/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/190703.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, July 3, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 132 Headlines A GROUP NY: Fischler Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ALL AMERICAN FACILITY: Flete Seeks Overtime Pay ALLERGAN INC: Teamsters Appeals Ruling in Asacol Suit to 1st Cir. AMERICAN GIANT: Diaz Files ADA Class Action in N.Y. AMERICAN MEDICAL: Faces Meisel Suit in N.J. Over Data Breach ASHLEY SERVICES: Australia Court Approves Class Suit Settlement AT&T MOBILITY: Vianu Sues Over Improper Administrative Fees AVANT VENTURES: Duncan Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York B COLEMAN FLOORING: Class of Installers Certified in Zapata Suit BANK OF AMERICA: Court Narrows Claims in Flores Suit BANK OF AMERICA: Rivota Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois BATHROOM BUDDY: Lawyer Seeks Proper Minimum, Overtime Wages BLC LEXINGTON: Court Narrows Claims in C. Johnson's Suit BLINC INC: Diaz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Klein Suit Moved to District of Massachusetts CAPITAL ONE: Zhao Sues Over Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices CITYREALTY.COM: Maness Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website COLORTREE GROUP: Kennedy Seeks to Recoup Wages Under WARN Act COLUMBIA DEBT: Wang Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York CONTROL4 CORPORATION: Sabatini Files Suit Over Wirepath Merger Deal COOPERSURGICAL INC: Sawyer's Bid for Class Certification Denied COSTCO WHOLESALE: Cross-Appeals Judgment in Flushable Wipes Suit COURTNEY PHILLIPS: Ward Seeks to Certify 2 Classes CRAY INC: Davie Balks at Merger Deal with Hewlett Packard DAKOTA OF ROCKY HILL: Bid to Certify Class under Advisement DASSAULT FALCON: Seeks 8th Cir. Review of Judgment in Coates Suit DEAN MEILING: Harris Suit Transferred to District of Nevada DIRECT ENERGY: Murphy Suit Asserts TCPA Violation DNF ASSOCIATES: Viernes Sues over Debt Collection Practices E&A BAKERY: Violates ADA, Duncan Suit Asserts EAST COAST INTERIORS: Martinez Seeks to Recover Wages Under FLSA EDWARD D JONES: Huang Appeals Ruling in McDonald Suit to 8th Cir. ENCORE HEALTH: Jones Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ENTEGRA FINANCIAL: Parshall Seeks More Info on Sale to Bancshares ERIC RICHARD: Breeze Files ADA Suit in New Jersey EUCLID BEACH: Ballard Suit Asserts Breach of Contract FACEBOOK INC: Class Suit Over Unwanted Text Messages Revived FACEBOOK INC: Suit Over Inflated Viewership Metrics Settled FCA US LLC: Wrangler's 'Death Wobble' Leads to Class Action Suit FLINT HILLS: Downey Alleges Systemic Illegal Employment Practices FORSTER & GARBUS: Park Suit Alleges FDCPA Violation FRONTLINE ASSET: Perl Files Suit Asserting FDCPA Breach GENERAL MOTORS: Gallagher, Wyatt Seek Overtime Pay GUARDIAN INDUSTRIES: Gonzalez Seeks Minimum Wage, OT Pay HEALTH INSURANCE: Levine Kellogg Files Suit Over Insurance Fraud HIDDEN WHARF: Palacios Files Class Suit in New York INTERNATIONAL LASER: Courts Grants Motion to Certify Class INTUIT, INC: Cook Suit over Turbo Tax Moved to N.D. California JORDAN'S FURNITURE: Sutton Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay JPMORGAN CHASE: Class Status OK'd in 401(k) Excessive Fee Suit KIA MOTORS: Leblanc Sues Over Vehicle's Engine Defect KINGSTONE COMPANIES: Gainey McKenna Files Class Action Lawsuit L'OREAL USA: Borchenko Moves to Certify UCL California-Only Class LE SHERIDAN LLC: Patterson Sues Over Lack of Relocation Assistance LEADERS IN COMMUNITY: Jackson's Motion to Certify Class Denied LIBERTY PLACE: Does not Properly Pay Workers, Nunez Suit Says LIGHT TO TOUGH: Duncan Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York LIGHTHOUSE LIVING: Broadway Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. MAMMOTH ENERGY: Faces Normantas Securities Suit in Oklahoma MAMMOTH ENERGY: Zhang Law Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit MDL 2887: Conley Suit over Tainted Dog Food Consolidated MDL 2887: Hall Suit over Tainted Dog Food Consolidated MDL 2887: Skoog et al. Suit over Tainted Dog Food Consolidated MEMEBOX CORPORATION: Diaz Files ADA Class Action in N.Y. METRO BANK: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit MGD STEWARTS: Larios Seeks to Recover Minimum and Overtime Wages MICHIGAN: DOC, et al., Appeals Decision in John Does Inmates Suit MOMENTA PHARMA: Hospital Authority Seeks to Certify Damages Class MVNBC CORP: Vasquez Seeks Unpaid Wages for Restaurant Staff NAPHCARE INC: Taylor Seeks Unpaid Wages for Jail Staff NESTLE DREYER'S: Liou Sues Over Products' Misleading Labels NEW YORK: Court Certifies Class of Students with Diabetes NIBCO INC: Matson Sues Over Defective PEX Products OXNARD SCHOOL: Class Certification Bid, Motion to Dismiss Shelved P.R.B.A. CORP: Logan Sues Over Discriminatory Employment Practices PAUL F. PEDERSEN: Reyes Files Suit in Illinois Over Unpaid Wages PIVOTAL SOFTWARE: Doherty Sues over Misleading IPO Statements PLASTIQ INC: Griffith Sues Over EFTA Breach QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Hit With Class Suit After Patient Data Breach RA MEDICAL: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Lawsuit RAILROAD CONSULTANTS: Jones Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages REAL TIME RESOLUTIONS: Rezke Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois RODEO REALTY: Smith Hits Unpaid Wages, Missed Breaks SAFE HARBOR: McGrath Files Class Action in Massachusetts SLEEPY'S LLC: Third Circuit Appeal Filed in Hargrove Class Suit SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC: Customers to Get $146MM in Settlement ST. ANTHONY MEDICAL: Owens' Bid to Certify Denied Over Deal Talks TEN: Forton Sues Over Unlawful Data Disclosure TROPICANA: Johnson Sues Over Products' Deceptive Labels UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Hit With Suit Over Wheelchair Accessibility UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN: $125M Settlement Has Prelim Approval VELOCITY INVESTMENTS: Viernes Sues over Debt Collection Practices VITRA EYEWEAR: Duncan Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York WAG LABS: Court Certifies Settlement Class of Dog Walks Performers WAITR HOLDINGS: Halley's Cert. Bid Stayed; July 12 Hearing Set WEST POINT CHIPS: Angeion Group Says Class Suit Certified ********* A GROUP NY: Fischler Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against A Group NY, Inc. The case is styled as Brian Fischler Individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. A Group NY, Inc. doing business as: Aube New York, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-05774 (S.D. N.Y., June 20, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. A Group NY, Inc. doing business as: Aube New York is a salon, located in New York's East village.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq. Lipsky Lowe LLP 630 Third Avenue Fifth Floor New York, NY 10017 Phone: (212) 392-4772 Fax: (212) 444-1030 Email: chris@lipskylowe.com ALL AMERICAN FACILITY: Flete Seeks Overtime Pay ----------------------------------------------- A class action complaint has been filed against All American Facility Maintenance Inc. (AAFM) for alleged violations of overtime provision of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA). The case is captioned CEASAR FLETE, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ALL AMERICAN FACILITY MAINTENANCE INC., A Florida Profit Corporation, and CHRISTOPHER BREWER, individually, Defendants, Case No. 0:19-cv-61536-XXXX (S.D. Fla., June 20, 2019). Plaintiff Ceasar Flete, and the class of individuals he seeks to represent, were non-exempt customer service/clerical employees of AAFM who earned, but did not receive, overtime wages calculated at time and one-half their regular rate of pay for all time they spent working over 40 hours per week for AAFM. AAFM is a Florida for-profit company that conducts its for-profit maintenance business in Florida, with its principal places of business in Broward County, Florida. Christopher Brewer is the owner and operator of AAFM. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Noah E. Storch, Esq. RICHARD CELLER LEGAL, P.A. 10368 W. SR 84, Suite 103 Davie, FL 33324 Telephone: (866) 344-9243 Facsimile: (954) 337-2771 E-mail: noah@floridaovertimelawyer.com ALLERGAN INC: Teamsters Appeals Ruling in Asacol Suit to 1st Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Minnesota Laborers Health and Welfare Fund, NECA-IBEW Welfare Trust Fund, Teamsters Union 25 Health Services & Insurance Plan and Wisconsin Masons' Health Care Fund filed an appeal from a Court ruling in their lawsuit styled Teamsters Union, et al. v. Allergan, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-12730-DJC, in the U.S. District Court for the District Court of Massachusetts, Boston. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the litigation is a putative class action in which the Plaintiffs, members of a putative class of end-payor purchasers of certain pharmaceutical products, allege that the Defendants, manufacturers of certain pharmaceutical products, engaged in exclusionary conduct impermissible under antitrust laws by pulling one product, Asacol 400mg, from the market at the same that it introduced a new product, Delzicol. The appellate case is captioned as Teamsters Union, et al. v. Allergan, Inc., et al., Case No. 19-8011, in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.[BN] Plaintiffs-Petitioners TEAMSTERS UNION 25 HEALTH SERVICES & INSURANCE PLAN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, and NECA-IBEW WELFARE TRUST FUND, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by: David P. Barclay, Esq. Eric D. Barton, Esq. Thomas P. Cartmell, Esq. Tyler W. Hudson, Esq. WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL, LLP 4740 Grand Avenue, Suite 300 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 701-1100 E-mail: dbarclay@wcllp.com ebarton@wcllp.com tcartmell@wagstaffcartmell.net thudson@wcllp.com - and - Norman Berman, Esq. Nathaniel L. Orenstein, Esq. Justin Nader Saif, Esq. John Henby Sutter, Esq. BERMAN TABACCO 1 Liberty Sq., 8th Floor Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: (617) 542-8300 E-mail: nberman@bermantabacco.com norenstein@bermantabacco.com jsaif@bermantabacco.com jsutter@bermantabacco.com - and - Jeffrely L. Kodroff, Esq. John A. Macoretta, Esq. Diana J. Zinser, Esq. SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF PC 2001 Market St., Suite 3420 Philadelphia, PA 19103-0000 Telephone: (215) 496-0300 E-mail: jkodroff@srkwlaw.com jmacoretta@srkw-law.com dzinser@srkw-law.com - and - Peter J. Mougey, Esq. LEVIN PAPANTONIO THOMAS MITCHELL RAFFERTY & PROCTOR PA 316 S Baylen St., Suite 600 Pensacola, FL 32502 Telephone: (850) 435-2451 E-mail: pmougey@levinlaw.com Plaintiffs-Petitioners WISCONSIN MASONS' HEALTH CARE FUND, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, and MINNESOTA LABORERS HEALTH AND WELFARE FUND, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, are represented by: Norman Berman, Esq. Nathaniel L. Orenstein, Esq. Justin Nader Saif, Esq. John Henby Sutter, Esq. BERMAN TABACCO 1 Liberty Sq., 8th Floor Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: (617) 542-8300 E-mail: nberman@bermantabacco.com norenstein@bermantabacco.com jsaif@bermantabacco.com jsutter@bermantabacco.com - and - Karla M. Gluek, Esq. Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq. Michelle J. Looby, Esq. Joshua Rissman, Esq. GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC 120 S 6th St., Suite 2600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 333-8844 E-mail: kgluek@gustafsongluek.com dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com mlooby@gustafsongluek.com jrissman@gustafsongluek.com Defendants-Respondents ALLERGAN, INC., f/k/a Actavis, PLC; WARNER CHILCOTT LIMITED; ALLERGAN USA, INC.; ALLERGAN SALES, LLC; and ALLERGAN, PLC, f/k/a Actavis, PLC, are represented by: Kevin C. Adam, Esq. Katherine Dyson, Esq. WHITE & CASE LLP 75 State St. Boston, MA 02109-1814 Telephone: (978) 836-6363 E-mail: kevin.adam@whitecase.com kate.dyson@whitecase.com - and - Nicole J. Benjamin, Esq. ADLER POLLOCK & SHEEHAN PC 1 Citizens Plaza, 8th Floor Providence, RI 02903-1345 Telephone: (401) 274-7200 E-mail: nbenjamin@apslaw.com - and - Matthew Bernstein, Esq. Noah Austin Brumfield, Esq. Peter J. Carney, Esq. Eileen M. Cole, Esq. Amanda Lee Czocher, Esq. Dana Foster, Esq. John Mark Gidley, Esq. Trisha Grant, Esq. Matthew Sterrett Leddicotte, Esq. Holly Letourneau, Esq. Sonia Murphy, Esq. Matthew Shandy, Esq. Nicholas L. Wilkins, Esq. WHITE & CASE LLP 701 13 St., NW Washington, DC 20005-3807 Telephone: (202) 637-6193 Facsimile: (202) 639-9355 E-mail: matthew.bernstein@whitecase.com noah.brumfield@whitecase.com pcarney@whitecase.com ecole@whitecase.com lee.czocher@whitecase.com defoster@whitecase.com mgidley@whitecase.com trisha.grant@whitecase.com mleddicotte@whitecase.com hletourneau@whitecase.com smurphy@whitecase.com nick.wilkins@whitecase.com - and - Angela Daker, Esq. WHITE & CASE LLP 200 South Biscayne Blvd., Suite 4900 Miami, FL 33131-2352 Telephone: (305) 371-2700 E-mail: adaker@whitecase.com - and - Demetra Frawley, Esq. Michael J. Gallagher, Esq. Bryan Grant, Esq. Alison Hanstead, Esq. Stefan M. Mentzer, Esq. Jack E. Pace, III, Esq. WHITE & CASE LLP 1221 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020-1095 Telephone: (212) 819-8200 Facsimile: (212) 354-8113 E-mail: mgallagher@whitecase.com ahanstead@whitecase.com smentzer@whitecase.com jpace@whitecase.com - and - Miles Greaves, Esq. TAUS, CEBULASH & LANDAU, LLP 80 Maiden Ln, Suite 1204 New York, NY 10038 Telephone: (212) 931-0704 E-mail: mgreaves@tcllaw.com AMERICAN GIANT: Diaz Files ADA Class Action in N.Y. --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Giant, Inc. The case is styled as Edwin Diaz on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. American Giant, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-05804 (S.D. N.Y., June 20, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. American Giant is a San Francisco-based manufacturer of sportswear and casual clothing that sells directly to customers through its website. Its goods are all produced in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq. Cohen & Mizrahi LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Phone: (917) 299-6612 Fax: (929) 575-4195 Email: joseph@cml.legal AMERICAN MEDICAL: Faces Meisel Suit in N.J. Over Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------------ MARK MEISEL, ZAKARIA HAQUE, ROBERT OSWALD, LORI WEINRIB, ROBERT CORWIN, and CINDY FARBER, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. AMERICAN MEDICAL COLLECTION AGENCY, INC., OPTUM360 SERVICES, INC., QUEST DIAGNOSTICS INCORPORATED, and DOES 1-10, Case No. 2:19-cv-13484 (D.N.J., June 6, 2019), is brought against the Defendants because of their alleged failure to protect the confidential information of millions of patients, including their financial information (e.g., credit card numbers and bank account information), medical information, personal information (e.g., Social Security Numbers), and/or other protected health information as defined by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996. On June 3, 2019, Quest publicly admitted in a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission that on May 14, 2019, 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. American Medical Collection Agency, Inc., is a New York corporation with its principal place of business in Elmsford, New York. Optum360 Services, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Eden Prairie, Minnesota. Quest Diagnostics Incorporated is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Secaucus, New Jersey. Quest is the world's leading provider of medical diagnostic testing services. Quest performs medical tests that aid in the diagnosis or detection of diseases, and that measure the progress of or recovery from a disease.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Christopher A. Seeger, Esq. Parvin Aminolroaya, Esq. SEEGER WEISS LLP 55 Challenger Road, 6th Floor Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660 Telephone: (973) 639-9100 E-mail: cseeger@seegerweiss.com paminolroaya@seegerweiss.com - and - Jennifer Scullion, Esq. SEEGER WEISS LLP 77 Water Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 584-0700 E-mail: jscullion@seegerweiss.com - and - Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq. Bart D. Cohen, Esq. NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP, P.C. 1211 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Floor New York, NY 10036-8718 Telephone: (917) 438-9189 E-mail: lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com bcohen@nussbaumpc.com - and - Adam Frankel, Esq. GREENWICH LEGAL ASSOCIATES, LLC 881 Lake Avenue Greenwich, CT 06831 Telephone: (203) 622-6001 E-mail: adam@grwlegal.com ASHLEY SERVICES: Australia Court Approves Class Suit Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- Staffing Industry Analysts reports that labour hire firm Ashley Services Group Limited (ASH: ASX) announced that the Federal Court of Australia approved the Deed of Settlement for the previously announced shareholder class action commenced against it. The class action was brought by Richard John Findlay Bradgate as Trustee of the Bradgate Superannuation Fund in the NSW Registry of the Federal Court of Australia on Dec. 1, 2016. Claims in the case arose from allegedly misleading statements and omissions in Ashley's prospectuses issued prior to the company's listing on the Australian Securities Exchange in August 2014.. Ashley Services first announced in December 2018 that it had signed a head of agreement recording a proposal to settle a class-action shareholder lawsuit. The company reported the class action was commenced against it in December 2016 by Richard John Findlay Bradgate as Trustee of the Bradgate Superannuation Fund. In April 2019, the company then updated that it had executed a Deed of Settlement for the class action. Ashley Services added that the settlement is expected to have minimal impact on its financial results. [GN] AT&T MOBILITY: Vianu Sues Over Improper Administrative Fees ----------------------------------------------------------- IAN VIANU and IRINA BUKCHIN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AT&T MOBILITY LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-03602 (N.D. Cal., June 20, 2019) seeks, on behalf of themselves and a class of all similarly situated California consumers, an award of damages, restitution, pre- and post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs, and permanent injunctive relief, including but not limited to AT&T discontinuing charging Plaintiffs and the putative class members the improper Administrative Fees. AT&T prominently advertises particular flat monthly rates for its post-paid wireless service plans. Then, after customers sign up, AT&T actually charges higher monthly rates than the customers were promised and agreed to pay. AT&T covertly increases the actual price by padding all post-paid wireless customers' bills each month with a bogus so-called "Administrative Fee" (currently $1.99 every month for each phone line) on top of the advertised price. The Administrative Fee is not disclosed to customers before or when they sign up, and in fact it is never adequately and honestly disclosed to them. The so-called Administrative Fee is not, in fact, a bona fide administrative fee, but rather is simply a means for AT&T to charge more per month for the service itself without having to advertise the higher prices, says the complaint. Through this scheme, AT&T has unfairly and improperly extracted hundreds of millions of dollars in ill-gotten gains from California consumers. Plaintiffs, by this action, seek a public injunction to enjoin AT&T from its false advertising practice and to require AT&T to disclose to the consuming public, in advance, the true costs consumers will pay for its wireless services. Plaintiffs are citizens and residents California. AT&T Mobility LLC ("AT&T") is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal office or place of business at 1025 Lenox Park Boulevard NE, Atlanta, GA 30319.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael W. Sobol, Esq. Roger N. Heller, Esq. Sarah R. London, Esq. Avery S. Halfon, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN LLP 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (415) 956-1000 - and - Daniel M. Hattis, Esq. Paul Karl Lukacs, Esq. HATTIS & LUKACS 400 108th Ave NE, Ste. 500 Bellevue, WA 98004 Phone: (425) 233-8650 AVANT VENTURES: Duncan Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Avant Ventures, Inc. The case is styled as Eugene Duncan, ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff v. Avant Ventures, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-05808 (S.D. N.Y., June 20, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Avant Venture is a professional services company, providing integrated acquisition and investment services through strategy, digital, technology and operations capabilities.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq. The Marks Law Firm PC 175 Varick Street 3rd Floor New York, NY 10014 Phone: (646) 770-3775 Fax: (646) 867-2639 Email: bmarkslaw@gmail.com B COLEMAN FLOORING: Class of Installers Certified in Zapata Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Timothy J. Kelly grants the Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Class Certification in the lawsuit captioned RONALD ZAPATA, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. B. COLEMAN FLOORING INSTALLATION, LLC et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-01134-TJK (D.D.C.). The Court conditionally certifies as a collective all persons who, during any time in 2017, worked as tile installers or tile installer helpers for Defendant B. Coleman at The Wharf project. In May 2018, Mr. Zapata filed this case as a collective action alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the District of Columbia Minimum Wage Revision Act and the District of Columbia Wage Payment and Collection Law. He alleges that the Defendants violated the minimum wage and overtime requirements of the FLSA and D.C. law over work that he and others performed on a construction project. He has moved to conditionally certify this suit as a collective action under Section 216(b) of the FLSA and Section 32-1308(a)(1)(C) of the D.C. Code. Judge Kelly also ruled that: 1. Defendants' Motion for Leave to Withdraw Handwriting Expert is granted and Motion to File Surreply is denied; 2. within 14 days of this Order, the parties shall meet, confer, and submit to the Court a revised joint report pursuant to FRCP 26(f) and Local Rule 16.3; and 3. within 21 days of this Order, the parties shall meet, confer, and submit to the Court a joint status report setting forth their positions on whether providing notice to currently-unidentified members of the collective is necessary, and if so, how the parties propose to identify, and provide notice to, those members.[CC] BANK OF AMERICA: Court Narrows Claims in Flores Suit ---------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the District of Colorado issued an Order granting in part and denying in part Defendant's Motion to Dismiss in the case captioned VICTORIA FLORES, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Defendant. Civil Action No. 18-cv-2527-WJM-KLM. (D. Colo.). Flores alleges that she had a no-fee eBanking Checking Account account with Bank of America for several years before January 2018. In the middle of that month, Bank of America automatically enrolled her and all other eBanking account holders, allegedly without their consent, in a new Core Checking account with an automatically-withdrawn $12 monthly fee. She specifically pleads five claims for relief: breach of contract (Claim 1), breach of the covenant of good faith and fear dealing (Claim 2) sometimes referred to below as a GFFD claim, violation of the Colorado Consumer Protection Act (CCPA) (Claim 3), conversion (Claim 4) and unjust enrichment (Claim 5). RULE 12(b)(6) STANDARD General Standard Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a party may move to dismiss a claim in a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The 12(b)(6) standard requires the Court to assume the truth of the plaintiff's well-pleaded factual allegations and view them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. In ruling on such a motion, the dispositive inquiry is whether the complaint contains enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. This case presents potentially significant choice-of-law questions, particularly as between the laws of Colorado (for which Flores mainly argues) and Virginia (for which Bank of America argues). However, the Court finds that those issues are clarified by first examining Flores's claims on their merits under both states' laws. Following that analysis, the Court will address the choice of law issue. Has Flores Adequately Pleaded a Breach of Contract Claim? Bank of America argues that Flores has failed to state a claim for breach of contract under either Colorado or Virginia law because Flores fails even to specify the contractual terms Bank of America purportedly violated. Flores responds that she had a contract with BOA that entitled her to a free checking account, as long as she chose to forgo certain BOA services. BOA breached that contractual promise when, without Plaintiff's assent, it unilaterally closed her account, opened a new account, then began to withdraw $144 a year from her new account automatically and provided her no additional services in the process. Under Colorado and Virginia law, a modification to a contract cannot be made by unilateral fiat. Rather, it requires assent and consideration. Both are lacking. The Competing Views of What Happened Evaluating the parties' arguments requires settling on the appropriate way to view the change from eBanking to Core Checking. Flores views eBanking as a free checking account with certain charges for using in-person banking services, while Core Checking necessarily costs $12/month. Flores insists that her eBanking account was closed and then a new account the Core Checking account was opened, so the two accounts are fundamentally distinct. Bank of America views eBanking as an $8.95/month checking account, with the fee waived if the account holder elects electronic statements and foregoes in-person banking services, while Core Checking is a $12/month checking account, with the fee waived if the account holder satisfies different conditions, direct deposit of $250 or more per month, or a minimum daily balance of $1,500, or enrollment in a rewards program. The Court agrees with Bank of America that Flores has not plausibly pled either that she had a free checking account or that it was closed and reopened as something new. Flores has never had an unqualifiedly free checking account. Illusoriness & Narrowing Constructions The Modification Clause and the Conversion Clause could not be plainer about Bank of America's authority to make a change such as the conversion of eBanking accounts to Core Checking accounts. Likely for this reason, Flores argues that the Modification Clause (she does not explicitly address the Conversion Clause grants so much discretion to Bank of America as to potentially render the contract illusory. Again, Flores's eBanking account was never free. It cost $8.95/month, subject to waiver conditions that Flores apparently always met. Now, Core Checking costs $12/month, subject to waiver conditions that Flores apparently has never met. But Flores's arguments are, in any event, a departure from her pleadings. To repeat, Flores does not claim she is entitled to a lifetime of free checking because she entered into an initial contract for one. Rather, she affirms BofA's rights to cease offering a product like free checking accounts, and to set the prices of its products. She only challenges the process through which BofA chose to close her old account and enroll her in a new one was unfair and deceptive. First, the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing generally saves clauses like the Modification Clause from illusoriness. As explained below in Part III.B.1, that duty certainly applies if Colorado law governs. Because it may turn out that Colorado law governs this dispute, there is no need to consider at this stage whether the Modification or Conversion Clauses bring down the entire Deposit Agreement as illusory. Second, counsel's proposal was plainly something formulated while preparing for oral argument. It was not developed in briefing and Bank of America never received an adequate opportunity to respond. Third, the Court gathers that Flores's counsel has not thoroughly considered the potential consequences of this proposal. Without prejudging the matter, any argument that Flores and the proposed class have been banking with Bank of America for years effectively without a contract would at least raise the question of whether Bank of America may counterclaim against Flores and the class under an unjust enrichment/quantum meruit theory. The argument would be that the cost of providing eBanking services was a not zero, even when customers elected paperless statements and avoided in-person banking, so, in fairness, former eBanking account holders should be required to pay for the services Bank of America provided during the years the parties erroneously assumed they were operating under a contract. The Court will not presume that Flores's counsel means to redirect the case into such potentially treacherous territory without a clear signal that counsel understands the possible consequences. Nothing about the Modification or Conversion Clauses gives rise to a breach of contract claim or, on this record, an argument against enforcement of the Deposit Agreement. Whether Affirmative Assent Was Required Flores's additionally argues that, under normal contract law, a party must assent to another party's proposed contractual change. Flores argues that assent is a fact question that cannot be resolved at this stage. The Deposit Agreement sets forth the method for expressing assent: If you continue to use your account or keep it open, you are deemed to accept and agree to the change and are bound by the change. Accordingly, Bank of America did not breach any term of the Deposit Agreement by presuming Flores's assent when it never received from her and opt-out notice. Rather, Bank of America acted according to the Deposit Agreement. Thus, Flores pleads no breach in this regard. Whether There Was a Failure of Consideration Flores cites cases which hold that modification without consideration is ineffective.But Flores betrays her understanding of the consideration she received as follows: It is difficult to fathom what consideration could possibly exist for the modification. Under the new contract, Plaintiff was entitled to receive the exact same service as before a checking account only now she had to pay $144 per year for it. In sum, the pleadings and other documents to which the Court may refer at this stage show that Bank of America acted according to the relevant contracts, not in violation of them. Flores's breach of contract claim will be dismissed with prejudice. Has Flores Adequately Pleaded a Claim for Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing? Flores's GFFD Theories Electronic-Only Notice Flores attacks the electronic-only nature of the notice. In her view, this is not only per se unreasonable, but insidious because the low-income customers who were likely to have eBanking often could access electronic materials only through their phones, making electronic statements even more difficult to read. This argument implicates the Notice Clause, particularly where it says we mail the notice to you at the address we currently show for your statement or, if we have agreed on this method, we provide it to you electronically. This portion of the Notice Clause is not a specific contract term [that] allows for discretion. The language establishes that Bank of America will send notices electronically "if we have agreed on this method and "we" means Bank of America. It may be true that Flores elected to receive everything electronically (statements, notices, tax forms, etc.), but that is not supported solely by the fact that she elected paperless statements. Further, the Notice Clause requires Bank of America (we) to agree to provide notices electronically it does not say anything about the account holder's agreement. Thus, under the Notice Clause, it is irrelevant that Flores elected to receive statements electronically; the relevant question is whether Bank of America agreed to send notices electronically. That said, the Notice Clause is still not a specific grant of discretion whether to send notices electronically. Thus, it is not a potential basis for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Opt-Out Structure Flores challenges the opt-out nature of the transition to Core Checking. Flores does not identify, nor could the Court locate, a specific contract term that allows for discretion in this regard. The closest appears to be the final paragraph of the Modification Clause: "If you continue to use your account or keep it open, you are deemed to accept and gree to the change and are bound by the change. If you do not agree with a change, you may close your account as provided in this Agreement. But this addresses what will happen when Bank of America sends a change notice, not a requirement Bank of America may choose to impose. Thus, there is no discretion-granting clause on which to base a GFFD claim. Even if the case were otherwise, Flores has not plausibly pleaded that Bank of America could have adopted an opt-in structure, considering her concession that she is not entitled to the eBanking terms indefinitely. An opt-in procedure would mean that an eBanking account holder could, contrary to Flores's concession, maintain the eBanking terms indefinitely. Flores's GFFD claim will be dismissed with prejudice to the extent she alleges that Bank of America had a choice whether to use an opt-in or opt-out procedure. Notice Included in a Statement Finally, Flores asserts that it was bad faith for Bank of America to include the notice at (or toward) the end of a bank statement. This implicates the Notice Clause, not the Modification Clause. The Notice Clause says, among other things, "We may provide a notice as a message on your statement or as an insert with your statement.” The Court agrees with counsel for Bank of America to the extent that not every contractual clause including the word "may" is a specific discretion-granting clause. In context, a contract term saying that one party "may" do X or Y might be most reasonably interpreted as a bargained-for agreement that the other party will accept both X and Y as proper performance. And sometimes parties use "may" when they really mean "will." Accordingly, the choice to include a notice as a message on a bank statement, allegedly because it was likely to be overlooked and therefore would allow Bank of America to collect monthly account fees before affected account holders recognized the change, is a plausible basis for a claim that Bank of America breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Bank of America's motion will be denied to this extent. Has Flores Adequately Pleaded a CCPA Claim? The Colorado Legislature enacted the CCPA to regulate commercial activities and practices which, because of their nature, may prove injurious, offensive, or dangerous to the public. The CCPA deters and punishes businesses which commit deceptive practices in their dealings with the public by providing prompt, economical, and readily available remedies against consumer fraud. The elements of a private CCPA cause of action are usually stated as follows: (1) that the defendant engaged in an unfair or deceptive trade practice (2) that the challenged unfair or deceptive practice occurred in the course of defendant's business, vocation, or occupation (3) that [the challenged unfair or deceptive practice significantly impacts the public as actual or potential consumers of the defendant's goods, services, or property (4) that the plaintiff suffered injury in fact to a legally protected interest and(5) that the challenged practice caused the plaintiff's injury. Bank of America argues that, although the elements are phrased in terms of \unfair or deceptive trade practices, the case law demonstrates that there is no claim for a trade practice that is not deceptive but still unfair. All that said, unfair or deceptive is now thoroughly entrenched in the statement of the CCPA's elements, and it is unclear the degree to which the Court can disregard the Colorado Supreme Court's interpretation of Colorado law as dicta when the true problem is not lack of a holding, but the inclusion within the holding of unreasoned "extras." This Court is therefore hesitant to say that Bank of America is correct in its argument that the CCPA does not reach unfair-but-not-deceptive practices. Nonetheless, Flores's response brief entirely ignores this argument and instead seeks to demonstrate Bank of America's alleged deceptions, without relying on any allegedly independent unfairness. The Court therefore deems Flores to have conceded Bank of America's point, at least for present purposes, and the Court will turn to whether Flores has pleaded a deceptive trade practice, meaning a false or misleading statement that induces the recipient to act or refrain from acting, which was made either with knowledge of its untruth, or recklessly and willfully made without regard to its consequences, and with an intent to mislead and deceive the plaintiff. At oral argument, Flores's counsel repeatedly referred to Bank of America's actions as "bait and switch" tactics, likely because the CCPA explicitly prohibits "`bait and switch' advertising." This was not in any of Flores's filings in Bank of America never received an adequate opportunity to respond. In any event, Flores had her eBanking account for at least five years before the alleged bait and switch. Under the circumstances, such a bait and switch claim is implausible on its face. More fundamentally, Flores never explains how Bank of America acted deceptively when it only took actions that were explicitly disclosed, at least as possibilities, in the relevant contracts. Flores's CCPA claim is dismissed with prejudice to the extent she alleges deceptive trade practices. However, in light of the legal uncertainty under that statute about trade practices that are unfair but not deceptive, Flores's CCPA claim is dismissed without prejudice as to such unfair practices. Should Flores move for leave to amend in that regard, she must provide citations to Colorado state-court case law or Colorado statutes establishing that the CCPA extends to unfair-but-not-deceptive practices. Has Flores Adequately Pleaded a Conversion Claim? The consensus in American jurisdictions is that conversion claims must usually be directed at tangible property. Thus, generally, a conversion claim directed at money must be directed at specific bills or coins, not undifferentiated funds within an account. Federal courts interpreting Virginia law have extended conversion-of-money claims to those directed at an identifiable fund, such as funds segregated in an escrow account, even though they might otherwise be considered an intangible ledger entry. This extension of conversion draws from the principle that, even at common law, money could be converted so long as it was in a bag or chest. Thus, it remains rooted in the idea that money is not the subject of a conversion claim unless it is a discrete sum, segregated from undifferentiated funds. Here, Flores seeks to recover money withdrawn from an undifferentiated account. Thus, regardless of what state's law applies, this claim fails and will be dismissed with prejudice. Has Flores Adequately Pleaded an Unjust Enrichment Claim? The parties do not point the Court to any material distinction between Virginia and Colorado law regarding unjust enrichment. In Colorado, a party claiming unjust enrichment must prove that (1) the defendant received a benefit (2) at the plaintiff's expense (3) under circumstances that would make it unjust for the defendant to retain the benefit without commensurate compensation. In Virginia, the elements of unjust enrichment are: (1) a benefit conferred on the defendant by the plaintiff (2) knowledge on the part of the defendant of the conferring of the benefit and (3) acceptance or retention of the benefit by the defendant in circumstances that render it inequitable for the defendant to retain the benefit without paying for its value. Bank of America asks the Court to follow Gordon v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., 344 F.Supp.3d 1231 (D. Colo. 2018), and hold that Flores received value for her $12 monthly fee, so Bank of America cannot have been unjustly enriched. The plaintiffs in Gordon were all restaurant customers whose personal information was disclosed through a data breach, and they claimed unjust enrichment in the sense that Chipotle charged too much for food because what the customers paid obviously was not enough Christine M. Arguello dismissed the claim because it was undisputed that Plaintiffs received the food services for which they paid. Defendant was therefore not unjustly enriched by retaining Plaintiffs' payments. The Court is persuaded that Gordon provides the correct framework. Flores counters, however, that Gordon is distinguishable because she did not receive anything new: Here, in contrast to Gordon, after the unilateral account closure, [Flores] and accountholders were still receiving the same services as they had initially received with the free checking account, making the retention of the maintenance fees unjust under the circumstances. This argument fails for two reasons. First, as discussed previously, Flores was not receiving the same services whether or not she wanted to use them, in-person banking and paper statements were available to her for no extra charge under Core Checking. Second, to say that one continues to receive the same services is to admit that one is receiving services in exchange for money. If Flores means to say and she never does so explicitly that a $12 fee is somehow wildly out of proportion to the value of what a Core Checking account holder receives in return for the fee, the complaint contains no allegations substantiating such a claim. The Court will dismiss Flores's unjust enrichment claim. This dismissal is without prejudice, however, because the Court is not persuaded that Flores could never allege a viable unjust enrichment claim based on the $12 fee, at least in the alternative. Flores nonetheless should carefully consider whether, as previously mentioned pursuing such a claim potentially opens her up to an argument from Bank of America that she underpaid compared to the value of what she received. Accordingly, Bank of America's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint and, in the Alternative, Strike Class Allegations is: a. granted with prejudice as to Flores's claim for breach of contract. b. denied as to Flores's claim for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, to the extent the claim is based on Bank of America's decision to include notice within a bank statement; c. granted with prejudice as to any other theory of breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing; d. granted without prejudice as to Flores's claim for violation of the CCPA; e. granted with prejudice as to Flores's claim for conversion; f. granted without prejudice as to Flores's claim for unjust enrichment; and g. denied without prejudice as to Bank of America's argument that nationwide class allegations should be stricken. A full-text copy of the District Court's June 13, 2019 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yyrtvubo from Leagle.com. Victoria Flores, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented byBrittany Courtney Casola -- bcasola@carlsonlynch.com -- Carlson Lynch Sweet Kilpela & Carpenter, LLP, Edwin J. Kilpela, Jr. -- tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com -- Carlson Lynch Sweet Kilpela & Carpenter LLP, Sophia Goren Gold -- sgold@kalielpllc.com -- Kaliel, PLLC & Jeffrey Douglas Kaliel -- jdkaliel@gmail.com -- Kaliel, PLLC. Bank of America, N.A., Defendant, represented by Edgar Hernandez Martinez -- emartinez@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers, LLP, Elizabeth L. McKeen -- emckeen@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers, LLP & William K. Pao -- wpao@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers, LLP. BANK OF AMERICA: Rivota Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois ----------------------------------------------------- The case captioned MICHAEL A. RIVOTA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION and MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INCORPORATED, Defendants, Case No. 2019CH03625 was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on June 20, 2019, and assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-04156. From approximately April 3, 2016 until approximately March 21, 2017, Plaintiff worked for Merrill Lynch at its call center in Rolling Meadows, Illinois, initially as an Investment Specialist Trainee, and then as an Investment Specialist I. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to pay him and other hourly putative class members ("PCMs") for straight time and overtime compensation for all time worked in excess of 40 hours per week, in violation of the Illinois Minimum Wage Law ("IMWL"). Plaintiff further alleges that Defendants failed to pay him and other hourly PCMs for all hours worked at the rates agreed to by the parties, on their regularly scheduled paydays including but not limited to their final compensation upon separation of employment, in violation of the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act ("IWPCA").[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James X. Bormes, Esq. Catherine P. Sons, Esq. Law Office of James X. Bormes, P.C 8 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 2600 Chicago, IL 60603 Phone: 312-201-0575 Email: jxbormes@bormeslaw.com cpsons@bormeslaw.com - and - Thomas M. Ryan, Esq. Law Office of Thomas M. Ryan, P.C. 35 East Wacker Drive, Suite 650 Chicago, IL 60601 Phone: 312-726-3400 Email: tom@tomryanlaw.com - and - Kasif Khowaja, Esq. Frank Castiglione, Esq. The Khowaja Law Firm, LLC 70 East Lake Street, Suite 1220 Chicago, IL 60601 Phone: 312-356-3200 Email: kasif@khowajalaw.com fcastiglione@khowajalaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Chen G. Ni, Esq. Katharine P. Lennox, Esq. MCGUIREWOODS LLP 77 West Wacker Drive, Suite 4100 Chicago, IL 60601-1818 Phone: (312) 849-8100 Facsimile: (312) 849-3690 Email: cni@mcguirewoods.com klennox@mcguirewoods.com BATHROOM BUDDY: Lawyer Seeks Proper Minimum, Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- STEVEN LAWYER and WARREN ALLEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. BATHROOM BUDDY REMODELING INC., CUSTOM LEAD RESOURCES INC., ALLSTATE HOME IMPROVEMENTS INC., ALLSTATE HOME SERVICES INC., JOHN HUXTABLE, and ALEXANDER KEYLES, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-03589 (E.D. N.Y., June 19, 2019) is an action under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law , and the New York Codes, Rules, and Regulations, to recover unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid minimum wages, unpaid regular wages, unpaid spread of hours, and for other relief. The Defendants failed to provide Plaintiffs with a notice and acknowledgement of pay rate and payday, or any other form of wage notice, at the time of their hiring, or at any other time thereafter, as required by NYLL. During Plaintiffs' employment, the Defendants did not pay Plaintiffs overtime compensation for any hours that they worked in excess of 40 hours each week; the Defendants did not pay Plaintiffs at one and one half times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week; and the Defendants regularly and routinely failed to pay Plaintiffs the daily rate of pay to which they were entitled to, says the complaint. Plaintiffs were jointly employed by Defendants as construction laborers. Defendants are in the business of constructing, renovating, and remodeling residential bathrooms for Long Island homeowners.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Neil H. Greenberg, Esq. Keith E. Williams, Esq. Neil H. Greenberg & Associates, P.C. 4242 Merrick Road Massapequa, NY 11758 Phone: 516.228.5100 Email: nhglaw@nhglaw.com keith@nhglaw.com BLC LEXINGTON: Court Narrows Claims in C. Johnson's Suit -------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, Central Division, Lexington, issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order granting in part and denying in part Defendants' Motion to Dismiss in the case captioned CARRIE JOHNSON, etc., Plaintiffs, v. BLC LEXINGTON SNF, LLC, d/b/a Brookdale Richmond Place SNF, et al., Defendants. Civil Action No. 5:19-064-DCR. (E.D. Ky.). Defendants BLC Lexington SNF, LLC, American Retirement Corporation, Brookdale Senior Living Communities, Inc., Brookdale Senior Living, Ann Phillips, Benita Dickenson have filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and to compel arbitration. Plaintiff Carrie Johnson contends that she received substandard treatment at Brookdale Richmond Place, a skilled nursing facility located in Lexington, Kentucky. As a result, she asserts a plethora of claims against a multitude of defendants. Carrie Johnson was admitted to Brookdale Richmond Place sometime during the fall of 2017. Johnson alleges that while residing at Brookdale Richmond Place: she experienced poor hygiene; she contracted infections including MRSA; she was hospitalized; the staff failed to clean her surgical wound and; she experienced unnecessary pain and suffering. When evaluating a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court must determine whether the complaint alleges sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. The plausibility standard is met \when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. The Individual Claims Negligence (Counts I, XII) Negligence Common law negligence requires that a plaintiff show: (1) a duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff (2) breach of that duty (3) injury to the plaintiff and (4) legal causation between the defendant's breach and the plaintiff's injury. Johnson asserts that the defendants owed her a duty to provide custodial care, services, and supervision that a reasonably careful nursing home would provide under the circumstances. She claims that they breached that duty by knowingly maintaining staffing levels below what was necessary to perform essential functions and without regard to patient acuity levels. She further states that the breaches foreseeably resulted in serious injuries including poor hygiene, infection, hospitalization, and unnecessary pain and suffering. Johnson also alleges on behalf of the purported class that the defendants had a duty to class members and that they breached this duty by failing to disclose actual staffing levels to the proposed class. She argues that members of the alleged class suffered injuries caused by the difference between the services for which they paid compared with the services they actually received. Thus, while class certification issues have not been determined at this point, Johnson has made sufficient factual assertions to overcome dismissal of the common law negligence claim outlined in Counts I and XII. Negligence Per Se Negligence per se is defined as a negligence claim with a statutory or regulatory standard of care substituted for the common law standard of care. In Kentucky, a]\ person injured by the violation of any statute may recover from the offender such damages as he sustained by reason of the violation, although a penalty or forfeiture is imposed for such violation. Johnson's Complaint does not contain sufficient factual allegations to support a claim for violations of Section 508.090, et seq. She asserts that she relied on the defendants for treatment of her total needs for custodial, nursing, and medical care. Her Complaint, however, does not include any facts relating to how she was physically and mentally helpless or what acts of intentional, wanton, or reckless abuse the defendants committed. Further, the allegations in Johnson's Complaint do not provide sufficient factual allegations for the Court to infer that the defendants violated Section 530.080, et seq. Again, the Complaint does not indicate the nature of her alleged physical or mental illnesses and it does not contain any facts indicating that she was an incompetent person. The Court is not required to accept the plaintiff's legal conclusions. Accordingly, she has not alleged sufficient facts to support her claims of negligence per se under Sections 508.090, et seq. and Sections 530.080, et seq. Johnson asserts that the defendants' negligence is actionable as negligence per se for violations of federal laws and regulations under Titles XVIII and XIX of the Social Security Act. The Supreme Court of Kentucky has stated that § 446.070 is limited to Kentucky statutes and does not extend to federal statutes or regulations. Therefore, Johnson's claims of negligence per se cannot be based on violations of federal statutes. Based on the foregoing analysis, the Court concludes that Johnson has failed to state a negligence per se cause of action. Medical Negligence (Count II) Medical negligence requires the plaintiff to show that the treatment given was below the degree of care and skill expected of a reasonably competent practitioner, and that the negligence proximately caused injury or death. Johnson contends that the defendants had a duty to provide the standard of professional care and services of reasonably competent facilities acting under similar circumstances. She alleges they breached this duty by: failing to ensure that she received timely and accurate care assessments, prescribed treatment, medication and diet; failing to provide necessary supervision; and failing to provide timely nursing, dietary, and medical intervention due to a significant change in condition. Johnson further argues that the defendants failed to: provide sufficient numbers of qualified personnel; implement an adequate nursing plan; ensure that she was not deprived of services necessary to maintain her health and welfare; provide treatment and medication in accordance with physician's orders; monitor her health status and timely notify her physician and family of changes; have in place guidelines; provide safe environment; increase the number of personnel; and educate caregivers. As noted above, Johnson claims to have experienced poor hygiene, infections, hospitalization, and unnecessary pain and suffering due to the defendants' alleged breaches of their duties of care. Johnson has alleged sufficient facts to state a claim for medical negligence. Corporate Negligence (Count III) The doctrine of corporate negligence provides that hospitals owe a direct duty to patients to ensure their safety and well-being.The doctrine imposes duties on hospitals to: (1) use reasonable care in the maintenance of safe and adequate facilities and equipment (2) select and retain only competent physicians (3) oversee the patient care provided by all persons who practice medicine within its walls and (4) formulate, adopt, and enforce adequate rules and policies to ensure quality care for its patients. Johnson asserts that the facility and entities under its control (either vicariously or through apparent agency) owed a duty to residents to use the degree and skill expected of a reasonably competent facility. She claims that the defendants had a duty to maintain the facility including hiring, supervising, and retaining staff. Additionally, she asserts that the defendants had a duty to have procedures and protocols in place to patient care, and to provide a safe environment. She claims that the defendants breached these duties by engaging in the deliberate withholding or manipulation of funds. And she claims that, as a result of these breaches, she suffered injury. Ann Phillips seeks dismissal of this claim. As she correctly notes, corporate negligence is a theory of direct liability. Accordingly, the claim of corporate negligence brought specifically against Phillips will be dismissed. Claimed Violations of Long-term Care Residents' Rights Under KRS Section 216.510, et seq. (Count IV) KRS Section 216.515 enumerates specific rights given to residents of long-term care facilities. Johnson argues that, as a result of these alleged violations, she may seek recovery under Section 216.515(26), which provides a private right of action for any resident who has been deprived of rights under Section 216.515. Johnson alleges she suffered an acceleration in the deterioration of her health and physical condition beyond the normal aging process, and physical and emotional injuries including poor hygiene, infection, unnecessary pain and suffering, loss of personal dignity, degradation, and hospitalization. Based on these allegations, Johnson has stated a plausible claim for a violation of long-term care residents' rights. Negligence Per Se Claim Asserted Against Ann Phillips in Her Capacity as Executive Director and Administrator (Count V) To state a claim for negligence, the plaintiff must allege: (1) a duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff (2) breach of that duty (3) injury to the plaintiff and (4) legal causation between the defendant's breach and the plaintiff's injury. Johnson's claim of negligence per se under 216B may proceed because she has alleged economic harm. The purpose of the statute is to empower the Cabinet for Health and Family Services to oversee the licensure and quality of care standards in health care facilities. The chapter mainly provides for the certificate-of-need process. The Court of Appeals of Kentucky and at least one judge in this district have found that nursing home residents are within the class of persons Section 216B is designed to protect and there is no inclusive civil remedy included in the statute. However, Johnson asserts that she has suffered economic harm as a result of an inflated five-star rating and that she paid for services that she did not receive. Johnson is within the class of persons Section 216B is designed to protect, there is no civil remedy included in the statute, and the statute is penal in nature. She has stated sufficient facts to allege a negligence per se claim under Section 216B because she allegedly suffered economic harm as a result of Phillips conduct. Breach of Contract (Counts VI, XIII) To properly allege a breach of contract, Kentucky law requires that the cause of action state the contract, the breach, and the facts which show the loss or damage by reason of the breach. A contract must contain definite and certain terms setting forth promises of performance to be rendered by each party. A valid contract requires offer and acceptance, full and complete terms, and consideration. Johnson's Complaint alleges a breach of contract but does not specify whether the claimed breach pertained to the written admission agreement or an alleged oral contract. She merely states: Plaintiff entered into a contract with Brookdale Richmond Place to provide services in the facility by taking care and ensuring the safety and well-being on the Plaintiff. Johnson's breach of contract claim on behalf of the class states that Plaintiff and the putative class members entered into a contract with Class Defendants to provide services in the facility by taking care of and ensuring the safety and well-being of Plaintiff and the putative class members. Accordingly, she has not stated sufficient facts to establish a claimed breach of the alleged oral contract and these claims will be dismissed. Punitive Damages (Counts VII, XXII) Johnson has alleged a separate claim for punitive damages. Punitive damages may be awarded for conduct that is outrageous, because of the defendant's evil motive or his reckless indifference to the rights of others. However, this cause of action will be dismissed because punitive damages are a remedy, not a separate claim for relief. To the extent that the plaintiff has styled punitive damages as separate causes of action they will be dismissed. This does not impede her ability to seek punitive damages as a remedy if she proves she is entitled to this remedy. Causation & Damages (Count VIII) The defendants request that this claim be dismissed but do not provide any argument in support. Johnson asserts that defendants conduct caused her to suffer the following damages: mental pain and suffering; medical bills and expenses; actual, consequential, individual, and foreseeable damages; increased likelihood of future harm; lost earning capacity; and attorney's fees, costs, and expenses. Similar to punitive damages claim discussed above, to the extent that causation and damages is asserted as a separate cause of action, it will be dismissed. Fraud in the Inducement (Count IX) & Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Concealment, and Nondisclosure (Count X) Claims of fraud must be pled with particularity. Fraud in the inducement requires the plaintiff to establish six elements of fraud by clear and convincing evidence: a) material representation b) which is false c) known to be false or made recklessly d) made with inducement to be acted upon e) acted in reliance thereon and f) causing injury. The defendants argue that Johnson has not pled her fraud claims with particularity. Specifically, they assert that she has not sufficiently pled an injury and that she has not set forth with particularity the wrongful actions of each defendant. Further, they assert that Johnson's fraud claims fail because an ordinary inspection of the facility would uncover the fraud and clarify how many individuals worked at the facility. Johnson contends that she pled her fraud claims with particularity because she listed the time period of the fraud, that the fraud took place in Kentucky, and that the alleged fraud involved Kentucky residents. She stated that the material misrepresentation made by the defendants was the number of staff working at the facility. With respect to the fraudulent scheme, she asserts that the defendants intentionally and recklessly inflated staffing numbers, daily work attendance sheets, advertising materials, budget and cost reports to transfer profits to other corporate defendants. At this stage of the proceeding, the plaintiff has made sufficient allegations regarding the particularized roles of the defendants in the fraudulent scheme she has asserted.The plaintiff alleges that Phillips and Dickenson falsified staffing numbers, that BLC Lexington is the entity to which the staffing numbers related, and that the remaining defendants are alter egos of the facility and commingled funds to help hide the fraud. Johnson further alleges generally that she and members of the purported class suffered injuries as a result of the difference between the staff reported and the staff available because the aggrieved parties received less care than the care for which they paid. Accordingly, Johnson has alleged sufficient facts to state a claim for fraud in the inducement and fraudulent misrepresentation, concealment, and nondisclosure. Negligent Misrepresentation (Count XI) Kentucky has adopted the Restatement (Second) of Torts Second 552 which defines the tort of negligent misrepresentation. The section of the Restatement states: (1) One who, in the course of his business, profession or employment, or in any other transaction in which he has a pecuniary interest, supplies false information for the guidance of others in their business transactions, is subject to liability for pecuniary loss caused to them by their justifiable reliance upon the information, if he fails to exercise reasonable care or competence in obtaining or communicating the information.(2) Except as stated in Subsection (3), the liability stated in Subsection (1) is limited to loss suffered(a) by the person or one of a limited group of persons for whose benefit and guidance he intends to supply the information or knows that the recipient intends to supply it; and(b) through reliance upon it in a transaction that he intends the information to influence or knows that the recipient so intends or in a substantially similar transaction(3) The liability of one who is under a public duty to give the information extends to loss suffered by any of the class of persons for whose benefit the duty is created, in any of the transactions in which it is intended to protect them. While Johnson may have a pecuniary interest, she has not alleged facts indicating that the defendants are providing information for business transactions. Nursing homes are in the business of providing long term care to residents, not supplying information for the guidance of others in business transactions. Accordingly, the plaintiff has not stated a claim for negligent misrepresentation. Contractual Breach of Fiduciary Duty (Count XIV) To establish the basic elements of a breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim, Johnson must show (1) the existence of a fiduciary duty (2) the breach of that duty (3) injury and] (4) causation. Fiduciary relationships are founded on trust or confidence reposed by one person in the integrity and fidelity of another and which also necessarily involves an undertaking in which a duty is created in one person to act primarily for another's benefit in matters connected with such undertaking. Johnson claims contractual breach of fiduciary duties, alleging that the defendants breached their duties by wrongfully misrepresenting the actual level of staffing present at Brookdale Richmond Place. But the defendants did not owe Johnson a fiduciary duty simply because she was a nursing home resident. Further, as noted previously, Johnson asserts her contract claims are based on the oral agreement between the plaintiff and the defendants. However, she has not alleged sufficient facts for a valid oral contract, so there is no contract that would give rise to any potential contractual fiduciary duty. As a result, this claim will be dismissed. Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing (Count XV) Johnson claims that the defendants breached the duty of good faith and fair dealing by wrongfully misrepresenting the actual level of staff present at Brookdale Richmond Place. A claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing can be brought in contract or tort. While all contracts implicitly include the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, the plaintiff has not pled sufficient facts to show that there is a valid contract. Accordingly, there is no basis to impose a covenant of good faith and fair dealing upon the defendants. Unjust Enrichment (Count XVI) There are three elements that a party must meet in order to prevail on a claim of unjust enrichment: (1) benefit conferred upon defendant at plaintiff's expense (2) a resulting appreciation of benefit by defendant; and (3) inequitable retention of benefit without payment for its value. Johnson alleges that she pled unjust enrichment in the alternative, in the event the Court concludes that her oral contract claim fails. Because Johnson's breach of contract claims will be dismissed, she may proceed with her unjust enrichment claim. Johnson's Complaint alleges that the defendants schemed to avoid disclosing the actual number of staff at Brookdale and that the defendants knew of and appreciated the benefit of this misrepresentation. She asserts that they profited from the plaintiff and class members for services that she and the purported class did not receive, thus, the retention of the money is inequitable. Violation of the Kentucky Consumer Protection Act (Count XVII) KRS Section 367.170 states that (1) unfair, false, misleading, or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are hereby declared unlawful. (2) For the purposes of this section, unfair shall be construed to mean unconscionable. The defendants argue that the Kentucky Consumer Protection Act does not apply when the underlying claims sound in medical negligence. However, Johnson contends her claim focuses on the business aspect of the practice. She asserts that her claim under the Kentucky Consumer Protection Act is based on the assertion that the defendants had higher levels of staffing than the levels for which the plaintiff actually paid. This is similar to entering into a financial agreement that would increase profits to the possible detriment of patients. Based on these allegations, the plaintiff has stated a claim for the violation of the Kentucky Consumer Protection Act. Violation of a Special Relationship (Count XVIII) Johnson's Complaint alleges that the defendants acting as care providers constitutes a special relationship under Kentucky law. In support, she references Grubbs ex rel. Grubbs v. Barbourville Family Health Ctr., P.S.C., 120 S.W.3d 682 (Ky. 2003). While noting that a special relationship arises between a physician and a patient, the Grubbs court explained that the claims should be analyzed under traditional negligence principles. It clarified the physician's duty, based on the special relationship with a patient. This includes a duty to act with the utmost good faith and to speak fairly and truthfully at the peril of being held liable for damages for fraud and deceit. This duty mandates that a physician fully disclose his findings on examination and the opinions he holds. The language in the Complaint mirrors the rule set forth in Grubbs and sounds in traditional negligence principles. A violation of a special relationship would merely fall within the traditional elements of a negligence action: duty, breach, causation, and damages. It does not stand alone as a separate claim. Accordingly, it is subsumed by Johnson's negligence claims and the separate assertion of the violation of a special relationship will be dismissed. Civil Conspiracy (Count XIX) Civil conspiracy consists of a corrupt or unlawful combination or agreement between two or more persons to do by concert of action an unlawful act, or to do a lawful act by unlawful means. Civil conspiracy is not a stand-alone claim but a theory upon which a plaintiff can recover from multiple defendants for underlying intentional tort claims. The underlying tort must be intentional because defendants cannot agree together to be negligent. Johnson alleges that the defendants willfully joined in an agreement to prevent the disclosure of the true number of direct care staff staffing the facility, and thereby reap the monies that should have been paid to adequately staff the building consistent with the standard of care and the expectations of consumers, and the expectations of the Commonwealth of Kentucky.She asserts that had a common goal of evading liability and defrauding residents to reap greater profits. Johnson has not included sufficient facts in her Complaint to survive a motion to dismiss regarding this claim. Instead, while she states that there was an agreement between the defendants to fraudulently inflate staffing numbers, she does not include any further information about the agreement among the defendants. As the Court noted in Smith,conclusory allegations of an unlawful agreement will not survive a motion to dismiss. Accordingly, her assertion of civil conspiracy will be dismissed. Joint Enterprise (Count XX) A joint enterprise is an informal partnership, existing for a limited purpose and duration. To show a joint enterprise, the plaintiff must demonstrate (1) an agreement, express or implied, among the members of the group (2) a common purpose to be carried out by the group (3) a community of pecuniary interest in that purpose among the members and (4) an equal right to a voice in the direction of the enterprise, which gives an equal right of control. The plaintiff asserts that the defendants willfully joined an agreement to prevent the disclosure of the true number of direct care staff at the facility and were able to reap monies that should have been paid to staff at Brookdale. She alleges there was a common pecuniary interest among the defendants and each defendant had a voice and/or a role in the execution of the common purpose. Johnson's Complaint, however, is devoid of any facts that would indicate whether all of the defendants had an equal right to a voice and control. Accordingly, her assertion of a joint enterprise will be dismissed. Concert of Action (Count XXI) The plaintiffs can hold the defendants jointly and severally liable if they prove the defendants (1) acted unlawfully by common design (2) knew that a codefendant was acting unlawfully and gave substantial encouragement to the codefendant or (3) gave substantial assistance to a codefendant's unlawful acts, when the defendant's conduct was also unlawful. Johnson asserts that the defendants willfully joined in an agreement to prevent the disclosure of the true number of direct care staffing at Brookdale and reaped the monies that should have been paid to adequately staff the building. Thus, she claims they should be held jointly and severally liable. Johnson alleges that the other defendants knew that Dickenson and Phillips were fraudulently inflating staffing numbers at the facility and commingled funds to hide the alleged fraud. While Johnson has alleged sufficient facts to support a claim of concerted action, this is a damages issue regarding whether the plaintiff can hold the defendants jointly and severally liable. Because it is an issue regarding damages and not a stand-alone cause of action, the count will be dismissed. Attorney's Fees (Count XXIII) Although it is not a separate cause of action, the Court will not dismiss the plaintiff's claim for attorney's fees because it would be premature to take such action at this time. The plaintiff may be entitled to seek recovery of attorney's fees at a later stage of the litigation. Conversely, the defendants may seek summary judgment if such relief is warranted following a period of discovery. Accordingly, Defendants American Retirement Corporation, BLC Lexington SNF, LLC, Brookdale Senior Living Communities, Inc., Brookdale Senior Living, Inc., Benita Dickenson, Ann Phillips' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim will be granted, in part, and denied, in part. Johnson's claims for breach of contract (Count VI), punitive damages (Count VII), causation and damages (Count VIII), negligent misrepresentation (Count XI) breach of contract (Count XIII), contractual breach of fiduciary duty (Count XIV) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing (Count XV), violation of a special relationship (Count XVIII) civil conspiracy (Count XIX), joint enterprise (Count XX), concert of action (Count XXI), and punitive damages (Count XXII) are dismissed. Johnson's claims for negligence (Count I), medical negligence (Count II), violation of long-term care residents' rights (Count IV), fraud in the inducement (Count IX), fraudulent misrepresentation, concealment, nondisclosure (Count X), negligence (Count XII), unjust enrichment (Count XVI), violation of the Kentucky Consumer Protection Act (Count XVII), and attorney's fees (Count XXIII) remain pending. Johnson's claim for negligence asserted against Ann Phillips (Count V) remains only with respect to the claim of negligence per se under Section 216B. Johnson cannot assert a claim of negligence per se under Count I. Johnson's claim for corporate negligence (Count III) is dismissed only against Ann Phillips. A full-text copy of the District Court's June 13, 2019 Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yxn7j3pc from Leagle.com. Carrie Johnson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Justin Peterson, Golden Law Office, PLLC, Laraclay Drake Parker, Golden Law Office, PLLC & Kellie Marie Collins, Golden Law Office, PLLC, 771 Corporate Dr. #750, Lexington, KY 40503 BLC Lexington SNF, LLC, doing business as Brookdale Richmond Place SNF, ARC Richmond Place, Inc., doing business as Brookdale Richmond Place PCH, Brookdale Lexington IL/AL/MC, Brookdale Home Health, American Retirement Corporation, Brookdale Senior Living Communities, Inc., Brookdale Senior Living, Inc., Ann Phillips, in her Capacity as Executive Director and Administrator of Brookdale Richmond Place, Emeritus Corporation, Park Place Investments, LLC, BKD Personal Assistance Services, LLC, Horizon Bay Management, LLC, Emericare Inc, BKD Richmond Place Propco, LLC, Brookdale Employee Services -- Corporate LLC, Brookdale Employee Services, LLC, BKD Twenty One Management Company, Inc. & Benita Dickenson, in her Capacity as Managing Employee of Brookdale Richmond Place, SNF, Defendants, represented by Donald L. Miller, II -- dmiller@qpwblaw.com -- Quintairos, Prieto, Wood & Boyer, P.A., J. Peter Cassidy, III -- pcassidy@qpwblaw.com -- Quintaros, Prieto, Wood & Boyer, P.A. & Matthew Coleman Cocanougher -- mcocanougher@qpwblaw.com -- Quintaros, Prieto, Wood & Boyer, P.A. BRE Knight SH KY Owner, LLC, ARC Therapy Services, LLC, Brookdale Associate Fund, Inc., Lucinda Baier, in her capacity as Owner of and Manager of various defendants, Chad C. White, in his capacity as Owner of and Manager of various defendants, Mary Sue Patchett, in her capacity as Owner of and Manager of various defendants, Joanne Leskowicz, in her capacity as Owner of and Manager of various defendants, George T. Hicks, in his capacity as Owner of and Manager of various defendants, Labeed Diab, in his capacity as Owner of Brookdale Richmond Place, SNF, Geraldine Gordon-Krupp, in her capacity as Owner of Brookdale Richmond Place, SNF, Bryan Richardson, in his capacity as Owner of Brookdale Richmond Place, SNF & Thomas Smith, in his capacity as Owner of Brookdale Richmond Place, SNF, Defendants, represented by Matthew Coleman Cocanougher, Quintaros, Prieto, Wood & Boyer, P.A.. BLINC INC: Diaz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Blinc, Inc. The case is styled as Edwin Diaz on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Blinc, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-05800 (S.D. N.Y., June 20, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Blinc Inc. provides cosmetics and skin care products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq. Cohen & Mizrahi LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Phone: (917) 299-6612 Fax: (929) 575-4195 Email: joseph@cml.legal BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Klein Suit Moved to District of Massachusetts ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case STEVE KLEIN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION, MICHAEL F. MAHONEY, and DANIEL J. BRENNAN, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-03642, was transferred from United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Boston) on June 19, 2019. The District of Massachusetts Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-11356-FDS to the proceeding. The suit alleges Securities Act violation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge F. Dennis Saylor, IV. The case is a federal securities class action on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Boston Scientific securities between February 26, 2015, and April 16, 2019, both dates inclusive, seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials. Boston Scientific was founded in 1979 and is headquartered in Marlborough, Massachusetts. The Company develops, manufactures, and markets medical devices for use in various interventional medical specialties worldwide.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Joseph Alexander Hood, II, Esq. Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 E-mail: ahood@pomlaw.com jalieberman@pomlaw.com Attorneys for the Defendants: James R. Carroll, Esq. Alexander C Drylewski, Esq. Alisha Quintana Nanda, Esq. Yaw Asare Anim, Esq. SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE MEAGHER & FLOM LLP 500 Boylston Street Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 573-4800 Facsimile: (617) 573-4822 E-mail: James.Carroll@skadden.com alexander.drylewski@skadden.com Alisha.Nanda@skadden.com yaw.anim@skadden.com CAPITAL ONE: Zhao Sues Over Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices ---------------------------------------------------------------- SHUGUANG ZHAO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated Plaintiff, v. CAPITAL ONE, N.A. and GENERAL MOTORS LLC Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-05362 (C.D. Cal., June 19, 2019) is an action individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated seeking damages and any other available legal or equitable remedies resulting from the unfair and deceptive trade practices Defendants and Capital One, N.A. or, alternatively, a company Capital One, N.A. purchased and therefore has successor liability, engaged in to induce customers to apply for the GM Rewards card and to continue making purchases with it. The complaint asserts that the Defendants violated various states' statutory and common law by the unfair, deceptive, misleading, and bait-and-switch manner in which Defendants have marketed, advertised, issued, operated, and/or administered their GM Rewards cards and/or Program Benefits. In particular, Defendants represented "There is no maximum number of Earnings that you can accumulate in the program" and misrepresented that card members would receive 5% Earnings on credit card purchases toward an eligible, new GM Vehicle. Defendants materially omitted and/or failed to disclose in a meaningful, adequate, and/or conspicuous way that (a) there was a limit on how much Earnings one could redeem towards the purchase of "an eligible, new GM Vehicle"; and that (b) Earnings can and do expire. So, even though Plaintiff earned more than $17,000.00 in Earnings, Plaintiff was only allowed to "redeem" $1,000.00 of the Earnings towards an eligible, new GM vehicle. Plaintiff was limited to $1,000 per transaction and an amount of his Earnings had expired, says the complaint. Plaintiff Shuguang Wang, a resident of the County of Los Angeles in the State of California, opened a GM rewards card issued by Capital One Bank. Defendant Capital One, N.A. is a National Banking Association. Capital One, N.A. issues credits cards, including the credit cards at issue in this litigation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Francis J. "Casey" Flynn, Jr., Esq. LAW OFFICE OF FRANCIS J. FLYNN, JR. 422 S. Curson Ave. Los Angeles, CA 90036 Phone: 314-662-2836 Email: casey@lawofficeflynn.com CITYREALTY.COM: Maness Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------- MOSHE MANESS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CITYREALTY.COM, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 513562/2019 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Kings Cty., June 19, 2019) is a putative class-action lawsuit seeking to end the systemic and patterned housing and public-accommodation discrimination perpetrated by Defendant in violation of the City, State, and Federal anti-discrimination laws, arising under the New York City Human Rights Law (the "NYCHRL") and the New York State Human Rights Law (the "NYSHRL"). Plaintiff's claims also sound under the American with Disabilities Act (the "ADA") and the Fair Housing Act (the "FHA"). The Defendant operates CityRealty.com. The Website holds itself out as being "the oldest, continuously operating real estate website." The Website serves as a platform to "help thousands of apartment buyers, renters and sellers successfully navigate the often complex New York market" by facilitating, brokering, or otherwise engaging in real estate transactions. However, through its Website, Defendant has engaged in a pattern a practice of denying, withholding, or otherwise limiting access to real-estate listings available on the Website for those who are blind and visually impaired. Defendant's Website has the effect of discriminating against Plaintiff and the putative class in both provision of public accommodations and provision of housing accommodations. Indeed, Defendant's Website contains numerous access barriers that effectively deny the blind and visually impaired full and equal access to Defendant's goods and services, says the complaint. Plaintiff is a severely visually impaired person. Defendant is an online marketplace that offers real estate related services through its Website.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Y. Balisok, Esq. Balisok & Kaufman, PLLC 251 Troy Avenue Brooklyn, NY 11213 Phone: (718) 928-9607 Facsimile: (718) 534-9747 COLORTREE GROUP: Kennedy Seeks to Recoup Wages Under WARN Act ------------------------------------------------------------- TERRY KENNEDY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. COLORTREE GROUP, INC., Case No. 3:19-cv-00424-REP (E.D. Va., June 6, 2019), is brought on behalf of the Defendant's former employees seeking to recover 60 days wages and benefits pursuant to the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act. Beginning on June 3, 2019, and within 30 days of that date, the Defendant terminated without notice the employment of approximately 240 employees, including the Plaintiff, according to the complaint. Colortree Group, Inc., is a Delaware corporation with its corporate headquarters located in Richmond, Virginia. Colortree manufactures and distributes lithographic products to the direct mail industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jennifer J. West, Esq. Edward E. Bagnell, Jr., Esq. SPOTTS FAIN PC 411 East Franklin Street, Suite 600 Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: (804) 697-2000 Facsimile: (804) 697-2100 E-mail: jwest@spottsfain.com ebagnell@spottsfain.com - and - Jack A. Raisner, Esq. Rene S. Roupinian, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 245-1000 E-mail: jar@outtengolden.com rsr@outtengolden.com COLUMBIA DEBT: Wang Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Columbia Debt Recovery, LLC. The case is styled as Jing Wang individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Columbia Debt Recovery, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-03619 (E.D. N.Y., June 20, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Columbia Recovery Group LLC or CRG is a debt collection agency.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David M. Barshay, Esq. Craig B. Sanders, Esq. Barshay Sanders, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Phone: (516) 203-7600 Fax: (516) 281-7601 Email: dbarshay@barshaysanders.com csanders@barshaysanders.com CONTROL4 CORPORATION: Sabatini Files Suit Over Wirepath Merger Deal ------------------------------------------------------------------- ERIC SABATINI, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. CONTROL4 CORPORATION, MARIA THOMAS, MARTIN PLAEHN, ROB BORN, JAMES CAUDILL, DAVID C. HABIGER, JEREMY JAECH, MARK JENSEN, and PHIL MOLYNEUX, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01149-UNA (D. Del., June 20, 2019) is an action stemming from a proposed transaction announced on May 9, 2019, pursuant to which Control4 Corporation will be acquired by affiliates of SnapAV. On May 8, 2019, Control4's Board of Directors caused the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with Wirepath Home Systems, LLC and Copper Merger Sub, Inc. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Control4's stockholders will receive $23.91 in cash for each share of Control4 common stock they own. On June 7, 2019, defendants filed a proxy statement with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the Proposed Transaction. The complaint asserts that the Proxy Statement omits material information with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the Proxy Statement false and misleading. Accordingly, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the Proxy Statement,. Plaintiff is the owner of Control4 common stock. Control4 is a provider of automation and networking systems for homes and businesses, offering personalized control of lighting, music, video, comfort, security, and communications into a unified smart home system.[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 Phone: (302) 295-5310 Facsimile: (302) 654-7530 Email: 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 Phone: (484) 324-6800 Facsimile: (484) 631-1305 Email: rm@maniskas.com COOPERSURGICAL INC: Sawyer's Bid for Class Certification Denied --------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Michael P. Shea denied without prejudice the motion to certify class in the lawsuit entitled WILLIAM P. SAWYER, M.D. v. COOPERSURGICAL, INC., Case No. 3:19-cv-00295-MPS (D. Conn.). The Court held a telephonic status conference with the parties on June 10, 2019, according to the Court's scheduling order. As discussed during the telephonic status conference, the motion to certify class is denied without prejudice. Having reviewed the parties' joint Rule 26(f) report, the Court orders that the deadlines set forth in this Scheduling Order shall apply. The parties' Rule 26(f) Report is hereby adopted unless otherwise stated. According to the Scheduling Order: -- Plaintiff is allowed until October 1, 2019, to file motions to join additional parties or to file motions to amend the pleadings. Defendant is allowed until October 30, 2019, to file any motions to join additional parties; -- Discovery will not be conducted in phases. Fact depositions should commence by August 10, 2019. All fact and expert discovery will be completed (not propounded) by May 11, 2020; -- A damages analysis will be provided by any party who has a claim or counter claim for damages by December 16, 2019; -- The parties' expert reports on any issues on which they bear the burden of proof will be due February 10, 2020. Depositions of such experts will be completed by March 10, 2020; -- The parties' expert reports on any issues on which they do not bear the burden of proof will be due April 10, 2020. Depositions of such experts will be completed by May 11, 2020; -- Any motion for class certification is due June 11, 2020; -- Within 14 days after the Court's decision on any motion for class certification, the parties shall submit a joint notice with a proposed schedule for the remainder of the case, including the filing of the Joint Trial Memorandum. The Court will review the notice and schedule a status conference; -- If defendant plans on filing a motion for summary judgment with respect to the named plaintiff or before any motion for class certification is decided, defendant shall file a notice so indicating and requesting a telephonic status conference, together with a brief summary of the anticipated factual and legal grounds warranting summary judgment not to exceed 4 pages; -- The case will be considered trial ready within 15 days of the filing of the Joint Trial Memorandum; -- A Telephonic Status Conference will be held on February 17, 2020, at 3:30 p.m.; the Court will provide the parties with the dial-in information. The parties will file a joint status report by February 10, 2020; and -- Finally, the parties are responsible for following the appended instructions regarding (1) joint status reports, (2) discovery disputes, and (3) the joint trial memorandum, all of which the Court incorporates as part of this Scheduling Order.[CC] COSTCO WHOLESALE: Cross-Appeals Judgment in Flushable Wipes Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants Costco Wholesale Corporation, CVS Health Corporation, Target Corporation filed a cross-appeal from a Court ruling in the lawsuit styled THE PRESERVE AT CONNETQUOT HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-07050 (JFB) (E.D.N.Y.). The appellate case is captioned as The Preserve at Connetquot Homeowners Association, Inc. v. Costco Wholesale Corporation, et al., Case No. 19-1551, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The Appellants submit their notice of cross-appeal to the Second Circuit from the District Court's April 12, 2019 Judgment. The lead appeal has been assigned Second Circuit Case No. 19-1407. Costco, CVS, and Target believe that the District Court's dismissal of this action without prejudice for lack of Article III standing should be affirmed. Costco, CVS, and Target also believe that if this Court concludes that Article III standing exists, dismissal should be affirmed, and with prejudice, on the alternate basis that the Plaintiff failed to state a cognizable cause of action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). For this reason, Appellants Costco, CVS and Target joined the cross-appeal filed on behalf of all the Defendants in the underlying action. But Costco, CVS, and Target also file this separate cross-appeal to preserve additional alternate bases for dismissal that the District Court did not reach, which were asserted by only these three defendants in their own separately filed Motion to Dismiss and include, but are not limited to, the basis that injunctive relief is inappropriate because the Federal Trade Commission has primary jurisdiction over the labeling, packaging, and advertising of flushable wipes manufactured by Nice-Pak Products, Inc. and sold by Costco, CVS, and Target. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 24, 2019, Defendants CVS Health Corporation, Costco Wholesale Corporation, Kimberly-Clark Corporation, Target Corporation, The Procter & Gamble Company, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc., filed an appeal from the District Court's judgment entered on April 12, 2019. That appellate case is captioned as The Preserve at Connetquot Homeowners Association, Inc. v. Costco Wholesale Corporation, et al., Case No. 19-1528, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellee The Preserve at Connetquot Homeowners Association, Inc., Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Mark S. Reich, Esq. Mario Claudio Lattuga, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 58 South Service Road Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: (631) 367-7100 Facsimile: (631) 367−1173 E-mail: mreich@rgrdlaw.com mlattuga@rgrdlaw.com Defendant-Appellant Costco Wholesale Corporation is represented by: John Q. Lewis, Esq. Karl A. Bekeny, Esq. William H. Berglund, Esq. Michael J. Ruttinger, Esq. TUCKER ELLIS LLP 950 Main Avenue, Suite 1100 Cleveland, OH 44113-7213 Telephone: (216) 592-5000 Facsimile: (216) 592-5009 E-mail: john.lewis@tuckerellis.com karl.bekeny@tuckerellis.com william.berglund@tuckerellis.com michael.ruttinger@tuckerellis.com Defendant-Appellant Target Corporation is represented by: Denise A. Dickerson, Esq. SUTTER O'CONNELL CO., LLC 1301 E. 9th Street 3600 Erieview Tower Cleveland, OH 44114 Telephone: (216) 928-2200 Facsimile: (216) 928-4400 E-mail: ddickerson@sutter-law.com Defendants-Appellants CVS Health Corporation and Costco Wholesale Corporation are represented by: Courtney E. Scott, Esq. TRESSLER, LLP 1 Penn Plaza, Suite 4701 New York, NY 10119 Telephone: (646) 833-0890 E-mail: cscott@tsmp.com Defendant-Appellant CVS Health Corporation is represented by: Rebecca F. Briggs, Esq. HINCKLEY ALLEN 100 Westminster Street, Suite 1500 Providence, RI 02906 Telephone: (401) 274-2000 E-mail: rbriggs@hinckleyallen.com COURTNEY PHILLIPS: Ward Seeks to Certify 2 Classes -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit, JOSEPH WARD, by his next friend FLOYD JENNINGS, et al., the Plaintiffs, vs. COURTNEY PHILLIPS, in her official capacity as Executive Commissioner of the Texas Health and Human Services Commission, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-00917-LY (W.D. Tex.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order: 1. certifying two classes as follows: Class for Incompetent Detainees: "all persons who are now, or will be in the future, (a) charged with a Texas crime, (b) court-ordered to an HHSC mental health facility for competency restoration services; but, (c) because of HHSC’s insufficient forensic capacity, (d) remain incarcerated in a county jail more than 21 days from the day HHSC receives the court order to the day HHSC makes a bed available in an HHSC mental health facility"; Class for Insanity Acquittees: "all persons who are now, or will be in the future, (a) charged with a Texas crime and found not guilty by reason of insanity, (b) ordered to receive evaluation and/or treatment services at an HHSC mental health facility, but, (c) due to HHSC's insufficient forensic capacity, (d) remain incarcerated in a county jail more than 14 days from the day HHSC receives the court order to the day HHSC makes a bed available in an HHSC mental health facility"; 2. appointing Joseph Ward, Marc Lawson, Kenneth Jones, Jennifer Lampkin, Mary Sapp, and Julian Torres as class representatives for the class of incompetent detainees; 3. appointing Mary Sapp and Cecil Adickes as class representatives for the class of insanity acquittees; and 4. appointing Disability Rights Texas and Winston & Strawn, L.L.P., as class counsel for both classes.[CC] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are: Beth Mitchell, Esq. Peter Hofer, Esq. Lisa Snead, Esq. DISABILITY RIGHTS TEXAS 2222 West Braker Lane Austin, TX 78758 Telephone: (512) 454-4816 Facsimile: (512) 454-3999 E-mail: bmitchell@drtx.org phofer@drtx.org lsnead@drtx.org - and - Coty Meibeyer, Esq. DISABILITY RIGHTS TEXAS 1500 McGowen, Suite 100 Houston, TX 77004 Telephone: (713) 974-7691 Facsimile: (713) 974-7695 E-mail: cmeibeyer@drtx.org - and - John Michael Gaddis, Esq. WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 2121 N. Pearl St., Suite 900 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 453-6500 Facsimile: (214) 453-6400 E-mail: mgaddis@winston.com Attorneys for the Defendants are: Michael R. Abrams, Esq. Thomas A. Albright, Esq. Christopher D. Hilton, Esq. Assistant Attorneys General General Litigation Division P.O. Box 12548, Capitol Station Austin, TX 78711-2548 CRAY INC: Davie Balks at Merger Deal with Hewlett Packard --------------------------------------------------------- A class action complaint has been filed against Cray Inc., Cray's Board of Directors, Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company, and Canopy Merger Sub, Inc. for alleged violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The case is captioned RUSSELL DAVIE, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. CRAY INC., PETER J. UNGARO, PRITHVIRAJ BANERJEE, CATRIONA M. FALLON, STEPHEN E. GOLD, STEPHEN C. KIELY, SALLY G. NARODICK, DANIEL C. REGIS, MAX L. SCHIRESON, BRIAN V. TURNER, CANOPY MERGER SUB, INC., and HEWLETT PACKARD ENTERPRISE COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01148-UNA (D. Del., June 20, 2019). Plaintiff Russell Davie alleges that the Defendants have violated the Exchange Act by causing a materially incomplete and misleading preliminary proxy statement to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 12, 2019. The proxy statements recommends that Cray stockholders vote in favor of a proposed transaction whereby Cray is acquired by Hewlett Packard. The proposed transaction is allegedly tainted by significant conflicts of interest, namely continued employment for the company's Chief Executive Officer with the combined company and the opportunity to invest in the combined company. In addition, the merger agreement contains constrictive provisions that prevent another bidder from coming forward. Plaintiff Davie asserts that the proxy statements contains materially incomplete and misleading information concerning the sales process, financial projections prepared by Cray management, and the financial analyses conducted by Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, Cray's financial advisor. Cray, Inc. is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Washington. Cray common stock trades on NASDAQ under the ticker symbol "CRAY." Peter J. Ungaro has been President, CEO and a director of the Company since 2005. Hewlett Packard is a Delaware corporation with its principal executive offices located at 6280 America Center Drive, San Jose, California Canopy Merger Sub, Inc. is a Washington corporation and is a wholly owned subsidiary of Hewlett Packard. [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 DAKOTA OF ROCKY HILL: Bid to Certify Class under Advisement ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit, Thomas T. McDougle et al., the Plaintiffs, vs. Dakota of Rocky Hill, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-00245-SRU (D. Conn.), the Hon. Judge Stefan R. Underhill entered an order on June 18, 2019, taking under advisement a motion to preliminary certify class and class notice, according to the courtroom minutes. Plaintiffs seek to recover damages calculated as twice the full amount of the minimum wage, liquidated damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs, and injunctive and equitable relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the lawsuit, from October 2015 through the present date, Defendant has employed Plaintiff Rosemarie Taylor as a server at Dakota Steakhouse located at 1489 Silas Deane Highway, Rocky Hill, Connecticut. In this capacity, Plaintiff Taylor serves food and beverages to persons at tables and booths in the restaurant area. Defendant requires and required Plaintiffs and other similarly situated servers to perform significant amounts of non-service duties without the possibility for earning tips for such work and failed to pay them a wage differential. Defendant posted lists of the non-service duties, or "side-work" performed by Plaintiffs and similarly situated servers in plastic sleeves at the various server stations throughout the restaurant. The Defendant is engaged in the restaurant business.[CC] Plaintiff's Counsel is: Richard Eugene Hayber, Esq. HAYBER LAW FIRM 750 Main Street, Suite 904 Hartford, CT 06103 Telephone: (860) 522-8888 E-mail: rhayber@hayberlawfirm.com Defendant's Counsel is: David R. Golder, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS 90 State House Square, 8th Floor Hartford, CT 06103 Telephone: 860 522-0404 Facsimile: 860 247-1330 Telephone: 860-522-0404 Facsimile: 860-247-1330 E-mail: David.Golder@jacksonlewis.com DASSAULT FALCON: Seeks 8th Cir. Review of Judgment in Coates Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant Dassault Falcon Jet Corp. filed an appeal from the District Court's Order, Opinion & Order and Judgment dated May 8, 2019, in the lawsuit entitled Craig Coates, et al. v. Dassault Falcon Jet Corp., Case No. 4:17-cv-00372-JLH, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is a collective action brought by former employees of Falcon Jet alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act. The Plaintiffs allege that Falcon Jet wrongfully classified them as exempt from the FLSA and AMWA overtime requirements The appellate case is captioned as Craig Coates, et al. v. Dassault Falcon Jet Corp., Case No. 19-2167, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Transcript is due on or before July 16, 2019; -- Appendix is due on July 26, 2019; -- Brief of Appellant Dassault Falcon Jet Corp is due on July 26, 2019; -- Appellee brief is due 30 days from the date the court issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of appellant; and -- Appellant reply brief is due 21 days from the date the court issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the appellee brief.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees Craig Coates, Individually and on behalf of Others Similarly Situated; Molly Warrington, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated; and Edwin Smith, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM Suite 411, One Financial Center 650 S. Shackleford Road Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: (501) 221-0088 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com Defendant-Appellant Dassault Falcon Jet Corp is represented by: John B. Brown, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 8117 Preston Road, Suite 500 Dallas, TX 75225-0000 Telephone: (214) 987-3800 E-mail: john.brown@ogletree.com - and - Brian A. Vandiver, Esq. COX, STERLING, MCCLURE & VANDIVER, PLLC 8712 Counts Massie Road North Little Rock, AR 72113 Telephone: (501) 954-8073 E-mail: bavandiver@csmfirm.com DEAN MEILING: Harris Suit Transferred to District of Nevada ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit filed against Dean Meiling et al., was transferred from the United States District Court for the Central District of California to the United States District Court for District of Nevada (Reno) on June 19, 2019. The District of Nevada Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-00339-LRH-CBC to the proceeding. The Hon. Judge Larry R. Hicks oversees the case. The California case is captioned as Marc Harris, an individual on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Dean Meiling, Madylon Meiling, James Proctor, Janet Chubb, and Tiffany Schwartz, individual; Chemeon Surface Technology LLC, a Nevada Limited Liability Company; DSM Partners, LP, a Nevada Limited Partnership; DSM P GP LLC, a Nevada Limited Liability Company; Suite B LLC, a Nevada Limited Liability Company; Armstrong Teasdale LLP, a Missouri Limited Liability Partnership; Kaempfer Crowell, LTD, a Nevada Professional Corporation; Meridian Advantage, unknown entity; Does 1-100, inclusive; and Meiling Family Partners, Ltd., the Defendants, Case No. 8:19-cv-00595 (C.D. Cal., March 28, 2019). The suit demands $9,999,000 and alleges breach of contract violation.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: Marc Y Lazo, Esq. K&L LAW GROUP 2105 Foothill Boulevard, Suite B121 La Verne, CA 91750 Telephone: (949) 216-4000 Facsimile: (800) 596-0370 E-mail: mlazo@kllawgroup.com Attorneys for the Defendants: Teague I. Donahey, Esq. HOLLAND & HART 800 West Main Street, Suite 1750 Boise, ID 83702 Telephone: (208) 342-5000 E-mail: tidonahey@hollandhart.com - and - Matthew A Hodel, Esq. HODEL WILKS LLP 4 Park Plaza, Suite 640 Irvine, CA 92614 Telephone: (949) 450-4470 Facsimile: (949) 450-4479 DIRECT ENERGY: Murphy Suit Asserts TCPA Violation ------------------------------------------------- GAYLA F. MURPHY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. DIRECT ENERGY SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-01454-N (N.D. Tex., June 19, 2019) is an action on behalf or Plaintiff and numerous other individuals against Defendant pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the Texas Debt Collection Act ("TDCA") for Defendant's unlawful conduct. The instant action stems from Defendant's attempts to collect upon a consumer debt for personal utility services that Plaintiff purportedly owes to Defendant. The Defendant's relentless collection campaign caused Plaintiff to demand that Defendant cease contacting her. Despite Plaintiff's efforts, Defendant continued to regularly call her cellular phone. The Defendant has contacted Plaintiff at least 15 times after her demands that Defendant stop contacting her cellular phone. The Defendant's conduct directed towards Plaintiff is indicative of a pattern and practice wherein Defendant continues to call consumers attempting to collect upon debts after such consumers have requested that such calls stop, says the complaint. Plaintiff is a natural person residing in Dallas, Texas, which is located within the Northern District of Texas. Defendant is a utility company organized under the laws of the State of Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nathan C. Volheim, Esq. Taxiarchis Hatzidimitriadis, Esq. Eric D. Coleman, Esq. Sulaiman Law Group, Ltd. 2500 South Highland Ave., Suite 200 Lombard, IL 60148 Phone: (630) 581-5858 Fax: (630) 575-8188 Email: nvolheim@sulaimanlaw.com thatz@sulaimanlaw.com ecoleman@sulaimanlaw.com DNF ASSOCIATES: Viernes Sues over Debt Collection Practices ----------------------------------------------------------- RONALD VIERNES, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. DNF Associates, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00316-JMS-KJM (D. Hawaii, June 19, 2019), alleges that Defendant violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, by their illegal efforts to collect a consumer debt. The action also seeks for damages against the Defendant for unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of trade or commerce in violation of Sections 443B-18, 19, and 20 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes. According to the complaint, DNF Associates is regularly engaged in the business of buying consumer debts in default from banks and others at a steep discount and then proceeding to collect that debt. Given the large number of accounts that DNF Associates buys each year, it has established certain policies and practices to systemize its collection practices. DNF Associates collects its accounts by filing collection lawsuits in Hawaii State Courts. DNF Associates is not licensed as a debt collector in the State of Hawaii and has an unfair advantage over Hawaii’s consumers and licensed business owners. DNF Associates uses the same means of collecting debts described above as part of a regular and systemic approach to collect many accounts claimed to have been acquired by DNF Associates and alleged to be owed by dozens or more of Hawaii's citizens.[BN] Attorney for the Plaintiff are: Justin A. Brackett, Esq. 515 Ward Avenue Honolulu, HI 96814 Telephone: (808) 377-6778 E-mail: justinbrackettlaw@gmail.com E&A BAKERY: Violates ADA, Duncan Suit Asserts --------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against E&A Bakery Holdings, LLC. The case is styled as Eugene Duncan, ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff v. E&A Bakery Holdings, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-05811 (S.D. N.Y., June 20, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. E&A Bakery Holdings, LLC operates bakeshops around the State of New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq. The Marks Law Firm PC 175 Varick Street 3rd Floor New York, NY 10014 Phone: (646) 770-3775 Fax: (646) 867-2639 Email: bmarkslaw@gmail.com EAST COAST INTERIORS: Martinez Seeks to Recover Wages Under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------------- RICARDO JESUS LAZO MARTINEZ, On Behalf of Himself and Others Similarly Situated v. EAST COAST INTERIORS, INC. And RANDY EASLICK, Case No. 3:19-cv-00423-JAG (E.D. Va., June 6, 2019), seeks to recover alleged unpaid wages and statutory damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. ECI is a corporation formed under the laws of Commonwealth of Virginia with its principal place of business in North Chesterfield, Virginia. ECI has offered construction, drywall, framing, and related services to clients in Virginia, Maryland, and a variety of other states and jurisdictions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregg C. Greenberg, Esq. ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC 8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 400 Silver Spring, MD 20910 Telephone: (301) 587-9373 Facsimile: (301) 587-9397 E-mail: ggreenberg@zagfirm.com EDWARD D JONES: Huang Appeals Ruling in McDonald Suit to 8th Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Objector Shiyang Huang filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the lawsuit titled Charlene McDonald, et al. v. Edward D. Jones & Co., et al., Case No. 4:16-cv-01346-JAR, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit was brought to recover damages as a result of the Defendants' breach of fiduciary duty and prohibited transactions under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). The appellate case is captioned as Charlene McDonald, et al. v. Edward D. Jones & Co., et al., Case No. 19-2158, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Objector-Appellant Shiyang Huang, of Topeka, Kansas, appears pro se.[BN] Plaintiff Charlene F. McDonald, individually and on behalf of a class of all other persons similarly situated, and on behalf of the Edward D. Jones & Co. Profit Sharing and 401(k) Plan, is represented by: Gregory Y. Porter, Esq. BAILEY GLASSER LLP 1055 Thomas Jefferson Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20007 Telephone: (202) 463-2101 E-mail: gporter@baileyglasser.com - and - Robert A. Izard, Esq. IZARD KINDALL & RAABE LLP 29 South Main Street, Suite 305 West Hartford, CT 06107 Telephone: (860) 493-6292 Facsimile: (860) 493-6290 E-mail: rizard@ikrlaw.com Plaintiff Charlene F. McDonald, individually and on behalf of a class of all other persons similarly situated, and on behalf of the Edward D. Jones & Co. Profit Sharing and 401(k) Plan, and Plaintiffs Windle Pompey, Valeska Schultz, Melanie Waugh and Rosalind Staley are represented by: Jeffrey Russell Baron, Esq. BAILEY GLASSER LLP One North Old State Capital Plaza Springfield, IL 62701 Telephone: (217) 528-1177 E-mail: jbaron@baileyglasser.com - and - Mark G. Boyko, Esq. BAILEY GLASSER LLP 8012 Bonhomme Avenue, Suite 300 Clayton, MO 63105 Telephone: (314) 863 5446 Facsimile: (314) 863 5483 E-mail: mboyko@baileyglasser.com Plaintiffs Windle Pompey, Valeska Schultz, Melanie Waugh and Rosalind Staley are represented by: Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq. Julie E. Siebert-Johnson, Esq. KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087-0000 Telephone: (610) 667-7706 E-mail: mgyandoh@ktmc.com jsjohnson@ktmc.com Defendants-Appellees Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., et al., are represented by: James F. Bennett, Esq. Philip Allen Cantwell, Esq. DOWD BENNETT LLP 7733 Forsyth, Suite 1900 Saint Louis, MO 63105-0000 Telephone: (314) 889-7300 E-mail: jbennett@dowdbennett.com pcantwell@dowdbennett.com - and - James E. Crowe, III, Esq. EDWARD D. JONES & CO. 12555 Manchester Road Saint Louis, MO 63131 Telephone: (314) 515-2000 - and - Thomas J. Kavaler, Esq. Jonathan D. Thier, Esq. CAHILL GORDON & REINDEL LLP 80 Pine Street New York, NY 10005-0000 Telephone: (212) 701-3000 E-mail: tkavaler@cahill.com ENCORE HEALTH: Jones Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------- KAREN JONES and NICOLE DORAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. ENCORE HEALTH RESOURCES, LLC, EMIDS TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD. CORP., EMIDS TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD. CORP. f/k/a ENCORE HEALTH RESOURCES, LLC, and SPECIALIST RESOURCES GLOBAL, INC. d/b/a EMIDS TECHNOLOGIES, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-02682-CMR (E.D. Pa., June 20, 2019) seeks to recover unpaid wages and related penalties and damages for themselves and other similarly-situated Credentialed Trainers to remedy Defendants' practice and policy of willfully failing and refusing to properly pay Plaintiffs and other similarly situated Credentialed Trainers all of their earned and accrued wages on their regular pay dates. Defendants provide staffing services to customers throughout the United States, including Pennsylvania. Defendants' main function was to assist hospitals and healthcare organizations learn and navigate a new integrated health computer system. Plaintiffs worked for Defendants as Credentialed Trainers in the Fall of 2017, providing assistance to Defendants' clients in using healthcare-related software. Plaintiffs contend that Defendants, jointly and severally, violated the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA") by knowingly suffering and/or permitting Representative Plaintiffs and the putative Class and Collective members to work in excess of 40 hours per week without properly compensating them at an overtime premium rate for these overtime hours, says the complaint.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David J. Cohen, Esq. STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP 604 Spruce Street Philadelphia, PA 19106 Phone: (215) 873-4836 Fax: (312) 233-1560 Email: dcohen@stephanzouras.com - and - Ryan F. Stephan, Esq. James B. Zouras, Esq. Andrew C. Ficzko, Esq. STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP 100 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 2150 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (312) 233-1550 Fax: (312) 233-1560 Email: rstephan@stephanzouras.com jzouras@stephanzouras.com aficzko@stephanzouras.com ENTEGRA FINANCIAL: Parshall Seeks More Info on Sale to Bancshares ----------------------------------------------------------------- PAUL PARSHALL, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. ENTEGRA FINANCIAL CORP., ROGER D. PLEMENS, RONALD D. BEALE, LOUIS E. BUCK JR., ADAM W. BURRELL, R. MATTHEW DUNBAR, CHARLES M. EDWARDS, CRAIG A. FOLWER, JAMES M. GARNER, FRED H. JONES, BEVERLY W. MASON, DOUGLAS W. KROSKE, FIRST CITIZENS BANCSHARES, INC., FIRST-CITIZENS BANK & TRUST COMPANY, and FC MERGER SUBSIDIARY VII, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01152-UNA (D. Del., June 20, 2019) is an action stemming from a proposed transaction announced on April 24, 2019, pursuant to which of Entegra Financial Corp. will be acquired by First Citizens BancShares, Inc. ("BancShares"), a Delaware corporation, and its affiliates First-Citizens Bank & Trust Company ("FC Bank") and FC Merger Subsidiary VII, Inc. ("Merger Sub," and together with BancShares and FC Bank, "First Citizens"). On April 23, 2019, Entegra's Board of Directors caused the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with First Citizens. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, shareholders of Entegra will receive $30.18 in cash for each share of Entegra they own. On May 24, 2019, defendants filed a proxy statement with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the Proposed Transaction. The Proxy Statement omits material information with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the Proxy Statement false and misleading. Accordingly, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the Proxy Statement. Plaintiff is the owner of Entegra common stock. Entegra is the holding company of Entegra Bank. Entegra's common stock is traded on the NASDAQ Global Market under the ticker symbol "ENFC".[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 Phone: (302) 295-5310 Facsimile: (302) 654-7530 Email: 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 Phone: (484) 324-6800 Facsimile: (484) 631-1305 Email: rm@maniskas.com ERIC RICHARD: Breeze Files ADA Suit in New Jersey ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against ERIC RICHARD COMPANY, L.L.C. The case is styled as BYRON BREEZE, JR. on behalf of himself, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ERIC RICHARD COMPANY, L.L.C., Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-14029 (D. N.J., June 20, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. ERIC RICHARD COMPANY, L.L.C. distributes medical and surgical supplies to nursing homes, home health care companies, and individuals.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: ERIK MATHEW BASHIAN, ESQ. BASHIAN & PAPANTONIOU, P.C. 500 OLD COUNTRY ROAD, SUITE 302 GARDEN CITY, NE 11530 Phone: (516) 279-1554 Email: eb@bashpaplaw.com EUCLID BEACH: Ballard Suit Asserts Breach of Contract ----------------------------------------------------- KAITLYN BALLARD, and MICHAEL BALLARD, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. EUCLID BEACH L.P. d/b/a EUCLID BEACH MOBILE HOME PARK, Defendant, Case No. CV-19-917077 filed in Cuyahoga Court of Common Pleas on June 20, 2019, is an action against Defendant Euclid Beach who materially breached a contract by failing to implement policy on water charges properly; failing to fully disclose water charges; and charging unreasonable water fees. On February 10, 2017, the Ballards entered into a Month to Month Rental Agreement (the "Rental Agreement") with Euclid Beach. The Rental Agreement is a contract between the Ballards and Euclid Beach. The Rental Agreement states that a resident agrees to pay for all utilities "furnished" by Euclid Beach or utility companies. The Rental Agreement does not specifically state what utilities are "furnished" nor the amount charged for use. The Rental Agreement does not specify the charges for water use or notify a resident that there is a minimum monthly charge for water use. Although the Rental Agreement states that "a copy of LANDLORD'S park rules and regulations have been provided and incorporated herein by reference," Euclid Beach failed to present the Park's rules and regulations to the Ballards when the Ballards signed the Rental Agreement. On February 22, 2017, Euclid Beach provided the Ballards with their first monthly billing statement. However, Euclid Beach verbally told the Ballards that they owed $55.00 for "Water/Sewer", although they had not used any water since moving into the Park and they were not informed in writing of the Park's rules and regulations on water use. For the remainder of 2017, as the Ballards would later discover, Euclid Beach overcharged the Ballards approximately $29.41 on average each month for water. In 2018, as the Ballards would later discover, Euclid Beach overcharged the Ballards approximately $27.85 on average each month for water. Since February 2017, Euclid Beach has overcharged the Ballards hundreds of dollars for water. On information and belief, Euclid Beach is attempting to recoup water charges for the large body of water caused by a leak in the Park's water system by overcharging the residents of the Park, says the complaint. Plaintiffs are residents of Cuyahoga County with their primary residence located at 101 Magnolia Drive, Cleveland, OH 44110. Euclid Beach provides water services to the residents of the Park through utility submetering.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Marc E. Dann, Esq. Brian D. Flick, Esq. Michael A. Smith, Jr., Esq. Dann Law P.O. Box 6031040 Cleveland, OH 44103 Phone: (216) 373-0539 Facsimile: (216) 373-0536 FACEBOOK INC: Class Suit Over Unwanted Text Messages Revived ------------------------------------------------------------ Ross Todd, writing for Law.com, reports that a federal appeals court has revived a proposed class action lawsuit against Facebook Inc. brought on behalf of non-Facebook users who claim they've gotten unsolicited texts from the company in violation of a federal robocalling statute. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed a lower court decision that had tossed a lawsuit brought by Noah Duguid, a non-Facebook user who claimed the company violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) by mistakenly sending him security messages meant to alert users when their account had been accessed from an unrecognized device or browser. Duguid claimed that Facebook failed to respond to his multiple text and email requests to stop sending him the texts. "The messages Duguid received were automated, unsolicited, and unwanted," wrote Judge M. Margaret McKeown, adding that the messages fell outside an exemption to TCPA liability for emergency messages that has been outlined by the Federal Communications Commission. "Duguid did not have a Facebook account, so his account could not have faced a security issue, and Facebook's messages fall outside even the broad construction the FCC has afforded the emergency exception," McKeown wrote. The court, however, joined with the Fourth Circuit in finding that an exemption for calls "made solely to collect a debt owed to or guaranteed by the United States" added to the TCPA by Congress in a 2015 amendment violated the First Amendment. But also like the Fourth Circuit, the court found that the federal debt collection exemption was severable from the TCPA, refusing a request from Facebook and its lawyers at Latham & Watkins to find the entire statute unconstitutional. Facebook representatives didn't immediately respond to a request for comment on June 13. The company and its lawyers have argued that the statute, which has statutory penalties of $500 per violation and was initially aimed at curbing unwanted calls from telemarketers, was never meant to put companies in Facebook's position on the hook potentially for millions in liability. Duguid's lawyer, Sergei Lemberg of Wilton, Connecticut-based Lemberg Law, said that Facebook has indicated that there are a significant number of people who, like his client, received unwanted texts. "What's important is the message: Man versus machine. Man wins. Privacy matters," Lemberg said. "I think Facebook for years and years was pretty cavalier, to say the least, about individuals' privacy and this case is different from some of the stuff that's out there publicly, but it's cut from the same cloth." Lawyers from the U.S. Department of Justice intervened in the case to defend the constitutionality of the statute, but took no position on whether Facebook violated the TCPA. The Chamber of Commerce, represented by counsel from Jones Day, filed an amicus brief asking the Ninth Circuit to invalidate the restriction on using an automatic telephone dialing system to call cellphones. [GN] FACEBOOK INC: Suit Over Inflated Viewership Metrics Settled ----------------------------------------------------------- Eriq Gardner, writing for Metrics, reports that Facebook was alleged to have been knowingly overstating viewership by as much as 900 percent. Several advertising agencies told a California federal court on June 12 that Facebook has agreed to settlement terms to resolve a putative class action alleging that the social media giant wildly overstated the average time its users spent watching paid advertisements. The amended complaint pointed to a 2016 story in The Wall Street Journal revealing that Facebook's metrics had been overstated by between 60 and 80 percent. According to the plaintiffs, Facebook admitted its mistake, but actually, the problem was much larger. "In addition to Facebook knowing about the problem far longer than previously acknowledged, Facebook's records also show that the impact of its miscalculation was much more severe than reported," stated the complaint. "The average viewership metrics were not inflated by only 60%-80%; they were inflated by some 150 to 900%." Facebook responded that such calculations came from selectively used information from internal discussions and documents produced by Facebook during discovery. The Mark Zuckerberg company also argued for dismissal based on the lack of allegation that the ad agencies led by LLE One actually saw the erroneous metrics and because of those metrics decided to spend more money on Facebook video ads. In April, after considering amended pleadings, U.S. District Court Judge Jeffrey White allowed claims of fraud and unfair competition to move forward. Now, however, the parties are requesting a pause on the deadlines in the litigation, including class certification briefing, in light of a settlement that is being memorialized. The deal comes after mediation. No terms have yet been released, and plaintiff attorney, Eric Gibbs, Esq. -- ehg@classlawgroup.com -- says there's no further information he can provide at this time. The proposed settlement will need to be approved by the judge and figures to be presented in court in the next few months. A Facebook spokesperson said, "This lawsuit is without merit but we believe resolving this case is in the best interests of the company and advertisers." [GN] FCA US LLC: Wrangler's 'Death Wobble' Leads to Class Action Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Christopher Smith, writing for Motor1.com, reports that owners of late model Jeep Wranglers are taking to the courts over the so-called "death wobble" that's been reported to affect some versions of the popular off-roader. The Detroit News reports that a class-action lawsuit was filed on June 12 in the Detroit's U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, targeting FCA and alleging the automaker knew about the issue but neither addressed it nor warned buyers at the time of sale about a potential problem. In a statement to Motor1.com, a Jeep representative said the following: "FCA US has not been served with this lawsuit and cannot comment on its allegations at this time. However, we note that any manufacturer vehicle equipped with a solid axle can experience steering system vibration and, if experienced, it is routinely corrected. Indeed, most reported incidents of steering system vibration are linked to the following: * Modifications to a vehicle, such as poorly installed or maintained after-market equipment, such as lift kits and oversized tires. * Damaged or worn steering system components. * Incorrect tire pressure. As we previously reported, Wrangler owners identify the crux of the problem as a vibration in the steering wheel that can get quite bad. It usually occurs at higher speeds after hitting a bump, with the only remedy being to slow down. The Detroit News further elaborates on the matter, saying an "uncontrollable side-to-side shaking" can result as well. It's apparently nothing new, though the class-action lawsuit specifically identifies 2015-2018 model-year Jeep Wrangler. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration lists numerous complaints of a violent shaking of the wheel in Jeep Wranglers, though no official investigation is presently underway. However, The Detroit News reports says safety advocates in Washington have campaigned for a closer look at the potential issue as far back as 2012. The lawsuit alleges Jeep has replaced steering dampers for some owners experiencing issues under warranty, but that it doesn't fix the problem. Throughout all of this, there's no mention of the new Jeep Gladiator experiencing problems. [GN] FLINT HILLS: Downey Alleges Systemic Illegal Employment Practices ----------------------------------------------------------------- PHILIP DOWNEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. FLINT HILLS RESOURCES, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-04119 (N.D. Ill., June 19, 2019), challenges the Defendant's systemic illegal employment practices which resulted in violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant acted intentionally and with deliberate indifference and conscious disregard of the rights of its employees in, among other things, failing to pay overtime wages in the correct amount due. The alleged unlawful acts have a direct effect on Plaintiff and other employees similarly situated, the complaint says. The Plaintiff and the putative Class Members have suffered damages and will continue to suffer the same harm as the representative Plaintiff as a result of Defendant's wrongful conduct, unless the relief requested is granted, the lawsuit says. The Plaintiff first became employed by Defendant, and began working for Defendant, during or about 2004 as a chemical operator. Plaintiff was later promoted to permanent consul operator. The amount of time worked by Plaintiff and other similarly-situated employees of Defendant was recorded by through an automated time clock system. The Plaintiff and other similarly-situated employees of Defendant were paid by Defendant on a bi-weekly basis. They worked an alternating schedule whereby they would work 36 hours during some workweeks and 48 hours during other workweeks. During the workweeks when Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees of Defendant worked 48 hours, one of their shifts was paid at a reduced hourly rate. The Defendant thereby avoided paying the proper legal overtime rate of one and one-half times the regular wage of Plaintiff and the other affected employees for those workweeks. The Defendant did not pay Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees at a rate not less than one and one-half times their regular wage for time worked in excess of forty hours per week during many pay periods during their employment with Defendant.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 333 Skokie Blvd., Suite 103 Northbrook, IL 60062 Telephone: (224) 218-0882 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: dlevin@toddflaw.com FORSTER & GARBUS: Park Suit Alleges FDCPA Violation --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Forster & Garbus, LLP. The case is styled as Eun K. Park individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Forster & Garbus, LLP, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-03621-ARR-ST (E.D. N.Y., June 20, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Forster & Garbus LLP provides legal services. The Company specializes in collecting debts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig B. Sanders, Esq. David M. Barshay, Esq. Barshay Sanders, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Phone: (516) 203-7600 Fax: (516) 281-7601 Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com dbarshay@barshaysanders.com FRONTLINE ASSET: Perl Files Suit Asserting FDCPA Breach ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Frontline Asset Strategies, LLC. The case is styled as Gittel Perl individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Frontline Asset Strategies, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 7:19-cv-05787 (S.D. N.Y., June 20, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Frontline Asset Strategies provides third-party collection services and first-party business process outsourcing services for many different types of accounts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David M. Barshay, Esq. Craig B. Sanders, Esq. Barshay Sanders, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Phone: (516) 203-7600 Fax: (516) 281-7601 Email: dbarshay@barshaysanders.com csanders@barshaysanders.com GENERAL MOTORS: Gallagher, Wyatt Seek Overtime Pay -------------------------------------------------- A class action complaint has been filed against General Motors Company (GM) for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The case is captioned KELLY C. GALLAGHER and ROBERT WYATT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-11836-RHC-MKM (E.D. Mich., June 20, 2019). Kelly C. Gallagher, a component validation engineer for GM and Aerotek CE, a division of Aerotek, Inc., and Robert Wyatt, a business analyst for GM and TEKsystems, Inc., were paid hourly and are their positions are not exempt from the overtime provisions of the FLSA. In their complaint, Plaintiffs allege that GM unlawfully failed and refused to pay them overtime pay for overtime worked, notwithstanding that they were and are paid hourly and are not and have not been exempt from overtime pay. In addition, Plaintiffs assert that GM also failed to keep accurate time records as required by law. GM is a foreign limited liability company who is doing business in the state of Michigan, with its global headquarters located at 300 Renaissance Center, Detroit, Michigan. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Daniel W. Rucker, Esq. Patricia A. Stamler, Esq. Steve J. Weiss, Esq. HERTZ SCHRAM PC 1760 S. Telegraph Road, Suite 300 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302 Telephone: (248) 335-5000 E-mail: drucker@hertzschram.com pstamler@hertzschram.com sweiss@hertzschram.com GUARDIAN INDUSTRIES: Gonzalez Seeks Minimum Wage, OT Pay -------------------------------------------------------- A class action complaint has been filed against Guardian Industries, LLC for alleged violations of the California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions Code. The case is captioned, EDUARDO GONZALEZ, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. GUARDIAN INDUSTRIES, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, Defendants, Case No. 19CECG02134 (Cal. Super., Fresno Cty., June 20, 2019). Plaintiff Eduardo Gonzalez alleges that the Defendants failed to provide legally-compliant meal periods, failed to pay proper minimum and overtime wages. In addition, Plaintiff Gonzalez asserts that the Defendants have engaged and continue to engage in unfair and/or unlawful business practices in California by failing to pay Plaintiff all overtime and minimum wages owed, and failing to pay all required meal period premium payments. Guardian Industries, LLC is engaged in a glass manufacturing business that produces high performance glass for architectural, residential, interior, transportation and technical glass application. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul K. Haines, Esq. Fletcher W. Schmidt, Esq. Andrew J. Rowbotham, Esq. Brittaney D. de la Torre, Esq. HAINES LAW GROUP, APC 222 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Ste. 1550 El Segundo, CA 90245 Telephone: (424) 292-2350 Facsimile: (424) 292-2355 E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com fschmidt@haineslawgroup.com arowbotham@haineslawgroup.com bdelatorre@haineslawgroup.com HEALTH INSURANCE: Levine Kellogg Files Suit Over Insurance Fraud ---------------------------------------------------------------- As health insurance fraud penetrates America's healthcare industry to target vulnerable consumers, Miami-based law firm Levine Kellogg Lehman Schneider + Grossman (LKLSG) and Atlanta-based The Doss Firm filed a class action complaint against Health Insurance Innovations (HIIQ), Inc. and Health Plan Intermediaries Holdings, LLC (HPIH) for their role in the Simple Health Plans fraudulent insurance scheme. The lawsuit alleges HIIQ and HPIH directed, aided and abetted the $150 million fraud perpetrated by Simple Health Plans, a South Florida company shut down in October 2018 by the Federal Trade Commission. The lawsuit alleges that HIIQ took part in defrauding hundreds of thousands of vulnerable consumers nationwide, leading them to believe that their limited benefit indemnity plans and medical discount plans were major medical insurance that met the Affordable Care Act requirements. "The scheme carried out by HIIQ and HPIH through Simple Health Plans created devastating consequences for victims nationwide," said Jason Kellogg, Partner at LKLSG. "These folks thought they were doing the right thing in purchasing health insurance. Instead, they were left mostly uninsured." Co-Lead Plaintiff Chris Mitchell of Kansas was left with bills exceeding $40,000 after having surgery to treat an aggressive form of cancer. Co-Lead Plaintiff Elizabeth Belin of Ohio was billed more than $48,000 in medical expenses because her limited benefit indemnity plan, which she was told was a PPO, did not cover the surgery. Simple Health was one of the largest brokers for HIIQ, a publicly traded distributor of health insurance and supplemental plans that financed, sold plans through, acted as the third-party administrator for, and provided customer service for Simple Health. The Federal Trade Commission warned that thousands of potentially unaware victims continue to be charged by HIIQ for plans purchased through Simple Health. "This scheme victimized the most vulnerable patients across the country," said attorney Jason Doss, owner of the Doss Firm. "The plaintiffs are the consumers that the Affordable Care Act was designed to protect." For more information: Visit: www.simplehealthlawsuit.com Call: 855-436-7752 [GN] HIDDEN WHARF: Palacios Files Class Suit in New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Hidden Wharf, Inc. The case is styled as Victoria Palacios and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. The Hidden Wharf, Inc. and William Reinhardt, Defendants, Case No. 603614/2019 filed in New York Supreme Court, Nassau County on June 12, 2019. The District Wharf is a waterfront neighborhood, home to thousands of residents and employees, three hotels, a 6000-seat music venue, and over 50 shops and restaurants. Throughout the year, the community hosts vibrant festivals, events, and concerts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Leeds Brown Law, P.C. One Old Country Road, Ste.347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Tel: (516) 873-9550 The Defendant is represented by: Forchelli, Curto, Deegan, Schw 333 Earle Ovington Blvd. #1010 Uniondale, NY 11553 Tel: (516) 248-1700 INTERNATIONAL LASER: Courts Grants Motion to Certify Class ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit JOSUE ALVARADO, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, known and unknown, the Plaintiff, v. INTERNATIONAL LASER PRODUCTS, INC., INTERNATIONAL TONER CORP., and CRAIG FUNK, individually, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-07756 (N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer entered an order: 1. granting the Plaintiff's motion to certify class; and 2. directing the Plaintiffs to furnish an amended class notice, consistent with the court's rulings. The Plaintiff alleges that his employers, Defendants International Laser Products, Inc. and International Toner Corp., violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Minimum Wage Law by failing to pay overtime wages at the rate of one and one-half times Alvarado's straight pay rate. He seeks to represent a class of workers who were also allegedly victims of this practice.[CC] INTUIT, INC: Cook Suit over Turbo Tax Moved to N.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- The case, LAKESIA COOK, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. INTUIT, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 5:19-cv-01011 (Filed June 2, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (Oakland) on June 19, 2019. The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:19-cv-03460-KAW to the proceeding. The case is assigned to Hon. Judge Kandis A. Westmore. The Plaintiff brings the class action complaint to challenge the deceptive advertising and business practices of Intuit, Inc. with regard to Defendant's tax filing software commonly known as "Turbo Tax," by which Intuit used to promote/advertise purportedly "Free" tax filing services to millions of low earning Americans, only to deliberately divert them to their paid software services despite the consumers being eligible to obtain such tax-filing services at no cost at all.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Jason A. Ibey, Esq. Seyed Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 169 W 2710 S Circle, Suite 204F St. George, UT 84790 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: jason@kazlg.com ak@kazlg.com - and - Joshua B. Swigart, Esq. HYDE & SWIGART 2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101 San Diego, CA 92108-3551 Telephone: (619) 233-7770 Facsimile: (619) 297-1022 E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com - and - Nicholas Barthel, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC 245 Fischer Avenue Suite D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: nicholas@kazlg.com JORDAN'S FURNITURE: Sutton Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay ---------------------------------------------------- MATTHEW SUTTON and AMIE ARESTANI, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. JORDAN'S FURNITURE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 19-1763 (Commonwealth of Mass., June 19, 2019) is an action seeking to recover unpaid wages owed to them and all other similarly situated individuals who have worked as sales representatives for Jordan's Furniture, Inc. Although the sales representatives often work more than 40 hours in a week, and routinely work Sundays and holidays, Jordan's does not pay its sales representatives any overtime compensation or other premium pay, says the complaint. In addition, Jordan's has required its sales representatives to work Sundays without paying them 1.5 times their regular hourly rate. As a result of these practices, Jordan's has violated the overtime provision of the Massachusetts Minimum Fair Wage Law, as well as the Massachusetts Wage Act, the Plaintiff asserts. Plaintiffs worked for Jordan's as sales representatives from 2016 to 2019. Jordan's is a Massachusetts corporation that owns and operates a chain of furniture and mattress retail stores in and around Massachusetts.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Hillary Schwab, Esq. Brant Casavant, Esq. FAIR WORK P.C. 192 South Street. Suite 450 Boston. MA 02111 Phone: (617)607-3261 Fax: (617)488-2261 Email: hi1lary@fairworklaw.com brant@fairworklaw.com JPMORGAN CHASE: Class Status OK'd in 401(k) Excessive Fee Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Nevin E. Adams JD, writing for National Association of Plan Advisors, reports that an excessive fee suit has been granted class action status in federal court. This time it's a group of former participants in the JPMorgan Chase 401(k) Savings Plan, a plan that has approximately 266,000 to 300,000 participants and more than $14 billion in assets. Suit 'Case' In considering the petition for class action status, Judge Jesse M. Furman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York noted that the five named Plaintiffs in this case -- Antoinette Fondren, Ferdinand Orellana, William Stirsman, Sean Daly and James Monaghan -- were all participants in the plan, all of whom invested in different funds, each with different fees. Fondren invested in the Target Date 2030 Fund, Orellana invested in the Core Bond Fund, the Mid Cap Growth Fund, the Small Cap Core Fund, the Target Date 2045 Fund and others; Stirsman invested in the Core Bond Fund, the Target Date 2015 Fund and others; Daly invested in the Target Date 2050 Fund and others; and Monaghan invested in the Large Cap Growth Index Fund and others. Three of those plaintiffs -- Fondren, Daly and Monaghan -- signed arbitration agreements when accepting their employment with JPMorgan or its subsidiaries, in which they agreed to arbitrate all of their claims against Defendants except for "claims for benefits under a plan that is governed by [ERISA]," among others -- agreements that also stated that "[n]o claims may be arbitrated on a class or collective basis." As other of these excessive fee suits have done, this one -- filed in January 2017 -- took issue with the choice of active versus passive alternatives, but it was the prevalence of proprietary funds ("from years 2010 through 2015, approximately half of all the possible investment options were proprietary investment vehicles managed by the Bank or by another subsidiary of JPMorgan Chase," according to the suit) and the alleged complicity of their arrangement with BlackRock (which managed seven of the funds in the plan, in addition to the target-date funds, which the suit says were mostly index funds managed by BlackRock) that dominated the concerns expressed. Class, Backed The JP Morgan Chase defendants opposed class certification on several grounds, according to Judge Furman; they wanted to narrow the class definition to exclude funds in which the plaintiffs did not invest (because they lack standing to represent participants in those funds), that their arbitration agreements prevent three named Plaintiffs from acting as class representatives, and that it was not proper under Rule 23 for several reasons. With regard to the issue of standing with regard to funds in which they hadn't invested, the court noted that "the allegedly disloyal and imprudent conduct of defendants implicates the same set of concerns for investors in all [of the funds]" because the conduct relates to "the process Defendants used to manage the Plan." And, Judge Furman noted, "as other district courts in this Circuit have concluded . . . . [b]ecause the alleged harms are premised on the process Defendants used to manage the Plan, the claims involve similar inquiries and proof, and thus implicate the same set of concerns. Plaintiffs have class standing to pursue the claims on behalf of the absent class members, including those who invested in ... funds offered by the Plan in which none of them invested." Arbitration 'Cause As for the arbitration agreements, Judge Furman stated that the relevant factors to consider in the inquiry are: "(1) the time elapsed from when litigation was commenced until the request for arbitration; (2) the amount of litigation to date, including motion practice and discovery; and (3) proof of prejudice," going on to conclude that the JP Morgan Chase defendants "waived any right to compel arbitration." He noted that they "waited for more than a year to raise arbitration as an issue and now do so in briefing, not by motion," that they "did not mention arbitration while litigating a motion to dismiss or when filing an answer with other affirmative defenses," and that the parties had "conducted extensive discovery, including multiple depositions" -- actions, Furman noted that not only "demonstrate an intent to litigate," but that plaintiffs would be prejudiced if defendants now sought to compel arbitration. "Because Defendants waived any right to compel arbitration in this litigation, Plaintiffs are, in effect, not bound by the arbitration agreements," he wrote. "In this context, the unenforceable agreements cannot preclude Plaintiffs from representing the proposed class." Judge Furman then turned to the issue of class certification and conditions under Rule 23, finding that the plaintiffs here cleared the conditions of numerosity (there were thousands of members), commonality (the claims arose from the investment lineup provided to all participants), typicality, and adequacy of representation, and determined that the requisite conditions for certification were met. Class 'Act' Ultimately, the class certified consisted of "all persons, except Defendants and any other persons with responsibility for the Plan's investment menu, who were participants in or beneficiaries of the Plan, at any time between January 25, 2011 and the present, and whose individual accounts were invested in one or more of the following funds: the Growth and Income Fund; the Mid Cap Value Fund; the Mid Cap Growth Fund; the Small Cap Core Fund, but only if the investment occurred before December 19, 2015; the Core Bond Fund, but only if the investment occurred before March 12, 2016; and any of the Target Date Funds, but only if the investment occurred before April 1, 2016." The court appointed Daly, Fondren, Orellana and Stirsman -- but not Monaghan (who hadn't invested in the funds in question) as class representatives. As an additional matter, Judge Furman noted that the parties wanted to keep under seal exhibits containing internal JPMorgan documents about the Plan and the parts of a brief that rely on them, specifically excerpts from the 2016 Investment Policy Statement of the JPMorgan Chase 401(k) Savings Plan, minutes from the June 18, 2015 EPIC meeting, and minutes from the Sept. 22, 2015 EPIC meeting, since -- the defendants argued -- they contain "proprietary information concerning JPMorgan Chase's internal governance and reflect private deliberations." Judge Furman granted that motion to seal, directing that unredacted copies with the Court's Sealed Records Department. The case is Beach v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 2019 BL 214751, S.D.N.Y., No. 1:17-cv-00563-JMF, 6/11/19. Why This Matters The designation of a class, particularly one as large of this, certainly has to be of concern for defendants, but the big lesson here (not that it would have done much to dissuade the pursuit of the class action) would seem to be that arbitration agreements not promptly enforced/raised will be of little value. [GN] KIA MOTORS: Leblanc Sues Over Vehicle's Engine Defect ----------------------------------------------------- MELINDA LEBLANC, Plaintiffs, v. KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 19STCV21435 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., June 19, 2019) is an action seeking to redress GM's violations of California consumer fraud statutes, and also seeks recovery for Defendant's breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, and common law fraud. Defendant was engaged in the design, development, manufacture, distribution, marketing, selling, leasing, warranting, servicing, and repair of automobiles. Plaintiff purchased a 2013 Kia Optima vehicle identification number 5XXGN4A71DG095644, (the Subject Vehicle), which was manufactured and or distributed by Defendant on or about July 21, 2012. Plaintiff received an express written warranty, including, a 5-year/60,000 mile express bumper to bumper warranty, a 10- year/100,000 mile powertrain warranty which, inter alia, covers the engine and transmission. Subsequently, Defendant provided a 10-year/120,000 mile warranty extension on 2.0 and 2.4L GDI engines (including the Subject Vehicle's engine). Defendant undertook to preserve or maintain the utility or performance of the Subject Vehicle or to provide compensation if there is a failure in utility or performance for a specified period of time. The warranty provided, in relevant part, that in the event a defect developed with the Subject Vehicle during the warranty period, Plaintiff could deliver the Vehicle for repair services to Defendant's representative and the Subject Vehicle would be repaired. During the warranty period, the Subject Vehicle contained or developed defects, including but not limited to, latent defects causing oil flow to become restricted through vital areas of the engine resulting in stalling while in operation; defects related to the engine's rod bearings; defects related to the engine; defects causing excessive oil consumption; defects causing the Vehicle to burn oil; defects causing smoke to come out of the tailpipe; defects causing lower end knock; defects causing failure and/or replacement of the long block; defects requiring performance of Recall SC147; defects causing failure and/or replacement of the intake and/or exhaust manifolds, fuel injector seals, spark plugs and/or fly wheel bolts; defects causing metal shavings to contaminate the engine; defects causing metal shavings to contaminate the transmission; defects requiring performance of Recall SC114; defects requiring an engine control module ("ECM") update; defects causing failure and/or replacement of the flex coupler; defects causing shifting failure; defects causing failure and/or replacement of the transmission; defects causing storage of Diagnostic Trouble Code ("DTC") P0455; defects requiring the evap hose to be secured to purge valve; defects causing the illumination of the check engine light ("CEL"); defects requiring performance Recall SC165; defects requiring performance of Recall SC172; defects requiring performance of PI1803C; defects causing the failure and/or replacement of front brake pads; defects requiring the resurfacing of the front rotors; and/or any other defects described in the repair history for the Subject Vehicle (collectively, "Defects"). Said defects substantially impair the use, value, or safety of the Subject Vehicle. Plaintiff believes that prior to acquiring the Vehicle, Defendant were well aware and knew that 2.4L GDI engine installed on the Vehicle was defective but failed to disclose this fact to Plaintiff at the time of sale and thereafter. Specifically, Defendant knew (or should have known) that the KIA Vehicles equipped with the 2.0 or 2.4L GDI engine had Engine Defect (latent defects causing oil flow to become restricted through vital areas of the engine resulting in stalling while in operation; defects related to the engine's rod bearings; defects resulting in engine failure), says the complaint.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Tionna Dolin, Esq. Sean Crandall, Esq. Strategic Legal Practices A Professional Corporation 1840 Century Park East, Suite 430 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 929-4900 Facsimile: (310) 943-3838 Email: tdolin@slpattorney.com scrandall@slpattorney.com KINGSTONE COMPANIES: Gainey McKenna Files Class Action Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- Gainey McKenna & Egleston announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Kingstone Companies, Inc. (Nasdaq: KINS) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of those who purchased or acquired the securities of Kingstone between March 14, 2018 and April 29, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The Complaint alleges Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that the Company did not adequately follow industry best practices related to claims handling; (2) that, as a result, the Company did not record sufficient claims reserves; (3) that the Company lacked adequate internal control over financial reporting; 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. Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares during the Class Period should contact the Firm prior to the August 11, 2019 lead plaintiff motion deadline. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action please: Contact: Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. Gainey McKenna & Egleston Telephone: (212) 983-1300 Website: www.gme-law.com E-mail: tjmckenna@gme-law.com gegleston@gme-law.com [GN] L'OREAL USA: Borchenko Moves to Certify UCL California-Only Class ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled NATALIYA BORCHENKO, On Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated v. L'OREAL USA, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 2:19-cv-01426-R-AS (C.D. Cal.), asks the Court to certify this class: * Unfair Competition Law ("UCL") California-Only Class: All California consumers who within the applicable statute of limitations period until the date notice is disseminated, purchased the Products. Additionally, Ms. Borchenko asks the Court to appoint her as Class representative and to appoint the law firm of Bonnett, Fairbourn, Friedman & Balint, P.C. as Class Counsel. The Court will commence a hearing on November 4, 2019, at 10:00 a.m., to consider the Motion.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patricia N. Syverson, Esq. Manfred P. Muecke, Esq. BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C. 600 W. Broadway, Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 798-4593 E-mail: psyverson@bffb.com mmuecke@bffb.com - and - Elaine A. Ryan, Esq. Carrie A. Laliberte, Esq. BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C. 2325 E. Camelback Rd., Suite 300 Phoenix, AZ 85016 Telephone: (602) 274-1100 E-mail: eryan@bffb.com claliberte@bffb.com - and - David N. Lake, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF DAVID N. LAKE A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 16130 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 650 Encino, CA 91436 Telephone: (818) 788-5100 Facsimile: (818) 479-9990 E-mail: david@lakelawpc.com LE SHERIDAN LLC: Patterson Sues Over Lack of Relocation Assistance ------------------------------------------------------------------ MELISSA PATTERSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. LE SHERIDAN LLC, an Illinois limited liability company, Defendant, Case No. 2019CH07365 (Circuit Ct., Cook Cty., June 19, 2019) seeks redress for Defendant's continuous violation of the Chicago Municipal Ordinance, commonly known as the Keep Chicago Renting Ordinance ("KCRO"), and Defendant's violation of the Illinois Mortgage Foreclosure Law ("IMFL"). The Defendant acquired title to a Property pursuant to a mortgage foreclosure and mortgage foreclosure sale; however, the Defendant collected rents from Plaintiff and failed to pay or offer her a relocation assistance fee in violation of the KCRO; and Defendant collected rents from Plaintiff in violation of the IMFL, says the complaint. Patterson is an individual that resides in Chicago, Cook County, Illinois, and Patterson was a former tenant, and she resided at the Property. Le Sheridan is an Illinois limited liability company and it is in the business of, among other things, owning and developing residential rental real property. Le Sheridan is the current title owner of the Property.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel I. Schlade 134 N. LaSalle, Suite 1208 Chicago, IL 60602 Phone: 773-550-3775 Email: danschlade@gmai1.com LEADERS IN COMMUNITY: Jackson's Motion to Certify Class Denied -------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. William Alsup denied the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the lawsuit titled ROBERT JACKSON, JAMES BROOKS, and KYSER WILSON, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. LEADERS IN COMMUNITY ALTERNATIVES, INC., Case No. 3:18-cv-04609-WHA (N.D. Cal.). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations. The Plaintiffs assert a RICO claim based on predicate acts of extortion under state and federal law. They sought to certify a class pursuant to Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: All individuals who have been or will be put on LCA's Electronic Monitoring program by the Alameda County Court system from July 31, 2014, until this litigation is complete, who were threatened with jail by LCA or any of its employees, agents, or representatives. Judge Alsup opines that the Plaintiffs have failed to carry their burden under Rule 23(b)(3) of showing that common issues of fact or law will predominate in resolving their RICO claim.[CC] LIBERTY PLACE: Does not Properly Pay Workers, Nunez Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------- HECTOR NUNEZ and ESTEBAN ROSARIO-REYES, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. LIBERTY PLACE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, LPPM PAYROLL, LLC, and CRP PARK AVENUE, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-05743 (E.D. N.Y., June 19, 2019) is an action on behalf of Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated for Defendants' systemic and continuous violations of: (i) the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, as amended, ("FLSA"); (ii) the overtime provisions of the New York Labor Law ("NYLL") and N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. ("NYCCRR"); (iii) the spread of hours requirement as contained in the NYCCRR; (iv) the requirement that employers furnish employees with a written statement at the time of hiring, and on an annual basis, containing specific categories of information under the New York Wage Theft Prevention Act (the "NYWTPA"); (v) the requirement that employers furnish employees with wage statements on each payday containing specific categories of accurate information under the NYLL; and (vi) any other cause(s) of action that can be inferred from the facts set forth herein. Throughout the course of their employment, Plaintiffs regularly worked as many as seven days a week, and well over 40 hours each week, including the requirement that they be on-call 24 hours a day, seven days a week to deal with any issues that arose in the buildings they serviced, without receiving overtime pay and spread of hours as required by law. Plaintiffs' claims are limited to the damages they incurred during the relevant statutory period. The Defendants have willfully failed to pay their superintendents and handymen overtime wages as required by law, and deliberately and willfully engaged in conduct to conceal their unlawful pay practices, says the complaint. Plaintiffs were building superintendents and handymen who worked for the Defendants from August 2013 until on or about March of 2017. Defendants are believed to operate as an enterprise, owning and managing at least 35 residential apartment buildings, during the relevant time period, throughout the City of New York.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Chaya M. Gourarie, Esq. JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC 225 Broadway, Suite 2700 New York, NY 10007 Phone: (212) 227-5700 Fax: (212) 406-6890 LIGHT TO TOUGH: Duncan Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Light To Tough Laser, LLC. The case is styled as Eugene Duncan, ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff v. Light To Tough Laser, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-05809 (S.D. N.Y., June 20, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Light To Tough Laser, LLC is a manufacturer of lasers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq. The Marks Law Firm PC 175 Varick Street 3rd Floor New York, NY 10014 Phone: (646) 770-3775 Fax: (646) 867-2639 Email: bmarkslaw@gmail.com LIGHTHOUSE LIVING: Broadway Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lighthouse Living Services Inc. The case is styled as Nataja Broadway, Macarey Littlejohn, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Lighthouse Living Services Inc., Does 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 34-2019-00259037-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., June 20, 2019). The case type is stated as "Other Employment". Lighthouse Living Services Inc. is a company based out of United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by Gary R Basham, Esq. MAMMOTH ENERGY: Faces Normantas Securities Suit in Oklahoma ----------------------------------------------------------- JUSTAS NORMANTAS, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MAMMOTH ENERGY SERVICES, INC., ARTY STRAEHLA, and MARK LAYTON, Defendants, Case No. 5:19-cv-00560-SLP (W.D. Okla., June 19, 2019) is a class action on behalf of persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded Mammoth securities from October 19, 2017 through June 5, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff seeks to recover compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). On October 19, 2017, Mammoth announced in a press release that its subsidiary, Cobra Acquisitions LLC ("Cobra"), entered into a contract with the Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority ("PREPA") to aid in the rebuilding of Puerto Rico's energy infrastructure. On November 11, 2017, Mammoth filed a Form 10-Q with the SEC, which provided its financial results and position for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2017 (the "3Q 2017 10-Q"). The 3Q 2017 10-Q was signed by Defendants Straehla and Layton. The 3Q 2017 10- Q contained signed SOX certifications by Defendants Straehla and Layton attesting to the accuracy of financial reporting, the disclosure of any material changes to the Company's internal control over financial reporting and the disclosure of all fraud. However, the statements were materially false and/or misleading because they misrepresented and failed to disclose adverse facts pertaining to the Company's business, operations, and prospects, which were known to Defendants or recklessly disregarded by them, says the complaint. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Mammoth's subsidiary, Cobra, improperly obtained two infrastructure contracts with PREPA that totaled over $1.8 billion; (2) specifically, the contracts were awarded as the result of improper steering and not a competitive RFP process; and (3) as a result, Defendants' statements about Mammoth's business, operations and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. Plaintiff purchased Mammoth securities during the Class Period and was economically damaged thereby. Defendant Mammoth purports to operate as an oilfield service company operating in three segments: Infrastructure Services, Pressure Pumping Services, and Natural Sand Proppant Services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William B. Federman, OBA #2853 FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 North Pennsylvania Ave. Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Phone: (405) 235-1560 Facsimile: (405) 239-2112 Email: wbf@federmanlaw.com - and - Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Phone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com - and - Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Phone: (312) 377-1181 Facsimile: (312) 377-1184 Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com MAMMOTH ENERGY: Zhang Law Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Zhang Investor Law announces the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of shareholders who bought shares of Mammoth Energy Services, Inc. (NASDAQ: TUSK) from October 19, 2017 through June 5, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Mammoth investors under the federal securities laws. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than August 6, 2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation follow this https://tinyurl.com/y3ubv58y or to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Sophie Zhang, Esq. or Spencer Lee toll-free at 800-991-3756 or email info@zhanginvestorlaw.com, slee@zhanginvestorlaw.com for information on the class action. According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Mammoth's subsidiary, Cobra, improperly obtained two infrastructure contracts with PREPA that totaled over $1.8 billion; (2) specifically, the contracts were awarded as the result of improper steering and not a competitive RFP process; and (3) as a result, Defendants' statements about Mammoth's business, operations and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. A class has not been certified. You may retain counsel of your choice. You may take no action at this time and be an absent class member. Your ability to obtain a recovery is not dependent upon being a lead plaintiff. Contact: Sophie Zhang, Esq. Spencer Lee Zhang Investor Law P.C. 99 Wall Street, Suite 232 New York, New York 10005 Phone: (800) 991-3756 Email: info@zhanginvestorlaw.com slee@zhanginvestorlaw.com [GN] MDL 2887: Conley Suit over Tainted Dog Food Consolidated -------------------------------------------------------- The case, Stanley Conley, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. HILL'S PET NUTRITION, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 19-4363 (Filed March 28, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas (Kansas City) on June 19, 2019. The District of Kansas Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-02330-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. Plaintiff seeks monetary relief and an order forcing Hill's Pet to provide appropriate injunctive relief by ensuring that all potentially affected products are identified on Hill's website and removed from shelves. The Conley 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: Andrew A. Lemmon, Esq. LEMMON LAW FIRM, LLC P.O. Box 904 15058 River Rd Hahnville LA, 70057 Telephone: (985) 783-6789 Facsimile: (985) 783-1333 E-mail: andrew@lemmonlawfirm.com - and - Gary E. Mason, Esq. Danielle L. Perry, Esq. WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON, LLP 5101 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Ste. 305 Washington, DC 20016 Telephone: (202) 640-1168 Facsimile: (202) 429-2294 E-mail: gmason@wbmllp.com dperry@wbmllp.com Attorneys for the Defendant are: James M. Garner, Esq. John T. Balhoff, II, Esq. SHER, GARNER, CAHILL, RICHTER, KLEIN & HILBERT, LLC 909 Poydras St., 28th Floor, Suite 2800 New Orleans, LA 70112-1033 Telephone: (504) 299-2100 - and - Hannah Yael Shay Chanoine, Esq. O'MELVENY & MYERS, LLP Times Square Tower 7 Times Square New York, NY 10038 Telephone: (212) 326-2000 MDL 2887: Hall Suit over Tainted Dog Food Consolidated ------------------------------------------------------ The case, GEORGEANNE HALL individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, vs. HILL'S PET NUTRITION, INC. and HILL'S PET NUTRITION SALES, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-01423 (Filed Feb. 26, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas (Kansas City) on June 19, 2019. The District of Kansas Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-02329-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. Plaintiff seeks monetary relief and an order forcing Hill's Pet to provide appropriate injunctive relief by ensuring that all potentially affected products are identified on Hill's website and removed from shelves. The Hall 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: Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P. 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-6900 Facsimile: (612) 339-0981 E-mail: rapeterson@locklaw.com rkshelquist@locklaw.com - and - Conrad B. Stephens, Esq. STEPHENS & STEPHENS LLP 505 South McClelland Street Santa Maria, CA 93454 Telephone: (805) 922-1951 Facsimile: (805) 922-8013 E-mail: conrad@stephensfirm.com - and - Kevin A. Seely, Esq. Steven M. McKany, Esq. ROBBINS ARROYO LLP 5040 Shoreham Place San Diego, CA 92122 Telephone: (619) 525-3990 Facsimile: (619) 525-3991 E-mail: kseely@robbinsarroyo.com smckany@robbinsarroyo.com - and - Charles J. Laduca, Esq. Katherine Van Dyck, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP 4725 Wisconsin Ave NW, Suite 200 Washington, DC 20016 Telephone: 202-789-3960 Facsimile: 202-789-1813 E-mail: kvandyck@cuneolaw.com charles@cuneolaw.com - and LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC JOSEPH J. DEPALMA SUSANA CRUZ HODGE 570 Broad Street, Suite 1201 Newark, NJ 07102 Telephone: (973) 623-3000 E-mail: jdepalma@litedepalma.com scruzhodge@litedepalma.com Attorneys for the Defendant are: Amy J. Laurendeau, Esq. Hannah Y. Chanoine, Esq. Richard Blair Goetz, Esq. O'MELVENY & MYERS, LLP 610 Newport Center Drive, Suite 1700 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 823-7926 Facsimile: (949) 823-6994 E-mail: alaurendeau@omm.com hchanoine@omm.com MDL 2887: Skoog et al. Suit over Tainted Dog Food Consolidated -------------------------------------------------------------- The case, LEE SKOOG, MICHELLE BLACK, TIFFANY MILLER, BARBARA WERTMAN, and CANDICE HOWARTH-GADOMSKI on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. HILL'S PET NUTRITION, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-01421 (Filed April 3, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of of Pennsylvania, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas (Kansas City) on June 19, 2019. The District of Kansas Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-02331-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. Plaintiffs seek monetary relief and an order forcing Hill's Pet to provide appropriate injunctive relief by ensuring that all potentially affected products are identified on Hill's website and removed from shelves. The Skoog 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: Charles E. Schaffer, Esq. LEVIN, FISHBEIN, SEDRAN & BERMAN 510 Walnut Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 592-1500 Facsimile: (215) 592-4663 E-mail: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com Attorneys for the Defendant are: Mary Patricia Dwyer, Esq. Hannah Y. Chanoine, Esq. O'MELVENY & MYERS, LLP - NEWPORT BEACH 610 Newport Center Drive, Suite 1700 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 823-7926 Facsimile: (949) 823-6994 E-mail: hchanoine@omm.com MEMEBOX CORPORATION: Diaz Files ADA Class Action in N.Y. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Memebox Corporation. The case is styled as Edwin Diaz on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Memebox Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-05806 (S.D. N.Y., June 20, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Memebox Corporation is a consumer company that provides customers with the Asian beauty products, culture, and trends and operates as an online retailer of beauty care products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq. Cohen & Mizrahi LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Phone: (917) 299-6612 Fax: (929) 575-4195 Email: joseph@cml.legal METRO BANK: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Metro Bank PLC (OTC: MBNKF) from March 6, 2018 through May 1, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Metro Bank investors under the federal securities laws. To join the Metro Bank class action, go to https://tinyurl.com/yxbda8b4 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Metro Bank misclassified the risk terms of many of its loans; (2) accordingly, Metro Bank failed to maintain sufficient capital; (3) this conduct would lead to investigations by the Prudential Regulation Authority and Financial Conduct Authority; (4) this conduct would also lead to the reduction of deposits at Metro Bank from larger commercial and partnership clients; and (5) as a result, defendants' public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than July 29, 2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1563.htmlor to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com Contact: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor New York, NY 10016 Phone: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 Website: www.rosenlegal.com Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com cases@rosenlegal.com [GN] MGD STEWARTS: Larios Seeks to Recover Minimum and Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- CARLOS LARIOS, on behalf of himself FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class v. MGD STEWARTS ONE INC. d/b/a STEWART'S, MIKE & CATHY'S SONS, INC. d/b/a STEWART'S and MIKE'S HINSCH'S, MICHAEL MOUDATSOS, and LEE MOUDATSOS, Case No. 1:19-cv-03357 (E.D.N.Y., June 6, 2019), alleges that pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law, the Plaintiff is entitled to recover from the Defendants unpaid minimum and overtime wages, and damages. The Defendants owned and operated two restaurants, "Mike's Hinsch's" and "Stewart's," at 8518 Fifth Avenue, in Brooklyn, New York. The Individual Defendants owned and operated the Restaurants. MGD is a domestic business corporation organized under the laws of the state of New York, with a principal place of business in Brooklyn. Mike & Cathy's Sons is a domestic business corporation organized under the laws of the state of New York, with a principal place of business in Brooklyn.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 30 East 39th Street, Second Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 465-1188 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com anne@leelitigation.com MICHIGAN: DOC, et al., Appeals Decision in John Does Inmates Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants Department of Corrections, et al., filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the lawsuit entitled JOHN DOES 11-18, et al. v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Case No. 13-001196-CZ, in the Washtenaw Circuit Court. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, inmates are taking an appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court from the ruling by the Michigan Court of Appeals in their lawsuit against the State's Department of Corrections, et al. The appellate case is captioned as JOHN DOES 11-18, et al. v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Case No. 349073, in the Michigan Court of Appeals.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees JOHN DOES 11-18 & JANE DOE 1/ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED are represented by: Deborah A. LaBelle, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF DEBORAH A. LABELLE 221 North Main Street, Suite 300 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 Telephone: (734) 996-5620 Facsimile: (734) 769-2196 Defendants-Appellants DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, GOVERNOR/FORMER, CORRECTIONS DEPARTMENT OF/DIRECTOR - FORMER, E C BROOKS CORRECTIONAL FACILITY WARDEN, RICHARD A HANDLON CORRECTIONAL FACILITY WARDEN, OAKS CORRECTIONAL FACILITY WARDEN - FORMER, THUMB CORRECTIONAL FACILITY WARDEN, CHIPPEWA CORRECTIONAL FACILITY WARDEN, KINROSS CORRECTIONAL FACILITY WARDEN, NEWBERRY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY WARDEN and MICHIGAN REFORMATORY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY WARDEN are represented by: Heather S. Meingast, Esq. STATE OF MICHIGAN, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL G. Mennen Williams Building, 7th Floor 525 W. Ottawa St. P.O. Box 30212 Lansing, MI 48909 Telephone: (517) 335-7622 E-mail: meingasth@michigan.gov MOMENTA PHARMA: Hospital Authority Seeks to Certify Damages Class ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit, THE HOSPITAL AUTHORITY OF METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT OF NASHVILLE AND DAVIDSON COUNTY, TENNESSEE, d/b/a NASHVILLE GENERAL HOSPITAL and AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES DISTRICT COUNCIL 37 HEALTH & SECURITY PLAN, the Plaintiffs, vs. MOMENTA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. and SANDOZ INC., the Defendants, Case 3:15-cv-01100 (M.D. Tenn.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order: 1. certifying damages class of: "Hospitals, third-party payors, and people without insurance who indirectly purchased, paid for, and/or reimbursed some or all of the purchase price for, generic enoxaparin or Lovenox TM), in Arizona, Arkansas, California, District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin, from September 21, 2011, through September 30, 2015, for the purpose of personal consumption by themselves, their families, or their members, employees, insureds, participants, patients, beneficiaries or anyone else." With respect to third-party payors and people without insurance, the Damages Class only includes those, described above, who purchased, paid for, and/or reimbursed some or all of the purchase price for, generic enoxaparin or Lovenox (TM) from a pharmacy. Excluded from the proposed Damages Class are: a) Defendants, their officers, directors, management, employees, subsidiaries, and affiliates; b) Federal and state governmental agencies except for cities, towns, municipalities, counties or other municipal government entities, if otherwise qualified; c) Payors that received 100% reimbursement on all transactions, such as fully insured health plans (i.e., plans that purchased insurance covering 100% of their reimbursement obligation to members); d) Third-party payors and people without insurance who purchased, or paid or reimbursed only for branded Lovenox (TM), and not generic enoxaparin, from a pharmacy or other retail outlet; and e) Judges assigned to this case and any members of their immediate families. 2. appointing Plaintiffs as Class representatives; and 3. appointing Lieff Cabraser as Class Counsel.[CC] Counsel for the Plaintiffs are: Adam Gitlin, Esq. Brendan P. Glackin, Esq. Dean M. Harvey, Esq. Bruce W. Leppla, Esq. Katherine L. Benson, Esq. David T. Rudolph, Esq. Adam Gitlin, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor San Francisco, CA 946111-3339 Telephone: (415) 956-1000 Facsimile: (415) 956-1008 - and - Mark P. Chalos, Esq. Andrew R. Kaufman, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP One Nashville Place 150 Fourth Avenue, North, Suite 1650 Nashville, TN 37219-2423 Telephone: (615) 313-9000 Facsimile: (615) 313-9965 - and - John T. Spragens, Esq. SPRAGENS LAW PLC 1200 16th Ave. S. Nashville, TN 37212 Telephone: (615) 983-8900 Facsimile: (615) 682-8533 Attorneys for Sandoz Inc. are: Timothy L. Warnock, Esq. RILEY WARNOCK & JACOBSON, PLC 1906 West End Avenue Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 320-3700 Facsimile: (615) 320-3737 - and - R. Dale Grimes, Esq. Virginia M. Yetter, Esq. BASS, BERRY & SIMS PLC 150 Third Avenue South, Suite 2800 Nashville, TN 37201 Telephone: (615) 742-6200 - and - Teresa T. Bonder, Esq. Matthew D. Kent, Esq. Liz Brodway Brown, Esq. D. Andrew Hatchett, Esq. Michael P. Kenny, Esq. Anthony Thomas Greene, Esq. Kara F. Kennedy, Esq ALSTON & BIRD LLP One Atlantic Center 1201 West Peachtree Street Atlanta, GA 30309-3424 Telephone: (404) 881-7000 Facsimile: (404) 881-7777 - and - Nell G. Moley, Esq. Jean E. Richmann, Esq. ALSTON & BIRD LLP 560 Mission Street, Suite 2100 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 243-1000 Facsimile: (415) 243-1001 Attorneys for Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. are: R. Dale Grimes, Esq. Virginia M. Yetter, Esq. BASS, BERRY & SIMS PLC 150 Third Avenue South, Suite 2800 Nashville, TN 37201 Telephone: (615) 742-6200 - and - Jason T. Murata, Esq. Brooke Jones Oppenheimer, Esq. Thomas G. Rohback, Esq. AXINN, VELTROP & HARKRIDER LLP 90 State House Square Hartford, CT 06103 Telephone: (860) 275-8100 Facsimile: (860) 275-8101 - and - Carmel Rana Arikat, Esq. Richard B. Dagen, Esq. Bradley D. Justus, Esq. Michael L. Keeley, Esq. Daniel K. Oakes, Esq. AXINN, VELTROP & HARKRIDER LLP 950 F Street, NW Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (202) 912-4700 Facsimile: (202) 912-4701 MVNBC CORP: Vasquez Seeks Unpaid Wages for Restaurant Staff ----------------------------------------------------------- HIPOLITO VASQUEZ and JORGE URUCHIMA, on behalf of themselves, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class, the Plaintiffs, vs. MVNBC CORP. d/b/a BENVENUTO CAFE TRIBECA, PERRY MALLAS, and WILLIAM MALLAS, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-05751 (S.D.N.Y., June 19, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid wages due to time shaving, illegally retained gratuities, unreimbursed costs for "tools of the trade," liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Defendants own and operate a 24-hour cafe under the trade name "BENVENTUO CAFE TRIBECA" located at 189 Franklin Street, New York, NY 10013 (the Cafe). The Plaintiffs bring claims for relief as a collective action pursuant to FLSA Section 16(b), 29 U.S.C. section 216(b), on behalf of all current and former non-exempt employees (including food preparers, deli worker, cooks, line cooks, chefs, dishwashers, cashiers, delivery persons) employed by Defendants on or after the date that is six years before the filing of the complaint. The Plaintiffs and the other FLSA Collective Plaintiffs are and have been similarly situated, have had substantially similar job requirements and pay provisions, and are and have been subjected to Defendants’ decisions, policies, plans, programs, practices, procedures, protocols, routines, and rules, all culminating in a willful failure and refusal to pay them (i) proper compensation for all hours worked, (ii) reimbursement for uniform costs and (iii) reimbursement for "tools of the trade" costs and maintenance. A subclass of tipped employees employed as delivery persons also have a claim for illegally retained gratuities. The claims of Plaintiffs stated herein are essentially the same as those of the other FLSA Collective Plaintiffs.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiffs, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class: C.K. Lee, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC Brandon Sherr 148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10011 Telephone: 212 465-1188 Facsimile: 212 465-1181 NAPHCARE INC: Taylor Seeks Unpaid Wages for Jail Staff ------------------------------------------------------ EILEEN TAYLOR, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NAPHCARE, INC., the Defendant, Case No.19-1961H (Mass. Super.), seeks unpaid wages, relief, statutory and trebling of damages, interest, and attorneys' fees and costs, as provided for by Massachusetts Law. Eileen Taylor was employed by Defendant as a physician assistant at the Essex County Jail & House of Correction in Middleton, Massachusetts, from in or around September 2016 until in or around June 2018. Following a medical leave, her contract ultimately was terminated effective June 2018. The Plaintiff and other staff of the Defendant were paid on an hourly basis. The Defendant's staff generally were assigned to three shifts: the day shift (7:00 a.m. - 3:00 p.m.), the evening shift (3:00 p.m. - 11:00 p.m.), and the night shift (11:00 p.m. - 7:00 a.m.). When the Defendant's staff arrived at the Jail -- which was their prescribed work site, they passed through an initial security check point, and then clocked in at a time clock ("First Time Clock"). The Defendant's staff were required by Naphcare to comply with all rules, regulations, procedures, and directives of the Jail. After clocking in at the First Time Clock, the Defendant's staff then had to pass through additional "sally ports", which are control points where Jail staff can monitor and control the flow of people. The sally ports are busy during shift changes, because many people are finishing or beginning their shifts at the same time. In addition, on occasions when there was a safety or security incident -- such as a fight -- staff might be held at the sally ports until the matter is resolved. As a result, it can take the Defendant's staff around 15-30 minutes, and sometimes longer, to pass through all required sally ports, the lawsuit says. The Defendant's staff were required to be at the Jail, which is their prescribed work site. They were not paid for all time spent at that site, however, including (a) the time at the beginning of their shift between clocking in at the First Time Clock and clocking in at the Second Time Clock, and (b) the time at the end of their shift between clocking out at the Second Time Clock and clocking out at the First Time Clock. The amount of unpaid working time for each of the Defendant's staff commonly totaled around 20-60 minutes per person per day, and sometimes more. NaphCare helps correctional facilities nationwide to optimally manage their healthcare needs.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Stephen S. Churchill, Esq. FAIR WORK, P.C., Esq. 192 South Street, Suite 450 Boston, MA 02111 Telephone: (617) 607-6230 E-mail: steve@fairworklaw.com - and - John W. Davis, Esq. DAVIS & DAVIS, P.C. 350 Park Street Park Place South, Ste. 105 North Reading, MA 01864 Telephone: (978) 276-0777 E-mail: idavis@davisanddavispc.com NESTLE DREYER'S: Liou Sues Over Products' Misleading Labels ----------------------------------------------------------- Glenn Liou, Jessica McClain, Kristen Ruiz, Barbara Nelson, Charles Wiley, Evan Williams Frank Fuda, Harold Michael, Tiffni Altes, Jennifer Stephens, Christopher Derchin, Leroy Jacobs, Paula Leblanc, Rachel Parks, Theresa Andriulli, Harold Michael, Steve Altes, George Oldroyd, Charles Wiley, Jane Doe, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Nestle Dreyer's Ice Cream Company, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-05762 (E.D. N.Y., June 20, 2019) seek damages under State Consumer Protection Statutes from Defendant's misleading representations on their products' packaging. Nestle Dreyer's Ice Cream Company manufactures, distributes, markets, labels and sells ice cream products labeled as types of vanilla ice cream under the DREYER'S brand name throughout the western part of the United States and Texas and under the EDY'S brand name throughout the remainder of the United States. The Products are represented as, or containing, vanilla ice cream and vanilla light ice cream on the labels, in point-of-sale marketing, retailers' display ads and promotions, websites, television and/or radio ads. The complaint asserts that the Products are misleading because despite the expectation their flavoring is exclusively derived from vanilla beans, the ingredient lists reveal otherwise. In a vanilla ice cream product, it is misleading to label ingredients which simulate and reinforce and extend vanilla as a "natural flavor" or "Vanilla with other natural flavor" because it misleadingly implies that the flavor is derived from vanilla beans, whose flavor it simulates, says the complaint. Plaintiffs and Jane Doe Plaintiffs purchased one or more of the Products for personal use or consumption. Defendant is a Delaware corporation with a principal place of business in Oakland (Alameda County), California.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Spencer Sheehan, Esq. Sheehan & Associates, P.C. 505 Northern Blvd., Suite 311 Great Neck, NY 11021 Phone: (516) 303-0552 Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com NEW YORK: Court Certifies Class of Students with Diabetes --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit filed against The New York City Department of Education, the Hon. Judge Nina Gershon entered an order: 1. granting Plaintiffs' motion for class certification defined as follows: "all students with diabetes who are now or will be entitled to receive diabetes-related care and attend New York City Department of Education schools." 2. appointing M.F., by and through his parent and natural guardian Yelena Ferrer; M.R., by and through her parent and natural guardian Jocelyne Rojas; I.F., by and through her parent and natural guardian Jennifer Fox; and organizational plaintiff American Diabetes Association, as class representatives. 3. appointing Disability Rights Advocates as class counsel. The case is captioned M.F., a minor, by and through his parent and natural guardian YELENA FERRER; M.R., a minor, by and through her parent and natural guardian JOCELYNE ROJAS; I.F., a minor, by and through her parent and natural guardian JENNIFER FOX, on behalf of themselves and a class of those similarly situated; and THE AMERICAN DIABETES ASSOCIATION, a nonprofit organization, the Plaintiffs, vs. THE NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION; THE NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND MENTAL HYGIENE; THE OFFICE OF SCHOOL HEALTH; THE CITY OF NEW YORK; BILL DE BLASIO, in his official capacity as Mayor of New York City; RICHARD A. CARRANZA, in his official capacity as Chancellor of the New York City Department of Education; OXIRIS BARBOT, in her official capacity as Acting Commissioner of the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene; and ROGER PLATT, in his official capacity as Chief Executive Officer of the Office of School Health, the Defendants, Case No. 18-CIV-6109-NG-SJB (E.D.N.Y.).[CC] NIBCO INC: Matson Sues Over Defective PEX Products -------------------------------------------------- DAVID MATSON and BARBARA MATSON, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. NIBCO INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:19-cv-00717 (W.D. Tex., June 19, 2019) seeks relief for damages sustained by Plaintiffs and the Class that were proximately caused by the use of NIBCO's Defective PEX Products in Plaintiffs' and Class members' residential structures. They seek relief to remedy NIBCO's breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, strict liability, negligence and unjust enrichment. This case concerns cross-linked polyethylene plumbing tubes (PEX Tubing), the brass fittings required to connect the PEX Tubing together (PEX Fittings), and the stainless-steel clamps (PEX Clamps) required for joining the PEX Tubing and PEX Fittings. The PEX Tubing, the PEX Fittings and the PEX Clamps at issue are all manufactured or distributed by NIBCO and suffer from undisclosed design and/or manufacturing defects that inevitably cause them to fail prematurely. They failed in the Plaintiffs' residential structure (home), and in all Class members' residential structures, in the same manner. NIBCO has repeatedly represented that consumers should trust it to provide the highest quality PEX Products because the company has over 100 years of industry experience and is an industry leader in the manufacture of PEX Products. Contrary to these affirmative statements, the PEX Products suffer from design and/or manufacturing defects. Specifically, and as a result of such defects, PEX Tubing is predisposed to premature oxidative failure and creep rupture, and have failed and ruptured; the PEX Fittings are predisposed to prematurely fail, and have failed, as a result of dezincification corrosion; and the PEX Clamps are predisposed to prematurely fail, and have failed, as a result of chloride-induced stress corrosion cracking (collectively, the "PEX Product Defects"). NIBCO has systematically breached its warranty by failing to fully or adequately compensate Plaintiffs and Class members injured as a result of the PEX Product Defects. NIBCO also failed to disclose this material information to Plaintiffs and Class members. Before manufacturing, warranting, advertising and/or selling the PEX Products, NIBCO failed to take appropriate steps to ensure that its products were adequate and safe for their intended use. Defendant knew or should have known that the PEX Products were not suitable for use within water-carrying plumbing systems, and that the PEX Products suffered from the PEX Product Defects. The PEX Product Defects have caused plumbing systems to catastrophically fail and release water, which has caused and will continue to cause Plaintiffs and the Class to incur damages to their residential structures through no fault of their own. Moreover, Plaintiffs and Class members have suffered a diminution of the value of their residential structures, says the complaint. Plaintiffs residential plumbing system was installed using NIBCO plumbing accessories, including NIBCO PEX Tubing, NIBCO PEX Fittings, NIBCO PEX Clamps and other installation accessories. NIBCO Inc. has manufactured and advertised its PEX Products for use in plumbing systems throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Austin Tighe, Esq. NIX PATTERSON, LLP 3600 N Capital of Texas Highway, Suite B350 Austin, TX 78746 Phone: (512) 328-5333 Email: atighe@nixlaw.com - and - Robert E. Linkin, Esq. DUGGINS WREN MANN & ROMERO LLP 600 Congress Avenue, Ste. 1900 P. O. Box 1149 Austin, TX 78767-1149 Phone: (512) 744-9300 Email: rlinkin@dwmrlaw.com - and - J. David Rowe, Esq. DuBOIS, BRYANT & CAMPBELL, LLP 303 Colorado Street, Suite 2300 Austin, TX 78701 Phone: (512) 457-8000 Email: drowe@dbcllp.com - and - Brandon J. Grable, Esq. Matthew Grimshaw, Esq. GRABLE GRIMSHAW PLLC 1603 Babcock Road, Suite 118 San Antonio TX 78229 Phone: (210) 963-5297 Email: brandon@g2.law matt@g2law OXNARD SCHOOL: Class Certification Bid, Motion to Dismiss Shelved ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit, J.R., the Plaintiff v. Oxnard School District, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-04304-JAK-FFM (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge John A. Kronstadt entered an order on June 17, 2019, taking the Plaintiffs' renewed motion for class certification and Defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' fourth amended complain, under submission. According to the civil minutes, the motion hearing was held. The Court said it is inclined to grant Plaintiffs' renewed motion for class certification and deny, with limited exception, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Fourth Amended Complaint. The Court took the Plaintiffs' Motion and Defendants' Motion under submission and a ruling will be issued. Counsel shall be prepared to appear before Chief Judge Walsh for a further mediation session upon the issuance of the final ruling on the motions, the Court added.[CC] Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Shawna L. Parks, Esq. Stuart Seaborn, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF SHAWNA L. PARKS 4470 W Sunset Blvd, Ste 107 No. 347 Los Angeles, CA 90027 Telephone: (323) 389-9239 Facsimile: (323) 389-9239 E-mail: sparks@parks-law-office.com - and - Jessica Catherine Agatstein, Esq/ DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 Center Street, Fourth Fl Berkeley, CA 94704 Telephone: (510) 665-8644 E-mail: jagatstein@dralegal.org Attorneys Present for Defendants are: Albert A. Erkel Jr. Esq. 101 Parkshore Dr Ste 100 Folsom, CA 95630 Telephone: (916) 932-7410 Facsimile: (916) 932-7299 - and - Norma Nava Franklin, Esq. GARCIA HERNANDEZ SAWHNEY LLP 330 N Brand Blvd Ste 680 Glendale, CA 91203-2385 Telephone: (213) 347-0210 Facsimile: (213) 347-0216 E-mail: nnava@ghslaw.com P.R.B.A. CORP: Logan Sues Over Discriminatory Employment Practices ------------------------------------------------------------------ SAHARA LOGAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. P.R.B.A. CORP. d/b/a BARE EXPOSURE, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-13987 (D. N.J., June 19, 2019) is a suit brought individually and on behalf of all black/African-American dancers similarly situated, seeking relief from systemic discriminatory employment practices of Defendant in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Defendant has intentionally created and maintained a culture that is hostile towards its black/African-American employees, including its dancers. This hostility is displayed through manifest discrimination in the hiring and termination of its employees, as well as its failure to hire black/African-American individuals to work at the club as dancers. While Plaintiff was employed at the club, Defendant subjected her and other black/African-American dancers to discriminatory treatment, including but not limited to heightened scrutiny and unequal working conditions. The Defendant further discriminated against Plaintiff by refusing to rehire her because of her race, says the complaint. Plaintiff Sahara Logan is a resident and citizen of the State of Pennsylvania who was employed by Defendant as a "dancer" at the Bare Exposure Club from July 2016 and working at various times until approximately August 2017. Defendant P.R.B.A. Corp. owns and operates the Bare Exposure club located at 2303 Pacific Ave., Atlantic City, New Jersey.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Katrina Carroll, Esq. Edward W. Ciolko, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH LLP 111 West Washington Street, Suite 1240 Chicago, IL 60602 Phone: (312) 750-1265 Email: kcarroll@carlsonlynch.com eciolko@carlsonlynch.com PAUL F. PEDERSEN: Reyes Files Suit in Illinois Over Unpaid Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- JESUS REYES, on behalf of himself and all other plaintiffs similarly situated, known and unknown, Plaintiff, v. PAUL F. PEDERSEN COMPANY, AN ILLINOIS CORPORATION AND BRITTANY PEDERSEN, INDIVIDUALLY, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-04163 (N.D. Ill., June 20, 2019) is an action brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Portal-to-Portal Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act ("IWPCA"). Plaintiff was required by Defendants to perform work off-the-clock before and after scheduled shifts that resulted in Plaintiff failing to receive both overtime and straight time compensation for unrecorded hours worked up to and, in excess of, 40 hours in a work week pursuant to the requirements of the federal and state statutes, says the complaint. Members of the Plaintiff Class also experienced the same or similar work off the clock and were denied time and one half their regular rates of pay for hours worked over 40 in a workweek pursuant to the requirements of the federal and state statutes, adds the complaint. Plaintiff, JESUS REYES is a former employee of Defendants who, between approximately April 2015 and December 2018, was employed seasonally (approximately April to December) by Defendants as a landscaper. PAUL F. PEDERSEN COMPANY, owns and operates a landscaping business located at 6N543 Route 25, Saint Charles, Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John William Billhorn, Esq. BILLHORN LAW FIRM 53 West Jackson Blvd., Suite 401 Chicago, IL 60604 Phone: (312) 853-1450 - and - Alexandria Santistevan, Esq. FARMWORKER AND LANDSCAPER ADVOCACY PROJECT 33 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 900 Chicago, IL 60602 Phone: (312) 784-3541 PIVOTAL SOFTWARE: Doherty Sues over Misleading IPO Statements ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action complaint has been filed against Pivotal Software, Inc., Robert Mee, and Cynthia Gaylor for alleged violations of the of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, in connection with the company's April 2018 initial public offering (IPO). The case is captioned STEVEN DOHERTY, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. PIVOTAL SOFTWARE, INC., ROBERT MEE, and CYNTHIA GAYLOR, Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-03589 (N.D. Cal., June 20, 2019). Plaintiff Steven Doherty alleges that the Defendants made a registration statement that contains materially false and misleading information regarding the company's business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Pivotal was facing major problems with its sales execution and a complex technology landscape; (ii) the foregoing headwinds resulted in deferred sales, lengthening sales cycles, and diminished growth as its customers and the industry's sentiment shifted away from Pivotal's principal products because company's products were outdated, inadequate, and incompatible with the industry-standard platform. Pivotal was founded in 2013 and is headquartered in San Francisco, California. The company, together with its subsidiaries, provides a cloud-native application platform and services in the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jennifer Pafiti, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 1100 Glendon Avenue, Suite 1558 Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (310) 405-7190 E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com PLASTIQ INC: Griffith Sues Over EFTA Breach ------------------------------------------- Denis Griffith, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PLASTIQ, INC., and KLEINER PERKINS CAUFIELD & BYER, Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-02202 (S.D. Tex., June 19, 2019) seeks redress in the form of statutory damages, actual damages, and attorney fees under the Electronic Funds Transfer Act (the "EFTA"), actual damages under the Texas common law claim of bailment and punitive damages thereto; and treble damages, injunctive relief and attorney fees, per the Texas Deceptive Trade Practice Act ("TDTPA"). These claims arise from damages suffered by Griffith because Plastiq mishandled, lost, lost and failed to render an electronic payment for rent, which needed to be paid on time and which Griffith entrusted Plastiq to pay on time; Platiq's failure to make Griffith's rent payment on time; as well as Plastiq's failure to remedy the damages this failure caused to Griffith. This all occurred despite Griffith repeatedly advising Plastiq that he had been and was continuing to be damaged by Platiq's failures, says the complaint. Plaintiff Denis Griffith is a natural person and a resident of Houston, Texas. Platiq is a company that offers a bill payment service to customers. This service is touted by Plastiq as allowing consumers to pay virtually any of their bills via credit card, even bills which traditionally are paid by check or cash, such as rent.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Zimmer, Esq. ZIMMER & ASSOCIATES 707 West Tenth Street Austin, TX 78701 Phone: (512) 434-0306 Fax: (310) 943-6954 Email: zimmerlawTX@gmail.com QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Hit With Class Suit After Patient Data Breach ---------------------------------------------------------------- Mackenzie Garrity, writing for Becker's Hospital Review, reports that Florida law firm Morgan & Morgan filed a class-action lawsuit on June 12 in New Jersey against Quest Diagnostics after the laboratory testing company disclosed that it had experienced a data breach that exposed 11.9 million patients, according to the Connecticut Law Tribune. Attorneys general in Connecticut and Illinois have also opened investigations into the security incident. Quest Diagnostics announced a data breach at its billing vendor American Medical Collection Agency on June 3. The data breach affected patients' financial information, including credit card numbers and bank account information. Some medical information and personal data also may have been affected. In the 36-page lawsuit, Quest Diagnostic is accused of failing to properly notify patients of the breach, the Connecticut Law Tribune reports. Quest Diagnostics said hackers had access to an AMCA web payments portal between Aug. 1, 2018 and March 30, 2019. The data breach "was a direct result of defendants' failure to implement adequate and reasonable cybersecurity procedures and protocols necessary to protect patients personally identifiable information," the lawsuit claims. The lawsuit seeks class certification, monetary damages and a mandatory injunction directing Quest Diagnostics to properly protect members' personal information and implement improve security processes. Quest Diagnostics did not respond to the Connecticut Law Tribune's request for comment. [GN] RA MEDICAL: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Ra Medical Systems, Inc. (RMED) pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement and prospectus (collectively, the "Registration Statement") issued in connection with Ra Medical's September 2018 initial public offering (the "IPO"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Ra Medical investors under the federal securities laws. To join the Ra Medical class action, go to https://tinyurl.com/yxhtv8co or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF. According to the lawsuit, the Registration Statement was false and/or misleading and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Ra Medical's evaluation of sales personnel candidates was inadequate; (2) Ra Medical's training program for sales personnel was inadequate; (3) Ra Medical could not reasonably assure that its newly hired sales personnel were adequately experienced; (4) Ra Medical would suffer a shortage of qualified sales personnel; (5) Ra Medical's manufacturing process could not reasonably support increased catheter production; (6) Ra Medical would suffer production delays; and (7) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' positive statements about Ra Medical's business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than August 6, 2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to https://tinyurl.com/yxhtv8co Contact: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor New York, NY 10016 Phone: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 Website: www.rosenlegal.com Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com cases@rosenlegal.com [GN] RAILROAD CONSULTANTS: Jones Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------- BILLIE JONES, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. RAILROAD CONSULTANTS, PLLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-00512 (M.D. Tenn., June 19, 2019) is an action individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated to recover overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs, all pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, (the "FLSA"). Defendant provides third-party engineering and consulting services for railroad construction projects. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant from approximately May 12th, 2016 through January 22nd, 2019 as an Observer for railroad projects serviced by the Defendant. The Defendant willfully violated the FLSA's overtime requirements by: Paying Observers straight-time for overtime, i.e. their regular hourly rate for hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek; and Failing to pay Observers for time spent attending mandatory briefings. As a result, there were many weeks in which Plaintiff and other Observers did not receive overtime compensation at a rate of one-and-one-half times their rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek, in violation of the FLSA, says the complaint.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory F. Coleman, Esq. Lisa A. White, Esq. Justin G. Day, Esq. GREG COLEMAN LAW, PC First Tennessee Plaza 800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Phone: (865) 247-0080 Facsimile: (865) 522-0049 Email: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com lisa@gregcolemanlaw.com justin@gregcolemanlaw.com - and - Nicholas Conlon, Esq. Jason T. Brown, Esq. BROWN, LLC 111 Town Square Place, Suite 400 Jersey City, NJ 07310 Phone: (877) 561-0000 Fax: (855) 582-5297 Email: nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com jtb@jtblawgroup.com REAL TIME RESOLUTIONS: Rezke Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Real Time Resolutions Inc. The case is styled as Edward P. Reszke, III, Heather L. Reszke, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Real Time Resolutions Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-04141 (N.D. Ill., June 20, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Real Time Resolutions is a full-service loan servicing and recovery company specializing in mortgage, auto, student, credit card, and other consumer loans.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mohammed Omar Badwan, Esq. Joseph Scott Davidson Sulaiman Law Group, Ltd. 2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200 Lombard, IL 60148 Phone: (630) 575-8181 x116 Email: mbadwan@sulaimanlaw.com jdavidson@sulaimanlaw.com RODEO REALTY: Smith Hits Unpaid Wages, Missed Breaks ---------------------------------------------------- MIEKO SMITH, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. RODEO REALTY, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, Inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV21617 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., June 20, 2019) is a representative action, pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004. The Defendants have had a consistent policy or practice of failing to pay wages, including minimum and overtime wages, to Plaintiff and other non-exempt aggrieved employees in the State of California in violation of California state wage and hour laws as a result of, including but not limited to, unevenly rounding time worked. The Defendants also failed to provide Plaintiff and other similarly aggrieved employees or former employees within the State of California rest periods of at least 10 minutes per 4 hours worked or major fraction thereof, and failed to provide compensation for such unprovided rest periods as required by California wage and hour laws, says the complaint. Plaintiff is employed by Defendants as a non-exempt employee in Los Angeles County in the State of California. RODEO REALTY, INC. ("RODEO") is a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Nourmand, Esq. James A. De Sario, Esq. Melissa M. Kurata, Esq. THE NOURMAND LAW FIRM, APC 8822 West Olympic Boulevard Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Phone: (310) 553-3600 Fax: (310) 553-3603 SAFE HARBOR: McGrath Files Class Action in Massachusetts -------------------------------------------------------- KELLY MCGRATH, Individually and on behalf of a class of persons similarly situated v. SAFE HARBOR FUNDING LLC, Case No. 19-1809 H (Mass. Super., Suffolk Cty., June 6, 2019), alleges that SHF sent form notices to Massachusetts consumers, which failed to provide class members with the rights and disclosures mandated by the Massachusetts Uniform Commercial Code. SHF is a credit lender that enters into consumer loans, including auto loans, in Massachusetts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raven Moeslinger, Esq. Nicholas F. Ortiz, Esq. Colin D. Creager, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF NICHOLAS F. ORTIZ, P.C. 99 High Street, Suite 304 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 338-9400 E-mail: rm@mass-legal.com SLEEPY'S LLC: Third Circuit Appeal Filed in Hargrove Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Marco Eusebio, Andre Hall and Sam Hargrove filed an appeal from a Court ruling in their lawsuit entitled Sam Hargrove, et al. v. Sleepy's LLC, Case No. 3-10-cv-01138, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs sought certification of a class defined as: "All individuals who performed deliveries for Sleepy's pursuant to independent contractor agreements in New Jersey at any time since March 4, 2004, who were single-route operators at all times that they worked for Sleepy's, or who did so for at least six months." The appellate case is captioned as Sam Hargrove, et al. v. Sleepy's LLC, Case No. 19-8019, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.[BN] Plaintiffs-Petitioners SAM HARGROVE, ANDRE HALL and MARCO EUSEBIO, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, are represented by: Harold L. Lichten, Esq. Benjamin J. Weber, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994 5800 E-mail: hlichten@llrlaw.com bweber@llrlaw.com - and - Anthony L. Marchetti, Jr., Esq. MARCHETTI LAW, P.C. 900 N. Kings Highway, Suite 306 Cherry Hill, NJ 08034 Telephone: (856) 414-1800 E-mail: amarchetti@marchettilawfirm.com Defendant-Respondent SLEEPY'S LLC is represented by: Marc Esterow, Esq. DREXEL UNIVERSITY 3320 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19104 Telephone: (215) 571-4807 - and - Theo E.M. Gould, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON PC 900 Third Avenue, 8th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 583-9600 E-mail: tgould@littler.com - and - Paul C. Lantis, Esq. Jonathan L. Shaw, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON PC 1601 Cherry Street Suite 1400, Three Parkway Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (267) 402-3073 E-mail: plantis@littler.com jlshaw@littler.com SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC: Customers to Get $146MM in Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- Live 5 Web Staff reports that current and former customers of South Carolina Electric and Gas will split $146 million in what is considered the largest private class action settlement in state history. A judge finalized the decision Tuesday and signed an order that reduced the legal fees going to lawyers for SCE&G customers. More than 1 million customers were involved in the lawsuit, represented by 13 law firms. The attorneys sued SCE&G and parent company SCANA Corp. for its role in the abandoned construction of two nuclear plants in the state that never generated power. Virginia-based Dominion Energy took over the utility in January. SCE&G agreed to pay $115 million and sell properties valued at $85 million. The attorneys who argued the case will get $51 million plus nearly $900,000 for expenses. It's unclear when SCE&G customers will get paid and how much each customer will receive. [GN] ST. ANTHONY MEDICAL: Owens' Bid to Certify Denied Over Deal Talks ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Honorable Sharon Johnson Coleman denied without prejudice the motion to certify class in the lawsuit entitled Lenore R. Owens, et al. v. St. Anthony Medical Center, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-04068 (N.D. Ill.). In light of the Court's preliminary approval of the parties' settlement, the previously filed motion to certify the class is denied without prejudice, according to the Notification of Docket Entry. The Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for leave to file excess pages is granted.[CC] TEN: Forton Sues Over Unlawful Data Disclosure ----------------------------------------------- THOMAS FORTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. TEN: PUBLISHING MEDIA, LLC, a Delaware limited liability corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-11814-JEL-PTM (E.D. Mich., June 19, 2019) is a Class Action Complaint against TEN for its intentional and unlawful disclosure of its customers' Personal Reading Information in violation to the Michigan's Preservation of Personal Privacy Act (the "PPPA"), and for unjust enrichment. Between June 19, 2016 and July 30, 2016, Defendant TEN: Publishing Media, LLC ("TEN") rented, exchanged, and/or otherwise disclosed personal information about Plaintiff Thomas Forton's Hot Rod 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, Mr. Forton has received a barrage of unwanted junk mail. By renting, exchanging, and/or otherwise disclosing Mr. Forton's Personal Reading Information between June 19, 2016 and July 30, 2016, TEN violated the PPPA, says the complaint. TEN'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, the complaint adds. In fact, almost any organization can rent a customer list from TEN that contains a number of categories of detailed subscriber information. While TEN 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 TEN does not obtain its customers' written consent prior to disclosing their Personal Reading Information, the complaint notes. Plaintiff Forton is a subscriber to Hot Rod magazine, and was a subscriber between June 19, 2016 and July 30, 2016, as well. TEN Corporation is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at 2221 Rosecrans Avenue, Ste 195, El Segundo, CA 90245. Hot Rod magazine is published by TEN.[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 Phone: 646.837.7150 Fax: 212.989.9163 Email: 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 Phone: 305.357.2107 Fax: 305.200.8801 Email:fhedin@hedinhall.com dhall@hedinhall.com - and - Nick Suciu III, Esq. BARBAT, MANSOUR & SUCIU PLLC 1644 Bracken Road Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302 Phone: 313.303.3472 Email:nicksuciu@bmslawyers.com TROPICANA: Johnson Sues Over Products' Deceptive Labels ------------------------------------------------------- SUSIE JEAN JOHNSON, on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated, and the general public, Plaintiff, v. TROPICANA MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC. a Delaware corporation; PEPSICO., INC., a North Carolina corporation, Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-01164-GPC-KSC (S.D. Cal., June 20, 2019) is an action against Defendants alleging that Defendants' Tropicana Pure Premium 100% Orange Juice with Calcium & Vitamin D Product (the "Product") is misbranded and falsely advertised and otherwise violates consumer protection laws. According to the complaint, the Product is labeled as if its flavored exclusively with natural ingredients. For example, the Product shows a photo of an orange with a straw in it and says, "100% Orange Juice" and "Pure Premium." The Defendants intended to give reasonable consumers, like Plaintiff Johnson, the impression that the Product was all-natural by packaging, labeling, and advertising the Product in a manner that suggests the Product is all-natural. However, the Product contains d-l-malic acid, which is an undisclosed artificial flavoring ingredient. The Defendant failed to include the legally required "artificially flavored" disclosure on the Product's labels. Under these circumstances, the Product's labels violate California and federal statutes and state common law in multiple respects, says the complaint. Plaintiff Susie Jean Johnson is an individual consumer over the age of eighteen who resides in La Mesa, California. Defendants manufacture, distribute, advertise, market, and sell the Tropicana Pure Premium 100% Orange Juice with Calcium & Vitamin D Product.[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 Phone: (619) 696-9006 Fax: (619) 564-6665 Email: ron@consumersadvocates.com mike@consumersadvocates.com UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Hit With Suit Over Wheelchair Accessibility -------------------------------------------------------------- P.J. D'Annunzio, writing for Law.com, reports that ride-sharing giant Uber has been targeted in a potential class action lawsuit over the company's alleged failure to provide wheelchair accessibility to customers. Pittsburgh class action firm Carlson Lynch and Disability Rights Advocates filed the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on June 11. "Uber occupies a prominent role in the future of on-demand transportation," the complaint said. "However, Uber's policies and practices are discriminatory and deny individuals who need wheelchair accessible vehicles equal access to the service it provides, and prevent them from obtaining the benefits of its service. In the Pittsburgh area, Uber provides no wheelchair accessible vehicles through its transportation service at all." The plaintiffs -- four disabled individuals -- claimed that Uber's alleged conduct violated the Americans With Disabilities Act. Uber did not respond to a request for comment. The complaint alleged that the Pittsburgh public transportation service area is shrinking while Uber and similar ride-sharing services are pushing traditional taxi services from the market. Therefore, the complaint said, Uber's alleged discriminatory practices have had a negative impact upon disabled riders in the area. "The mobility disabled community in Pittsburgh has historically had limited accessible transportation options. The convergence of Uber's discriminatory practices with its increasing market share for on-demand transportation services is making an already bad situation worse," the complaint said. The plaintiffs were not able to identify a specific number of disabled people who would be eligible as class members, but claimed the number was sufficient enough to merit class status. "Transportation can be a real challenge for people with mobility disabilities, who often don't have access to their own vehicle and who frequently can't depend on paratransit because it is unreliable," said Disability Rights Advocates attorney, Michelle Iorio, Esq. -- miorio@dralegal.org -- in a statement. "Accessible ride sharing would facilitate societal integration for persons with disabilities, and Uber's failure to provide wheelchair-accessible service undermines this potential." Bruce Carlson, a founding partner of Carlson Lynch, shared Iorio's statement, noting "Uber's express business plan, as detailed in its regulatory filings, is to displace public transportation with its ride-sharing services. The problem is that public transportation, where available, is largely accessible, but Uber's ride sharing services are not. Uber wants to create a paradigm shift with respect to the provision of transportation services. But will the new paradigm realize the potential of exponentially increasing accessibility, or will it leave individuals with mobility disabilities behind?" [GN] UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN: $125M Settlement Has Prelim Approval ------------------------------------------------------------ CBS Los Angeles reports that a Los Angeles federal judge on June 12, 2019, gave preliminary approval to the $215 million class-action settlement with women who say they were sexually abused by former University of Southern California gynecologist Dr. George Tyndall. The class includes as many as 17,000 women seen by Tyndall at the USC Student Health Center between August 1989 and June 2016. "We are pleased that the court has granted preliminary approval," the plaintiffs' lawyers said in a joint statement. "This settlement gives every single woman who saw Tyndall a choice in how they want to participate and hold USC accountable, while also forcing the school to change to ensure this doesn't happen again. The judge's order is an important step toward providing each survivor the relief and measure of closure she deserves, and we look forward to obtaining final approval." Tyndall served as the only full-time gynecologist at the USC Engemann Student Health Center for nearly 30 years. In 2016, the school began investigating him over allegations of improper pelvic exams and making racist and sexually inappropriate remarks. USC didn't terminate Tyndall's employment until June 2017. The Los Angeles Times had been looking into Tyndall for months prior to the university's acknowledgment in May of last year that the school had been investigating him. Under the terms of the deal, Tyndall's former patients would receive minimum payments $2,500. Beyond the payments, the settlement requires USC to create a position tasked with ensuring complaints about improper conduct are investigated. USC will also have to conduct background checks on health center employees, improve staff training and increase staffing that would allow female patients to see female doctors. The school announced the settlement last October. A January hearing has been set to finalize the settlement. [GN] VELOCITY INVESTMENTS: Viernes Sues over Debt Collection Practices ----------------------------------------------------------------- RONALD VIERNES, and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff. vs. Velocity Investments, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00317 (D. Hawaii, June 19, 2019), contends that Velocity Investments' practices and procedures violate both the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and Hawaii law because the means used by Velocity Investments are false, misleading, unfair, and deceptive or confusing to the least sophisticated consumer. Velocity Investments, LLC is regularly engaged in the business of buying consumer debts in default from banks and others at a steep discount and then proceeding to collect the debt. Given the large number of accounts that Velocity Investments, LLC buys each year, it has established certain policies and practices to systemize its collection practices. Velocity Investments collects its accounts by filing collection lawsuits in Hawaii State Courts. According to the complaint, Velocity Investments is not licensed as a debt collector in the State of Hawaii and has an unfair advantage over Hawaii's consumers and licensed business owners. Velocity Investments uses the same means of collecting debts described above as part of a regular and systemic approach to collect many accounts claimed to have been acquired by Velocity Investments and alleged to be owed by dozens or more of Hawaii's citizens. For this reason, Plaintiff is pursuing this case individually and on behalf of others who have also been pursued by Velocity Investments by the same means or misrepresentation by defining an FDCPA and a Hawaiian Class.[BN] Attorney for Plaintiff is: Justin A. Brackett, Esq. JUSTIN A. BRACKETT LAW 515 Ward Avenue Honolulu, HI 96814 Telephone: (808) 377-6778 E-mail: justinbrackettlaw@gmail.com VITRA EYEWEAR: Duncan Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Vitra Eyewear Group, LLC. The case is styled as Eugene Duncan, ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff v. Vitra Eyewear Group, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-05807 (S.D. N.Y., June 20, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Vitra Eyewear Group LLC is a luxury optical company created by three partners with a long history of innovation in luxury retailing.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq. The Marks Law Firm PC 175 Varick Street 3rd Floor New York, NY 10014 Phone: (646) 770-3775 Fax: (646) 867-2639 Email: bmarkslaw@gmail.com WAG LABS: Court Certifies Settlement Class of Dog Walks Performers ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit, GARY D. DARSEY, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. WAG LABS, INC., et al., the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-07014-FMO-JPR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fernando M. Olguin entered an order on June 18, 2019: 1. granting Plaintiff's unopposed motion for class certification and for preliminary approval of class action settlement 2. preliminarily certifying settlement class of: "all individuals who performed dog walks in California during the Settlement Class Period [September 22, 2013, through date of preliminary approval] using the Wag app."; 3. preliminarily appointing Gary D. Darsey as class representative for settlement purposes; 4. preliminarily appointing Hhua Gallai & Gonzalez, LLP as class counsel for settlement purposes. 5. preliminarily finding that the terms of the settlement are fair, reasonable and adequate, and comply with Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; 6. approving the form, substance, and requirements of the class notice, and FLSA opt-in form; 7. directing Rust Consulting, Inc. to complete dissemination of class notice, in accordance with the settlement agreement, no later than July 17, 2019; 8. directing Plaintiff to file a motion for an award of class representative incentive payment and attorney's fees and costs no later than August 16, 2019, and notice it for hearing for the date of the final approval hearing; 9. directing any class member who wishes to: (a) object to the settlement, including the requested attorney's fees, costs and incentive award; (b) exclude him or herself from the settlement; and/or (c) opt in to the FLSA collective action, to file his or her objection to the settlement, request for exclusion, or FLSA opt-in form no later than September 17, 2019, in accordance with the notice; 10. directing Plaintiff, no later than October 3, 2019, to file and serve a motion for final approval of the settlement and a response to any objections to the settlement; 11. directing Defendants to file and serve a memorandum in support of final approval of the settlement agreement and/or in response to objections no later than October 19, 2019; 12. directing any class member who wishes to appear at the final approval (fairness) hearing, either on his or her own behalf or through an attorney, to object to the settlement, including the requested attorney's fees, costs or incentive award, shall, no later than October 10, 2019, to file with the court a notice of intent to appear at fairness hearing; 13. setting final approval (fairness) hearing for October 24, 2019, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 6d of the First Street Courthouse, to consider the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the settlement as well as the award of attorney's fees and costs to class counsel, and service award to the class representative; and 14. staying all proceedings in the action, other than proceedings necessary to carry out or enforce the settlement agreement or this order.[CC] WAITR HOLDINGS: Halley's Cert. Bid Stayed; July 12 Hearing Set -------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Eldon E. Fallon stayed the Plaintiff's motion to certify in the lawsuit styled HALLEY, ET AL. v. WAITR HOLDINGS INC., Case No. 2:19-cv-01800-EEF-JCW (E.D. La.). According to the Minute Entry, the Plaintiff's motion to certify and Defendant's motion to compel arbitration are stayed until a later status conference. A telephone status conference is scheduled for July 12, 2019, at 9:00 a.m. The Court will initiate the call. The parties will submit a status letter to the Court two days before the conference.[CC] WEST POINT CHIPS: Angeion Group Says Class Suit Certified --------------------------------------------------------- Angeion Group announced that a lawsuit involving WestRock CP, LLC and West Point Chips, Inc., ("Defendants") has been certified by the Court to proceed as a class action and your rights may be affected. The lawsuit is in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Division, and is called Ashton Bell et al. v. WestRock CP, LLC et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-829. The Court decided this lawsuit should be a class action on behalf of a "Class" or group of people that could include you, solely for the purposes of determining whether Defendants are liable to Plaintiffs for nuisance and/or trespass. The Defendants deny Plaintiffs' allegations and contend they have not violated the law or any applicable standard of care. No court has ruled on the merits of any claims or defenses in this matter. There is no money available from this lawsuit now and no guarantee that there ever will be. Are you Affected? The lawsuit includes persons who on December 15, 2017, owned or occupied property in West Point located one-half mile or less from 200 14th Street in West Point, Virginia. What is the Case About? The lawsuit claims that fugitive wood dust was emitted from Defendants' properties, causing a loss of use and enjoyment of property within the class area. The lawsuit asks for compensation for this loss. Defendants deny all claims and allegations in the lawsuit. What Are Your Rights and Options? Right now, you have two options: (1) do nothing; or (2) exclude yourself from the Class. If you do nothing, you are choosing to stay in the Class, will be legally bound by all orders and judgments of the Court, and will not be able to sue or continue to sue Defendants about the legal claims in this case. If you do nothing, and the case proceeds past the liability stage, you will be notified of your option to participate in the damages portion of the case, and will be informed of the actions you must take to testify and remain eligible to collect any portion of an amount awarded by the jury. If you do not want to stay in the Class, you must submit a request for exclusion. If you exclude yourself from the class, you will not be legally bound by or entitled to take advantage of any of the Court's judgments, and you will keep any rights you may have to sue Defendants for the same claims in a different lawsuit, now or in the future, To exclude yourself, send a letter or e-mail that says you want to be excluded to the address below postmarked by August 13, 2019. Your letter must state that you want to be excluded from Ashton Bell et al. v. WestRock CP, LLC et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-829. Include your name, address, telephone number, and signature or electronic signature. You must mail your exclusion request letter so that it is postmarked by August 13, 2019 to: West Point Class, c/o Angeion, 1650 Arch Street, Suite 2210, Philadelphia, PA 19103. Or, you must send your e-mail exclusion request by August 13, 2019 to info@WestPointClassAction.com Get More Information: Website: WestPointClassAction.com Toll-free: 1-855-571-0784 Write to: West Point Class, c/o Angeion 1650 Arch Street, Suite 2210 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Email: info@WestPointClassAction.com Media Contact: Angeion Group Douglas S. Clauson Director, Communications Phone: (215) 563-4116 [GN] ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2019. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***