/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/190710.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, July 10, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 137 Headlines 3M: Judge Appoints 53 Lawyers to Spearhead Earplug Lawsuits ACCORDIA LIFE: Federal Judge Gives Interim Approval to Settlement ADAMS AND ASSOCIATES: Foster Seeks Class Certification Under ERISA AFFLICTION HOLDINGS: Desalvo Files ADA Suit in C.D. California ALAMEDA COUNTY, CA: Upshaw Moves to Certify Women Inmates Class ALBANESE DEVELOPMENT: Olsen Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York AMP: Faces Class Action Over Exorbitant Members' Fund Fees ANHEUSER-BUSCH: Schall Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit APPLE INC: Sermons Sues over Monopoly of Apps and in-App Products ARMSTRONG MADISON: Rosenberg Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York ASCENA RETAIL: Kuznicki Law Announces Class Action Lawsuit B8TA INC: Dominguez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York BABYSIDE STATION: Darusliana Files FLSA Suit in E.D. New York BEAZER HOMES: Schall Law Firm Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit BIODUN FATOYINBO: Class Action vs. COZA Pastor May Soon Start BIRD ELECTRIC: Agreed Bid for Conditional Class Cert. Granted BUCKEYE PARTNERS: Riss Balks at Merger Deal with IFM BUPA TRARALGON: May Face Class Action Over Elderly Mistreatment CAESARSTONE: Slater and Gordon Files Class Action CLASSIC OILFIELD: Fulmer Seeks to Certify Class of Truck Drivers CLOUDERA INC: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit CORECIVIC INC: Seeks 5th Cir. Review of Ruling in Gonzalez Suit DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Jennings Files FDCPA Suit in Maryland EDISON PROPERTIES: Nisbett Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York EROS INT'L: Schraufnagel Sues over Ratings Cut, Share Price Drop EROS INTERNATIONAL: Hagens Berman Files Securities Fraud Class Suit EROS INTERNATIONAL: Howard G. Smith Files Securities Fraud Suit EROS INTERNATIONAL: Schall Law Firm Investing Investors' Claims FEDERAL NATIONAL: First Circuit Appeal Filed in Donahue Suit FISHER-PRICE: Poppe Sues over Injury Risk of Rock 'n Play Sleepers FLOORING TECHNOLOGIES: Van Hise Moves for Class Certification FLORIDA FINE CARS: Emeric Appeals S.D. Florida Order to 11th Cir. FORD MOTOR: Dowhan Suit Asserts ERISA Breach FRESHLY INC: Fischler Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York GEICO GENERAL: Munoz Sues Over Insurance Policy Dispute GENERIC DRUG COS: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Price-Fixing GR RESTAURANT: Lezotte Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages GUILIANO ENVIRONMENTAL: Santos Seeks Wage & Overtime Payments HERTZ LOCAL: Removes Ramirez Suit to Northern Dist. of California HOME DEPOT: Nunes et al Suit Moved to Eastern Dist. of California HOMELAND SECURITY: Mons et al. Seek to Certify Class HURRICANE STRAUSS: Almonte et al. Seek Minimum Wage & OT Pay HYUNDAI MOTOR: Johnson Files Product Liability Suit in C.D. Calif. ICAN BENEFIT: Invasion of Privacy Exclusion Bars Coverage for Suits INDIANA: 9 Kids File Class Suit Over Child Welfare System INFORMATION RESOURCES: Accord Reached in Service Managers' Suit INTEGON NATIONAL: Center Files Suit in M.D. Georgia INTERSTATE MANAGEMENT: Removes Boone Suit to C.D. California INTUIT INC: Deceived Taxpayers Into Purchasing TurboTax Product J. ALEXANDER'S: Sued Over Denial of Service to Black Woman K&S TOOL: Does not Properly Pay Workers, Kraczek Suit Says KEESLER FEDERAL: Lloyd Files Suit in S.D. Mississippi KONA BREWING: Settles Class Action Over "Made in Hawaii" Claim LAUREL LEE: Raysor Sues over SB 7066's Wealth-Based Discrimination LINCARE INC: Martinez Discrimination Suit Removed to E.D. Calif. LYFT INC: Schall Law Firm Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit MACK WELDON: Duncan Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York MDL 2047: Renewed Bid for Class Cert. Taken under Submission MDL 2741: Pritchett v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated MEDICAL CITY HEALTHCARE: De Leon Suit Moved to N.D. Texas MERCANTILE ADJUSTMENT: Appeals Decision in Vedernikov to 3rd Cir. MERRILL LYNCH: Faces Suit Over Futures Contracts Price Manipulation MIAMI-DADE, FL: Alvarez et al. Seek to Certify Class & Subclasses MICRO KICKBOARD: Duncan Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York MISSISSIPPI: Receiver for Foster Care System Sought MONEY SOURCE: Martinez Moves to Certify Class of Underwriters MONSANTO COMPANY: Hosey Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup MONSANTO COMPANY: Shirah Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup MONSANTO COMPANY: Williams Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup MOTEL 6 HOTEL: Settles Suit Over Release of Guest Lists to ICE NATIONAL PLAN: Long Seeks to Facilitate Notice to Insurance Agents NEW YORK: Brady Files Suit v. D'Amato NORTHSTAR LOCATION: Gorman Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York O'REILLY MARSH: Lieberman Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York OFFICE DEPOT: Court Refuses to Certify Class in Alvarez Suit OSHKOSH DEFENSE: Marquette Seeks to Certify Collective Class P.T. AUTOMOTIVE: Arellano Hits Missed Breaks, Unpaid Wages PETROLEUM WHOLESALE: Class of SMs & ASMs Certified in Hradil Suit PHILADELPHIA ENERGY: Employees of Burnt Refinery File Lawsuit PHILADELPHIA ENERGY: Rutkowski & Harper Sue over Mass Layoff PIVOTAL SOFTWARE: Howard G. Smith Files Securities Fraud Suit PORTSMOUTH GASEOUS: 2nd Class Action Filed Over A-Plant PRICESMART INC: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action Suit PROFESSIONAL ACCOUNT: Faces Suit Over Deceptive Collection Letter PURDUE PHARMA: First Opioid Crisis Case Trial Begins in Oklahoma PURELINE TREATMENT: Scott Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages RAYDON CORPORATION: Woznicki Seeks to Cert. ESOP Participants Class RCI HOSPITALITY: Pomerantz Files Securities Fraud Class Suit SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Class Certification Sought in Bronson Suit SANDALS: To Vigorously Defend Class Action Over Unpaid Taxes SAPORITO FINISHING: Smart Sues Over Unlawful Use of Biometric Data SEA-NY.COM INC: Olsen Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York SIMON BROTHERS: Gregg Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages SOUTH DAKOTA: Eighth Circuit Appeal Filed in Stanko Civil Suit SOUTH FLORIDA RACING: Lawrence's Class Certification Bid Denied SPECIALTY COMMODITIES: Initial Approval of Quiruz Suit Deal Denied STUDENT ASSISTANCE: Foley Seeks to Certify Class SUNLANDS TECHNOLOGY: Horowitz Sues Over Securities Act Breach SUNLANDS TECHNOLOGY: Robbins Arroyo Files Securities Class Suit TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL: Pomerantz Investing Investors' Claims TATE & KIRLIN: Mann Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. Pa. TENNESSEE: Certification of Offenders Classes Sought in Does Suit TRIUS TRUCKING: Mondrian Seeks Proper Wages for Truck Drivers UNITED STATES: Hernandez Files Bid for Writ of Habeas Corpus VIRGINIA: Driver's License Suit Not Dismissed by Judge WATCHES OF SWITZERLAND: Duncan Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York WELLS FARGO: Does not Pay Proper Wages, Popal Suit Says WINCO FOODS: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in Johnson Labor Suit YGRENE ENERGY: Woolley et al. Seek to Certify Class [*] Law Commission Green Lights Litigation Funding Review ********* 3M: Judge Appoints 53 Lawyers to Spearhead Earplug Lawsuits ----------------------------------------------------------- Amanda Bronstad, writing for Law.com, reports that a federal judge in Florida appointed 53 lawyers to spearhead hundreds of lawsuits brought by U.S. military members over 3M's dual-ended Combat Arms Earplugs. U.S. District Judge Casey Rodgers, of the Northern District of Florida, appointed three lawyers as co-lead counsel, with Bryan Aylstock (Aylstock Witkin) at the head. The other two are Shelley Hutson (Clark, Love & Hutson) and Chris Seeger (Seeger Weiss). Rodgers also appointed two attorneys as co-liaison counsel, seven lawyers on an executive committee and 14 on a plaintiffs' steering committee, plus lawyers on nine subcommittees. Check out her order here. Rodgers made some unusual moves: To decide leadership appointments, she created a panel that heard two days of presentations. [GN] ACCORDIA LIFE: Federal Judge Gives Interim Approval to Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------------- Allison Bell, writing for ThinkAdvisor, reports that a federal court in Illinois has taken a step toward approving a deal that could apply to the owners of 530,000 interest-sensitive life insurance policies who were affected by a life insurance company system conversion effort. Judge Colin Stirling Bruce -- a judge in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois -- recently issued an order granting preliminary approval to a class action settlement for the case Clapp et al v. Accordia Life and Annuity Company et al. The plaintiffs in the case owned policies that were issued or assumed by Accordia Life and Annuity Company and administered by an outside company. The outside administrator moved the policies from a number of old administration systems to a new system. The plaintiffs in the Accordia case allege that Accordia and other defendants stopped automatically withdrawing, accepting or applying premium payments during a conversion period, and that, in some cases, this caused policies to lapse, or for other problems to occur, according to a memorandum filed by the plaintiffs. Accordia has not opposed the proposed settlement agreement, according to the order providing preliminary approval for the agreement. The Class The Accordia case in Illinois combines a class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in October 2016 with a separate lawsuit filed in the Illinois court in April 2017. The Illinois court has now provided preliminary certification for a class that includes holders of most Accordia policies issued from May 1, 2014, through June 7, 2019, and of Accordia policies that were converted to a new administration system on or after Aug. 1, 2015. The class also includes the executor or representative of any deceased class member's estate. The Preliminary Settlement Policyholders or estate representatives who dislike the settlement can object or opt out. Class members can also file claims for extra cash compensation within the settlement framework. The settlement provides automatic, "injunctive relief" for class members who do nothing. For those policyholders, the defendants are supposed to retroactively fix any premium payment, interest payment or lapsation problems, or other types of problems related to the system conversion, such as income tax problems. "There is no cap on the total value of the injunctive relief," according to the memorandum. "It provides for the automatic review and adjustment of policies to correct errors in their status or classification." The judge set Dec. 2, 2019, as the final approval date for the settlement. Accordia's Reaction Accordia has sent distributors a notice telling them about the preliminary court approval of the settlement agreement. The company said in the notice that it begin mailing notices about the settlement to policyowners in waves starting July 22. Independent producers of record will also get detailed notices about the settlement, according to Accordia. Accordia is a subsidiary of Global Atlantic Financial Group Ltd. Global Atlantic has issued the following statement about the preliminary settlement agreement: Following the 2013 acquisition of the former life insurance business of AvivaUSA, we partnered with DXC, a leading third-party service provider, to move the policies off several legacy systems onto a modern technology platform to better serve our policyholders. This project was more complex than anticipated and caused unintended service disruptions. Throughout this process we have worked with policy holders to address any service disruptions or issues as they arose, and this settlement ensures applicability of those accommodations across the class. While this project was challenging, the new technology platform is critical in our continuing efforts to improve service for our customers over the long term.[GN] ADAMS AND ASSOCIATES: Foster Seeks Class Certification Under ERISA ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled CAROL FOSTER, and THEO FOREMAN, on behalf of themselves, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ADAMS AND ASSOCIATES, INC., ROY A. ADAMS, LESLIE G. ADAMS, DANIEL B. NOREM, JOY CURRY NOREM and THE DANIEL NOREM REVOCABLE TRUST DATED JANUARY 9, 2002, Case No. 3:18-cv-02723-JSC (N.D. Cal.), ask the Court to certify the claims in their Second Amended Complaint under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The proposed class is defined as: (a) All participants in the Adams and Associates Employee Stock Ownership Plan ("the ESOP") from October 25, 2012 or any time thereafter who vested under the terms of the ESOP; and (b) the beneficiaries of such participants. Excluded from the Class are the Defendants and their immediate family; any fiduciary of the ESOP; the officers and directors of Adams and Associates, Inc. or of any entity in which a Defendant has a controlling interest; and legal representatives, successors, and assigns of any such excluded persons. The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint them as Class Representatives and to appoint Feinberg, Jackson, Worthman & Wasow LLP and Block & Leviton LLP as Co-Lead Counsel for the Class. The Court will commence a hearing on August 22, 2019, at 9:00 a.m., to consider the Motion.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Daniel Feinberg, Esq. FEINBERG, JACKSON, WORTHMAN & WASOW LLP 2030 Addison Street, Suite 500 Berkeley, CA 94704 Telephone: (510) 269-7998 Facsimile: (510) 269-7994 E-mail: dan@feinbergjackson.com - and - R. Joseph Barton, Esq. BLOCK & LEVITON LLP 1735 20th Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20009 Telephone: (202) 734-7046 Facsimile: (617) 507-6020 E-mail: jbarton@blockesq.com - and - Vincent Cheng, Esq. BLOCK & LEVITON LLP 100 Pine Street, Suite 1250 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 968-8999 Facsimile: (617) 507-6020 E-mail: vincent@blockesq.com AFFLICTION HOLDINGS: Desalvo Files ADA Suit in C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Affliction Holdings, LLC. The case is styled as Brett Desalvo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Affliction Holdings, LLC, doing business as: Affliction Clothing a California corporation, Does 1 to 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 8:19-cv-01301-JVS-JDE (C.D. Cal., June 28, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Affliction Clothing is an American clothing manufacturer and retailer based in Seal Beach, California. It is owned by Affliction Holdings LLC.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thiago Merlini Coelho, Esq. Babak Bobby Saadian, Esq. Wilshire Law Firm 3055 Wilshire Boulevard 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90010 Phone: (213) 381-9988 Fax: (213) 381-9989 Email: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com bobby@wilshirelawfirm.com ALAMEDA COUNTY, CA: Upshaw Moves to Certify Women Inmates Class --------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled TIKISHA UPSHAW, TYREKA STEWART and ANDREA HERNANDEZ, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. ALAMEDA COUNTY; ALAMEDA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE; SHERIFF GREGORY J. AHERN; ASSISTANT SHERIFF D. HOUGHTELLING, COMMANDER TOM MADIGAN; CAPTAIN D. HESSELEIN, CAPTAIN TARA RUSSELL, CAPTAIN D. SKOLDKVIST, DEPUTY STINSON, DEPUTY SENSIBA, DEPUTY SARTIN, DEPUTY KRANTAVILLE, DEPUTY HENDERSON, DEPUTY GUERRA, DEPUTY CRANDALL, DEPUTY CHANDRA AND DOES 1 THRU 50, Case No. 3:18-cv-07814-JD (N.D. Cal.), move the Court for a limited issue class certification under Rule 23(c)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The class consists of: all women who are now or will be in the future, incarcerated in the Alameda County Jails; on the limited issue of whether Defendants' policies and practices depriving and disrupting women prisoners' sleep violates plaintiffs' and class members' constitutional rights. The Plaintiffs also ask the Court for an order appointing Tikisha Upshaw, who is currently in custody and pretrial, as the class representative. The Court will commence a hearing on August 1, 2019, at 10:00 a.m., to consider the Motion.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Yolanda Huang, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF YOLANDA HUANG 475 14th Street, Suite 500 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 329-2140 Facsimile: (510) 580-9410 E-mail: yhuang.law@gmail.com - and - Dennis Cunningham, Esq. 115A Bartlett St. San Francisco, CA 94110 Telephone: (415) 285-8091 Facsimile: (415) 285-8092 E-mail: denniscunninghamlaw@gmail.com ALBANESE DEVELOPMENT: Olsen Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Albanese Development Corporation. The case is styled as Thomas J. Olsen, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Albanese Development Corporation doing business as: The Solaire, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-03801 (E.D. N.Y., June 29, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Albanese Development Corporation develops hotel, office, and residential properties.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq. Lipsky Lowe LLP 630 Third Avenue New York, NY 10017-6705 Phone: (212) 392-4772 Fax: (212) 444-1030 Email: chris@lipskylowe.com AMP: Faces Class Action Over Exorbitant Members' Fund Fees ---------------------------------------------------------- Mathew Dunckley, writing for Sydney Morning Herald, reports that AMP and the trustees of its superannuation funds face a fresh class action alleging up to 1 million customers were overcharged fees on their accounts. Law firm Maurice Blackburn was expected to lodge a class action claim in the Federal Court on May 30 alleging two trustees -- AMP Superannuation Limited and NM Superannuation Limited -- of various AMP superannuation funds failed to discharge their legal duties to their customers. The lawsuit will centre on claims that a string of administration and other fees that AMP charged the funds were too high and the trustees breached their legal duty in failing to determine if the fees were fair or seek a better deal. The level of the alleged gouge will vary depending on the particular superannuation account, but Maurice Blackburn claims the 2.5 million affected accounts could each have been overcharged thousands of dollars. The case will cover customers who held accounts from 2013 through to May 30. AMP altered its fees last year when the performance of its funds was under the spotlight from the Hayne royal commission. Maurice Blackburn principal lawyer Brooke Dellavedova said evidence uncovered at the royal commission had formed an important part of the case's foundation along with publicly available documentation. "It's important that inquiries and regulators uncover mass wrongdoing of this nature, but that doesn't give people back their hard-earned superannuation funds, which they need for their retirement. We estimate that over 2 million accounts have been impacted by AMP's alleged misconduct," Ms Dellavedova said. The royal commission heard that AMP's superannuation funds had outsourced its operations to other AMP entities in deals worth hundreds of millions of dollars in fees. AMP has since cut fees it charges the superannuation trustees. Ms Dellavedova said the AMP companies that had provided the services to the funds were also being sued because they had received the benefit of the overcharging and so were implicated. This class action asserts that AMP trustees breached statutory and general law obligations, essentially paying itself handsome fees from members' funds. Maurice Blackburn's Brooke Dellavedova "This class action asserts that AMP trustees breached statutory and general law obligations, essentially paying itself handsome fees from members' funds. The case we are running will hold AMP to account for that," she said. Maurice Blackburn won the right to lead a field of class actions against AMP on behalf of shareholders claiming the company breached its continuous disclosure obligations. Rival law firm Slater & Gordon has also flagged it would seek to run a class action on behalf of AMP's superannuation customers. An AMP spokesman said the company had not yet seen any documents relating to the case but stood by its performance. "We understand the potential action relates to AMP superannuation trustees and AMP meeting its obligations to members. On this basis, we would defend the matter vigorously, if served," he said. "AMP and the trustees of its superannuation funds are firmly committed to acting in the best interests of their superannuation members and acting in accordance with legal and regulatory obligations. We encourage any customers who have concerns to contact AMP directly or their financial adviser." He added that AMP had cut fees on its MySuper products in 2018 and in 2019 had also cut fees on its MyNorth product. The Maurice Blackburn class action is backed by litigation funder Harbour. In a statement, lead plaintiff Sebastian Smith said he felt that AMP had taken advantage of its customers. "The information out of the banking royal commission regarding AMP's superannuation fees really annoyed me," he said. "Here is a huge wealth institution that I -- and millions more like me -- have entrusted our future retirement savings to, and they're not working in our best interests, they're not giving us a good deal, and they're not even giving us a fair deal. It stinks." AMP shares closed on Wednesday, May 29, 2019, at $2.19 at near record lows after trading above $5 in February last year prior to the start of the royal commission. [GN] ANHEUSER-BUSCH: Schall Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm, announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against Anheuser-Busch InBev SA/NV (BUD) for violations of §§10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Investors who purchased the Company's shares between March 1, 2018 and October 24, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are encouraged to contact the firm before August 20, 2019. We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law Firm, 1880 Century Park East, Suite 404, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at 424-303-1964, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com or by email at brian@schallfirm.com The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member. According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. Anheuser-Busch's cost-cutting measures had been implemented to the greatest extent possible. At the same time, key emerging markets suffered from currency devaluation and cost inflation, negatively impacting the Company's margins. In a variety of key markets, the Company suffered from lower growth than expected. In fact, Anheuser-Busch would not be able to maintain its current dividend while still meeting deleveraging targets, and it was at risk of a credit downgrade. The Company filed false and misleading disclosures to the SEC including on liquidity and working capital, and risk factors the Company was experiencing. Based on these facts, the Company's public statements were false and materially misleading throughout the class period. When the market learned the truth about Anheuser-Busch, investors suffered damages. Join the case to recover your losses. Contact: Brian Schall, Esq. Sherin Mahdavian, Esq. The Schall Law Firm 1880 Century Park East Suite 404, Los Angeles CA 90067 Phone: Office: 310-301-3335 Cell: 424-303-1964 Website: www.schallfirm.com Email: info@schallfirm.com brian@schallfirm.com [GN] APPLE INC: Sermons Sues over Monopoly of Apps and in-App Products ----------------------------------------------------------------- Barry Sermons, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. APPLE INC., a California corporation, Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-03796-DMR (N.D. Cal., June 28, 2019), seeks to recover for damages and injunctive relief under the antitrust laws of the United States. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant has gained and maintains monopoly power in the U.S. market for iOS app and in-app products in violation of Section II of the Sherman Act and California's Unfair Competition Law. As a result of Apple's unlawful conduct, the Plaintiff and members of the proposed Class are being harmed in a manner they otherwise would not have been in a competitive market. The lawsuit is brought by iOS app developers against Apple for the following anticompetitive practices: acquiring and maintaining a monopoly in the market for apps and in-app products developed for the Apple iOS operating system; refusing to allow other entities to distribute apps and related digital products to U.S. owners of its Apple iOS devices; and pricing requirements and mandates, including charging the same 30% supra-competitive commission on the sale of all paid apps and in-app purchases (since the App Store opened in 2008) and dictating minimum and greater price points that prevent developers from offering products for sale at lower prices. Apple launched its App Store in 2008 to coincide with the release of its iPhone 3G. The App Store provides a setting for users to access or purchase millions of software applications (apps) for their Apple iOS devices. Through the App Store, Apple hosts apps created by developers and makes the apps available for browsing and downloading by users. Within this environment, developers create apps that compete with other apps for user downloads. The App Store has hundreds of millions of customers who have downloaded apps more than tens of billions of times. App Store apps can be downloaded directly to iOS devices such as the iPhone smartphone, the iPod Touch handheld device, the iPad tablet computer, the Apple Watch, or Mac 5 devices. Apps are available for purchase or through a free download, which often utilize a "freemium" payment model, that allows the user to download the app without upfront costs but generates revenues through in-app purchases. The popularity of the App Store has been stunning. Within the first 18 months of the App Store's existence, nearly 150,000 apps were released (at a rate of approximately 275 apps per 3 day) and nearly 4 billion apps had been downloaded worldwide. Today, there are currently more than two million apps available in Apple's App Store. Apps today have become an everyday tool for persons throughout the U.S., and worldwide. In fact, apps, and their in-app product purchase options, are one of the largest growing markets in the electronic commerce industry, with astonishing worldwide growth from less than $10 billion annual revenue in 2011 to an expected $189 billion by 2020. The App Store has been a money-making machine for Apple. From 2014 to 2016 alone, Apple's App Store revenue rose from $4.5 billion to $8.8 billion. Revenue for Apple from the App Store in 2017 was approximately $11.5 billion. Users of the App Store spent an estimated $46.6 billion in 2018. The enormous increase in the development and sales of apps and in-app products has resulted in a substantial corresponding increase in Apple's revenues. Apple has achieved such staggering growth and revenue because it designed its iOS operating system to lock its Apple iOS device users into buying applications only from the App Store. Applications created for other mobile devices not sold by Apple through its App Store will not work on Apple iOS devices. Through this exclusive distribution service, Apple has obtained and maintains a dominant position in the market for iOS app and in-app product distribution services. Apple uses this dominant position over iOS developers to charge developers supra-competitive fees. The App Store contractual guidelines limit choice and stifle innovation by charging developers a 30% tax, or commission (the exact same amount Apple has charged since the App Store opened despite the $99 annual fee just to sell their products through the App Store. Apple further limits developers' choice and stifles their innovation by mandating that developers charge a minimum price of $0.99 26 for all paid apps and greater price points (all ending in $.99) for more expensive apps. Even as Apple's revenue from the App Store has continued to grow, it has further cut app developers' earnings. In June 2017, Apple introduced rule 4.2.6 into the App Store guidelines which gave it the right to ban any apps that share a code base or template with another app. The rule was subsequently revised in December 2017 so that template apps could be submitted, but more significantly, Apple made another change: to successfully submit apps to the App Store, developers had to create individual accounts for each submission. The result is that each account, and thus each 5 app, required a separate $99 annual fee to be paid to Apple by the app developer. Apple's improper monopolization of this market, or the abuse of its monopoly powers in the retailing space, has stifled competition by preventing the emergence of any viable competitors to market and sell iOS apps. Additionally, Apple's exclusion of any competitors depresses the output of iOS app and in-app product distribution transactions by rendering undiscoverable vast numbers of apps (and related in-app products) because of the sheer number of apps populating the App Store. There are no legitimate business justifications for Apple's exclusionary and anticompetitive conduct. To the extent Apple has sought to achieve any legitimate business purposes through its conduct, it has not used the least restrictive means for doing so. Any claimed pro-competitive benefit is outweighed by the anti-competitive harm. Any purported legitimate business justifications are mere pretexts. Apple's refusal to permit others to distribute apps on Apple iOS devices and its mandated pricing requirements are unlawful restraints of trade. Apple's anticompetitive conduct has caused developers to incur inflated fees, costs, and pricing for each app and in-app product developed for Apple's iOS operating system; and harmed competition by reducing competitors' ability to compete and incentive to innovate.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff and The Proposed Class are: R. Alexander Saveri, Esq. Guido Saveri, Esq. SAVERI & SAVERI, INC. 706 Sansome Street San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 217-6810 E-mail guido@saveri.com rick@saveri.com - and - Kimberly A. Justice, Esq. Jonathan M. Jagher, Esq. FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN, LLC 923 Fayette Street Conshohocken, PA 19428 Telephone: (610) 234-6487 E-mail: kjustice@fklmlaw.com jjagher@fklmlaw.com - and - Douglas A. Millen, Esq. Brian M. Hogan, Esq. FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN, LLC 2201 Waukegan Road, #130 Bannockburn, IL 60015 Telephone: (224) 632-4500 E-mail: dmillen@fklmlaw.com bhogan@fklmlaw.com - and - Katrina Carroll, Esq. Gary F. Lynch, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH LLP 111 W. Washington Street, Suite 1240 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 750-1265 E-mail: kcarroll@carlsonlynch.com glynch@carlsonlynch.com ARMSTRONG MADISON: Rosenberg Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Armstrong Madison & Chase Ltd. et al. The case is styled as Yehuda Rosenberg on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff v. Armstrong Madison & Chase Ltd., Armstrong Madison & Chase LI Inc., Peter Romano, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-03770 (E.D. N.Y., June 27, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Armstrong Madison & Chase Ltd. manages past due accounts receivables. The Company maintains in-house investigation and skip-tracing departments to handle commercial accounts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq. Adam J. Fishbein, P.C. 735 Central Avenue Woodmere, NY 11598 Phone: (516) 668-6945 Email: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com ASCENA RETAIL: Kuznicki Law Announces Class Action Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------- The securities litigation law firm of Kuznicki Law PLLC issues the following notice on behalf of shareholders of the following publicly traded companies. Shareholders who purchased shares in these companies during the dates listed below are encouraged to contact the firm regarding possible appointment as lead plaintiff and a preliminary estimate of their recoverable losses. If you wish to choose counsel to represent you and the class, you must apply to be appointed lead plaintiff and be selected by the Court. The lead plaintiff will direct the litigation and participate in important decisions including whether to accept a settlement for the class in the action. The lead plaintiff will be selected from among applicants claiming the largest loss from investment in the respective securities during the class periods. Members of the class will be represented by the lead plaintiff and counsel chosen by the lead plaintiff. No classes have yet been certified in the actions below. Appointment as lead plaintiff is not required to partake in any recovery. A. O. Smith Corporation (AOS) Investors Affected : July 26, 2016 - May 16, 2019 A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in A O Smith Corporation. The filed complaint alleges that defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (a) A.O. Smith had undisclosed business connections and entanglements with UTP through which it funneled up to 75% of its China product sales; (b) A.O. Smith had used UTP to engage in channel stuffing by artificially inflating inventories purportedly sold through distributors that were not based on consumer demand, thereby approximately doubling the normal level of inventory at such distributors; (c) A.O. Smith had used its UTP relationship to artificially inflate the sales figures it reported to investors by as much as 8% and to conceal worsening sales trends that the Company was experiencing in China; (d) A.O. Smith's sales growth had been primarily in lower margin products as its higher priced products were being undercut by competition in "second-tier" Chinese cities, causing the Company to experience significant margin pressures; (e) A.O. Smith had increased its cash reserves in China to over $530 million in furtherance of its channel stuffing and sales manipulation scheme, encumbering the Company's ability to repatriate the cash or use it for capital expenditures; and (f) as a result of (a)-(e) above, A.O. Smith's business, operations, and prospects were significantly worse than publicly represented and the Company was poised for sales and earnings declines in China, its most important international market. Shareholders may find more information at https://kclasslaw.com/securities/a-o-smith-corporation-loss-submission-form/?id=2112&from=1 Ascena Retail Group, Inc. (ASNA) Investors Affected : September 16, 2015 - June 8, 2017 A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in Ascena Retail Group, Inc. The filed complaint alleges that defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (a) the ANN Acquisition was a complete disaster for the Company as Ann's operations were in far worse condition than had been represented to the public; (b) in order to mask the true condition of Ann, Defendants improperly delayed recognizing an impairment charge to the value of Ann's goodwill and, as a result, Ascena's reported income and assets were materially overstated and the Company's financial results were not prepared in conformity with GAAP; (c) many of the brands acquired in the ANN Acquisition were in steep decline and were also materially overvalued on Ascena's Class Period financial statements; and (d) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the Company, its operations and prospects. Shareholders may find more information at https://kclasslaw.com/securities/ascena-retail-group-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=2112&from=1 Zuora, Inc. (ZUO) Investors Affected : April 12, 2018 - May 30, 2019 A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in Zuora, Inc. The filed complaint alleges that defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company would focus on implementing RevPro for new customers ahead of the deadline to comply with accounting standard ASC 606; (2) as a result, the Company lacked adequate resources to integrate RevPro with the core business; (3) the Company would focus on RevPro integration a year after the acquisition closed; (4) delays in integrating RevPro would materially impact the business; (5) the market for RevPro was limited to customers seeking to implement new accounting standards such as ASC 606; (6) after the deadline for ASC 606 compliance passed, demand for RevPro was reasonably likely to decline; and (7) 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. Contact: Daniel Kuznicki, Esq. Kuznicki Law PLLC 445 Central Avenue, Suite 334 Cedarhurst, NY 11516 Phone: (347) 696-1134 Cell: (347) 690-0692 Fax: (347) 348-0967 Email: dk@kclasslaw.com [GN] B8TA INC: Dominguez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against B8ta, Inc. The case is styled as Yovanny Dominguez on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. B8ta, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-06027 (S.D. N.Y., June 27, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. b8ta, Inc. owns and operates retail store for technical gadgets. The company was formerly known as Beta Retail, Inc. and changed its name to b8ta, Inc. in June 2015.[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 BABYSIDE STATION: Darusliana Files FLSA Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bayside Station Laundromat & Dry Cleaner Inc. The case is styled as Layli Darusliana, Yuliana Entzek, on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Bayside Station Laundromat & Dry Cleaner Inc., Nancy Paat, Rafi Paat, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-03747 (E.D. N.Y., June 27, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Bayside Laundry & Dry Cleaning is a privately held company in Niceville, FL and is a business categorized under Garment Pressing and Cleaners' Agents.[BN] The Plaintiffs appear pro se. BEAZER HOMES: Schall Law Firm Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------------- The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm, announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against Beazer Homes USA, Inc. (NYSE: BZH) for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Investors who purchased the Company's shares between August 1, 2014 and May 2, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are encouraged to contact the firm before August 5, 2019. We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law Firm, 1880 Century Park East, Suite 404, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at 424-303-1964, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by email at brian@schallfirm.com. The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member. According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. Beazer's assets classified as land held for future development in California were deteriorating in value and in some cases overvalued. The improper valuation created a risk of considerable impairment that would damage the Company's profitability. Based on these facts, the Company's public statements were false and materially misleading throughout the class period. When the market learned the truth about Beazer, investors suffered damages. Join the case to recover your losses. Contact: Brian Schall, Esq. Sherin Mahdavian, Esq. The Schall Law Firm 1880 Century Park East Suite 404, Los Angeles CA 90067 Phone: Office: 310-301-3335 Cell: 424-303-1964 Website: www.schallfirm.com Email: info@schallfirm.com brian@schallfirm.com [GN] BIODUN FATOYINBO: Class Action vs. COZA Pastor May Soon Start ------------------------------------------------------------- Tonye Bakare, writing for The Guardian, reports that despite his denial of rape allegations against him, the groundswell of possible legal action against the global senior pastor of Commonwealth of Zion Assembly (COZA) may take shape in the coming week. Pastor Biodun Fatoyinbo was accused by Busola Dakolo, a celebrity photographer and wife of Nigerian singer Timi Dakolo, of raping her twice within a week in 2000. Busola said she was a 16-year-old teenager when Fatoyinbo allegedly raped her, first at her parents' house and later at a secluded spot in Ilorin, the Kwara State capital. Fatoyinbo said Busola was a member of the church at the time she said the rape happened, but he insisted he never raped her or anyone else. "I have never in my life raped anybody even as an unbeliever and I am absolutely innocent of this," said Fatoyinbo in an unsigned statement posted to his Instagram account on evening of June 28. But the details shared by Busola in the four-part videos published by YNaija on June 28 morning have earned support from Nigerians, including politicians, celebrities and civil society organisations, one of which The Guardian learned is filing a class action against Fatoyinbo in the coming week. "We have more than 30 people who are ready to testify against him," said Segun Awosanya, who is working with Citizen Gavel, a civic tech organisation, on the case. "Busola's case is just one out of the plethora of abuses that we have heard." When asked if Fatoyinbo could be sued for statutory rape since Busola said he raped her when she was below the age of 18, Awosanya said it is possible. Awosanya, however, warned against the case against Fatoyinbo being misconstrued as a fight against the church. "We are ending rape culture and we are starting in the culture." In a country with an abysmal conviction rate of persons accused of rape, the support Busola has gotten since the interview was published on June 28 morning has been immense. "We all, as women, must rise up and demand justice," tweeted Abike Dabiri, the chairman, Nigerians in Diaspora Commission and senior special adviser to Nigerian president on foreign affairs and the diaspora. "Busola, you've got my back!" She is also being praised for her bravery by speaking out about her trauma despite having so much to lose, especially in a country that encourages silence in such circumstances. In his response to the allegations, Fatoyinbo said Busola's allegations were "fallacious," "non-existent" and threatened to sue her and her husband. That threat is being already countered by Busola's husband Timi Dakolo and Nigerians who promised to establish legal funds for her. "I have seen Biodun Fatoyinbo's statement. I look forward to him carrying out his threat to sue Busola Dakolo," tweeted Dr Joe Abah, a former director-general of the Bureau of Public Service Reforms and current country director of DAI. "As Mrs Dakolo doesn't have a church that can fund her defence, I have set aside a little money to contribute to her defence. Please do so too." Dr Abah's tweet elicited a flurry of promises of financial support for Busola legal defence. What lies ahead In the days ahead, the legal battles, and their fallouts the allegations against Fatoyinbo will birth may define how Nigeria treats rape allegations, especially those involving high-ranking individuals. [GN] BIRD ELECTRIC: Agreed Bid for Conditional Class Cert. Granted ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit, CHRISTOPHER LOPEZ, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. BIRD ELECTRIC ENTERPRISES, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 7:18-cv-00231-DC-RCG (W.D. TeX.), the Hon. Judge Ronald C. Griffin entered an order: 1. withdrawing the Report and Recommendation on Plaintiff's opposed motion for conditional certification issued by the court on June 10, 2019; 2. denying as moot Plaintiff's opposed motion for conditional certification; 3. denying as moot Plaintiff's motion for corrective notice; 4. granting Parties' agreed motion for conditional certification of a class of: "all hourly-paid current and former electricians, including foremen and general foremen, who worked in Department 16 or Department 22 at any time between June 24, 2016 and the date when this Order is entered"; 5. directing Defendant that within 14 days of the Order, to disclose in Excel (.xlsx) format: the full name; last known address(es) with city, state, and zip code; all know telephone numbers; beginning date(s) of employment; and ending date(s) of employment (if applicable) of any class members; 6. authorizing Plaintiff to offer the Class Members the option to consent to join this collective action through the use of electronic signatures; and 7. directing Class Counsel may only contact any Class Member by telephone for the purpose of securing a correct mailing address if the original mailed notice is returned to Class Counsel as undeliverable, other than the text message notice. Within 30 days of receiving the contact information for the Class Members: Class Counsel shall send a copy of the Notice and Consent Form to this Order to the Class Members by First Class U.S. Mail; Class Counsel may send the Text Message Notice of Collective Action attached to this Order one time to the Class Members through text message; and Class Counsel may make the Notice and Consent Form available on a website solely dedicated to disseminating notice. Class Counsel shall send a link of the website to Defendant's counsel shortly after the time the website is published and shall not make changes to the website during the Notice Period, without agreement from Defendant's counsel in advance. Within 3 days of the initial delivery of the Notice of Collective Action: Class Counsel shall file an Advisory with the Court indicating the date of delivery of the Notice of Collective Action and Consent Form was first sent to the Class Members (the "Delivery Date"). 60 days from the Delivery Date: The Class Members shall have 60 days from the Delivery Date to return their signed Consent forms to Class Counsel for filing with the Court (the "Notice Period"). No later than 7 days after the close of the Notice Period: Class Counsel shall file with the Court all signed Consents to Join.[CC] BUCKEYE PARTNERS: Riss Balks at Merger Deal with IFM ---------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL RISS, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. BUCKEYE PARTNERS, L.P., CLARK C. SMITH, PIETER BAKKER, BARBARA M. BAUMANN, BARBARA J. DUGANIER, JOSEPH A. LASALA, JR., MARK C. MCKINLEY, LARRY C. PAYNE, OLIVER G. RICHARD, III, FRANK S. SOWINSKI, and MARTIN A. WHITE, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01241-UNA (D. Del., June 28, 2019), seeks to enjoin unitholders from voting on a proposed merger transaction, unless and until material information is disclosed to Buckeye unitholders. The case is a unitholder class action brought by Plaintiff on behalf of himself and all other public unitholders of Buckeye Partners, L.P. against Buckeye and the members of Buckeye's Board of Directors for their violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, pursuant to which Buckeye will be acquired by IFM Investors Pty Ltd., through Hercules Intermediate Holdings LLC and Parent's wholly-owned subsidiary Hercules Merger Sub LLC. On May 10, 2019, Buckeye and IFM issued a joint press release announcing they had entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger dated May 10, 2019 to sell Buckeye to IFM. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, each issued and outstanding unit of Buckeye representing limited partner interests in the Company will be converted into the right to receive $41.50 in cash. The proposed transaction is valued at $10.3 billion. On June 25, 2019, in order to convince Buckeye's public unitholders to vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction, defendants filed a Definitive Proxy Statement with the SEC, which omits or misrepresents material information concerning the Proposed Transaction, the lawsuit says. Following the announcement of the deal, Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. disclosed it was investigating potential claims against the board of directors of Buckeye on behalf of Buckeye unitholders concerning the proposed acquisition of the company by IFM. The investigation focused on whether Buckeye and its board of directors violated the federal securities laws and/or breached their fiduciary duties to the Company's unitholders by failing to conduct a fair process and whether and by how much the proposed transaction undervalues the Company. Buckeye is one of the largest independent liquid petroleum products pipeline operators in the United States in terms of volumes delivered, with approximately 6,000 miles of pipeline. Buckeye also uses its service expertise to operate and/or maintain third-party pipelines and perform certain engineering and construction services for its customers. Buckeye's global terminal network comprises more than 115 liquid petroleum products terminals with aggregate tank capacity of over 118 million barrels across its portfolio of pipelines, inland terminals and marine terminals located primarily in the East Coast, Midwest and Gulf Coast regions of the United States as well as in the Caribbean.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Melissa A. Fortunato,. BRAGAR EAGEL & SQUIRE, P.C. 885 Third Avenue, Suite 3040 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 308-5858 Facsimile: (212) 486-0462 E-mail: fortunato@bespc.com - and - Ryan M. Ernst, Esq. O'KELLY ERNST & JOYCE, LLC 901 N. Market St., Suite 1000 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 778-4000 E-mail: rernst@oelegal.com BUPA TRARALGON: May Face Class Action Over Elderly Mistreatment --------------------------------------------------------------- Cher Jimenez, writing for Latrobe Valley Express, reports that aged care home in crisis Bupa Traralgon may be faced with a class suit as families of residents engage a law firm involved in investigating alleged mistreatment of the elderly at nursing homes across the country. On May 15 a lawyer from NSW-based Schofield King Lawyers met 12 families who had a loved one who lived or still lives at the Park Lane site to discuss possible legal action against the company. The meeting took place in Traralgon with the lawyer holding one-on-one meetings with individual families the next day. Senior counsel from Schofield King Lawyers Melissa Obrist said she was shocked to discover how some residents were being treated at nursing homes after representing an aged care worker for a work compensation case. "I said to my boss I wanted to be part of a change. It used to be a thing where you go to a nursing home and you're poorly treated and people say it's not right. Now it's a well-known fact [and seems normal]. It's not how it should be," Ms Obrist told The Express. Ms Obrist used social media to reach out to families at Bupa Traralgon and advised them of their rights and possible legal steps they could take against the aged care home. "There's a lot of potential causes of action . . . it's just matter of sitting with a barrister and talking about what prospects there are and what needs to be done -- whether it's going to be a class suit or individual cases," she said. "It's possible that it's [going to be] a class action but it has requirements." Ms Obrist said a class action required seven or more clients making claims against the same person, the claims should rise out of similar or related circumstances and "must give rise to a substantial common issue of law or facts." She said while there were benefits in aiming for a class action against Bupa as it was "cost effective [and] can sometimes end up in quicker results," families should not feel discouraged. "If it doesn't end up to be a class suit they should not to be disappointed. If you hit Bupa with individual claims, they will have same effects," Ms Obrist said. She said families could possibly claim for neglect and abuse, dependency claims if a resident had passed away, mental harm and nervous shock for families seeing a loved one pass away, breach of contract and for overcharging of medications that were not provided to residents. Ms Obrist said families had complained of issues such as poor quality of food being served to residents, instances where staff gave the wrong medication to an elderly person and failure to provide personal care among other concerns. She said family members reported visiting their loved ones at the facility to feed and give them a shower after clocking out from work. "The exhaustion on these people is huge," she said. "One of the biggest things that stands out to me was reports of cases where buzzers were being removed so residents can't buzz [for help]." Ms Obrist said families who had a loved one who used to be at the aged care home and had passed on could still consider legal action against Bupa. Heather Mayes, who lost her mum at the facility last year, has taken a wait-and-see approach to see what would transpire after the meeting. Ms Mayes and other family members had a quiet get together to honour her mum, Christina Monks, who would have turned 80. She said two days before her mother died on July 13, it took 35 minutes for the nursing staff to change her mother's syringe driver. Ms Mayes said she was hopeful legal action would change things at Bupa. "I'm hopeful for other residents. It could be something for them -- hopefully it might help them," she said. [GN] CAESARSTONE: Slater and Gordon Files Class Action ------------------------------------------------- Emily McPherson, writing for 9News, reports that law firm Slater and Gordon has launched a class action on behalf of hundreds of stonemasons who have contracted a potentially fatal lung disease while cutting up kitchen benchtops. The class action will take on the manufacturers of the stone benchtops, who Slater and Gordon says failed to properly warn workers about the risks their products posed and what precautions they needed to take to protect themselves. Doctors fear the disease could be the "next asbestos" after identifying a sudden spike in the number of stonemasons diagnosed with the condition. Silicosis is caused by long-term exposure to silica dust, which is created when artificial or engineered stone -- popular in kitchen bench tops and bathroom vanities -- is cut. In April, nine.com.au broke the tragic news of 36-year old Gold Coast tradie Anthony White's death. Mr White became the face of the health crisis after speaking out about the deadly condition. His brother Shane, who worked alongside him as a stonemason at the same company, was diagnosed with silicosis a week before his death. In the past year in Queensland alone, more than 100 stonemasons have been diagnosed with silicosis., while in Victoria 36 workers have lodged WorkCover claims for silica-related conditions. Joel Goldby, a 29-year-old stonemason from Brunswick, Melbourne was recently diagnosed with silicosis after working for 12 years in the industry. Mr Goldby is part of Slater and Gordon's class action. "I had a shortness of breath and assumed it was everyday life or something that happens when you get older," Mr Goldby said. "I had never even heard about it and we never really spoke about it at work; we really didn't know the danger involved. "My mum pushed me to go to the doctor after my older brother got diagnosed. "When I finally got the test done, the scan showed numerous nodules ranging from 1-5mms across both lungs." Slater and Gordon Practice Group Leader Margaret Kent said Australia's major stone bench top suppliers -- Caesarstone, Quantum Quartz and Smartstone -- had failed to do enough to protect workers handling their products. "Under Australian law the responsibility for harm caused in these circumstances rightly falls on the manufacturers involved. The extreme levels of harm caused by dust from stone bench-top products in Australia can be traced back to a small number of manufacturers," Ms Kent said. "It is a tragedy that so many people have, or will, become grievously ill just by going to work. "This class action will seek to ensure that the manufacturers are held to account for the harms their products have caused." However the class action has been criticised by rival law firm Shine Lawyers who say it is not the best way for affected workers to get compensation. Shine Lawyers' dust disease expert, Roger Singh, who represented Mr White and achieved a confidential settlement for him before his death, said in a statement that workers suffering from silicosis were still better off taking individual action against their employer. "The best option for injured workers in silicosis cases is to bring individual claims in this instance and not a class action," Mr Singh said. The Queensland Government has so far led the way in cracking down on safety standards in the industry by banning the dry cutting of engineered stone, setting up a specialist silicosis working group and conducting workplace audits. In Victoria, Workplace Minister Jill Hennessy has vowed to lobby for the national exposure standard of silica dust to be reduced from 0.1 milligrams per cubic metre over an eight-hour shift to 0.025 milligrams, as it is in the US. [GN] CLASSIC OILFIELD: Fulmer Seeks to Certify Class of Truck Drivers ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit, RICHARD TODD FULMER, and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. CLASSIC OILFIELD SERVICES, LP, and BEN PINKSTON, the Defendants, Case No. 7:19-cv-00041-DC-RCG (W.D. Tex.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order: 1. conditionally certifying the case as a collective action: "all current and former truck drivers employed by Defendant who exclusively hauled cuttings within the state of Texas, and worked in excess of 40 hours in any workweek at any time for during the three years preceding the date the Order for Certification is entered"; 2. requiring Defendants to furnish Plaintiff's counsel with a complete and accurate list of the names, last known addresses and email addresses of the potential class members within 30 days of entry of the Order by the Court; and 3. approving issuance of notice and consent to join forms. The case is filed as a Fair Labor Standards Act collective action, and Plaintiff claims that he, and others similarly situated to him, were not properly paid overtime during their employment with Defendants. Defendants deny all such allegations, the lawsuit says.[CC] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Charles L. Scalise, Esq. Daniel B. Ross, Esq. ROSS SCALISE LAW GROUP 1104 San Antonio Street Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (512) 474-7677 Facsimile: (512) 474-5306 Attorneys for the Defendants are: Aaron M. Dorfner, Esq. Melinda D. Hamm, Esq. COTTON BLEDSOE TIGHE & DAWSON 500 W Illinois Ave, Suite 300 Midland, TX 79701 Telephone: (432) 684-5782 Facsimile: (432) 682-3762 E-mail: adorfner@cbtd.com mhamm@cbtd.com CLOUDERA INC: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action 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 Cloudera, Inc. (NYSE: CLDR) from April 28, 2017 through June 5, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Cloudera investors under the federal securities laws. To join the Cloudera class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1596.htmlor 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) Cloudera was finding it increasingly difficult to identify large enterprises interested in adopting Cloudera's Hadoop-based platform; (2) Cloudera needed to expend an increasing amount of capital on sales and marketing activities to generate new revenues; (3) Cloudera had materially diminished sales opportunities and prospects and could not generate annual positive cash flows for the foreseeable future; (4) the primary motivation for Cloudera's merger with Hortonworks was to generate growth through the acquisition of Hortonworks' existing customers (as opposed to obtaining them organically); (5) the purported synergies and other benefits of the merger with Hortonworks were materially overstated; and (6) defendants' positive statements about Cloudera'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 http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1596.html To discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action please contact: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 34thFloor 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] CORECIVIC INC: Seeks 5th Cir. Review of Ruling in Gonzalez Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant CoreCivic, Incorporated, filed an appeal from the District Court's denial of its motion to dismiss the TVPA claim in the lawsuit entitled Martha Gonzalez v. CoreCivic, Incorporated, Case No. 1:18-CV-169, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, Austin. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the class action lawsuit was filed on February 22, 2018, arguing that a company that manages immigrant detention centers, including the T. Don Hutto Center in Taylor, is violating the federal Trafficking Victims and Protection Act by forcing labor on those in the center. Martha Gonzalez, a Harris County resident who was formerly detained at one center in Laredo, one in Taylor and a third center just north of Laredo, is suing private prison company CoreCivic on behalf of herself and "all others similarly situated." Ms. Gonzalez's lawsuit says she was required to work at these detention centers under threat of isolation, retaliation and other deprivations. "CoreCivic threatened detainees who refused to work with confinement, physical restraint, substantial and sustained restrictions, deprivation, violation of their liberty and solitary confinement," the lawsuit says. "CoreCivic made frequent examples of individual detainees who complained or refused to work." The appellate case is captioned as Martha Gonzalez v. CoreCivic, Incorporated, Case No. 19-90017, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that response/opposition is due on July 5, 2019.[BN] Plaintiff-Respondent MARTHA GONZALEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Thomas H. Padgett, Jr., Esq. Joseph F. Buenker, Esq. Vijay Anand Pattisapu, Esq. THE BUENKER LAW FIRM 2060 North Loop West, Suite 215 Houston, TX 77018 Telephone: (713) 868-3388 E-mail: tpadgett@buenkerlaw.com jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com vijay@buenkerlaw.com Defendant-Petitioner CORECIVIC, INCORPORATED is represented by: Nicholas D. Acedo, Esq. Daniel P. Struck, Esq. Rachel Love, Esq. Ashlee B. Hesman, Esq. Jacob B. Lee, Esq. STRUCK LOVE BOJANOWSKI & ACEDO, PLC 3100 West Ray Road, Suite 300 Chandler, AZ 85226 Telephone: (480) 420-1600 E-mail: nacedo@strucklove.com dstruck@strucklove.com rlove@strucklove.com ahesman@strucklove.com jlee@strucklove.com - and - Allison L. Bowers, Esq. HUTCHESON BOWERS LLLP 1301 S. Mopac, Suite 430 Austin, TX 78746 Telephone: (512) 777-4449 E-mail: allison@hutchesonbowers.com DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Jennings Files FDCPA Suit in Maryland ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dynamic Recovery Solutions, LLC. The case is styled as Dawn Jennings on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Dynamic Recovery Solutions, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 8:19-cv-01895-GJH (D. Md., June 27, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Dynamic Recovery Solutions, LLC is a full-service collection agency based in South Carolina. Dynamic Recovery Solutions is experienced in collecting late-stage debt for small, medium, and high-volume businesses.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sergei Lemberg, Esq. Lemberg Law LLC 43 Danbury Road Wilton, CT 06897 Phone: (203) 653-2250 Fax: (203) 653-3424 Email: slemberg@lemberglaw.com EDISON PROPERTIES: Nisbett Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Edison Properties, LLC. The case is styled as Kareem Nisbett Individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Edison Properties, LLC doing business as: The Ludlow NYC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-06103 (S.D. N.Y., June 29, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Edison Properties, LLC owns and operates real estate properties. The company specializes in parking, mini storage, small offices, and flexible workspaces.[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 EROS INT'L: Schraufnagel Sues over Ratings Cut, Share Price Drop ---------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN SCHRAUFNAGEL, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. EROS INTERNATIONAL PLC, KISHORE LULLA, PREM PARAMESWARAN, and JYOTI DESHPANDE, the Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-14445 (D.N.J., June 28, 2019), seeks to recover compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The case is a class action on behalf of persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded Eros securities between July 28, 2017, and June 5, 2019, inclusive. According to complaint, on July 28, 2017, the Company issued a press release containing its financial results for the fiscal year 2017, ended March 31, 2017. On August 1, 2017, the Company issued another press release announcing that it had filed its Annual Report on Form 20-F for the 2017 fiscal year, ended March 31, 2017. The 2017 20-F confirmed the financial results from the July 28, 2017 Press Release and was signed by Defendant Deshpande. Additionally, the 2017 20-F contained certifications signed by Defendants Deshpande and Parameswaran pursuant to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 ("SOX") attesting to the accuracy of the Company's financial reporting. The Plaintiff, as set forth in the accompanying certification, incorporated by reference, purchased Eros securities during the Class Period and was damaged thereby. On June 5, 2019, CARE Ratings, India's second largest credit ratings agency, downgraded unit Eros International Media Limited's credit rating for its long-term loan facilities to "D" or default from BBB-, a significant downgrade of several notches in credit grades. In a public statement, CARE explained: "As per the management, the delays/default in debt servicing is on account of slowdown in collection from debtors leading to cash flow issues in the company." It was reported that CARE interacted with EIML's bankers. The defaults/delays included both principal repayments and interest payments. In some cases, delays extended to more than 30 days for servicing interest on cash credit and packing credit, and a delay of more than 30 days in payment of bills. On this news, Eros's stock price fell another $0.41 per share, or over 11%, to close at $3.30 per share on June 7, 2019, damaging investors. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, the lawsuit says. Eros, together with its subsidiaries, including its majority-owned subsidiary Eros International Media Limited, co-produces, acquires, and distributes Indian films in various formats worldwide. The Company distributes its fim content through various distribution channels, including theaters, television syndication, internet channels, and physical formats comprising DVDs and video compact discs (VCDs). Further, it operates as a music publisher for third party owned music rights. Eros has rights for approximately 3,000 films in its library. Eros India is a public company incorporated in India and listed on the BSE Limited and National Stock Exchange of India Limited, or the Indian Stock Exchanges. As of July 30, 2018, Eros owned approximately 60.06% of Eros India.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Jonathan Lindenfeld, Esq. Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com jlindenfeld@pomlaw.com pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com EROS INTERNATIONAL: Hagens Berman Files Securities Fraud Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, with nine offices in eight cities around the country and eighty attorneys, reminds investors in Eros International PLC (NYSE: EROS) of the August 20, 2019 Lead Plaintiff deadline in the securities class action, Montesano v. Eros International PLC et al., No. 2:19-cv-14125, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Eros International securities between July 28, 2017 and June 5, 2019 (the "Class Period") and suffered losses you do not need to sign up to be included in the putative class of investors. If you suffered significant losses (in excess of $50,000), you may qualify to be a lead plaintiff – one who selects and oversees the attorneys prosecuting the case. If you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this class action, you must move the Court no later than August 20, 2019 (the "Lead Plaintiff Deadline"). Contact Hagens Berman immediately for more information about the case and being a lead plaintiff https://www.hbsslaw.com/cases/EROS or contact Reed Kathrein, who is leading the firm's investigation, by calling 510-725-3000 or emailing EROS@hbsslaw.com According to the complaint, Defendants misled investors by concealing (1) multiple related-party transactions that appear designed to hide receivables, and (2) many of Eros's reported receivables do not actually exist. "We're focused on investors' losses and the extent to which Defendants may have misled investors about the economic substance of certain Company transactions and the sufficiency of internal controls over financial reporting," said Hagens Berman partner Reed Kathrein. Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding Eros should consider their options to help in the lawsuit or take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program. Under the new program, whistleblowers who provide original information may receive rewards totaling up to 30 percent of any successful recovery made by the SEC. For more information contact: Reed Kathrein, Esq. Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP Phone: 510-725-3000 Website: www.hbsslaw.com/cases/EROS Email: EROS@hbsslaw.com reed@hbsslaw.com [GN] EROS INTERNATIONAL: Howard G. Smith Files Securities Fraud Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Law Offices of Howard G. Smith reminds investors of the upcoming August 20, 2019 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the class action filed on behalf of investors who purchased Eros International Plc (NYSE: EROS) securities between July 28, 2017 and June 5, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors suffering losses on their Eros investments are encouraged to contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to discuss their legal rights in this class action at 888-638-4847 or by email to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com. On June 5, 2019, the Company's Indian subsidiary's credit rating was downgraded to "Default" by India's second largest credit ratings agency over concerns of "ongoing delays/default in debt servicing due to slowdown in collection from debtors." On this news, the Company's share price fell $3.59, or nearly 49%, to close at $3.71 on June 6, 2019, thereby injuring investors. Then, on June 7, 2019, an article published by Hindenburg Research explained that the reason for the credit downgrade was due to "multiple undisclosed related-party transactions that appear designed to hide receivables", and that "a significant portion of Eros's receivables don't exist." On this news, the Company's share price fell an additional $0.41, or nearly 12%, to close at $3.30 on June 7, 2019, thereby further injuring investors. The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) Eros and its executives engaged in a scheme to use related-party transactions to fabricate receivables that they reported in Eros's public financial disclosures; (2) because of this scheme, Eros's financial position was weaker than what the Company disclosed; (3) consequently, the Company's Indian subsidiary, Eros International Media Ltd ("EIML"), missed loan payments and had its credit downgraded; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. If you purchased shares of Eros during the Class Period you may move the Court no later than August 20, 2019 to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff if you meet certain legal requirements. To be a member of the class action you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the class action. If you wish to learn more about this class action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters please contact: Howard G. Smith, Esq. Law Offices of Howard G. Smith 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020 Website: www.howardsmithlaw.com Phone: 215-638-4847 Toll free: 888-638-4847 Email: howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com [GN] EROS INTERNATIONAL: Schall Law Firm Investing Investors' Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm, announces that it is investigating claims on behalf of investors of Eros International Plc (NYSE: EROS) for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The investigation focuses on whether the Company issued false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose information pertinent to investors. One of India's largest credit rating agencies, CARE Ratings, downgraded Eros' Indian subsidiary on June 5, 2019, to "Default." CARE Ratings cited "ongoing delays/default in debt servicing due to slowdown in collection from debtors," as the reasoning behind the downgrade. Based on this news, shares of Eros fell by almost 50% on June 6, 2019. Hindenburg Research published a report on Eros the next day entitled, "Eros International: On-The-Ground Research, Employee Interviews, and Private Company Documents Expose Egregious Accounting Irregularities," to expand on the reasoning for the downgrade. According to Hindenburg, "a significant portion of Eros's receivables don't exist," and alleges "multiple undisclosed related-party transactions that appear designed to hide receivables." The class in this case has not yet been certified, and until certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member. We also encourage you to contact: Brian Schall, Esq. Sherin Mahdavian, Esq. The Schall Law Firm 1880 Century Park East Suite 404, Los Angeles CA 90067 Phone: Office: 310-301-3335 Cell: 424-303-1964 Website: www.schallfirm.com Email: info@schallfirm.com brian@schallfirm.com [GN] FEDERAL NATIONAL: First Circuit Appeal Filed in Donahue Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Plaintiff Josephine B. Donahue filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Donahue v. FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION, et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-10635-DJC, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Boston. The lawsuit is brought over foreclosure-related issue. The appellate case is captioned as Donahue v. FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION, et al., Case No. 19-1618, in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Docketing Statement was due July 9, 2019; -- Transcript Report/Order form was due July 9, 2019; and -- Appearance form was due July 9, 2019.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant JOSEPHINE B. DONAHUE, on behalf of herself and all others so similarly situated, is represented by: Todd Steven Dion, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD S. DION, ESQ. 15 Cottage Ave., Suite 202 Quincy, MA 02169 Telephone: (401) 965-4131 E-mail: toddsdion@msn.com Defendant-Appellee OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC, is represented by: Maura Katherine McKelvey, Esq. Vanessa V. Pisano, Esq. HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP 53 State St., 27th Floor Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: (617) 213-7006 E-mail: mmckelvey@hinshawlaw.com vpisano@hinshawlaw.com Defendant 82 COBB LANE, LLC, is represented by: John Fitzgerald Willis, Esq. FIDELITY NATIONAL LAW GROUP 125 High St., Suite 1813 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 316-0144 E-mail: john.willis@fnf.com FISHER-PRICE: Poppe Sues over Injury Risk of Rock 'n Play Sleepers ------------------------------------------------------------------ JESSIE POPPE, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. FISHER-PRICE, INC. and MATTEL, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00870 (W.D.N.Y., June 28, 2019), contends that Fisher-Price continued to sell and aggressively market its Rock 'n Play Sleepers even while it was aware of fatalities of infants who sleep in the Sleepers and while the American Academy of Pediatrics ("AAP") and consumer groups repeatedly warned of the dangers of the Sleepers. On April 12, 2019, the Rock 'n Play was recalled by Fisher-Price after a series of infant deaths (the "Recall"). The Consumer Product Safety Commission ("CPSC"), which helped coordinate the Recall, stated that more than 30 babies died in the product after they turned over while unrestrained or "under other circumstances." On April 8, 2019 Consumer Reports' published an article documenting the concerns about the product's development and pushed for the recall after it obtained agency records concerning the deaths. Of the 32 fatalities more than half occurred after September 2016. It was not until April 2019 that Defendants acknowledged at least 32 infant deaths attributed to the Sleeper since 2009. The Rock 'n Play was designed as a flexible folding frame with a fabric hammock suspended between the legs. The product has high sides and sits at an incline, causing the infant placed in it to also sit at an incline. According to the complaint, from 2009 to present, Fisher-Price sold over $4.7 million Rock 'n Play Sleepers at $50 to $80 equaling gross revenues of between $235 and $376 million. The revenues resulted from an invention developed by a small group of engineers at the Fisher-Price toy company located outside of Buffalo, New York. This invention addressed a basic gap in the market, a product that helped parents get their infant children to sleep. The box the Sleepers came in stated "Baby can sleep at a comfortable incline all night long!" Fisher-Price's owner, Mattel, declined to respond to a detailed list of questions about the Rock 'n Play and its creation and instead stuck its head in the sand and stated that "Safety is priority number 1 for Fisher-Price" and the company "has a long, proud tradition of prioritizing safety as our mission." Plaintiff, like other Class members, owned and/or purchased the Sleeper unwittingly and unaware of its dangers and suffered damages in that she now must purchase an alternative to the Sleeper and/or lost the benefit of her bargain because she would not have purchased and/or owned the Sleeper had she known it was not safe, the lawsuit says. Fisher-Price is an American company that produces educational toys for children and infants, headquartered in East Aurora, New York. Fisher-Price has been a subsidiary of Mattel since 1993.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Gary S. Graifman, Esq. KANTROWITZ, GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN, P.C. 747 Chestnut Ridge Road Chestnut Ridge, NY 10977 Telephone: 845-356-2570 Facsimile: 845-356-4335 E-mail: ggraifman@kgglaw.com Melissa R. Emert, Esq. - and - Howard T. Longman, Esq. STULL, STULL & BRODY 6 East 45th Street 5th floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: 212-687-7230 Facsimile: 212-490-2022 E-mail: memert@ssbny.com hlongman@ssbny.com FLOORING TECHNOLOGIES: Van Hise Moves for Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned DENISE VAN HISE d/b/a CARPET & TILE BY THE MILE, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons v. FLOORING TECHNOLOGIES INC. d/b/a QFLOORS, Case No. 3:19-cv-00995-KAD (D. Conn.), moves the Court for an order: A. taking this Motion for Class Certification under submission and deferring further activity on it until after the discovery cutoff date to be set in the Court's upcoming Rule 23 scheduling order, or alternatively; B. granting the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ryan M. Kelly, Esq. ANDERSON + WANCA 3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500 Rolling Meadows, IL 60008 Telephone: (847) 368-1500 E-mail: rgood@andersonwanca.com FLORIDA FINE CARS: Emeric Appeals S.D. Florida Order to 11th Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Mary Anne Emeric filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the lawsuit styled Mary Emeric, et al. v. Florida Fine Cars, Inc., Case No. 1:19-cv-20987-DPG, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Florida Fine Cars, Inc. retails automobiles. The Company provides a wide variety of new and used cars, trucks, vans, and SUVs. Florida Fine Cars also offers parts, maintenance, and in house financing services. The appellate case is captioned as Mary Emeric, et al. v. Florida Fine Cars, Inc., Case No. 19-12391, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- The appellant's brief is due on or before August 5, 2019; -- The appendix is due no later than seven days from the filing of the appellant's brief; -- Appellant's Certificate of Interested Persons is due on or before July 8, 2019, as to Appellant Mary Anne Emeric; and -- Appellee's Certificate of Interested Persons is due on or before July 22, 2019, as to Appellee Florida Fine Cars, Inc.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants MARY ANNE EMERIC, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, and NATALIA MARIE RIVERA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, are represented by: Cristina Alonso, Esq. CRISTINA ALONSO, P.L.L.C. 15757 Pines Blvd., Suite 222 Pembroke Pines, FL 33027 Telephone: (954) 667-8675 E-mail: alonso@alonsoappeals.com - and - Tammi A. Calarco, Esq. Lance Harke, Esq. HARKE LAW LLP 9699 NE 2nd Avenue Miami Shores, FL 33138 Telephone: (305) 536-8222 Facsimile: (305) 536-8229 E-mail: tcalarco@harkelaw.com lharke@harkelaw.com Defendant-Appellee FLORIDA FINE CARS, INC., a Florida profit corporation, is represented by: Philip A. Allen, III, Esq. GUNSTER YOAKLEY & STEWART, PA 600 Brickell Ave., Suite 3500 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 810-2790 - and - Brian Patrick Yates, Esq. GARBETT ALLEN & ROZA PA 80 SW 8th St., Suite 3100 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 579-0012 E-mail: byates@gsarlaw.com FORD MOTOR: Dowhan Suit Asserts ERISA Breach -------------------------------------------- MONICA NICOLAYSEN DOWHAN, ERIK ELIASON ANDREW KRESS, MATHEWS V. JOHN, individually and on behalf of similarly situated LL5/LL6 employees, Plaintiffs, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, a Delaware Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-11923-BAF-APP (E.D. Mich., June 27, 2019) is a lawsuit seeking to secure damages and appropriate equitable relief resulting from Plaintiffs' wrongful terminations, and seeks Class Wide equitable relief on behalf of similarly situated former Ford managers who have not executed a release of claims. The national employment retirement law, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, ("ERISA") protects employees who, through their employment, participate in retirement income and health and welfare benefit plans. Because employers control the employees' ability to earn retirement benefits through continued employment, Congress made it unlawful for an employer to make adverse employment decisions motivated by an intention to deprive employees of retirement benefits for which they would become eligible through continued employment. In order to reduce operating expenses and reduce debt and pension liabilities, Ford adopted a Salaried Involuntary Reduction Process ("SIRP") which was carried out in Four Waves. Ford retained the services of Boston Consulting Group ("BCG") to develop a headcount and pension reduction plan. This plan was promoted as a High-Tech program designed to modernize Ford and was given the title of "Smart Re Design." At the core of the BCG program was a proprietary algorithm that was capable of quickly reviewing information from tens of thousands of personnel records. This automated system was deliberately programmed to target older and higher pension-cost salaried employees based on legally protected characteristics including the employee's proximity to retirement benefit milestones or the employee's age. According to the complaint, Plaintiffs and the other LL5/LL6 managers they seek to represent were separated in Wave Four of the SIRP on May 31, 2019. Plaintiffs are all former long-term managers of Ford who were selected for separation in Wave Four for the purpose of preventing them from reaching important milestones which would have allowed them to receive their full retirement benefits and would have dramatically increased Ford's financial obligations to their former managers. Managers such as Plaintiffs, hired before January 1, 2004, were eligible to participate in Ford's General Retirement Plan ("GRP"). Milestones for full retirement benefits per the terms of the GRP included a supplemental benefit upon attaining 30 years of Ford Service, regardless of age ("Service Milestone" of "30 and out") or attaining the age of 55 and at least 10 years of Ford Service, thus entitling the employee to an early retirement benefit ("Age Milestone" or "55 and 10"). Ford, with the aid of the BCG algorithm, terminated Plaintiffs based on their age, for the purpose of preventing them from attaining their "30 and Out" supplemental benefit and "55 and 10" early retirement benefit, or both. By terminating its managers to prevent them from attaining one or both Milestones, Ford significantly reduced the employee's lifetime retirement benefits and significantly improved its balance sheet by reducing its ongoing pension obligations. The impact on Ford's long-term managers terminated short of their Age and Service Milestones has been financially devasting, says the complaint. Plaintiffs are participants in the Ford GRP, which is an ERISA plan as that term is defined in ERISA. Ford is a Delaware Corporation headquartered in Dearborn, Michigan.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael L. Pitt, Esq. Megan A. Bonanni, Esq. Pitt, McGehee, Palmer and Rivers PC 117 West Fourth Street, Suite 200 Royal Oak, MI 48067 Phone (248) 398-9800 Fax: (248) 268-7996 Email: mpitt@pittlawpc.com mbonanni@pittlawpc.com - and - Kevin M. Carlson, Esq. Kevin M. Carlson PLLC Attorney for Plaintiffs P.O. Box 6028 Plymouth, MI 48170 Phone/Fax: (734)386-1919 Email: kevin@kevincarlsonlaw.com FRESHLY INC: Fischler Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Freshly Inc. The case is styled as Brian Fischler Individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Freshly Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-06003 (S.D. N.Y., June 27, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Freshly, Inc. provides freshly prepared meals online. The company's meals menu includes entrees and breakfasts with dairy products, eggs, pork, tree nuts, chicken, beef, turkey, fish, soy, and shellfish.[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 GEICO GENERAL: Munoz Sues Over Insurance Policy Dispute ------------------------------------------------------- MARTISHA ANN MUNOZ and CINDY VENTRICE-PEARSON, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign insurance company, Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-03768 (N.D. Cal., June 27, 2019) is a class action lawsuit brought by Plaintiffs, the named insured under their respective GEICO automobile policies issued for private passenger auto physical damage including comprehensive and collision coverage (the "Policy"). Defendant GEICO is one of the largest passenger auto insurance carriers operating in the State of California. The Defendant's Policy promises payment of "Actual Cash Value" ("ACV") in the event of a total loss of an insured vehicle. Pursuant to the terms of the Policy, ACV includes, inter alia, State sales tax and State-mandated regulatory fees. GEICO acknowledges that its Policy includes these taxes and fees: as part of its ACV payment to insureds who own vehicles that have sustained a total loss, GEICO pays sales tax; and as part of its ACV payment to all insureds, GEICO pays mandatory fees albeit in an insufficient amount. However, in violation of its Policy, GEICO refuses to pay sales tax (or, in rare cases, underpays sales tax) when it purports to pay ACV to insureds who have suffered a total loss of their leased (as opposed to owned or financed) insured vehicle. Further, and also in violation of its Policy, GEICO underpays mandatory regulatory fees to all insureds, whether the vehicle was owned/financed or leased. GEICO systematically and uniformly underpaid Plaintiffs and thousands of other putative Class Members amounts owed its insureds who suffered the total loss of a vehicle insured with comprehensive and collision coverage, says the complaint. Plaintiffs are domiciled, resides in, and are citizens of the State of California.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Annick Persinger, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 1970 Broadway, Suite 1070 Oakland, CA 94612 Phone: (510) 254-6808 Email: apersinger@tzlegal.com - and - Scott Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, P.A. 19495 Biscayne Blvd #607 Aventura, FL 33180 Phone: 305-975-3320 Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com - and - Edmund A. Normand, Esq. Jacob L. Phillips, Esq. NORMAND PLLC Post Office Box 1400036 Orlando, FL 32814-0036 Phone: 407-603-6031 Email: iacob.phillips@mormandpllc.com ed@ednormand.com GENERIC DRUG COS: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Price-Fixing -------------------------------------------------------------- Benjamin Mateus, writing for World Socialist Web Site, reports that a class action lawsuit was filed early in May by Connecticut and 44 other states against 20 large generic drug companies and 15 senior executives responsible for sales, marketing and pricing for allegedly conspiring as a cartel to fix prices and restrain trade on over 100 generic drugs. Between 2013 and 2014, of 1,215 generic versions of the most prescribed drugs, prices soared on average more than 400 percent. Some of the more critical medications saw a price hike of more than 1000 percent. In a prepared statement, Connecticut Attorney General William Tong said, "We have hard evidence that shows the generic drug industry perpetrated a multi-billion-dollar fraud on the American people. We have emails, text messages, telephone records, and former company insiders that we believe prove a multi-year conspiracy to fix prices and divide market share for huge numbers of generic drugs." This is the second case filed accusing the generic drug industry of perpetrating a multi-billion-dollar fraud against the public. The first complaint had been filed in 2016 against 15 generic drug manufacturers. Many of these drugs treated grave chronic conditions such as diabetes, arthritis, hypertension, and cancers. The soaring prices for prescription drugs are directly linked to these criminal practices. The suit alleges that for several years these companies have colluded as cartels, avoiding competition, and settling on "fair share" market prices to keep them inflated. In 2018, the pharmaceutical industry spent $27.5 million on lobbying against the pressure to lower prices. Compounding the storm and stress for the generic drug industry, in a recent expose published in the New York Times headlined, "Americans Need Generic Drugs. But Can They Trust Them?" an investigative journalist and expert in Big Pharma, Katherine Eban, has provided a searing critique of the generic drug industry's practice. According to Eban, "To minimize costs and maximize profit, companies circumvented regulations and resorted to fraud: manipulating tests to achieve positive results and concealing or altering data to cover their tracks. By making the drugs cheaply without the required safeguards and then selling them into regulated and more costly Western markets, claiming that they had followed all the necessary regulations, companies could reap enormous profits." Just last year, the FDA approved more than 1,000 new generic drugs for sale in the US market. Nearly 40 percent are made in India, and 80 percent of the active ingredients for both brand-name and generic drugs are manufactured abroad. China and India manufacture the majority of these. An unusually decent FDA safety officer by the name of Peter Baker, since his discovery of fraudulent practices at a Wockhardt Ltd. pharmaceutical plant in India in 2012, has gone on to inspect nearly 100 plants in India and China. His startling findings document that deceptive practices, such as manipulating the results of tests on manufactured drugs, are commonplace with almost 80 percent of drug plants engaged in such behavior. In her expose, Ms. Eban says, "Interviews with more than 240 people, including numerous whistle-blowers, helped expose what was going on behind the boardroom doors at generic drug companies. Some companies have encouraged data fraud as the most profitable path to securing approvals from regulators and have used deceit to hold the FDA's investigators at bay." The FDA has feebly defended its practice of giving advanced notice to foreign manufacturing plants for their upcoming inspections. They cite difficulty in obtaining visas and arranging local transportation as reasons. Inspectors arrive as company guests agreeing on inspection dates of selected sites. They are also treated to travel perks, accommodation upgrades, and leisure outings at no cost. And when serious deficiencies are discovered requiring "official action indicated" designation, FDA bureaucrats have downgraded these to "voluntary action indicated" for over 100 Indian plants which meant that drugs from those plants would continue reaching US markets. In September of 1984, the Drug Price Competition & Patent Term Restoration Act, also known as the Hatch-Waxman Act, was signed into law by then-President Ronald Reagan. This law created a new regulatory pathway for the introduction of generic drugs into US markets, which were until then kept in a legal stranglehold by Brand-name manufacturers. The legislation intended to encourage innovation while promoting competition between Brand-name and generic drugs to lower prices. The decade before had seen a rapid escalation of healthcare costs partially due to Medicare expenditures and rapid inflationary stresses. The expansion of hospital expenses and profits with the rapidly developing technology led to corporatizing and integrating hospital systems. Prescription drug spending was also on a rapid rise as a share of GDP and total health spending. Once the patent on the brand name expired, these generic drugs were placed on a fast track if they could show the FDA they had similar metabolism and effect as their brand-name equivalent. However, there are no measures in place to conduct safety trials on these generics, and none are required. No studies are performed to ensure equivalent effects and adverse outcome evaluation as with brand names beyond their data in the initial application due to the length of time and cost for conducting these trials. From 1984 to 2018, the rate of prescribing generics climbed from 19 to 90 percent. By 2018, generic drugs accounted for $442 billion of the $1.324 trillion in global pharmaceutical sales. On its present trajectory, according to a BCC Research report, the global market for generic drugs should reach $533 billion by 2021. In the intervening three decades, the manufacturing sources for generic drugs has shifted from the US and Israel, which led in the 1990s, to countries like India and China which have, presently, surpassed their Western counterparts. While emerging markets have contributed to the global growth of generic markets looking for cheaper substitutes, by 2009 market saturation and tepid economic projections led to consolidation through merger and acquisitions to achieve the appropriate scale to ensure profitability. The top ten generic drug producers now control a 61 percent share of the total revenue. Politicians have praised the 1984 Hatch-Waxman Act as a boon for the public at large. They note that from 2003 to 2012, generic drugs have saved the US healthcare system $1.2 trillion. However, behind these cost-saving measures has come a catastrophic erosion in assurance and safety for patients using these generic versions. There is considerable anecdotal evidence that when patients were switched to generic medications, their symptoms returned and condition deteriorated. Some have died taking these medications for the prevention of organ rejection after a transplant procedure. Adding insult to injury, in 2013, a 5 to 4 vote in favor of Mutual Pharmaceutical Co, owned by Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., the Supreme Court ruled that the state could not sue manufacturers of generic drugs for harm caused by their products, reversing a lower court multi-million-dollar jury awarded decision. Karen Bartlett had suffered a debilitating adverse reaction to a generic anti-inflammatory called Sulindac. She had a toxic reaction that affected 60 percent of her skin, causing open wounds, infections, permeant pain, and near blindness. Writing for the majority opinion, Justice Samuel Alito noted that state laws could not run against federal laws on prescription medicines whose design was approved by the FDA, essentially blocking a patient or their families from suing for harm incurred. The National Health Expenditure Accounts (NHEA) estimated that US health care spending grew 4.4 percent in 2018 over 2017 reaching $3.65 trillion or over $11,212 per person, accounting for 18 percent of the GDP. Prescription drug spending was up 3.3 percent year over year, mainly due to rising prices and not increased usage. By example, Medicare Part D spending on insulin has increased 840 percent over ten years, rising from $1.4 billion in 2007 to $13.3 billion in 2017. Generic drugs have become indispensable to the objective mathematics of the health care crisis. Nonetheless, the proportion of generic drugs that are seeing a doubling of their price year-over-year is growing as these manufacturers find therapeutic niches with little competition which they can exploit as well as colluding to fix prices. Insurance carriers, in turn, shift the burden of higher costs to consumers through hiking premiums, deductibles, and copayments. The logic of establishing the generic drug industry in a capitalist milieu demonstrates that they are fallacious measures that attempt to stabilize the ever-growing contradictions of capitalism that only heighten the crisis down the road. The past three decades have exposed the inevitable development of this industry's malignant operations and disastrous impacts on the health of the globe. The working class is the only force capable of bringing a rational perspective, utilizing the massive technological gains that have been made, to reorganizing these resources for social need and, importantly, their safety. [GN] GR RESTAURANT: Lezotte Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------- ADAM LEZOTTE, by and through the undersigned counsel and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. GR RESTAURANT MANAGEMENT, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, G&V 2, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, and GARY RACK, individually, Defendants, Case No. 0:19-cv-61617-XXXX (S.D. Fla., June 27, 2019) is an action against Defendants for violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendant is a limited liability company formed and existing under the laws of the State of Florida. Plaintiff became employed and hired by Defendants on February 2017, and worked for Defendants preparing food until approximately April 2019. Plaintiff regularly worked in excess of 40 hours in one or more work weeks during his employment with Defendants. However, Defendants did not pay time and-a-half wages for all of the overtime hours worked by Plaintiff, says the complaint. Plaintiff, therefore, seeks unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, and reasonable attorney's fee and costs from Defendants. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian Militzok, Esq. MILITZOK LAW, P.A. Wells Fargo Building 4600 Sheridan Street, Suite 402 Hollywood, FL 33021 Phone: (954) 780-8228 Facsimile: (954) 719-4016 Email: bjm@militzoklaw.com GUILIANO ENVIRONMENTAL: Santos Seeks Wage & Overtime Payments ------------------------------------------------------------- BRYANT SANTOS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. GUILIANO ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC, and all other affiliated Entities and/or Joint Employers, CHRISTOPHER GUILIANO, individually, and ROBERT FISTER, individually, the Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-14468 (D.N.J., June 28, 2019), seeks to recover statutory wage and overtime payments, payment for unpaid supplemental benefits that Plaintiff and the members of the putative class were statutorily and contractually entitled to receive for work they performed on numerous privately financed projects (Private Projects) and publicly financed projects (Public Works Projects) pursuant to contracts with various government entities (Government Entities) under the violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law, and the New Jersey State Prevailing Wage Act. The action is brought on behalf of Plaintiffs and a putative class of individuals who worked as roofers, demolition laborers, and other construction-related trades, and snow removal laborers, for GUILIANO and/or any other entities affiliated with, controlling, or controlled by the Defendants. The Defendants own and/or maintain a roofing, demolition, and snow removal business which operates throughout the State of New Jersey, as well as neighboring states and states throughout the Eastern United States. The Government Entities include, but are not limited to, the following: Union County, New Jersey, and Bergen County, New Jersey, as well as the State of New Jersey. The Public Works Projects were undertaken and performed by the Guiliano in accordance with the terms and conditions of certain "Public Works Contracts" entered into with the Government Entities between June 2013 and the present.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Andrew I. Glenn, Esq. Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq. JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A. 301 N. Harrison Street, Suite 9F, No. 306 Princeton, NJ 08540 Telephone: (201) 687-9977 Facsimile: (201) 595-0308 E-mail: Aglenn@JaffeGlenn.com Jjaffe@JaffeGlenn.com HERTZ LOCAL: Removes Ramirez Suit to Northern Dist. of California ----------------------------------------------------------------- Hertz Local Edition Corp. and Hertz Loca Edition Transporting, Inc. remove case DANIEL RAMIREZ, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. HERTZ LOCAL EDITION CORP., HERTZ LOCAL EDITION TRANSPORTING, INC; HERTZ LOCAL EDITION TRANSPORTING; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. RG19019783 (Filed May 21, 2019), from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on June 28, 2019. The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:19-cv-03782-KAW to the proceeding. The Defendants note that "Hertz Local Edition Transporting," which is erroneously named as a separate defendant, is not an entity, but rather a name sometimes used to refer to HLETI. The Defendants in no way suggest that HLE ever employed Plaintiff, they specifically deny that it ever did so, and further assert that there is no community of interest between the non-exempt employees employed by HLETI and the non-exempt employees employed by HLE. Nonetheless, Plaintiff has alleged that both entities are liable for the claims he asserts, he has sued both entities, and he purports to bring this action on behalf of a class that includes the non-exempt employees of both 13 entities. Therefore, both entities are removing this action. The Plaintiff alleges that he and the class are entitled to recover unpaid overtime wages; unpaid premium wages; restitution; penalties pursuant to California Labor Code Sections 226, etc.; and attorneys' fees.[BN] Attorneys for the Defendants are: Robert A. Dolinko, Esq. William s. Lisa, Esq. NIXON PEABODY LLP One Embarcadero Center, 32nd Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: 415-984-8200 Facsimile: 415-984-8300 E-mail: rdolinko@nixonpeabody.com wlisa@nixonpeabody.com HOME DEPOT: Nunes et al Suit Moved to Eastern Dist. of California ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case, Niki Nunes, Chris Smith, and Mitzi Wallace individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., a Delaware corporation, the Defendant, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-19-06656, was removed from the San Joaquin County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California (Sacramento) on June 28, 2019. The Eastern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-at-00548 to the proceeding. The case alleges labor-related violation. Home Depot Inc. is an American home improvement supplies retailing company that sells tools, construction products, and services. The company is headquartered at the Atlanta Store Support Center in unincorporated Cobb County, Georgia.[CC] The Plaintiffs appear pro se. Attorneys for Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.: Donna M. Mezias, Esq. AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP 580 California Street, Suite 1500 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 765-9500 Facsimile: (415) 765-9501 E-mail: dmezias@akingump.com HOMELAND SECURITY: Mons et al. Seek to Certify Class ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit, Angel Alejandro Heredia Mons, et al., on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. KEVIN McALEENAN, Acting Secretary of the Dep't of Homeland Security, in his official capacity, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01593-JEB (D. Colo.), the Plaintiffs move the court to enter an order certifying a class pursuant to Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 23.1. Plaintiffs' counsel, Luz Virginia Lopez, repeatedly attempted to confer with Defendants' counsel, the Office of Immigration Litigation, U.S. Department of Justice ("OIL"), to determine whether Defendants would consent to the relief requested. Ms. Lopez left several telephone messages for Sarah B. Fabian, Lead Attorney at OIL, which have yet to be returned. On June 18, 2019, Ms. Lopez again contacted OIL and spoke with attorney Kathleen A. Connolly. Ms. Connolly stated that she did not have the authority to confer on this matter, and informed Ms. Lopez that someone would soon contact her to discuss. As of the date of this filing, the Defendants' counsel has not contacted Ms. Lopez to confer about the relief requested, despite Plaintiffs' repeated attempts to confer, the lawsuit says.[CC] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are: Laura Rivera, Esq. Melissa Crow, Esq. Luz Virginia Lopez, Esq. Mary Bauer, Esq. SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER 150 East Ponce De Leon Ave, Suite 340 Decatur, GA 30030 Telephone: (404) 521-6700 E-mail: Laura.Rivera@splcenter.org Melissa.Crow@splcenter.org Luz.Lopez@splcenter.org Mary.Bauer@splcenter.org - and - Katie Schwartzmann, Esq. Bruce Hamilton, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF LOUISIANA FOUNDATION P.O. Box 56157 New Orleans, LA 70156 Telephone: (504) 522-0628 E-mail: kschwartzmann@laaclu.org bhamilton@laaclu.org HURRICANE STRAUSS: Almonte et al. Seek Minimum Wage & OT Pay ------------------------------------------------------------ ANGEL ORTEGA ALMONTE, FIDEL GUZMAN VASQUEZ, FILIMON GONZALEZ VEGA, GERARDO MENDOZA VAZQUEZ, LORENZO GALINDO, MARCELO ORDAZ, and MIGUEL ANGEL GALICIA JIMENEZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. HURRICANE STRAUSS, INC. (D/B/A WESTVILLE CHELSEA), LAYLA TOV INC. (D/B/A WESTVILLE HUDSON), JAY'S NICKELS AND DIMES, INC. (D/B/A WESTVILLE WEST), JAY STRAUSS, GEORGE MOTZKIN, BRETT TRACEY, LIZ DOE, ALEX DOE, SHAWN DOE, PETER DOE, OLIVER DOE, and CHRIS DOE, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-06104 (S.D.N.Y., June 29, 2019), seeks to recover minimum wage and overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. The Defendants own, operate, or control three American restaurants, located at 246 West 18th Street, New York, New York 10011 under the name "Westville Chelsea", at 333 Hudson Street, New York, New York 10013 under the name "Westville Hudson", and at 210 West 10th Street, New York, New York 10014 under the name "Westville West". The Plaintiffs are both current and former employees of the Defendants. The Plaintiffs have ostensibly been employed as delivery workers. However, they have been required to spend a considerable part of their work day performing non-tipped duties, including but not limited to taking out the trash, folding cardboard boxes, packing dressings in containers for delivery, stocking beverages in the refrigerator, sweeping the station, cleaning the patio and bathrooms, mopping, transporting inventory to and from the other restaurants, preparing salad dressing, putting away the bicycles at the end of the day, and packing the orders for delivery ("non-tipped duties"). The Plaintiffs have worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of hours compensation for the hours that they have worked. Rather, Defendants have failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked and have failed to pay Plaintiffs appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium. Further, Defendants have failed to pay Plaintiffs the required "spread of hours" pay for any day in which they have had to work over 10 hours a day. The Defendants have employed and accounted for Plaintiffs as delivery workers in their payroll, but in actuality their duties have required a significant amount of time spent performing the alleged non-tipped duties. The Defendants have maintained a policy and practice of requiring Plaintiffs and other employees to work in excess of 40 hours per week without providing the minimum wage and overtime compensation required by federal and state law and regulations.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 E-mail: Faillace@employmentcompliance.com HYUNDAI MOTOR: Johnson Files Product Liability Suit in C.D. Calif. ------------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hyundai Motor America Inc. The case is styled as Jennifer Johnson on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Hyundai Motor America Inc., Kia Motors America, Inc., ZT TRW Automotive Holdings Corp., Defendants, Case No. 8:19-cv-01292 (C.D. Cal., June 27, 2019). The nature of suit is stated as Motor Vehicle Product Liability. Hyundai Motor America, Inc. sells new and used cars. The company provides sedans, crossovers/SUVs, premium/luxury cars, and fuel efficient vehicles. It offers its products through dealers throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J Preusch, Esq. Keller Rohrback LLP 801 Garden Street Suite 301 Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Phone: (805) 456-1496 Fax: (805) 456-1497 Email: mpreusch@kellerrohrback.com ICAN BENEFIT: Invasion of Privacy Exclusion Bars Coverage for Suits ------------------------------------------------------------------- Jason Taylor of Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP said that recently, the District Court for the Southern District of Florida held that an exclusion in a claims-made policy precluding coverage for loss arising out of invasion of privacy barred coverage for a TCPA class action. In Horn v. Liberty Ins. Underwriters, Inc., 2019 WL 2297528 (S.D. Fla. May 30, 2019), an underlying class action was filed against Liberty's insured, iCan Benefit Group, LLC ("iCan"), a "national direct response marketer and seller of insurance products," asserting violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 227 ("TCPA") for iCan allegedly sending unsolicited text messages to members of the class. Liberty issued a claims-made errors and omissions "Private Advantage Insurance Policy" that provided coverage to iCan Holding LLC, as a Named Insured. Liberty denied coverage for the underlying suit on multiple grounds, one of which was an "invasion of privacy" exclusion contained in the policy. Specifically, the exclusion barred coverage for "Loss" on account of any "Claim" made against the Company: "4. based upon, arising out of, or attributable to any actual or alleged defamation, invasion of privacy, wrongful entry and eviction, false arrest or imprisonment, malicious prosecution, abuse of process, assault, battery or loss of consortium." Following Liberty's coverage denial, the class action parties entered into a "Coblentz" settlement agreement, whereby they ratified a consent judgment for $60,413,112.00 and an assignment of iCan's rights and interest under the Liberty Policy to the underlying class action plaintiffs, who then could pursue the damage amount from the insurer. In the ensuing declaratory judgment action, the plaintiffs argued that the Liberty Policy's "invasion of privacy" exclusion did not apply, insofar as their underlying complaint included allegations and causes of action beyond just their invasion of privacy claim. In other words, the allegations of invasion of privacy were just one component of the underlying case. Moreover, plaintiffs contended that they did not have to prove invasion of privacy in order to prevail in the class action as it is not an element of their TCPA cause of action. For this reason as well, they advocated that the exclusion did not apply. The District Court disagreed. Although invasion of privacy is not an element of a TCPA violation, the District Court found that such a violation may, in some circumstances, be considered an invasion of privacy for purposes of analyzing coverage in an insurance policy. Relying on earlier Florida case law and a recent decision from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the Court acknowledged that "the source of the right of privacy is the TCPA, which provides the privacy right to seclusion," and that the TCPA's purpose is grounded in protecting individuals' right to privacy. Horn, 2019 WL 2297528 at *4 quoting Penzer v. Transportation Ins. Co., 29 So. 3d 1000, 1006 (Fla. 2010) ("The receipt of an unsolicited fax advertisement implicates a person's right of privacy insofar as it violates a person's seclusion…"); see also Los Angeles Lakers, Inc. v. Federal Insurance Company. 869 F.3d 795, 806 (9th Cir. 2017) (because "a TCPA claim is inherently an invasion of privacy claim, [the insurer] correctly concluded that Emanuel's TCPA claims fell under the Policy's broad [invasion of privacy] exclusionary clause."). Importantly, the Liberty Policy excluded claims that "arise out of" an invasion of privacy, a phrase construed broadly under Florida law to mean "originating from," "having its origin in," "growing out of," "flowing from," "incident to" or "having a connection with." Horn, 2019 WL 2297528 at *5. By coupling case law that interprets TCPA violations as invasions of privacy with Florida's broad interpretation of "arising out of," the District Court held that the TCPA violations alleged in the underlying litigation arose out of an invasion of privacy, andwere excluded from coverage. Pertinent to its analysis, the District Court found that (1) the underlying complaint explicitly stated that the class action plaintiffs' privacy was invaded by the violative texts, (2) the suit was "premised on violations of the TCPA, which caused actual harm in the form of aggravation and nuisance and invasion of privacy," and (3) plaintiffs' had conceded in their underlying Complaint that the "pertinent allegations" for the relief sought included actual harm caused by "invasions of privacy that result from the sending and receipt of such text messages…." Thus, regardless of whether the "Claim" was viewed as the entire class action as a whole or as separate "Claims" for each cause of action, the District Court concluded that the Liberty Policy's broad exclusion barring coverage for a "Claim" arising out of an actual or alleged invasion of privacy precluded coverage entirely. For insurance carriers, the Horn decision cuts both ways. For commercial general liability insurers whose policies typically afford coverage for "written publication of material that violates a person's right of privacy," the decision reaffirms that the "[general liability] insurance policy provides coverage for sending unsolicited fax advertisements in violation of the TCPA." As respects professional liability carriers, the holding brings Florida's Southern District Court in line with those few decisions that construe the "invasion of privacy" exclusionbroadly, so as to bar coverage for TCPA class actions against an insured. Moreover, as states continue to enact regulations that increasingly focus on data privacy, the decision may take on greater significance in confirming the absence of coverage for claims asserting or arising out of actual or alleged invasion of individual privacy rights. [GN] INDIANA: 9 Kids File Class Suit Over Child Welfare System --------------------------------------------------------- Abbey Doyle, writing for Evansville Courier & Press, reports that nine children in Indiana's foster care system filed a class action lawsuit on June 25, 2019, in Evansville's U.S. District Court seeking to stop "the ongoing violations of children's constitutional rights and rights under federal law, transform the state's child welfare system, and ensure DCS fulfills its legal responsibility for vulnerable foster children in Indiana's child welfare system," according to the attorneys filing the suit. The children -- aged 3 to 16 from Marion, Allen, Spencer and Wells counties -- in the filed complaint said the lawsuit was being brought as a civil rights action on behalf of all children currently or who will be in the custody of Indiana Department of Child Services. "For each named plaintiff, DCS has failed to provide safe and appropriate foster care placements; failed to provide appropriate services to the children and their families to allow safe reunification; and, for those for whom safe family reunification is not possible, failed to timely pursue termination of parental rights legal proceedings and failed to seek and secure safe, permanent homes," the complaint alleges. "In doing so, Defendants have violated Plaintiffs' federal constitutional and statutory rights." The suit was filed by Indianapolis-based Indiana Disability Rights, New York-based A Better Childhood and New York-based Kirkland & Ellis. DCS deputy director of communications Noelle Russell declined to comment saying, "We do not have comment on the pending litigation at this time. DCS has not yet received notification of the lawsuit, and our legal team would need to review the information." The suit also names Gov. Eric Holcomb and DCS director Terry Stigdon. The complaint alleges that Indiana removes children from their homes to be placed into foster care at a "staggering rate — more than double the national rate" and then fails to keep them safe while in DCS custody "often placing them in inappropriate, unstable or overly restrictive placements; fails to provide necessary support services and medical and mental health care; and fails to provide meaningful case management." The shortcomings of the state's foster care system, the complaint alleges, are well known by state officials. An analysis of the Child Welfare Consulting Group showed the state's systemic and continued failure to correct these issues leaves children in serious and unconstitutional danger, the complaint alleges. "Although the state has made some changes to the foster care system since the issuance of the CWG report, the changes are minimal, and the basic problems continue," according to the complaint. "The agency appears to be focused more on statistics than outcomes, by allegedly not investigating cases or closing cases that are not yet ripe for closing and without providing necessary services to children." In a release from the attorneys representing the children, they illustrated some of the living situations of the children in the class action. Ashley W. and Betty W., 3 and 4, were removed from their mother's care due to her substance abuse and went through 16 and 17 different foster homes over 2 1/2 years, respectively. After two years in care, DCS finally changed the girls' permanency goal to adoption but then failed to meet statutory deadlines for terminating parental rights, so a judge dismissed the DCS petition and the girls are now split up and residing in separate non-kinship foster homes. Logan S. is a 12-year-old boy who entered the foster care system over a decade ago when he was two years old and has cycled through at least 15 placements, including failed pre-adoptive placements, emergency shelters and residential facilities. It took DCS five years to free Logan for adoption, and he now lives in a locked facility in northern Indiana. He longs for a family who will love him. Sara O. is a 14-year-old girl who entered foster care at 7 due to sexual abuse by her father. After several years in foster care, DCS returned Sara to her father, who again sexually abused her. After calling 911, Sara reentered foster care. DCS has placed Sara in at least 17 different placements, including a state psychiatric hospital, where she lived for three years. Sara currently lives in a private secure facility in northern Indiana. Milo S. and Thomas M. are three- and five-year-old brothers who've been in foster care most of their lives. Thomas was removed from his mother's care at 1 years old due to domestic violence and her use of methamphetamine. DCS later placed him back home for a trial visit but failed to monitor the family, and his mother started using meth again. DCS removed Thomas and discovered then three-month-old Milo with severe scabies all over his body. Six Family Care Managers (FCMs) and four DCS attorneys have been assigned to the boys' case, with two FCMs terminated due to inappropriate behavior. Parental rights were terminated, but the Court of Appeals reversed the order due to DCS's severe mishandling of the case. The complaint alleges that Holcomb, Stigdon and DCS have been aware of the ongoing issues and failings of the department through a number of audits and reports and the public resignation of former DCS Director Mary Beth Bonaventura who warned in her resignation to the Governor that Indiana officials were systematically placing Hoosier children at risk "in ways that all but ensure children will die." Systemic issues alleged in the 81-page suit alleged include: The state is failing to provide children in its care with stable, nurturing, family-like homes -- a lack of foster homes mean children are placed based on what home is available rather than what home is suitable. Frequent moves among homes and institutions increase trauma for children already removed from their family homes and often separated from their siblings, their school and their community. DCS is unable to meet the needs of the thousands of foster children with disabilities whose involvement in the child welfare system places them at a greater risk of institutionalization. The child welfare system relies heavily on institutionalization, even for children with relatively minor behavioral problems. The system is not set up to provide children the necessary services and treatment they need. Foster children's medical, mental health, and physical needs remain unmet due to irregular, infrequent assessments and a lack of sufficient and available resources. Overworked caseworkers struggle to make important but difficult decisions about the right services to provide. They face having too many children to serve, too few resources, and too little training. The complaint alleges the nine children have suffered serious physical and psychological harm under DCS care. "We have been deeply troubled the more we have studied the Indiana child welfare system," A Better Childhood Executive Director Marcia Robinson Lowry said in the release. "There have been years of expert reports, years of promised reforms, and minimal and intermittent movement forward, but the fundamental problems in this system do not change. Children are being very badly harmed by the lack of appropriate placements, by the erratic practices, and by the lack of a fundamental focus on the well-being of children. The way that Indiana is treating these vulnerable children is both unconstitutional and inhumane." Melissa Keyes, legal director of Indiana Disability Rights, said children coming into the care of DCS have already experienced trauma. "The failure of DCS to protect these kids from further harm is unconscionable, especially when much of that harm is due to DCS's own failings," she said. "That children with disabilities are being kept in overly restrictive institutional settings, that they are not being provided with adequate community-based services has certainly contributed to the developmental trauma these kids are experiencing." Kirkland & Ellis partner Aaron Marks, Esq. -- aaron.marks@kirkland.com -- said the failure to protect these vulnerable children by DCS is "completely unacceptable." "This violation of constitutional rights is causing lasting harm to both the children and their communities," he said. "We are hopeful that our efforts will transform this broken system, and ensure the protection and welfare of Hoosier children." The groups said they were responding to requests from local advocates to investigate the state's child welfare system and conducted extensive research and interviews with a number of people involved with many aspects of the state's foster care system over the last year. In the release, the groups said they "consistently identified failings pointing to the need for a lawsuit to force reform of DCS and protect children in its care. The suit is asking the court permanently prohibit DCS from subjecting the children in the suit to further harm and from threatening their safety and well-being through practices that violate their rights. The court is being asked to order appropriate remedial relief to ensure that defendants comply with the law and provide children with legally mandated services.[GN] INFORMATION RESOURCES: Accord Reached in Service Managers' Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit IRAM BAKHTIAR, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. INFORMATION RESOURCES, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-04559-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Parties will move the Court to enter an order on August 8, 2019: a. preliminarily approving a class action settlement; b. certifying a proposed class for settlement purposes only; c. appointing Bryan Schwartz Law as Class Counsel, and appointing Iram Bakhtiar as Class Representative; d. appointing Rust Consulting as Claims Administrator; e. approving Class Notices to be sent to the Settlement Class; and f. scheduling a final approval hearing date. The case is a wage-and-hour class and collective action against Information Resources, Inc. brought by Client Service Managers, Client Solutions Managers, Client Service Analysts, Client Service Consultants, and other similar, non-management positions (collectively, Client Service Managers). The Plaintiff seeks preliminary approval of a $2.25 million settlement of this matter on behalf of approximately 137 Client Service Managers, who will receive an average gross recovery of nearly $16,500/each. Moreover, by this Settlement, the Defendant commits to a significant corporate reform, consisting of position audits and reclassification, which will have long-term benefits for absent Class Members, the lawsuit says. IRI supplies market research data gathered from point-of-sale trackers to its corporate clients. All of IRI's Client Service Managers were classified as exempt from the overtime requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act and paid a fixed salary regardless of the number of hours worked. Consequently, Client Service Managers were not compensated at overtime rates for overtime worked. Plaintiff alleges that IRI's Client Service Managers were misclassified, while IRI contends that it properly classified Client Service Managers as exempt under the administrative exemption and/or other exemptions.[CC] Attorneys for Iram Bakhtiar Individually and all others similarly situated are: Bryan Schwartz, Esq. Samuel Goldsmith, Esq. BRYAN SCHWARTZ LAW 180 Grand Avenue, Suite 1380 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 444-9300 Facsimile: (510) 444-9301 E-mail: bryan@bryanschwartzlaw.com samuel@bryanschwartzlaw.com INTEGON NATIONAL: Center Files Suit in M.D. Georgia --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against INTEGON NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY. The case is styled as JEFFREY CENTER individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INTEGON NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 5:19-cv-00258-TES (M.D. Ga., June 27, 2019). The nature of suit is stated as Insurance. Integon National Insurance Company operates as an insurance company. The Company offers automobile, general, installment plan, and other insurance products and services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C COOPER KNOWLES, ESQ. Law Office of C. Cooper Knowles, LLC 3405 Piedmont Road, N.E., Suite 500 ATLANTA, GA 30305 Phone: (404) 431-5900 Email: cknowles@cckfirm.com - and - CLINTON W SITTON, ESQ. RICHARD KOPELMAN, ESQ. 5855 Sandy Springs Circle, Suite 300 ATLANTA, GA 30328 Phone: (404) 351-5900 Email: clint@kopelmansitton.com richard@kopelmansitton.com - and - JAMES C BRADLEY, ESQ. MICHAEL J BRICKMAN, ESQ. NINA FIELDS BRITT, ESQ. PO BOX 1007 MT PLEASANT, SC 29465 Phone: (843) 727-6500 Email: jbradley@rpwb.com mbrickman@rpwb.com nfields@rpwb.com - and - KIMBERLY KEEVERS PALMER, ESQ. 1037 CHUCK DAWLEY BLVD BLDG A MT PLEASANT, SC 29464 Phone: (843) 727-6500 Email: kkeevers@rpwb.com - and - ADAM P PRINCENTHAL, ESQ. 750 HAMMOND DR BLDG 12 STE 200 SANDY SPRINGS, GA 30328 Phone: (678) 534-1980 Email: adam@princemay.com INTERSTATE MANAGEMENT: Removes Boone Suit to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ The Defendant in the case of ANGELA BOONE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INTERSTATE MANAGEMENT COMPANY, L.L.C.; and DOES 1 through 10, Defendants, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Orange (Case No. 30-2019-01066745-CU-OE-CXC) to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on June 17, 2019. The clerk of court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 8:19-cv-01208. The case is assigned to Judge Cormac J Carney and referred to Magistrate Suzanne H Segal. Interstate Management Company, LLC operates a restaurant. Interstate Management Company, LLC was formerly known as Meristar Management Company, LLC. The company was incorporated in 1998 and is based in Arlington, Virginia. Interstate Management Company, LLC operates as a subsidiary of Interstate Operating Company,LP. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: James E. Hart, Esq. P. Dustin Bodaghi, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 2050 Main Street, Suite 900 Irvine, CA 92614 Telephone: (949) 705-3000 Facsimile: (949) 724-1201 E-mail: jhart@littler.com dbodaghi@littler.com INTUIT INC: Deceived Taxpayers Into Purchasing TurboTax Product --------------------------------------------------------------- CLAUDIA MCCONNAUGHEY, JOHN GILLIN II, JENIFER CASTO, AND ANDREA MALLOY, individually and on behalf of all others, Plaintiffs, v. INTUIT INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:19-cv-03745 (N.D. Cal., June 27, 2019) is an action concerning Intuit's campaign to intentionally divert and deceive lower income tax payers who are eligible to receive free tax preparation and filing services under the United States Internal Revenue Service's ("IRS") Free File program ("Free File Program") to its paid TurboTax products. TurboTax is the market leading tax preparation software, owned and manufactured by Intuit, that is utilized to file more than 36 million tax returns for taxpayers every year. Pursuant to an agreement with the IRS, TurboTax and 11 other tax preparation providers are required to cumulatively offer 70% of U.S. taxpayers based on Adjusted Gross Income ("AGI") (currently anyone with an AGI of $66,000 or less) the option to file their taxes for free. The agreement was specifically designed to keep the IRS from creating its own free online filing system. According to the government, the goal of the Free File Program was to implement the IRS's public policy of "extending the benefits of online federal tax preparation and electronic filing to economically disadvantaged and underserved populations at no cost to either the individual user or to the public treasury." Intuit, however, has long been luring customers into paying for a service that it promised the government it would give away for free, notes the complaint. The complaint asserts that with knowledge that the vast majority of its users (the lowest earning 70% percent of American taxpayers) qualify to file their taxes online for free using TurboTax, Intuit violated its agreement with the IRS and defrauded Plaintiffs and Class members by actively concealing public access to the IRS's Free File Program and intentionally diverting qualified taxpayers away from its "free filing" program in favor of its paid product offerings. Only a small percentage of American taxpayers file their faxes for free. For example, in fiscal year 2018, fewer than 2.5 million of the 100 million eligible taxpayers (less than 2.5%) participated in the Free File Program. The Plaintiff says Intuit employed deceptive and misleading advertising to fraudulently induce lower income taxpayers into purchasing TurboTax products when they were eligible for free services pursuant to Intuit's agreement with the IRS. Indeed, Intuit marketed its paid offerings as "Free Guaranteed"--so that qualified taxpayers believed they were filing their taxes pursuant to the Free File Program, only to be hit with unexpected charges after they already spent hours entering information and preparing to file. Because Intuit's actions and omissions violate well established legal and statutory duties that they owed to Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated U.S. consumers, those individuals were forced to suffer the consequences. As a result of this scheme, Intuit generated millions of dollars of ill-gotten gains from persons who can least afford it, says the complaint. Plaintiffs paid TurboTax to file their tax returns, despite qualifying for the IRS free filing program. Intuit markets, sells, and operates TurboTax, a tax preparation and filing software product and service, and is a member of the Free File Alliance, a nonprofit coalition of twelve tax software companies under an agreement with the IRS to provide free electronic tax services to eligible American taxpayers—the Free File Program.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jennifer R. Scullion, Esq. Stephen A. Weiss, Esq. SEEGER WEISS LLP 77 Water Street, 8th Fl. New York, NY 10005 Phone: (212) 584-0700 Facsimile: (212) 584-0799 Email: jscullion@seegerweiss.com sweiss@seegerweiss.com - and - Christopher A. Seeger, Esq. Christopher L. Ayers, Esq. SEEGER WEISS LLP 55 Challenger Road, 6th Floor Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660 Phone: (212) 584-0700 Facsimile: (212) 584-0799 Email: cseeger@seegerweiss.com cayers@seegerweiss.com J. ALEXANDER'S: Sued Over Denial of Service to Black Woman ---------------------------------------------------------- Fox 2 Detroit Staff reports that cell phone video taken inside J. Alexander's shows the moments after a woman allegedly was denied service due to her race last June 27, 2019, in West Bloomfield. Maurice Davis, Esq., has filed a class action lawsuit against the restaurant, representing the woman. "This kind of behavior is archaic racism reminiscent of black men and women in the 1950s," he said. It all started when Liah Gant says she was sitting at the bar and was asked to give up her seat for two white men. When she refused, she claims the bartender denied her service and poured her drink down the sink. "I had done nothing wrong, it made me feel invisible. It made me feel I didn't deserve to be there," Gant said. "I immediately got up and went to management. She said that I shouldn't be upset because a drink wasn't thrown on me." When a black customer tried to stand up for Gant and her friend, a white customer began yelling at him -- and then threw food at him. Gant was recording. West Bloomfield police were called but Mr. Davis claims the management protected the white customer, helping him leave through the back. "That manager chose to decide to say it is ok to be racist toward your black patrons, it is okay to deny them service, to deny them their basic humanity," Davis said. That same night another black customer, Jerrick Jefferson, who had never met Gant before, was there celebrating his anniversary with his wife. He said they had horrible service and tried to talk to the manager about it. "The manager, she was totally dismissive of our concerns when I brought up I thought we were racially profiled based on observations with how they interacted with white patrons. She simply said 'I am walking away,'" Jefferson said. He said a man came out, called him the n-word and told them to go home. "This isn't coincidental; this restaurant has a culture of racism," Jefferson said. J. Alexander's issued a statement which called it an unfortunate incident that their staff tried to diffuse. They say they have a strict non-discrimination policy and do not tolerate any inappropriate behavior from guests or staff. "They should be terminated, because I feel that today I should be able to walk into a restaurant and order whatever I want, I shouldn't be forced to get out of my seat," she said. Davis said police have identified the suspect and assigned a detective to the case.[GN] K&S TOOL: Does not Properly Pay Workers, Kraczek Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTOPHER KRACZEK, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. K&S TOOL, DIE & MANUFACTURING, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-00938-PP (E.D. Wis., June 27, 2019) is a collective and class action brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"), and Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws ("WWPCL"), by Plaintiff against Defendant. Defendant owned, operated, and managed a metal manufacturing facility in the State of Wisconsin, located at N 8145 Maple Street, Ixonia, Wisconsin 53036. Plaintiff was hired by Defendant into the position of Maintenance Technician at its Ixonia, Wisconsin manufacturing facility in approximately May 2016. According to the complaint, the Defendant operated (and continues to operate) an unlawful compensation system that deprives current and former hourly-paid, non-exempt Manufacturing employees of their wages earned for all compensable work performed each workweek, including at an overtime rate of pay for each hour worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, by failing to include all forms of non-discretionary compensation, such as monetary bonuses, commissions, incentives, awards, and/or other rewards and payments, in all current and former hourly-paid, non-exempt Manufacturing employees' regular rates of pay for overtime calculation purposes, says the complaint.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James A. Walcheske, Esq. Scott S. Luzi, Esq. WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC 15850 W. Bluemound Rd., Suite 304 Brookfield, WI 53005 Phone: (262) 780-1953 Fax: (262) 565-6469 Email: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com KEESLER FEDERAL: Lloyd Files Suit in S.D. Mississippi ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed Keesler Federal Credit Union. The case is styled as Shirley Lloyd on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Keesler Federal Credit Union, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00351-HSO-JCG (S.D. Miss., June 28, 2019). The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. Keesler Federal Credit Union is a credit union headquartered in Biloxi, Mississippi, chartered and regulated under the authority of the National Credit Union Administration of the U.S. federal government.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher J. Weldy, Esq. WELDY LAW FIRM, PLLC 105 North College Street Brandon, MS 39042 Phone: (601) 624-7460 Fax: (866) 900-4850 Email: chris@weldylawfirm.com KONA BREWING: Settles Class Action Over "Made in Hawaii" Claim -------------------------------------------------------------- Amanda Bronstad, writing for Law.com, reports that the maker of Kona Brewing Co.'s line of beers settled a class action alleging that its brews weren't, in fact, made in Hawaii. Craft Brew Alliance Inc. agreed to list on product packaging where its beer was actually made. Under the deal, Kona has the right to terminate the agreement should consumers submit more than 1 million claims for refunds of $10 to $20 each. The case made the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform's annual list of the 10 "most ridiculous" lawsuits in 2018. [GN] LAUREL LEE: Raysor Sues over SB 7066's Wealth-Based Discrimination ------------------------------------------------------------------ BONNIE RAYSOR, and DIANE SHERRILL, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. LAUREL M. LEE, in her official capacity as Secretary of State, the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-00301-MW-MJF (N.D. Ga., June 28, 2019), seeks to enjoin Defendant, her agents, employees, successors, and all those persons acting in concert or participation with them, from enforcing SB 7066 including: a. Enjoining Defendant from initiating a process for the rejection of any voter registration applications on the basis of outstanding legal financial obligations or "LFOs"; b. Enjoining Defendant from initiating a process for the removal of any voters from the voter registration rolls on the basis of outstanding LFOs; c. Requiring Defendant to instruct county election supervisors that outstanding LFOs do not disqualify any individual from voting rights restoration, and therefore not to remove or reject any registrant based on outstanding LFOs; d. Requiring Defendant to inform those with past felony convictions that the failure to pay LFOs does not disqualify them from voting rights restoration under Amendment 4; and e. Requiring Defendant to instruct county election supervisors to restore Florida citizens to the voter registration rolls if they were removed solely on the basis of their outstanding LFOs. On November 6, 2018, almost two-thirds of Floridians voted for Amendment 4 to restore the right to vote to individuals with past felony convictions. Except for individuals convicted of murder or felony sexual offense, Amendment 4 re-enfranchised otherwise eligible Florida citizens automatically "upon completion of all terms of sentence including parole or probation." Fla. Const. art. VI, section 4. On June 28, 2019, Governor Ron DeSantis signed Senate Bill 7066 ("SB 7066"), which purports to "implement" Amendment 4, in part by seeking to define "all terms of sentence" to include the payment of any restitution, fines, and fees -- "LFOs" -- ordered by the court "as a part of the sentence or that are ordered by the court as a condition of any form of supervision." The natural and foreseeable effect of this "implementing" law will be to drastically reduce the number of people with past convictions who regain the right to vote under Amendment 4; permanently disenfranchise many minor offenders; and dole out the right to vote on the basis of wealth. On its face, SB 7066 discriminates on the basis of wealth. People with the financial means to satisfy their LFOs either during or at the conclusion of their sentence of incarceration or supervision will have their rights automatically restored. But, people whose socioeconomic status prevents them from satisfying their LFOs concurrent with the termination of their incarceration or supervision will be prohibited from voting until they are able to pay their outstanding balance. As a result, whether otherwise eligible individuals will have the right to vote upon completion of their sentence of incarceration and supervision depends entirely on their ability to pay for it. Indeed, two otherwise eligible individuals with the same conviction, who received the same terms of probation and parole, and the same LFOs, would be treated differently under SB 7066 based solely on whether they have the means to satisfy their LFOs. In short, SB 7066's wealth-based discrimination not only violates the Fourteenth Amendment, but also the Twenty-Fourth Amendment by functioning as a modern-day poll tax. As a result of SB 7066, people with convictions will often be left in the dark and find themselves in need of a lawyer just to find out their eligibility to vote. Individuals who register in error risk felony prosecution and thus the unique threat of recidivism. Such ambiguity surrounding access to the right to vote violates procedural due process and cannot survive, the lawsuit says.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Chad W. Dunn, Esq. Brazil & Dunn 1200 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1950 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 783-2190 Facsimile: (305) 783-2268 E-mail: chad@brazilanddunn.com - and - Danielle Lang, Esq. Mark P. Gaber, Esq. Molly E. Danahy, Esq. Blair Bowie, Esq. Jonathan Diaz, Esq. Campaign Legal Center 1101 14th Street NW, Suite 400 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 736-2200 E-mail: dlang@campaignlegal.org mgaber@campaignlegal.org mdanahy@campaignlegal.org bbowie@campaignlegal.org jdiaz@campaignlegal.org LINCARE INC: Martinez Discrimination Suit Removed to E.D. Calif. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned TERINA MARTINEZ, an individual, Plaintiff, v. LINCARE INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 34-2019-00255729 was removed from the Superior Court of California for the County of Sacramento to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on June 27, 2019, and assigned Case No. 2:19-at-00539. The Complaint alleges eleven causes of action: (1) "Harassment and Discrimination Based on Disability [FEHA];" (2) "Violation of Rights Under California Family Rights Act [FEHA];" (3) "Harassment and Discrimination Based on Sex [FEHA];" (4) "Retaliation [FEHA];" (5) "Denial of Reasonable Accommodation and Interactive Process Duties [FEHA];" (6) "Failure to Prevent Harassment and Discrimination [FEHA];" (7) "Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy;" (8) "Fraud, Deceit, and Concealment;" (9) "Unfair Business Practices;" (10) "Negligence;" and (11) "Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress".[BN] The Defendants are represented by: David S. McLeod, Esq. Daniel J. Turner, Esq. MCLEOD & WITHAM LLP 300 S. Grand Ave. Suite 2525 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 627-3600 Facsimile: (213) 627-6290 Email: dmcleod@mmwf.com dturner@mmwf.com LYFT INC: Schall Law Firm Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- The Schall Law Firm, a nationalshareholder rights litigation firm, announces the filing of a classaction lawsuit against Lyft, Inc. ("Lyft" or "the Company") (LYFT) for violations of the federal securities laws. Investors who purchased the Company's shares pursuant to and/ortraceable to the Company's Initial Public Offering in March 2019 (the"IPO") are encouraged to contact the firm before July 16, 2019. We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall, or Rina Restaino, ofthe Schall Law Firm, 1880 Century Park East, Suite 404, Los Angeles, CA90067, at 424-303-1964, to discuss your rights free of charge. You canalso reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by email at brian@schallfirm.com. The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and untilcertification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If youchoose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member. According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleadingstatements to the market. Lyft's claimed position in the ridesharingmarket was overstated. More than 1,000 of the Company's ridesharingbicycles suffered from safety deficiencies requiring a recall to fix. Atthe same time, the Company's drivers were becoming disincentivized fromdriving for Lyft. The Company failed to warn investors that this labordisruption could threaten its operations. Based on these facts, theCompany's public statements were false and materially misleadingthroughout the IPO period. When the market learned the truth about Lyft,investors suffered damages. Join the case to recover your losses. Contact: Brian Schall, Esq. Sherin Mahdavian, Esq. The Schall Law Firm 1880 Century Park East Suite 404, Los Angeles CA 90067 Phone: Office: 310-301-3335 Cell: 424-303-1964 Website: www.schallfirm.com Email: info@schallfirm.com brian@schallfirm.com [GN] MACK WELDON: Duncan Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mack Weldon, Inc. The case is styled as Eugene Duncan, ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff v. Mack Weldon, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-06024 (S.D. N.Y., June 27, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Mack Weldon, Inc. manufactures men's underwears, undershirts, T-shirts, and socks.[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 MDL 2047: Renewed Bid for Class Cert. Taken under Submission ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit, RE: CHINESE-MANUFACTURED DRYWALL PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, Case No. 2:09-md-02047-EEF-JCW (E.D. La.), the Hon. Judge Eldon E. Fallon entered an order taking Plaintiffs' renewed motion for class certification against Taishan Gypsum Co., Ltd. under submission.[CC] Attorney for the Plaintiffs is: Sarah London, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN 275 Battery St Fl 29 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 956-1000 Facsimile: (415) 956-1008 E-mail: slondon@lchb.com Attorneys for Taishan Gypsum Co., Ltd. and Taian Taishan Plasterboard Co., Ltd.: Christy Eikhoff, Esq. PARTNER, ALSTON & BIRD Telephone: 404 881 4496 E-mail: christy.eikhoff@alston.com MDL 2741: Pritchett v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated --------------------------------------------------------------- VICKIE PRITCHETT and PATRICIA PRITCHETT, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, a Delaware Corporation, the Defendant, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Case No. 4:19-cv-01460 (Filed May 28, 2019) to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco) on June 21, 2019. The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-03549-VC to the proceeding. The suit seeks to recover damages suffered by the Plaintiffs, as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiffs maintain that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. erald Maudlin's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable. The Plaintiffs bring this action for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA). As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma. Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products, including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide, Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax. The Pritchett Case is being consolidated with MDL 2741 in re: Roundup Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on October 3, 2016. These actions share common factual questions arising out of allegations that Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, particularly its active ingredient, glyphosate, causes non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. The Plaintiffs allege that they or their decedents developed non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after using Roundup over the course of several or more years. The Plaintiffs also alleges that the use of glyphosate in conjunction with other ingredients, in particular the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA), renders Roundup even more toxic than glyphosate on its own. Issues concerning general causation, the background science, and regulatory history will be common to all actions. In its October 3, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions in this MDL involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Northern District of California will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings (including with respect to discovery, privilege, and Daubert motion practice); and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria. The lead case is 3:16-md-02741-VC.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Seth S. Webbm, Esq. BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C. 211 North Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 222-2222 Facsimile: (314) 421-0359 E-mail: sethw@getbc.com MEDICAL CITY HEALTHCARE: De Leon Suit Moved to N.D. Texas --------------------------------------------------------- The case Pearl De Leon on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. North Texas Division, Inc. doing business as: Medical City Healthcare and Columbia Medical Center of Las Colinas, Inc. doing business as: Medical City Las Colinas, the Defendants, Case No. DC-19-07928, was removed from the 160th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas (Dallas) on June 28, 2019. The Northern District of Texas Court Clerk assgined Case No. 3:19-cv-01574-N to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge David C. Godbey.[CC] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Daniel E. Blumberg, Esq. Peter F. Bagley, Esq. BLUMBERG & BAGLEY LLP 2304 W. Interstate 20, Suite 190 Arlington, TX 76017 Telephone: (817) 277-1500 Facsimile: (817) 277-1170 E-mail: daniel@blumbergbagley.com peter@blumbergbagley.com Attorneys for the Defendants are: J. Patrick Bredehoft, Esq. THOMPSON & KNIGHT LLP One Arts Plaza 1722 Routh Street, Suite 1500 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 969-1395 Facsimile: (214) 969-1751 E-mail: patrick.bredehoft@tklaw.com - and - Catherine Clemons Rowsey, Esq. William Mayer Katz, Jr., Esq. THOMPSON & KNIGHT LLP 1722 Routh Street, Suite 1500 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 969-1700 Facsimile: (214) 969-1750 E-mail: catherine.rowsey@tklaw.com william.katz@tklaw.com MERCANTILE ADJUSTMENT: Appeals Decision in Vedernikov to 3rd Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant Mercantile Adjustment Bureau LLC filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the lawsuit titled Igor Vedernikov v. Mercantile Adjustment Bureau LLC, Case No. 3-18-cv-17364, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Igor Vedernikov filed the lawsuit on December 18, 2018. The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Mercantile Adjustment Bureau, LLC provides collection and accounts receivable management services to lenders, debt purchasers, and universities in the United States. The company offers services in the areas of dismissed bankruptcy, pre legal and legal, and other collection; call center, legal and compliance, client policy and procedures certification, skip tracing, and reminder dunning notice, and more; confidentiality, ongoing, and other training, as well as client services. The appellate case is captioned as Igor Vedernikov v. Mercantile Adjustment Bureau LLC, Case No. 19-8022, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Respondent IGOR VEDERNIKOV, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com Defendant-Petitioner MERCANTILE ADJUSTMENT BUREAU LLC is represented by: Andrew J. Blady, Esq. SESSIONS FISHMAN NATHAN & ISRAEL LLC 3682 Green Ridge Road Furlong, PA 18925 Telephone: (267) 544-0840 E-mail: ablady@sessions.legal MERRILL LYNCH: Faces Suit Over Futures Contracts Price Manipulation ------------------------------------------------------------------- GAMMA TRADERS - I LLC and VEGA TRADERS, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. MERRILL LYNCH COMMODITIES, INC., BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC, EDWARD BASES, JOHN PACILIO, and JOHN DOE Nos. 1 – 5, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-06002 (S.D. N.Y., June 27, 2019) is an action arising from Defendants' unlawful and intentional manipulation of COMEX Gold Futures, COMEX Silver Futures, NYMEX Platinum Futures, and NYMEX Palladium Futures contracts, and options on those futures contracts (collectively, "precious metals futures contracts") traded on the New York Mercantile Exchange ("NYMEX") and the Commodity Exchange, Inc. ("COMEX") from approximately January 1, 2008 through December 31, 2014 (the "Class Period") in violation of the Commodity Exchange Act, (the "CEA") and the common law. According to the complaint, the Defendants are a group of futures traders and the trading firms that employ them. The Defendants manipulated the prices of these precious metals futures contracts using a classic manipulative device called "spoofing," whereby Defendants placed orders that they never intended to execute for precious metals futures contracts to send false and illegitimate supply and demand signals to the market and then canceled those orders before execution. As a result, Defendants caused precious metals futures contracts prices to be artificial throughout the Class Period to financially benefit their trading positions at the expense of other investors, like Plaintiffs and the Class. The unlawful conduct and manipulation described herein has been the subject of both criminal and regulatory investigations. On July 17, 2018, Defendants Bases and Pacilio were indicted on commodities fraud, spoofing, and conspiracy charges in the Northern District of Illinois relating to the same conduct described in this Complaint. On June 25, 2019, Defendant MLCI entered into a non-prosecution agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ") and a settlement with the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission ("CFTC") and agreed to pay a combined $25 million in criminal fines, restitution and forfeiture of trading profits. The DOJ alleged that Defendants spoofed the markets for precious metals futures contracts thousands of times throughout the Class Period. Furthermore, the CFTC and DOJ identified example days when Defendants manipulated precious metals futures contracts prices. Plaintiffs transacted in thousands of precious metals futures contracts throughout the Class Period, including on the specific days identified as examples of Defendants' spoofing, and suffered a loss on their transactions as a result of Defendants' manipulative conduct, says the complaint. Plaintiff Gamma transacted in thousands of COMEX Gold Futures, COMEX Silver Futures, NYMEX Platinum Futures, and NYMEX Palladium Futures, and options on those futures contracts, throughout the Class Period and traded at artificial prices proximately caused by Defendants' unlawful manipulation. Merrill Lynch Commodities, Inc. ("MLCI") is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters in Houston, Texas. Defendant MLCI operates in various locations, including New York.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Vincent Briganti, Esq. Christian P. Levis, Esq. Raymond P. Girnys, Esq. Johnathan Seredynski, Esq. Peter Demato, Jr., Esq. Amir Alimehri, Esq. LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C. 44 South Broadway, Suite 1100 White Plains, NY 10601 Phone: (914) 997-0500 Fax: (914) 997-0035 Email: vbriganti@lowey.com clevis@lowey.com rgirnys@lowey.com jseredynski@lowey.com pdemato@lowey.com aalimehri@lowey.com MIAMI-DADE, FL: Alvarez et al. Seek to Certify Class & Subclasses ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit, NATASHA ALVAREZ, et al., the Plaintiffs, vs. SCHOOL BOARD OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-22556-JEM (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs move the Court for an order: 1. certifying a plaintiff class of: "approximately 21,000 full-time instructional personnel ("teachers") employed by the School Board of Miami-Dade County between July 1, 2014 and the present, who have or will suffer damages by virtue of Defendant's failure to compensate them according to Florida Statute section 1012.22, the statutorily-mandated minimum amount of performance pay for any academic year"; and 2. certifying two sub-classes: "(A) those hired by Defendant before July 1, 2014 and employed by Defendant on or after July 1, 2014 (represented by all Named Plaintiffs except Michelle Jimenez, Thomas Pendola, and Gina Sese); and "(B) those hired by Defendant on or after July 1, 2014 (represented by Named Plaintiffs Michelle Jimenez, Thomas Pendola, and Gina Sese). The Two sub-classes are suggested because the latter is subject to performance pay. However, as the performance pay of the three Named Plaintiffs and those prospective Class Members hired on or after July 1, 2014 is (or should have been) derived from the same grandfathered salary schedule as applicable to those hired before July 1, 2014, as explained the two sub-classes have a commonality of interests, and identical legal and factual issues predominate. Plaintiff's accounting expert, George Levie, CPA, has identified an estimated 21,000 class members. Their damages, not including prospective damages, is the difference between what they were paid and what they should have been paid pursuant to statute. Mr. Levie has pegged damages for the proposed class, from July 1, 2014 through the end of the 2017-18 school year, at approximately $90.2 million, plus interest of approximately $4.4 million, the lawsuit says.[CC] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are: Craig J. Freger, Esq. 10247 NW 15th Street Pembroke Pines, FL 33028 Telephone: 954-801-9373 Office E-mail: fregerlaw@gmail.com Counsel for the Defendants: Thomas E. Elfers, Esq. 14036 SW 148 Lane Miami, FL 33186 Telephone: 786-232-8074 E-mail: thomaselfers@comcast.net - and - David C. Miller, Esq. Denise M. Heekin, Esq. James C. Croslan, Esq.d Ranjiv Sondhi, Esq. BRYANT MILLER OLIVE P.A. One S.E. Third Avenue, Suite 2200 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: 305-374-7349 E-mail: dmiller@bmolaw.com dheekin@bmolaw.com jcrosland@bmolaw.com rsondhi@bmolaw.com MICRO KICKBOARD: Duncan Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Micro Kickboard Holdings, LLC. The case is styled as Eugene Duncan, ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff v. Micro Kickboard Holdings, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-06026 (S.D. N.Y., June 27, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Micro Kickboard is the exclusive US distributor for Swiss company Micro Mobility's Kick Scooters, Mini Scooters, Micro Scooters, Maxi Scooters and Kids Scooters.[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 MISSISSIPPI: Receiver for Foster Care System Sought --------------------------------------------------- Brandon Richard, writing for WMC Action News 5, reports that attorneys in a class-action lawsuit have asked a federal court to put a receiver in charge of Mississippi's foster care system, after a report found the state largely out of compliance with a court agreement. It's the latest development in a case that's more than a decade old. Lawyers who represent a group of children in a class-action lawsuit asked U.S. District Judge Tom Lee for permission to proceed with a motion that could result in a court-appointed receiver taking control of the state's foster care system. "The children of Mississippi have waited more than ten years to receive the benefits of a constitutional child welfare system," said Marcia Lowry, lead counsel for the plaintiffs. "Ten years is more than enough time. The state is doing no more than making the same promises it has been making all along, and never living up to them." Lowry sued Mississippi in 2004 on behalf of a dozen children she said the state failed to protect in its custody. In early June, a federal court monitor issued a report, which found 95 children in state custody were abused or neglected by their caregivers last year. The report also found the state in compliance with just 37 of 113 commitments of a court settlement. The report found the state did not meet performance measures in at least 35 other areas and did not provide data to the court monitoring team in 18 areas. The court monitoring team also said it could not validate information submitted in 23 other areas. In a statement, the Mississippi Department of Child Protection Services (MDCPS) said the welfare agency had made "significant progress in its efforts to protect the state's at-risk, abused and neglected children and their families, but acknowledges it needs more time and money to accomplish all that must be done to satisfy the measures of the settlement agreement..." A few weeks before the court monitor report was issued, a spokeswoman for CPS said the state had reduced the number of kids in custody, eliminated a backlog, licensed more foster homes and hired more caseworkers. "As you go down the checklist of all the things the lawsuit required, and you go back and look at when the lawsuit was originally filed, it's night and day," said MDCPS spokeswoman Lea Anne Brandon. "There's still a great deal of work to be done, but it doesn't look like the same child welfare system that it was." MDCPS said a $15 million budget increase it received from lawmakers this year will not become available until July 1st, and therefore the improvements it plans to make with this additional funding are not reflected in the court monitor report. Wayne Drinkwater, co-counsel for the plaintiffs, said the state is relying on improvements done before the current commissioner took office. "In its defense, the state relies on improvements that appear to be the result of work that was done during the period before Commissioner Jess Dickinson took office and ignores the fact that the state continues to fail to meet the requirements of the court order," said Drinkwater. Attorneys for the plaintiffs said they hope to proceed with their receivership motion as soon as the judge grants permission. No word on when the judge will make a decision.[GN] MONEY SOURCE: Martinez Moves to Certify Class of Underwriters ------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled ROBERTA MARTINEZ, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals v. THE MONEY SOURCE, INC., a corporation, Case No. 2:19-cv-00060-SVW-E (C.D. Cal.), pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, moves for entry of an order: (1) granting conditional certification and approving a sixty (60) day opt-in period for the following collective: All similarly situated current and former hourly Underwriters who work or have worked for Defendant at any time from January 3, 2016 through judgment; (2) requiring Defendant to identify all potential opt-ins within 14 days of the grant of conditional certification by providing a list in electronic and importable format, of the names, job titles, addresses, telephone numbers, e-mail addresses, dates of employment, location of employment, and date of birth, of each potential opt-in; and (3) approving the attached proposed form of notice and authorizing it to be sent by U.S. Mail and e-mail to all potential opt-in plaintiffs, along with a shortened text message notifying each individual that the notice form was mailed and e-mailed; and (4) authorizing sending of a shortened reminder notice via e-mail and text message to be sent 30 days thereafter to anyone that did not respond. The Court will commence a hearing on August 5, 2019, at 1:30 p.m., to consider the Motion.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Yeremian, Esq. DAVID YEREMIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. 535 n. Brand Blvd., Suite 705 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 230-8380 Facsimile: (818) 230-0308 E-mail: david@yeremianlaw.com - and - Kevin J. Stoops, Esq. Charles R. Ash, IV, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, Suite 1700 Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 Facsimile: (248) 436-8453 E-mail: kstoops@sommerspc.com crash@sommerspc.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Hosey Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup ----------------------------------------------------------- PAMELA J. HOSEY, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-01832 (E.D. Mo., June 26, 2019), seeks to recover damages suffered by the Plaintiff, as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. Plaintiff's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable. The Plaintiff brings this action for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA). As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma. Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products, including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide, Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Seth S. Webb, Esq. BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C. 211 North Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 E-mail: sethw@getbc.com Telephone: (314) 222-2222 Facsimile: (314) 421-0359 MONSANTO COMPANY: Shirah Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup ------------------------------------------------------------ Patricia Diane Shirah, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00451-ALB-SRW (M.D. Ala., June 26, 2019), seeks to recover damages suffered by the Plaintiff, as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. Plaintiff's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable. The Plaintiff brings this action for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA). As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma. Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products, including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide, Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Christine C. Brandt, Esq. Richard L. Root, Esq. Betsy Barnes, Esq. MORRIS BART LLC 601 Poydras Street, 24th Floor New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 525-8000 Facsimile: (833) 277-4214 E-mail: cbrandt@morrisbart.com bbarnes@morrisbart.com rroot@morrisbart.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Williams Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup -------------------------------------------------------------- SHELIA WILLIAMS, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-01834 (E.D. Mo., June 26, 2019), seeks to recover damages suffered by the Plaintiff, as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. Plaintiff's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable. The Plaintiff brings this action for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA). As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma. Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products, including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide, Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Seth S. Webb, Esq. BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C. 211 North Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 E-mail: sethw@getbc.com Telephone: (314) 222-2222 Facsimile: (314) 421-0359 MOTEL 6 HOTEL: Settles Suit Over Release of Guest Lists to ICE -------------------------------------------------------------- Dan Whitcomb, writing for Reuters, reports that Motel 6 has agreed to pay $10 million to settle a class-action lawsuit over claims the budget chain routinely provided guest lists from properties in Arizona to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents, court documents showed on June 29. The proposed settlement, outlined in court papers filed in U.S. District Court in Arizona, calls for Motel 6 to abide by a three-year consent decree to not give guest information to immigration authorities without a warrant or subpoena and to provide training on the issue to workers. A previous settlement over the Arizona properties reached by the two sides was rejected in November 2018 by a federal judge who said it did not go far enough in making sure that the plaintiffs, many of whom may be in the country illegally, would be found and compensated. "Motel 6 fully recognizes the seriousness of the situation and accepts full responsibility for both compensating those who were harmed and taking the necessary steps to ensure that we protect the privacy of our guests. Since this issue emerged, we've taken strong action to make sure a similar issue never happens again in the future," a spokesman for the company said in a written statement. Immigration has become an incendiary issue in U.S. politics amid a surge of immigrants seeking to enter illegally and moves by President Donald Trump to step up deportations and build a wall along the southern border with Mexico. Local governments dubbing themselves "sanctuary cities" have resisted cooperating with the Trump administration's crackdown, and immigration is certain to play a major role in the 2020 presidential campaign. The lawsuit was filed in January 2018 by the Los Angeles-based Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, or MALDEF, on behalf of Motel 6 guests with Latino names after the Phoenix New Times newspaper reported that the chain was providing their names to ICE at two of its properties in Arizona and six in Washington state. The new settlement seeks to clarify how the plaintiffs would be found and paid and sets up a fund for that purpose. A spokesman for MALDEF could not be reached for comment on June 29. In April of this year, Motel 6 agreed to pay $12 million to settle a similar lawsuit filed by Washington state. Motel 6 is controlled by the private equity firm Blackstone Group LP, which bought the brand in 2012. [GN] NATIONAL PLAN: Long Seeks to Facilitate Notice to Insurance Agents ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit, ANDERA LONG, JERMARIO GORDON, on behalf of themselves, and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. NATIONAL PLAN ADVISORS, INC., a/k/a AMERICAN HEALTH REFORM SOLUTIONS, LLC, a/k/a SYNERGY MARKETING ASSOCIATES, INC., a/k/a FLORIDA PLAN ADVISORS, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 0:19-cv-61250-RS (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order allowing nationwide notice to be sent to: "all Insurance Agents currently employed or previously employed -- whether considered an independent contractor or not by Defendants -- by Defendants within three years of the filing of the complaint. If notice is granted, the Plaintiffs would request that Defendant be required to provide names, addresses, phone numbers, email addresses (if known), and social security numbers within 10 days. The case was brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, specifically the collective action provision of section 216(b). The Plaintiffs and opt-in Plaintiffs allege that Defendants failed to pay them overtime in violation of the FLSA and that failure was intentional, willful, and/or reckless. The named and opt-in Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants have misclassified them as independent contractors and/or otherwise failed to properly classify them as non-exempt employees under the FLSA, including because all of the Plaintiffs were paid on an hourly basis, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are: John P. Salas, Esq. Michael G. Green II, Esq. SALAS LAW FIRM, P.A. 8551 West Sunrise Boulevard, Suite 300 Plantation, FL 33322 Telephone: (954) 315-1155 Facsimile: (954) 452 -3311 E-mail: jp@jpsalaslaw.com michael@jpsalaw.com Counsel for the Defendant: Daniel R. Levine, Esq. PADULA BENNARDO LEVINE, LLP 3837 NW Boca Raton Boulevard, Suite 200 Boca Raton, FL 33431 E-mail: drl@pbl-law.com NEW YORK: Brady Files Suit v. D'Amato ------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against DRK THIRD AVENUE, LLC.The case is styled as BRADDY, ARLENE STEPHANIE LIVINGSTON, ELIZABETH VASQUEZ, JORDAN TOOMER, CHERYL ORR, PETRINA BISHOP AND OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs v. D'AMATO, GLENN PRESIDENT OF THE NEW YORK STATE COURT CLERKS ASSOCIATION, Defendant, Case No. 101008/2019 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty., June 28, 2019). The case type is stated as "ARTICLE 78". GLENN D'AMATO is the president of the New York State Court.[BN] NORTHSTAR LOCATION: Gorman Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Northstar Location Services, LLC. The case is styled as Jason Gorman, MD Shahin, Igor Sidorkin individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,, Plaintiffs v. Northstar Location Services, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-03753 (E.D. N.Y., June 27, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Northstar Location Services, LLC, doing business as The Northstar Companies, provides receivables debt collection services to customers in the United States, Canada, and internationally.[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 O'REILLY MARSH: Lieberman Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against O'Reilly, Marsh & Corteselli P.C. The case is styled as Moshe Lieberman on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff v. O'Reilly, Marsh & Corteselli P.C., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-03796 (E.D. N.Y., June 28, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. O'Reilly, Marsh, & Corteselli P.C. is a law firm in Mineola, NY.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq. Adam J. Fishbein, P.C. 735 Central Avenue Woodmere, NY 11598 Phone: (516) 668-6945 Email: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com OFFICE DEPOT: Court Refuses to Certify Class in Alvarez Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ The Honorable Philip S. Gutierrez denies the Plaintiff's motion for class certification in the lawsuit styled Alvin Alvarez v. Office Depot, Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-07220-PSG-AFM (C.D. Cal.). The Plaintiff moved to certify a class of "all hourly, non-exempt employees of Office Depot working in warehouse and/or distribution centers in the State of California from August 28, 2013 through the date of certification." He also sought to certify three subclasses: * Rest Break Subclass: All Class Members who worked shifts more than 3.5 hours in length; * Drug-Testing Subclass: All Class Members who were required to undergo mandatory drug-testing after they accepted an offer of employment with Office Depot but before they began working; and * Regular Rate Subclass: All class members who were paid a Supply Chain Safety Bonus for the same workweek that they also received overtime pay, a meal period premium and/or a rest break premium. Because the Plaintiff would not be a member of the Regular Rate Subclass, the subclass cannot be certified, Judge Gutierrez explains. Judge Gutierrez adds that because the Plaintiff's motion to certify the Rest Period Subclass is based on a theory that is not contained in the operative First Amended Complaint, the motion is denied. The Plaintiff's request to amend the complaint to include this theory is denied as well. The Court also concludes that essential issues on both of the Plaintiff's theories of liability on his drug testing claims cannot be adjudicated on a class-wide basis. The Plaintiff's assertions of consistent policies on both theories are not supported by the evidence that has been put forward. The motion to certify the Drug-Testing Subclass is, therefore, denied.[CC] OSHKOSH DEFENSE: Marquette Seeks to Certify Collective Class ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit, FARRAH MARQUETTE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. OSHKOSH DEFENSE, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 18-CV-1719-WCG (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff moves the Court for an order: 1. conditionally certifying a collective class of: "all persons who are or have been employed by Oshkosh Defense as production and/or maintenance employees at Oshkosh Defense plants located in Wisconsin and who are or were paid on an hourly basis at any time since October 30, 2015"; 2. appointing Plaintiff's Counsel of record as collective action counsel; 3. approving the form and content of the Notice of Pendency of Lawsuit to be sent to the conditionally certified collective class via U.S. Mail, email, and/or text message within seven days of receiving the collective action members' contact information from Defendant; 4. prohibiting the Defendant or any third-party from communicating with the conditionally-certified class's members about this lawsuit in any way from the date of the Court's order on this motion through the close of the notice period other than to direct inquiring putative collective action members to contact Collective Action Counsel as set forth in the Notice; 5 directing the Defendant to provide collective action counsel a list identifying all persons known to Defendants to meet the above definition, including their first names, last names, last known street address, city, state, zip code, phone numbers, email addresses, and dates of employment in a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet within 10 days on the Court's Order granting this Motion; 5. permitting the putative collective action members 75 days from the mailing of the Notice of Collective Action to opt in to this lawsuit; and 6. setting oral argument on this Motion at a date and time following the Parties' completion of briefing of this motion.[CC] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Summer H. Murshid, Esq. Larry A. Johnson, Esq. Timothy P. Maynard, Esq. HAWKS QUINDEL, S.C.P.O. Box 442 Milwaukee, WI 53201-0442 Telephone: (414) 271-8650 Facsimile: (414) 271-8442 E-mail: ljohnson@hq-law.com tmaynard@hq-law.com smurshid@hq-law.com P.T. AUTOMOTIVE: Arellano Hits Missed Breaks, Unpaid Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- MIGUEL ARELLANO individually and on behalf of similarly aggrieved employees, Plaintiff, v. P.T. AUTOMOTIVE, INC., a California Corporation; P.T. AUTOMOTIVE, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 19STCV22565 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., June 27, 2019) is a representative action case under the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA") on behalf of the State of California, Plaintiff and other aggrieved current and former non-exempt employees, who worked in the State of California for Defendants to remedy Defendants' illegal wage payment policies and practices during the relevant statutory periods, for which Plaintiff seeks civil penalties, attorneys' fees and costs, and all other legal and equitable remedies deemed just and proper under California law. The DEFENDANTS employed PLAINTIFF and AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES pursuant to employment agreements that were partly written, partly oral, and partly implied. In perpetrating the acts and omissions alleged herein, DEFENDANTS, and each of them, acted pursuant to, and in furtherance of, their policies and practices of not paying PLAINTIFF and AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES all wages earned and due through methods and schemes which include, but are not limited to, failing to timely provide compliant meal periods (or to pay compensation for a lack thereof); failing to timely provide compliant rest periods (or to pay compensation for a lack thereof); failing to pay all minimum wages due; failing to pay all overtime wages due; failing to timely pay all wages due during employment; failing to timely pay all wages to due at time of discharge or quitting; failing to provide accurate itemized statements; failing to maintain accurate records; and failing to indemnify PLAINTIFF and AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES for necessary expenditures in violation of the California Labor Code and the applicable Welfare Commission ("IWC") Orders, says the complaint. PLAINTIFF was a resident of the State of California and an employee of DEFENDANTS. P.T. AUTOMOTIVE, INC. is, and at all times relevant to this action was, a limited liability company organized and existing under the laws of the State of California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J. Matem, Esq. Joshua D. Boxer, Esq. Roy K. Suh, Esq. MATERN LAW GROUP, PC 1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 Phone: (310) 531-1900 Facsimile: (310) 531-1901 PETROLEUM WHOLESALE: Class of SMs & ASMs Certified in Hradil Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. David Alan Ezra grants the parties' Agreed Motion for Conditional Certification and Notice to Class in the lawsuit titled ANGIE HRADIL, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. PETROLEUM WHOLESALE, L.P., & SUNMART, INC., Case No. 5:19-cv-00102-DAE (W.D. Tex.). The Court conditionally certifies a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act and authorizes the Plaintiff's counsel, Lawrence Morales II, Esq., and Allison S. Hartry, Esq., of The Morales Firm, P.C., to issue opt-in notices and consent forms to this Class: All Store Managers and Assistant Store Managers that worked for SunMart, Inc. that were paid a salary and classified as exempt from [two years prior to the date the notice is issued] to the present. The Notice to be sent shall be in the form of the notice attached to the Motion as Exhibit 1. The consent form to be sent shall be in the form of the consent form attached to the Motion as Exhibit 2. The Court further orders the Defendants to produce to the Plaintiffs' counsel in a usable electronic format no later than 10 days from the entry of the Court's Order: the names, last-known residential addresses, last-known personal e-mail addresses, if any, and dates of employment ("Employee Information") of all employees who meet the parameters of the Class. If the Defendants fail to provide the Employee Information within 10 days of the entry of this Order, the statute of limitations is tolled for each day after the tenth (10th) day that Defendants fails to provide the Employee Information. The Court authorizes that the Notice and Consent to Join may immediately be issued to the Class Members. The putative class members shall be provided sixty (60) days after the Notice and Consent to Join are initially sent to file a Consent to Join form opting in to this litigation ("Opt-In Period").[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lawrence Morales II, Esq. Allison S. Hartry, Esq. THE MORALES FIRM, P.C. 6243 W. Interstate 10 San Antonio, TX 78201 Telephone: (210) 819-5341 Facsimile: (210) 225-0821 E-mail: lawrence@themoralesfirm.com ahartry@themoralesfirm.com PHILADELPHIA ENERGY: Employees of Burnt Refinery File Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------- CBS3 Staff reports that there is more trouble for Philadelphia Energy Solutions after plant employees filed a class action lawsuit against the company. The company announced that it was closing the South Philadelphia refinery following the massive fire and explosion that happened last June 28. The 1,000 employees who were terminated because of the closure alleged that PES did not provide them with a 60-day notice, which they say violates a federal workers act. PES says the fire at the refinery complex has made it impossible for them to continue operations. "We are grateful that the fire resulted in only a few minor injuries," PES CEO Mark Smith said in a statement on June 26. "I want to thank our employees for their hard work and dedication and to thank the Philadelphia community for their support. We are committed to an orderly process to safely wind down our operations." Smith went on to say the company will position the refinery for a sale and restart.[GN] PHILADELPHIA ENERGY: Rutkowski & Harper Sue over Mass Layoff ------------------------------------------------------------ NATHAN RUTKOWSKI and MARTIN HARPER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. PHILADELPHIA ENERGY SOLUTIONS, L.L.C. and PHILADELPHIA ENERGY SOLUTIONS REFINING AND MARKETING, L.L.C., the Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-02849-MMB (E.D. Pa., June 28, 2019), seeks to recover back pay and benefits pursuant to the Workers Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, and Chapter 9-1500 of the Philadelphia Code, based upon the course of conduct by Defendants that resulted in the termination of their employees without proper legal notice as part of a mass layoff scheduled for July 1, 2019. According to early reports, over 1,000 employees are expected to be laid off, including approximately 614 union steelworker employees. PES' mass layoff deprived these "workers and their families some transition time to adjust to the prospective loss of employment, to seek and obtain alternative jobs and, if necessary, to enter skill training or retraining that will allow these workers to successfully compete in the job market." The Defendants failed to provide these terminated employees with the statutory 60 days advance written notice required by the WARN Act. On June 26, 2019, Plaintiff was one of many PES employees called into a meeting where he and his colleagues were informed that they were being terminated from their employment at PES en masse effective July 1, 2019. Plaintiff was not provided with 60-days notice of his termination under the WARN Act, and was provided with no severance pay as part of his termination. The Plaintiffs and Class Members were either full time employees of PES, or temporary employees other than part‐time employees, and are to be counted in determining that the threshold requirements of the WARN Act are met. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs and Class Members have been damaged by Defendants' conduct and are entitled to the notice and back pay required by the WARN Act. 29 U.S.C. section 2101(1)(A). PES, L.L.C., is or was an oil refining company headquartered in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and incorporated under the laws of the state of Delaware, with a registered agent located at Corporation Trust Center, 1209 Orange St., Wilmington, DE 19801. According to its website, the PES Refining Complex operates two domestic refineries -- Girard Point and Point Breeze -- in South Philadelphia, and processes approximately 335,000 barrels of crude oil per day (42 U.S. gallons per barrel), making it the largest oil refining complex on the United States eastern seaboard. Also according to its website, PES operates or operated in Philadelphia at two locations: PES headquarters, located at 1735 Market Street, 11th Floor, Philadelphia, PA 19103, and the PES Refining Complex, located at 3144 West Passyunk Avenue, Philadelphia, PA 19145.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs: Benjamin F. Johns, Esq. Andrew W. Ferich, Esq. Alex M. Kashurba, Esq. CHIMICLES SCHWARTZ KRINER & DONALDSON-SMITH LLP 361 W. Lancaster Avenue Haverford, PA 19041 Telephone: (610) 642-8500 E-mail: bfj@chimicles.com awf@chimicles.com amk@chimicles.com PIVOTAL SOFTWARE: Howard G. Smith Files Securities Fraud Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Law Offices of Howard G. Smith reminds investors of the upcoming August 19, 2019 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the class action filed on behalf of Pivotal Software, Inc. ("Pivotal Software" or the "Company") (NYSE: PVTL) investors who purchased (1) common stock pursuant or traceable to the registration statement and prospectus (collectively, the "Registration Statement") issued in connection with Pivotal Software's April 2018 initial public offering (the "Offering" or "IPO"); and/or (2) securities between April 24, 2018 and June 4, 2019, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). Pivotal Software investors have until August 19, 2019 to file a lead plaintiff motion. Investors suffering losses on their Pivotal Software investments are encouraged to contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to discuss their legal rights in this class action at 888-638-4847 or by email to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com In April 2018, Pivotal Software completed its initial public offering ("IPO") in which it sold more than 42 million shares of its common stock at $15.00 per share. On June 4, 2019, after the market closed, the Company conveyed its first quarter 2019 financial and operating results, which were negatively impacted by "sales execution and a complex technology landscape." Also, Wedbush Securities analyst Daniel Ives asserted in addition to the "disastrous" operating results, that the Company's management team, "does not have a handle on the underlying issues negatively impacting its sales cycles and the activity in the field which gives us concern that this quarter will be the start of some ‘dark days ahead' for Pivotal (and its investors)." On this news, the Company's share price fell $7.65, or more than 41%, to close at $10.89 per share on June 5, 2019, thereby injuring investors. The complaint filed in this class action alleges that the Registration Statement was false and misleading and omitted to state material adverse facts. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) Pivotal was facing major problems with its sales execution and a complex technology landscape; (2) 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 Software's principal products because the Company's products were outdated, inadequate, and incompatible with the industry-standard platform; and (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. If you purchased shares of Pivotal Software during the Class Period you may move the Court no later than August 19, 2019 to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff if you meet certain legal requirements. To be a member of the class action you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the class action. If you wish to learn more about this class action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters please contact: Howard G. Smith, Esq. Law Offices of Howard G. Smith 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020 Website: www.howardsmithlaw.com Phone: 215-638-4847 Toll free: 888-638-4847 Email: howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com [GN] PORTSMOUTH GASEOUS: 2nd Class Action Filed Over A-Plant ------------------------------------------------------- Tony E. Rutherford, writing for HNN Huntingtonnews.net, reports that a second proposed class action stemming from the contamination from the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant that closed Zahn's Corner Middle School after finding enriched uranium and neptunium on the school site. According to the complaint: "Residents who live in the vicinity of the A-Plant have also experienced more than their share of cancer and other diseases, and animals and plants nearby were found to contain harmful contaminants. A local residents group identified 247 cancer cases within a six-mile radius of the A-Plant. Tests on deer killed by cars showed uranium isotopes in the livers of the deer. Traces of uranium were found in milk and egg samples from area farms and from vegetables in the gardens of residents in the vicinity of the A-Plant. And, fish from area waterways were found to contain uranium and plutonium." This Complaint concerns the failure of legislators, regulators, protection agencies, businesses, and numerous others to prevent, mitigate and/or stop the contamination of miles of land, schools, water, air, buildings and people in Pike County, Ohio. Through the negligent and reckless operation of the 3,777 acre site known as the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant, or "APlant" as it is known locally (referred to herein as the "A-Plant"), the Defendants have contaminated Pike County, Ohio with toxic contaminants and taxpayers are paying for the cleanup. The contaminates that the Defendants discharged upon Pike County include dangerous, radioactive materials and metals that are some of the most harmful contaminants known to mankind. Unbeknownst to the residents of Pike County, Ohio, the A-Plant has been discharging highly dangerous radioactive materials and metals upon Pike County for over 40 years. The A-Plant was opened in approximately 1954, as a uranium enrichment operation that provided enriched uranium for nuclear bombs. In the Cold War years, the intense focus on building bombs superseded concerns of safe handling of waste and contamination of the nearby properties. As Brian Blair, an Ohio EPA supervisor who participated in the state's first inspection of the site in 1986, told the Dayton Daily News about the years prior to 1986, "[t]hey were not managed even according to the best technology available at that time." Defendants, through their silence as well as their aggressive public relation efforts, have falsely reassured the public and Plaintiffs that their operations have not contaminated nearby properties. Defendants made misrepresentations that were meant to assure Plaintiffs that the APlant presents absolutely no danger to public health and underreported the seriousness of contamination leaked into the vicinity of the A-Plant. 62. Defendants fraudulently concealed the omissions of harmful contaminants from the A-Plant. Defendants falsely represented that all safety precautions were taken, residents were in absolutely no danger, and any emissions would be promptly and accurately reported to the residents. Contrary to the Defendants' fraudulent concealment, Defendants did not follow proper safety precautions, residents were in grave danger and emissions were purposely not reported and/or underreported. As a result of the Defendants' fraudulent concealment of the facts known only to the Defendants, any statutes of limitations applicable to the claims of Plaintiffs and Class Members are tolled. Plaintiffs and other Class Members did not know and could not have known of the dangers caused by the emissions from the A-Plant. Until the late 1980s the Department of Energy (DOE) was not subject to environmental regulation. Environmental regulators such as the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency ("Ohio EPA"), had no jurisdiction over the A-Plant. Even today, national security concerns limit the scope of regulation by environmental regulators. The suit is filed on behalf of RAY PRITCHARD and SHARON MELICK and those similarly situated. Leist & Warner, PLLC of Columbus, Ohio filed the suit June 28 in US District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. Case No.: 19-2777.[GN] PRICESMART INC: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- 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 PriceSmart, Inc. (PSMT) from October 26, 2017 through October 25, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for PriceSmart investors under the federal securities laws. To join the PriceSmart class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1581.htmlor 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) PriceSmart's omni-channel business strategy had failed to reach key operating goals; (2) PriceSmart's South America distribution strategy had failed to realize key cost saving goals; (3) PriceSmart had invested Trinidad and Tobago dollars into certificates of deposits with financial institutions; (4) these investments had been improperly classified as cash and cash equivalents; (5) the relevant corrections would materially impact financial statements; (6) there was a material weakness in PriceSmart's internal controls over financial reporting; (7) increasing competition negatively impacted PriceSmart's revenue and profitability; and (8) as a result, PriceSmart's public statements were materially false and 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 22, 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-1581.html To discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action please 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] PROFESSIONAL ACCOUNT: Faces Suit Over Deceptive Collection Letter ----------------------------------------------------------------- NATHAN KIRKPATRICK, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PROFESSIONAL ACCOUNT SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-00335 (E.D. Va., June 27, 2019) is a class action on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated against Defendant pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Defendant regularly collects or attempts to collect, directly or indirectly, debts owed or due, or asserted to be owed or due, another. In connection with the collection of the Debt, Defendant sent Plaintiff two letters dated November 8, 2018. The November 8, 2018 letters were Defendant's initial communications with Plaintiff with respect to the Debt. The Defendant's second letter dated November 21, 2018 states that "this notice is to advise you that we have verified your employment with" and then identifies the name and address of Plaintiff's employer. The Defendant was aware that Plaintiff's employer is a debt collector, as his employer is a publicly traded company and one of the largest debt buyers in the nation. Upon receiving Defendant's November 21, 2018 letter, the least sophisticated consumer could fear that Defendant had contacted and/or disclosed the Debt to his employer. Upon information and belief, Defendant had not contacted his employer at the time it sent the November 21, 2018 letter. Thus, Defendant's November 21, 2018 letter contains a false, deceptive, or misleading representation in connection with the collection of a debt. The Defendant had no plans to contact Plaintiff's employer at the time it sent the November 21, 2018 letter. The natural consequence of Defendant's November 21, 2018 letter is to harass, oppress, or abuse the consumer in connection with the collection of a debt, says the complaint. Plaintiff is a natural person who is allegedly obligated to pay a debt. Defendant is an entity who at all relevant times was engaged, by use of the mails and telephone, in the business of attempting to collect a "debt" from Plaintiff.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth McLeod, Esq. 505 6th St. SW Unit 119 Roanoke, VA 24016 Phone: (425) 269-0516 Facsimile: (866) 317-2674 Email: KMcLeod@ThompsonConsumerLaw.com - and - Thompson Consumer Law Group, PLLC 5235 E. Southern Ave., D106-618 Mesa, AZ 85206 Email: tclg@conusmerlawinfo.com PURDUE PHARMA: First Opioid Crisis Case Trial Begins in Oklahoma ---------------------------------------------------------------- Amanda Bronstad, writing for Law.com, reports that the first trial in the nation over an epidemic of overdoses and deaths tied to opioids began on May 28 in Oklahoma. Ms. Bronstad covered the trial between Oklahoma Attorney General Mike Hunter and Johnson & Johnson, which ended up being the sole defendant after Purdue Pharma settled in March for $270 million and Teva Pharmaceuticals reached an $85 million deal. The lawyers had a lot of colorful charts and slogans. Hunter and three other lawyers made opening statements for the state, which has asked for tens of billions of dollars in abatement costs. Brad Beckworth -- bbeckworth@nixlaw.com -- (Nix Patterson) repeated the phrase, "If you oversupply, people will die." Michael Burrage and Reggie Whitten (Whitten Burrage) also gave opening statements for the state. Johnson & Johnson attorney Larry Ottaway -- LarryOttaway@OklahomaCounsel.com -- (Foliart Huff Ottaway & Bottom) capped his presentation with: "Why are we here? Because when you're right, you fight." Why is the case important? Because looming in the background are more than 1,600 other lawsuits by states, cities and counties, against opioid manufacturers and distributors. Earlier in May, a judge dismissed one of them, brought by the state of North Dakota, in a major victory for Purdue. "The state's effort to hold one company to account for this entire, complex public health issue oversimplifies the problem," wrote South Central Judicial District Judge James Hill. [GN] PURELINE TREATMENT: Scott Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------- ROBERT SCOTT, et al., Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. PURELINE TREATMENT SYSTEMS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 7:19-cv-00156 (W.D. Tex., June 27, 2019) is a collective action to recover overtime compensation and all other available remedies under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (the "FLSA"). Pureline Treatment Systems, LLC is an oil and gas company specializing in implementation of chlorine dioxide solutions. Plaintiff Robert Scott worked for Defendant as a water treatment specialist. During his time with Defendant, Plaintiff typically worked at least 80 or more hours per week, often seven days per week. Defendant had a company-wide policy whereby it only paid its workers overtime if they worked more than 12 hours per day. This resulted in Plaintiff and other workers for Defendant being denied overtime for most of the overtime that they worked every week. For at least three years prior to the filing of this Complaint, Defendant willfully committed widespread violations of the FLSA by failing to pay these employees for overtime hours worked in excess of forty hours per week at a rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay, says the complaint.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Josh Borsellino, Esq. Morgan Scott, Esq. Borsellino, P.C. 1020 Macon St., Suite 15 Fort Worth, TX 76102 Phone: (817) 908-9861 Facsimile: (817) 394-2412 Email: josh@dfwcounsel.com morgan@oilfieldovertime.com RAYDON CORPORATION: Woznicki Seeks to Cert. ESOP Participants Class ------------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled STEPHANIE WOZNICKI, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. RAYDON CORPORATION, DONALD K. ARIEL, DAVID P. DONOVAN, THE ESOP COMMITTEE OF THE RAYDON CORPORATION EMPLOYEE STOCK OWNERSHIP PLAN, LUBBOCK NATIONAL BANK, DAVID P. DONOVAN 2012 TRUST, ARIEL FAMILY TRUST DATED DECEMBER 18, 2012, PAMELA W. ARIEL, VERNA L. DONOVAN 2012 TRUST, DAVID P. DONOVAN, JR., IRREVOCABLE TRUST DATED JULY 25, 2008, LORI L. WEISS IRREVOCABLE TRUST DATED JULY 25, 2008, and NIKI J. DUNCAN IRREVOCABLE TRUST DATED JULY 25, 2008, Case No. 6:18-cv-02090-CEM-GJK (M.D. Fla.), moves for an order certifying the case as a class action on behalf of this class: All participants in the Raydon Corporation Employee Stock Ownership Plan (the "ESOP" or "Plan") from September 30, 2015 or any time thereafter who vested under the terms of the Plan and those participants' beneficiaries. Excluded from the Plaintiff Class are Defendants and their immediate family (including any person defined as a relative under ERISA Section 3(15)), any fiduciary of the Plan; the officers and directors of Raydon Corporation ("Raydon" or the "Company") or of any entity in which a Defendant has a controlling interest; and legal representatives, successors, and assigns of any such excluded persons. Ms. Woznicki also asks the Court to appoint her and Class Member Briana Nicole Tatum as the Class representatives and to appoint R. Joseph Barton, Esq., of Block & Leviton LLP and Daniel Feinberg, Esq., of Feinberg, Jackson, Worthman & Wasow LLP as Co-Lead Class Counsel and Sam Smith, Esq., and Loren Donnell, Esq., of Burr & Smith LLP as Liaison Class Counsel.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: R. Joseph Barton, Esq. Colin M. Downes, Esq. BLOCK & LEVITON LLP 1735 20th Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20009 Telephone: (202) 734-7046 E-mail: jbarton@blockesq.com colin@blockesq.com - and - Sam J. Smith, Esq. Loren B. Donnell, Esq. BURR & SMITH, LLP 111 2nd Avenue N.E., Suite 1100 St. Petersburg, FL 33701 Telephone: (813) 253-2010 E-mail: ssmith@burrandsmithlaw.com ldonnell@burrandsmith.com - and - Daniel Feinberg, Esq. FEINBERG, JACKSON, WORTHMAN & WASOW LLP 2030 Addison Street, Suite 500 Berkeley, CA 94704 Telephone: (510) 269-7998 E-mail: dan@feinbergjackson.com RCI HOSPITALITY: Pomerantz Files Securities Fraud Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against RCI Hospitality Holdings, Inc. (RICK) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, for the Southern District of Texas, and indexed under 19-cv-02318, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired RCI securities between August 10, 2017, and May 10, 2019, both dates 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, against the Company and certain of its top officials. If you are a shareholder who purchased RCI securities during the class period, you have until July 22, 2019, to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby atrswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased. RCI, through its subsidiaries, owns and operates gentlemen's clubs and restaurants in locations throughout the United States. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, the defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, the defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that the Company engaged in numerous transactions with the CEO, including lending him significant sums of money; (2) that these practices were reasonably likely to lead to regulatory scrutiny of the Company; (3) that, as a result of investigations into the Company's governance, the Company would be unable to timely file its financial statements; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, the defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially false and/or misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. On May 10, 2019, the Company filed a Form 12b-25 with the SEC that stated it could not timely file its Form 10-Q for the Fiscal 2019 second quarter because of an ongoing SEC inquiry and internal review. On this news, the Company's shares fell $1.67 per share, or over 7.5%, to close at $20.48 per share on May 13, 2019, damaging investors. Trading volume on that date was unusually high. Contact: Robert S. Willoughby, Esq. Pomerantz LLP Phone: 888-476-6529 ext. 9980 Website: www.pomerantzlaw.com Email: rswilloughby@pomlaw.com [GN] SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Class Certification Sought in Bronson Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Crystal Hardin, one of the Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled ALEXIS BRONSON AND CRYSTAL HARDIN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., and SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., Case No. 3:18-cv-02300-WHA (N.D. Cal.), moves the Court for an order granting class certification of: California residents who purchased (in California) and currently own Samsung plasma televisions model numbers manufactured since 2013. Specifically, the Plaintiff contends that the Court should certify an injunctive relief class pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which addresses Samsung's violation of Cal. Civ. Code 1793.03(b) and Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200, et seq. ("UCL"); where Samsung is alleged to have failed to make functional a PDPs available to their Authorized Service Centers in California for seven years. Ms. Hardin also asks the Court to approve her as class representative and Paul S. Rothstein, Esq., and Kyla V. Alexander, Esq., as class counsel. The Court will commence a hearing on August 22, 2019, at 8:00 a.m., to consider the Motion.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Paul S. Rothstein, Esq. Kyla V. Alexander, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF PAUL S. ROTHSTEIN 626 N.E. First Street Gainesville, FL 32601 Telephone: (352) 376-7650 Facsimile: (352) 374-7133 E-mail: PSR@Rothsteinforjustice.com Kyla.tm@rothsteinforjustice.com - and - Alan J. Sherwood, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ALAN J. SHERWOOD 26755 Contessa Street Hayward, CA 94545 Telephone: (510) 409-6199 E-mail: alansherwood@earthlink.net SANDALS: To Vigorously Defend Class Action Over Unpaid Taxes ------------------------------------------------------------ Sandals on May 29 said the Class Action lawsuit recently filed against the company in the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida is baseless, both in fact and law, and will be vigorously defended by Sandals. Sandals said "The assertion that Sandals has not paid taxes due to the government is categorically false. We are proud to be the Caribbean's largest private employer and in many of the countries in which we operate, we are the biggest economic contributor and taxpayer." "Our operations in all territories have been subject to regular audits that have, without exception, always delivered clean reports. "Class action lawsuits are often intended to coerce a company into settlement to avoid high litigation costs and negative publicity. We have never imposed unlawful and inappropriate charges on our guests and will not cower to false tactics that claim otherwise. "In this digital age -- when anybody can say anything, however untrue -- trust and track record remain paramount. Our reputation and relationships with our valued guests are four decades in the making, which is why our guests continue to put their faith in us, year after year." "For these reasons, Sandals intends to fight this lawsuit to the end as nothing less than a clean slate will do." [GN] SAPORITO FINISHING: Smart Sues Over Unlawful Use of Biometric Data ------------------------------------------------------------------ Elliot Smart, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SAPORITO FINISHING CO., Defendant, Case No. 2019CH07728 (Circuit Ct., Cook Cty., Ill., June 27, 2019) is a Class Action Complaint against Defendant, to stop Defendant's unlawful collection, use, storage, and disclosure of Plaintiffs and the proposed Class's sensitive, private, and personal biometric data. As an employee/worker of Defendant, Plaintiff was required to "clock in" and "clock out" of work shifts by having his hand scanned by a biometric timeclock which identified each employee, including Plaintiff. The Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act expressly obligates Defendant to obtain an executed, written release from an individual, as a condition of employment, in order to capture, collect, and store an individual's biometric identifiers or biometric information, especially a fingerprint or hand geometry scan, and biometric information derived from it. The Defendant captured, collected, received through trade, and/or otherwise obtained and biometric identifiers or biometric information of their Illinois employees, like Plaintiff, without properly obtaining the above-described written executed release, and without making the required disclosures concerning the collection, storage, use, or destruction of biometric identifiers or information. Additionally, Plaintiff and the Class members are aggrieved because Defendant improperly disclosed employees' biometric data to out-of-state third-party vendors in violation of BIPA, asserts the complaint. Plaintiff began working for Defendant in April 2019 and ended employment with Defendant in May 2019. Saporito Finishing Co. is an Illinois limited liability company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandon M. Wise, Esq. Paul A. Lesko, Esq. PEIFFER WOLF CARR & KANE, APLC 818 Lafayette Ave., Floor 2 St. Louis, MO 63104 Phone: 314-833-4825 Email: bwise@pwcklegal.com plesko@pwcklegal.com SEA-NY.COM INC: Olsen Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sea-NY.com Inc. The case is styled as Thomas J. Olsen, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Sea-NY.com Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-06102 (S.D. N.Y., June 29, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Sea designs clothing for the effortless, optimistic, romantic, and boyish modern woman through its spirited and wearable collections.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq. Lipsky Lowe LLP 630 Third Avenue New York, NY 10017-6705 Phone: (212) 392-4772 Fax: (212) 444-1030 Email: chris@lipskylowe.com SIMON BROTHERS: Gregg Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------- GEORGE GREGG, on behalf of himself and those similarly-situated, Plaintiff, v. SIMON BROTHERS, INC., a Domestic Profit Corporation, and GEORGE R. SIMON, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00513 (W.D. Mich., June 27, 2019) is an action against Defendants pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff was a non-exempt employee for Defendants, and was paid an hourly rate of pay for the hours worked. However, Defendants implemented illegal pay procedures that deprived Plaintiff of proper overtime compensation for his hours worked in excess for 40 hours each week, says the complaint. Plaintiff was hired by Defendant to work as a non-exempt truck driver employee for Simon Brothers located in Fowler, Michigan in 2009. Simon Brothers was, and continues to be, a Domestic Profit Corporation. Simon Brothers was engaged in business in Michigan with a principle place of business in Clinton County, Michigan.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael N. Hanna, Esq. Mari S. Yokhana, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 2000 Town Center, Suite 1900 Southfield, MI 48075 Phone: (313) 251-1399 Email: mhanna@forthepeople.com myokhana@forthepeople.com SOUTH DAKOTA: Eighth Circuit Appeal Filed in Stanko Civil Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Rudy Butch Stanko filed an appeal from the District Court's order and partial judgment both issued on June 11, 2019, in the lawsuit titled Rudy Stanko v. State of South Dakota, et al., Case No. 5:18-cv-05088-KES, in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota - Rapid City. The nature of suit is stated as other civil rights. The appellate case is captioned as Rudy Stanko v. State of South Dakota, et al., Case No. 19-2302, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Plaintiff-Appellant Rudy Butch Stanko, individually, and on behalf of similarly situated non Indian residents on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation and border towns, of Gordon, Nebraska, appears pro se.[BN] Defendants-Appellees State of South Dakota; Marya Vrooman Tellinguissen, individually, and in her self-appointed official capacity/jurisdiction to hold court for misdemeanor allegations made by Indians on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation against non-Indians in an alien jurisdiction, venue and vicinage in Fall River County; and Carol Foster, individually, and in her official capacity as a self-appointed magistrate to set cash bonds for misdemeanor allegations made by Indians against non-Indians on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in an alien Fall River jurisdiction, venue and vicinage, are represented by: Robert B. Anderson, Esq. MAY, ADAM, GERDES & THOMPSON LLP 503 S. Pierre Street P.O. Box 160 Pierre, SD 57501-0160 Telephone: (605) 224-8803 E-mail: rba@magt.com Defendants-Appellees Jailer Brandon Luther, in his official capacity as a guard at the Fall River County jail, and James Sword, individually, and as a hired attorney for the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation; as a private attorney with a Hot Spring office; and in his official capacity as an elected Fall River County Attorney in an alien jurisdiction, venue and vicinage; and Defendant Jailer Brandon Luther, in his individual capacity, are represented by: Rebecca L. Mann, Esq. Ryan C. Sutton, Esq. GUNDERSON, PALMER, NELSON, AND ASHMORE LLP 506 Sixth Street P.O. Box 8045 Rapid City, SD 57709-8045 Telephone: (605) 342-1078 E-mail: rmann@gpna.com rsutton@gpna.com Defendant Austin Chafin, individually, and in his official capacity as a Hot Springs policeman, is represented by: Thomas E. Brady, Esq. LYNN, JACKSON, SHULTZ & LEBRUN, P.C. 135 E. Colorado Boulevard Spearfish, SD 57783-0000 Telephone: (605) 722-9000 E-mail: tbrady@lynnjackson.com - and - Kassie McKie Shiffermiller, Esq. LYNN, JACKSON, SHULTZ & LEBRUN, P.C. 909 St. Joseph Street Rapid City, SD 57701-3301 Telephone: (605) 342-2592 E-mail: kshiffermiller@lynnjackson.com SOUTH FLORIDA RACING: Lawrence's Class Certification Bid Denied --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit, SADIKI LAWRENCE, the Plaintiff, vs. SOUTH FLORIDA RACING ASSOCIATION, LLC, the Defendant, Case 1:18-cv-24264-RS (S.D. Fla.), the Court entered an order denying Plaintiff's motion for class-action certification on June 28, 2019. The Plaintiff sought to certify a class consisting of: "all persons in the United States who, at any time between April 4, 2016 and April 4, 2018 (the "Class Period"), performed a cash-access transaction at Hialeah Park casino with a debit card or credit card associated with Visa USA, Incorporated, Visa International, or MasterCard International Incorporated that was processed via technology provided by Everi Payments, Inc., formerly known as Global Cash Access, Inc." The Court said, "Lawrence has not explained or discussed how self-identification would be administratively feasible and not otherwise problematic. Class certification is improper where, as in this case, the class is not ascertainable without conducting individualized inquires. See Bouton, 322 F.R.D. at 696 (collecting cases); Guarisma v. Hyatt Equities, LLC, No. 1:17-CV-20931-UU, 2017 WL 6949266, at 7 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 28, 2017) (denying certification where the court would need to determine whether each individual putative class member was, in fact, a member of the class, as that process would render the "proposed class entirely unmanageable and, based on Eleventh Circuit precedent, not ascertainable under Rule 23(a)."). The Court concludes that the proposed class is not ascertainable and, therefore, should not be certified."[CC] SPECIALTY COMMODITIES: Initial Approval of Quiruz Suit Deal Denied ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Hon. Beth Labson Freeman denied without prejudice the Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement in the lawsuit captioned ANDREW QUIRUZ v. SPECIALTY COMMODITIES, INC., et al., Case No. 5:17-cv-03300-BLF (N.D. Cal.). Judge Freeman notes that the Plaintiff's Motion is denied without prejudice for the reasons stated at the hearing on June 27, 2019. Of particular concern to the Court, the settlement is intended to release a claim under the Fair Labor Standards Act which has not yet been pled, although the Plaintiff has indicated that a second amended complaint adding such a claim will be filed, according to the Order. Additionally, the Court has not been provided with a copy of the signed settlement agreement. The Plaintiff's counsel stated at the hearing that these and the other deficiencies in the motion will be rectified in a renewed motion for preliminary approval.[CC] STUDENT ASSISTANCE: Foley Seeks to Certify Class ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit, JENNIFER FOLEY, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. STUDENT ASSISTANCE CORPORATION, the Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-01702-LA (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: 1. certifying a class of: "all persons in the States of Wisconsin, Illinois, and Indiana who were the subject of a letter Student Assistance Corporation sent on or after December 6, 2016, requesting their email address from a third party"; Excluded from the class are SAC, any entity in which SAC has a controlling interest, each of their officers or legal representatives, and any Judge assigned to this action, including his or her immediate family. 2. appointing the Plaintiff as the class representative; and 3. appointing Plaintiff's attorneys as class counsel. SAC engaged in a form letter campaign seeking borrower e-mail addresses from third parties in violation of section 1692c (prohibiting contact with third parties, except to acquire consumer "location information" -- a definition that excludes e-mail addresses).[CC] Attorneys for the Jennifer Foley, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons are: Tod A. Lewis, Esq. Phillip A. Bock, Esq. Tod A. Lewis, Esq. Mara A. Baltabols, Esq. BOCK, HATCH, LEWIS & OPPENHEIM, LLC 134 N. LaSalle St., Ste. 1000 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 658-5500 Facsimile: (312) 658-5555 E-mail: service@classlawyers.com SUNLANDS TECHNOLOGY: Horowitz Sues Over Securities Act Breach ------------------------------------------------------------- DAVID HOROWITZ, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. SUNLANDS TECHNOLOGY GROUP, TONGBO LIU, YIPENG LI, JIANHONG YIN A/K/A PENG OU, LU LU, MICHAEL MINHONG YU, YANG WANG, GOLDMAN SACHS (ASIA) L.L.C., CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES (USA) LLC, AND J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-03744 (E.D. N.Y., June 27, 2019) is a securities class action on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Sunlands securities pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement and related prospectus (collectively, the "Registration Statement") issued in connection with Sunlands's March 2018 initial public stock offering (the "IPO" or "Offering"), seeking to recover compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act"). Sunlands offers various degree and diploma-oriented post-secondary courses, including preparation courses for the self-taught higher education examination ("STE") for learners pursuing associate diplomas or bachelor's degrees, as well as for the entrance examinations of master of business administration programs. In March 2018, Defendants held the IPO, issuing approximately 13 million American Depository Share ("ADS") to the investing public at $11.50 per ADS, pursuant to the Registration Statement. By the commencement of this action, Sunlands ADSs traded around $2.28 per ADS, over 80% decline from the IPO price. As a result, investors were damaged, says the complaint. Plaintiff purchased Sunlands ADSs pursuant and/or traceable to the IPO and was damaged thereby. Sunlands provides online education services in the People's Republic of China ("PRC").[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Phillip Kim, Esq. Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 275 Madison Ave., 34th Floor New York, NY 10016 Phone: (212) 686-1060 Fax: (212) 202-3827 Email: pkim@rosenlegal.com lrosen@rosenlegal.com SUNLANDS TECHNOLOGY: Robbins Arroyo Files Securities Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Shareholder rights law firm Robbins Arroyo LLP announces that a purchaser of Sunlands Technology Group (STG) has filed a class action complaint against the company for alleged violations of the Securities Act of 1933 pursuant to its March 2018 initial public offering ("IPO"). Sunlands provides post-secondary and professional educational services. According to the complaint, Sunlands held its initial public offering in March 2018, offering 13,000,000 American Depository Shares ("ADSs") at $11.50 per share. In its Registration Statement, Sunlands touted its rapid growth in net revenue and gross billings, which it attributed to its fast-growing student enrollment as a result of its transition to online courses. However, this statement proved to be materially false and misleading as Sunlands' financial results from its filed May 2019 Form 6-K revealed a 34% decrease in new student enrollment and a 28.6% decrease year-over-year in gross billings. Since Sunlands' IPO, the ADSs have plummeted almost 80% from its IPO price, currently trading at about $2.40 a share. Concerned shareholders who would like more information about their rights and potential remedies can contact: Leo Kandinov, Esq. Robbins Arroyo LLP 5040 Shoreham Place San Diego, CA 92122 Phone: (619) 525-3990 Toll Free: (800) 350-6003 Website: www.robbinsarroyo.com Email: LKandinov@robbinsarroyo.com [GN] TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL: Pomerantz Investing Investors' Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ Pomerantz LLP is investigating claims on behalf of investors of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited (NYSE: TAK). Such investors are advised to contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888-476-6529, ext. 9980. The investigation concerns whether Takeda and certain of its officers and/or directors have engaged in securities fraud or other unlawful business practices. On May 14, 2019 , Takeda forecast an unexpected operating loss for the current year, citing costs associated with the Company's $59 billion purchase of Shire Plc. On this news, Takeda's American depositary receipt price fell $1.57 per share, or 8.06%, to close at $17.92 on May 14, 2019 . Contact: Robert S. Willoughby, Esq. Pomerantz LLP Phone: 888-476-6529 ext. 9980 Website: www.pomerantzlaw.com Email: rswilloughby@pomlaw.com [GN] TATE & KIRLIN: Mann Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. Pa. ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against TATE & KIRLIN ASSOCIATES, INC. The case is styled as REGINALD MANN, PLEADING ON HIS OWN BEHALF AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED CONSUMERS, Plaintiff v. TATE & KIRLIN ASSOCIATES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-02865-GAM (E.D. Pa., June 28, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Tate & Kirlin Associates, Inc. provides debt collection services. The company's clientale ranges from financial and retail credit communities to the medical and commercial industries.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: NICHOLAS J. LINKER, ESQ. ZEMEL LAW LLC 1373 Broad St., SUITE 203-C Clifton, NJ 07013 Phone: (862) 227-3106 Email: nl@zemellawllc.com TENNESSEE: Certification of Offenders Classes Sought in Does Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled JOHN DOES #1–3, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. WILLIAM B. LEE, Governor of the State of Tennessee, and DAVID B. RAUSCH, Director of the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation, and TONY C. PARKER, Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Corrections, in their official capacities, Case No. 3:19-cv-00532 (M.D. Tenn.), move the Court to certify two classes for purposes of seeking declaratory and injunctive relief: 1. Ex Post Facto Class: (a) Who has been convicted of a "sexual offense" or "violent sexual offense" as de-fined by T.C.A. Section 40-39-202 against a victim under the age of twelve; (b) Whose qualifying offense occurred prior to May 10, 2019; and (c) Who is the parent of a minor child; and 2. Due Process Class: (a) Who has been convicted of a "sexual offense" or "violent sexual offense" as de-fined by T.C.A. Section 40-39-202 against a victim under the age of twelve; and (b) Who is the parent of a minor child. The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint them as class representatives, and to appoint their counsel as class counsel.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: W. Justin Adams, Esq. BONE MCALLESTER NORTON PLLC 511 Union Street, Suite 1600 Nashville, TN 37219 Telephone: (615) 238-6300 E-mail: wjadams@bonelaw.com - and - Kyle F. Mothershead, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF KYLE MOTHERSHEAD 414 Union Street, Suite 900 Nashville, TN 37219 Telephone: (615) 982-8002 E-mail: kyle@mothersheadlaw.com - and - Benjamin K. Raybin, Esq. RAYBIN & WEISSMAN, P.C. 424 Church Street, Suite 2120 Nashville, TN 37219 Telephone: (615) 256-6666 E-mail: braybin@nashvilletnlaw.com - and - Patrick T. McNally, Esq. WEATHERLY, MCNALLY & DIXON, PLLC 424 Church Street, Suite 2260 Nashville, TN 37219 Telephone: (615) 986-3362 E-mail: pmcnally@wmdlawgroup.com TRIUS TRUCKING: Mondrian Seeks Proper Wages for Truck Drivers ------------------------------------------------------------- Augutus Mondrian, an individual, on behalf of himself, and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. TRIUS TRUCKING, INC., a California Corporation, and Does 1 through 50, Inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 16CECG01501 (Cal. Super. Ct., Fresno Cty., June 27, 2019) seeks to recover all the compensation that Defendant is required by law to provide, but failed to provide, to Plaintiff and the other California Class Members under California law. The work required to be performed by Plaintiff and the other California Class Members was manual labor consisting of driving Defendant's trucks and transporting goods in accordance to Defendant's policies and practices. As a result of this work, Plaintiff and the other California Class Members were involved in providing day to day routine transportation of goods specified by Defendant and this work was executed by the performance of manual labor within a defined skill set. However, Plaintiff and the other California Class Members were not compensated through monthly salary. Plaintiff and the other California Class Members employed these manual tasks but were not paid the minimum wages to which they were entitled because of Defendant's systematic policies and practices failing to correctly record all time worked, says the complaint. Plaintiff worked for Defendant in California from February of 2016 to April of 2016 as a Truck Driver. TRIUS is a transportation company that provides dry and temperature controlled hauls and boats more than one hundred trucks operating in California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq. Kyle R. Nordrehaug, Esq. Aparajit Bhowmik, Esq. JEFFREY C. BLUMENTHAL CHARTERED 2255 Calle Clara La Jolla, CA 92037 Phone: (858) 551-1223 Fax: (858) 551-1232 Website: www.bamlawca.com UNITED STATES: Hernandez Files Bid for Writ of Habeas Corpus ------------------------------------------------------------ Jose Alberto Hernandez, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Petitioner v. Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and its office of Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO), Unit Chief ICE/ERO Law Enforcement Support Center (LESC), ICE/ERO Director California Field Office, Respondents, Case No. 4:19-cv-01016-LSC-SGC (N.D. Ala., June 28, 2019) The nature of suit is stated as Mandamus & Other for Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. United States Secretary of Homeland Security is the head of the United States Department of Homeland Security, the body concerned with protecting the U.S. and the safety of U.S. citizens.[BN] The Petitioner appears pro se: Jose Alberto Hernandez, Esq. 827 Forrest Avenue Gadsden, AL 35901 Phone: 094-447-896 Etowah County Detention Center PRO SE The Respondents are represented by: U S Attorney CV, Esq. U S Attorneys Office Southern District of California 880 Front Street, Suite 6253 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (619) 557-5662 Fax: (619) 557-7122 Email: Efile.dkt.civ@usdoj.gov VIRGINIA: Driver's License Suit Not Dismissed by Judge ------------------------------------------------------ Frank Green, writing for The Daily Progress, reports that a federal judge on June 28, 2019, denied a request to dismiss a class-action lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Virginia's law that automatically suspends the driver's licenses of persons who cannot afford to pay court costs and fines. The Virginia attorney general's office sought the dismissal in light of a one-year freeze on court-debt driver's license suspensions created by a budget amendment passed by the General Assembly earlier this year. The freeze takes effect on July 1 and expires July 1, 2020. In a ruling on June 28, U.S. District Judge Norman K. Moon, of Charlottesville, wrote that, "although the Budget Amendment may indeed reflect shifting political winds ... future enforcement of [the driver's suspension law] remains reasonably possible such that this case is not moot." Instead of dismissing the suit, Moon postponed the trial, set for August, to give the General Assembly a chance to pass a permanent fix during the current one-year freeze. The suit, Stinnie v. Holcomb, was filed in 2016 by the Legal Aid Justice Center and McGuireWoods LLP. It challenges the constitutionality of Virginia's law automatically suspending driver's licenses for failure to pay court costs and fines. The case was earlier dismissed, but was revived by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last year when the appeals court allowed plaintiffs to amend their complaint. Angela Ciolfi, executive director of the Legal Aid Justice Center, said in a statement on June 28 that, "The Plaintiffs would have preferred to have their day in court this August and end this civil rights crisis permanently. But if the Commonwealth will not take responsibility for decades of violating people's constitutional rights, we will continue to fight in the General Assembly to fix it for the future."[GN] WATCHES OF SWITZERLAND: Duncan Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed Watches Of Switzerland LLC. The case is styled as Eugene Duncan, ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff v. Watches Of Switzerland LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-06022 (S.D. N.Y., June 27, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Watches of Switzerland is a British retailer of Swiss watches, with 16 stores in the United Kingdom.[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 WELLS FARGO: Does not Pay Proper Wages, Popal Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------- MERYAM POPAL, an individual, on behalf of herself and other current and former employees, Plaintiff, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., and DOES 1 through 50, Defendants, Case No. 37-2019-00025570-CU-OE-CTL (Cal. Super. Ct., San Diego Cty., June 27, 2019) is an action seeking reimbursement, wages, penalties, restitution, injunctive and other equitable relief, reasonable attorneys' fees, and costs. According to the complaint, the Defendants' wage statements failed to include the appropriate gross wages earned and the net wages earned because the wage statements failed to include Plaintiff and Class Members' proper entitlement to meal break premiums, rest break premiums, and overtime. The Defendants further failed to keep records. Plaintiff alleges the failure to keep and provide these records violates Labor Code section 226 and Applicable IWC Wage Orders. Plaintiff worked for Defendants during which time she was paid by the hour, on a bi-weekly basis, and was considered nonexempt. Defendants are multinational financial services institution.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alex Asil Mashiri, Esq. MASHIRI LAW FIRM A Professional Corporation 11251 Rancho Carmel Drive #500694 San Diego, CA 92150 Phone: (858) 348-4938 Fax: (858) 348-4939 Email: alexmashiri@yahoo.com WINCO FOODS: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in Johnson Labor Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Alfred Johnson filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Alfred Johnson v. Winco Foods, LLC, et al., Case No. 5:17-cv-02288-DOC-SHK, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Riverside. The nature of suit is stated as other labor litigation. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit was filed on November 9, 2017. WinCo Foods is a privately held, majority employee-owned American supermarket chain based in Boise, Idaho with retail stores in Arizona, California, Idaho, Nevada, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas, Utah, and Washington. The appellate case is captioned as Alfred Johnson v. Winco Foods, LLC, et al., Case No. 19-55716, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Transcript must be ordered by July 22, 2019; -- Transcript is due on August 19, 2019; -- Appellant Alfred Johnson's opening brief is due on September 30, 2019; -- Appellees Winco Foods, LLC and Winco Holdings, Inc.'s answering brief is due on October 30, 2019; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant ALFRED JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, is represented by: Liana Carter, Esq. Robert Drexler, Jr., Esq. Ryan Wu, Esq. CAPSTONE LAW APC 1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 556-4811 E-mail: Liana.Carter@CapstoneLawyers.com Robert.Drexler@CapstoneLawyers.com Ryan.Wu@CapstoneLawyers.com Defendants-Appellees WINCO FOODS, LLC, a Delaware limted liability company, and WINCO HOLDINGS, INC., an Idaho corporation, are represented by: Kristina M. Launey, Esq. Julie G. Yap, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2350 Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: (916) 448-0159 Facsimile: (916) 558-4839 E-mail: klauney@seyfarth.com jyap@seyfarth.com - and - Simon Lee Yang, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 601 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3300 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 270-9664 E-mail: syang@seyfarth.com YGRENE ENERGY: Woolley et al. Seek to Certify Class --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit, GEORGE W. WOOLLEY, TAMMY S. WOOLLEY, ANTHONY LOOK, JR., KIMBERLY LOOK, ALEJANDRO MARCEY, and FELICIA MARCEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. YGRENE ENERGY FUND, INC.; YGRENE ENERGY FUND FLORIDA, LLC; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-01258-LB (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court for an order on August 22, 2019, certifying the lawsuit as a class action. The plaintiffs -- on behalf of a national class and California and Florida subclasses -- sue Ygrene Energy for fraud relating to home-improvement loans.[CC] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are: Kenneth S. Kasdan, Esq. Graham B. LippSmith, Esq. Jaclyn L. Anderson, Esq. KASDAN LIPPSMITH WEBER TURNER LLP 360 East 2 nd Street, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90012 Telephone: 213-254-4800 Facsimile: 213-254-4801 E-mail: kkasdan@kasdancdlaw.com glippsmith@klwtlaw.com janderson@klwtlaw.com - and - Sophia Goren Gold, Esq. Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq. KALIEL PLLC 1875 Connecticut Avenue NW, 10th Floor Washington, D.C. 20009 Telephone: 202-350-4783 E-mail: sgold@kalielpllc.com jkaliel@kalielpllc.com [*] Law Commission Green Lights Litigation Funding Review --------------------------------------------------------- LawFuel reports that the Law Commission is proceeding with its review of litigation funding, after a period with some high profile cases that have created a higher-than-ever interest in what litigation funding means for litigants. Recent high profile class action-type cases in New Zealand include the recent case taken against the directors of Mainzeal, the PSA kiwifruit action, the action against the former Feltex directors and the action taken by Fair Play on Fees against banks on behalf of over 21,000 bank customers over alleged excessive fees. It was deemed the biggest class action in New Zealand legal history at the time. Law Commission senior legal policy advisor Jenny Ryan says the review was suspended in May last year due to resource constraints, but Justice Minister Andrew Little has requested that the Commission recommence its work on class actions and litigation funding. "The Commission is now in the early stages of reactivating the project. We intend to revisit the Terms of Reference to see whether they are still appropriate for the review." Tiimely Review The commission says that while class actions have been common internationally for some time, litigation funding is a more recent phenomenon, particularly with cases over the past decade. There are at least seven litigation funding firms now operating in New Zealand. Justice Minister Andrew Little (right) says he's aware that class actions and litigation funding is an issue that is on the work programme of the Law Commission. He supports the review which he says is an important part of the wider access to justice conversation. Law firm Bell Gully said this week that although the Australian Federal Court accepted in 2016 that it has the power to make common fund orders, there are two pending challenges to this ruling currently before the Australian courts. "The Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) has proposed to codify the current law allowing common fund orders to be made, which would mean that the current challenges to common fund orders would be rendered moot. "We are aware of a recent application for a common fund order in a class action in New Zealand. However, that application has not yet been considered by the Court. Given the differences between the New Zealand and Australian class action regimes, it is hard to see that there is a basis for a common fund order under our current class action laws." The firm says that the New Zealand Law Commission's review of class actions will therefore be critical and outlined the key points the Commission had indicated it would be looking at in March 2018 including -- * To what extent should the law permit class actions and litigation funding, and are the current rules adequate? * Should the courts have a role in supervising, managing or approving class actions and litigation funding arrangements? * When should class actions be permitted, who should be able to bring a class action, and how should the class be defined? * What is the appropriate procedure for determining class actions, and how should issues that are not common to all parties be resolved? * What, if any, regulatory framework should apply to commercial litigation funders, conditional fee arrangements and crowdfunding of class actions? * How should costs, settlement and the payment of claims be dealt with? "If it adopts the ALRC's approach and recommends the courts be given the power to make common fund orders, we could see a radical change from the current basis on which litigation funders operate in New Zealand." Sir Douglas White Views Retired Law Commission president Sir Douglas White QC (left) said last year "Litigation funding plays an important role in facilitating class actions, which would often be unable to proceed without third party funding. The previous Minister agreed that the Commission should consider both class actions and litigation. The new Minister, Hon Andrew Little has now confirmed that reference. ". . . (litigation funding) may, however, be particularly important in such cases. In the absence of a funder, there may not be a lead plaintiff who is willing or able to take on the burden of funding the litigation," White said. He said class actions are important in cases where the amount recovered by each claimant will not be great, but the total sum recovered by the group is likely to be significant. In such cases often the cost of bringing an individual claim wouldn't be justified by the amount received in the settlement. "Consumer protection and investor claims often fall into this category," White said. ********* 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 ***