filed, settled or dismissed, or as estimates of the ultimate settlement costs for the then-existing claims are revised. As of both March 31, 2019 and December 31, 2018, BNS Sub has accrued US$1,349,000 relating to the open and active claims against BNS Sub. This accrual includes the amount of unpaid retroactive billings submitted to the Company by the insurance carriers and also the Company's best estimate of the likely costs for BNS Sub to settle these claims outside the amounts funded by insurance. There can be no assurance that the number of future claims and the related costs of defense, settlements or judgments will be consistent with the experience to-date of existing claims and that BNS Sub will not need to significantly increase its estimated liability for the costs to settle these claims to an amount that could have a material effect on the consolidated financial statements. A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/JivCxt ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Faces 12,594 Claims at March 31 -------------------------------------------------------------- Union Carbide Corporation has 12,594 unresolved asbestos-related claims at March 31, 2019, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019. Union Carbide states, "The Corporation is and has been involved in a large number of asbestos-related suits filed primarily in state courts during the past four decades. These suits principally allege personal injury resulting from exposure to asbestos-containing products and frequently seek both actual and punitive damages. The alleged claims primarily relate to products that UCC sold in the past, alleged exposure to asbestos-containing products located on UCC's premises, and UCC's responsibility for asbestos suits filed against a former UCC subsidiary, Amchem Products, Inc. ("Amchem"). In many cases, plaintiffs are unable to demonstrate that they have suffered any compensable loss as a result of such exposure, or that injuries incurred in fact resulted from exposure to UCC's products. "Plaintiffs' lawyers often sue numerous defendants in individual lawsuits or on behalf of numerous claimants. As a result, the damages alleged are not expressly identified as to UCC, Amchem or any other particular defendant, even when specific damages are alleged with respect to a specific disease or injury. In fact, there are no personal injury cases in which only the Corporation and/or Amchem are the sole named defendants. For these reasons and based upon the Corporation's litigation and settlement experience, the Corporation does not consider the damages alleged against it and Amchem to be a meaningful factor in its determination of any potential asbestos-related liability." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/39qUVd ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Has $1.2-Bil. Liability at March 31 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Union Carbide Corporation's asbestos-related liability for pending and future claims and defense and processing costs was US$1,243 million at March 31, 2019, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019. Union Carbide states, "The Corporation is and has been involved in a large number of asbestos-related suits filed primarily in state courts during the past four decades. These suits principally allege personal injury resulting from exposure to asbestos-containing products and frequently seek both actual and punitive damages. The alleged claims primarily relate to products that UCC sold in the past, alleged exposure to asbestos-containing products located on UCC's premises and UCC's responsibility for asbestos suits filed against a former UCC subsidiary, Amchem Products, Inc. ("Amchem"). In many cases, plaintiffs are unable to demonstrate that they have suffered any compensable loss as a result of such exposure, or that injuries incurred in fact resulted from exposure to the Corporation's products. "The Corporation expects more asbestos-related suits to be filed against UCC and Amchem in the future, and will aggressively defend or reasonably resolve, as appropriate, both pending and future claims. "The Corporation's asbestos-related liability for pending and future claims and defense and processing costs was US$1,243 million at March 31, 2019, and approximately 17 percent of the recorded liability related to pending claims and approximately 83 percent related to future claims." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/39qUVd ********* 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 ***