/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/190701.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, July 1, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 130 Headlines 183 RIO RESTAURANT: Delacruz Files Class Suit under ADA 443 LEXINGTON AVE: Ruilova Seeks to Recover Wages Under FLSA/NYLL ADDUS HEALTHCARE: Court OKs 2nd Amended Answer in M. Moore Suit AMAZON.COM INC: Alexa Secretly Records Children, Lawsuits Allege AMERICA'S TEST KITCHEN: Kittle Sues over Unlawful Disclosure AMERICAN MEDICAL: Faces Gutierrez Suit over Data Breach AMERIPARK LLC: Removes Pool Suit to S.D. California AMP: Maurice Blackburn to Lead Shareholder Class Action APPLE INC: Sued for Disclosing iTunes Listening Data AQUANTIA CORP: Faces Bushansky Suit over Proposed Merger ARATANA THERAPEUTICS: Cooper Says SEC Filings Misleading ARATANA THERAPEUTICS: Rosenblatt Challenges Sale to Elanco ARYZTA LLC: Davis Seeks OT Premium Pay, Minimum Wage ASCENA RETAIL: Howard G. Smith Files Securities Class Action Suit BADNEWS DELIVERY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Shelhart Claims BANK OF AMERICA: Frausto Seeks to Certify Class BARRILLEAUX INC: Underpays Helpers, Williams Suit Alleges BATCH INC: Duncan Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act in New York BFC PARTNERS: Scott et al. Seek Minimum Wage, OT Pay BLUESTONE LANE: Duncan Files Class Suit in S.D. New York BMW NORTH AMERICA: Keys Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal. BRISTOW GROUP: Chapter 11 Suit Automatically Stays Kokareva Suit BROADCOM INC: 9th Cir. Revives Varjabedian Suit v. Emulex BUCKEYE PARTNERS: Being Sold Cheaply to IFM, Curtis Says CAPITAL ONE: Cohen et al. Sue over Usurious Interests Rates CARBON AND CLAY: Boyadjian Says Toothpaste "Misbranded" CBSC INC: Angeles Files FDCPA Class Suit in N.D. Ohio CENTRAL CREDIT: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed CHASE BANK: Young Sues Over Illegal Credit Card Interest Charges CHICAGO, IL: No Due Process over Towing Practices, Santiago Says COMMUNITY CREDIT: Fails to Provide Repo Notice, Bastian Claims DARTMOUTH COLLEGE: Female Science Students' Class Action Pending DE WAFELBAKKERS: Goodman Seeks Minimum Wage, Overtime Pay DENKA PERFORMANCE: Grant of Leave to File SAC in Butler Reversed DIRECTIONAL PROJECT: Collective Action Conditionally Certified DIVERSIFIED CONSULTANTS: Court Dismisses Ulrich FDCPA Suit ELDERSERVE HEALTH: Bellin Files Class Suit in S.D. New York ELECTRONICS FOR IMAGING: Wheby Says Proxy Statement Misleading ENHANCED RECOVERY: Court Certifies Class in J. Robinson FDCPA Suit ERNESLI CORPORATION: Pavoni Seeks to Recoup OT Pay Under FLSA EVENTBRITE INC: Robinson Sues Over Misleading IPO-related Reports EXPEDIA INC: Court OKs Arbitration in J. Church Suit FIRST AMERICAN: Fails to Secure Website, Dinh Suit Alleges FORD MOTOR: MyFord Touch Class Action Gets Preliminary Court OK FORSTER & GARBUS: Kleinman Sues over Debt Collection Practices FORTEES SALON & SPA: Boice Seeks OT Pay, Minimum Wage FRANCESCA'S HOLDINGS: Cox, Perry Seek Overtime Pay FRED'S INC: Awaits 11th Cir. Ruling in Taylor Case Appeal FRED'S INC: Settlement in Eddington and Hudson Suit Underway FRED'S INC: Whitley Class Action Ongoing FRESENIUS HEALTH: Faces Krozos Labor Suit in California GATES HUDSON COMMUNITY: Covington Seeks OT Pay for Property Manager GEORGE'S INC: Court Certifies FLSA Class in Rodriguez Suit GREAT BAY MARINE: Bishop Alleges Violation under ADA GREENBACK OPRARTIONS: Faces Phillips Suit in Sacramento County GTX INC: Kahn Swick Files Securities Class Action in New York GUARD-SYSTEMS INC: Underpays Security Guards, Rangel Alleges HERON THERAPEUTICS: Faces Wong Securities Suit in S.D. Calif. HFF INC: Strenger Class Action Underway HOPFED BANCORP: Agreement in Principle Reached in Parshall Suit HORIZON HEALTHCARE: Weber Suit over Medicare-Based Plans IDEAVILLAGE PRODUCTS: Jones Suit Alleges ADA Violation INUVO INC: Parties Agree to Dismiss Akerman Class Suit INUVO INC: Voluntary Dismissal Filed in Franchi Suit IPC, INC: Physicians Healthsource Seeks to Certify Settlement Class JP MORGAN: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed KAYREE INC: Underpays Exotic Dancers, Davis et al. Claim KIA MOTORS AMERICA: Sells Defective Vehicles, Santamaria Claims L'OREAL USA: Duncan Alleges Violation under Disabilities Act LABCORP: Faces Data Breach Class Action in North Carolina LASHIFY INC: Duncan Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act LITTLE JOHN: Warner Seeks to Certify Class of Freight Brokers LOVELY SKIN: Crosson Sues over Web Accessibility Issue MDL 2887: Flanary et al Suit over Tainted Dog Food Consolidated MDL 2887: Sprengel et al. Suit over Tainted Dog Food Consolidated MEDICAL NECESSITIES: Certification of Delivery Techs Class Sought MIDLAND CREDIT: Court Imposes Monetary Sanctions in Dionisio Suit MISSISSIPPI: Court Denies Class Certification in D. Bennett Suit MOBILE, AL: Diamond Appeals Class Cert. Denial to 11th Circuit MONSANTO COMPANY: Clayton et al. Suit Moved to N.D. California MONSANTO COMPANY: Matlock et al. Suit Moved to N.D. California NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Simmons Sues Over Student-Athletes' Injuries NAVIENT SOLUTIONS: Court Declines to Certify TCPA Class NEW YORK: Mitchell Files Class Suit Over Prisoner Civil Rights NIDEC MOTOR: Court OKs $1.675MM Prelim Settlement in G. Pounds Suit NORTHWEST TENNESSEE: Underpays Medical Assistants, Suit Alleges NRT LLC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Chinitz Suit Claims NRT WEST: Chinitz Seeks to Certify Classes PAY-O-MATIC: Luyando Suit Transferred to Eastern Dist. of New York PURDUE PHARMA: Canton City Sues over Highly Addictive Opioids PURDUE PHARMA: Carlson Sues over Negligence on Opioid Distribution PURDUE PHARMA: Cherry Sues over Unsafe Marketing of Opioids PURDUE PHARMA: Counties Unite to Negotiate Opioid Lawsuits PURDUE PHARMA: Cruz Alleges Negligent Marketing of Opioids PURDUE PHARMA: Ontario Plans to Join BC's Opioid Class Action PURDUE PHARMA: Paul Sues over Sale of Opioid Drugs PYXUS INTERNATIONAL: Faces Putative Class Suit in North Carolina QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Finch Sues over Data Breach QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Removes Vecchio NYLL Suit to S.D. New York SAN FRANCISCO: Faces ADA Suit in N.D. California SCOTTS COMPANY: Court Denies Summary Judgment in Depalma Suit SHARKNINJA OPERATING: Court Dismisses K. Wallace FAC SKIN BAR: Duncan Sues Over Blind-inaccessible Web Site SMARTPAY LEASING: Court Certifies "STOP" Text Message Class SMITH MEDICAL: Court Denies Bid for Class Cert. without Prejudice SPACE AGE COMMUNICATIONS: Garza Seeks OT Premium Pay SPEEDY CASH: Court Denies Arbitration Bid in C. Delisle Suit SPORTSBET: Responds to Punters' Proposed Class Action SPRINKLES CUPCAKES: Duncan Alleges Violation under ADA ST. DAVID'S HEALTHCARE: Mock Suit Moved to Western Dist. of Texas STATE FARM: Court Directs Revised Class Notice Plan in Stuart Suit STATE FARM: Settlement in Durant Suit Has Final Court Approval STELLAR DRILLING: Whittington Seeks OT Pay for Mud Engineers STEVENS TANKER: Cundiff Seeks OT Pay for Dispatchers, Coordinators SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY: Bens BBQ Files Civil Rights Class Suit SUNCOKE ENERGY PARTNERS: Cohn Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duty TOP 1 PERCENT COACHING: Elston Seeks Overtime Pay, Minimum Wage TOYOTA MOTOR: Settlement in Simerlein Suit Has Final Court Approval TRANS WORLD: Faces New Suit over VIP Backstage Pass Memberships TRANS WORLD: Opt-In Discovery in Spack Underway TRANSUNION RENTAL: Misreports Eviction Record, Clark-Fortunat Says TRINITY COURIERS: Gomez Seeks Proper Overtime Pay TUMINO'S TOWING: Court Denies Stay in S. Kiley Suit UBS AG: Among Defendants in Forex Rate Rigging Class Action UNILEVER US: Derchin et al Sue over Misleading Ice Cream Labels UNILEVER US: Duncan Sues Over Blind-inaccessible Web Site UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: Does Not Pay Minimum Wage, Gomez Says VAD D/B/A CM AUTO: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Canfield Claims VEREIT INC: American Realty Capital Properties Suit Adjourned VIP NAIL: Yugsi Seeks Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Napleton Orlando Seeks to Certify Class WARREN COUNTY, OH: Court OKs Settlement in Suit vs. WCCS WESTPAC BANKING: Home Loan Customers' Class Action Pending WESTVILLE RESTAURANT: Underpays Cooks & Porters, Chan et al. Say WILDLIFE CONSERVATORY: Duncan Files Class Suit under ADA WINDSTREAM HOLDINGS: Class Action Plaintiffs Challenge Stay WLP EXECUTIVE: Bird et al Seek to Certify Hourly Employees Class ZAYO GROUP: Duggan Says Proxy Statement over Merger Misleading ********* 183 RIO RESTAURANT: Delacruz Files Class Suit under ADA ------------------------------------------------------- 183 Rio Restaurant Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Emanuel Delacruz, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 183 Rio Restaurant Inc. and Smalls Live L.L.C., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-05700 (S.D. N.Y., June 18, 2019). 183 Rio Restaurant Inc. is a Portuguese Restaurant.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq. 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Tel: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: nyjg@aol.com 443 LEXINGTON AVE: Ruilova Seeks to Recover Wages Under FLSA/NYLL ----------------------------------------------------------------- ANDRES RUILOVA, HUGO TEXIS, BERTIN ALDO GARCIA, ISMAEL GUTIERREZ, VALENTIN VIVAR, ELIZABETH KELLY, STACY SAMUEL, STEPHANIE PEREZ, EVAN MILHO, JAMAL KHAN, KEVIN O'BRIEN and CHUCK REYNOLDS, on behalf of themselves, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class v. 443 LEXINGTON AVE, INC. d/b/a DAVIO'S, 75 ARLINGTON STREET, INC. d/b/a DAVIO'S, ONE PATRIOT PLACE, LLC d/b/a DAVIO'S, 151 GRANITE STREET LLC d/b/a DAVIO'S, 55 BOYLSTON STREET, LLC d/b/a DAVIO'S, 427 WALNUT STREET LLC d/b/a DAVIO'S, 111 S. 17TH STREET, INC. d/b/a DAVIO'S, 201 MAIN STREET LLC d/b/a DAVIO'S, and STEVE DIFILLIPPO, Case No. 1:19-cv-05205 (S.D.N.Y., June 3, 2019), alleges that pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law, the Plaintiffs are entitled to recover from the Defendants unpaid minimum wage, unpaid wages for all hours worked due to improper meal break deduction, unpaid wages due to unreimbursed uniform costs, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs. The Defendants own and operate a nationwide chain of restaurants under the common trade name "Davio's," including one location in New York, four locations in Massachusetts, and two locations in Pennsylvania. Davio's Restaurants are operated by Defendants as a single integrated enterprise. Davio's Restaurants are engaged in the same business of operating restaurants that serve Italian food and steak. Davio's Restaurants are commonly owned by Steve Difillippo.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 30 East 39th Street, Second Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 465-1188 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com anne@leelitigation.com ADDUS HEALTHCARE: Court OKs 2nd Amended Answer in M. Moore Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Oakland Division, issued an Order granting Parties' Stipulation to File Second Amended Answer in the case captioned MARY MOORE, ALEXANDRIA ENCINIAS, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated; Plaintiffs, v. ADDUS HEALTHCARE, INC., an unknown business entity; ADDUS HOMECARE, INC., an unknown business entity; and DOES 2 through 100, inclusive, Defendants. Case No. 4:19-CV-01519-HSG. (N.D. Cal.) The Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint in the Superior Court of California, County of Contra Costa, Case No. MSC18-01989 (FAC). The Defendants filed an Answer to Plaintiffs' FAC. The Defendants filed an Amended Answer to Plaintiffs' FAC. The Plaintiffs filed a motion to strike portions of the Defendants' amended answer to the Plaintiffs' FAC. The parties have met and conferred and the Defendants have provided the Plaintiffs with a copy of the proposed Second Amended Answer (SAA). Upon entry of an Order permitting the filing of the proposed SAA, the Defendants will cause the SAA to be filed and served as soon thereafter as practicable, but in no event more than seven (7) days after the Court's entry of an Order permitting said filing. A full-text copy of the District Court's June 10, 2019 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yyzhg83q from Leagle.com. Mary Moore, individually and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated & Alexandria Encinias, individually and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Edwin Aiwazian -- edwin@lfjpc.com -- Lawyers for Justice, PC, Stanley Donald Saltzman -- ssaltzman@marlinsaltzman.com -- Marlin & Saltzman & Tara Zabehi -- tara@lfjpc.com -- Lawyers for Justice, PC. Addus Healthcare, Inc., an unknown business entity & Addus HomeCare Corporation, an unknown business entity, Defendants, represented by Gary Matthew McLaughlin -- gmclaughlin@akingump.com -- Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, LLP, Gregory William Knopp -- gknopp@akingump.com -- Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP & Victor A. Salcedo -- vsalcedo@akingump.com -- Akin Gump Strauss Hauer Feld LLP. AMAZON.COM INC: Alexa Secretly Records Children, Lawsuits Allege ---------------------------------------------------------------- Tara Seals, writing for Threatpost, reports that two lawsuits are seeking class-action status, alleging that Amazon records children and stores their voiceprints indefinitely. A federal lawsuit is alleging that Amazon is recording children who use its Alexa devices, without their consent or knowledge. Alexa is the built-in voice assistant shipped with devices like Amazon Echo, Amazon Dot, Fire TV and some third-party gadgets. "Alexa routinely records and voiceprints millions of children without their consent or the consent of their parents," reads the complaint, which is seeking class-action status. It was filed in Seattle this week on behalf of a 10-year-old girl. Meanwhile, another, almost identical suit was filed this week in California Superior Court in Los Angeles, on behalf of an 8-year-old boy. "It takes no great leap of imagination to be concerned that Amazon is developing voiceprints for millions of children that could allow the company (and potentially governments) to track a child's use of Alexa-enabled devices in multiple locations and match those uses with a vast level of detail about the child's life, ranging from private questions they have asked Alexa to the products they have used in their home," the California suit states. If the allegations are true, the tech giant would be in violation of laws governing recordings in at least eight states, including California, Florida, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington, which require all parties to consent to a recording, regardless of their age. It would also mean that Amazon has been fraudulent in its child privacy policy, which states, "You choose whether to give us permission to collect Child Personal Information from your child. If you have not given us permission to collect Child Personal Information, we may make available certain voice services intended for children (e.g., certain Alexa kid skills), and we may process your child's voice recordings to provide these services, but we will not store those voice recordings." The federal lawsuit disputes that Amazon is taking such care. "But Alexa does not do this," the lawsuit claims. "At no point does Amazon warn unregistered users that it is creating persistent voice recordings of their Alexa interactions, let alone obtain their consent to do so." The complaints describe how Alexa devices function -- by being called to service with a wake-word, usually "Alexa." It goes on to allege that Alexa captures, records and stores all voices indiscriminately after being woken up, even though the platform is capable of distinguishing different speakers. In a media statement, Amazon reiterated its stance: "Amazon has a longstanding commitment to preserving the trust of our customers and their families, and we have strict measures and protocols in place to protect their security and privacy," the company said. "For customers with kids, we offer FreeTime on Alexa, a free service that provides parental controls and ways for families to learn and have fun together." It's unclear what evidence the plaintiffs have against Amazon; the federal lawsuit only alleges that "Amazon's intentional and unlawful recording caused Plaintiff and the Class members injury to their dignity, well-being and security;" the California litigation states "Amazon's intentional and unlawful recording violated Plaintiffs and the Class members' right to privacy in their confidential communications." Both plaintiffs are asking for a jury trial, however, so presumably more details will come to light. More than 100 million Alexa devices have been sold worldwide, and this isn't the first privacy complaint that Amazon has faced over the home assistant's recording practices. In December, Amazon admitted that it inadvertently sent 1,700 audio files containing recordings of Alexa interactions by a customer to a random person. After a newspaper investigation exposed the snafu, characterized it as a "mishap" that came down to one employee's mistake. And earlier in 2018, a couple said that an Alexa-enabled Echo device had recorded a conversation of them -- without them knowing -- and then sent an audio file to one of their contacts. Other privacy issues around the gadgets have also stirred debate. In April, reports emerged that employees at Amazon were given broad access to geolocation information for Alexa users -- thus uncovering their home addresses and even satellite pictures of their houses generated from a service such as Google Earth. [GN] AMERICA'S TEST KITCHEN: Kittle Sues over Unlawful Disclosure ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action complaint has been filed against America's Test Kitchen LP (ATK) for its intentional and unlawful disclosure of its customers' Personal Reading Information in violation of the Preservation of Personal Privacy Act (PPPA), and for unjust enrichment. The case is captioned STEVEN KITTLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. AMERICA'S TEST KITCHEN LP, a Massachusetts limited partnership, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-11757-TGB-MKM (E.D. Mich., June 13, 2019). Between June 13, 2016 and July 30, 2016, ATK rented, exchanged, and/or otherwise disclosed personal information about Plaintiff Steven Kittle's Cook's Illustrated magazine subscription to data aggregators, data appenders, data cooperatives, and list brokers, among others, which in turn disclosed his information to aggressive advertisers, political organizations, and non-profit companies. As a result, Plaintiff Mr. Kittle has received a barrage of unwanted junk mail. ATK's disclosure of Personal Reading Information, and other personal, demographic, and lifestyle information is not only unlawful, but also dangerous because it allows for the targeting of particularly vulnerable members of society. While ATK profits handsomely from the unauthorized rental, exchange, and/or disclosure of its customers' Personal Reading Information and other personal information, it does so at the expense of its customers' privacy and statutory rights because ATK does not obtain its customers’ written consent prior to disclosing their Personal Reading Information. Accordingly, Plaintiff Mr. Kittle seeks: (1) an injunction requiring Defendant ATK to obtain consent from Michigan customers prior to the disclosure of their Personal Reading Information as required by the PPPA; (2) actual damages, including disgorgement, or $5,000.00, whichever is greater, per Class member pursuant to PPPA Section 5(a); and (3) costs and reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to PPPA Section 5(b). ATK is a Massachusetts limited partnership with its principal place of business at 17 Station Street, Brookline, MA 02445. ATK does business throughout Michigan and the entire United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph I. Marchese, Esq. Philip L. Fraietta, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 888 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: jmarchese@bursor.com pfraietta@bursor.com - and – Frank S. Hedin, Esq. David W. Hall, Esq. HEDIN HALL LLP 1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 900 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 357-2107 Facsimile: (305) 200-8801 E-mail: fhedin@hedinhall.com dhall@hedinhall.com AMERICAN MEDICAL: Faces Gutierrez Suit over Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------- EDGAR GUTIERREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN MEDICAL COLLECTION AGENCY, INC.; OPTUM360, LLC; QUEST DIAGNOSTICS INCORPORATED; and DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case 7:19-cv-05212-KMK (S.D.N.Y., June 3, 2019) is a class action lawsuit against the Defendants' unlawful disclosure of the confidential information of the Plaintiff and the class, and the millions of patients' financial information, medical information, personal information, and other protected health information. According to the complaint, on June 3, 2019, Defendant Quest publicly admitted in a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") 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 Form 8-K, June 3, 2019. 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 have access to Plaintiff's 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. Quest Diagnostics Incorporated provides diagnostic testing, information, and services in the United States and internationally. The company also offers risk assessment services for the life insurance industry; and health information technology solutions for healthcare organizations and clinicians. Quest Diagnostics Incorporated was founded in 1967 and is headquartered in Secaucus, New Jersey. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremiah Frei-Pearson, Esq. D. Greg Blankinship, Esq. Todd S. Garber, Esq. Chantal Khalil, Esq. FINKELSTEIN BLANKINSHIP FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP 445 Hamilton Avenue, Suite 605 White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: 914-298-3281 E-mail: jfrei-pearson@fbfglaw.com gblankinship@fbfglaw.com tgarber@fbfglaw.com ckhalil@fbf glaw.com AMERIPARK LLC: Removes Pool Suit to S.D. California --------------------------------------------------- The Defendants in the case of CARTER POOL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMERIPARK, LLC; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Diego (Case No. 37-2019 00023222-CU-OE-CTL) to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on June 12, 2019. The clerk of court for the Southern District of California assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-01103. The case is assigned to Judge Larry Alan Burns and referred to Magistrate William V Gallo. AmeriPark, LLC operates and manages parking facilities in the United States. The company engages in leasing and outsourcing parking facilities. AmeriPark, LLC was founded in 1986 and is based in Atlanta, Georgia. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Marissa H. Alguire, Esq. Steven P. Gallagher, Esq. AKERMAN LLP 601 West Fifth Street, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 688-9500 Facsimile: (213) 627-6342 E-mail: marissa.alguire@akerman.com steven.gallagher@akerman.com AMP: Maurice Blackburn to Lead Shareholder Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- Eliot Hastie, writing for Mortgage Business, reports that the NSW Supreme Court has selected Maurice Blackburn as the legal firm to take forward a shareholder class action against AMP. Following the banking royal commission, five law firms filed class action lawsuits against the financial services company seeking compensation on behalf of shareholders. The class actions were brought forward by Maurice Blackburn, Slater & Gordon, Phi Finney McDonald and Shine Lawyers following a sharp fall in AMP's share price after testimony at the royal commission last year. During the Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry, several senior AMP executives gave testimony regarding misconduct relating to financial advice, with a number of them admitting to a number of potential crimes. These included providing false and misleading statements to the regulator and charging customers for services that were not provided. The ASX-listed company later announced the immediate resignation of its CEO after it lost more than $1 billion in shareholder value since March 2018, with the losses escalating following the royal commission hearings. On May 23, NSW Supreme Court Judge Julie Ward suggested that only one class action could move forward, and selected the case put forward by Maurice Blackburn, largely due to its "no win, no pay" funding model. "In the present case, the combination of absence of a separate funding commission, the incentive created by an uplift in fees only once a specified resolution sum is achieved, the comparable return based on standardised assumptions and the fact that no common fund order is being sought seems to me to point in favour of the [Maurice Blackburn] funding model," Judge Ward said. An AMP spokesperson welcomed the decision to permit only one class action to proceed and said they would defend against the proceedings. "AMP will continue to vigorously defend the class action proceeding. AMP denies the allegation that it had information that was required to be disclosed to the market regarding ‘fees for no service' and AMP's interactions with ASIC (including in respect of the Clayton Utz report)," they said. AMP also noted that Maurice Blackburn had been ordered to pay millions in security for AMP's legal costs. "The selected class action has been ordered to pay $5 million in security for AMP's costs," said AMP. A class action by Slater & Gordon will be consolidated into the Maurice Blackburn case but with the latter running the litigation alone. Maurice Blackburn's national head of class actions, Andrew Watson, was pleased with the result and said he looked forward to getting on with the job. "We are pleased that the court accepted that Maurice Blackburn's funding model could help deliver the best returns to group members. We look forward to getting on with the important job of obtaining a recovery for affected AMP shareholders." Class actions typically take a long time to reach a conclusion, with the next date set for a directions hearing, which is largely a procedural issue. [GN] APPLE INC: Sued for Disclosing iTunes Listening Data ---------------------------------------------------- Catie Keck, writing for Gizmodo, reports that a new class-action lawsuit claims that Apple is "intentionally and unlawfully" disclosing its customers' iTunes listening data to third parties in violation of state privacy laws. The lawsuit from three individuals from two states, Rhode Island and Michigan, was filed on May 24 in a California district court, Bloomberg reported on May 24. According to the lawsuit, which was published by AppleInsider, the company's "disclosures of the Personal Listening Information of Plaintiffs and the other unnamed Class members were not only unlawful, they were also dangerous because such disclosures allow for the targeting of particularly vulnerable members of society." The suit alleges that Apple has or is sharing data with third parties who can "supplement that information with additional sensitive personal information" that the company discloses about its customers. Many of these third parties, the suit claims, "have in turn re-disclosed plaintiffs' and other unnamed class members' personal listening information to other third parties for further exploitation and monetization -- all without providing prior notice to or obtaining the requisite consent from anyone." As apparent proof of the allegation, the suit points to marketing entities who sell this information. "For example, any person or entity could rent a list with the names and addresses of all unmarried, college-educated women over the age of 70 with a household income of over $80,000 who purchased country music from Apple via its iTunes Store mobile application," the suit states. "Such a list is available for sale for approximately $136 per thousand customers listed." Sharing data about consumers' listening habits can reveal intimate information about them, the lawsuit claims, and can put them at risk of predatory behavior from "fraudulent telemarketers" and others looking to take advantage of vulnerable groups. The suit names at least two marketing entities that allegedly sell such lists. In addition, the lawsuit claims that Apple, without first obtaining permission from its customers, shared detailed user listening data via its developers tools. Issues with the way user listening data was being shared with developers in the past were raised by Ben Dodson on his blog in January of 2016 as well as in a bug report to the company. The suit claims that despite contacting Dodson informing him that the company was aware of the issue, Apple did not resolve it until roughly eight months later with the release of iOS 10. The class action lawsuit is being brought by the plaintiffs on behalf of other Apple customers in their respective states who "had their personal listening information disclosed to third parties by Apple without their consent." The suit is seeking $250 each for those Apple customers in Rhode Island and $5,000 each for those in Michigan. Apple did not immediately return a request for comment. [GN] AQUANTIA CORP: Faces Bushansky Suit over Proposed Merger -------------------------------------------------------- STEPHEN BUSHANSKY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AQUANTIA CORP.; LIP-BU TAN; FARAJ AALAEI; DMITRY AKHANOV; BAMI BASTANI; KEN PELOWSKI; GEOFFREY G. RIBAR; SAM SRINIVASAN, and ANDERS SWAHN, Defendants, Case No. 5:19-cv-03302-LHK (N.D. Cal., June 11, 2019) is a class action brought on behalf of the public stockholders of Aquantia Corp. against Aquantia and the members of its Board of Directors for their violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and to enjoin the vote on a proposed transaction, pursuant to which Aquantia will be acquired by Marvell Technology Group Ltd. through its wholly owned subsidiary, Antigua Acquisition Corp. According to the complaint, on May 6, 2019, Aquantia and Marvell issued a joint press release announcing they had entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger to sell Aquantia to Marvell. Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, Aquantia stockholders will be entitled to receive $13.25 per share in cash for each Aquantia share they own. The Proposed Transaction is valued at approximately $452 million after adjusting for net cash on Aquantia's balance sheet. On May 29, 2019, Aquantia filed a Definitive Proxy Statement on Schedule 14A with the SEC. The Proxy Statement, which recommends that Aquantia stockholders vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction, omits and misrepresents material information concerning, among other things: (i) Aquantia's financial projections relied upon by the Company's financial advisor, Barclays Capital Inc. ("Barclays") in its financial analyses; (ii) the valuation analyses prepared by Barclays in connection with the rendering of its fairness opinion; and (iii) Company insiders' conflicts of interest. Unless remedied, Aquantia's public stockholders will be forced to make a voting or appraisal decision on the Proposed Transaction without full disclosure of all material information concerning the Proposed Transaction being provided to them. Aquantia Corp., together with its subsidiaries, designs, develops, and markets advanced high-speed communication integrated circuits for Ethernet connectivity in the data center, enterprise infrastructure, access, and automotive markets worldwide. Aquantia Corp. was founded in 2004 and is headquartered in San Jose, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joel E. Elkins, Esq. WEISSLAW LLP 9107 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 450 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (310) 208-2800 Facsimile: (310) 209-2348 - and - Richard A. Acocelli, Esq. 1500 Broadway, 16th Floor New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 682-3025 Facsimile: (212) 682-3010 ARATANA THERAPEUTICS: Cooper Says SEC Filings Misleading --------------------------------------------------------- A class action complaint has been filed against Aratana Therapeutics, Inc. and the members of Aratana's board of directors for violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and United States Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 14a-9, 17 C.F.R. Section 240.14a-9, in connection with a proposed transaction in which Aratana will be acquired by, and become a subsidiary of, Elanco Animal Health, Inc. The case is captioned EUGENE COOPER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. ARATANA THERAPEUTICS, INC., CRAIG A. BARBAROSH, DAVID L. BRINKLEY, IRVINE O. HOCKADAY, JR., J.D., MERILEE RAINES, LOWELL W. ROBINSON, ROBERT P. ROCHE, JR., CRAIG TOOMAN, JOHN W. VANDER VORT, J.D., and WENDY YARNO, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01116-UNA (D. Del., June 17, 2019). Plaintiff Eugene Cooper alleges that Defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act by providing Aratana shareholders with materially incomplete and/or misleading information in the proxy statement concerning the company's financial projections, the summary of the fairness analyses of Barclays, Aratana's financial advisor, and in the proxy's "Background of the Merger" section. Aratana is a pet therapeutics company focused on the development and commercialization of innovative therapeutics for dogs and cats. It is a Delaware corporation with its principal executive offices in Leawood, Kansas. Its common stock is listed for trading on the NASDAQ under the ticker symbol "PETX." [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 - and – Carl L. Stine, Esq. WOLF POPPER LLP 845 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 759-4600 Facsimile: (212) 486-2093 E-mail: cstine@wolfpopper.com ARATANA THERAPEUTICS: Rosenblatt Challenges Sale to Elanco ---------------------------------------------------------- JORDAN ROSENBLATT, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. ARATANA THERAPEUTICS, INC., WENDY YARNO, CRAIG TOOMAN, CRAIG A. BARBAROSH, DAVID L. BRINKLEY, IRVINE O. HOCKADAY, JR., MERILEE RAINES, LOWELL W. ROBINSON, ROBERT P. ROCHE, JR., JOHN W. VANDER VORT, ELANCO ANIMAL HEALTH INCORPORATED, and ELANCO ATHENS INC., Case No. 1:19-cv-01030-UNA (D. Del., June 3, 2019), stems from a proposed transaction pursuant to which Aratana will be acquired by Elanco Animal Health Incorporated ("Parent") and Elanco Athens Inc. ("Acquisition Sub"). On April 26, 2019, Aratana's Board of Directors caused the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with Elanco. The Plaintiff contends that the Registration Statement filed in connection with the Proposed Transaction omits material information, which renders the Registration Statement false and misleading. Accordingly, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the Registration Statement. Aratana is a Delaware corporation and maintains its principal executive offices located in Leawood, Kansas. The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company. Aratana Therapeutics is a pet therapeutics company focused on developing and commercializing innovative therapeutics for dogs and cats. Parent is an Indiana corporation and a party to the Merger Agreement. Acquisition Sub is a Delaware corporation, a direct wholly-owned subsidiary of Parent, and a party to the Merger Agreement.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian D. Long, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 295-5310 Facsimile: (302) 654-7530 E-mail: bdl@rl-legal.com gms@rl-legal.com - and - Richard A. Maniskas, Esq. RM LAW, P.C. 1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300 Berwyn, PA 19312 Telephone: (484) 324-6800 Facsimile: (484) 631-1305 E-mail: rm@maniskas.com ARYZTA LLC: Davis Seeks OT Premium Pay, Minimum Wage ---------------------------------------------------- A class action complaint has been filed against Aryzta LLC for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law. The case is captioned DUANE DAVIS, on behalf of himself, and all other plaintiffs similarly situated, known and unknown, Plaintiff, v. ARYZTA LLC , AN ILLINOIS LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-04070 (N.D. Ill., June 18, 2019). Plaintiff Duane Davis has been employed by Defendant as an hourly sanitation porter since approximately March 2018. On a regular basis, Plaintiff worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek without pay at a rate of time and one-half for such hours. In this complaint, Plaintiff also alleges that the Defendant failed to include shift differentials in its calculation of overtime rates paid to him and members of the Plaintiff class. Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks liquidated damages under the FLSA and prays to recover back wages earned on or before the date three years prior to the filing of this action. Aryzta LLC is an Illinois limited liability corporation that owns and operates a commercial kitchen and bakery located at 300 Innovation Dr., Romeoville, IL 60446, where it produces and manufactures food products that are sold by its corporate customers. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John William Billhorn, Esq. BILLHORN LAW FIRM 53 West Jackson Blvd., Suite 401 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 853-1450 ASCENA RETAIL: Howard G. Smith Files Securities Class Action Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased Ascena Retail Group (NASDAQ: ASNA) securities between September 16, 2015 and June 8, 2017, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Ascena Retail investors have until August 6, 2019 to file a lead plaintiff motion. Investors suffering losses on their Ascena Retail investments are encouraged to contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to discuss their legal rights in this class action at 888-638-4847 or by email to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com. On May 18, 2015, the Company announced that it would acquire ANN Inc. for a combination of cash and stock. On September 19, 2016, the Company filed a Form 10-K for fiscal year ended July 30, 2016, that reported $733.9 million goodwill related to ANN, which is a $225.7 million reduction. On this news, the Company's share price fell $2.43, or nearly 30%, to close at $5.69 on September 20, 2016, thereby injuring investors. Then, on May 17, 2017, the Company revised its third quarter and full fiscal year 2017 sales and earnings outlook, further noting that the Company would be taking an unspecified impairment charge. On this news, the Company's share price fell $0.76, or nearly 27%, to close at $2.06 on May 18, 2017, thereby further injuring investors. Then, on June 8, 2017, the Company issued a press release regarding its third quarter financial results, reporting a GAAP loss of $5.29 per diluted share compared to net earnings of $0.08 per diluted share for the same period in the year prior. The loss included a $1.324 billion impairment charge to the Company's goodwill and other intangible assets. The complaint filed in this class action alleges that 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) the Company's acquisition of ANN, Inc., the parent company of Ann Taylor and LOFT, was a complete disaster for the Company as ANN's operations were in far worse condition than had been represented to the public; (2) to mask the true condition of ANN, Defendants improperly delayed recognizing an impairment charge to the value of ANN's goodwill and, as a result, Ascena's reported income and assets were materially overstated and the Company's financial results were not prepared in conformity with GAAP; (3) many of the brands acquired in the ANN acquisition were in steep decline and were also materially overvalued on Ascena's Class Period financial statement; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. If you purchased shares of Ascena Retail, have information, would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters please contact: Howard G. Smith, Esq. Law Offices of Howard G. Smith 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020 Website: www.howardsmithlaw.com Phone: 215-638-4847 Toll free: 888-638-4847 Email: howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com [GN] BADNEWS DELIVERY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Shelhart Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ CAROLYN SHELHART, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BADNEWS DELIVERY INC.; and TOM COOPER, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-03734 (N.D. Ill., June 7, 2019) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff Shelhart was employed by the Defendants as hourly paid employee. Badnews Delivery Inc. provides customers with daily newspapers and periodicals. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Donald R. Brewer, Esq. DONALD R. BREWER AND ASSOCIATES 444 N. Rt. 31 Suite 100 Crystal Lake, IL 60012 Tel: (815) 356-6900 BANK OF AMERICA: Frausto Seeks to Certify Class ----------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit, IRMA FRAUSTO, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, a business entity, form unknown; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-01983-LB (N.D. Cal., June 14, 2019), The Plaintiffs move the Court for an order: 1. certifying a class of: "all persons who worked for Defendant Bank of America, National Association in California as a non-exempt employee at any time during the period beginning on February 22, 2014 and ending when the Court grants class certification, but expressly excluding therefrom any individuals who, as of the date the Court grants class certification, (a) have filed their own separate action as a named plaintiff alleging any of the same claims alleged by Plaintiffs, (b) have opted into a collective action or are class members in a certified class action against Defendant alleging any of the same claims alleged by Plaintiffs, and/or (c) have previously released all claims against Defendant being alleged by Plaintiffs"; 2. appointing Plaintiffs as class representatives; and 3. appointing Plaintiffs' counsel, Bobby Saadian, Justin F. Marquez, Thiago M. Coelho, and Nicol E. Hajjar of Wilshire Law Firm, PLC, and Stephen Noel Ilg of ILG Legal Office, P.C. [CC] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class are: Bobby Saadian, Esq. Justin F. Marquez, Esq. Nicol E. Hajjar, Esq. Thiago M. Coelho, Esq. Robert Dart, Esq. Patty W. Chen, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC 3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12 th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 381-9988 Facsimile: (213) 381-9989 E-mail: bobby@wilshirelawfirm.com justin@wilshirelawfirm.com nicol@wilshirelawfirm.com thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com RDart@wilshirelawfirm.com patty@wilshirelawfirm.com - and - Stephen Noel Ilg, Esq. George L. Lin, Esq. ILG LEGAL OFFICE, P.C. 1001 Bayhill Drive, 2nd Floor San Bruno, CA 94066 Telephone: 415-580-2574 Facsimile: 415-735-3454 E-mail: silg@ilglegal.com glin@ilglegal.com BARRILLEAUX INC: Underpays Helpers, Williams Suit Alleges --------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTOPHER WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BARRILLEAUX, INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:19-CV-00022 (W.D. Tex., June 12, 2019) is an action against the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. Mr. Williams was employed by the Defendant as helper. Barrilleaux, Inc. provides general oilfield construction services. The Company offers land clearing, manlifts, sandblasting, welding, pipeline construction, oilfield location building, and road boaring. Barrilleaux serves customers in the U.S.. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert R. Debes, Jr., Esq. SHELLIST LAZARZ SLOBIN LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 621-2277 Facsimile: (713) 621-0993 E-mail: bdebes@eeoc.net BATCH INC: Duncan Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act in New York ---------------------------------------------------------------- Batch, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Eugene Duncan and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, ADR Provider/Plaintiff v. Batch, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-05667 (S.D. N.Y., June 18, 2019).[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq. The Marks Law Firm PC 175 Varick Street 3rd Floor New York, NY 10014 Tel: (646) 770-3775 Fax: (646) 867-2639 Email: bmarkslaw@gmail.com BFC PARTNERS: Scott et al. Seek Minimum Wage, OT Pay ---------------------------------------------------- A class action complaint has been filed against BFC Partners, L.P. for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New York Labor Law (NYLL). The case is captioned CORY SCOTT, DONELL COLLIER and RODNEY MORGAN, each on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintffs and Class Action Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs, - against – BFC PARTNERS, L.P. and DOE CORPORATIONS 1-5, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-03562 (E.D.N.Y., June 17, 2019). Plaintiffs Cory Scott, Donell Collier, Rodney Morgan others similarly situated were hired as Security Guards to provide 24-hour, 7-day per week security during the construction of Empire Outlets, an outlet shopping mall located on Staten Island that was owned, operated, managed and/or constructed by Defendant. In their complaint, Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant knowingly and willfully failed to pay them and others similarly situated their lawfully earned wages at or above minimum wage in direct contravention of the FLSA and the NYLL. They also assert that the Defendant failed to pay them their lawfully earned overtime wages for all hours worked over 40 hours in a work week. BFC Partners L.P. is a limited partnership duly organized and existing under the laws of the state of New York and does business in city and state of New York, including Richmond County, where Scott, Collier and Morgan worked. It is a builder, developer and landlord of commercial and residential real estate in the city of New York. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brian Heller, Esq. Daniel H. Kovel, Esq. SCHWARTZ PERRY & HELLER, LLP 3 Park Avenue, 27th Fl. New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 889-6565 BLUESTONE LANE: Duncan Files Class Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- Bluestone Lane Roasting, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Eugene Duncan and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Bluestone Lane Roasting, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-05668 (S.D. N.Y., June 18, 2019). Bluestone Lane is a New York-based, Australian-inspired coffee chain.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq. The Marks Law Firm PC 175 Varick Street 3rd Floor New York, NY 10014 Tel: (646) 770-3775 Fax: (646) 867-2639 Email: bmarkslaw@gmail.com BMW NORTH AMERICA: Keys Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal. ----------------------------------------------------- The case, GRETCHEN KEY, an individual, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, a limited liability company, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. CGC-19-575783 (Filed on May 7, 2019), was transferred from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Francisco to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on June 13, 2019. The United States District Court for the Northern District of California assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-03366 to the proceeding. The class action complaint asserts that BMW of North America has violated the California Unfair Competition Law of the California Business and Professions Code. It is subject to removal under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 because it has 100 or members in plaintiff's proposed class; at least some members of the proposed class have a different citizenship from BMW of North America; and its aggregate amount in controversy exceeds $5 million. BMW of North America imports and distributes BMW luxury/performance vehicles. It offers sedans, coupes, convertibles, SAVs, and sports wagons; diesel, hybrid, and electric vehicles; and accessories. [BN] Attorneys for Defendant: Eric Y. Kizirian, Esq. Dyanne Cho, Esq. LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP 633 West 5th Street, Suite 4000 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 250-1800 Facsimile: (213) 250-7900 E-mail: Eric.Kizirian@lewisbrisbois.com Dyanne.Cho@lewisbrisbois.com BRISTOW GROUP: Chapter 11 Suit Automatically Stays Kokareva Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bristow Group Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 18, 2019, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2018, that the consolidated class action suit entitled, Kokareva v. Bristow Group Inc., has been automatically stayed as a result of the company's Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing. Two purported class action complaints, Kokareva v. Bristow Group Inc., Case No. 4:19-cv-0509 and Lilienfield v. Bristow Group Inc., Case No. 4:19-cv-1064, were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas (the "Southern District of Texas Court") on February 14, 2019 and March 21, 2019, respectively. The complaints, which also name Jonathan E. Baliff and L. Don Miller as defendants, allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 arising out of the Company's disclosures and alleged failure to make timely disclosure of inadequate monitoring control processes related to non-financial covenants within certain of its secured financing and lease agreements. On May 17, 2019, the Southern District of Texas Court appointed BRS Investor Group as Lead Plaintiff and consolidated both actions under Kokareva v. Bristow Group Inc., Case No. 4:19-cv-0509. When the Company filed the Chapter 11 Cases on May 11, 2019, the litigation against the Company was automatically stayed. The case was not automatically stayed against the individual defendants, but the Company intends to request that the stay also extend to the individual defendants. On May 31, 2019, the Lead Plaintiff requested that the Southern District of Texas Court schedule an initial conference, and the defendants requested that any conference be postponed until after the Bankruptcy Court decides whether the stay should extend to the individual defendants. The Southern District of Texas Court has not yet set a date for an initial conference. The defendants believe that the claims are without merit and intend to vigorously defend against them. Bristow Group Inc. provides industrial aviation services to the offshore energy companies in Europe Caspian, Africa, the Americas, and the Asia Pacific. The company was formerly known as Offshore Logistics Inc. and changed its name to Bristow Group Inc. in February 2006. Bristow Group Inc. was founded in 1955 and is headquartered in Houston, Texas. On May 11, 2019, Bristow Group Inc. along with its affiliates, filed a voluntary petition for reorganization under Chapter 11 in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas. BROADCOM INC: 9th Cir. Revives Varjabedian Suit v. Emulex --------------------------------------------------------- Broadcom Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 14, 2019, for the quarterly period ended May 5, 2019, that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Court has remanded the case Gary Varjabedian, et al. v. Emulex Corporation, et al., back to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. On April 8, 2015, a putative class action complaint was filed in the U.S. Central District Court, entitled Gary Varjabedian, et al. v. Emulex Corporation, et al., No. 8:15-cv-554-CJC-JCG. The complaint names as defendants Emulex Corporation ("Emulex"), its directors, AT Wireless and Emerald Merger Sub, and purported to assert claims under Sections 14(d), 14(e) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The complaint alleged, among other things, that the board of directors of Emulex failed to provide material information and/or omitted material information from the Solicitation/Recommendation Statement on Schedule 14D-9 filed with the SEC on April 7, 2015 by Emulex, together with the exhibits and annexes thereto. The complaint sought to enjoin the tender offer to purchase all of the outstanding shares of Emulex common stock, as well as certain other equitable relief and attorneys' fees and costs. On July 28, 2015, the U.S. Central District Court issued an order appointing the lead plaintiff and approving lead counsel for the putative class. On September 9, 2015, plaintiff filed a first amended complaint seeking rescission of the merger, unspecified money damages, other equitable relief and attorneys' fees and costs. On October 13, 2015, defendants moved to dismiss the first amended complaint, which the U.S. Central District Court granted with prejudice on January 13, 2016. Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (the "Ninth Circuit Court") on January 15, 2016. The appeal is captioned Gary Varjabedian, et al. v. Emulex Corporation, et al., No. 16-55088. On June 27, 2016, the Plaintiff-Appellant filed his opening brief, on August 17 and August 22, 2016, the Defendants-Appellees filed their answering briefs, and on October 5, 2016 Plaintiff-Appellant filed his reply brief. The Ninth Circuit Court heard oral arguments on October 5, 2017. On April 20, 2018, the Ninth Circuit Court issued an opinion affirming in part and reversing in part the decision of the U.S. Central District Court and remanding Plaintiff-Appellant's claims under Sections 14(e) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act to the U.S. Central District Court for reconsideration. On May 4, 2018, the Defendants-Appellees filed a Petition for Rehearing En Banc with the Ninth Circuit Court. On July 13, 2018, Plaintiff-Appellant filed an Opposition to the Petition for Rehearing En Banc. On September 6, 2018, the Ninth Circuit Court issued an order denying the Petition for Rehearing En Banc. On October 11, 2018, Defendants-Appellees filed a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Supreme Court (the "U.S. Supreme Court"). On January 4, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari. On April 23, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the writ of certiorari as having been improvidently granted. On May 28, 2019, the Ninth Circuit Court remanded the case back to the U.S. Central District Court. Broadcom said, "We believe these claims are all without merit and intend to vigorously defend these actions." Broadcom Inc. designs, develops, and supplies a range of semiconductor devices with a focus on complex digital and mixed signal complementary metal oxide semiconductor based devices and analog III-V based products worldwide. The company operates through four segments: Wired Infrastructure, Wireless Communications, Enterprise Storage, and Industrial & Other. Broadcom Inc. is headquartered in San Jose, California. BUCKEYE PARTNERS: Being Sold Cheaply to IFM, Curtis Says -------------------------------------------------------- A class action complaint has been filed against Buckeye Partners, L.P., its general partner, Buckeye GP, LLC, and Buckeye GP's Board of Directors in connection with their attempt to sell the Partnership to IFM Global Infrastructure Fund, a wholly owned subsidiary of IFM Investors, collectively by means of an unfair process and for an unfair price. The case is captioned HARRY CURTIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BUCKEYE PARTNERS, L.P., OLIVER G. RICHARD III, CLARK C. SMITH, FRANK S. SOWINSKI, BARBARA J. DUGANIER, JOSEPH A. LASCALA, JR., LARRY C. PAYNE, MARTIN A. WHITE, PIETER BAKKER, BARBARA M. BAUMANN, MARK C. MCKINLEY, and BUCKEYE GP, LLC, Defendants, Civil Action No. 4:19-cv-2147 (S.D. Tex., June 13, 2019). On May 10, 2014, IFM and the Partnership announced that they had entered into an agreement and plan of merger that will culminate in IFM, through an affiliated entity, acquiring all of the outstanding units of Buckeye Partners in an all-cash transaction valued at approximately $10.3 billion including assumed debt. Buckeye Partners unitholders are expected to receive $41.50 for each unit of Buckeye Partners they own. However, the Board violated Buckeye Partners' partnership agreement and breached their express and implied contractual duties owed and fiduciary duties to Plaintiff and other Buckeye Partners unitholders by agreeing to the merger for grossly inadequate consideration. On June 7, 2019, the Defendants filed the materially deficient Preliminary Proxy Statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission in an effort to solicit unitholders to vote their Buckeye Partners units in favor of the proposed merger transaction. The Preliminary Proxy is materially deficient, deprives Buckeye Partners unitholders of the information they need to make an intelligent, informed and rational decision of whether to vote their units in favor of the proposed merger transaction, and is thus in breach of Defendants' fiduciary duties. The Preliminary Proxy allegedly omits and/or misrepresents material information concerning, among other things: (a) the sales process; (b) the financial projections for Buckeye Partners, provided by Buckeye Partners to the Partnership's financial advisors Intrepid and Wells Fargo for use in their financial analyses; and (c) the data and inputs underlying the financial valuation analyses that purport to support the fairness opinions provided by the Partnership's financial advisors, Intrepid and Wells Fargo.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas E. Bilek, Esq. THE BILEK LAW FIRM, L.L.P. 700 Louisiana, Suite 3950 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 227-7720 - and – Evan Smith, Esq. Marc L. Ackerman, Esq. BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC Two Bala Plaza, Suite 510 Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 Telephone: (610) 667-6200 Facsimile: (610) 667-9029 CAPITAL ONE: Cohen et al. Sue over Usurious Interests Rates ----------------------------------------------------------- WILLIAM COHEN; SUE PAIVANAS; and CHRISTY OGRODOSKI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CAPITAL ONE FUNDING, LLC; CAPITAL ONE MASTER TRUST; CAPITAL ONE MULTI-ASSET EXECUTION TRUST; THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON CORPORATION, as Trustee of Capital One Master Trust; and DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST COMPANY DELAWARE, as Trustee of Capital One Multi-Asset Execution Trust, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-03479 (E.D.N.Y., June 12, 2019) alleges violation of the New York General Obligations Law and New York Banking law. The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that the Defendants charge, collect, and receive usurious rates of interest from New York consumers, including Plaintiffs and the class, in excess of New York's usury cap in violation of the New York General Obligations Law and New York Banking law. Capital One Funding, LLC offers financial loaning services. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Christian Hudson, Esq. C. William Frick, Esq. Daniel Cohen, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP 4725 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 200 Washington, DC 20016 Telephone: (202) 789-3960 Facsimile: (202) 789-1813 E-mail: charlesl@cuneolaw.com bill@cuneolaw.com christian@cuneolaw.com - and - Shanon J. Carson, Esq. Glen L. Abramson, Esq. Patrick F. Madden, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 Facsimile: (215) 875-4604 E-mail: scarson@bm.net gabramson@bm.net pmadden@bm.net CARBON AND CLAY: Boyadjian Says Toothpaste "Misbranded" ------------------------------------------------------- RAFFI BOYADJIAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CARBON AND CLAY COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-05129 (C.D. Cal., June 12, 2019) alleges that Defendant's toothpaste brand, My Magic Mud Activated Charcoal Toothpaste, is misbranded and falsely advertised, in violation of consumer protection laws. According to the complaint, the Defendant's claim that its toothpaste product whitens teeth is inaccurate and misleads consumers. At best, the toothpaste product temporarily whitens teeth by removing surface stains, but it ultimately dulls teeth and leaves them a yellowish color because the toothpaste product removes enamel, which is the outer protective layer on a tooth. According to new research published in the British Dental Journal, instead of whitening your teeth, charcoal toothpaste actually damages teeth. Indeed, the study says that the addition of activated charcoal in toothpaste is merely a "marketing gimmick." Carbon And Clay Company is a Texas corporation that manufactures household goods, including toothpastes, powers, and dentifrices. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ronald A. Marron, Esq. Michael T. Houchin, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON 651 Arroyo Drive San Diego, CA 92103 Telephone: (619) 696-9006 Facsimile: (619) 564-6665 E-mail: ron@consumeradvocates.com mike@consumeradvocates.com CBSC INC: Angeles Files FDCPA Class Suit in N.D. Ohio ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against CBSC, Inc. The case is styled as Sarah Angeles, a/k/a/ Sarah Faber, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CBSC, Inc., d/b/a Centralized Business Solutions Company, and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 5:19-cv-01405 (N.D. Ohio, June 18, 2019). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. CBSC, Inc is a debt collection agency in Ohio.[BN] The Plaintiff appears PRO SE. CENTRAL CREDIT: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned TROY NORTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. CENTRAL CREDIT SERVICES, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-00880-LA (E.D Wisc.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order certifying a class, appointing the Plaintiff as class representative, and appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as Class Counsel, and for such other and further relief as the Court may deem appropriate. The Plaintiff further asks that the Court stay this class certification motion until an amended motion for class certification is filed, and that the Court grant the parties relief from the local rules' automatic briefing schedule and requirement that Plaintiff file a brief and supporting documents in support of this motion. To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the certification motion. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) ("The pendency of that motion [for class certification] protects a putative class from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs."). While the Seventh Circuit has held that the specific procedure described in Campbell-Ewald cannot force the individual settlement of a class representative's claims, the same decision cautions that other methods may prevent a plaintiff from representing a class. Fulton Dental, LLC v. Bisco, Inc., 860 F.3d 541, 545-46 (7th Cir. 2017).[CC] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: John D. Blythin, Esq. Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. Jesse Fruchter, Esq. Ben J. Slatky, Esq. Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482-8000 Facsimile: (414) 482-8001 E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com meldridge@ademilaw.com jfruchter@ademilaw.com bslatky@ademilaw.com CHASE BANK: Young Sues Over Illegal Credit Card Interest Charges ---------------------------------------------------------------- KIRA YOUNG, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Chase Bank USA, N.A., JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. and JP Morgan Chase & Co., Case No. 1:19-cv-01026-UNA (D. Del., June 3, 2019), arises from Chase's alleged routine practice of charging interest on credit card accounts on transactions that are fully paid by the billing period due date. According to the complaint, Chase, like other major credit card companies, provides consumers an interest-free period, also called a grace period, to pay off new purchases. In reality, Ms. Young contends, Chase routinely denies consumers the grace period on new purchases to which they are promised. She argues that this practice is not only a breach of contract, it is also unfair and deceptive. Chase Bank USA, N.A., is a federal bank incorporated under the laws of the state of Delaware. Chase is the second largest credit card issuer in the United States and has approximately $131.23 billion in outstanding credit card loans to consumers. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., is a national association with its principal office located in Columbus, Ohio. Both Chase Bank USA, N.A. and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. are wholly owned subsidiaries of JPMorgan Chase & Co., a massive financial services company principally located in the City and State of New York. JP Morgan Chase & Co. is incorporated in Delaware.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: P. Bradford deLeeuw, Esq. ROSENTHAL, MONHAIT & GODDESS, P.A. 919 N. Market Street, Suite 1401 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 656-4433 E-mail: bdeleeuw@rmgglaw.com - and - Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq. Jason S. Rathod, Esq. MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP 412 H Street N.E., Suite 302 Washington, DC 20002 Telephone: (202) 470-3520 E-mail: nmigliaccio@wbmllp.com jrathod@wbmllp.com - and - Jeffrey Kaliel, Esq. Sophia Gold, Esq. KALIEL PLLC 1875 Connecticut Avenue, NW, 10th Floor Washington, DC 2009 Telephone: (202) 350-4783 E-mail: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com sgold@kalielpllc.com CHICAGO, IL: No Due Process over Towing Practices, Santiago Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- ANDREA SANTIAGO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CITY OF CHICAGO, Defendant, Case No. 2019CH07023 (Ill. Cir., Cook Cty., June 11, 2019) sues over the lack of due process in the impounding and selling of towed motor vehicles. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant takes vehicles with no warning or opportunity to contest the claim of abandonment prior to the seizure. While the Defendant allegedly sends a notice of impoundment to the owner after it has already been impounded, the Defendant fails to send the required additional notice when the Defendants intends on disposing of the vehicle. As a result, thousands of cars are in effect stolen from citizens of Chicago and sold without proper notice and due process.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jacie C. Zolna, Esq. Myron M. Cherry, Esq. Benjamin R. Swetland, Esq. Jeremiah Nixon, Esq. Jessica C. Chavin, Esq. MYRON M. CHERRY & ASSOCIATES LLC 30 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2300 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 372-2100 COMMUNITY CREDIT: Fails to Provide Repo Notice, Bastian Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- NATHAN BASTIAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COMMUNITY CREDIT UNION OF LYNN, Defendant, Case No. 19-0719 (Mass. Super., June 3, 2019) is an action against the Defendant for failure to provide the Plaintiff and the class all appropriate repossession notice and information required by the Massachusetts law. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the repossession notice sent by the Defendant is erroneous. The repossession notice provides that the Defendant will dispose the Plaintiff's vehicle by private sale without further notice; the proceeds of the sale of the vehicle shall be applied first to the costs of the sale, second to the cost of retaking, storing and attorney's fees, and third to unpaid balance and accrued charges. The repossession notice also did not inform the Plaintiff of his right to an accounting of the total amount due to the Defendant. Community Credit Union of Lynn (CCU) operates as a cooperative bank. The Bank offers products and services such as savings accounts, debit and credit cards, personal and business loans, cash management, online banking, mortgages, equipment financing, and certificate of deposits. CCU serves customers in the State of Massachusetts. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raven Moeslinger, Esq. Nicholas F. Ortiz, Esq. Colin D. Creager, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF NICHOLAS F. ORTIZ, PC 99 High Street, Suite 304 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617)338-9400 DARTMOUTH COLLEGE: Female Science Students' Class Action Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- VTDigger reports that Dartmouth College President Phil Hanlon earned more than $1.4 million in total compensation in 2017, a 6% increase from the previous year, according to recently released tax returns for the college. The package for Hanlon, who has served as Dartmouth president since 2013, consisted of a base salary of $1 million, $178,000 in "retirement and other deferred compensation," and also included first-class or charter travel, travel expenses for his wife as a companion, and housekeeping services, according to the tax return for the fiscal year that ended in June 2018, but which also includes compensation for top college officials in calendar 2017. By comparison, Christina Paxson, the president of Brown University, made $1.5 million in 2017, and Princeton University President Christopher Eisgruber received $992,000 in total compensation. At Harvard University, then-President Drew Faust made $1.7 million. Dartmouth, which is the smallest school in the Ivy League, provided housing both for Hanlon and for Carolyn Dever, the provost who stepped down at the end of November 2017. Dever was paid around $804,000 that year. Former Dartmouth Chief Investment Officer Pamela Peedin, who stepped down in March 2017, was the second-highest paid employee at $922,000. In 2016, her compensation totaled $1.3 million. Members of the investment office, who manage Dartmouth's $5.5 billion endowment, saw the biggest increases in the year, ranging from 10% to 16%. One exception was Deputy Chief Investment Officer Kelsey Morgan, whose compensation increased 31% from around $692,000 to $908,000. At Princeton, the director of the investment office took in $5.5 million while the chief investment officer at Brown University made $1.2 million in compensation, though the schools have different sized endowments and endowment-to-student ratios than Dartmouth. Asked about the increased compensation for Hanlon and other college officials, Dartmouth spokeswoman Diana Lawrence said by email, "The compensation for President Hanlon and the deputy chief investment officer is competitive with that of their peers at comparable institutions." Dartmouth in fiscal year 2018 cut 37 jobs, mostly staff positions, to devote more money toward faculty. Total compensation paid to all Dartmouth employees in that period increased by 1.4%, according to an internal Dartmouth document obtained by the Valley News. In 2017, 13 Dartmouth administrators and employees made more than $500,000, little change from 2016 when 14 employees earned above that threshold. Among the other highest-compensated Dartmouth employees were three managing directors in the investment office: Anand Desai at $701,000; Megan Hammond at $816,000; and Michael Sullivan at $806,000. Others included Tuck School of Business Dean Matthew Slaughter at $870,000; Geisel School of Medicine Dean Duane Compton at $807,000; Executive Vice President Rick Mills at $709,000; and Geisel Psychiatry Department Chairman Alan Green at $705,000. Legal expenses grew by 38%, to $2.9 million, between fiscal year 2017 and fiscal year 2018, but Dartmouth officials declined to say if the $800,000 increase was related to the internal inquiry, which began in 2017, of allegations of sexual misconduct involving three professors in the Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences. The three professors have since been ousted, and Dartmouth is now defending itself in a $70 million class-action lawsuit brought by nine female science students. Lawrence indicated Dartmouth was seeking an alternative to a civil trial and was "exploring mediation" to resolve the claims. Dartmouth trustees earlier this year approved an operating budget of just under $1.1 billion for the college. Tuition, room-and-board in the fall will increase by 3.9%, to $73,578. [GN] DE WAFELBAKKERS: Goodman Seeks Minimum Wage, Overtime Pay --------------------------------------------------------- A class action complaint has been filed against De Wafelbakkers, LLC for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act (AMWA). The case is captioned WILLIAM GOODMAN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, PLAINTIFF, vs. DE WAFELBAKKERS, LLC., DEFENDANT, Case No. 4:19-cv-00427-BRW (E.D. Ark., June 18, 2019). Plaintiff William Goodman alleges that the De Wafelbakkers, LLC failed to pay him and all others similarly situated a lawful minimum wage and overtime wages as required by the FLSA and AMWA. Plaintiff William Goodman worked for Defendant as an hourly-paid shift worker at the North Little Rock, Arkansas food production location. Headquartered in North Little Rock, Arkansas, De Wafelbakkers, LLC is a domestic, limited liability company operating under the laws of the state of Arkansas, manufacturing frozen pancakes distributed throughout the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chris Burks, Esq. WH LAW,PLLC 1 Riverfront Pl. - Suite 745 North Little Rock, AR 72114 Telephone: (501) 891-6000 E-mail: chris@whlawoffices.com DENKA PERFORMANCE: Grant of Leave to File SAC in Butler Reversed ---------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana issued an Order and Reasons reversing the magistrate judge's judgment granting Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Class Action Petition in the case captioned JUANEA L. BUTLER, individually and as representative of all others similarly situated, v. DENKA PERFORMANCE ELASTOMER LLC, ET AL. Civil Action No. 18-6685. (E.D. La.). Before the Court is E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company's Rule 72(a) appeal of the magistrate judge's order on plaintiff's motion for leave to file second amended class action petition. This environmental tort litigation arises from the production of neoprene at the Pontchartrain Works Facility (PWF) in St. John the Baptist Parish. During the manufacturing process, neoprene production allegedly exposes those living in the vicinity of the PWF to concentrated levels of chloroprene, a likely human carcinogen. DuPont, Denka, DEQ, and DOH moved to dismiss the plaintiff's claims. Meanwhile, while the motions to dismiss were pending, the plaintiff moved for leave to amend her complaint; the contested motion to amend was automatically referred to the magistrate judge. DuPont opposed the motion to amend on the ground of futility, resorting to the same prescription arguments advanced in its motion to dismiss. The Court granted the motions to dismiss with the proviso regarding the submitted motion for leave to amend pending before the magistrate judge. The magistrate judge granted in part and denied in part the plaintiff's motion for leave to file second amended class action petition. DuPont now appeals from the portion of the magistrate judge's Order insofar as it allows the plaintiff to amend her complaint to state a strict liability claim against DuPont. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), a party may appeal the ruling of the magistrate judge to the district judge. A magistrate judge is afforded broad discretion in the resolution of non-dispositive motions. If a party objects to a magistrate judge's ruling on a non-dispositive matter, the Court will disturb a magistrate's ruling only when the ruling is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law. A finding is clearly erroneous when the reviewing Court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. The Court dismissed as prescribed the plaintiff's claims against DuPont. A contested motion to amend the complaint had been argued and submitted to the magistrate judge at that time. About a month later, the magistrate judge ruled that the plaintiff's proposed amended claims against DuPont are prescribed, except for the plaintiff's strict liability claim. That strict liability claim, the magistrate judge wrote, was viable because DuPont maintains ownership of the land and buildings that continue to produce the chloroprene resulting in toxic and hazardous emissions. DuPont challenges this ruling as to strict or custodial liability because it is based on (i) a misstatement of the plaintiff's allegations regarding DuPont's ownership and (ii) a misapplication of the standard for garde under Louisiana law. The Court agrees. The dispute on appeal concerns whether the plaintiff alleges facts that, if proved, demonstrate that DuPont maintained ownership of the neoprene production units, in other words, that the thing which caused the damages was in the care, custody, and control (garde) of DuPont. If so, then the Court must affirm the magistrate judge. If not, then the magistrate judge erred and the portion of her order granting leave to amend as to DuPont must be reversed. Because the plaintiff alleges that, since 2015, only Denka controlled the neoprene units and operated the allegedly faulty chloroprene emitting equipment during the neoprene manufacturing process, reversal is warranted. The plaintiff alleges that DuPont owned and operated the PWF from 1969 to 2015, then sold it to Denka. During the sale, the plaintiff alleges, DuPont retained ownership of the entirety of the PWF land and buildings, including the building where it currently manufactures Kevlar. The plaintiff also alleges that Denka purchased DuPont's neoprene manufacturing and production business and units in 2015. The plaintiff alleges that, since 2015, when Denka purchased DuPont's neoprene manufacturing and production business and units, Denka has operated the neoprene units, has manufactured neoprene, and thereby emitted chloroprene. It is the health hazards of chloroprene exposure that form the basis of the plaintiff's causes of action. As to the strict liability cause of action in particular, the plaintiff states that each of the Manufacturing Defendants, during separate periods of time, have had ownership, care, custody, and control of the neoprene units of the PWF; and DuPont has maintained care, custody, and control of the PWF since 1969 and the neoprene units and the PWF contained defects, ruin, and/or vices. The defects listed include certain allegedly faulty properties of the valves, tanks, or other aspects of the neoprene units. Reading the plaintiff's amended allegations in light of the legal standard for garde, the plaintiff's strict liability claim against DuPont fails as a matter of law and, therefore, leave to amend this claim should have been denied as futile. Nowhere in her original or amended petitions does the plaintiff allege that after 2015 DuPont retained ownership, direction, control, or anything approximating garde over the neoprene manufacturing operations or neoprene units the things that are the objects with respect to the issue of custody at the PWF. There are no factual allegations that, if proved, would support imposition of custodial or strict liability on DuPont. Standing alone, mere ownership of the land and buildings of the PWF is insufficient to state a plausible strict or custodial liability claim against DuPont when the plaintiff's own allegations state that, since 2015, Denka alone had custody over and operated the objects allegedly causing the harm, the allegedly faulty neoprene units operated during the manufacturing process. Because the challenged amendment would be futile, the Court must reverse that portion of the magistrate judge's order allowing the plaintiff to amend her strict liability claim against DuPont. The plaintiff's motion for leave to file a second amended class action petition is granted; the magistrate judge's order is reversed in relevant part. A full-text copy of the District Court's June 10, 2019 Order and Reasons is available at https://tinyurl.com/y2ho9ctc from Leagle.com. Juanea L Butler, Individually and as representative of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Danny Dustin Russell, Russell Law Firm, LLC, 733 E. Airport Avenue, Suite 201, Baton Rouge, LA 70806 Denka Performance Elastomer LLC, Defendant, represented by James Conner Percy -- jpercy@joneswalker.com -- Jones Walker, Brett S. Venn -- bvenn@joneswalker.com -- Jones Walker, Justin J. Marocco -- jmarocco@joneswalker.com -- Jones Walker, Michael A. Chernekoff -- mchermekoff@joneswalker.com -- Jones Walker & Michael R. Rhea -- mrhea@joneswalker.com -- Jones Walker. DIRECTIONAL PROJECT: Collective Action Conditionally Certified -------------------------------------------------------------- WOODROW BRATCHER, JR., INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, ET AL., the Plaintiffs, vs. DIRECTIONAL PROJECT SUPPORT, INC., WILLIAM GARDNER, INDIVIDUALLY, the Defendants, Case No. 5:18-cv-00631-FB-RBF (W.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Richard B. Farrer entered an order: 1. conditionally certifying a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act: "all current and former employees of Directional Project Support Inc. who were paid on a basis that did not account for their actual hours of work but by the day, shift, or hybrid basis, and who worked from three years prior to the date the Court enters this Order to the present"; 2. directing Defendants to produce the names, last known addresses, email addresses, and telephone numbers of the Class Members ("Employee Information"); 3. authorizing the Notice submitted to the Parties' Joint Stipulation, may be immediately issued to those individuals whose names are being provided as required by this Order. The Court said, "The Defendants shall provide the Employee Information in an electronic form that can be used by Plaintiff in mailing out the Court-approved Notice. This information must be produced to Plaintiff within 10 days of the entry of this Order. If Defendants fail to provide the Employee Information within 10 days of the date this Order is signed, the statute of limitations is equitably tolled for each day after the tenth day that Defendants fail to provide the Employee Information, to the extent permitted by law. The Consent to Join form previously submitted by opt-in plaintiffs shall be enclosed with the Notice to Potential Plaintiffs, along with a self-addressed, postage paid return envelope for U.S. Postal Mailing. The Notice and Consent forms shall be mailed by first class mail or overnight delivery at Plaintiffs' attorneys' expense and may also be sent electronically. The Potential Plaintiffs shall be provided 75 days after the date the Notice and Consent forms are initially mailed or sent to return a Consent to Join form opting-in to this litigation. A Consent to Join that is postmarked on the deadline is considered timely. Consents received by mail without postmarks shall be considered timely if received within five business days of the deadline. Plaintiff shall provide the Court and opposing counsel with a notice indicating the date on which the Notice forms were initially mailed so the Court and the Parties are advised of the beginning of the opt-in period. Within 10 days after the close of the Opt-In Period, Plaintiffs' counsel will file the consent forms for the Opt-In Plaintiffs, noting the signed date for each individual on the Consent to Join form. The case shall remain stayed until the expiration of 45 days after the close of the opt-in period. Within 30 days after the close of the opt-in period, the parties shall re-convene mediation with mediator Dennis Clifford or otherwise enter into good-faith negotiations. If settlement is not achieved within that 45-day period, the parties shall notify the Court via a joint advisory, and the Court will set the matter for a hearing. Extensions of these deadlines may be requested by motion, if needed."[CC] DIVERSIFIED CONSULTANTS: Court Dismisses Ulrich FDCPA Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey issued an Opinion granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case captioned CARL ULRICH, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. DIVERSIFIED CONSULTANTS INTERNATIONAL, doing business as DIVERSIFIED CONSULTANTS, INC. Defendant. Civil Action No. 18-15794 (FLW). (D.N.J.). This putative class action arises out of Plaintiff Carl Ulrich's claim that Diversified Consultants, Inc., violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), by sending a false or misleading debt collection letter that failed to effectively inform the Plaintiff what he must do in order to dispute the alleged debt. The Plaintiff alleges that DCI violated 1) 15 U.S.C. Section 1692e by making false, deceptive, or misleading representations or means in connection with the collection of the debt that makes the Letter open to more than one reasonable interpretation, at least one of which is inaccurate and 2) that DCI violated 15 U.S.C. Section 1692g, by falsely misstating the consumer's rights by omitting the requirement that he must request validation and make any dispute of the debt in writing. Section 1692g In the Complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant violated Section 1692g by falsely misstating the consumer's rights by omitting the requirement that he must request validation and make any dispute of the debt in writing. The Plaintiff argues that the Defendant's Letter is open to more than one reasonable interpretation, at least one of which is inaccurate. As such, the Plaintiff maintains that using the word if in the second sentence of the debt collection Letter implies that the writing requirement is voluntary, and that when coupled with the first sentence's failure to contain any mention of the word writing, it is confusing to the least sophisticated debtor as to what his actual requirements are for properly disputing the debt, and thus, in violation of Section 1692g. Here, the at-issue validation notice reads as follows: "Unless you notify this office within 30 days after receiving this notice that you dispute the validity of this debt, or any portion thereof, this office will assume this debt is valid. If you notify this office in writing within 30 days from receiving this notice that you dispute the validity of this debt, or any portion thereof, this office will obtain verification of the debt or obtain a copy of a judgment and mail you a copy of such judgment or verification. If you request of this office in writing within 30 days after receiving this notice, this office will provide you the name and address of the original creditor, if different from the current creditor." The Court notes that the language of the validation notice mirrors the statutory language set forth in 15 U.S.C. Section 1692g(a). The Plaintiff takes issue with the word if used in the notice. The Plaintiff argues that the first sentence of the notice does not explicitly direct the debtor to submit a dispute in writing, and he further contends that the next two sentences, despite referencing an in writing requirement, are nonetheless couched in permissive terms. In other words, the Plaintiff suggests that such language leaves the door open for the debtor to conclude that a written dispute is merely an option, but not required. The Court finds that this interpretation is strained even when the least sophisticated debtor standard is applied. The least sophisticated debtor standard does not offer relief to the willfully blind or those who act carelessly. When applying the least sophisticated debtor standard, the consumer is presumed to have read the whole Letter. In that regard, the consumer would understand that the notification mentioned in the second sentence refers to the first; that is, read together, unless the debtor disputes the debt in writing, the debt would be presumed valid. The use of the word if in the validation notice, as it was used here, would not confuse a consumer as to how to dispute the debt because the Letter does not suggest that a debtor may dispute the debt in any other method besides the in-writing requirement. Furthermore, the Letter uses language that mirrors the statutory language provided in Section 1692g(a), without providing confusing, alternative ways to dispute the debt that would contradict the validation. DCI likely relied upon the plain language of the statute and mirrored such language in its debt collection letters. As a matter of fairness, Defendant should not be subjected to statutory liability in this context when it reasonably relied on the very statute to craft the notice at issue. Thus, the Court do not deem the language of the Letter to be an abusive debt collection practice because it closely tracks the statutory language provided in Section 1692g(a). Section 1692e The Plaintiff's Section 1692e claim is premised on the same allegations as his Section 1692g claim. Because the Plaintiff's Section 1692g claim fails, similarly, his Section 1692e claim also fails. Under Section 1692e(10), the use of any false representation or deceptive means to collect or attempt to collect any debt or to obtain information concerning a consumer is prohibited. When allegations under 15 U.S.C. Section 1692e(10) are based on the same language or theories as allegations under 15 U.S.C. Section 1692g, the analysis of the Section 1692g claim is usually dispositive. Therefore, for the reasons why the Plaintiff fails to state a claim under Section 1692g, his claim under Section 1692e also fails for the same reasons. A full-text copy of the District Court's June 10, 2019 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/y549z3w2 from Leagle.com. CARL ULRICH, Plaintiff, represented by YAAKOV SAKS, Stein Saks, PLLC. DIVERSIFIED CONSULTANTS INTERNATIONAL, doing business as DIVERSIFIED CONSULTANTS, INC., Defendant, represented by AARON RAPHAEL EASLEY, SESSIONS, FISHMAN, NATHAN & ISRAEL, LLC. ELDERSERVE HEALTH: Bellin Files Class Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against ElderServe Health, Inc. The case is styled as Rosalind Bellin, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Howard A Zucker, in his official capacity as Commissioner, New York State Department of Health and ElderServe Health, Inc. d.b.a. RiverSpring at Home, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-05694 (S.D. N.Y., June 18, 2019). The lawsuit arises under Civil Rights Act. ElderServe Health, Inc. is a home health care service in New York City, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Aytan Yehoshua Bellin, Esq. Bellin & Associates 85 Miles Avenue White Plains, NY 10606 Tel: (212) 358-5345 Fax: (212) 571-0284 Email: aytan.bellin@bellinlaw.com ELECTRONICS FOR IMAGING: Wheby Says Proxy Statement Misleading -------------------------------------------------------------- EARL M. WHEBY, JR., Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. ELECTRONICS FOR IMAGING, INC., GILL COGAN, DAN MAYDAN, RICHARD KASHNOW, TOM GEORGENS, ERIC BROWN, JANICE DURBIN CHAFFIN, BILL MUIR, and GUY GECHT, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01094-UNA (D. Del., June 13, 2019), alleges that the Defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (in connection with the Proxy Statement. The action stems from a proposed transaction announced on April 15, 2019, pursuant to which Electronics For Imaging, Inc.will be acquired by affiliates of Siris Capital Group, LLC. On April 14, 2019, EFI's Board of Directors caused the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with East Private Holdings II, LLC and East Merger Sub, Inc. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, EFI's stockholders will receive $37.00 in cash for each share of EFI common stock they own. On June 11, 2019, the Defendants filed a proxy statement with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the Proposed Transaction, which scheduled a stockholder vote on the Proposed Transaction for July 15, 2019. The Proxy Statement omits material information with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the Proxy Statement false and misleading, the lawsuit says. Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Brian D. Long, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 295-5310 Facsimile: (302) 654-7530 E-mail: bdl@rl-legal.com gms@rl-legal.com - and - Richard A. Maniskas, Esq. RM LAW, P.C. 1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300 Berwyn, PA 19312 Telephone: (484) 324-6800 Facsimile: (484) 631-1305 E-mail: rm@maniskas.com ENHANCED RECOVERY: Court Certifies Class in J. Robinson FDCPA Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania issued a Memorandum Opinion granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification in the case captioned JOSHUA ROBINSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ENHANCED RECOVERY COMPANY d/b/a, Defendant. Civil Action No. 18-441. (E.D. Pa.). Plaintiff Joshua Robinson brings this putative class action pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), against Defendant Enhanced Recovery Company, doing business as ERC (Defendant). In his complaint, the Plaintiff asserts a claim on behalf of himself and a purported class of similarly-situated debtors against Defendants for charging an unauthorized convenience fee to pay his debt by phone, in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). In the instant motion, the Plaintiff moves to certify a class of similarly-situated individuals based on the allegations in his complaint. Plaintiff defines the proposed class members as: All consumers with a Pennsylvania address that paid a convenience fee by phone to Defendant for payments for personal, household, or family debts originating with Comcast Cable Communications within one year prior to the filing of the complaint. The Defendant opposes the motion on the following grounds; to wit: the Plaintiff and his class counsel should not be permitted to represent the proposed class because this case is a product of an allegedly improper client referral scheme; the Plaintiff has failed to satisfy the commonality requirement for class actions; and the Plaintiff has failed to adequately define the proposed class. Here, the Plaintiff seeks certification of the proposed class, as previously defined, pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3). This Rule permits certification when the court finds that questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members and that a class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy. Ascertainability As a prerequisite to class certification, a plaintiff first must show by a preponderance of the evidence that there is a reliable and administratively feasible method for ascertaining the class. To meet this prerequisite, the class must be defined with reference to objective criteria. Second, there must be a reliable and administratively feasible mechanism for determining whether putative class members fall within the class definition. This Court finds that the proposed class is sufficiently ascertainable. The proposed class is limited to Pennsylvania residents who paid a convenience fee to Defendant for the option of paying a debt owed to Comcast by phone. Members of the proposed class can likely be identified through a review of Defendant's company records. Plaintiff asserts, and Defendant does not dispute, that based on Defendant's representations made during discovery, the number of potential class members is approximately 3,184. Accordingly, the Plaintiff has satisfied the preliminary Rule 23(a) considerations. Rule 23(a) Requirements To determine whether class certification is appropriate and Plaintiff's motion should be granted, an analysis of each Rule 23(a) factor is required. Numerosity Under Rule 23(a)(1), the court must determine whether the potential class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. No minimum number of plaintiffs is required to maintain a suit as a class action, but generally if the named plaintiff demonstrates that the potential number of plaintiffs exceeds 40, the first prong of Rule 23(a) has been met. The Plaintiff asserts that based on the Defendant's representations through the discovery process, the number of potential class members is approximately 3,184. The Defendant does not contest that Plaintiff has met the numerosity requirement. This Court finds that the Plaintiff has satisfied the numerosity requirement. Commonality Pursuant to Rule 23(a)(2), a court must also determine whether there are questions of law or fact common to the class, ordinarily known as commonality. Under the Rule, commonality requires the plaintiff to demonstrate that the class members have suffered the same injury. Here, in opposing class certification, the Defendant essentially argues that the Plaintiff has not established commonality because the Plaintiff's claims should fail on the merits. In support of this position, the Defendant reasserts its summary judgment motion argument; to wit: that the convenience fee charge was permissible under the FDCPA and constituted a reasonable cost of collection authorized by the Comcast Agreement as it fell in the category of any collection agency's fees. The Court finds that there are several common questions of fact and law. As noted, the proposed class consists of consumers within Pennsylvania who paid the Defendant a convenience fee to pay a debt owed to Comcast over the phone. As such, the factual basis of the claim is common to all of these potential class plaintiffs. This legal issue is common to all proposed class members as each class member's claim will be dependent on the determination of whether the assessment of the convenience fee was or was not a violation of the FDCPA. Plaintiff has met the commonality requirement. Typicality Under Rule 23(a)(3), a court must also determine whether the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class. Typicality and commonality are closely related and often merge. The facts and legal underpinnings of the Plaintiff's case are typical to those of the proposed class. While there may be some factual disparities, such as some members having negotiated the convenience fee as Plaintiff did, these disparities should not pose a conflict between the Plaintiff and the class members he seeks to represent. Each class member's claim arises from the same quoted convenience fee attributed to debts accrued to Comcast. The Plaintiff's legal theory and the burden of proof are the same as they would be for each member of the putative class. Therefore, this Court finds that the typicality requirement is also satisfied. Adequacy Under Rule 23(a)(4), a court must also determine whether the proposed class representative will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. With regard to class representatives, to meet the adequacy requirement, findings must be made that (1) the Plaintiff's interests do not conflict with those of the class, and (2) the proposed class counsel are capable of representing the class. Here, the Defendant challenges the adequacy of counsel and the Plaintiff by alleging that counsel participated in an unethical referral scheme with a non-party credit repair company, through which the credit repair company made referrals to counsel in exchange for legal services, and that the Plaintiff, although not bound by the Rules of Professional Conduct as a non-attorney, has been irrevocably tainted, because he referred maybe a dozen prospective clients to the credit repair company. Based on the submissions before it, this Court finds that the Plaintiff and counsel will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class, given the alignment of Plaintiff's interests with that of the class and the qualifications and experience of counsel. Rule 23(b)(3) Requirements Predominance Factor The predominance requirement tests whether proposed classes are sufficiently cohesive to warrant adjudication by representation. Issues common to the class must predominate over individual issues. In arguing that the Plaintiff has not met the Rule 23(b) requirements, the Defendant asserts that the proposed class is too broad because it could encompass consumers who, through negotiating with the Defendant, paid a convenience fee equal to or less than the actual costs incurred by the Defendant to offer the payment-by-phone option. The Defendant notes that the Plaintiff himself negotiated his convenience fee down from $12.95 to $6.95. In response, the Plaintiff argues that this argument is miscast as a predominance issue and unpersuasive. This Court agrees with the Plaintiff. The fact that the Defendant can speculate that some putative class members may have successfully negotiated the convenience fee down to an amount actually incurred by the Defendant to offer the pay-by-phone option has no bearing on the viability of the putative class members' claims. As an analogue, defendants in other cases have argued that they did not violate Section 1692f(1) by charging debtors an allegedly impermissible convenience fee to pay by credit card, or over the phone, because they also offered the debtors other options of paying without the convenience fee. Courts, however, have roundly rejected these arguments. Similarly, this Court concludes that if the convenience fee is found to be a violation of Section 1692f(1), the fact that a class member might have successfully negotiated it down to an amount that arguably would not have been a violation of Section 1692f(1) would not destroy that class member's Section 1692f(1) claim. In any event, for purposes of predominance, the Court concludes that the issue common to the class whether they paid a convenience fee after being quoted $12.95 predominates over individual issues, such as how much they actually paid. As such, this Court finds that the questions of law or fact common to class members that involve liability predominate over questions involving only individual members. Superiority Under the second criterion of Rule 23(b), this Court must find that a class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy. The Third Circuit has noted that the FDCPA specifically provides for class damages and recognized that a class action is a benefit to claimants who can share the cost of litigation when their individual recoveries are relatively small, as is the case here. Based on this analysis, this Court finds that the Rule 23(b) factors weigh favorably for certification. Because of the number and nature of potential class plaintiffs and the fact that each member's potential recovery is likely to be small compared to the cost of litigating the claims individually, maintaining this matter as a class action is judicially advisable and superior to other available methods. This Court finds that the requirements of Rule 23 have been met and that certification of Plaintiff's proposed class is proper. A full-text copy of the District Court's June 10, 2019 Memorandum Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/y2e9v3om from Leagle.com. JOSHUA ROBINSON, Plaintiff, represented by DANIEL ZEMEL, ZEMEL LAW LLC & NICHOLAS J. LINKER, ZEMEL LAW LLC, 70 Clinton AvenueNewark, NJ 07114- 2012 ENHANCED RECOVERY COMPANY, doing business as ERC, Defendant, represented by WILLIAM F. MCDEVITT -- william.mcdevitt@wilsonelser.com -- Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman and Dicker, LLP. ERNESLI CORPORATION: Pavoni Seeks to Recoup OT Pay Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------- ERNESTO PAVONI, and all others similarly situated v. ERNESLI CORPORATION d/b/a ZUBI SUPERMARKET a/d/b/a ZUBI FISH HOUSE, a Florida Corporation, and ERNESTO PEREZ, individually, Case No. 1:19-cv-22252-XXXX (S.D. Fla., June 3, 2019), seeks to recover monetary damages, liquidated damages, interests, costs and attorney's fees for willful violations of overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Ernesli Corporation is a Florida corporation. Ernesli operates a supermarket and restaurant. Ernesto Perez has operational control over the Defendant Corporation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel T. Feld, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL T. FELD, P.A. 2847 Hollywood Blvd. Hollywood, FL 33020 Telephone: (954) 361-8383 E-mail: DanielFeld.Esq@gmail.com - and - Isaac Mamane, Esq. MAMANE LAW LLC 10800 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 350A Miami, FL 33161 Telephone (305) 773 - 6661 E-mail: mamane@gmail.com EVENTBRITE INC: Robinson Sues Over Misleading IPO-related Reports ----------------------------------------------------------------- CHARLES ROBINSON, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. EVENTBRITE, INC., JULIA HARTZ, RANDY BEFUMO, KATHERINE AUGUST-deWILDE, ROELOF BOTHA, ANDREW DRESKIN, KEVIN HARTZ, SEAN P. MORIARTY, LORRIE M. NORRINGTON, HELEN RILEY, STEFFAN C. TOMLINSON, GOLDMAN SACHS & CO. LLC, J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, ALLEN & COMPANY LLC, RBC CAPITAL MARKETS, LLC, SUNTRUST ROBINSON HUMPHREY, INC., and STIFEL, NICOLAUS & COMPANY, INCORPORATED, Case No. 3:19-cv-03045 (N.D. Cal., June 3, 2019), alleges violations of the Securities Act of 1933, in connection with Eventbrite's September 20, 2018 initial public offering. The Plaintiff alleges that the Registration Statement and Prospectus filed in connection with the Offering contained materially incorrect or misleading statements and/or omitted material information that was required by law. The Plaintiff contends that the Offering Documents failed to disclose that the migration of creators from subsidiary Ticketfly LLC to Eventbrite was progressing more slowly than stated, forcing the Ticketfly integration to take longer than expected and that, as a result, the Company would face headwinds in revenue and growth. Eventbrite was founded in 2006, incorporated in Delaware in March 2008, and is headquartered in San Francisco, California. Eventbrite operates a ticketing and event technology platform. According to the Company, its platform "integrates components needed to seamlessly plan, promote and produce live events, thereby allowing event creators to reduce friction and costs, increase reach and drive ticket sales." The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company. Defendants Goldman Sachs, J.P. Morgan, Allen, RBC Capital, SunTrust, and Stifel served as underwriters for the Offering.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John T. Jasnoch, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP 600 W. Broadway, Suite 3300 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-4565 Facsimile: (619) 233-0508 E-mail: jjasnoch@scott-scott.com - and - Thomas L. Laughlin, IV, Esq. Rhiana Swartz, Esq. Jonathan Zimmerman, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP The Helmsley Building 230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor New York, NY 10169 Telephone: (212) 223-6444 Facsimile: (212) 223-6334 E-mail: tlaughlin@scott-scott.com rswartz@scott-scott.com jzimmerman@scott-scott.com EXPEDIA INC: Court OKs Arbitration in J. Church Suit ---------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle, issued an Order granting Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration in the case captioned JOSEPH CHURCH, Plaintiff, v. EXPEDIA INC., et al., Defendants. Case No. C18-1812JLR. (W.D. Wash.). Before the court is Defendants Expedia, Inc. (Expedia), EAN.com, LP, Travelscape, LLC, and Hotels.com L.P.'s (Defendants) motion to compel arbitration and to either dismiss the case or stay it pending the completion of arbitration. Mr. Church filed a similar putative class action based on the same Reservations.com hotel room booking in the District of South Carolina. Mr. Church alleged breach of contract, constructive trust, unjust enrichment, and conversion and misappropriation claims against two entities doing business as Reservations.com (the Reservations.com Defendants), and three of the four Defendants in the present suit. Mr. Church, on behalf of himself and others similarly-situated, filed the present putative class action law suit, alleging (1) violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) (2) conversion and misappropriation (3) unjust enrichment and (4) constructive trust. The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) mandates that district courts shall direct the parties to proceed to arbitration on issues as to which an arbitration agreement has been signed. Thus, the court must grant a motion to compel arbitration if there is a valid agreement to arbitrate and the dispute falls within the scope of that agreement. Here, there is no dispute that there is a valid agreement to arbitrate between Mr. Church and the Reservations.com Defendants in Church I, Church v. Hotels.com L.P., No. 2:18-cv-18 (D.S.C.) . Indeed, the federal district court for the District of South Carolina so held, and Mr. Church has expressly accepted that ruling for purpose of this motion. Thus, the issues here are (1) whether Defendants are third-party beneficiaries to that agreement so that the arbitration provision applies to the parties and Mr. Church's claims here, and (2) whether Defendants may invoke the terms of the arbitration agreement under the doctrine of equitable estoppel. Because the court finds in the affirmative on the first issue, it does not reach the second. Third-Party Beneficiaries The Defendants argue that they may enforce the Terms' arbitration provision as third-party beneficiaries of the agreement. Under Washington law, a third-party beneficiary is entitled to enforce an arbitration clause if both contracting parties intend that a third-party beneficiary contract be created. Such a contract is created if performance under the contract would necessarily and directly benefit the third party. Here, the Terms explicitly acknowledge that Reservations.com's affiliates include affiliated companies, suppliers, and partners. Mr. Church acknowledges in his complaint that Defendants are suppliers of Reservations.com and further acknowledges that Reservations.com indicates on its website that it has a partnership' with Expedia. Further, the Terms explicitly state that Mr. Church acknowledge[s] that the rates displayed on [Reservations.com] are a combination of the rates and fees charged by the service provider such as a hotel or hotel supplier and the service fee charged by us on our behalf. Thus, by agreeing to the Terms, Mr. Church agreed that part of his payment could go to a hotel supplier in this case, allegedly, Defendants. Indeed, this is the precise scenario Mr. Church alleges in his complaint when he states that one of the Defendants namely, Expedia charged his credit card directly for the combined room rate and Tax & Fees charge. It is hard to imagine a more direct benefit under a contract than a provision providing for the payment of money. Mr. Church also complains that the Terms refer only to unknown suppliers and partners and do not expressly name Defendants. However, Defendants are third-party beneficiaries because performance under the Terms required the parties to confer a benefit upon Defendants; it is unnecessary that Defendants be cited in the agreement by name. Finally, Mr. Church's contention that the Term's arbitration clause applies exclusively to claims between Resevations.com and its customers does not withstand scrutiny. His sole basis for this argument is a five-word phrase in the Dispute Resolution section of the Terms, which states: This section has a significant impact on your rights, especially when it comes to how disputes between you and us get resolved. Given that the term between you and us appears in the context of a phrase that is qualified by the term especially, the term between you and us does not limit arbitrations to signatories, even on its face. Reading the contract as a whole, and given the broad interpretation courts lend to the terms arising out of or relating to, Mr. Church's claims against Defendants fall within the definition of the term Claim and are subject to the Terms' arbitration clause. The court concludes that the Defendants are third-party beneficiaries of the Terms, and Mr. Church's claims fall within the scope of the Terms' arbitration provision. The Defendants ask the court to dismiss the action or, in the alternative, stay the litigation pending the arbitration of Mr. Church's claims. Under Ninth Circuit precedent, the court may either stay the action or dismiss it outright when, as here, the court determines that all of the claims raised in the action are subject to arbitration. Because the court finds that arbitration is the proper forum for all of Mr. Church's claims, the court grants Defendants' motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3) in favor of arbitration and without prejudice. A full-text copy of the District Court's June 10, 2019 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/y5bwy4z2 from Leagle.com. Joseph Church, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Ian W. Freeman -- Freeman@WGFLLAW.com -- WALKER GRESSETTE FREEMAN LINTON LLC, pro hac vice, James L. Ward, Jr., MCGOWAN HOOD & FELDER LLC, 321 WingoWay, Suite 103, Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464, pro hac vice, John P. Linton, Jr., WALKER GRESSETTE FREEMAN LINTON LLC, PO Box 22247; Charleston SC 29413-2247, pro hac vice, Ranee Saunders, MCGOWAN HOOD & FELDER LLC, 1539 Health Care Dr.Rock Hill, SC 29732, pro hac vice, Ted Wojcik -- twojcik@aalrr.com -- HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP, pro hac vice, Andrew M. Volk -- andrew@hbsslaw.com -- HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP, Jessica Thompson -- jessicat@hbsslaw.com -- HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP, Shayne C. Stevenson, HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP & Steve W. Berman -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP. Expedia Inc, EAN.com LP, Travelscape LLC & Hotels.com LP, Defendants, represented by Emily Dodds Powell -emilyp@calfoeakes.com -- CALFO EAKES & OSTROVSKY PLLC, Patricia A. Eakes -- pattye@calfoeakes.com -- CALFO EAKES & OSTROVSKY PLLC & Angelo J. Calfo -- angeloc@calfoeakes.com -- CALFO EAKES & OSTROVSKY PLLC. FIRST AMERICAN: Fails to Secure Website, Dinh Suit Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------- BEN DINH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FIRST AMERICAN FINANCIAL CORPORATION; FIRST AMERICAN TITLE COMPANY; and DOES 1 through 10, Defendants, Case No. 8:19-cv-01105-AG-DFM (C.D. Cal., June 4, 2019) is an action against the Defendants for data breach. The Defendants failed to secure its website which contains the Plaintiff and the class sensitive personal information. According to the complaint, the Defendants allowed the data breach to occur, despite it being caused by a relatively common website design error called Insecure Direct Object Reference, which occurs when a link to a webpage with sensitive information is created and intended to only be seen by a specific party, but there is no method to actually verify the identity of who is viewing the link. As a result, anyone who discovers a link to one document can view it - and can discover any of the other documents hosted on the site by simply modifying the link. As a result of Defendants' willful failure to prevent the data breach, the 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. First American Financial Corporation, through its subsidiaries, provides financial services. It operates through Title Insurance and Services, and Specialty Insurance segments. First American Financial Corporation was founded in 1889 and is headquartered in Santa Ana, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: 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 FORD MOTOR: MyFord Touch Class Action Gets Preliminary Court OK --------------------------------------------------------------- David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a MyFord Touch class action lawsuit has been preliminarily approved after years of both sides arguing in front of a California federal judge. The lawsuit started as a proposed nationwide class action, but by the end included Ford and Lincoln customers in only seven states: California, Massachusetts, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Virginia and Washington. According to the lawsuit, the Ford or Lincoln vehicles must be equipped with MyFord Touch or MyLincoln Touch systems, and the vehicles must have been sold or leased by Ford dealers before August 9, 2013. Customers complained they suffered with MyFord Touch systems that crashed, blacked out, froze, failed to respond to voice or touch commands and backup camera displays that failed or showed previous images. Ford denies any wrongdoing and agreed to settle the lawsuit to put the matter to bed. The class action settlement says customers will be able to obtain for free the latest version 3.10 or later MyFord Touch software update, but Ford points out the software update has already been free to the public through the Ford website. Customers can download and install the updates or contact Ford dealers for assistance, and dealers will further assist customers with any related software issues for one year after installation. Affected customers in the seven states may also receive compensation based on eligibility requirements and if a customer can provide evidence they sought one or more repairs to the MyFord Touch system. Within the first 180 days of the preliminary approval order of the class action, a customer may receive $100 if their system was repaired once, $250 if repaired twice and $400 if the customer sought three or more repairs. For repairs made after the warranty expired, a customer will have 180 days of the preliminary approval order to submit a valid claim showing they paid for repairs to the system. The customer may receive a full reimbursement of the paid-for repair by providing evidence the repair occurred within one year after the expiration of the MyFord Touch extended warranty. An eligible customer may also receive $45 if they experienced two or more cases where the system didn't work properly. The agreement also says original owners and lessees of Ford and Lincoln vehicles will receive $55 if they received one or more MyFord Touch software warranty repairs. Additionally, a Ford customer who does not submit an official claim may still receive $20 to $55. As part of the settlement agreement, Ford has agreed to pay $16 million to attorneys for the plaintiffs. Ford customers who want to exclude themselves from the MyFord Touch class action settlement, or who want to object to the settlement terms, may do so by September 20, 2019. The deadline to submit valid claims is September 24, 2019, and the Court will hold a final fairness hearing November 21, 2019. Ford and Lincoln owners and lessees who want to know more should visit www.MyFordTouchClassAction.com. The MyFord Touch class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division - In Re: MyFord Touch Consumer Litigation. The plaintiffs are represented by Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Baron & Budd, P.C., DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC, and Chimicles Schwartz Kriner & Donaldson-Smith LLP. [GN] FORSTER & GARBUS: Kleinman Sues over Debt Collection Practices -------------------------------------------------------------- ABRAHAM KLEINMAN, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FORSTER & GARBUS, LLP; and JOHN DOES 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-03305-ENV-SJB (E.D.N.Y., June 4, 2019) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. The case is assigned to Judge Eric N. Vitaliano and referred to Magistrate Judge Sanket J. Bulsara. Forster & Garbus LLP provides legal services. The Company specializes in collecting debts. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Paul Force, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 285 Passaic St. Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 E-mail: dforce@steinsakslegal.com FORTEES SALON & SPA: Boice Seeks OT Pay, Minimum Wage ----------------------------------------------------- A class action complaint has been filed against Fortees Salon & Spa, LLC and Edward Osunlalu for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arizona Minimum Wage Act. The case is captioned Yukino Angela Boice, Plaintiff, v. Fortees Salon & Spa, LLC, an Arizona Limited Liability Company; Edward Osunlalu, a single man; and InfinitiHR West, LLC; Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-04484-JJT (D. Ariz., June 14, 2019). Plaintiff Angela Boice alleges that the Defendants failed to pay their commissioned, non-exempt stylists, cosmetologists, and estheticians with proper overtime wage despite working in excess of 40 hours per week. Her complaint also challenges Defendants' practice of failing to accurately record work time. In addition, Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants have violated the FLSA by not paying her and other similarly situated workers the full applicable minimum wage for all hours worked during their regular workweeks. Fortees is an Arizona limited liability company with its principal place of business in Maricopa County, Arizona. Edward Osunlalu owns and supervises Fortees. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael R. Pruitt, Esq. Nathaniel J. Hill, Esq. Grant S. Cragun, Esq. JACKSON WHITE ATTORNEYS AT LAW 40 North Center Street, Suite 200 Mesa, AZ 85201 Telephone: (480) 464-1111 Facsimile: (480) 464-5692 E-mail: centraldocket@jacksonwhitelaw.com mpruitt@jacksonwhitelaw.com nhill@jacksonwhitelaw.com gcragun@jacksonwhitelaw.com FRANCESCA'S HOLDINGS: Cox, Perry Seek Overtime Pay -------------------------------------------------- A class action complaint has been filed against Francesca's Holdings Corp. and Francesca's Collections, Inc. for violations of the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA) and the Maryland Wage and Hour Law. The case is captioned LEAH COX and D' SHAUNTA PERRY, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, -against- FRANCESCA'S HOLDINGS CORP. and FRANCESCA’S COLLECTIONS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-02167 (S.D. Tex., June 14, 2019). Plaintiffs Cox and Perry allege that the Defendants failed to compensate their employees, including them and the members of the FLSA Collective, at a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular rate of pay for work performed in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. Accordingly, Plaintiffs seek to recover unpaid overtime wages for hours worked above 40 in a workweek, as required by law, and liquidated damages pursuant to the FLSA. Francesca's Holdings Corp. is a Delaware corporation with its principal places of business located at 8760 Clay Road, Houston, Texas. The company has more than 700 specialty retail stores or boutiques that sells apparel, jewelry, accessories and gifts. Francesca's Collections, Inc. is a Texas corporation and wholly-owned subsidiary of Francesca's Holdings Corp. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alan L. Quiles, Esq. Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq. Paolo C. Meireles, Esq. Tamra C. Givens, Esq. Logan A. Pardell, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. 951 Yamato Road, Suite 285 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Telephone: (561) 447-8888 Facsimile: (561) 447-8831 E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com pmeireles@shavitzlaw.com tgivens@shavitzlaw.com lpardell@shavitzlaw.com - and - Marc S. Hepworth, Esq. Charles Gershbaum, Esq. David A. Roth, Esq. Rebecca S. Predovan, Esq. Janine Kapp, Esq. HEPWORTH, GERSHBAUM & ROTH, PLLC 192 Lexington Avenue, Suite 802 New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 545-1199 Facsimile: (212) 532-3801 E-mail: mhepworth@hgrlawyers.com cgershbaum@hgrlawyers.com droth@hgrlawyers.com rpredovan@hgrlawyers.com jkapp@hgrlawyers.com FRED'S INC: Awaits 11th Cir. Ruling in Taylor Case Appeal --------------------------------------------------------- Fred's, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 18, 2019, for the quarterly period ended May 4, 2019, that the appeal in the class action suit entitled, Tiffany Taylor, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. Fred's Inc. and Fred's Stores of Tennessee, Inc., is pending. On March 30, 2017, a lawsuit entitled Tiffany Taylor, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. Fred's, Inc. and Fred's Stores of Tennessee, Inc. was filed in the United Stated District Court for the Northern District of Alabama Southern Division (the "Taylor Complaint"). The Taylor Complaint alleges that the Company wrongfully and willfully violated the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act ("FACTA"). On April 11, 2017, a lawsuit entitled Melanie Wallace, Sascha Feliciano, and Heather Tyler, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. Fred's Stores of Tennessee, Inc. was filed in the Superior Court of Fulton County in the state of Georgia. The complaint alleges that the Company wrongfully and willfully violated FACTA. On April 13, 2017, a lawsuit entitled Lillie Williams and Cussetta Journey, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. Fred's Stores of Tennessee, Inc. was filed in the Superior Court of Fulton County in the state of Georgia. The complaint also alleges that the Company wrongfully and willfully violated FACTA. The complaints are filed as class actions, with the class being open for five (5) years before the date the complaint was filed. The complaint seeks statutory damages, attorney's fees, punitive damages, an injunctive order, and other such relief that the court may deem just and equitable. The Company filed a Motion to Dismiss the Taylor Complaint, and this Motion has been granted by the Court. Plaintiff's counsel has appealed the Taylor Complaint, which appeal is pending before the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. The Company filed, and the Court granted Motions to Remove and Motions to Transfer the Williams and Wallace matters to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. Since the Williams and Wallace matters were removed and transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, the Company has filed a Motion to Consolidate the Williams and Wallace matters. When the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss in the Taylor case, the court simultaneously denied the Motion to Consolidate, in light of the dismissal in Taylor. In the Wallace and Williams actions, the District Court entered an order staying both cases until the U.S Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit decides on the appeal. Fred's said, "Oral argument for the appeal was heard before the Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit at the end of January 2019, and we await the Court's ruling. Future costs and liabilities related to this case may have a material adverse effect on the Company; however, the Company has not made an accrual for future losses related to these claims as future losses are not considered probable and an estimate is unavailable." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Fred's, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, sells general merchandise through its retail discount stores and full service pharmacies. Fred's, Inc. was founded in 1947 and is headquartered in Memphis, Tennessee. FRED'S INC: Settlement in Eddington and Hudson Suit Underway ------------------------------------------------------------ Fred's, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 18, 2019, for the quarterly period ended May 4, 2019, that the settlement in the Abel Eddington and Judy Hudson lawsuit is currently being administered. On March 3, 2018, a lawsuit entitled Abel Eddington and Judy Hudson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Fred's Inc., and Fred's Stores of Tennessee, Inc. was filed in the United States District Court Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division. The complaint alleged that the Company committed various Federal and state wage and hours violations. The complaint was filed as class action and sought back wages, attorneys' fees, and all other damages allowable by law. The Company denied these allegations and believes it acted appropriately in its wage and hour calculations and payments. The Company and the named plaintiffs have settled the case, and the settlement is currently being administered. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Fred's, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, sells general merchandise through its retail discount stores and full service pharmacies. Fred's, Inc. was founded in 1947 and is headquartered in Memphis, Tennessee. FRED'S INC: Whitley Class Action Ongoing ---------------------------------------- Fred's, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 18, 2019, for the quarterly period ended May 4, 2019, that the company continues to defend a class action suit initiated by Roxie Whitley. On March 16, 2018, a lawsuit entitled Roxie Whitley, individually and as next friend of Baby Z.B.D., and Chris and Diane Denson, individually and as next friends of Baby L.D.L., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. Purdue Pharma L.P.; Purdue Pharma, Inc.; The Purdue Frederick Company, Inc.; McKesson Corporation; Cardinal Health, Inc.; AmeriSourceBergen Corporation; Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd.; Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.; Cephalon, Inc.; Johnson & Johnson; Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. n/k/a Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. n/k/a Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Endo Health Solutions Inc.; Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc; Allergan PLC; Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. n/k/a Actavis, Inc.; Watson Laboratories, Inc.; Actavis LLC; Actavis Pharma, Inc. f/k/a Watson Pharma, Inc.; and Fred's Stores of Tennessee, Inc. was filed in the Circuit Court of Fayette County, Tennessee for the 25th Judicial District at Somerville. The complaint fails to allege any wrong-doing by the Company. The Complaint is filed as a class action seeking various remedies allowed under Federal and state laws. The Company denies any purported wrong-doing. On May 9, 2018, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Standing, a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Product Liability Causes of Action, a Motion to Dismiss for Statute of Limitations, and a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim on which Relief may be Sought (collectively, the "May 9, 2018 Motions"). The Court has not ruled on the May 9, 2018 Motions. On May 9, 2018 this matter was transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio as part of the National Prescription Opiate Litigation Multidistrict Litigation. Fred's said, "Future costs and liabilities related to this case may have a material adverse effect on the Company; however, the Company has not made an accrual for future losses related to these claims as future losses are not considered probable, and an estimate is unavailable. The Company has multiple insurance policies which the Company believes will limit its potential exposure." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Fred's, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, sells general merchandise through its retail discount stores and full service pharmacies. Fred's, Inc. was founded in 1947 and is headquartered in Memphis, Tennessee. FRESENIUS HEALTH: Faces Krozos Labor Suit in California ------------------------------------------------------- A class action complaint has been filed against Fresenius Health Partners, Inc., Fresenius Medical Care Pharmacy Services, Inc., and San Diego Dialysis Services, Inc. for violations of several provisions of the California Labor Code, including overtime, wage statement, and minimum wage provisions. The case is captioned TANYA KROZOS, in a Representative capacity only, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. FRESENIUS HEALTH PARTNERS, INC., a Delaware Corporation, FRESENIUS MEDICALCARE PHARMACY SERVICES, INC., a Delaware Corporation, SAN DIEGO DIALYSIS, INC., a Delaware Corporation, and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 37-2019-00030551-CU-OE-CTL (Cal. Super., San Diego Cty., June 13, 2019). Plaintiff Tanya Krozos also alleges that the Defendants failed to reimburse Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees for necessary business expenditures in violation of, inter alia, Labor Code section 2802. Defendants failed to provide all compensation due at termination of employment in violation of, inter alia, Labor Code sections 201 through 203. Fresenius Health Partners, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Fresenius Medical Care North America, specializes in intensive care coordination and disease management services for kidney patients. Fresenius Medical Care North America's national retail pharmacy, Fresenius Medical Care Pharmacy, provides dialysis patients with all of their prescriptions, over-the-counter medications and diabetic testing supplies directly through the mail at no additional cost. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William B. Sullivan, Esq. Eric K. Yaeckel, Esq. Ryan T. Kuhn, Esq. Andrea J. Torres Figueroa, Esq. SULLIVAN LAW GROUP, APC 2330 Third Avenue San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 702-6760 Facsimile: (619) 702-6761 E-mail: helen@sullivanlawgroupapc.com yaeckel@sullivanlawgroupapc.com ryan@sullivanlawgroupapc.com atorres@sullivanlawgroupapc.com GATES HUDSON COMMUNITY: Covington Seeks OT Pay for Property Manager ------------------------------------------------------------------- A class action complaint has been filed against Gates Hudson Property Management, LLC for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA), the D.C. Minimum Wage Revision Act (DCMWRA), and the District of Columbia Wage Payment Collection Law (DCWPCL). The case is captioned DIONNE COVINGTON, Plaintiff, v. GATES HUDSON COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01789 (D.D.C., June 18, 2019). Defendant employed Plaintiff Dionne Covington as an assistant property manager and misclassified her as an exempt employee. Defendant also misclassified other assistant property managers as exempt employees. Accordingly, Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant willfully violated the FLSA and DCMWRA by failing to pay Plaintiff and other assistant property managers overtime. She also claims that the Defendant willfully violated the DCWPCL by failing to pay Plaintiff and other assistant property managers wages owed, including overtime wages, on the next regular payday or within seven days from the date Plaintiff and/or other assistant property managers ended employment with Defendant. Gates Hudson Property Management, LLC is a property management company that manages properties in the Washington, D.C. area. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rani Rolston, Esq. ALAN LESCHT & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 1825 K Street, NW, Suite 750 Washington, D.C. 20006 Telephone: (202) 463-6036 Facsimile: (202) 463-6067 E-mail: rani.rolston@leschtlaw.com GEORGE'S INC: Court Certifies FLSA Class in Rodriguez Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit, EVANGELINE RODRIGUEZ and JASON DAVIDSON, Indvidually and on Behalf of Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. GEORGE'S, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 5:19-cv-05035-TLB (W.D. Ark.), the Hon. Judge Timothy L. Brooks entered an order: 1. certifying a class pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act: "all Supervisors and/or Area Managers who worked in shipping, warehouse, portioning, debone, marination, rec/tubs, or par- fry, at Defendant's Further Processing Plant on Porter Avenue at any time after February 19, 2016, who earned less than $100,000 in any year after 2015"; 2. approving proposed notice, consent to join form, email text, and electronic consent to join form; 3. approving proposed schedule for distributing these document to the class and for filling signed consent forms with the Court; 4. directing Defendant's counsel to provide Plaintiff's counsel the names and currrent and/or last known mailing addresses of all potential class members no later than 10 days after the entry of this order, and the last known emali address, if avaiable, of any class members whose notice is returned as undeliverable."[BN] GREAT BAY MARINE: Bishop Alleges Violation under ADA ---------------------------------------------------- Great Bay Marine, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Cedric Bishop and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Great Bay Marine, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-05703 (S.D. N.Y., June 18, 2019). Great Bay Marine is the New Hampshire Seacoast's only year-round and largest full-service boating facility.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq. 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Tel: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: nyjg@aol.com GREENBACK OPRARTIONS: Faces Phillips Suit in Sacramento County -------------------------------------------------------------- An employment-related class action lawsuit has been filed against Greenback Oprartions LLC. The case is captioned as SUSAN PHILLIPS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GREENBACK OPRARTIONS LLC; MILESTONE RETIREMENT COMMUNITIES LLC; and DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 34-2019-00257727-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., June 4, 2019). Milestone Retirement Communities, LLC provides senior housing and retirement living accommodations. Its services include independent living, assisted living, memory and dementia care, respite care and short stay, and enhanced care programs. The company was founded in 2008 and is based in Vancouver, Washington with locations in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Arizona, California, Nevada, Colorado, Oklahoma, and Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Walter L. Haines, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF WALTER L. HAINES, INC. 10880 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2070 Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (310) 996-8937 GTX INC: Kahn Swick Files Securities Class Action in New York ------------------------------------------------------------- Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, Former Louisiana Attorney General, Charles C. Foti, Jr., have commenced a securities class action lawsuit against GTx, Inc. (GTXI). KSF filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Case No. 1:19-cv-04103-UA) for shareholders of GTx who held shares on the record date April 15, 2019 ("Class Period") and were harmed by GTx and its Board for alleged violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the merger of the Company with Oncternal Therapeutics, Inc. About the Lawsuit On March 7, 2019, the Company announced a merger agreement, subsequently amended April 30, 2019 (the "Merger Agreement"), whereby a wholly-owned GTx subsidiary will merge with Oncternal, with Oncternal surviving as a wholly-owned GTx subsidiary, and with each common Oncternal share converted into the right to receive approximately 0.5137 shares of GTx's common stock. The complaint alleges that the S-4 Registration Statement filed in connection with the merger provides materially incomplete and misleading information about GTX's financials and the transaction, violating Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, concerning: (a) GTx and Oncternal financial projections; (b) the Proposed Transaction process; and (c) potential Board member conflicts of interest. What You May Do GTx shareholders may discuss their legal rights without obligation or cost. Contact KSF Managing Partner, Lewis Kahn (lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com) toll free at 1-877-515-1850. To serve as a lead plaintiff by overseeing lead counsel, you must apply to the Court no later than sixty (60) days from publication date of this notice. Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. The ultimate resolution of any securities class action is strengthened through the involvement of aggrieved shareholders and lead plaintiffs who have large financial interests. KSF also encourages anyone with information regarding GTx's conduct during the period in question to contact the firm. About Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC To learn more about KSF you may visit www.ksfcounsel.com. [GN] GUARD-SYSTEMS INC: Underpays Security Guards, Rangel Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ ALEXIS RANGEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GUARD-SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 19STCV19613 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., June 4, 2019) is an action against the Defendant for unpaid regular hours, overtime hours, minimum wages, wages for missed meal and rest periods. Mr. Rangel was employed by the Defendant as security guard. Guard-Systems Inc. offers security services. The Company offers security services for buildings, malls, government, healthcare, and educational facilities. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig J. Ackermann, Esq. ACKERMANN & TILAJEF, P.C. 1180 S. Beverly Drive, Suite 610 Los Angeles, CA 90035 Telephone: (310) 277-0614 Facsimile: (310) 277-0635 E-mail: cja@ackermanntilajef.com - and - Jonathan Melmed, Esq. MELMED LAW GROUP P.C. 1180 South Beverly Drive, Suite 610 Los Angeles, CA 90035 Telephone: (310) 824-3828 Facsimile: (310) 862-6851 E-mail: jm@melmedlaw.com - and - David S. Winston, Esq. WINSTON LAW GROUP, P.C. 1180 South Beverly Drive, Suite 320 Los Angeles, CA 90035 Telephone: (424) 288-4568 Facsimile: (424) 532-4062 E-mail: david@employmentlitigators.com HERON THERAPEUTICS: Faces Wong Securities Suit in S.D. Calif. ------------------------------------------------------------- JIMMY JIMORTHY WONG, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. HERON THERAPEUTICS, INC., BARRY D. QUART, and ROBERT E. HOFFMAN, Case No. 3:19-cv-01038-LAB-LL (S.D. Cal., June 3, 2019), is brought over violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 alleging that the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance policies. Heron is a biotechnology company that engages in developing treatments to address unmet medical needs. Heron's product candidates utilize its proprietary Biochronomer drug delivery technology, which delivers therapeutic levels of a range of short-acting pharmacological agents over a period from days to weeks with a single administration. It is developing HTX-011, an investigational, long-acting, and extended-release formulation of the local anesthetic bupivacaine in a fixed-dose combination with the anti-inflammatory meloxicam for post-operative pain management. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Heron had failed to include adequate Chemistry, Manufacturing, and Controls ("CMC") and non-clinical information in its NDA for HTX-011; (ii) the foregoing increased the likelihood that the FDA would not approve Heron's NDA for HTX-011; and (iii) as a result, Heron's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. Heron was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in San Diego, California. The Company was formerly known as A.P. Pharma, Inc. and changed its name to Heron in January 2014. The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jennifer Pafiti, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (310) 405-7190 E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com - and - Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. POMERANTZ, LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com - and - Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP Ten South La Salle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 377-1181 Facsimile: (312) 377-1184 E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com HFF INC: Strenger Class Action Underway --------------------------------------- HFF, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed on June 18, 2019, that the company is defending against a class action suit entitled, Stuart Strenger v. HFF, Inc., et al. On March 18, 2019, HFF, Inc. ("HFF") entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Jones Lang LaSalle Incorporated ("JLL"), JLL CM, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of JLL ("Merger Sub"), and JLL CMG, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of JLL ("Merger LLC"), pursuant to which, among other things, on the terms and subject to the conditions set forth therein, Merger Sub will merge with and into HFF, with HFF surviving the Merger as a wholly owned subsidiary of JLL (the "Merger"). The Merger Agreement also provides that, immediately following the effective time of the Merger, HFF, as the surviving corporation in the Merger, will merge with and into Merger LLC with Merger LLC surviving the subsequent merger (the "Subsequent Merger", and, together with the Merger, the "Mergers"). On May 31, 2019, HFF filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") a definitive proxy statement on Schedule 14A (the "Proxy Statement") relating to the Merger Agreement. A complaint styled as a putative class action captioned Stuart Strenger v. HFF, Inc., et al, No. 1:19-cv-05404 was filed in the United States District Court of the Southern District of New York naming members of the HFF board of directors as defendants. This complaint alleges that the Proxy Statement contained materially incomplete and misleading information in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") concerning the valuation analyses performed by and financial projections utilized by HFF's financial advisor, Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC ("Morgan Stanley") and the fees to be paid to Morgan Stanley. The defendants believe that this action is without merit, and that no further disclosure is required under applicable law. Nonetheless, to specifically moot the plaintiff's claims, to avoid the risk of the litigation delaying or adversely affecting the Mergers and to minimize the expense of defending the Strenger matter, the defendants are making supplemental disclosures (the "litigation-related supplemental disclosures") related to the Mergers. A copy of the supplemental disclosure is available at https://urlzs.com/kWWaT. HFF, Inc. provides commercial real estate and capital market services to the consumers and providers of capital in the commercial real estate industry in the United States. The company was founded in 1982 and is based in Dallas, Texas. HOPFED BANCORP: Agreement in Principle Reached in Parshall Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- HopFed Bancorp, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed on June 17, 2019, that an agreement in principle has been reached to settle the class action suit entitled, Parshall v. HopFed Bancorp, Inc., et al., No. 19-CI00470. On May 14, 2019, a purported stockholder of HopFed Bancorp, Inc. ("HopFed") common stock filed a putative stockholder class action against HopFed, the members of the HopFed board of directors, and First Financial Corporation ("First Financial"), in the Christian County Circuit Court, Commonwealth of Kentucky (the "Action"). The complaint is captioned as follows: Parshall v. HopFed Bancorp, Inc., et al., No. 19-CI00470 (Christian Cnty. Cir. Ct. filed May 14, 2019) (the "Complaint"). The Complaint asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty against the members of the HopFed board of directors for, among other things, allegedly undervaluing HopFed and omitting material information from the proxy statement/prospectus (as amended or supplemented, the "Proxy Statement/Prospectus") forming a part of the registration statement on Form S-4 (as amended or supplemented, the "Registration Statement") filed on April 11, 2019 with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") in connection with the proposed merger of HopFed with and into First Financial (the "Merger"). The Complaint also asserts a claim for aiding and abetting the HopFed board of directors' alleged breaches of fiduciary duties against HopFed and First Financial. Among other remedies, the Action seeks to enjoin the Merger or rescind the Merger or recover damages in the event the Merger is completed. The court has not acted on this Complaint, and no relief has been granted in the Action as of this time. The defendants believe that the Complaint is without merit and no further disclosure is or was required under applicable law to supplement the Proxy Statement/Prospectus. However, to eliminate the burden, expense, and uncertainties inherent in litigation, and to avoid any possible delay to the closing of the Merger that might arise from further litigation, counsel for all parties to the Action reached an agreement in principle to settle the Action, pursuant to which First Financial would file agreed-upon supplemental disclosures with the SEC (the "Supplemental Disclosures"). First Financial made the Supplemental Disclosures in an amendment to the Registration Statement filed on June 6, 2019 with the SEC. It is expected that any potential settlement will not affect the merger consideration to be paid to HopFed stockholders or the timing of the HopFed special meeting of stockholders to be held on July 23, 2019. As part of the agreement in principle, it is anticipated that the parties will agree to use their reasonable best efforts to complete confirmatory discovery, including depositions of representatives of HopFed and First Financial, and potentially others, as well as the production of documents, and to attempt in good faith to agree upon the final terms of a settlement and such other documentation as may be required to obtain court approval of the settlement and certification of the class. There can be no assurance that the parties will ultimately enter into any stipulation of settlement or similar documents, or that the court will approve any settlement even if the parties were to enter into such settlement. HopFed Bancorp, Inc. operates as the bank holding company for Heritage Bank USA, Inc. that provides commercial banking services in the United States. HopFed Bancorp, Inc. was founded in 1879 and is headquartered in Hopkinsville, Kentucky. HORIZON HEALTHCARE: Weber Suit over Medicare-Based Plans -------------------------------------------------------- DAVID WEBER, on his own behalf and on behalf of his wife, Jill Weber, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. HORIZON HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC. d/b/a HORIZON BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF NEW JERSEY, the Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-13728-ES-MAH (D.N.J., June 13, 2019), seeks to enjoin Horizon's acts and practices which violates the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. Horizon systematically violated the terms of the Class members' R&C plans, and its own fiduciary duties, by setting the allowed amounts for ONET services below the R&C rates identified by FAIR Health. Most of the health plans administered by Horizon, including Plaintiff's, cover health care services received from out-of-network ("ONET") providers (who are not contracted with Horizon and have not agreed to accept payments below their billed charges). With respect to such ONET services, the written terms of Horizon's plans articulate one of two different reimbursement methodologies, either (a) the plan states that ONET benefit payments are based on a percentage of Medicare rates ("Medicare-based plans"); or (b) the plan states that ONET benefit payments are based on a percentage of "Reasonable and Customary charges," or "R&C" ("R&C Plans"). The case is focused solely on Horizon's calculation of ONET benefits under R&C Plans. Despite the fact that Plaintiff is insured by a Horizon R&C plan, Horizon used (and continues to use) a Medicare-based methodology to determine and pay his ONET benefits. By doing so, Horizon violated the written terms of Plaintiff's plan, deprived Plaintiff of benefits that were owed, and violated Horizon's fiduciary duties under ERISA. The Plaintiff Weber is a retired research scientist with Roche Pharmaceuticals ("Roche"), a division of F. Hoffman-La Roche AG, who resides in Nutley, New Jersey. The Plaintiff is a participant in an insurance plan offered by Roche, which is administered by Horizon. The plan, which is governed by ERISA, covers both Plaintiff and his wife, who is a plan beneficiary. Horizon is in the business of insuring and administering health plans, many of which are governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. Among other things, this means that Horizon is responsible for interpreting written plan terms, making coverage determinations, and causing benefit payments to be made. As such, Horizon is a fiduciary under ERISA.[BN] Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class: John W. Leardi, Esq. Nicole P. Allocca, Esq. BUTTACI LEARDI & WERNER LLC 212 Carnegie Center, Suite 202 Princeton, NJ 08540 Telephone: 609 799 5150 - and - D. Brian Hufford, Esq. Jason S. Cowart, Esq. Nell Z. Peyser, Esq. ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP 485 Madison Avenue, 10th floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: 212 704 9660 IDEAVILLAGE PRODUCTS: Jones Suit Alleges ADA Violation ------------------------------------------------------ Ideavillage Products Corp. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Kahlimah Jones, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. Ideavillage Products Corp. doing business as: www.GetFlawlessBrows.com, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-03573 (S.D. N.Y., June 18, 2019). IdeaVillage Products Corp. develops and markets consumer products. The company offers various electronic, outdoor, personal care, travel/auto, apparel, toy/game, and houseware products, such as body hair removers, temporary metallic jewelry tattoos, trimmers, compression sleeves, lower back support products, socks, snacking solutions, HD vision wrap arounds and glasses, ceramic knives, handheld sewing machines, and self-edging paint rollers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Shaked, Esq. Shaked Law Group, P.C. 14 Harwood Court, Suite 415 Scarsdale, NY 10583 Tel: (917) 373-9128 Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com INUVO INC: Parties Agree to Dismiss Akerman Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------ Inuvo, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q/A Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 18, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the plaintiff in Akerman v. Inuvo, Inc. et al., filed a stipulation of dismissal, dismissing the entire action, except with respect to a fee and expense request. On December 19, 2018 and December 20, 2018, respectively, Peter D'Arcy and Morris Akerman, both of whom claim to be stockholders of Inuvo, filed separate putative class action lawsuits, captioned D'Arcy v. Inuvo, Inc. et al., No. 1:18-cv-02023- UNA, in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware; and Akerman v. Inuvo, Inc. et al., No. 2:18-cv-02407, in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada. The two lawsuits each named Inuvo and the members of Inuvo's board of directors as defendants. The D'Arcy action also names ConversionPoint and various entities created to effect the merger as defendants. The complaints filed in the lawsuits assert claims under Section 14(a) and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act challenging the adequacy of the disclosures relating to the merger transactions made in a joint consent solicitation statement/prospectus. On December 21, 2018, Domenic Spagnolo, another purported stockholder of Inuvo, filed a substantially similar lawsuit, captioned Spagnolo v. Inuvo, Inc. et al., No. 1:18-cv-12099, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. This lawsuit also challenges the adequacy of disclosure under the same sections of the Exchange Act against Inuvo and its directors. Each of the foregoing lawsuits seeks, among other relief, an injunction preventing the parties from consummating the merger transactions, damages in the event the merger transactions are consummated, and an award of attorneys' fees. Inuvo and ConversionPoint believe the claims asserted in the lawsuits are without merit. The company further believes the allegations in the lawsuits have been mooted by the filing of the company's amended S-4 Registration Statement on March 15, 2019. Inuvo intends to vigorously contest any continued litigation, and any fee petitions brought by Plaintiffs' counsels. On February 4, 2019, Inuvo filed a motion to dismiss, or in the alternative to stay, the Akerman and Spagnolo actions pending the resolution of the first-filed D'Arcy case. Then, on March 4, 2019, Inuvo filed a second motion to dismiss the Spagnolo action based on a failure to state a claim under the law. In the Spagnolo action, the court issued an order giving Plaintiff Spagnolo an opportunity to amend his complaint in response to the second motion to dismiss, or alternatively, serve his opposition to the motion to dismiss by March 25, 2019. Additionally, Plaintiff Spagnolo filed for a preliminary injunction, seeking to enjoin a shareholder vote on the merger. Per court order, Inuvo responded to the preliminary injunction on March 1, 2019. Plaintiff Spagnolo replied on March 8, 2019. Following the filing of the company's amended S-4 Registration Statement on March 15, 2019, Plaintiff Spagnolo withdrew his motion for preliminary injunction. The next day, the court dismissed the Spagnolo action as moot and set a deadline of April 11, 2019, for Plaintiff Spagnolo to make an application for attorneys' fees and expenses. On March 25, 2019, Plaintiff Spagnolo filed a motion for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses. Inuvo's opposition was filed on April 23, 2019. Plaintiff Spagnolo's reply was filed May 9, 2019. In the Akerman action, following the filing of the company's amended S-4 Registration Statement on March 15, 2019, Plaintiff Akerman filed a stipulation of dismissal, dismissing the entire action, except with respect to a fee and expense request. No deadline has been set for Plaintiff Akerman to file a fee and expense request. Inuvo, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, a technology company, provides data-driven platforms that automatically identify and message online audiences across video, mobile, connected TV, display, and social and native devices, channels, and formats in the United States. Inuvo, Inc. was incorporated in 1987 and is headquartered in Little Rock, Arkansas. INUVO INC: Voluntary Dismissal Filed in Franchi Suit ---------------------------------------------------- Inuvo, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q/A Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 18, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that Adam Franchi filed a notice of voluntary dismissal. On January 4, 2019 and January 8, 2019, respectively, two more purported stockholders of Inuvo, Adam Franchi and Les Thomas, commenced substantially similar putative class action lawsuits under Nevada state law, captioned Franchi v. Inuvo, Inc. et al., No. A-19-787021-C and Thomas v. Inuvo, Inc. et al., No. T19-57, in the District Court of the State of Nevada in the County of Clark. These complaints name Inuvo and the members of Inuvo's board of directors as defendants. The Franchi action also names ConversionPoint and various entities created to effect the merger as defendants. Both complaints assert breach of fiduciary duties claims arising from the adequacy of the disclosures relating to the merger transactions made in a joint consent solicitation statement/ prospectus, and both complaints seek an injunction preventing the parties from consummating the merger transactions, damages in the event the merger transactions are consummated and an award of attorneys' fees. Inuvo and ConversionPoint believe the claims asserted in the Franchi and Thomas lawsuits are similarly without merit. The company believes the allegations in the lawsuits have been mooted by the filing of our amended S-4 Registration Statement on March 15, 2019. ConversionPoint and Inuvo intend to vigorously contest any continued litigation, and any fee petitions brought by Plaintiffs' counsel. On January 25, 2018, the Thomas plaintiff filed a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin the merger. A hearing on the preliminary injunction was held on March 18, 2019. The Franchi and Thomas complaints seek, among other relief, an injunction preventing the parties from consummating the merger transactions, damages in the event the merger transactions are consummated and an award of attorneys' fees. Inuvo and ConversionPoint believe the claims asserted in the lawsuits are without merit. On February 5 and 14, 2019, Inuvo filed motions to dismiss, or in the alternative to stay, the Franchi and Thomas actions, respectively, pending the resolution of the first-filed D'Arcy action. A hearing on the Franchi motion is yet to be scheduled. Following the filing of the company's amended S-4 Registration Statement on March 15, 2019, Plaintiff Thomas filed a stipulation of dismissal, dismissing the action, but requesting the court maintain jurisdiction to determine Plaintiff's mootness fee claim. On April 12, 2019, counsel for Plaintiff Thomas filed a motion for attorneys' fees and expenses. Inuvo filed its brief in opposition on May 3, 2019. Plaintiff Thomas's reply was due no later than May 17, 2019. The Thomas court set the matter for hearing without argument on May 24, 2019. On April 11, 2019, Plaintiff Franchi filed a notice of voluntary dismissal. Inuvo, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, a technology company, provides data-driven platforms that automatically identify and message online audiences across video, mobile, connected TV, display, and social and native devices, channels, and formats in the United States. Inuvo, Inc. was incorporated in 1987 and is headquartered in Little Rock, Arkansas. IPC, INC: Physicians Healthsource Seeks to Certify Settlement Class ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit PHYSICIANS HEALTHSOURCE, INC., individually, and as the representatives of a class of similarly-situated persons, Physicians Healthsource, the Plainitff, v. IPC, INC d/b/a PLATINUMCODE., and JOHN DOES 1-10, the Defendants, Case: 1:16-cv-00301-MRB (S.D. Ohio), Physicians Healthsource asks the Court to enter an order: 1. certifying a class and preliminarily approving the Class Settlement Agreement; 2. appointing Physicians Healthsource as the representative of the class and Matthew E. Stubbs of Montgomery Jonson, LLP as counsel for the class; 3. approving the proposed Notice of Class Action and Proposed Settlement; and 4. setting a date for the final approval hearing. The case arises from an alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, a federal law that has been in effect for decades. Under the TCPA, as amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act in 2005, it is "unlawful" to send an unsolicited advertisement to someone's fax machine unless the sender has an "established business relationship" with the recipient. The JFPA provides statutory damages of $500.00 for each violation. Per the terms of the proposed settlement ("the Class Settlement Agreement"), the parties have agreed to the certification of a class consisting of the 6,552 successful recipients of the IPC Fax. Additionally, IPC has agreed to pay up to $625,000.00 to settle the claims of the Class Members. In consideration for a release of claims by the Class Members , IPC has agreed to make available a sum of $625,000 ("the Settlement Fund") as well as provide a credit of $100.00 (via the delivery of a coupon) toward the purchase of cohesive bandages from IPC to each of the Settlement Class Members. After deducting the proposed Attorney Fee Award, proposed Named Plaintiff Award, and anticipated expenses, the remaining Settlement Fund will be approximately $423,250. This amount would then be distributed to the Class Members on a pro rata basis, up to a maximum of $100.00 per Class Member. Class Counsel anticipates that all Class Members who submit valid claims will receive $100.00, as the claims rate would have to approach 65% for their payments to be less than $100.00. Class Counsel anticipates that a substantial portion of the Settlement Fund will be exhausted by the claims of the Settlement Class Members, Attorney Fee Award, Named Plaintiff Award, and award for expenses.[CC] Attorneys for Physicians Healthsource, Inc. are: Matthew E. Stubbs, Esq. George D. Jonson, Esq. Matthew E. Stubbs, Esq. MONTGOMERY JONSON, LLP 600 Vine Street, Suite 2650 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 241-4722 Facsimile: (513) 768-9227 E-mail: mstubbs@mojolaw.com - and - Brian J. Wanca, Esq. Ross Good, Esq. Ryan Kelly, Esq. ANDERSON + WANCA 3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 760 Rolling Meadows, IL 60008 Telephone: 847 368-1500 Facsimile: 847 368-1501 E-mail: bwanca@andersonwanca.com rgood@andersonwanca.com rkelly@andersonwanca.com JP MORGAN: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned JAMES ELLIS and DARRYL ELLIS, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, v. JP MORGAN CHASE BANK NA, the Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-00879-JPS(E.D Wisc.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order certifying a class, appointing the Plaintiffs as class representative, and appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as Class Counsel, and for such other and further relief as the Court may deem appropriate. The Plaintiffs further ask that the Court stay this class certification motion until an amended motion for class certification is filed, and that the Court grant the parties relief from the local rules' automatic briefing schedule and requirement that Plaintiffs file a brief and supporting documents in support of this motion. To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the certification motion. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) ("The pendency of that motion [for class certification] protects a putative class from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs."). While the Seventh Circuit has held that the specific procedure described in Campbell-Ewald cannot force the individual settlement of a class representative's claims, the same decision cautions that other methods may prevent a plaintiff from representing a class. Fulton Dental, LLC v. Bisco, Inc., 860 F.3d 541, 545-46 (7th Cir. 2017).[CC] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are: Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. John D. Blythin, Esq. Jesse Fruchter, Esq. Ben J. Slatky, Esq. ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482-8000 Facsimile: (414) 482-8001 E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com meldridge@ademilaw.com KAYREE INC: Underpays Exotic Dancers, Davis et al. Claim -------------------------------------------------------- CANDISS DAVIS; and LAKESHA HUDSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. KAYREE, INC. D/B/A CLUB PARADISE II, Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-00055 (E.D. Va., June 4, 2019) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as exotic dancer. Kayree, Inc. d/b/a Club Paradise II is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Virginia. The Company operates an exotic dance club. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gregg C. Greenberg, Esq. ZIPIN AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC 8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 400 Silver Spring, MD 20910 Telephone: (301) 587-9373 E-mail: ggreenberg@zagfirm.com KIA MOTORS AMERICA: Sells Defective Vehicles, Santamaria Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action complaint has been filed against Kia Motors America, Inc. for fraud by omission, for violations of Sections 1793.1 and 1793.2 of the California Civil Code, and for breaches of express written warranty and implied warranty of merchantability in connection with the undisclosed GDI engines' defects of certain Kia vehicles. The case is captioned JORGE VENTURA SANTAMARIA, Plaintiff, vs. KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 19STCV20694 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., June 13, 2019). Plaintiff Jorge Ventura Santamaria alleges that Kia committed fraud by allowing the certain Kia vehicles to be sold to Plaintiff without disclosing that their GDI engines were defective and susceptible to sudden and catastrophic failure. Kia Motors America, Inc. is a wholesale vehicle distributor and is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Kia Motors Corporation. The company is incorporated and headquartered in the California with its principal place of business at 111 Peters Canyon Road, Irvine, California. It manufactures and distributes Kia vehicles and sells them throughout the United States through its network of dealerships. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tionna Dolin, Esq. Esther Kim, Esq. STRATEGIC LEGAL PRACTICES A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 1840 Century Park East, Suite 430 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 929-4900 Facsimile: (310) 943-3838 E-mail: tdolin@slpattorney.com ezkim@slpattorney.com L'OREAL USA: Duncan Alleges Violation under Disabilities Act ------------------------------------------------------------ L'Oreal USA, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Eugene Duncan and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. L'Oreal USA, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-05661 (S.D. N.Y., June 18, 2019). L'Oreal USA, Inc. manufactures and markets cosmetics for consumer and professional markets.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq. The Marks Law Firm PC 175 Varick Street 3rd Floor New York, NY 10014 Tel: (646) 770-3775 Fax: (646) 867-2639 Email: bmarkslaw@gmail.com LABCORP: Faces Data Breach Class Action in North Carolina --------------------------------------------------------- A data breach class action has been filed against Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings d/b/a LabCorp and Laboratory Corporation of America d/b/a LabCorp for negligence, breach of implied contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and for violations of the North Carolina Unfair & Deceptive Trade Practices Act and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA). The case is captioned GENE HIVELY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA HOLDINGS d/b/a LABCORP and LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA d/b/a LABCORP, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-CV-609 (M.D.N.C., June 18, 2019). Plaintiff Gene Hively alleges that LabCorp failed to properly monitor its vendors to ensure that proper data security safeguards were being implemented by those vendors throughout the breach period so as to properly safeguard class members' sensitive information. He asserts that LabCorp had obligations created by HIPAA, industry standards, common law, and representations made to class members, to keep class members' sensitive information confidential and to protect it from unauthorized access and disclosure. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings d/b/a LabCorp is incorporated in Delaware. Its principal place of business is in Burlington, North Carolina. LabCorp is a leading 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. The Plaintiff is represented by: Carlos E. Mahoney, Esq. GLENN, MILLS, FISHER & MAHONEY, P.A. Durham, NC 27702-3865 Telephone: (919) 683-2135 E-mail: cmahoney@gmfm-law.com - and - Narendra K. Ghosh, Esq. PATTERSON HARKAVY LLP 100 Europa Dr., Suite 420 Chapel Hill, NC 27517 Telephone: (919) 942-5200 E-mail: nghosh@pathlaw.com - and - Joe P. Leniski, Jr., Esq. J. Gerard Stranch, Esq. BRANSTETTER STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC The Freedom Center 223 Rosa L. Parks Ave., Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 E-mail: joeyl@bsjfirm.com gerards@bsjfirm.com LASHIFY INC: Duncan Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act ------------------------------------------------------ Lashify, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Eugene Duncan and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Lashify, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-05669 (S.D. N.Y., June 18, 2019). Lashify offers luxury DIY lash extensions at home.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq. The Marks Law Firm PC 175 Varick Street 3rd Floor New York, NY 10014 Tel: (646) 770-3775 Fax: (646) 867-2639 Email: bmarkslaw@gmail.com LITTLE JOHN: Warner Seeks to Certify Class of Freight Brokers ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit MICHELLE WARNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. LITTLE JOHN TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, INC.; CHRISTOPHER DALE; and STEVEN DALE, the Defendants, Case 5:19-cv-05042-PKH (W.D. Ark.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order: 1. granting her motion for class certification; and "all similarly situated freight brokerage "Agent" or "Freight Broker" working for Little John Transpiration Services, Inc., Christopher Dale, and Steven Dale was improperly misclassified as an exempt employee not entitled to overtime under the Arkansas Code"; and 2. approving her Notice, for her appointment as Class Representative, and for the appointment of Keith, Miller, Butler, Schneider, & Pawlik, PLLC as Class Counsel. The Plaintiff is an employee of the Defendant, Little John Transportation Services, Inc. The Plaintiff brings this action, in relevant part, for back pay on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated who were denied overtime pay in violation of Arkansas Code Annotated section 11-40-211 ("AWMA"); for a declaratory judgment that Defendants committed the violations; and for a permanent injunction prohibiting the Defendants from continuing such practices in the future.[CC] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: George M. Rozzell IV, Esq. Jenna R. Fogleman, Esq. KEITH, MILLER, BUTLER, SCHNEIDER & PAWLIK, PLLC 224 S. 2nd St. Rogers, AR 72756 Telephone: 479 621 0006 Facsimile: 479 631 6890 E-mail: grozzell@arkattorneys.com jfogleman@arkattorneys.com Attorneys for the Defendants are: Christy Comstock, Esq. WALES & COMSTOCK 3608 North Steele Boulevard, Suite 101 Fayetteville, AR 72703 - and - Daniel Herrington, Esq. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE, AND CLARK, LLP 400 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 LOVELY SKIN: Crosson Sues over Web Accessibility Issue ------------------------------------------------------ A class action complaint has been filed against Lovely Skin, Inc. for alleged violations of the Americans With Disabilities Act, New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. The case is captioned ARETHA CROSSON, Individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, - against - LOVELY SKIN, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-03549 (E.D.N.Y., June 17, 2019). Plaintiff Aretha Crosson brings this civil rights action against Lovely Skin for their failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by her and other blind or visually-impaired persons. Defendant has been denying blind and visually-impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and services Lovely Skin provides to their non-disabled customers through http//:www.Lovelyskin.com. Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Lovely Skin's policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Her complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Lovely Skin, Inc. is a Nebraska foreign business corporation doing business in New York with its principal place of business located in Omaha, Nebraska. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Shaked, Esq. SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C. 44 Court St., Suite 1217 Brooklyn, NY 11201 Telephone: (917) 373-9128 E-mail: ShakedLawGroup@Gmail.com MDL 2887: Flanary et al Suit over Tainted Dog Food Consolidated --------------------------------------------------------------- The case, Janice Flanary, Ashli Rogers, and Robert Stapleton, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. HILL'S PET NUTRITION, INC., the Defendant, vs. Kristina Johnson, Cliff Palifrone, and Theresa Erickson, the Movants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00243 (Filed April 2, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas (Kansas City) on June 17, 2019. The District of Kansas Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-02322-JAR-TJJ to proceeding. The case is assigned to the Chief District Judge Julie A. Robinson. The suit alleges Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act violation. The lead case is Case No. 2:19-md-02887-JAR-TJJ. The Plaintiffs bring this class action on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated consumers. Plaintiff seeks monetary relief and an order forcing Hill's to provide appropriate injunctive relief by ensuring that all potentially affected products are identified on Hill's website and removed from shelves. The Flanary et al case is being consolidated with MDL 2887 in re: HILL'S PET NUTRITION, INC., DOG FOOD PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel Multidistrict Litigation on June 4, 2019. The Panel finds that these actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the District of Kansas will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. The actions share factual issues arising from allegations that multiple varieties of Hill's Prescription Diet and Science Diet canned dog food products were defective, in that they contained dangerously high levels of Vitamin D. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery, the possibility of inconsistent rulings on class certification, Daubert motions, and other pretrial matters, and conserve judicial and party resources. In its June 5, 2019 Order, the MDL Panel select the District of Kansas as the transferee district. Hill's is headquartered in that district, and it represents that its key evidence and witnesses are located there. Eight potential tagalong actions are pending in the District of Kansas, and its selection is supported by both Hill's and a number of plaintiffs. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge Julie A. Robinson. The lead case is Case No. 2:19-md-02887-JAR-TJJ.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are: Jeffrey Scott Goldenberg, Esq. GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, LPA One West Fourth Street, 18th Floor Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 345-8291 Facsimile: (513) 345-8294 MDL 2887: Sprengel et al. Suit over Tainted Dog Food Consolidated ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case, Jenna Sprengel, Kelli Coppi, and Laura Freeman, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated , the Plaintiffs, vs. HILL'S PET NUTRITION, INC., and Hill's Pet Nutrition Sales, Inc., the Defendants, vs. Kristina Johnson, Cliff Palifrone, and Theresa Erickson, the Movants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00074 (Filed Feb. 15, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas (Kansas City) on June 13, 2019. The District of Kansas Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-02303-JAR-TJJ to proceeding. The case is assigned to the Chief District Judge Julie A. Robinson. The suit alleges Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act violation. The lead case is Case No. 2:19-md-02887-JAR-TJJ. The Plaintiffs bring this class action on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated consumers. Plaintiff seeks monetary relief and an order forcing Hill's to provide appropriate injunctive relief by ensuring that all potentially affected products are identified on Hill's website and removed from shelves. The Sprengel et al case is being consolidated with MDL 2887 in re: HILL'S PET NUTRITION, INC., DOG FOOD PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel Multidistrict Litigation on June 4, 2019. The Panel finds that these actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the District of Kansas will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. The actions share factual issues arising from allegations that multiple varieties of Hill's Prescription Diet and Science Diet canned dog food products were defective, in that they contained dangerously high levels of Vitamin D. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery, the possibility of inconsistent rulings on class certification, Daubert motions, and other pretrial matters, and conserve judicial and party resources. In its June 5, 2019 Order, the MDL Panel select the District of Kansas as the transferee district. Hill's is headquartered in that district, and it represents that its key evidence and witnesses are located there. Eight potential tagalong actions are pending in the District of Kansas, and its selection is supported by both Hill's and a number of plaintiffs. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge Julie A. Robinson. The lead case is Case No. 2:19-md-02887-JAR-TJJ.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are: Dennis A. Costigan, Esq. Motley Rice LLC 55 Cedar Street, Suite 100 Providence, RI 02903 Telephone: (401) 457-7700 - and - Kenneth A. Wexler, Esq. Umar Sattar, Esq. WEXLER WALLACE, LLP 55 W. Monroe Street, Suite 3300 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 346-2222 Facsimile: (312) 346-0022 E-mail: kaw@wexlerwallace.com us@wexlerwallace.com - and - Vincent L. Greene, IV, Esq. Fidelma L. Fitzpatrick, Esq. MOTLEY RICE LLC 55 Cedar Street, Suite 100 Providence, RI 02903 Telephone: 457-7730 Facsimile: 457-7708 Attorneys for the Defendant are: Amy Jean Laurendeau, Esq. Hannah Y Shay Chanoine, Esq. O'MELVENHY & MYERS LLP 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 326-2000 Facsimile: (212) 326-2061 Attorneys for the Movant are: Thomas J. Enright, Esq. ENRIGHT LAW LLC 696 Reservoir Avenue Cranston, RI 02910 Telephone: (401) 526-2620 Facsimile: (401) 457-7117 MEDICAL NECESSITIES: Certification of Delivery Techs Class Sought ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit CHARLES JENKINS-QUEEN, Individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated current and former employees, the Plaintiff, v. MEDICAL NECESSITIES AND SERVICES, LLC, a Tennessee Corporation FLSA Opt-In Collective Action, the Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-01294 (M.D. Tenn.), the Plaintiff moves the Court for an order: 1. conditionally certifying a class of "similarly situated current and former Delivery ("Delivery Techs") employed by Medical Necessities ("Defendant") during the last three years, defined as: "all current and former employees of Medical Necessities who worked as a Delivery Technician, or any other position that involved the delivery or on-site repair of medical equipment, for more than forty hours in any week during the previous three years from the filing of the Complaint"; 2. simultaneously authorizing Court-supervised notice to those individuals, in accordance with Section 16(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. section 216(b); and 3. directing that Court-supervised Notice to be ordered in accordance with 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) use Plaintiffs' proposed Notice so that putative Opt-In Plaintiffs may be properly notified of their right to join this putative FLSA collective action.[CC] Attorneys for the Plaintiff and all other similarly situated current and former employees are: Gordon E. Jackson, Esq. James L. Holt, JR., Esq. Paula R. Jackson, Esq. J. Russ Bryant, Esq. Nathaniel A. Bishop, Esq. JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER & HOLT 262 German Oak Drive Memphis, TN 38018 Telephone: (901) 754-8001 Facsimile: (901) 754-8524 E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com rbryant@jsyc.com jholt@jsyc.com nbishop@jsyc.com - and - Nina Parsley, Esq. PONCE LAW 400 Professional Park Drive Goodlettsville, TN 37072 E-mail: nina@poncelaw.com MIDLAND CREDIT: Court Imposes Monetary Sanctions in Dionisio Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California issued an Order imposing Monetary Sanctions on Plaintiffs in the case captioned VIRGINIA DIONISIO, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, et al. Defendants. Case No. 1:19-cv-0190-DAD-JLT. (E.D. Cal.). The Plaintiff initiated this matter individually and on behalf of a class of all others similarly situated, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, against Midland Credit Management, Inc. and Midland Funding LLC, for unlawful debt collection practices. In the complaint, Plaintiff indicated she was bringing this class action on behalf of a class of California consumers under Section1692 et seq. of Title 15 of the United States Code, commonly referred to as the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act. The Court issued an order to the Plaintiff to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed for her failure to prosecute the action, because the Plaintiff failed to serve the summons and complaint upon the Defendant, or file proof of service therefore. In response, the Plaintiff filed a Notice of Settlement, reporting the parties have settled this matter. The Court issued an Order after Notice of Settlement. The Court noted Plaintiff anticipated filing dismissal documents, but due to the nature of the claims presented in the Complaint, the Plaintiff must obtain court approval to settle this class action. The Plaintiff failed to seek approval of the settlement of class claims and instead filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice. Civil Contempt Civil contempt consists of a party's disobedience to a specific and definite court order by failure to take all reasonable steps within the party's power to comply. When there has been contempt, a court can levy contempt sanctions pursuant to its inherent powers. The inherent powers of federal courts are those that are necessary to the exercise of all others. Twice the Court has ordered Plaintiff and Mr. Stieglitz to address the claims of the class and to seek approval of the settlement terms made on behalf of the class. They have not done so and have completely ignored the Court's orders. The Court finds Plaintiff and Mr. Stieglitz have failed to take reasonable steps to comply with the Court's orders and are in contempt of the Court's orders. Sanctions The Local Rules, corresponding with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, provide: Failure of counsel or of a party to comply with any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions within the inherent power of the Court. District courts have inherent power to control their dockets and in exercising that power, a court may impose sanctions. The Ninth Circuit determined the Court has authority to order coercive fines and remedial sanctions for civil contempt. The Ninth Circuit explained a district court should apply the least coercive sanction (e.g., a monetary penalty) reasonably calculated to win compliance with its orders. If the fine, or any portion of the fine, is coercive, it should be payable to the court, not the complainant. The Plaintiff and Mr. Stieglitz have demonstrated a willingness to defy the Court's orders such that sanctions are warranted to coerce the them into compliance with the court's order. As such, the Court finds monetary sanctions in the amount of $250.00 each are appropriate. An additional $100.00 per day $50.00 as to Ms. Dionisio and $50.00 as to Mr. Stieglitz shall accrue each business day after June 17, 2019 that they fail to comply with the Court's orders to address the claims of the class in this action. Rule 41 Dismissal The Plaintiff and Mr. Stieglitz have voluntarily dismissed Ms. Dionisio's individual claims, yet they have repeatedly failed to address the claims of the class. Thus, the Court declines to close the action. If the claims of the class are intended to be dismissed without prejudice, the Plaintiff must file a notice explaining this fact. If Plaintiff has settled the claims of the class, as she has indicated impliedly in her filings, she must file a motion for approval of the settlement terms before this action will be closed by the Court. The Court finds the Plaintiff and her counsel are in civil contempt of court for failure to comply with the orders. Accordingly, the Court orders coercive monetary sanctions on Plaintiff in the amount of $250.00 and on her attorney, Jonathan Stiegliz, in the amount of $250.00. A full-text copy of the District Court's June 10, 2019 Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yxha4g9h from Leagle.com. Virginia Dionisio, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jonathan Aaron Stieglitz -- jstieglitz@nelsonhardiman.com -- Law Office of Jonathan A. Stieglitz. MISSISSIPPI: Court Denies Class Certification in D. Bennett Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi, Greenville Division, issued an Order denying Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification in the case captioned DEVIN BENNETT, Plaintiff, v. CAPTAIN NORRIS MORRIS, ET AL., Defendants. No. 4:12CV108-MPM-DAS. (N.D. Miss.). The plaintiff argues that he and other Mississippi Death Row inmates are similarly situated, that he needs access to additional discovery, and that an appointed attorney and experts are essential to the resolution of this case. The motion is not well taken and will be denied. Trial courts have broad discretion in determining whether or not to certify a class action. Rule 23. Class Actions, 1 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rules and Commentary Rule 23. This case has proceeded with a single plaintiff, off and on, since 2012. The issues in the case involve matters with which the plaintiff is personally familiar and about which he may testify in a hearing should the case proceed that far. The case has moved to the Summary Judgment stage, and the court is loath to change its trajectory at this juncture. The instant motion to certify a class of plaintiff consisting of Mississippi Death Row inmates is denied. A full-text copy of the District Court's June 10, 2019 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yxfst9db from Leagle.com. Devin A. Bennett, Plaintiff, pro se. Superintendent Earnest Lee, Sued in his official and individual capacity, Deputy Commissioner E. L. Sparkman, Sued in his official and individual capacity & Doris McDonald, Sued in her official and individual capacity, Defendants, represented by John Chadwick Williams, MISSISSIPPI ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE Civil Litigation Division & Benny McCalip May, MISSISSIPPI ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE CIVIL LITIGATION DIVISION. Commissioner Christopher Epps, Defendant, pro se. Pelicia Hall, MDOC Commissioner, Marshal Turner, MSP Superintendent & Timothy Morris, MSP/Unit 29 Warden, Defendants, represented by John Chadwick Williams, MISSISSIPPI ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE Civil Litigation Division. MOBILE, AL: Diamond Appeals Class Cert. Denial to 11th Circuit -------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Arnita Diamond filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the lawsuit titled Anitra Diamond v. Kimberly Hastie, Case No. 1:15-cv-00204-KD-C, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on May 24, 2019, the District Court denied the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification. On April 14, 2015 (amended on August 18, 2017 and September 22, 2017), Named Plaintiff Anitra Diamond, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a class action complaint alleging that Defendant Kimberly Hastie, formerly license commissioner, unlawfully obtained, used and/or disclosed personal information of Mobile, Alabama citizens (email addresses) from motor vehicle records in violation of the Drivers' Privacy Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2721, et. seq. (DPPA) (Count I) and in violation of their privacy rights under Title 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 (Count II). The appellate case is captioned as Anitra Diamond v. Kimberly Hastie, Case No. 19-90008, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Petitioner ANITRA DIAMOND, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, is represented by: Kasie M. Braswell, Esq. BRASWELL MURPHY, LLC 105 N. Conception St., Suite 100 Mobile, AL 36602 Telephone: (251) 438-7503 Facsimile: (251) 438-7949 E-mail: kasie@braswellmurphy.com - and - Archie I. Grubb, II, Esq. Wilson Daniel Miles, III, Esq. BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, PC PO BOX 4160 218 Commerce St. Montgomery, AL 36103 Telephone: (334) 269-2343 Facsimile: (334) 954-7555 E-mail: archie.grubbs@beasleyallen.com dee.miles@beasleyallen.com - and - Daniel Brian Murphy, Esq. ALFORD BOLIN, LLC 224 Dauphin St. Mobile, AL 36602 Telephone: (251) 432-1600 Defendant-Respondent KIMBERLY HASTIE, in her individual capacity, is represented by: Joe Carl Jordan, Esq. BUZZ JORDAN, PC 1111 Dauphin St. Mobile, AL 36604 Telephone: (251) 432-5400 E-mail: buzz@rossandjordan.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Clayton et al. Suit Moved to N.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled KEITH CLAYTON; and CANDACE CLAYTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MONSANTO COMPANY; and JOHN DOES 1-50, Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00196, was removed from the Eastern District of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on July 4, 2019. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-03075 to the proceeding. The Case is assigned to the Hon. Vince Chhabria. Monsanto Company, together with its subsidiaries, provides agricultural products for farmers worldwide. The company was formerly known as Monsanto Ag Company and changed its name to Monsanto Company in March 2000. Monsanto Company was founded in 2000 and is based in St. Louis, Missouri. As of June 7, 2018, Monsanto Company operates as a subsidiary of Bayer Aktiengesellschaft. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric D. Holland, Esq. HOLLAND LAW FIRM 300 North Tucker, Suite 801 St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 241-8111 Facsimile: (314) 241-5554 E-mail: eholland@allfela.com - and - Jessica L. Richman, Esq. PARKER WAICHMAN LLP 6 Harbor Park Drive Port Washington, NY 11050 Telephone: (516) 723-4627 Facsimile: (516) 723-4727 E-mail: jrichman@yourlawyer.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Matlock et al. Suit Moved to N.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled KEVIN T. MATLOCK; and KATHY G. MATLOCK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-00756, was removed from the Eastern District of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on July 4, 2019. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-03076 to the proceeding. The Case is assigned to the Hon. Vince Chhabria. Monsanto Company, together with its subsidiaries, provides agricultural products for farmers worldwide. The company was formerly known as Monsanto Ag Company and changed its name to Monsanto Company in March 2000. Monsanto Company was founded in 2000 and is based in St. Louis, Missouri. As of June 7, 2018, Monsanto Company operates as a subsidiary of Bayer Aktiengesellschaft. [BN] The 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 NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Simmons Sues Over Student-Athletes' Injuries ----------------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTOPHER SIMMONS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION and WOFFORD COLLEGE, Case No. 1:19-cv-02209-JPH-DML (S.D. Ind., June 3, 2019), seeks to obtain redress for injuries allegedly sustained as a result of the Defendants' reckless disregard for the health and safety of generations of Wofford student-athletes. NCAA is an unincorporated association with its principal place of business located in Indianapolis, Indiana. NCAA is not organized under the laws of any State, but is registered as a tax-exempt organization with the Internal Revenue Service. The NCAA is the governing body of collegiate athletics that oversees twenty-three college sports and over 400,000 students who participate in intercollegiate athletics, including the football program at Wofford. According to the NCAA, more than 1,200 schools, conferences and affiliate organizations collectively invest in improving the experiences of athletes, on the field, in the classroom, and in life. Wofford College is a private university located at 429 North Church St., in Spartanburg, South Carolina.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeff Raizner, Esq. RAIZNER SLANIA LLP 2402 Dunlavy Street Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (713) 554-9099 Facsimile: (713) 554-9098 E-mail: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com - and - Jay Edelson, Esq. Benjamin H. Richman, 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 - and - Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq. EDELSON PC 123 Townsend Street, Suite 100 San Francisco, CA 94107 Telephone: (415) 212-9300 Facsimile: (415) 373-9435 E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com NAVIENT SOLUTIONS: Court Declines to Certify TCPA Class ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit SUSAN FENNELL, the Plaintiff, v. NAVIENT SOLUTIONS, LLC, the Defendant, Case 6:17-cv-02083-RBD-DCI (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Roy Dalton entered an order on June 13, 2019, declining to certify a class of: "all persons within the United States whose (1) cellular telephone number was called by [Navient]; (2) with an automatic telephone dialing system; (3) without consent; and (4) from December 4, 2013 to October 31, 2018." The Court denied the motion for class certification without leave to amend. Fennell asserts that the calls to her cell phone "included delays in time before the telephone call was transferred to a representative to speak," "sounded like an artificial or pre-recorded voice," and "started with a delay in time before the representative joined the line to leave a message." Fennell contends the use of the ATDS to call her violates the TCPA and brings this action on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated. Based on discovery, Fennell contends Navient placed 9,645,524 debt collection calls to at least 27,397 customers who told Navient to stop calling during the class period in violation of the TCPA.[CC] NEW YORK: Mitchell Files Class Suit Over Prisoner Civil Rights -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Anthony J. Annucci, Acting Commissioner. The case is styled as Dontie S. Mitchell and those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Anthony J. Annucci, Acting Commissioner, Jeff McKoy, Deputy Commissioner, Christopher Miller, Superintendent, David Barringer, Deputy Superintendent and Imam Elmi, Coordinating Chaplain, Defendants, Case No. 9:19-cv-00718-MAD-DEP (N.D. N.Y., June 12, 2019). The lawsuit arises under Prisoner Civil Rights. The Defendants are government representatives acting under their official capacity. Anthony J. Annucci is the Acting Commissioner, New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision.[BN] The Plaintiff appears PRO SE. NIDEC MOTOR: Court OKs $1.675MM Prelim Settlement in G. Pounds Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California issued an Order granting Preliminary Approval on Class Action Settlement in the case captioned GURTHA POUNDS, on behalf of herself, and all others similarly situated and as an "aggrieved employee" on behalf of other "aggrieved employees" under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, Plaintiff(s), v. NIDEC MOTOR CORPORATION, an Ohio corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendant(s). Case No. 2:17-cv-02527-JAM-KJN. (E.D. Cal.). The Court grants preliminary approval of the Settlement and the Settlement Class based upon the terms set forth in the Settlement filed in support of the Motion. All capitalized terms used herein shall have the same meaning as defined in the Settlement. The Court has determined there is sufficient evidence to suggest that (a) the terms of the Settlement might be fair, adequate, and reasonable to the Settlement Class and (b) the Settlement falls within the range of reasonableness and appears to be presumptively valid, subject only to any objections that may be raised at the final hearing and final approval by this Court. The Court will make a determination at the hearing on the motion for final approval of class action settlement (Final Approval Hearing) of whether the Settlement is fair, adequate and reasonable to the Settlement Class. The Court preliminarily finds that the Settlement was the product of serious, informed, non-collusive negotiations conducted at arm's length by the Parties. In making this preliminary finding, the Court considered the nature of the claims set forth in the pleadings, the amounts and kinds of benefits which shall be paid pursuant to the Settlement, the allocation of Settlement proceeds to the Settlement Class, and the fact that the Settlement represents a compromise of the Parties' respective positions. The Court further preliminarily finds that the terms of the Settlement have no obvious deficiencies and do not improperly grant preferential treatment to any individual Class Member. Accordingly, the Court preliminarily finds that the Settlement was entered into in good faith. The essential monetary terms of the Settlement are as follows: a. Defendant NMC's payment of a Gross Settlement Amount (GSA) of $1,675,000; b. Plaintiff's Incentive Award of up to $30,000; c. Class Counsel's fees of not more than one-third of the GSA, or $558,278; d. Class Counsel's costs and expenses not to exceed $30,000; e. The Claims Administrator's costs not to exceed $15,000; f. Civil penalties under the California Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) of $20,000, of which 25% or $5,000 will be payable to the Settlement Class and 75% or $15,000 will be payable to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA). A full-text copy of the District Court's June 10, 2019 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y5lnb7ly from Leagle.com. Gurtha Pounds, on behalf of herself, and others similarly situated, and as an aggrieved employee on behalf of other aggrieved employees", Plaintiff, represented by Caroline Tahmassian -- caroline@spivaklaw.com -- The Spivak Law Firm, David Glenn Spivak -- david@spivaklaw.com -- The Spivak Law Firm & Walter L. Haines -- whaines@uelglaw.com -- United Employees Law Group, PC. Nidec Motor Corporation, a Delaware corporation, Defendant, represented by Kenneth Dawson Sulzer -- ksulzer@constangy.com -- Constangy Brooks Smith & Prophete LLP, Sayaka Karitani -- skaritani@constangy.com -- Constangy Brooks Smith & Prophete, LLP & Kimberly T. Bernstein -- kbernstein@constangy.com -- Constangy, Brooks, Smith, & Prophete LLP. NORTHWEST TENNESSEE: Underpays Medical Assistants, Suit Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- WENDY BRISENTINE; APRIL BRISENTINE and AMBER REEVES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situates, Plaintiff v. NORTHWEST TENNESSEE FOOT CLINIC PLLC; and DR. ELIZABETH LU, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01122-JDB-jay (W.D. Tenn., June 11, 2019) sues over unpaid overtime compensation, minimum wage, related penalties and damages, and failure to pay the Plaintiffs for all hours worked. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as medical assistants. Northwest Tennessee Foot Clinic PLLC is engaged as a heath care provider. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bailey H. Dorsey, Esq. Laura Ann E. Bailey, Esq. Alan G. Crone, Esq. Bailey H. Dorsey, Esq. THE CRONE LAW FIRM, PLC 88 Union Avenue, 14th Floor Memphis, TN 38103 Telephone: (901) 737-7740 Facsimile: (901) 474-7926 E-mail: lbailey@cronelawfirmplc.com acrone@cronelawfirmplc.com bdorsey@cronelawfirmplc.com NRT LLC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Chinitz Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------- RONALD CHINITZ, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NRT LLC, Defendants, Case No. 5:19-cv-03309 (N.D. Cal., June 11, 2019) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls. NRT LLC provides residential and commercial real estate brokerage services in the United States. The company also offers mortgage, title, insurance, escrow, warranty, REO, relocation, property management, development, marketing, and concierge services. The company was incorporated in 1997 and is based in Madison, New Jersey. NRT LLC operates as a subsidiary of Realogy Holdings Corp. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael R. Reese, Esq. George V. Granade, Esq. REESE LLP 100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor New York, NY 10025 Telephone: (212) 643-0500 Facsimile: (212) 253-4272 E-mail: mreese@reesellp.com ggranade@reesellp.com - and - Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 1828 L. Street, NW, Suite 1000 Washington, D.C 20036 Telephone: (202) 973-0900 Facsimile: (202) 973-0950 E-mail: hzavareei@tzlegal.com - and - Sabita J. Soneji, Esq. Tanya Koshy, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 483 Ninth St., Suite 200 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (510) 254-6808 Facsimile: (202) 973-0950 E-mail: ssoneji@tzlegal.com tkoshy@tzlegal.com NRT WEST: Chinitz Seeks to Certify Classes ------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit RONALD CHINITZ, individually, and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons, the Plaintiff, vs. NRT WEST, INC., d/b/a Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage Company, the Defendant, Case No. 5:18-cv-06100-NC (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the Court on August 14, 2019, for certification of these classes: National Do Not Call Registry Class ("DNC Class"): "all persons in the United States who: (a) received more than one call made by one of Defendant's real estate agents on Defendant's behalf or by another agent of Defendant on Defendant's behalf; (b) promoting Defendant's goods or services; (c) in a 12-month period; (d) on their residential telephone line; (e) whose residential telephone number(s) appear on the NDNCR; (f) at any time since October 4, 2014"; National Internal Do Not Call Class ("Internal DNC Class"): "all persons in the United States who: (a) received more than one call made by one of Defendant's real estate agents on Defendant's behalf or by another agent of Defendant on Defendant's behalf; (b) promoting Defendant's goods or services; (c) in a 12-month period; (d) on their residential telephone line; (e) who made a request not to receive calls from or on behalf of Defendant; (f) at any time since October 4, 2014"; and National Artificial or Prerecorded Message Residential Class ("Prerecorded Message Class"): "all persons in the United States to whom: (a) one of Defendant's real estate agents on Defendant's behalf, or another agent of Defendant on Defendant's behalf, initiated one or more non-emergency telephone calls; (b) promoting Defendant's goods or services; (c) to a recipient's residential telephone line; (d) through the use of an artificial or prerecorded voice; (e) at any time since October 4, 2014." Excluded from the DNC Class, the Internal DNC Class, and the Prerecorded Message Class are: (a) Defendant, Defendant's board members, executive-level officers, and attorneys, and immediately family members of any of the foregoing persons; (b) governmental entities; (c) the Court, the Court's immediate family, and the Court staff; and (d) any person that timely and properly excludes himself or herself from the Class in accordance with Court-approved procedures. NRT West, Inc. and its parent company NRT LLC operate through thousands of real estate agents across the country who represent consumers when they buy and sell real estate. According to the complaint, to bring in new business, NRT's real estate agents "cold call" residential telephone numbers directly. In addition, they use prerecorded messages to cold call people. In their zeal to find clients and get more commissions, NRT's real estate agents call potential customers who are on the National Do Not Call Registry ("NDNCR"); they fail to maintain a company-specific do-not-call list adequately; and they place calls using artificial or prerecorded messages. Each of these practices violates the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991.[CC] Counsel for the Ronald Chinitz and the Proposed Class are: Michael R. Reese, Esq. George V. Granade, Esq. REESE LLP 100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor New York, NY 10025 Telephone: (212) 643-0500 Facsimile: (212) 253-4272 E-mail: mreese@reesellp.com ggranade@reesellp.com - and - Sabita J. Soneji, Esq. Tanya S. Koshy, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 1970 Broadway, Suite 1070 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 254-6808 Facsimile: (202) 973-0950 E-mail: ssoneji@tzlegal.com tkoshy@tzlegal.com - and - Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 1828 L Street, Northwest, Suite 1000 Washington, D.C. 20036 Telephone: (202) 973-0900 Facsimile: (202) 973-0950 E-mail: hzavareei@tzlegal.com PAY-O-MATIC: Luyando Suit Transferred to Eastern Dist. of New York ------------------------------------------------------------------ The case, Carmen Luyando, individually and on behalf of all others similarly-situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. PAY-O-MATIC CHECK CASHING CORP., THE PAY-O-MATIC CORP., and JOHN and JANE DOES 1-100, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-11114 (Filed Nov. 28, 2018), was transferred from the U.S. District Court Southern District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Brooklyn) on June 17, 2019. The Eastern District of New York Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-03571-FB-SMG to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Frederic Block. The Plaintiffs, current and/or former non-exempt employees employed by Defendants, bring this action on their own behalf and on behalf of the proposed collective and Rule 23 classes against Defendants for violations of: the minimum wage and overtime requirements under the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the minimum wage and overtime requirements under New York Labor Laws.[BN] Counsel for the Plaintiffs and the Proposed Classes: Benjamin D. Weisenberg, Esq. THE OTTINGER FIRM, P.C. 401 Park Avenue South New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 571-2000 Facsimile: (212) 571-0505 E-mail: benjamin@ottingerlaw.com Counsel for the Defendants are: Albert John Millus, Jr., Esq. Miriam Schindel, Esq. HINMAN, HOWARD, AND KATTELL, LLP 700 Security Mutual Building 80 Exchange Street Po Box 5250 Binghamton, NY 13902 Telephone: (607) 723-5341 Facsimile: (607) 723-6605 E-mail: amillus@hhk.com mschindel@hhk.com - and - Isaac J. Burker, Esq. Jonathan M. Kozak, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS, LLP 44 South Broadway, 14th floor White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: (914) 872-8060 Facsimile: (914) 946-1216 E-mail: isaac.burker@jacksonlewis.com Jonathan.Kozak@jacksonlewis.com PURDUE PHARMA: Canton City Sues over Highly Addictive Opioids ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action complaint has been filed against Purdue Pharma L.P., Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc, and other opioid manufacturers and distributors for public nuisance and for their violations of the Federal and North Carolina RICO statutes, negligence, and unlawful and deceptive trade practices. The case is captioned CITY OF CANTON, a municipal corporation, CHATHAM COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. PURDUE PHARMA L.P.; PURDUE PHARMA INC.; THE PURDUE FREDERICK COMPANY, INC.; TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC.; CEPHALON, INC.; JOHNSON & JOHNSON; JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; ORTHO MCNEIL-JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. n/k/a JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICA, INC. n/k/a JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; DEPOMED, INC.; ENDO HEALTH SOLUTIONS INC.; ENDO PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; ALLERGAN PLC. f/k/a ACTAVIS PLC; ACTAVIS, INC. f/k/a WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; WATSON LABORATORIES, INC.; ACTAVIS LLC; ACTAVIS PHARMA, INC. f/k/a WATSON PHARMA, INC., MALLINCKRODT PLC; MALLINCKRODT LLC; AMERISOURCEBERGEN DRUG CORPORATION; CARDINAL HEALTH, INC.; and McKESSON CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-op-45462-DAP (N.D. Ohio, June 14, 2019). Plaintiffs allege that the manufacturers aggressively promoted and pushed highly addictive, dangerous opioids and falsely represented to doctors that patients would rarely succumb to drug addiction. These pharmaceutical companies have aggressively advertised to and persuaded doctors to prescribe highly addictive, dangerous opioids -- turning patients into drug addicts for their own corporate profit. Accordingly, Plaintiffs bring this civil action to eliminate the hazard to public health and safety caused by the opioid epidemic, to abate the nuisance caused thereby, and to recoup monies that have been spent, or will be spent, because of Defendants' false, deceptive, and unfair marketing and/or unlawful diversion of prescription opioids. Headquartered in Stamford, Connecticut, Purdue Pharma L.P. is a limited partnership organized under the laws of Delaware. The company manufactures, promotes, sells, and distributes opioids such as OxyContin, MS Contin, Dilaudid/Dilaudid HP, Butrans, Hysingla ER, and Targiniq ER in the United States. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd, an Israeli corporation. Teva USA is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Pennsylvania. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Garry Whitaker, Esq. GARRY WHITAKER LAW, P.C. One North Marshall Street, Ste. 350 Winston-Salem, NC 27101 Telephone: (336) 777-1195 Facsimile: (336) 777-8906 E-mail: GarryWhitaker@GarryWhitakerLaw.com - and - Paul D. Coates, Esq. PINTO COATES KYRE & BOWERS, PLLC 3203 Brassfield Rd. Greensboro, NC 27410 Telephone: (336) 282-8848 Facsimile: (336) 282-8409 E-mail: pcoates@pckb-law.com - and - William Bennet Atwater, Jr., Esq. ATWATER LAW FIRM 122 S. Chatham Ave. P.O. Box 629 Siler City, NC 27344 Telephone: (919) 663-2850 Facsimile: (919) 663-3790 E-mail: batwater@pinehurst.net - and – Donald R. Vaughan, Esq. DONALD R. VAUGHAN AND ASSOCIATES 612 W. Friendly Avenue Greensboro, NC 27401 Telephone: (336) 273-1415 Facsimile: (336) 273-1445 E-mail: don.vaughan@vaughanlaw.com - and - George B. Daniel, Esq. GEORGE B. DANIEL, P.A. 139 E. Main Street Yanceyville, NC 27379 Telephone: (336) 694-5473 Facsimile: (336) 694-6601 E-mail: gdaniel@danielthomaslaw.com - and - J. Anderson Davis, Esq. Samuel L. Lucas, Esq. Lee B. Carter, Esq. BRINSON, ASKEW, BERRY, SEIGLER, RICHARDSON & DAVIS, LLP P.O. Box 5007 Rome, GA 30162-5007 Telephone: (706) 291-8853 Facsimile: (706) 234-3574 E-mail: adavis@brinson-askew.com slucas@brinson-askew.com lcarter@brinson-askew.com - and – Robert H. Smalley, Esq. McCAMY, PHILLIPS, TUGGLE & FORDHAM, LLP P.O. Box 1105 Dalton, GA 30720-1105 Telephone: (706) 508-4292 Facsimile: (706) 278-5002 E-mail: rsmalley@mccamylaw.com - and – Robert K. Finnell, Esq. THE FINNELL FIRM 1 West Fourth Ave., Suite 200 Rome, GA 30162-0063 Telephone: (706) 235-7272 Facsimile: (706) 235-9461 E-mail: bob@finnellfirm.com - and - John W. Crongeyer, Esq. CRONGEYER LAW FIRM, PC 2170 Defoor Hills Road Atlanta, GA 30318 Telephone: (404) 542-6205 Facsimile: (404) 872-3745 E-mail: jw552020@gmail.com - and - William Q. Bird, Esq. Paul I. Hotchkiss, Esq. BIRD LAW GROUP, P.C. 2170 Defoor Hills Road Atlanta, GA 30318 Telephone: (404) 873-4696 Facsimile: (404) 872-3745 E-mail: billbird@birdlawgroup.com pih@birdlawgroup.com PURDUE PHARMA: Carlson Sues over Negligence on Opioid Distribution ------------------------------------------------------------------ A class action complaint has been filed against Purdue Pharma L.P. and other manufacturers and distributors of opioids in the United States for several causes including nuisance, gross negligence, and civil conspiracy. The case is captioned Desiree Carlson, individually and as next friend and guardian of Baby J.S., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Purdue Pharma L.P. et al, Case No. 1:19-op-45487-DAP (N.D. Ohio, June 14, 2019). Baby J.S. and his mother are victims of the opioid crisis that has ravaged Pennsylvania, causing immense suffering to those born addicted to opioids and great expense to those forced to deal with the aftermath. At birth, Baby J.S. was diagnosed with Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome, a condition suffered by babies of mothers addicted to opioids. Baby J.S.'s mother was allegedly prescribed Defendants' opioids prior to Baby J.S.'s gestation, resulting in her opioid addiction and Baby J.S.'s opioid exposure during gestation. Moreover, Plaintiff Desiree Carlson brings this class action to eliminate the hazard to public health and safety caused by the opioid epidemic and to abate the nuisance caused by Defendants' false, negligent and unfair marketing and/or unlawful diversion of prescription opioids. Plaintiffs further seek the equitable relief of medical monitoring to provide this class of infants the monitoring of developmental issues that will almost inevitably appear as they grow older and equitable relief in the form of funding for services and treatment. Headquartered in Stamford, Connecticut, Purdue Pharma L.P. is a limited partnership organized under the laws of Delaware. The company manufactures, promotes, sells, and distributes opioids such as OxyContin, MS Contin, Dilaudid/Dilaudid HP, Butrans, Hysingla ER, and Targiniq ER in the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Celeste Brustowicz, Esq. Stephen Wussow, Esq. COOPER LAW FIRM 1525 Religious Street New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: 504-399-0009 Facsimile: 504-309-6989 E-mail: cbrustowicz@sch-llc.com - and - Kevin W. Thompson, Esq. David R. Barney, Jr., Esq. THOMPSON BARNEY LAW FIRM 2030 Kanawha Boulevard, East Charleston, WV 25311 Telephone: 304-343-4401 Facsimile: 304-343-4405 E-mail: kwthompson@gmail.com - and - Donald E. Creadore, Esq. CREADORE LAW FIRM 450 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1408 New York, NY 10123 Telephone: 212-355-7200 E-mail: donald@creadorelawfirm.com - and - Scott R. Bickford, Esq. Spencer R. Doody, Esq. MARTZELL, BICKFORD & CENTOLA 338 Lafayette Street New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: 504-581-9065 Facsimile: 504-581-7635 E-mail: srb@mbfirm.com - and - Kent Harrison Robbins, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF KENT HARRISON ROBBINS, P.A. 242 Northeast 27th Street Miami, FL 33137 Telephone: (305) 532-0500 Facsimile: (305) 531-0150 E-mail: khr@khrlawoffices.com ereyes@khrlawoffices.com assistant@khrlawoffices.com PURDUE PHARMA: Cherry Sues over Unsafe Marketing of Opioids ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action complaint has been filed against Purdue Pharma L.P. and other opioid manufacturers and distributors in the United States for nuisance, gross negligence, civil conspiracy, and products liability in connection with unsafe marketing, labeling, distribution, and dispensing practices of highly addictive prescription opioids. The case is captioned Angela Cherry, individually and as next friend and guardian of Baby Z.C.T., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Purdue Pharma L.P. et al, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-op-45490-DAP (N.D. Ohio, June 14, 2019). Baby Z.C.T. and his mother are victims of the opioid crisis that has ravaged Arizona, causing immense suffering to those born addicted to opioids and great expense to those forced to deal with the aftermath. At birth, Baby Z.C.T. was diagnosed with Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome (NAS), a condition suffered by babies of mothers addicted to opioids. Moreover, Plaintiff Angela Cherry brings this class action to eliminate the hazard to public health and safety caused by the opioid epidemic and to abate the nuisance caused by Defendants' false, negligent and unfair marketing and/or unlawful diversion of prescription opioids. Plaintiffs further seek equitable relief in the form of medical monitoring, in order to provide this class of infants with monitoring of developmental issues confronting them as they mature, in addition to equitable relief in the form of funding for services and treatment. The ongoing and robust medical monitoring and treatment of opioid-related NAS-diagnosed children is medically necessary. Further, this is a rapidly transforming field, as multiple members of multiple disciplines and support systems, ranging from medical providers to psychologists to behavioral therapists to childcare providers, are coming together to determine the best protocols for improving the outcomes after a diagnosis. Headquartered in Stamford, Connecticut, Purdue Pharma L.P. is a limited partnership organized under the laws of Delaware. The company manufactures, promotes, sells, and distributes opioids such as OxyContin, MS Contin, Dilaudid/Dilaudid HP, Butrans, Hysingla ER, and Targiniq ER in the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Celeste Brustowicz, Esq. Stephen Wussow, Esq. COOPER LAW FIRM 1525 Religious Street New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 399-0009 Facsimile: (504) 309-6989 E-mail: cbrustowicz@sch-llc.com - and - Kevin W. Thompson, Esq. David R. Barney, Jr., Esq. THOMPSON BARNEY LAW FIRM 2030 Kanawha Boulevard, East Charleston, WV 25311 Telephone: (304) 343-4401 Facsimile: (304) 343-4405 E-mail: kwthompson@gmail.com - and - Donald E. Creadore, Esq. CREADORE LAW FIRM 450 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1408 New York, NY 10123 Telephone: (212) 355-7200 E-mail: donald@creadorelawfirm.com - and - Scott R. Bickford, Esq. Spencer R. Doody, Esq. MARTZELL, BICKFORD & CENTOLA 338 Lafayette Street New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 581-9065 Facsimile: (504) 581-7635 E-mail: srb@mbfirm.com - and - Kent Harrison Robbins, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF KENT HARRISON ROBBINS, P.A. 242 Northeast 27th Street Miami, FL 33137 Telephone: (305) 532-0500 Facsimile: (305) 531-0150 E-mail: khr@khrlawoffices.com ereyes@khrlawoffices.com assistant@khrlawoffices.com PURDUE PHARMA: Counties Unite to Negotiate Opioid Lawsuits ---------------------------------------------------------- Eric Heisig, writing for Cleveland.com, reports that attorneys for cities and counties suing drug companies have proposed a class-action structure to negotiate and try to settle thousands of pending federal lawsuits over the nation's opioid epidemic. The proposal, unveiled in court filings, would create a mechanism for more than 24,000 city, county and other municipal governments to join together and create a front to negotiate with companies in the large swath of federal litigation currently pending in front of a federal judge in Cleveland. "The purpose of certifying a Negotiation Class is to establish and maintain an identified, unified, and durable nationwide body of cities and counties that can credibly claim to negotiate in the best interest of all the class governmental interests," the motion states. Preliminary feedback about the proposed structure alternately drew praise and criticism on Friday. The lawsuits largely accuse drug manufacturers like Purdue Pharma and pharmaceutical distributors such as the Ohio-based Cardinal Health of exacerbating the opioid epidemic. Tens of thousands of people have died nationwide in recent years. Northeast Ohio has been hit particularly hard as heroin, fentanyl and prescription painkillers are in abundant supply. Drug companies have argued against lawsuits by saying prescription painkillers such as Oxycontin have legitimate medical uses approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The companies have also said they are committed to ensuring prescription painkillers are used properly. Lawsuits continue to be filed in state and federal courts, mostly from local and county governments. The attorneys' hope is to give the drug companies a set group of governments to negotiate with, instead of having lawsuits trickle in and continue to make negotiations unwieldy. Some governments opted to not sue, while others have not yet filed suit. The class structure would only be used for negotiation and purposes for the large group, according to the motion. Governments that don't want to participate would not be required to do so. "It is neither aimed at being the vehicle for litigation or settlement," the motion states. Lawyers note that the proposed structure is novel. However, if approved, it may help lead to achieving the goals laid out by U.S. District Judge Dan Polster in Cleveland. The judge said from the outset that he would like to see all lawsuits in front of him and otherwise resolved to put money toward combatting the opioid epidemic. None of the parties have reached settlements in the federal litigation. The state of Oklahoma, which sued in state court, reached a $270 million settlement with Purdue Pharma in March, and an $85 million settlement with Teva last month, on the eve of a trial. The Oklahoma trial, in which Johnson & Johnson is the sole remaining defendant, is ongoing. There are thousands of lawsuits filed. Of those, the vast majority are filed by county and municipal governments. Any class would not include other entitles that have filed suit, including hospitals, Native American tribes and representatives of infants born with opioids in their system. The first federal trial is set for October in Cleveland. It will involve claims made by Cuyahoga and Summit counties. Defense attorneys wrote in a court filing in April that an expert for the plaintiffs estimated that it would take $480 billion to properly address the opioid epidemic nationwide. For just Cuyahoga and Summit counties, the cost would be $7.2 billion, another expert opined. Purdue Pharma issued a statement that did not directly state its thoughts on any class-action structure, but said "the company is committed to working with all parties toward a resolution that helps bring needed solutions to communities and states to address this public health crisis." "We continue to work collaboratively within the ... process outlined by Judge Polster," the statement continues. Cardinal Health said in a statement that it is defending itself from liability in the lawsuits and criticized the proposed class-action structure. "As we have said previously, an appropriate settlement could be an option to resolve the lawsuits rather than continuing to litigate," Cardinal Health said. "The settlement process class is, however, a novel and untested approach that is likely to face extended legal challenges and lead to years of collateral litigation. This will disrupt any potential resolution and distract from efforts to address the opioid crisis." Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost, whose office is pursuing separate opioid lawsuits in state court, said in a statement that the proposed structure is "an extraordinary process and a novel approach. "We're examining it very closely to make sure it is fair and appropriate for Ohioans and complies with the law," Yost said. [GN] PURDUE PHARMA: Cruz Alleges Negligent Marketing of Opioids ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action complaint has been filed against Purdue Pharma L.P. and other opioid manufacturers and distributors for public nuisance, negligence, civil conspiracy, and products liability in connection with the manufacturing, marketing and distribution of highly addictive opioids in the United States. The case is captioned GLORIA CRUZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT FRIEND AND GUARDIAN OF BABY C.E.L., ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs, v. PURDUE PHARMA L.P. ET AL, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-op-45466-DAP (N.D. Ohio, June 14, 2019). Baby C.E.L. and his mother are victims of the opioid crisis that has ravaged Massachusetts, causing immense suffering to those born addicted to opioids and great expense to those forced to deal with the aftermath. At birth, Baby C.E.L. was diagnosed with Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome, a condition suffered by babies of mothers addicted to opioids. Baby C.E.L. was forced to endure a painful start to their life; crying excessively, arching their back, refusing to feed, and shaking. Accordingly, Plaintiff Gloria Cruz bring this class action to eliminate the hazard to public health and safety caused by the opioid epidemic and to abate the nuisance caused by Defendants' false, negligent and unfair marketing and/or unlawful diversion of prescription opioids. Plaintiffs further seek the equitable relief of medical monitoring to provide this class of infants the monitoring of developmental issues that will almost inevitably appear as they grow older and equitable relief in the form of funding for services and treatment. Headquartered in Stamford, Connecticut, Purdue Pharma L.P. is a limited partnership organized under the laws of Delaware. The company manufactures, promotes, sells, and distributes opioids such as OxyContin, MS Contin, Dilaudid/Dilaudid HP, Butrans, Hysingla ER, and Targiniq ER in the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Celeste Brustowicz, Esq. Stephen Wussow, Esq. COOPER LAW FIRM 1525 Religious Street New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 399-0009 Facsimile: (504) 309-6989 E-mail: cbrustowicz@sch-llc.com - and - Kevin W. Thompson, Esq. David R. Barney, Jr., Esq. THOMPSON BARNEY LAW FIRM 2030 Kanawha Boulevard, East Charleston, WV 25311 Telephone: (304) 343-4401 Facsimile: (304) 343-4405 Email: kwthompson@gmail.com - and - Donald E. Creadore, Esq. CREADORE LAW FIRM 450 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1408 New York, NY 10123 Telephone: (212) 355-7200 E-mail: donald@creadorelawfirm.com - and - Scott R. Bickford, Esq. Spencer R. Doody, Esq. MARTZELL, BICKFORD & CENTOLA 338 Lafayette Street New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 581-9065 Facsimile: (504) 581-7635 E-mail: srb@mbfirm.com - and - Kent Harrison Robbins, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF KENT HARRISON ROBBINS, P.A. 242 Northeast 27th Street Miami, FL 33137 Telephone: (305) 532-0500 Facsimile: (305) 531-0150 E-mail: khr@khrlawoffices.com ereyes@khrlawoffices.com assistant@khrlawoffices.com PURDUE PHARMA: Ontario Plans to Join BC's Opioid Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- The Canadian Press reports that the Ontario government says it plans to join British Columbia's proposed class action lawsuit against dozens of opioid manufacturers. Attorney General Caroline Mulroney says the province will introduce legislation that, if passed, would enable Ontario's participation in the suit launched late last year. She says Ontario would invest any potential awards won from the litigation into frontline mental health and addiction services. British Columbia filed the proposed class action against dozens of pharmaceutical companies in a bid to recoup the health-care costs associated with opioid addiction. The untested suit alleges the companies falsely marketed opioids as less addictive than other pain drugs and helped trigger an overdose crisis that has killed thousands since OxyContin was introduced to the Canadian market in 1996. It names the maker of OxyContin -- Purdue Pharma Inc. -- as well as other major drug manufacturers, and also targets pharmacies, including Shoppers Drug Mart Corp. and its owner Loblaw Companies Ltd., claiming they should have known the quantities of opioids they were distributing exceeded any legitimate market. In a separate Ontario case launched earlier in May, lawyers representing patients who became addicted to opioids filed a statement of claim seeking more than $1.1 billion in various damages from nearly two dozen companies. That suit alleges the companies were negligent in how they researched, developed and marketed opioids starting in the 1990s. [GN] PURDUE PHARMA: Paul Sues over Sale of Opioid Drugs -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Purdue Pharma L.P., et al., seeking injunctive relief, compensatory damages, statutory damages, and any other relief allowed by law against the Defendant opioid drug distributors, retailers, and manufacturers. According to the lawsuit, the Defendants, by their actions and omissions, knowingly or negligently have distributed and dispensed prescription opioid drugs in a manner that foreseeably injured, and continues to injure, Baby A.R.P. and the Class. The Plaintiffs further seek the equitable relief of medical monitoring to provide this class of infants the monitoring of developmental issues that will almost inevitably appear as they grow older and equitable relief in the form of funding for services and treatment. Like thousands of children born every year, Baby A.R.P. was born addicted to opioids. Prenatal exposure to opioids cause severe withdrawal symptoms and lasting developmental impacts. The first days of Baby A.R.P.'s life were spent in excruciating pain as doctors weaned the infant from opioid addiction. Baby A.R.P. will require years of treatment and counseling to deal with the effects of prenatal exposure. Baby A.R.P. and their mother are victims of the opioid crisis that has ravaged Louisiana, causing immense suffering to those born addicted to opioids and great expense to those forced to deal with the aftermath. At birth, Baby A.R.P. was diagnosed with Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome ("NAS"), a condition suffered by babies of mothers addicted to opioids. Baby A.R.P. was forced to endure a painful start to their life; crying excessively, arching their back, refusing to feed, and shaking. NAS is a clinical diagnosis, and "a consequence of the abrupt discontinuation of chronic fetal exposure to substances that were used or abused by the mother during pregnancy." Baby A.R.P. spent their first days in a Neonatal Intensive Care Unit writhing in agony as they went through detoxification. Baby A.R.P.'s mother was prescribed Defendants' opioids prior to Baby A.R.P.'s gestation, resulting in her opioid addiction and Baby A.R.P.'s opioid exposure during gestation. Baby A.R.P.'s mother consumed opioids manufactured and distributed by all named defendants including: -- Purdue's products Oxycontin, Dilaudid, and MS Contin; -- Cephalon's products Actiq and Fentora; -- Janssen's product Duragesic; -- Endo's products Perodan, Percoset, Opana, Opana ER, Oxycodone, Hydrocodone (Vicodin and Lortab), Oxymorphone, and Hydromorphone; and -- Activis' product Norco and Kadian. The Plaintiffs bring this class action to eliminate the hazard to public health and safety caused by the opioid epidemic and to abate the nuisance caused by Defendants' false, negligent and unfair marketing and/or unlawful diversion of prescription opioids, the lawsuit says. Defendants have foreseeably caused damages to Baby A.R.P. and Class Members including the costs of neo-natal medical care, additional therapeutic, prescription drug purchases and other treatments for NAS afflicted newborns, and counseling and rehabilitation services after birth and into the future. The case is captioned CHLOE PAUL, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT FRIEND AND GUARDIAN OF BABY A.R.P., ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiffs, vs. PURDUE PHARMA L.P.; PURDUE PHARMA, INC.; THE PURDUE FREDERICK COMPANY, INC.; MCKESSON CORPORATION; CARDINAL HEALTH, INC.; AMERISOURCEBERGEN CORPORATION; TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES, LTD.; TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC.; CEPHALON, INC.; JOHNSON & JOHNSON; JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; ORTHO-MCNEIL-JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. n/k/a JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICA INC. n/k/a JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; ENDO HEALTH SOLUTIONS INC.; ENDO PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; ALLERGAN PLC f/k/a ACTAVIS PLC; WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. n/k/a ACTAVIS, INC.; WATSON LABORATORIES, INC.; ACTAVIS LLC; and ACTAVIS PHARMA, INC. f/k/a WATSON PHARMA, INC., DEPOMED, INC.; MALLINCKRODT LLC; MALLINCKRODT PLC; SPECGX LLC; PAR PHARMACEUTICAL, INC.; PAR PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES, INC.; NORAMCO, INC.; INDIVIOR, INC.; CVS HEALTH CORPORATION; RITE AID OF MARYLAND, INC.; RITE AID CORP.; WALGREENS BOOTS ALLIANCE, INC.; WALGREEN EASTERN CO.; WALGREEN CO.; WAL-MART INC. f/k/a WALMART STORES, INC.; MIAMI-LUKEN, INC.; COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION; THE KROGER CO.; H.D. SMITH, LLC; H.D. SMITH HOLDINGS, LLC; H.D. SMITH HOLDING COMPANY; ANDA, INC.; RICHARD S. SACKLER; JONATHON D. SACKLER; MORTIMER D.A. SACKLER; KATHE A. SACKLER; ILENE SACKLER LEFCOURT; BEVERLY SACKLER; THERESA SACKLER; DAVID A. SACKLER; RHODES TECHNOLOGIES; RHODES TECHNOLOGIES INC.; RHODES PHARACEUTICALS L.P.; RHODES PHARMACEUTICALS INC.; TRUST FOR THE BENEFIT OF MEMBERS OF THE RAYMOND SACKLER FAMILY; THE P.F. LABORATORIES, INC., the Defendants, Case: 1:19-op-45467-DAP (N.D. Ohio, June 14, 2019).[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are: Celeste Brustowicz, Esq. Stephen Wussow, Esq. COOPER LAW FIRM 1525 Religious Street New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: 504-399-0009 Facsimile: 504-309-6989 E-mail: cbrustowicz@sch-llc.com - and - Kevin Thompson, Esq. David R. Barney, Jr., Esq. THOMPSON BARNEY LAW FIRM 2030 Kanawha Boulevard, East Charleston, WV 25311 Telephone: 304-343-4401 Facsimile: 304-343-4405 E-mail: kwthompson@gmail.com - and - Donald E. Creadore, Esq. CREADORE LAW FIRM 450 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1408 New York, NY 10123 Telephone: 212-355-7200 E-mail: donald@creadorelawfirm.com - and - Scott R. Bickford, Esq. Spencer R. Doody, Esq. MARTZELL, BICKFORD & CENTOLA 338 Lafayette Street New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: 504-581-9065 Facsimile: 504-581-7635 E-mail: srb@mbfirm.com - and - Kent Harrison Robbins, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF KENT HARRISON ROBBINS, P.A. 242 Northeast 27 th Street Miami, FL 33137 Telephone: (305) 532-0500 Facsimile: (305) 531-0150 E-mail: khr@khrlawoffices.com ereyes@khrlawoffices.com ssistant@khrlawoffices.com PYXUS INTERNATIONAL: Faces Putative Class Suit in North Carolina ---------------------------------------------------------------- Pyxus International, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on June 14, 2019, for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2019, that the company has been named as a defendant in a putative class action suit filed before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. On June 7, 2019, the Company and certain of its officers were named as defendants in a complaint filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. The complaint was brought on behalf of a putative class of investors who purchased the Company's common stock between June 7, 2018 and November 8, 2018. The complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal securities laws provisions with respect to fraud and material misrepresentation, which purported misconduct was revealed by the Company's November 8, 2018 announcement that sales and other operating revenues for the quarter ended September 30, 2018 had decreased approximately 12% over the prior year quarter and the announcement on November 9, 2018 by the Securities and Exchange Commission that the Company had settled charges that it had materially misstated its financial statements from 2011 through the second quarter of 2015 due to improper and sufficient accounting, processes and control activities, deferred crop costs and revenue transactions in Africa. The complaint alleges that members of the purported class were harmed by the decline in the trading price of the Company's common stock on the dates of these announcements. The complaint seeks damages in an unspecified amount. Pyxus International, Inc., an agricultural company, engages in the provision of various agricultural products, ingredients, and services to businesses and customers. It offers products in the leaf tobacco, e-liquids, industrial hemp, and cannabis industries. The company was formerly known as Alliance One International, Inc. and changed its name to Pyxus International, Inc. in September 2018. Pyxus International, Inc. was founded in 1873 and is based in Morrisville, North Carolina. QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Finch Sues over Data Breach ---------------------------------------------- A class action complaint has been filed against Quest Diagnostics, Inc., American Medical Collection Agency, Inc., Optum360, LLC for negligence and for breaches of implied contract and fiduciary duty in connection with a data breach of patients' sensitive personal information, medical information and other protected health information as defined by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996. The case is captioned ASHLEY FINCH, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. QUEST DIAGNOSTICS, INC., AMERICAN MEDICAL COLLECTION AGENCY, INC., and OPTUM360, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-02306-JAR-TJJ (D. Kan., June 13, 2019). Plaintiff Ashley Finch brings this class action lawsuit on behalf of a Kansas Statewide class to address Defendants' inadequate safeguarding of class members' sensitive information. Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks remedies including but not limited to compensatory damages, reimbursement of out-of-pocket costs, and injunctive relief including improvements to Defendants’ data security systems, future annual audits, and free credit monitoring services funded by Defendants. Quest Diagnostics Inc. is incorporated in Delaware. Its principal place of business is in Secaucus, New Jersey. American Medical Collection Agency, Inc. is incorporated in Minnesota. Its principal place of business is in Elmsford, New York. Optum360, LLC is incorporated in Delaware. Its principal place of business is in Eden Prairie, Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd C. Werts, Esq. Bradford B. Lear, Esq. LEAR WERTS LLP 2003 West Broadway, Suite 107 Columbia, MO 65203 Telephone: 573-875-1991 Facsimile: 573-875-1985 E-mail: lear@learwerts.com werts@learwerts.com - and - Ryan M. Callahan, Esq. CALLAHAN LAW FIRM, LLC 222 W. Gregory Blvd., Ste. 210 Kansas City, MO 64114 Telephone: 913-601-1620 E-mail: ryan@callahanlawkc.com - and - Lynn Toops, Esq. COHEN & MALAD LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 636-6481 Facsimile: (317) 636-2593 E-mail: ltoops@cohenandmalad.com QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Removes Vecchio NYLL Suit to S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit entitled MARIA VECCHIO, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. QUEST DIAGNOSTICS, INC., EXAMONE WORLD WIDE, INC., and EXAMONE LLC, Case No. 652069/2019, was removed on June 3, 2019, from the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-05194 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of "[a]ll persons who were employed in the State of New York by Defendants as Mobile Examiners." The Plaintiff's Complaint seeks to recover unpaid wages, unpaid overtime wages, unpaid spread of hours pay, statutory damages, liquidates damages, attorneys' fees and costs based on the following causes of action: (1) failure to pay Plaintiff and members of the putative class minimum and overtime wages for all hours worked pursuant to New York Labor Law and the corresponding New York Department of Labor regulations; (2) failure to pay Plaintiff and members of the putative class spread of hours pay; and (4) failure to provide wage notices pursuant to New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff is currently prosecuting another lawsuit in the District Court entitled Maria Vecchio, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Quest Diagnostics, Inc., ExamOne World Wide, Inc., ExamOne, LLC, Case No. 1:16-cv-05165-ER-KNF. The Federal Action was also filed on behalf of the exact same class (Mobile Examiners who visit patients (most commonly insurance applicants) at their homes or places of business, and conduct physical examinations and basic lab work for the purposes of insurance and benefits eligibility and underwriting) under federal law based on the exact same underlying alleged facts and circumstances.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Danielle J. Marlow, Esq. Salvatore C. Badala, Esq. NAPOLI SHKOLNIK PLLC 360 Lexington Avenue, 11th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 397-1000 E-mail: dmarlow@napolilaw.com SBadala@napolilaw.com Defendants Quest Diagnostics, Inc., ExamOne World Wide, Inc. and ExamOne LLC are represented by: Robert P. Lewis, Esq. BAKER MCKENZIE LLP 452 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10018 Telephone: (212) 891-3532 Facsimile: (212) 310-1600 E-mail: robert.lewis@bakermckenzie.com SAN FRANCISCO: Faces ADA Suit in N.D. California ------------------------------------------------ STUDENT A, by and through Parent A; STUDENT B, by and through Parent B; STUDENT C, by and through Parent C; STUDENT D, by and through Parent D; STUDENT E, by and through Parent E, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT; and VINCENT MATTHEWS, In His Official Capacity as the Superintendent for the San Francisco Unified School District, Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-03101-SK (N.D. Cal., June 4, 2019) alleges violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act. The case is assigned to Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim. San Francisco Unified School District, established in 1851, is the only public school district within the City and County of San Francisco, and the first in the state of California. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Guy Burton Wallace, Esq. Mark T. Johnson, Esq. Travis C Close, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL Konecky Wotkyns LLP 2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400 Emeryville, CA 94608 Telephone: (415) 421-7100 Facsimile: (415) 421-7105 E-mail: gwallace@schneiderwallace.com mjohnson@schneiderwallace.com tclose@schneiderwallace.com - and - Alexis Michelle Alvarez, Esq. Jinny Kim, Esq. LEGAL AID AT WORK 180 Montgomery Street, Suite 600 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 864-8848 Facsimile: (415) 593-0096 E-mail: aalvarez@legalaidatwork.org jkim@legalaidatwork.org - and - Shawna L Parks, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF SHAWNA L. PARKS 4470 W. Sunset Blvd., Suite 107-347 Los Angeles, CA 90027 Telephone: (323) 389-9339 Facsimile: (323) 389-9239 E-mail: sparks@dralegal.org SCOTTS COMPANY: Court Denies Summary Judgment in Depalma Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey issued an Opinion denying both Parties' Motion for Summary Judgment in the case captioned DOMINICK DEPALMA, etc., Plaintiffs, v. THE SCOTTS COMPANY, LLC, Defendant. Civ. No. 13-7740 (KM) (JAD (D.N.J.). Defendant The Scotts Company, LLC (Scotts) seeks an order that the administrative exemption from Fair Labor Standard Act (FLSA) coverage applies to the plaintiff sales managers. Plaintiffs seek an order that the executive and administrative exemptions do not apply to the plaintiff sales managers. FLSA Exemptions The FLSA establishes federal minimum-wage, maximum-hour, and overtime guarantees that cannot be modified by contract. Generally, an employer must pay its employees at least a minimum hourly wage for work performed and must pay one and one-half times the employee's regular wage for hours worked in excess of forty hours per week. Exempt from the coverage of FLSA, however, are white-collar salaried employees, meaning any person employed in a bona fide executive, administrative, or professional capacity. FLSA exemptions are to be given a fair (as opposed to narrow) interpretation. Executive exemption The Plaintiffs move for summary judgment on the executive exemption, arguing that Sales Managers did not customarily and regularly supervise two or more employees, as required by 29 C.F.R. Section 541.100(a)(3). In opposition, the Defendant counters that there is at least an issue of fact as to whether the Sales Managers are subject to the executive exemption, or in the alternative that they are subject to the combination exemption. An employee qualified under the executive exemption is one: "(1) Compensated on a salary basis at a rate of not less than $455 per week (2) Whose primary duty is management of the enterprise in which the employee is employed or of a customarily recognized department or subdivision thereof (3) Who customarily and regularly directs the work of two or more other employees and(4) Who has the authority to hire or fire other employees or whose suggestions and recommendations as to the hiring, firing, advancement, promotion or any other change of status of other employees are given particular weight." On these motions, subsection (a)(3) is the primary focus. Under (a)(3), an employee must customarily and regularly direct the work of two or more employees. Customarily and regularly refers to supervision that is more than occasional but may be less than constant. A customary and regular activity includes work normally and recurrently performed every workweek; it does not include isolated or one-time tasks. 29 C.F.R. Section 541.100(a)(3) The thrust of the Plaintiffs' argument against the executive exemption is that the Sales Managers supervised the M&Cs for an inadequate amount of time to satisfy 29 C.F.R. Section 541.100(a)(3). In support, the Plaintiffs cite depositions and the declaration and summary chart submitted by Plaintiff's Counsel, Seth R. Lesser. The summary chart is purportedly based on data provided by Defendant in discovery. In particular, Plaintiffs point to spreadsheets identifying the hours worked by M&Cs who worked concurrently with the Plaintiffs. The Defendant argues that the Plaintiffs' reliance on their counsel's declaration and summary chart is contrary to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c)(4), Local Civil Rule 7.2(a), and Federal Rule of Evidence 701(c). Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(4) requires that declaration submitted in relation to a motion must be made on personal knowledge, set out facts that would be admissible in evidence, and show that the affiant or declarant is competent to testify on the matters stated. Loc. Civ. R. 7.2(a), too, requires personal knowledge, and states that any legal arguments or summations included in a declaration will be disregarded by the court and may subject the signatory to the appropriate censure, sanctions or both. Here, the Court agrees with the Plaintiffs. It is true that some courts have exercised their discretion to exclude summary charts under, for example, Loc. Civ. R. 7.2(a), but the Court is not bound to do so. The reasons for offering a summary are manifest. Exhibits 14 and 15 contain data so voluminous that it was impractical even to file it electronically on the docket. The proponent, counsel for the plaintiffs, has gained personal familiarity with the underlying data furnished by Scotts; the underlying data would be admissible in evidence; and the calculations, which involve little more than arithmetic, are within the ken of a lay person. As required by Fed. R. Evid. 1006, the underlying data are available to indeed, were produced by the defendant. As contemplated by that Rule, the defendant may of course challenge any perceived inaccuracies. If the summary remains the subject of disagreement, it might be the subject of conflicting testimony, perhaps even expert testimony, at trial. The background principle remains that the underlying data in Exhibits 14 and 15 could be placed in evidence. The indicia of admissibility, and the fact that the chart summarizes defendant's own data, persuade me that the Court may consider the chart, at least on summary judgment for the purpose of determining whether there is a triable issue of fact. The Defendant argues with some force that the summary chart is based on incomplete data and that its analysis is flawed. First, the Defendant's expert disputes some of Mr. Lesser's calculations. Second, the Defendant argues that the summary chart uses incomplete or improperly formatted data. Specifically, the Defendant says (1) the chart is missing a plaintiff, Mr. Jonathan Bridges; (2) the chart arbitrarily focuses on a 2-week pay period rather than individual work weeks; and (3) the chart does not consider data dating from after 2016. Plaintiffs retort that the chart is relevant and that Defendants' criticisms do not imply that it cannot be considered. The parties' dispute over the contents and significance of the summary chart, directly implicates the key issue of how many hours the Plaintiffs spent supervising M&Cs. The Court will therefore deny both sides' motions for summary judgment on the issue of the executive exemption. Combination Exemption In the alternative, the Plaintiffs invoke the combination exemption. The applicable regulation, 29 C.F.R. Section 541.100(a)(2), sets forth the primary duty requirement of the executive exemption. However, even if an employee does not satisfy the executive exemption's primary duty requirement, the employee may qualify for a so-called combination exemption. That means that if an employee satisfies (a)(1), (a)(3) and (a)(4), but not (a)(2), the employee may still qualify as exempt, if that employee satisfies the combination primary-duty test. The Court therefore will not reach the issue of the combination exemption at this time. Administrative exemption The Plaintiffs and Scotts have both moved for summary judgment on the administrative exemption from FLSA coverage, which is distinct from the executive exemption. Issues of fact also preclude summary judgment on the issue of whether these Sales Managers fall under the administrative exemption. The administrative exemption applies to an employee: "(1) Compensated on a salary or fee basis at a rate of not less than $455 per week (2) Whose primary duty is the performance of office or non-manual work directly related to the management or general business operations of the employer or the employer's customers and (3) Whose primary duty includes the exercise of discretion and independent judgment with respect to matters of significance." The Defendants assert that the Sales Managers' primary duty was managing their territory. The Plaintiffs respond that their primary duty was merchandising. The Plaintiffs state that they performed merchandising work a majority of the time, and cite the testimony of certain plaintiffs that they spent 80%-90% of their time on merchandising. The Defendants dispute these facts and also argue that they are not material to the Plaintiffs' primary duties. To be sure, time spent on exempt work is not the sole test of a primary activity, but it is surely probative. The primary duty test looks at the character of the employees' job as a whole. The time spent on a particular activity, whether exempt or non-exempt, is a useful tool in weighing that activity's importance in the balance. The Court therefore decline to award either side summary judgment when there is a live factual dispute as to how much time the Plaintiffs spent merchandising. The motion for summary judgment of the Plaintiffs on FLSA employee-exemption issues is denied, and the motion for summary judgment of Defendant Scotts on FLSA employee-exemption issues is also denied. A full-text copy of the District Court's June 10, 2019 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/y5kndaoa from Leagle.com. DOMINICK DEPALMA, Plaintiff, represented by ALEXIS HELENE CASTILLO, KLAFTER OLSEN & LESSER LLP, 2 International Dr Ste 350, Rye Brook, NY 10573-1066, DEREK T. BRASLOW, THE BRASLOW LAW FIRM, LLC, 230 Sugartown Road, Suite 20, Wayne, PA 19087, HARRIS L. POGUST -- hpogust@pogustmillrood.com -- POGUST, BRASLOW & MILLROOD, LLC, SARAH OLIVIA SCHINDLER, POGUST BRASLOW & MILLROOD & SETH RICHARD LESSER, KLAFTER OLSEN & LESSER, LLP, 2 International Dr Ste 350, Rye Brook, NY 10573-1066 JOSEPH LESZCZYNSKI, Individually and on Behalf of All other Similarly Situated Current and Former Employees, Plaintiff, represented by ALEXIS HELENE CASTILLO, KLAFTER OLSEN & LESSER LLP, DEREK T. BRASLOW, THE BRASLOW LAW FIRM, LLC, HARRIS L. POGUST, POGUST, BRASLOW & MILLROOD, LLC & SARAH OLIVIA SCHINDLER, POGUST BRASLOW & MILLROOD. THE SCOTTS COMPANY, LLC, Defendant, represented by JUSTIN TAYLOR QUINN, ROBINSON MILLER LLC & KEITH J. MILLER, ROBINSON MILLER LLC, One Newark Center, 19th Floor. Newark, NJ 07102 SHARKNINJA OPERATING: Court Dismisses K. Wallace FAC ---------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, issued an Order granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint in the case captioned KRYSTAL WALLACE, Plaintiff, v. SHARKNINJA OPERATING, LLC, Defendant. Case No. 18-cv-05221-BLF. (N.D. Cal.). Plaintiff Krystal Wallace filed this putative consumer class action asserting warranty, unfair competition, and related claims arising from an alleged defect in the Ninja Blenders manufactured by Defendant SharkNinja Operating LLC. The Court heard the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's first amended complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The Court stated its ruling on the record, granting the motion to dismiss with leave to amend and providing direction as to those areas of the pleading which needed amendment. The Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint (SAC), asserting the same five claims set forth in the FAC. Although the Court has not evaluated the sufficiency of the SAC, based on an initial review it appears that Plaintiff has amended her pleading in response to the issues articulated by the Court at the hearing. Accordingly, the Defendant's motion to dismiss the FAC is granted with leave to amend, as stated on the record and memorialized herein. A full-text copy of the District Court's June 10, 2019 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y696uezm from Leagle.com. Krystal Wallace, Plaintiff, represented by Cody Robert Padgett -- Cody.Padgett@capstonelawyers.com -- Capstone Law, APC, Tarek H. Zohdy -- Tarek.Zohdy@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Capstone Lawyers, APC, Trisha Kathleen Monesi -- trisha.monesi@capstonelawyers.com -- Capstone Law APC & Mark A. Ozzello -- mark.ozzello@capstonelawyers.com -- Capstone Law, APC. Sharkninja Operating, LLC, a Massachusetts limited liability company, Defendant, represented by Amir M. Nassihi -- anassihi@shb.com -- Shook Hardy & Bacon L.L.P. & Scott Donald Kaiser -- skaiser@shb.com -- Shook, Hardy and Bacon LLP, pro hac vice. SKIN BAR: Duncan Sues Over Blind-inaccessible Web Site ------------------------------------------------------ EUGENE DUNCAN AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. SKIN BAR NYC, LLC, Case No. 1:19-cv-05188 (S.D.N.Y., June 3, 2019), arises from the Defendant's alleged failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Web site--http://www.skinbarnyc.com/--tobe fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. Skin Bar NYC, LLC, is a Domestic Limited Liability Company organized under the laws of New York with its principal office in New York City. The Defendant operates its spa location, as well as its Web site, and those affiliated or directly linked, and advertises, markets, offers and sells its spa services within the state of New York and throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bradly G. Marks, Esq. THE MARKS LAW FIRM, PC 175 Varick St., 3rd Floor New York, NY 10014 Telephone: (646) 770-3775 Facsimile: (646) 867-2639 E-mail: brad@markslawpc.com - and - Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: nyjg@aol.com danalgottlieb@aol.com SMARTPAY LEASING: Court Certifies "STOP" Text Message Class ----------------------------------------------------------- In a class action lawsuit SHAWN ESPARZA, on behalf of herself, and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. SMARTPAY LEASING, INC., the Defendant, Case 3:17-cv-03421-WHA (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge William Alsup entered an order: 1. granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff's motion for class certification; 2. appointing Shawn Esparza as class representative; and 3. appointing Plaintiff's counsel Ronald Marron, Alexis Wood, and Kas Gallucci of the Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron as class counsel. This class is certified under FRCP 23(b)(3): "STOP" Text Message Class: All persons within the United States (i) to whose cellular telephone number (ii) SmartPay Leasing, Inc. sent a text message (iii) using its vendor Twilio, Inc.'s platform (iv) from September 29, 2015 to June 13, 2017, (v) after texting the word "STOP." This class definition shall apply for all purposes, including settlement.[CC] SMITH MEDICAL: Court Denies Bid for Class Cert. without Prejudice ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit William P. Sawyer, M.D., the Plaintiff, v. Smith Medical Partners, LLC, et al. Defendant, Case No. 1:19−cv−03803 (N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Edmond E. Chang entered an order on denying a motion for class certification without prejudice. According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on Friday, June 14, 2019, the Plaintiff has filed a motion for class certification, but it is premature because none of the necessary discovery has been finished. To the extent that Plaintiff filed the motion to prevent mootness if the defense were to offer full relief, that is no longer necessary, because the Seventh Circuit has overruled the precedent on which that threat was based. Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) (overruling Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011)). The motion is denied without prejudice. SPACE AGE COMMUNICATIONS: Garza Seeks OT Premium Pay ---------------------------------------------------- A class action complaint has been filed against Space Age Communications, Inc. and Creative Broadband Solutions, LLC for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The case is captioned GENEVIVE GARZA, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, PLAINTIFF, vs. SPACE AGE COMMUNICATIONS, INC., and CREATIVE BROADBAND SOLUTIONS, LLC, DEFENDANTS, Case No. 5:19-cv-00700 (W.D. Tex., June 17, 2019). The complaint alleges that the Defendants failed to pay overtime premium for hours that Plaintiff worked over 40 hours per week. It also asserts that the Defendants purposely classified Plaintiff and other cable installers as independent contractors. After deducting for expenses related to the operation of Plaintiff's vehicle in the course of performing job duties for Defendants, Plaintiff's pay regularly fell below the minimum wages required by the FLSA and AMWA. Space Age Communications, Inc. is a domestic, for-profit corporation. The company conducts business within the state of Texas, providing telecommunication installation and construction services within the state of Texas, as well as outside of the State of Texas. Its principal address is 1823 Knickerbocker Road, San Angelo, Texas. Based in San Marcos, Texas, Creative Broadband Solutions, LLC is a domestic limited liability company that provides cable and satellite television installation services within the state of Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC One Financial Center 650 South Shackleford Road, Suite 411 Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: (501) 221-0088 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com SPEEDY CASH: Court Denies Arbitration Bid in C. Delisle Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ The United States District Court for the Southern District of California issued an Order denying Defendant's Motion for Arbitration in the case captioned CINDY DELISLE and ROBERT DOUGHERTY, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. SPEEDY CASH, Defendant. Case No. 3:18-CV-2042-GPC-RBB. (S.D. Cal.). Speedy Cash offers loans through its physical stores, as well as through online loan portals. Plaintiffs Cindy Delisle and Robert Dougherty (Plaintiffs) filed a First Amended Complaint alleging a putative class action against Defendant Speedy Cash on behalf of themselves and all others similar situated. Plaintiffs assert claims under California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL) and California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA). The Loan Agreements entered into by Plaintiffs were drafted by Speedy Cash, and both Plaintiffs aver that they were not given an opportunity to negotiate any terms. The Loan Agreements contain an arbitration provision, which obligated both Speedy Cash and its customer to arbitrate any claim, dispute or controversy between you and us, that arises from or relates in any way to this Agreement or any services you request or we provide under this Agreement. The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) applies when arbitration agreements meet two conditions: (1) the agreement is in writing and (2) the agreement is part of a contract evidencing a transaction involving commerce. Here, it is undisputed that the Arbitration Provision is in writing, is part of a contract evidencing a transaction involving commerce within the meaning of the FAA, and encompasses the claims alleged by the Plaintiffs in this action. Plaintiffs allege that the Arbitration Provision is unenforceable and invalid under California law for being procedurally and substantively unconscionable. The Court notes that the party asserting a state-law defense against arbitration, here, Plaintiffs, bears the burden of proving the defense applies. Choice of Law Dispute At the threshold, the Court notes that the parties dispute whether Kansas's or California's law should govern issues related to contract formation and validity. The choice-of-law issue matters because California law provides heightened protections against unconscionable contracts, whereas Kansas law is less protective. Speedy Cash posits that Kansas law applies because the Arbitration Provision expressly stipulates that Kansas law is to be applied with respect to the enforceability of the Arbitration Provision. Plaintiffs argue that California law should be applied under Nedlloyd Lines B.V. v. Superior Court, 3 Cal.4th 459, 466 (1992), because California has materially greater interest than Kansas in the enforcement of its more protective laws. Here, the Court finds that Kansas, as the chosen state, has a substantial relationship to Speedy Cash and that a reasonable basis exists for the parties' choice of law. Speedy Cash maintains its headquarters in Kansas, and Plaintiffs acknowledge that Speedy Cash maintains ten branch offices there. That fact is sufficient to sustain the parties' stipulated chosen state for the first part of the Nedlloyd analysis. Next, the Court addresses the second prong of the Nedlloyd analysis, i.e., whether Kansas's law is contrary to a fundamental policy of California. Plaintiffs assert California has a material and fundamental interest in maintaining a pathway to public injunctive relief in unfair competition cases, as evinced by UCL section 17204 and as reaffirmed by the California Supreme Court in McGill. Speedy Cash does not dispute that California considers the availability of public injunctive relief an issue of fundamental importance; it argues only that McGill is inapplicable to this case or preempted on the merits. Because the parties do not dispute that California has a weighty interest in maintaining the availability public injunctive relief for UCL claims, and because both the Plaintiffs in this case obtained their loans in California and press claims under California consumer protection statutes, the Court determines that California has a materially greater interest than Kansas in employing its laws to resolve the instant dispute. The Court will apply California law. The Arbitration Provision is Unconscionable Plaintiffs provide two main arguments for why the Arbitration Provision cannot stand. First, they argue that the Arbitration Provision is procedurally unconscionable. Second, they argue that the waiver of public injunctive relief in Section 5 is substantively unconscionable under McGill, which, if true, would nullify the entirety of the Arbitration Provision. The Court addresses these arguments in turn. Procedural Unconscionability Procedural unconscionability concerns the manner in which the contract was negotiated and the respective circumstances of the parties at the time. Plaintiffs argue that the Loan Agreements were procedurally unconscionable because they were provided to them on a take it or leave it basis, and that they were not afforded an opportunity to review their terms before signing. Similarly, they contend that because Speedy Cash was the party with the only negotiating power, the Loan Agreements are classic, and unconscionable contracts of adhesion. Speedy Cash argues that there was no procedural unconscionability or unfair surprise because the Arbitration Provision permitted Plaintiffs to opt-out of binding arbitration within 30 days of signing the contract. It is undisputed that neither Ms. Delisle nor Mr. Dougherty exercised their rights to reject arbitration within the 30 allotted. But that fact alone is not dispositive. Speedy Cash cites Johnmohammadi v. Bloomingdale's, Inc., 755 F.3d 1072, 1075-76 (9th Cir. 2013), for the proposition that the 30-day opt-out provision immunizes the Arbitration Provision from a procedural unconscionability challenge. However, as discussed in Mohammed v. Uber Techs., Inc., 848 F.3d 1201, 1211-11 (9th Cir. 2016), opt-out provisions which would require plaintiffs to waive statutory causes of action before they knew any such claims existed" are unenforceable. Here, Plaintiffs were required to opt out of arbitration before any dispute existed. The Court finds that there were elements of procedural unconscionability, notwithstanding the 30-day opt out provision. Substantive Unconscionability Substantive unconscionability focuses on the terms of the agreement and whether those terms are so one-sided as to shock the conscience. In California, mandatory waivers of non-waivable statutory rights are viewed as inherently suspect, since they present the sort of one-sided and overly-harsh terms that render an arbitration provision substantively unconscionable. Because the parties' contentions turn on whether the rule in McGill, i.e., that predispute waivers of public injunctive relief is unenforceable as matter of California public policy is preempted by the FAA, the Court now turns to examine the decision in detail. The Arbitration Provision prohibits public injunctive relief in any forum Plaintiffs locate the waiver of public injunctive relief in Section 5(D). Section 5(D) disallows Plaintiffs from acting as a private attorney general in court or in arbitration. Defendants, on the other hand, locate the waiver in Section 5(E), which prohibits Plaintiffs from joining or consolidating claim(s) involving you with claims involving any other person. Regardless of which specific subsection of Section 5 applies, there is no disagreement among the parties that the Arbitration Provision encompasses this dispute and that it prohibits Plaintiffs from seeking public injunctive relief in any forum, arbitral or judicial. McGill is not preempted by the FAA Defendants argue that Plaintiffs cannot avail themselves of the rule in McGill because McGill is preempted by the FAA under AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333 (2011), because public injunctive relief is hostile to the fundamental attributes of arbitration. Plaintiffs contend that McGill is not preempted, largely for the same reasons as stated by the Ninth Circuit in Sakkab v. Luxottica Retail N. Am., Inc., 803 F.3d 425 (9th Cir. 2015), with respect to waivers of California Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) actions. The Court holds that McGill is not subject to preemption. FAA Preemption Principles While the FAA contains no express preemptive provision and does not "reflect a congressional intent to occupy the entire field of arbitration, it does preempt state law to the extent that it `stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress. The Supreme Court has held that the FAA was enacted in response to counteract widespread judicial hostility to arbitration agreements and embodies a liberal federal policy favoring arbitration agreements, notwithstanding any state substantive or procedural policies to the contrary. The FAA espouses this principle through Section 2, which provides that a written provision in a contract to settle by arbitration a controversy thereafter arising out of such contract shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or equity for the revocation of any contract. At the same time, the final clause of Section 2, the FAA's savings clause, permits agreements to arbitrate to be invalidated by generally applicable contract defenses, such as fraud, duress, or unconscionability, but not by defenses that apply only to arbitration or that derive their meaning from the fact that an agreement to arbitrate is at issue. To fall within the saving clause, the state-law invalidity doctrine must be a ground for the revocation of any contract and generally applicable, in the sense that the state law must not single out arbitration agreements for unfavorable treatment. Even if a state-law rule is generally applicable, it is preempted if it stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment of the FAA's objectives. McGill In McGill, the California Supreme Court considered the enforceability of a contractual provision waiving the right to seek public injunctive relief in any forum. The first part of the opinion held that waivers of public injunctive relief were contrary to California law. McGill determined that by definition, the public injunctive relief available under the UCL, the CLRA, and the false advertising law is primarily for the benefit of the general public, rather than to resolve private disputes. Thus, McGill concluded that predispute contracts purporting to waive the right to seek the statutory remedy of public injunctive relief in any forum are contrary to public policy and thus unenforceable under California law. In the second part, as an initial matter, McGill observed that the rule precluding waivers of statutes intended for public benefit, i.e., California Civil Code Section 3513 was one of general application and did not derive its meaning from the fact that an agreement to arbitrate is at issue. Thus, because it operated equally in arbitral and judicial fora, its application to waivers of public injunctive relief fell within the FAA's savings clause for generally-applicable contract invalidation doctrines. McGill's Reception in Federal Court Courts siding with McGill have taken pains to furnish the Concepcion analysis missing in McGill.They have generally relied on Sakkab, 803 F.3d 425, as a reference point for their preemption analysis. In Sakkab, the Ninth Circuit was asked to decide whether the rule in Iskanian v. CLS Transp. Los Angeles, LLC, 59 Cal.4th 348 (2014), which invalidated as against public policy waivers of PAGA actions, was subject to preemption. Sakkab examined whether the Iskanian rule conflicted with the FAA's purposes, and "whether the waived claims mandate procedures that interfere with arbitration. Sakkab determined that Iskanian was not preempted because arbitrations under PAGA do not by necessity mandate onerous procedures that would interfere with the fundamental attributes of arbitration. Unlike class actions, PAGA does not provide a right for others to join in the action, so there was no need to protect absent employees' due process rights in PAGA arbitrations and accordingly no cumbersome class action procedures, like notice and certification requirements, which would impede the arbitration of PAGA claims. Courts that have considered claims for public injunctive relief under section 17204 have found them highly similar to PAGA claims for preemption purposes and extended the reasoning in Sakkab to McGill. As is true of PAGA claims, claims seeking public injunctive relief do not necessarily require the procedural complexities of class claims.There is no notice to the public, no opportunity for others to join, and no concern for others' due process rights. Because the issues of class notice and multi-faceted elements which inform class certification particularly under Rule 23(b)(3) do not obtain where a public injunction is sought under 17200, there are no concerns here about forcing the procedures of class actions onto arbitration. Because any logic which immunizes a contract defense precluding PAGA waivers from preemption applies with equal force to a rule prohibiting public injunctive relief waivers, most district courts have applied Sakkab to the McGill rule. Speedy Cash's preemption arguments are addressed by Sakkab With Sakkab on the books, McGill's survival is almost ineluctable; all of the preemption arguments raised by Speedy Cash find some retort in Sakkab. For example, Speedy Cash claims that arbitrating public injunctive claims would sacrifice arbitration's informality and render it akin to a class action which is slower, more costly, and more likely to generate procedural morass. It argues that public injunction proceedings may necessitate a sprawling evidentiary inquiry relating to injury for non-parties, and the likelihood of future injury to the public. But as Sakkab pointed out in the PAGA context, the potential complexity of PAGA actions is a direct result of how an employer's liability is measured under the statute potential complexity should not suffice to ward off arbitration' where, as here, the complexity flows from the substance of the claim itself, rather than any procedures required to adjudicate it as with class actions. Here, the requested injunction is for a cessation of loans extended at a higher than 90% APR, and corrective advertising. Thus, in the instant case, the public evidentiary inquiry will likely be particularly straightforward, consisting, e.g., of advertising common to all relevant markets and customer agreements common to all relevant markets. Speedy Cash also asserts that claims for public injunctive relief interfere with fundamental attributes of arbitration because they greatly increases risks to defendants. The idea is that claims for public injunctive relief could fundamentally alter Speedy Cash's core business practices in a way that individual claims would not. The greater risk inheres because the risk of an error, which the defendant might be able to stomach in an individualized arbitral proceeding will often become unacceptable when magnified in a public injunctive relief setting where no judicial review is possible. Speedy Cash's attempt to distinguish PAGA actions from public injunctive relief under section 17204 is also unavailing. Speedy Cash insists that Sakkab was uniquely predicated on the fact that there is no need to protect absent employee's due process rights in PAGA arbitrations. But, as other courts have held, there is little difference between PAGA and public injunctive relief in this regard; neither is subject to the procedural morass which clings to Rule 23. If anything, PAGA actions bear a stronger similarity to class actions than public injunctive relief; they are representative actions wherein third parties are affected as they may be bound by a PAGA judgment. In contrast, despite the intended public impact of public injunctive relief, litigants under section 17204 file the lawsuit or action on his or her own behalf, not `on behalf of the general public. As the foregoing demonstrates, Sakkab effectively controls the instant dispute over waivers of public injunctive relief. Accordingly, the Court will follow the path charted by its sister courts and conclude that McGill is not preempted under Concepcion. Speedy Cash's motion to compel arbitration and to stay proceedings is DENIED. A full-text copy of the District Court's June 10, 2019 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yxjhbbno from Leagle.com. Cindy Delisle, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Abbas Kazerounian -- ak@kazlg.com -- Kazerounian Law Group, APC, Ahren A. Tiller -- ahren.tiller@blc-sd.com -- BLC Law Center, APC, Joshua B. Swigart -- josh@westcoastlitigation.com -- Hyde & Swigart, Jason A. Ibey -- jason@kazlg.com -- Kazerouni Law Group, APC & Nicholas Ryan Barthel -- nicholas@kazlg.com -- Kazerouni Law Group APC. Robert Dougherty, Plaintiff, represented by Ahren A. Tiller, BLC Law Center, APC. Speedy Cash, Defendant, represented by James Barton Manley, Jr. -- james.manley@troutman.com -- Troutman Sanders LLP, pro hac vice, Lindsey Bowen Mann -- lindsey.mann@troutman.com -- Troutman Sanders LLP, pro hac vice, Paul L. Gale -- paul.gale@troutman.com -- Troutman Sanders & William Alexander Smith -- alex.smith@troutman.com -- Troutman Sanders LLP, pro hac vice. SPORTSBET: Responds to Punters' Proposed Class Action ----------------------------------------------------- Fraser Coast Chronicle reports that Sportsbet has paid out punters after being dragged into a betting controversy by fuming punters. The online bookmaker initially voided mulit-bets which included no player getting more than 40 disposals in AFL matches over the weekend. A Twitter page named "Sportsbet Lawsuit" sprouted up claiming it had "enquired" with Slater and Gordon to launch a class action. One punter posted a screenshot of a multi bet worth $30,223 in winnings that hadn't been paid out. Sportsbet admitted they made a "rare pricing error" and confirmed they would be paying out customers at the correct odds. "We made a rare pricing error," a Sportsbet spokesman told news.com.au. "We picked the error up early -- well in advance of the AFL round - and notified our customers and returned their funds in line with our terms and conditions. "In recognition of missing the mark, we're going to reinstate our customers' bets and pay them at the correct odds. We apologise to the small number of customers who were impacted." It comes barely a week after Sportsbet grabbed headlines over an election payout slip-up. The agency, and most of Australia, was so sure of a Labor win it opted to reward punters two days ahead of the votes being counted. Over $1.3 million was paid out to those who threw money behind Bill Shorten and the Labor Party. It's worth noting one of the main reasons betting agencies pay out punters early is so they reinvest the money into another event, a tactic that has proved extremely successful. But the real loss to the agency came from paying out those who bet on Scott Morrison and the Coalition to win. At one point, odds on the Coalition had hit $7.50. Seven out of every 10 bets relating to the federal election were put on Labor winning, with Sportsbet previously boasting that punters had backed the party into "Winx-like odds of $1.16". [GN] SPRINKLES CUPCAKES: Duncan Alleges Violation under ADA ------------------------------------------------------ Sprinkles Cupcakes NY, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Eugene Duncan and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Sprinkles Cupcakes NY, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-05662 (S.D. N.Y., June 18, 2019). Sprinkles Cupcakes Inc. operates a chain of bakeries. The company offers cupcakes, cupcake mixes, and other retail items. It also provides custom sugar decorations for corporate events and wedding parties. The company was founded in 2005 and is based in Beverly Hills, California. It has locations in Beverly Hills, Chicago, Dallas, Georgetown, The Grove, Houston, La Jolla, Los Angeles, New York, Newport Beach, Palo Alto, and Scottsdale.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq. The Marks Law Firm PC 175 Varick Street 3rd Floor New York, NY 10014 Tel: (646) 770-3775 Fax: (646) 867-2639 Email: bmarkslaw@gmail.com ST. DAVID'S HEALTHCARE: Mock Suit Moved to Western Dist. of Texas ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case, Melanie Mock on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. St. David's Healthcare Partnership, L.P., a Texas Limited Liability Partnership, the Defendant, Case No. D-1-GN-19-002790, was removed from the 419th District Court of Travis County, Texas, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas (Austin) on June 13, 2019. The Western District of Texas Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-00611-RP to the proceeding. The suit seeks a demand of $5,000,000,000. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Robert Pitman. St. David's Healthcare provides medical and surgical hospital services.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Barry L. Kramer, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF BARRY KRAMER 9550 S. Eastern Avenue, Suite 253 Las Vegas, NV 89123 Telephone: (702) 778-6090 - and - Daniel E. Blumberg, Esq. Peter F. Bagley, Esq. BLUMBERG BAGLEY PLLC 2304 Interstate 20 West, Suite 190 Arlington, TX 76017 Telephone: (817) 277-1500 Facsimile: (817) 277-1170 E-mail: peter@blumbergbagley.com Attorneys for the Defendant are: James Patrick Bredehoft, Esq. William M. Katz, Jr., Esq. THOMPSON & KNIGHT, LLP One Arts Plaza 1722 Routh Street, Suite 1500 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 969-1395 Facsimile: (214) 969-1751 E-mail: patrick.bredehoft@tklaw.com william.katz@tklaw.com STATE FARM: Court Directs Revised Class Notice Plan in Stuart Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ The United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, Texarkana Division, issued an Order granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs' Opposed Motion for Order Approving Class Notice Plan and Class in the case captioned Notice. JAMES STUART and CAREDA L. HOOD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendant. Case No. 4:14-cv-4001. (W.D. Ark.). The Plaintiffs assert that the Defendant unlawfully depreciated labor in calculating their payment obligations under the parties' homeowner's insurance contracts. The Plaintiffs allege that Arkansas law in place at the time prohibited an insurance company from depreciating the cost of labor. The Plaintiffs claim that, by depreciating this cost in initial actual cash value payments made to insureds, the Defendant breached its contract with the Plaintiffs. For any class certified under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3), courts must direct to class members the best notice that is practicable under the circumstances, including individual notice to all members who can be identified through reasonable effort. Because an action maintained as a class suit under Rule 23 has res judicata effect on all members of the class, constitutional due process requires that the class be provided the best notice practicable, reasonably calculated, under all of the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections and must afford a reasonable time for those interested to make their appearance. To that end, the class notice must clearly and concisely state in plain, easily understood language the following: (1) the nature of the action (2) the definition of the class certified (3) the class claims; (4) that a class member may enter an appearance through an attorney if so desired (5) that the court will exclude from the class those members who request exclusion (6) the time and manner for requesting exclusion and (7) the binding effect of a class judgment on members. Providing class notice is not an exact science, however, and the specific mechanics of the notice process are left to the discretion of the court, subject only to the broad `reasonableness' standards imposed by due process. The Defendant objects to portions of the Plaintiffs' proposed Class Notice Plan. Specifically, the Defendant takes issue with the following five aspects of the proposed plan: (1) the placement of a banner on the Defendant's website (2) that class members may only opt out of the class via letter (3) the length of the opt-out period (4) the requirement that the Defendant must compile the class members' information, including each policy number, in a digital spreadsheet format resembling the Plaintiffs' Exhibit D; and (5) that the proposed Class Notice Plan does not address who bears the cost of the notice process. The Court will discuss each challenged item in turn. Website Banner The major fighting point of Plaintiffs' proposed Class Notice Plan is the requirement that the Defendant place a banner on its website, located at the top of the screen after an existing customer logs into the payment portal, which will be accessible both via computer and on Defendant's mobile app. The website banner would state that a class action lawsuit may affect the rights of State Farm insureds who received an actual cash value payment for a covered loss to a dwelling or structure in Arkansas between May 1, 2010, and December 6, 2013. The banner would also link to the class website maintained by the third-party administrator. The Defendant objects on several grounds, arguing that the website banner: (1) is unnecessary because individual notice may be accomplished for most, if not all class members; (2) is unfairly prejudicial and could have significant negative effects on the Defendant's business; (3) would be seen by an overly inclusive group of customers and could confuse Defendant's nationwide customer base; and (4) is inconsistent with notice plans this Court has approved in prior labor depreciation class action cases. The Plaintiffs argue that the website banner is not unnecessary because it would serve as a supplemental form of notice. Plaintiffs also argue that Defendant has provided no evidence that a website banner would negatively impact Defendant's business and that Defendant has already generated ample media coverage and publicity of this case by appealing the Court's class certification order. Individual notice is required for all members who can be identified through reasonable effort. However, publication notice is often used as a supplement to individualized notice. Although publication notice has traditionally been accomplished through newspaper ads, the Internet is increasingly becoming an acceptable avenue for accomplishing publication notice. Publication notice via the Internet is a useful supplement to individual notice, might be provided at a relatively low cost, and will become increasingly useful as the percentage of the population that regularly relies on the Internet for information increases. Accordingly, many courts include the Internet as a component of class certification and class notice programs. District courts within the Eighth Circuit have approved the use of targeted banner ads on high-traffic, third-party websites in nationwide class action cases. However, it seems to be unsettled in this circuit whether a class notice plan can call for a website banner to be placed on the defendant's own website. The parties cite to various cases from nonbinding jurisdictions regarding the propriety of requiring a defendant do so, but neither party points the Court to authority from any court within the Eighth Circuit discussing the same. Upon careful consideration and for the reasons that follow, the Court finds that Defendants have not offered a sufficient reason to warrant removal of the website banner from Plaintiffs' proposed Class Notice Plan, and the Court will address each argument in turn. The Court finds meritless Defendant's contention that the website banner could be viewed by Defendant's customers nationwide and, thus, is improperly overinclusive. Placement of a banner ad on a nationally accessible website is a form of publication notice. Thus, this argument fails to warrant removal of the website banner from the proposed Class Notice Plan. In sum, the Court finds that inclusion of the proposed website banner constitutes reasonable notice, as contemplated by Rule 23. The Court declines to modify this aspect of the proposed Class Notice Plan. Opt-Out Method The Plaintiffs' proposed Class Notice Plan allows class members to opt out of the class only by mailing to the third-party administrator a letter stating the case name, the class member's name, address, telephone number, and signature, along with a sentence expressly stating that the individual wishes to be excluded from the class. The Defendant objects, arguing that class members should also be able to opt out of the class via email. The Defendant argues that allowing opt outs only via letter creates an unnecessary hurdle to opting out. Defendant also argues that the ability to opt out via email will be convenient for class members who might wish to opt out but have neither the time nor the inclination to go to the post office and pay money to send an opt-out letter. The Plaintiffs argue that allowing opt outs only by mail is a standard practice in class actions before this Court and other courts. Plaintiffs argue further that Defendant has agreed in other, unrelated class action cases to a letter-only opt-out process. Accordingly, Plaintiffs argue that their opt-out process is proper and should be utilized as proposed. "[D]ue process requires at a minimum that a class member be provided with an opportunity to remove himself from the class by executing and returning an opt out' or request for exclusion' form to the court." Rule 23 is not instructive on the precise mechanism required to accomplish this. The Court is not convinced that a letter-only opt-out mechanism would present an unnecessary hurdle that would deprive the class members of their due process rights to notice. Upon receiving notice, all class members would have an opportunity to remove themselves from the class by timely sending in a letter that complies with the opt-out requirements of the proposed Class Notice Plan. Therefore, Plaintiffs' proposed opt-out mechanism provides necessary due process to class members and an additional email opt-out component is unnecessary in this case. The Court declines to modify this aspect of the proposed Class Notice Plan. Opt-Out Period The Plaintiff's proposed opt-out period lasts for sixty days, beginning after the third-party administrator begins the mailing and publication notice process. Defendant objects, arguing that the proposed opt-out period is too short. To illustrate, Defendant poses various hypothetical situations in which a class member receives notice roughly a month into the notice process, such as seeing only the fourth and final newspaper publication or receiving the mailed individual notice only after the first mailing attempt is returned as undeliverable. For each hypothetical situation, Defendant states that the class member would have just over a month to decide whether to opt out of the class, which Defendant argues is an inadequate period to make that decision and act accordingly. Defendant argues that the Court should instead place the opt-out deadline at least ninety days from the date of mailing class notice. The Plaintiffs argue that their proposed opt-out deadline comports with various deadlines set by the Court in other cases. Plaintiffs also argue that, even in Defendants' hypothetical situations, the class member receiving notice would have at least thirty days to decide whether to opt out, which provides sufficient due process. Notice to a class must inform them that they may opt out of the class and notice must also indicate the time and manner for requesting exclusion. Class members must be given a reasonable time to opt out, with courts usually establishing a period of thirty to sixty days or longer if appropriate following mailing or publication of notice. Upon consideration, the Court agrees with Plaintiffs. The sixty day opt-out period in the proposed Class Notice Plan provides enough time for class members to decide whether to opt out of the class. Even in Defendant's hypothetical situation where a class member receives notice roughly a month after the initial mailing date, the class member would still have at least thirty days to decide whether to opt out and to mail a letter requesting exclusion if they so desire. Plaintiffs' proposed opt-out period satisfies the requirements of due process in light of the circumstances of this case. The Court declines to modify this aspect of the proposed Class Notice Plan. Policy Number and Electronic Format The proposed Class Notice Plan provides that Defendant shall compile, in an electronic format substantively similar to Plaintiffs' Exhibit D, the following information for all persons who meet the Class Definition from the period of May 1, 2010, through December 6, 2013: first and last name, last known mailing address, last known email address, policy and claim numbers, and date of covered loss. The Defendant objects to the extent that it must provide each class member's policy number, and to the extent that it must compile the information in a format substantively similar to the Plaintiffs' Exhibit D. The Defendant states that it and Plaintiffs previously agreed that it would provide the above-listed information, with exception of policy numbers, and that Plaintiffs are now unnecessarily demanding the policy numbers. The Plaintiffs argue that their request for policy numbers is not overly burdensome to the Defendant, as it has already gathered the policy numbers when responding to discovery requests. Plaintiffs also state that Defendant could easily append the policy numbers to the existing data. The Plaintiffs have offered no argument or explanation as to why Defendant must provide the requested data in the specific column-and-row spreadsheet format seen in Exhibit D to the proposed Class Notice Plan. Defendant has made no attempt to explain or illustrate what its reasonably usable spreadsheet format is or how it differs from Plaintiffs' Exhibit D, but the Court presumes that it is an electronic format that would be usable by the third-party administrator. Changing course now, the Court finds that Defendant shall provide each class member's policy number in addition to the other requested information. Defendant provides no compelling argument why it cannot also provide the policy numbers and, in light of Defendant's concession that it already gathered the policy numbers to respond to discovery requests, the Court agrees that it will be a relatively simple task for Defendant to add the policy numbers to the existing information. Thus, the Court declines to modify this particular aspect of the proposed Class Notice Plan. Cost of Notice Plan The proposed Class Notice Plan does not specify who will bear the cost of the notice process. The Defendant objects to this omission and asks the Court to modify the plan to specify that Plaintiffs shall bear the entire cost of the notice process. Plaintiffs state that they are willing to pay for the notice process on the front end, to be assessed against Defendant as costs later if Plaintiffs ultimately prevail. The usual rule is that a plaintiff must initially bear the cost of notice to the class. However, some district courts have shifted notice costs once the defendant's liability has been established. In this case, the Court sees no circumstance that warrants shifting notice costs onto Defendant. The Court finds that Plaintiffs' Opposed Motion for Order Approving Class Notice Plan and Class Notice should be and hereby is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The Court approves the form and substance of Plaintiffs' proposed Class Notice Plan and its attendant exhibits subject to the implementation of the revisions outlined in this order. The Court finds that, as will be revised, Plaintiffs' proposed Class Notice Plan provides the best notice that is practicable under the circumstances and provides for individual notice to all class members who can be identified through reasonable effort. The Court further finds that the exhibits, as will be revised, clearly and concisely state the requisite matters set forth in Rule 23(c)(2)(B)(i)-(vii) in plain, easily understood language. Thus, the proposed Class Notice Plan, as will be revised, meets or exceeds the requirements for due process. The Plaintiffs are directed to remove from the Class Notice Plan and exhibits all references to former Plaintiff Dennington and former Defendant State Farm General Insurance Company, and to change all instances of Defendants to Defendant. Plaintiffs are also DIRECTED to remove Exhibit D and any references thereto from the Class Notice Plan, and to revise the Class Notice Plan to require that Defendant provide the identifying data on class members in an electronic spreadsheet format that may be used by the third-party administrator. Plaintiffs are further directed to revise the Class Notice Plan to state that Plaintiffs will bear the initial cost of providing notice to the class. If the revised plan accurately incorporates the changes outlined in this order,10 the Court will then enter an order appointing a third-party administrator and directing the parties, their counsel, and the third-party administrator to effectuate the terms of the revised Class Notice Plan. A full-text copy of the District Court's June 10, 2019 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y5yd4567 from Leagle.com. Jeff Dennington, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated & James Stuart, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by D. Matt Keil, Attorney at Law, 406 Walnut St., Texarkana, AR 71854, George L. McWilliams, Law Office of George L. McWilliams, P.C. Century Bank Plaza, 2900 St. Michael Drive Suite 400Texarkana, TX 75503, James M. Pratt, Jr., James M. Pratt, Jr., P.A., 144 W Washington St, Camden, AR 71701, Jason Earnest Roselius -- jason@mroklaw.com -- Mattingly & Roselius, John C. Goodson, Keil & Goodson, Post Office Box 618, Texarkana, AR 75504- 0618, William B. Putman, Putman Law Office, 3900 N. Front St., Ste. 101, Fayetteville, AR 72703, A.F. (Tom) Thompson, III, Murphy, Thompson, Arnold, Skinner & Castleberry, 555 E Main S #200, Batesville, AR 72501, Jack Austin Mattingly, Jr. -- jackjr@mroklaw.com -- Mattingly Roselius PLLC State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, Defendant, represented by John E. Moore -- john.moore@mrmblaw.com -- Munson, Rowlett, Moore & Boone, P.A., Ryan P. Poscablo -- rposcablo@rshc-law.com -- Riley Safer Holmes & Cancila LLP, pro hac vice, Beverly A. Rowlett -- beverly.rowlett@mrmblaw.com -- Munson, Rowlett, Moore & Boone, P.A., Heidi Dalenberg -- hdalenberg@rshc-law.com -- Riley Safer Holmes & Cancila LLP, pro hac vice, Jacob Kahn -- jkahn@rshc-law.com -- Riley Safer Holmes Cancila LLP, Joseph A. Cancila, Jr. -- jcancila@rshc-law.com -- Riley Safer Holmes & Cancila LLP, pro hac vice, Nick Kahlon -nkahlon@schiffhardin.com -- Schiff Hardin LLP, pro hac vice & Tal C. Chaiken -- tchaiken@rshc-law.com -- Riley Safer Holmes & Cancila LLP, pro hac vice. STATE FARM: Settlement in Durant Suit Has Final Court Approval -------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle, issued an Order granting Final Approval on Class Action Settlement in the case captioned BRETT DURANT, On Behalf of Himself and all other similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign automobile insurance company, Defendant. No. 2-15-CV-01710-RAJ. (W.D. Wash.). The Court adopts the class definition agreed upon for the purposes of the proposed settlement, and confirms certification, for purposes of settlement only, of the Settlement Class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3), defined as all State Farm insureds in the state of Washington who, from April 19, 2008 to June 15, 2018, had a Personal Injury Protection (PIP) claim for medical or hospital benefits denied, terminated or limited by State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (State Farm) on the grounds that they had reached Maximum Medical Improvement, using an Explanation of Review form referencing Reason Codes SF546, SF 536 or SF537. The Court finds that the Notice provided to the Settlement Class pursuant to the Settlement Agreement and the Preliminary Approval Order (Dkt. #110) and consisting of first-class U.S. mail sent directly to members of the Settlement Class, and a settlement website, together with toll free telephone line has been successful and was (1) the best notice practicable under the circumstances, (2) constituted notice that was reasonably calculated, under the circumstances, to apprise the Settlement Class of the pendency of the Litigation and their rights to object to and/or exclude themselves from the Settlement Agreement and to appear at the Final Approval Hearing; (3) was reasonable and constituted due, adequate, and sufficient notice to all individuals entitled to receive notice; and (4) fulfilled all requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Due Process Clause, and the rules of the Court. The Court finds that the Class Representative and Class Counsel adequately represented the Settlement Class for the purposes of litigating this matter and entering into and implementing the Settlement Agreement. Accordingly, the Settlement is hereby finally approved in all respects, and the Parties and their counsel are hereby directed to implement and consummate the Settlement Agreement according to its terms and provisions. The Settlement Agreement is hereby incorporated into this Final Judgment in full and shall have the full force of an Order of this Court. This Court dismisses the Litigation on the merits and with prejudice. The Court adjudges that the payment of $4,625,000.00 in attorneys' fees and litigation expenses in the amount of $48,239.00 (Fee Award) is fair and reasonable for the following reasons and those stated in Court. In assessing the requested attorneys' fees, the Court has considered the relief achieved for the Settlement Class, the time and effort devoted by Class Counsel as demonstrated by their sworn declaration, and the complexity of the legal and factual issues involved. The Court finds that the Fee Award to Class Counsel identified above is fair and reasonable under both a common fund approach and a lodestar approach. The Court further adjudges that the payment of an incentive award in the amount of $10,000.00 (Incentive Award) to Mr. Durant to compensate him for his efforts and commitment on behalf of the Settlement Class is fair, reasonable, and justified under the circumstances of this case. The Court hereby approves payment from the Gross Settlement Amount of the administrative expenses of Rust Consulting, which are currently estimated to amount to $46,970.00. A full-text copy of the District Court's June 10, 2019 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y4tvl53c from Leagle.com. Brett Durant, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Tyler K. Firkins -- tfirkins@vansiclen.com -- VAN SICLEN STOCKS & FIRKINS & David A. Nauheim -- david@nauheimlaw.com -- NAUHEIM LAW OFFICE. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, a foreign automobile insurance company, Defendant, represented by David Dworsky -- ddworsky@sheppardmullin.com -- SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON, pro hac vice, Frank Falzetta -- ffalzetta@sheppardmullin.com -- SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON, pro hac vice, Gregory S. Worden -- Gregory.Worden@lewisbrisbois.com -- LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP, Jennifer M. Hoffman -- jhoffman@sheppardmullin.com -- SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON, pro hac vice & Laura Hawes Young -- Laura.Young@lewisbrisbois.com -- LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP. STELLAR DRILLING: Whittington Seeks OT Pay for Mud Engineers ------------------------------------------------------------ JACK WHITTINGTON, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. STELLAR DRILLING FLUIDS, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-02128 (S.D. Tex., June 13, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages from Stellar Drilling Fluids, LLC under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act. Whittington worked for Stellar as a Mud Engineer. He and the other workers like him regularly worked for Stellar in excess of 40 hours each week. But these workers never received overtime for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a single workweek. Instead of paying overtime as required by the FLSA, Stellar improperly classified Whittington and those similarly situated workers as independent contractors and paid them a daily rate with no overtime compensation. Stellar also never paid Whittington and those similarly situated workers a salary. Mud Engineers are also sometimes referred to as Drilling Fluid Engineers, the lawsuit says. Stellar is a drilling fluids company servicing the oil and natural gas exploration and production industry and operating throughout the United States, including Texas, New Mexico, Louisiana, and Oklahoma.[BN] Attorneys in Charge for Plaintiff are: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. William R. Liles, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: 713-352-1100 Facsimile: 713-352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com wliles@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C. 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: 713 877-8788 Facsimile: 713 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com STEVENS TANKER: Cundiff Seeks OT Pay for Dispatchers, Coordinators ------------------------------------------------------------------ A class action complaint has been filed against Stevens Tanker Division, LLC for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The case is captioned CHARLES CUNDIFF, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, PLAINTIFF, v. STEVENS TANKER DIVISION, LLC, DEFENDANT, Case No. 5:19-cv-00683 (W.D. Tex., June 14, 2019). Plaintiff Charles Cundiff alleges that Defendant Stevens Tanker Division, LLC has violated the FLSA by misclassifying its dispatchers and sand coordinators as exempt from the overtime requirements of the FLSA. Defendant's dispatchers and sand coordinators, including Plaintiff, work more than forty hours per week but are paid no overtime. Stevens Tanker Division, LLC is a domestic limited liability company formed and existing under the laws of the state of Texas. The company provides oil field services to its customers, including transporting liquids to and from oil and gas well sites and providing miscellaneous oil field services such as frack tank rentals, delivery and pick up of frack tanks, winch services, removal of drilling mud and pulling bottoms of water tanks to remove sludge. It employs dispatchers to ensure its fleet operates safely and efficiently. Defendant also employs Sand Coordinators who are tasked with directing the delivery and offloading of frack sand at the well sites. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas B. Welmaker, Esq. MORELAND VERRETT, PC 2901 Bee Cave Rd, Box L Austin, TX 78746 Telephone: (512) 782-0567 Facsimile: (512) 782-0605 E-mail: doug@morelandlaw.com SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY: Bens BBQ Files Civil Rights Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against County of Suffolk. The case is styled as Bens BBQ, Inc. doing business as: Bobbique, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. County of Suffolk, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-03584 (E.D. N.Y., June 18, 2019). The lawsuit arises under Civil Rights Act. Suffolk County is a predominantly suburban county in Long Island and the easternmost county in the U.S. state of New York. As of the 2010 census, the county's population was 1,493,350, estimated to have decreased slightly to 1,492,953 in 2017, making it the fourth-most populous county in New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher Adam Bianco, Esq. Egan & Golden, LLP 96 South Ocean Avenue Patchogue, NY 11772 Tel: (631) 447-8100 Fax: (631) 447-8181 Email: cbianco@egangolden.com SUNCOKE ENERGY PARTNERS: Cohn Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duty -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action complaint has been filed against SunCoke Energy Partners (SXCP), the SXCP general partner, SunCoke Energy Partners, G.P. LLC, the members of the General Partner's Board of Directors, SunCoke Energy, Inc. (SXC), and the members of SXC's Board of Directors for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The case is captioned MICHAEL COHN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. SUNCOKE ENERGY PARTNERS, L.P., MICHAEL G. RIPPEY, P. MICHAEL HARDESTY, JOHN W. SOMERHALDER II, ALVIN BLEDSOE, FAY WEST, KATHERINE T. GATES, MARTHA CARNES, SUNCOKE ENERGY, INC., SUSAN R. LANDAHL, PETER B. HAMILTON, ROBERT A. PEISER, JOHN W. ROWE, SUNCOKE ENERGY PARTNERS, G.P. LLC, and JAMES E. SWEETNAM, Case No. 1:19-cv-01107-UNA (D. Del., June 14, 2019). Plaintiff specifically alleges that the Defendants have violated the Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the proposed merger between SXCP and SXC, for acting in bad faith and violating the duty of good faith under the Partnership Agreement, and for breaches of fiduciary duty owed to the minority unitholders of SXCP. SXC is a corporation whose shares are traded on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker SXC. SXCP is a limited partnership that also trades, independent of SXC, on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker SXCP. SXCP's general partner, General Partner, is a Delaware limited liability company that is 100% owned by Defendant SXC through its wholly owned subsidiary, Sun Coal & Coke LLC. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Van Gorder, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 3828 Kennett Pike, Suite 201 Wilmington, DE 19807 Telephone: (302) 482-3182 E-mail: mvangorder@faruqilaw.com - and - Nadeem Faruqi, Esq. James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 685 Third Ave., 26th Fl. New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 983-9330 E-mail: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com jwilson@faruqilaw.com TOP 1 PERCENT COACHING: Elston Seeks Overtime Pay, Minimum Wage --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action complaint has been filed against Top 1 Percent Coaching, LLC for alleged violations of the overtime and minimum wage provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA). The case is captioned COURTNEY ELSTON, individually and on behalf of similarly situated employees, Plaintiff, vs. TOP 1 PERCENT COACHING, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, and JUSTIN T. FOXX, individually, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-00407 (M.D. Fla., June 17, 2019). Plaintiff Courtney Elston alleges that the Defendants required her and the FLSA Members to work more than 40 hours per week but did not compensate them at the FLSA mandated time-and-a-half rate for hours in excess of 40 per workweek. Top 1 Percent is a domestic limited liability company doing business in Florida for the purpose of accumulating monetary profit and has its principal place of business in Lee County, Florida. Justin T. Foxx is the chief executive officer of Top 1 Percent. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jack C. Morgan III, Esq. ALOIA ROLAND LUBELL & MORGAN PLLC 2222 Second Street Fort Myers, FL 33901 Telephone: 239-791-7950 Facsimile: 239-791-7951 E-mail: jmorgan@floridalegalrights.com kturner@floridalegalrights.com - and – John B. Gallagher, Esq. 2631 East Oakland Park Boulevard, Suite 201 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33306 Telephone: (954) 524-1888 Facsimile: (954) 524-1887 E-mail: gal2701@aol.com TOYOTA MOTOR: Settlement in Simerlein Suit Has Final Court Approval ------------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut issued an Order granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of the Settlement Agreement, Certification of the Settlement Class and Attorney's Fees in the case captioned NED SIMERLEIN, JAMES ECKHOFF, MARICEL LOPEZ, CRAIG KAISER, JOHN F. PRENDERGAST, RAYMOND ALVAREZ, ROSARIO ALVAREZ, KAREN EASON, JENNIFER SOWERS, JENNIFER FRANKLIN, JORDAN AMRANI, CRYSTAL GILLESPIE, MELISSA STALKER, DILLEN STEEBY, PAULA McMILLIN, JOSEPH C. HARP JR., JAMES TINNEY, AND MELISSA JUGO TINNEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION, TOYOTA MOTOR NORTH AMERICA INC., TOYOTA MOTOR SALES U.S.A., INC., TOYOTA MOTOR ENGINEERING & MANUFACTURING NORTH AMERICA, INC., and TOYOTA MOTOR MANUFACTURING, INDIANA, INC., Defendants. No. 3:17-cv-1091 (VAB). (D. Conn.). The Defendants have allegedly designed, manufactured, marketed, and sold Toyota Sienna minivans (Sienna) since 1998. Several Plaintiffs allege that the power sliding doors were a key factor in their decision to purchase the Sienna. The Plaintiffs allege that the overall design defect results in, among other things: (a) the doors opening independently, posing risk of passengers falling out while the vehicles are in motion and risk of accident due to driver distraction (b) closing independently, potentially trapping any object in their path, including the arms and legs of young passengers (c) freezing in a partially open position, sometimes resulting in consumers having to drive the car from the place at which their door froze to, at a minimum, home or a dealer with the door partially open; (d) freezing in a partially or fully closed position, which poses the risk of passengers being unable to exit or be unloaded from the vehicle in a dangerous situation. This proposed Settlement Class excluded: (a) Toyota [the Simerlein Defendants], its officers, directors and employees; its affiliates and affiliates' officers, directors and employees; its distributors and distributors' officers, directors and employees; and Toyota Dealers and Toyota Dealers' officers and directors; (b) Plaintiffs' Counsel; (c) judicial officers and their immediate family members and associated court staff assigned to this case; and (d) persons or entities who or which timely and properly exclude themselves from the Class as provided in the Settlement Agreement. The Agreement, as written, provides two distinct types of relief to Class Members. First, the Defendants will establish a forward-looking Customer Confidence Program. Class Members will be entitled to several forms of prospective relief through this program. For example, within one year of the Court's final approval of a settlement, all Class Members with a Subject Vehicle may take their vehicle to an authorized Toyota Dealer and receive a free Sienna Sliding Door Functional Inspection. This is a use it or lose it benefit. Second, the Agreement will provide retrospective relief by establishing an out-of-pocket claims process to reimburse Class Members for previously incurred out-of-pocket expenses to repair a condition covered by the Customer Confidence Program, but not otherwise reimbursed and that incurred before the Initial Notice Date. The Plaintiffs move for final approval of a Settlement Agreement, reached and entered into with the Defendants, on behalf of a proposed class of Toyota Sienna owners and lessors located throughout the United States. The Defendants support the Plaintiffs' motion. The Court finds that the proposed settlement is fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best interest of the class. The Court further finds the Settlement Agreement to be the product of extensive arm's length negotiations conducted by highly experienced counsel. The Court therefore certifies the Settlement Class and approves the proposed Settlement Agreement. Certification of Class for Settlement Purposes The Court makes the following findings on ascertainability, numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy of representation, and predominance. Ascertainability The Second Circuit has recognized that Rule 23 contains an implied requirement of ascertainability. The Second Circuit has clarified that this is not a freestanding administrative feasibility requirement, but simply requires only that a class be defined using objective criteria that establish a membership with definite boundaries. This class is defined solely by objective criteria: class members must, at any time as of March 1, 2019 (the date on which notices were first mailed), own or have owned, purchase or have purchased, or lease or have leased a 2011 through 2018 model year Toyota Sienna. Using this definition, Defendants generated a list of VIN numbers for the relevant vehicles. The Settlement Notice Administrator then used this list to obtain information from a reputable automotive data provider, R.L. Polk & Co., to identify a total of 1,299,946 Class Members. As a result, it is administratively feasible to determine class membership during the Class Period. The proposed Settlement Class therefore is ascertainable. Numerosity Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(1) requires that any putative class be so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. While courts have not required evidence of exact class size or identity of class members to satisfy the numerosity requirement, the Second Circuit has recognized that numerosity is presumed at a level of 40 members. The proposed Settlement Class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. Here, 1,299,946 Class Members have been identified. The numerosity requirement therefore is satisfied. Commonality Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(2) requires the existence of questions of law or fact common to the class. This class action presents questions of both law and fact that are common to the class. While a number of different state statues are implicated in this class action, there are common questions of fact that are capable of class-wide resolution, regardless of where a proposed Class Member is located, including: (1) whether the Subject Vehicles' rear sliding doors were defective (2) whether and for how long Defendants knew about the defect (3) whether Defendants misrepresented or omitted information about the defect to consumers (4) whether those misrepresentations or omissions were material; (5) whether proposed Class Members were damaged by those misrepresentations or omission (6) whether proposed Class Members were damaged by the defect and (7) whether equitable relief is warranted for proposed Class Members' claims. In addition, all Class Members have federal claims under the Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act presenting common questions of law that are capable of class-wide resolution. The commonality requirement therefore is satisfied. Typicality Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(3) requires that the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class. The proposed representative parties and their claims and defenses are typical of the class as a whole. Each proposed representative party is a member of the proposed Settlement Class and allege to have been damaged by the same conduct as the class more broadly, i.e., defects in the Toyota Sienna and alleged misrepresentations and omissions about those defects by Defendants. Additionally, the claims of the class and class representatives share corresponding legal theories. The typicality requirement therefore is satisfied. Adequacy of Representation Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(4) requires that the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. The Court is not aware of any conflicts between the Representative Parties, Class Counsel, and the claims of the proposed Class Members. Additionally, Class Counsel, W. Daniel "Dee" Miles III of Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles, P.C. (who has represented the Combs Plaintiffs), Adam Levitt of DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC (who has represented the Combs Plaintiffs), and Demet Basar of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP (who has represented the Simerlein Plaintiffs) all have litigated complex class actions in the past. The Representative Parties therefore will fairly and adequately protect the interest of the proposed Settlement Class. Predominance Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) requires that, before certifying an opt-out class, a court must find that the questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and that a class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy. Here, the common questions of law and fact predominate over any question affecting only individual members of the proposed Settlement Class. There do not appear to be any significant differences between the claims of proposed Settlement Class members, apart from where they are located and the specific state consumer protection statutes applicable to them. Additionally, a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy. Class certification promotes efficiency and uniformity of judgment because the many class members will not be forced to separately pursue claims or execute settlements in various courts around the country. Based on these findings, the Court certifies the proposed Settlement Class (Settlement Class) for settlement purposes under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(c) and 23(e), comprised of all persons, entities or organizations who, at any time as of March 1, 2019, own or owned, purchase(d) or lease(d) a 2011 through 2018 model year Toyota Sienna vehicle that was distributed for sale or lease in any of the fifty States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and all other United States territories and/or possessions. Final Approval of the Terms of the Settlement In determining whether a settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate, the District Court examines the negotiating process leading up to the settlement, i.e., procedural fairness, as well as the settlement's substantive terms, i.e., substantive fairness. First, the Court must review the negotiating process leading up to the settlement for procedural fairness, to ensure that the settlement resulted from an arm's-length, good faith negotiation between experienced and skilled litigators. Here, the Court finds that presumption is met. As the Court noted in its preliminary approval order, the parties have vigorously litigated this case, and were engaged in extensive, arms-length settlement discussions in this matter and the Combs action for more than a year. In those negotiations, the Plaintiffs were represented by counsel who are qualified and have extensive class action experience. The Plaintiffs therefore have engaged in the discovery, necessary to effective representation of the class's interests. Accordingly, meaningful discovery has occurred and the presumption of procedural fairness has been met. The Court makes the following findings and concludes that the balance of the Grinnell factors weighs in favor of approving the Settlement Agreement. Complexity, Expense, and Likely Duration of the Litigation The first Grinnell factor requires the Court to consider the complexity, expense and likely duration of the litigation. Most class actions are inherently complex and settlement avoids the costs, delays and multitude of other problems associated with them and courts therefore favor class action settlements. The Plaintiffs argue that the litigation is unquestionably complex. The Plaintiffs note that the Second Amended Complaint stated sixty causes of action, including claims on behalf of twelve statewide classes, as well as multistate and nationwide classes. The Court agrees. As the Court explained in granting preliminary approval, it is likely that extremely costly litigation would have ensued over the many different state jurisdictions involved here. Accordingly, the first Grinnell factor supports approval of the settlement. Reaction of the Class to the Settlement Courts may consider two reactions: opt-outs and objections. If only a small number of objections are received, that fact can be viewed as indicative of the adequacy of the settlement. Here, there were only two objections to the settlement both of which have since been withdrawn and only sixty-eight of the 1,299,946 Class Members have opted out. Accordingly, the second Grinnell factor supports approval of the settlement. The Stage of the Proceedings and the Amount of Discovery Completed The stage of the proceedings and the amount of discovery completed at the time a Settlement is reached is relevant to the parties' knowledge of the strengths and weaknesses of the various claims in the case, and consequently affects the determination of the settlement's fairness. However, to approve a proposed settlement, the Court need not find that the parties have engaged in extensive discovery. The Plaintiffs' investigation resulted in the production of more than 100,000 documents from the Defendants, which were reviewed by numerous experts whom the Plaintiffs would likely have deposed as expert witnesses had the litigation continued. Thus, the Plaintiffs have gained a sufficient understanding of their case such that they have had an opportunity to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of their claims as well as the adequacy of settlement. Accordingly, the Court finds the third Grinnell factor weighs in favor of approval. The Risks of Establishing Liability and Damages One of the Court's central inquiries when appraising a settlement is the likelihood that the class would prevail at trial in the face of the risks presented by further litigation. In determining the risks of establishing liability and damages, courts need not adjudicate the disputed issues or decide unsettled questions; rather, courts need only assess the risks of litigation against the certainty of recovery under the proposed settlement. The Plaintiffs argue that if they were to continue prosecuting their claims, they would have to face several substantial hurdles with respect to establishing liability and damages, at great cost and risk to the Plaintiffs and the Class. These hurdles include overcoming motions to dismiss filed by the Defendants based on an array of jurisdictional and merits issues. The Plaintiffs also contend that there are significant factual issues with respect to Defendants' knowledge of any defects before Plaintiffs' purchase of the Toyota Siennas, as well as difficult issues regarding the measurement of damages on a classwide basis. Finally, the Plaintiffs argue that further proceedings would necessarily entail a battle of the experts. The Court recognizes the merit to these arguments, as it did in granting preliminary approval. Regardless of the merits of the motion to dismiss that was pending before this Court before the execution of the Settlement Agreement, litigation inherently involves risks. Accordingly, the fourth and fifth Grinnell factors weigh in favor of approval. The Risks of Maintaining the Class Action Through Trial One of the factors most courts consider is how certain the court is that the class certification requirements are met and maintainable. This consideration is separate, although related, to the Court's determination that the class should be certified for settlement purposes. The Plaintiffs argue that securing certification of a nationwide class or statewide classes is far from certain, noting that proving a viable damages model has proved an insurmountable hurdle for many proposed consumer classes. The Plaintiffs also argue that the Defendants can be expected to argue that bringing an array of state law claims may present serious manageability issues or irreconcilable conflicts between the laws of different states. The Plaintiffs note the many decisions denying class certification in automobile defect cases underscore the risks of securing and maintaining class status were this action to proceed through trial. The Court recognizes the merit to these arguments. While the Plaintiffs would no doubt vigorously contest the Defendnats' arguments on this front, the Court agrees with Plaintiffs that they pose significant risks. The sixth Grinnell factor weighs in favor of approval. Defendants' Ability to Withstand a Greater Judgment The Plaintiffs do not argue that the Defendants would not be able to withstand a greater judgment. Instead, they contend that where the other Grinnell factors weigh heavily in favor of settlement, the Court may still approve of the settlement as being fair, reasonable, and adequate. The Court agrees that this factor standing alone, does not suggest that the settlement is unfair, especially where the other Grinnell factors weigh heavily in favor of settlement. Therefore, given the application of the other Grinnellfactors in this case, the Court need not determine whether Defendants could have withstood a larger judgment, and may still approve the settlement agreement. Accordingly, this factor also weighs in favor of approval. The Range of Reasonableness of the Settlement The final Grinnell factors require examination of the range of reasonableness of the settlement in light of the best possible recovery and in light of all the attendant risks of litigation. Courts should consider and weigh the nature of the claim, the possible defenses, the situation of the parties, and the exercise of business judgment in determining whether the proposed settlement is reasonable. The parties have both represented that the settlement will provide Class Members with substantial benefits. Plaintiffs argue that they have been provided relief specifically sought by the Plaintiffs in their complaints in the form of both prospective coverage for repairs and reimbursement for past repairs. Moreover, while the parties have not agreed on a monetary value of the proposed Settlement, Plaintiffs have submitted a detailed declaration from a forensic accounting expert who estimates the total value of the relief at $33.6 million. Accordingly, the eighth and ninth Grinnell factors weigh in favor of approval. As a result, the Grinnell factors taken as a whole support finding the settlement substantively fair, reasonable, and adequate. The Court therefore approves the Settlement Agreement. Attorney's Fees Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(h), the court may award reasonable attorney's fees that are authorized by law or by the parties' agreement. Courts in the Second Circuit use one of two different methods to analyze the reasonableness of attorney's fees awards in class actions that result in a common fund settlement. In claims-made settlements where the extent of the defendant's liability is wholly dependent upon the number of claims filed by class members, the cost of administering the settlement and such fees and expenses as are assessed by the Court, courts are more divided as to the best approach. A number of courts have concluded that have concluded that utilizing the percentage method would provide plaintiffs' counsel with a percentage of a hypothetical recovery, and have instead opted to use the lodestar method, finding that it `better accommodates the policy concerns in settling class actions on a claims-made basis. The Second Circuit has also recognized the use of the lodestar as a baseline even if the percentage method is eventually chosen and encouraged the practice of requiring documentation of hours as a `cross check' on the reasonableness of the requested percentage. Accordingly, many courts adopt this combined approach. Here, the Plaintiffs seek an award of $6,500,000 in attorneys' fees. The Long Form Notice informed Class Members that Class Counsel will ask the Court for an award of attorneys' fees in the amount of $6,500,000.00. Defendants agreed not to take a position on this motion. This Court has previously recognized that when the parties agree to a fee that is to be paid separately by defendants rather than one that comes from, and therefore reduces, a settlement fund available to the class, the Court's fiduciary role in overseeing the award is greatly reduced' because the danger of conflicts of interest between attorneys and class members is diminished. The Court recognized there that it must still assess the reasonableness of the fee award where the fee does not come from a common fund, because a defendant is interested only in disposing of the total claim asserted against it, and not in the allocation between the class payment and the attorneys' fees. This settlement has not resulted in a common fund. Plaintiffs have instead provided an estimate of the value of the settlement, based on the analysis of Mr. Olsen, a forensic accounting expert, who has analyzed the components of the settlement and estimated their value to be $33.6 million. In addition to this estimated value of the settlement, unlike many claims-made settlements that arbitrarily cut off class members' recovery, the Settlement Agreement here provides that Class Members may obtain prospective benefits under the Customer Confidence Program for several components for ten years from the date of first use of the vehicle, several years, as well as reimbursement for past repair expenses within sixty days of approval. Thus, while the settlement does not consist of a single, predetermined, common fund from which a percentage-of-recovery can be easily calculated, the estimate provided by Mr. Olsen gives the Court a clear denominator against which the fees can be assessed in in applying the percentage method. Moreover, based on a review of Mr. Olsen's written submission as well as the Court's follow-up inquiries at the June 4th fairness hearing, Mr. Olsen's estimates of the settlement's value, grounded in his expertise in forensic accounting, are sufficiently credible. As a result, based on the analysis conducted by Mr. Olsen, Class Counsel's requested fee of $6,500,000 represents just 16.2 percent of the total settlement. This percentage puts the requested fee well within the range of awards regularly awarded within the Second Circuit. Accordingly, under the percentage method, the proposed award for attorney's fees is appropriate. The Plaintiffs' lodestar calculations yield an award of $3,863,845.25. The proposed fee award of $6,5000,000 thus represents a 1.68 multiplier compared to the lodestar. That is firmly at the low end of the range of multipliers regularly approved by district courts in the Second Circuit. Accordingly, a review of the lodestar method confirms that the proposed fee award would not represent an improper windfall. The Court also has assessed whether the proposed fee award is reasonable under the Goldberger factors. Here, the Goldberger, Goldberger, 209 F.3d at 50, factors support the reasonableness of the fee in this matter. The first Goldberger factor considers the time and labor expended by counsel.. Class Counsel have litigated these actions for nearly two years in both Connecticut and California, spending over 6,000 hours on them. Those efforts included many months of informal and confirmatory discovery, as well as many months of settlement negotiations. The second Goldberger factor considers the magnitude and complexities of the litigation. As discussed above with respect to the Grinnell factors, this case was complex in both scale and law, sixty causes of action, as it included claims on behalf of twelve statewide classes, as well as multistate and nationwide classes. The third Goldberger factor considers the risk of the litigation. The Second Circuit recognizes that the risk of success is perhaps the foremost factor to be considered in determining a fee award in class actions. After all, despite the most vigorous and competent of efforts, success is never guaranteed. As discussed above with respect to the Grinnell factors, this case presented considerable risks, given the heavy reliance on expert testimony necessary at the liability stage. The fourth Goldberger factor considers the quality of representation by Class Counsel. As discussed above, both the very substantial relief Plaintiffs achieved and the significant experience of Class Counsel indicate that Plaintiffs received high-quality representation. The fifth Goldberger factor considers the requested fee in relation to the settlement. While the fee award in this case will be paid by Defendants and will not impact the total amount recovered through the rest of the settlement, a comparison of the requested attorneys' fee award and the total value of the settlement, as discussed above, shows that the fee represents 16.2% of the estimated value of the settlement a percentage in line with that awarded in other cases. The sixth Goldberger factor analyzes public policy considerations. Here, the substantial relief achieved by Plaintiffs promotes important consumer protection goals: namely, ensuring relief for Toyota Sienna drivers after years of complaints to the NTSB about alleged issues with the Toyota Sienna. The fee award here will provide attorneys sufficient incentive to bring further class actions that serve the public interest and aim to settle cases in an efficient manner that delivers full relief. For these reasons, all six Goldberger factors weigh in favor of approving the attorney's fee award. Accordingly, the Court awards the Plaintiffs $6,500,000 in attorney's fees. Accordingly, the Court grants the Plaintiffs' motion for final approval and class certification, approves the proposed Settlement Agreement, grants the Plaintiffs' motion for attorney's fees, costs, and service awards, and ORDERS as follows. For settlement purposes, the Settlement Class is certified under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(c) and 23(e). The Settlement Class consists of: all persons, entities or organizations who, at any time as of the entry of the March 1, 2019, own or owned, purchase(d) or lease(d) 2011 through 2018 model year Toyota Sienna vehicles distributed for sale or lease in any of the fifty States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and all other United States territories and/or possessions. Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (a) Toyota, its officers, directors and employees; its affiliates and affiliates' officers, directors, and employees; its distributors and distributors' officers, directors, and employees; and Toyota Dealers and Toyota Dealers' officers and directors (b) Plaintiffs' counsel (c) judicial officers and their immediate family members and associated court staff assigned to this case and (d) persons or entities who or which timely and properly excluded themselves from the Settlement Class as provided in the Settlement Agreement. A full-text copy of the District Court's June 10, 2019 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yyntzk68 from Leagle.com. Ned Simerlein, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by David A. Slossberg, Hurwitz Sagarin Slossberg & Knuff LLC, 147 North Broad Street, Milford, Connecticut 0646, Demet Basar -- basar@whafh.com -- Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz, pro hac vice, Kate M. McGuire -- mcguire@whafh.com -- Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz, pro hac vice, Lydia Keaney Reynolds- Reynolds@whafh.com -- Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz, pro hac vice, Adam J. Levitt -- alevitt@dlcfirm.com -- DiCello Levitt Gutzler LLC, Daniel R. Ferri -- dferri@dlcfirm.com -- DiCello Levitt Gutzler LLC, David L. Belt, Hurwitz Sagarin Slossberg & Knuff LLC, 147 North Broad Street, Milford, Connecticut 0646, H. Clay Barnett, III, Beasley Allen et al, 4200 Northside Pkwy NW, Building One, Suite 100, Atlanta, GA 30327, Jeffrey P. Nichols, Hurwitz Sagarin Slossberg & Knuff LLC, John Tangren, 147 North Broad Street, Milford, Connecticut 0646 &Wilson Daniel Miles, III, Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles, P.C., 4200 Northside Pkwy NW, Building One, Suite 100, Atlanta, GA 30327 Toyota Motor Corporation, Toyota Motor North America Inc, Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A., Inc., Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing North America, Inc. & Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Indiana, Inc., Defendants, represented by Mark D. Campbell -- mdcampbell@shb.com -- Shook, Hardy & Bacon L. L. P., pro hac vice, Michael L. Mallow -- mmallow@sidley.com -- Sidley Austin LLP, pro hac vice, Rachel A. Straus -- rstraus@sidley.com -- Sidley Austin LLP, pro hac vice, David Norman-Schiff -- dnorman-schiff@wiggin.com -Wiggin & Dana, John Peter Hooper -jhooper@kslaw.com -- King & Spalding LLP, Kevin M. Smith -- ksmith@wiggin.com -- Wiggin & Dana & Michael D. Blanchard -- michael.blanchard@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP. TRANS WORLD: Faces New Suit over VIP Backstage Pass Memberships --------------------------------------------------------------- Trans World Entertainment Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 18, 2019, for the quarterly period ended May 4, 2019, that two of the plaintiffs from the dismissed Loyalty Memberships and Magazine Subscriptions Class Action lawsuit have filed a similar punitive class action in Massachusetts state court (Civ. Act. No. 197CV00331, Mass. Super. Ct. Hampden Cty.). On November 14, 2018, three consumers filed a punitive class action complaint against the Company and Synapse Group, Inc. in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Boston Division (Case No.1:18-cv-12377-DPW) concerning enrollment in the Company's Backstage Pass VIP loyalty program and associated magazine subscriptions. The complaint alleged, among other things, that the Company's "negative option marketing" misled consumers into enrolling for membership and subscriptions without obtaining the consumers' consent. The complaint sought to represent a nationwide class of "all persons in the United States" who were enrolled in and/or charged for Backstage Pass VIP memberships and/or magazine subscriptions, and to obtain statutory and actual damages on their behalf. On April 11, 2019, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their lawsuit. On May 8, 2019, two of the plaintiffs from the dismissed lawsuit filed a similar punitive class action in Massachusetts state court (Civ. Act. No. 197CV00331, Mass. Super. Ct. Hampden Cty.), based on the same allegations, but this time seeking to represent only a class of "FYE customers in Massachusetts" who were charged for VIP Backstage Pass Memberships and/or magazine subscriptions. Trans World said, "The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the plaintiffs' claims and, if the new case is not dismissed in full, the Company intends to vigorously defend the action." Trans World Entertainment Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, operates as a specialty retailer of entertainment products. The company operates in two segments, For Your Entertainment (fye) and etailz. The fye segment offers trend, video, music, electronics, and related products, as well as used compact discs, DVDs, Blu-Ray, and video games through its retail stores and e-commerce sites. Trans World Entertainment Corporation was founded in 1972 and is headquartered in Albany, New York. TRANS WORLD: Opt-In Discovery in Spack Underway ----------------------------------------------- Trans World Entertainment Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 18, 2019, for the quarterly period ended May 4, 2019, that the opt-in discovery in the case, Spack v. Trans World Entertainment Corp., is ongoing. Trans World is defending against two pending class actions. The first, Spack v. Trans World Entertainment Corp. was originally filed in the District of New Jersey, April 2017 (the "Spack Action"). The Spack Action alleges that the Company misclassified Store Managers ("SMs") as exempt nationwide. It also alleges that Trans World improperly calculated overtime for Senior Assistant Managers "SAMs" nationwide, and that both SMs and SAMs worked "off-the-clock." It also alleges violations of New Jersey and Pennsylvania State Law with respect to calculating overtime for SAMs. The second, Roper v. Trans World Entertainment Corp., was filed in the Northern District of New York, May 2017 (the "Roper Action"). The Roper Action also asserts a nationwide misclassification claim on behalf of Store Managers. Both actions were consolidated into the Northern District of New York, with the Spack Action being the lead case. Plaintiffs moved for conditional certification of a collective of SMs in June 2018, and that motion was partially granted in January 2019. The opt-in period for the collective that was certified was closed on April 6, 2019. Opt-in discovery relating to that potential collective has commenced. The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the plaintiffs' claims and intends to vigorously defend the action. Trans World Entertainment Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, operates as a specialty retailer of entertainment products. The company operates in two segments, For Your Entertainment (fye) and etailz. The fye segment offers trend, video, music, electronics, and related products, as well as used compact discs, DVDs, Blu-Ray, and video games through its retail stores and e-commerce sites. Trans World Entertainment Corporation was founded in 1972 and is headquartered in Albany, New York. TRANSUNION RENTAL: Misreports Eviction Record, Clark-Fortunat Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ A class action complaint has been filed against TransUnion Rental Screening Solutions, Inc. for alleged violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). The case is captioned Chantel Clark-Fortunat, individually and as a representative of the classes, Plaintiff, v. TransUnion Rental Screening Solutions, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-03525 (E.D.N.Y., June 14, 2019). Plaintiff Chantel Clark-Fortunat alleges that TransUnion inaccurately reported her eviction record. In so doing, TransUnion reported an eviction that had subsequently been expunged. TransUnion flawed reporting was ultimately provided to Plaintiff's potential landlord. Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks for damages, costs and attorneys' fees pursuant to the FCRA. Headquartered in Colorado, TransUnion is a consumer reporting agency that compiles and maintains files on consumers on a nationwide basis. It sells consumer reports generated from its database and furnishes these consumer reports to landlords who use the reports to make decisions regarding whether to rent to certain consumers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Russell D. Paul, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 Facsimile: (215) 875-4604 E-mail: rpaul@bm.net - and - E. Michelle Drake, Esq. Joseph C. Hashmall, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 43 SE Main Street, Suite 505 Minneapolis, MN 55414 Telephone: (612) 594-5999 Facsimile: (612) 584-4470 E-mail: emdrake@bm.net jhashmall@bm.net TRINITY COURIERS: Gomez Seeks Proper Overtime Pay ------------------------------------------------- A class action complaint has been filed against Trinity Couriers, Inc. and Trinity Couriers of Houston, Inc. for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. The case is captioned, ERIC GOMEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. TRINITY COURIERS, INC. and TRINITY COURIERS OF HOUSTON, INC., Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-02186 (S.D. Tex., June 18, 2019). Plaintiff Eric Gomez alleges that the Defendants paid his overtime at a rate less than one and one-half times the regular rate. Plaintiff Gomez also asserts that the Defendants failed to maintain accurate time and pay records of their employees. Accordingly, Gomez seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs from Trinity Couriers. Trinity Couriers, Inc. and Trinity Couriers of Houston, Inc. are Texas corporations engaged in providing courier services in the state of Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jay Forester, Esq. FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC 1701 N. Market Street, Suite 210 Dallas, TX 75202 Telephone: (214) 210-2100 Facsimile: (214) 346-5909 TUMINO'S TOWING: Court Denies Stay in S. Kiley Suit --------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey issued an Opinion and Order denying Defendants' Motion to Stay in the case captioned SEAN KILEY, Plaintiff, v. TUMINO'S TOWING, INC., et al, Defendants. Civil Action No. 2:18-CV-3165-JMV-SCM. (D.N.J.). Before the Court is Defendants', Tumino's Towing, Inc. and John Tumino (Tumino's Towing), informal motion to stay this case pending a decision by the New Jersey Supreme Court in a consolidated appeal known as Pisack v. B&C Towing, Inc. (Pisack). Mr. Kiley instituted this putative class action to recover damages and injunctive relief for Tumino's Towing's allegedly unlawful and predatory towing practices. Mr. Kiley's individual claims arise out of a nonconsensual tow of his vehicle by Tumino's Towing from a location in Ridgefield Park, New Jersey. The complaint alleges that certain of the fees and charges that Tumino's Towing required Mr. Kiley to pay were unlawful under various New Jersey state consumer protection laws. The burden of demonstrating good cause rests on Tumino's Towing as the party seeking the stay. On balance, the Court finds that Tumino's Towing has not demonstrated good cause for the issuance of a stay at this juncture, prior to completion of jurisdictional discovery. The first factor in weighing whether a stay is appropriate, i.e., whether a stay would result in prejudice to Mr. Kiley, weighs against staying this action. After the Court ordered jurisdictional discovery, Mr. Kiley sought to determine whether two-thirds or more of the members of all proposed plaintiff classes in the aggregate are citizens of New Jersey through written discovery and a Rule 30(b)(6) Notice of Deposition. When Tumino's Towing failed to produce information. To this date, Tumino's Towing has still not produced the 30(b)(6) witness, on the grounds that it would only discuss proceeding with the deposition after the instant motion to stay was decided. Staying this action would effectively keep this case in federal court even though discovery has not been completed to determine whether jurisdiction is appropriate here in the first place. The second factor, whether denial of the stay would create a clear case of hardship or inequity for Tumino's Towing, weighs against granting a stay before jurisdictional discovery is completed. The only argument that Tumino's Towing makes related to this factor is a conclusory statement that a stay will prevent the parties from spending additional time and money on costly discovery and motion practice that may be wholly unnecessary. Tumino's Towing also argues that its discovery responses demonstrate that it does not have information on the citizenship of the vehicle owners. If indeed this is the case, the completion of jurisdictional discovery would allow Tumino's Towing to argue that Mr. Kiley cannot show that an exception to CAFA jurisdiction applies, and the case is properly in federal court. If the case indeed remains in federal court after motions to remand have been decided, Mr. Kiley may informally seek to renew his request for an informal stay, resulting in no hardship or inequity for Tumino's Towing. The third factor, whether the stay would simplify the issues and the trial of the case, weighs against staying the case. Tumino's Towing argues that entry of a stay would narrow or outright eliminate the need for discovery because if the New Jersey Supreme Court holds that the Legislature's December 20, 2018 amendment should be applied retroactively, the decision will substantially impact or render moot this action. Mr. Kiley, on the other hand, contends that the New Jersey Supreme Court's decision will not streamline the issues in this matter because whatever [the Pisack decision] may reveal, it will not alter the issue of jurisdiction. The Court finds that a stay would not simplify the issues and trial of the case, because keeping a case in federal court when it might not properly be here on the grounds of jurisdiction does not simplify the issues in a case. The fourth factor, whether discovery is complete and/or a trial date has been set, weighs against a stay. Jurisdictional discovery has not been completed and delaying resolution of the motion to remand pending the appellate decision could result in creating case management problems should the appellate decision have no impact on the instant case. Motions to stay discovery are not favored because when discovery is delayed or prolonged it can create case management problems which impede the court's responsibility to expedite discovery and cause unnecessary litigation expenses and problems. Staying this case indefinitely before jurisdictional discovery is completed could potentially result in two years passing in this case without completion of jurisdictional discovery. A full-text copy of the District Court's June 10, 2019 Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y2ojhbo8 from Leagle.com. SEAN KILEY, On behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by ANDREW R. WOLF -- awolf@wolflawfirm.net -- The Wolf Law Firm, LLC, LISA R. BOUCKENOOGHE, THE WOLF LAW FIRM LLC, MARK A. FISHER -- mfisher@wolflawfirm.net -- THE WOLF LAW FIRM, LLC & MATTHEW SCOTT OORBEEK -- moorbeek@genovaburns.com -- Genova Burns, LLC. TUMINO'S TOWING, INC. & JOHN TUMINO, Defendants, represented by CAROLINE ELEANORE OKS -- coks@gibbonslaw.com -- GIBBONS PC & MICHAEL R. MCDONALD -- mmcdonald@gibbonslaw.com -- GIBBONS, PC. UBS AG: Among Defendants in Forex Rate Rigging Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Byron Kaye, writing for Reuters, reports that an Australian law firm filed a class action lawsuit on Monday against five major international investment banks accusing them of colluding to rig foreign exchange rates during 2008-2013 to jack up profits at the expense of businesses and investors. The case involved some of the same banks caught up in similar currency market scandals in Europe and the United States. UBS AG, Barclays Bank Plc, Citigroup Inc, Royal Bank of Scotland Group Plc and JP Morgan AG are accused, according to Australian court documents, of colluding to increase the price clients paid for certain investment products in order to fix exchange rates at more costly levels. Reuters emailed and called the banks named in the lawsuit. JP Morgan declined to comment, while spokespeople for UBS, Citi and RBS acknowledged receiving Reuters' enquiries but were not immediately available for comment. Maurice Blackburn, the law firm that has launched the case, alleged that traders from the banks, who were supposed to be competing with each other, shared confidential information like details of clients and their orders on internet chatrooms. According to court documents, names given by the traders to those chatrooms included "The Cartel", "The Mafia" and "A CoOperative". Several of the same chatroom names were identified in an investigation into foreign exchange rate rigging by U.S. regulators. In a U.S. case, Barclays, BNP Paribas, Citigroup, JPMorgan, Royal Bank of Scotland and UBS have entered related guilty pleas, and been collectively fined more than $2.8 billion. Reuters reported earlier in May that EU anti-trust regulators investigating currency market rigging were set to fine seven banks, several of which were also accused in the case launched in Australia. "Australian businesses and investors, particularly medium to large importers, exporters, institutional investors and businesses with operations overseas, have been affected by the distortion of the FX market by these banks," said Maurice Blackburn principal lawyer Kimi Nishimura in a statement. "Such cartel behavior cheats Australian businesses in circumstances where they may already have been vulnerable to currency fluctuations," Nishimura added. The lead plaintiff was a dental products importer called J. Wisbey and Associates, although the class action would represent any Australian customers of the five investment banks which had made cross-border transactions worth more than A$500,000 ($346,250) in the five-year period, Maurice Blackburn said. Maurice Blackburn wanted the five investment banks to pay damages to the plaintiffs without specifying how much, according to the court documents. The dust has barely settled from the previous scandal that roiled Australia's banking community in recent years after a market regulator launched a series of lawsuits against the country's "Big Four" banks. The regulator accused them of rigging the Bank Bill Swap Rate (BBSW) -- a benchmark interest rate in Australia used to price trillions of dollars of assets -- to inflate profit during the period 2010-2012. Commonwealth Bank of Australia CBA.AX, National Australia Bank NAB.AX and Australia and New Zealand Banking Group ANZ.AX -- settled before hearings began. Westpac Banking Corp defended the case, and was cleared by a court a year ago. [GN] UNILEVER US: Derchin et al Sue over Misleading Ice Cream Labels --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action complaint has been filed against Unilever United States, Inc. for alleged violations of consumer protection statutes of the all 50 states, for negligent misrepresentation, breach of express warranty and implied warranty of merchantability, fraud and unjust enrichment. The case is captioned Christopher Derchin, Richard Feleppa, Steve Altes, Jane Doe, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated Plaintiffs Complaint - against – Unilever United States, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-03543 (E.D.N.Y., June 17, 2109). Derchin et al assert that the Defendant's practice of listing "vanilla with other natural flavors" on foods that are characterized by vanilla is deceptive and misleading because it gives the false impression that the "natural flavor"("with other natural flavors") it provides are derived from vanilla beans. Unilever United States, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with a principal place of business in Englewood (Bergen County), New Jersey. It manufactures, distributes, markets, labels and sells ice cream products labeled as vanilla ice cream under the Breyers brand. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Spencer Sheehan, Esq. Sheehan & Associates, P.C. 505 Northern Blvd., Suite 311 Great Neck, NY 11021 Telephone: (516) 303-0552 E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com UNILEVER US: Duncan Sues Over Blind-inaccessible Web Site --------------------------------------------------------- EUGENE DUNCAN AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. UNILEVER UNITED STATES, INC., Case No. 1:19-cv-05186 (S.D.N.Y., June 3, 2019), is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its alleged failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Web site--http://www.magnumicecream.com/--tobe fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. Unilever is a Foreign Business Corporation organized under the laws of Delaware with its principal executive offices in Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. The Defendant operates its store locations as well as its website, and those affiliated or directly linked, and advertises, markets, offers and sells its goods within the state of New York and throughout the United States. Unilever manufactures personal care products. The Company offers laundry detergents, shampoos, soaps, fragrances, and body washes, as well as provides ice creams, oils, mayonnaise, spreads, sauces, tea.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bradly G. Marks, Esq. THE MARKS LAW FIRM, PC 175 Varick St., 3rd Floor New York, NY 10014 Telephone: (646) 770-3775 Facsimile: (646) 867-2639 E-mail: brad@markslawpc.com - and - Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: nyjg@aol.com danalgottlieb@aol.com UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: Does Not Pay Minimum Wage, Gomez Says --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action complaint has been filed against The Regents of the University of California d/b/a "University of California, San Diego Medical Center for violations of the California Labor Code, the California Business and Professions Code, the applicable Wage Orders issued by the California Industrial Welfare Commission and related common law principles. The case is captioned GUIVINI GOMEZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA d/b/a "UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO MEDICAL CENTER," a California Corporation; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 37-2019-00030873-CU-OE-CTL (Cal. Super., San Diego Cty., June 17, 2019). Plaintiff Guivini Gomez worked for Defendants as an hourly-paid non-exempt employee at University of California, San Diego Medical Center from approximately Feb. 2, 2017 to April 9, 2018. However, Defendants failed to pay state-mandated minimum wages of all hours Plaintiff worked. University of California, San Diego Medical Center is a teaching hospital located in La Jolla. It is a 245-bed medical specialty center that offers dvanced surgery, cancer care, cardiac rehabilitation, clinical trials, birthing options and more. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin T. Barnes, Esq. Gregg Lander, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF KEVIN T. BARNES 1635 Pontius Avenue, Second Floor Los Angeles, CA 90025-3361 Telephone: (323) 549-9100 Facsimile: (323) 549-0101 E-mail: Barnes@kbarnes.com - and - Leonard H. Sansanowicz, Esq. SANSANOWICZ LAW GROUP, P.C. 1635 Pontius Avenue, Second Floor Los Angeles, CA 90025-3361 Telephone: (323) 677-0200 Facsimile: (323) 549-0101 E-mail: Leonard@law-slg.com - and - Emil Davtyan, Esq. DAVTYAN PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION 5959 Topanga Canyon Boulevard, Suite 130 Woodland Hills, CA 91367-3622 Telephone: (818) 875-2008 Facsimile: (818) 722-3974 E-mail: Emil@davtyanlaw.com VAD D/B/A CM AUTO: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Canfield Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- DANIEL CANFIELD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated Plaintiff v. VAD d/b/a CM AUTO; SUNPATH LIMITED CORP.; and NORTHCOAST WARRANTY SERVICES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 8:19-cv-01162 (C.D. Cal., June 11, 2019) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls. Sunpath Limited Corp. automotive protection products such as Vehicle Service Contracts. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark L. Javitch, Esq. JAVITCH LAW OFFICE 480 S. Ellsworth Ave San Mateo, CA 94401 Telephone: (650) 781-8000 Facsimile: (650) 648-0705 E-mail: mark@javitchlawoffice.com VEREIT INC: American Realty Capital Properties Suit Adjourned ------------------------------------------------------------- VEREIT, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that on June 14, 2019, the court issued a written order adjourning the trial of the class action and the remaining opt-out action against VEREIT, Inc. and VEREIT Operating Partnership, L.P., (together the "Company") pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York captioned In re American Realty Capital Properties, Inc. Litigation No. 15-MC-00040 (AKH), and Jet Capital Master Fund, L.P. v. American Realty Capital Properties, Inc., et al., No. 15-cv-307, from September 9, 2019 until January 21, 2020. VEREIT, Inc. is a full-service real estate operating company which owns and manages one of the largest portfolios of single-tenant commercial properties in the U.S. The company is based in Phoenix, Arizona. VIP NAIL: Yugsi Seeks Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------- BLANCA ETELBINA YUGSI MOROCHO, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. VIP NAIL SALON INC. (D/B/A VIP NAILS), JOO IN OH (A.K.A. DOMINA), HYE SOOK OH, and JANE DOE (A.K.A. CLARA), the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-05546 (S.D.N.Y., June 13, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages, liquidated damages, interest, and attorneys' fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, and the New York Labor Law. The Defendants own, operate, or control a beauty salon, located at 69 Reade Street, New York, NY 10007 under the name "VIP Nails". Yugsi was employed as a manicurist/pedicurist at the salon. She was ostensibly employed as a manicurist/pedicurist. However, she was required to spend a considerable part of her work day performing non-tipped duties, including but not limited to handwashing towels, cleaning the bathroom, sweeping, arranging the attic, taking boxes to the attic and taking out the trash ("non-tipped duties"). Yugsi worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage and overtime compensation for the hours that she worked. Rather, Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked, and failed to pay Yugsi appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium. Furthermore, the Defendants repeatedly failed to pay Plaintiff Yugsi wages on a timely. Regardless, the Defendants paid Plaintiff Yugsi 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 Yugsi's non-tipped duties exceeded 20% of each workday, or 2 hours per day, whichever is less in each day, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 0165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Napleton Orlando Seeks to Certify Class --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit RE: VOLKSWAGEN 'CLEAN DIESEL' MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, Case 3:15-md-02672-CRB (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court on Nov. 1, 2019, for an order: 1. certifying a class of: "all persons or entities who owned a Volkswagen-branded franchise dealership that operated in the United States as of September 18, 2015 (the "Class"); 2. certifying the Class for claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. section 1962(c)-(d) and for civil conspiracy to defraud under the laws of all 50 states; 3. appointing Plaintiffs as Class representatives; and 4. appointing Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP and Bass Sox Mercer as Class Counsel under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g). The case relates to Napleton Orlando Imports, LLC, et al. v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., et al. The Plaintiffs seek certification of a Class of all persons or entities who owned a Volkswagen-branded franchise dealership that operated in the United States as of September 18, 2015. Whether Bosch's misconduct is viewed through the lens of RICO or civil conspiracy, its conduct was uniformly directed at all Class members causing common injury. The common questions of law and fact raised by this course of conduct decisively predominate, and will result in answers common to all Class members. The best, fairest, most consistent—and likely the only practical-way to litigate this case is as a class action.[CC] Counsel for the Plaintiffs and the Franchise Dealer Class are: Steve W. Berman, Esq. Thomas E. Loeser, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com toml@hbsslaw.com - and - Richard N. Sox, Esq. BASS SOX MERCER 2822 Remington Green Circle Tallahassee, FL 32308 Telephone: (850) 878-6404 Facsimile: (850) 942-4869 E-mail: rsox@dealerlawyer.com WARREN COUNTY, OH: Court OKs Settlement in Suit vs. WCCS -------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division, issued an Order granting Parties' Joint Motion to Approve Class Action in the case captioned ADOPTIVE FAMILY #1 AND THEIR DAUGHTER A, et al., Plaintiffs, v. WARREN COUNTY, OHIO/WARREN COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, Defendant. Case No. 1:18-cv-179. (S.D. Ohio). This class action challenges Warren County's adoption assistance agreements with the adoptive families of children determined to have special needs under the Title IV-E adoption assistance program. Plaintiffs Adoptive Families #1, #2, and #3 are families who have adopted children with special needs after serving them as foster parents. Plaintiffs challenge Warren County Children Services (WCCS)’s performance of its obligations to enter into Adoption Assistance agreements with the adoptive families of children determined to have special needs under the Title IV-E Adoption Assistance program. The Settlement Class The parties agree to certification of the following class under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) for the purposes of settlement: All adoptive parents and their adopted children who, as of the date of the filing of this lawsuit and/or through the date of the fairness hearing, were eligible to receive subsidies under Title IV-E of the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act and who fall under the jurisdiction of defendant Warren County, Ohio and who receive or received less than $250.00 in monthly adoption assistance payments. The Settlement Agreement The Settlement Agreement includes the following key provisions. First, the parties have agreed on procedures and criteria that will help guide WCCS and all families receiving subsidies on the criteria that will be considered to reach agreement on adoption assistance. Second, defendant has agreed to provide these criteria to staff members and train them on its use. Third, the parties have agreed that these criteria will be implemented through a revised adoption subsidy worksheet and a revised annual letter reminding families of the right to renegotiate. Fourth, the settlement narrows the class definition from that recommended by the undersigned magistrate judge, focusing the relief on those parents receiving less than $250 per child per month. Fifth, it provides for class members to engage in redeterminations and renegotiations of current subsidy agreements. The Parties' Settlement is Fair and Reasonable In deciding whether to approve the proposed settlement, the Court must consider whether the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate. The Court considers seven factors in making this determination: (1) the risk of fraud or collusion (2) the complexity, expense and likely duration of the litigation (3) the amount of discovery engaged in by the parties (4) the likelihood of success on the merits (5) the opinions of class counsel and class representatives; (6) the reaction of absent class members and (7) the public interest. The Risk of Fraud or Collusion The undersigned finds that there is no evidence or even a suggestion—that the settlement was the product of fraud or collusion. The settlement is the product of arm's-length negotiations of the parties with the assistance of experienced counsel on both sides. Negotiations have been supervised by either a United States Magistrate Judge or an experienced private mediator. The participation of an independent mediator in settlement negotiations virtually insures that the negotiations were conducted at arm's length and without collusion between the parties. The County agency director, prosecutor, and outside counsel have guided the County, and class counsel have guided the class representatives. In addition, the class representatives have been fully engaged in all aspects of settlement. This factor favors approval of the settlement. The Complexity, Expense, and Likely Duration This case involves complex factual and legal issues concerning how Title IV-E adoption assistance benefits are and should be provided to families who have adopted children with special needs. The parties have vigorously litigated these issues for more than one year. Plaintiffs acknowledge that the defenses raised by Warren County in its motions for judgment on the pleadings and to dismiss would likely be appealed to the Sixth Circuit if plaintiffs were to prevail on summary judgment or at trial, thereby further delaying a final resolution of this matter. Even if plaintiffs would ultimately be successful after years of litigation and appeals, the resultant delay would do nothing to address the daily and immediate needs of the adoptive children and their parents in the interim. Any resources that can help families now through the settlement process are more valuable than resources that would not be received until after the children are grown. As discussed at the hearing, both parties recognize the costs and risks associated with continued litigation. Defendant acknowledged that continued litigation in this case would be lengthy and would not benefit the agency. Continuing with the litigation would result in additional time and effort spent preparing for litigation, including preparing for and taking additional witness and expert depositions, reviewing records, and preparing for trial. Settling the case now will direct resources that would otherwise go toward attorney fees to facilitating redeterminations and renegotiations for adoptive families. Finally, counsel for both parties agree that the expedited process of settlement will provide clear and increased guidance to both the agency and adoptive families as they move through the negotiation or renegotiation process. The Amount of Discovery Engaged in by the Parties The Court considers the amount of discovery engaged in by plaintiffs and defendant in assessing the adequacy of the proposed settlement. The parties engaged in extensive discovery related to the plaintiffs' motion to certify a class, including some discovery going to the merits of plaintiffs' claims. Defendant has produced the extensive WCCS files on Adoptive Families #1-7, which consist of thousands of pages of records. Defendant has also produced the various policies, forms and materials related to adoption and Adoption Assistance. Plaintiffs took depositions of one WCCS adoption caseworker, the director of WCCS, and the former director of WCCS. Defendant took 15 depositions: the five putative class representatives, the mother of Adoptive Family #1, and the mother and father of Adoptive Families #2 and #3; the three mothers and three fathers of declarant families #4, #5, #6, and #7; two experts; and the Title IV-E Unit Supervisor at the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services. The Court finds that this exchange of information is sufficient to inform the settlement negotiations of experienced counsel. The Likelihood of Success on the Merits Under the proposed Settlement Agreement, the parties have agreed on procedures and criteria that will help guide WCCS and all families receiving subsidies on the criteria that will be considered to reach agreement on adoption assistance. Further, that agreement on criteria will be implemented through a revised adoption subsidy worksheet and a revised annual letter reminding families of the right to renegotiate. The compromise reached in this settlement narrows the class definition from that recommended by the undersigned magistrate judge, focusing the relief on those parents receiving less than $250 per child per month. Moreover, it provides for class members to engage in redeterminations and renegotiations of current subsidy agreements. And it bears repeating that class members will benefit from those provisions now, as opposed to possibly sometime in the distant future. The Court determines that the benefits of the relief set forth in the proposed Settlement Agreement outweigh the uncertainty of success plaintiffs face on summary judgment, at trial, or on appeal. The Opinions of Class Counsel and Class Representatives The judgment of the parties' counsel that the settlement is in the best interest of the settling parties "is entitled to significant weight, and supports the fairness of the class settlement. Counsel for both plaintiffs and defendant have extensive experience in class action, civil rights, social reform, and public benefits litigation. They unanimously recommend this settlement to the Court and the class as fair and reasonable. At the hearing, class counsel expressed that the proposed Settlement Agreement properly balances the need for a prompt and fair resolution for special needs children against the risk of loss in this case. This factor weighs in favor of approval of the settlement. The Reaction of Absent Class Members The class's reaction supports approval. Because each of the absent class member's identity was known, notice of the proposed settlement was sent to each. Counsel fielded questions from 21 families regarding the notice prior to the fairness hearing, and each expressed a willingness to participate in the settlement. There were no objections to the Settlement Agreement from absent class members. The Public Interest In this case, both WCCS and adoptive families have an ongoing relationship by the very nature of the adoption assistance program available to special needs children. The Settlement Agreement is designed to bring clarity to and facilitate the process of assessing adoption assistance payments for WCCS and adoptive families. To the extent the process arrived at through the Settlement Agreement promotes and engenders a more positive experience for adoptive families and those considering adoption, this process may facilitate the adoption of more children with special needs. As the settlement confers immediate benefits on the Settlement Class, avoids the risks and expense of further litigation, and conserves judicial resources, the undersigned determines that the public interest favors approving the settlement. In summary, after considering all of the relevant factors, the undersigned concludes that the Settlement Agreement provides a substantial benefit to the parties and is fair, reasonable, and adequate. A full-text copy of the District Court's June 10, 2019 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y6z9r76g from Leagle.com. Adoptive Family and Their Daughter A., Individually and on behalf of class of similarly situated children and parents, Adoptive Family and Their Children B. and C., Individually and on behalf of class of similarly situated children and parents & Adoptive Family and Their Children D. and E., Plaintiffs, represented by Barbara Thornell Ginn, Jennifer Lynn Branch, Gerhardstein & Branch Co. LPA, Mary Caroline Hyatt, Gerhardstein & Branch Co LPA & Alphonse Adam Gerhardstein, Gerhardstein & Branch Co. LPA, 441 Vine Street, Suite 3400, Cincinnati, OH 45202 Warren County, Ohio/Warren County Board Of Commissioners, Defendant, represented by John Stephen Teetor, Isaac Wiles Burkholder & Teetor, LLC, Two Miranova Place, Suite 700, Columbus, OH 43215, Kathryn M. Horvath, Warren County Prosecutor's Office & Aaron Michael Glasgow, Isaac, Wiles, Burkholder & Teetor, LLC, Two Miranova Place, Suite 700, Columbus, OH 43215 WESTPAC BANKING: Home Loan Customers' Class Action Pending ---------------------------------------------------------- Misa Han, writing for Australian Financial Review, reports that a Queensland couple who lost more than $430,000 after buying two investment properties in Darwin and Mudgee blames Westpac Banking Corp for failing to assess their home loan applications properly after it underestimated their living expenses by $6570 a month. The couple, Ian and Michelle Tate, are the lead litigants in a class action brought by law firm Maurice Blackburn against the nation's second-largest lender. Maurice Blackburn took Westpac to the Federal Court in February, alleging on behalf of its clients that the bank over-relied on benchmarks when assessing home loan customers. A court document filed shows that in 2013, the couple bought a one-bedroom apartment in Darwin's CBD for $540,000 as their second investment property on an interest-only loan. Darwin's property market peaked in May 2014, and has suffered from the worst market downturn of all the capital cities: property prices in Darwin are back to the level they were in 2007. When the couple was forced to sell the property in April, they had to accept the market price of $280,000 -- nearly 50 per cent down on the purchase price. They had to sell because the five-year interest-only period expired, and they couldn't afford to make higher principal-and-interest repayments. The couple had applied for a home loan through a mortgage broker, who claimed they had living expenses of $3000 a month. Westpac relied on an expenditure benchmark -- the household expenditure measure (HEM) -- which estimated the couple's monthly expenses to be $3230. But the couple's bank statements, which were submitted as part of the home loan application, showed the family's actual expenses were on average closer to $9800 a month. Less than a year later, the couple took out another interest-only home loan for $620,000 also with Westpac -- this time, to subdivide the land and build a duplex in the regional NSW town of Mudgee. By then, the couple had living expenses of $8600 a month, although Westpac relied on the HEM benchmark again. The Mudgee property was secured by the couple's family home and their other investment properties. This meant when they sold the family home in 2017, the bank would not release the proceeds of the sale as they did not have enough equity in their investment properties. Now left with no cash needed to build a new family home, the couple sold the Mudgee property for $650,000 -- only marginally higher than the land and development cost of $610,000. In total, it is estimated the Tate family lost more than $430,000 because of the two investments in Darwin and Mudgee, after the dramatic market downturn in Darwin and taking into account interest payments and entry and exit costs. The class action lawyers claim Westpac should have verified the family's actual living expenses and assessed their ability to repay both the principal and interest, not just the interest. They argue the bank should have declined both loan applications because had they done the calculations properly, they would have discovered the family would be short by more than $100,000 a year on making the repayments. The class action is being heard by Justice Nye Perram, who is also deciding on the outcome of the corporate regulator's responsible lending case against Westpac. The class action is open to other customers who took out a mortgage with Westpac or one of its subsidiaries, St George, RAMS, Bank of Melbourne and BankSA since 2011. For the time being, Justice Perram refused to grant a "common fund order", meaning affected customers will be part of the class action only if they opt in. Banks have started to crack down on home loan applications in recent years. All the big four now rely on the higher of the expenditure benchmark or declared expenses, and Westpac said it will require more information from the self-employed when assessing their home loan applications. [GN] WESTVILLE RESTAURANT: Underpays Cooks & Porters, Chan et al. Say ---------------------------------------------------------------- CARLOS CHAN; JUAN REYNOSO; GERARDO AGUILAR; and SALVADOR HERRERA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. WESTVILLE RESTAURANT, INC. d/b/a WESTVILLE EAST; HURRICANE STRAUSS, INC. d/b/a WESTVILLE CHELSEA; JAY'S NICKELS AND DIMES, INC. d/b/a WESTVILLE WEST; LAYLA TOV INC. d/b/a WESTVILLE HUDSON; DIRTY BOOTS INC. d/b/a WESTVILLE DUMBO; WESTVILLE WALL STREET INC. d/b/a WESTVILLE WALL STREET; WESTVILLE HK LLC d/b/a WESTVILLE HELL'S KITCHEN; JAY STRAUSS; and YANIV COHEN, Defendants, Case No. 155841/2019 (N.Y. Sup., New York Cty., June 12, 2019) seeks to recover from the Defendants, unpaid wages due to time shaving, unpaid overtime wages, unpaid spread-of-hours premium, statutory penalties, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs. The Plaintiffs Chan, Aguilar and Herrera were employed by the Defendants as cooks. The Plaintiff Reynoso was employed as porter. Westville Restaurant, Inc. d/b/a Westville East through its subsidiaries, engages in the restaurant business in the U.S. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10011 Telephone: (212) 465-1188 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 WILDLIFE CONSERVATORY: Duncan Files Class Suit under ADA -------------------------------------------------------- Wildlife Conservatory Society is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Eugene Duncan and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Wildlife Conservatory Society, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-05658 (S.D. N.Y., June 18, 2019). WCS is an international NGO whose mission is to save wildlife and wild places worldwide through science, conservation action, education, and inspiring people to value nature.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq. The Marks Law Firm PC 175 Varick Street 3rd Floor New York, NY 10014 Tel: (646) 770-3775 Fax: (646) 867-2639 Email: bmarkslaw@gmail.com WINDSTREAM HOLDINGS: Class Action Plaintiffs Challenge Stay ----------------------------------------------------------- Windstream Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 15, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the plaintiffs in class action lawsuits are challenging the applicability of the bankruptcy stay with regard to non-debtor defendants. On February 27, 2017, Windstream Holdings completed its merger with EarthLink Holdings Corp. ("EarthLink"), pursuant to the terms of the Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") dated November 5, 2016, whereby EarthLink merged into Europa Merger Sub, Inc., an wholly-owned subsidiary of Windstream Services, LLC, and survived, and immediately following, merged with Europa Merger Sub, LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Windstream Services, LLC, with Merger Sub surviving and changing its name to EarthLink Holdings, LLC (the "Merger"). Windstream Holdings, its current and former directors, and certain of its executive officers are the subject of shareholder-related lawsuits arising out of the merger with EarthLink Holdings Corp. in February 2017. Two putative shareholders have filed separate purported shareholder class action complaints in federal court in Arkansas and state court in Georgia, captioned Murray v. Earthlink Holdings Corp., et. al., and Yadegarian v. Windstream Holdings, Inc., et. al., respectively. Additionally, two separate shareholder derivative actions were filed during the fourth quarter of 2018 in Arkansas federal court on behalf of Windstream Holdings, Inc., styled Cindy Graham v. Wells, et. al., and Larry Graham v. Thomas, et. al. Additionally, Windstream received a shareholder demand letter in the fourth quarter of 2018 related to the EarthLink merger. All four of the complaints and demand letter contain similar assertions and claims of alleged securities law violations and breaches of fiduciary duties related to the disclosures in the joint proxy statement/prospectus soliciting shareholder approval of the merger, which the plaintiffs allege were inadequate and misleading. Suggestions of Bankruptcy and Notices of the Automatic Stay have been filed with regard to the Murray, Yadegarian and Graham cases, but the Plaintiffs are challenging the applicability of the stay with regard to non-debtor defendants. Windstream has filed an adversary proceeding motion with the Bankruptcy Court regarding this challenge. A hearing on the motion was set for June 17, 2019. Windstream said, "We believe that we have valid defenses for each of the lawsuits, and we plan to vigorously defend the pursuit of all matters. While the ultimate resolution of the matters is not currently predictable, if there is an adverse ruling in any of these matters, the ruling could constitute a material adverse outcome on the future consolidated results of our income, cash flows, or financial condition." Windstream did not file a Suggestion of Bankruptcy as a result of the filing of the Chapter 11 cases with regard to this matter as it was determined it would fall under a regulatory exception and is precluded from the automatic stay. Windstream Holdings, Inc. provides network communications and technology solutions in the United States. The company was incorporated in 2013 and is based in Little Rock, Arkansas. On February 25, 2019, Windstream Holdings, Inc. along with its 202 affiliates, filed a voluntary petition for reorganization under Chapter 11 in the US Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. WLP EXECUTIVE: Bird et al Seek to Certify Hourly Employees Class ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit MICHAEL BIRD, DARRIUS WILLIAMS, and DONTAE TRAVIER, on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated employees, the Plaintiffs, vs. WLP EXECUTIVE PROTECTION GROUP, LLC, RON WARE, JAMES PITTS, and JEFFREY LILLARD, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00442-GJQ-RSK (W.D. Mich.), the Plaintiffs move the Court for an order: 1. conditionally certifying the proposed Fair Labor Standards Act Collective; "all current and former hourly employees who worked for WLP Executive Protection Group, LLC at any time in the past three years"; 2. appointing undersigned counsel as counsel for the proposed Collective; 3. approving Plaintiffs' proposed form of Notice and authorizing dissemination of that Notice to each member of the proposed Collective; 4. requiring Defendants to identify and produce the names, phone numbers, last known addresses, and email addresses of all proposed Collective members in a computer-readable format within 14 days; and 5. giving members of the proposed Collective 45 days from the date the Notice is mailed to join this case if they so choose. The Plaintiffs allege that 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.[CC] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are: Jesse L. Young, Esq. Thomas J. Cedoz, Esq. KREIS ENDERLE, P.C. 8225 Moorsbridge P.O. Box. 4010 Kalamazoo, MI 49003-4010 Telephone: (269) 324-3000 Facsimile: (269) 324-3010 E-mail: jyoung@kehb.com tcedoz@kehb.com ZAYO GROUP: Duggan Says Proxy Statement over Merger Misleading -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action complaint has been filed against Zayo Group Holdings, Inc. 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 and Regulation G, C.F.R. Section 244.100, in connection with the proposed merger between Zayo and a consortium comprising of Digital Colony Partners and EQT Fund Management. The case is captioned THOMAS DUGGAN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. ZAYO GROUP HOLDINGS, INC., DANIEL CARUSO, DONALD H. GIPS, YANCEY L. SPRUILL, MARY CATHERINE MORRIS, LINDA ROTTENBERG, DR. STEVEN NEIL KAPLAN, SCOTT W. DRAKE, EMILY C. WHITE, and RICHARD W. CONNOR, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01112-UNA (D. Del., June 17, 2019). On May 8, 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 $35.00 in cash for each share of Zayo stock they own. On June 3, 2019, in order to convince Zayo shareholders to vote in favor of the proposed merger, the Board authorized the filing of a materially incomplete and misleading Form PREM14A Preliminary Proxy Statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission. 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 Zayo shareholders vote in favor of the proposed merger; and (ii) the summary of certain valuation analyses conducted by Zayo's financial advisors, J.P. Morgan Securities LLC and Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC in support of its opinion that the Merger Consideration is fair to shareholders on which the Board relied. Zayo is incorporated in Delaware and maintains its principal executive offices at 1821 30th Street, Unit A, Boulder, CO 80301. Its common stock trades on the NYSE under the ticker symbol "ZAYO." Zayo is a provider of bandwidth infrastructure in the United States, Canada and Europe. The company's products enable high bandwidth applications such as cloud-based computing, video, mobile, social media, machine-to-machine connectivity, and other bandwidth-intensive applications. Zayo's key products include leased dark fiber, fiber to cellular towers and small cell sites, dedicated Wavelength connections, Ethernet, IP connectivity, cloud offerings and other high-bandwidth offerings. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Van Gorder, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 3828 Kennett Pike, Suite 201 Wilmington, DE 19807 Telephone: (302) 482-3182 E-mail: mvangorder@faruqilaw.com - and – Nadeem Faruqi, Esq. James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq. 685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 983-9330 Facsimile: (212) 983-9331 E-mail: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com jwilson@faruqilaw.com ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2019. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***