/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/190802.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, August 2, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 154 Headlines 3M COMPANY: Ramos Sues over Defective Combat Arms Earplugs 3M COMPANY: Rivera Sues over Defective Combat Arms Earplugs 3M COMPANY: Salina Sues over Defective Combat Arms Earplugs 3M COMPANY: Smith Sues over Defective Combat Arms Earplugs 5 STAR: Raiche Seeks Minimum Wages for Pizza Delivery Drivers ACCEPTANCE INSURANCE: Vargas Seeks OT Pay for Sales Agents ACER THERAPEUTICS: Kessler Topaz Files Securities Class Action Suit ADVENTIST HEALTH: Morgan Seeks to Certify Class & Sub-Classes ALLERGAN AUSTRALIA: Class Action Looms Over Implants ALLIANT CREDIT: Dismissal of FAC in Overdraft Fees Suit Recommended AMAZON.COM INC: Can Compel Arbitration in Nicosia Suit AMERISOURCEBERGEN: Unlawful Payment Alleged in Amended Class Suit ANHEUSER-BUSCH: Aug. 20 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline ANTHEM INC: Express Scripts/Anthem ERISA Litigation Still Ongoing APPLIED CARDIAC: Cardiology Clinic Sues Over Unsolicited Faxed Ads BEAZER HOMES: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Fraud Class Suit BERKS COUNTY, PA: Appeals Ruling in Victory Suit to 3rd Circuit BIG LOTS: Faces Farr Suit in Central District of California BIOSCRIP INC: Faces Brennan Class Action Suit BOEING CO: Pierce Bainbridge Files Consumer Suit Over 737 Max 8 BOEING COMPANY: 737 MAX Pilots Sue Over Undisclosed Plane Defect BUCKEYE PARTNERS: Faces Multiple Hercules-Merger Related Suits BUCKEYE PARTNERS: Ingalls Suit Moved to Southern Dist. of Texas CAL-MAINE FOODS: Bid to Remand Egg Antitrust Suit Pending CAMBRIDGE SIERRA: Settlement in Lyter Labor Suit Has Final Approval CANNTRUST HOLDINGS: Kaplan Fox Files Securities Fraud Class Suit CANNTRUST HOLDINGS: Kaskela Law Files Securities Class Lawsuit CANNTRUST HOLDINGS: Strosberg Sasso Files Securities Class Action CASHCALL INC: Bejune Hits Usurious Rates, Fees, Penalties on Loans CENTENE CORP: Bid to Dismiss Sanchez Suit Still Pending CENTENE CORP: Class Cert. Discovery Ongoing in Ambetter Class Suit CHINACACHE INT'L: Schall Law Firm Investing Investors' Claims CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Appeal in Ong Class Action Suit Still Pending CLOUDERA INC: Pomerantz Files Securities Fraud Suit CONNEXIONS LOYALTY: FLSA Collective Action Certification Sought CONVERSE INC: 9th Cir. Flips Summary Judgment in Chavez Suit DELTA AIR: Bid to Certify 2 Subclasses in Freeman Suit Denied DIEBOLD NIXDORF: Federman & Sherwood Files Securities Class Action DIEBOLD NIXDORF: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Fraud Suit DIEBOLD NIXDORF: Pomerantz Files Securities Fraud Suit DR. PEPPER: California Court Narrows Claims in Yu Suit EDWARD D. JONES: Prevails in Reverse Churning Class-Action Suit ENCORE BOSTON: Schuster Asserts Unjust Enrichment, Seeks Damages ENTEGRA FINANCIAL: Rigrodsky & Long Files Securities Class Suit ENVIRO-TECH SERVICES: Class Certification Denial in Frank Reversed EROS INTERNATIONAL: Rosen Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit FIDELITY NATIONAL: Still Defends Patterson Class Action FRIENDLY'S MANUFACTURING: Charles Hits False Ice Cream Labels GAMESTOP CORP: Gilewski Suit Moved to C.D. California GLOBAL CREDIT: Class Certification Proceedings Shelved GNC HOLDINGS: Appeal from Workweek Suit Judgment Still Pending GNC HOLDINGS: Trial in Naranjo Class Suit Set for September 2019 HEALTH NETWORK: Dismissal of SAC in S. Sykes Suit Affirmed HEALTHPLUS SURGERY: Kinlock Remanded to NJ Superior Court HEALTHRIGHT, LLC: Court Certifies Class of Terminated Employees HELIUS MEDICAL: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Securities Class Suit HOUSTON, TX: 5th Cir. Partly Grants Writ of Mandamus Petition HOUSTON, TX: Appeals Decision in Hernandez Suit to Fifth Circuit IDEANOMICS INC: Bragar Eagel Files Securities Class Action Suit INTELLIGENT SYSTEMS: Bernstein Liebhard Files Class Action INTELLIGENT SYSTEMS: Rosen Law Files Securities Fraud Class Suit IQVIA INC: Court Nixes Bid to Dismiss SAC in TCPA Suit JL GRAY: Mice Infestation Class Suit About to Get Bigger KICKSTARTER PBC: Jones Sues Over Deaf-Inaccessible Web Site LENDINGCLUB CORP: Shron Sues over Hidden Up-Front Fees MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Moodie Seeks to Certify Settlement Class MAZDA MOTOR: Kessler Topaz Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit MCSS REST: Court Certifies 4 Classes in Mendez FLSA/NYLL Suit MDL 2672: Denial of Claimants' Branded Title Claims Affirmed MDL 2741: Strayhorn v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated MDL 2800: Settlement Reached in Equifax Customer Data Theft Suit MIDLAND CREDIT: Dangelo et al. Suit Moved to E.D. New York MIDLAND CREDIT: Doke Seeks to Certify Two Classes MONSANTO COMPANY: Baisden Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup MONSANTO COMPANY: Butler Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup MONSANTO COMPANY: Clays' Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal. MONSANTO COMPANY: Clifton Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal. MONSANTO COMPANY: Culps' Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal. MONSANTO COMPANY: Georges Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal. MONSANTO COMPANY: Jenningses' Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal. MONSANTO COMPANY: Joneses' Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal. MOVING SOLUTIONS: Court Wants Settlement Terms Modified NALCOR ENERGY: Labrador Class Suit Over Mud Lake Damage OK'd NATIONAL BEVERAGE: Lacroix Maker Loses Out on Bid for Sanctions NEW YORK: BOD Files 44 Appeals in Gulino Suit to 2nd Circuit NIKE RETAIL: 9th Cir. Flips Summary Judgment in Rodriguez Suit NKLG CAFE: Denied Castelan Overtime, Meal/Rest Breaks, Says Suit NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Court Approves $108MM Settlement in Knurr Suit NOVA SKIN: Illegally Sent Marketing Texts, Kaufman TCPA Suit Says OPTIO SOLUTIONS: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed PASCO COUNTY: Squitieri, et al. Seek to Certify Class POLARIS INDUSTRIES: Continues to Defend Class Suits in Minnesota PROGRESSIVE SELECT: Lopez Seeks to Certify Class QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Bid to Consolidated AMCA Breach Suits Pending RECKITT BENCKISER: Police/Firemen Fund Hits Share Price Drop RESOURCE ENERGY: GSSI's Bid to Decertify Class in Moresi Suit Nixed ROYAL CANADIAN: 1,000+ Women to File Claims in $100MM Payout SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Bronson et al. Seek to Certify Class SERVICE EMPLOYEES: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Hamidi Suit STAGE STORES: SMs Class in Qazi FLSA Suit Conditionally Certified STATE COLLECTION: Summary Judgment Bid in FDCPA Suit Granted T ROWE PRICE: Continues to Defend 401(k) Plan Related Suit TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: BARJO Files Securities Fraud Class Suit TGI FRIDAYS: Man's Legal Crusade Gets Class Status on Appeal TIER ONE: Hymes Class Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA TINDER INC: Allison Appeals Decision in Kim Suit to Ninth Circuit TOTAL SYSTEM: Wolf Balks at Global Payments Merger Deal U.S. STEEL: Defrauded and Misled Investors, Suit Claims UA LOCAL 91: Faces King Suit Alleging Civil Rights Violations UMR, INC: Berceanu et al. Sue over Defective UBH Guidelines UNITED PARCEL: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in Coates Class Suit UNITED STATES: D.C. App. Affirms Class Certification in UACs Suit VERB TECHNOLOGY: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Securities Fraud Suit VERB TECHNOLOGY: Federman & Sherwood Files Securities Class Action VERB TECHNOLOGY: Gainey McKenna Files Securities Class Action VERB TECHNOLOGY: Rosen Law Files Securities Fraud Class Suit WHEATFIELD, NY: Bids to Dismiss SAC in E. Andres Suit Granted WOOD-MODE INC: Ex-Employee Launches Class Action Over Pensions YALE UNIVERSITY: Kwesell Civil Rights Suit Questions $1K HEP Fine Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: 1 Asbestos Suit Filed in St. Louis on July 12 ASBESTOS UPDATE: 288 Dead From Asbestos Cancer in Shropshire ASBESTOS UPDATE: 6,335 Bendix Claims vs. Honeywell Still Pending ASBESTOS UPDATE: Electrician Dies of Asbestos-related Cancer ASBESTOS UPDATE: Highest Level of North Yorkshire Asbestos Deaths ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Faces Suits on Bendix Claims Accounting ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Had $1.6BB Bendix Liabilities at June30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Had $2.5-Bil. Liabilities at June 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Had $902MM NARCO Liabilities at June 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Iowa Sues Contractor Over Cedar Rapids Asbestos ASBESTOS UPDATE: J&J Targets Science Behind Talc Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: J&J Told FDA in '70s Asbestos in Talc Was Safe ASBESTOS UPDATE: Recent Rulings Show Blocks to Trust Transparency ASBESTOS UPDATE: Steam Plant Owner Pleads Guilty in Asbestos Case ASBESTOS UPDATE: Talc Left "Fingerprint" in Travel Agent's Lungs ********* 3M COMPANY: Ramos Sues over Defective Combat Arms Earplugs ---------------------------------------------------------- The case, DAVID HERNANDEZ RAMOS, the Plaintiff, vs. 3M COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-02131-MCR-GRJ (N.D. Fla., July 17, 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: Rivera Sues over Defective Combat Arms Earplugs ----------------------------------------------------------- The case, ABIMAEL FELICIANO RIVERA, the Plaintiff, vs. 3M COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-02111-MCR-EMT (N.D. Fla., July 17, 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: Salina Sues over Defective Combat Arms Earplugs ----------------------------------------------------------- The case, CARLOS A. SALINA, the Plaintiff, vs. 3M COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-02132-MCR-GRJ (N.D. Fla., July 17, 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: Smith Sues over Defective Combat Arms Earplugs ---------------------------------------------------------- The case, KORDARO SMITH, the Plaintiff, vs. 3M COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-02133-MCR-GRJ (N.D. Fla., July 17, 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 5 STAR: Raiche Seeks Minimum Wages for Pizza Delivery Drivers ------------------------------------------------------------- JAYCOB RAICHE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. 5 STAR PIZZA, LLC D/B/A "Domino's Pizza" and SUSAN L. GRAVES, the Defendants, Case No. 0:19-cv-01895 (D. Minn., July 18, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages owed to the Plaintiff and similarly situated delivery drivers employed by Defendants at their Domino's Pizza stores, pursuant to the the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the Minnesota Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants operate approximately over 100 Domino's Pizza franchise stores throughout Minnesota, Wisconsin, West Virginia, Iowa, and Kentucky. The Defendants employ delivery drivers who use their own automobiles to deliver pizzas and other food items to their customers. The Defendants use a formula to determine the amount of reimbursement due to drivers for the use of drivers' personal vehicles. However, instead of reimbursing delivery drivers for the reasonable costs of the business use of their vehicles, Defendants use a flawed method to determine reimbursement rates, providing drivers with an unreasonably low rate of reimbursement, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Adam W. Hansen, Esq. APOLLO LAW LLC 3217 Hennepin Avenue South, Suite 7 Minneapolis, MN 55408 Telephone: (612) 927-2969 Facsimile: (419) 793-1804 E-mail: adam@apollo-law.com - and - Jay Forester, Esq. FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC 1701 North Market Street, Suite 210 Dallas, TX 75202 Telephone: (214) 210-2100 Facsimile: (214) 346-5909 fax E-mail: jay@foresterhaynie.com ACCEPTANCE INSURANCE: Vargas Seeks OT Pay for Sales Agents ---------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT VARGAS, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. ACCEPTANCE INSURANCE AGENCY OF TENNESSEE, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-00611 (M.D. Tenn., July 18, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff is an hourly-paid, non-exempt Insurance Sales Agent employed by Defendant. The Defendant willfully violated the FLSA's overtime requirements by failing to pay hourly-paid Insurance Sales Agents for all hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek, including hours that they reported into Defendants' timekeeping system. The Defendant provides personal automobile insurance with approximately 369 retail locations in 17 states.[BN] Counsel for the Plaintiff are: Gregory F. Coleman, Esq. Lisa A. White, Esq. Justin G. Day, Esq. GREG COLEMAN LAW PC 800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Telephone: (865) 247-0080 Facsimile: (865)-522-0049 E-mail: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com lisa@gregcolemanlaw.com justin@gregcolemanlaw.com - and - Nicholas Conlon, Esq. Jason T. Brown, Esq. BROWN, LLC 111 Town Square Pl Suite 400 Jersey City, NJ 07310 Telephone: (877) 561-0000 Facsimile: (855) 582-5297 E-mail: nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com ACER THERAPEUTICS: Kessler Topaz Files Securities Class Action Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP announces that a securities fraud class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Acer Therapeutics, Inc. (Nasdaq: ACER) on behalf of those who purchased or otherwise acquired Acer securities between September 25, 2017 and June 24, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Important Deadline: Investors who purchased Acer securities during the Class Period may, no later than August 30, 2019, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class. For additional information or to learn how to participate in this litigation please visit www.ktmc.com/acer-therapeutics-inc-securities-class-action According to the complaint, Acer is a pharmaceutical company that focuses on the acquisition, development, and commercialization of therapies for serious rare and life-threatening diseases. Acer's pipeline includes, inter alia, EDSIVO (celiprolol) for the treatment of vascular Ehlers-Danlos syndrome ("vEDS") in patients with a confirmed type III collagen mutation. vEDS is a rare disease known to cause abnormal fragility in blood vessels, causing aneurysms, arteriovenous fistulas, arterial dissections, and spontaneous vascular ruptures, all of which are potentially life-threatening. In 2004, the French research hospital, Assistance Publique-Hopitaux de Paris, Hopital Europeen Georges Pompidou ("AP-HP"), published data on vEDS patients. Based on AP-HP's research, investigators began assessing the preventive effect of celiprolol for major cardiovascular events in patients suffering from vEDS "through a multicenter, prospective, randomized, open trial with blinded evaluation of clinical events" (the "Ong Trial"). The Ong Trial was composed of fifty-three participants "randomized at eight centers in France and one center in Belgium." On December 13, 2016, Acer Therapeutics Inc. ("Private Acer") -- a private Delaware corporation and Acer's predecessor -- issued a press release announcing that it had signed an agreement with AP-HP, which granted exclusive rights to access and use data from the Ong Trial. Private Acer announced it would use this data to support its New Drug Application ("NDA") for celiprolol in the treatment of vEDS. The Class Period commences on September 25, 2017, when Acer issued a press release announcing "Positive Results From Pivotal Clinical Trial of EDSIVO" for the treatment of vEDS. According to the complaint, on June 25, 2019, Acer issued a press release disclosing that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") rejected Acer's NDA for EDSIVO. The press release cited the need for an "adequate and well-controlled trial" evaluating EDSIVO's effectiveness in reducing the risk of clinical events in patients with vEDS. That same day, Reuters published an article titled "FDA declines to approve Acer Therapeutics' rare genetic disorder treatment." In discussing the FDA's rejection of Acer's NDA, the article noted how "[t]he small group size" of the Ong Trial had "raised questions among experts about the adequacy of the trial results." Following this news, Acer's stock price fell $15.16 per share, or 78.63%, to close at $4.12 per share on June 25, 2019. The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, the defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Acer lacked sufficient data to support filing EDSIVO's NDA with the FDA for the treatment of vEDS; (ii) the Ong Trial was an inadequate and ill-controlled clinical study by FDA standards, and was comprised of an insufficiently small group size to support EDSIVO's NDA; (iii) consequently, the FDA would likely reject EDSIVO's NDA; and (iv) as a result, Acer's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. If you wish to discuss this securities fraud class action lawsuit or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests with respect to this litigation, please contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check (James Maro, Jr., Esq. or Adrienne Bell, Esq.) at (844) 887-9500 (toll free) or (610) 667–7706, or via e-mail at info@ktmc.com. Acer investors may, no later than August 30, 2019, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, or other counsel, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed as a lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. Contact: James Maro, Jr., Esq. Adrienne Bell, Esq. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Toll Free: (844) 887-9500 (610) 667-7706 Website: www.ktmc.com Email: info@ktmc.com abell@ktmc.com jmaro@ktmc.com [GN] ADVENTIST HEALTH: Morgan Seeks to Certify Class & Sub-Classes ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as ANGELA MORGAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. ADVENTIST HEALTH SYSTEM SUNBELT, INC. d/b/a FLORIDA HOSPITAL ORLANDO, MEDICAL SERVICES, INC., NORTH AMERICAN CREDITSERVICES, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 6:18-cv-01342-PGB-DCI (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying these class and sub-classes: Florida Hospital Class: "(1) all persons in the United States (2) to whose cellular telephone number (3) Florida Hospital or anyone acting on its behalf placed a non-emergency telephone call (4) using substantially the same system(s) that were used to telephone Plaintiff or a prerecorded or artificial voice (5) from August 16, 2014 through the present and (6) where any Defendant's records note said telephone number was a wrong number and/or not to call"; MSI Sub-Class: "(1) all persons in the United States (2) to whose cellular telephone number (3) MSI placed a non-emergency telephone call relating to a Florida Hospital debt (4) using substantially the same system(s) that were used to telephone Plaintiff or a prerecorded or artificial voice (5) from August 16, 2014 through the present and (6) where any Defendant's records note said telephone number was a wrong number and/or not to call"; and NACS Sub-Class "(1) All persons in the United States (2) to whose cellular telephone number (3) NACS placed a non-emergency telephone call relating to a Florida Hospital debt (4) using substantially the same system(s) that were used to telephone Plaintiff or a prerecorded or artificial voice (5) from August 16, 2014 through the present and (6) where any Defendant's records note said telephone number was a wrong number and/or not to call." The lawsuit alleges that Florida Hospital knew its debt collectors are calling wrong numbers, but not having a single policy or practice to prevent these calls because it is faster and cheaper to feed all of the numbers into a robodialer and hit "go" than it is to pay employees to first place manual calls confirming each number is that of an actual debtor. The suit alleges violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.[CC] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs and the Putative Class are: Theodore H. Kuyper, Esq. Keith J. Keogh, Esq. KEOGH LAW, LTD. 55 W. Monroe Street, Suite 3390 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 726-1092 Facsimile: (312) 726-1093 E-mail: keith@keoghlaw.com tkuyper@keoghlaw.com - and - Heather H. Jones, Esq. William "Billy" Peerce Howard, Esq. The Consumer Protection Firm, PLLC 4030 Henderson Blvd. Tampa, FL 33629 Telephone: (813) 500-1500 Facsimile: (813) 435-2369 E-mail: Heather@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com Billy@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com ALLERGAN AUSTRALIA: Class Action Looms Over Implants ---------------------------------------------------- Rebecca Gredley, writing for Yahoo News, reports that the possibility of a class action lawsuit looms against the manufacturer of textured breast implants over their apparent links to a rare form of cancer. Law firm Slater and Gordon has been approached by dozens of women with the implants who have been diagnosed with the rare cancer. Slater and Gordon's Andrew Baker, Esq., said a decision would be made on whether to proceed with a class action lawsuit in coming months based on the similarity of the women's cases. They may instead be advised to pursue individual legal cases. The class action would be against the manufacturers of the implants, Allergan Australia. The Therapeutic Goods Administration is weighing up whether to cancel, suspend or recall the implants after a review of the apparent association between anaplastic large cell lymphoma and some implants. Federal Health Minister Greg Hunt said the government supported the TGA's proposed action. Some textured implants have been banned in France and Canada since April. But Australia's peak body for cosmetic surgeons said there was "no cause for alarm", urging people with textured breast implants to consider all evidence before taking action. The Australasian College of Cosmetic Surgery said the risks of developing a cancer that spreads was extremely small. "If patients do not have any symptoms, there is no need for any action because of this TGA announcement," the body said. As of April, the TGA had received 76 reports of anaplastic large cell lymphoma associated with breast implants in Australian women. The estimated risk of breast implant-associated lymphoma is between one in 1000 and one in 10,000. But Mr Baker said the statistics were "cold comfort" for women who have been affected by the condition. "If there is a risk that's known about a product like this, it needs to be disclosed to patients so they can make an informed choice about the products that are put into their bodies," Mr Baker told AAP. He said the women who approached the law firm were not told about the possible risks of the product, so were not able to choose alternative implants. Allergan Australia said it was reviewing the TGA action in relation to its Natrelle Biocell textured breast implants and tissue expanders, but that it stands behind its products. The company said there was no recommendation from any health authority, including the TGA, for patients with no symptoms to have their textured breast implants removed or replaced as a preventive measure. [GN] ALLIANT CREDIT: Dismissal of FAC in Overdraft Fees Suit Recommended ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ALICIA M. PAGE, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ALLIANT CREDIT UNION, and DOES 1-100, Defendants, Civ. No. 2:18-cv-11481 (SDW)(CLW)(D. N.J.), Magistrate Judge Cathy L. Waldor of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey recommended that the Court grants the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint. The case is a putative class action first filed by Page on July 10, 2018, challenging the practice of Defendant Alliant Credit Union ("ACU") and DOES 1 through 100 ("Defendant") to charge overdraft fees when member accounts have sufficient funds to cover transactions. Page brought claims for breach of contract (Counts I and II), breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing (Count III), unjust enrichment (Count IV), money had and received (Count V), violation of Regulation E of the Electronic Fund Transfers Act ("EFTA") (Count VI), and violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (Count VII). On Nov. 6, 2018, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for lack of Article III jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and on separate grounds under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). On Nov. 19, 2019, Page amended her original complaint, adding two new named Plaintiffs as class representatives, Carmel Cooper and Cindy Muniz. Page is a resident of New Jersey who alleges that she suffered improper non-sufficient funds imposed on her by the Defendant. Cooper is a resident of California and alleges that she suffered improper overdraft fees imposed on her by the Defendant. Muniz is a resident of Arizona and alleges that she suffered improper overdraft fees imposed on her by the Defendant. The Defendant is an Illinois state-charted credit union with branch offices located across the country, including in New Jersey. The case is similar to dozens of putative class actions filed in both federal and state courts across the country challenging the banking practice of using a customer's "available" balance rather than the customer's actual or "ledger" balance to prompt an overdraft or non-sufficient funds fee. The "ledger" balance or "actual" balance refers to the full amount of all deposits in an account. Whereas, the "available" balance of an account is calculated by deducting pending debits and deposit holds. Consequently, the "available" balance can be lower than the "ledger" balance in an account. These class actions challenge the banks' practice of charging fees based on the "available" balance even when there is enough money in the account under the "ledger" balance to cover the transaction presented for payment. The Plaintiffs argue that this practice, which they allege the Defendant participates in, is inconsistent with how Defendant describes the circumstances under which overdraft fees are assessed in the Account Contract and Opt-In Contract, the latter of which describes Defendant's overdraft policies as required by Regulation E of EFTA. Plaintiff Page, in her Original Complaint, alleged that the Court had subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1331 based on the one claim of a violation of Regulation E, a federal law. fter Page amended her complaint to include Cooper and Muniz, the Plaintiffs alleged subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sections 1331 and 1332. On Dec. 20, 2018, the Defendant moved again to dismiss for lack of Article III jurisdiction pursuant to 12(b)(1) and lack of personal jurisdiction under 12(b)(2). The Defendant contends that the Court did not have subject matter jurisdiction at the time the Plaintiff Page's original complaint was filed, and therefore, has no subject matter jurisdiction now even with a new complaint. The Defendant also challenges the Court's alleged personal jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(2) over the Defendant, whose principal place of business and place of incorporation is Illinois. Because the Plaintiffs have produced no evidence that these are the fees for which Page incurred nor do they dispute the Defendant's evidence that none of Page's fees resulted from ATM and one-time debit transactions, Magistrate Judge Waldor finds that the Plaintiffs failed to articulate sufficient facts to show that the injury that Page incurred was a result of the Defendant's alleged Opt-In Rule violation, and thus lacked standing to bring Count VI, her only federal claim, in her Original Complaint. Because the Plaintiffs need only plead the requisite amount in controversy on the face of the complaint to satisfy diversity jurisdiction and because she sees no reasons such as undue delay or bad faith to deny an amendment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2), the Magistrate finds that Section 1653 permits the Plaintiff to file a second amended complaint. Therefore, she recommends granting the Motion for lack of subject matter jurisdiction but keeping the case open for thirty days to allow the Plaintiffs to file a second amended complaint, which, in good faith, will sufficiently plead the Court's jurisdiction. Failure to do so will result in dismissal. Most relevant to the question at hand are the cases the Plaintiffs cite that ask whether in a class action a court that has specific personal jurisdiction over the defendant as to a particular claim by one plaintiff can exercise personal jurisdiction as to similar claims brought by different plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs cited Sloan v. General Motors LLC, and Allen v. ConAgra Foods, Inc. In both cases, judges in the Northern District of California decided to extend the "pendent-party jurisdiction" doctrine of Action Embroidery to class actions in the wake of Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Superior Court of California, in which the Supreme Court concluded that a California state court lacked personal jurisdiction over the defendant when it came to claims by nonresidents in a mass action tort suit. However, the Third Circuit has not recognized a pendent party doctrine beyond the limited circumstances of the nationwide service of process and pendent claim personal jurisdiction context of Robinson, and the Magistrate declines to do so at this time given the existence of an alternative forum to which the Plaintiffs have agreed to transfer and that would resolve the personal jurisdiction question. Finally, the Magistrate finds that a transfer of the case to the Northern District of Illinois pursuant to Section 1404(a) and Section 1631 will promote the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of these proceedings. First, in personam jurisdiction is proper in Illinois because that is where the Defendant is incorporated and has its principal place of business and thus could have been brought there at the time it was filed. Second, the Plaintiffs are willing to proceed in Illinois instead of New Jersey. Third, the circumstances weigh heavily in favor of transfer to the Northern District of Illinois. Because the Defendant is not subject to personal jurisdiction in New Jersey with respect to Cooper and Muniz's claims, if the action were to proceed in the District, Cooper and Muniz's claims would need to be dismissed and refiled in another state. This would require the same issues to be litigated against the same defendant in more than one place. Finally, an alternative proper venue exists, the Northern District of Illinois, where all of the claims of Plaintiffs can be litigated against Defendant and one where Defendant would be subject to jurisdiction. Therefore, the Magistrate finds that the interests of justice and judicial economy compel recommending that the transfer of the entire action to the Northern District of Illinois, where personal jurisdiction may exist over Defendant. For the foregoing reasons, Magistrate Judge Waldor recommended that (1) the Motion to Dismiss be granted, (2) the case be kept open for 30 days following the adoption of the Report and Recommendation to allow the Plaintiffs to file a second amended complaint to address the CAFA jurisdictional defects with the failure to do so resulting in a dismissal of the case, and (3) the case be transferred to the Northern District of Illinois. Pursuant to Local Rule 72.1(c)(2), the parties have 14 days from the date this report is filed with the Clerk of the Court to file and serve objections to the Report and Recommendation. A full-text copy of the Court's June 14, 2019 Report & Recommendation is available at https://is.gd/8828Qe from Leagle.com. ALICIA M. PAGE, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, CARMEL COOPER & CINDY MUNIZ, Individually, and on behalf all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by KEVIN PETER RODDY -- kroddy@wilentz.com -- WILENTZ, GOLDMAN & SPITZER, PA. ALLIANT CREDIT UNION, Defendant, represented by JONATHAN ROTENBERG , KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP. AMAZON.COM INC: Can Compel Arbitration in Nicosia Suit ------------------------------------------------------ In the case, DEAN NICOSIA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. AMAZON.COM, INC., Defendant, Case No. 14-CV-4513 (ILG) (LB) (E.D. N.Y.), Judge I. Leo Glasser of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted Amazon's (i) motion to compel arbitration, and (ii) motion to dismiss Plaintiff's claims. On Jan. 30, 2013 and April 19, 2013, Nicosia went on Amazon.com and placed orders of 1 Day Diet, a product marketed as a weight-loss supplement, which contained the harmful compound sibutramine. The account from which these purchases were made was held in his wife's name and was previously enrolled in a program called "Amazon Mom." To enroll in Amazon Mom, a user must accept the "Amazon Prime Terms and Conditions," which incorporate an arbitration provision. The Plaintiff subsequently brought a putative class action against Amazon, asserting that Amazon's sales of 1 Day Diet violated the Consumer Product Safety Act, and state law, on July 28, 2014. On Dec. 24, 2014, Amazon moved to dismiss on the grounds that, inter alia, tge Plaintiff agreed to the Amazon's Conditions of Use with each purchase at issue in the case. On Feb. 2, 2015, the Hon. Sandra L. Townes granted Amazon's motion to dismiss, finding that all of the Plaintiff's claims are subject to mandatory arbitration. Judge Townes' decision was based primarily on the theory that the Plaintiff consented to the Conditions of Use, including the arbitration provision, when he made his purchases through the Amazon.com checkout page. Amazon did not raise in its motion to dismiss, and Judge Townes therefore did not consider, whether the arbitration clause applied by virtue of the Account's previous enrollments in Amazon Mom and/or Amazon Prime. On appeal, the Second Circuit disagreed with Amazon and the District Court that the format of the checkout page was sufficient, as a matter of law, to bind the Plaintiff to the Conditions of Use. At the same time, the Court of Appeals rejected the Plaintiff's invitation to declare as a matter of law that no arbitration agreement was formed. Instead, the Second Circuit found that "reasonable minds could disagree" as to whether the checkout page "provided reasonably conspicuous notice" of the Conditions of Use, so as to bind Plaintiff to the arbitration provisions set forth therein. The Court of Appeals' reasoning makes it clear that the Court regarded "the reasonableness of notice" on the checkout page to be a question of fact that must be resolved by a jury. After discovery, Amazon brought the motion to compel arbitration and dismiss or, in the alternative, stay these proceedings. The matter was referred to the Hon. Lois Bloom pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b)(1) and Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, who issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that Amazon's motion be granted. In support of its motion, Amazon argued that the Plaintiff was bound by the Prime T&C because Annemarie's Account, from which the purchases were made, had enrolled in Amazon Mom and Amazon Prime. Amazon styled this argument as its "derivative rights" theory. The R&R did not make a definitive recommendation with respect to Amazon's "derivative rights" theory. Instead, the R&R recommended that the motion be granted on the grounds that the Plaintiff agreed to the COU directly through the checkout page. Specifically, the R&R accepted Amazon's argument that the Plaintiff agreed to the COU by making purchases after the lawsuit was commenced, and hence after he acquired actual notice of the fact that the COU incorporated an arbitration provision. Alternatively, the R&R accepted Amazon's argument that the Plaintiff was on constructive notice of the COU by virtue of his status as a repeated user of Amazon who frequently encountered the checkout page when shopping online. The Plaintiff timely objected to the R&R, although he did not specifically object to the R&R's treatment of Amazon's "derivative rights theory." Amazon reasserted its "derivative rights" argument in its statement in support of the R&R and reply memorandum to Plaintiff's objections. Judge Glasser holds that the conclusion that arbitration should prevail was arrived at within the legal framework set forth by the Court of Appeals, namely, whether a reasonably prudent internet user would have notice of Amazon's Conditions of Use. The conclusion is reached after substantial research and discussion of the cases and relevant literature summoned in the struggle created by the advent of the internet—the struggle to make the common law of contracts applicable when people interacted with people in the commercial world, fit comfortably in a time when people interact with machines in that world and with each other. However, the rule that the "existence" of additional contract terms must be made "reasonably conspicuous" is, the Court submits, largely a superfluity. The cases specify that such terms must be reasonably conspicuous from the point of view of a "reasonably prudent" user. But the question now is whether there is any question that reasonably prudent internet users know that there are terms and conditions attached when they log onto Facebook, order merchandise on Amazon, or hail a ride on Uber. They know this, not because a loud, brightly-colored notice on the screen tells them so, but because it would be difficult to exist in the technological society without some generalized awareness of the fact. It could be argued that the purpose of providing "reasonably conspicuous" notice of the hyperlinked terms is not merely to notify the user that these terms exist, but to encourage him or her to read them. But most consumers will not read the terms and conditions, no matter how prominently the notice is displayed, and those that do will usually not understand them. Among those that both read and understand the terms of use, most will proceed with the transaction anyway, because the terms are presented on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. The "reasonably conspicuous" notice rule is therefore one which is unlikely to have much effect, if any, on overall consumer welfare. The puzzle, then, is this. On the one hand, the law cannot countenance an environment where unscrupulous merchants are able to insert any contractual term they wish into the hybridwrap agreement and expect automatic enforcement. On the other hand, a legal rule which merely exalts the form and visual layout of the hybridwrap agreement, incentivizing merchants to adopt some judicially-favored website designs while foregoing others, is unlikely to have more than a negligible impact on the way buyers and sellers contract over the internet. The Judge suggests that Llewellyn had the answer: rather than scrutinizing hybridwrap agreements for contract formation issues, courts should recognize that such agreements, like other adhesive contracts, represent in substance a "blanket assent" to any terms that are not objectively unreasonable. Accepting this framework, such terms should be rigorously scrutinized for substantive unreasonableness, perhaps to a greater degree than they have been subjected thus far. True, where an arbitration agreement is concerned, a court's latitude to declare certain provisions unconscionable, such as class arbitration waivers, is heavily circumscribed by the FAA, as interpreted by the nation's highest Court. But as a general principle, a judicial approach which shifts the inquiry away from the formal trappings of the contract, e.g., notice and acceptance, to the substance of its terms, will much more readily honor the merchant's legitimate commercial expectations while safeguarding the consumer from abuse. Experience, not logic, has taught that a purchase on the internet is determined by rules different from a purchase of milk at the corner grocery, a thought expressed more simply and vividly by Judge Cardozo in MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co. For the reasons set forth in the previous sections and the R&R as adopted, Judge Glasser granted Amazon's (i) motion to compel arbitration, and (ii) motion to dismiss Plaintiff's claims. A full-text copy of the Court's June 14, 2019 Memorandum and Order is available at https://is.gd/bi5rqp from Leagle.com. Dean Nicosia, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Gregory S. Duncan -- greg@lawyerduncan.com -- Office of Gregory S. Duncan, pro hac vice, Joseph S. Tusa , Tusa, P.C., Peter D. St. Phillip, Jr. -- pstphillip@lowey.com -- Lowey Dannenberg, P.C., Scott Vincent Papp -- spapp@lowey.com -- Lowey Dannenbery P.C., Paula M. Roach -- pbrown@bholaw.com -- Blood Hurst & O'Reardon LLP, pro hac vice & Timothy G. Blood -- tblood@bholaw.com -- Blood Hurst & O'Reardon LLP, pro hac vice. Amazon.com, Inc., Defendant, represented by David Abraham Snider, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Ezra D. Church -- ezra.church@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Gregory T. Parks -- gregory.parks@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, pro hac vice, Jacqueline Gorbey -- jacqueline.gorbey@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, pro hac vice, Kevin T. Rover, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP & Regina Schaffer-Goldman -- regina.schaffer-goldman@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP. AMERISOURCEBERGEN: Unlawful Payment Alleged in Amended Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Kyla Asbury, writing for West Virginia Record, reports that an amended complaint was filed in a class-action complaint against AmerisourceBergen for alleged unlawful payments to a Morgantown doctor. The amended complaint also lists U.S. BioServices Corp., I.g.G. of America Inc., and IHS Acquisition XXX Inc. Frances G. Post claims the defendants began making payments to Dr. Felix Brizuela in 2012 that were unlawful, wrongful, violated written policies, violated ethical standards, and placed the health, safety and well-being of Post and other putative class members at risk. The payments continued until 2015, according to the suit, with Brizuela performing no services for the defendants to earn the payments other than increasing the number of new book immunoglobin (IVIG) transactions for the defendants. The defendants "greatly incentivized the aggressive sales of IVIG" because they were aware that once someone was prescribed IVIG, they usually would stay on the infusions the remainder of their life; IVIG was very expensive; and because the defendants "devised an internal practice which enabled defendants to secretly under-report and under-pay bonus commissions on IVIG sales for the purpose of bolstering corporate profits" according to the suit. IVIG prices quickly rose and the complaint states executives would receive bonus commissions in excess of $900,000. "Defendants knew (Brizuela) was making CIDP diagnoses to trigger the sale of IVIG at an incident rate exponentially higher than any rate published in peer review studies, higher than any other prescribers, and that (Brizuela)'s documentation in the possession of defendants did not support new book IVIG transactions," the complaint states. Post claims the defendants were negligent, caused personal injuries and constituted civil conspiracy, fraudulent concealment, unjust enrichment and breach of confidentiality. Post is seeking compensatory and punitive damages in excess of $5 million. She is represented by William Tiano, ESq., Tony O'Dell, Esq. and Cheryl Fisher, Esq. of Tiano O'Dell. The amended complaint added the breach of confidentiality counts. The original complaint, which was filed in April, only listed negligence, personal injury, civil conspiracy, fraudulent concealment and unjust enrichment. U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia case number 1:19-cv-00073 [GN] ANHEUSER-BUSCH: Aug. 20 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline --------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds purchasers of the securities of Anheuser-Busch InBev SA/NV (NYSE: BUD) from March 1, 2018 through October 24, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period") of the important August 20, 2019 deadline in the securities class action. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Anheuser-Busch investors under the federal securities laws. To join the Anheuser-Busch class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1607.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) defendants' cost cutting measures had largely run their course; (2) the devaluation of key emerging market currencies and input cost inflation was having a material adverse effect on Anheuser-Busch's margins, EBITDA and profitability; (3) Anheuser-Busch had been experiencing less than expected growth and profits in certain key markets; (4) Anheuser-Busch was not going to be able to maintain its then current dividend and still meet its deleveraging targets; (5) Anheuser-Busch was at risk of having its credit ratings downgraded; (6) as a result, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the Company's dividend growth, its cost synergies, its liquidity, and defendants' then current efforts to deleverage Anheuser-Busch's balance sheet; (7) the liquidity and working capital disclosures in filings Anheuser-Busch made with the SEC were materially false and misleading; (8) the risk factor disclosures in filings Anheuser-Busch made with the SEC were materially false and misleading; (9) the representations about Anheuser-Busch's disclosure controls in filings the Company made with the SEC were materially false and misleading; (10) the certifications issued by Defendants Carlos Brito and Felipe Dutra regarding Anheuser-Busch's disclosure controls and internal controls over financial reporting were materially false and misleading; and (11) based on the foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about Anheuser-Busch's then-current business operations and future financial prospects. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than August 20, 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-1607.htmlor to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com. Contact: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor New York, NY 10016 Phone: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 Website: www.rosenlegal.com Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com cases@rosenlegal.com [GN] ANTHEM INC: Express Scripts/Anthem ERISA Litigation Still Ongoing ----------------------------------------------------------------- Anthem, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 24, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company continues to defend itself against a consolidated class action suit entitled, In Re Express Scripts/Anthem ERISA Litigation. The company is a defendant in a class action lawsuit that was initially filed in June 2016 against Anthem, Inc. and Express Scripts, which has been consolidated into a single multi-district lawsuit captioned In Re Express Scripts/Anthem ERISA Litigation, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The consolidated complaint was filed by plaintiffs against Express Scripts and the company on behalf of all persons who are participants in or beneficiaries of any ERISA or non-ERISA healthcare plan from December 1, 2009 to the present in which we provided prescription drug benefits through the ESI PBM Agreement and paid a percentage based co-insurance payment in the course of using that prescription drug benefit. The plaintiffs allege that the company breached its duties, either under ERISA or with respect to the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing implied in the health plans, (i) by failing to adequately monitor Express Scripts' pricing under the ESI PBM Agreement and (ii) by placing our own pecuniary interest above the best interests of the company's insureds by allegedly agreeing to higher pricing in the ESI PBM Agreement in exchange for the purchase price for our NextRx PBM business, and (iii) with respect to the non-ERISA members, by negotiating and entering into the ESI PBM Agreement that was allegedly detrimental to the interests of such non-ERISA members. Plaintiffs seek to hold us and Express Scripts jointly and severally liable and to recover all losses suffered by the proposed class, equitable relief, disgorgement of alleged ill-gotten gains, injunctive relief, attorney's fees and costs and interest. In April 2017, the company filed a motion to dismiss the claims brought against it, and it was granted, without prejudice, in January 2018. Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which was heard in October 2018. Anthem said, "We intend to vigorously defend this suit; however, its ultimate outcome cannot be presently determined." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Anthem, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as a health benefits company in the United States. It operates through three segments: Commercial & Specialty Business, Government Business, and Other. The company was formerly known as WellPoint, Inc. and changed its name to Anthem, Inc. in December 2014. Anthem, Inc. was founded in 1944 and is headquartered in Indianapolis, Indiana. APPLIED CARDIAC: Cardiology Clinic Sues Over Unsolicited Faxed Ads ------------------------------------------------------------------ Cardiology Associates Medical Group, Inc., individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons, Plaintiff, v. Applied Cardiac Systems, Inc., a California corporation and ACS Diagnostics, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-01372 (C.D. Cal., July 15, 2019), seeks injunctive relief and statutory damages for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, as amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005. Defendants are medical equipment companies who sent unsolicited faxed ads to the Plaintiff offering their products and services without consent.[BN] Plaintiff is represented by: John R. Habashy, Esq. LEXICON LAW, PC 633 W. Fifth St., 28th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: 213-233-5900 Fax: 888-373-2107 Email: john@lexiconlaw.com - and - Ryan M. Kelly, Esq. ANDERSON + WANCA 3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500 Rolling Meadows, IL 60008 Telephone: (847) 368-1500 Fax: (847) 368-1501 Email: rkelly@andersonwanca.com BEAZER HOMES: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Fraud Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds purchasers of the securities of Beazer Homes USA, Inc. (NYSE: BZH) from August 1, 2014 through May 2, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period") of the important August 5, 2019 lead plaintiff deadline in the securities class action lawsuit. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Beazer investors under the federal securities laws. To join the Beazer class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1592.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) Beazer's California assets classified as land held for future development were deteriorating in value or improperly valuated; (2) the foregoing created a foreseeable risk of an eventual substantial impairment that would negatively impact Beazer's profitability; and (3) as a result, Beazer's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than August 5, 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-1592.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 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. Contact: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 Website: www.rosenlegal.com E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com cases@rosenlegal.com [GN] BERKS COUNTY, PA: Appeals Ruling in Victory Suit to 3rd Circuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants Kevin S. Barnhardt, County of Berks, Christian Y. Leinbach, Janine Quigley, Mark C. Scott and Stephanie Smith filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Theresa Victory, et al. v. County of Berks, et al., Case No. 5-18-cv-05170, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The appellate case is styled Theresa Victory, et al. v. County of Berks, et al., Case No. 19-2648, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 24, 2019, the County of Berks filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the lawsuit. That appellate case is captioned as Theresa Victory, et al. v. County of Berks, Case No. 19-2193. The Hon. Mark A. Kearney previously denied without prejudice the Plaintiffs' renewed motion for class certification in the lawsuit. The Renewed Motion is denied without prejudice to be renewed under a scheduling Order after the issues necessary to be resolved on either an individual or class basis is defined, but nothing in the Order affects the Plaintiffs' abilities or standing to seek injunctive or declaratory relief as to their status, according to the Order. The Plaintiffs sought certification of this class: All current and future female inmates committed to the Berks County Jail System who have the Trusty custody-level classification and/or Work Release status but have been denied assignment to the Community Reentry Center ("CRC") and denied access to the privileges, services, and programs available to men assigned to the CRC.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees THERESA VICTORY, ALICE VELAZQUEZ DIAZ and ANABELL DEALBA, AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, are represented by: James P. Davy, Esq. 2362 East Harold Street Philadelphia, PA 19125 Telephone: (609) 273-5008 - and - Matthew A. Feldman, Esq. Angus R. Love, Esq. Su Ming Yeh, Esq. PENNSYLVANIA INSTITUTIONAL LAW PROJECT 718 Arch Street Suite 304 South Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 925-2966 E-mail: mfeldman@pailp.org alove@pailp.org smyeh@pailp.org Defendants-Appellants COUNTY OF BERKS, KEVIN S. BARNHARDT, CHRISTIAN Y. LEINBACH, MARK C. SCOTT, WARDEN JANINE QUIGLEY, DEPUTY WARDEN STEPHANIE SMITH, SERGEANT SPOTTS, C.O. REICHART, C.O. ZERR and C.O. BROWN are represented by: Matthew J. Connell, Esq. Samantha Ryan, Esq. MACMAIN LAW GROUP 433 West Market Street, Suite 200 West Chester, PA 19382 Telephone: (484) 318-7106 E-mail: mconnell@macmainlaw.com SRyan@macmainlaw.com BIG LOTS: Faces Farr Suit in Central District of California ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Big Lots Stores, Inc. The case is captioned as James Farr, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. Big Lots Stores, Inc., an Ohio corporation and Does 1-10, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-05980-VAP-PLA (C.D. Cal., July 11, 2019). The suit alleges violation of Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Virginia A. Phillips. Big Lots is an American retail company headquartered in Columbus, Ohio with over 1,400 stores in 47 states.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Thiago Merlini Coelho, Esq. Babak Bobby Saadian, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM 3055 Wilshire Boulevard 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 381-9988 Facsimile: (213) 381-9989 E-mail: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com bobby@wilshirelawfirm.com BIOSCRIP INC: Faces Brennan Class Action Suit --------------------------------------------- BioScrip, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed on July 24, 2019, that the company is facing a putative class action suit entitled, Lila Brennan v. BioScrip, Inc. et al. On June 27, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit, captioned Lila Brennan v. BioScrip, Inc. et al., was filed in connection with the merger (HC Group Holdings II, Inc., a Delaware corporation ("Option Care") with and into a wholly-owned subsidiary of BioScrip, with Option Care surviving the merger as a wholly-owned subsidiary of BioScrip) in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. The complaint names BioScrip and the members of the BioScrip Board as defendants. The complaint alleges generally that the defendants caused BioScrip to file a definitive proxy statement relating to the merger that omits material information required to have been disclosed in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The complaint seeks, among other things, a preliminary injunction prohibiting defendants from proceeding with, consummating, or closing the transaction, damages, and costs incurred in bringing the action (including plaintiff's attorneys' and experts' fees). BioScrip, Inc., incorporated on March 22, 1996, is engaged in providing infusion solutions. The Company partners with physicians, hospital systems, skilled nursing facilities, healthcare payors and pharmaceutical manufacturers to provide patients access to post-acute care services. The Company operates through Infusion Services segment. The Company operates through approximately 70 service locations in over 30 states. The Company offers home infusion services to provide clinical management services and the delivery of prescription medications. The company is based in Denver, Colorado. BOEING CO: Pierce Bainbridge Files Consumer Suit Over 737 Max 8 --------------------------------------------------------------- Pierce Bainbridge Beck Price & Hecht LLP has filed a civil RICO and consumer fraud class action lawsuit against Southwest Airlines, Co. and The Boeing Company ("Boeing") on behalf of individuals who purchased tickets for air travel in the wake of the tragic Boeing 737 Max 8 crashes. The lawsuit alleges that Boeing and Southwest worked together to conceal that the MAX 8 was defective and that this defect was likely to (and did) result in computer-induced crashes. Southwest sold tickets on its airline knowing about this defect, and both companies remained silent about problems with the aircraft while publicly touting its safety. "People purchase tickets on airlines that fly safe planes," said Yavar Bathaee, the lead trial lawyer in the lawsuit. "A ticket to fly with an airline that lies to you is not a full fare ticket—in fact, it's probably worth zero." As the complaint launching the lawsuit further alleges, the MAX 8 was defective from its inception. Its flight control system was designed without obviously necessary redundancies, and Boeing's flawed design relied on onerous, incompletely documented procedures that required pilots to rapidly disable entire systems on the aircraft to override a rogue flight computer. The lawsuit alleges that the purpose of Boeing and Southwest's coverup of the problems was to preserve their decades-long collusive relationship, which, since a handshake deal between the CEOs in the late 90s, has meant that Southwest receives the lowest prices on new aircraft in exchange for flying only Boeing 737s and backstopping Boeing's business. "The evidence here is really quite troubling. Southwest and Boeing worked together to deceive customers, regulators, and their own employees," said Brian Dunne, another attorney on the case. "It's clear that both companies knew about the defects -- doubly so after the first crash. There was simply no excuse to keep those planes in the air." If you purchased a ticket for air travel between August 29, 2017 and March 13, 2019 and you wish to discuss your rights with our attorneys please: Visit: Website: http://www.max8classaction.com[GN] BOEING COMPANY: 737 MAX Pilots Sue Over Undisclosed Plane Defect ---------------------------------------------------------------- Pilot "A," individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. The Boeing Company, Defendant, Case No. 2019CH08278, (Ill. Cir., July 15, 2019) seeks compensatory and punitive damages, interest, litigation costs and attorneys' fees and such other and further relief resulting from negligence. Pilots seek compensation on behalf of approximately two hundred pilots qualified to fly Boeing's 737 MAX series of aircraft whose personal and professional life were disrupted when Boeing and the Federal Aviation Administration grounded the 737 MAX after the crashes of two of its 737 MAX aircrafts. Its "Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System" allegedly was allegedly defective but failed to sufficiently inform the pilots. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick M. Jones, Esq. Sarah M. Beaujour, Esq. PMJPLLC 100 South State Street Chicago, IL 60603 Tel: (312) 255-7976 Email: pmj@patjonespllc.com smb@patjonespllc.com - and - Joseph C. Wheeler, Esq. IALPG PTY LTD ID, 7/139 Junction Road Clayfield, Queensland, Australia 4011 Tel: +61 7 3040 1099 Email: jwheeler@ialpg.com BUCKEYE PARTNERS: Faces Multiple Hercules-Merger Related Suits -------------------------------------------------------------- Buckeye Partners, L.P. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed on July 22, 2019, that the company has been named as a defendant in multiple class action suits related to its merger with Hercules Intermediate Holdings LLC. On May 10, 2019, Buckeye Partners, L.P. (the "Partnership" or "Buckeye"), entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "merger agreement") with Hercules Intermediate Holdings LLC, a Delaware limited liability company ("Parent"), Hercules Merger Sub LLC, a Delaware limited liability company and a wholly owned subsidiary of Parent ("Merger Sub"), Buckeye Pipe Line Services Company, a Pennsylvania corporation ("ServiceCo"), and Buckeye GP LLC, a Delaware limited liability company and the general partner of the Partnership (the "General Partner"). Subject to the terms and conditions of the merger agreement, Merger Sub will be merged with and into the Partnership (the "merger"), with the Partnership surviving the merger as a subsidiary of Parent. Since the May 10, 2019 announcement of the merger agreement, six putative class action complaints and two individual complaints have been filed against Buckeye and the members of the board of directors of the General Partner (the "Board"). The eight complaints are captioned as follows: Harry Curtis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Buckeye Partners, L.P., et al., Case No. 4:19-cv-2147 (filed on June 13, 2019 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, the "Curtis Action"), Michael Kent, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Buckeye Partners, L.P., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-01128 (filed on June 18, 2019 in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, the "Kent Action"), John Greer v. Buckeye Partners, L.P., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-05741 (filed on June 19, 2019 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, the "Greer Action"), Anthony Luers v. Buckeye Partners, L.P., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-05767 (filed on June 20, 2019 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, the "Luers Action"), Michael Weston, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Buckeye Partners, L.P., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-01208 (filed on June 26, 2019 in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, the "Weston Action"), Heather McManus, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Buckeye Partners, L.P., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-06000 (filed on June 26, 2019 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, the "McManus Action"), John Ingalls, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Buckeye Partners, L.P., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-06098 (filed on June 28, 2019 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, the "Ingalls Action") and Michael Riss, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. Buckeye Partners, L.P., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-01241 (filed on June 28, 2019 in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, the "Riss Action", collectively with the Curtis Action, the Kent Action, the Greer Action, the Luers Action, the Weston Action, the MaManus Action and the Ingalls Action, the :Federal Merger Litigation"). The Curtis Action alleges, among other things, that in pursuing the merger, the Board breached its express and implied contractual duties pursuant to the Amended and Restated Agreement of Limited Partnership of the Partnership dated as of November 19, 2010, as amended, and its fiduciary duties to the unitholders of the Partnership in agreeing to enter into the merger agreement by means of an allegedly unfair process and for an allegedly unfair price. Each of the Federal Merger Litigation further alleges that (i) the Partnership's definitive proxy statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 25, 2019 (the "proxy statement"), omits material information with respect to the merger, rendering it false and misleading and, as a result, that the Partnership and the members of the Board violated Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, and (ii) the members of the Board, as alleged control persons of the Partnership, violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act in connection with the filing of the allegedly materially deficient proxy statement. The Federal Merger Litigation seeks various remedies, including, among other things, injunctive relief to prevent the consummation of the merger unless certain allegedly material information is disclosed, an order directing that the Board disseminates a proxy statement that does not contain any untrue statements of material fact and that states all material facts required or necessary to make the statements contained therein not misleading, an order rescinding the consummation of the merger or an award of rescissory damages (in the event the merger is consummated), a declaration that the defendants violated Sections 14(a) and/or 20(a) of the Exchange Act, as well as Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, an order directing defendants to account for all damages sustained, and an award of damages and an award of attorneys' and experts' fees and expenses. The Partnership believes that the claims asserted in the Federal Merger Litigation are without merit and no supplemental disclosure is required under applicable law. However, in order to avoid the risk of the Federal Merger Litigation delaying or adversely affecting the merger and to minimize the costs, risks and uncertainties inherent in litigation, and without admitting any liability or wrongdoing, the Partnership has determined to voluntarily supplement the proxy statement. A copy of the supplemental disclosure is available at https://urlzs.com/iVkSg. Buckeye Partners, L.P. (Buckeye), incorporated on July 11, 1986, owns and operates a network of integrated assets providing midstream logistic solutions, primarily consisting of the transportation, storage, processing and marketing of liquid petroleum products. The Company's segments include Domestic Pipelines & Terminals, Global Marine Terminals and Merchant Services. Buckeye GP LLC (Buckeye GP) is the Company's general partner. The Company is an independent terminaling and storage operator in the United States in terms of capacity available for service. The company is based in Houston, Texas. BUCKEYE PARTNERS: Ingalls Suit Moved to Southern Dist. of Texas --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled as JOHN INGALLS, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. BUCKEYE PARTNERS, L.P., CLARK C. SMITH, PIETER BAKKER, BARBARA M. BAUMANN, BARBARA J. DUGANIER, JOSEPH A. LASALA, JR., MARK C. MCKINLEY, LARRY C. PAYNE, OLIVER G. RICHARD, III, FRANK S. SOWINSKI, and MARTIN A. WHITE, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-06098, was transferred form the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas (Houston) on July 19, 2019. The Southern District of Texas Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:19-cv-02645. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Nancy F. Atlas. The case is a unitholder class action alleging Defendants' violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The case also seeks to enjoin the vote on the proposed transaction, pursuant to which Buckeye will be acquired by IFM Investors Pty Ltd.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Richard Adam Acocelli, Jr., Esq. WEISSLAW LLP 1500 Broadway, Suite 1601 New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 682-3025 Facsimile: (212) 682-3010 Attorneys for the Defendants: Gary A. Bornstein, Esq. CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP 825 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10019 Telephone: 474-1000 Facsimile: (212) 474-3700 - and - Rory Ann Leraris, Esq. CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP 825 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 474-1257 Facsimile: (212) 474-3700 CAL-MAINE FOODS: Bid to Remand Egg Antitrust Suit Pending --------------------------------------------------------- Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on July 22, 2019, for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2019, that the court has not yet ruled on the Egg Products Plaintiffs' motion to remand the case to federal court in Chicago. On September 25, 2008, the Company was named as one of several defendants in numerous antitrust cases involving the United States shell egg industry. The cases were consolidated into In re: Processed Egg Products Antitrust Litigation, No. 2:08-md-02002-GP, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (the "District Court"), in three groups of cases - the "Direct Purchaser Putative Class Action", the "Indirect Purchaser Putative Class Action" and the "Non-Class Cases." The Direct Purchaser Putative Class Action The named plaintiffs in these cases alleged that they purchased eggs or egg products directly from a defendant and sued on behalf of themselves and a putative class of others who claimed to be similarly situated. As previously reported, in November 2014, the District Court approved the Company's settlement with the direct purchaser plaintiff class and entered final judgment dismissing with prejudice the class members' claims against the Company. The Indirect Purchaser Putative Class Action The named plaintiffs in these cases are individuals or companies who allege that they purchased shell eggs indirectly from one or more of the defendants - that is, they purchased from retailers that had previously purchased from defendants or other parties - and sued on behalf of themselves and a putative class of others who claim to be similarly situated. The District Court denied the indirect purchaser plaintiffs' motion for class certification. On June 28, 2018, the Company entered into a settlement agreement with the indirect purchaser plaintiffs, for an immaterial amount, and on July 17, 2018, the Court entered an order dismissing all indirect purchaser plaintiffs' claims against the Company and other defendants. The Non-Class Cases In the remaining cases, the named plaintiffs allege that they purchased shell eggs and egg products directly from one or more of the defendants but sue only for their own alleged damages and not on behalf of a putative class. On April 4, 2018, the Court entered a final judgement dismissing all claims against the Company brought by the following non-class plaintiffs: The Kroger Co.; Publix Super Markets, Inc.; SUPERVALU, Inc.; Safeway, Inc.; Albertsons LLC; H.E. Butt Grocery Co.; The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, Inc.; Walgreen Co.; Hy-Vee, Inc.; and Giant Eagle, Inc., with prejudice, pursuant to the Company's previously announced $80.8 million settlement with the named plaintiffs. The Company settled all Non-Class cases except for the claims of certain plaintiffs who sought substantial damages allegedly arising from the purchase of egg products (as opposed to shell eggs). As previously reported, the Company settled all claims brought by one of these plaintiffs, Conopco, Inc. on a confidential basis and for an amount that did not have a material impact on the Company's financial condition or results, and on November 21, 2018, the Court entered a final judgment dismissing Conopco's claims against the Company. The remaining plaintiffs are Kraft Food Global, Inc., General Mills, Inc., Nestle USA, Inc., and The Kellogg Company ("Egg Products Plaintiffs"). The Egg Products Plaintiffs seek treble damages and injunctive relief under the Sherman Act and are attacking certain features of the UEP animal-welfare guidelines and program used by the Company and many other egg producers. On September 6, 2016, the District Court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed with prejudice all claims based on the purchase of egg products. That ruling was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, and on January 22, 2018, the Third Circuit reversed the District Court's grant of summary judgment and remanded the case to the District Court. Even though the appealing egg-products plaintiffs had asked the Third Circuit to remand the case for trial, the Third Circuit declined, instead remanding the case for further proceedings, including the suggestion that the District Court determine whether the egg-products plaintiffs had sufficient evidence of causation and damages to submit the case to a jury. On March 5, 2018, defendants filed a motion in the District Court seeking leave to file a motion for summary judgment in light of the remand statements in the Third Circuit's opinion. The Egg Products Plaintiffs opposed that motion, and on March 26, 2018, the defendants filed a reply in support of the motion. On July 16, 2018, the court granted the defendants' motion for leave and on August 17, 2018, defendants filed their motions for summary judgment and requested oral argument. The plaintiffs filed their responses on September 21, 2018, and sur-replies on October 19, 2018, and the defendants filed their replies on October 12, 2018. On December 19, 2018, the District Court heard oral argument on the renewed motions for summary judgment, and on June 11, 2019, denied the defendants' motions for summary judgement. On July 2, 2019, the Egg Products Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking to have the case remanded to federal court in Chicago, where it was initially filed, for trial. The District Court has not ruled on that motion. Allegations in Each Case In all of the cases described above, the plaintiffs allege that the Company and certain other large domestic egg producers conspired to reduce the domestic supply of eggs in a concerted effort to raise the price of eggs to artificially high levels. In each case, plaintiffs allege that all defendants agreed to reduce the domestic supply of eggs by: (a) agreeing to limit production; (b) manipulating egg exports; and (c) implementing industry-wide animal welfare guidelines that reduced the number of hens and eggs. The Company intends to continue to defend the remaining case as vigorously as possible based on defenses which the Company believes are meritorious and provable. Cal-Maine Foods said, "While management believes that the likelihood of a material adverse outcome in the overall egg antitrust litigation has been significantly reduced as a result of the settlements and rulings described above, there is still a reasonable possibility of a material adverse outcome in the remaining egg antitrust litigation. At the present time, however, it is not possible to estimate the amount of monetary exposure, if any, to the Company because of this remaining case. Adjustments, if any, which might result from the resolution of these remaining legal matters, have not been reflected in the financial statements." Cal-Maine Foods, Inc., incorporated on September 10, 1969, is a producer and marketer of shell eggs in the United States. The Company operates through the segment of production, grading, packaging, marketing and distribution of shell eggs. The Company offers shell eggs, including specialty and non-specialty eggs. The company was founded in 1957 and is based in Jackson, Mississippi. CAMBRIDGE SIERRA: Settlement in Lyter Labor Suit Has Final Approval ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JANE LYTER, an individual, and all other similarly situated employees; Plaintiff, v. CAMBRIDGE SIERRA HOLDINGS, LLC. dba RECHE CANYON REGIONAL REHAB CENTER, a foreign Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive; Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-03435-MWF-AGR (S.D. Cal.), Judge Michael E. Fitzgerald of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California granted the Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and the Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and Enhancement Award. The matter came before the Court on June 3, 2019, for a hearing on the Motions. Judge Fitzgerald approved the Joint Stipulation of Class Settlement and Release as set forth in the Settlement Agreement. He made final the Court's earlier preliminary certification of the Class Members, as set forth in the Preliminary Approval Order. The following Class has been certified and that final approval will be with respect to: March 22, 2013 through March 7, 2017, as non-exempt employees at Defendant Cambridge Sierra Holding, LLC, doing business as Reche Canyon Regional Rehab Center's Colton, California rehab medical facility. The Judge confirmed that Plaintiff Jane Lyter is a suitable representative and is appointed the representative of the Settlement Class. He awarded an Enhancement Award of $5,000 to Plaintiff Lyter for her service on behalf of the Settlement Class. The Judge confirmed Omid Nosrati, Esq. of The Law Office of Omid Nosrati, the as Class Counsel. The settlement of civil penalties under PAGA in the amount of $5,000 is approved. Seventy-Five Percent, or $3,750.00, will be paid to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency. The remaining 25%, or $1,250.00, will become part of the Settlement Amount. The Judge awarded $125,00 in attorneys' fees and $40,119.80 in costs to the Plaintiff's counsel. He approved the Claims Administrator's expenses in the amount of $9,750 to Phoenix Settlement Administrators. The Defendant will pay the Settlement Class Members pursuant to the procedures described in the Settlement Agreement. Any unclaimed funds will be distributed to the California Rural Assistance League, the designated cy pres recipient. A full-text copy of the Court's June 18, 2019 Judgment is available at https://is.gd/bfpMpw from Leagle.com. Jane Lyter, an individual, and all other similarly situated employees, Plaintiff, represented by Omid Nosrati -- omid@nosratilaw.com -- Law Offices of Omid Nosrati & Tatiana Gassia Avakian -- tatiana@nosratilaw.com -- The Law Office of Omid Nosrati. Cambridge Sierra Holdings, LLC, a foreign Limited Liability Company, Defendant, represented by Jeff T. Olsen -- Jeff.Olsen@varnerbrandt.com -- Varner and Brandt LLP & Richard D. Marca -- Richard.Marca@varnerbrandt.com -- Varner and Brandt LLP. CANNTRUST HOLDINGS: Kaplan Fox Files Securities Fraud Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP (www.kaplanfox.com) has filed a class action suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against CannTrust Holdings Inc. ("CannTrust" or the "Company") (NYSE: CTST; OTC: CNTTF), Peter Aceto, the Company's CEO, Greg Guyatt, the Company's CFO, and Ian Abramowitz, the Company's former CFO (collectively, the "Defendants"). The complaint alleges that Defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, and is brought by Plaintiff on behalf of a class of all persons and entities who purchased the publicly traded common stock of CannTrust on the New York Stock Exchange ("NYSE") or any U.S.-based trading platform between November 14, 2018 and July 5, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The complaint further alleges that CannTrust is a Canada-based producer of medical and recreational cannabis and that, during the Class Period, the Company represented that it was a licensed producer of medical and recreational cannabis in Canada and that it maintained all necessary licensing. The complaint further alleges that "[w]hile the Company represented that its facilities were licensed, unknown to investors, from October 2018 through and March 2019, the Company was growing cannabis in five unlicensed rooms causing the Company's Niagara Perpetual Harvest Facility to be non-compliant with certain Canadian regulations, and the Company had shipped unlicensed cannabis from the Company's Niagara Perpetual Harvest Facility to at least StenoCare in Denmark in violation of the Canadian Cannabis Act." The Complaint further alleges that on July 8, 2019, before the market opened, CannTrust shocked investors when it disclosed that it received a compliance report from Health Canada notifying the Company that the Niagara Perpetual Harvest Facility greenhouse facility in Pelham, Ontario is non-compliant with certain regulations. The Company's press release stated, in part, that the Company "has received a compliance report from Health Canada notifying the Company that its greenhouse facility in Pelham, Ontario is non-compliant with certain regulations. CannTrust has accepted Health Canada's non-compliance finding and has taken actions to ensure current and future compliance." "The non-compliant rating is based on observations by the regulator regarding the growing of cannabis in five unlicensed rooms and inaccurate information provided to the regulator by CannTrust employees. Growing in unlicensed rooms took place from October 2018 to March 2019 during which time CannTrust had pending applications for these rooms with Health Canada . . . Health Canada has placed a hold on inventory which includes approximately 5,200kg of dried cannabis that was harvested in the previously unlicensed rooms in Pelham, until it deems that the Company is compliant with regulations. In addition, CannTrust has instituted a voluntary hold of approximately 7,500kg of dried cannabis equivalent at its Vaughan manufacturing facility that was produced in the previously unlicensed rooms." On July 8, 2019, following this disclosure, the price of CannTrust's common stock declined on the NYSE by $1.11 per share or over 22%, from a closing price of $4.94 per share on July 5, 2019, to close at $3.83 per share on July 8, 2019 on heavy trading volume. If you are a member of the proposed Class, you may move the court no later than September 9, 2019 to serve as a lead plaintiff for the proposed Class. You need not seek to become a lead plaintiff in order to share in any possible recovery. Plaintiffs seek to recover damages on behalf of the proposed Class and are represented by Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP (www.kaplanfox.com). Our firm, with offices in New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago, and New Jersey, has decades of experience in prosecuting investor class actions and actions involving violations of the U.S. federal securities laws. If you have any questions about this Notice, the action, your rights, or your interests, or would like a copy of the complaint, please contact: Jeffrey P. Campisi, Esq. Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP 850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor New York, NY 10022 Toll-Free: (800) 290-1952 Phone: (212) 687-1980 Fax: (212) 687-7714 Email: jcampisi@kaplanfox.com [GN] CANNTRUST HOLDINGS: Kaskela Law Files Securities Class Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- Kaskela Law LLC announces that a shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed against CannTrust Holdings Inc. (NYSE: CTST) on behalf of purchasers of the Company's securities between November 14, 2018 and July 5, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). CannTrust investors who suffered an investment loss in excess of $100,000 are encouraged to contact Kaskela Law LLC (D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq.) at (888) 715-1740, or by email at skaskela@kaskelalaw.com, to discuss this action and their legal rights and options. Additional information about this action may also be found at http://kaskelalaw.com/case/canntrust-holdings-inc/ The shareholder class action complaint alleges that CannTrust issued a series of false and misleading statements to investors during the Class Period, and failed to disclose: (i) that the Company was growing cannabis in its Pelham greenhouse while applications for regulatory approval were still pending; (ii) that the Company's Pelham greenhouse did not comply with certain regulations; (iii) that, as a result, the Company was reasonably likely to face an inventory hold by Health Canada until the Pelham facility becomes compliant with applicable regulations; and (iv) that, as a result, the Company's customers would face shortages and would likely seek product from CannTrust's competitors. According to the complaint, on July 8, 2019, the Company disclosed that Health Canada found that its greenhouse facility in Pelham, Ontario is 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, along with an additional 7,500 kilograms voluntarily held by the Company, until the facility becomes compliant. Following this news, shares of the Company's stock fell $1.11 per share, or over 22% in value, to close on July 8, 2019 at $3.83 per share. IMPORTANT DEADLINE: Investors who purchased CannTrust's securities during the Class Period may, no later than September 9, 2019, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative in the action. CannTrust investors who suffered any investment loss in excess of $100,000 investing in the Company's securities are encouraged to contact Kaskela Law LLC to discuss this action and their legal rights and options. Kaskela Law LLC exclusively represents investors in securities fraud, corporate governance, and merger & acquisition litigation. For additional information about Kaskela Law LLC please contact: David Seamus Kaskela, Esq. KASKELA LAW LLC 18 Campus Boulevard, Suite 100 Newtown Square, PA 19073 Phone: (484) 258 – 1585 (888) 715 – 1740 Website: www.kaskelalaw.com Email: skaskela@kaskelalaw.com [GN] CANNTRUST HOLDINGS: Strosberg Sasso Files Securities Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- Strosberg Sasso Sutts LLP announced mid-July 2019 that a proposed class action has been commenced against CannTrust Holdings Inc. (TSX: TRST) and some of the company's officers and directors. The proposed class action has been filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice on behalf of all persons, excluding certain persons associated with the defendants, who, during the period from October 1, 2018 to July 5, 2019: (1) purchased or otherwise acquired securities of CannTrust on the TSX or alternative Canadian exchanges; and/or (2) except residents of the United States of America, acquired securities of CannTrust pursuant to the prospectuses; and held some or all of such securities at the close of trading on the TSX on July 5, 2019. On July 8, 2019, CannTrust informed the public that Health Canada found its greenhouse facility in Pelham, Ontario to be non-compliant with certain regulations. Health Canada's audit revealed the company had been growing cannabis in unlicensed facilities from October 2018 to March 2019, and that the company had provided inaccurate information to Health Canada. The plaintiff alleges that the defendants made misrepresentations by issuing documents, public statements, and prospectuses, which represented that CannTrust was in material compliance with all laws, regulations, licenses and permits and failing to make timely disclosure of the unlicensed cultivation. Once this information was revealed to the public, the price of CannTrust securities dropped significantly, causing substantial damages to holders of CannTrust securities. The plaintiff seeks $250 million in damages for negligent misrepresentation and liability for primary market misrepresentation and secondary market disclosure pursuant to Ontario's Securities Act. If you would like to speak to someone about this lawsuit please contact: Jay Strosberg, Esq. Strosberg Sasso Sutts LLP Phone: 1-519-561-6231 Website: www.strosbergco.com Email: jsmith@strosbergco.com [GN] CASHCALL INC: Bejune Hits Usurious Rates, Fees, Penalties on Loans ------------------------------------------------------------------ Anastasia Bejune, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. Cashcall, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-01373 (C.D. Cal., June 15, 2019), seeks an award of statutory damages, costs of litigation and reasonable attorney's fees, prejudgment interest and any and all other relief under the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, The Electronic Fund Transfer Act, Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act. Defendant provides loans to consumers, including to California consumers, a lender that offers unsecured personal loans ranging from $2,600 to $10,600 to qualified borrowers. [BN] Cashcall was allegedly owed a monetary debt by Bejune who was presented a Promissory Note and Disclosure which provided that it would loan $3,025.00 to Bejune at an Annual Percentage Rate of 138.34%, resulting in a Finance Charge of $13,499.48 over the duration of the Note. Defendant falsely represented the character, amount or legal status of a debt by independently initiating electronic fund transfers from accounts on dates different or later than the due date stated and unfairly charged late fees which were not in fact late, asserts the Plaintiff. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua Swigart, Esq. Robert L. Hyde, Esq. HYDE AND SWIGART 2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (619) 233-7770 Facsimile: (619) 297-1022 to 26 Email: Josh@westcoastlitigation.com bob@westcoastlitigation.com - and - Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 Email: ak@kazlg.com CENTENE CORP: Bid to Dismiss Sanchez Suit Still Pending ------------------------------------------------------- Centene Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 23, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the court in Sanchez v. Centene Corp., et al., has still not ruled on the company's motion to dismiss. On November 14, 2016, a putative federal securities class action, Israel Sanchez v. Centene Corp., et al., was filed against the Company and certain of its executives in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. In March 2017, the court entered an order transferring the matter to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. The plaintiffs in the lawsuit allege that the Company's accounting and related disclosures for certain liabilities acquired in the acquisition of Health Net violated federal securities laws. In July 2017, the lead plaintiff filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint. The Company filed a motion to dismiss this complaint in September 2017. In February 2018, the Court held a hearing on the motion to dismiss but has not yet issued a ruling. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Centene Corporation, incorporated on September 26, 2001, is a healthcare company. The Company provides a portfolio of services to government sponsored healthcare programs, focusing on under-insured and uninsured individuals. The Company operates through two segments: Managed Care and Specialty Services. It provides member-focused services through locally based staff by assisting in accessing care, coordinating referrals to related health and social services and addressing member concerns and questions. It also provides education and outreach programs to inform and assist members in accessing appropriate healthcare services. The company is based in St. Louis, Missouri. CENTENE CORP: Class Cert. Discovery Ongoing in Ambetter Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Centene Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 23, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that class certification discovery is ongoing in the class action lawsuit related to Ambetter policies. On January 11, 2018, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by Cynthia Harvey and Steven A. Milman against the Company and certain subsidiaries in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington. The complaint alleges that the Company failed to meet federal and state requirements for provider networks and directories with regard to its Ambetter policies, denied coverage and/or refused to pay for covered benefits, and failed to address grievances adequately, causing some members to incur unexpected costs. In March 2018, the Company filed separate motions to dismiss each defendant. In July 2018, the plaintiff voluntarily filed a First Amended Complaint that removed Steven Milman as a plaintiff, dropped Centene Corporation and Superior Health Plan as defendants, abandoned certain claims, narrowed the putative class to Washington State only, and added Centene Management Company as a defendant. In August 2018, the Company moved to dismiss the First Amended Complaint. In response, the plaintiff voluntarily filed a Second Amended Complaint. In September 2018, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. On November 21, 2018, the Court granted in part and denied in part the Company's motion to dismiss. Plaintiff Cynthia Harvey filed a Third Amended Complaint, on November 28, 2018, against Centene Management Company and Coordinated Care Corporation ("Defendants"), both subsidiaries of the Company. Defendants filed an answer on December 12, 2018. Class certification discovery is occurring. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself against these claims. Centene said, "Nevertheless, this matter is subject to many uncertainties and the Company cannot predict how long this litigation will last or what the ultimate outcome will be, and an adverse outcome in this matter could potentially have a materially adverse impact on our financial position and results of operations." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Centene Corporation, incorporated on September 26, 2001, is a healthcare company. The Company provides a portfolio of services to government sponsored healthcare programs, focusing on under-insured and uninsured individuals. The Company operates through two segments: Managed Care and Specialty Services. It provides member-focused services through locally based staff by assisting in accessing care, coordinating referrals to related health and social services and addressing member concerns and questions. It also provides education and outreach programs to inform and assist members in accessing appropriate healthcare services. The company is based in St. Louis, Missouri. CHINACACHE INT'L: Schall Law Firm Investing Investors' Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm, announces that it is investigating claims on behalf of investors of ChinaCache International Holdings Ltd. ("ChinaCache" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: CCIH) for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The investigation focuses on whether the Company issued false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose information pertinent to investors. ChinaCache filed a Form NT 20-F with the SEC on April 29, 2019, disclosing that it would not be able to file its annual report for the fiscal year 2018 in a timely manner. ChinaCache then disclosed on May 17, 2019, that the Company and its CEO and Chairman Song Wang were under criminal investigation for bribery by the Chinese government. Wang resigned from the CEO and Chairman positions, NASDAQ halted trading in ChinaCache on the same day. The Company revealed on May 23, 2019, that it had received a letter from NASDAQ indicating that the Company was not in compliance with listing requirements, and asking questions about the resignation of its auditor, its selection of a new auditor, and the bribery allegations in China. Trading in ChinaCache remains halted, leaving the Company's shares illiquid and seemingly worthless. We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law Firm, 1880 Century Park East, Suite 404, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at 424-303-1964, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by email at brian@schallfirm.com. The class in this case has not yet been certified, and until certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member. The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder rights litigation. Contact: Brian Schall, Esq. The Schall Law Firm 1880 Century Park East Suite 404, Los Angeles CA 90067 Phone: Office: 310-301-3335 Cell: 424-303-1964 Website: www.schallfirm.com Email: info@schallfirm.com brian@schallfirm.com [GN] CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Appeal in Ong Class Action Suit Still Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 24, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the appeal in the class action suit initiated by Susie Ong, is still pending. On January 8, 2016, Susie Ong filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of shares of our common stock between February 4, 2015 and January 5, 2016. The complaint purports to state claims against the company, each of the co-Chief Executive Officers serving during the claimed class period and the Chief Financial Officer under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and related rules, based on the company's alleged failure during the claimed class period to disclose material information about the company's quality controls and safeguards in relation to consumer and employee health. The complaint asserts that those failures and related public statements were false and misleading and that, as a result, the market price of our stock was artificially inflated during the claimed class period. The complaint seeks damages on behalf of the purported class in an unspecified amount, interest, and an award of reasonable attorneys' fees, expert fees and other costs. On March 8, 2017, the court granted the company's motion to dismiss the complaint, with leave to amend. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on April 7, 2017. On March 22, 2018, the court granted the company's motion to dismiss, with prejudice. On April 20, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a motion for relief from the judgment and seeking leave to file a third amended complaint, and on November 20, 2018, the court denied the motion. On December 20, 2018, the plaintiff initiated an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Chipotle said, "We intend to continue vigorously defending the Ong case through any further appeals made by the plaintiff, but it is not possible at this time to reasonably estimate the outcome of or any potential liability from either of this case." Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates Chipotle Mexican Grill restaurants. As of December 31, 2018, it operated 2,491 restaurants, including 2,452 Chipotle restaurants in the United States, 37 Chipotle restaurants internationally, and two non-Chipotle restaurants. The company was founded in 1993 and is headquartered in Newport Beach, California. CLOUDERA INC: Pomerantz Files Securities Fraud Suit --------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Cloudera, Inc. (NYSE: CLDR) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, for the Northern District of California, and indexed under 19-cv-04007, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants who purchased, or otherwise acquired Cloudera securities between April 28, 2017 and June 5, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The claims asserted herein are alleged against Cloudera, the Company's former Chief Executive Officer ("CEO"), Thomas J. Reilly, Chief Financial Officer ("CFO"), Jim Frankola, and Michael A. Olson, the Company's founder, and former Chairman, and arise under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and SEC Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5, promulgated thereunder. If you are a shareholder who purchased Cloudera securities during the class period, you have until August 6, 2019, to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased. Cloudera is a software company specializing in the provision of data management, machine learning, and advanced analytical tools to businesses. Its chief product platform is a hybrid open source software, or "HOSS," model which combines the Company's proprietary software with open source technology, most notably the Apache Software Foundation's ("ASF") open-source Hadoop software. The Company offers a suite of applications through its HOSS platform that allows its customers, generally including large enterprises, to collect, store, organize and analyze large amounts of data to improve their businesses. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, the Defendants failed to disclose adverse facts pertaining to Cloudera's business, operations, and financial condition, which were known to or recklessly disregarded by Defendants. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose: (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; (iii) Cloudera had materially diminished sales opportunities and prospects and could not generate annual positive cash flows for the foreseeable future; (iv) the primary motivation for the Company's merger with Hortonworks was to generate growth through the acquisition of Hortonworks' existing customers (as opposed to obtaining them organically); and (v) that the purported synergies and other benefits of the merger with Hortonworks were materially overstated. 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. On this news, the price of Cloudera common stock fell over 40% to $13.29 per share on abnormally high volume of nearly 28 million shares on April 4, 2018. Contact: Robert S. Willoughby, Esq. Pomerantz LLP Phone: 888-476-6529 ext. 9980 Website: www.pomerantzlaw.com Email: rswilloughby@pomlaw.com [GN] CONNEXIONS LOYALTY: FLSA Collective Action Certification Sought --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as DAVID SWEET, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. CONNEXIONS LOYALTY, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-01997-GCS-CMV (S.D. Ohio.), the Plaintiff moves the Court to enter an order pursuant to section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act: 1. conditionally certifying the case as a FLSA collective action under section 216(b) against Defendant Connexions Loyalty, Inc. on behalf of Plaintiff and others similarly situated; 2. directing that notice be sent by United States mail and email to all former and current call center employees employed by Defendant within three years preceding the date of filing of the Complaint to the present; 3. directing the parties to jointly submit within 14 days a proposed Notice informing such present and former employees of the pendency of this collective action and permitting them to opt into the case by signing and submitting a Consent to Join Form; 4. directing Defendant to provide within 14 days a Roster of such present and former employees that includes their full names, their dates of employment, and their last known home addresses and personal email addresses; 5. directing that the Notice, in the form approved by the Court, be sent to such present and former employees within 30 days using the home and email addresses listed in the Roster; and 6. providing that duplicate copies of the Notice may be sent in the event new, updated, or corrected mailing addresses or email addresses are found for one or more of such present or former employees.[CC] Counsel for the Plaintiff are: Jeffrey Moyle, Esq. NILGES DRAHER LLC 614 West Superior Ave., Suite 1148 Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 230-2955 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 E-mail: jmoyle@ohlaborlaw.com - and - Hans A. Nilges, Esq. Shannon M. Draher, Esq. 7266 Portage Street N.W., Suite D Massillon, OH 44646 Telephone: (330) 470-4428 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 E-mail: hans@ohlaborlaw.com sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com CONVERSE INC: 9th Cir. Flips Summary Judgment in Chavez Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, ERIC CHAVEZ, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CONVERSE, INC., a Delaware corporation Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 17-17070 (9th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the District Court's grant of summary judgment for Converse. Converse requires its retail employees to undergo "off the clock" exit inspections every time they leave the store. S eeking compensation for these exit inspections, Chavez brought the instant class action on behalf of himself and similarly situated Converse employees. The District Court granted summary judgment for Converse, holding the Chavez's claims were barred by the federal de minimis doctrine, which precludes recovery for otherwise compensable amounts of time that are small, irregular, or administratively difficult to record. The California Supreme Court subsequently held in Troester v. Starbucks Corp., that the federal de minimis doctrine does not apply to wage and hour claims brought under California law. For substantially the reasons given in the related case, Rodriguez v. Nike Retail Services, Inc., the Appellate Court holds that the District Court erred in granting summary judgment based on the federal de minimis doctrine. It likewise holds that on the current record there are no alternative grounds for affirmance. Accordingly, it reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with Troester. Each party will bear its own costs on appeal. A full-text copy of the Court's June 14, 2019 Memorandum is available at https://is.gd/6m4v3e from Leagle.com. DELTA AIR: Bid to Certify 2 Subclasses in Freeman Suit Denied ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, BRANDON FREEMAN et al. Plaintiffs, v. DELTA AIRLINES, INC et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 2:15-CV-160 (WOB-CJS) (E.D. Ky.), Judge William O. Bertelsman of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, Northern Division, Covington, denied the Plaintiffs' motion to certify the case as a class action. The proposed class action was brought by six Plaintiffs, all of whom are African-American and are or at one time were part-time employees of Delta Airlines in the "underwing" baggage handling department at the Cincinnati-Northern Kentucky International Airport ("CVG"). They allege that the manager and several supervisors over this particular department engaged in systemic racial discrimination in (a) disciplinary matters and (b) work assignments, resulting in a disproportionately lower number of African-Americans occupying higher paying positions. The Plaintiffs seek to vindicate the rights of roughly 36 part-time African-American baggage handlers at CVG. Under 42 U.S.C. Section 1981, Title VII, the Plaintiffs assert the following five counts: (i) Count I - Hostile work environment and racial harassment; (ii) Count II - Discrimination based on disparate impact and disparate treatment; (iii) Count III - Retaliation; (iv) Count IV - Race discrimination; and (v) Count V - Punitive damages. The Plaintiffs demand front and back pay in connection with punitive damages, a declaratory judgment, and a permanent injunction against the Defendants' alleged practices. Each of the named Plaintiffs filed Equal Opportunity Employment Commission ("EEOC") charges in July 2014. On approximately June 22, 2015, the Plaintiffs received Right to Sue letters from the EEOC. They filed the action on Sept. 3, 2015, and then filed an Amended Complaint on Sept. 10, 2015. After over a year and five months of discovery, which included requests to extend the initial one-year period of discovery, on Jan. 2, 2018, Plaintiffs moved for class certification. The Plaintiffs seek to certify the following two subclasses: (1) The first sub-class, relating to disciplinary matters, consists of all African-American Ready Reserve employees of Department 120 (the baggage handling or underwing operations) who were employed by Defendant Delta at CVG from Sept. 3, 2010, to Dec. 31, 2016, and who had any discipline imposed on them ("Disciplinary Subclass"). (2) The second sub-class, relating to work assignments, consists of all African-American Ready Reserve employees of Department 120 who were employed by Delta at CVG, from Sept. 3, 2010, to Sept. 3, 2015 ("Work Assignment Subclass"). The Court previously heard oral argument on the parties' motions and took the matter under submission. Judge Bertelsman concludes that the class action is an exception to the usual rule that litigation is conducted by and on behalf of the individual named parties only. That class certification is inappropriate in the case does not vitiate the individual claims of the class representatives. They may choose to proceed on their claims. But a class action is not the appropriate vehicle because there is nothing central to the Plaintiffs' claims that is capable of being resolved on a classwide basis. Consistent with the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, the Judge denied the Plaintiffs' motion to certify the case as a class action. The parties will confer and submit a proposed notice to the putative class members, specifying its means of publication or distribution, within 10 days of entry of the Opinion and Order. A full-text copy of the Court's June 14, 2019 Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at https://is.gd/NVy7gx from Leagle.com. Brandon Freeman, Freddie Vincent, Anika Nicole Lackey, Aminata Tall, Kenny Gaines & David Perdue, Plaintiffs, represented by Christopher David Wiest, Christopher Wiest, Atty at Law, PLLC, Paul J. Darpel, Christopher Wiest, Atty at Law, PLLC & Robert A. Winter, Jr -- robertawinterjr@gmail.com. Delta Airlines, Inc., Defendant, represented by David Thomson Croall -- dcroall@porterwright.com -- Porter, Wright, Morris & Arthur. Chuck Jones, Dale Unkraut, II, Marvin Douglas Howe, David Gosney & Jimmy Davis, Defendants, represented by Matthew O. Wagner -- mwagner@fbtlaw.com -- Frost Brown Todd LLC, pro hac vice, Richard L. Moore -- rlmoore@fbtlaw.com -- Frost Brown Todd LLC, pro hac vice & Bill J. Paliobeis -- bpaliobeis@fbtlaw.com -- Frost Brown Todd LLC. Greg Kuhn, Defendant, represented by David Thomson Croall, Porter, Wright, Morris & Arthur & Marc D. Mezibov, Mezibov Butler, pro hac vice. DIEBOLD NIXDORF: Federman & Sherwood Files Securities Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------------ Federman & Sherwood announces that on July 2, 2019, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Diebold Nixdorf, Incorporated (NYSE: DBD). The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of material or false misrepresentations to the market which had the effect of artificially inflating the market price during the Class Period, which is May 4, 2017 through July 4, 2017. To learn how to participate in this action, please visit https://www.federmanlaw.com/blog/federman-sherwood-announces-the-filing-of-a-securities-class-action-lawsuit-against-diebold-nixdorf-incorporated/ Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all Diebold Nixdorf, Incorporated shareholders who purchased common stock during the Class Period and are therefore a member of the Class as described above. You may move the Court no later than Tuesday, September 3, 2019 to serve as a lead plaintiff for the entire Class. However, in order to do so, you must meet certain legal requirements pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. If you wish to discuss this action, obtain further information and participate in this or any other securities litigation, or should you have any questions or concerns regarding this notice or preservation of your rights please contact: Robin Hester, Esq. Federman & Sherwood 10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Website: www.federmanlaw.com Email: rkh@federmanlaw.com [GN] DIEBOLD NIXDORF: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Fraud Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the upcoming September 3, 2019 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the class action filed on behalf of Diebold Nixdorf, Incorporated (NYSE: DBD) investors who purchased securities between February 14, 2017 and July 4, 2017, inclusive (the "Class Period"). If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Lesley Portnoy, Esquire, at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com. On July 5, 2017, the Company disclosed that it expected a wider net loss than prior guidance for fiscal 2017, from a range of $50 to $75 million to a range of $110 to $125 million net loss. The Company attributed the lowered expectations to a "delay in systems rollouts" as well as "a longer customer decision-making process and order-to-revenue conversion cycle." On this news, the Company's share price fell $6.28, or nearly 23%, to close at $21.20 per share on July 5, 2017, thereby injuring investors. The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that, as a result of the Wincor acquisition and related integration, the Company was less focused on its core business; (2) that the Company expected certain customers would not renew their service contracts (i.e. contract runoff); (3) that the Company was not adequately prepared to staff service technicians; (4) that, as a result of the expected contract runoff, the Company would suffer a shortage of adequately trained service technicians; (5) that, as a result, the Company would suffer margin pressure in its services segment; (6) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company would lose market share; and (7) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Diebold Nixdorf securities during the Class Period you may move the Court no later than September 3, 2019 to request appointment as lead plaintiff in this putative class action lawsuit. To be a member of the class action you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the class action. If you wish to learn more about this class action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to the pending class action lawsuit, please contact Lesley Portnoy, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased. [GN] DIEBOLD NIXDORF: Pomerantz Files Securities Fraud Suit ------------------------------------------------------ Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Diebold Nixdorf, Incorporated ("Diebold" or the "Company") (NYSE: DBD) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, for the Southern District of New York, and indexed under 19-cv-06180, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded Diebold securities between May 4, 2017 and July 4, 2017, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials. If you are a shareholder who purchased Diebold securities during the class period, you have until September 3, 2019, to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased. Diebold provides connected commerce services, software and technology to enable millions of transactions each day. The Company's approximately 25,000 employees purportedly design and deliver convenient, "always on" and highly secure solutions that bridge the physical and the digital worlds of transactions. Customers of the Company include nearly all of the world's top 100 financial institutions and a majority of the top twenty-five global retailers. The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Company was experiencing delays in systems rollouts as well as a longer customer decision-making process and order-to-revenue conversion cycle; (ii) the foregoing issues were negatively impacting the Company's services business and operations; and (iii) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On July 5, 2017, Diebold issued a press release titled "Diebold Nixdorf Adjusts 2017 Financial Outlook" (the "July 2017 Press Release"). The July 2017 Press Release disclosed that the Company expected a wider net loss than indicated in its prior guidance for fiscal 2017, from a range of $50 to $75 million to a range of $110 to $125 million net loss. Diebold attributed the lowered expectations to a delay in systems rollouts as well as a longer customer decision-making process and order-to-revenue conversion cycle. Following this news, Diebold's stock price fell $6.40 per share, or nearly 23%, to close at $21.60 per share on July 5, 2017. Contact: Robert S. Willoughby, Esq. Pomerantz LLP Phone: 888-476-6529 ext. 9980 Website: www.pomerantzlaw.com Email: rswilloughby@pomlaw.com [GN] DR. PEPPER: California Court Narrows Claims in Yu Suit ------------------------------------------------------ In the case, HAWYUAN YU, Plaintiff, v. DR PEPPER SNAPPLE GROUP, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-06664-BLF (N.D. Cal.), Judge Beth Labson Freeman of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, granted in part with leave to amend and denied in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), and to stay the action if outright dismissal is not warranted. On behalf of a putative class, Plaintiff Yu alleges that Dr. Pepper and Mott's, LLP mislead consumers by selling apple juice and applesauce products with the representation "Natural" and/or "All Natural Ingredients" that nonetheless contain trace amounts of a pesticide. Arising from this allegation, the Plaintiff asserts five state law causes of action and that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act. The Plaintiff is an individual consumer and citizen of the County of Santa Clara, California. Defendant Dr. Pepper is incorporated in Delaware with its principal place of business in Plano, Texas. Defendant Mott's is a subsidiary of Dr. Pepper and is incorporated in Delaware with its principal place of business in Rye Brook, New York. The Defendants sell several applesauce and apple juice products, including Mott's Natural Unsweetened Applesauce, Mott's Healthy Harvest Applesauce, Mott's Natural 100% Juice Apple Juice, and other varieties of "Mott's" brand applesauce and apple juice products that include the representation "Natural" and/or "All Natural Ingredients" on the product package or label. They sell these products nationwide. On multiple occasions, the Plaintiff purchased Mott's Natural Applesauce and Natural Apple Juice at stores in San Jose, California. The Plaintiff alleges that in deciding to make these purchases, he saw, relied upon, and reasonably believed the Defendants' representations that the products were "Natural" and made of "All Natural Ingredients." The Plaintiff further alleges that he was willing to pay more for the Defendants' Products because he expected the Products to be free of insecticides and other unnatural chemicals. However, according to the complaint, the Defendants' applesauce and apple juice products contain acetamiprid, a "synthetic and unnatural chemical." The Plaintiff's primary theory of liability is not that the acetamiprid present in the Defendants' products exceeds the legal limit, but instead that reasonable consumers who see the Defendants' representations that the Products contain 'All Natural Ingredients' or are 'natural,' would not expect the Products to contain traces of a synthetic insecticide. The Plaintiff proposes a nationwide class of consumers who purchased the Defendants' products-in-question, as well as a California subclass. He filed the action on Nov, 1, 2018, asserting five causes of action: (1) Unfair and Deceptive Acts and Practices under the California Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), (on behalf of the California subclass); (2) Violation of California's False Advertising Law ("FAL"), (on behalf of the California subclass); (3) Violation of California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), (on behalf of the California subclass); (4) Breach of Express Warranty (on behalf of the nationwide class); and (5) Unjust enrichment (on behalf of the nationwide class). The Defendants request judicial notice of the following: (1) copies of the Applesauce and Apple Juice Product labels depicted in the Plaintiff's complaint; (2) a Compliance Policy Guide from the FDA regarding Labeling of Food Bearing Residues of Pesticide Chemicals; and (3) a letter from Dr. Scott Gottlieb, FDA Commissioner, to U.S. Representative David Valadao. The Court is unaware of any opposition to the Defendants' request for judicial notice. Judge Freeman granted the Defendants' request for judicial notice of (1) the copies of the applesauce and apple juice product labels because the Plaintiff's complaint references and relies on these labels. In addition, the Defendants' request for judicial notice of (2) the FDA policy guide and (3) the FDA Commissioner's letter to Representative Valadao is granted because these documents are public documents. The Defendants move to dismiss the Plaintiff's complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). They also request to stay the action if it is not dismissed with prejudice. Specifically, the Defendants set forth the following six issues to be decided: (1) whether the Plaintiff's consumer protection claims should be dismissed because the terms Natural and All Natural Ingredients on the products-in-question do not cause a reasonable consumer to believe that the products are free of any trace pesticides; (2) whether the Plaintiff's breach of warranty and unjust enrichment claims should be dismissed for failure to state a claim; (3) whether the Plaintiff's claims are expressly preempted under federal law because there is no requirement under federal law to disclose trace pesticides on product labels; (4) whether the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under 21 U.S.C. Section 346a(h)(5), which commits review of the Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA")'s established tolerances for residual pesticides to the EPA and the U.S. Courts of Appeals; (5) whether the Plaintiff's request for injunctive relief should be dismissed due to lack of Article III standing; and (6) whether the case should be stayed on primary jurisdiction grounds, in deference to the Food and Drug Administration ("FDA")'s ongoing administrative proceedings to define the term natural. Judge Freeman finds that the Plaintiff does not sufficiently allege facts showing how or why a reasonable consumer would understand "Natural" or "All Natural Ingredients" to mean the utter absence of residual pesticides, which the Plaintiff admits are on the order of 0.02 and 0.06 parts per million acetamiprid, respectively, for the applesauce and apple juice products in question. The Plaintiff may amend as to the "reasonable consumer" theory. Accordingly, the Defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to plausibly allege that a reasonable consumer would believe that the products-in-question are free of any trace pesticides is granted with leave to amend. For the reasons discussed with respect to the Plaintiff's "reasonable consumer" theory, the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's breach of warranty and unjust enrichment claims is granted with leave to amend. Turning to the Defendants' second argument for dismissal of these two claims, the Judge finds that at this stage, the Plaintiff need not identify which states' laws would apply to out-of-state Plaintiffs. Accordingly, the Defendants' motion to dismiss the breach of warranty and unjust enrichment claims on this latter ground is denied. The Plaintiff's theory of liability turns on what a reasonable consumer would understand "Natural" to mean in the context of residual pesticides present in the products. Thus, the federal food labeling requirements raised by the Defendants do not preempt the Plaintiff's claims. Accordingly, the Defendants' motion to dismiss te Plaintiff's claims as preempted by federal law is denied. However, the Plaintiff is required to amend the complaint to specify that he is not pleading that the Defendants must label the products-in-question as containing trace amounts of pesticide, but instead that the Defendants should remove the "Natural" representation on products that do contain such trace amounts or inform consumers what "Natural" actually means. For the reasons discussed with respect to preemption, the Judge agrees with te Plaintiff. She does not read the Plaintiff's complaint to be "a challenge to the EPA's established tolerances for acetamiprid residue," as te Defendants contend. Accordingly, the Defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is denied. Next, the Judge finds that the Plaintiff has failed to sufficiently allege intent to purchase the products-in-question in the future. In other words, the Plaintiff has not alleged that he would purchase the products-in-question if the representation "Natural" or "All Natural Ingredients" was removed. Accordingly, the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's request for injunctive relief for lack of standing is granted with leave to amend. Finally, the Judge finds that a stay is warranted here under the relevant factors. FDA proceedings remain open and active regarding the term "natural." The Dec. 19, 2018 letter from the FDA Commissioner states that the "FDA recognizes this is an important matter for consumers and the food industry" and that the FDA is "actively working" on the issue and that in 2019, the FDA plans to publicly communicate next steps regarding Agency policies related to 'natural.' Accordingly, the FDA's regulatory process may shape the contours of the word "natural" as applied to food labeling, an issue that permeates the Plaintiff's complaint. However, the Judge recognizes the Plaintiff's argument that guidance from the FDA may not be imminent, and therefore declines to impose an indefinite stay. Rather, she stays the action for a limited amount of time, through the end of February 2020. For the foregoing reasons, Judge Freeman granted with leave to amend the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's complaint for failure to plausibly allege that a reasonable consumer would believe that the products-in-question are free of any trace pesticides. The Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's breach of warranty and unjust enrichment claims is granted with leave to amend. The Judge denied the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's claims as preempted by federal law. She also denied the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under 21 U.S.C. Section 346a(h)(5). The Judge granted with leave to amend the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's request for injunctive relief for lack of standing. She granted the Defendants' request to stay the action, and the action will be stayed through the end of February 2020 without prejudice to a request to continue the stay. The Plaintiff's amended complaint is due no later than 30 days after the stay expires. Leave to amend is granted only as to the Plaintiff's existing claims; the Plaintiff may not add claims or parties without leave of the Court. All discovery disputes are referred to the assigned magistrate judge. The case management conference scheduled for Aug. 8, 2019, is reset to April 30, 2020. The joint case management statement will be due April 23, 2020. A full-text copy of the Court's June 18, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/NgAkNT from Leagle.com. Hawyuan Yu, Plaintiff, represented by Jaimie Mak -- jmak@meridianfirm.com -- Richman Law Group & Clark Andrew Binkley -- cbinkley@richmanlawgroup.com -- Richman Law Group, pro hac vice. Dr Pepper Snapple Group, Inc., 5301 Legacy Drive, Plano, Texas 75024, Defendant, represented by David T. Biderman -- DBiderman@perkinscoie.com -- Perkins Coie LLP, Charles Christian Sipos -- CSipos@perkinscoie.com -- pro hac vice & Lauren Elizabeth Watts Staniar -- LStaniar@perkinscoie.com -- Perkins Coie LLP. Mott's LLP, 900 King Street, Rye Brook, NY 10573, Defendant, represented by David T. Biderman, Perkins Coie LLP, Charles Christian Sipos & Lauren Elizabeth Watts Staniar, Perkins Coie LLP. EDWARD D. JONES: Prevails in Reverse Churning Class-Action Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Jed Horowitz, writing for AdvisorHub, reports that a federal judge in California has dismissed a lawsuit filed against Edward D. Jones & Co. that alleged the broker-dealer moved customers to fee-based advisory accounts from less expensive commission accounts in a "reverse churning scheme" that generated hundreds of millions of dollars annually for the firm. The lawsuit in the generally investor-friendly federal U.S. Eastern District Court of California has been closely watched because brokerage firms have been promoting advisory over traditional transaction accounts that yield annual fees regardless of clients' trading patterns. Fee-based accounts also deter brokers from churning trades in order to generate commissions, firm executives said. The lawsuit, which was filed in March 2018, alleged that Jones pressured its brokers to switch their largely middle-income customers into advisory accounts that charge as much as 2% of assets annually, even though the clients "generally engaged in very little trading." It referred to the strategy as a "reverse churning" scheme and said clients were switched without regard to suitability and without receiving "full information." In dismissing the putative class-action suit, District Judge John A. Mendez on July 9 upheld the St. Louis-based brokerage firm's arguments that it gave customers "extensive disclosures" about the costs and benefits of fee-based accounts in a brochure they received titled "Making Good Choices." The brochure "explicitly charts and discusses the material differences between the account types" and includes information that an advisory program "can be more expensive than other investment choices over the long term," the judge wrote. "We're pleased the federal court in California dismissed the ‘reverse churning' case," a Jones spokesman said. "Significant is that the court's decision recognizes ‘Edward Jones provided substantial disclosures' to clients.'" Jones, the largest U.S. brokerage firm as measured by its more than 18,000 advisors, generally advocated buy-and-hold investing strategies appropriate to commission-based accounts, the lawsuit said. But it updated its computer systems in the summer of 2016 to make fee-based accounts a default recommendation, according to the lawsuit. "[T]he conduct Plaintiffs allege as violations—including sales training for financial advisors, changed incentive structures and a new computer system—is not an actionable deceptive scheme," the judge wrote. The brokerage firm, which books more than 75% of its revenue from mutual fund sales, began marketing fee-based accounts in 2008 but accelerated its push "aggressively" in 2016, according to the complaint. Jones also advanced its strategy out of fear that the now-defunct Department of Labor fiduciary rule would have made it more difficult to collect hundreds of millions of dollars annually from fund companies and insurers for sales into retirement accounts, the lawsuit said. Jones generated $17.2 billion from asset-based fees in the approximately three-year period cited by the defendants, and executives named as defendants in the case received over $277 million in compensation, the lawsuit alleged. "The mere fact that Edward Jones financially benefited from certain clients choosing to move into fee-based accounts does not foreclose that the clients may also benefit in the long-run from this new offering and that the company fully believes in the value of its product," Judge Mendez wrote. He denied the plaintiffs' claims for breaches of fiduciary duty under state law (California as well as Missouri), saying that the federal Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act creates a high bar against bringing class-action suits in state court. The judge granted plaintiffs the right to refile a complaint conforming to his legal reasoning, but opined that "a further attempt to amend the complaint might prove futile." John Garner, Esq. -- jrg@erglaw.net -- a Willows, California-based lawyer who is co-counsel for the plaintiffs, said his team just received the ruling and is "considering our options." [GN] ENCORE BOSTON: Schuster Asserts Unjust Enrichment, Seeks Damages ---------------------------------------------------------------- A. Richard Schuster, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated. Plaintiff. v. Encore Boston Harbor, Wynn MA LLC, and Wynn Resorts, Ltd., Defendants, Case No. 19-2010 (Mass., July 15, 2019), seeks treble, actual and statutory damages, attorneys' fees and costs and such other and further relief resulting from breach of contract, unjust enrichment and conversion. Defendants operate a luxury resort casino located at 1 Broadway, Everett, Middlesex County, Massachusetts. Schuster claims that Encore has intentionally paid its customers odds of 6 to 5 when a player is dealt a "blackjack," when Massachusetts law' clearly and unambiguously states that a player who is dealt a blackjack shall be paid at odds of 3 to 2. Aside from blackjack, when a slot player cashes out his or her winnings at a ticket redemption machine positioned throughout the casino, these machines only pay out in whole dollar amounts, without paying change, and without instruction on how to obtain the balance. The unredeemed change, therefore, is never returned to the player. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua N. Garick, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JOSHUA N. GARICK 34 Salem Street, Suite 202 Reading, Massachusetts 01867 Phone: (617)600-7520 Email: Joshua@GarickLaw.com ENTEGRA FINANCIAL: Rigrodsky & Long Files Securities Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. announces that it has filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware on behalf of holders of Entegra Financial Corp. (NASDAQ GM: ENFC) common stock in connection with the proposed acquisition of Entegra by First Citizens BancShares, Inc. ("BancShares"), First-Citizens Bank & Trust Company ("FC Bank"), and FC Merger Subsidiary VII, Inc. ("Merger Sub") announced on April 24, 2019 (the "Complaint"). The Complaint, which alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against Entegra, its Board of Directors (the "Board"), BancShares, FC Bank, and Merger Sub, is captioned Parshall v. Entegra Financial Corp., Case No. 1:19-cv-01152 (D. Del.). If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Seth D. Rigrodsky or Gina M. Serra at Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220, Wilmington, DE 19801, by telephone at (888) 969-4242, by e-mail at info@rl-legal.com or at http://rigrodskylong.com/contact-us/ On April 23, 2019, Entegra entered into an agreement and plan of merger (the "Merger Agreement") with BancShares, FC Bank, and Merger Sub. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, shareholders of Entegra will receive $30.18 per share in cash (the "Proposed Transaction"). Among other things, the Complaint alleges that, in an attempt to secure shareholder support for the Proposed Transaction, defendants issued materially incomplete disclosures in a proxy statement (the "Proxy Statement") filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission. The Complaint alleges that the Proxy Statement omits material information with respect to, among other things, Entegra's financial projections and the analyses performed by Entegra's financial advisor. The Complaint seeks injunctive and equitable relief and damages on behalf of holders of Entegra common stock. 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. Any member of the proposed class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. Contact: Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. Phone: (888) 969-4242 (302) 295-5310 Fax: (302) 654-7530 Website: www.rigrodskylong.com Email: info@rl-legal.com gms@rl-legal.com sdr@rl-legal.com [GN] ENVIRO-TECH SERVICES: Class Certification Denial in Frank Reversed ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, BRAD FRANK, ET AL., Appellants, v. ENVIRO-TECH SERVICES, Respondent, Case No. ED107426 (Mo. App.), Judge Colleen Dolan of the U.S. Court of Appeals of Missouri for the Eastern District, Division Four, reversed the trial court's order denying the Class Representatives' amended motion for class certification. On May 29, 2015, Class Representatives Frank, Patrick Rigney, Matthew Ross, and Daniel Bishop filed their petition asserting a class action claim against Enviro-Tech, alleging that Enviro-Tech violated Section 290.505 by failing to pay its employees (the putative class) overtime compensation. They also individually filed affidavits supporting the facts alleged in their petition. The trial court thereafter ordered Enviro-Tech to produce documentation of the job locations and recorded work hours for its employees. After Enviro-Tech produced these documents, the Class Representatives filed their amended motion for class certification, arguing that their proposed class (which consisted of 82 former and current Enviro-Tech employees) should be certified because it met the requirements for a class as set forth by Rule 52.08(a). In their amended motion for class certification and memorandum in support of their amended motion, the Class Representatives argued that certification of their proposed class was appropriate because (1) the class was so numerous that joinder of all its members was impracticable; (2) there were questions of law and fact common to the class (specifically, whether Enviro-Tech violated Section 290.505 by failing to pay its employees overtime compensation); (3) the claims of Class Representatives were typical of the claims of the class; and (4) the Class Representatives would fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. Specifically, in regards to the numerosity requirement of Rule 52.08(a), the Class Representatives argued that Enviro-Tech has employed approximately 82 individuals who could be class members, and that based upon these facts, there is no doubt that numerosity is present in the suit. On Dec. 7, 2018, the trial court entered its order denying the Class Representatives' amended motion for class certification on the grounds that the Class Representatives did not meet the numerosity requirement of Rule 52.08(a). It reasoned that of the 80 employees, the Class Representatives have provided two additional affidavits of former employees. This makes the potential pool of employees to join the lawsuit five. The court finds that five does not meet the numerosity requirement. On Dec. 17, 2018, the Class Representatives filed their petition for leave to appeal the trial court's denial of their class action certification motion with the Court, pursuant to Rule 84.035. The Court entered its order granting the Class Representatives' petition for leave to appeal the trial court's denial of their amended motion for class certification on Jan. 17, 2019. The Class Representatives appeal the trial court's denial of their amended motion for class certification in their action against Enviro-Tech involving claims that Enviro-Tech failed to properly pay its employees (such as the Class Representatives) overtime compensation as required by Section 290.505. They raise two points on appeal. In their first point, the Class Representatives argue that the trial court erred in denying their amended motion to certify their proposed class for their class action claims against Enviro-Tech because the trial court incorrectly determined that the Class Representatives did not meet the numerosity requirement of Rule 52.08(a). Specifically, they argue that the trial court erroneously evaluated the numerosity element based upon the number of affidavits produced by the Class Representatives instead of the number of potential class members. And in their second point, the Class Representatives argue that the trial court erred in denying their amended motion for class certification because they presented evidence demonstrating that the proposed class satisfied all of the elements required for a class to be certified under Rule 52.08(a). Judge Dolan finds that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the Class Representatives' amended motion for class certification based upon its rationale that the Class Representatives did not meet the numerosity requirement because they only produced five affidavits from members of their proposed class. She therefore grants the Class Representatives' Point I. Because the trial court concluded that tge Class Representatives did not fulfill the numerosity requirement of Rule 52.08(a), and therefore did not proceed to make findings and conclusions on the remaining three requirements of Rule 52.08(a), remand is necessary for the trial court to evaluate the remaining three requirements. For that reason, the Judge does not address the Class Representatives' Point II. Judge Dolan concludes that the trial court erred in denying the Class Representatives' amended motion for class certification based upon its incorrect finding that the Class Representatives did not meet the numerosity requirement of Rule 52.08(a). She therefore reversed the judgment of the trial court in regards to its finding that the Class Representatives did not fulfill the numerosity requirement, and remanded with instructions for the trial court to find that the Class Representatives satisfied the numerosity requirement, to make findings and conclusions on the remaining three requirements of Rule 52.08(a), and for further proceedings not inconsistent with the Opinion. A full-text copy of the Court's June 18, 2019 Opinion is available at https://is.gd/C8VLal from Leagle.com. Michelle K. Faron and Daniel J. McMichael -- dan@mcmichael-logan.com -- Attorneys for Appellants. Charles A. Pirrello, Attorney for Respondent. EROS INTERNATIONAL: Rosen Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Eros International PLC (NYSE: EROS) from July 28, 2017 through June 5, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Eros investors under the federal securities laws. To join the Eros class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1597.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) Eros and its executives engaged in a scheme to use related-party transactions to fabricate receivables that they reported in Eros's public financial disclosures; (2) because of this scheme, Eros's financial position was weaker than what the Company disclosed; (3) consequently, the Company's Indian subsidiary, Eros International Media Ltd, missed loan payments and had its credit downgraded; and (4) due to the foregoing, defendants' statements about Eros's receivables, 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 August 20, 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-1597.htmlor to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com. Contact: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 34thFloor New York, NY 10016 Phone: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 Website: www.rosenlegal.com Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com cases@rosenlegal.com [GN] FIDELITY NATIONAL: Still Defends Patterson Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- Fidelity National Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 23, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Patterson, et al. v. Fidelity National Title Insurance Company, et al. In a class action captioned Patterson, et al. v. Fidelity National Title Insurance Company, et al., Case No. GD 03-021176, originally filed on October 27, 2003 and pending in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, plaintiffs allege the named Company underwriters violated Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law ("UTPCPL") by failing to provide premium discounts in accordance with filed rates in refinancing transactions. Contrary to rulings in similar federal court cases that considered the rate rule and agreed with the Company's position, the court held that the rate rule should be interpreted such that an institutional mortgage in the public record is a "proxy" for prior title insurance entitling a consumer to a discount rate when refinancing when there is a mortgage of record within the number of years required by the rate rule. The rate rule requires sufficient evidence of a prior policy, and because not all institutional mortgages were insured, the Company's position is that a recorded first mortgage alone does not constitute sufficient evidence of an earlier policy entitling consumers to a discounted rate. The court certified the class refusing to follow prior Pennsylvania Supreme Court and appellate court decisions holding that the UTPCPL requires proof of reliance, an individual issue that precludes certification. After notice to the class, plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment on liability, and defendants moved for summary judgment. On June 27, 2018, the court entered an order granting plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment on liability, and denying the Company's motion. The court also determined that a multiplier of 1.5, not treble, should be applied to the amount of damages, if any, proven by class members at trial and that the plaintiffs should bear the responsibility of identifying class members and calculating damages. The Company sought permission from the Pennsylvania Superior Court to appeal both the liability and damage multiplier issues; however, the petition was denied. The Company has filed a petition with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court requesting permission to appeal on the merits, or in the alternative, an order directing the Pennsylvania Superior Court to grant interlocutory review. There has been no determination as to the size of the class. It is unknown whether plaintiffs will seek statutory or actual damages, or whether the judge will exercise discretion to award prejudgment interest or reasonable attorneys' fees. Accordingly, damages are not reasonably estimable at this time. Fidelity National said, "We will continue to vigorously defend this matter, and we do not believe the result will have a material adverse effect on our financial condition." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Fidelity National Financial, Inc. (FNF), incorporated on May 24, 2005, is a holding company. The Company is a provider of title insurance, and transaction services to the real estate and mortgage industries. The Company's segments include Title, FNF Core Corporate and Other, Restaurant Group, and FNFV Corporate and Other. Its business is organized into groups, including FNF Group and FNF Ventures (FNFV). The company is based in Jacksonville, Florida. FRIENDLY'S MANUFACTURING: Charles Hits False Ice Cream Labels ------------------------------------------------------------- Alan Charles and Jane Doe, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Friendly's Manufacturing and Retail, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-06571 (S.D. N.Y., July 15, 2019), seeks restitution and disgorgement of inequitably obtained profits, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, monetary and punitive damages and interest, costs and expenses, including reasonable fees for attorneys and experts and such other and further relief resulting from unjust enrichment, negligent misrepresentation and violation of New York general business laws and various state consumer protection statutes. Friendly's Manufacturing and Retail, LLC manufactures, distributes, markets, labels and sells ice cream products labeled as types of, or containing vanilla under the "Friendly's" brand. Plaintiffs allege that their vanilla ice cream contains vanilla flavor or vanilla extract despite its labelling indicating "natural flavor." [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Spencer Sheehan, Esq. SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 891 Northern Blvd., Suite 201 Great Neck, NY 11021 Tel: (516) 303-0552 Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com GAMESTOP CORP: Gilewski Suit Moved to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled as A. Gilewski, an individual on behalf of himself and of all other similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. GameStop Corp., doing business as: GameStop Corp., a Delaware corporation; Gamestop Inca Minnesota corporation; and Does 1-50 inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 19STCV17057, was removed form the Los Angeles Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on July 19, 2019. The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-06258 to the proceeding. The suit demands $24 million in damages. The suit alleges breach of contract. GameStop Corp. is an American video game, consumer electronics, and wireless services retailer. The company is headquartered in Grapevine, Texas, United States, a suburb of Dallas, and operates 7,267 retail stores throughout the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Europe. The Plaintiff appears pro se. Attorneys for the Defendants: Christopher Lee, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 277-7200 Facsimile: (310) 201-5219 E-mail: chlee@seyfarth.com GLOBAL CREDIT: Class Certification Proceedings Shelved ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit styled as JENNIFER WOJCIESKI, ET AL., the Plaintiffs, v. GLOBAL CREDIT COLLECTION CORPORATION, the Defendant, Case No. 19-CV-1023 (E.D. Wisc.), the Hon. Judge William E. Duffin entered an order on July 18, 2019, granting Plaintiff's motion to stay further proceedings on the motion for class certification. On July 17, 2019, the plaintiff filed a class action complaint. At the same time, the plaintiff filed what the court commonly refers to as a "protective" motion for class certification. In this motion the plaintiff moved to certify the class described in the complaint but also moved the court to stay further proceedings on that motion. In Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011), the court suggested that class action plaintiffs "move to certify the class at the same time that they file their complaint." "The pendency of that motion protects a putative class from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs." However, because parties are generally unprepared to proceed with a motion for class certification at the beginning of case, the Damasco court suggested that the parties "ask the district court to delay its ruling to provide time for additional discovery or investigation." The parties are relieved from the automatic briefing schedule set forth in Civil Local Rule 7(b) and (c). Moreover, for administrative purposes, it is necessary that the Clerk terminate the plaintiff's motion for class certification. However, this motion will be regarded as pending to serve its protective purpose under Damasco.[BN] GNC HOLDINGS: Appeal from Workweek Suit Judgment Still Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- GNC Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 22, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company is awaiting a court ruling on its appeal from an "adverse judgment" in a Pennsylvania Fluctuating Workweek related class suit. On September 18, 2013, Tawny Chevalier and Andrew Hiller commenced a class action in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. Plaintiff asserted a claim against the Company for a purported violation of the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act ("PMWA"), challenging the Company's utilization of the "fluctuating workweek" method to calculate overtime compensation, on behalf of all employees who worked for the Company in Pennsylvania and who were paid according to the fluctuating workweek method. In October 2014, the Court entered an order holding that the use of the fluctuating workweek method violated the PMWA. In September 2016, the Court entered judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and the class in an immaterial amount, which has been recorded as a charge in the accompanying Consolidated Financial Statements. Plaintiffs subsequently filed a petition for an award of attorney's fees, costs and incentive payment. The court awarded an immaterial amount in legal fees. The Company appealed the adverse judgment and the award of attorney's fees. On December 22, 2017, the Pennsylvania Superior Court held that the Company correctly determined the "regular rate" by dividing weekly compensation by all hours worked (rather than 40), but held that the regular rate must be multiplied by 1.5 (rather than 0.5) to determine the amount of overtime owed. Taking accumulated interest into account, the net result of the Superior Court's decision was to reduce the Company's liability by an immaterial amount, which has been reflected in the accompanying Consolidated Financial Statements. The Company filed a petition for appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court on January 22, 2018. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court accepted the Company's petition for appeal and the Company filed its appellant's brief on August 27, 2018. Oral argument occurred in April 2019 and the Company awaits the Court's ruling. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. GNC Holdings, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a specialty retailer of health, wellness, and performance products. The company operates through three segments: U.S. and Canada, International, and Manufacturing/Wholesale. The company was founded in 1935 and is headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. GNC HOLDINGS: Trial in Naranjo Class Suit Set for September 2019 ---------------------------------------------------------------- GNC Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 22, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the trial in the class action suit initiated by Elizabeth Naranjo is currently scheduled for September 2019. On February 29, 2012, former Senior Store Manager, Elizabeth Naranjo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, sued General Nutrition Corporation in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda. The complaint contains eight causes of action, alleging, among other matters, meal, rest break and overtime violations for which indeterminate money damages for wages, penalties, interest, and legal fees are sought. In June 2018, the Court granted in part and denied in part the Company's Motion for Decertification. In August 2018, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the class action claims alleging overtime violations. As of June 30, 2019, an immaterial liability has been accrued in the accompanying financial statements. GNC Holdings said, "The Company intends to vigorously defend against the remaining class action claims asserted in this action. Trial is currently scheduled for September 2019." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. GNC Holdings, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a specialty retailer of health, wellness, and performance products. The company operates through three segments: U.S. and Canada, International, and Manufacturing/Wholesale. The company was founded in 1935 and is headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. HEALTH NETWORK: Dismissal of SAC in S. Sykes Suit Affirmed ---------------------------------------------------------- In the case, SUSAN SYKES d/b/a ADVANCED CHIROPRACTIC AND HEALTH CENTER, DAWN PATRICK, TROY LYNN, LIFEWORKS ON LAKE NORMAN, PLLC, BRENT BOST, and BOST CHIROPRACTIC CLINIC, P.A., v. HEALTH NETWORK SOLUTIONS, INC. f/k/a CHIROPRACTIC NETWORK OF THE CAROLINAS, INC., MICHAEL BINDER, STEVEN BINDER, ROBERT STROUD, JR., LARRY GROSMAN, MATTHEW SCHMID, RALPH RANSONE, JEFFREY K. BALDWIN, IRA RUBIN, RICHARD ARMSTRONG, BRAD BATCHELOR, JOHN SMITH, RICK JACKSON, and MARK HOOPER, Case No. 251PA18 (N.C.), Judge Robin E. Hudson of the Supreme Court of North Carolina affirmed the North Carolina Business Court's (i) Aug. 18, 2017 order and opinion granting in part and denying in part the Defendants' motions to dismiss and for partial summary judgment, and (ii) April 5, 2018 order and opinion dismissing the Plaintiffs' remaining claims under Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The Plaintiffs are licensed chiropractic providers in North Carolina who allege that Defendants Health Network Solutions, Inc. ("HNS") and HNS' individual owners have engaged in unlawful price fixing ultimately resulting in a reduction of output of chiropractic services in North Carolina. Specifically, the Plaintiffs allege that Defendant HNS has committed antitrust and other violations in its role as intermediary between individual chiropractors and several insurance companies and third-party administrators, who are the defendants in a separate action also before this Court. In their Second Amended Class Action Complaint, the Plaintiffs raise the following claims for relief: (1) declaratory judgment, (2) price fixing, monopsony, and monopoly (the antitrust claims), (3) unfair and deceptive trade practices and acts, (4) civil conspiracy, and (5) breach of fiduciary duty. In addition, plaintiffs seek punitive damages, a remedy styled in the complaint as a separate claim for relief. The Plaintiffs brought the action as a putative class action lawsuit, defining the class as all licensed chiropractors practicing in North Carolina from 2005 to the present who provided services in the North Carolina Market; and identifying as three subsets of that class all licensed chiropractors participating in the HNS Market, the Comprehensive Health Market, and the Insurance Market. The Plaintiffs contend that HNS, despite representing that it is an integrated independent practice association ("IPA"), in fact operates an involuntary cartel to control competition, supply, and pricing of chiropractic services in North Carolina made possible by the exclusive contracts with the Insurers and the market power provided by those contracts. They contend that HNS is operating as a medical service corporation, as described in N.C.G.S. Section 58-65-1, that has not become licensed as required by N.C.G.S. Section 58-65-50. In addition, they contend that HNS is conducting utilization review based only on providers' average per-patient cost, which does not take into account medical necessity or appropriateness of treatment, in violation of N.C.G.S. Section 58-50-61 (2017). Thus, they contend, in addition to its failure to obtain proper licensure, HNS is violating North Carolina's antitrust statutes by fixing the prices charged by more than one-half of the licensed chiropractors in the state and by monopsony, a buyer-side form of monopoly, in which, rather than using its market power as a sole seller to increase the price of services, HNS is using its market power as a buyer of those services to restrict output of services. The Plaintiffs allege four relevant markets that have been adversely affected by the conduct of Defendant HNS: the North Carolina market, defined as the market for chiropractic services provided in North Carolina, and three submarkets within the North Carolina Market. Those submarkets are (1) the HNS Market, the market in which in-network managed care chiropractic services are provided to the Insurers and their North Carolina patients through HNS; (2) the Comprehensive Health Market, the market for in-network chiropractic services provided to individual and group comprehensive healthcare insurers and their patients in North Carolina; and (3) the Insurance Health Market, the market for insurance reimbursed chiropractic services in North Carolina. The original complaint in the action was filed on 30 April 2013, and the case was designated a mandatory complex business case on May 31, 2013, before passage of the Business Court Modernization Act ("BCMA"). The BCMA established that, for all cases designated as mandatory complex business cases after 1 October 2014, appeals from the North Carolina Business Court would come directly to this Court, rather than to the Court of Appeals. A second action involving essentially the same factual allegations and similar legal claims, Sykes v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of North Carolina ("Sykes II"), was filed after the effective date of the BCMA, and therefore the appeal in that case lay in the Court. The Plaintiffs filed a motion to consolidate the two actions in the Business Court, which the Business Court never addressed before dismissing both lawsuits entirely. The Business Court dismissed the claims in the instant case ("Sykes I") in two different stages. Several months after the Plaintiffs filed their first amended complaint, the court on Dec. 5, 2013 ordered limited discovery on the issue of market definition for the purposes of the Plaintiffs' antitrust claims. This limited discovery took place between February 2014 and August 2015. Following fact and expert discovery on market definition, the Plaintiffs filed their Sykes II complaint on May 26, 2015 and their second amended complaint in the action on July 16, 2015. The Defendants in the matter filed a motion to dismiss and for partial summary judgment, which the court granted in part and denied in part in its Aug. 18, 2017 order and opinion. In that document, the court granted summary judgment for the Defendants on any claims stemming from their participation in the Plaintiffs' three proffered relevant submarkets but denied summary judgment on antitrust claims related to the North Carolina Market and on other claims connected to those remaining antitrust claims. It also dismissed the Plaintiffs' breach of fiduciary duty claim as well as to their claim for declaratory relief to the extent that claim was based on violations of Chapter 58. Finally, the court ordered supplemental briefing on whether the Plaintiffs had adequately alleged market power within the one relevant market, the North Carolina Market. Following receipt of that supplemental briefing, the court filed a second decision on April 5, 2018 dismissing all of the Plaintiffs' remaining claims. The Plaintiffs appeal from both orders and opinions of the Business Court. Judge Hudson affirmed the Business Court's dismissal of the Plaintiffs' antitrust claims, including the derivative claim of civil conspiracy, by an equally divided vote, meaning that the Business Court's opinion as to those claims will stand without precedential value. She also held that the Business Court did not err in dismissing each of the Plaintiffs' other claims. As for the Plaintiffs' unfair trade practices claim, the Judge held that this claim is barred by the learned profession exemption set out in N.C.G.S. Section 75-1.1(b). Regarding the Plaintiffs' declaratory judgment claim, she held that the relevant statutes do not provide the Plaintiffs a private right of action to obtain the declaratory relief that they seek. As for the Plaintiffs' breach of fiduciary duty claim, she held that no fiduciary relationship existed between the parties, meaning no fiduciary duty was ever created. The Business Court correctly noted that no freestanding claim exists for punitive damages, and the Olaintiffs have no remaining legal claim to which punitive damages might attach. As so described, the Judge affirmed the decision of the Business Court dismissing the Plaintiffs' entire action. A full-text copy of the Court's June 14, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/Z5qreQ from Leagle.com. Oak City Law LLP, by Samuel Pinero II and Robert E. Fields III -- rob.fields@oakcitylaw.com; and Doughton Blancato PLLC, by William A. Blancato, for plaintiff-appellants. Brooks, Pierce, McLendon, Humphrey & Leonard, L.L.P., by Jennifer K. Van Zant -- jvanzant@brookspierce.com -- Benjamin R. Norman -- bnorman@brookspierce.com -- and W. Michael Dowling -- mdowling@brookspierce.com -- for defendant-appellees. HEALTHPLUS SURGERY: Kinlock Remanded to NJ Superior Court --------------------------------------------------------- Judge William J. Martini of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey remanded the case, DAVID KINLOCK and JOSE SALCEDO, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. HEALTHPLUS SURGERY CENTER, LLC, Defendant, Civ. No. 2:19-00962 (WJM) (MF) (D. N.J.), to the New Jersey Superior Court. HealthPlus is a surgical center located in Saddle Brook, New Jersey. The Plaintiffs are New Jersey citizens and former patients at HealthPlus who underwent surgical procedures between Jan. 1, 2018 and Sept. 7, 2018. On Sept. 7, 2018, the New Jersey Department of Health ordered HealthPlus to close due to its failure to properly maintain sterile medical hardware and instruments. In December 2018, HealthPlus mailed form notices to approximately 3,700 former patients -- including the Plaintiffs -- notifying the recipients of their potential exposure to HIV, Hepatitis B, and Hepatitis C. The Notices explained that due to HealthPlus' lapses in infection control in sterilization/cleaning instruments they would offer recipients a "single 'free' blood test." The Notices stated that it is important to know your infection status regarding these diseases, because there are medical treatments available. Theydid not elaborate on any specific treatment options for those who contract infections. Based on these facts, Kinlock filed the putative class action on behalf of approximately 3,700 HealthPlus patients on Jan. 3, 2019, alleging that the "single free blood test" is wholly inadequate in addressing the needs and safety of the putative class. They seek injunctive relief in the form of a court-administered medical monitoring program for the class members. They seek to represent all New Jersey citizens who received a form notice from Defendant which was identical or substantially similar to the Notices. On Jan. 23, 2019, HealthPlus removed the case to the Court invoking federal diversity jurisdiction under CAFA. The Plaintiffs moved to remand on Jan. 28, 2019 on the grounds that the requirements for jurisdiction under CAFA are not satisfied because all the parties involved are New Jersey citizens. On April 23, 2019, Magistrate Judge Mark Falk issued a Report and Recommendation recommending remand. HealthPlus objected, and the Plaintiffs filed a response to HealthPlus' objections. Judge Martini finds that as Judge Falk's Report and Recommendation notes, the Plaintiff places two contingencies on class membership: (1) New Jersey citizenship, and (2) receiving a Notice from HealthPlus. The plain language of the Plaintiffs' putative class definition leaves no room for uncertainty about the requirements for class membership, and the Judge need not look beyond the putative class definition. However, even if he were to look to the other allegations in the Amended Complaint, the Defendant's argument that the Plaintiffs' reference to the Notice recipients creates diversity belies the plain language of the Plaintiffs' pleading: It is a class action brought on behalf of the over 3,700 New Jersey citizens who received a form notice form the Defendant. The Judge declines the Defendant's invitation to contort stray allegations from other parts of the pleading to define the class when the class definition expressly limits class membership to only New Jersey citizens and unequivocally excludes citizens of all other states. He accordingly rejects the Defendant's objections and adopts Judge Falk's Report and Recommendation as to the motion to remand in full. For the foregoing reasons, Judge Martini adopted the Report and Recommendation in full, and the case is remanded to the New Jersey Superior Court. A full-text copy of the Court's June 18, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/Orsd5C from Leagle.com. DAVID KINLOCK, On behalf of himself and all others similarly situated & JOSE SALCEDO, On behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by STEPHEN PATRICK DENITTIS -- sdenittis@denittislaw.com -- DENITTIS OSEFCHEN, PC. HEALTHPLUS SURGERY CENTER, LLC, Defendant, represented by RICHARD J. WILLIAMS, Jr. -- rwilliams@mdmc-law.com -- MCELROY, DEUTSCH, MULVANEY & CARPENTER, LLP & MICHAEL DAVID CELENTANO -- MCELENTANO@MDMC-LAW.COM -- MCELROY DEUTSCH MULVANEY & CARPENTER LLP. HEALTHRIGHT, LLC: Court Certifies Class of Terminated Employees --------------------------------------------------------------- CANDIE NELSON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. HEALTHRIGHT, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 8:18-cv-02678-JSM-CPT (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge James S. Moody entered an order on July 18, 2019: 1. certifying a class of: "any former employee of Defendant HEALTHRIGHT, LLC, who was terminated and/or laid off without cause from their employment at HEALTHRIGHT, LLC, on or about September 20, 2018, or within a reasonable period of time prior to or after September 20, 2018, as part of a mass layoff (or plant closing) as defined in 20 C.F.R. section 639.3 and 29 U.S.C. section 2101 under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification [WARN] Act of 1988, and who was not given a minimum of sixty days' advance written notice of termination." The class does not include part-time employees as defined under 29 U.S.C. section 2101(a)(8); 2. approving Candie Nelson as Class Representative; 3. approving Wolfgang M. Florin and Miguel Bouzas of the firm Florin Gray Bouzas Owens, LLC as Class Counsel; and 4. providing parties 30 days from the date of this Order to confer regarding issues that may arise associated with the administration of the class, including the form and content of the notice, and the establishment of an opt-out period and procedure, and shall advise the Court on these efforts and whether there are issues that require the Court's resolution.[CC] HELIUS MEDICAL: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Securities Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Helius Medical Technologies, Inc. ("Helius" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: HSDT) and certain of its officers, on behalf of shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired Helius securities from November 9, 2017 and April 10, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Such investors are encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's site: www.bgandg.com/hsdt. This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On January 25, 2019, Helius said that it had received a request for additional data and information from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (the "FDA") related to the its request for de novo classification and 510(k) clearance of its Portable Neuromodulation Stimulator (PoNS™) device. Following this news, Helius stock dropped $0.48 per share, or roughly 6%, to close at $7.13 on January 25, 2019. On April 10, 2019, Helius disclosed that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") had declined the Company's request for De Novo classification and clearance of its Portable Neuromodulation Stimulator device. The FDA stated that it lacked sufficient data to determine the relative contributions of the device and physical therapy in clinical studies. Following this news, Helius stock dropped $4.11 per share, or more than 66%, to close at $2.10 on April 10, 2019. The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) that the clinical study on the use of PoNS did not produce statistically significant results regarding the effectiveness of the treatment; (2) that, as a result, the clinical study did not support the Company's application for regulatory clearance; (3) that, as a result, the Company was unlikely to receive regulatory approval of PoNS; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. If you wish to review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site: www.bgandg.com/hsdt If you suffered a loss in Helius you have until September 9, 2019 to request that the Court appoint you 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. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. Contact: Peretz Bronstein, Esq. Yael Hurwitz Investor Relations Analyst Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC Phone: 212-697-6484 Email: info@bgandg.com peretz@bgandg.com [GN] HOUSTON, TX: 5th Cir. Partly Grants Writ of Mandamus Petition ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, In re: CITY OF HOUSTON, Petitioner, Case No. 19-20377 (5th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit granted in part and denied in part the City's petition for writ of mandamus. Before the Court is a petition for writ of mandamus filed by the City following the district court's denial of the City's claim of privilege in a lawsuit pending against the City in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas with respect to certain documents in the City's possession. The City has also submitted a corresponding unopposed motion to seal the documents at issue and attached such documents to its motion. Preliminarily, the Court addresses the City's motion to seal documents. It granted such motion and that the documents submitted by the City as Exhibit A to its motion will be filed under seal and viewable only by the Court. Having ruled on the City's motion, the Court proceeds to its petition. A response in opposition to the petition was submitted by Respondents Eric Aguirre, Juan Hernandez, Dequan Kirkwood, Manuel Trevino, and Kent Wheatfall, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated. The lawsuit that forms the basis of the dispute is a purported class action that was filed in December 2016 against the City by individuals alleging that the City had violated their Fourth Amendment rights and Texas law by holding them in custody for longer than 48 hours after their warrantless arrests without conducting a probable cause hearing. In the course of litigation, a discovery dispute arose as to the production of certain documents containing electronic communications that the City designated as protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or attorney work product doctrine. At the Respondents' request, the district court reviewed the documents at issue in camera. On April 24, 2019, after its review, the district court issued an order noting its finding that the documents are not privileged because there is no showing that the documents are privileged either as confidential communication or under the doctrine of attorney work product and overruling the City's claim of privilege. On May 24, 2019, the court denied the City's motion for reconsideration of its April 24 order and ordered the City to produce all of the documents that it deemed are not subject to a claim of privilege by the following day. It subsequently granted the City's request to stay its May 24 order pending this court's resolution of the instant petition. In its petition, the City asks the Court to vacate the district court's April 24 and May 24 orders as to certain specified electronic communications and to remand this matter to the district court for further proceedings. Having reviewed the submissions of the parties, the documents in dispute, which are contained in Exhibit A to the City's motion to seal documents, and pertinent jurisprudence, the Court concludes that the electronic communications identified by the City in Tabs 3, 4, 5, 8 and 9 of Exhibit A fall within the attorney-client privilege and that mandamus relief is warranted with respect to such items. The communications identified by the City in Tabs 6 and 7 of Exhibit A, on the other hand, do not fall within the attorney-client privilege and are not documents prepared in anticipation of litigation. Thus, the City is not entitled to mandamus relief with respect to such items. Accordingly, the Court granted the City's petition and vacated the district court's April 24, 2019 and May 24, 2019 orders as they pertain to the documents contained in Tab 3 of Exhibit A (Bates labeled COH0002145 and COH0002148); Tab 4 of Exhibit A (Bates labeled COH0002151-53, COH0002155-57, and COH0002159-62); Tab 5 of Exhibit A (Bates labeled COH0002164-65, COH0002168-69, COH0002171-72, COH0002174-75, COH0002177-78, COH0002180-82, COH0002184-86, COH0002188-91, COH0002193-96, and COH0002198-COH0002292); Tab 8 of Exhibit A (Bates labeled COH0002217-20); and Tab 9 of Exhibit A (Bates labeled COH0002384-92). The City's Petition is denied in all other respects. The Court further remanded the matter to the district court for further proceedings consistent with its Opinion. A full-text copy of the Court's June 18, 2019 Opinion is available at https://is.gd/aqGLda from Leagle.com. Warren W. Harris -- warren.harris@bracewell.com -- for Petitioner. Sean Gorman -- sean.gorman@bracewell.com -- for Petitioner. Rebecca Bernhardt -- bernhard.rebecca@dorsey.com -- for Petitioner. Anna Rotman -- anna.rotman@kirkland.com -- for Petitioner. Ryan C. Downer, for Petitioner. Patrick King, for Petitioner. Susanne Ashley Pringle -- shpringle@pringleavocats.com -- for Petitioner. Walter Allums Simons -- walter.simons@bracewell.com -- for Petitioner. Kasdin M. Mitchell -- kasdin.mitchell@kirkland.com -- for Petitioner. Leonora Cohen -- lara.cohen@kirkland.com -- for Petitioner. Charles Gerstein, for Petitioner. Alex Stone Zuckerman -- alex.zuckerman@kirkland.com -- for Petitioner. HOUSTON, TX: Appeals Decision in Hernandez Suit to Fifth Circuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant City of Houston filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the lawsuit styled Juan Hernandez, et al. v. City of Houston, Case No. 4:16-CV-3577, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston. The appellate case is captioned as Juan Hernandez, et al. v. City of Houston, Case No. 19-90019, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The Class Action Reporter reported on June 26, 2019, that the Defendant appealed a District Court ruling issued in the lawsuit. That appellate case is styled In re: City of Houston v. Juan Hernandez, et al., Case No. 19-20377. The lawsuit alleges that Houston unconstitutionally detains people it arrests longer than 48 hours without giving them a probable cause hearing. Lead plaintiff Juan Hernandez says Houston police arrested him without a warrant in January after he pushed his family member. He was charged with misdemeanor assault and booked into a city jail. Mr. Hernandez claims that the City doesn't provide probable cause hearings for its arrestees right away, instead only offering them the option of immediately getting out of jail by paying bail based on a set fee schedule. "The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Texas state law require that anyone arrested without a warrant be released promptly -- after 48 hours at the longest -- unless a neutral magistrate has concluded that there was probable cause or her arrest and continued detention," the complaint states. "Houston has a policy and practice of disregarding this simple obligation."[BN] Plaintiffs-Respondents JUAN HERNANDEZ, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated, DEQUAN KIRKWOOD, MANUEL TREVINO, KENT WHEATFALL and ERIC AGUIRRE are represented by: Leonora Cohen, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS, L.L.P. 333 S. Hope Street Los Angeles, CA 90017-0000 Telephone: (213) 680-8157 E-mail: lara.cohen@kirkland.com - and - Ryan C. Downer, Esq. CIVIL RIGHTS CORPS 910 17th Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (617) 216-2423 E-mail: ryan@civilrightscorps.org - and - Anna Rotman, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS, L.L.P. 609 Main Street Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 836-3750 E-mail: anna.rotman@kirkland.com - and - Alex Stone Zuckerman, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS, L.L.P. 601 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 909-3394 E-mail: alex.zuckerman@kirkland.com Defendant-Petitioner CITY OF HOUSTON is represented by: Donald Jay Fleming, Esq. Ronald Charles Lewis, Esq. CITY OF HOUSTON 900 Bagby Street Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (832) 393-6303 E-mail: don.fleming@houstontx.gov Ronald.lewis@houstontx.gov - and - Sean Gorman, Esq. Warren W. Harris, Esq. BRACEWELL, L.L.P. 711 Louisiana Street S. Pennzoil Plaza Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 221-1221 E-mail: sean.gorman@bracewell.com warren.harris@bracewell.com IDEANOMICS INC: Bragar Eagel Files Securities Class Action Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all investors that purchased Ideanomics, Inc. (NASDAQ: IDEX) securities between May 15, 2017 and November 13, 2018 (the "Class Period"). Investors have until September 17, 2019 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit. The complaint filed on July 19, 2019 alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (i) costs associated with building out Ideanomics' U.S. infrastructure and hiring its new executive team were negatively impacting the Company's bottom line performance; (ii) as a result, Ideanomics was highly unlikely to meet its 2018 EBITDA guidance; (iii) Ideanomics' margins in its oil trading and consumer electronics businesses were too low for those businesses to remain viable; and (iv) as a result, Ideanomics' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a New York-based law firm concentrating in commercial and securities litigation. For additional information concerning the Ideanomics class action please go to https://bespc.com/idex. For additional information about Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. please go to www.bespc.com Contacts Brandon Walker, Esq. Melissa Fortunato, Esq. Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Tel.No.: (212) 355-4648 Website: www.bespc.com E-mail: fortunato@bespc.com walker@bespc.com investigations@bespc.com [GN] INTELLIGENT SYSTEMS: Bernstein Liebhard Files Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Bernstein Liebhard LLP, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law firm, announces that a securities class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of shareholders that acquired shares of Intelligent Systems Corporation (INS) between January 23, 2019, and May 29, 2019, inclusive. The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York and seeks to recover damages for INS investors under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you purchased INS securities during the Class Period, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options, please visit INS Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit or contact Matthew Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com According to the lawsuit, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors:(1) Defendant Petit, the "financial expert" on Intelligent Systems' Audit Committee engaged in accounting fraud as the CEO of MiMedx Group, Inc.; (2) Intelligent Systems' CEO, Defendant Strange, engaged in undisclosed related-party transactions with Defendant Petit and others and had an undisclosed personal relations hip with the Company's auditor; (3) Intelligent Systems had its employees set up or take control of shell companies in Asia so they could partake in undisclosed related-party transactions for the purpose of either fabricating revenue for the Company and/or siphoning money out of the Company; and (4) as a result, defendants' statements about Intelligent Systems' business, operations, and prospects were materially false and/or misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. On May 24, 2019, before market hours, Aurelius Value published a report "INS: A Wolf in Pete's Clothing." The report discussed MiMedx Group's disclosures concerning Defendant Petit and also accused the Company's CEO, Defendant Strange, inter alia, of engaging in undisclosed related-party transactions with Defendant Petit and others and of an undisclosed personal relationship with INS's auditor, Nicolas Cauley. On this news, shares of INS fell $4.18 per share, or more than 10% to close at $34.93 per share on May 24, 2019, damaging investors. On May 30, 2019, before the market opened, Grizzly Research LLC issued a report entitled "Intelligent Systems Corp: Material Undisclosed Related Party Transactions Cast Doubt on the Integrity of Financial Statements." The report presented evidence that "Intelligent Systems Corp. (INS) has its employees set up or take control of undisclosed shell companies in Asia, who then partake in undisclosed related party transactions with INS intended to either round-trip revenue back to INS or siphon money out of the company." It further stated that "there is a possibility that all revenue growth since January 2018 has been a result of undisclosed round-trip transactions with Indian related parties." On this news, shares of INS fell $6.82 from the prior day's closing price of $33.81 or over 20%, to close at $26.99 per share on May 30, 2019. 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. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you take no action, you may remain an absent class member. If you purchased INS securities during the Class Period, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please contact: Matthew Guarnero, Esq. Bernstein Liebhard LLP 10 East 40th Street, New York, New York 1001 Phone: (877) 779-1414 Website: https://www.bernlieb.com Email: seidman@bernlieb.com MGuarnero@bernlieb.com [GN] INTELLIGENT SYSTEMS: Rosen Law Files Securities Fraud Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces it has filed the first class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Intelligent Systems Corporation (NYSE American: INS) from January 23, 2019 through May 29, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Intelligent Systems investors under the federal securities laws. To join the Intelligent Systems class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1599.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) Defendant Petit, the "financial expert" on Intelligent Systems' Audit Committee engaged in accounting fraud as the CEO of MiMedx Group, Inc.; (2) Intelligent Systems' CEO, Defendant Strange, engaged in undisclosed related-party transactions with Defendant Petit and others and had an undisclosed personal relationship with the Company's auditor; (3) Intelligent Systems had its employees set up or take control of shell companies in Asia so they could partake in undisclosed related-party transactions for the purpose of either fabricating revenue for the Company and/or siphoning money out of the Company; and (4) as a result, defendants' statements about Intelligent Systems' business, operations, and prospects were materially false and/or 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-1599.htmlor to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com Contact: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor New York, NY 10016 Phone: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 Website: www.rosenlegal.com Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com cases@rosenlegal.com [GN] IQVIA INC: Court Nixes Bid to Dismiss SAC in TCPA Suit ------------------------------------------------------ In the case, ADVANCED OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY, P.C., a Mississippi Corporation, on behalf of itself, and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. IQVIA, INC., Defendant, Civil Action No. 3:18-cv-00197-NBB-JMV (N.D. Miss.), Judge Neal B. Biggers, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi, Oxford Division, denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. On Sept. 13, 2018, Plaintiff Advanced Obstetrics & Gynecology filed its class action complaint alleging Defendant IQVIA violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 ("TCPA", as amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005, by sending an unsolicited advertisement via facsimile without certain "opt-out" language1 required by the Act, to the Plaintiff and the other putative class members. On April 2, 2019, the Plaintiff filed its Second Amended Complaint with the Court's permission to include additional factual allegations. IQVIA now moves pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for dismissal of the Second Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim. The fax at issue was sent on June 30, 2017, addressed to Dr. William Frohn, inviting him to participate in an online research study. The fax is one-page and is divided into three sections. The first section of the fax identifies Dr. Frohn by his name and reference number and invites him to join a select group of healthcare professionals reporting for our online study. The second section lists an honorarium available upon participation in the study. The third section includes a fill-in-the-blank form with blank lines for Dr. Frohn's business and medical practice information, including his "primary specialty." Additionally, the fax directs where to send the completed application (via fax) and how to request more information (via email or phone). The Plaintiff's complaint alleges that the fax was sent as part of a scheme to collect the Plaintiff's data to later be repackaged and sold to IQVIA's clients. The Plaintiff alleges the surveys IQVIA sent were pretextual with financial profit as their purpose, and the data collected was to be sold via IQVIA's healthcare consulting services. In addition, the complaint alleges the fax advertised incentives (brand name items and gift cards that can be exchanged for "award points") to participate in pharmaceutical marketing programs, therefore attempting to induce Plaintiff into a commercial relationship. Finally, the Plaintiff alleges the fax was explicitly commercial, as its purpose was to solicit recipient's participation in a commercialized data collection plan In moving to dismiss, IQVIA argues that the fax inviting Dr. Frohn to participate in an online research study is not an advertisement' within the meaning of the TCPA because it does not advertise the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services. Further, it contends that this fact is evident from the face of the fax, and the additional allegations pled in the Second Amended Complaint purporting to describe IQVIA's business activities cannot change the content of the fax or cure the substantive defect necessitating dismissal. In addition, the Defendant argues the additional allegations pled in the Second Amended Complaint are "unsupported legal conclusions and legally irrelevant allegations that future economic benefits might someday flow from the informational fax. The Plaintiff asks the Court to follow Mussat v. IQVIA Inc., a factually similar case which survived a 12(b)(6) motion in the Northern District of Illinois. In the Mussat opinion denying the Defendant's 12(b)(6) motion, the court stated that Mussat's complaint plausibly alleged facts suggesting that the fax -- although not an overt sales pitch -- furthered the Defendant's commercial efforts or advanced its marketing operations. Judge Biggers opines that the allegations in the Plaintiff's complaint plausibly state a claim for a TCPA violation for allegedly sending an unsolicited advertisement via fax. As in Sandusky Wellness Ctr., LLC v. Medco Health Solutions, Inc., questions of pretext and financial benefit to the Defendant must be addressed before the Court may conclude the fax was sent for a purely informational purpose. Such an examination is not appropriate at the 12(b)(6) stage of litigation. For the foregoing reasons, the Judge concludes that the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint is not well-taken and should be denied. A separate order in accord with the Opinion will issue. A full-text copy of the Court's June 18, 2019 Memorandum Opinion is available at https://is.gd/uM3Wfp from Leagle.com. Advanced Obstetrics & Gynecology, P.C., a Mississippi corporation, on behalf of itself, and on behalf of a class of similary situated individuals, Plaintiff, represented by Diandra S. Debrosse Zimmermann, ZARZAUR MUJUMDAR & DEBROSSE TRIAL LAWYERS, pro hac vice & Laurance Nicholas Chandler Rogers, ROGERS LAW GROUP, P.A. IQVIA, Inc., a North Carolina corporation, Defendant, represented by Dorsey Reese Carson, Jr., CARSON LAW GROUP, Edward C. Eberspacher, IV --- teberspacher@meyerlex.com -- MEYER LAW GROUP, LLC, pro hac vice, Eric Foster Hatten, CARSON LAW GROUP, PLLC & Tiffany Cheung -- tcheung@mofo.com -- MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP, pro hac vice. JL GRAY: Mice Infestation Class Suit About to Get Bigger -------------------------------------------------------- Portia Baudisch, writing for KFOX14, reports that a class-action lawsuit against an allegedly rodent- and bug-ridden apartment complex in Las Cruces is about to get bigger. A judge ruled July 19, 2019, that Desert Palms Apartments must release the names of all tenants from September 2012 to September 2018. Current and former tenants told KFOX14 their apartments were infested with mice and bugs. One woman said she complained to management and was told it was all in her head. KFOX14 reporter Portia Baudisch was asked to leave the property when she went to Desert Palms Apartments. She said the landlord closed all of the blinds as she left. As Baudisch was driving away, she said the landlord started recording her on her phone. Baudisch said she rolled down the window and told her she wanted to ask about the lawsuit. Baudisch says the woman replied, "I know" and kept recording. One tenant said the conditions at her apartment caused her to get sick. "Really bad stomachaches, a lot of vomiting. The doctor kept saying, 'Let's try different things,' and different things, well, nothing ever evidently was working, because I didn't even fathom that mice could live in your stove," said Erica Olivas. Olivas said her mystery illness was caused by cooking on a stove full of mice feces. "I talked to a lady last week who has bedbugs and the manager said why doesn't she scoop a bedbug up and show it to her," Olivas said. Below are images of a seventh grade boy who allegedly has bedbug bites all over his body from Desert Palms Apartments: "We are overrun with rodents, roaches. We had smoke detector systems, we thought batteries were low, but when they took the smoke detector down, it was so full of roaches and roach feces that they cleaned it out and put it back up, and it was fine," said Donald Boyce. Boyce, a veteran, said he believes some people don't complain because they are afraid of getting evicted and being homeless. "They use such intimidating tactics. 'Well, you know you're disabled, but you're only paying so much rent.' They would, more or less, make you feel low," Boyce said. "A lot of people living there, it's the first place they're living from either living in a car or (being) through hard times," Olivas said. Victor Ortiz said he sleeps on an air mattress because of the bedbugs. "I threw away an old desk, my bed I had for a couple years and a lot of my clothing," Ortiz said. Olivas, Boyce and Ortiz are just three of 59 members of the class-action lawsuit. With the judge's ruling, the class-action lawsuit could be getting larger as former tenants add their claims. Many tenants at the apartment complex have low incomes or are seniors, disabled or veterans who may qualify for Section 8 housing funds. The Las Cruces Housing Authority, the Mesilla Valley Public Housing Authority and the company hired by the city to carry out inspections will not comment because of the ongoing litigation. JL Gray Company, which owns Desert Palms Apartments, has not yet responded to a request for comment. The lead plaintiffs in the class-action lawsuit are asking anyone who has had problems at Desert Palms Apartments to contact them if they would like to get involved. [GN] KICKSTARTER PBC: Jones Sues Over Deaf-Inaccessible Web Site ----------------------------------------------------------- KAHLIMAH JONES, Individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. KICKSTARTER, PBC, Case No. 1:19-cv-04119 (E.D.N.Y., July 16, 2019), arises from the Defendant's alleged failure to design, construct, or operate a Web site--http://www.kickstarter.com/--thatis fully accessible to, and independently usable by, deaf and hard-of-hearing people like the Plaintiff. Kickstarter, PBC, is a Delaware Foreign Public Benefit Corporation doing business in New York and is registered in the state of New York to do business. The Company has a principal place of business in Brooklyn, New York. The Defendant operates the Web site, which is a crowdfunding platform, which enables the visitors to the Web site to view start-up project and make pledges of money in exchange for tangible rewards or experiences.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Shaked, Esq. SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C. 14 Harwood Court, Suite 415 Scarsdale, NY 10583 Telephone: (917) 373-9128 E-mail: ShakedLawGroup@gmail.com LENDINGCLUB CORP: Shron Sues over Hidden Up-Front Fees ------------------------------------------------------ The case, Marina Shron on behalf of herself and similarly-situated others, the Plaintiff, vs. LendingClub Corporation, 595 Market Street, Suite 200 San Francisco, CA 94105, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-06718 (S.D.N.Y., July 18, 2019), addresses breaches of contract and misrepresentations and omissions committed by LendingClub in connection with Defendant's business operation in violation of the New York General Business Law, and the Truth in Lending Act. According to ther complaint, LendingClub knows beyond a shadow of a doubt that consumers are not aware of hidden up-front fees that the Defendant charges in connection with its loan agreements. LendingClub falsely misled the Plaintiff and similarly situated others into believing that they were borrowing a specific amount of funds with "no additional fees." However, the amount of loan funds received by the Plaintiff and similarly situated others was significantly lower than the amount promised by the Defendant due to hidden up-front fees that LendingClub deducts from consumers' loan proceeds. The Defendant also charges consumers like the Plaintiff interest on the full amount of the loan despite the fact that the consumers receive less than such amount. This resulted of paying a higher rate of interest on the loan than the rate agreed to at the time the loan agreement was formed. LendingClub is a US peer-to-peer lending company, headquartered in San Francisco, California. It was the first peer-to-peer lender to register its offerings as securities with the Securities and Exchange Commission, and to offer loan trading on a secondary market.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Gregory Allen, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF GREGORY ALLEN 60 Joyce Court Milford, CT 06461 Telephone: 203-535-4636 E-mail: greg@gjallenlaw.com MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Moodie Seeks to Certify Settlement Class ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as SHONNTEY MOODIE, individually and on behalf of all others similrly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. MAXIM HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC., a Maryland Corporation; and VERIFILE.COM, INC., a Georgia Corporation, the Defendants, Case No. 2:14-cv-03471-FMO-AS (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order: 1. scheduling a Final Approval (Fairness) Hearing on this Motion for August 22, 2019 at 10:00 a.m.; 2. approving the proposed Settlement Agreement and any addenda thereto as fair, adequate and reasonable to Plaintiff and the Class as a whole and as compliant with Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and direct the Settlement Agreement's consummation according to its terms; 3. finding that the form and manner of Class Notice was implemented in accordance with the Settlement Agreement and: (i) constitutes reasonable and the best practicable notice; (ii) constitutes notice reasonably calculated, under the circumstances, to apprise Class Members of the pendency of the litigation, the terms of the proposed Settlement Agreement, the right to object to the proposed Settlement Agreement or exclude themselves from the Class, and the right to appear at the Final Fairness Hearing; (iii) constitutes due, adequate, and sufficient notice to all persons entitled to receive notice; and (iv) meets the requirements of state and federal due process, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and any other applicable state and/or federal laws; 4. certifying a Settlement Class for the purpose of settlement; 5. finding that all Class Members shall be bound by the Settlement Agreement, including its release provisions, except for those who have submitted a valid opt-out request; 6. directing that judgment be entered dismissing with prejudice all individual and class claims asserted in the litigation and rule that no costs or fees be assessed on either party other than as expressly provided in the Settlement Agreement and awarded by the Court in ruling upon Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for an Award of Class Representative Incentive Payment and Attorneys' Fees and Costs; 7. incorporating the release and related provisions set forth in the Settlement Agreement and bar any Released Claims against the Released Parties; 8. continuing to appoint Plaintiff Shonntey Moodie as Class Representative for settlement purposes; 9. continuing to appoint Zimmerman Reed LLP and Mahoney Law Group, APC as Class Counsel for settlement purposes; 10. approving the work to date of JND Legal Administration and continue to appoint it as Settlement Administrator; 11. excluding all Class Members who timely filed exclusions from the Class; 12. overruling any and all objections to the settlement that were timely filed and find that they fail to raise any prima facie grounds for questioning the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the settlement; 13. approving payment of the benefits to the Class Members consistent with the Settlement Agreement; and 14. retaining jurisdiction over all matters relating to this action, including but not 26 limited to the following: (1) implementation and enforcement of the Settlement Agreement pursuant to further orders of the Court, until such time as the final judgment contemplated hereby has become effective and each and every act agreed to be performed by the parties hereto shall have been performed pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, including all payments set forth thereunder; (2) any other action necessary to conclude this settlement and implement the Settlement Agreement; (3) proceedings related to the Motion for An Award of Class Representative Incentive Payment and Attorney's Fees and Costs; and (4) the enforcement, construction, and interpretation of the Settlement Agreement.[CC] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Christopher P. Ridout, Esq. Hannah B. Fernandez, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED, LLP 2381 Rosecrans Ave., Suite 328 Manhattan Beach, CA 90245 Telephone: (877) 500-8780 Facsimile: (877) 500-8781 E-mail: christopher.ridout@zimmreed.com hannah.fernandez@zimmreed.com - and - Kevin Mahoney, Esq. MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC 249 E. Ocean Boulevard, Suite 814 Long Beach, CA 90802 Telephone: (562) 590-5550 Facsimile: (562) 590-8400 E-mail: kmahoney@mahoney-law.net MAZDA MOTOR: Kessler Topaz Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP announces that it has filed a class action lawsuit against Mazda Motor of America, Inc. and Mazda Motor Corporation in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of all persons in the United States who purchased, own, owned, lease or leased the following vehicles: Mazda CX-9 (2007-2016); and Mazda 6 (2009-2013). The case is captioned Sonneveldt, et al. v. Mazda Motor of America, Inc., et al., Case No. 8:19-cv-01298. Owners or Lessees of Mazda vehicles with a defective water pump who wish to discuss their legal rights or interests are encouraged to contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP (James Maro, Esq. or Adrienne Bell, Esq.) at (888) 299-7706 or (610) 667-7706, or via e-mail at info@ktmc.com. For additional information please visit www.ktmc.com/mazda-water-pump-engine-failure. The complaint alleges that, beginning in 2007 and continuing through the 2016 model year, Mazda has incorporated its MZI Cyclone engine (the "Cyclone Engine") into hundreds of thousands of vehicles, which include the CX-9 for model years 2007 through 2016 and the Mazda 6 for model years 2009 through 2013. The Cyclone Engine contains an internal chain-driven water pump, which means the timing chain is connected to the water pump and provides the power the water pump needs to circulate coolant through the engine when the engine is running. The chain-driven water pump is located internal to the Cyclone Engine, behind numerous engine components, including the timing chain cover. Unbeknownst to purchasers and lessees of these vehicles, the Cyclone Engine contains a defect in design, manufacturing, materials and/or workmanship that causes the water pump to suddenly and prematurely fail well-before the end of the useful life of the engine, which leads to catastrophic engine failure or a costly replacement due to the water pump's inaccessible placement in the engine. When the water pump prematurely fails without warning, coolant is able to leak from the water pump into the oil pan and/or other engine components, allowing it to mix with the engine's oil. The mixture of engine oil and coolant circulates throughout the engine, leading to destruction of the engine. Despite having knowledge of this defect, Mazda continued selling defective vehicles, failed to disclose the defect to owners and lessees, has not issued a recall, and has not remedied the issue and/or compensated owners and lessees of the defective vehicles. Contact: James Maro, Jr., Esq. Adrienne Bell, Esq. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Toll Free: (888) 299-7706 (610) 667-7706 Website: www.ktmc.com Email: info@ktmc.com abell@ktmc.com jmaro@ktmc.com [GN] MCSS REST: Court Certifies 4 Classes in Mendez FLSA/NYLL Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, CATALINO MENDEZ et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. MCSS REST. CORP. et al., Defendants, Case No. 16-CV-2746 (NGG) (RLM) (E.D. N.Y.), Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York certified four classes -- the Old Tipped Employees, Old Non-Tipped Employees, New Tipped Employees, and New Non-Tipped Employees. The Plaintiffs, a group of 18 restaurant workers, move for Rule 23 class certification in the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and New York Labor Law ("NYLL") action against the Defendants, the owners and operators of Cross Bay Diner in Howard Beach, Queens, and Parkview Diner in Brooklyn. The Plaintiffs, who worked in a wide variety of tipped and non-tipped positions, allege that the Defendants failed to pay them the minimum wage or overtime pay for certain time periods between May 31, 2010 and the present, in violation of FLSA and the NYLL. They also allege that the Defendants failed to pay them spread-of-hours premiums when working a shift and/or split shift of 10 or more hours, and that they did not receive uniform maintenance pay, or proper wage statements and wage notices, in violation of the NYLL. The Plaintiffs filed the case on May 31, 2016. Defendants MCSS, Al-Ken, Michael Siderakis, and Konstantino Siklas ("Cross Bay Defendants") answered on Sept. 1, 2016. The Plaintiffs bring eight claims. The first two are FLSA collective action claims for unpaid overtime and unpaid minimum wage on behalf of all non-management employees who worked at Cross Bay Diner and Parkview Diner at any time since May 31, 2013. The other six are NYLL claims for: failure to pay minimum wage for all hours worked in violation of § 650 et seq. ("Count Three"); failure to pay overtime for hours worked in excess of forty per week in violation of Section 650 et seq. ("Count Four"); failure to pay spread-of-hours premiums for days in which the employees lasted ten or more hours in violation of N.Y. Comp. Code R. & Regs. Tit. 12, Section 137-1.7 (2010), 146-1.6 (2012) ("Count Five"); failure to provide wage notices in violation of NYLL, Article 6, Section 195 ("Count Six"); failure to provide wage statements in violation of Article 6, Section 195 ("Count Seven"); and failure to reimburse for the purchase of required uniforms and to provide uniform maintenance pay in violation of N.Y. Comp. Code R. & Regs. Tit. 12 Sections 138-1.8 (2009), 146-1.7 & 1.8 (2011) ("Count Eight"). With the Cross Bay Defendants' consent, the Court certified the Plaintiffs' two FLSA claims as a collective action and authorized the Plaintiffs to issue notice to all current and former non-management employees who worked at Cross Bay at any time between May 31, 2013 and Dec. 6, 2016. The Defendants provided a list of 46 employees who met this definition. The parties have exchanged discovery, taken depositions of four opt-in the Plaintiffs, and obtained declarations from six other Plaintiffs. Having previously obtained (with the consent of the Defendants who have not defaulted) certification as a FLSA collective action, Plaintiffs now ask the Court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over, and certify four classes with respect to, their NYLL claims. Collectively, these four classes consist of non-management employees who worked in the Cross Bay Diner or the Parkview Diner during the relevant time period. Specifically, they move to certify Counts Three through Eight on behalf of the following classes: 1. All persons who worked as tipped hourly food service workers (tipped employees) at Cross Bay Diner between May 31, 2010 and its closure after Hurricane Sandy in or around Oct. 29, 2012 and at Parkview Diner at any time between May 31, 2010 and its sale in or around July 2014 ("Old Tipped Employees"); and 2. All persons who worked as non-tipped employees at Cross Bay Diner between May 31, 2010 and its closure after Hurricane Sandy in or around Oct. 29, 2012 and at Parkview Diner at any time between May 31, 2010 and its sale in or around July 2014 ("Old Non-Tipped Employees"). The Plaintiffs further seek to certify Counts Three through Five, Seven, and Eight on behalf of the following classes: 3. All persons who worked as tipped employees at Cross Bay Diner at any time between its reopening after Hurricane Sandy on or about May 24, 2013 and the present ("New Tipped Employees"); and 4. All persons who worked as non-tipped employees at Cross Bay Diner at any time between its re-opening after Hurricane Sandy on or about May 24, 2013 and the present ("New Non-Tipped Employees").4 This means that there are two class periods: (1) the "Old Period," which encompasses employees that worked at either Cross Bay Diner at any time between May 31, 2010 and Oct. 29, 2012, or Parkview Diner at any time between May 31, 2010, and July 2014; and (2) the "New Period," which encompasses Cross Bay Diner employees from May 24, 2013 to the present. The Plaintiffs also request that the three Named Plaintiffs be appointed the class representatives; that their counsel, Pelton Graham LLC, be appointed as the class counsel under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g); and that the court authorizes the Plaintiffs to send notice to the Class Members. The Cross Bay Defendants oppose the instant motion. They argue that the Plaintiffs have not met their burden under Rule 23(b)(3) to show that questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members and that a class action is superior to other available methods for adjudicating the controversy. However, they do not contest the Court's exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs' NYLL claims. Judge Garaufis granted the Plaintiffs' motion for an order affirming that the Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over their NYLL claims and certifying four classes -- the Old Tipped Employees, Old Non-Tipped Employees, New Tipped Employees, and New Non-Tipped Employees. Plaintiffs Catalino Mendez, Eduardo Chocoj, and Israel Rodriguez are appointed as the class representatives. Pelton Graham LLC is appointed as the class counsel. The parties are directed to proceed with class-wide discovery and to confer regarding the form of class notice and the production of the Class Members' contact information before submitting a proposed notice to the Court. The Judge held that the classes have satisfyed the requirements of Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3). Having considered the 23(g)(1)(a) factors, the Judge also finds that the four proposed classes will be adequately represented by the Plaintiffs' counsel. A full-text copy of the Court's June 14, 2019 Memorandum and Order is available at https://is.gd/AtO7JJ from Leagle.com. Catalino Mendez, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Eduardo Chocoj, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated & Israel Rodriguez, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Brent E. Pelton -- pelton@peltongraham.com -- Pelton & Associates, PC. MCSS Rest. Corp., Jointly and Severally & Miko Enterprises, LLC, doing business as Parkview Diner, Defendants, represented by Arthur H. Forman -- mail@ahforman.com -- Attorney at Law & Brian James Hufnagel, Morrison Tenenbaum PLLC. AL-KEN Corp., doing business as Cross Bay Diner, Michael Siderakis, Jointly and Severally & Konstantinos Siklas, Jointly and Severally, Defendants, represented by Arthur H. Forman, Attorney at Law. Christos Siderakis, Jointly and Severally, Defendant, pro se. MDL 2672: Denial of Claimants' Branded Title Claims Affirmed ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, IN RE: VOLKSWAGEN "CLEAN DIESEL" MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. This Order Relates To: MDL Dkt. Nos. 5730, 5731, 5737, 5807, 5898, MDL No. 2672 CRB (JSC) (N.D. Cal.), Judge Charles R. Breyer of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California affirmed the denial of Claimants' branded title claims. Under the Court-approved 2.0-liter and 3.0-liter settlement agreements, Volkswagen initially processes claims for benefits. The Court-appointed Claims Supervisor is then responsible for validating VW's claims decisions. If VW and the Claims Supervisor determine that a claim is ineligible, the claimant may appeal to the Court-appointed Claims Review Committee ("CRC"). Between Feb. 26, 2018 and Dec. 9, 2018, VW processed 5,913 branded title claims, which included all of the claims that it had previously placed on hold. Of those claims, it approved 2,474 and denied 3,439. According to the Claims Supervisor, the majority of eligible claims processed involved vehicles with rebuilt titles [category 3 in the above framework], and the majority of ineligible claims involved vehicles that had salvage titles as of Feb. 26, 2018 [category 4 in the above framework]. The CRC affirmed VW's denials of the salvage-title claims, although some appeals remain pending. Certain claimants that went through this process have filed motions in which they argue that the CRC, by adopting a framework for handling their claims, and by then denying their claims pursuant to that framework, effectively amended the settlement agreements without Court approval. They argue that the CRC exceeded its authority in doing so, and they contend that under the unamended agreements they are entitled to benefits. VW, in opposing Claimants' motions, argues that the CRC acted within its authority and that the CRC's determinations are final. Judge Breyer concludes that assuming that the CRC's determinations are reviewable and that the CRC, through the February 26 framework, effectively amended the 2.0-liter and 3.0-liter settlement agreements, he approves those amendments, which are consistent with the goals of the agreements and the Parties' intentions in agreeing to settle their claims. VW and the CRC denied the Claimants' claims pursuant to the February 26 framework. Having approved that framework, the Judge affirmed the denial of Claimants' claims. The Claimants' motions, in which they seek an order that would reverse the denial of their claims, are denied. A full-text copy of the Court's June 14, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/98UVcE from Leagle.com. Nicholas Benipayo, Plaintiff, represented by Robert B. Carey -- rob@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice, Steve W. Berman -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice & Thomas Eric Loeser -- toml@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice. Nadine Bonda, Plaintiff, represented by Adam M. Stewart -- astewart@shulaw.com -- Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP & Thomas G. Shapiro -- tshapiro@shulaw.com -- Shapiro Haber and Urmy, LLP. Brian Connelly, Plaintiff, represented by Thomas G. Shapiro, Shapiro Haber and Urmy, LLP. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., a New Jersey Corporation, Defendant, represented by Amie Adelia Vague -- avague@lightfootlaw.com -- Lightfoot Franklin & White, Casey Erin Lucier -- clucier@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP, Charles J. Baker, III -- chuck.baker@wbd-us.com -- Womble Carlyle Sandridge and Rice, Colin Hampton Tucker -- ctucker@rhodesokla.com -- Rhodes Hieronymus Jones Tucker & Gable, Dana Woodrum Lang -- dana.lang@wbd-us.com -- Womble Carlyle Sandridge and Rice, David M. Eisenberg -- eisenberg@bscr-law.com -- Sterchi, Cowden & Rice, LLC, Henry Buist Smythe, Jr. -- henry.smythe@wbd-us.com -- Womble Carlyle Sandridge and Rice, Howard Feller -- hfeller@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP, William R. Scherer -- wscherer@conradscherer.com -- Conrad and Scherer, LLP, J. Randolph Bibb, Jr. -- rbibb@lewisthomason.com -- Lewis, Thomason, King, Krieg & Waldrop, P.C., James K. Toohey -- tooheyj@jbltd.com -- Johns & Bell LTD, Jeffrey Lance Chase -- JChase@herzfeld-rubin.com -- Chase Kurshan Herzfeld & Rufin LLC, Jeffrey S. Rugg -- jrugg@bhfs.com -- Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP, Jennifer Marino Thibodaux -- jthibodaux@gibbonslaw.com -- Gibbons PC. MDL 2741: Strayhorn v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated --------------------------------------------------------------- E. BRUCE STRAYHORN, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, a Delaware Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-377 (Filed June 6, 2019) was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco) on July 19, 2019. The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-04118-VC to the proceeding. The suit seeks to recover damages suffered by the Plaintiff, as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. Plaintiff's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable. The Plaintiff brings this action for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA). As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma. Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products, including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide, Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax. The Strayhorn case is being consolidated with MDL 2741 in re: Roundup Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on October 3, 2016. These actions share common factual questions arising out of allegations that Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, particularly its active ingredient, glyphosate, causes non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. The Plaintiff allege that they or their decedents developed non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after using Roundup over the course of several or more years. The Plaintiff also alleges that the use of glyphosate in conjunction with other ingredients, in particular the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA), renders Roundup even more toxic than glyphosate on its own. Issues concerning general causation, the background science, and regulatory history will be common to all actions. In its October 3, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions in this MDL involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Northern District of California will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings (including with respect to discovery, privilege, and Daubert motion practice); and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria. The lead case is 3:16-md-02741-VC.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew T. Kagan, Esq. Elizabeth P. Kagan, Esq. KAGAN LEGAL GROUP 295 Palmas Inn Way, Suite 6 Palmanova Plaza Humacao, PR 00791 Telephone: (939) 220-2424 Facsimile: (939) 220-2477 E-mail: andrew@kaganlegalgroup.com liz@kagan-law.com - and - Jennifer A. Moore, Esq. MOORE LAW GROUP, PLLC 1473 South 4th Street Louisville, KY 40208 Telephone: (502) 717-4080 Facsimile: (502) 717-4086 E-mail: jennifer@moorelawgroup.com MDL 2800: Settlement Reached in Equifax Customer Data Theft Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Equifax Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed on July 22, 2019, that the company has entered into multiple agreements that resolve a class action lawsuit filed on behalf of U.S. consumers captioned In re: Equifax, Inc. Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, MDL No. 2800. On July 19, 2019 and July 22, 2019, the Company entered into multiple agreements that resolve a class action lawsuit filed on behalf of U.S. consumers captioned In re: Equifax, Inc. Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, MDL No. 2800 (Consumer Cases) (the "U.S. Consumer Litigation") and the investigations of the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC"), the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ("CFPB"), the Attorneys General of 48 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico (the "MSAG Group") and the New York Department of Financial Services ("NYDFS") (collectively, the "Consumer Settlement"). Under the terms of the Consumer Settlement, the Company will contribute $380.5 million to a non-reversionary settlement fund (the "Consumer Restitution Fund") to provide restitution for U.S. consumers identified by the Company whose personal information was compromised as a result of the 2017 cybersecurity incident (the "affected consumers"). The Consumer Restitution Fund will be used to (1) compensate affected consumers for certain unreimbursed costs or expenditures incurred by affected consumers that are fairly traceable to the 2017 cybersecurity incident, (2) provide affected consumers with an opportunity to enroll in at least four years of credit monitoring services provided by a third party unaffiliated with the Company or alternative compensation for affected consumers who already have other credit monitoring services, (3) provide affected consumers with additional benefits such as identity restoration services and (4) pay reasonable attorneys' fees and reasonable costs and expenses for the plaintiffs' counsel in the U.S. Consumer Litigation (not to exceed $80.5 million) and administrative and notice costs. The Company has agreed to contribute up to an additional $125 million to the Consumer Restitution Fund to cover unreimbursed costs and expenditures described in (1) above in the event the $380.5 million in the Consumer Restitution Fund is exhausted. In addition, if the number of affected consumers who enroll in the third party credit monitoring services described above in (2) exceeds seven million, the Company may be required, under certain circumstances, to contribute additional money into the Consumer Restitution Fund to cover the incremental cost of providing credit monitoring services to the additional affected consumers. The Company also agreed to pay an additional $180.5 million to the MSAG Group and the following monetary penalties: (1) $100 million to the CFPB and (2) $10 million to the NYDFS. The Company also agreed to implement certain business practice commitments related to information security to safeguard the personal information of consumers, including conducting third party assessments of its information security program. The Consumer Settlement, other than the agreement with the NYDFS, is subject to court approval. The agreements regarding the U.S. Consumer Litigation and the FTC and CFPB investigations are subject to approval by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (the "Court"). The settlement with the MSAG Group consists of substantially similar agreements with each of the participating jurisdictions, and each agreement is subject to court approval in the relevant jurisdiction. There can be no assurance that the courts in each relevant jurisdiction will approve the agreements which make up the Consumer Settlement. The Company expects to pay the MSAG Group, the CFPB and the NYDFS in the third quarter of 2019. The Company will establish and contribute approximately $25 million to the Consumer Restitution Fund promptly after the Court approves the issuance of notice of class action settlement. That preliminary Court approval is expected in the third quarter of 2019. The contribution of the remainder of the $380.5 million to the Consumer Restitution Fund will be made after final Court approval of the Consumer Settlement, which could occur as early as the fourth quarter of 2019. The timing of the final Court approval of the settlement agreement for the U.S. Consumer Litigation cannot be predicted with certainty as it will depend on a number of factors outside of our control, including the number of objections, if any, to the settlement agreement, the Court’s schedule and discretion, and any appeals, among other factors. The company's current plans are to finance the payments with existing borrowing capacity, including under our $1.1 billion five-year unsecured revolving credit facility and our $225 million receivables funding facility. The Company's participation in the Consumer Settlement does not constitute an admission by the Company of any fault or liability, and the Company does not admit fault or liability. Equifax said, "If approved by an applicable court, the Consumer Settlement will only resolve the U.S. Consumer Litigation and the investigations of the FTC, CFPB, MSAG Group and NYDFS." Equifax Inc., incorporated on December 20, 1913, is a global data, analytics and technology company. It is a provider of information solutions and human resources business process outsourcing services for businesses, governments and consumers. The Company operates in four segments: U.S. Information Solutions (USIS), International, Workforce Solutions and Global Consumer Solutions. Its products and services are based on databases of consumer and business information derived from various sources, including credit, financial assets, telecommunications and utility payments, employment, income, demographic and marketing data. The company is based in Atlanta, Georgia. MIDLAND CREDIT: Dangelo et al. Suit Moved to E.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled as Paul Dangelo and Jillian Reginato, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. Midland Credit Management, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 603541/2019, was removed 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 (Central Islip) on July 19, 2019. The suit demands $501,000 in damages. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Act. Established in 1953, MCM, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Encore Capital Group, Inc., is a specialty finance company providing debt recovery solutions for consumers across a broad range of assets.[BN] The Plaintiffs appear pro se. Attorneys for Midland Credit Management, Inc.: Dana Brett Briganti, Esq. HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP 800 Third Avenue, 13th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 471-6200 Facsimile: (212) 935-1166 E-mail: dbriganti@hinshawlaw.com MIDLAND CREDIT: Doke Seeks to Certify Two Classes ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as DAVID DOKE, the Plaintiff, vs. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 8:18-cv-01567-JSM-JSS (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order: 1. certifying a Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act Class: "all consumers in the State of Florida who: (1) were sent letters by Midland Credit Management, Inc., that are substantially similar or materially identical to the Collection Letter attached to Plaintiff's Complaint; (2) relating to a consumer debt, (3) that was beyond the statute of limitations; (4) on or after June 28, 2016"; 2. certifying a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act Subclass: "all consumers in the State of Florida who: (1) were sent letters by Midland Credit Management, Inc., that are substantially similar or materially identical to the Collection Letter attached to Plaintiff's Complaint; (2) relating to a consumer debt, (3) that Defendant acquired after it was in default; (4) and that was beyond the statute of limitations; (4) on or after June 28, 2017"; and 3. designating Plaintiff as representative of the Class and Plaintiff's Counsel be named Class Counsel. MCM is a debt collector doing business in Florida that collects on defaulted debts. MCM sent Plaintiff a Collection Letter that Plaintiff alleges violated the FDCPA and FCCPA.[CC] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Katherine Earle Yanes, Esq. Brandon K. Breslow, Esq. KYNES, MARKMAN & FELMAN, P.A. Post Office Box 3396 Tampa, FL 33601 3396 Telephone: (813) 229 1118 Facsimile: (813) 221 6750 E-mail: kyanes@kmf-law.com bbreslow@kmf-law.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Baisden Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup ------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL BAISDEN, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-02035 (E.D. Mo, July 19, 2019), seeks to recover damages suffered by the Plaintiff, as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. Plaintiff's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable. The Plaintiff brings this action for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA). As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma. Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products, including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide, Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen Cady, Esq. Ken Moll, Esq. MOLL LAW GROUP 22 W Washington Street, 15 th Floor Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 462-1700 Facsimile: (312) 756-0045 E-mail: scady@molllawgroup.com kmoll@molllawgroup.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Butler Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup ------------------------------------------------------------ HARRY BUTLER, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-02040 (E.D. Mo, July 19, 2019), seeks to recover damages suffered by the Plaintiff, as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. Plaintiff's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable. The Plaintiff brings this action for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA). As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma. Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products, including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide, Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen Cady, Esq. Ken Moll, Esq. MOLL LAW GROUP 22 W Washington Street, 15 th Floor Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 462-1700 Facsimile: (312) 756-0045 E-mail: scady@molllawgroup.com kmoll@molllawgroup.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Clays' Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------ The case, ELIZABETH E. CLAY and LOUIS CLAY JR., Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-01042 (Filed on April 29, 2019), was transferred from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on June 19, 2019. The transfer is pursuant to the Conditional Transfer Order (CTO-137) regarding MDL NO. 2741 IN RE: ROUNDUP PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. Furthermore, this product liability lawsuit is assigned to Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria. The United States District Court for the Northern District of California assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-03522-VC to the proceeding. In this complaint, Plaintiff seeks redress for the damages they suffered as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup, containing the active ingredient glyphosate. Monsanto Company is a Delaware corporation, Missouri Secretary of State Charter No. F00488018, with a principal place of business in St. Louis, Missouri. It is a multinational agricultural biotechnology corporation that is regarded as the world’s leading producer of glyphosate. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth S. Webb, Esq. BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C. 211 North Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 222-2222 Facsimile: (314) 421-0359 E-mail: sethw@getbc.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Clifton Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------- The case, DENNIS W. CLIFTON, Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-01043 (Filed on April 29, 2019), was transferred from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on June 19, 2019. The transfer is pursuant to the Conditional Transfer Order (CTO-137) regarding MDL NO. 2741 IN RE: ROUNDUP PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. Furthermore, this product liability lawsuit is assigned to Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria. The United States District Court for the Northern District of California assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-03544-VC to the proceeding. In this complaint, Plaintiff seeks redress for the damages they suffered as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup, containing the active ingredient glyphosate. Monsanto Company is a Delaware corporation, Missouri Secretary of State Charter No. F00488018, with a principal place of business in St. Louis, Missouri. It is a multinational agricultural biotechnology corporation that is regarded as the world’s leading producer of glyphosate. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth S. Webb, Esq. BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C. 211 North Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 222-2222 Facsimile: (314) 421-0359 E-mail: sethw@getbc.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Culps' Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------ The case, SEAN R. CULP and ASHLEY CULP, Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-01044 (Filed on April 29, 2019), was transferred from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on June 19, 2019. The transfer is pursuant to the Conditional Transfer Order (CTO-137) regarding MDL NO. 2741 IN RE: ROUNDUP PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. Furthermore, this product liability lawsuit is assigned to Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria. The United States District Court for the Northern District of California assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-03546-VC to the proceeding. In this complaint, Plaintiff seeks redress for the damages they suffered as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup, containing the active ingredient glyphosate. Monsanto Company is a Delaware corporation, Missouri Secretary of State Charter No. F00488018, with a principal place of business in St. Louis, Missouri. It is a multinational agricultural biotechnology corporation that is regarded as the world’s leading producer of glyphosate. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth S. Webb, Esq. BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C. 211 North Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 222-2222 Facsimile: (314) 421-0359 E-mail: sethw@getbc.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Georges Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------- The case, WILLIAM E. GEORGE and ROBYN S. MALONEY-GEORGE, Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-01047 (Filed on April 29, 2019), was transferred from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on June 19, 2019. The transfer is pursuant to the Conditional Transfer Order (CTO-137) regarding MDL NO. 2741 IN RE: ROUNDUP PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. Furthermore, this product liability lawsuit is assigned to Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria. The United States District Court for the Northern District of California assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-03547-VC to the proceeding. In this complaint, Plaintiffs seek redress for the damages they suffered as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup, containing the active ingredient glyphosate. Monsanto Company is a Delaware corporation, Missouri Secretary of State Charter No. F00488018, with a principal place of business in St. Louis, Missouri. It is a multinational agricultural biotechnology corporation that is regarded as the world’s leading producer of glyphosate. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Seth S. Webb, Esq. BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C. 211 North Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 222-2222 Facsimile: (314) 421-0359 E-mail: sethw@getbc.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Jenningses' Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal. ----------------------------------------------------------- The case, DENNIS D. JENNINGS and JO ANNE JENNINGS, Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-00745 (Filed on March 29, 2019), was transferred from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on June 19, 2019. The transfer is pursuant to the Conditional Transfer Order (CTO-137) regarding MDL NO. 2741 IN RE: ROUNDUP PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. Furthermore, this product liability lawsuit is assigned to Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria. The United States District Court for the Northern District of California assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-03520-VC to the proceeding. In this complaint, Plaintiffs seek redress for the damages they suffered as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup, containing the active ingredient glyphosate. Monsanto Company is a Delaware corporation, Missouri Secretary of State Charter No. F00488018, with a principal place of business in St. Louis, Missouri. It is a multinational agricultural biotechnology corporation that is regarded as the world’s leading producer of glyphosate. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth S. Webb, Esq. BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C. 211 North Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 222-2222 Facsimile: (314) 421-0359 E-mail: sethw@getbc.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Joneses' Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal. -------------------------------------------------------- The case, ROBERT E. JONES and BARBARA S. JONES, Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-00746 (Filed on March 29, 2019), was transferred from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on June 19, 2019. The transfer is pursuant to the Conditional Transfer Order (CTO-133) regarding MDL NO. 2741 IN RE: ROUNDUP PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. Furthermore, this product liability lawsuit is assigned to Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria. The United States District Court for the Northern District of California assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-03521-VC to the proceeding. In this complaint, Plaintiffs seek redress for the damages they suffered as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup, containing the active ingredient glyphosate. Monsanto Company is a Delaware corporation, Missouri Secretary of State Charter No. F00488018, with a principal place of business in St. Louis, Missouri. It is a multinational agricultural biotechnology corporation that is regarded as the world’s leading producer of glyphosate. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth S. Webb, Esq. BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C. 211 North Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 222-2222 Facsimile: (314) 421-0359 E-mail: sethw@getbc.com MOVING SOLUTIONS: Court Wants Settlement Terms Modified ------------------------------------------------------- BARBARA MIDDLE RIDER, ALBERT ARELLANO, ROBERT GARZA, JOSE DON CORONADO, the Plaintiffs, vs. MOVING SOLUTIONS, INC, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 5:17-cv-04015-LHK (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Lucy H. Koh entered an order on July 20, 2019: 1. denying without prejudice Plaintiffs' second motion for preliminary approval of settlement; and 2. scheduling a case management conference for October 2, 2019 at 2:00 p.m. The Court finds a flaw in the Settlement Agreement itself. The Settlement Agreement defines "Released Claims" as all the claims that "are alleged, related to or that reasonably could have arisen out of the same facts alleged in the Action," including claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The problem is that any class member who does not return the Claim Form will release the "Released Claims," but will not release the FLSA claims. This is inherently contradictory because "Released Claims" by definition includes the FLSA claims. The parties try to side step this issue in the Class Notice by discussing the release of the Released Claims separately from release of the FLSA claims, but that is simply not possible. The parties must correct the definition of "Released Claims" in their Settlement Agreement. In a Third Motion for Preliminary Approval, the parties should define "Released Parties" in the Class Notice. The parties should also use consistent language. For example, the current Settlement Agreement uses the term "Class Representative Enhancements," but the parties' Class Notice uses both the terms "Class Representative Service Awards" and "Class Representative Enhancements." As previously discussed, the parties should be wary of using defined terms before actually defining those terms. If attorneys' fees are ultimately awarded in this case, the Court will not award attorneys' fees for repeated motions for preliminary approval and multiple attempts at drafting an adequate Class Notice.[CC] NALCOR ENERGY: Labrador Class Suit Over Mud Lake Damage OK'd ------------------------------------------------------------ CBC News reports that a Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court justice has ruled that a class-action lawsuit filed against Nalcor Energy and the provincial government for damage to houses in Mud Lake, Labrador, after flooding in the Churchill River in the spring of 2017, can go ahead. The case will examine whether the flooding, which devastated part of the community, was caused by the Muskrat Falls hydroelectric project. "It's a big victory for the plaintiffs, in our view," said Ray Wagner, Esq. -- classaction@wagners.com -- the Halifax lawyer who launched the suit. Without a class action, the plaintiffs wouldn't have the financial capacity to file a suit on their own and seek compensation for the damage to their homes caused by the floods, he said. Water levels in the Churchill River began rising on May 11, 2017. Five days later, half a kilometre of Mud Lake Road was underwater, the court documents said. Mud Lake residents were forced to evacuate the next day. It was months before some residents felt they could return. The hearing to have the case classified as a class action was held April 26. Justice Gillian Butler delivered her written decision approving the class-action suit on July 11. Wagner said the case will now go to a common issues trial, where the liability of the province and of Nalcor Energy will be assessed. [GN] NATIONAL BEVERAGE: Lacroix Maker Loses Out on Bid for Sanctions --------------------------------------------------------------- Scott Holland, writing for Cook County Record, reports that a federal judge has denied a request from the maker of LaCroix sparkling waters to punish plaintiffs and their lawyers for bringing an allegedly frivolous class action lawsuit over the content of its drinks, which the company has branded "financial terrorism," even though the lawsuit and the plaintiffs' marketing promotion of it may have already cost the company more than $1 billion in market value. Lenora Rice filed a complaint Oct. 1 in Cook County Circuit Court against National Beverage Corp., alleging violation of express warranties and the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Protection Act, as well as unjust enrichment. She said LaCroix sparking water drinks are falsely labeled as "all natural" and alleged the drinks contain such additives as those included in roach poison and cancer drugs. National Beverage removed the complaint to federal court on Oct. 25. In a motion filed Feb. 14, the company called Rice's allegations "outlandish, unsupported and verifiably false" and branded itself as "the innovator supreme" that "ignited a millennial cult that changed the soft drink industry into the healthier, better-for-the-consumer industry that it is today." Rice alleged LaCroix products include chemical compounds like ethyl butanoate, limonene, linalool and linalool propionate, which she said are synthetically created flavoring tools. National Beverage said Rice's claim "relies upon a so-called laboratory analysis which did not actually test whether the ingredients in LaCroix are natural or synthetic," and further maintained "a laboratory accredited under the strict standards set by the International Standards Organization tested LaCroix's ingredients and confirmed that they were derived from only natural sources, with conclusive proof that no trace of artificial or synthetic additives are included in LaCroix sparkling water." In an opinion issued July 11, U.S. District Judge Joan Gotschall said National Beverage "makes a sympathetic case" in part by claiming the lawsuit already cost them more than $1 billion in market value. But the judge ultimately found the motion for sanctions relies "on argument and not evidence" and "provides the court with little basis for ruling in its favor." Gotschall noted the sanctions request invoked Federal Rules of Civil Procedure No. 11, which is intended to deter baseless federal lawsuits, but pointed to nothing Rice or her lawyer -- William H. Beaumont, Esq. of Beaumont Costales, in Chicago -- did after the case was removed to federal court that would trigger sanctions. National Beverage answered the complaint in November, after having it transferred from state to federal court, rather than moving for a dismissal. Gotschall wrote that means Rice can't "be sanctioned for advocating the complaint's sufficiency in a response to a motion to dismiss." She further explained that information that surfaced during a discovery process under the supervision of Magistrate Judge Mary Rowland does not trigger Rule 11 protections. Gotschall also said judges are required to determine if suits like Rice's were filed for a proper purpose after sufficient pre-suit investigation. She disagreed with National Beverage's argument that Rice employed a "misguided and unreasonable" reading of Food and Drug Administration regulations. "Before examining whether plaintiff's counsel should have known that the regulation means what defendant says it means," Gotschall wrote, "defendant should give the court some basis for believing that plaintiff's interpretation is unreasonable. Just saying so, even if repeatedly, does not do so." Gotschall said disputes over what constitutes natural and synthetic ingredients are resolved enough to brand Rice's lawsuit as frivolous at this stage of litigation. She likewise said the fact Rice tested only one LaCroix flavor isn't persuasive because, if her allegations proved true, it wouldn't invalidate her entire complaint. "Whether the four identified substances are natural or synthetic appears to be a central issue in this suit," Gotschall wrote. "However that issue is resolved, it is unlikely that the substances used to achieve the fruit taste in other flavors are significantly different." Gotschall did say a Beaumont Costales press release about the lawsuit could be seen as an attempt to maximize the value of a possible settlement, but that she couldn't issue sanctions "without any indication that the statements were not true or that the complaint is without a reasonable basis." Attorneys for National Beverage Corp. are K&L Gates LLP, of Chicago, San Francisco and Miami. [GN] NEW YORK: BOD Files 44 Appeals in Gulino Suit to 2nd Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------ Defendant Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York filed appeals from the District Court's judgment entered on June 6, 2019, in the lawsuit styled Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 96-cv-8414, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York City). The Plaintiffs originally filed a class action complaint on November 8, 1996, alleging that the LAST-1 exam violated Title VII. The Plaintiffs, a group of African-American and Latino teachers in the New York City public school system, alleged that the Defendant, the Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York, violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e et seq., by requiring the Plaintiffs to pass certain racially discriminatory standardized tests in order to obtain a license to teach in New York City public schools.[BN] The appellate cases brought before the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit are: -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-1952 -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-1992 -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-1975 -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-1980 -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-1981 -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-1966 -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-1949 -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-1968 -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-1971 -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-1956 -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-1960 -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-1972 -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-1959 -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-1986 -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-1993 -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-1963 -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-1970 -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-2037 -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-2006 -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-2013 -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-2034 -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-2021 -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-2039 -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-2017 -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-2055 -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-2033 -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-2018 -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-2035 -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-2014 -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-2007 -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-2038 -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-2016 -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-2054 -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-2010 -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-2000 -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-2022 -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-1997 -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-2002 -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-2020 -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-2028 -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-2031 -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-2027 -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-2015 -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-2254 Plaintiff-Appellees Miriam Santos, Asia Madera, Sherri Dais, Maria Bello, Linda Matos, Romelina Nunez, Iris Medina, Ana Green, Sharlene Ford, Carmen Natal, Morris-Bretto, Denise Jenkins-Thompson, Maria Haynes, Adriana Flores, Rupert Davis, Elena Oesterreicher, Jeff Michel, Shirley Louison, Ana Burgos, Amina Mateo-Duff, Edy Lajara, Pedro Castillo, Barbara C. Abraham, Marc Anthony Titus, Sandra Sutton, Lucia Cruz, Denise Watkins, Jose Mendoza, Lisandra Guzman, Jacqueline Garnett, Thelma Bradley, Margarita Pena, Antonia Pearson, Maribelle Hernandez, Altagracia Alvarez, Myriam Rodriguez, Josephine Maselli, Anna Betancourt, Betty J. Moorning, Sandra Grace Thompson, Corlinda Cook, Sheila Morris, Christabel Norma Bishop and Maribel A. Pimentel are represented by: Joshua S. Sohn, Esq. STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP 180 Maiden Lane New York, NY 10038 Telephone: (212) 806-1245 E-mail: jsohn@stroock.com Defendant-Appellant Board of Education of the New York City School District of the City of New York is represented by: Zachary W. Carter, Esq. NEW YORK CITY LAW DEPARTMENT 100 Church Street New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 356-1000 E-mail: zcarter@law.nyc.gov NIKE RETAIL: 9th Cir. Flips Summary Judgment in Rodriguez Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ISAAC RODRIGUEZ, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NIKE RETAIL SERVICES, INC., Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 17-16866 (9th Cir.), Judge Jed S. Rakoff of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (i) reversed District Court's grant of summary judgment for Nike and (ii) remanded for further proceedings consistent with Troester v. Starbucks Corp. Nike requires its retail employees to undergo "off the clock" exit inspections every time they leave the store. Seeking compensation for the time spent on these exit inspections, Plaintiff Rodriguez brought a class action on behalf of himself and similarly situated Nike employees. On Sept. 12, 2017, the District Court granted summary judgment for Nike, holding the Rodriguez's claims were barred by the federal de minimis doctrine, which precludes recovery for otherwise compensable amounts of time that are small, irregular, or administratively difficult to record. The Court dismissed the case. Rodriguez filed his notice of appeal on Sept. 14, 2017, and on April 20, 2018, the Court stayed appellate proceedings pending the California Supreme Court's decision in Troester. The California Supreme Court subsequently held in Troester, that the federal de minimis doctrine does not apply to wage and hour claims brought under California law. As noted, Rodriguez filed his appeal and opening brief before the California Supreme Court issued its decision in Troester. The parties subsequently stipulated that Rodriguez would strike his opening brief and file a revised brief in light of Troester. In his revised brief, Rodriguez argues that the District Court erred in granting summary judgment for Nike based on the federal de minimis doctrine. Nike argues that reversal is unwarranted because the amounts of time at issue are de minimis even under Troester. The issue on appeal is straightforward: whether the District Court erred in granting summary judgment for Nike based on the federal de minimis doctrine. The answer, after Troester, is equally clear: the federal de minimis doctrine does not apply to wage and hour claims brought under the California Labor Code. By applying the doctrine to Rodriguez's claims, the District Court failed -- understandably, given the legal landscape at the time -- to apply the relevant substantive law. Judge Rakoff concludes that given the evidence, he cannot conclude that exit inspections qualify as "split-second absurdities." Nor do they appear so irregular that it is unreasonable to expect the time to be recorded. Even according to Crandall's study, the vast majority of inspections took measurable amounts of time, and there is a genuine dispute between the parties as to whether these amounts were more than "minute," "brief," or "trifling." As such, the record does not support affirmance of the District Court's grant of summary judgment. Accordingly, he reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with Troester. A full-text copy of the Court's June 14, 2019 Opinion is available at https://is.gd/IZyqJ5 from Leagle.com. Max W. Gavron (argued), Nicholas Rosenthal, and Larry W. Lee, Diversity Law Group APC, Los Angeles, California; William L. Marder -- bill@polarislawgroup.com -- Polaris Law Group LLP, Hollister, California; Dennis S. Hyun, Hyun Legal APC, Los Angeles, California; for Plaintiff-Appellant. Jon D. Meer -- jmeer@seyfarth.com -- (argued) and Michael Afar -- mafar@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Los Angeles, California, for Defendant-Appellee. NKLG CAFE: Denied Castelan Overtime, Meal/Rest Breaks, Says Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Luis Javier Castelan, individually and on behalf all other employees similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. NKLG Cafe Corp., Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-04082 (E.D. N.Y., July 15, 2019), seeks unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid "spread-of-hours" premium, compensation for failure to provide wage notices at the time of hiring and failure to provide paystubs, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law including monetary damages and other relief. NKLG Cafe Corp. operates as "Aliada," a restaurant located at 29-19 Broadway, Astoria, NY 11106 where Castelan worked as a cook. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Jiajing Fan, Esq. HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 136-20 38th Avenue, Suite 10G Flushing, NY 11354 Tel: (718)353-8588 Email: jfan@hanglaw.com NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Court Approves $108MM Settlement in Knurr Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Northrop Grumman Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 24, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the court has approved the parties' proposal to resolve the Steven Knurr, et al. v. Orbital ATK, Inc., No. 16-cv-01031 (TSE-MSN), for $108 million, subject to certain terms and conditions. On August 12, 2016, a putative class action complaint, naming Orbital ATK and two of its then-officers as defendants, Steven Knurr, et al. v. Orbital ATK, Inc., No. 16-cv-01031 (TSE-MSN), was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The complaint asserts claims on behalf of purchasers of Orbital ATK securities for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, allegedly arising out of false and misleading statements and the failure to disclose that: (i) Orbital ATK lacked effective control over financial reporting; and (ii) as a result, it failed to record an anticipated loss on a long-term contract with the U.S. Army to manufacture and supply small caliber ammunition at the U.S. Army's Lake City Army Ammunition Plant. On April 24, 2017 and October 10, 2017, the plaintiffs filed amended complaints naming additional defendants and asserting claims for alleged violations of additional sections of the Exchange Act and alleged false and misleading statements in Orbital ATK's Form S-4 filed in connection with the Orbital-ATK Merger. The complaint seeks damages, reasonable costs and expenses at trial, including counsel and expert fees, and such other relief as deemed appropriate by the Court. On June 7, 2019, the court approved the parties' proposal to resolve the litigation for $108 million, subject to certain terms and conditions. The company continues to negotiate with and pursue coverage litigation against various of its insurance carriers. Northrop Grumman Corporation, a security company, provides products in the areas of autonomous systems, cyber, space, strikes, and logistics and modernizations in the United States, the Asia Pacific, and internationally. The company operates through four segments: Aerospace Systems, Innovation Systems, Mission Systems, and Technology Services. Northrop Grumman Corporation was founded in 1939 and is based in Falls Church, Virginia. NOVA SKIN: Illegally Sent Marketing Texts, Kaufman TCPA Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- CARY KAUFMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NOVA SKIN INC. d/b/a NOVA SKIN PRODUCTS, Case No. 0:19-cv-61784-XXXX (S.D. Fla., July 16, 2019), alleges that the Defendant often sends marketing text messages providing different types of offers and savings for future purchases without first obtaining express written consent to send such marketing text messages as required to do so under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Nova Skin is a Florida corporation with a principal office located in Miami, Florida. The Defendant owns and operates non-surgical, non-medical skin care treatment facilities, as well as offers and/or sells to the public at-large chemical peels, mesotherapy and spa equipment.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq. Thomas J. Patti, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 907-1136 Facsimile: (855) 529-9540 E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com tom@jibraellaw.com OPTIO SOLUTIONS: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHARD KNAAK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. OPTIO SOLUTIONS, LLC D/B/A QUALIA COLLECTION SERVICES, the Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-1036 (E.D Wisc.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order on July 18, 2019, certifying a class, appointing the Plaintiff as class representative, and appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as Class Counsel, and for such other and further relief as the Court may deem appropriate. The Plaintiff further asks that the Court stay this class certification motion until an amended motion for class certification is filed, and that the Court grant the parties relief from the local rules' automatic briefing schedule and requirement that Plaintiffs file a brief and supporting documents in support of this motion. To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the certification motion. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) ("The pendency of that motion [for class certification] protects a putative class from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs."). While the Seventh Circuit has held that the specific procedure described in Campbell-Ewald cannot force the individual settlement of a class representative's claims, the same decision cautions that other methods may prevent a plaintiff from representing a class. Fulton Dental, LLC v. Bisco, Inc., 860 F.3d 541, 545-46 (7th Cir. 2017).[CC] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. John D. Blythin, Esq. Jesse Fruchter, Esq. Ben J. Slatky, Esq. ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482-8000 Facsimile: (414) 482-8001 E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com meldridge@ademilaw.com jfruchter@ademilaw.com bslatky@ademilaw.com PASCO COUNTY: Squitieri, et al. Seek to Certify Class ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as CHRISTOPHER J. SQUITIERI, et al, Individually and on behalf of the class, the Plaintiffs, v. PASCO COUNTY SHERIFF CHRISTOPHER NOCCO et al, the Defendants, Case No. 8:19-cv-00906-CEH-AAS (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order on July 17, 2019: 1. certifying a class of: "all persons legally authorized to be employed in the United States who are or have been employed with the Pasco County Sheriff’s Office, its subsidiaries or affiliates in Florida at any time from May 2011 to the present"; 2. designating Plaintiffs as the class representative for the Class; and 3. designating Plaintiffs' counsel be designated as Class counsel. The Plaintiffs seek redress for Defendants' depression of their wages in violations of the federal and state Florida Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Acts statutes.[CC] Attorneys for Plaintiffs is: John F. McGuire, Esq. McGUIRE LAW OFFICES, P.A. 1173 N.E. Cleveland Street Clearwater, FL 33755 Telephone: (727) 446-7659 Facsimile: (727) 446-0905 E-mail: mlawoff1@tampabay.rr.com POLARIS INDUSTRIES: Continues to Defend Class Suits in Minnesota ---------------------------------------------------------------- Polaris Industries Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 23, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company continues to defend two putative class actions pending in Minnesota. One putative class action is pending in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota and arises out of allegations that certain Polaris products suffer from unresolved fire hazards allegedly resulting in economic loss, and is the result of the consolidation of the three putative class actions the company reported in its April 26, 2018 quarterly report and that were filed between April 5-10, 2018: In re Polaris Marketing, Sales Practices, and Product Liability Litigation (D. Minn.), June 15, 2018. The second putative class action is also pending in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota and alleges excessive heat hazards on certain other Polaris products and seeks damages for alleged economic loss: Riley Johannessohn, Daniel Badilla, James Kelley, Kevin Wonders, William Bates and James Pinion, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Polaris Industries (D. Minn.), October 4, 2016. Polaris said, "With respect to both class action lawsuits, the Company is unable to provide any reasonable evaluation of the likelihood that a loss will be incurred or any reasonable estimate of the range of possible loss." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Polaris Industries Inc. designs, engineers, manufactures, and markets power sports vehicles worldwide. It operates in five segments: ORV/Snowmobiles, Motorcycles, Global Adjacent Markets, Aftermarket, and Boats. The company was founded in 1954 and is headquartered in Medina, Minnesota. PROGRESSIVE SELECT: Lopez Seeks to Certify Class ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit styled as MICHAEL A. LOPEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. PROGRESSIVE SELECT INSURANCE CO., the Defendant, Case No. 0:18-cv-61844-WPD (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: 1. certifying a class of: "all individuals insured under Defendant's personal motor vehicle Policy substantially similar to Exhibit A to First Amended Complaint and issued in Florida (1) who submitted a comprehensive and/or collision claim to Defendant on a vehicle covered under the Policy; (2) Defendant settled the claim of the insured paying the insured what Defendant considered actual cash value for the vehicle; (3) Defendant took title to the vehicle in its name; and (4) Defendant on its own or through a vendor, sold the vehicle for salvage resulting in payment to Defendant of a net positive dollar amount from the sale." From five years before the filing of this complaint until the day the Court decides class certification (Class Period); 2. appointing Plaintiff as Class Representative; and 3. appointing Plaintiff's counsel as Class Counsel, and for such further relief as the Court deems just and proper. The Plaintiff seeks relief on behalf of a class of Defendant's insureds (including Plaintiff) whose motor vehicles Defendant insured and had been declared a total loss under the Policy.[CC] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Edward H. Zebersky, Esq. Mark S. Fistos, Esq. ZEBERSKY PAYNE, LLP 110 S.E. 6 th Street, Suite 2150 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 989-6333 Facsimile: (954) 989-7781 E-mail: ezebersky@zpllp.com; mfistos@zpllp.com; ndiaz@zpllp.com - and - Alec Schultz, Esq. Carly A. Kligler, Esq. LEON COSGROVE, LLP 255 Alhambra Circle, Suite 800 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 740-1975 Facsimile: (305) 437-8158 E-mail: aschultz@leoncosgrove.com; ckligler@leoncosgrove.com; eperez@leoncosgrove.com; cmanzano@leoncosgrove.com Counsel for the Defendant are: Marcy Levine Aldrich, Esq. Bryan T. West, Esq. AKERMAN LLP Three Brickell City Centre 98 Southeast Seventh Street Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: 305-374-5600 Facsimile: 305-374-5095 E-mail: marcy.aldrich@akerman.com bryan.west@akerman.com - and - James Matthew Brigman, Esq. Jeffrey S. Cashdan, Esq. Julia C. Barrett, Esq. Zachary A. McEntyre, Esq. King & Spalding LLP 1180 Peachtree Street, N.E. Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: 404-572-4600 E-mail: mbrigman@kslaw.com jcashdan@kslaw.com jbarrett@kslaw.com zmcentyre@kslaw.com QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Bid to Consolidated AMCA Breach Suits Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- Quest Diagnostics Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 24, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that motions to consolidate and transfer the 31 class action lawsuits related to the AMCA Data Security Incident are pending before the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. On June 3, 2019, the Company reported that Retrieval-Masters Creditors Bureau, Inc./American Medical Collection Agency ("AMCA"), informed the Company and Optum360 LLC, which provides revenue management services to the Company, about a data security incident involving AMCA (the "AMCA Data Security Incident"). AMCA (which provided debt collection services for Optum360) informed the Company and Optum360 that AMCA had learned that an unauthorized user had access to AMCA's system between August 1, 2018 and March 30, 2019. AMCA first informed the Company of the AMCA Data Security Incident on May 14, 2019. AMCA's affected system included financial information (e.g., credit card numbers and bank account information), medical information and other personal information (e.g., social security numbers). Test results were not included. Neither Optum360's nor the Company's systems or databases were involved in the incident. AMCA has also informed us that information pertaining to other laboratories customers was also affected. To date, approximately 31 class action lawsuits related to the AMCA Data Security Incident have been filed against the Company, most of which name other defendants, in federal courts in a number of districts. The cases are putative class actions in which the plaintiffs, who purport to represent various classes of consumers, assert a variety of common law and statutory claims in connection with the AMCA Data Security Incident. Motions to consolidate and transfer these cases to a single U.S. District Court are pending before the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. Quest Diagnostics Incorporated, incorporated on September 20, 1996, is a provider of diagnostic information services. The Company operates through two businesses: Diagnostic Information Services and Diagnostic Solutions. The company is based in Secaucus, New Jersey. RECKITT BENCKISER: Police/Firemen Fund Hits Share Price Drop ------------------------------------------------------------ City of Sterling Heights Police and Fire Retirement System, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Reckitt Benckiser Group PLC, Rakesh Kapoor, Adrian Hennah, Shaun Thaxter and Adrian Bellamy, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-15382, (D. N.J., July 15, 2019), seeks to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Reckitt is a consumer goods and health conglomerate headquartered in the United Kingdom with substantial operations in the United States. Its American Depository Shares (ADS) are traded on the U.S. over-the-counter market under the ticker symbol "RBGLY." Its division dedicated to opioid addiction treatments is known as Reckitt Benckiser Pharmaceuticals Inc. whose primary source of revenue was the manufacture and sale of Suboxone Tablets, a treatment for opioid addiction. Defendants allegedly inflated sales of Suboxone between 2010 and 2014 to include more than $500 million in payments from Medicare and Medicaid. On July 24, 2017, the Department of Justice and U.S. Federal Trade Commission conducted investigations into Reckitt Pharma operations. On this news, the price of Reckitt ADSs dropped 5%. Then, on February 19, 2018, Reckitt announced that it had recorded an exceptional charge of GBP296 million due to the investigations and that the investigation 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 which detailed a multi-billion-dollar scheme to defraud the public and the investors through the marketing and sale of Suboxone. On this news, the price of Reckitt ADSs again declined over 6%. The City of Sterling Heights Police & Fire Retirement System purchased Reckitt shares and lost substantially after corrective disclosures. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher A. Seeger, Esq. David R. Buchanan, Esq. Christopher L. Ayers, Esq. SEEGER WEISS LLP 77 Water Street 55 Challenger Road, 6th Floor Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660 Telephone: (212) 584-0700 Fax: (212) 584-0799 Email: cseeger@seegerweiss.com dbuchanan@seegerweiss.com cayers@seegerweiss.com - and - David C. Walton, Esq. Brian E. Cochran, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101-8498 Telephone: (619) 231-1058 Fax: (619) 231-7423 Email: davew@rgrdlaw.com bcochran@rgrdlaw.com - and - Thomas C. Michaud, Esq. VANOVERBEKE, MICHAUD & TIMMONY, P.C. 79 Alfred Street Detroit, MI 48201 Telephone: (313) 578-1200 Fax: (313) 578-1201 RESOURCE ENERGY: GSSI's Bid to Decertify Class in Moresi Suit Nixed ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, Moresi, v. Resource Energy Ventures And Construction Co LLC, Case No. 15-cv-02224 (W.D. La.), Magistrate Judge Carol B. Whitehurst of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, Lafayette Division, denied Defendant Gulf Coast Services, Inc. ("GSSI")'s Motion To Decertify Conditional Class Certification. On Jan. 3, 2017, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion to conditionally certify their claims of misclassification under Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") against Resource Energy Ventures and Construction Co., LLC ("REVCO") and GSSI. The Court conditionally certified the class and directed that notice be sent to welders, fitters and welder helpers who worked for REVCO or were contracted to GSSI at the BAE facility in Mobile, Alabama to build a vessel from July 20, 2015 to Dec. 31, 2015. The parties agree that eight individuals have opted-in as members of the class. GSSI now moves to decertify the conditionally certified class. GSSI concedes that the eight claimants are similar insofar as they all (1) recognized REVCO as their payroll employer; (2) worked at the BAE facility in Alabama; (3) were labor supplied by REVCO to GSSI under a subcontract; (4) were supervised by GSSI during the job to make sure the job met BAE requirements; (5) signed contracts saying GSSI would pay REVCO and they would not bill/collect from GSSI; and (6) GSSI has stipulated that it is deemed to be a joint employer of the 8 REVCO employees (plaintiffs) for the purpose of the FSLA but claims payment as a defense. Hence, it is undisputed that the claimants shared factual and employment settings beyond simply sharing the same job title. They performed similar work, in the same location under similar conditions including receiving no overtime pay. Magistrate Judge Whitehurst concludes that the Plaintiffs share similar factual and employment settings and are similarly situated, the Defendant's defenses are more collective than individual, and that fairness and procedural considerations favor collective treatment of the case. Accordingly, she deied GSSI's Motion To Decertify Conditional Class Certification. A full-text copy of the Court's June 18, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/Ek9KiZ from Leagle.com. Dylan John Moresi, individually & on behalf of others similarly situated, Wilfred Henry, Jr, Colby Babino, Nathaniel Thomas, Desmond J Connor, Sr, Khonesavan Khamsingsavath, Dale Joseph Nesom, Kam Kaysonpheth, Troy Matthews & Johnathan Wayde Rollins, Plaintiffs, represented by Kenneth D. St. Pe , Law Office of Kenneth D. St. Pe & Matthew Scott Parmet -- matt@parmet.law -- Parmet PC. Resource Energy Ventures & Construction Co L L C, Defendant, represented by Edward Paul Landry -- Lanwat@landrywatkins.com -- Landry Watkins et al. Gulf South Services Inc, Defendant, represented by David M. Flotte -- dflotte@shmrlaw.com -- Salley Hite et al & James Gary Albertine, III -- jalbertine@shmrlaw.com -- Salley Hite et al. Gulf South Services Inc, Cross Claimant, represented by David M. Flotte, Salley Hite et al & James Gary Albertine, III, Salley Hite et al. Resource Energy Ventures & Construction Co L L C, Cross Defendant, represented by Edward Paul Landry, Landry Watkins et al. ROYAL CANADIAN: 1,000+ Women to File Claims in $100MM Payout ------------------------------------------------------------ Jane Gerster, writing for Globalnews.ca, reports that over a thousand women are expected to file claims in the second $100-million sexual harassment class action leveled against the Royal Canadian Mountain Police in recent years. This new class action and settlement, which covers volunteers, municipal and contract employees who worked in conjunction with the Mounties, was announced earlier this week in Vancouver. The federal court is expected to approve the settlement this fall. Only 1,500 women are expected to make claims even though the settlement itself incorporates around 41,000 women, whose work dates back to 1974. The claim estimate is in keeping with the first $100-million sexual harassment class action settlement in 2016. At the time, all parties involved expected roughly 1,000 claims would be made. By the time the claim period closed last year, they had blown past those estimates with 3,131 submitted claims. Angela Bespflug, Esq. -- abespflug@callkleinlawyers.com -- lawyer for the current plaintiffs, says they are prepared for the possibility that this settlement also exceeds estimates. On paper, though, it might seem a bit odd considering class action litigators have long been concerned about low take-up rates. An Ontario Law Reform Commission report in 1982 put the average take-up rate for U.S. claims at somewhere between 10 and 15 per cent. That means that of all the people eligible for compensation, less than a quarter are -- on average -- claiming it. More recently, Ward Branch, a former class action litigator and now a justice of the B.C. Supreme Court, called take-up rates the "dirty little secret in class actions in Canada," according to a 2011 paper from lawyers Paul Morrison, Esq. -- paulmorrison@millerthomson.com -- and Michael Rosenberg, Esq. -- mrosenberg@mccarthy.ca Following a review of more than 100 of his firm's own class action cases while he was still a practitioner, Branch found take-up rates ranged from two per cent to 40 per cent. There isn't even 100 per cent take up in cases where compensatory cheques are mailed directly to people no questions asked, says Jeff Orenstein, Esq. -- jorenstein@clg.org -- a lawyer at Consumer Law Group, "people lose the cheque, forget to cash it -- that is, unfortunately, human nature." Still, those take up rates are much higher than in other cases, Orenstein says. As a general rule? "The more you make people do, the lower your claim rate will be." So why do people not seem to be put off by the independent RCMP claims process, which can take months and involve an in-person interview? Bespflug has an idea: "I think there's a desire for redress, for taking control of their story and their life and, in their own quiet way, saying I'm standing up to the RCMP and this behaviour won't be tolerated." Beyond that desire for redress or vindication, experts say there are other reasons, too, why a Mountie class action settlement might generate more claims than a consumer one. The estimates aren't always accurate Take-up rates vary depending on the type of lawsuit, says Paul Morrison, Esq. a partner at Miller Thomson. In some cases, he says, it's really easy to know who's been affected and, as a result, it's easier to let them know they are eligible for compensation. "But there are some class actions where the class is very large but it's not terribly easy to specifically identify who is a member," he says. The latest RCMP sexual harassment class action incorporates around 41,000 women whose municipal, contract or volunteer work involved the RCMP, but there's no one database with all their names and contact information on it. There's also no precise way to know how many of those 41,000 women suffered sexual harassment and, of those who did, how many will come forward to make a claim. The 1,500 estimate is an "educated guess," Bespflug says. Part of the settlement includes $250,000 earmarked for notifying people across the country that the class action was settled and they may be eligible to make a claim. The 2016 sexual harassment class action was highly publicized for years before a settlement was reached, giving women a chance to contact the litigators throughout the process, which enables them to estimate how many people will make claims, says Jasminka Kalajdzic, a law professor at the University of Windsor. Still, she says, an estimate is all it is. "Of course, we know now that triple that number ultimately made a claim and it's not hard to understand why there would be that discrepancy," she says. "There would be women who either didn't hear about the settlement or the case or who heard about it but didn't think they had to contact the firm until there was a specific claims process to participate in, or people who just weren't ready to think about or acknowledge what happened to them." Ultimately, it was good news that triple the number of expected claims were filed in the 2016 settlement, says Luciana Brasil, Esq. -- lbrasil@branmac.com -- a class action lawyer with Branch MacMaster. "It tells you, obviously, that there was really a wrong that is being addressed with a settlement," she says. "The fact that there are people coming forward and going through that shows that they devised a process that works, that is not discouraging people from participating." There are some class actions where people are eligible for $10 if they spent a few moments putting their name and address into an online form, says Jeff Orenstein. And yet, he says, some people just won't do it. "People don't really want to do very much for 10 bucks." There is a lot of money on the table when it comes to the Mountie settlement. The 2019 settlement is tiered, just like the 2016 one, with payments ranging from $10,000 for less severe harassment to $220,000 for the most severe harassment. "For thousands of dollars people will do it, they will spend the time," says Orenstein, and "If people feel physically, emotionally, psychologically injured they're more likely to act on it." Compare widespread allegations of sexual harassment within the RCMP to a consumer class action, say, a recent one that offers between $15 and $55 in compensation to anyone who purchased certain gas-powered lawnmowers between Jan. 1, 1994, and Dec. 31, 2012. There's a unique sense of vindication, Bespflug says. "People don't feel harmed to their core in those cases." "This is a special breed of case where there really is an innate desire to obtain justice. So if you need to do a little bit of work for that, I think most of these women are prepared to do that." Mountie class actions are ‘notorious' There are some class actions that everybody seems to know about, says Paul Morrison, Esq. He worked on one: the class action resulting from E. coli contamination in Walkerton, Ont., that killed seven people and made 2,300 other people ill. The case had more than 100 per cent take up, says Morrison, in part because it was "notorious." "Everybody knew about what had happened and everybody was following it," he says. "It was very, very easy for the members of the class to be identified or to self identify." People living and working in the town identified, as did people who didn't actually live in Walkerton but happened to be there during the 2000 outbreak. That notoriety is why Morrison isn't surprised that the 2016 RCMP sexual harassment settlement received unexpectedly high claims. "Everybody is aware of the allegations … and it's very easy for class members to self-identify," he says. "For those two reasons, one would expect the take-up rate to be quite high." [GN] SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Bronson et al. Seek to Certify Class --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as ALEXIS BRONSON AND CRYSTAL HARDIN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., and SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., the Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-02300-WHA (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the Court on August 22, 2019, for an order: 1. granting certification of injunctive relief class of: "California residents who purchased (in California) and currently own Samsung plasma televisions models manufactured since 2013"; 2. appointing Crystal Hardin as class representative; and 3. appointing Attorneys Paul S. Rothstein and Kyla V. Alexander as class counsel. Samsung is alleged to have failed to make functional a PDPs available to their Authorized Service Centers in California for seven years. Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are: Paul S. Rothstein, Esq. Kyla V. Alexander, Esq. 626 N.E. First Street Gainesville, FL 32601 Telephone: (352) 376-7650 Facsimile: (352) 374-7133 E-mail: PSR@Rothsteinforjustice.com Kyla.tm@rothsteinforjustice.com - and - Alan J. Sherwood, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ALAN J. SHERWOOD 26755 Contessa Street Hayward, CA 94545 Telephone: (510) 409-6199 E-mail: alansherwood@earthlink.net SERVICE EMPLOYEES: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Hamidi Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- In the case, KOUROSH HAMIDI, et al., and the CLASS THEY SEEK TO REPRESENT, Plaintiffs, v. SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION LOCAL 1000, and BETTY YEE, California State Controller, Defendants, Case No. 2:14-cv-319 WBS KJN (E.D. Cal.), Judge William B. Shubb of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California (i) granted the Defendants' Motions to Dismiss; (ii) denied as moot the Plaintiffs' claims for injunctive and declaratory relief; (iii) dismissed with prejudice the California State Controller from the lawsuit; and (iv) denied the Plaintiffs' Motion to Reopen Discovery. Fifteen employees of the State of California brought the class action against Defendants Service Employers International Union Local 1000 and the California state controller, alleging that the Defendants' 'opt-out' system for collecting optional union fees violates the First Amendment. On remand from the Ninth Circuit, the Defendants move to dismiss the Plaintiffs' claims for prospective relief. The Plaintiffs move to reopen discovery. After the Court entered judgment in favor of the Defendants, the Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal. After the parties had filed their briefs on appeal, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Janus v. American Federation of State, County, & Municipal Employees. Because the parties agreed that Janus impacts the case, the Ninth Circuit then vacated the court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings in light of the Supreme Court's decision. The panel also noted that the Court may determine in the first instance whether any of the Plaintiffs' claims are moot. Pursuant to the discussion with the parties at the status conference on remand, the Court set a briefing schedule for the two motions at issue in the Order: (1) the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' claims for prospective relief as moot; and (2) the Plaintiffs' motion to reopen discovery on the affirmative defense of good faith. The court held a hearing on these motions on June 17, 2019. The Plaintiffs, inter alia, ask for declaratory and injunctive relief against the opt-out procedure the Defendants used to collect optional union dues. Because the Defendants have abandoned this procedure because they can no longer collect union dues without an employees' affirmative consent, they maintain that these claims for relief are now moot. In response, the Plaintiffs concede that their claim for injunctive relief is now moot, but they insist that this change in policy does not render their claim for declaratory relief moot. Because the Defendants' decision to abandon the challenged conduct did not arise because of this litigation, Judge Shubb finds that the voluntary cessation rubric does not apply, and thus that there is no longer a dispute between the parties as to the claims for prospective relief. Next, at the outset, the Court must decide whether the challenged conduct ended due to the Defendants' "voluntary cessation" of collecting fees. All available evidence indicates that they changed their position, not because of the lawsuit, but because the Supreme Court's decision in Janus rendered the collection of union dues from nonconsenting public employees unconstitutional. Accordingly, because the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur, the Judge will dismiss the Plaintiffs' claims for prospective relief as moot. And because the Plaintiffs have no claims remaining against the state controller, the Judge will dismiss the state controller from the lawsuit. The Plaintiffs seek to reopen discovery on the union Defendant's good faith defense. Judge Shubb resolves this motion solely under the diligence factor. Although the union raised this affirmative defense in its answer, the Plaintiffs concede that they failed to satisfy the deadline for completion of discovery. The Plaintiffs had ample opportunity to conduct discovery, almost 11 months, yet they simply failed to diligently pursue evidence relevant to the affirmative defense. Existing case law gave the Plaintiffs ample notice of this defense and what may constitute relevant evidence. While the Plaintiffs argue that only a few courts discussed this defense in the context of public-sector union cases prior to Janus, Janus itself said nothing about the good faith defense, and thus cannot constitute a relevant change in the law for the purpose of renewed discovery. Accordingly, because the contours of the union's affirmative defense and relevant case law have not changed since the outset of the litigation, the Plaintiffs' failure to diligently pursue discovery is not otherwise excused and the Judge will deny the Plaintiffs' motion to reopen discovery. Based on the foregoing, (i) granted the Defendants' Motions to Dismiss; (ii) denied as moot the Plaintiffs' claims for injunctive and declaratory relief; (iii) dismissed with prejudice the California State Controller from the lawsuit; and (iv) denied the Plaintiffs' Motion to Reopen Discovery. A full-text copy of the Court's June 18, 2019 Memorandum and Order is available at https://is.gd/pv5KDl from Leagle.com. Kourosh Kenneth Hamidi, Kim McElroy, Dawn P. Ammons, William L. Blaylock, Christopher Browne, Ryan Christensen, Kelli Giles, Madeline L. Lopez, Clint Miller, Gary W. Morrish, Virginia Ollis, Olayemi Sarumi, Cecilia Stanfield, Antonia Toledo & Diane C. Tutt, Plaintiffs, represented by W. James Young, National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation Inc., pro hac vice & Steven R. Burlingham, Gary, Till, Burlingham & Lynch. Service Employees International Union, Local 1000, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey B. Demain -- jdemain@altshulerberzon.com -- Altshuler Berzon LLP, Anne Marie Giese, Service Employees International Union, Local 1000, Eric Prince Brown -- ebrown@altshulerberzon.com -- Altschuler Berzon, LLP, Eve H. Cervantez -- ecervantez@altshulerberzon.com -- Altshuler Berzon LLP, Patrick Casey Pitts -- cpitts@altshulerberzon.com -- Altshuler Berzon, LLP & York Jiann Chang, SEIU Local 1000. STAGE STORES: SMs Class in Qazi FLSA Suit Conditionally Certified ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, MALEEHA QAZI, et al, Plaintiffs, v. STAGE STORES, INC. D/B/A PEEBLES, INC., Defendant, Civil Action No. 4:18-CV-780 (S.D. Tex.), Judge Keith P. Allison of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas Houston Division, granted the Plaintiffs' Motion to Conditionally Certify Collective Action and to Approve and Facilitate Notice to Similarly Situated Employees. The Plaintiffs brought the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") case as a putative class action on behalf of themselves and other employees of the Defendant. The Plaintiffs were employed as Store Managers, working in eight different stores across four states at various times. The Defendant classified Store Managers as exempt from the FLSA's overtime provisions at all times relevant to the lawsuit. The Plaintiffs argue that this exempt classification violated the FLSA because they spent the majority of their workdays performing non-exempt duties such as selling merchandise; working on the sales floor; restocking products; marking down sale items; keeping clothing organized; operating the register; and other general customer service duties, working on assignments provided by corporate; and filling in for hourly associates. They argue that they are similarly situated to each other as well as members of the potential class because (1) they were all subject to the same uniform policy regarding compensation, (2) the job description for Store Managers is the same regardless of store location or size, and (3) Store Managers had similar customer service, sales, and operations job duties. The Plaintiffs support their contentions with declarations from each of the potential class representatives, as well as 15 uniform job postings, and deposition testimony of the Defendant's corporate representative. When deposed by the Plaintiffs, the Defendant's corporate representative admitted that the variations that existed between store manager positions in various stores did not affect whether the manager was cosidered exempt. The Defendant argues that the Court should deny the Certification Motion. It claims that nationwide certification is inappropriate because many issues would need to be individually determined, and the only company-wide policy applicable to the Plaintiffs is an official policy which is legal. The Defendant supports its position by comparing the declarations and depositions of the Plaintiffs with the deposition of current Store Manager Holly Watts and the declarations of eleven current Store Managers. The Defendant also opposes notification of some potential class members on the basis that they may be bound to individually arbitrate their claim:. It states that 16 members of the proposed putative class have arbitration agreements. The Plaintiffs do not challenge the validity of these arbitration agreements, but rather argue that arbitration concerns should not be addressed at this stage of litigation. Judge Allison finds that while the Defendant's evidence contradicts the story told by the depositions of the current Plaintiffs as to the duties of Store Managers, they do not show that the experiences of the Plaintiffs themselves varied so widely that their concerns are primarily personal or that the Court would be unable to manage a class. The Judge also finds that Plaintiffs have also met their burden in showing that aggrieved individuals exist and are similarly situated under the "lenient" Lusardi standard. There is no dispute that the Plaintiffs were subject to a common policy that exempted them from overtime pay; rather, there is a dispute about whether this policy was a violation of the FLSA. The legality of the Defendant's policy is a question better resolved once the parties have had the opportunity to conduct full discovery. The Judge need not find total uniformity, and in the case, it is clear that the Plaintiffs were all subject to the same pay practice and job requirements. The Judge further finds that, under Fifth Circuit precedent, the Defendant is correct that notice to potential class members who have signed arbitration agreements with the Defendant is inappropriate at this time. Notice should therefore be distributed only to individuals who are not subject to arbitration agreements. For these reasons, Judge Allison granted the Plaintiffs' Certification Motion. The collective action is conditionally certified pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) as a collective of all current and former Store Managers ("SMs") employed by Defendant, Specialty Retailers, Inc. d/b/a Peebles, nationwide at any time from Oct. 18, 2013 through present. Within 14 days of the Order, the Defendant will deliver to the Plaintiffs' counsel a computer-readable data file containing the names, last known mailing addresses, last known home and cell phone numbers, last known personal and work email addresses, social security numbers, and work locations for all the Collective members. The form of the Notice and Consent to Join Form will be the Notice attached as Exhibit I to the Plaintiffs' Motion. The Notice and Consent to Join Forms will be sent to all members of the Collective, exept those with arbitration agreements, via First Class U.S. Mail, email, and text message. A Reminder Postcard will issue via First Class U.S. Mail, email, and text message to members of the Collective, except those with arbitration agreements, who, as of halfway through the completion of the notice period, have not submitted a completed Consent to Join Form. The Plaintiffs are authorized to create a website at which members of the Collective may review the Notice and electronically submit a Consent to Join Form. A copy of the Notice will be posted in a conspicuous location in the "break worn" or similar office space where such legal notices are normally posted at each of Defendant' locations in which Collective members are or were employed. A copy of the Notice and Consent to Join Form will be included in the currently employed Collective members' pay envelopes or other method of delivery of the Collective members' paycheck information as may be applicable, so long as those individuals have not signed arbitration agreements. A full-text copy of the Court's June 18, 2019 Memorandum and Order is available at https://is.gd/gnrQYW from Leagle.com. Maleeha Qazi, Plaintiff, represented by Charles Gershbaum -- cgershbaum@hgrlawyers.com -- Hepworth Gershbaum et al, David A. Roth -- droth@hgrlawyers.com -- Hepworth, Gershbaum & Roth, PLLC, Gregg I. Shavitz -- gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com -- SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A., pro hac vice, Janine Kapp, Hepworth Gershbaum Roth PPLC, pro hac vice, Logan A. Pardell -- lpardell@shavitzlaw.com -- SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A., Marc S. Hepworth -- mhepworth@hgrlawyers.com -- Hepworth Gershbaum et al, Paolo Chagas Meireles -- pmeireles@shavitzlaw.com -- SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A., Rebecca S. Predovan -- rpredovan@hgrlawyers.com -- Hepworth Gershbaum et al & Alan Luis Quiles -- aquiles@shavitzlaw.com -- SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. Amy Ackley, Plaintiff, represented by Alan Luis Quiles, SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A., Gregg I. Shavitz, SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A., Logan A. Pardell, SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. & Paolo Chagas Meireles, SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. Stage Stores, Inc. d/b/a Peebles, Inc., Defendant, represented by Kristin M. Simpsen -- kristin.simpsen@mcafeetaft.com -- McAfee & Taft, James Bradley Spalding -- bspalding@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson PC, John H. Lassetter -- jlassetter@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, PC, Kevin Stephen Little -- klittle@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson PC, Lyndsey M. Marcelino -- lmarcelino@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, PC, Michael F. Lauderdale -- michael.lauderdale@mcafeetaft.com -- McAffee Taft PC & Tony G. Puckett -- tony.puckett@mcafeetaft.com -- McAfee & Taft. STATE COLLECTION: Summary Judgment Bid in FDCPA Suit Granted ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, ROSE BORN, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. STATE COLLECTION SERVICE, INC., a foreign profit corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:18-CV-0374-TOR (E.D. Wash.), Judge Thomas O. Rice of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington granted the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. On Nov. 30, 2018, Plaintiff Born initiated the putative class action against Defendant State under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), the Washington Collection Agency Act ("WCAA"), and Washington's Consumer Protection Act ("WCPA"). The Plaintiff primarily alleges that the Defendant's name "State Collection Service" gave the false impression that the debt collection company was in some way associated with the State of Washington in violation of the FDCPA. On Aug. 15, 2018, the Plaintiff made a payment of $7,419 on her account. On Aug. 29, 2018, she received a write-off of her balance, totaling $8,200.88, for qualifying charity care from Deaconess Hospital. After applying the charity care discount to her account, the Plaintiff was left with a balance of $431.63 ($16,051.51 less $8,200.88 less $7,419. Deaconess Hospital also gave the Plaintiff an additional self-pay discount of $361.16, further reducing her remaining balance to $70.47. On Oct. 15, 2018, the Plaintiff made a $10 payment to Deaconess Hospital, which left a balance of $60.47 on her account. On Nov. 2, 2018, Deaconess Hospital sent the Plaintiff's account to collections. The account was received by and assigned to Defendant State on Nov. 5, 2018. That same day, thePlaintiff called Deaconess Hospital's "Patient's Financial Experience Department" to discuss the status of her account. Speaking with a Hospital employee, the Plaintiff explained that she received a threatening letter informing her that her account was going to be sent to collections. The Hospital employee confirmed that the Plaintiff's account did leave the office and go to collections as of last week. When she asked if she could do anything about the account being sent to collections, the Hospital employee stated that she could definitely provide the Plaintiff with the number for the agency that had been assigned the account. After noting the phone number, the Plaintiff asked the Hospital employee to provide the name of the collection agency. The Hospital employee stated that the name of the collection agency was "State Collections." On Nov. 7, 2018, Defendant State sent its first collection notice to the Plaintiff. The letter informed her that a past due account had been referred to Defendant for debt collection from Deaconess Hospital and confirmed that the account balance was $60.47. The letter was printed on Defendant State's letterhead, which displayed the name "State Collection Service Inc." along with an address in Madison, Wisconsin. Before the letter was received by the Plaintiff, on Nov. 8, 2018, the Plaintiff called Defendant State to discuss the status of her account. After the letter was received by the Plaintiff and after consulting her attorney, on Nov. 29, 2018, the Plaintiff again called the Defendant. As before, the Defendant's employee stated at the beginning of the call that it is an attempt to collect a debt and any information obtained will be used for that purpose and that the Plaintiff's account related to a "balance of $60.47 with MultiCare." The Plaintiff confirmed that she was calling to resolve the balance on her account and proceeded to pay the remaining $60.47. The following day, the Plaintiff initiated th putative class action against Defendant State. On April 24, 2019, Defendant State filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, seeking dismissal of the Plaintiff's federal and state law claims. The Plaintiff filed a response to the Defendant's motion on May 28, 2019. In her response, she voluntarily withdrew her state law claims under the WCAA and the WCPA. Accordingly, those state law claims are dismissed. Only the Plaintiff's FDCPA claims remain before the Court. Judge Rice finds that the least sophisticated debtor would not be misled by the Defendant's use of the name "State Collection Service." Accordingly, he dismisses the Plaintiff's claims under 15 U.S.C. Section 1692e(1) and (2)(A). Because he concludes that the Defendant's use of the name "State Collection Service" was not materially false or misleading, the Judge also finds that the Defendant's use of the name was not an unfair attempt to collect a debt under section 1692f. Accordingly, the Plaintiff's claim under section 1692f of the FDCPA is dismissed. Accordingly, the Judge granted the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. He dismissed the Plaintiff's FDCPA claims against the Defendant with prejudice. The District Court Executive is directed to enter the Order, enter Judgment for the Defendant and furnish copies to the counsel. A full-text copy of the Court's June 18, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/t4HUFx from Leagle.com. Rose Born, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Kirk D. Miller -- kmiller@millerlawspokane.com -- Kirk D Miller PS. State Collection Service Inc, a Foreign Profit Corporation, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey I. Hasson, Hasson Law LLC & Courtney Allen Cross, Hasson Law, LLC. T ROWE PRICE: Continues to Defend 401(k) Plan Related Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- T. Rowe Price Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 24, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company continues to defend itself from a class action suit pending before the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, over its 401(k) Plan. On February 14, 2017, T. Rowe Price Group, Inc., T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc., T. Rowe Price Trust Company, current and former members of the management committee, and trustees of the T. Rowe Price U.S. Retirement Program were named as defendants in a lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. The lawsuit alleges breaches of ERISA's fiduciary duty and prohibited transaction provisions on behalf of a class of all participants and beneficiaries of the T. Rowe Price 401(k) Plan from February 14, 2011, to the time of judgment. The plaintiffs are seeking certification of the complaint as a class action. T. Rowe Price believes the claims are without merit and is vigorously defending the action. T. Rowe Price said, "This matter is in the discovery phase of litigation and we cannot predict the eventual outcome, or whether it will have a material negative impact on our financial results, or estimate the possible loss or range of loss that may arise from any negative outcome." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. T. Rowe Price Group, Inc., incorporated on February 4, 2000, is a financial services holding company. The Company provides global investment management services through its subsidiaries to investors across the world. The Company provides an array of Company sponsored the United States mutual funds, other sponsored pooled investment vehicles, sub advisory services, separate account management, recordkeeping, and related services to individuals, advisors, institutions, financial intermediaries and retirement plan sponsors. The firm was previously known as T. Rowe Group, Inc. and T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc. T. Rowe Price Group, Inc. was founded in 1937 and is based in Baltimore, Maryland. TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: BARJO Files Securities Fraud Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ 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 August 20, 2019 to contact the Firm to learn more about the class action filed against Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited (NYSE: TEVA), and appointment of lead plaintiff. The class action, Employees' Retirement System of the City of St. Petersburg, Florida v. Teva Pharmaceutical et al., Case No.: 19-cv-2711, was filed in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of shareholders who purchased Teva American Depository Shares ("ADS") between August 4, 2017 and May 10, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages against Teva and certain executives for alleged violations of federal securities laws. Following recent news of the filing of a massive antitrust lawsuit against Teva alleging price-fixing of generic drugs, the price of Teva stock dropped roughly 15%, and is now trading significantly less than it was at the middle of the Class Period. Teva recently announced that the Company will present scientific abstracts in Philadelphia today through July 14, 2019, relating to the treatment of migraines. If you've suffered damages from investing in Teva 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 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 August 20, 2019. Contact: Anthony Barbuto, Esq. Barbuto & Johansson, P.A. 12773 Forest Hill Blvd., 101 Wellington, FL 33414 Website: www.barjolaw.com Phone: 1-888-715-2520 Email: anthony@barjolaw.com [GN] TGI FRIDAYS: Man's Legal Crusade Gets Class Status on Appeal ------------------------------------------------------------ David Porter, writing for Kiro Seattle, reports that it's not yet last call for a New Jersey man's lawsuit claiming TGI Fridays broke consumer fraud laws by not publishing drink prices. A state appeals court ruled on July 11, 2019, that a lower court erred when it denied class action status to Robert Cameron's lawsuit. The suit claims Cameron was "shocked" when he dined at a location in Toms River in 2012 and discovered upon paying that his "mass produced" beer cost more than $5 and his soda cost nearly $3. Cameron claims he wouldn't have ordered the drinks if he had known the prices beforehand, and he alleges the chain purposely hasn't listed them because it has conducted studies showing it can charge more by doing so. His lawsuit seeks to force TGI Fridays to admit that it violated consumer laws and to include the prices on menus, on behalf of anyone who "received a menu and ordered a beverage from a menu without a price" over a span of several years at two TGI Fridays at the New Jersey shore, according to the court filing. TGI Fridays, which denies that its policies break the law, says it has added the prices to its menus. But that isn't enough, according to Sander Friedman, Esq. an attorney who argued the case for Cameron. "The reason you need a class for this kind of thing is they could change back to their old practices and the only thing that could monitor that is Bob Cameron," Friedman said. Cameron's suit had initially sought monetary damages for all customers who had ordered drinks at restaurants in Toms River and Manahawkin. But that claim was later dropped. An attorney who argued on behalf of the company didn't return a message on July 12 seeking comment on the ruling. The suit is similar to another one filed against the chain several years ago. The state Supreme Court ruled in that case in 2017 that individuals could seek monetary damages, but it denied class action status that could have led to thousands of consolidated claims. Debra Dugan had alleged consumer fraud laws were violated because prices weren't listed and she was charged one price for a drink at the bar and a higher price at a table. The 2-1 ruling on July 11, the state appeals court wrote that while the Supreme Court's 2017 decision in the Dugan case rightly noted that no case law supports requiring a restaurant to list its drink prices, "there is no legal authority that holds to the contrary - that the omission is in fact lawful." In his dissent, Judge Joseph Yannotti wrote that granting class action status would ignore that many patrons may not actually have suffered financial harm. "Other patrons may have been return customers, who knew the prices that defendant would charge for beverages," Yannotti wrote. "In addition, other patrons may have had no concern as to the amounts defendant would charge for drinks. Thus, there is a lack of cohesiveness among the putative class members as to whether they were, in fact, harmed by the lack of beverage pricing on the menus." [GN] TIER ONE: Hymes Class Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------------- CORY HYMES, CORY ALLEN, RICARDO BENITEZ, FRANCISCO DIAZ, and JESUS FRANCISCO, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. TIER ONE SOLUTIONS, INC., a Florida corporation, and ALFRED MUNOZ, individually, Case No. 1:19-cv-22941-KMM (S.D. Fla., July 16, 2019), seeks to recover overtime compensation and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Tier One Solutions Inc. operates as a security services company. The Company specializes in security, investigation, and executive protection solutions, security consulting, as well as fireman training. Tier One Solutions serves customers in the state of Florida. Alfred Munoz is an employee of the Company.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Chad E. Levy, Esq. David M. Cozad, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF LEVY & LEVY, P.A. 1000 Sawgrass Corporate Parkway, Suite 588 Sunrise, FL 33323 Telephone: (954) 763-5722 Facsimile: (954) 763-5723 E-mail: chad@levylevylaw.com david@levylevylaw.com TINDER INC: Allison Appeals Decision in Kim Suit to Ninth Circuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Objectors Rich Allison and Steve Frye filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Lisa Kim, et al. v. Tinder, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-03093-JFW-AS, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Los Angeles. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Tinder settled a class action lawsuit for $17.3 million over charging users 30 and older double the standard fee for one of its subscription services. The premium tier, called Tinder Plus and introduced in 2015, gave users perks like the ability to rewind swipes, more Super Likes, and the option to swipe for people located in other countries. Tinder was criticized when its service launched for its age tiers, which charged a $9.99 monthly fee for users under 29 and $19.99 for users 30 and up. At the time, Tinder defended the pricing model and compared the tiers to Spotify's discounted rates for students in a statement to NPR. A Tinder spokesperson commented, "During our testing we've learned, not surprisingly, that younger users are just as excited about Tinder Plus, but are more budget constrained and need a lower price to pull the trigger." The case was first filed in a California court last April 2018, with plaintiff Lisa Kim filing on behalf of an estimated 230,000 other class members. Tinder first blocked the case by citing the arbitration clause in its Terms of Service, and Kim appealed that clause when the settlement was reached. The company will now have to pay class members a combined $11.5 million in compensation. For dropping the claims, class members will receive 50 Super Likes, and an additional choice of a $25 check, 25 more Super Likes, or a free Tinder Plus or Tinder Gold subscription. The appellate case is captioned as Lisa Kim, et al. v. Tinder, Inc., et al., Case No. 19-55807, 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; -- Appellants Rich Allison and Steve Frye's opening brief is due on October 21, 2019; -- Appellees Lisa Kim, Match Group, Inc., Match Group, LLC and Tinder, Inc.'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 LISA KIM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Adrian Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD FRIEDMAN PC 21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: (877) 206-4741 E-mail: abacon@attorneysforconsumers.com - and - Todd M. Friedman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN 324 S. Beverly Drive Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (877) 206-4741 E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com - and - John P. Kristensen, Esq. Christina Le, Esq. KRISTENSEN WEISBERG, LLP 12540 Beatrice Street, Suite 200 Los Angeles, CA 90066 Telephone: (310) 507-7924 E-mail: john@kristensenlaw.com christina@kristensenlaw.com Objectors-Appellants RICH ALLISON and STEVE FRYE are represented by: Kimberly A. Kralowec, Esq. KRALOWEC LAW, P.C. 750 Battery Street, Suite 700 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 546-6800 E-mail: kkralowec@kraloweclaw.com - and - Danielle Leonard, Esq. ALTSHULER BERZON LLP 177 Post Street, Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 421-7151 E-mail: dleonard@altshulerberzon.com Defendants-Appellees TINDER, INC., a Delaware corporation; MATCH GROUP, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and MATCH GROUP, INC., a Delaware corporation, are represented by: Donald R. Brown, Esq. Robert H. Platt, Esq. MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP 11355 West Olympic Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90064 Telephone: (310) 312-4318 E-mail: dbrown@manatt.com rplatt@manatt.com TOTAL SYSTEM: Wolf Balks at Global Payments Merger Deal ------------------------------------------------------- JACK WOLF, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. TOTAL SYSTEM SERVICES, INC., THADDEUS ARROYO, KRISS CLONINGER III, WALTER W. DRIVER JR., SIDNEY E. HARRIS, JOIA M. JOHNSON, CONNIE D. MCDANIEL, RICHARD A. SMITH, JOHN T. TURNER, M. TROY WOODS, and GLOBAL PAYMENTS INC., the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00115-CDL (M.D. Ga., July 18, 2019), alleges that Defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of in connection with the a Registration Statement. The action stems from a proposed transaction announced on May 28, 2019, pursuant to which Total System Services, Inc. will be acquired by Global Payments Inc. On May 27, 2019, TSYS's Board of Directors caused the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with Global Payments. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, shareholders of TSYS will receive 0.8101 shares of Global Payments common stock for each share of TSYS common stock they own. On July 3, 2019, the Defendants filed a Form S-4 Registration Statement with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the Proposed Transaction. The Registration Statement omits material information with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the Registration Statement false and misleading. Total System is an American credit card processor, merchant acquirer and bank credit card issuer. TSYS provides payment, processing, merchant, and related payment services to financial and nonfinancial institutions in the United States, Europe, Canada, Mexico, and internationally.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are: James M. Wilson, Jr. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 983-9330 Facsimile: (212) 983-9331 E-mail: jwilson@faruqilaw.com - and - Brian D. Long, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 295-5310 Facsimile: (302) 654-7530 E-mail: bdl@rl-legal.com gms@rl-legal.com - and - RM LAW, P.C. 1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300 Berwyn, PA 19312 Telephone: (484) 324-6800 Facsimile: (484) 631-1305 U.S. STEEL: Defrauded and Misled Investors, Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------- Carrie Bradon, writing for The Pennsylvania Record, reports that an investor has filed a class action lawsuit against United States Steel Corp., alleging it defrauded and misled stockholders and employees. Roy Cetlin, individually as assignee of Maud Cetlin and Cassandra Cetlin as successor-in-interest to Ceroy Inc., on behalf of 2230439 Ontario Ltd. and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a complaint on April 24, 2019, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania against United States Steel Corp., Mario Longhi, David B. Burritt, and Dan Lesnak, alleging violation of the Federal Securities Law, false and misleading statements, and fraud. The defendant by 2014 claims he had experienced years of losses, resulting in a total 90% drop in their stock price and bankruptcy of its Canadian subsidiary. The defendant, Longhi, hired McKinsey to launch a "transformational process" that was supposed to improve the company's operations, supply chain, procurement, manufacturing and more, the suit says. The U.S. steel market began to deteriorate over the course of 2015 and the defendant was forced to the brink of bankruptcy with a $1.5 billion end-of-year loss for 2015 and failure to turn a profit in six years, the suit says. As the defendant struggled financially, it abandoned its initiatives on employee engagement and reliability-centered maintenance and began to focus only on cost-cutting to salvage the bottom line, the suit says. The defendant began to lay off thousands of employees, which allegedly left the company with too few individuals to run the facilities safely. The United Steelworkers Union had filed a grievance in August 2016 about the layoffs and demotions and subsequent safety concerns. Investigators faulted the defendant for failing to de-energize live parts before an employee worked on them, failing to properly train employees and other discrepancies, the suit says. The defendant, however, is accused of continuing to cut corners, instructing plan managers to do the "bare minimum to get by" and try to fix broken machinery without the proper repairs. The defendant, though aware that it was deferring important maintenance and repairs, allegedly continued to do so but claimed that it was operating as it ought to be. In 2016, the defendant launched a secondary stock offering even though it was planning on decreasing production, which would result in the company losing significant market share, the suit says. The plaintiff is seeking trial by jury, interest, attorney and expert fees, cost of court and relief deemed fit. The plaintiff is represented by Pittsburgh attorney Vincent Coppola, Esq. -- vcoppola@pribanic.com -- and Shannon Hopkins, Esq. Nancy Kulesa, Esq., Stephanie Bartone, Esq. and Gregory Potrepka, Esq. of Levi & Korsinsky. [GN] UA LOCAL 91: Faces King Suit Alleging Civil Rights Violations ------------------------------------------------------------- RONALD KING, ANTHONY ROBINSON, CHRIS SAMUEL, NOLAN JONES, JR., BRIAN STRUGGS; Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. UA LOCAL 91, UNITED ASSOCIATION OF PLUMBERS, STEAMFITTERS, WELDERS And HVAC TECHNICIANS; UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEYMEN AND APPRENTICES OF THE PLUMBING AND PIPE FITTING INDUSTRY OF THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA, UNION OF PLUMBERS, FITTERS, WELDERS AND SERVICE TECHNICIANS; DAY & ZIMMERMAN, INC.; DAY & ZIMMERMAN NPS, INC., Case No. 2:19-cv-01115-KOB (N.D. Ala., July 16, 2019), alleges civil rights act violations. The lawsuit is an action for declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, equitable relief and monetary relief instituted to secure the protection of and to redress the deprivation of rights secured through Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991, and the Civil Rights Act of 1866, as amended, 29 U.S.C. Section 1981, that provide for relief against discrimination in employment on the basis of race, color and retaliation, notes the complaint. UA Local 91 is a subsidiary, affiliate and/or agent of its parent International Union--the United Association of Journeymen & Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry, Union of Plumbers, Fitters, Welders & Service Techs. The Defendant Unions do business in this jurisdiction and are subject to suit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991, and the Civil Rights Act of 1866, as amended. Day & Zimmerman, Inc. and Day & Zimmerman NPS, Inc. are employers subject to suit under the Civil Rights Acts. Day & Zimmerman provides diversified commercial services. The Company offers architecture, engineering, procurement, maintenance, staffing, defense, and construction services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert L. Wiggins, Jr., Esq. Ann K. Wiggins, Esq. Rocco Calamusa, Jr., Esq. Russell W. Adams, Esq. WIGGINS, CHILDS, PANTAZIS, FISHER & GOLDFARB 301 19th Street North Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 314-0500 E-mail: rwiggins@wigginschilds.com awiggins@wigginschilds.com rcalamusa@wigginschilds.com radams@wigginschilds.com UMR, INC: Berceanu et al. Sue over Defective UBH Guidelines ----------------------------------------------------------- LUCIANA BERCEANU, on her own behalf and on behalf of her beneficiary daughter, and all others similarly situated, JUDY HERNANDEZ, on her own behalf and on behalf of her beneficiary husband, and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. UMR, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-00568-wmc (W.D. Wisc., July 11, 2019), seeks: -- a declaration that UMR's adoption of a defective United Behavioral Health (UBH) guidelines violated UMR's fiduciary duties; and -- issuance of permanent injunction ordering UMR to stop utilizing the guidelines, and instead adopt guidelines that are consistent with generally accepted standards of medical practice. According to the complaint, despite finding that Judy Hernandez's husband met the criteria for coverage for services at the intensive outpatient level of intensity, UMR denied all coverage for Mr. Hernandez's continued care in his residential treatment program, rather than reimbursing at the rate applicable to intensive outpatient programs. UMR's failure to approve Mr. Hernandez's claims at the rate for the level of care for which UMR found he qualified (intensive outpatient treatment) created a windfall for the Hernandez Plan's sponsor and for UMR's affiliated stop-loss insurer. Despite finding that Berceanu's daughter met the criteria for coverage for services at the partial hospitalization level of intensity, UMR denied all coverage for her continued care in her residential treatment program, rather than reimbursing at the rate applicable to partial hospitalization. UMR's failure to approve Plaintiff Berceanu's daughter's claims at the rate for the level of care for which UMR found she qualified (partial hospitalization) created a windfall for the Berceanu Plan's sponsor and for UMR's affiliated stop-loss insurer. Berceanu incurred significant unreimbursed expenses for her daughter's residential treatment. The Berceanu Plan and the Hernandez Plan (Plaintiffs' Plans) are both governed by ERISA. The Plaintiffs' Plans both cover treatment for sickness, injury, mental illness, and substance use disorders. Residential treatment is a covered benefit under the Plaintiffs' Plans. UMR is the benefit claims administrator for the Plaintiffs' Plans. As such, both Plans grant discretion to UMR to interpret plan terms, including limitations and exclusions, in determining whether services are covered and to cause any resulting benefit payments to be made by the Plans. Because UMR exercises discretion with respect to the administration of the Plaintiffs' Plans, and makes all benefit determinations, UMR is a fiduciary within the meaning ERISA, 29 U.S.C. section 1104. UMR is responsible for adopting and applying the defective UBH guidelines and adjudicating the claims for benefits. It is also responsible for causing the ERISA plans to issue benefits for covered services.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are: Robert J. Gringas, Esq. GINGRAS , CATES AND WACHS 8150 Excelsior Drive Madison, WI 53717 Telephone: (608) 833-2632 E-mail: gingras@gcwlawyers.com - and - D. Brian Hufford, Esq. Jason S. Cowart, Esq. Adam B. Abelson, Esq. Caroline E. Reynolds, Esq. ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP 1185 Avenue of the Americas, 31st Floor New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 704-9600 E-mail: dbhufford@zuckerman.com jcowart@zuckerman.com aabelson@zuckerman.com creynolds@zuckerman.com - and - Meiram Bendat, Esq. PSYCH-APPEAL, INC. 8560 West Sunset Boulevard, Suite 500 West Hollywood, CA 90069 Telephone: (310) 598-3690 E-mail: mbendat@psych-appeal.com UNITED PARCEL: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in Coates Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff La Tasha Coates filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the lawsuit titled La Tasha Coates v. United Parcel Service, Inc., Case No. 2:18-cv-03012-PSG-AFM, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Los Angeles. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff sought certification of two classes: * Security Check Class: "all non-exempt, non-delivery-driver employees employed by United Parcel Service, Inc. at a "Clean-In / Clean-Out" facility in California at any time from December 29, 2013 through the date of class certification"; and * Meal Break Class: "all non-exempt, non-delivery-driver employees employed by United Parcel Service, Inc. in California at any time from December 29, 2013 through the date of class certification"; The appellate case is captioned as La Tasha Coates v. United Parcel Service, Inc., Case No. 19-80092, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Petitioner LA TASHA COATES, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, is represented by: Robert Drexler, Jr., Esq. Melissa Grant, Esq. John Ely Stobart, I, Esq. Ryan Wu, Esq. CAPSTONE LAW APC 1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 556-4811 Facsimile: (310) 943-0396 E-mail: Robert.Drexler@capstonelawyers.com Melissa.Grant@capstonelawyers.com john.stobart@capstonelawyers.com ryan.wu@capstonelawyers.com Defendant-Respondent UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., an Ohio corporation, is represented by: Elizabeth A. Brown, Esq. Amanda Bolliger, Esq. GRUBE BROWN & GEIDT LLP 633 West 5th Street, Suite 3330 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 358-2810 E-mail: lisabrown@gbgllp.com amandabolliger@gbgllp.com - and - James Robert Evans, Jr., Esq. ALSTON & BIRD LLP 333 S. Hope Street Los Angeles, CA 90071-2901 Telephone: (213) 576-1146 E-mail: james.evans@alston.com UNITED STATES: D.C. App. Affirms Class Certification in UACs Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, J.D., ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, ET AL., Appellees, v. ALEX MICHAEL AZAR, II, SECRETARY, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, ET AL., Appellants, Case No. 18-5093 (D.C. App.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (i) affirmed the class certification order and the portions of the preliminary injunction enjoining obstructions to abortion access; and (ii) vacated those portions of the order relating to the U.S. Dep't of Health and Human Servs., Office of Refugee Resettlement ("ORR"), About Unaccompanied Alien Children's Service's alleged disclosure policies. Unaccompanied alien children ("UACs") are minors in the United States with no lawful immigration status and no parents or legal guardians in the country able to care for them. According to the government's published information about UACs, UACs have multiple inter-related reasons for undertaking the difficult journey of traveling to the United States, which may include rejoining family already in the United States, escaping violent communities or abusive family relationships in their home country, or finding work to support their families in the home country. The ORR, a program in the Department of Health and Human Services, bears responsibility for the "care and placement" of UACs. Most UACs are referred to ORR by the Department of Homeland Security ("DHS") after having been apprehended by immigration authorities at the border. Some unaccompanied minors who hail from countries contiguous with the United States may be immediately repatriated to their countries of origin by DHS. But the overwhelming majority of UACs are from non-contiguous countries and are therefore transferred to ORR custody. In fiscal year 2018, almost 50,000 unaccompanied minors were referred to ORR. Federal law requires prompt placement of UACs in the least restrictive setting that is in the best interest of the child. Pursuant to that requirement, ORR usually places unaccompanied minors in one of roughly 100 federally funded shelters across the country. Roughly 30% of the unaccompanied minors to arrive in the United States in recent years have been female. Each year, ORR has several hundred pregnant unaccompanied minors in its custody. In fiscal year 2017, the only year for which there is data in the record concerning abortion requests, 18 pregnant unaccompanied minors in ORR custody requested an abortion. In March 2017, ORR announced that shelters are prohibited from taking any action that facilitates an abortion without direction and approval from the Director of ORR. A shelter thus could assist a minor if an abortion would be consistent with the relevant state's laws. If a shelter objected to permitting a minor abortion access on religious or other grounds, ORR would transfer her to a shelter willing to provide access. Under the new policy's requirement to secure the ORR Director's approval before permitting abortion access, Scott Lloyd, who became Director in March 2017, denied every abortion request presented to him during his tenure. He refused every request regardless of the circumstances, including when the pregnancy resulted from rape. The requirement to obtain the Director's approval thus functions as a blanket ban. The ban, though, applies only to those unaccompanied minors who are in ORR custody (including those at ORR grantee shelters). A minor who is released to a sponsor, or who obtains lawful immigration status, thus is no longer subject to the abortion bar. The same is true of unaccompanied minors who turn 18 and are then transferred to DHS custody. DHS, unlike ORR, allows pregnant women in its custody to obtain abortions. The class action was brought in the name of the four Plaintiffs -- Jane Doe, Jane Poe, Jane Roe and Jane Moe -- who were unaccompanied minors in ORR custody and whose requests for an abortion were denied under the new policy. On March 30, 2018, the district court certified a class of the Plaintiffs consisting of all pregnant, unaccompanied immigrant minor children (UCs) who are or will be in the legal custody of the federal government. The court certified the class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2), which applies when a defendant acts on grounds that apply generally to the class, such that an injunction (or declaratory relief) is appropriate as to the entire class. On the merits, the court granted a preliminary injunction to the class. It explained that the government may not prohibit any woman from making the ultimate decision to terminate her pregnancy before viability. That "basic proscription," the court determined, controls the outcome in the case. The court concluded, ORR's absolute veto nullifies a UAC's right to make her own reproductive choices. And "ORR's policy vests the power to decide the future of a UAC's pregnancy in one man: Director Lloyd, whose ultimate decision is substantially controlled by -- if not entirely based on -- his ideological opposition to abortion. The district court initially entered its preliminary injunction on March 30, 2018, and then clarified it on April 16, 2018. The injunction contains two relevant provisions. First, it enjoins the government from interfering with or obstructing any class member's access to an abortion or other pregnancy-related care (and also enjoins any interference with access to a judicial bypass or abortion counseling). Second, the court enjoined the government from revealing, or forcing class members to reveal, the fact of their pregnancies or their abortion decisions to anyone. Those two aspects of the preliminary injunction -- the access mandate and the disclosure bar -- have been appealed by the government. The government also appeals the district court's grant of class certification. The government, though, does not appeal other provisions of the preliminary injunction that bar retaliation against class members or shelters for abortion-related decisions and actions. Based on a faithful application of the Supreme Court's precedents, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs have established both requirements of the "inherently transitory" exception. Accordingly, the district court's class certification relates back to the date of the pleadings, and all the class's claims remain live. The Court then reviews the district court's certification of the class only for abuse of discretion. It finds no abuse of discretion and thus affirm the certification of a class of pregnant UACs in ORR custody. The Court also finds that the district court did not abuse its discretion in certifying a class consisting of all pregnant unaccompanied minors who are or will be in ORR custody. Both sides to the dispute thus can economically deal with an issue affecting many individuals in one fell swoop, consistent with the objectives of Rule 23. Having established the Court's jurisdiction and having sustained the class' certification, the Court finally comes to the merits of the preliminary injunction granted by the district court. It cannot accept the government's effort to justify ORR's ban on access to abortions on the theory that unaccompanied minors can voluntarily depart the country. The undue-burden framework has never been thought to tolerate any burden on abortion the government imposes simply because women can leave the jurisdiction. That is especially so for voluntary departure, which: is granted only at the government's discretion; may not come soon enough even if awarded; is exceedingly unlikely to enable an unaccompanied minor to obtain an abortion in her country of origin in any event; and requires abandoning potentially viable claims of entitlement to stay in the United States. The Court therefore agrees with the district court that the Plaintiffs have shown a likelihood of success in connection with their claim that ORR's restriction on abortion access infringes their protected right to choose to terminate their pregnancies. Because the Plaintiffs have made a sufficient showing that the various preliminary-injunction factors weigh in their favor, the Court affirms the district court's order preliminarily enjoining the government from interfering with unaccompanied minors' access to a pre-viability abortion. Nonetheless, the Court is unable to meaningfully review the portion of the district court's preliminary injunction addressed to the alleged disclosure policies without a more developed understanding of the content of those polices. It thus vacates the portion of the district court's order preliminarily enjoining the government from disclosing (or forcing class members to disclose) information related to their pregnancies and abortion decisions, so that the district court on remand can give a more fulsome account of its findings and conclusions in that regard. For the foregoing reasons, the Court affirmed the class certification order and the portions of the preliminary injunction enjoining obstructions to abortion access. It vacated those portions of the order relating to ORR's alleged disclosure policies and remanded for further explanation. A full-text copy of the Court's June 14, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/jm4kaP from Leagle.com. August E. Flentje, Special Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, argued the cause for appellants. With him on the brief were Hashim M. Mooppan, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, and Michael C. Heyse, Attorney. Ken Paxton Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Texas, Scott A. Keller, Solicitor General, Kyle Hawkins, Assistant Solicitor General, David J. Hacker, Special Counsel for Civil Litigation, Leslie Rutledge, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Alabama, M. Stephen Pitt, General Counsel for the Governor of Kentucky, Jeff Landry , Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Louisiana, Eric Schmitt, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Missouri, Doug Peterson, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Nebraska, Dave Yost, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Ohio, Mike Hunter, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Oklahoma, Alan Wilson, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State of South Carolina, and Patrick Morrisey, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State of West Virginia, were on the brief as amici curiae States of Texas, et al. in support of appellants. Brigitte Amiri argued the cause for appellees. With her on the brief were Meagan Burrows, Jennifer Dalven, Arthur B. Spitzer, Scott Michelman, Daniel Mach, and Melissa Goodman. Barbara D. Underwood, Solicitor General, Office of the Attorney General for the State of New York, Anisha S. Dasgupta, Deputy Solicitor General, Ester Murdukhayeva, Assistant Solicitor General, Brian E. Frosh , Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Maryland, Maura Healey, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State of New Jersey, Hector Balderas, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State of New Mexico, Joshua H. Stein , Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State of North Carolina, Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Oregon, Josh Shapiro , Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State of California, William Tong, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Connecticut, Kathy Jennings, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Delaware, Russell A. Suzuki, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Hawaii, Kwame Raoul, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Illinois, Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Iowa, Aaron Frey, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Maine, Robert W. Ferguson, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Washington, Karl A. Racine, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the District of Columbia, Thomas J. Donovan, Jr., Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Vermont, and Mark R. Herring, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Virginia, were on the brief for amici curiae States of New York, et al. in support of appellees. Jennifer R. Cowan was on the brief for amici curiae The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, et al. in support of plaintiffs-appellees. Joel Dodge and Jane Liu were on the brief for amici curiae Reproductive Rights, Health, and Justice Organizations and Allied Organizations in support of appellees. Roxann E. Henry was on the brief for amici curiae Immigrants Rights Advocates supporting plaintiffs-appellees. VERB TECHNOLOGY: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Securities Fraud Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Verb Technology Company, Inc. (NASDAQ: VERB) and certain of its officers, on behalf of shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired Verb securities from January 3, 2018 and May 2, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Such investors are encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's site: www.bgandg.com/verb. This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint alleges that on January 3, 2018, Verb revealed a purported agreement with Oracle America, Inc. (the "Oracle Agreement") and filed Form 8-K with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission omitting the text of the agreement itself. The complaint continues to allege that throughout the Class Period, Verb continued to hype this relationship. During this time, Verb stock price increased over 200% up from $0.12 per share on January 3, 2018 to $2.70 on April 19, 2018. Then on April 23, 2018, Verb revealed the actual terms of the Oracle Agreement through the filing of a Form 8-K. The complaint alleges that the terms of the agreement exposed that the prior representations regarding the scope of the relationship with Oracle were materially misleading. Following this news, Verb stock dropped 43% from the previous week to close on April 30, 2018 at $1.54 per share. The stock continued to drop and and closed at $3.04 per share on April 20th. If you wish to review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site: www.bgandg.com/verb. or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss in Verb you have until September 9, 2019 to request that the Court appoint you 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. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation boutique. Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of litigation claims on behalf of our clients. In addition to representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities arbitration. Contact: Peretz Bronstein, Esq. Yael Hurwitz, Esq. Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC Tel: 212-697-6484 Email: peretz@bgandg.com info@bgandg.com [GN] VERB TECHNOLOGY: Federman & Sherwood Files Securities Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------------ Federman & Sherwood announces that on July 9, 2019, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California against Verb Technology Company, Inc. (VERB). The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of material or false misrepresentations to the market which had the effect of artificially inflating the market price during the Class Period, which is January 3, 2018 through May 2, 2018. To learn how to participate in this action, please visit https://www.federmanlaw.com/blog/federman-sherwood-announces-the-filing-of-a-securities-class-action-lawsuit-against-verb-technology-company-inc/ Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all Verb Technology Company, Inc. shareholders who purchased common stock during the Class Period and are therefore a member of the Class as described above. You may move the Court no later than Monday, September 9, 2019 to serve as a lead plaintiff for the entire Class. However, in order to do so, you must meet certain legal requirements pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. If you wish to discuss this action, obtain further information and participate in this or any other securities litigation, or should you have any questions or concerns regarding this notice or preservation of your rights please contact: Robin Hester, Esq. Federman & Sherwood 10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Website: www.federmanlaw.com Email: rkh@federmanlaw.com [GN] VERB TECHNOLOGY: Gainey McKenna Files Securities Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Gainey McKenna & Egleston announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Verb Technology Company, Inc. (Nasdaq: VERB) in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of those who purchased or acquired the securities of Verb between January 3, 2018 through May 2, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The Complaint alleges Defendants 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. Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares during the Class Period should contact the Firm prior to the September 9, 2019 lead plaintiff motion deadline. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna & Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com or gegleston@gme-law.com [GN] VERB TECHNOLOGY: Rosen Law Files Securities Fraud Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of 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. Contact: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor New York, NY 10016 Phone: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 Website: www.rosenlegal.com Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com cases@rosenlegal.com [GN] WHEATFIELD, NY: Bids to Dismiss SAC in E. Andres Suit Granted ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ELIZABETH ANDRES, et al., Plaintiffs, v. TOWN OF WHEATFIELD, OCCIDENTAL CHEMICAL CORPORATION, BELL HELICOPTER TEXTRON, INC., CROWN BEVERAGE PACKAGING, LLC, GREIF, INC., REPUBLIC SERVICES, INC., and HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00377 (W.D. N.Y.), Judge Christina Reiss of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York granted the Defendants' motions to dismiss the Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint ("SAC"). The Plaintiffs are current or previous owners or renters of residential properties in North Tonawanda, New York, and the surrounding area, who have lived in that area for at least one year. They seek to bring a class action suit against the Defendants arising out of the Plaintiffs' alleged exposure to toxic and hazardous substances emanating from the Town's Nash Road landfill ("Site"). The Site is a closed, unlined, uncapped landfill on 25 acres of real property located at 7415 Nash Road, Wheatfield, New York, immediately north of the City of North Tonawanda and east of Nash Road. At all times relevant to this action, the Town owned the Site, which was operated by the Niagara Sanitation Company between 1964 and 1968 for the disposal of municipal and industrial wastes. In 1989, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation ("NYSDEC"), Division of Hazardous Waste Remediation performed a "Phase II Investigation." NYSDEC's recommendations allegedly revealed that shallow groundwater at the Site contained significant contamination of toxic organic compounds and metals and that there was a potential for the contaminants to migrate off-site. The Plaintiffs allege that, despite the EPA's Report and NYSDEC's investigation, no action was taken, none of the recommendations were performed, and the Site remained just as it was. The adjacent community was not informed of any findings or directives, or warned of any potential danger to persons or property, and residents continued to use the Site for recreational activities. According to Plaintiffs, the Town was fully aware that the Site contained an unknown quantity of toxic chemicals, toxic contaminants and waste, industrial solvents and sludge, and banned pesticides. Despite this awareness, the Town left the Site abandoned for decades, without proper cleanup, oversight, or management, with no signage as to the danger, no fencing of the property to prevent access, and without engineering controls to prevent seepage and transport of contamination on to the surrounding properties. On March 26, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed the action in New York state court. On May 3, 2017, the lawsuit was removed to federal court. On Oct. 27, 2017, they filed their First Amended Complaint. The Defendants responded by filing motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim. At a June 18, 2018 hearing, the court granted the motions to dismiss on the record and granted the Plaintiffs leave to amend. On Aug. 17, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed the SAC. In their SAC, the Plaintiffs assert the following claims: Count One: response costs incurred or to be incurred by the Plaintiffs in connection with the Site pursuant to Section 107(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act ("CERCLA"); Count Two: contribution for response costs under Section 113(f) of CERCLA; Count Three: declaratory relief as to future costs under Section 113(g)(2), (4) of CERCLA; Count Four: the Town's violation of the Plaintiffs' substantive due process rights for a state-created danger pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983; Count Five: the Town's violation of the Plaintiffs' substantive due process rights to bodily integrity pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983; Count Six: state law negligence; Count Seven: state law strict liability; and Count Eight: state law trespass. The Defendants again move to dismiss, arguing the Plaintiffs fail to state a claim for relief because they fail to plausibly allege their injuries, a theory of causation, and the essential elements of claims under CERCLA or for trespass. The Town filed a separate motion to dismiss on the basis that the Plaintiffs' conclusory allegations are insufficient to plead claims under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. The Plaintiffs oppose dismissal. On Feb. 8, 2019, the Court held oral argument and thereafter took the pending motions under advisement. Judge Reiss finds that the allegations are identical for each Plaintiff who owns or rents real property near the Site. Although they contend they have incurred response costs in the form of substantial investigation and sampling costs necessary to determine the nature and extent of releases, threatened releases, and contamination around the Site, the results of their investigation are not reflected in the SAC. Because the SAC fails to give the Defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests, and does not allege sufficient factual matter to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face, the Defendants' motions to dismiss must be granted. Although dismissal has been granted, the Judge proceeds to analyze the Defendants' challenges to the essential elements of the claims in order to facilitate appellate review and any further amendment. At the pleading stage, the Plaintiffs' assertion that their sampling and investigation were NCP-compliant is sufficient. Their allegation that they collectively incurred $80,000 in response costs, however, is not. On this basis, the Judge would dismiss Count One for failure to allege the essential elements of a Section 107(a) CERCLA response costs recovery claim. In Count Two, the Plaintiffs seek contribution from the Defendants for their response costs. Because Pthe laintiffs fail to plausibly allege a cost-recovery claim and the existence of a prior civil enforcement action, their contribution claim must also fail. The Plaintiffs assert they are entitled to declaratory relief under CERCLA in Count Three of their SAC and request that the Court enters a determination that the Defendants are liable under CERCLA Sections 107(a) and 113(f), for past, present, and future costs of assessment, containment, response, removal, and remediation arising from the presence of hazardous substances, at the Site. Because the Plaintiffs have failed to allege a claim for relief under Section 107, or any CERCLA provision, their request for declaratory relief also fails. Next, conclusory allegations in support of an intentional tort claim will not suffice. As a result, the Plaintiffs fail to state the essential elements of a trespass claim. Finally, in Counts Four and Five, the Plaintiffs assert claims under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 against the Town alleging that the Site violates their rights to substantive due process because it is a state-created danger that interferes with their bodily integrity. In the SAC, the Plaintiffs allege the Town was aware of the risks to persons and property posed by the Site, deliberately ignored this risk, and took steps to conceal it, was aware that the Site had the capacity to contaminate neighboring properties, and was aware that the Site was being used for recreational purposes, and nonetheless failed to heed directives to notify neighbors and residents of the Site's dangers. Although the Plaintiffs have failed to allege causation and their claims fail for that reason, these allegations are sufficient at the pleading stage to assert a claim of "deliberate indifference" under Monell v. Department of Social Services of the City of New York. For the foregoing reasons, Judge Reiss granted the Defendants' motions to dismiss. A full-text copy of the Court's June 14, 2019 Opinion and Order is available at https://is.gd/9FT6SB from Leagle.com. Elizabeth Andres, Jason Berent, Ryan Caldwell, individually and on behalf of Z.C. and M.C., Deanna Caldwell, individually and on behalf of Z.C. and M.C., Todd Carson, Michael Coles, Dawn D'Agostino, Cory D'Agostino, individually and on behalf of G.D., Christopher Daigler, David Daigler, Katlin Daigler, Katherine Daigler, Michael DiPota, Anthony DiPota, Mary DiPota, Nicolas DiPota, Stacey Drmota, Fred Drmota, Megan Drmota, Ryan Follendorf, Timothy Follendorf, Catherine Follendorf, William Forth, Glen Gebhardt, Jolie Giardino, Jennie Gonas, Rachel Kaiser, John Keefe, Gail King, individually and on behalf of T.K., J.J.K., Brianna King, John King, Janelle King, Robert Kocsis, Sarah Kraus, Varsha Kraus, Thomas Krueger, Cindy Krueger, Larry Krueger, Larry Krueger, II, Gregory Lisinski, William Maines, Nancy Maines, Kelli Meisenburg, Betty Neumann, Douglas Neumann, Donald Richards, Debra Rogers, Kyle Rogers, James Rosebrock, John See, Rene See, Kathleen See, Kimberly Sosnowski, individually and on behalf of K.S., Jennifer Standish, Dennis Stickney, Brett A. Grawe, Rebecca Grawe, individually and on behalf of Alexis Grawe., B.G., all others similarly situated & Hallie Beth Daigler, Plaintiffs, represented by Lilia Factor, Napoli Shkolnik PLLC, Ashley M. Liuzza, Stag Liuzza, LLC, Christen Civiletto, Louise R. Caro -- LCaro@napolilaw.com -- Napoli Shkolnik PLLC, Michael G. Stag, Stag Liuzza, LLC, Paul J. Napoli -- PNapoli@napolilaw.com -- Napoli Shkolnik PLLC & Tate James Kunkle -- TKunkle@napolilaw.com -- Napoli Shkolnik PLLC. Melanie Berent, Holly Truszkowski, Cynthia Denick, Dana Berent, individually, Zachary Grawe, Lauren Olewnik, Donald Rogers, Stephanie Evans, Karrie Gebhardt, Lori Richards, Clinton Moultrie, Shirley Coles, Christopher Richards, Nicholas Coles, Karen Stickney, Carole Keefe, Jason Richards, Colby Moultrie & Gerald Truszkowski, Plaintiffs, represented by Lilia Factor, Napoli Shkolnik PLLC & Ashley M. Liuzza, Stag Liuzza, LLC. Town of Wheatfield, a municipality located in Niagara County, New York, Individually and as Successor in Interest to Niagara Sanitation Company, Defendant, represented by Charles D. Grieco -- cgrieco@bsk.com -- Bond, Schoeneck & King, PLLC, Dennis K. Schaeffer -- dschaeffer@bsk.com -- Bond, Schoeneck & King, PLLC & Matthew E. Brooks, Jones Hogan & Brooks, LLP. Occidental Chemical Corporation, Individually and as Successor in Interest to Hooker Chemical and Plastics Corporation, Defendant, represented by Kevin M. Hogan, Phillips Lytle LLP, Andrew P. Devine, Phillips Lytle LLP, Douglas E. Fleming, III, Dechert LLP, pro hac vice, Joel A. Blanchet, Phillips Lytle LLP, Mara Cusker Gonzalez, Dechert LLP & Sheila L. Birnbaum, Dechert LLP, pro hac vice. Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc., individually and as Successor in Interest to Bell Aircraft Corporation, Defendant, represented by Joseph J. Welter , Goldberg Segalla LLP, Susan E. VanGelder, Goldberg Segalla LLP & Neil A. Goldberg, Goldberg Segalla LLP. Crown Beverage Packaging, LLC, individually and as Successor in Interest to Continental Can, Defendant, represented by Laurie Styka Bloom, Nixon Peabody LLP. Greif, Inc., individually and as Successor in Interest to Greif Bros. Cooperage Corporation, Defendant, represented by Brian Clinton Mahoney, Harris Beach LLP & Richard T. Sullivan, Harris Beach LLP. Republic Services, Inc., individually and as Successor in Interest to Niagara Sanitation Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by Robert M. Rosenthal, Greenberg Traurig, LLP. Honeywell International Inc., individually and as Successor in Interest to Bell Aerospace, Defendant, represented by John G. Horn, Harter, Secrest and Emery LLP. Town of Wheatfield, a municipality located in Niagara County, New York, Individually and as Successor in Interest to Niagara Sanitation Company, ThirdParty Plaintiff, represented by Charles D. Grieco, Bond, Schoeneck & King, PLLC, Dennis K. Schaeffer, Bond, Schoeneck & King, PLLC & Matthew E. Brooks, Jones Hogan & Brooks, LLP. Occidental Chemical Corporation, Individually and as Successor in Interest to Hooker Chemical and Plastics Corporation, ThirdParty Plaintiff, represented by Kevin M. Hogan, Phillips Lytle LLP, Andrew P. Devine, Phillips Lytle LLP, Douglas E. Fleming, III, Dechert LLP, pro hac vice, Joel A. Blanchet, Phillips Lytle LLP, Mara Cusker Gonzalez, Dechert LLP & Sheila L. Birnbaum, Dechert LLP, pro hac vice. Crown Beverage Packaging, LLC, individually and as Successor in Interest to Continental Can, ThirdParty Plaintiff, represented by Laurie Styka Bloom, Nixon Peabody LLP. Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc., individually and as Successor in Interest to Bell Aircraft Corporation, ThirdParty Plaintiff, represented by Joseph J. Welter, Goldberg Segalla LLP & Neil A. Goldberg, Goldberg Segalla LLP. United States of America, ThirdParty Defendant, represented by Leon B. Taranto, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division, Environmental Torts Branch, Michael S. Cerrone, U.S. Attorney's Office, Sue S. Chen, U.S. Department of Justice Environmental Enforcement Section, Christina M. Falk, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division, Environmental Torts Branch & Danielle Sgro, U.S. Department of Justice. Greif, Inc., individually and as Successor in Interest to Greif Bros. Cooperage Corporation, ThirdParty Plaintiff, represented by Brian Clinton Mahoney, Harris Beach LLP & Richard T. Sullivan, Harris Beach LLP. WOOD-MODE INC: Ex-Employee Launches Class Action Over Pensions -------------------------------------------------------------- John Beauge, writing for Penn Live, reports that a former Wood-Mode Inc. employee has sued the custom wood cabinet company seeking a court order to gain access to his pension funds. Donald Yerger of Middleburg seeks classification of the suit filed July 19, 2019, in Snyder County court as a class action to represent all Wood-Mode employees who have not been able to obtain their pension money. Many of the 938 employees who lost their jobs when the plant in Kreamer abruptly shut down on May 13 have had difficulty accessing the money they contributed Failure to allow access to the money could cause financial harm to former employees, especially those left without normal income when the plant closed, the suit states. The pension funds have been duly earned and promised, the complaint states. Sunbury attorney Joel M. Wiest, Esq., who is representing Yerger and other Wood-Mode employees without cost, said the suit in no way should interfere with the attempt by Bill French to buy the assets of Wood-Mode. The owner of Professional Building Systems in Middleburg has a signed purchase agreement. Wood-Mode's prime lender, Great Rock Capital, also has signed it, he said. Wood-Mode and its two principals, CEO Robert L Gronlund and his son R. Brooks Gronlund, president and chief operating officer, are defendants in a federal lawsuit that also seeks to become a class action for all former employees. William Swede, Curtis Trego and Tina Clapper have accused the company of not providing a 60-day notice of a pending closing as required under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Act. They are seeking wages and benefits for the 60 days as if they had received notice. Wood-Mode claims providing such notice would have precluded it from being able to sell the business or obtaining needed capital to keep operating, neither of which occurred. [GN] YALE UNIVERSITY: Kwesell Civil Rights Suit Questions $1K HEP Fine ----------------------------------------------------------------- LISA KWESELL; CHRISTINE TURECEK; AND JASON SCHWARTZ, individually and on behalf all others similarly situated v. YALE UNIVERSITY, Case No. 3:19-cv-1098 (D. Conn., July 16, 2019), is brought on behalf of all current and former employees of Yale, who are or were required to participate in Yale's Health Expectation Program or pay a fine adding up to $1,300 annually between January 1, 2017, and present. The Plaintiffs contend that Yale's $1,300 fine not only slashes employees' expected income; it violates their civil rights. The Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act ("GINA") prohibit employers from extracting medical or genetic information from employees unless that information is provided voluntarily, the Plaintiffs assert. Founded in 1701, Yale is a private academic institution located in New Haven, Connecticut. Yale offers an array of undergraduate and graduate degrees and employs over 4,700 faculty members and thousands of staff. In 2018, Yale reported total net assets of $32 billion.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joshua R. Goodbaum, Esq. Joseph D. Garrison, Esq. Elisabeth J. Lee, Esq. GARRISON, LEVIN-EPSTEIN, FITZGERALD & PIRROTTI, P. C. 405 Orange Street New Haven, CT, 06511 Telephone: (203) 777-4425 Facsimile: (203) 776-3965 E-mail: jgoodbaum@garrisonlaw.com jgarrison@garrisonlaw.com elee@garrisonlaw.com - and - Dara S. Smith, Esq. Elizabeth Aniskevich, Esq. Daniel B. Kohrman, Esq. AARP FOUNDATION LITIGATION 601 E Street, NW Washington, DC 20049 Telephone: (202) 434-6280 Facsimile: (202) 434-6424 E-mail: dsmith@aarp.org eaniskevich@aarp.org dkohrman@aarp.org Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: 1 Asbestos Suit Filed in St. Louis on July 12 -------------------------------------------------------------- The St. Louis Record reported that the following cases categorized as "asbestos" cases were on the docket in the St. Louis 22nd Judicial Circuit Court on July 12: * Dennis Young v. 3M Company; Atlantic Richfield Company; BP Products North America Inc.; Borg Warner Morse Tec Llc; Cbs Corporation; Certainteed Corporation; Chicago Pneumatic Tool Company LLC; Cooper Industries LLC; Copes Vulcan Inc; Crane Company; Crosby Valve Llc; Cyprus Amax Minerals Co; Daniel International Corp.; Dap Products Inc; Exxonmobil Oil Corporation; Flowserve Us Inc; Fluor Corporation; Fluor Enterprises Inc.; Ford Motor Company; Foster Wheeler Corporation; General Electric Company; General Gasket Corporation; Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company; Goulds Pumps Ipg Llc; Grinnell Llc; Hercules Llc; Honeywell International Inc.; Imo Industries Inc.; Inc. Armstrong Pumps; Industrial Holdings Corp.; Ingersoll Rand Company; International Paper Company; Johnson & Johnson; Metropolitan Life Insurance Company; Nooter Corp; PTI Union LLC; Pneumo Abex Llc; Premier Brands of America Inc.; Resco Holdings LLC; Riley Power Inc; Rust International Inc.; Saint Gobain Abrasives Inc; Shell Chemical Lp; Shell Oil Company; Spence Engineering INC Co.; Spirax Sarco Inc; Sterling Fluid Systems USA LLC; Texaco Inc; The Dow Chemical Company; The Gorman Rupp Company; Trane Us Inc; Union Carbide Corp.; Urs Corporation; Warren Pumps Llc; Zurn Industries LLC, Case No. 1922-CC10859 Randy Lee Gori (plaintiff's attorney) ASBESTOS UPDATE: 288 Dead From Asbestos Cancer in Shropshire ------------------------------------------------------------ Dominic Robertson, writing for Shropshire Star, reported that asbestos-related cancer has claimed 288 lives in Shropshire since the 1980s, new figures have revealed. Charity Mesothelioma UK has warned that the danger posed by asbestos is often underestimated, and called for action to rid buildings of the deadly substance. Since 1981, when records began on deaths related to the disease, 190 people have died in the Shropshire Council area, and 98 in Telford & Wrekin. The figures show the recent impact of the disease, which can often be delayed in its appearence and a result of exposure many decades before. Between 2013 and 2017, 16 men and seven women died of the disease in Telford & Wrekin, while 48 died in Shropshire. In Powys Asbestos-related cancer deaths are also at their highest level since records began, with 27 between 2013 and 2017. Inhaling asbestos fibres can lead to mesothelioma, a lethal cancer affecting the lining of the lungs, which can take decades to develop. Fire claiming lives years on A number of Telford residents developed asbestos-related disease as a result of a huge fire at the Telford army depot COD Donnington in 1983. The blaze scattered ash containing asbestos for 15 square miles around the town. It was three days before the council began its clean-up operation, by which time many residents had already done so themselves. In May this year a coroner ruled that a groundsman who helped in the clean-up had died as a result of asbestos exposure. Peter Henry Brittain, 77, of Haygate Road, Wellington, had worked to remove a large amount of asbestos following the 1983 fire. Last year the family of a Telford mother of four were also awarded a payout from the Ministry of Defence after it was accepted her mesothelioma had been a result of the fire. Susan Maughan, a mother-of-four who also had eight grandchildren and one great-grandchild, died in 2015 aged 63, three years after her diagnosis. Earlier this year the trust that runs Shropshire’s two main hospitals was ordered to pay £34,000 after refurbishment work in 2012 exposed employees and contractors to asbestos. The issue of suspected asbestos had been reported by a worker at the trust, who was sacked and later won an unfair dismissal claim. Nationwide, deaths caused by the cancer have almost quadrupled over 35 years, reaching nearly 13,000 at the latest count. The UK has the highest incidence of mesothelioma in the world, due to the regular use of asbestos to construct buildings between 1940 and 1970. The material was banned in 1999, but damage to older buildings can release fibres into the air. 'There is no safe level of asbestos exposure' Liz Darlison, from Mesothelioma UK, said: "There is no safe level of asbestos exposure, and we should be doing much more to protect people, particularly children. "The time from exposure to developing the disease can take several decades, which is why the level of concern is perhaps not fully appreciated. "As a nation, we must take responsibility and rid our buildings of this cancer-causing substance, for the sake of our children, their children, and every generation in the future." Kate Sweeney, personal injury lawyer at law firm Stephensons, said that many people consider asbestos "a problem of the past". "This is simply not the case," she said. "Asbestos-related illnesses do not only occur in tradespeople or people who have worked in the construction industry. "This potentially deadly material has been used in all types of buildings, and is still present in many primary schools." The Health and Safety Executive said that it expects mortality rates from mesothelioma to decline after 2020. A spokesperson said: "Since the dangers of asbestos became clear, successive governments have, over many years, made a concerted and sustained effort to address the issue." ASBESTOS UPDATE: 6,335 Bendix Claims vs. Honeywell Still Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- Honeywell International Inc. had 6,335 unresolved asbestos-related claims at June 30, 2019, involving predecessor company Bendix Friction Materials (Bendix) business, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019. Of the 6,335 unresolved claims, 3,118 of which are for nonmalignant claims while the remaining 3,217 are for mesothelioma and other cancer claims. A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/cU106h ASBESTOS UPDATE: Electrician Dies of Asbestos-related Cancer ------------------------------------------------------------ Lisa Hutchinson, writing for Chronicle Live, reported that their world spiralled downwards after the death of the man they hailed their hero as the head of the family. And for years, after losing Andrew Slorance to an asbestos-related cancer, they struggled to come to terms with his passing. But this devastated family has finally found the strength to fight justice from the grave as they seek answers from Andrew's former employers. The dad-of-two's loving relatives are calling for his old workmates from the Swan Hunter yard in Wallsend, North Tyneside, to come forward and help them with their case. Andrew was a former ships' electrician, who lived in Whitley Bay and passed away aged 75 in April 2003 after being diagnosed with mesothelioma -- a cancer of the lining of the lung linked to contact with asbestos materials. His loss has had a huge impact on his wife Barbara and their children Jill and Neil. And they have all suffered with mental health issues during the years afterwards. Now, 16 years on from his death, they have finally found the courage to instruct specialist asbestos-related disease lawyers at Irwin Mitchell to investigate how Andrew came to develop mesothelioma and whether it may be linked to his work at the Swan Hunter yard in the 1960s and 1970s. As part of their ongoing investigation, the legal experts are now calling for anyone who recalls working with Andrew or worked in a similar role at the site to come forward and provide information which could assist their case. Devoted wife Barbara, 84, who was married to Andrew for over 44 years, said: "The whole family was devastated when Andrew passed away and it affected us all very badly. "It has taken a very long time for us to get into a position where we felt comfortable trying to get answers regarding what Andrew faced and we would be hugely grateful to anyone who might be able to shed light on the work he did at Swan Hunter's." Daughter Jill, 55, of North Shields, said: "Dad kept his illness quite quiet, he was a very private man and he didn't want us to worry. "He passed away in hospital, he was so frightened, in so much pain but so brave. Dad was very family based and was a good provider for us. He worked so hard and was such a dedicated family man. We just want answers now." Andrew originally took up a position as a ships' electrician/electrical overseer for the Admiralty based at the Swan Hunter yard in 1965. After about one year, he was transferred to Bath but he returned to the North East in the early 1970's and remained at Swan Hunter's yard until he retired in about 1992. He was involved in the construction of iconic vessels including the Ark Royal and HMS Coventry. He inspected electrical works and was involved in sea trials before vessels were put into service with the Royal Navy. Debbie Schofield, the specialist asbestos-related disease lawyer at Irwin Mitchell who represents the family, said: "Barbara, Jill, and Neil have faced an incredibly difficult time in the past few years and it has been very hard for them to come to terms with their loss. "They have shown tremendous strength by seeking to gain answers as to how the illness which led to Andrew's death was caused and we would hugely grateful to anyone who may be able to help us in our efforts. "Any information regarding the working conditions at Swan Hunter could make a huge difference to this case." The family's compensation claim is against the Ministry of Defence. A spokesman for the MoD said: "We cannot comment on individual cases. We carefully consider all claims." Anyone with information is asked to contact Debbie Schofield at Irwin Mitchell's Newcastle office on 0191 434 0726 or email debbie.schofield@irwinmitchell.com ASBESTOS UPDATE: Highest Level of North Yorkshire Asbestos Deaths ----------------------------------------------------------------- Stray FM reported that asbestos-related cancer deaths in North Yorkshire are at their highest levels since records began. 128 people in North Yorkshire died from the disease between 2013 and 2017, according to data from the Health and Safety Executive. It is the highest level since records began in the 1980s. From 1983-87, 19 deaths were reported. A charity is warning that the danger posed by asbestos is often underestimated. Mesothelioma UK says action needs to be taken to rid buildings of the substance. Inhaling asbestos fibres can lead to mesothelioma, a lethal cancer affecting the lining of the lungs. It can take decades to develop. Nationwide, deaths caused by the cancer have almost quadrupled over 35 years, reaching nearly 13,000 at the latest count. The UK has the highest incidence of mesothelioma in the world, due to the regular use of asbestos to construct buildings between 1940 and 1970. The material was banned in 1999, but damage to older buildings can release fibres into the air. Liz Darlison, from Mesothelioma UK, said: "There is no safe level of asbestos exposure, and we should be doing much more to protect people, particularly children. The time from exposure to developing the disease can take several decades, which is why the level of concern is perhaps not fully appreciated. As a nation, we must take responsibility and rid our buildings of this cancer-causing substance, for the sake of our children, their children, and every generation in the future." Kate Sweeney, personal injury lawyer at law firm Stephensons, said that many people consider asbestos "a problem of the past". She said: "This is simply not the case. Asbestos-related illnesses do not only occur in tradespeople or people who have worked in the construction industry. This potentially deadly material has been used in all types of buildings, and is still present in many primary schools." But the Health and Safety Executive said that it expects mortality rates from mesothelioma to decline after 2020. A spokesperson said: "Since the dangers of asbestos became clear, successive governments have, over many years, made a concerted and sustained effort to address the issue." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Faces Suits on Bendix Claims Accounting ------------------------------------------------------------------ Honeywell International Inc. is facing two putative class action complaints alleging violations of securities law over prior accounting matters on asbestos claims related to Bendix Friction Materials business, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019. The Company states, "On September 13, 2018, following completion of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Division of Corporation Finance's review of our prior accounting for liabilities for unasserted Bendix-related asbestos claims, the SEC Division of Enforcement advised that it has opened an investigation related to this matter. Honeywell intends to provide requested information and otherwise fully cooperate with the SEC staff. "On October 31, 2018, David Kanefsky, a Honeywell shareholder, filed a putative class action complaint alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 related to the prior accounting for Bendix asbestos claims. "On May 15, 2019, Wayne County Employees' Retirement System, another Honeywell shareholder, filed a putative class action asserting the same claims relating to substantially the same alleged conduct in the same jurisdiction. "We believe neither complaint has any merit." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/cU106h ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Had $1.6BB Bendix Liabilities at June30 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Honeywell International Inc. recorded total liabilities of US$1,569 million at June 30, 2019, in asbestos-related liabilities involving predecessor company Bendix Friction Materials (Bendix) business, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019. The Company states, "Bendix manufactured automotive brake linings that contained chrysotile asbestos in an encapsulated form. Claimants consist largely of individuals who allege exposure to asbestos from brakes from either performing or being in the vicinity of individuals who performed brake replacements. "It is not possible to predict whether resolution values for Bendix-related asbestos claims will increase, decrease or stabilize in the future. "Our consolidated financial statements reflect an estimated liability for resolution of asserted (claims filed as of the financial statement date) and unasserted Bendix-related asbestos claims and excludes the Company's legal fees to defend such asbestos claims which will continue to be expensed by the Company as they are incurred. We have valued Bendix asserted and unasserted claims using average resolution values for the previous five years. We update the resolution values used to estimate the cost of Bendix asserted and unasserted claims during the fourth quarter each year. "Honeywell reflects the inclusion of all years of epidemiological disease projection through 2059 when estimating the liability for unasserted Bendix-related asbestos claims. Such liability for unasserted Bendix-related asbestos claims is based on historic and anticipated claims filing experience and dismissal rates, disease classifications, and resolution values in the tort system for the previous five years. "Our insurance receivable corresponding to the liability for settlement of asserted and unasserted Bendix asbestos claims reflects coverage which is provided by a large number of insurance policies written by dozens of insurance companies in both the domestic insurance market and the London excess market. Based on our ongoing analysis of the probable insurance recovery, insurance receivables are recorded in the financial statements simultaneous with the recording of the estimated liability for the underlying asbestos claims. This determination is based on our analysis of the underlying insurance policies, our historical experience with our insurers, our ongoing review of the solvency of our insurers, judicial determinations relevant to our insurance programs, and our consideration of the impacts of any settlements reached with our insurers. "Reimbursements associated with the indemnification and reimbursement agreement with a Garrett subsidiary (the "Agreement") were US$77 million for the six months ended June 30, 2019 and offset operating cash outflows incurred by the Company. As the Company records the accruals for matters covered by the indemnification and reimbursement agreement, a corresponding receivable from Garrett for 90 percent of such accrual is also recorded. This receivable amount was US$12 million in the six months ended June 30, 2019. As of June 30, 2019, Other Current Assets and Other Assets includes US$170 million and US$989 million representing the short-term and long-term portion of the receivable amount due from Garrett under the indemnification and reimbursement agreement. "In our ongoing communications with Garrett with respect to the Agreement and Garrett's associated material weakness disclosure in its Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2018, Garrett has taken the position that (i) Honeywell has not satisfied all of its obligations under the Agreement, and (ii) the Agreement is unenforceable either in whole or in part. We strongly believe that Garrett's allegations have no merit, nor are they material to Honeywell. We believe we have fully complied with our obligations under the Agreement and that the Agreement is enforceable in its entirety. We intend to continue to have ongoing discussions with Garrett to try to resolve this matter." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/cU106h ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Had $2.5-Bil. Liabilities at June 30 --------------------------------------------------------------- Honeywell International Inc. recorded total liabilities of US$2,471 million related to asbestos matters at June 30, 2019, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019. The Company states, "Honeywell is a defendant in asbestos related personal injury actions related to North American Refractories Company ("NARCO"), which was sold in 1986, and Bendix Friction Materials ("Bendix") business, which was sold in 2014." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/cU106h ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Had $902MM NARCO Liabilities at June 30 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Honeywell International Inc. recorded US$902 million at June 30, 2019, in asbestos-related liabilities involving predecessor company North American Refractories Company (NARCO), according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019. The Company states, "Honeywell's predecessor, Allied Corporation owned NARCO from 1979 to 1986. When the NARCO business was sold, Honeywell's predecessor entered into a cross-indemnity agreement with NARCO which included an obligation to indemnify the purchaser for asbestos claims. Such claims arise primarily from alleged occupational exposure to asbestos-containing refractory brick and mortar for high-temperature applications. NARCO ceased manufacturing these products in 1980, and the first asbestos claims were filed in the tort system against NARCO in 1983. Claims filings and related costs increased dramatically in the late 1990s through 2001, which led to NARCO filing for bankruptcy in January 2002. Once NARCO filed for bankruptcy, all then current and future NARCO asbestos claims were stayed against both NARCO and Honeywell pending the reorganization of NARCO. "Following the bankruptcy filing, in December 2002 Honeywell recorded a total NARCO asbestos liability of US$3.2 billion, which was comprised of three components: (i) the estimated liability to settle pre-bankruptcy petition NARCO claims and certain post-petition settlements (US$2.2 billion, referred to as "Pre-bankruptcy NARCO Liability"), (ii) the estimated liability related to then unasserted NARCO claims for the period 2004 through 2018 (US$950 million, referred to as "NARCO Trust Liability"), and (iii) other NARCO bankruptcy-related obligations totaling US$73 million. "As of June 30, 2019, our total NARCO asbestos liability of US$902 million reflects Pre-bankruptcy NARCO liability of US$159 million and NARCO Trust Liability of US$743 million. Through June 30, 2019, Pre-bankruptcy NARCO Liability has been reduced by approximately US$2 billion since first established in 2002, largely related to settlement payments. The remaining Pre-bankruptcy NARCO Liability principally represents estimated amounts owed pursuant to settlement agreements reached during the pendency of the NARCO bankruptcy proceedings that provide for the right to submit claims to the NARCO Trust subject to qualification under the terms of the settlement agreements and Trust Distribution Procedures. The other NARCO bankruptcy-related obligations were paid in 2013 and no further liability is recorded. "As of June 30, 2019, Honeywell has not made any payments to the NARCO Trust for Annual Contribution Claims as any Annual Contribution Claims which have been paid since the Trust became operational have been funded by cash dividends from HWI. "Honeywell continues to evaluate the appropriateness of the US$743 million NARCO Trust Liability. Despite becoming effective in 2013, the NARCO Trust has experienced delays in becoming fully operational. Violations of the Trust Distribution Procedures and the resulting disputes and challenges, a standstill pending dispute resolution, and limited claims payments, have all contributed to the lack of sufficient normalized data based on actual claims processing experience in the Trust since it became operational. As a result, we have not been able to further update the NARCO Trust Liability. The US$743 million NARCO Trust Liability continues to be appropriate because of the unresolved pending claims in the Trust, some portion of which will result in payouts in the future, and because new claims continue to be filed with the NARCO Trust. When sufficiently reliable claims data exists, we will update our estimate of the NARCO Trust Liability and it is possible that a material change may need to be recognized. "Our insurance receivable of US$299 million as of June 30, 2019, corresponding to the estimated liability for asserted and unasserted NARCO asbestos claims, reflects coverage which reimburses Honeywell for portions of NARCO-related indemnity and defense costs and is provided by a large number of insurance policies written by dozens of insurance companies in both the domestic insurance market and the London excess market. We conduct analyses to estimate the probable amount of insurance that is recoverable for asbestos claims. While the substantial majority of our insurance carriers are solvent, some of our individual carriers are insolvent, which has been considered in our analysis of probable recoveries. We made judgments concerning insurance coverage that we believe are reasonable and consistent with our historical dealings and our knowledge of any pertinent solvency issues surrounding insurers." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/cU106h ASBESTOS UPDATE: Iowa Sues Contractor Over Cedar Rapids Asbestos ---------------------------------------------------------------- Cedar Rapids News reported that the State of Iowa has sued a Cedar Rapids company for alleged asbestos-removal violations during renovations of Cedar Rapids Washington High School in 2014 and 2015. The petition was filed in Linn County District Court. It claims Abatement Specialties failed to thoroughly inspect and remove asbestos before renovations, among other things. Abatement Specialties could face a penalty of up to $10,000 a day for each violation. According to the petition, the Iowa Department of Natural Resources received an anonymous telephone complaint in June 2015 stating that Abatement Specialties left asbestos debris throughout the school. A news release states: "An investigation revealed both asbestos debris and airborne particles outside containment areas in the school while teachers, staff, students and construction workers were present, according to the lawsuit. The district closed Washington during the abatement and removed Abatement Specialties from the project. The DNR sent violation letters to the company and school district in July 2015. The matter was referred to the Iowa Attorney General’s Office in 2016. In August 2017, the Cedar Rapids Community School District reached a consent decree with the state over the violations. As part of the settlement, the district produced a series of videos to inform and educate Iowa school officials on proper asbestos identification, mitigation and removal." ASBESTOS UPDATE: J&J Targets Science Behind Talc Claims ------------------------------------------------------- Jef Feeley, writing for Bloomberg, reported that Johnson & Johnson, seeking to head off claims by thousands of women that its iconic baby powder caused their cancer, took aim at some of the science cited in lawsuits alleging the company's talc-based products were tainted in the past with asbestos. During a hearing, lawyers for the world's largest maker of healthcare products questioned the procedures used by Dr. William Longo, who tested talcum powder for asbestos. J&J hopes a judge will bar Longo from testifying for the women suing the company in cases consolidated in federal court in Trenton, N.J. J&J said Longo and other expert witnesses for plaintiffs used unreliable methods to conclude the talc products once contained asbestos -- a carcinogen -- and that exposure could cause ovarian cancer. If U.S. District Judge Freda Wolfson buys J&J's arguments and knocks out some or all of the plaintiffs' experts, that would hamstring about 12,000 pending cases. "Many millions of dollars are riding on how the judge comes down on the question of which experts can testify," said David Logan, a law professor at Roger Williams University in Rhode Island. "The plaintiffs have the burden of proving the powders caused cancer. If they can't offer an expert to tell jurors about that issue, the cases go down the drain." J&J faces a total of more than 14,000 lawsuits accusing it of hiding baby powder health risks for more than 40 years to protect one of its best-known brands. The company's shares have been under pressure because of investors' concerns about talc litigation. Since the first trials started in 2016, J&J has been hit with a series of high-profile damage awards, including a $4.7 billion verdict last year in St. Louis. The company also has won multiple trials over the talc claims and is appealing the Missouri state-court verdict. The vast majority of the talc suits are gathered before Wolfson for pretrial information exchanges and test trials. She's resisted setting any of the consolidated cases for trial while she weighs the viability of the scientific evidence behind the health claims, which J&J dismisses as flawed. According to court filings by J&J's lawyers, the idea that talc -- even untainted by asbestos -- can cause ovarian cancer flies in the face of scientific consensus about causes of the often-fatal disease. Experts including Longo came up with their claims about talc solely to help plaintiffs' lawyers win their cases, J&J's said in court filings. The scientists ready to testify for the women "use an unscientific methodology developed for litigation purposes, disregarding well-established distinctions" of what constitutes asbestos contamination, the company's lawyers said. During a hearing before Wolfson, Longo testified he used the same testing methods J&J employed in the past to check talc samples for asbestos. J&J scientists have used the asbestos-testing methods "since 1974," Longo said. He's already testified for plaintiffs in at least half a dozen cases around the U.S. Allison Brown, one of J&J's lawyers, said governmental agencies investigating reports of asbestos in talc don't use the same method as Longo and that Longo, who owns a materials-testing firm, doesn't personally test talc samples anymore. Wolfson will have to decide if testimony by experts such as Longo is premised on sound scientific methods and can be considered as reliable by jurors, said Carl Tobias, who teaches about mass-tort law at the University of Richmond Law School in Virginia. "It can be difficult for judges to ascertain whether the methods expert witnesses employ are sound because most judges are not trained in scientific methodology," Tobias said. ASBESTOS UPDATE: J&J Told FDA in '70s Asbestos in Talc Was Safe --------------------------------------------------------------- Law360 reported that Johnson & Johnson told the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in the 1970s that its baby powder could include a safe level of asbestos even though the company has touted a "zero tolerance" policy, according to testimony at a New Jersey state trial over claims four people developed mesothelioma by using the product. With a company representative on the stand, one of the plaintiffs' attorneys, Chris J. Panatier of Simon Greenstone Panatier PC, pointed to internal documents showing that the pharmaceutical giant told regulators that a certain amount of the toxic mineral in the baby powder was safe. Law360 also reported that an attorney defending Johnson & Johnson against claims its talcum powder caused mesothelioma pressed an environmental health expert to acknowledge research to the contrary, highlighting for a New Jersey jury asbestos studies by scientists and the company's sophisticated quality control and asbestos detection methods. Continuing a cross-examination in the Middlesex County courtroom of Superior Court Ana C. Viscomi, J&J attorney Diane Sullivan of Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP and the plaintiffs' expert, scientist James Webber, often espoused competing takes on topics ranging from the definition of asbestos with respect to toxic exposure. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Recent Rulings Show Blocks to Trust Transparency ----------------------------------------------------------------- Amy Vulpio, Esq. -- vulpioa@whiteandwilliams.com -- White and Williams LLP, in an article for JD Supra, wrote In In re Garlock Sealing Technologies, LLC, 504 B.R. 71 (Bankr. W.D.N.C. 2014), the court confirmed what many asbestos defendants and their insurers long suspected: that "the withholding of exposure evidence by plaintiffs and their lawyers was significant and had the effect of unfairly inflating the recoveries against Garlock" and other defendants. This "startling pattern of misrepresentation" included plaintiffs' attorneys who, out of "perverted ethical duty," counseled their clients to file claims against multiple trusts without valid factual grounds for so doing. Such "double dipping" and other abuse not only harms asbestos defendants and insurers, but also dilutes recoveries for legitimate claims. Now -- five years after Garlock -- the Department of Justice (DOJ) has launched a coordinated initiative to fight asbestos trust fraud and mismanagement. However, a series of recent bankruptcy court rulings suggests that this initiative stumbled out of the gate by focusing on the wrong issues. Asbestos defendants and their insurers can learn from the DOJ's missteps. In November 2017, invoking Garlock, 20 state attorneys general wrote to then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions asking him to devote DOJ resources to fighting asbestos trust abuse. A September 13, 2018 DOJ press release announced an initiative to increase the transparency and accountability of asbestos trusts. Through its United States Trustee Program (UST), the DOJ objected to the debtors' proposed legal representative for future claims (FCR) in several Chapter 11 cases involving asbestos liabilities: Lawrence Fitzpatrick in Duro Dyne and James L. Patton, Jr. in Maremont, Fairbanks and Imerys Talc. While acknowledging the need for a FCR in each case, UST objected to the debtors' proposed candidates. Attempting to turn their extensive prior experience with asbestos trusts against them, UST portrayed them as part of a "closed group" of asbestos trust professionals whose advocacy would be tempered by a desire to be engaged in future cases. UST cited Garlock as evidence that Patton and Fitzpatrick had failed to adequately safeguard against fraud, mismanagement, and inflated professional fees in past engagements. According to the DOJ, the debtor's choice of FCR deserved no deference and letting the debtor pick a FCR is akin to allowing the target of an investigation to choose the investigator. Rather, additional candidates from outside the closed group (i.e., without prior asbestos trust experience) should be solicited. In each case, the court prioritized the immediate need to preserve trust assets by providing an expedient path to plan confirmation over the more remote and nebulous risk that the trust might fall victim to fraud down the road. In In re Duro Dyne National Corporation, Case No. 18-27963 (MBK) (Bankr. D.N.J. Feb. 20, 2019), Judge Kaplan articulated "serious concerns" that adopting UST's approach "would for all practical purposes render a pre-negotiated plan impossible for those seeking a channeling injunction." He expressly rejected the objectors' heightened "independent and effective" standard, observing that "[d]emanding proof of effectiveness can become a dangerous and slippery slope for all professionals in a bankruptcy proceeding." While recognizing that "there can be value and valid reasons to challenge and reconsider the status quo," Judge Kaplan declined to "imperil this company's reorganization, add layers of additional administrative expense, place at risk the jobs of hundreds of employees, or unnecessarily jeopardize the recoveries for present and future claimants by delaying this reorganization through the appointment of a new future rep, who must retain professionals, [and] engage in his or her own due diligence, only to reach the same point of review" as Fitzpatrick. The UST filed an appeal in Duro Dyne, which remains pending. Likewise, in In re Maremont Corporation, Case No. 19-10118 (KJC) (Bankr. D. Del. Mar. 11, 2019), practical considerations swayed Judge Carey. Noting that "Patton has been involved in this case for over a year, successfully assisting the stakeholders in getting to a prepackaged plan," Judge Carey feared that appointing someone new would add "significant costs and delay to these cases." In general, the process UST advocated -- including soliciting additional candidates -- would impair asbestos debtors' ability to effectuate prepackaged bankruptcy cases. Rather, Judge Carey concluded, "[i]f it is correct that investigation into the process of FCR appointments is necessary or to the extent the system is flawed, that seems to be an exercise to be undertaken by authorities other than the judiciary." Judge Carey approved Patton's appointment, concluding UST had failed to show that Patton would be anything other than independent and effective. In In re Fairbanks Company, Case No. 18-41768 (PWB), 2019 Bankr. LEXIS 1220 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. Apr. 17, 2019), Judge Bonapfel agreed with a majority of UST's arguments, but nonetheless approved Patton's appointment. Noting that any party may nominate a FCR, Judge Bonapfel concurred with UST that "a debtor's or [creditors'] committee's choice [of FCR] is not entitled to deference," and that the standard for appointment "requires more than a determination that the candidate is qualified and disinterested." Given present claimants' competing interest in the same assets, FCRs "must also be capable of acting as an objective, independent and effective advocate for the best interest of the future claimants." Ultimately, Judge Bonapfel found that Patton satisfied this heightened standard and that his experience in prior cases was an asset rather than a liability. Unlike Duro Dyne and Maremont, Fairbanks was not a prepack; Judge Bonapfel observed that Patton had engaged in no prepetition negotiations, mooting one of UST's key arguments. Similarly, in In re Imerys Talc America, Inc., Case No. 19-10289 (LSS), 2019 Bankr. LEXIS 1452 (Bankr. D. Del. May 8, 2019), Judge Silberstein balanced UST's valid concerns with the need for pragmatism. Citing Fairbanks with approval, she adopted a heightened "independent and effective" standard, knowingly "depart[ing] from a long line of cases" -- including Duro Dyne and Maremont -- "in which the disinterestedness standard was applied." Judge Silberstein noted that the relevant standard "has only recently been challenged and courts have only begun to explore the appropriate standard." However, she found that Patton met the heightened standard and, like her fellow judges, rejected UST's argument that Patton's "experience should count against him." While Imerys Talc was not a prepack, Judge Silberstein recognized, "it would not be possible to propose a prepacked case if a legal representative were not selected prepetition." As such, Judge Silberstein approved Patton's appointment, subject to his making certain additional disclosures. Despite Judge Carey's suggestion that "authorities other than the judiciary" would be best suited to address asbestos fraud, the legislative and executive branches of the federal government seem unlikely to craft a solution any time soon. The Furthering Asbestos Claim Transparency (FACT) Act would amend the Bankruptcy Code to require asbestos trusts to file quarterly reports -- publicly available on the bankruptcy docket -- disclosing all demands received from, and the basis for any payments made to, asbestos claimants. Since its introduction in 2013, FACT has remained stalled in Congress. On the executive front, the DOJ has experienced substantial upheaval in recent months. Attorney General Sessions resigned at the President's request just weeks into the initiative. Sessions' replacement, Attorney General William Barr, seemingly has other higher-profile issues on his plate. Principal Deputy Associate Attorney General Jesse Panuccio, who spearheaded the initiative, exited the DOJ in April 2019. The DOJ may have detracted from its valid concerns about asbestos trust fraud by appearing to personally attack well-respected FCR candidates. The DOJ fared much better by filing traditional confirmation objections challenging specific aspects of trust distribution procedures (TDP) and offering constructive criticism aimed at better safeguarding against fraud. USTs in Duro Dyne and Maremont extracted TDP revisions using this more conventional approach. In Maremont, for example, Judge Carey directed debtors to revise the TDP to require claimants to provide certain additional information to the trust and to permit the trust to obtain other information in its discretion, and the debtor voluntarily modified the TDP to address other UST objections. The recent decisions suggest that insurers should consider proposing specific, attainable anti-fraud measures -- such as enhanced reporting requirements akin to those proposed under FACT -- that can be integrated into debtors' proposed TDP. Even if DOJ leadership has lost interest in the issue, regional UST offices remain an invaluable ally for insurers in the fight for greater asbestos trust transparency. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Steam Plant Owner Pleads Guilty in Asbestos Case ----------------------------------------------------------------- Cornelius Frolik, writing for Dayton Daily News, reported that the owner of the popular Dayton event venue the Steam Plant has pleaded guilty to a federal count of failing to thoroughly inspect for the presence of asbestos. John Riazzi, who owns the former power generating plant at 617 E. Third St., agreed to waive his right to prosecution by indictment and agreed to prosecution by bill of information. Last year, the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency filed a complaint against Riazzi accusing him of violating the Clean Air Act. Authorities accused Riazzi of knowingly failing to inspect the steam plant before its renovation and knowingly failing to provide the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency of notice before work began. Riazzi also was accused of knowingly failing to wet regulated asbestos-containing material as it was removed during renovation. He pleaded guilty to the information pending against him for failing to thoroughly inspect for asbestos. In 2016, paid and directed two workers to remove roofing materials on the building that contained asbestos, according to the statement of facts in Riazzi's case. Riazzi had no reason to believe the workers were trained to evaluate or handle asbestos and did not tell them the roof may have asbestos, according to the statement of facts in the case. Riazzi was warned the roof contained asbestos but did not instruct them to take any specific precautions related to the materials, the statement of facts said. The workers were scrap metal collectors and haulers who did odd jobs at the steam plant. Riazzi's general contractor, MV Commercial Construction (Miller-Valentine Group), had told him it would cost about $20,000 to abate the asbestos-containing roofing materials. He paid the two workers about $5,000 to remove the materials over a weekend, according to the statement of facts. In September 2016, Riazzi filed a civil lawsuit against MV Commercial Construction, alleging the company made false claims that potentially sparked a criminal investigation. He is scheduled to be sentenced Oct. 30. The charge carries a maximum prison sentence of fives years and a maximum fine of $250,000. But as part of the plea agreement, prosecutors will not object to probation. St. Peter Partners LLC, Riazzi's company, purchased the Steam Plant in 2015 from the city of Dayton. He renovated the building into offices and an event space that is popular place to host weddings, fundraisers, parties and public events. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Talc Left "Fingerprint" in Travel Agent's Lungs ---------------------------------------------------------------- Law360 reported that a Kentucky travel agent who died of mesothelioma had a signature mix of talc and asbestos in her lung tissue traceable to talcum powder, according to evidence presented in an unusual joint trial against manufacturers Johnson & Johnson and Colgate-Palmolive. After opening arguments, a jury heard expert witness testimony in a case brought by the family of former travel agent Donna Ann Hayes, who died in December 2016 of mesothelioma. Hayes' family believes her disease originated with the use of both companies' talcum powder. Mesothelioma.net reported that Mrs. Hayes was diagnosed with the rare and fatal form of cancer at the age of 72 and died 8 months after diagnosis. In describing what he found in the mesothelioma victim's lung tissue, Brown University's Alpert Medical School professor David Egilman indicated that Mrs. Hayes' lungs contained a "fingerprint" found only in asbestos fibers that are found in cosmetic talc. Egilman is an expert in epidemiology and occupational medicine, and in testifying about the finding of anthophyllite in her lung tissue said, "Anthophyllite is not mixed with talc in any commercial product -- aside from talc." He added that the finding of an additional sample of tissue containing another type of asbestos called tremolite was also a combination that has "only been reported in cosmetic talc products." The cosmetic talc products being accused of causing Mrs. Hayes’ mesothelioma were Colgate Palmolive's Cashmere Bouquet powder, which she started using at the age of 18, and Johnson & Johnson's talc-based powder later. A deposition that she gave before her death and testimony provided by her husband indicated that she had continued using it for years, and that they believe that both products caused her illness. Both Johnson & Johnson's talc-based powders and Colgate-Palmolive's Cashmere Bouquet have been named as being responsible for malignant mesothelioma and ovarian cancer in Mrs. Hayes and over 14,000 pending lawsuits, as well as several others that have already been heard and decided. Many of those cases have yielded multi-million-dollar verdicts on behalf of victims of asbestos-related diseases. While mesothelioma has typically been associated with industrial exposure to asbestos, the news that cosmetic talc products were contaminated with asbestos has raised the specter of untold numbers of consumers being diagnosed with asbestos-related diseases now and in the future, Mesothelioma.net said. Law360 added that counsel for Johnson & Johnson attempted to cast doubt on the methods of an electron microscopy expert who testified in the Kentucky trial that he found asbestos in its talcum powder products, pressing him on why he used a different method in previous talc evaluations. Microscopy expert Lee Poye retured to the stand during the second week of the trial on claims brought by the Ms. Hayes' family. ********* 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 ***