/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/190731.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, July 31, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 152 Headlines 3M COMPANY: Hambaugh Files PI Suit in M.D. Florida 3M COMPANY: Hersha Sues over Defective Combat Arms Earplugs 3M COMPANY: Kimball Sues over Defective Combat Arms Earplugs ALLIED INTERSTATE: Tortorelli Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York ALTISOURCE RESIDENTIAL: Claims in 3rd Amended Martin Suit Trimmed AMERICAN AIRLINES: Zamber Seeks to Certify Two Classes AMICA MUTUAL: Cruz-Santiago Sues over Vehicle Insurance ARON SECURITY: Omar Seeks Refund for Security Guard Uniforms ASPLUNDH TREE: Court Denies Bid to Decertify Class in Belloso Case AT&T INC: Scott et al Sue over Access to Sensitive Location Data BAKERSFIELD MEMORIAL: Johnson Brings Class Action in Ca. Super. Ct BANK OF AMERICA: Court Denies Bid for Class Certification BANK OF HAWAII: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Smith EFTA Suit Ruling BAYADA HOME HEALTH: Failed to Pay Wages Earned, Louis Says BCFORWARD RAZOR: Settlement in Rodriguez Suit Has Prelim Approval BOOZ ALLEN: New York Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Kocourek BRIDGEMARK GROUP: Faces Class Action Amid Fraud Investigation CANNTRUST HOLDINGS: Sept. 9 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set CARIDAD RESTAURANT: Deprived Workers of Proper Wages, Guerra Says CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Depascale Suit Alleges FDCPA Violation CDW LLC: Diaz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York CENTENE MANAGEMENT: Foon Suit Removed to E.D. California CHATTEM INC: Martin Suit Removed to C.D. California CHEVRON USA INC: Bradford Labor Suit Removed to N.D. Cal. CHRONO24 INC: Morgan Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York CLEAN HARBORS: Alba Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. CLOUDERA INC: Zarantonello Says Securities Statements Misleading CONTINENTAL INN: Honeywell Files ADA Suit in S.D. Florida CONVERGENT HEALTHCARE: Heisler's Summ. Judgment Bid Partly Granted COQUILLE VALLEY: Does Not Pay Nurses Overtime Wages, Says Lytle CRAY INC: Epstein Says Proxy Statement for Merger Misleading CREDIT CONTROL: Davis Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York CSC SERVICEWORKS: New York Eastern District Dismisses MJM Suit CVS HEALTH: 9th Cir. Flips Summary Judgment in Corcoran Suit DISH NETWORK: Court Leaves Key Class Action Questions Unanswered DOCTORDIRECTORY.COM: Davis Junk Fax Row Removed to E.D. Ark. EDDIE BAUER: Settlement in Veridian Suit Has Preliminary Approval ENCORE BOSTON: Faces Class Action for Allegedly Cheating Gamblers ESSEX CROSSING: Nisbett Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York FANDANGO MEDIA: Jones Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York FEDEX CORP: Karp Sues over Securities Fraud FERRARA CANDY: Copland Appeals Littlejohn Suit Settlement Approval FGF BRANDS: Illinois Court Trims Claims in Friend Suit FIRST AMERICAN: Ingle Sues over Data Breach FIRST CHOICE: Wolf Popper Named Lead Counsel in Maz Securities Suit FIRST STUDENT: Judge Approves Wage Class Action Settlement FORSTER & GARBUS: Yaakubov Sues over Debt Collection Practices GENPACT SERVICES: Ludwig Class Suit Removed to E.D. New York GEORGE WASHINGTON: Judge Tosses ERISA Breach Class Action GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Court Dismisses 1st Amended Banaga Suit GTX INC: Cooper Files Securities Suit Over Oncternal Merger H&J RESTAURANT: Jones Files FLSA Suit in W.D. Kentucky HAIR RULES LLC: Conner Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York HENKEL CORP: Violates Fair Credit Reporting Act, Hubbard Says HERITAGE OPERATIONS: Measaw Sues over Collection of Biometric Data HINT INC: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York HOME DEPOT: Eversole Suit Alleges FCRA Breach HOMELAND SECURITY: Faces Zuniga Suit in Southern District of Texas IDC TECHNOLOGIES: Mork Files Suit Alleging TCPA Breach IDEMIA IDENTITY: Rueda Seeks Prelim. Approval of $2.9-Mil. Accord INTELIDENT SOLUTIONS: Ct. Certifies Class in McGuire FLSA Suit INTELLIGENT SYSTEMS: Sept. 9 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set JAMES HARDIE: Law Firm Wants Parent Included in Class Action KEH INC: Diaz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York KIA MOTOR: MLG Files Class Action Over Deadly Airbag Defect KNOX COUNTY, TN: Amble's First Bid to Certify Class Denied as Moot LASER SPINE: Court Grants Embry's Class Certification Bid LG ELECTRONICS: Choi Suit Alleges FLSA Violation MASSE CONTRACTING: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Ruiz FLSA Suit MERCEDES-BENZ: Dumond Sues over Defective Panoramic Sunroofs MONEYLION INC: Dicarlo Files Class Suit in C.D. California MURAD, LLC: Gonzalez Seeks Minimum & Overtime Wages NABRIVA THERAPEUTICS: Faces Enriquez Securities Class Suit in N.Y. NCAA: Johnson Sues for Injuries Sustained as a Student-Athlete NCAA: Jones Seeks Damages for Football-related Brain Injury NCAA: Saytumah Sues over Student-Athletes' Health & Safety NCAA: Sevald Sues over Student-Athletes' Health & Safety NCAA: Walker Sues over Student-Athletes' Health & Safety NEWELL BRANDS: Diaz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York OTTO GROUP: Diaz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York PACIFIC BAY: Perez Seeks Overtime Pay for Construction Workers PLASTIPAK PACKAGING: Appeals Order in Hernandez Suit to 11th Cir. REAL ESTATE: Faces Greenberg Suit Alleging TCPA Breach REALOGY HOLDINGS: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action RECKITT BENCKISER: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action RESIDENCE INN: Appeals C.D. Cal. Ruling in Arias Suit to 9th Cir. RITUALIST INC: Conner Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York SANTANDER CONSUMER: Renewed Summary Judgment Bid in Espejo Denied SELECT EMPLOYMENT: Romero Suit Removed to C.D. California SHERMAN OAKS: Reina Seeks Unpaid Wages, Meal Breaks SHUTTERFLY INC: Miracle-Pond Suit Removed to N.D. Ill. STATE UNIV. OF NY: Court Certifies Class in Westchester ADA Suit SWIFTWICK INTERNATIONAL: Diaz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York TOTALMED STAFFING: Abrishamian Suit Removed to C.D. California TRINITY SERVICES: Castillo Suit Removed to E.D. California TYSON FOODS: Graham Suit Alleges Antitrust Violations UMB BANK: Garrett Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA UNITED DOMESTIC: California Homecare Providers File Class Action VERB TECHNOLOGY: Sept. 9 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set WAL-MART: Price et al. Seek Equal Pay for Female Staff WEBSTAURANT STORE: Conrath Suit Alleges FLSA Violation WHEELS LABS: Feldman Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages WILLIAMS SONOMA: Faces Overton Suit in California Superior Court WINN LAW GROUP: Caldera Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. California XALER: Derval Moves for Certification of TCPA Class Under Rule 23 ZALE DELAWARE: Leos Suit Alleges Labor Code Violations ZAYO GROUP: Faces Shareholder Class Action in Delaware ZEP LLC: Solis Suit Seeks Proper Minimum, Overtime Wages ZWICKER & ASSOCIATES: Fiorarancio Appeals Ruling to 3rd Circuit ********* 3M COMPANY: Hambaugh Files PI Suit in M.D. Florida -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 3M COMPANY. The case is styled as CHRISTOPHER HAMBAUGH, MATTHEW KUHN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-00853-BJD-JBT (M.D. Fla., July 22, 2019). The nature of suit is stated as Personal Injury: Health Care/Pharmaceutical Personal Injury Product Liability. The 3M Company, formerly known as the Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company, is an American multinational conglomerate corporation operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, health care, and consumer goods.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew John Shamis, Esq. Shamis & Gentile, PA 14 NE 1st Ave, Suite 1205 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Fax: (786) 623-0915 Email: ashamis@sflinjuryattorneys.com - and - Scott Adam Edelsberg, Esq. Edelsberg Law, PA 1945 Biscayne Blvd. # 607 Aventura, FL 33180 Phone: (305) 975-3320 Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com - and - Ricardo J Marenco Mark Jeffrey Dearman, Esq. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP 120 E Palmetto Pk Rd, Suite 500 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Phone: (561) 750-3000 Fax: (561) 750-3364 Email: rmarenco@rgrdlaw.com mdearman@rgrdlaw.com 3M COMPANY: Hersha Sues over Defective Combat Arms Earplugs ----------------------------------------------------------- The case, Kent D. Hersha, the Plaintiff, vs. 3M COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-02093-MCR-GRJ (N.D. Fla., July 16, 2019), seeks to hold 3M liable for hearing loss or damage Plaintiff allegedly suffered while serving variously in the U.S. military, including during foreign conflicts. The Plaintiff contends that Combat Arms TM Earplugs, Version 2 ("CAEv2") manufactured and sold by Aearo were defectively designed and failed to provide adequate hearing protection. 3M denies these allegations. CAEv2, designed by Aearo in close collaboration with the U.S. military, represented a revolutionary breakthrough in hearing protection for service members. CAEv2 helped servicemembers better maintain situational awareness (e.g., to hear nearby voice commands) while also maintaining some protection from gunfire and other higher decibel sounds. CAEv2 met the U.S. military's specifications and helped the military provide hearing protection to service members. Despite knowing of the dangerous defects in its earplugs, Defendant sold the Dual-ended Combat ArmsTM earplugs to the branches of the U.S. military for more than a decade without providing the U.S. military and/or Plaintiff with any warning of said defects, causing Plaintiff and other service members similar permanent injuries, such as hearing loss.[BN] Attorney for the Plaintiff is: Rhon E. Jones, Esq. William R. Sutton, Esq. BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS, & MILES, P.C. Post Office Box 4160 Montgomery, AL 36103-4160 Telephone: (334) 269-2343 Facsimile: (334) 954-7555 E-mail: Rhon.Jones@BeasleyAllen.com William.Sutton@BeasleyAllen.com 3M COMPANY: Kimball Sues over Defective Combat Arms Earplugs ------------------------------------------------------------ The case, KENNETH KIMBALL, the Plaintiff, vs. 3M COMPANY, AEARO HOLDINGS, LLC, AEARO INTERMEDIATE, LLC, AEARO, LLC and AEARO TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-02086-MCR-GRJ (N.D. Fla., July 16, 2019), seeks to hold 3M liable for hearing loss or damage Plaintiff allegedly suffered while serving variously in the U.S. military, including during foreign conflicts. The Plaintiff contends that Combat Arms TM Earplugs, Version 2 ("CAEv2") manufactured and sold by Aearo were defectively designed and failed to provide adequate hearing protection. 3M denies these allegations. CAEv2, designed by Aearo in close collaboration with the U.S. military, represented a revolutionary breakthrough in hearing protection for service members. CAEv2 helped servicemembers better maintain situational awareness (e.g., to hear nearby voice commands) while also maintaining some protection from gunfire and other higher decibel sounds. CAEv2 met the U.S. military's specifications and helped the military provide hearing protection to service members. Despite knowing of the dangerous defects in its earplugs, Defendant sold the Dual-ended Combat ArmsTM earplugs to the branches of the U.S. military for more than a decade without providing the U.S. military and/or Plaintiff with any warning of said defects, causing Plaintiff and other service members similar permanent injuries, such as hearing loss.[BN] Attorney for the Plaintiff is: Michael W. Gaines, Esq. Tim L. Bowden, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TIM BOWDEN 306 Northcreek Blvd., Suite 200 Goodlettsville, TN 37072 Telephone: (615) 859-1996 Facsimile: (615) 859-1921 E-mail: mwgaines01@gmail.com bowden_law@bellsouth.net bowden1megan@gmail.com ALLIED INTERSTATE: Tortorelli Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Allied Interstate, LLC et al. The case is styled as Aldo A Tortorelli on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Allied Interstate, LLC, IQOR US Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-04299 (E.D. N.Y., July 25, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Allied Interstate LLC is a collection agency and provides financial services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mitchell L. Pashkin, Esq. 775 Park Avenue, Ste. 255 Huntington, NY 11743 Phone: (631) 335-1107 Email: mpash@verizon.net ALTISOURCE RESIDENTIAL: Claims in 3rd Amended Martin Suit Trimmed ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ERIC MARTIN, Plaintiff, v. ALTISOURCE RESIDENTIAL CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Civ. No. 15-24 (D. V.I.), Judge Anne E. Thompson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Virgin Islands, Division of St. Croix, granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Third Amended Complaint. The case is a securities fraud case brought against Defendant RESI and its officers. Defendant RESI sought to profit from buying delinquent residential mortgages, foreclosing on the mortgaged properties, and either selling the properties or converting them into rental properties. To perform these operations, Defendant RESI had close business relationships with several other companies (none of whom are parties to this case): Ocwen Financial Corp.); Altisource Asset Management Corp. ("AAMC"); Altisource Portfolio Solutions, S.A. ("ASPS"); and Home Loan Servicing Solutions, Ltd. ("HLSS"). Ocwen serviced the mortgages, AAMC provided managerial services, and ASPS renovated and operated the properties. At the time when all alleged misrepresentations were made, Defendant Erbey was Chairman of the Board of Defendant RESI and of the other companies. Defendant Najour was the Chief Accounting Officer at Defendant RESI and previously CFO of both Defendant RESI and AAMC. Defendants Pandey, Lowe, and Ridley were executives at both Defendant RESI and AAMC. The Plaintiffs, representing a putative class of investors, claim that the Defendants made two categories of misrepresentations. First, the Defendants allegedly touted Defendant RESI's relationship with Ocwen when, in reality, Ocwen was unable to adequately service mortgages. Second, the Defendants allegedly stated that Defendant RESI was following certain policies when conducting related party transactions when in fact these policies were not being followed. The Plaintiffs allege that all the Defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act (Count One); and that Defendants Erbey, Pandey, Najour, Lowe, and Ridley ("Individual Defendants") violated Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act (Count Two). The case was filed on March 27, 2015. On Jan. 23, 2016, the First Amended Complaint was filed. On Nov. 14, 2016, the case was reassigned to the Judge Thompson. The Court denied a Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint on March 16, 2017. The Plaintiffs subsequently filed a Second Amended Complaint on Oct. 10, 2018. The Court, largely in light of the Third Circuit decision in City of Cambridge Retirement System v. Altisource Asset Management Corp, dismissed the Second Amended Complaint on Feb. 21, 2019. The Plaintiffs then filed the Third Amended Complaint on March 12, 2019. Following a stipulated briefing schedule, the Defendants filed the present Motion to Dismiss on April 12, 2019. The Motion is presently before the Court. The Defendants argue that the Third Amended Complaint fails to plead a material misrepresentation or omission, scienter, or loss causation. They also argue that the statute of repose bars some of Plaintiff Saunders' claims and that the Plaintiffs lack standing for some of their claims. Judge Thompson finds that the Plaintiffs adequately plead that all the Defendants made material misrepresentations or omissions. To support its allegations, the Third Amended Complaint cites to a host of documents, and the Defendants argue that several of these documents are mischaracterized. However, the Defendants do not identify any instance where the operant Complaint misquotes or inaccurately paraphrases the documents; rather, they claim that it fails to include other information that the Defendants find important. Next, the Judge finds that the Plaintiffs sufficiently plead scienter. In denying the Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint, the Court found that the Plaintiffs adequately pleaded scienter. Additionally, the Court notes here that (1) Defendant Erbey would have known whether he recused himself from transactions. Just as with scienter, the Court previously found that the Plaintiffs adequately pleaded loss causation. As the same allegations are contained in the operant Complaint, the Judge incorporates the Court's prior ruling. Because the Third Amended Complaint was filed in the suit (or action, or proceeding) that began in 2015, no allegations therein are barred by the statute of repose, even though new Plaintiffs have since been added. The Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs also lack standing for any instance where they purchased securities after a corrective disclosure and before any subsequent misrepresentation. This argument assumes that any corrective disclosure totally eliminated the effect of preceding misrepresentations, but neither case law nor the facts alleged in the Third Amended Complaint support that assumption. In fact, the Court previously wrote, albeit in the context of loss causation, while the stated declines following corrective disclosures were non-linear over the year and some appear minor at first blush, given the unsettled nature of the law on this topic, the sufficiency of the decline appears to be a proper question for the trier of fact. For similar reasons, the Juduge will not dismiss claims simply because a purchase of securities followed a corrective disclosure. Finally, the only defect in the present Complaint is that the Plaintiffs lack standing to pursue several of their claims. Amendment to add more factual details would not remedy the problem of standing and would therefore be futile. For this reason, leave to amend is denied. For the foregoing reasons, Judge Thompson granted in part and denied in part the Motion to Dismiss. An appropriate Order will follow. A full-text copy of the Court's June 12, 2019 Opinion is available at https://is.gd/wsQSTe from Leagle.com. Eric Martin, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin A. Rames, Law Office of Kevin A. Rames, P.C. Altisource Residential Corporation, Ashish Pandey, Kenneth D. Najour, Robin N Lowe & Rachel M. Ridley, Defendants, represented by Richard H. Hunter -- rhunter@huntercolevi.com -- Hunter, Cole & Bennett. William C. Erbey, Defendant, represented by Chad C. Messier -- Cmessier@dtflaw.com -- Dudley Topper & Feuerzeig, John L. Hardiman, Sull8ivan & Cromwell LLP, Julia A. Malkina -- malkinaj@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, Lisa Michelle Komives, Dudley Topper & Feuerzeig & Richard H. Hunter, Hunter, Cole & Bennett. AMERICAN AIRLINES: Zamber Seeks to Certify Two Classes ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit styled as KRISTIAN ZAMBER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-23901-JEM (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff moves the Court for an order: 1. certifying: -- as to Plaintiff's RICO claims, a class consisting of: all persons nationwide who purchased a trip insurance policy on American's website within the limitations period"; and -- as to Plaintiff's state-law claims, a class consisting of: "all Florida persons who purchased a trip insurance policy on American's website within the limitations period"; 2. appointing himself as representative of the certified class or classes; and 3. appointing the law firm of Leon Cosgrove, LLP as class counsel. The suit alleges that the Defendant uniformly fails to tell each of its customers that it receives illegal commission profits from each trip insurance policy sold on its website, class members can be easily ascertained from the Defendant's business records, and damages can be calculated with simple arithmetic using the same evidence for all class members.[CC] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Scott B. Cosgrove, Esq. Alec H. Schultz, Esq. John R. Byrne, Esq. Jeremy L. Kahn, Esq. LEON COSGROVE, LLP 255 Alhambra Circle, Suite 800 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: 305 740 1986 Facsimile: 305 437 8158 E-mail: scosgrove@leoncosgrove.com aschultz@leoncosgrove.com Counsel for American Airlines, Inc. are: Humberto H. Ocariz, Esq. Michael A. Holt, Esq. SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P. Miami Center, Suite 3200 201 South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 358-5171 Facsimile: (305) 358-7470 E-mail: hocariz@shb.com mholt@shb.com - and - James E. Brandt, Esq. Elizabeth (Betsy) Marks, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS, LLP 885 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022-4834 Telephone: (212) 906-1200 Facsimile: (212) 751-4864 E-mail: james.brandt@lw.com betsy.marks@lw.com AMICA MUTUAL: Cruz-Santiago Sues over Vehicle Insurance ------------------------------------------------------- TIANA CRUZ-SANTIAGO, individually similarly situated, behalf of all others, the Plaintiff, vs. AMICA MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a Rhode Island corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 92003326 (Fla. 13th Jud. Cir, Ct., Hillsborough Cty., July 2, 2019), seeks to recover damages suffered as a result of the Defendant's failure to pay fill Actual Cash Value (ACV) payments or full total loss payments (FTLP) to first-party total loss insureds with physical damage policies containing comprehensive and and collision coverage. The case is a class action lawsuit brought by Plaintiff, the named insured under an automobile policy issued by Amica for private passenger auto physical damage, including comprehensive and collision coverage (Insurance Policy). Under the Insurance Policy, the Defendant is required to pay ACV in the event the Plaintiff's insured vehicle is declared a total loss, the lawsuit says. Amica is a private insurance company that collects tens of millions of dollars in private-passenger physical damage coverage premiums every year from its insureds.[BN] Counsel for the Plaintiffs are: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 Facsimile: (786) 623-0915 E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com - and - Scott Edelsberg, Esq. Jordan D. Utanski, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, P.A. 2875 NE 191st Street, Suite 703 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (305) 975-3320 E-mail: cott@edelsberglaw.com utanski@edelsberglaw.com - and - Edmund A. Normand, Esq. Jacob Phillips, Esq. NORMAND PLLC 62 West Colonial Street, Suite 209 Orlando, FL 32814 Telephone: (407) 603-6031 E-mail: ed@ednormand.com jacob@ednormand.com ARON SECURITY: Omar Seeks Refund for Security Guard Uniforms ------------------------------------------------------------ KASIM OMAR, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. ARON SECURITY, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 19-2194C (Mass. Super., July 9, 2019), seeks to recover money that was allegedly taken by the Defendant from the Plaintiff's wages as payment for uniforms. Aron's policy of requiring security guards to pay for uniforms without reimbursement violates the Massachusetts Wage Act. By charging its security guards for uniforms, Aron Security has failed to pay its security guards all wages earned by them, the lawsuit says. Aron Security provides security services to clients in Massachusetts and employs security guards to provide those services.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are: Hillary Schwab, Esq. Brant Casavant, Esq. FAIR WORK P.C. 192 South Street, Suite 450 Boston, MA 02111 Telephone: (617) 607 3261 Facsimile: (617) 488 2261 E-mail: hillary@fairworklaw.com brant@fairworklaw.com ASPLUNDH TREE: Court Denies Bid to Decertify Class in Belloso Case ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit styled as MILTON ANTONIO BELLOSO, the Plaintiff, vs. ASPLUNDH TREE EXPERT, CO. and ASPLUNDH TREE EXPERT, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 6:17-cv-2020-Orl-40GJK (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Paul G. Byron entered an order: 1. adopting and confirming summary judgment report and recommendation; 2. denying Defendants' motion for summary judgment; 3. granting Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment; 4. adopting and confirming decertification report; and 5. denying Defendants' motion for decertification of the conditionally certified class.[CC] AT&T INC: Scott et al Sue over Access to Sensitive Location Data ---------------------------------------------------------------- KATHERINE SCOTT, CAROLYN JEWEL, and GEORGE PONTIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. AT&T INC.; AT&T SERVICES, INC.; AT&T MOBILITY, LLC; TECHNOCOM CORP.; and ZUMIGO, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-4063 (N.D. Cal., July 16, 2019), alleges that AT&T has knowingly breached its duties to protect Plaintiffs' sensitive location data in order to profit from it. Despite the recognized sensitivity of location data and AT&T's obligations and promises to safeguard it, AT&T has been allowing unauthorized access to its customers' precise, real-time location data to thousands of third parties for years. AT&T works with location data aggregator companies which specialize in the commercial sale of location data for widespread purposes. AT&T uses these aggregators, including Aggregator Defendants LocationSmart and Zumigo, to manage the sale of its data to thousands of entities -- including bail bondsmen, bounty hunters, and prison officials -- who routinely access and use the data without customer knowledge or consent, and without any emergency basis, the lawsuit says. AT&T Inc. is an American multinational conglomerate holding company headquartered at Whitacre Tower in Downtown Dallas, Texas.[BN] Counsel for the Plaintiffs are: Thomas D. Warren, Esq. Abbye R. Klamann Ognibene, Esq. PIERCE BAINBRIDGE BECK PRICE & HECHT LLP 335 S. Grand Avenue, 44th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 262-9333 Facsimile: (213) 297-2008 E-mail: twarren@piercebainbridge.com aognibene@piercebainbridge.com - and - Aaron Mackey, Esq. Andrew Crocker, Esq. Adam D. Schwartz, Esq. ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION 815 Eddy Street San Francisco, CA 94109 Telephone: (415) 436-9333 Facsimile: (415) 436-9993 E-mail: amackey@eff.org andrew@eff.org adam@eff.org BAKERSFIELD MEMORIAL: Johnson Brings Class Action in Ca. Super. Ct ------------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against BAKERSFIELD MEMORIAL HOSPITAL and DIGNITY HEALTH. The case is styled as MARQUES JOHNSON, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff v. BAKERSFIELD MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, A CALIFORNIA ENTITY, DIGNITY HEALTH, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. BCV-19-102016 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., July 22, 2019). The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited". Memorial Hospital - Bakersfield is a hospital that offers many services, including orthopedics, surgical services, and cancer care.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by KEVIN T BARNES, ESQ. BANK OF AMERICA: Court Denies Bid for Class Certification --------------------------------------------------------- In the case, CINDY R. CASTILLO, the Plaintiff, vs. BANK OF AMERICA NATIONAL ASSOCIATION ET AL., the Defendants, Case No. 8:17-cv-00580-DOC-KES (C.D. Cal.), the Court entered an order denying Plaintiff's motion to certify a class consisting of: California Class: "All hourly-paid, non-managerial call center workers of Bank of America, National Association, in the State of California within four years prior to the filing of the complaint in this action until resolution of this lawsuit"; and and a subclass consisting of: Sub-Class 1: "All Class Members who are or were employed by Defendants and subject to Defendant's Unfair Business Practices". The Court held that BofA has provided numerous declarations demonstrating that call center workers received compliant meal breaks pursuant to the Bank's policy. The Court further noted that Plaintiff has admitted that no one at BofA ever told her that if she had a lunch that was starting late she could not then come back late to get the full 30 minutes. The Plaintiff further testified that it was her understanding that if she worked more than 10 hours she was entitled to a second meal period. Again, the Plaintiff has simply not provided this Court with enough evidence of a common question to warrant certification of this claim. Accordingly, the motion for class certification is denied.[CC] BANK OF HAWAII: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Smith EFTA Suit Ruling --------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant Bank of Hawaii filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the lawsuit styled Rodney Smith v. Bank of Hawaii, et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-00513-JMS-WRP, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii, Honolulu. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the District Court issued an Order denying the Defendant's Second Motion for Summary Judgment. BOH moves for summary judgment on five causes of action or, in the alternative, partial summary judgment as to actual damages on the Electronic Fund Transfers Act (EFTA) claim. Plaintiff Rodney Smith challenges the adequacy of disclosures regarding the method used by Defendant Bank of Hawaii (BOH) to impose overdraft fees. Smith contends that BOH charged him overdraft fees in a manner inconsistent with what was described in agreements he signed, by using an available-balance method rather than a ledger-balance method to assess the sufficiency of customer account funds to cover a transaction. BOH seeks summary judgment on Smith's UDAP, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, money had and received, and EFTA claims and, in the alternative, partial summary judgment as to actual damages on the EFTA claim. Having drawn all reasonable inferences in favor of Smith, the Court finds that the contract between BOH and Smith was ambiguous, and that there are genuine issues of material fact regarding the claims. The appellate case is captioned as Rodney Smith v. Bank of Hawaii, et al., Case No. 19-80085, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Respondent RODNEY SMITH, individually an on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Margery S. Bronster, Esq. Robert M. Hatch, Esq. BRONSTER FUJICHAKU ROBBINS 1003 Bishop Street, Suite 2300 Honolulu, HI 96813 Telephone: (808) 524-5644 E-mail: mbronster@bfrhawaii.com rhatch@bfrhawaii.com - and - Taras Kick, Esq. THE KICK LAW FIRM 815 Moraga Drive Los Angeles, CA 90049 Telephone: (310) 395-2988 E-mail: taras@kicklawfirm.com - and - Richard Dale McCune, Jr., Esq. MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO, LLP 3281 East Guasti Road, Suite 100 Ontario, CA 91761 Telephone: (909) 557-1250 E-mail: rdm@mccunewright.com Defendant-Petitioner BANK OF HAWAII is represented by: Stuart M. Richter, Esq. Andrew John Demko, Esq. KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 2600 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 788-4582 E-mail: stuart.richter@kattenlaw.com andrew.demko@kattenlaw.com - and - Eric Thomas Werlinger, Esq. KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP 2900 K Street NW Washington, DC 20007 Telephone: (202) 625-3553 E-mail: eric.werlinger@kattenlaw.com - and - Paul D. Alston, Esq. Nickolas Alexander Kacprowski, Esq. DENTONS US LLP 1001 Bishop Street, Suite 1800 Honolulu, HI 96813 Telephone: (808) 524-1800 E-mail: paul.alston@dentons.com nickolas.kacprowski@dentons.com BAYADA HOME HEALTH: Failed to Pay Wages Earned, Louis Says ---------------------------------------------------------- MICH KAREN PIERRE LOUIS, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. BAYADA HOME HEALTH CARE, INC., DAVID BAIADA, and J. MARK BAIADA, the Defendants, Case No. 19-1857 (Mass. Super., July 9, 2019), alleges that Defendants violated the Massachusetts General Laws by failing to pay wages earned, by taking unlawful deductions from wages, and by failing to properly list and itemize all earnings deductions and the amount of each deduction on employees' earnings statements. The Plaintiff was employed by Bayada from March 1, 2017 through July 1,2018, as a home health aide. During the time of her employment she was not paid her full wages earned, the lawsuit says. Founded in 1975, Bayada Home Health Care is an international nonprofit home health care provider with the purpose to help people have a safe home life with comfort, independence, and dignity. BAYADA has more than 360 offices in 23 states, with locations in Germany, India, Ireland, New Zealand, and South Korea.[BN] Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Class: David Pastor, Esq. PASTOR LAW OFFICE LLP 63 Atlantic Avenue, 3rd Floor Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617)742-9700 Facsimile: (617) 742-9701 E-mail: dpaslor@pastorlawoffice.com - and - Richard B. Reiling, Esq. 63 Atlantic Avenue, 3rd Floor Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 412-4291 Facsimile: (617) 742-9700 E-mail: richaixi@bottonereilinK.com BCFORWARD RAZOR: Settlement in Rodriguez Suit Has Prelim Approval ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JESSE RODRIGUEZ, an individual, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. BCFORWARD RAZOR LLC, an Indiana Limited Liability Company, BUCHER AND CHRISTIAN CONSULTING, INC., an Indiana Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 5:18-cv-03219-EJD (N.D. Cal.), Judge Edward J. Davila of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted the Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class and Collective Action Settlement. On June 12, 2019, the Court conducted a hearing on the Plaintiff's Motion. Based on a review of the papers submitted by the Parties, the Judge Davila finds that the Settlement Agreement is the result of arms'-length negotiations conducted after the Plaintiff's counsel had adequately investigated the claims and become familiar with the strengths and weaknesses of the claims. The assistance of an experienced mediator in the settlement process supports the Judge's conclusion that the proposed settlement is non-collusive. He finds on a preliminary basis that the Settlement is within the range of reasonableness of a settlement that could ultimately be given final approval by the Court, and granted preliminary approval of the Settlement. The Judge preliminarily approved the Settlement Agreement, including all of the terms and conditions set forth therein and the Maximum Settlement Amount and allocation of payments. He conditionally certified the Settlement Class for settlement purposes only and will consist of all non-exempt Customer Service Representatives, Application Support Specialists, Contact Center Agents, Customer Support Agents, Subscription Support Agents, Customer Service Agents, Incubation Specialists, Product Specialist Support Agents, Premium Customer Service Representatives, Renewals Specialists, Developer Support Operations Specialists, App Technical Supports, Technical Support Analysts, Application Review Analysts and In-Store Tech Supports who have provided resources to Accenture LLP through their employment with BCForward Razor LLC in California from April 23, 2014 through April 30, 2019. He conditionally appointed (i) Plaintiff Jesse Rodriguez to represent the Settlement Class Members; (ii) David Yeremian, Esq., and David Yeremian & Associates, Inc., as the counsel for the Settlement Class Members; and (iii) ILYM Group, Inc. as the Claims Administrator. He preliminarily approved the allocated Settlement Administration expenses. The Claims Administrator will prepare final versions of the Class Notice, incorporating into it the relevant dates and deadlines set forth in the Order and the Settlement Agreement, and will carry out the notice procedures set forth in the Settlement Agreement. The Judge approved, as to form and content, the proposed Notice of Class Action Settlement. He directed the mailing of the Class Notice in accordance with the schedule set forth and the other procedures described in the Settlement Agreement. The Plaintiff has provided notice of the settlement to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency, satisfying the requirements of PAGA. All proceedings and all litigation of the Action, other than those pertaining to the administration of the Settlement, are stayed pending the Final Approval Hearing. The following dates will govern for purposes of the Settlement: a. 30 days after the Court grants preliminary approval of the Settlement - Last day for the Defendants to produce the Class List to the Claims Administrator b. Not later than 21 calendar days after Defendant produces the class data - Last day for the Claims Administrator to mail Class Notice to all the Class Members c. 14 days before the deadline for objecting to the Motion for Approval of Attorneys' Fees and Costs and Class Representative Service Award - Last day for the Plaintiff to file Declaration from Claims Administrator, Class Representative, and Class Counsel in support d. Not later than 30 calendar days after the Claims Administrator mails the Class Notice - Last day for the Settlement Class Members to mail Requests for Exclusion or Objections to the Settlement e. Deadline for Class Counsel to File Motion for Final Approval of the Settlement, Declaration from Administrator, and Supplemental Documents for Fees Motion - Sept. 19, 2019 (28 days before Final Approval Hearing) f. Proposed Date for Final Approval Hearing and Fees Motion - Oct. 17, 2019 A full-text copy of the Court's June 12, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/rUvatP from Leagle.com. Jesse Rodriguez, an individual on behalf of himself and other similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by David Harmik Yeremian -- David@yeremianlaw.com -- David Yeremian & Associates, Inc., Jason Whitney Rothman -- Jason@yeremianlaw.com -- David Yeremian and Associates, Inc. & Walter Lewis Haines -- walterhaines@yahoo.com -- United Employees Law Group, P.C. BCForward Razor LLC, an Indiana Limited Liability Company, Defendant, represented by Jennifer P. Svanfeldt -- jensvanfeldt@gbgllp.com -- GBG LLP, Theresa C. Mak - makthere@amazon.com -- GBG LLP & Kevin Lawrence Quan -- kquan@allenmatkins.com -- Allen Matkins Leck Gamble & Mallory LLP. Bucher and Christian Consulting, Inc., an Indiana Corporation, Defendant, represented by Jennifer P. Svanfeldt, GBG LLP, Theresa C. Mak, GBG LLP & Amelia Louise Sanchez-Moran, Jackson Lewis P.C.. BOOZ ALLEN: New York Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Kocourek --------------------------------------------------------- In the case, PAUL KOCOUREK, INDIVIDUALLY and as TRUSTEE OF THE PAUL KOCOUREK TRUST, and ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs, v. RALPH W. SHRADER, C.G. APPLEBY, SAMUEL R. STRICKLAND, DANIEL LEWIS, BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON INC., Defendants, Case No. 09-cv-10163 (LAK)(FM), Consolidated Cases Nos. 09-cv-10203 (LAK)(FM), 09-cv-10204 (LAK)(FM), 10-cv-05255 (LAK)(FM)(S.D. N.Y.), Judge Lewis A. Kaplan of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss. The dispute relates to the sale of the government division of Booz Allen Hamilton ("BAH") to the Carlyle Group in 2008. The Transaction sparked a myriad of claims litigated in a variety of fora over the past decade. What remains of the action are the securities fraud claims of Kocourek, acting individually, as trustee of the Paul Kocourek Trust, and on behalf of a purported class of individuals who sold or exchanged BAH securities in connection with the Transaction. Kocourek alleges that BAH and its officers fraudulently misrepresented and omitted material information to secure the votes of BAH partners needed to approve the Transaction. Kocourek first filed suit in the Court in December 2009. The Court consolidated his case with two others brought by former BAH officers asserting similar claims. In September 2010, Kocourek, along with co-Plaintiffs Reginald Boudinot and Paul Pasternack, filed a consolidated complaint alleging securities fraud, RICO, ERISA and various common law claims against BAH, its former chief executive officer, Ralph Shrader, and a number of former BAH officers. In addition, the consolidated complaint asserted RICO and state law aiding and abetting claims against Carlyle and several Carlyle-related entities, as well as claims against Credit Suisse Securities (USA), LLC. The Court dismissed the claims against Credit Suisse in May 20116 and granted in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss in February 2012. The only claims that survived were those brought by Kocourek based on certain alleged violations of ERISA. The Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration, and the Court upheld its dismissal of the Plaintiffs' claims in all relevant respects. The Plaintiffs moved for leave to file an amended complaint which included, inter alia, Kocourek's new securities fraud claims purportedly asserted on behalf of a class of BAH shareholders. Following briefing and oral argument, the Court denied the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend in September 2012. It did so with respect to the newly-proposed securities fraud claims on several grounds including waiver, undue delay and futility. With regard to futility, the Court noted that Kocourek had not come remotely close to pleading fraud with the particularity required by Rule 9(b) and the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. Kocourek's remaining ERISA claims were decided against him pursuant to a motion for summary judgment in April 2013. The Defendants' remaining counterclaims were voluntarily dismissed thereafter in December 2015. The Plaintiffs appealed the judgment of the Court with respect to several claims, including the RICO and ERISA-based claims and the Court's denial of Kocourek's motion to re-plead securities fraud. The Second Circuit affirmed the Court's dismissal of the Plaintiffs' claims in all respects, save that it vacated the judgment to the extent it had denied Kocourek leave to amend the CC to add securities fraud causes of action. Kocourek filed the Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint ("ACC") in April 2018. It alleges that the Defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder by knowingly misrepresenting and omitting material facts in an Information Circular ("IC") distributed to BAH partners, which allegedly were relied upon by plaintiff and the putative class members in connection with the sale of their BAH equity securities. The ACC alleges also control person liability under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act and violations of Section 14(e) of the Exchange Act. The Defendants move to dismiss on the grounds that the Plaintiff has failed to plead adequately any material misstatement or omission, scienter, or damages. They move also to dismiss the class-action claims as time-barred and to strike portions of the ACC. Judge Kaplan finds that the IC described Credit Suisse's outreach to 12 potential strategic buyers, the fact that non-disclosure agreements were signed with four of these companies, that presentations were given to three of these companies, and that their interest waned and none submitted bids. The facts alleged do not support a reasonable belief that, in contrast to this description of BAH's consideration of strategic buyers, Shrader actually sabotaged the auction process against them. Next, the Judge finds that Kocourek does not allege that the board or the finance committee was complicit in understating the revenue projections. It is therefore inexplicable how the board and the finance committee could approve a business plan with understated revenue projections if such figures were capable of the precise estimation claimed by Kocourek. The Judge then finds that none of the information allegedly omitted from the IC makes the conflicts information that was disclosed misleading. Disclosure of omitted information is required only when necessary to make statements contemporaneously or previously made not misleading. The Judge also finds that Kocourek has failed adequately to plead damages on a theory that he would have rolled-over shares in the Transaction had he known of the Defendants' allegedly fraudulent conduct. In the first consolidated complaint, Kocourek effectively admitted that this had occurred when he alleged that a revision to the SRP in 2000 eliminated the ability of retired partners to vote and that Kocourek and other retired Stock Pension Plan participants could not vote their stock. He therefore would have been ineligible to roll-over his shares. Section 20(a) imposes joint and several liability on control persons for underlying violations of the Exchange Act. To state a claim under Section 20(a), a plaintiff must allege both a primary violation of the Exchange Act and the defendant's control over the primary violator. The Judge finds that the Plaintiff has failed to allege a primary violation of the Exchange Act, and therefore, his claims under Section 20(a) are dismissed. Finally, Kocourek alleges that the Transaction qualified as a tender offer because misstatements in the IC were reasonably calculated to result in the procurement of tenders from BAH shareholders in favor of Caryle's offer to purchase BAH for a price of approximately $763 per share. The Judge finds that the claim fails because the Transaction was not a tender offer. Section14(e) therefore is inapplicable. S]tate and federal law clearly treat mergers as distinct from tender offers, and unlike in the tender offer context, the Transaction required the affirmative vote ofBAH shareholders. For the foregoing reasons, Judge Kaplan granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss in its entirety. The Clerk will enter judgment and close the case. A full-text copy of the Court's June 12, 2019 Memorandum Opinion is available at https://is.gd/m6W1nE from Leagle.com. Reginald Boudinot, Plaintiff, represented by Mark Carroll Kelly -- mkelly@katzabosch.com -- Keahon, Fleischer, Duncan & Ferrante. Paul Kocourek, Consolidated Plaintiff, represented by Mark Carroll Kelly, Keahon, Fleischer, Duncan & Ferrante, Yonaton Aronoff -- yaronoff@sc-harris.com -- Harris, St. Laurent & Chaudhry LLP, Jonathan Andrew Harris, Harris, O'Brien, St. Laurent & Chaudhry LLP & Joseph Terence Gallagher -- jgallagher@sc-harris.com -- Harris, St. Laurent & Chaudhry LLP. Bruce Pasternack, Consolidated Plaintiff, represented by Mark Michael Elliott -- melliott@phillipsnizer.com -- Phillips Nizer LLP, Bruce J. Turkle, Phillips Nizer Benjamin Krim & Ballon LLP & Jared Riley Clark -- jclark@phillipsnizer.com -- Phillips Nizer LLP. Ralph W. Shrader, C.G. Appleby, Samuel R. Strickland & Booz Allen Hamilton Inc., Defendants, represented by J. Christian Word -- christian.word@lw.com -- Latham & Watkins, LLP, pro hac vice, Jamie Lynne Wine -- jamie.wine@lw.com -- Latham & Watkins, LLP & Sarah Ann Tomkowiak -- sarah.tomkowiak@lw.com -- Latham & Watkins LLP, pro hac vice. Joseph E. Garner, Dennis O. Doughty, Francis J. Henry, Christopher M. Kelly, Joseph W. Mahaffee, John D. Mayer & Patrick F. Peck, Defendants, represented by J. Christian Word, Latham & Watkins, LLP, pro hac vice & Sarah Ann Tomkowiak, Latham & Watkins LLP, pro hac vice. Daniel Lewis, Defendant, represented by Jamie Lynne Wine, Latham & Watkins, LLP. BRIDGEMARK GROUP: Faces Class Action Amid Fraud Investigation ------------------------------------------------------------- Graeme Wood, writing for BIV, reports that two investors have launched a class action lawsuit against a group of alleged purported consultants, known as the Bridgemark Group, and 11 public companies who are subject to a fraud investigation by the B.C. Securities Commission. Vancouver lawyer Paul Bennett of Bennett Mounteer LLP filed a notice of claim in BC Supreme Court July 11 under the Class Proceedings Act on behalf of Saskatchewan resident Michael Tietz and B.C. resident Duane Loewen. "We are looking for people to come forward to give evidence about their share purchases," Bennett told Glacier Media via email July 12. Tietz bought $44,519 in Cryptobloc Technologies Corp. while Loewen bought $4,000 in KOPR (formerly known as New Point Exploration Corp.). The two are suing those companies. The notice of claim outlines when a class member (shareholder) would have had to purchase shares in these companies, which would have been at various points between January 2018 and November 2018, depending on the company. The notice is posted on the website bridgemarkclassaction.com. Bennett is also seeking evidence from shareholders against the following defendant companies listed on the Canadian Securities Exchange: Kootenay Zinc Corp., Affinor Growers Inc., Green 2 Blue Energy Corp., Beleave Inc., Citation Growth Corp. (formerly Liht Cannabis Corp.), BLOK Technologies Inc., PreveCeutical Medical Inc., Abattis Bioceuticals Corp. and Speakeasy Cannabis Club Ltd. The purported consultants are listed as defendants in the claim, just as they are listed as respondents to a BCSC notice of hearing, which alleges violations of the Securities Act with conduct "abusive to the capital markets." On his clients' behalf, Bennett takes things a step further, naming the executives of the issuing companies, at the relevant periods, and also alleging criminal fraud on their part. The case has spawned a number of court battles, allegations and admissions. The enforcement action involves an unusually high number of operatives, who, according to the Canada Stockwatch database, have collectively been involved in hundreds of other penny stock companies listed on the CSE and TSX Venture Exchange. Should the BCSC allegations be proven, they raise serious questions about the credibility of those other companies and how the exchanges are monitored. Starting in January 2018 these companies, their executives and the more than two-dozen supposed consultants — including many members of the Chartered Professional Accountants of British Columbia — are alleged to have entered into phony consulting agreements. The companies collectively issued tens of millions of dollars worth of shares to the consultants via private placements (sales of shares) while simultaneously entering into contracts for services that were never rendered, the BCSC alleges. The consultants then offloaded their newly acquired free-trading shares on the exchanges, to unwitting retail investors, such as Tietz and Loewen, according to the allegations. Essentially, there was a cash swap (shares for contracts) between the consultants and companies, the BCSC alleges. The money the consultants made was through the offloading of shares (sold at a below market price) to retail investors. The alleged scheme resulted in shareholders holding depreciated and diluted stock. Bennett describes how the companies never disclosed the arrangements to the public. "The Scheme was dishonest, deceitful and deceptive, and constituted a fraud on the market for the Issuers' (companies) shares affecting the public market price of those shares," states the claim, which has yet to receive a response from defendants. "The consulting agreements entered into between the Issuers and the Purported Consultants and concluded as part of the Private Placements were a scam and a false pretence. Neither the Purported Consultants nor the Issuers had any bona fide expectation that services of any real value would be provided under the consultant agreements, and no such services were provided." Bennett notes that in each case there are possible arrangements between the consultants and companies that are yet known, which may explain the full extent of the scheme. The lawsuit seeks damages for unlawful conspiracy, secondary market misrepresentations and fraud, or disgorgement of the benefit the defendants obtained as a result of the scheme. According to the claim, the scheme was conceived in or around January by a quartet of West Vancouver penny stock promoters: BridgeMark Financial Corp. principal and chartered professional accountant Anthony Jackson; Justin Liu, a man known to operate illegal cannabis dispensaries; Cameron Paddock, a former NHL hockey player; and Aly Babu Mawji, a convicted fraudster (in Germany). Bennett said he asserts this because these four implemented the first disputed private placement with Kootenay Corp., for which Jackson then acted as both a director and Chief Financial Officer of the company. The four men are named as pitchmen by the BCSC and in a lawsuit by PreveCeutical against Mawji, Liu and BridgeMark Financial, noted Bennett, when asked about his claim. PreveCeutical meanwhile is claiming it is a victim of a "conspiracy" by Mawji and Liu, who are alleged to have set up $2.8 million worth of consulting agreements (including their own) with PreveCeutical while concurrently obtaining $4 million worth of securities under exemptions of the Securities Act -- only to not provide any such services and quickly sell the newly issued securities back into the market. "Unbeknownst to PreveCeutical, at no time did the defendants intend to provide services," the Dec. 18, 2018, notice of claim states. However, Bennett's class action claims the companies, including PreveCeutical, knowingly deceived shareholders. For his part, Mawji claimed PreveCeutical gave his company a $425,000 prepaid contract to conduct online promotions. He also stated in his counterclaim he bought 30 million shares for $1.5 million. Mawji denies selling shares contrary to the best interests of shareholders and said it was up to PreveCeutical to do its due diligence. Mawji and Jackson had a business relationship before the former's conviction related to a pump and dump. BCSC respondents also include Jackson's father-in-law Kenneth Tollstam, brother-in-law Ryan Venier, and sister Tara Haddad. Jackson's wife, realtor Lisa Jackson, is a respondent to a similar investigation by the Alberta Securities Commission involving Prize Mining Corp. gwood@glaciermedia.ca Here are the additional class action defendants who were, during the relevant trading periods in 2018, executives of the issuing companies listed in the class action application: -- Neil William Stevenson-Moore ("Stevenson-Moore"), is a resident of North Vancouver, British Columbia and was the Chief Executive Officer of Cryptobloc. -- Kenneth Clifford Phillippe ("Phillippe"), is a resident of West Vancouver, British Columbia and was the Chief Financial Officer of Cryptobloc. -- Brian Biles ("Biles"), is a resident of Vancouver, British Columbia and was a director of Cryptobloc. -- Bryn Gardener-Evans ("Gardener-Evans"), is a resident of Calgary, British Columbia and was the Chief Executive Officer and a director of KOPR. -- Robert Tindall ("Tindall"), is a resident of Vancouver, British Columbia and was, at all material times in 2018, a director of Kootenay Corp. -- Nicholas Brusatore ("Brusatore"), is a resident of Anmore, British Columbia and was the Chief Executive Officer and President of Affinor Corp. -- Sam Chaudhry ("Chaudhry"), is a resident of the greater Vancouver area, British Columbia and was the Chief Financial Officer of Affinor Corp. -- Slawomir Smulewicz ("Smulewicz"), is a resident of Vancouver, British Columbia and was, at all material times in 2018, the Chief Executive Officer of Green Corp. -- Michael Young ("Young"), is a resident of Vancouver, British Columbia and was the Chief Financial Officer and a director of Green Corp. -- Glenn Little ("Little"), is a resident of Vancouver, British Columbia and was a director of Green Corp. -- Andrew Wnek ("Wnek"), is a resident of Toronto, Ontario and was the Chief Executor Officer and director of Beleave. -- Bojan Krasic ("Krasic"), is a resident of Stoney Creek, Ontario and was the Chief Financial Officer and direct of Beleave. -- Linda Sampson ("Sampson"), is a resident of Kelowna, British Columbia and was the Chief Executive Officer and director of Citation. -- David Alexander ("Alexander"), is a resident of North Vancouver, British Columbia and was a director of Citation Corp. Alexander also was the Chief Financial Officer of BLOK. -- Yari Alexander Nieken ("Nieken"), is a resident of North Vancouver, British Columbia and was a director of Citation Corp. Neiken subsequently became a director of the Defendant, BLOK. -- Hanspaul Pannu ("Pannu"), is a resident of the greater Vancouver area, British Columbia and was the Chief Financial Officer of Citation Corp. -- Robert Dawson ("Dawson"), is a resident of the greater Vancouver area, British Columbia and was the President and Chief Executive Officer of BLOK. -- James Hyland ("Hyland"), is a resident of Vancouver, British Columbia and was a Vice-President and a director of BLOK -- Stephen Van Deventer ("Van Deventer"), is a resident of Vancouver, British Columbia and was the President and Chief Executive Officer of PreveCeutical. -- Shabira Rajan ("Rajan"), is a resident of Richmond, British Columbia and was the Chief Financial Officer of PreveCeutical. -- Robert Abenante ("Abenante"), is a resident of Vancouver, British Columbia and was a director and the President and Chief Executive Officer Abattis Corp. -- Kent McParland ("McParland"), is a resident of Richmond, British Columbia and was the Chief Financial Officer of Abattis Corp. McParland was also the Chief Financial Officer and a director of Cryptobloc. -- Marc Geen, is resident of Rock Creek, British Columbia and was the Chief Executive Officer and a director of Speakeasy Ltd. -- Mervyn Geen, is resident of Rock Creek, British Columbia and was a director of Speakeasy Ltd. -- Jeremy Ross ("Ross"), is a resident of the greater Vancouver area, British Columbia and was a director of Speakeasy Ltd. -- Alexander Kaulins ("Kaulins"), is a resident of the greater Vancouver area, British Columbia and was a director of Speakeasy Ltd. [GN] CANNTRUST HOLDINGS: Sept. 9 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set -------------------------------------------------------------- Barbuto & Johansson, P.A. ("BARJO") and Of Counsel, Neil Rothstein, Esq. (with over 30 years of Securities Class Action Experience, including cases against ENRON and Halliburton) reminds investors that they have until September 9, 2019 to contact the Firm to learn more about the class action filed against CannTrust Holdings (NYSE:CTST; OTC: CNTTF), and appointment and qualifications to be considered for the role of lead plaintiff. According to the complaint, Defendants misrepresented and concealed that CannTrust was growing cannabis in its Pelham greenhouse facility in five unlicensed rooms between October 2018 and March 2019, and provided inaccurate information to regulators and false and misleading public statements. On July 8, 2019, the market began to learn the truth when Defendants disclosed that Health Canada found that the Pelham greenhouse facility was non-compliant with certain regulations. As a result, Health Canada placed a hold on 5,200 kilograms of dried cannabis harvested from the unlicensed rooms and an additional 7,500 kilograms was voluntarily held by the Company. Most recently, on July 11, 2019, Defendants announced CannTrust (1) suspended sales and shipments of all of its cannabis products and (2) established a special committee to investigate the matter in its entirety. If you've suffered damages from investing in CannTrust Holdings and would like to discuss your options, including petitioning the court for a leadership position, you may, without obligation or cost, contact Anthony Barbuto, at (888) 715-2520 or via email at anthony@barjolaw.com; or Neil Rothstein at (330) 860-4092 or email at neil@barjolaw.com. BARJO -- http://www.barjolaw.com-- follows the principles set forth in the case Berger v. Compaq, 257 F.3d 475 (5th Cir. 2001) which states "[c]lass action lawsuits are intended to serve as a vehicle for capable, committed advocates to pursue the goals of the class members through counsel, not for capable, committed counsel to pursue their own goals through the class members." BARJO believes strongly that the choice of qualified Lead Plaintiff(s) can have a significant impact on the successful outcome of a case. If you wish to be considered to serve as lead plaintiff, you must request this position by application to the Court by September 9, 2019. [GN] CARIDAD RESTAURANT: Deprived Workers of Proper Wages, Guerra Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ignacio Guerra, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. J.A.E.-L.A.R. Restaurant Corp., dba Caridad Restaurant, Amaury Espinal, Amin Espinal and Laura Rodriguez, Case No. 1:19-cv-04144 (S.D. N.Y., May 8, 2019), is brought against the Defendants for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. According to the complaint, the Defendants have deprived the Plaintiff and his co-workers of minimum wages and overtime pay since at least May 8, 2016 in violation of the FLSA. The Defendants have also violated notice-and-recordkeeping requirements by failing to provide plaintiff with wage notices, in violation of NYLL. The Plaintiff is a resident of Bronx County, State of New York and was employed by the Defendants from December 1, 2008 until April 10, 2017, when he was subjected to an unlawful termination. The Plaintiff was tasked with food preparation, cleaning, stocking, heavy lifting, and making deliveries. The Defendant J.A.E.-L.A.R. dba Caridad Restaurant is a restaurant that serves Dominican cuisine located at 3533 Broadway, New York, New York, 10031. The Defendants Amaury Espinal, Amin Espinal and Laura Rodriguez were jointly the operators, managers, principles and owners of Caridad Restaurant. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ria Julien, Esq. MIRER MAZZOCCHI & JULIEN, PLLC 150 Broadway, 12th floor New York, NY 10038 Tel: (212) 231-2235 CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Depascale Suit Alleges FDCPA Violation --------------------------------------------------------- Richard Depascale, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC, Case 1:19-cv-02681 (E.D. N.Y., May 7, 2019), is brought against the Defendant for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant's collection letter is reasonably susceptible to an inaccurate reading by the least sophisticated consumer in violation of the FDCPA. The Plaintiff is an individual who is a citizen of the State of New York residing in Kings County, New York. The Defendant is regularly engaged, for profit, in the collection of debts allegedly owed by consumers and uses the mails in its debt collection business. Its principal place of business is in Westchester County, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig B. Sanders, Esq. BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Tel: (516) 203-7600 Fax: (516) 706-5055 E-mail: csanders@barshaysanders.com CDW LLC: Diaz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against CDW LLC. The case is styled as Edwin Diaz on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CDW LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-06975-JMF (S.D. N.Y., July 25, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. CDW LLC distributes technology products and services. The Company provides notebooks, desktops, printers, servers and storage, unified communications, security, wireless, power, and cooling products, as well as networking, software licensing, and mobility solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq. Cohen & Mizrahi LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Phone: (917) 299-6612 Fax: (929) 575-4195 Email: joseph@cml.legal CENTENE MANAGEMENT: Foon Suit Removed to E.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned MICHELE FOON, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CENTENE MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC, and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. STKCVUOE20197891 was removed from the Superior Court in the State of California for the County of San Joaquin to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on July 25, 2019, and assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-01420-MCE-AC. Plaintiff alleges the following causes of action: (1) Failure to Provide Rest Breaks; (2) Failure to Provide Meal Breaks; (3) Failure to Reimburse; (4) Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements; (5) Unfair Business Practices; (6) Violation of the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"); and (7) Failure to Produce Records Upon Request.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: TIMOTHY LONG, ESQ. GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 1201 K Street, Suite 1100 Sacramento, CA 95814 Phone: (916) 442-1111 Facsimile: (916) 448-1709 Email: longt@gtlaw.com - and - LINDSAY E. HUTNER, ESQ. ALEXA R. HANKARD, ESQ. GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 3000 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (415) 655-1300 Facsimile: (415) 358-8139 Email: hutnerl@gtlaw.com hankarda@gtlaw.com CHATTEM INC: Martin Suit Removed to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------- The case captioned RUTHIE MARTIN, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CHATTEM, INC.; SANOFI, INC.; and DOES 1 to 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV17036 was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on July 25, 2019, and assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-06464. The Complaint alleges eight causes of action: 1) violation of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act; 2) violation of California's False Advertising Law; 3) violation of California's Unfair Competition Law; 4) breach of express warranty; 5) breach of implied warranty of merchantability; 6) unjust enrichment; 7) strict products liability; and 8) negligence.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: CHRISTOPHER M. YOUNG, ESQ. KATHERINE J. PAGE, ESQ. DLA PIPER LLP (US) 401 B Street, Suite 1700 San Diego, CA 92101-4297 Phone: 619.699.2700 Fax: 619.699.2701 Email: christopher.young@dlapiper.com katherine.page@dlapiper.com CHEVRON USA INC: Bradford Labor Suit Removed to N.D. Cal. --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned Joann Bradford, Liza Mosqueriola, Jason Rohrbach and Brian White, on behalf of themselves and other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., and Does 1 through and including 25, Defendants, Case No. C19-01155 (Cal. Super., June 7, 2019), was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on July 15, 2019, under Case No. 19-cv-04051. Plaintiffs are operators who seek redress for Defendant's failure to provide meal periods, rest periods, minimum wages, overtime, complete and accurate wage statements, waiting time penalties for unpaid wages due upon termination in violation of the California Labor Code, California Business and Professions Code. The Plaintiffs further seek declaratory relief, damages, penalties, equitable relief, costs and attorneys' fees. Clean Harbors provides environmental, energy, and industrial services. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Kristina L. Hillman, Esq. Jannah V. Manansala, Esq. Alexander S. Nazarov, Esq. WEINBERG, ROGER & ROSENFELD 1001 Marina Village Parkway, Suite 200 Alameda, CA 94501 Telephone: (510) 337-1001 Facsimile: (510) 337-1023 Email: courtnotices@unioncounsel.net khillman@unioncounsel.net jmanansala@unioncounsel.net anazarov@unioncounsel.ne Chevron is represented by: Robert D. Eassa, Esq. Delia A. Isvoranu, Esq. DUANE MORRIS LLP Spear Tower One Market Plaza, Suite 2200 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 957-3093 Facsimile: (415) 520-0814 Email: rdeassa@duanemorris.com disvoranu@duanemorris.com CHRONO24 INC: Morgan Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Chrono24 Inc. The case is styled as Jon R. Morgan on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Chrono24 Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-06938-JGK (S.D. N.Y., July 25, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Chrono24 is one of the main new actors of the watch market in the digital age. It has established itself as a global marketplace for buyers and sellers of vintage, pre-owned and, increasingly, new watches.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Shalom, Esq. Shalom Law, PLLC 124-04 Metropolitan Avenue Kew Gardens, NY 11374 Phone: (516) 807-1748 Email: jshalom@jonathanshalomlaw.com CLEAN HARBORS: Alba Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. --------------------------------------------------- The case captioned Armando Alba, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Clean Harbors Environmental Services, Inc., and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV20233 (Cal. Super., June 11, 2019), was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on July 15, 2019 under Case No. 19-cv-06072. Alba seeks redress for Defendant's failure to provide meal periods, rest periods, minimum wages, overtime, complete and accurate wage statements, reimbursement of business-related expenses and resulting from unfair business practices, waiting time penalties for unpaid wages due upon termination in violation of the California Labor Code, California Business and Professions Code, including declaratory relief, damages, penalties, equitable relief, costs and attorneys' fees. Clean Harbors provides environmental, energy, and industrial services. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Alan Harris, Esq. David Garrett, Esq. HARRIS AND RUBLE 655 North Central Ave., 17th Floor Glendale, CA 91203 Tel: (323) 962-3777 Fax: (323) 962-3004 Clean Harbors is represented by: Betsy Johnson, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 239-9800 Facsimile: (213) 239-9045 Email: betsy.johnson@ogletree.com - and - Hanna B. Raanan, Esq. Sean M. Kim CA Bar No. 271901 OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. Park Tower, Fifteenth Floor 695 Town Center Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (714) 800-7900 Facsimile: (714) 754-1298 Email: hanna.raanan@ogletree.com CLOUDERA INC: Zarantonello Says Securities Statements Misleading ----------------------------------------------------------------- RENATO ZARANTONELLO, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. CLOUDERA, INC., THOMAS J. REILLY, JIM FRANKOLA, and MICHAEL A. OLSON, the Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-04007 (N.D. Cal., July 12, 2019), is a securities class action on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Cloudera securities between April 28, 2017 and June 5, 2019, inclusive. The complaint alleges that Defendants failed to disclose adverse facts pertaining to Cloudera, Inc.'s business, operations, and financial condition, which were known to or recklessly disregarded by defendants. Specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose that: (i) Cloudera was finding it increasingly difficult to identify large enterprises interested in adopting the Company's Hadoop-based platform; (ii) Cloudera needed to expend an increasing amount of capital on sales and marketing activities to generate new revenues, even as new revenue opportunities were diminishing; and (iii) Cloudera had materially diminished sales opportunities and prospects and could not generate annual positive cash flows. The truth began to be revealed on April 3, 2018 when, in connection with its fourth quarter ("Q4") and full year ("FY") 2018 financial results, the Company provided a disappointing outlook for fiscal 2019 along with missed revenue numbers. This news contradicted defendants' prior positive statements and were all the more surprising as they had come less than a year after Cloudera had gone public. As a result of the defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of Cloudera's securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, the lawsuit says. Cloudera, Inc. is a US-based software company that provides a software platform for data engineering, data warehousing, machine learning and analytics that runs in the cloud or on premises.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Jennifer Pafiti, Esq. Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (310) 405-7190 E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com CONTINENTAL INN: Honeywell Files ADA Suit in S.D. Florida --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against CONTINENTAL INN BEACHSIDE, INC. The case is styled as Cheri Honeywell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CONTINENTAL INN BEACHSIDE, INC. a Florida corporation, Defendant, Case No. 0:19-cv-61864-JEM (S.D. Fla., July 25, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Continental Inn in Marathon, Florida is a tropical retreat with a private beach on the Atlantic Ocean, located in the heart of the Florida Keys.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jessica Lynn Kerr, Esq. Jessica L.Kerr, P.A. dba The Advocacy Group 200 S.E. 6th Street, Suite 504 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954) 282-1858 Fax: (844) 786-3694 Email: service@advocacypa.com CONVERGENT HEALTHCARE: Heisler's Summ. Judgment Bid Partly Granted ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, CHAD H. HEISLER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CONVERGENT HEALTHCARE RECOVERIES, INC., and JOHN AND JANE DOES NUMBERS 1 THROUGH 25, Defendants, Case No. 16-CV-1344 (E.D. Wis.), Magistrate Judge Nancy Joseph of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin granted in part and denied in part Heisler's motion for summary judgment as to the judicial estoppel defense. Heisler brought the class action complaint against Convergent, alleging that Convergent sent a debt collection letter that violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"). In its answer, Convergent asserted as an affirmative defense that Heisler is judicially estopped from claiming or recovering sums in excess of amounts claimed in his separate action in Bankruptcy Court. The Magistrate denied Heisler's motion for class certification because Convergent had an arguable judicial estoppel defense to Heisler's claim that was legally and factually specific to Heisler, rendering Heisler an inadequate class representative. On Sept. 26, 2016, Heisler, represented by counsel, filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. His Bankruptcy Schedule E/F lists Convergent as a creditor with an unsecured claim. He reported $6,250 worth of property and claimed $6,250 in exempt property, including "2 FDCPA claims against collection agencies" valued at $2,000. Heisler did not schedule a class representative incentive reward as an asset in his original bankruptcy petition, although he later amended his schedules to include it. On Nov. 18, 2016, the trustee filed its Report of No Distribution, meaning there was no property available for distribution from the Plaintiff's bankruptcy estate. The trustee reported $6,250 in exempt assets and stated that there is no property available for distribution from the estate over and above that exempted by law. On Jan. 9, 2017, Heisler, through counsel, filed an Amended Property Schedule in his bankruptcy case. His Amended Schedule reported and exempted $11,250 worth of property, including "1 FDCPA claims against collection agencies (up to $1,000 claim) and Class Representative Incentive Reward Case (up to $6000 claim)." On Jan. 23, 2017, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order discharging Heisler's debts and a final decree closing the case. Convergent asserts that on Jan. 24, 2018, while the case was referred to Magistrate Judge David E. Jones for mediation, Heisler issued a class settlement demand in which he requested a $10,000 class incentive award. Heisler asserts that the $10,000 demand was a scrivener's error that he immediately took steps to correct, notifying the court and opposing counsel that Heisler was seeking a $6,000 incentive award. Heisler moves for summary judgment as to Convergent's judicial estoppel defense. Heisler bears the burden of proving that, even making all reasonable inferences in Convergent's favor, there are no genuine issues of material fact regarding Convergent's judicial estoppel defense. Convergent has the burden of proof on its judicial estoppel defense, so for that defense to survive this motion, Convergent must produce evidence to reasonably support it. Heisler argues that Convergent cannot meet this burden. Convergent argues that Heisler's motion is procedurally improper, or in the alternative, that there are genuine issues of material fact precluding summary judgment. Magistrate Judge Joseph concludes that to prevail on the motion, Heisler must show that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the judicial estoppel defense. Because Heisler consistently asserted a $1,000 statutory damages claim in Bankruptcy Court and in the court, she will grant Heisler's motion for summary judgment on the judicial estoppel defense as to the statutory damages claim. Because there is insufficient evidence to support a finding that Heisler's initial omission of the potential incentive award in his bankruptcy petition was intentional, she will also grant Heisler's motion for summary judgment on the judicial estoppel defense as to his potential class representative incentive award, but only up to $6,000. Based on the foregoing, the Magistrate granted in part and denied in part Heisler's motion for summary judgment on the judicial estoppel defense. Heisler is not judicially estopped from pursuing statutory damages up to $1,000 or a class representative incentive award up to $6,000. A full-text copy of the Court's June 12, 2019 Decision and Order is available at https://is.gd/QlSuJD from Leagle.com. Chad H Heisler, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel A. Edelman -- dedelman@edcombs.com -- Edelman Combs Latturner & Goodwin LLC, Francis R. Greene -- fgreene@edcombs.com -- Stern Thomasson LLP, Andrew T. Thomasson -- andrew@sternthomasson.com -- Stern Thomasson LLP, Philip D. Stern -- philip@sternthomasson.com -- Stern Thomasson LLP & Heather B. Jones -- heather@sternthomasson.com -- Stern Thomasson LLP. Convergent Healthcare Recoveries Inc, Defendant, represented by Avanti D. Bakane -- abakane@grsm.com -- Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani LLP & Chirag Haresh Patel -- cpatel@grsm.com -- Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani LLP. COQUILLE VALLEY: Does Not Pay Nurses Overtime Wages, Says Lytle --------------------------------------------------------------- Lorraine Lytle, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Coquille Valley Hospital, Case No. 6:19-cv-00722 (D. Ore., May 9, 2019), is brought against the Defendant for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff and similarly situated nursing staff have been denied payment for all hours worked, including overtime; were subject to improper deductions from wages; and were denied meal and rest periods by the Defendant, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is an individual residing in Coos Bay, Oregon and was employed as a nurse by the Defendant in Coquille, Oregon. The Defendant is a domestic company doing business in Coos County, Oregon. The Defendant is a hospital that provides general medical and surgical care for inpatients and outpatients. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dana L. Sullivan, Esq. BUCHANAN ANGELI ALTSCHUL & SULLIVAN LLP 921 SW Washington Street, Suite 516 Portland, OR 97204 Tel: (503) 974-5023 Fax: (971) 230-0337 E-mail: dana@baaslaw.com CRAY INC: Epstein Says Proxy Statement for Merger Misleading ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action complaint has been filed against Cray Inc. and the members of its board of directors for their violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, in connection with the proposed merger between Cray and Hewlett Packard Enterprise Co. The case is captioned MICHAEL EPSTEIN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. CRAY INC., STEPHEN C. KIELY, PETER J. UNGARO, SALLY G. NARODICK, DANIEL C. REGIS, DR. PRITHVIRAJ BANERJEE, CATRIONA M. FALLON, BRIAN V. TURNER, MAX L. SCHIRESON, and STEPHEN E. GOLD, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-01026 (W.D. Wash., July 2, 2019). This class action is brought by Plaintiff on behalf of himself and the other public holders of the common stock of Cray Inc. On May 16, 2019, the Board caused Cray to enter into an agreement and plan of merger, pursuant to which the Company's shareholders stand to receive $35.00 in cash for each share of Cray stock they own. On June 12, 2019, in order to convince Cray shareholders to vote in favor of the proposed merger, the Board authorized the filing of a materially incomplete and misleading Form PREM14A Preliminary Proxy Statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission. On June 25, 2019, the Cray filed a Form DEFM14A Definitive Proxy Statement that did not correct the incomplete and misleading nature of the preliminary proxy. While touting the fairness of the merger consideration to the Cray's shareholders in the Proxy, Defendants have failed to disclose certain material information that is necessary for shareholders to properly assess the fairness of the proposed transaction. In particular, the Proxy contains materially incomplete and misleading information concerning: (i) the financial projections for the Cray that were prepared by the Cray and relied on by Defendants in recommending that Cray shareholders vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction; and (ii) the summary of certain valuation analyses conducted by Cray's financial advisor, Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC in support of its opinion that the merger consideration is fair to shareholders on which the Board relied. Cray is incorporated in Washington and maintains its principal executive offices at 901 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1000, Seattle, WA 98164. The Cray's common stock trades on the NASDAQ under the ticker symbol CRAY. The company designs, develops, manufactures, markets and services computer products for high-end computing, data analytics, and AI markets. Its products include supercomputers, high-performance storage, data analytics, and AI solutions. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Beth E. Terrell, Esq. 936 North 34th Street, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98103 Telephone: (206) 816-6603 Facsimile: (206) 319-5450 E-mail: bterrell@terrellmarshall.com - and – Nadeem Faruqi, Esq. James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 983-9330 Facsimile: (212) 983-9331 E-mail: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com jwilson@faruqilaw.com CREDIT CONTROL: Davis Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Credit Control Services, Inc. d/b/a Credit Collection Services. The case is styled as Allyson Davis on behalf of herself individually and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Credit Control Services, Inc. d/b/a Credit Collection Services, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-06816 (S.D. N.Y., July 22, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Credit Control Services, Inc. was founded in 1966. The Company's line of business includes collection and adjustment services on claims and other insurance related issues.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Novlette Rosemarie Kidd, Esq. Fagenson & Puglisi 450 Seventh Avenue, Suite 704 New York, NY 10123 Phone: (212) 268-2128 Fax: (212) 268-2127 Email: nkidd@fagensonpuglisi.com CSC SERVICEWORKS: New York Eastern District Dismisses MJM Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge I. Leo Glasser of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted CSC' motion to dismiss the case, MJM VISIONS, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CSC SERVICEWORKS, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No. 18-CV-04452 (E.D. N.Y.), for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff MJM brings the putative class action against Defendant CSC, alleging breach of contract and unjust enrichment. CSC is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Plainview, New York, and provides coin-operated laundry machines to universities, laundromats, and residential multi-unit buildings. Over the last several years, CSC has acquired many of its competitors and their pre-existing service contracts, some of which are in the form of leases where CSC rents building space for its laundry machines and pays the landlords of those buildings a share of the net revenue generated by the machines. The Plaintiff owns multi-unit apartment buildings in California and is a party to three lease agreements with one of CSC' predecessors, Coinmach. Those agreements provide that Coinmach, now CSC, will pay the Plaintiff an annual rent equal to $20 or 50% of the gross monthly receipts from the laundry machine sales, whichever is greater. On May 17, 2017, CSC wrote to the Plaintiff announcing that, going forward, it will deduct an "Administrative Fee" of 9.75% from MJM's gross collections. It claimed that the fee will help offset costs related to taxes, vandalism, and applicable administrative and other costs. The Plaintiff claims that none of its leases with CSC allow for such a fee, which resulted in loss to it of hundreds of dollars in revenue. On Aug. 7, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a complaint on behalf of itself and other similarly situated landlords who were charged the 9.75% Administrative Fee. Approximately one month later, on Sept. 6, 2018, CSC wrote to the Plaintiff stating that (1) under the lease agreements, the Plaintiff was required to provide CSC with notice of the alleged breach and a 30-day opportunity to cure it before filing suit, (2) while CSC believes it is permitted to deduct the Administrative Fee, it nevertheless reimbursed the Plaintiff for the fees it collected up to that point, and (3) CSC would not deduct the Administrative Fee for the remainder of the leases' terms. The Plaintiff neither cashed CSC' reimbursement checks nor responded to CSC' letter. Pending before the Court is CSC' Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or, in the alternative, to strike the Plaintiff's class allegations pursuant to Rules 12(f) and 23 of the same. Judge Glasser holds that contracts are to be considered as whole and their language interpreted in context. Having reviewed the notice-and-cure provision in context, it is clear that while the Plaintiff need not give CSC notice of every perceived default under the lease, CSC cannot be sued for breach of the lease unless it is provided first with notice and an opportunity to cure. Considering the lease as a whole and given that the purpose of including the notice-and-cure provision was to prevent litigation by providing CSC an opportunity to cure, the Judge finds that the Plaintiff failed to comply with a condition precedent in the lease agreements and its claims are dismissed. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth, the Plaintiff's action is not ripe for adjudication and CSC' motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is granted. A full-text copy of the Court's June 12, 2019 Memorandum and Order is available at https://is.gd/6j2jXf from Leagle.com. MJM Visions, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin H. Richman -- brichman@edelson.com -- Edelson PC, pro hac vice & Michael Ovca -- movca@edelson.com -- Edelson PC, pro hac vice. CSC Serviceworks, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, represented by William Edward Vita -- wvita@westermanllp.com -- Westerman Ball Ederer Miller & Sharfstein, LLP, Paul B. La Scala, Shook Hardy & Bacon, pro hac vice & Paul A. Williams -- pwilliams@shb.com -- Shook, Hardy & Bacon, L.L.P., pro hac vice. CVS HEALTH: 9th Cir. Flips Summary Judgment in Corcoran Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, CHRISTOPHER CORCORAN, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CVS HEALTH CORPORATION and CVS PHARMACY, INC., Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 17-16996 (9th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's summary judgment order, its class certification order, and its order excluding the expert opinion and striking the expert report of Dr. Joel W. Hay. The Plaintiffs filed a multi-state consumer putative class action against CVS, alleging that CVS misrepresented the usual and customary ("U&C") prices of certain generic prescription drugs by not submitting the lower prices CVS charged to members of its Health Savings Pass ("HSP") program to third-party insurance providers ("TPPs") and pharmacy benefits managers ("PBMs"). The district court: granted in part plaintiffs' motion for class certification; granted CVS' motion to exclude and strike the expert opinion of the Plaintiffs' pharmaceutical economist, Prof. Hay; and granted CVS' motion for summary judgment. The Plaintiffs appeal the district court's decisions. The Court reviews the grant of summary judgment de novo. It finds that the district court erred in granting summary judgment to CVS, because, having found the Plaintiffs' evidence "relevant" but "inconsequential" or "unavailing," the district court nonetheless placed CVS' and the Plaintiffs' evidence on equal footing and impermissibly weighed the evidence and failed to credit and draw all reasonable inferences from the evidence in the Plaintiffs' favor. The Plaintiffs argue that certain emails and presentations (that CVS produced) show that CVS employees had expressed concerns about whether CVS needed to report its HSP price as usual and customary, but the district court found that those materials failed to create a triable issue, because CVS did not misrepresent, based on the PBMs' testimony, the U&C price. The Court disagrees. A jury weighs the evidence and determines whether CVS engaged in wrongful conduct in its reporting of U&C prices, which resulted in the PBMs calculating higher copayments. Contrary to CVS' assertion, the Court holds that the Plaintiffs need not produce evidence that the PBMs believed that CVS misrepresented the U&C price. It is enough for them to show that CVS failed to report the HSP prices as U&C prices contrary to the PBM contracts, and that, as a result, the Plaintiffs were charged higher copayments. CVS also argues that summary judgment was properly granted, because the testimony of the PBM witnesses established that the parties to the contracts agreed on the meaning of the U&C provisions. While the district court set forth the definitions of the U&C provisions contained in the relevant PBM agreements and noted that the Plaintiffs were relying on the language in those agreements, the district court did not discuss or explain why the contractual provisions, in conjunction with the evidence proffered by the Plaintiffs, were insufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact. Instead, it court noted that in some cases, the PBMs even amended the agreement to exclude explicitly membership programs from their definition of U&C." But this same evidence could show the opposite, i.e., that the U&C definitions in the PBM contracts encompassed the HSP prices. A jury could reasonably infer that subsequent modifications of the agreements indicate that the prior definitions of U&C included HSP prices. Although CVS and the PBMs agreed during the litigation (as opposed to when the agreements were negotiated) that the PBM contracts did not require CVS to submit its HSP prices as the U&C prices, the Plaintiffs proffered some evidentiary support for their competing interpretation of the contracts' language. Given the extrinsic evidence proffered by the Plaintiffs to support their reasonable interpretation of the U&C language in the PBM contracts, the Court finds that the district court erred in granting summary judgment. The district court narrowed the Plaintiffs' proposed classes by limiting each class to the PBM(s) in California, Florida, Illinois, and Massachusetts that adjudicated the respective class representative's claims based on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)'s typicality requirement. The district court found that, since the evidence relating to one PBM does not necessarily apply to the other PBMs, typicality was lacking. The Court finds that the district court abused its discretion in narrowing the proposed classes on typicality grounds. The named Plaintiffs and the absent class members are insured customers who were charged copayments higher than the HSP prices, which the Plaintiffs maintain should have been CVS's actual U&C prices. As a result, the named Plaintiffs were injured in the same manner as the absent class members and they suffered the same type of damages, i.e., the delta between the actual copayment and the HSP price. The Plaintiffs' action is not based on conduct that is unique to the named Plaintiffs. The Court reviews the district court's decision to exclude and strike Dr. Hay's testimony for abuse of discretion. The district court found that Dr. Hay's testimony lacked foundation, it excluded his report on that basis, and it struck Dr. Hay's testimony that CVS' HSP prices are the U&C prices as defined in CVS's contracts. The Court disagrees that Dr. Hay's opinion lacks foundation. Based on its review of Dr. Hay's disclosed report and the record before it, it is apparent that Dr. Hay formed his opinion regarding the U&C price based on his experience, industry standards, and his review of the materials produced by CVS during the course of the litigation. Dr. Hay's review of these materials provides an adequate basis for his disclosed testimony. Based on the foregoing, the Court therefore reversed the district court's summary judgment order, its class certification order, and its order excluding the expert opinion and striking the expert report of Dr. Hay. It remanded for further proceedings. The parties will bear their own costs on appeal. A full-text copy of the Court's June 12, 2019 Memorandum is available at https://is.gd/8uumZg from Leagle.com. DISH NETWORK: Court Leaves Key Class Action Questions Unanswered ---------------------------------------------------------------- John Breslin, writing for Cook County Record, reports that an opinion by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has left fluid just who can be part of a class action, leaving unanswered the question of how to identify members, a defense attorney says. The case involves Thomas Krakauer who sued Dish Network under the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), claiming he received multiple calls from a Satellite Systems Network (SSN) trying to sell him Dish Network services. His lawsuit claimed his phone number was on a do-not-call list. The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina certified the class and denied a Dish Network motion to dismiss on the basis that most members were not injured. The case proceeded to trial and a jury decided SSN was acting as an agent for Dish Network and had made multiple calls. It awarded damages of $400 per call. This amount was trebled to a total award of approximately $61 million because Dish Network acted "willfully and knowingly." The satellite company appealed to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, arguing that it was not clear who was injured and that Dis Network did not control the actions of SSN. Esther Slater McDonald, an attorney with Seyfarth Shaw who analyzed the case, said that while the contract between Dish Network and SSN stated that SSN was not an agent, the court found that the satellite company was controlling the actions of the service seller. "This was fact driven," McDonald told the Cook County Record. For example, evidence indicated Dish Network was involved in settling lawsuits with various state attorneys general over the same alleged practices. "That is what hurt Dish," McDonald said. But there are serious issues relating to exactly who has standing in a class action, McDonald said, adding that Dish Network argued that while a subscriber may be included, it was not known who was at the other end of a particular call. The other issue of concern is the trebling of damages, McDonald said. Both of these questions – who is a class member and the damages -- could form the basis of an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, she said. [GN] DOCTORDIRECTORY.COM: Davis Junk Fax Row Removed to E.D. Ark. ------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned Davis Neurology, P.A., on behalf of itself and all other entities and persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Doctordirectory.Com, Llc, Everday Health, Inc. and John Does 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 4:16-CV-00095, (Ark. Cir., June 29, 2016) was removed to the U.S. District Court for Eastern District of Arkansas on July 15, 2019 under Case No. 19-cv-00499. Davis seeks statutory damages and injunctive relief for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. DoctorsDirectory.com is a service that helps match patients seeking medical services while Everyday Health, Inc. provides digital health and wellness solutions. On or about November 17, 2015, Davis received a fax transmission from the Defendants requesting participation in a study in return for $15 compensation. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Joe P. Leniski, Jr., Esq. BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC 223 Rosa L. Parks Ave, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Tel: (615) 254-8801 Email: jleniski@branstetterlaw.com - and - James A. Streett, Esq. Alex G. Streett, Esq. STREETT LAW FIRM, P.A. 107 West Main Russellville, AR 72801 Tel: (479) 968-2030 Email: Alex@StreettLaw.com James@StreettLaw.com Defendants are represented by: Joshua C. Ashley, Esq. Donald H. Bacon, Esq. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK, LLP 400 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Tel: (501) 370-3395 Fax: (501) 244-5308 Email: jashley@fridayfirm.com - and - Maria Z. Vathis, Esq. BRYAN CAVE LLP 161 North Clark Street, Suite 4300 Chicago, IL 60601-3315 Tel: (312) 602-5127 Email: maria.vathis@bclplaw.com EDDIE BAUER: Settlement in Veridian Suit Has Preliminary Approval ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, VERIDIAN CREDIT UNION, on behalf of itself and a class of similarly situated financial institutions, Plaintiff, v. EDDIE BAUER LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00356-JLR (W.D. Wash.), Judge James L. Robart of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle, granted the Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Settlement. Judge Lobart provisionally certified the following Settlement Class: All banks, credit unions, financial institutions, and other entities in the United States (including its Territories and the District of Columbia) that issued Alerted on Payment Cards. Excluded from the Settlement Class is the judge presiding over the matter and any members of his judicial staff, Eddie Bauer, and persons who timely and validly request exclusion from the Settlement Class. The Settlement Class is provisionally certified for purposes of settlement only. The Plaintiff is designated and appointed as the Settlement Class Representative. The following lawyers, who were previously appointed by the Court as the interim Co-Lead Counsel, are designated as the Class Counsel pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g): Joseph P. Guglielmo of Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP; and Gary F. Lynch of Carlson Lynch LLP. The proposed Settlement is preliminarily approved. A Final Approval Hearing will take place before the Court on Oct. 25, 2019, at 9:00 a.m. The Class Counsel will submit their application for fees, costs, and expenses and the application for a Service Award 100 days after entry of the Order. The deadline to file an objection and any response to the Class Counsel's motions is no later than 114 days after entry of the Order. By no later than 128 days after entry of the Order, responses will be filed, if any, to any filings by objectors, and any replies in support of final approval of the Settlement and/or the Class Counsel's application for attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses and for a Service Award will be filed. Any Settlement Class Member that has not timely and properly excluded itself from the Settlement Class in the manner described may appear at the Final Approval Hearing in person or by counsel and be heard, to the extent allowed by the Court, regarding the proposed Settlement. Analytics Consulting, LLC is appointed as the Settlement Administrator, with responsibility for Claims Administration, the Notice Program, and all other obligations of the Claims Administrator, as set forth in the Settlement. The Settlement Administrator's fees, as well as all other costs and expenses associated with notice and administration, will be paid by Eddie Bauer, as provided in the Settlement. The Notice Program set forth in the Settlement, including the forms of Notice and Claim Form attached as exhibits to the Settlement, satisfy the requirements of Rule 23 and due process and thus are approved. Non-material modifications to the exhibits may be made without further order of the Court. The Settlement Administrator is directed to carry out the Notice Program in conformance with the Settlement and to perform all other tasks that the Settlement requires. Any Settlement Class Member that wishes to be excluded from the Settlement Class must mail a written notification of the intent to exclude itself to the Settlement Administrator, the Class Counsel, and Eddie Bauer's counsel at the addresses provided in the Notice, postmarked no later than Sept. 10, 2019, and sent via first class postage pre-paid U.S. mail. The Settlement Administrator will provide the Parties with copies of all opt-out notifications promptly upon receipt, and a final list of all that have timely and validly excluded themselves from the Settlement Class in accordance with the terms of the Settlement, which the Class Counsel may move to file under seal with the Court no later than 10 days prior to the Final Approval Hearing. A Settlement Class Member that complies with the requirements of the Order may object to the Settlement, the request of the Class Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses, and/or the request for a Service Award. The objection deadline is Oct. 4, 2019. The Settlement establishes a process for assessing and determining the validity and value of claims and a methodology for paying Settlement Class Members that submit a timely, valid Claim Form. Judge Lobart preliminarily approved the process. The Judge stayed and enjoined, pending Final Approval of the Settlement, any actions, lawsuits, or other proceedings brought by the Settlement Class Members against Eddie Bauer in relation to the Cyber Attack. The Settlement, as preliminarily approved in the Order, will be administered according to its terms pending the Final Approval Hearing. The Deadlines arising under the Settlement and the Order include, but are not limited to, the following: a. Notice Deadline: July 12, 2019; b. Opt-Out Deadline: Sept. 10, 2019; c. Claims Deadline: Oct. 10, 2019; d. Application for Attorneys' Fees and Expenses and Service Award (Fee Application): Sept. 20, 2019; e. Motion for Final Approval of the Settlement (Final Approval Motion): Sept. 20, 2019; f. Objection Deadline: Oct. 4, 2019; g. Replies in Support of Final Approval and Fee Motion: Oct. 18, 2019; and f. Final Approval Hearing: Oct. 25, 2019. A full-text copy of the Court's June 12, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/POfLtB from Leagle.com. Veridian Credit Union, on behalf of itself and a class of similarly situated financial institutions, Plaintiff, represented by Arthur Mahony Murray , MURRAY LAW FIRM, pro hac vice, Brian C. Gudmundson -- brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com -- ZIMMERMAN REED LLP, pro hac vice, Bryan L. Bleichner -- bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com -- CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA, pro hac vice, Caroline Thomas White, MURRAY LAW FIRM, pro hac vice, Chase Christian Alvord -- calvord@tousley.com -- TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS, Christopher P. Renz -- crenz@chestnutcambronne.com -- CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA, pro hac vice, Erin Green Comite --ECOMITE@SCOTT-SCOTT.COM -- SCOTT + SCOTT LLP, pro hac vice, Gary F. Lynch --glynch@carlsonlynch.com -- CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER, LLP, pro hac vice -- JGUGLIELMO@SCOTT-SCOTT.COM -- SCOTT + SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP, pro hac vice, Karen H. Riebel -- khriebel@locklaw.com -- LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN, pro hac vice, Kate M. Baxter-Kauf -- kmbaxter-kauf@locklaw.com -- LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN, pro hac vice, Kevin W. Tucker -- ktucker@carlsonlynch.com -- CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER LLP, pro hac vice, Kim D. Stephens -- kstephens@tousley.com -- TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS & Sean C. Russell -- SEAN.RUSSELL@SCOTT-SCOTT.COM -- SCOTT + SCOTT LLP, pro hac vice. Eddie Bauer LLC, Defendant, represented by Dyanne Cho -- Dyanne.Cho@lewisbrisbois.com --LEWIS BRISBOIS BIGAARD & SMITH LLP, pro hac vice, Gordon Calhoun -- Gordon.Calhoun@lewisbrisbois.com -- LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP, pro hac vice, Jon P. Kardassakis -- Jon.Kardassakis@lewisbrisbois.com -- LEWIS BRISBOIS BIGAARD & SMITH LLP, pro hac vice, Ethan A. Smith -- Ethan.Smith@lewisbrisbois.com -- LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP, Kathleen A. Nelson -- Kathleen.Nelson@lewisbrisbois.com -- LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP & Sarah Demaree Macklin -- Sarah.Macklin@lewisbrisbois.com -- LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP. ENCORE BOSTON: Faces Class Action for Allegedly Cheating Gamblers ----------------------------------------------------------------- Danny McDonald, writing for Boston Globe, reports that a class-action lawsuit filed on July 15 alleges that the newly opened Encore Boston Harbor casino is cheating gamblers through its blackjack and slot machine practices. The suit, filed in Middlesex Superior Court against the casino and its parent companies, claims that the casino's "6 to 5" blackjack games violate state rules "to maximize the casino's advantage far in excess of that which is permitted." A 6-to-5 blackjack game pays out at 6-to-5 odds, rather than the standard 3 to 2, when a player hits blackjack. Under a 3-to-2 payout, someone who placed a wager of $50 and is dealt a blackjack would be paid $75, while under a 6-to-5 payout, the gambler would be paid $60. [GN] ESSEX CROSSING: Nisbett Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Essex Crossing Builders LLC. The case is styled as Kareem Nisbett Individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Essex Crossing Builders LLC doing business as: The Rollins, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-06777 (S.D. N.Y., July 22, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Essex Crossing is a collection of over 1,000 new residences, 400,000 square feet of office space and 450,000 square feet of retail spaces over nine sites in New York City's Lower East Side.[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 FANDANGO MEDIA: Jones Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fandango Media, LLC. The case is styled as Kahlimah Jones, Individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. Fandango Media, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-04291 (E.D. N.Y., July 25, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Fandango Media, LLC is an American ticketing company that sells movie tickets via their website as well as through their mobile app.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Shaked, Esq. Shaked Law Group, P.C. 44 Court Street, Suite 1217 Brooklyn, NY 11217 Phone: (917) 373-9128 Fax: (718) 504-7555 Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com FEDEX CORP: Karp Sues over Securities Fraud ------------------------------------------- A securities fraud class action has been filed against FedEx Corporation for alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The case is captioned SELWYN KARP, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, vs. FEDEX CORPORATION, FREDERICK W. SMITH, ALAN B. GRAF, JR., DAVID J. BRONCZEK, RAJESH SUBRAMANIAM, DAVID L. CUNNINGHAM, DONALD F. COLLERAN, and MICHAEL C. LENZ, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-06183 (S.D.N.Y., July 2, 2019). In July 2016, FedEx significantly expanded its international operations through its $4.8 billion acquisition of TNT Express N.V., a Netherlands-based logistics company with operations concentrated in Europe. To date, this has been the largest acquisition in FedEx history. This acquisition instantly added billions of dollars of European revenues to FedEx's topline and increased the FedEx's international revenue mix from 24% in fiscal year 2016 to 33% in fiscal year 2017. On June 27, 2017, however, TNT's operations were crippled by a cyberattack known as NotPetya, which involved the spread of a malware virus throughout TNT's systems. NotPetya is considered one of the largest cyberattacks in history, having affected a multitude of companies on a global scale. The timing of the attack was particularly problematic for FedEx, as TNT's systems were paralyzed during the critical period involving the integration of TNT with the FedEx's legacy European operations. In the complaint, Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) TNT's overall package volume growth was slowing as TNT's large customers permanently took their business to competitors after the cyberattack; (ii) as a result of the customer attrition, TNT was experiencing an increased shift in product mix from higher-margin parcel services to lower-margin freight services; (iii) the anticipated costs and timeframe to integrate and restore the TNT network were significantly larger and longer than disclosed; (iv) FedEx was not on track to achieve the TNT Income Improvement Target; and (v) as a result of these undisclosed negative trends and cost issues, FedEx's positive statements about TNT's recovery from the cyberattack, integration into FedEx's legacy operations, customer mix, customer service levels, profitability, and prospects lacked a reasonable basis. FedEx is a global logistics company that provides a broad portfolio of transportation, e-commerce, and business services. Through its fleets of airplanes and trucks, FedEx ships goods to commercial and residential customers throughout the world. The Company offers its customers with a variety of shipping services, including express freight, which tends to generate lower margins for FedEx than its ground delivery services. The company has four principal operating segments: FedEx Express; FedEx Freight; FedEx Ground; and FedEx Services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com - and - Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 377-1181 Facsimile: (312) 377-1184 E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com FERRARA CANDY: Copland Appeals Littlejohn Suit Settlement Approval ------------------------------------------------------------------ Objector James Copland filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Jessica Littlejohn v. Ferrara Candy Company, Case No. 3:18-cv-00658-AJB-WVG, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, San Diego. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on July 9, 2019, the District Court issued a Judgment and Order granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of the Settlement Agreement in the case. The Defendant manufactures, markets and sells in the United States a variety of sweet and tart flavored candy products at issue in this Settlement. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's labeling and marketing of SweeTARTS(R) Products is false and misleading. Plaintiff Jessica Littlejohn filed this Action against Defendant Ferrara Candy Company, bringing claims for fraud by omission, negligent misrepresentation, violations of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, (CLRA), violations of California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL), violations of California's False Advertising Law (FAL) and Breach of Express and Implied Warranties relating to various SweeTARTS candy products. After arm's-length settlement discussions, the Parties have entered into a Settlement Agreement (Agreement), which, if approved, would resolve this putative class action. Currently pending before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Final Approval of the Settlement Agreement and Plaintiff's Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Incentive Award for the Class Representative. The appellate case is captioned as Jessica Littlejohn v. Ferrara Candy Company, Case No. 19-55805, 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 August 12, 2019; -- Transcript is due on September 9, 2019; -- Appellant James Copland's opening brief is due on October 21, 2019; -- Appellees Ferrara Candy Company and Jessica Littlejohn's answering brief is due on November 21, 2019; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellee JESSICA LITTLEJOHN, on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated, and the general public, is represented by: Michael Houchin, Esq. Ronald A. Marron, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON 651 Arroyo Drive San Diego, CA 92103 Telephone: (619) 696-9006 E-mail: mike@consumersadvocates.com ron@consumersadvocates.com Objector-Appellant JAMES COPLAND is represented by: Theodore H. Frank, Esq. HAMILTON LINCOLN LAW INSTITUTE 1629 K Street NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (703) 203-3848 E-mail: tfrank@gmail.com Defendant-Appellee FERRARA CANDY COMPANY is represented by: Kelley B. Harrington, Esq. Neal Potischman, Esq. DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP 1600 El Camino Real Menlo Park, CA 94025 Telephone: (650) 752-2000 E-mail: kelley.harrington@davispolk.com neal.potischman@davispolk.com FGF BRANDS: Illinois Court Trims Claims in Friend Suit ------------------------------------------------------ In the case, EMILY FRIEND, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. FGF BRANDS (USA) INC., a Delaware corporation, and FGF BRANDS, INC., a Canadian corporation, Defendants, Case No. 18 CV 7644 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Robert W. Gettleman of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, lack of Article III standing, and lack of personal jurisdiction. A traditional tandoor oven, Plaintiff Friend alleges, is cylindrical, insulated with sand, operated over a wood- or charcoal-burning fire, and so small that only one or two pieces of naan—a leavened flatbread popular in South and Central Asian cuisine -- can be hand-baked at a time. At grocery stores across North America and Canada, the Defendants sell packaged naan products, boasting that their naan is "hand-stretched and tandoor oven-baked to honor 2,000 years of tradition." That statement, the Plaintiff alleges, is deceptive: The Defendants do not bake their naan in a traditional tandoor oven, but in a patented, gas-heated commercial oven capable of baking 15,000 pieces of naan an hour. She alleges that there is no substitute for the flavor imparted by baking naan in a traditional tandoor oven, and that the Defendants misleadingly portray their naan products as a high-quality, hand-stretched, low-volume alternative to other mass-produced flatbreads, while in fact they mass-produce their naan on an endless conveyor belt. The Plaintiff's complaint, filed under the Class Action Fairness Act, on behalf of three putative classes of people who bought the Defendants' naan, claims that the Defendants: (1) violated the consumer fraud laws of California, Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, and Washington (Counts I and II); (2) violated the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, 815 ILCS 510/1 et seq. (Count III); (3) fraudulently concealed that they mass-produced their naan in commercial ovens (Count IV); and (4) were unjustly enriched by their deceptive packaging (Count V). The Defendants move under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) to dismiss all claims. They argue that: the Plaintiff fails to state a claim under the consumer fraud laws because the allegedly mislabeled naan products could not plausibly deceive a reasonable consumer; the Plaintiff fails to plead fraud with particularity; the Plaintiff lacks Article III standing to assert claims as to the naan products that she did not purchase; and the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over the Defendants as to the claims that the Plaintiff brings on behalf of non-Illinois class members. Judge Gettleman holds that: (1) the Plaintiff states a claim under the consumer fraud laws; (2) the Plaintiff has pleaded fraud with particularity; (3) the Plaintiff's Article III standing as to unpurchased products must be decided at class certification; and (4) the Defendants may file a new motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction after the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit decides Mussat v. IQVIA, Inc., No. 19-1204. For these reasons, he granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, lack of Article III standing, and lack of personal jurisdiction. The Defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is denied except as to the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act claim (Count III), which is dismissed. Their motion to dismiss for lack of Article III standing as to the products that the Plaintiff did not purchase is denied without prejudice. The Defendants may file a new motion when the Plaintiff moves to certify the classes. The new motion must contain only those arguments fairly presented in section I.D of the Defendants' memorandum supporting their motion to dismiss. The Defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction over non-Illinois putative class members is denied without prejudice. After the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit decides Mussat v. IQVIA, Inc., No. 19-1204, the Defendants may file a new motion. The new motion must contain only those arguments fairly presented in the second paragraph of section I.E of the Defendants' memorandum supporting their motion to dismiss. The Judge directed the Defendants to answer all counts of the complaint except Count III by July 8, 2019. The parties are directed to file a joint status report using the court's form by July 15, 2019. The matter is set for a report on status on July 23, 2019 at 9:00 a.m. The case has been assigned to the calendar of Judge Gettleman. To assist the Court in acquiring the requisite knowledge of the case, it is ordered: 1. The counsel and any unrepresented party should obtain a copy of Judge Gettleman's Revised Standing Order Regarding Motion Practice, Briefs and Protective Orders in Civil Cases, which is available in chambers or on the court website (www.ilnd.uscourts.gov). 2. The counsel are to confer, prepare and file a brief, joint status report, not to exceed five pages. As with all filings, a hard copy should be submitted to the court within one day of any electronic filing. If the Defendant's counsel has not yet filed an appearance, the status report should be prepared by the Plaintiff's counsel. The report will contain a full caption showing all parties and will provide the following information in the order set forth below in the following format: A. The date and time this case is set for a status report before the Court. B. The attorneys of record for each party, indicating which attorney is expected to try the case. C. The basis of federal jurisdiction. D. Whether a jury has been requested and by which party. E. The nature of the claims asserted in the complaint and any counterclaim, including a brief statement of the factual context of the case. F. The relief sought by any party, including computation of damages, if available. G. The name of any party who or which has not been served, and any fact or circumstance related to service of process on such party. H. The principal legal issues (including the citation to any key legal authority related to such issue). I. The principal factual issues, including the parties' respective positions on those issues. J. A brief description of all anticipated motions. K. A proposed discovery plan pursuant to F. R. Civ. P. 26(f), including a brief description of what discovery has been taken, if any, what remains to be taken, a schedule for expert designations and discovery, and a proposed discovery cutoff. L. The earliest date the parties would be ready for trial and the probable length of trial. M. The status of any settlement discussions and whether a settlement conference would be appropriate. In this regard, the counsel is directed to consider and discuss with the respective clients and each other the possibility of attempting to resolve the matter through alternative dispute resolution, and to briefly set forth the results of such consideration and discussion. For Lanham Act cases, the parties must comply fully with Local General Rule 16.3. N. Whether the parties will consent to jurisdiction and trial before a magistrate judge. The principal trial attorney for each party, or an attorney with sufficient familiarity with and responsibility for the case, will appear at that time prepared to discuss all aspects of the case. A full-text copy of the Court's June 12, 2019 Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at https://is.gd/SOn3wc from Leagle.com. Emily Friend, Plaintiff, represented by Richard R. Gordon , Gordon Law Offices, Ltd., Kyle Alan Shamberg -- KShamberg@LiteDePalma.com -- Lite DePalma Greenberg, LLC, Nicholas Rudolph Lange -- NLange@LiteDePalam.com -- Lite DePalma Greenberg, LLC & Katrina Carroll -- KCarroll@LiteDePalma.com -- Carlson Lynch, LLP. FGF Brands (USA), Inc. & FGF Brands, Inc., Defendants, represented by Diana Marie Torres -- diana.torres@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis Llp, Dale M. Cendali -- dale.cendali@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Joseph Myer Sanderson -- joseph.sanderson@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis Llp, Lauren J. Schweitzer -- lauren.schweitzer@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis Llp & Megan Margaret New -- megan.new@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis LLP. FIRST AMERICAN: Ingle Sues over Data Breach ------------------------------------------- WILLIAM INGLE, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. FIRST AMERICAN FINANCIAL CORPORATION, and FIRST AMERICAN TITLE COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 8:19-cv-01316-JLS-JDE (C.D. Cal., July 2, 2019), alleges that First American failed to keep Plaintiff's and the Class's sensitive information safe. The Defendants, as the largest parent/subsidiary title insurer in the nation, collects and promises to safeguard vast amounts of amounts of personal information, including names, addresses, telephone numbers, proof of identity and income, Social Security numbers, income tax information, and bank account routing information needed for wire transfers. First American did not institute the most basic security measures and left its customers' Sensitive Information entirely open and available to the public. First American assigned its customers a URL with a Document ID number embedded. By changing the last digit in either direction, anyone with one of First American's URL's could review all the documentation with respect to another customer's transaction that came before or after their own. By continuing to change the last digit, a malign party could review the documentation for all of First American's customers' transactions (up to 885 million documents) dating back as far as at least 2003. By leaving their Sensitive Information wide open to the public in this manner, First American breached its promises to and was negligent toward its customers, including Plaintiff Ingle and the Class he seeks to represent, as their Sensitive Information was compromised, the lawsuit says. The Plaintiff seeks compensation for his increased risk of identity theft and other financial harms, for overpayment for First American's services (which did not include the promised data security safeguards), and for equitable relief including reformed data security practices, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the Proposed Class are: Marc L. Godino, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 E-mail: info@glancylaw.com - and - Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq. CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA 17 Washington Avenue North, Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55401-2048 Telephone: (612) 339-7300 Facsimile: (612) 336-2940 E-mail: bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com - and - Karen Hanson Riebel, Esq. Kate M. Baxter-Kauf, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P. 100 Washington Ave. S., Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-6900 Facsimile: (612) 339-0981 E-mail: khriebel@locklaw.com kmbaxter-kauf@locklaw.com - and - Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq. Michael J. Laird, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED LLP 1100 IDS Center 80 South 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 341-0400 Facsimile: (612) 341-0844 E-mail: brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com michael.laird@zimmreed.com - and - Gary F. Lynch, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5 th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: 412 322 9243 Facsimile: 412 231 0246 E-mail: glynch@carlsonlynch.com FIRST CHOICE: Wolf Popper Named Lead Counsel in Maz Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, MAZ PARTNERS LP, Plaintiff, v. FIRST CHOICE HEALTHCARE SOLUTIONS, INC. and CHRISTIAN ROMANDETTI, SR., Defendants, Case No. 6:19-cv-619-Orl-40LRH (M.D. Fla.), Magistrate Judge Leslie R. Hoffman of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division, granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff and Approval of Selection of Counsel, and Accompanying Memorandum of Law. On March 29, 2019, Plaintiff MAZ filed a purported class action complaint against the Defendants, alleging violations of the federal securities laws. The proposed "class" consists of all persons other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired First Choice common stock from April 1, 2014 through Nov. 14, 2018, both dates inclusive, seeking to recover damages caused by the Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against Defendants. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Romandetti, the former CEO and Chairman of the Board of Trustees of First Choice Healthcare, engaged in a "classic pump and dump scheme" that artificially inflated the price of First Choice's stock. It also alleges that the Defendants issued misleading statements due to material omissions regarding the trading of First Choice's stock. In November 2018, the Department of Justice filed a criminal indictment against Romandetti and co-conspirators based on the stock manipulation scheme. The Securities and Exchange Commission also filed an SEC complaint against Romandetti and his co-conspirators. Thereafter, First Choice Healthcare common stock declined dramatically. Both the Defendants have moved to dismiss the complaint. The motions will not become ripe until June 28, 2019. Accordingly, discovery in the matter is stayed pending the Court's ruling on the motions to dismiss. In the instant motion, the Plaintiff seeks to be appointed the Lead Plaintiff in the case pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act ("PSLRA"). It also asks that the Court approve the law firm of Wolf Popper, LLP, as the lead counsel and the law firm of Rice Pugatch Robinson Storfer & Cohen PLLC as the liaison counsel on behalf of the class. The Defendants have not filed responses to the motion, and the time for doing so has passed. The matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Hoffman. She finds that the Plaintiff states that its claims are typical of those of the purported class because it alleges that the Defendants violated federal securities law by failing to disclose material facts regarding First Choice; the Plaintiff purchased First Choice common stock at artificially inflated prices as a result of those omissions; and the Plaintiff was damaged upon disclosure of those omissions. Thus, the Plaintiff asserts that its claims are based on the same legal theory, and arise from the same events and course of conduct, as the class. As to adequacy, the Plaintiff asserts that its claims are not in conflict with the class, it is not subject to any unique defenses, and its monetary losses will ensure its "vigorous advocacy." In the absence of objection, she recommends that the Court accepts the Plaintiff's representations and finds that it has satisfied the typicality and adequacy requirements of Rule 23. Based on the foregoing, she respectfully recommends that the Court appoints Plaintiff MAZ as the Lead Plaintiff in the case pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(i). The Plaintiff asks the Court to appoint the law firm of Wolf Popper, LLP as the lead counsel, and the law firm of Rice Pugatch Robinson Storfer & Cohen PLLC as liaison counsel, on behalf of the class. As to Wolf Popper LLP, the Plaintiff asserts that the law firm is highly experienced in the area of securities litigation and class actions and has successfully prosecuted numerous securities litigations and securities fraud class actions on behalf of investors, as well as other class actions, citing two federal and one state case in support. It has also filed a document titled, "Biographical Sketch of Wolf Popper LLP," in support. Based on the Plaintiff's representations and attached documentation, and in the absence of objection, the Magistrate recommends that the Court approves Wolf Popper, LLP as the lead counsel in the case. As to the law firm of Rice Pugatch Robinson Storfer & Cohen PLLC, the Plaintiff seeks to have the firm appointed as the liaison counsel. However, the Plaintiff provides no authority for appointing "liaison counsel" under the PSLRA. Moreover, while some courts have approved the selection of multiple law firms, others have refused to do so, noting the danger of lawyers seizing control of the litigation, contrary to Congress's intent, the inherent inefficiencies of too many cooks in the kitchen, and the potential for undue pressure on the lead plaintiff. Accordingly, absent compelling reasons from the Plaintiff why it requires "liaison counsel" in the case, the Magistrate recommends that the Court denies the Plaintiff's request to appoint the law firm of Rice Pugatch Robinson Storfer & Cohen PLLC as the "liaison counsel." She further recommends that Attorney Ronald J. Cohen of the law firm Rice Pugatch Robinson Storfer & Cohen PLLC remain appointed as the local counsel for the case. Based on the foregoing, Magistrate Hoffman granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff and Approval of Selection of Counsel, and Accompanying Memorandum of Law. Plaintiff MAZ is appointed the Lead Plaintiff in the case; and the law firm of Wolf Popper, LP as the lead counsel. The Magistrate denied (i) the Plaintiff's request to appoint the law firm of Rice Pugatch Robinson Storfer & Cohen PLLC as tge liaison counsel in the case; and (ii) the motion in all other respects. A full-text copy of the Court's June 12, 2019 Report & Recommendation is available at https://is.gd/cVVBLA from Leagle.com. Maz Partners LP, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Chet B. Waldman -- cwaldman@wolfpopper.com -- Wolf Popper, LLP, pro hac vice, Joshua W. Ruthizer -- jruthizer@wolfpopper.com -- Wolf Popper, LLP & Ronald Jay Cohen, Rice Pugatch Robinson Storfer & Cohen PLLC. First Choice Healthcare Solutions, Inc., Defendant, represented by Brian P. Miller -- brian.miller@akerman.com -- Akerman LLP, Ross Elliot Linzer -- ross.linzer@akerman.com -- Akerman LLP, Jonathan Lamet, Akerman LLP & Samantha Joy Kavanaugh -- samantha.kavanaugh@akerman.com -- Akerman LLP. Christian Romandetti, Sr., Defendant, represented by Fritz J. Scheller, Fritz Scheller, PL. FIRST STUDENT: Judge Approves Wage Class Action Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------- Doug Alden, writing for New Hampshire Union Leader, reports that a federal judge gave preliminary approval on July 15 to a proposed settlement in a class-action lawsuit filed by school bus drivers and assistants claiming they were owed back wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Judge Paul Barbadoro verbally approved of the settlement agreement during a brief hearing on July 15 in U.S. District Court. Barbadoro said he found terms of the agreement to be "reasonable, fair and appropriate" during the hearing, which included lawyers for the plaintiffs and the employer, First Student LLC. Under terms of the settlement, First Student does not admit any liability or wrongdoing, but does agree to pay $146,790.50 -- an amount agreed upon by both sides -- to settle the case. The settlement sets aside $101,830 to cover attorney fees and costs, leaving $44,960.50 to be dispersed among the 65 plaintiffs, who claimed they were owed straight time and overtime for hours worked. Shawn Sullivan, a Concord attorney who was part of the team representing the drivers, said each of the plaintiffs will get $691.70 as their share of the settlement. Christopher Kaczmarek, an attorney representing First Student, declined comment after the hearing. [GN] FORSTER & GARBUS: Yaakubov Sues over Debt Collection Practices -------------------------------------------------------------- Dina Yaakubov, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Forster, Garbus & Garbus, Ronald Forster, Mark Garbus and Glenn Garbus, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-04104 (E.D.N.Y., July 16, 2019), seeks to recover damages for Defendants' violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. In Defendants' efforts to collect the alleged Debt, the Defendants contacted Plaintiff by a letter dated October 24, 2018. The Letter conveyed information regarding the alleged Debt. The Letter fails to identify by name and label any entity as "creditor," "original creditor," "current creditor," "account owner," or "creditor to whom the debt is owed", the lawsuit says. Forster & Garbus handles all aspects of creditor's rights litigation.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: (516) 203-7600 Facsimile: (516) 706-5055 E-mail: ConsumerRights@BarshaySanders.com GENPACT SERVICES: Ludwig Class Suit Removed to E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------ Defendant Synchrony Bank removed on July 15, 2019, the class action lawsuit entitled ERIK LUDWIG, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. GENPACT SERVICES LLC, and SYNCHRONY BANK, Case No. 603126/2019, from the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Suffolk, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-04068 to the proceeding. Mr. Ludwig seeks to recover damages for alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. He also purports to seek damages pursuant to New York General Business Law based on a certain letter, which letter he also claims supports his FDCPA claim.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mitchell L. Pashkin, Esq. MITCHELL PASHKIN ATTORNEY AT LAW 775 Park Avenue, Suite 255 Huntington, NY 11743 Telephone: (631) 388-6466 E-mail: mpash@verizon.net Defendant Synchrony Bank is represented by: Melissa A. Brown, Esq. REED SMITH LLP 599 Lexington Avenue, 22nd Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 521-5400 Facsimile: (212) 521-5450 E-mail: mabrown@reedsmith.com GEORGE WASHINGTON: Judge Tosses ERISA Breach Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Pensions & Investments reports that a U.S. District Court judge in Washington dismissed an ERISA fiduciary breach claim by a participant in two defined contribution plans managed by The George Washington University, saying the plaintiff lacked standing to sue. The complaint was dismissed because the participant, a former university employee, had signed a confidential settlement agreement with university in 2016, wrote U.S. District Judge John Bates in a July 15 opinion. "The court lacks subject matters jurisdiction over released claims," the judge wrote. The settlement agreement included a "general release" provision insulating the university from future legal claims covered by several federal laws -- but not ERISA. The plaintiff, Melissa Stanley, "does not dispute that she voluntarily executed, and is subject to, the agreement's terms, including the general release," the judge wrote in the case of Stanley vs. The George Washington University et al. Ms. Stanley sued the university in April 2018 claiming, among other things that, its retirement plans charged "unreasonable" record-keeping and administrative fees and offered expensive and underperforming investment options. Her lawsuit sought class-action status. The university moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that Ms. Stanley lacked standing to sue. She countered that her complaint should be allowed because the general release provision allows for "claims for vested benefits under employee benefits plans" and because ERISA wasn't identified as being covered by the release document. Her argument saying "the release lists numerous federal statutes but does not include ERISA is unpersuasive," the judge wrote. "The court finds that Stanley has released her claims under the agreement and thus lacks standing to sue." The George Washington University Retirement Plan for Faculty and Staff, a 401(a) plan, had assets of $990.3 million as of Dec. 31, 2017, according to the latest Form 5500 filing. The George Washington University Supplemental Retirement Plan, a 403(b) plan, had assets of $1.2 billion as of Dec. 31, 2017, as of Dec. 31, 2017, according to the latest Form 5500 filing. [GN] GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Court Dismisses 1st Amended Banaga Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JESSE BANAGA, Individually and on Behalf of all Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-02756-GPC-KSC (S.D. Cal.), Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss Banaga's First Amended Complaint. Banaga was employed at the Government Employees Insurance Co. ("GEICO") first as a Customer Service Representative and then as a Sales Representative. Shortly after his promotion to Sales Representative, Banaga began to suffer from acute stress and anxiety which ultimately forced him to take a medical leave of absence. During his absence, Banaga contends that GEICO unlawfully considered FMLA and ADA leaves in determining -- through a rating system called a power-selling ratio ("PSR") -- both his ability to receive a bonus and the requisite amount, if any, of the bonus payout. Upon his return to GEICO, Banaga further alleges that the Defendant company demoted him from his Sales Representative position. The Plaintiff maintains that this decision was largely motivated by his taking of FMLA and CFRA leave, which in turn impacted his ability to meet the sales quota to remain a Sales Representative. As a result of these claims, the Plaintiff now brings his FAC, which alleges violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act ("FMLA"), the California Family Rights Act ("CFRA"), the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), and the California Fair Employment & Housing Act ("FEHA"). Presently before the Court is GEICO's motion to dismiss Banaga's FAC filed on March 15, 2019. The Defendant moves to dismiss Banaga's claims for violations of FMLA, CFRA, ADA, and FEHA on the basis that they lack sufficient factual allegations to state plausible claims for relief. Banaga's claims stem from two forms of harm: (1) denial of a bonus because the Plaintiff failed to meet sales goals under a production quota and performance-based rating system; and (2) demotion because he failed to meet sales goals as a result of his medical leave of absence. Judge Curiel finds that the Plaintiff's first FMLA claim fails as a matter of law because the heart of it -- that GEICO prohibited him from earning bonuses while on protected leave -- is not cognizable under the FMLA. No additional amendment to the Plaintiff's pleading could overcome this defect. As such, he dismissed with prejudice the Plaintiff's FMLA claims that are premised on GEICO's reason-neutral bonus and performance evaluation practices. Next, the Judge finds that while employers do not have the right to take adverse actions against employees based on protected FMLA leave already taken simply because they have exhausted their FMLA leave, the Plaintiff does not assert that his first 12 weeks of leave wrongfully contributed to his demotion. As it stands, the Judge finds that the Plaintiff has not put forth a plausible claim under Rule 12(b)(6) that GEICO unlawfully considered his FMLA leave as a negative factor in his demotion. Thus, he granted this portion of the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's FMLA claim based on his demotion after approximately six months of sanctioned leave. Because it is not impossible that the Plaintiff might overcome the defects detailed herein, dismissal is with leave to amend. The Plaintiff brings the same allegations that GEICO unlawfully used his medical leave of absence as a negative factor that led to his demotion. He also asserts that GEICO refused to grant him his full entitlement under the CFRA. The Court Judge finds this claim to be a non-sequitur. Under the CFRA, the Plaintiff is not entitled to additional time off beyond the FMLA's 12-week sanctioned leave. After 12 weeks, employers are not prohibited under either the CFRA or the FMLA from basing adverse employment decisions on subsequent absences. Since the Plaintiff was well beyond the protected 12-week period, he fails to state a plausible claim for relief that his demotion was the wrongful result of his medical leave. Accordingly, the Judge dismissed with leave to amend the Plaintiff's CFRA claims based on his demotion after approximately six months of sanctioned leave. The Judge granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's ADA claims. Since the Plaintiff may only bring claims under the ADA for wrongful acts that occurred on or after Aug. 30, 2017, the Judge finds at this stage that the Plaintiff is time-barred from bringing these present allegations. And since these claims are statutorily untimely and cannot be cured through amendment, the Plaintiff's ADA claims will be dismissed with prejudice. Finally, the Judge granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's claims under the FEHA, with the Plaintiff being granted leave to amend. He finds that (i) the Plaintiff has satisfied his obligation to exhaust administrative remedies with respect to claims between June 26, 2017 and June 26, 2018; (ii) the Plaintiff did not provide any evidence that a facially neutral policy falls more harshly on a protected group than the whole under the bonus policies; (iii) the Plaintiff cannot adequately plead his FEHA claims for disability discrimination or for failure to prevent disability discrimination; and (iv) there is nothing in the FAC that suggests that the Plaintiff was treated differently from others on account of his disability. For the reasons enumerated, Judge Curiel granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss. The dismissal as to the FMLA and CFRA claims based on the Plaintiff's demotion, as well as the Plaintiff's FEHA claims, are without prejudice. If the Plaintiff wishes to file an amended complaint, he must do so no later than within 20 days of the Order. A full-text copy of the Court's June 12, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/OGZbA7 from Leagle.com. Jesse Banaga, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Abbas Kazerounian -- ak@kazlg.com -- Kazerounian Law Group, APC, Corey Patrick Hanrahan -- corey@hanrahanfirm.com -- The Hanrahan Firm, Joshua B. Swigart, Hyde & Swigart & Veronica Cruz -- veronica@kazlg.com -- Kazerouni Law Group, APC. Government Employees Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Julie A. Vogelzang -- julie@schorvogelzang.com -- Schor Vogelzang LLP. GTX INC: Cooper Files Securities Suit Over Oncternal Merger ----------------------------------------------------------- Micheal Cooper, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GTx, Inc., Robert J. Wills, Marc S. Hanover, J.R. Hyde, III, J. Kenneth Glass, Michael G. Carter, Kenneth S. Robinson, and Garry A. Neil, Case 1:19-cv-04103 (S.D. N.Y., May 7, 2019), is brought against the Defendants for violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the proposed merger between GTx and Oncternal Therapeutics, Inc. The Defendant GTx is a biopharmaceutical company dedicated to the discovery, development, and commercialization of medicines to treat serious and/or significant unmet medical conditions. Its principal place of business is located at 17 W Pontotoc Ave., Suite 100, Memphis, Tennessee 38103. The Individual Defendants are the Company's Board of Directors. On March 6, 2019, the Board approved the terms of and caused the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger, which was subsequently amended on April 30, 2019 (the "Merger Agreement"), pursuant to which Grizzly Merger Sub, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of GTx, will merge with and into Oncternal, with Oncternal surviving as a wholly-owned subsidiary of GTx (the "Proposed Transaction"). The complaint alleges that the Defendants violated the Exchange Act by disseminating a false and misleading proxy statement, which failed to disclose material facts necessary in order to make the statements made not misleading. The Proxy was issued by the Defendants with the intention of soliciting stockholder support for the Proposed Transaction. The Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the Defendants from taking any steps to consummate the Proposed Transaction unless and until the material information is disclosed to GTx stockholders in advance of the special meeting of the Company's stockholders or, in the event the Proposed Transaction is consummated, recover damages resulting from the Defendants' violations of the Exchange Act. The Plaintiff is a GTx shareholder.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4405 New York, NY 10118 Tel: (212) 971-1341 Fax: (212) 202-7880 E-mail: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com H&J RESTAURANT: Jones Files FLSA Suit in W.D. Kentucky ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against H & J Restaurants, LLC. The case is styled as Devan Jones and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. H & J Restaurants, LLC doing business as: Tokyo Hibachi, Defendant, Case No. 5:19-cv-00105-TBR (W.D. Ky., July 22, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Tokyo Hibachi is a Japanese restaurant located at 3535 James Sanders Blvd, Paducah, KY 42001.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David W. Garrison, Esq. Joshua A. Frank, Esq. 414 Union Street, Suite 900 Nashville, TN 37219 Phone: (615) 244-2202 Fax: (615) 252-3798 Email: jfrank@barrettjohnston.com dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com HAIR RULES LLC: Conner Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hair Rules LLC. The case is styled as Mary Conner, Individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. Hair Rules LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-04221 (E.D. N.Y., July 22, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Hair Rules sells hair products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Shaked, Esq. Shaked Law Group, P.C. 44 Court Street, Suite 1217 Brooklyn, NY 11217 Phone: (917) 373-9128 Fax: (718) 504-7555 Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com HENKEL CORP: Violates Fair Credit Reporting Act, Hubbard Says ------------------------------------------------------------- DEBOARH HUBBARD, on behalf of herself all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. HENKEL CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. C19-01273 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 22, 2019), alleges that Defendants routinely acquire consumer, investigative consumer and/or consumer credit reports (collectively as "credit and background reports") to conduct background checks on Plaintiff and other prospective, current and former employees and use information from credit and background reports in connection with their hiring process without providing proper disclosures and obtaining proper authorization in compliance with the law pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated current, former and prospective employees, seeks compensatory and punitive damages due to Defendants' systematic and willful violations of the FCRA. The Plaintiff brings this class action against Defendants for alleged violations of the Labor Code and Business and Professions Code. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have failed to: 1. provide him and all other similarly situated individuals with meal periods; 2. provide them with rest periods; 3. pay them premium wages for missed meal and/or rest periods; 4. pay them premium wages for missed meal and/or rest periods at the regular rate of pay; 5. pay them at least minimum wage for all hours worked; 6. pay them overtime wages at the correct rate; 7. pay them overtime and/or double time wages by failing to include all applicable remuneration in calculating the regular rate of pay; 8. provide them with accurate written wage statements; and 9. pay them all of their final wages following separation of employment. Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Shaun Setareh, Esq. Thomas Segal, Esq. Farrah Grant, Esq. SETAREH LAW GROUP 315 South Beverly Drive, Suite 315 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone (310) 888 7771 Facsimile (310) 888 0109 E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com thomas@setarelUaw.com farrah@setarehlaw.com HERITAGE OPERATIONS: Measaw Sues over Collection of Biometric Data ------------------------------------------------------------------ SHANNON MEASAW, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. HERITAGE OPERATIONS GROUP, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2019CH08321 (Ill. Cir., July 16, 2019), seeks to redress and curtail Defendant's unlawful collection, use, storage, and disclosure of Plaintiffs sensitive and proprietary biometric data in violation of the Biometric Information Privacy Act. According to the complaint, when Heritage hires an employee, including Plaintiff, he or she is enrolled in its employee database(s) using a scan of his or her fingerprint. Heritage uses the employee database(s) to monitor the time worked by its hourly employees. While many employers use conventional methods for tracking time worked (such as ID badges or punch clocks), Heritage's employees are required, as a condition of employment, to have their fingerprints scanned by a biometric timekeeping device, the lawsuit says. Heritage Operations provides nursing facility care for seniors.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Ryan F. Stephan, Esq. Teresa M. Becvar, Esq. STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP 100 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 2150 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: 312 233 1550 Facsimile: 312 233 1560 E-mail: rstephan(custephanzouras.com tbecvar@stephanzouras.com HINT INC: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hint, Inc. The case is styled as Linda Slade individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. Hint, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-06806 (S.D. N.Y., July 22, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Hint, Inc. provides drinking water products. It offers unsweetened flavored water.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Shaked, Esq. Shaked Law Group P.C. 44 Court Street, Suite 1217 Brooklyn, NY 11201 Phone: (917) 373-9128 Fax: (718) 504-7555 Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com HOME DEPOT: Eversole Suit Alleges FCRA Breach --------------------------------------------- Lori Eversole, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated individuals v. Home Depot USA, Inc., Case 89131744 (Fla. Cir. Ct., May 7, 2019), is brought against the Defendant for violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The Defendant routinely takes adverse action against applicants and employees on the basis of information contained in background reports without first providing those individuals with a copy of the report and a summary of their rights, says the complaint. This conduct violates the FCRA. Specifically, the Defendant failed to first provide Plaintiff with a copy of the consumer report it obtained on her from its consumer reporting agency before she was abruptly fired. The Plaintiff is a citizen of Florida and a former employee of Defendant. The Defendant owns and operates a chain of home improvement discount stores throughout the country, and is one of the country's largest employers. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandon J. Hill, Esq. Luis Cabassa, Esq. WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A. 1110 North Florida Avenue, Suite 300 Tampa, FL 33602 Tel: (813) 224-0431 Fax: (813) 229-8712 E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com lcabassa@wfclaw.com HOMELAND SECURITY: Faces Zuniga Suit in Southern District of Texas ------------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against U.S. Department of Homeland Security, et al. The case is captioned as Santos Zuniga, On his own behalf and on behalf of all those similarly situated, through his next friend, Santos Alberto Castillo; Jorge Landaverde, On his own behalf and on behalf of all those similarly situated, through his next friend, Rosalinda Landaverde; Hugo Flander, On his own behalf and on behalf of all those similarly situated, through his next friend, Ernesto Giron; and Kevin McAleenan, Acting Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security and Commissioner, United States Customs & Border Protection, the Petitioners, vs. John P. Sanders, Acting Commissioner of CBP; Carla Provost, Chief of the United States Border Patrol; Rodolfo Karisch, Chief Patrol Agent-Rio Grande Valley Sector; and Michael J Pitts, Field Office Director, ICE/ERO, Port Isabel Service Processing Center, the Respondents, Case No. 1:19-cv-00118 (S.D. Tex., July 2, 2019). The suit alleges violations over alien detention. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Fernando Rodriguez, Jr. The United States Department of Homeland Security is a cabinet department of the U.S. federal government with responsibilities in public security, roughly comparable to the interior or home ministries of other countries.[BN] Attorneys for the Petitioners are: Elisabeth Lisa S. Brodyaga, Esq. 17891 Landrum Park Rd San Benito, TX 78586-7197 Telephone: (956) 421-3226 Facsimile: (956) 421-3423 E-mail: lisabrodyaga@aol.com - and - Jaime M Diez, Esq. Jones Crane, Esq. PO Box 3070 Brownsville, TX 78523 Telephone: (956) 544-3565 E-mail: JaimeMDiez1@gmail.com - and - Manuel E. Solis, Esq. 6657 Navigation Dr Houston, TX 77011 Telephone: (713) 844-2700 E-mail: lawofficemanuelsolis@yahoo.com - and - Thelma Odilia Garcia, Esq. 301 E Madison St Harlingen, TX 78550 Telephone: (956) 425-3701 Facsimile: (956) 428-3731 E-mail: lawofctog@gmail.com Attorneys for the Respondents are: Christopher D. Pineda, Esq. UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS OFFICE 600 E. Harrison, Suite 201 Brownsville, TX 78520 Telephone: (956) 548-2554 Facsimile: (956) 548-2776 E-mail: christopher.pineda@usdoj.gov IDC TECHNOLOGIES: Mork Files Suit Alleging TCPA Breach ------------------------------------------------------ Chris Mork, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. IDC Technologies Inc., Case No. 5:19-cv-02502 (N.D. Calif., May 9, 2019), is brought against the Defendant for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant violated the TCPA by placing over 25 autodialed calls to him and sent autodialed text messages to his cellular phone, despite the fact that Plaintiff did not engage the Defendant for its job recruiting services or give them consent to call him using an auto dialer, and despite repeated requests for the calls to stop. The Plaintiffs is a Cincinnati, Ohio resident. The Defendant is a staffing and recruiting company that solicits consumers for jobs on behalf of clients needing employees primarily in the IT field and for Payroll/HR services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David S. Ratner, Esq. DAVID RATNER LAW FIRM, LLP 33 Julianne Court Walnut Creek, CA 94595 Tel: (917) 900-2868 E-mail: David@davidratnerlawfirm.com - and - Rachel Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN P.A. 400 NW 26th Street Miami, FL 33127 Tel: (305) 469-5881 E-mail: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com IDEMIA IDENTITY: Rueda Seeks Prelim. Approval of $2.9-Mil. Accord ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled Connie Rueda, Jessica Cotton, and Shelia Spencer, individually, on behalf of others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public v. Idemia Identity & Security USA, LLC, MorphoTrust USA, LLC, and Does 1-50, Case No. 3:18-cv-03794-VC (N.D. Cal.) ask the Court to: (1) preliminarily approve the Amended Stipulation of Class Action, Collective Action, and Representative Action Settlement and Release ("Amended Settlement"); (2) certify the proposed California Class and FLSA Collective for settlement purposes only; (3) name Bryan Schwartz Law as Class Counsel, and the Plaintiffs as Class Representatives; (4) name Rust Consulting as Claims Administrator; (5) approve the Notices to be sent to the California Class and FLSA Collective; and (6) schedule a final approval hearing date. The proposed settlement: * defines the "California Class" or "California Class Members" as: all persons who are or who have been employed by one or more of the Defendants as Enrollment Agent Is, Enrollment Agent IIs, Lead Enrollment Agents, and Mobile Enrollment Agents, and similarly situated employees ("Enrollment Agents") in the State of California from May 22, 2014 through June 24, 2019. * defines the "FLSA Collective" or "FLSA Collective Members" as: all persons who are or who have been employed by one or more of the Defendants as Enrollment Agent Is, Enrollment Agent IIs, Lead Enrollment Agents, and Mobile Enrollment Agents, and similarly situated employees ("Enrollment Agents") outside the State of California, from May 22, 2015 through May 3, 2019. The proposed Amended Settlement settles the claims of an estimated 1,072 Class Members for $2,948,867, not including the employer's share of payroll taxes. The Settlement Fund shall be distributed among: 1. 1,072 enrollment agents, resulting in a gross recovery of $2,751 each; 2. Attorney fees, not to exceed $425,000 from the Settlement Fund; 3. Attorneys' litigation costs, estimated not to exceed $20,000; 4. Settlement Administration costs, not to exceed $20,000, to be paid to Rust Consulting; 5. Enhancement Awards, not to exceed $27,000 total - $7,500 for named-Plaintiffs Rueda and Cotton, $4,000 for named-Plaintiff Spencer, and $1,000 for the eight opt-in Plaintiffs who provided declarations in support of conditional certification; 6. PAGA Allocations of $50,000 total, with $37,500 to be distributed to California's Labor Workforce Development Agency ("LWDA"). The Court will commence a hearing on August 22, 2019 at 10:00 a.m., to consider the Motion.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Bryan Schwartz, Esq. Rachel Terp, Esq. BRYAN SCHWARTZ LAW 180 Grand Ave., Suite 1380 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 444-9300 Facsimile: (510) 444-9301 E-mail: bryan@bryanschwartzlaw.com rachel@bryanschwartzlaw.com INTELIDENT SOLUTIONS: Ct. Certifies Class in McGuire FLSA Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. James S. Moody, Jr., granted in part the Plaintiff's Motion to Conditionally Certify an FLSA Collective Action and Authorize Notice to Potential Collective Members in the lawsuit entitled JOAN MCGUIRE v. INTELIDENT SOLUTIONS, LLC and COAST DENTAL SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 8:18-cv-02995-JSM-SPF (M.D. Fla.). The Court conditionally certifies a class of Office Managers, excluding Office Managers who signed a valid arbitration agreement. The parties shall file a joint proposed notice and notice plan, or separate notices and notice plans, by August 7, 2019. Ms. McGuire worked for the Defendants as an Office Manager from approximately February of 2013 to March of 2017. She alleges that she and the class are owed unpaid overtime wages. She alleges the Defendants willfully misclassified OMs as exempt employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act and failed to keep accurate time records.[CC] INTELLIGENT SYSTEMS: Sept. 9 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set --------------------------------------------------------------- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, with nine offices in eight cities around the country and eighty attorneys, alerts investors in Intelligent Systems Corporation (NYSE: INS) to the securities class action, Skrzeczkoski v. Intelligent Systems Corporation et al., No. 1:19-cv-03949, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Intelligent Systems securities between January 23, 2019 and May 29, 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 September 9, 2019 (the "Lead Plaintiff deadline"). Contact Hagens Berman immediately for more information about the case and being a lead plaintiff: https://www.hbsslaw.com/intelligent-systems-corporation-nyse-ins or contact Reed Kathrein, who is leading the firm's investigation, by calling 510-725-3000 or emailing INS@hbsslaw.com According to the complaint, Defendants misled investors by concealing (1) Intelligent Systems' Audit Committee's financial expert previously engaged in accounting fraud as the CEO of MiMedx Group, (2) the Company's CEO engaged in undisclosed related-party transactions and had an undisclosed personal relationship with its auditor, and (3) the Company had its employees set up or take control of shell companies in Asia so they could either fabricate Company revenues or siphon money out of the Company. "We're focused on investors' losses and whether the Company and senior executives may have misled investors about the economic substance of certain transactions," said Hagens Berman partner Reed Kathrein. Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding Intelligent Systems should consider their options to help in the investigation 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, call Reed Kathrein at 510-725-3000 or email INS@hbsslaw.com. About Hagens Berman Hagens Berman -- http://www.hbsslaw.com-- is a national law firm representing investors, whistleblowers, workers and consumers in complex litigation. [GN] JAMES HARDIE: Law Firm Wants Parent Included in Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Litigation Finance Journal reports that Law firm Adina Thorn is bringing a class action -- funded by Harbour Litigation Funding -- on behalf of homeowners who experienced damage to their properties due to leaky cladding installed by the James Hardie multi-national conglomerate. The James Hardie parent company is based in Ireland, and attempting to exclude it and all international subsidiaries from liability, leaving the New Zealand subsidiary as the sole defendant. However, Thorn claims the New Zealand subsidiary is insolvent, and that the parent company should therefore be on the hook. [GN] KEH INC: Diaz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Keh, Inc. The case is styled as Edwin Diaz on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Keh, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-06977 (S.D. N.Y., July 25, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Keh, Inc. was founded in 2013. The company's line of business includes the retail sale of cameras, film, and other photographic supplies and equipment.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq. Cohen & Mizrahi LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Phone: (917) 299-6612 Fax: (929) 575-4195 Email: joseph@cml.legal KIA MOTOR: MLG Files Class Action Over Deadly Airbag Defect ----------------------------------------------------------- MLG, APLC, along with class action powerhouse Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, has filed a national class action lawsuit against seven automotive manufacturers and a tier-one parts supplier for what it calls a "deadly airbag defect." The case, Ryan Baldwin v. Kia Motor America, Inc. (Case No. 8:19-cv-1376), was filed in federal court on July 15 in Los Angeles. The named parties are automakers Kia, Hyundai, FCA, Mitsubishi, Acura, Honda and Toyota, and supplier ZF TRW Automotive. The lawsuit alleges that 12.3 million vehicles have a defective airbag control unit (ACU), which causes airbags to not deploy and seatbelt locks to fail during a collision. According to the complaint, the ACU manufactured by ZF TRW experiences "electrical overstress" during an accident -- described as an overload of electrical impulses -- causing a failure of the vehicle's safety restraint systems. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has received numerous complaints from consumers about airbag and seatbelt failures during accidents, compelling the agency to launch an investigation. So far, NHTSA has confirmed that the defect is responsible for four deaths and many more injuries, but the investigation is continuing. This airbag defect comes on the heels of the Takata airbag scandal, which resulted in a recall of 42 million cars in the U.S. According to Jonathan Michaels, head of the MLG legal team, if the number of impacted vehicles remains at 12.3 million, this would be the fourth largest automotive recall in the nation's history. But Michaels believes the number is going to climb much higher. "Right now, NHTSA is investigating 12.3 million vehicles for the deadly airbag defect. However, our office receives calls every week from families who have experienced the exact same defect in cars that are not on the investigation list," said Michaels. "This situation is going to be much larger than Takata." Michaels notes that when the Takata recalls began, it was thought that only 3.6 million vehicles were impacted. The lawsuit claims the automakers have known of the defect since 2011, but have refused to issue a recall because of economics. Under federal law, car manufacturers are required to issue a recall within five days of learning of a defect. "This is one of the most egregious breaches of public trust," said Michaels. "Clearly, the manufacturers learned very little from the Takata situation." Among other remedies, the lawsuit seeks punitive damages in an amount sufficient to deter future misconduct. About MLG, APLC Located in Orange County, California, MLG is a leading firm for protecting consumers from automotive defects. The firm has litigated cases against nearly every major automotive manufacturer in the world, and has been involved in numerous class actions against automakers for malfeasance. [GN] KNOX COUNTY, TN: Amble's First Bid to Certify Class Denied as Moot ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Hon. Thomas A. Varlan denied as moot the Plaintiffs' first motion to certify class in the lawsuit styled MICHAEL AMBLE, FLOYD COULSON, JOHN HICKS, ALONZO HOSKINS, DAVID JOHNSON, CURTIS LANE, JESSICA MASE, JESSICA MORGAN, MICHAEL RICE, RICK SAYLES, ROBERT THOMAS, and MATTHEW WALLS v. KNOX COUNTY, TENNESSEE, Case No. 3:18-cv-00538-TAV-DCP (E.D. Tenn.). Judge Varlan notes that as the Plaintiffs made substantively similar arguments in their amended motion to certify class and it appears that the Plaintiffs intended this amended motion to supersede their previous motion, their first motion to certify class is denied as moot.[CC] LASER SPINE: Court Grants Embry's Class Certification Bid --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuits against Laser Spine Institute, LLC, et al., the Hon. Judge Steven D. Merryday entered an order: 1. granting Embry's request to certify a class consisting of: "all Laser Spine Institute employees throughout the United States who were not given a minimum of 60 days' written notice of termination and whose employment was terminated on or about March 1, 2019, as a result of a 'mass layoff' or 'plant closing' as defined by the Workers Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act of 1988, excluding the directors and officers of Laser Spine Institute"; 2. appointing Deanna E. Ali and Heather Embry as class representatives; 3. appointing Ryan D. Barack, Luis A. Cabassa, Brandon J. Hill, and Michelle Erin Nadeau as class counsel; 4. directing clerk to consolidate for all purposes, two of the cases against Defendant: Ali v. Laser Spine Institute, LLC, et al., Case No. 8:19-cv-535-T-23JSS; and Embry v. Laser Spine Institute, LLC, et al., Case No. 8:19-cv-539-T-23AAS. 5. designating Ali v. Laser Spine Institute, LLC, et al., 8:19-cv-535-T-23JSS (Consolidated) as the lead case; 6. directing Ali and Embry to file documents in only 8:19-cv-535-T-23JSS (Consolidated). 7. directing clerk to closed Case No. 8:19-cv-539-T-23AAS. 8. directing clerk to terminate Higdon's class certification motion (Case No. 8:19-cv-547-T-23TGW), in accord with Higdon's notice; and 9. directing Ali and Embry to revise the proposed class certification notice, and move for approval of the certification notice, no later than July 15, 2019. The Court said Ali and Embry can "fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class" because neither appears to have a "substantial conflict of interest" with the rest of the class and because both appear willing and able to "adequately prosecute the action." Valley Drug Co. v. Geneva Pharm., Inc., 350 F.3d 1181, 1189 (11th Cir. 2003). The Court also held that the proposed class satisfies Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 23(b)(3) because common legal and factual issues -- such as whether the WARN Act's obligations applied to LSI and, if so, whether LSI failed to provide the notice required by the WARN Act -- predominate over class members' individualized issues, such as damage determinations. Resolving those common issues in a single action is superior to a mass of individual claims addressing the same issues. Jackson v. Motel 6 Multipurpose, Inc., 130 F.3d 949, 1006 (11th Cir. 1997). The Court also held that Ali and Embry's attorneys -- Ryan D. Barack, Luis A. Cabassa, Brandon J. Hill, and Michelle Erin Nadeau -- are experienced employment law litigators. Barack has held two leadership positions within The Florida Bar's Labor and Employment Law Section, and Cabassa and Hill have served as class counsel in two WARN Act class actions in the Middle District of Florida. The attorneys have declared that they are willing and able to commit attention and resources to representing the class. Further, the attorneys have demonstrated diligence by briefing thoroughly the class certification motion, by proposing a class certification notice, by creating an informative website that presents useful information about the class action, by hosting a conference call with more than forty former LSI employees to discuss the class action, by reviewing LSI employment records, and by monitoring LSI's assignment action in the state court. The three cases are: Ali v. Laser Spine Institute, LLC, et al., Case No. 8:19-cv- 535-T-23JSS; Embry v. Laser Spine Institute, LLC, et al., Case No. 8:19-cv- 539-T-23AAS; and Higdon v. Laser Spine Institute, LLC, et al., Case No. 8:19- cv-547-T-23TGW. LG ELECTRONICS: Choi Suit Alleges FLSA Violation ------------------------------------------------ Misa Choi, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., and Joowan Cho, Case 2:19-cv-12236 (C. N.J., May 7, 2019), is brought against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Jersey Wage Payment Law. The complaint alleges that Defendants intentionally and willfully failed to pay the Plaintiff overtime compensation at a rate of one and one-half times the regular rate of pay for each and every hour worked in excess of forty hours in a week, in violation of the NJLL and FLSA. The Plaintiff resides in Palisades Park, New Jersey. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an entry-level associate in the Defendants' account receivable department in 2007, was promoted as an assistant manager in 2010, then manager in March 2016, and currently as manager for the Defendants in same department. The Defendant LGEUS conducts business in the State of New Jersey as a foreign profit corporation with its principal place of business located at 1000 Sylvan Avenue, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey 07632. LGEUS is part of the LG family of corporations, which is headed by LG Electronics, a Korean multinational corporation with its principal offices located in Seoul, South Korea. The Defendant Cho holds the title as President of the Defendant LGEUS and held the right and power to determine and establish all employment practices. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua S. Lim, Esq. Seokchan Kwak, Esq. KIM, CHO & LIM, LLC 460 Bergen Boulevard, Suite 305 Palisades Park, NJ 07650 Tel: (201) 585-7400 Fax: (201) 585-7422 E-mail: joshualim@kcllawfirm.com seankwak@kcllawfirm.com MASSE CONTRACTING: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Ruiz FLSA Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JOSE RUIZ, on behalf of himself and other persons similarly situated v. MASSE CONTRACTING, INC. AND BOLLINGER SHIPYARDS, L.L.C., SECTION M (2), Civil Action No. 18-5721 (E.D. La.), Judge Barry W. Ashe of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana denied the Defendants' motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(7) for failure to join necessary parties, or motion for a more definite statement pursuant to Rule 12(e). Ruiz brought the action, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, raising claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") for unpaid overtime wages. Ruiz, a resident of Morgan City, Louisiana, alleges that Masse hired him in 2015 to work as a pipefitter at Bollinger's shipyard in Amelia, Louisiana, and he held that job for approximately three years. He alleges that Bollinger employed at its Amelia shipyard at least 200 workers whose services were obtained from labor subcontractors. Masse was one of those labor subcontractors and supplied about 50 of the workers at Bollinger's Amelia shipyard. Ruiz alleges that he was employed by both Masse and Bollinger, and that both entities supervised his activities, determined his work schedule, and kept an employment file on him. However, Ruiz also alleges that Bollinger largely supervised and controlled the workers as de facto employees, but that Masse paid him. Ruiz alleges that he normally worked more than 40 hours per week, and on average worked at least 67 hours per week. He alleges that his regular rate of pay was $13 per hour, and he received overtime pay of $19.50 per hour and a $70 per diem for days he worked at least five hours. He further alleges that he did not incur any expenses in furtherance of the Defendants' interests that would qualify as reimbursable per diem payments under the FLSA, and thus the payments to him amounted to "disguised wages" that the Defendants did not include in calculating Ruiz's overtime premium pay. Ruiz seeks to represent the following two classes: a. Amelia Overtime Class: All current and former employees of Defendants at the Bollinger Shipyard in Amelia, Louisiana, who are or have been employed by Bollinger, either through Masse or another labor subcontractor, during the three years immediately preceding the filing of the suit as hourly employees and who, during that period, received daily per diem payments and worked in excess of 40 hours in any work week and failed to receive the correct rate of premium pay, a rate of oneand-a-half times their regular rate of pay, for all hours worked in excess of forty in a workweek. b. Masse Overtime Class: All current and former employees of Masse who are or have been employed by Masse during the three years immediately preceding the filing of the suit as hourly employees and who, during that period, received daily per diem payments and worked in excess of 40 hours in any work week and failed to receive the correct rate of premium pay, a rate of one-and-a-half times their regular rate of pay, for all hours worked in excess of forty in a workweek. The Defendants filed the instant motion to dismiss arguing that Ruiz's complaint does not adequately allege FLSA claims against them and fails to include necessary parties. Judge Ashe finds that Ruiz's complaint plausibly alleges that Bollinger controlled his work by supervising him, setting his schedule, and maintaining an employment file on him. Further, it is also plausible that Ruiz's employment was dependent upon Bollinger's need for employees and that his pay could have been determined by whatever Bollinger paid Masse for his services. Ruiz alleges that Masse hired him to work at Bollinger, as opposed to any site where Masse had a contract to provide workers. Thus, it is reasonable to infer that Ruiz would have become unemployed had Bollinger terminated its contract with Masse. Consequently, Ruiz has plausibly alleged that Bollinger was one of his FLSA employers, while it is undisputed that Masse was the other. Next, the Judge finds that Ruiz has alleged enough facts in the complaint to state a plausible claim of an FLSA violation related to the per diem payments. Ruiz's allegations put Defendants on notice that he claims he did not incur any expenses on the employer's behalf that would justify the payment of a per diem excludable from his regular rate. Thus, he contends such payments were disguised wages that were improperly excluded from his regular rate of pay in the calculation of overtime payments. These allegations state that Ruiz did not incur any qualifying expenses, why the per diem payments should have been factored into his regular rate of pay, and how Ruiz believes Defendants' per diem payments violate the FLSA. The Judge also finds that the Defendants' challenge on the pleadings seeks to end-run the certification process by trying certification on the face of the complaint. At the certification stage, the Judge will analyze whether the putative class members are similarly situated, and whether certification is otherwise appropriate. To consider the Defendant's arguments against certification now would be premature. Finally, because the Judge has already found that Ruiz's complaint is adequate to put the Defendants on notice of his claims, a more definite statement is not warranted. Under Rule 12(e), a party may move for a more definite statement of a pleading to which a responsive pleading is allowed but which is so vague or ambiguous that the party cannot reasonably prepare a response. For the foregoing reasons, Judge Ashe denied the Defendants' motion. A full-text copy of the Court's June 12, 2019 Order and Reasons is available at https://is.gd/LTCEbc from Leagle.com. Jose Ruiz, On behalf of himself and other persons similiarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Roberto L. Costales -- rlc@beaumontcostales.com -- Costales Law Office & William Henry Beaumont -- whb@beaumontcostales.com -- William H. Beaumont Law. Masse Contracting, Inc. & Bollinger Shipyards, LLC, Defendants, represented by Brandon E. Davis -- brandon.davis@phelps.com -- Phelps Dunbar, LLP & Rebecca Sha -- rebecca.sha@phelps.com -- Phelps Dunbar, LLP. MERCEDES-BENZ: Dumond Sues over Defective Panoramic Sunroofs ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action complaint has been filed against Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC and Daimler AG for breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, unjust enrichment, and for violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. The case is captioned LEIKA DUMOND, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, DAIMLER AG, a foreign corporation, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-14723 (D.N.J., July 3, 2019). Plaintiff alleges that Mercedes failed to design and manufacture panoramic sunroofs that meet the new engineering challenges. She claims that Mercedes' panoramic sunroofs are defective in that they are unable to withstand foreseeable stresses of ordinary use, which ultimately leads to a catastrophic failure usually described as an explosion of the sunroof in both moving and stationary environments. The defects in design and manufacture of the panoramic sunroofs are compounded by Mercedes’ use of thinner glass. Class Vehicles include but are not limited to all models of 2003 present C-Class; 2007-present CL-Class; 2013-present CLA-Class; 2003-present E-Class; 2008-present G-Class; 2007-present GL-Class; 2013-present GLK/GLC-Class; 2012-present ML-Class; 2010-present M-Class; 2015 Mercedes Maybach S-600; 2007-present R-Class; 2013-present S-Class; 2013-present SL-Class; and 2013-present SLK-Class. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC is a Delaware limited-liability corporation whose principal place of business is 303 Perimeter Center North, Suite 202, Atlanta, Georgia 30346. The company, through its various entities, designs, manufactures, markets, distributes, and sells Mercedes automobiles in New Jersey and New York as well as multiple other locations in the United States and worldwide. Mercedes USA and/or its agents designed, manufactured, and installed the panoramic sunroofs in the Class Vehicles. Mercedes USA also developed and disseminated the owner's manuals and warranty booklets, advertisements, and other promotional materials relating to the Class Vehicles. Daimler Aktiengesellschaft (Daimler AG) is a foreign corporation headquartered in Stuttgart, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany. It is engaged in the business of designing, engineering, manufacturing, testing, marketing, supplying, selling, and distributing motor vehicles, including the Class Vehicles, in the United States. It is and was at all relevant times doing business in a continuous manner through a chain of distribution and dealers throughout the United States, including within the District of New Jersey, by selling, advertising, promoting, and distributing Mercedes-Benz motor vehicles. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mitchell M. Breit, Esq. Eric S. Johnson, Esq. SIMMONS HANLY CONROY 112 Madison Avenue, 7th Floor New York, NY 10016-7416 Telephone: (212) 784-6400 Facsimile: (212) 213-5949 E-mail: mbreit@simmonsfirm.com ejohnson@simmonsfirm.com - and - Gregory F. Coleman, Esq. Mark E. Silvey, Esq. Adam A. Edwards, Esq. GREG COLEMAN LAW PC First Tennessee Plaza 800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Telephone: (865) 247-0080 Facsimile: (865) 522-0049 E-mail: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com mark@gregcolemanlaw.com adam@gregcolemanlaw.com MONEYLION INC: Dicarlo Files Class Suit in C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Moneylion, Inc. The case is styled as Marggieh Dicarlo Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. Moneylion, Inc., Moneylion of California LLC, ML Plus LLC, ML Wealth LLC, Defendants, Case No. 5:19-cv-01374 (C.D. Cal., July 25, 2019). The suit is filed pursuant to the Truth in Lending Act. MoneyLion is a next-generation online financial services company, built on a proprietary data-driven platform. It provides access to personal loans and financial products across the credit spectrum, personalized for each customer's unique financial needs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kolin Tang, Esq. Shepherd Finkelman Miller and Shah LLP 1401 Dove Street Suite 540 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Phone: (323) 510-4060 Fax: (866) 300-7367 Email: ktang@sfmslaw.com MURAD, LLC: Gonzalez Seeks Minimum & Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------- MONIQUE GONZALEZ, on behalf of herself and other current or former aggrieved employees pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act, the Plaintiff, vs. MURAD, LLC, a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 19TRCV00576 (Cal. Super., July 9, 2019), alleges that Defendants jointly and severally acted intentionally and with deliberate indifference and conscious disregard to the rights of all employees in failing to pay all meal period wages and rest break wages, failing to properly calculate and pay all minimum and overtime wages, failing to provide accurate wage statements, failing to pay all wages due and owing upon termination of employment, and failing to reimburse all necessary business expenses, pursuant to the California Labor Code.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Douglas Han, Esq. Shunt Tatavos-gharajeh, Esq. Daniel J. Park, Esq. JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION 751 N. Fair Oaks Ave., Suite 101 Pasadena, CA 91103 Telephone: (818) 230-7502 Facsimile: (818) 230-7259 NABRIVA THERAPEUTICS: Faces Enriquez Securities Class Suit in N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Larry Enriquez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Nabriva Therapeutics PLC and Ted Schroeder, Case No. 1:19-cv-04183 (S.D. N.Y., May 8, 2019), is brought against the Defendants for violation of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934. This is a class action on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Nabriva securities between November 1, 2018 and April 30, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). On April 30, 2019, the Company revealed that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") would not approve its New Drug Application for CONTEPO due to "issues related to facility inspections and manufacturing deficiencies at one of Nabriva's contract manufacturers." The Defendants failed to disclose to investors that the Company's manufacturers failed to meet good manufacturing practices. As a result of the manufacturing deficiencies, it was unlikely to be approved by the Food and Drug Association. Thus, the Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations and prospects, were materially misleading and or lacked reasonable basis, notes the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased Nabriva securities during November 1, 2018 and April 30, 2019. The Defendant Nabriva is a biopharmaceutical company that purports to develop novel anti-infective agents to treat serious infections. Its principal executive offices located in Dublin, Ireland. One of the Company's product candidates is CONTEPO, an epoxide antibiotic developed by Zavante Therapeutics, which the Company acquired in July 2018. The Defendant Ted Schroeder has been the Chief Executive Officer of the Company since the closing the Zavante acquisition and had been CEO of Zavante. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 230 Park Ave., Suite 530 New York, NY 10169 Tel: (212) 682-5340 Fax: (212) 884-0988 E-mail: lportnoy@glancylaw.com NCAA: Johnson Sues for Injuries Sustained as a Student-Athlete --------------------------------------------------------------- Aaron Timothy Johnson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-02810 (S.D. Ind., July 9, 2019), seeks economic, monetary, actual, consequential, compensatory, and punitive damages, past, present and future medical expenses, other out of pocket expenses, lost time and interest, lost future earnings, litigation and attorney fees, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, injunctive and/or declaratory relief and such other and further relief resulting from negligence, fraudulent concealment, breach of express contract, breach of implied contract, breach of third-party express contract and unjust enrichment. Aaron Timothy Johnson played football at Grambling State University between 2001-2005. He suffered from numerous concussions, as well as countless sub-concussive hits as part of routine practice and gameplay. Johnson is suffering from several symptoms indicative of long-term brain and neurocognitive injuries. NCAA is an unincorporated association with its principal office located at 700 West Washington Street, Indianapolis, Indiana 46206. The NCAA is the governing body of collegiate athletics that oversees twenty-three college sports and over 400,000 students who participate in intercollegiate athletics. Johnson alleges NCAA knew about the debilitating long-term dangers of concussions, concussion-related injuries and sub-concussive injuries that resulted from playing college football, but did nothing. Plaintiff is represented by: George Parker Young, Esq. Vincent P. Circelli, Esq. Kelli L. Walter, Esq. CIRCELLI,WALTER &YOUNG, PLLC Tindall Square Warehouse 500 E. 4th Street, Suite 250 Fort Worth, TX 76102 Tel: (817) 697-4942 Email: gpy@cwylaw.com vinny@cwylaw.com kelli@cwylaw.com NCAA: Jones Seeks Damages for Football-related Brain Injury ----------------------------------------------------------- LaCurtis Jones, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-02811 (S.D. Ind., July 9, 2019), seeks economic, monetary, actual, consequential, compensatory, and punitive damages, past, present and future medical expenses, other out-of-pocket expenses, lost time and interest, lost future earnings, litigation and attorney fees, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, injunctive and/or declaratory relief and such other and further relief resulting from negligence, fraudulent concealment, breach of express contract, breach of implied contract, breach of third-party express contract and unjust enrichment. LaCurtis Jones played football at Baylor University between 1992-1999. He suffered from numerous concussions, as well as countless sub-concussive hits as part of routine practice and gameplay. He is suffering from several symptoms indicative of long-term brain and neurocognitive injuries. NCAA is an unincorporated association with its principal office located at 700 West Washington Street, Indianapolis, Indiana 46206. The NCAA is the governing body of collegiate athletics that oversees twenty-three college sports and over 400,000 students who participate in intercollegiate athletics. Jones alleges NCAA knew about the debilitating long-term dangers of concussions, concussion-related injuries and sub-concussive injuries that resulted from playing college football, but did nothing. Plaintiff is represented by: George Parker Young, Esq. Vincent P. Circelli, Esq. Kelli L. Walter, Esq. CIRCELLI,WALTER &YOUNG, PLLC Tindall Square Warehouse 500 E. 4th Street, Suite 250 Fort Worth, TX 76102 Tel: (817) 697-4942 Email: gpy@cwylaw.com vinny@cwylaw.com kelli@cwylaw.com NCAA: Saytumah Sues over Student-Athletes' Health & Safety ---------------------------------------------------------- MORRIS SAYTUMAH, the Plaintiff, vs. THE NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ASSOCIATION, AND SOUTHWESTERN ATHLETIC CONFERENCE, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02818-JRS-DML (S.D. Ind., July 9, 2019), seeks redress for injuries sustained a result of Defendant's reckless disregard for the health and safety of generations of student-athletes. According to the complaint, nearly 100,000 student-athletes sign up to compete in college football each year, and it's no surprise why. Football is America's sport and Plaintiff and a Class of football players were raised to live and breathe the game. During football season, there are entire days of the week that millions of Americans dedicate to watching the game. On game days, hundreds of thousands of fans fill stadium seats and even more watch around the world. Before each game, these players -- often mere teenagers -- are riled up and told to do whatever it takes to win and, when playing, are motivated to do whatever it takes to keep going. But up until 2010, NCAA kept players and the public in the dark about an epidemic that was slowly killing college athletes. During the course of a college football season, athletes absorb more than 1,000 impacts greater than 10 Gs (gravitational force) and, worse yet, the majority of football-related hits to the head exceed 20 Gs, with some approaching 100 Gs. To put this in perspective, if you drove your car into a wall at 25 miles per hour and weren't wearing a seatbelt, the force of you hitting the windshield would be around 100 Gs. Thus, each season these 18, 19, 20, and 21-year-old student-athletes are subjected to repeated car accidents. Over time, the repetitive and violent impacts to players' heads led to repeated concussions that severely increased their risks of long-term brain injuries, including memory loss, dementia, depression, Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy ("CTE"), Parkinson's disease, and other related symptoms. Meaning, long after they played their last game, they are left with a series of neurological events that could slowly strangle their brains. For decades, NCAA knew about the debilitating long-term dangers of concussions, concussion-related injuries, and sub-concussive injuries (referred to as "traumatic brain injuries" or "TBIs") that resulted from playing college football, but recklessly disregarded this information to protect the very profitable business of "amateur" college football. Football players were under Defendant's care. Unfortunately, Defendant did not care about the off-field consequences that would haunt students for the rest of their lives. Despite knowing for decades of a vast body of scientific research describing the danger of traumatic brain injuries ("TBIs") like those Plaintiff experienced, Defendant failed to implement adequate procedures to protect Plaintiff and other football players from the long-term dangers associated with them. They did so knowingly and for profit. As a direct result of Defendant's acts and omissions, Plaintiff and countless football players suffered brain and other neurocognitive injuries from playing NCAA football. As such, Plaintiff brings this Class Action Complaint in order to vindicate those players' rights and hold the NCAA accountable, the lawsuit says. NCAA is a non-profit organization which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American institutions and conferences.[BN] Counsel for Plaintiff and the Putative Class: Vincent P. Circelli, Esq. George Parker Young, Esq. Kelli L. Walter CIRCELLI , WALTER & YOUNG, PLLC Tindall Square Warehouse 500 E. 4th Street, Suite 250 Fort Worth, TX 76102 Telephone: (817) 697-4942 E-mail: gpy@cwylaw.com vinny@cwylaw.com kelli@cwylaw.com NCAA: Sevald Sues over Student-Athletes' Health & Safety -------------------------------------------------------- STEVEN S. SEVALD, the Plaintiff, vs. THE NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, MID-AMERICAN ATHLETIC CONFERENCE, INC. AND THE BIG TEN CONFERENCE, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02819-RLY-TAB (S.D. Ind., July 9, 2019), seeks redress for injuries sustained a result of Defendant's reckless disregard for the health and safety of generations of student-athletes. According to the complaint, nearly 100,000 student-athletes sign up to compete in college football each year, and it's no surprise why. Football is America's sport and Plaintiff and a Class of football players were raised to live and breathe the game. During football season, there are entire days of the week that millions of Americans dedicate to watching the game. On game days, hundreds of thousands of fans fill stadium seats and even more watch around the world. Before each game, these players -- often mere teenagers -- are riled up and told to do whatever it takes to win and, when playing, are motivated to do whatever it takes to keep going. But up until 2010, NCAA kept players and the public in the dark about an epidemic that was slowly killing college athletes. During the course of a college football season, athletes absorb more than 1,000 impacts greater than 10 Gs (gravitational force) and, worse yet, the majority of football-related hits to the head exceed 20 Gs, with some approaching 100 Gs. To put this in perspective, if you drove your car into a wall at 25 miles per hour and weren't wearing a seatbelt, the force of you hitting the windshield would be around 100 Gs. Thus, each season these 18, 19, 20, and 21-year-old student-athletes are subjected to repeated car accidents. Over time, the repetitive and violent impacts to players' heads led to repeated concussions that severely increased their risks of long-term brain injuries, including memory loss, dementia, depression, Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy ("CTE"), Parkinson's disease, and other related symptoms. Meaning, long after they played their last game, they are left with a series of neurological events that could slowly strangle their brains. For decades, NCAA knew about the debilitating long-term dangers of concussions, concussion-related injuries, and sub-concussive injuries (referred to as "traumatic brain injuries" or "TBIs") that resulted from playing college football, but recklessly disregarded this information to protect the very profitable business of "amateur" college football. Football players were under Defendant's care. Unfortunately, Defendant did not care about the off-field consequences that would haunt students for the rest of their lives. Despite knowing for decades of a vast body of scientific research describing the danger of traumatic brain injuries ("TBIs") like those Plaintiff experienced, Defendant failed to implement adequate procedures to protect Plaintiff and other football players from the long-term dangers associated with them. They did so knowingly and for profit. As a direct result of Defendant's acts and omissions, Plaintiff and countless football players suffered brain and other neurocognitive injuries from playing NCAA football. As such, Plaintiff brings this Class Action Complaint in order to vindicate those players' rights and hold the NCAA accountable, the lawsuit says. NCAA is a non-profit organization which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American institutions and conferences.[BN] Counsel for Plaintiff and the Putative Class: Vincent P. Circelli, Esq. George Parker Young, Esq. Kelli L. Walter CIRCELLI , WALTER & YOUNG, PLLC Tindall Square Warehouse 500 E. 4th Street, Suite 250 Fort Worth, TX 76102 Telephone: (817) 697-4942 E-mail: gpy@cwylaw.com vinny@cwylaw.com kelli@cwylaw.com NCAA: Walker Sues over Student-Athletes' Health & Safety -------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL WALKER, the Plaintiff, vs. THE NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02820-JMS-MPB (S.D. Ind., July 9, 2019), seeks redress for injuries sustained a result of Defendant's reckless disregard for the health and safety of generations of student-athletes. According to the complaint, nearly 100,000 student-athletes sign up to compete in college football each year, and it's no surprise why. Football is America's sport and Plaintiff and a Class of football players were raised to live and breathe the game. During football season, there are entire days of the week that millions of Americans dedicate to watching the game. On game days, hundreds of thousands of fans fill stadium seats and even more watch around the world. Before each game, these players -- often mere teenagers -- are riled up and told to do whatever it takes to win and, when playing, are motivated to do whatever it takes to keep going. But up until 2010, NCAA kept players and the public in the dark about an epidemic that was slowly killing college athletes. During the course of a college football season, athletes absorb more than 1,000 impacts greater than 10 Gs (gravitational force) and, worse yet, the majority of football-related hits to the head exceed 20 Gs, with some approaching 100 Gs. To put this in perspective, if you drove your car into a wall at 25 miles per hour and weren't wearing a seatbelt, the force of you hitting the windshield would be around 100 Gs. Thus, each season these 18, 19, 20, and 21-year-old student-athletes are subjected to repeated car accidents. Over time, the repetitive and violent impacts to players' heads led to repeated concussions that severely increased their risks of long-term brain injuries, including memory loss, dementia, depression, Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy ("CTE"), Parkinson's disease, and other related symptoms. Meaning, long after they played their last game, they are left with a series of neurological events that could slowly strangle their brains. For decades, NCAA knew about the debilitating long-term dangers of concussions, concussion-related injuries, and sub-concussive injuries (referred to as "traumatic brain injuries" or "TBIs") that resulted from playing college football, but recklessly disregarded this information to protect the very profitable business of "amateur" college football. Football players were under Defendant's care. Unfortunately, Defendant did not care about the off-field consequences that would haunt students for the rest of their lives. Despite knowing for decades of a vast body of scientific research describing the danger of traumatic brain injuries ("TBIs") like those Plaintiff experienced, Defendant failed to implement adequate procedures to protect Plaintiff and other football players from the long-term dangers associated with them. They did so knowingly and for profit. As a direct result of Defendant's acts and omissions, Plaintiff and countless football players suffered brain and other neurocognitive injuries from playing NCAA football. As such, Plaintiff brings this Class Action Complaint in order to vindicate those players' rights and hold the NCAA accountable, the lawsuit says. NCAA is a non-profit organization which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American institutions and conferences.[BN] Counsel for Plaintiff and the Putative Class: Vincent P. Circelli, Esq. George Parker Young, Esq. Kelli L. Walter, Esq. CIRCELLI , WALTER & YOUNG, PLLC Tindall Square Warehouse 500 E. 4th Street, Suite 250 Fort Worth, TX 76102 Telephone: (817) 697-4942 E-mail: gpy@cwylaw.com vinny@cwylaw.com kelli@cwylaw.com NEWELL BRANDS: Diaz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Newell Brands Inc. The case is styled as Edwin Diaz on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Newell Brands Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-06979 (S.D. N.Y., July 25, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Newell Brands, Inc. retails consumer products. The Company offers housewares, home furnishings, office supplies, tools and hardware, and hair accessories. Newell Brands markets its products worldwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq. Cohen & Mizrahi LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Phone: (917) 299-6612 Fax: (929) 575-4195 Email: joseph@cml.legal OTTO GROUP: Diaz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Otto Group, LLC. The case is styled as Edwin Diaz on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Otto Group, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-06972 (S.D. N.Y., July 25, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Otto Group, or Otto GmbH & Co KG (formerly Otto Versand), is a mail order company and currently one of the world's biggest e-commerce companies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq. Cohen & Mizrahi LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Phone: (917) 299-6612 Fax: (929) 575-4195 Email: joseph@cml.legal PACIFIC BAY: Perez Seeks Overtime Pay for Construction Workers -------------------------------------------------------------- ISMAEL PEREZ, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. PACIFIC BAY MASONRY, INC. and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 19CV349938 (Cal. Super., July 2, 2019), seeks relief from Pacific Bay Masonry, Inc.'s violations of the California Labor Code and applicable wage order. PBM provides masonry construction services and has employed Plaintiff and similarly situated Class Members, including masons, hod carriers, and laborers at construction work sites in Santa Clara county and surrounding counties. The Plaintiff challenges PBM's policies and practices of failing to pay Workers proper overtime compensation, failing to provide off-duty meal and rest periods, failing to indemnify employees for employment-related expenses and losses, and failing to pay all wages due upon termination of employment, all in violation of California law. These unlawful policies and practices have been in effect for at least four years prior to the filing of this action.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Jennifer Keating, Esq. Aaron Kaufmann, Esq. David Pogrel, Esq. LEONARD CARDER, LLP 1330 Broadway, Suite 1450 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 272-0169 Facsimile: (510) 272-0174 E-mail: jkeating@leonardcarder.com PLASTIPAK PACKAGING: Appeals Order in Hernandez Suit to 11th Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant Plastipak Packaging, Inc., Company filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the lawsuit titled Hector Hernandez v. Plastipak Packaging, Inc., Case No. 8:17-cv-02826-JSM-SPF, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Hon. Judge James S. Moody entered an order on Jan. 15, 2019, denying Plaintiff's motion to conditionally certify Fair Labor Standards Act Collective Action and facilitate notice to potential class of: "all current and former Maintenance Mechanics employed by Plastipak Packaging, Inc., nationwide, within in [sic] three year period preceding November 22, 2017 (Putative Class), who worked over 40 hours in one or more workweeks and who were paid a shift differential in one or more such workweeks". The appellate case is captioned as Hector Hernandez v. Plastipak Packaging, Inc., Case No. 19-12655, 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 26, 2019; -- The appendix is due no later than 7 days from the filing of the appellant's brief; -- Appellant's Certificate of Interested Persons is due on or before July 29, 2019, as to Appellant Plastipak Packaging, Inc.; and -- Appellee's Certificate of Interested Persons due on or before August 12, 2019, as to Appellee Hector Hernandez.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellee HECTOR HERNANDEZ, on his own behalf and on behalf of those similarly situated, is represented by: Kimberly De Arcangelis, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, PA 20 N Orange Ave., Suite 1600 Orlando, FL 32801 Telephone: (407) 420-1414 Facsimile: (407) 245-3383 E-mail: kimd@forthepeople.com - and - Andrew R. Frisch, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, PA 8151 Peters Rd., Suite 4000 Plantation, FL 33324 Telephone: (954) WORKERS Facsimile: (954) 327-3013 E-mail: afrisch@forthepeople.com Defendant-Appellant PLASTIPAK PACKAGING, INC., a Foreign Profit Corporation, is represented by: Ronald G. Acho, Esq. CUMMINGS MCCLOREY DAVIS & ACHO PLC 17436 College Pkwy. Livonia, MI 48152 Telephone: (734) 261-2400 E-mail: jacho@cmda-law.com - and - Thomas M. Gonzalez, Esq. GRAYROBINSON, PA 401 E Jackson St., Suite 2700 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 273-5000 E-mail: thomas.gonzalez@gray-robinson.com REAL ESTATE: Faces Greenberg Suit Alleging TCPA Breach ------------------------------------------------------ Charles Greenberg, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Real Estate Sales, LLC, Case No. 19-cv-61175 (S.D. Fla., May 8, 2019), is brought against the Defendant for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff seeks relief to halt the Defendant's unlawful conduct of placing calls on his cellular telephone number, using an automatic telephone dialing system without prior express consent. The Plaintiff was a resident of Broward County, Florida. The Defendant is a real estate monitoring company and real estate lead generator. Its principal office is located at 410 South Rampart, Suite 390, Las Vegas, Nevada 89145. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. Garrett O. Berg, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 1205 Miami, FL 33132 Tel: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com gberg@shamisgentile.com REALOGY HOLDINGS: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on July 15 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Realogy Holdings Corp. (RLGY) from February 24, 2017 through May 22, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Realogy investors under the federal securities laws. To join the Realogy class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1600.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) Realogy was engaged in anticompetitive behavior by requiring property sellers to pay the commissions of a buyer's broker at an inflated rate; (2) Realogy's anticompetitive actions would prompt the U.S. Department of Justice to open an antitrust investigation into the real estate industry's practices regarding brokers' commissions; and (3) as a result, defendants' statements about the Realogy's business, operations and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis 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 September 9, 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-1600.htmlor to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com. Rosen Law Firm -- http://www.rosenlegal.com-- represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. [GN] RECKITT BENCKISER: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on July 16 disclosed that a class action has been commenced by an institutional investor on behalf of purchasers of Reckitt Benckiser Group plc (RBGLY) American Depositary Shares ("ADSs") during the period between July 28, 2014 and April 9, 2019 (the "Class Period"). This action was filed in the District of New Jersey and is captioned City of Sterling Heights Police & Fire Retirement System v. Reckitt Benckiser Group plc, et al., No. 19-cv-15382. The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased Reckitt ADSs during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing the litigation. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from July 16, 2019. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Darren Robbins of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com. You can view a copy of the complaint as filed at http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/reckitt/ The complaint charges Reckitt and certain of its current and former officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Reckitt is a consumer and healthcare company based in the United Kingdom. Prior to December 2014, the Company maintained a division dedicated to opioid addiction treatments known as Reckitt Benckiser Pharmaceuticals Inc. ("Reckitt Pharma"). For many years, Reckitt Pharma's primary source of revenue was the manufacture and sale of Suboxone Tablets, a treatment for opioid addiction. The complaint alleges that before and during the Class Period, Reckitt and its most senior executives perpetrated a scheme, which generated over $3 billion in proceeds, to facilitate opiate abuse among U.S. consumers and mislead investors and the public regarding the health and safety risks of Reckitt's new key opiate product, Suboxone Film. Specifically, the complaint alleges that in order to maintain and grow profits, senior executives at Reckitt devised a plan to switch prescribers from Suboxone Tablets to the Company's new proprietary treatment, Suboxone Film. Suboxone Film had similar active ingredients to Suboxone Tablets, however it was dispensed in a thin film placed under the tongue and stored in single-use foil wrappings. Executives planned to create a marketing campaign that touted the purported safety benefits of Suboxone Film over Suboxone Tablets in order to prevent generic competition. Key to this campaign was fabricating safety concerns with existing treatments in order to delay the entry and approval of generics for Suboxone Tablets. Defendants' scheme to fraudulently inflate sales of Suboxone Film was a success. Between 2010 and 2014, the Company's revenues from sales of the drug increased ten-fold to over $840 million annually. As a result of defendants' false and misleading statements and/or omissions regarding the scheme to inflate sales of Suboxone Film during the Class Period, Reckitt ADSs traded at artificially inflated prices. The truth began to leak out on July 24, 2017, when the Company announced, in connection with its second quarter 2017 financial results, that it had recorded a £318 million charge related to ongoing U.S. Department of Justice and U.S. Federal Trade Commission investigations into its former Reckitt Pharma operations. On this news, the price of Reckitt ADSs dropped 5%. Then, on February 19, 2018, Reckitt announced, in connection with its full year 2017 financial results, that it had recorded an exceptional charge of £296 million due to the investigations, and that the investigations now also involved the California Department of Insurance. On this news, the price of Reckitt ADSs declined more than 10%. Finally, on April 9, 2019, the DOJ filed a criminal indictment against Reckitt Pharma (now known as Indivior), which detailed a multi-billion-dollar scheme to defraud the public and the Company's investors through the marketing and sale of Suboxone Film. On this news, the price of Reckitt ADSs again declined over 6%. Ultimately, Reckitt agreed to settle the federal investigations into its marketing and sale of Suboxone Film for $1.4 billion. At the time, the settlement was called the "largest opioid settlement in US history." Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of Reckitt ADSs during the Class Period (the "Class"). The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has extensive experience in prosecuting investor class actions including actions involving financial fraud. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP -- http://www.rgrdlaw.com-- is one of the world's leading law firms representing investors in securities litigation. With 200 lawyers in 9 offices, Robbins Geller has obtained many of the largest securities class action recoveries in history. For six consecutive years, ISS Securities Class Action Services has ranked the Firm in its annual SCAS Top 50 Report as one of the top law firms in the world in both amount recovered for shareholders and total number of class action settlements. Robbins Geller attorneys have helped shape the securities laws and have recovered tens of billions of dollars on behalf of aggrieved victims. Beyond securing financial recoveries for defrauded investors, Robbins Geller also specializes in implementing corporate governance reforms, helping to improve the financial markets for investors worldwide. Robbins Geller attorneys are consistently recognized by courts, professional organizations and the media as leading lawyers in the industry. [GN] RESIDENCE INN: Appeals C.D. Cal. Ruling in Arias Suit to 9th Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants Residence Inn by Marriott, et al., filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Blanca Argelia Arias v. Residence Inn by Marriott, et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-08818-RGK-JPR, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Los Angeles. The appellate case is captioned as Blanca Argelia Arias v. Residence Inn by Marriott, et al., Case No. 19-55803, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The nature of suit is stated as other labor litigation. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Defendants filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit. That appellate case is styled as Blanca Argelia Arias v. Residence Inn by Marriott, et al., Case No. 18-80171.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellee BLANCA ARGELIA ARIAS, individually and on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, is represented by: Ramin R. Younessi, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF RAMIN R. YOUNESSI A.P.L.C. 3435 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 480-6200 Facsimile: (213) 480-6201 E-mail: ryounessi@younessilaw.com Defendants-Appellants RESIDENCE INN BY MARRIOTT, a Delaware limited liability company, and MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Delaware corporation, are represented by: William J. Dritsas, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 560 Mission Street San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 397-2823 E-mail: wdritsas@seyfarth.com - and - Brian Patrick Long, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 601 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3300 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 270-9600 E-mail: bplong@seyfarth.com RITUALIST INC: Conner Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Ritualist, Inc. The case is styled as Mary Conner, Individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. The Ritualist, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-04224 (E.D. N.Y., July 22, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Ritualist Inc. is in the Beauty Shops business. It is the premier spa service provider in New York for on demand, on location facial, massage and body treatments.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Shaked, Esq. Shaked Law Group, P.C. 44 Court Street, Suite 1217 Brooklyn, NY 11217 Phone: (917) 373-9128 Fax: (718) 504-7555 Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com SANTANDER CONSUMER: Renewed Summary Judgment Bid in Espejo Denied ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the cases, HENRY ESPEJO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SANTANDER CONSUMER USA, INC., an Illinois corporation, Defendant. FAYE LEVINS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SANTANDER CONSUMER USA, INC., an Illinois corporation, Defendant, Case Nos. 11 C 8987, 12 C 9431 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Charles P. Kocoras of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, denied Santander's (i) renewed motion for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56.1, and (ii) motion for reconsideration. Espejo and Faye Levins each brought class action suits against Defendant Santander for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), actions which have since been consolidated. These claims arose when Santander utilized its Aspect Telephone System to make calls to the Plaintiffs regarding outstanding auto loans. Santander utilizes Aspect in combination with a customer account management system called "My Supervisor." The company uses "My Supervisor" to generate a customer list and then uploads the list into Aspect. Aspect has a dialer feature that dials phone numbers from a customer list using an algorithm to efficiently match available customer service agents to answered calls. The dialer only makes calls once a customer service agent logs-in and presses a button to indicate that they are available. On April 21, 2016, Santander filed a motion for summary judgment, partially on the grounds that Aspect's dialer feature did not constitute an automatic telephone dialing system ("ATDS"), which is an essential element of the Plaintiffs' TCPA claim. That same day, Santander moved the Court to stay the proceedings until the D.C. Circuit issued its ruling in ACA International v. Federal Communications Commission, 885 F.3d 687 (D.C. Cir. 2018), a consolidated action that considered the validity of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") rulemaking regarding the TCPA. On Oct. 14, 2016, the Court denied Santander's motions, but stated that it would revisit any issues affected by [the ACA International] decision as needed, at any time before the trial in the case. On March 16, 2018, the D.C. Circuit issued its ruling in ACA International. In the wake of ACA International, Santander renewed its motion for summary judgment, arguing that the legal principles the Court relied on in its initial denial "have been entirely upended." While the parties have no material factual disputes, they diverge on the legal implications of the ACA International decision. Specifically, the parties take conflicting stances regarding: (1) whether ACA International confined its decision to the FCC's 2015 Order, or whether the decision also overruled the FCC's 2003 and 2008 Orders; and (2) If ACA International did overrule the prior FCC Orders, whether the Court should interpret the definition of an ATDS to include predictive dialers. Judge Kocoras joins the Ninth and D.C. Circuits in finding the ATDS definition to be facially ambiguous. He finds that the phrase 'using a random or sequential number generator' necessarily conveys that an ATDS must have the capacity to generate telephone numbers, either randomly or sequentially, and then to dial those numbers. The Judge also finds that TPCA includes a treble damages clause in the event that a defendant committed a willful and knowing violation of the statute. It is difficult to square how a defendant could commit a willful and knowing violation of the TCPA if the employed ATDS is dialing numbers randomly or sequentially. Instead, it logically follows that a willful or knowing violation would involve placing calls to pre-determined phone numbers which the defendant knew were restricted under the TCPA. These structural and contextual features of the TCPA lead him to believe that the "language in the statute indicates that equipment that made automatic calls from lists of recipients was also covered by the TCPA." Because the Judge adopts the interpretation of the ATDS definition that permits dialing pre-existing customer lists, Santander's Aspect system is not exempt from the TCPA as a matter of law. Indeed, because Aspect automatically dials numbers from a set customer list, it falls within the definition of an ATDS. Finally, the Judge finds that Santander's Aspect system requires human intervention to the extent of uploading a pre-existing customer list and clicking a button to indicate a customer service agent's availability. From there, Aspect's dialer responds to the customer service agent's availability and begins dialing numbers from the list based on a programmed algorithm. Thus, according to Santander's own description, its Aspect dialer -- not the agents -- makes the calls by dialing numbers from the uploaded list. This falls within the acceptable and inevitable amount of human intervention for an ATDS. For the aforementioned reasons, Judge Kocoras denied the Defendant's motions. A full-text copy of the Court's June 12, 2019 Memorandum Opinion is available at https://is.gd/dOeeWL from Leagle.com. Henry Espejo, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher Lillard Dore, Edelson PC, Frank Davis -- fdavis@davisnorris.com -- Davis & Norris, LLP, Jay Edelson -- jedelson@edelson.com -- Edelson PC & Sydney M. Janzen -- sjanzen@edelson.com -- Edelson Pc. Santander Consumer USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by Abraham J. Colman , Reed Smith LLP, pro hac vice, Amy L. Starinieri Gilbert -- agilbert@mcguirewoods.com -- Mcguirewoods Llp, Ashley L. Shively -- ashley.shively@hklaw.com -- Reed Smith LLP, David S. Reidy, McGuireWoods LLP, Felicia Yu, Reed Smith LLP, pro hac vice, Marc A. Lackner, McGuireWoods LLP, Michael David Richman, Reed Smith LLP & Sarah Ann Zielinski -- szielinski@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP. SELECT EMPLOYMENT: Romero Suit Removed to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned ELSIE ROMERO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SELECT EMPLOYMENT SERVICES, INC., a Delaware corporation; CALIFORNIA REHABILITATION INSTITUTE, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; SELECT MEDICAL CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC700200 was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on July 23, 2019, and assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-06369. The complaint and first amended complaint allege ten causes of action: (1) Failure to Provide Meal Periods, (2) Failure to Authorize and Permit rest Periods, (3) Failure to Pay Minimum Wages, (4) Failure to Pay Overtime Wages, (5) Failure to Pay All Wages Due to Discharged and Quitting Employees, (6) Failure to Maintain Required Records, (7) Failure to Furnish Accurate Itemized Wage Statements, (8) Failure to Indemnify Employees for Necessary Expenditures Incurred in Discharge of Duties, (9) Unfair and Unlawful Business Practices, and (10) Representative Action for Penalties under the Labor Code Private Attorney's General Act.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Ndubisi A. Ezeolu, Esq. Edward W. Racek, Esq. TUCKER ELLIS LLP 515 South Flower Street Forty-Second Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: 213.430.3400 Facsimile: 213.430.3409 Email: ndubisi.ezeolu@tuckerellis.com edward.racek@tuckerellis.corn SHERMAN OAKS: Reina Seeks Unpaid Wages, Meal Breaks --------------------------------------------------- MONICA REINA, the Plaintiff, vs. SHERMAN OAKS INTEGRATED MEDICAL GROUP, INC. dba HEALTH ATLAST SHERMAN OAKS and DOES 1 to 25, inclusive, Case No. 19STCV23256 (Cal. Super., July 2, 2019), alleges that Sherman Oaks committed numerous labor code violations against Plaintiff and other similarly situated aggrieved employees. The Defendant violated the Labor Code because it failed to provide Plaintiff and other similarly situated aggrieved employees the requisite 30-minute, uninterrupted meal periods for every five hours of work throughout their employment, and Plaintiff did not validly waive said meal periods. The Plaintiff started working for Defendant on or around September 1, 2017. Her employment ended on or around February 8, 2019. The Defendant did not pay to Plaintiff one additional hour of pay at Plaintiffs regular rate of compensation for each workday that one or more statutory meal periods was not provided. During her employment tenure, the Plaintiff would eat meals on the job and while sitting at the front, because there was no one to relieve her and the office needed someone to be sitting at the front, the lawsuit says. Sherman Oaks is a healthcare provider in Sherman Oaks, California.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Harout Messrelian, Esq. MESSRELIAN LAW INC. 500 N. Central Ave., Suite 840 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 484-6531 Facsimile: (818) 956-1983 SHUTTERFLY INC: Miracle-Pond Suit Removed to N.D. Ill. ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned Vernita Miracle-Pond and Samantha Paraf, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Shutterfly, Inc., Case No. 2019CH07050 (Ill. Cir., June 11, 2019), was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on July 12, 2019, under Case No. 19-cv-04722. Plaintiffs seek an injunction requiring Defendants to cease all unlawful activity related to the capture, collection, storage and use of biometrics, statutory damages together with costs and reasonable attorneys' fees under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. Shutterfly provides its online services to Illinois residents. Plaintiffs allege that it is actively collecting, storing, and using obtained facial templates of its users without their informed written consent or publishing data retention policies. Miracle-Pond has a Shutterfly account and her face appears in photographs uploaded to Shutterfly within Illinois while Paraf does not and has not ever had a Shutterfly account, yet her face appears in photographs uploaded to Shutterfly within Illinois. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Tina Wolfson, Esq. Alex R. Straus, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 10728 Lindbrook Drive Los Angeles, CA 90024 Tel: (310) 474-9111 Fax: (310) 474-8585 Email: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com astraus@ahdootwolfson.com - and - Katrina Carroll, Esq. Kyle A. Shamberg, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH LLP 111 W. Washington Street, Suite 1240 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 750-1265 Email: kcarroll@carlsonlynch.com kshamberg@carlsonlynch.com Shutterfly is represented by: Matthew David Provance, Esq. MAYER BROWN LLP 71 South Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60606 Tel: (312) 701-8598 Email: mprovance@mayerbrown.com - and - Lauren R. Goldman, Esq. MAYER BROWN LLP 1221 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020-1001 Tel: (212) 506-2647 Email: lrgoldman@mayerbrown.com STATE UNIV. OF NY: Court Certifies Class in Westchester ADA Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, WESTCHESTER INDEPENDENT LIVING CENTER, INC., a nonprofit organization; KAYLE HILL, an individual; TERESA WHEELER, an individual; and MICHAEL HELLMAN, an individual; on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK, PURCHASE COLLEGE; THOMAS J. SCHWARZ, in his official capacity as President of Purchase College; and H. CARL McCALL, in his official capacity as Chairman of the State University of New York Board of Trustees, Defendants, Case No. 16-CV-5949 (CS) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Cathy Seibel of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. Defendants SUNY Purchase, TSchwarz, and McCall, operate a 500-acre college campus in Westchester County that hosts more than 4,200 students and 450 faculty members. Additionally, SUNY Purchase welcomes numerous guests on the Campus each year, including senior citizens who can audit classes free of tuition, visiting students and eligible high school students participating in academic summer sessions and youth and precollege programs, and visitors to SUNY Purchase's Neuberger Museum of Art, Performing Arts Center ("PAC"), and library. The Campus contains 25 buildings, including, among other things, academic buildings, residence halls, and dining facilities. Approximately two-thirds of SUNY Purchase's students live on Campus in its residence halls, and approximately one-third of students commute to Campus. The Campus also includes numerous parking lots for students, faculty, and other visitors. The Plaintiffs allege that as a result of the Defendants' systemic failure to provide accessible rights-of-way, students and visitors with mobility disabilities, including but not limited to those who use wheelchairs or other mobility devices, encounter pervasive barriers that prevent them from having meaningful access to the programs, services, and activities at SUNY Purchase, in violation of federal and state disability discrimination laws. They specifically allege that students and visitors must navigate a network of pedestrian rights-of-way plagued with barriers such as a lack of curb ramps; noncompliant curb ramps and cross-walks; paths of travel that are unnecessarily long, have excessive slope, or include crumbling concrete or asphalt; inadequate accessible parking; inadequate vertical access to the Campus and public buildings; a lack of signage indicating accessibility; lack of alternative routes, some of which were blocked by ongoing construction; noncompliant safety features such as call-boxes; and frequently broken accessibility features such as automatic door openers. On July 26, 2016, the Plaintiffs filed their original class action Complaint, and the Defendants answered on Oct. 27, 2016. On May 22, 2017, after limited discovery was exchanged, Magistrate Judge Judith C. McCarthy stayed any further discovery so that the parties could discuss settlement. Nearly a year later, on April 17, 2018, the parties still had not reached a settlement, and Judge McCarthy lifted the discovery stay. On July 18, 2018, the Plaintiffs moved for leave to amend their Complaint, which Judge McCarthy granted, and on July 26, the Plaintiffs filed their FAC. In their FAC, the Plaintiffs seek injunctive and declaratory relief on their own behalf and on behalf of a class of all people with mobility disabilities who use or will use pedestrian rights-of-way at SUNY Purchase. They do not seek damages. On Dec. 19, 2018, the Plaintiffs moved for class certification. After three extensions, the Defendants filed their opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion on March 14, 2019, and the Plaintiffs filed their reply shortly thereafter. The Plaintiffs seek certification of a class consisting of students and visitors with mobility disabilities who have been and are being denied meaningful access to the educational, cultural, and social programs, services, and activities offered at SUNY Purchase because of Defendants' continuing failure to provide accessible rights-of-way. Judge Seibel finds that the class complies with each of the Rule 23 requirements. Accordingly, she granted the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Judeg certified a Rule 23(b)(2) injunctive and declaratory relief class comprising students and visitors with mobility disabilities -- that is, individuals who use wheelchairs, individuals who use other mobility aids, and individuals with disabilities that affect their ability to walk distances or climb stairs but who do not use any mobility aids -- who have been and are being denied meaningful access to the educational, cultural, and social programs, services, and activities offered at SUNY Purchase because of Defendants' continuing failure to provide accessible rights-of-way. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the pending motion. Pursuant to the Judge's Dec. 5, 2018 ruling, the parties are ordered to meet and confer on a schedule for crossmotions for summary judgment. They should send the Court a joint letter with their proposals, or laying out their competing positions, no later than June 18, 2019. A full-text copy of the Court's June 12, 2019 Opinion and Order is available at https://is.gd/v9h314 from Leagle.com. Westchester Independent Living Center, Inc., a nonprofit organization, Kayle Hill, an individual; on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Michael Hellmann, an individual; on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated & Teresa Wheeler, Plaintiffs, represented by Andrea Moody Kozak-Oxnard -- AKOZAKOXNARD@DRALEGAL.ORG -- Disability Rights Advocates, Michelle Anne Caiola -- mcaiola@dralegal.org -- Disabilities Right Advocates, Rebecca Juliet Rodgers -- rrodgers@dralegal.org -- Disability Rights Advocates & Rebecca Catherine Serbin -- rserbin@dralegal.org -- Disabilities Right Advocates. Thomas J. Schwarz, In his Official Capacity as President of Purchase College & H. Carl McCall, In his Official Capacity as Chairman of the State University of New York Board of Trustees, Defendants, represented by Mark Eliott Klein, Office of The Attorney General, Alyssa Eve Anzalone-Newman, New York State Attorney General, D. Stan O'Loughlin, NYS Office of the Attorney General & Monica Anne Connell, New York State Office of the Attorney General. State University of New York, Defendant, represented by Mark Eliott Klein, Office of The Attorney General, D. Stan O'Loughlin, NYS Office of the Attorney General & Monica Anne Connell, New York State Office of the Attorney General. SWIFTWICK INTERNATIONAL: Diaz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Swiftwick International, LLC. The case is styled as Edwin Diaz on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Swiftwick International, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-06974 (S.D. N.Y., July 25, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Swiftwick International, LLC is a performance sock manufacturer.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq. Cohen & Mizrahi LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Phone: (917) 299-6612 Fax: (929) 575-4195 Email: joseph@cml.legal TOTALMED STAFFING: Abrishamian Suit Removed to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned NATALIE ABRISHAMIAN, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. TOTALMED STAFFING, INC., an Illinois Corporation; and DOES 1-20 inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV21926 was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on July 25, 2019, and assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-06457. The Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on June 28, 2019 asserting, on behalf of herself and various putative classes consisting of non-exempt employees of TotalMed who have worked in California since June 24, 2015, eight causes of action for (1) failure to pay for all hours worked; (2) failure to pay minimum wage; (3) failure to pay overtime; (4) failure to authorize or permit meal breaks; (5) failure to authorize or permit rest breaks; (6) failure to furnish accurate wage statements; (7) waiting time penalties; and (8) unfair business practices.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: SARAH KROLL-ROSENBAUM, ESQ. SAYAKA KARITANI, ESQ. NANCY SOTOMAYOR, ESQ. CONSTANGY, BROOKS, SMITH & PROPHETE, LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 1100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 909-7775 Facsimile: (424) 465-6630 Email: skroll-rosenbaum@constangy.com skaritani@constangy.com nsotomayor@constangy.com TRINITY SERVICES: Castillo Suit Removed to E.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned ANDRE CASTILLO, individually, on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. TRINITY SERVICES GROUP, INC.; and DOES 1 thru 20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BCV-19-101473 was removed from the Superior Court of California, for the County of Kern to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on July 25, 2019, and assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-01013-DAD-JLT. The Complaint alleges six causes of action which Plaintiff pursues on a class action basis: (1) failure to pay overtime wages; (2) failure to provide meal periods; (3) failure to provide rest breaks; (4) failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements; (5) failure to pay all wages due upon separation of employment; and (6) Violation of California Business & Professions Code.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Daniel B. Chammas, Esq. David L. Cheng, Esq. FORD & HARRISON, LLP 350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2300 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 237-2400 Facsimile: (213) 237-2401 Email: dchammas@fordharrison.com dchengQfordharrison.com TYSON FOODS: Graham Suit Alleges Antitrust Violations ----------------------------------------------------- Steve Graham, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Tyson Foods, Inc., Cargill, Inc., National Beef Packaging, et al., Case No. 4:19-cv-00368 (W.D. Mo., May 8, 2019), is brought against the Defendants for violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act and Commodities Exchange Act. This case arises from the Defendants' unlawful conspiracy to lower the prices they paid for fed cattle in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act and the Commodities Exchange Act. The Plaintiff owns and operates a farming operation with his son in Cherokee County, Iowa. The Plaintiff is a cattle farmer who sold fed cattle to one or more Defendants. The Defendants are beef packers who purchase fed cattle from Plaintiff and the Producer Class for slaughter. Defendants then process the resulting carcasses into beef for sale to other processers, wholesalers, and retail outlets. Beginning no later than January 2015 and continuing today, the Defendants conspired to suppress the price of fed cattle they purchased in the United States, asserts the complaint. The Defendants' coordinated conduct, including slashing their respective slaughter volumes and curtailing their purchases of fed cattle in the cash cattle market, caused an unprecedented collapse in fed cattle prices in 2015. The Defendants continued to suppress the price of fed cattle through coordinated procurement practices and periodic slaughter restraint. The Defendants' conspiracy impacted both the physical fed cattle market and the market for live cattle futures and options traded on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard M. Paul III, Esq. Sean Cooper, Esq. PAUL LLP 601 Walnut Street, Suite 300 Kansas City, MO 64106 Tel: (816) 984-8100 E-mail: Rick@PaulLLP.com Sean@PaulLLP.com UMB BANK: Garrett Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------- Steve L. Garrett and M. Gwen Goins, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. UMB Bank, N.A., Case No. 4:19-cv-00369 (W.D. Mo., May 8, 2019), is brought against the Defendant for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant's policy and practice is to deny earned wages to its mortgage loan originators. Specifically, the Defendant requires its mortgage loan originators to perform work in excess of forty hours per week, but fails to pay them overtime by misclassifying all such employees as exempt from the FLSA overtime requirements. Plaintiff Garrett currently resides in Grandview, Missouri. From approximately February 2016 to September 2018, he was employed by Defendant as a mortgage loan originator. Plaintiff Goins currently resides in Lee's Summit, Missouri. From approximately April 2017 to August 2018, he was employed by Defendant as a mortgage loan originator. The Defendant is a national banking association that provides comprehensive banking solutions, including mortgage services, through its banking centers across the country. Its principal place of business is in the State of Missouri. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ryan L. McClelland, Esq. Michael J. Rahmberg, Esq. MCCLELLAND LAW FIRM The Flagship Building 200 Westwoods Drive Liberty, MO 64068-1170 Tel: (816) 781-0002 Fax: (816) 781-1984 E-mail: ryan@mcclellandlawfirm.com mrahmberg@mcclellandlawfirm.com UNITED DOMESTIC: California Homecare Providers File Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- The National Right to Work Foundation on July 15 disclosed that California homecare providers who receive Medicaid payments for serving disabled individuals have filed a class-action lawsuit with free legal aid from attorneys provided by the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff and Washington-based Freedom Foundation. They charge union officials with violating their legal rights by unlawfully restricting them from stopping payment of union dues and fees, as is their right under the U.S. Supreme Court's Harris and Janus decisions and the Medicaid statute. The providers' complaint says United Domestic Workers (UDW) AFSCME Local 3930 union officials coerced them into surrendering their legal rights by signing union membership cards that prohibit them from halting union dues and fees deductions except for a narrow "escape period" a few days every year. When the providers attempted to exercise their legal rights under Harris and Janus to refrain from financially subsidizing a union and cut off any further dues or fee deductions, union officials refused to honor their requests. Despite the lack of valid consent by providers, the California State Controller, at the behest of AFSCME union officials, continues to deduct union dues from the Medicaid funds intended for providers. In the class-action suit filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, the providers named as defendants UDW AFSCME Local 3930 and California State Controller Betty Yee. Yee deducts union dues and fees from providers' Medicaid payments pursuant to state law. The providers rely on the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark Harris and Janus decisions in 2014 and 2018, respectively, both of which were argued and won by Foundation staff attorneys. Harris held that homecare providers cannot constitutionally be compelled to pay union dues or fees as a condition of receiving public funding. Janus established that the First Amendment protects public-sector workers from being forced to pay union dues or fees without their knowing and explicit consent. While still permitting voluntary unionism, the Janus decision requires union officials to inform public workers of their First Amendment rights and obtain knowing waivers from them before collecting any dues or fees. This requirement invalidates the restrictions on revocation of deduction authorizations union officials enforce through membership cards signed by individuals subjected to public sector unionism. Because union officials never obtained their consent with knowledge of their rights under Harris and Janus, the providers argue that the restrictions in their dues deduction authorizations are invalid and union officials, thus, are not legally authorized to deduct dues or fees from their hard-earned Medicaid payments. Their complaint asks that the court declare unconstitutional the California statute which authorizes such restrictions. In addition, the providers' suit alleges that the deduction of union dues from their Medicaid payments violates a provision of the federal Medicaid statute that prohibits the diversion of Medicaid monies to persons or institutions that are not providing services to disabled individuals. "Once again union bosses have ignored the clear wishes of the workers they claim to ‘represent' simply to line their pockets with compulsory dues," said National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. "Instead of informing workers of their First Amendment rights and allowing them to choose whether to pay dues to a union voluntarily, union officials nationwide are applying ‘escape periods' and other coercive tactics to trap workers into paying forced dues against their wishes." The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation is a nonprofit, charitable organization providing free legal aid to employees whose human or civil rights have been violated by compulsory unionism abuses. The Foundation, which can be contacted toll-free at 1-800-336-3600, assists thousands of employees in more than 250 cases nationwide per year. [GN] VERB TECHNOLOGY: Sept. 9 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set ----------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on July 15 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Verb Technology Company, Inc. (NASDAQ: VERB) from January 3, 2018 through May 2, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Verb investors under the federal securities laws. To join the Verb class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1617.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) the Company did not have a contract with Oracle to jointly develop and market the Company's product, notifiCRM; and (2) as a result, defendants' statements about Verb's business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis 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 September 9, 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-1617.htmlor to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com. Rosen Law Firm -- http://www.rosenlegal.com-- represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. [GN] WAL-MART: Price et al. Seek Equal Pay for Female Staff ------------------------------------------------------ About 35 lawsuits were filed mid-July against Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. alleging that the retailer has engaged in, and continues to engage in, unlawful gender discrimination by denying female employees equal pay for hourly retail store positions and denying female employees equal pay for certain salaried management positions. The cases are filed pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and seek to correct unlawful employment practices that discriminate on the basis of gender and to provide appropriate relief to female employees who were adversely affected by such practices. The plaintiffs are proceeding on an individual basis. The actions spring from Dukes v. Wal-Mart, the national class action filed more than ten years ago. In Dukes, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California certified a national class of female Wal-Mart and Sam's Club employees challenging Wal-Mart's retail store pay policies as discriminatory against women. On June 20, 2011, the United States Supreme Court reversed that class certification order, imposing new guidelines for class actions in Title VII employment discrimination cases. All damages which the Plaintiffs have sustained as a result of Wal-Mart's conduct, including back pay, front pay, compensatory damages, and damages for lost compensation and job benefits that they would have received but for the discriminatory practices of Wal-Mart, the lawsuit says. Wal-Mart is an American multinational retail corporation that operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and grocery stores, headquartered in Bentonville, Arkansas. The cases are all captioned as, JEWEL PRICE, CARLA ALSTON, KIMBERLY AUSTIN-JOHNSON, NANCY BAISDEN, CYNTHIA BOSS, BILLIE BRENDLINGER, LATONYA BRISCO-THOMPSON, MYRA BROWN, TONI BURTON, RENEE CHILES, MARY-KAY DOBBS, MARYELLEN DUNNE, LIOUDMILA DYER, FAWN EHRENREICH, RHONDA GALLIPOLI, CONNIE GAMARRA, ZOMORA GRANT, MARGARET HAMMELL, DEBORAH HOLLOWAY, CAROLYN HOLMES, CATHERINE JACOBSON, SUSAN JEFFERS, LUCILLE KLINE, FRANCES LIVINGSTON, CINDY LYMAN, GLORIA MAIMONE, IRIS CASSETT MARCHAND, TANISHA MATTHEWS-WRIGHT, TAMIKO MCNURLAN, LYNN MILLER, MARGO OWENS-WOOTEN, PAMELA PECK, LUCY GIACOBBI SOTOMAYOR RAY, RACHEL RAY, CATHY REUSS, SHERRY RICHARDSON, BARBARA SOLOMON, ANGEL STUMP-WOLFE, BARBARA SYMANSKI, RONDA THOMSON-SPEARS, MONICA URBAN-KLOHN, TIFFANY WELCH, DONNA WILLIAMS, and COLLEEN WOOL, the Plaintiffs, vs. WAL-MART STORES, INC., the Defendant, Case Nos. 19-cv-80922; 19-cv-80926 to 19-cv-80928; 19-cv-80930 to 19-cv-80932; 19-cv-80934 to 19-cv-80943; 19-cv-80945; 19-cv-80948 to 19-cv-80958; and 19-cv-80960 to 19-cv-80964 (S.D. Fla., July 15, 2019).[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are: Cathleen Scott, Esq. Lindsey Wagner, Esq. SCOTT WAGNER AND ASSOCIATES, P.A. Jupiter Gardens 250 South Central Boulevard, Suite 104 Jupiter, FL 33458 Telephone: (561) 653-0008 Facsimile: (561) 653-0020 E-mail: Cscott@scottwagnerlaw.com lwagner@scottwagnerlaw.com - and - Leslie M. Kroeger, Esq. Diana L. Martin, Esq. Joseph M. Sellers, Esq. Christine E. Webber, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC 2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200 Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 Telephone: (561) 515-1400 Facsimile: (561) 515-1401 E-mail: lkroeger@cohenmilstein.com dmartin@cohenmilstein.com JSellers@cohenmilstein.com Cwebber@cohenmilstein.com WEBSTAURANT STORE: Conrath Suit Alleges FLSA Violation ------------------------------------------------------ David Conrath, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. The Webstaurant Store, Inc., Case 4:19-cv-00047 (W.D. Ky., May 7, 2019), is brought against the Defendant for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendant has willfully engaged in the practice of not recording employees' time for all work performed, permitting or requiring employees to perform work in addition to scheduled shifts, and not compensating employees with appropriate payment for such work, in violation of the FLSA, notes the complaint. The Plaintiff is a resident of Pennsylvania. The Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a Customer Solutions Specialist at the Defendant's customer support facility in Lititz, Pennsylvania from approximately July 2014 until July 2017. The Plaintiff again became employed by Defendant in 2018, and is currently employed by the Defendant at the time of filing this action. The Defendant is a Pennsylvania for-profit corporation engaged in the business of selling commercial restaurant supplies and equipment. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark N. Foster, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MARK N. FOSTER, PLLC P.O. Box 869 Madisonville, KY 42431 Tel: (270) 213-1303 E-mail: MFoster@MarkNFoster.com WHEELS LABS: Feldman Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages -------------------------------------------------------- A class action complaint has been filed against Wheels Labs, Inc. for negligently contacting consumers' cellular telephones, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The case is captioned DAVID FELDMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. WHEELS LABS, INC., and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-05784 (C.D. Cal., July 3, 2019). On or about April of 2019, Plaintiff received a text message from Defendant on his cellular telephone, number ending in -0127. During this time, Defendant began to use Plaintiff's cellular telephone for the purpose of sending Plaintiff spam advertisements and/or promotional offers, via text messages, including a text message sent to and received by Plaintiff on or about April of 2017. Plaintiff was never a customer of Defendant and never provided his cellular telephone number Defendant for any reason whatsoever. Defendant and their agents never received Plaintiff's prior express consent to receive unsolicited text messages. Accordingly, this suit seeks only damages and injunctive relief for recovery of economic injury on behalf of the Class. Wheels Labs, Inc. provides electric bike rentals and employs people to transport their bikes. Plaintiff alleges that at all times relevant herein Wheels Labs conducted business in the state of California and in the County of Los Angeles. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Meghan E. George, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: (323) 306-4234 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com mgeorge@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com WILLIAMS SONOMA: Faces Overton Suit in California Superior Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Williams Sonoma Stores Inc. The case is captioned as Olivia Overton individually and on behalf of others similarly situated and as a private attorney general, the Plaintiff, vs. Williams Sonoma Stores Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 56-2019-00530410-CU-OE-VTA (Cal. Super., July 9, 2019). The suit alleges employment-related violation. Williams-Sonoma is an American publicly traded consumer retail company that sells kitchenwares and home furnishings. It is headquartered in San Francisco, California, United States.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Amir Nayebdadash, Esq. PROTECTION LAW GROUP, LLP 136 Main St Ste A El Segundo, CA 90245 Telephone: (424) 290-3095 Facsimile: (866) 264-7880 E-mail: amir@protectionlawgroup.com WINN LAW GROUP: Caldera Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Winn Law Group. The case is styled as Raymond Caldera On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. Winn Law Group, Does 1-10, Inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-01363-JM-LL (S.D. Cal., July 22, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Winn Law Group is a debt collection law firm that provides legal advisory services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Paul Rundquist, Esq. Law Office of Andrew P Rundquist 501 W Broadway Suite A144 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (619) 992-9148 Email: andrew@rundquistlaw.com XALER: Derval Moves for Certification of TCPA Class Under Rule 23 ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled Alex Derval, Morgan Simmons and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Xaler, A Cooperative Corporation and DOES 1-25, Case No. 2:19-cv-01881-ODW-JEM (C.D. Cal.), seek certification of this class under Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: All persons within the United States who had or have a number assigned to a cellular telephone service, who received at least one text message using an ATDS from Defendant between the date of filing this action and the four years preceding, where such text messages were sent and placed for the purpose of marketing where the recipient did not give their express consent to be contacted by Defendant. The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint them as Class Representatives, and to appoint their counsel as Class Counsel. Xaler, A Cooperative Corporation ("Xaler"), is in the business of dealing marijuana via mobile deliveries. Plaintiffs Alex Derval and Morgan Simmons bring this Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") action against Xaler for its uniform policy of causing text messages to be sent to consumers' cellular telephones on Xaler's behalf without prior express consent. The text messages at issue are generic marketing messages advertising discounts on marijuana deliveries. The Court will commence a hearing on August 19, 2019, at 1:30 p.m., to consider the Motion.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: F. Jay Rahimi, Esq. LOS ANGELES LEGAL SOLUTIONS, APLC 7136 Haskell Ave., Suite 333 Van Nuys, CA 91406 Telephone: (818) 510-0555 Facsimile: (818) 510-0590 E-mail: jay@LALSLaw.com - and - Sara F. Khosroabadi, Esq. SKB LAW OFFICE 5190 Governor Dr., Suite 108 San Diego, CA 92122 Telephone: (858) 526-3053 Facsimile: (858) 526-3052 E-mail: sara@skblawoffice.com - and - Babak Semnar, Esq. Jared M. Hartman, Esq. Laurel N. Holmes, Esq. SEMNAR & HARTMAN, LLP 41707 Winchester Road, Suite 201 Temecula, CA 92590 Telephone: (951) 293-4187 Facsimile: (888) 819-8230 E-mail: bob@semnarlawfirm.com jared@sandiegoconsumerattorneys.com laurel@sandiegoconsumerattorneys.com ZALE DELAWARE: Leos Suit Alleges Labor Code Violations ------------------------------------------------------ Carolina Leos, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Zale Delaware, Inc., Case No. 2:19-cv-00829 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., May 9, 2019), is brought against the Defendant for violations of the California Labor Code. According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to pay employees wages for all hours worked, failed to provide accurate and complete wage statements, incorrectly calculated overtime, meal and rest premium wages and failed to provide unpaid wages timely after the employee's termination or resignation, in violation of the provisions of the Labor Code and Wage Orders. The Plaintiff is a resident and citizen of California. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants in a non-exempt position. The Defendant is a foreign entity incorporated in Delaware, and is authorized to do business within the State of California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. Jordan D. Bello, Esq. Vincent Cranberry, Esq. LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Tel: (310) 432-0000 Fax: (310) 432-0001 E-mail: jlavi@lelawfirm.com jbello@lelawfirm.com ZAYO GROUP: Faces Shareholder Class Action in Delaware ------------------------------------------------------ Andrews & Springer LLC, a boutique securities class action law firm focused on representing shareholders nationwide, on July 16 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed by another law firm on behalf of shareholders of Zayo Group Holdings, Inc. (ZAYO) ("Zayo Group" or the "Company") for possible corporate misconduct and breach of fiduciary duty. A copy of the complaint is available from the Court or from Andrews & Springer LLC. If you currently own shares of Zayo Group and want to receive additional information and protect your investments free of charge, please visit us at http://www.andrewsspringer.com/cases-investigations/zayo-group-class-action-investigation/ or contact Craig J. Springer, Esq. at cspringer@andrewsspringer.com, or call toll free at 1-800-423-6013. 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 ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. On May 8, 2019, Zayo Group and private investment firms Digital Colony Partners ("Digital Colony") and EQT Infrastructure IV Fund ("EQT") announced the signing of a definitive merger agreement pursuant to which Digital Colony and EQT will acquire Zayo Group in a merger worth $14.3 billion (the "Merger). As a result of the Merger, Zayo Group shareholders are only anticipated to receive $35.00 per share in cash in exchange for each share of Zayo. A Zayo Group shareholder represented by another law firm has filed a class action complaint against Zayo Group for federal securities violations. The complaint was filed in the United States District Court, District of Delaware, Case No. 19-cv-01068-RGA. According to the lawsuit, which was filed on June 7, 2019, defendants filed a proxy statement (the "Proxy") with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") in connection with the Merger. The Proxy omits material information with respect to the Merger, which renders the Proxy false and misleading. Accordingly, plaintiff seeks that the Merger should be enjoined until defendants disclose more information to stockholders. If you own shares of Zayo Group and want to receive additional information and protect your investments free of charge, please visit us at http://www.andrewsspringer.com/cases-investigations/zayo-group-class-action-investigation/ or contact Craig J. Springer, Esq. at cspringer@andrewsspringer.com, or call toll free at 1-800-423-6013. Andrews & Springer -- http://www.andrewsspringer.com-- is a boutique securities class action law firm representing shareholders nationwide who are victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty or corporate misconduct. Having formerly defended some of the largest financial institutions in the world, our founding members use their valuable knowledge, experience, and superior skill for the sole purpose of achieving positive results for investors. These traits are the hallmarks of our innovative approach to each case our Firm decides to prosecute. [GN] ZEP LLC: Solis Suit Seeks Proper Minimum, Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------- Abel Mateo Solis, Eliseo Chavez San Juan and Jose Ortiz Garcia, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Zep LLC dba Zucchero E Pomodori, Eric Alam, Sayem Islam, Sam Sahir, Tarek Doe and Nashu Doe, Case No. 1:19-cv-04230 (S.D. N.Y., May 9, 2019), is brought against the Defendants for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants required them to work in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of hours compensation. Additionally, the Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked. The Plaintiff Mateo worked for the Defendants from approximately 2008 until on or about April 2019. The Plaintiff Chavez was employed by Defendants from approximately September 2018 until on or about May 6, 2019. The Plaintiff Ortiz was employed by Defendants from approximately November 2016 until on or about April 28, 2019. The Plaintiffs were employed as delivery workers by the Defendants but were required to spend a considerable part of their work day performing non-tipped duties, including but not limited to cleaning, stocking, arranging, and buying merchandise. The Defendant Zep is an Italian restaurant, located at 1435 Second Avenue, New York, New York 10021 under the name "Zucchero e Pomodori". The Defendants Alam, Islam, Sahir, Tarek Doe, and Nashu Doe, serve or served as owners, managers, principals, or agents of the Defendant Zep and, through this corporate entity, operate or operated the restaurant as a joint or unified enterprise. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Tel: (212) 317-1200 Fax: (212) 317-1620 E-mail: Faillace@employmentcompliance.co ZWICKER & ASSOCIATES: Fiorarancio Appeals Ruling to 3rd Circuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Sergio D. Fiorarancio filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the lawsuit titled Sergio Fiorarancio v. Zwicker & Associates, P.C., et al., Case No. 2-18-cv-12793, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The nature of suit is stated as consumer credit. The appellate case is captioned as Sergio Fiorarancio v. Zwicker & Associates, P.C., et al., Case No. 19-2569, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant SERGIO D. FIORARANCIO, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, is represented by: Yongmoon Kim, Esq. KIM LAW FIRM 411 Hackensack Avenue, Suite 701 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 273-7117 E-mail: ykim@kimlf.com - and - Philip D. Stern, Esq. Andrew T. Thomasson, Esq. STERN THOMASSON LLP 150 Morris Avenue, 2nd Floor Springfield, NJ 07081 Telephone: (973) 379-7500 E-mail: philip@sternthomasson.com andrew@sternthomasson.com Defendant-Appellee ZWICKER & ASSOCIATES is represented by: Mitchell L. Williamson, Esq. BARRON & NEWBURGER, P.C. 458 Elizabeth Avenue, Suite 5371 Somerset, NJ 08873 Telephone: (732) 328-9480 E-mail: mwilliamson@bn-lawyers.com ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2019. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***