/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/190805.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, August 5, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 155 Headlines 4T MFG LLC: Juarez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ABRY BROTHERS: Saravia Seeks Overtime Pay for Laborers ALLIANCE SECURITY: Bank's Suit Transferred to E.D.N.Y. ALMEDA-GENOA: Facundo Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime, Lost Wages AMERICAN AIRLINES: Court Narrows Claims in Scanlan USERRA Suit ASSET RECOVERY: Final Approval of Settlement Agreement Sought ASSURANCE WIRELESS: Keeley Seeks Unpaid Wages for Promo Reps AT&T INC: Accused of Selling Customers' Location Data AT&T INC: Court Denies Bid to Stay Hoffman Class Suit BARNES & NOBLE: Scarantino Sues over Elliott Advisors Buyout BOEING COMPANY: Pilot C Files Suit Over 737 MAX Aircraft Defect BOILERMAKER-BLACKSMITH: Phillips Files Suit Over ERISA Violation BUCKEYE PARTNERS: McManus Suit Transferred to S.D Texas CAPITAL ONE: Pfahning Suit Moved to Eastern District of Virginia CHINESE HOSPITAL: Matsui Seeks Unpaid Wages, Penalties CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Settlement in Gordon Suit Has Prelim Approval CLASSIC OILFIELD: Class of Truck Drivers Certified in Fulmer Suit COCA-COLA CO: Dismissal of Geffner False Advertising Suit Affirmed COMENITY BANK: Wilson Sues over Repeated Robocalls CONDUENT BUSINESS: Pisano Seeks Proper Regular Wages CONGREGATION YETEV: $25K Abreu Labor Suit Settlement Has Approval CREAM-O-LAND DAIRY: Court Flips Summary Judgment in Branch WHL Suit CRYSTAL BALL: Mendez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages CULTURAL CARE: Faces Mack Suit in District of Massachusetts DANZE INC: 7th Cir. Flips Dismissal of Duncan Place's WPLA Claim DAY & ZIMMERMANN: Waters Seeks OT Pay for Mechanical Supervisors DELOITTE & TOUCHE: Settles Aequitas Securities Class Action DIAS & FRAGOSO: Settlement in Cuevas Suit Has Prelim Approval DOMINO'S PIZZA: Wage Underpayment Class Action Pending DOUGLAS CREEK: Disbarred Lawyer Pleads Guilty to Fraud EAST COAST EGG: Valdez Seeks Minimum & OT Pay for Delivery Drivers EDDIE BAUER: Oct. 25 Settlement Approval Hearing Set EDGEWELL PERSONAL: Faces Class Action Over Razor "Pink Tax" ENLOE MEDICAL: Lefevers Hits Unpaid Wages, Missed Breaks ENTERPRISE PRODUCTS: Reeves Seeks Overtime Wages for Workers FARMERS INSURANCE: Barnett Suit Moved to W.D. Oklahoma FYRE FESTIVAL: JA Rule, Margolin Free From Fraud Class Action GOLDEN GATE: Court Remands Collins & Frank to State Court GREENE CTY, MO: Lewis Seeks OT Pay for Correctional Officers H.D. SMITH: Hestrup Sues Over Increase in Insurance Premiums HELIUS MEDICAL: Sept. 9 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set HONDA MOTOR: Class Suit Over Faulty Acura RDX Vehicles Filed HYATT HOTELS: Customers File Class Action Over "Resort Fees" HYUNDAI MOTOR: Fails to Pay for Emissions Warranties, Boyd Claims ICEBREAKER NATURE CLOTHING: Reid Sues over ADA Violations INSIGHT GLOBAL: Prather Seeks to Recoup Overtime Pay Under FLSA INTER-LOCAL PENSION FUND: Judge Shuts Down Class Suit vs Teamsters JACKSON MEMORIAL: Portales Seeks Overtime Pay for Nurses JARROW FORMULAS: Shanks Seeks to Certify Class JOHN HEATH: Illinois Court Denies Motion to Compel Arbitration JP MORGAN: 3rd Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Blake Suit JPMORGAN CHASE: Grant Suit Asserts ERISA Breach KELLER WILLIAMS: St. John & Penuela Sue over Unwanted Phone Calls LAND HOME: Faces Lopez Suit in California Superior Court LEX 1751: Villegas Seeks Minimum & OT Wages for Laundromat Workers LG ELECTRONICS: Class Suit Over Faulty Fridges Expands to Utah LOBSTER PLACE: Lopez Seeks Unpaid Overtime Premium MARICOPA COUNTY, AZ: Court Denies Bids to Dismiss Briggs Suit MATCHESFASHION INC: Reid Sues over Civil Rights Violations MATTERPORT INC: Kenner Sues over False Advertising MDL 2433: Bid to Apply Tort Reform Act to Swartz's Claims Denied MDL 2741: Munkres v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated MDL 2741: Smith v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated MILFORD NISSAN: Pepper Seeks Overtime Wages for Sales Employees MONSANTO COMPANY: Hitchens Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup MONSANTO COMPANY: Jones-Basler et al Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal. MONSANTO COMPANY: Mason Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal. MONSANTO COMPANY: Noe Estate Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal. MONSANTO COMPANY: Osborne Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup MONSANTO COMPANY: Ponzini Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal. MONSANTO COMPANY: Prinses' Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal. MOON RIDGE: Morris Moves for Class Certification Under WARN Act NAVIGANT CYMETRIX: Chicas Suit Moved to C.D. California NETFLIX, INC: Securities Statements Misleading, Wallerstein Says NEW HAMPSHIRE: Certification of Involuntary Detainees Class Sought NEW ORLEANS, LA: Caluda Class Certification Bid, Complaint Tossed NEW YORK: Sued Over Religious Exemption Vaccination Law NUDGE LLC: Court Dismisses Just Us RICO Suit Without Prejudice OCWEN LOAN: Stromberg Renews Bid for Approval of $575,000 Deal PETERSON'S HARLEY-DAVIDSON: Sued over Unsolicited Text Messages PFIZER INC: Judge Refuses to Certify Class in Robitussin Case PLAN B WELLNESS: Arneaud Suit Asserts TCPA Breach PORT RESOURCES: 1st Cir. Affirms Treble Damages Award to Giguere PRO TREE: $78,500 Settlement Reached in Hernandez Suit PUTNAM COUNTY, TN: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Rich Alleges RAYTHEON COMPANY: Lowinger Files Suit Over UTC Merger Deal REDDY BUILDERS: Santana Seeks OT Wages for Construction Workers REVENUE FRONTIER: Court Certifies Class in Clough TCPA Class Suit ROSEMARY HOSPITALITY: Florez Seeks Minimum & Overtime Wages SAMARCO MINERACAO: Court Dismisses Banco Safra Suit With Prejudice SARBANAND FARMS: CSI Visa Needs License to Supply Farmworkers SEE'S CANDIES: Judge Refuses to Certify Workers' Class Action SKY BLUE EXPRESS: Kumar Seeks Unpaid Wages for Employees SMITH-PALLUCK: Renteria Sues over Unsolicited Telephone Calls SONOS, INC: Removes Steiner Suit to Central Dist. of California SPA NAIL: Li Suit Transferred to Northern Dist. of New York SQUARETRADE, INC: Bid to Certify Class under Advisement SUMMER HILL, NY: Court Dismisses Cayuga County from Ward Suit SUN HAVEN: Website not Accessible to Blind, Dominguez Says T-MOBILE CENTRAL: City of Springfield's Suit Remanded to State Ct. TENCENT AMERICA: Kizak Suit Asserts TCPA Violation TJX COMPANIES: Removes Schuchard Suit to C.D. California TRISH MCEVOY: L. Tatum-Rios Files ADA Suit in New York TROPICANA PRODUCTS: Bid to Certify Advertising Suit Classes Denied UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Can't Compel Arbitration in Text Messaging Suit USI SOLUTIONS: Faces Santos Suit in Northern District of Illinois VIDA MEDICAL: Lopez Seeks OT Wages for Medical Assistants VISION PRECISION: Removes Martinez Suit to E.D. California WALLY'S DELI: Vazquez Seeks Overtime Pay for Grocery Employees WALMART: Workers Must Pursue Sex Bias Claims in 79 Lawsuits WARMLIVING HEALTH: Wilbon Seeks Overtime Wages WELLS FARGO: Ronquillo Seeks Overtime Wages for Branch Managers WESTERN RANGE: 9th Cir. Flips Dismissal of Castillo Claims WILL COUNTY, IL: Simon Lee's Class Certification Bid Denied [*] DLA Piper Releases Roundup of Class Action Developments ********* 4T MFG LLC: Juarez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------- Irving Wilfredo Juarez and Luis Manuel Cardoza Diaz, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. 4T Mfg LLC and Kevin Hiebert, Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00549 (E.D. Tex., July 24, 2019) is a putative collective action filed by current and/or former employees of Defendants who work/worked for Defendants in the manufacture of trailers and who like Plaintiffs, are/were paid on a piece rate and/or hourly rate basis and are/were not paid time and one-half their respective regular rates of pay for all hours worked over forty in each and every seven day workweek. Plaintiffs and the putative collective action members regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek as employees of Defendants but were not paid all overtime premium compensation owed under the Fair Labor Standards Act by Defendants, says the complaint. Plaintiffs were occasionally paid overtime premium for some hours worked over forty. However, Plaintiffs were regularly not paid time and one-half their respective regular rates of pay for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek, and Defendants did not accurately record or pay all hours worked per workday and workweek for Plaintiffs, says the complaint. Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants as welders. Defendants are in the trailer manufacturing business with a facility in Sumner, Texas located in Lamar County.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Rebecca Currier, Esq. Allen R. Vaught, Esq. Baron & Budd, P.C. 3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100 Dallas, TX 75219 Phone: (214) 521-3605 Facsimile: (214) 520-1181 Email: rcurrier@baronbudd.com avaught@baronbudd.com ABRY BROTHERS: Saravia Seeks Overtime Pay for Laborers ------------------------------------------------------ JOSE ALEJANDRO SARAVIA, Individually and On Behalf of All Similarly Situated Persons, the Plaintiff, vs. ABRY BROTHERS (HOUSTON), LLC And MARK DIMITRIJEVIC, the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-02681 (S.D. Tex., July 22, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and attorney's fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. Mr. Saravia worked for Defendants as a laborer from September 2017 until April 8, 2019. His duties included, but were not limited to, laying foundation, leveling houses and making holes and tunnels under homes. During his tenure with the Defendants, the Plaintiff regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week. The Plaintiff was paid on a day-rate basis and was not paid an overtime premium for hours worked over 40 hours in any workweek.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Josef F. Buenker, Esq. THE BUENKER LAW FIRM 2060 North Loop West, Suite 215 Houston, TX 77018 Telephone: 713-868-3388 Facsimile: 713-683-9940 E-mail: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com vijay@buenkerlaw.com ALLIANCE SECURITY: Bank's Suit Transferred to E.D.N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------ The case, Bank v. Alliance Security Inc. et al, Case No. 1:14-cv-00215 (Filed on July 23, 2014) was transferred in from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York on July 15, 2019 pursuant to a remand order by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. In this complaint, Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by engaging in unsolicited telephone sales. The case is now assigned to Hon. Judge Roslynn R. Mauskopf. The United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia has opened Case No. 1:19-cv-04070-RRM-LB for further proceedings. Alliance Security Inc. offers security products and services. It provides fire, burglar, and medical protection, as well as provides home automation services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John W. Barrett, Esq. Jonathan Marshall, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER LLP 209 Capitol Street Charleston, WV 25301 Telephone: (304) 345-6555 Facsimile: (304) 342-1110 E-mail: jbarrett@baileyglasser.com jmarshall@baileyglasser.com ALMEDA-GENOA: Facundo Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime, Lost Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------ JOSE FACUNDO, individually and on behalf of all other similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. ALMEDA-GENOA HOUSTON DEVELOPMENT, LLC, D/B/A, ALMEDA-GENOA CONSTRUCTORS JC, AND DRAGADOS, USA. Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-02721 (S.D. Tex., July 24, 2019) is a collective action filed under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and a class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure against Defendants to recover unpaid overtime wages, lost wages, liquidated damages, and attorney's fees. Plaintiff regularly worked many hours in excess of 40 hours per week for Defendants. In performing his duties, Plaintiff routinely worked up to 11 hours per day, six days per week. However, the Defendants prohibited Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees from reporting any hours in excess of 40 per week. Additionally, Plaintiff was not allowed to report any hours worked during the weekend. Plaintiff was not compensated for hours worked during the weekend. Defendant manipulated payroll records to make it appear that Plaintiff and similarly situated employees were properly paid. In reality, Plaintiff was actually paid a flat "salary" for only 40 hours per week. The Defendants' manipulation of time and payroll records violates the FLSA's record keeping requirements and demonstrates Defendants' willful and intentional conduct designed to evade the requirements of the FLSA, says the complaint. Plaintiff is a former employee of Defendant. Defendant Almeda-Genoa Houston Development, LLC, d/b/a Almeda-Genoa Constructors JV is a foreign for-profit entity conducting business in Houston, Harris County.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Taft L. Foley, Esq. THE FOLEY LAW FIRM 3003 South Loop West, Suite 108 Houston, TX 77054 Phone: (832) 778-8182 Fax: (832) 778-8353 Email: Taft.foley@thefoleylawfirm.com AMERICAN AIRLINES: Court Narrows Claims in Scanlan USERRA Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JAMES P. SCANLAN on his own behalf and all others similarly situated v. AMERICAN AIRLINES GROUP, INC., et al, Civil Action No. 18-4040 (E.D. Pa.), Judge Harvey Bartle, III of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint. Plaintiff Scanlan, a commercial airline pilot and a Major General in the United States Air Force Reserve, has sued American Airlines Group, Inc. ("AAG") and American Airlines, Inc. ("AAI"), his employer and AAG's wholly owned subsidiary, in the putative class action under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act ("USERRA") 38 U.S.C. Sections 4301 et seq. Specifically, the amended complaint alleges that he and others similarly situated have been wrongfully denied certain rights and benefits from AAG and AAI while on short-term military leave which other employees receive while absent from work for jury duty, sick leave, and union leave. Scanlan seeks declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief. Before the court is the motion of the Defendants to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Judge Bartle first considers AAI's motion to dismiss count III for failure to state a claim. Scanlan alleges that AAI's policy of not paying employees out on short-term military leave while paying employees for comparable forms of short-term leave, such as for jury duty, sick leave, and union leave, violates Section 4316(b)(1) of USERRA. The Judge holds that the purposes of USERRA is to encourage noncareer service in the uniform services by eliminating or minimizing the disadvantages to civilian careers and employment which can result from such service and to prohibit discrimination against persons because of their service in the uniformed services. The words of USERRA must be construed liberally in favor of those in the uniformed services. Congress, they agree, did not impose a requirement in USERRA that employers in all instances provide differential pay to employees while on military leave. Nonetheless, Section 4316(b)(1) clearly mandates that employees on military leave be treated equally with other employees with respect to their terms, conditions, and privileges of employment. Equal treatment exists only if those employees on short-term military leave have the same rights and benefits as other employees in comparable situations. Scanlan has plausibly alleged that he and those similarly situated have not been afforded equal treatment with other employees in comparable situations. Count III of the amended complaint states a viable claim for relief under Section 4316(b)(1) of USERRA. Scanlan alleges in count I of the amended complaint that AAG violated Section 4316(b)(1) of USERRA by not crediting participants who took short-term military leave with imputed earnings for those periods when calculating their profit sharing awards, while crediting participants with their full earnings while on jury duty, sick leave, and union leave. As a result, he asserts that participants who took short-term military leave had lower "eligible earnings," and received lower profit sharing awards, than provided to employees who take comparable forms of leave. The Judge's analysis with respect to count III likewise applies with respect to count I. Scanlan has plausibly alleged a claim under Section 4316(b)(1) that AAG has not provided equal rights and benefits under its profit sharing Plan to employees on short-term military leave. Scanlan's claim under count I survives. Finally, AAG moves to dismiss count II which alleges that AAG's calculation of profit sharing awards under its Plan violates Section 4318(b)(1) of USERRA. The Judge rejects Scanlan's contention that the regulation applies to the Plan at issue. The Plan certainly is not "sponsored by a State, government entity, or church" and is not otherwise similar to any such plan. Moreover, the Judge reads this regulation as more likely clarifying that USERRA incorporates ERISA's general definition of employee benefit pension plan but does not contain the same express exclusions listed in 29 U.S.C. Section 1003(b), such as plans administered by the government and churches. The Plan is neither an employee benefit pension plan under ERISA nor a plan exempted from ERISA but covered by USERRA. Scanlan has not stated a claim for relief in count II under Section 4318(b)(1). Based on the foregoing, Judge Bartle granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint. A full-text copy of the Court's June 18, 2019 Memorandum is available at https://is.gd/GMUDlR from Leagle.com. JAMES P. SCANLAN, Plaintiff, represented by ADAM HARRISON GARNER, THE GARNER FIRM LTD, COLIN M. DOWNES -- colin@blockesq.com -- BLOCK & LEVITON LLP, HANNAH COLE-CHU, OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP, MATTHEW ZACHARY CROTTY, CROTTY & SON LAW FIRM, PLLC, PETER ROMER-FRIEDMAN, OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP, R. JOSEPH BARTON -- joe@blockesq.com -- BLOCK & LEVITON LLP & THOMAS G. JARRARD. AMERICAN AIRLINES GROUP, INC. & AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., Defendants, represented by KENNETH A. MURPHY -- kenneth.murphy@dbr.com -- DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP & MARK W. ROBERTSON -- mrobertson@omm.com -- O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP. ASSET RECOVERY: Final Approval of Settlement Agreement Sought ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as JOHN SANDRI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. ASSET RECOVERY SOLUTIONS, LLC, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-01182-WCG (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for final approval of a class settlement agreement. The Settlement, if approved, contemplates a $2,000 payment to Plaintiff. The FDCPA differentiates between the recovery available to the plaintiff and the recovery available to class members. Thus, Plaintiff may be awarded up to $1,000 in statutory damages.[CC] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Andrew T. Thomasson, Esq. Francis R. Greene, Esq. Philip D. Stern, Esq. STERN THOMASSON LLP 3010 South Appleton Road Menasha, WI 54952 Telephone: (973) 379-7500 E-mail: Philip@SternThomasson.com Andrew@SternThomasson.com Francis@SternThomasson.com ASSURANCE WIRELESS: Keeley Seeks Unpaid Wages for Promo Reps ------------------------------------------------------------ ERICA DIPLACTDO; TYLER KEELEY: RYAN LABRIE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. ASSURANCE WIRELESS OF SOUTH CAROLINA. LLC; SPRINT CORPORATION; BOSS ENTERPRISE, INC.; KURALAY BEKBOSSYNOVA, individually, the Defendants, Case No. 19-0888 (Mass. Super., July 12, 2019), is an action for unpaid wages, independent contractor misclassification, and related claims, pursuant to the Massachusetts Wage Act, the Massachusetts Minimum Wage Law, and the Massachusetts Independent Contractor Statute. According to the complaint, the Defendants employed Plaintiffs as promotions representatives. Assurance Wireless did not pay Plaintiffs or other promotions representatives an hourly rate equal to minimum wage for all of the hours that they performed services for Assurance Wireless, the lawsuit says. Sprint and Assurance jointly operate as "Assurance Wireless" to sell wireless services to customers in various stales, including Massachusetts.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are: Brook S. Lane, Esq. FAIR WORK, P.C. 192 South Street, Suite 450 Boston, MA 02111 Telephone: 617 607 3261 Facsimile: 617 488 2261 E-mail: brook@fairworklaw.com AT&T INC: Accused of Selling Customers' Location Data ----------------------------------------------------- Maria Dinzeo, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that despite assurances to the contrary, AT&T has been selling its customers' location data to creditors, bounty hunters, landlords, prison officials, and all sorts of third parties, according to data privacy watchdog Electronic Frontier Foundation in a federal class action filed on July 16. AT&T is the second largest wireless carrier in the United States, with more than 153 million subscribers. The class action led by customers Katherine Scott, Carolyn Jewel and George Pontis also names aggregators LocationSmart and Zumigo, which bought location and network information from AT&T and sold it down a chain of third parties for commercial purposes. In a statement, attorney Abbye Klamann Ognibene, Esq. -- aognibene@piercebainbridge.com -- with Los Angeles firm Pierce Bainbridge said location data is both highly specific and very valuable to anyone wanting to know the most personal details about someone. Location data has also been used to stalk and harass people: The complaint cites the FBI investigation of former Missouri sheriff Corey Hutcheson, who used location data AT&T and LocationSmart sold to a company called Securus Technologies to track Scott County Judge David Dolan and five state troopers. "The location data AT&T offered up for sale is extremely precise and can locate any of its wireless subscribers in real time, providing a window into the intimate details of their lives: where they go to the doctor, where they worship, where they live, and much more," Ognibene said. A Securus data breach in May 2018 revealed AT&T customers' location data had been exposed to countless third parties, the plaintiffs say in their complaint. On the same day, a security researcher at Carnegie Mellon found LocationSmart's product demo contained a flaw that allowed literally anyone to obtain the real-time location any AT&T customer. AT&T then falsely stated it had suspended Securus' and other aggregators' access to customer data, the plaintiffs say, but just a few days later, a Motherboard article reported the carrier was selling customers' phone locations to car salesmen, bail bondsmen, landlords and bounty hunters for as little as $7.50. "In sum, between May 2018 and March 2019, media reports revealed the existence of a vast, illegal market for the real-time location data of AT&T customers," the complaint says. "AT&T granted direct access to this data to the aggregator defendants, who in turn sold such access to hundreds of third parties -- including bounty hunters, bail bondsmen, landlords, and law enforcement -- with AT&T's consent. This system allowed the precise, real-time location data of millions of Americans to be bought and sold by unknowable third parties for years without customer consent or knowledge and without valid legal authority. Despite numerous representations by AT&T that it would end the aggregator defendants' access to this data, the practice -- and the risks it created -- continued without consequence." The plaintiffs say data supplied by AT&T's enhanced 911 technology, which allows 911 responders to locate a customer's phone in case of emergency, is also sold to location tracking companies without AT&T customers' knowledge or consent. The Federal Communications Commission first raised privacy red flags back in 2010 regarding indoor 911 calls. In February 2015, the FCC adopted privacy rules that required the carrier to certify that it would not use information in the National Emergency Address Database or associated data "for any purpose other than for the purpose of responding to 911 calls, except as required by law." AT&T vowed it would not. However, the plaintiffs say AT&T began providing customers' GPS data to the aggregators and their downstream customers, which publicly advertise their ability to pinpoint a person's location using the same technology as emergency personnel. "AT&T and data aggregators have systematically violated the location privacy rights of tens of millions of AT&T customers," EFF Staff Attorney Aaron Mackey said in a statement. "Consumers must stand up to protect their privacy and shut down this illegal market. That's why we filed this lawsuit." The proposed class wants a judge to determine whether AT&T and the data aggregators violated the Federal Communications Act and intentionally disregarded customers' privacy rights. AT&T spokesman Jim Greer called the allegations false. "The facts don't support this lawsuit, and we will fight it," Greer said in an email. "Location-based services like roadside assistance, fraud protection, and medical device alerts have clear and even life-saving benefits. We only share location data with customer consent. We stopped sharing location data with aggregators after reports of misuse." A copy of the Complaint is available at: https://is.gd/nGG7AZ AT&T INC: Court Denies Bid to Stay Hoffman Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------- In the case, ROBERT HOFFMAN, Plaintiff, v. AT&T INC., RANDALL L. STEPHENSON, JOHN J. STEPHENS, SAMUEL A. DI PIAZZA JR., RICHARD FISHER, SCOTT T. FORD, GLENN H. HUTCHINS, WILLIAM E. KENNARD, MICHAEL B. McCALLISTER, BETH E. MOONEY, JOYCE M. ROCHÉ, MATTHEW K. ROSE, CYNTHIA B. TAYLOR, LAURA D'ANDREA TYSON, and GEOFFREY Y. YANG, Defendants, Docket No. 650797/2019, Motion Seq. No. 002 (N.Y. Sup.), Judge Barry Ostrager of the New York County Supreme Court denied without prejudice the Defendants' motion to stay the action in favor of a subsequently filed and unquestionably more comprehensive federal action. The case is a securities class action on behalf of the former shareholders of Time Warner Inc., alleging violations of the Securities Act of 1933 in connection with the June 2018 acquisition of Time Warner by AT&T. In order to acquire Time Warner, AT&T issued 1.185 billion shares of new AT&T stock pursuant to a Registration Statement that, the Plaintiff alleges, failed to disclose serious deterioration in AT&T's DirecTV and DirecTV Now business. New York resident Hoffman initially filed the class action complaint on Feb. 7, 2019. On April 10, 2019, the Court granted on consent a motion to designate Scott & Scott Attorneys at Law LLP and Hedin, Hall LLP as the co-lead counsel for the proposed class. Subsequently, a First Amended Class Action Complaint was filed on May 7, 2019 together with discovery requests. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the case. And, in the Commercial Division, discovery is not stayed by motion practice without leave of the Court. On April 1, 2019, Plaintiff Melvin Gross filed a federal complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Gross v. AT&T Inc., alleging violations of both the 1933 Act and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The federal action asserts broader claims on behalf of classes of variously situated Time Warner and AT&T shareholders. Pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act ("PSLRA"), the federal Court is presently considering applications by at least five sets of the plaintiff's counsel to be designated either lead counsel or co-lead counsel. The duration of that process is uncertain. Prior to the creation of the Commercial Division of the New York State Supreme Court, and even thereafter, the general rule was that securities actions in the Court that were less comprehensive than related federal court actions, including actions first filed in the Court, should be stayed in favor of the more comprehensive federal court actions. The general rationale of Barron v. Bluhdorn and its progeny is that where there is a substantial overlap between the parties and issues and relief sought in both state and federal courts, staying the state court case would avoid the waste of judicial resources, potential inconsistent rulings, and duplication of effort. And, federal courts have been perceived to have a greater familiarity with securities law. Judge Ostrager holds that clearly, after the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Cyan, Inc. v. Beaver Cnty. Emps. Ret. Fund, and the creation of specialized commercial courts in New York, the reasoning of the Barron case cannot be mechanically applied. The circumstances present in the case do not lend themselves to the historical Barron analysis. In the instant matter, a New York plaintiff has initiated discrete claims on behalf of Time Warner shareholders that can be well on the way to judicial resolution while five sets of the Plaintiff's lawyers jockey for control of a federal court action that includes claims on behalf of individuals who are not members of the state court class as well as the members of the state court class. The liability issues in a 1933 Act case are, if anything, less complex than issues the Commercial Division resolves every week. The Defendants are free to test the merits of the Plaintiff's claims before the Court, which is familiar with the issues in the case, and there is no reason to believe that the merits of the Plaintiff's claims cannot be resolved as efficiently and, perhaps, more expeditiously than the 1933 Act claims asserted in the federal action because the likelihood is that more than one set of counsel will be appointed to represent differently situated shareholders in the federal action and the pleadings in the federal court may not be fixed for an extended period of time. And, because the federal action involves broader issues and multiple classes of shareholders, the federal court may consider staying the 1933 Act claims in the federal action in favor of this earlier filed action. In short, the "first filed" rule must have some vitality in a post-Cyan world. Otherwise, 1933 Act cases could never proceed in state court whenever a subsequently filed federal court action asserts claims in addition to 1933 Act claims. If developments in the federal action provide sufficient cause for the Court to revisit the disposition of the motion to stay proceedings in the action, the Court will entertain a subsequent motion to stay this action. In the meantime, the case will proceed. Accordingly, Judge Ostrager denied without prejudice to renew the Defendants' motion to stay. A full-text copy of the Court's June 21, 2019 Decision and Order is available at https://is.gd/Cah1ry from Leagle.com. BARNES & NOBLE: Scarantino Sues over Elliott Advisors Buyout ------------------------------------------------------------ RICHARD SCARANTINO, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. BARNES & NOBLE, INC., LEONARD RIGGIO, GEORGE CAMPBELL JR., MARK D. CARLETON, SCOTT S. COWEN, WILLIAM T. DILLARD II, AL FERRARA, PAUL B. GUENTHER, PATRICIA L. HIGGINS, IRWIN D. SIMON, KIMBERLY A. VAN DERZON, CHAPTERS HOLDCO INC., and CHAPTERS MERGER SUB INC., the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01320-UNA (D. Del., July 16, 2019), stems from a proposed transaction announced on June 7, 2019, pursuant to which Barnes & Noble, Inc. will be acquired by affiliates of Elliott Advisors (UK) Limited, Chapters HoldCo Inc. and Chapters Merger Sub, Inc. On June 6, 2019, Barnes & Noble's Board of Directors caused the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with Chapters. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Barnes & Noble's stockholders will receive $6.50 in cash for each share of Barnes & Noble common stock they own. On July 9, 2019, the defendants filed a Solicitation/Recommendation Statement with the United States Securities and Exchange in connection with the Proposed Transaction. The Solicitation Statement omits material information with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the Solicitation Statement false and misleading, the lawsuit contends, in violation of Sections 14(e), 14(d), and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Barnes & Noble, Inc., a Fortune 1000 company, is the bookseller with the largest number of retail outlets in the United States and a retailer of content, digital media, and educational products.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Gina M. Serra, Esq. Brian D. Long, Esq. RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 295-5310 Facsimile: (302) 654-7530 E-mail: bdl@rl-legal.com gms@rl-legal.com - and - Richard A. Maniskas, Esq. RM LAW, P.C. 1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300 Berwyn, PA 19312 Telephone: (484) 324-6800 Facsimile: (484) 631-1305 E-mail: rm@maniskas.com BOEING COMPANY: Pilot C Files Suit Over 737 MAX Aircraft Defect ---------------------------------------------------------------- PILOT C, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. THE BOEING COMPANY, a Delaware corporation, Case No. 2019CH08394 (Ill. Cir., Cook Cty., July 17, 2019), seeks compensation on behalf of the Plaintiff and over 150 pilots qualified to fly the Boeing 737 MAX series of aircraft as employees of an international airline ("Airline C"). According to the complaint, the Plaintiff's personal and professional life was disrupted when BOEING and the Federal Aviation Administration (the "FAA") engaged in an unprecedented cover-up of known design flaws of the MAX, which predictably resulted in the crashes of two MAX aircraft and grounding of all MAX aircraft worldwide, according to the complaint. The Plaintiff relied on BOEING's representations that the MAX was safe when the Plaintiff chose to qualify to fly the MAX, and the Plaintiff suffered significant Jost wages, among other economic and non-economic damages, when the MAX was grounded with no end in sight. Additionally, the Plaintiff suffered severe emotional and mental distress when the Plaintiff was compelled to fly the MAX--placing the Plaintiff's life and the lives of the crews and passengers in danger--despite the growing awareness of the dangerous nature of the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (the "MCAS") and other problems that BOEING had previously concealed or failed to disclose to the Plaintiff, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was a British citizen and licensed pilot employed by an international airline. Due to BOEING's substantial influence in the commercial aviation industry, the Plaintiff is in fear of reprisal from BOEING and discrimination from BOEING customers, including Airline C at BOEING's behest and has, therefore, chosen to file this Complaint using a pseudonym. BOEING is a Delaware corporation registered with the Illinois Secretary of State as doing business in Illinois, with its corporate headquarters and principal place of business located in Chicago, Illinois. BOEING designs, manufactures and markets aircrafts, including the MAX airplanes.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick M. Jones, Esq. Sarah M. Beaujour, Esq. PMJ PLLC 100 South State Street Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 255-7976 E-mail: pmj@patjonespllc.com smb@patjonespllc.com - and - Joseph C. Wheeler, Esq. IALPG PTY LTD (T/AS INTERNATIONAL AEROSPACE LAW & POLICY GROUP) ID, 7/139 Junction Road Clayfield, Queensland Australia 4011 Telephone: +61 7 3040 1099 E-mail: jwheeler@ialpg.com BOILERMAKER-BLACKSMITH: Phillips Files Suit Over ERISA Violation ---------------------------------------------------------------- Thomas Allen Phillips, Kevin D. Murphy, Michael Egger, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Boilermaker-Blacksmith National Pension Trust; Board of Trustees of the Boilermaker-Blacksmith National Pension Trust; Scott Anderson, Trustee of the Boilermaker-Blacksmith National Pension Trust; John T. Fultz, Trustee of the Boilermaker-Blacksmith National Pension Trust; Lawrence J. McManamon, Trustee of the Boilermaker-Blacksmith National Pension Trust; Lyndal Turner, Trustee of the Boilermaker-Blacksmith National Pension Trust; Mike Hidas, Trustee of the Boilermaker-Blacksmith National Pension Trust; Mark Vandiver, Trustee of the Boilermaker-Blacksmith National Pension Trust, Case No. 2:19-cv-02402 (D. Kan., July 17, 2019), alleges violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. The Plaintiffs seek to recover benefits due; declare their rights; and remedy violations of the terms of the Boilermaker-Blacksmith National Pension Trust and ERISA. On behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants have violated and are violating the terms of the pension plan and ERISA by, inter alia, purporting to define and limit the right to retire and collect benefits under the Plan; imposing ad hoc and de facto retroactive Plan rules and/or amendments that purport to restrict the Plaintiffs' eligibility for retirement benefits; violating multiple provisions of ERISA Title 1 and the terms of the Plan governing disclosure, vesting and accrual of benefits, fiduciary responsibility and administration and enforcement; and failing to maintain and follow reasonable claims procedures as required under ERISA. Boilermaker-Blacksmith National Pension Trust is a defined benefit employee pension benefit plan within the meaning of Section 3(2) of ERISA, which was established and maintained for the purpose of providing retirement benefits for participants working as Boilermakers, including the Plaintiffs and their beneficiaries. Board of Boilermaker-Blacksmith National Pension Trust is the Administrator of the Plan and a fiduciary with respect to the Plan within the meaning of the ERISA. The Individual Defendants are Trustees and administrators of the Plan.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Rik N. Siro, Esq. Athena M. Dickson, Esq. Raymond A. Dake, Esq. Ryan P. McEnaney, Esq. SIRO SMITH DICKSON PC 1621 Baltimore Avenue Kansas City, MO, 64108 Telephone: (816) 471-4881 Facsimile: (816) 471-4883 E-mail: rsiro@sirosmithdickson.com esmith@sirosmithdickson.com adickson@sirosmithdickson.com rdake@sirosmithdickson.com rmcenaney@sirosmithdickson.com - and - Susan Martin, Esq. Jennifer Kroll, Esq. Michael M. Licata, Esq. MARTIN & BONNETT, P.L.L.C. 4647 N. 32nd St., Suite 185 Phoenix, AZ 85018 Telephone: (602) 240-6900 Facsimile: (602) 240-2345 E-mail: smartin@martinbonnett.com jkroll@martinbonnett.com mlicata@martinbonnett.com BUCKEYE PARTNERS: McManus Suit Transferred to S.D Texas ------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled as HEATHER MCMANUS, 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, MARTIN A. WHITE and BUCKEYE GP, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-06000 (Filed June 26, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for Southern District of Texas (Houston) on July 19, 2019. The Southern District of Texas Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:19-cv-02644 to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Lynn N Hughes. The suit alleges that Defendants violated Section 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the proposed sale of the Partnership to IFM Investors through IFM's wholly owned subsidiary IFM Global Infrastructure Fund. On May 10, 2019, Buckeye entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger with IFM, whereby IFM will acquire all outstanding units of Buckeye for $41.50 per unit in an all-cash transaction valued at approximately $10.3 billion (including assumed debt), the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Matthew C. Hettrich, Esq. LIFSHITZ & MILLER LLP 821 Franklin Ave, Suite 209 Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: (516) 493-9780 - and - Joshua M. Lifshitz, Esq. BULL & LIFSHITZ 18 East 41st St, 11th Fl. New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 213-6222 CAPITAL ONE: Pfahning Suit Moved to Eastern District of Virginia ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled as Robin Pfahning, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00263 (Filed May 6, 2019), was removed from the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island, to U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (Alexandria) on July 22, 2019. The Eastern District of Virginia Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-00950-LO-TCB to the proceeding. The suit demands $5 million worth of damages. The case is assigned to the Hon. District Judge Liam O'Grady. The Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, for damages and other relief arising from Capital One's routine practice of charging interest on credit card accounts for cash advances even after those cash advances are paid back in full, the lawsuit says. Capital One, like other major credit card companies, provides consumers the ability to take cash advances on their credit cards, including from an ATM.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Bernard Joseph DiMuro, Esq. DIMUROGINSBERG PC 1101 King Street, Suite 610 Alexandria, VA 22314-2956 Telephone: (703) 684-4333 Facsimile: (703) 548-3181 E-mail: bdimuro@dimuro.com - and - Peter N. Wasylyk, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF PETER N. WASYLYK 1307 Chalkstone Avenue Providence, RI 02908 Telephone: (401) 831-7730 Facsimile: (401) 861-6064 E-mail: pnwlaw@aol.com Attorneys for the Defendant are: Andrew Soukup, Esq. Jessica Merry Samuels, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING LLP One City Center 850 Tenth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 662-6000 Facsimile: (202) 778-5066 E-mail: asoukup@cov.com jsamuels@cov.com - and - Mary C. Dunn, Esq. BLISH & CAVANAGH, LLP 30 Exchange Terrace Providence, RI 02903 Telephone: 831-8900 Facsimile: 751-7542 E-mail: mcd@blishcavlaw.com CHINESE HOSPITAL: Matsui Seeks Unpaid Wages, Penalties ------------------------------------------------------ Jenny Matsui, individually, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CHINESE HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION, INC., Defendant, Case No. CGC-19-577901 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., July 24, 2019) is a class action against the Defendant to recover unpaid wages for (1) premiums for meal and rest periods, (2) unpaid overtime, (3) unpaid minimum wages, (4) waiting time penalties, (5) statutory penalties for failure to provide accurate wage statements; and (6) all applicable civil penalties, interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, pursuant to the California Labor Code, Industrial Wage Commission ("IWC") Order, and California Business and Professions Code. The complaint asserts that Defendant failed to include in Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees' wage statements all hours of work and premium untimely, incomplete, and interrupted meal and rest breaks which caused Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees' gross and net wages to be recorded inaccurately. The Defendant also failed to pay Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees upon termination or resignation from employment all wages owed, including unpaid minimum wages, overtime, and premiums for untimely, incomplete, and interrupted meal and rest breaks in violation of California Labor Code, says the complaint. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a nurse in its Same-Day-Surgery Department from February 10, 2017 to May 6, 2019. CHINESE HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION, INC. owns and operates a hospital located at 845 Jackson Street in San Francisco, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexei Kuchinsky, Esq. William P. Klein, Esq. The Klein Law Group, P.C. 50 California Street, Suite 1500 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (415) 693-9107 Fax: (415) 693-9222 Email: Alexei@sfbizlaw.com CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Settlement in Gordon Suit Has Prelim Approval --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, TODD GORDON, MARC MERCER, KRISTEN MERCER, MICHELLE FOWLER, GREG LAWSON, and JUDY CONARD, individually and behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL, INC., Defendant, Civil Action No. 17-cv-01415-CMA-SKC (D. Colo.), Judge Christine M. Arguello of the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado granted the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Class Action Settlement and Direction of Notice. Solely for purposes of the Settlement, the Judge conditionally certified the following class pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3) (Settlement Class): All persons residing in the United States who used a payment card to make a purchase at an affected Chipotle or Pizzeria Locale in-store point-of-sale device during the Security Incident, which as described in the definition of Security Incident, occurred during the time frames and at the stores set forth in Exhibit F to the Settlement Agreement and Appendix A to the Publication Notice. She appointed (i) Plaintiffs Gordon, Marc Mercer, Kristen Mercer, Fowler, Conard, and Lawson as the Class Representatives; (ii) Benjamin F. Johns of Chimicles Schwartz Kriner & Donaldson-Smith LLP, Tina Wolfson of Ahdoot & Wolfson, PC, and Jean Sutton Martin of Morgan & Morgan as the Class Counsel; and (iii) RG/2 Claims Administration, LLC as the Claims Administrator. The payments to the Claims Administrator will be made separate and apart from the relief being made available to Settlement Class Members under the Settlement. The Judge appointed the Claims Referee proposed by the parties, Bennett G. Picker of the law firm Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young, LLP. The Claims Referee will be responsible for deciding certain claims that may be rejected by the Claims Administrator, upon request of the Settlement Class Member submitting such Claims, as described in the Settlement Agreement. The Claims Administrator is directed to carry out the Notice Plan, which will be completed in the manner set forth in the Settlement Agreement. No later than 30 days from the date of the Order preliminarily approving the Settlement, the Claims Administrator will initiate the Notice Plan, which will be completed in the manner set forth in the Settlement Agreement. All costs incurred in disseminating and otherwise in connection with the Settlement Notice will be paid by the Defendant pursuant to the Settlement Agreement. The claim form attached to the Settlement Agreement satisfies the requirements of due process and of Rule 23(e) and thus is approved for dissemination to the Settlement Class. The claim form will be made available to the Settlement Class as set forth on the Notice Plan and will be made available to any potential Class Member that requests one. The Settlement Class Members may opt-out or object up to 120 days from the date on which the Notice Program commences. Any member of the Settlement Class that wishes to be excluded (opt out) from the Settlement Class must send a written Request for Exclusion to the Class Counsel and the Counsel for the Defendant to the designated Post Office box established by the Claims Administrator by the close of the Opt-Out and Objection Deadline. Any person or entity who or which does not elect to be excluded from the Settlement Class may object to the proposed Settlement. The objection must also contain a detailed list of any other objections by the Objector and/or by the attorney representing the Objector to any class action settlement(s) submitted to any state or federal court in the United States in the previous five years. Objections, along with any notices of intent to appear and any supporting documents, must be filed with the Clerk of the Court no later than 120 days from the date on which the Notice Program commences. These documents must be filed with the Clerk of the Court electronically or at the following address: U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado Office of the Clerk of Court Alfred A. Arraj United States Courthouse, Room A105 901 19th Street Denver, CO 80294 The Judge preliminarily approved the plan for remuneration described in Section 2.3 of the Settlement Agreement, and directed that the Claims Administrator effectuate the distribution of settlement consideration according to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, should the Settlement be finally approved. She further ordered that Bank of America Merchant Services release all information, including any payment card data needed, to the Claims Administrator necessary for the Claims Administrator to assess and determine the validity of claims. A final fairness hearing is scheduled for the date set forth in the schedule at the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, Courtroom A602, 901 19th Street, Denver, Colorado. The Defendant will prepare and send, at the Defendant's expense, all notices that are required by the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005. The Judge established the following deadlines: a. Defendant Provides CAFA Notice Within 10 days after the filing of required by 28 U.S.C. Section 1715(b) Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Class Action Settlement - 120 days after Commencement of Claims Notice Program b. Defendant Provides Notice to Class - Within 10 days of providing notice to the Counsel and the Court of Attorneys General under CAFA Compliance with CAFA Requirements c. Class Notice Program Commences Within 30 days after entry of the Preliminary Approval Order d. Compliance with CAFA Waiting Period - 90 days after the Appropriate under 28 U.S.C. Section 1715(d) Governmental Officials are Served with CAFA Notice e. Motion for Attorney's Fees - At least 14 days before the Opt-Out Reimbursement of Costs and Expenses, and Service Award to be Filed by Class Counsel Postmark f. Deadline for requests for Commencement of Exclusion (Opt-Out) or Objections Postmark/Filing - 120 days after Objection Deadline g. Deadline for Filing Motion for Final Approval to be Filed At least 21 days before the Final Approval Hearing Class Counsel h. Final Approval Hearing - Dec. 12, 2019 at 2:00 p.m. A full-text copy of the Court's June 19, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/kmfnX4 from Leagle.com. Todd Gordon, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin F. Johns -- bfj@chimicles.com -- Chimicles Schwartz Kriner & Donaldson-Smith LLP, Jessica L. Titler-Lingle -- jlt@chimicles.com -- Chimicles Schwartz Kriner & Donaldson-Smith LLP, Andrew William Ferich -- awf@chimicles.com -- Chimicles Schwartz Kriner & Donaldson-Smith LLP, Jean Sutton Martin, Jean Sutton Martin, PLLC, Justin Daniel Blum, Hannon Law Firm, LLC, Tina Wolfson, Ahdoot & Wolfson, PC & Kevin Scott Hannon, Hannon Law Firm, LLC. Marc Mercer, Kristen Mercer, Michelle Fowler, Greg Lawson & Judy Conard, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Jean Sutton, Jean Sutton Martin, PLLC, Justin Daniel Blum, Hannon Law Firm, LLC, Benjamin F. Johns, Chimicles Schwartz Kriner & Donaldson-Smith LLP & Kevin Scott Hannon, Hannon Law Firm, LLC. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., Defendant, represented by Ann Yackshaw , Baker & Hostetler LLP, Carrie Dettmer Slye -- cdettmerslye@bakerlaw.com -- Baker & Hostetler, LLP, Paul Gregory Karlsgodt -- pkarlsgodt@bakerlaw.com -- Baker & Hostetler, LLP, Sam Anthony Camardo -- scamardo@bakerlaw.com -- Baker & Hostetler, LLP & Xakema Henderson -- xakema.henderson@akerman.com -- Akerman LLP. CLASSIC OILFIELD: Class of Truck Drivers Certified in Fulmer Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- United States Magistrate Judge Ronald C. Griffin approves the Agreed Motion for Conditional Certification of Collective Action and for Notice to Putative Class Members in the lawsuit entitled RICHARD TODD FULMER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CLASSIC OILFIELD SERVICES, LP, and BEN PINKSTON, Case No. 7:19-cv-00041-DC-RCG (E.D. Tex.). The Court finds that conditional certification is appropriate and certifies this class: All current and former truck drivers employed by Defendant who exclusively hauled cuttings within the state of Texas, and worked in excess of 40 hours in any workweek at any time during the three (3) years preceding the date this Order is entered. On February 12, 2019, the Plaintiff filed this suit as a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff seeks unpaid overtime wages plus liquidated damages, attorney fees, and costs. Judge Griffin rules that nothing in the Agreed Motion for Conditional Certification or in the Notice or Consent shall be interpreted as limiting, waiving, or modifying any of the parties' claims and/or defenses. The Agreed Motion for Conditional Certification is not an admission as to any underlying substantive issue in this controversy. Further, the Defendants are not waiving their rights to later move for decertification of the class. The parties agree that within 30 days of the Court approving this stipulation, the Defendants shall provide to Plaintiff's counsel a complete and accurate list of the names, last known addresses, and e-mail addresses of the potential class members. The parties stipulate that within 10 days of the Plaintiff's receipt of the information, the Plaintiff's counsel will mail the agreed Notice and Consent forms to all potential plaintiffs. It is further ordered that the potential plaintiffs shall have 60 days from the date of the initial mailing of the Notice to file their Consent opting into this lawsuit as plaintiffs by returning a completed Consent form to the Plaintiff's counsel.[CC] COCA-COLA CO: Dismissal of Geffner False Advertising Suit Affirmed ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, EVAN GEFFNER AND IVAN BABSIN, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES, ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, AND THE GENERAL PUBLIC, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. THE COCA-COLA COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 18-3548-cv (2d Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the Oct. 31, 2018 judgment of the District Court dismissing all claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Plaintiffs-Appellants Geffner and Babsin, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, brought a purported class action against Defendant-Appellee Coca-Cola, alleging that Coca-Cola violated several provisions of New York State law through misleading naming and marketing of its soft drink "Diet Coke." On Oct. 16, 2017, Plaintiffs filed their initial complaint, alleging that Coca-Cola's naming and marketing of Diet Coke violated several provisions of New York State law. In particular, they allege that the label "diet" misled Coca-Cola consumers by promising that the soft drink would "assist in weight loss" or at least, "not cause weight gain." The Plaintiffs also allege that Coca-Cola's marketing claims that Diet Coke "will not go to your waist" and "is suitable for carbohydrate and calorie-reduced diets," and its use of physically fit models in advertisements reinforce this promise of weight loss. Finally, they rely on several studies to allege that aspartame (an artificial sweetener contained in Diet Coke) is likely to cause weight gain and does not help with weight loss. The District Court dismissed all of the Plaintiffs' claims, concluding that Diet Coke's marketing conveyed only an assertion of reduced calories (rather than a promise of weight loss or weight management) and that the Plaintiffs' cited studies do not show a causal link between aspartame (contained in Diet Coke) and weight gain. The Plaintiffs timely appealed. The Court concludes that, in the context of soft drink marketing, the term "diet" carries a clear meaning. First, the "diet" label refers specifically to the drink's low caloric content; it does not convey a more general weight loss promise. This holding alone precludes Plaintiffs' claims. The Plaintiffs expressly concede that Diet Coke does not contain calories. The use of the label "diet" in this context is therefore accurate and lawful. Second, the Court concludes that, when applied to soft drinks, the label "diet" carries a primarily relative (rather than absolute) meaning. In other words, it connotes simply that the "diet" version of the drink is lower in calories than the "non-diet" version of the drink. Here, Plaintiffs do not dispute that Diet Coke is lower in calories than "regular" Coke. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs have failed plausibly to allege that the "diet" label is misleading. Because the Plaintiffs have failed plausibly to allege a misleading statement, each of their proposed causes-of-action lacks a necessary element. Dismissal was therefore proper. To summarize, the Court holds that when applied to soft drinks, the label diet refers specifically to the drink's low caloric content. It does not convey a general weight loss promise. When applied to soft drinks, the label diet carries a primarily relative (rather than absolute) meaning. In other words, it connotes simply that it is lower in calories than the non-diet version of the same drink. For the foregoing reasons, it affirmed the judgment of the District Court. A full-text copy of the Court's June 19, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/bCbs2C from Leagle.com. JOHN K. WESTON -- jweston@sackslaw.com -- (Abraham Z. Melamed -- abe@dereksmithlaw.com -- Derek Smith Law Group, PLLC, New York, NY; Jack Fitzgerald -- trevor@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com -- Trevor M. Flynn, Melanie Persinger, The Law Office of Jack Fitzgerald, PC, San Diego, CA, on the brief) Sacks Weston Diamond LLC, Philadelphia, PA, for Plaintiffs-Appellants. JANE METCALF -- jmetcalf@pbwt.com -- (Steven A. Zalesin -- sazalesin@pbwt.com -- Catherine A. Williams -- cawilliams@pbwt.com -- Michael Sochynsky -- msochynsky@pbwt.com -- on the brief), Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP, New York, NY, for Defendant-Appellee. COMENITY BANK: Wilson Sues over Repeated Robocalls -------------------------------------------------- CARA WILSON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. COMENITY BANK, the Defendant, Case No. 8:19-cv-01767 (M.D. Fla., July 22, 2019), asserts Comenity "robocalled" Plaintiff repeatedly in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Invasion of Privacy. According to the complaint, Comenity has a corporate policy of repeatedly contacting family and friends of debtors to leave supposedly "urgent messages" for the alleged debtor, using this as a tool to humiliate and embarrass alleged debtors as well as to intentionally cause aggravation and annoyance to their relatives and friends. Harassment of family members and friends is not a novel form of debt collection abuse by any means, but Comenity adds a new twist to this old tactic by using overseas call centers to do so, presumably at an extremely low cost. It also uses autodialers to further economize this mass harassment, the lawsuit says. Comenity Bank is a major credit card company that has 91 credit programs for many top U.S. retail stores.[BN] Attorney for the Plaintiff is: William "Billy" Peerce Howard, Esq. THE CONSUMER PROTECTION FIRM 4030 Henderson Boulevard Tampa, FL 33629 Telephone: (813) 500-1500 Facsimile: (813) 435-2369 E-mail: Billy@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com CONDUENT BUSINESS: Pisano Seeks Proper Regular Wages ---------------------------------------------------- CHRISTINE PISANO, an individual, the Plaintiff, vs. CONDUENT BUSINESS SERVICES, LLC; and DOES 1 THROUGH 25, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 19STCV24338 (Cal. Super., July 12, 2019), alleges that Defendants failed to pay proper regular wages; failed to provide meal breaks; failed to provide rest breaks; failed to maintain accurate records; and failed to provide accurate itemized statements pursuant to the California Labor Code. The Plaintiff has been employed with Defendant since November 16, 2009. Originally Plaintiff was a part-time employee working approximately 24-28 hours per week as a Pharmacy Claims Auditor. In or about June of 2012, the Plaintiff became a full-time employee. The Plaintiff was initially paid an hourly rate of $21.25. Effective June 5, 2017, the Defendant reclassified Plaintiff's position as a Medical Services Senior Specialist. With this position, she was paid $47,476 and this was an exempt level position according to Conduent. Although the Defendant reclassified Plaintiff and considered her position as exempt, she had exactly the same job responsibilities that she did when her position was non-exempt. The change of salary was simply a scheme by Conduent to avoid wage and hour laws.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Ophir J. Bitton, Esq. BITTON & ASSOCIATES 7220 Melrose Avenue, 2nd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90046 Telephone: (310) 356-1006 Facsimile: (818) 524-1224 CONGREGATION YETEV: $25K Abreu Labor Suit Settlement Has Approval ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, RAMON ABREU, Plaintiff, v. CONGREGATION YETEV LEV D'SATMAR MEATS & POULTRY, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 17-CV-272(KAM)(LB) (E.D. N.Y.), Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York approved the parties' settlement agreement but reduced the amount of fees awarded to the Plaintiff's counsel. On Jan. 18, 2017, Plaintiff Abreu commenced the action by filing a complaint against Defendants Congregation Yetev Lev D'Satmar Meats & Poultry, Inc., three John Doe Corporations, Moshe Brown, Berl Friedman, and Moses Retek, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the New York Labor Law, and title 12 of the New York Codes, Rules and Regulations. The Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on July 12, 2017, dismissing certain Defendants and adding Central Yetev Lev D'Satmar Meat, Inc. as a Defendant. Through stipulations of dismissal, all the Defendants but Satmar Meat were dismissed from the action. In his Amended Complaint, the Plaintiff alleges, inter alia, that Defendant Satmar Meats employed him as a meat packer and delivery worker from approximately August 2012 through September 2015. He further alleges that the Defendant required him to regularly work in excess of 40 hours per week, without providing overtime compensation as required under applicable law. According to the Amended Complaint, the Plaintiff typically worked a total of approximately 60 hours per week. His regular rate of pay was approximately $9 per hour without any overtime compensation. On Nov. 21, 2017, Magistrate Judge Bloom issued an order approving the parties' stipulation concerning a conditional collective action certification, and approving the issuance of a collective action notice. However, it appears no additional Plaintiffs joined the action. On Aug. 20, 2018, the parties submitted a letter motion, seeking approval of the parties' settlement agreement resolving the action. The Settlement Agreement provides, in relevant part, that the parties will settle the action for a total sum of $25,000, of which $13,000 is payable to the Plaintiff's counsel. The remaining $12,000 is payable to the Plaintiff. The approval motion indicates that the amount payable to the Plaintiff's counsel represents attorneys' fees and expenses. Exhibit D to the Motion indicates that the Plaintiff's counsel incurred expenses of $496, consisting of a $400 filing fee, and a $96 fee for service of process. The Settlement Agreement does not include a non-disparagement clause that would limit the Plaintiff's communication rights under the FLSA. Its release provision applies only to "wage and hour claims that were asserted or could have been asserted by the Plaintiff against the Defendants in the Action including all claims brought under the FLSA or New York's Labor Laws and all related derivative benefit claims. The Court now considers the motion for settlement approval, requesting that the Court approves the parties' settlement agreement and stipulation of dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41. Judge Matsumoto finds that neither the motion for approval of the settlement nor the supplement provides information regarding the experience or qualifications of legal paraprofessionals Jasmin Perez and Luis Arnaud. As noted, their requested hourly rate of $125 is on the high end of fees typically awarded for paraprofessionals in the district, but nothing in the record suggests that a fee award at the high end is appropriate in the action. The Judge will therefore apply an hourly rate of $85 for these timekeepers. The Judge then finds that the 20 hours spent effecting the ultimately unsuccessful, conditional collective action certification, and the 4.3 hours spent amending the complaint, are excessive and will reduce the hours attributable to these tasks by 25%, or 6.1 hours of work completed by a junior associate and 1.9 hours of work completed by a paralegal. Applying this reduction, after deducting 2.8 hours for the certificate of default request, results in a total deduction of 8.9 hours of work completed by a junior associate, and 1.9 hours of work completed by a paralegal. The junior associate's work in the case, for purposes of determining the lodestar, were billed at the rate of $150 per hour, and the corresponding reduction to the lodestar amount is $1,335. Similarly, discounting 1.9 hours of the paralegal's work in this case, billed at the rate of $85 per hour, results in a corresponding reduction to the lodestar amount of $162, or a total corresponding reduction of $1,497. The Judge is satisfied that the remaining hours billed are reasonable and will not apply any reduction to those hours. Applying the aforementioned hourly rates, the Judge arrives at a lodestar amount of $10,570. The $12,504 fee amount requested is greater than the lodestar amount of $10,570, and accordingly, the Judge concludes that the Plaintiff's counsel's fee request is unreasonable. She will reduce the award of attorneys' fees to $10,570. The Plaintiff's counsel has provided documentary support for $496 in claimed costs or expenses in the form of an itemized list of expenses, including a $400 filing fee and $96 process server fee. The Judge concludes that this support is sufficient and typical of an action of this kind. Further, the requested expense reimbursement is reasonable. Finally, the Plaintiff's proposed ultimate recovery of $12,000 is approximately 47% of $25,362, which represents the maximum recovery the Plaintiff's counsel estimates the Plaintiff could achieve through the action. This recovery is unreasonable despite the risks of litigation given the lack of difficult legal issues in the instant action. The percentage reflects the counsel's unsuccessful pursuit of collective-action certification in the action, amending the complaint, and pursuing a certificate of default. Reducing the counsel's fees and expenses to $11,066, representing $10,972 in fees and $496 in costs, from $13,000 accordingly increases the Plaintiff's ultimate recovery to $13,934 or more than 54% of his maximum estimated recovery. The amount of $13,934 is reasonable. Based on the foregoing, Judge Matsumoto approved the settlement agreement but reduced the amount of fees awarded to the Plaintiff's counsel. A full-text copy of the Court's June 19, 2019 Memorandum and Order is available at https://is.gd/pUO67o from Leagle.com. Ramon Abreu, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class, Plaintiff, represented by Anne Seelig -- anne@leelitigation.com -- Lee Litigation Group, PLLC, Clara Lam -- clara@leelitigation.com -- Lee Litigation Group, PLLC & C.K. Lee -- cklee@leelitigation.com -- Lee Litigation Group, PLLC. Central Yetev Lev D'Satmar Meat Inc., Defendant, represented by Jeffrey M. Schlossberg -- Jeffrey.Schlossberg@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis PC & Douglas J. Klein -- Douglas.Klein@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis LLP. CREAM-O-LAND DAIRY: Court Flips Summary Judgment in Branch WHL Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ELMER BRANCH, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated persons, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CREAM-O-LAND DAIRY, Defendant-Respondent, Case No. A-1313-17T1 (N.J. Super. App. Div.), Judge Stephanie Ann Mitterhoff of the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, reversed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Defendant. Plaintiff Branch and the putative class of similarly situated truck drivers appeal the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of COL and dismissal of their class-action complaint alleging a failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law ("WHL"). The trial court determined that the Defendant was entitled to the WHL's good-faith defense based on its reliance on three determinations made by the New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce Development ("DOL") officials in response to complaints brought by individual employees. On Nov. 29, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a putative class action complaint in the Law Division against COL. The class is defined to include: "All individuals that performed truck driving functions in the State of New Jersey for the Defendant from 2014 to present. The Plaintiff alleged that the class members worked approximately 60 to 80 hours per week without being paid one-and-one-half times their hourly rates for hours worked in excess of forty hours per week in violation of the WHL. The Defendant answered the complaint, denying the allegations and asserting, among other defenses, the statutory good-faith defense. After the parties exchanged some written discovery, on Aug. 4, 2017, the Defendant moved for summary judgment on the grounds that it was immunized from liability under the good-faith defense. At the time of the motion, the discovery end date was scheduled to elapse on Nov. 16, 2017, and the discovery end date had not been previously extended. In support of its entitlement to the good-faith defense, the Defendant cited to three determinations made by DOL officials in response to employee complaints involving COL. It also provided two certifications -- from Scott Stoner, the vice president of operations for COL, and Michael P. McCarthy, an employee of the DOL for thirty-seven years and the former Director of the Division of Wage and Hour Compliance -- in support of its motion for summary judgment. The Plaintiff opposed the motion for summary judgment, primarily contending that the three informal determinations relied on by COL were insufficient to entitle it to the good-faith defense. He also argued that the Defendant's motion was premature because discovery was outstanding and requested the opportunity to depose Stoner and McCarthy regarding the veracity of their certifications. On Sept. 7, 2017, following oral argument, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of COL and dismissed the complaint with prejudice based on the good-faith defense. The Plaintiff moved for reconsideration, asserting that the class members were entitled to "trucking industry overtime" at the rate of one-and-one-half times the minimum wage even if the good-faith defense barred the claim for regular overtime. On Oct. 27, 2017, following oral argument, the trial court denied reconsideration. It reasoned that the class members were entitled to one-and-one-half times the minimum wage for each hour worked and that COL met this requirement by compensating the Plaintiff with a flat rate of $180 per day. Judge Mitterhoff holds that the three initial determinations relied on by the Defendant are insufficient to support the good-faith defense. Although she concludes the 2006 opinion letter represents "an administrative practice or enforcement policy," the Defendant did not rely on this letter and therefore is not entitled to the good-faith defense on the facts of the case. Discrete determinations or communications by DOL officials regarding complaints by individual employees, which are subject to further administrative appeal, do not constitute an "administrative practice or enforcement policy" and are insufficient to invoke the good-faith defense. Accordingly, the trial court improvidently granted summary judgment to the Defendant based on its reliance on the three previous DOL determinations. In addition, when viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff, the Judge finds that issues of material fact exist as to the exact hours that the Plaintiff worked and the exact compensation the Plaintiff received. In light of these factual disputes, she remands for further discovery on whether the Defendant meets the statutory definition of a trucking industry employer and the actual hourly compensation the Plaintiff received. After determining whether the Defendant is a trucking industry employer, the trial court may determine whether the Plaintiff's actual compensation was sufficient to meet the regular overtime or trucking industry overtime requirements. JUdge Mitterhoof reversed and remanded for further proceedings. The Court does not retain jurisdiction. A full-text copy of the Court's June 19, 2019 Opinion is available at https://is.gd/Rh6FL4 from Leagle.com. Ravi Sattiraju, argued the cause for appellant (The Sattiraju Law Firm, PC, attorneys; Ravi Sattiraju, of counsel and on the briefs; Anthony Santos Almeida, on the briefs). Mark E. Tabakman -- mtabakman@foxrothschild.com -- argued the cause for respondent (Fox Rothschild LLP, attorneys; Mark E. Tabakman, of counsel and on the briefs; Ian Warren Siminoff -- isiminoff@foxrothschild.com -- on the briefs). Caroline G. Jones, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for amicus curiae State of New Jersey (Gurbir S. Grewa, Attorney General, attorney; Donna Sue Arons, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Caroline G. Jones, on the brief). CRYSTAL BALL: Mendez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------- CARLOS MENDEZ, EVELYN MATA DE TEMPERINO, on behalf of themselves, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class, Plaintiffs, v. CRYSTAL BALL GROUP INC., d/b/a TERRACE ON THE PARK, GEORGE MAKKOS, THOMAS MAKKOS and DIMITRIOS KALOIDIS, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-04267 (E.D. N.Y., July 24, 2019) is a Class and Collective Action Complaint against Defendants pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law, seeking to recover from Defendants unpaid wages due to time shaving, illegally retained gratuities, unpaid spread of hours premium, unreimbursed uniform costs, statutory penalties, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs. Plaintiffs and Class Members suffered from Defendants' policy of time-shaving, including the improper rounding of their work hours and the improper deduction of their meal break. As a result of Defendants' time-shaving, on average, Plaintiffs, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and Class Members were not compensated for at least two hours and fifteen minutes per week. The Defendants' violations were willful and done intentionally to reduce employees' work hours so that Defendants could avoid compensating employees for any overtime hours worked. Defendants' policy was willful because when an employee's work hours, after rounding down to the nearest quarter and after deducting a half an hour meal break per day, neared 40 hours per week, the employee's remaining schedule for the week was canceled, says the complaint. Plaintiffs were hired by Defendants to work as bartenders. Defendants collectively own and operate two businesses operating inside Chelsea Market called "The Cull & Pistol", and "The Lobster Place Seafood Market".[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10011 Phone: 212-465-1188 Fax: 212-465-1181 CULTURAL CARE: Faces Mack Suit in District of Massachusetts ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cultural Care, Inc. The lawsuit is styled as Amanda Mack, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Cultural Care, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-11530-ADB (D. Mass., July 12, 2019). The suit demands $9.9 million worth of damages. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Allison D. Burroughs. Cultural Care Inc was founded in 1998. The company's line of business includes providing child care services for infants and children.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq. Katherine M. Aizpuru, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP Washington, DC 20036 1828L. St. NW Suite 1000 Telephone: (202) 973-0900 Facsimile: (202) 973-0950 E-mail: hzavareei@tzlegal.com kaizpuru@tzlegal.com - and - Melissa S. Weiner, Esq. PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP 800 LaSalle Avenue, Suit 2150 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 389-0600 E-mail: mweiner@pswlaw.com DANZE INC: 7th Cir. Flips Dismissal of Duncan Place's WPLA Claim ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, DUNCAN PLACE OWNERS ASSOCIATION, on its own behalf and as assignee of the Association Members, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DANZE, INC., f/k/a GLOBE UNION AMERICA CORPORATION, and GLOBE UNION GROUP, INC., Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 17-3474 (7th Cir.), Judge Diane Schwerm Sykes of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (i) affirmed the district court's dismissal of Duncan Place's warranty and unjust-enrichment claims and (ii) reversed the dismissal of Duncan Place's WPLA claim. In 2009 faucets manufactured by Illinois-based Danze were installed in all 63 units of a new condominium building in Seattle, Washington. In the years that followed, some of the faucets failed, causing damage to the building and replacement costs. The condominium association, Duncan Place, filed a proposed class-action suit against Danze raising multiple claims for relief, including breach of express warranty, unjust enrichment, negligence, and strict product liability. The district judge dismissed all but one of the claims. That left only Duncan Place's own claim for breach of express warranty. The court eventually entered summary judgment for Danze on that claim, setting up this appeal Duncan Place appeals, seeking reinstatement of the claims that were dismissed on the pleadings. Duncan Place does not challenge the judge's summary judgment ruling. The appeal focuses instead on the claims that were dismissed on the pleadings -- namely, the claims for breach of express warranty, unjust enrichment, negligence, and product liability. Waiver doctrine precludes the Court's consideration of some of Duncan Place's arguments. For what remains, Judge Sykes' reviews of the judge's dismissal order is de novo. The Judge affirmed, with one narrow exception. The Washington Product Liability Act ("WPLA") subsumes all common-law product liability claims, so she construes Duncan Place's negligence and strict-liability claims as one cause of action under the Act. In a suit for damages caused by a defective product, Washington's "independent duty doctrine" (formerly known as the "economic loss doctrine") generally bars recovery in tort for direct and consequential economic losses stemming from the product's failure -- that is, damages associated with the "injury" to the product itself. But the doctrine does not bar recovery for damage to other property caused by the defective product. Duncan Place alleges in general terms that the defective faucets caused damage to other condominium property. To that limited extent, the WPLA claim is not blocked by the independent duty doctrine and should have been allowed to proceed. In addition, the Judge opines that Duncan Place's arguments for reinstatement of its warranty and unjust-enrichment claims are new on appeal. Arguments not raised in the district court are waived, so she affirms the dismissal of the warranty and unjust-enrichment claims. In sum, Judge Sykes affirmed the dismissal of Duncan Place's warranty and unjust-enrichment claims, reversed the dismissal of Duncan Place's WPLA claim, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with her Opinion. A full-text copy of the Court's June 19, 2019 Opinion is available at https://is.gd/rZE2Pe from Leagle.com. Howard L. Lieber -- hlieber@ghlaw-llp.com -- for Defendant-Appellee. Kyle Alan Shamberg -- kshamberg@litedepalma.com -- for Plaintiff-Appellant. Katrina Carroll -- kcarroll@litedepalma.com -- for Plaintiff-Appellant. DAY & ZIMMERMANN: Waters Seeks OT Pay for Mechanical Supervisors ---------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN WATERS, Individually and For Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. DAY & ZIMMERMANN NPS, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-11585 (D. Mass., July 22, 2019), alleges that Defendant failed to provide Mr. John Waters and other workers like him, overtime pay as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act. Instead, D&Z paid Waters and other workers like him, the same hourly rate for all hours worked, including those in excess of 40 in a workweek (or, "straight time for overtime"). D&Z is a full-service provider of power plant services. Mr. Waters worked for D&Z as a Mechanical Supervisor. He was employed from the beginning of January 2018 until the end of May 2018, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Philip J. Gordon, Esq. Kristen M. Hurley, Esq. GORDON LAW GROUP, LLP 585 Boylston St. Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: 617 536 1800 Facsimile: 617 536 1802 E-mail: pgordon@gordonllp.com khurley@gordonllp.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. Richard M. Schreiber, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: 713-352-1100 Facsimile: 713-352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com rschreiber@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH, PLLC 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: 713 877-8788 Facsimile: 713 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com DELOITTE & TOUCHE: Settles Aequitas Securities Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Sol Dolor, writing for Australasian Lawyer, reports that five professional services firms, including law firm Sidley Austin and accounting firm Deloitte & Touche, have agreed to a proposed US$220m settlement to end a class-action suit that claimed they aided in the securities sales of defunct Aequitas Securities. The plaintiffs do not allege any wrongdoing by any defendant, the proposed settlement said. Rather, it is alleged that the defendants are statutorily liable under Oregon law for aiding Aequitas' management on the sale of securities. Aequitas was accused by the US Securities and Exchange Commission of operating a "Ponzi-like" scheme. The other defendants that agreed to the proposed settlement are accounting firm EisnerAmper, brokerage firm TD Ameritrade, and consultancy firm Duff & Phelps. The plaintiffs, who previously obtained preliminary approval of a US$12.9m settlement with law firm Tonkon Torp, have reached settlement with all defendants in the action. The plaintiffs have also filed for the approval of a US$1.7m settlement with Integrity Bank & Trust. If all settlements are approved, plaintiffs will have recovered US$234.6m. The $220m settlement is believed to be the largest in a securities case in Oregon history. A Sidley spokesperson told Bloomberg Law that the settlement ends "costly" and "burdensome" litigation. "The plaintiffs did not allege that Sidley or the other six defendants knew about or were involved in the alleged fraudulent scheme perpetrated by Aequitas," the firm said. "Two senior Aequitas executives pleaded guilty to conspiring to violate federal law in operating the funds and admitted to intentionally misleading investors and withholding information about the financial condition and business activities of Aequitas from their outside accounting and law firms." Steve Berman of Hagens Berman in Seattle and Keith Ketterling and Tim DeJong of Stoll Berne in Portland are lead counsel for the investors. Sidley Austin was represented by Munger Tolles & Olson and Markowitz Herbold. [GN] DIAS & FRAGOSO: Settlement in Cuevas Suit Has Prelim Approval ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ROSALIE CUEVAS, ADOLFO GOMEZ-MORENO, REYNALDO TOLANO, and AGUSTIN AMBRIZ, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. DIAS & FRAGOSO, INC., a California Corporation; D & F AGRICULTURAL ENTERPRISES, INC., a California Corporation; GABRIEL M. DIAS; and JOHN L. FRAGOSO, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00357-BAM (E.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class and Collective Action Settlement. The matter came on for hearing before the Court on June 7, 2019 on the Plaintiffs' Preliminary Approval Motion. The Action is provisionally certified as a class action, for the purposes of settlement only, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, for the California claims). The Court previously conditionally certified the collective action under 29 U.S.C. Section 201 et seq., for the FLSA claim. The Settlement Class is defined as all persons who are or were employed in California by Defendants as non-exempt (i) mechanics, (ii) maintenance workers, (iii) farm equipment operators, (iv) truck drivers, and (v) weighers at any point during the Class Period (March 10, 2013 to the date of the preliminary approval order) and who do not properly and timely opt out of the Settlement Class by having requested exclusion. Magistrate Judge McAuliffe preliminarily approved the Settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate, entered into in good faith, free of collusion, and within the range of possible judicial approval. Further, as to the FLSA collective action, the Settlement is a fair and reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute. She appointed the following attorneys as the Class Counsel: John E. Hill, State Bar No. 45338 Enrique Martinez, State Bar No. 206884 Law Offices of John E. Hill 333 Hegenberger Road, Ste. 500 Oakland, CA 94621 Telephone: (510) 588-1000 Facsimile: (510) 632-1445 Email: enriquemartinez@hill-law-offices.com She also appoints the named Plaintiffs—Rosalie Cuevas, Adolfo Gomez-Moreno, Reynaldo Tolano, and Agustin Ambriz, as the class representatives. She further appointed CPT Group Class Action Administrators to serve as the settlement administrator and to carry out all duties and responsibilities of the Claims Administrator as specified in the Settlement. The Magistrate approved the method of disseminating notice to the Settlement Class and members of the FLSA collective action in Spanish and English, as set forth in the Settlement. Not later than five days from the date of the Order, the Defendants' counsel will provide to the Claims Administrator and the Class Counsel a list of all members of the Settlement Class and members who timely opted into the FLSA collective action, their last known addresses, telephone numbers, and the last four digits of their social security or individual taxpayer identification numbers. The Class Counsel will supplement this information with any more recent contact information available for members of the Settlement Class and the FLSA collective action. The Claims Administrator will be responsible for preparing, printing, and mailing to members of the Settlement Class and the FLSA collective action the Class Notice, the FLSA Notice (if applicable), and Dispute Form. A Spanish language translation (prepared by the Claims Administrator) of all materials mailed to members of the Settlement Class and the FLSA collective action by the Claims Administrator will be included as a part of the same mailing. No later than 14 days from the date of the Order, the Claims Administrator will send a copy of the Class Notice, the FLSA Notice (if applicable), and Dispute Form to the members of the Settlement Class and the FLSA collective action, using the most current mailing address information available. The date of the original mailing will be the Notice Date. For any Class Notice or FLSA Notice returned to the Claims Administrator as non-deliverable within 45 days of the Notice Date, the Claims Administrator will make prompt and reasonable efforts to locate the person involved, using appropriate search methods. If new address information is obtained, the Claims Administrator will promptly re-mail the Class Notice and Dispute Form, and FLSA Notice (if applicable), to the addressee using the new address. If the Claims Administrator is unable to obtain new address information with regard to any Notice returned as non-deliverable within 30 days following the Notice Date, or if a Notice is returned as non-deliverable more than 45 days following the original mailing date, the Claims Administrator will be deemed to have satisfied its obligation to provide the Class Notice and the FLSA Notice to the affected member of the Settlement Class and FLSA collective action through the original mailing. In the event the procedures are followed and the intended recipient of the Class Notice does not receive the Class Notice, the intended recipient will nevertheless remain a member of the Settlement Class and will be bound by all the terms of this Settlement and the Order and Final Judgment. Those members of the Settlement Class who wish to opt out of the settlement must send an opt-out letter (Request for Exclusion) to the Claims Administrator. Such letter must be received by the Claims Administrator or postmarked no later than 60 days from the Notice Date. Those members of the Settlement Class who wish to object to the Settlement must mail to the Claims Administrator a written statement objecting to the Settlement. Such written statement must be mailed to the Claims Administrator no later than 60 days from the Notice Date. No member of the Settlement Class will be entitled to be heard at the Settlement Fairness Hearing (whether individually or through separate counsel) or to object to the Settlement, and no written objections or briefs submitted by any member of the Settlement Class will be received or considered by the Court at the Settlement Fairness Hearing, unless the written statement objecting to the Settlement is mailed to the Claims Administrator no later than 60 days from the Notice Date. The Court will hold a final Fairness Hearing on Sept. 24, 2019 at 10:00 a.m. The Parties will file any motions in support of final approval of the Settlement no later than Sept. 4, 2019. The Class Counsel will file their fee application no later than Sept. 4, 2019. The Parties will file any responses to any Objectors, and any supplemental papers in support of final approval or the Class Counsel's fee application by no later than Sept. 11, 2019. Pending the final determination of whether the Settlement should be approved, all proceedings in the Action, except as may be necessary to implement the Settlement or to comply with the terms of the Settlement, are stayed. The following chart summarizes the dates and deadlines set by the Order: a. Last day for the Defendants to provide Claims Administrator and Class Counsel with information pertaining to Members of the Settlement Class and FLSA Collective Action - No later than five days of the date of Order b. Notice Date - No later than 14 days from the date of the Order c. Deadline to opt-out/request exclusion - 60 days from Notice Date d. Deadline to object - 60 days from Notice Date e. Deadline to dispute Settlement Payment - 60 days from Notice Date f. Last Day for Parties to file any motions in support of final approval of the Settlement, including the Class Counsel's motion for attorney fees and costs, and class representative service awards - Sept. 4, 2019 g. Fairness hearing - Sept. 24, 2019 A full-text copy of the Court's June 19, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/AbKRhR from Leagle.com. Rosalie Cuevas & Agustin Ambriz, Plaintiffs, represented by Enrique Martinez, Law Offices of John E. Hill & John Edward Hill -- johnhill@hill-law-offices.com -- Law Offices Of John E. Hill, A Professional Corporation. Adolfo Gomez-Moreno & Reynaldo Tolano, Plaintiffs, represented by Enrique Martinez, Law Offices of John E. Hill. Dias & Fragoso, INC., a California Corporation, D&F Agricultural Enterprises, Inc., a California Corporation, Gabriel M. Dias & John L. Fragoso, Defendants, represented by William M. Woolman, Sagaser, Watkins & Wieland PC, Charles Paul Hamamjian, Sagaser Watkins Wieland PC & Howard A. Sagaser, Sagaser, Watkins & Wie & land, PC. DOMINO'S PIZZA: Wage Underpayment Class Action Pending ------------------------------------------------------ Jason Pohl, writing for livewire, reports that Domino's has been served with a class action lawsuit regarding wage underpayment. Domino's believe their agreements are applicable and will defend this in court. The materiality of the class action appears overstated, and the evidence suggests to us Domino's compliance systems may have contributed to the class action. However, this does not present implications for the ongoing cost base and there remains a significant opportunity ahead. It seems this class action is a distraction, not a disaster. What's happened? A class action lawsuit has been launched by Phi Finney McDonald (PFM), alleging Domino's underpaid delivery drivers and in-store workers. Global litigation funding provider Therium Litigation Finance is funding the lawsuit. PFM is bringing the class action against Domino's on behalf of employees employed between 24 June 2013 and 24 January 2018. PFM alleges workers were employed under a series of employment agreements that did not pay certain entitlements, including 25% casual loading, additional penalty rates, and other allowances under the award. Domino's believe their agreements applied to its franchisees at all relevant times and has stated they will defend this in court. Domino's last approved enterprise bargaining agreement (EBA) was in 2009 with the Shop Distributive and Allied Employees' Association (SDA). Some background knowledge Modern award and enterprise agreements An EBA is a collective agreement made between an employer and their employees regarding their employment relationship. These agreements set the entitlements (whether monetary or other) for employees and are usually negotiated by a representative union. A modern award will not apply to an employee when an EBA applies to them. If the agreement ceases to exist, the modern award will take effect. Further, these agreements cannot provide entitlements that are less than those provided by the modern award. The Fair Work Commission must approve an EBA, and will usually undergo extensive investigation prior to approving this. Once approved, the commission is happy that the agreement legally meets all standards and requirements. Relevant legislation On 1 July 2009, the bulk of the Fair Work Act 2009 (FWA) took effect, becoming the main federal statute on employment conditions and workplace relations -- replacing the prior Workplace Relations Act (WRA). Modern awards are generally inapplicable while an EBA remains in force. Only if there are major inconsistencies, such as entitlements falling below the minimum wage or employer misconduct, then the EBA will not continue. Any agreement must meet the National Employment Standards (NES) which are minimum employment entitlements that must be provided to all employees; and additionally, must pass the 'Better Off Overall Test' (BOOT) where employees remain 'better off' under an agreement compared to the relevant modern award. In the franchise sector, the franchisor must make it clear to its franchisees as to their obligations, and any failure on a systemic level will fall under the responsibility of the franchisor (s558B FWC). Moreover, Section 18 of the Australian Consumer Law (ACL) imposes this standard of conduct by saying they must not 'mislead or deceive'. The key issues Basically, PFH wants Domino's to pay the 'saving', or the difference between their EBA and the Modern Award. When the EBA came into effect, it was estimated this would save ~$30m pa. So around 4.5 years of underpayments amount to between $150–250m (back of the envelope estimates) and in line with market estimates. When reviewing the class action documentation we found the following (potential) issues as core to our analysis and continued investment in Domino's: 1. Was the EBA in effect during 2013–2018? What is the total saving under the EBA? 2. Could the EBA be void or terminated? 3. Were governance issues to blame? 4. What is the size of the claim and what number of stores are involved? 5. What is the size of the class action? And, what is the impact on the ongoing business? Some points to consider It's wrong to assume the EBA expired The agreement had a nominal expiration date of 3 June 2013. While no subsequent agreement was lodged when this nominal date passed, the agreement continues beyond this date, unless steps are taken to terminate the agreement (s219 FWA). We highlight that the nominal date of expiry and the starting date for the period of this class action both fell in June of 2013. This is simply a coincidence, and not to be confused (or assumed) as the expiration of the agreement. The claim begins in June 2013, and not earlier, due to the six-year limitation period of bringing a claim (s236 ACL). Since the agreement continues alongside the modern award, and that no party brought an application to terminate the agreement until 2017, the agreements were valid during the alleged period of underpayment. Were Domino's misleading or deceiving? Basically, consumer law provides that Domino's 'must not, in trade or commerce, engage in conduct that is misleading or deceptive or is likely to mislead or deceive'. Of course, the conduct by Domino's (if found liable) may fall under this legislation as the franchisees followed Domino's compliance systems. Some media outlets have followed this language (misleading and deceptive) and present management as being somewhat conniving. We believe this is a sensationalised perspective rather than statements of fact. We take this at face value, rather than assuming an intent to deceive, albeit, much the same outcome in the eyes of the law. Other termination issues The EBA appears to be applicable and enforceable, and we don't believe a retrospective application of BOOT would occur. Further, we assume Domino's acted accordingly when the agreement was drafted given it was approved in 2013 under much assessment and scrutiny, so this leads us to assume it comes down to the rules about which franchisees fall under the agreements -- that is, the original (defined) entities covered, but not newly added stores. Were compliance systems the issue? Domino's and its franchisees use electronic systems which we believe to be at the heart of the presented issue. These include 1) TANDA, which assists in employment matters such as rosters, time and attendance etc; and 2) Domino's Bookkeeping Service, which configures the EBA requirements for its store network to implement. Over the years we have recognised this industry-leading system and infrastructure. This helps remove the risk that franchisees roster and pay their employees per the relevant award or agreement (assuming the input to the system is correct). In the event that these agreements did not cover all franchises, and that some were in fact (legally) supposed to be on the modern award due to a technicality, then there may be validity to the claim as franchisees followed the system. While we may find comfort that Domino's integrity remains intact (if the result is from a legal oversight), it may beg the question -- 'are Domino's competent in executing on all areas of their business?' This will take time to form a judgement. So what's the technicality? The issue lies in whether all entities were defined under the initial agreement. The claim appears to focus on which 1) franchises were nominated under the agreement (or lack of) and 2) the legal interpretation of whether there has been a transfer of business and whether the meanings of a transfer of business have been satisfied or not (s311 FWA). In their statement of claim, PFM note that the EBA is applicable for corporate stores, stores listed in the initial agreement (franchised stores prior to 2006), and franchisees that have successfully transferred business title. This means not the entire network were underpaid and it appears that the EBA does not apply to: 1. Franchisees that commenced to operate in the period 26 March 2006 to 30 June 2009 when under the previous WRA; and 2. Franchisees that commenced after 1 July 2009, where there was no 'transfer of business' within s311 FWA. This suggests the entities who didn't satisfy transfer of business or who became a franchise were not specifically mentioned under the EBA. So, this seems a portion of their franchise base could be affected, but just how much and what's the potential cost? Quantifying the potential cost In 2013, the estimated savings of ~$30m pa, or approximately ~$51k per store present the full potential downside risk. All things being equal, this would mean that by 2018 this number may be closer to ~$40m pa. While it's impossible to determine the number of employees and their respective hours worked, we acknowledge the claim does not allege underpayment by all Domino's stores. Corporate stores are excluded, and only the above-mentioned franchised stores. Below shows our estimates for the yearly employment savings for franchisees (underpayment liability cost) for each per cent of the franchised group being affected: In 2006, Domino's had ~300 franchised stores and by 2018 this had grown to ~730 stores. Assuming the franchised stores opened within this period fall under the class action, we estimate over 50% of the (current) network may be at risk of liability. Of course without all the information we cannot determine the actual cost, however, with ~50% of the network affected (being those franchises alleged to be on the modern award), the cost to Domino's could be ~$70-$90m. Further, we highlight that not all employees have made a claim. The AFR suggests 1000 current and former workers had so far registered for the class action which we believe would result in a far lower (potential) claim from this action. Our assessment The market's reaction to the announcement seemed overstated. To put this into perspective, the market cap fell by more than $250m on the day, which reflects more than the possible net present value impact from a class action based on our analysis. We wait to hear from the courts and management regarding this (potential) legal blunder, however, the impact from a financial perspective is less worrisome for a long-term shareholder like us who recognise the potential in their international operations. While Domino's may pay out the action from cash reserves (or debt), the ongoing predictability of earnings growth appears sustainable as this action doesn't affect their ongoing cost base. Despite the onerous requirements placed on domestic franchisors, Domino's appear well positioned from a structural perspective to manage their broader franchise network. We believe the offshore growth far outweighs headwinds in their domestic business and remains an attractive investment opportunity. Future growth opportunity It seems since the announcement, the apparent share price recovery demonstrates the market is focused on the long-term growth opportunity. Below highlights the regional performance and illustrates our expectations going forward. While the domestic business is maturing, we expect the earnings mix to shift toward Europe as the region becomes its core growth engine. To date, the European business has been nothing short of exceptional, as it's grown from a loss-making division in 2007 to generating over $70m in 2018. Despite perceptions that this has grown through acquisitions, we note the majority of growth is through greenfield rollout. Acquisitions provide scale which enables greater organic growth through time. At ECP, we do not forecast acquisitions and our investment case is predicated on conservative estimates which see the store network to grow at a CAGR of ~6% over the next five years. At these numbers, we expect significant investment performance going forward. Time for management to execute The underpayment of wages issue remains a concern for their domestic business. At first whisper of this lawsuit, we investigated accordingly as any funded class action generally has merit to it. Our research suggests the claim may not be as large as initially thought and is more likely a battle over the technicality of the law. We continue to assess the business, its operating environment, and any other impacts that may affect the earnings profile going forward. Domino's has tested our convictions and we continue to assess management's conduct and any ESG failures that led to this event. For now, the focus turns to their opportunity in their international divisions. The article has been prepared by ECP Asset Management Pty Ltd (ECP). ECP is a funds management firm based in Sydney, Australia. This material has been prepared for informational purposes only, and is not intended to provide, and should not be relied on for financial advice. ECP and the analyst own shares in Domino's Pizza Enterprises Ltd. [GN] DOUGLAS CREEK: Disbarred Lawyer Pleads Guilty to Fraud ------------------------------------------------------ Steve Buist, writing for The Hamilton Spectator, reports that former Hamilton lawyer John Findlay pleaded guilty to fraud on July 15 for misappropriating $1.75 million from a class-action settlement fund. He will appear in a Hamilton court on Aug. 20 for sentencing. The maximum penalty for a conviction of fraud over $5,000 is 14 years in prison. Because Findlay's fraud was greater than $1 million, he faces a minimum penalty of two years' imprisonment. Findlay's guilty plea relates to his actions as the legal counsel for a class-action lawsuit launched in 2006 on behalf of property owners and businesses in Caledonia that suffered losses during an Indigenous land claim dispute over the Douglas Creek Estates housing development. The tense standoff resulted in violence and blockades that closed Argyle Street and Highway 6 -- two major routes in Caledonia. The lawsuit against several parties, including the Ontario government and the OPP, was settled in 2011 for $20 million. The first signs of trouble with the class-action settlement funds came to light when the Law Society of Ontario conducted a spot audit of Findlay's law firm in June 2014. In May 2017, Findlay reported to the law society that he had used up nearly $2 million from the settlement fund's reserves and was "not able to replenish the funds." Various court orders governing the settlement's reserve funds required Findlay to maintain a certain amount of money in reserve and spelled out how the money was to be managed. In April, Findlay's licence to practise law was revoked. He didn't appear at his discipline hearing but provided a letter stating he was prepared to accept whatever decision the Law Society Tribunal made. The tribunal found that the money started to go missing five years before Findlay reported himself; that he had breached a court order to keep $1.5 million in the reserve fund; that he failed to disburse the funds as ordered by the court; and that he misled a lawyer for Ontario's attorney general when he said the funds were still being held in GIC funds, when in fact he had already misappropriated the money. The law society also noted that in addition to the misappropriated money, Findlay and his law firm had already been paid $3.3 million in fees and disbursements for their work as legal counsel for the class-action lawsuit. According to an agreed statement of facts read into the court record on July 15, Findlay voluntarily provided a statement to Hamilton police last August confessing that he had used the money in the reserve fund to advance his personal business known as Trefoil Marine. Findlay also confessed he had moved money from a trust account and line of credit account to Canadian and U.S. accounts connected to Trefoil Marine. He is still facing a criminal charge in connection with his role as part of the management team of Havana Group Supplies Inc., a construction-related company that was the subject of an extensive Spectator investigation recently for its questionable business practices. Findlay, Havana Group's director of corporate affairs, is charged with one count of fraud related to $220,000 in truck repair payments that Havana Group was supposed to make to another company. [GN] EAST COAST EGG: Valdez Seeks Minimum & OT Pay for Delivery Drivers ------------------------------------------------------------------ PABLO VALDEZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. EAST COAST EGG FARMERS LLC (D/B/A EAST COAST EGG FARMERS), RICHARD P. BLAS, MARIBEL BLAS, and ROMAN RUIZ, the Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-15630 (D.N.J., July 19, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. The Plaintiff is a former employee of Defendants. He was employed as a truck driver at the egg distribution center. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage and overtime compensation for the hours that he worked. Rather, the Defendants failed to maintain accurate record-keeping of the hours worked and failed to pay Mr. Valdez appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium. Defendants own, operate, or control an egg distribution company, located at 2300 83rd Street, North Bergen, New Jersey 07047 under the name "East Coast Egg Farmers".[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Gennadiy Naydenskiy, Esq. Michael A. Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 EDDIE BAUER: Oct. 25 Settlement Approval Hearing Set ---------------------------------------------------- If your financial institution issued one or more payment cards that was identified as having been at risk as a result of the cyber-attack that Eddie Bauer announced in 2016, it could get a payment from a class action settlement. A federal court authorized this notice. This is not a solicitation from a lawyer. A settlement of a lawsuit against Eddie Bauer, LLC ("Eddie Bauer") has been proposed in which Eddie Bauer has agreed to resolve putative class claims brought by a financial institution, arising from third-party criminal cyber-attacks of Eddie Bauer's point-of-sale systems, involving malware targeting customers' payment card information that Eddie Bauer reported in 2016 (the "Cyber Attack"). If your financial institution ("you") qualifies, you may send in a claim form to get benefits, or you can exclude yourself from the Settlement, or object to it. The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington authorized this notice. Before any money is paid, the Court will have a hearing to decide whether to approve the Settlement. Who Is Included? You are a member of the Settlement Class and affected by the settlement if: (1) You are a financial institution, bank, credit union, or other entity in the United States (including its Territories and the District of Columbia); and (2) You issued one or more payment cards (including debit and credit cards) that was identified as having been at risk as a result of the Cyber Attack in an alert or similar document by Visa, MasterCard, Discover, or JCB. (See the Settlement or Settlement Website for more details as to the payment cards that are included.) What Is This Case About? The lawsuit, Veridian Credit Union v. Eddie Bauer LLC, No. 2:17-cv-00356 (W.D. Wash.), was filed by a financial institution and alleges that Eddie Bauer is legally responsible for the Cyber Attack. The lawsuit asserts claims for negligence and violation of RCW 19.255.020 and the Washington Consumer Protection Act, RCW 19.86. The lawsuit seeks, among other relief, to recover damages for the expense of payment card reissuance, amounts paid to cover fraudulent payment card charges, and other costs allegedly incurred responding to the Cyber Attack. Eddie Bauer denies any wrongdoing. What Does the Settlement Provide? Eddie Bauer has agreed to pay, on a claims-made basis, at least $1,000,000, and up to $2,800,000, into an Escrow Account out of which the Settlement Administrator will make payments to eligible Settlement Class Members. A Settlement Class Member, who submits a valid claim, will receive $2.00 for each eligible payment card it issued, subject to a pro rata increase if the total value of eligible claims submitted is less than $1,000,000. Eddie Bauer has agreed to certain injunctive relief and to continue to maintain compliance with the Payment Card Industry Data Security Standards, for which Eddie Bauer has expended, and expects to expend, approximately $5,000,000. Eddie Bauer also has agreed to pay up to an additional $2,000,000 to cover the Costs of Settlement Administration, which may include any attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses and Service Award payments that are approved by the Court. How Do You Ask for a Payment? A detailed notice and Claim Form package contains everything you need. Just call the toll-free number or visit the website below to get one. To qualify for a payment, you must send in a Claim Form, which can be submitted electronically or by mail. Claim Forms must be submitted electronically or, if mailed, postmarked by October 10, 2019. What Are Your Other Options? If you do not want to be legally bound by the Settlement, you must exclude yourself by September 10, 2019, or you will not be able to sue, or continue to sue, Eddie Bauer, or any other Defendant's Released Persons (as defined in the Settlement), for any of the claims resolved by the Settlement. To exclude yourself, you must provide all required information. If you exclude yourself, you cannot get money from this Settlement. If you stay in the Settlement Class, but wish to object, you must do so by October 4, 2019. Details for excluding yourself or objecting to the Settlement can be found in the Settlement and on the Settlement Website. The Court will hold a hearing in this case on October 25, 2019, to consider whether to approve the Settlement. At the hearing, the Court will also consider a request by the lawyers representing all Settlement Class Members for attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses for investigating the facts, litigating the case, and negotiating the Settlement, as well as for a Service Award to the Plaintiff for its time participating in the case. You may ask to appear at the hearing, but you do not have to. Want More Information? For more information, call toll free at 888-335-2947 or visit the website at www.EddieBauerDataBreachSettlement.com. [GN] EDGEWELL PERSONAL: Faces Class Action Over Razor "Pink Tax" ----------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reported that a class action in St. Louis County claims that Edgewell Personal Care Co. imposes a de facto "pink tax" on women by charging them more for razors than it charges men for "virtually identical" products. A copy of the Complaint is available at: https://is.gd/BvFL6w ENLOE MEDICAL: Lefevers Hits Unpaid Wages, Missed Breaks -------------------------------------------------------- KATHLEEN LEFEVERS, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated and on behalf of other aggrieved employees pursuant to the California Private Attorneys General Act; Plaintiff, v. ENLOE MEDICAL CENTER, a California corporation, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 19CV02194 (Cal. Super. Ct., Butte Cty., July 19, 2019) The complaint alleges that Defendants hired Plaintiff and the other class members and classified them as hourly-paid or non-exempt employees, and failed to compensate them for all hours worked and missed meal periods and/or rest breaks. Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as hourly-paid or non-exempt employee from approximately March 1994 to approximately June 2018 within the State of California, County of Butte. Defendant ENLOE MEDICAL CENTER is a California corporation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edwin Aiwazian, Esq. LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC 410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203 Glendale, CA 91203 Phone: (818) 265-1020 Fax: (818) 265-1021 ENTERPRISE PRODUCTS: Reeves Seeks Overtime Wages for Workers ------------------------------------------------------------ DARRELL REEVES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. ENTERPRISE PRODUCTS PARTNERS, LP., Case No. 4:19-cv-02670 (S.D. Tex., July 19, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages from Enterprise Products Partners, LP under the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, Reeves and the other workers like him regularly worked for Enterprise in excess of 40 hours each week. But these workers never received overtime for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a single workweek. Instead of paying overtime as required by the FLSA, Enterprise improperly classified Reeves and those similarly situated workers as exempt employees and paid them a daily rate with no overtime compensation, the lawsuit says. Reeves worked for Enterprise from April 2017 until December 2017 as an inspector. Enterprise is an oil and gas and construction staffing company. Enterprise employs oilfield personnel to carry out its work.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap JOSEPHSON DUNLAP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: 713 352-1100 Facsimile: 713 352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C. Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: 713 877-8788 Facsimile: 713 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com FARMERS INSURANCE: Barnett Suit Moved to W.D. Oklahoma ------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit styled as Mitchell Heath Barnett, Individually and As representative of a class of similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. Farmers Insurance Exchange; Farmers Insurance Company Inc.; Foremost Insurance Company; and Farmers Group Inc., the Defendants, Case No. CJ-19-00041, was removed from the District Court of Jackson County, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma (Oklahoma City) on July 22, 2019. The Western District of Oklahoma Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:19-cv-00660-PRW to the proceeding. The suit demands $5 million worth of damages. The case is assigned to the Hon. Patrick R. Wyrick. The suit alleges Breach of Contract.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Bradley E. Beckworth, Esq. NIX PATTERSON LLP 3600 N Capital of Texas Hwy Bldg B Suite 350 Austin, TX 78746 Telephone: (512) 328-5333 Facsimile: (512) 328-5335 E-mail: bbeckworth@nixlaw.com - and - Carole L. Dulisse, Esq. MARR LAW FIRM 4301 SW 3rd St., Suite 110 Oklahoma City, OK 73108 Telephone: (405) 236-8000 Facsimile: (405) 236-8025 E-mail: cdulisse@marrlawfirm.com - and - Darrell E Latham, Esq. LATHAM NELSON & THOMAS P O Box 953 1000 N Main St Altus, OK 73522 Telephone: (580) 482-7134 Facsimile: (580) 482-7154 E-mail: khlaw@sbcglobal.net - and - J. Revell Parrish, Esq. WHITTEN BURRAGE 512 N Broadway Ave., Suite 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Telephone: (405) 516-7800 Facsimile: (405) 516-7859 E-mail: rparrish@whittenburragelaw.com - and - Jeffrey J. Angelovich, Esq. NIX PATTERSON LLP - AUSTIN 3600 N Capital of Texas Hwy Bldg B Suite 350 Austin, TX 78746 Telephone: (512) 328-5333 Facsimile: (512) 328-5335 E-mail: jangelovich@nixlaw.com - and - Jeffrey D. Marr, Esq. MARR LAW FIRM 4301 SW 3rd St., Suite 110 Oklahoma City, OK 73108 Telephone: (405) 236-8000 Facsimile: (405) 236-8025 E-mail: jeffdmarr@marrlawfirm.com - and - Michael Burrage, Esq. Whitten Burrage, Esq. Reggie N. Whitten, Esq. 512 N Broadway Ave., Suite 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Telephone: (405) 516-7800 Facsimile: (405) 516-7859 E-mail: mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com Attorneys for the Defendants are: Jessica L. Dickerson, Esq. Mary Quinn-Cooper, Esq. Michael F. Smith, Esq. William S Leach, Esq. MCAFEE & TAFT-TULSA Two West 2nd St., Suite 1100 Williams Tower II Tulsa, OK 74103 Telephone: (918) 587-0000 Facsimile: (918) 574-3190 E-mail: jessica.dickerson@mcafeetaft.com maryquinn.cooper@mcafeetaft.com michael.smith@mcafeetaft.com bill.leach@mcafeetaft.com - and - Samanthia S Marshall, Esq. ROSENSTEIN FIST & RINGOLD 525 S Main St., 700 Tulsa, OK 74103 Telephone: (918) 585-9211 Facsimile: (918) 583-5617 E-mail: samanthia.marshall@mcafeetaft.com FYRE FESTIVAL: JA Rule, Margolin Free From Fraud Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Perry Cooper, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Ja Rule and Grant Margolin are free from a class action alleging they falsely promoted the ill-fated Fyre Festival as a luxury music event on a private island in the Bahamas, a federal court ruled July 10, 2019. The plaintiffs didn't allege plausible fraud claims against festival chief marketing officer Margolin or co-founder Ja Rule, whose real name is Jeffrey Atkins, Judge P. Kevin Castel wrote for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The plaintiffs allege Ja Rule and Margolin made false representations on social media about the festival's accommodations, luxury offerings, band performances, amenities, cuisine, and site description. The organizers knew for months that the festival wouldn't live up to their promises, they say. But the complaint doesn't allege specifically when the statements were made or what specific promises they contained that consumers relied on, the court said. "The subjective qualifiers of 'FOMO-inducing' and 'Coachella x 1000' are too exaggerated, blustering, and boasting for a reasonable consumer to rely on," the court said, citing tweets by Ja Rule. The complaint also doesn't mention any statements were made specifically by Margolin, the court said. "Broad assertions of reliance on multiple misstatements covering at least a four-month period of time are insufficient," the court said. The suit will proceed against Fyre Media and co-founder Billy McFarland. Levi & Korsinsky LLP, Geragos and Geragos APC, and Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer P.A. represented the consumers. Kirsch & Niehaus PLLC and Ryan Hayden Smith in Raleigh, N.C., represented Ja Rule. Margolin represented himself. The case is In re Fyre Festival Litig., 2019 BL 254672, S.D.N.Y., No. 17-CV-3296, 7/10/19.[GN] GOLDEN GATE: Court Remands Collins & Frank to State Court --------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ETHAN COLLINS, Plaintiff, and MAURICE FRANK, Plaintiff, v. GOLDEN GATE BELL, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-06442-NC, Related Case: 18-cv-06297-NC (N.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Nathanael M. Cousins of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted the Plaintiffs' motion to remand. Collins filed his case in Santa Clara County Superior Court in August 2018. It was one of four similar cases filed in Northern California, including a related case brought by Plaintiff Frank in Alameda County Superior Court. Defendant Golden Gate Bell removed the cases to the Court. Collins and Frank moved to remand back to the state court. The central issue is whether, under CAFA's home state and local controversy exceptions, more than two-thirds of the proposed class members are citizens of California. The parties fully briefed the matter and the Court held a hearing. The Court ordered jurisdictional discovery and supplemental briefing specifically targeted at the question of the citizenship of the members of the proposed class. The parties submitted supplemental briefing, including evidentiary objections. In support of the motion to remand, the Plaintiffs requested and the Court granted jurisdictional discovery from Golden Gate Bell. Golden Gate Bell produced a data set containing identifying information for the putative class members, including those individuals' names, addresses, employment dates, U.S. citizenship status, driver's license or other identification (such as municipal or school ID cards) information. The data set included records for 11,626 people. About 11,613 (99.98%) of the employees in the data set provided California addresses; 13 (0.11%) provided addresses in another state. The Employees provided identification documentation to Golden Gate Bell via their I-9 forms. The data set indicates that 9,656 of the 11,626 employees (83%) are U.S. citizens and 1,970 (17%) are not U.S. citizens. The Defendant does not dispute that its I-9 hiring process resulted in recording the numbers above, but in support of its opposition to the motion to remand provided a declaration from an econometric analyst to interpret the data set. The expert's declaration suggests that inaccuracies in the I-9 verification system, E-Verify, result in Golden Gate Bell's hiring of many non-U.S. citizens who are unauthorized to work in the country. Forrester includes with his declaration his curriculum vitae and a report from July 2012 about the accuracy of E-Verify. Magistrate Judge Cousins finds that, by preponderance of the evidence, the Plaintiffs have proven that more than two-thirds of the putative class members are California citizens. As such, both the local controversy and home state exceptions to CAFA apply to these cases. Therefore, the motion to remand is granted and the Court declines jurisdiction over these cases. The Clerk of Court is ordered to remand these cases promptly, Collins to the Santa Clara County Superior Court, and Frank to the Alameda County Superior Court. A full-text copy of the Court's June 19, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/6z8U38 from Leagle.com. Maurice Frank, Plaintiff, represented by Gregory E. Mauro -- greg@jameshawkinsaplc.com -- James Hawkins APLC, James Ross Hawkins -- james@jameshawkinsaplc.com -- James Hawkins APLC & Michael J.S. Calvo -- michael@jameshawkinsaplc.com -- JAMES HAWKINS APLC. Golden Gate Bell, LLC, Defendant, represented by Richard Charles Rybicki -- rrybicki@rybickiassociates.com -- Rybicki & Associates, P.C., David Lee Suddendorf -- dave@davidsuddendorf.com -- Law Offices of David L. Suddendorf & Jacqueline Kramer Loveless -- jacquelineloveless@att.net -- Rybicki and Associates P.C.. GREENE CTY, MO: Lewis Seeks OT Pay for Correctional Officers ------------------------------------------------------------ THOMAS VOORHIS and REGINALD LEWIS, individually, and on behalf of a Class of others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. GREENE COUNTY, the Defendant, Case No. 6:19-cv-03257-SRB (W.D. Mo., July 19, 2019), alleges that Greene County did not properly compensate correctional officers for all hours worked in an effort to deliberately deny them their earned wages and overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Missouri Minimum Wage Law. Specifically, until early 2019, Greene County automatically deducted a 50-minute meal break from the recorded time of every non-exempt correctional officer below the rank of sergeant at the Greene County Jail for every shift worked. These deductions were made without regard to whether said employee was actually allowed to take such a lunch break. Indeed, correctional officers were never fully released from their duties over their lunch break being forbidden to leave the jail or deactivate their radios. Rather, corrections officers were subject to responding to all calls that may come over the radio and were rarely, if ever, actually given an uninterrupted meal break at all, much less the 50-minutes that were deducted from the jail employees' time records. Finally, jail employees were sometimes required to perform additional work waiting to be relieved at their assigned post, completing reports, and performing drug tests outside of regular working hours. In each instance, said time was typically not recorded. The Plaintiffs worked as correctional officers at the Greene County Jail in Springfield, Missouri. Greene County is located in the U.S. state of Missouri. As of the 2010 census, the population was 275,174, making it the fourth-most populous county in Missouri. Its county seat and most populous city is Springfield.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are: Todd C. Werts, Esq. Bradford B. Lear, Esq. LEAR WERTS LLP 2003 W. Broadway, Ste. 107 Columbia, MO 65203 Telephone: 573-875-1991 Facsimile: 573-875-1985 E-mail: lear@learwerts.com werts@learwerts.com - and - Robert D. Curran, Esq. CURRAN LAW FIRM, L.L.C. 3516 S. National Avenue Springfield, MO 65807 Telephone: 417-823-7500 Facsimile: 417-823-7510 E-mail: rob@curranlawfirm.com H.D. SMITH: Hestrup Sues Over Increase in Insurance Premiums ------------------------------------------------------------ ERIC HESTRUP, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. H.D. SMITH, LLC, and SMITH MEDICAL PARTNERS, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2019L008162 (Circuit Ct., Cook Cty., Ill., July 24, 2019) is a Class Action Complaint against Defendants seeking redress for Defendants' alleged illegal acts that have caused Plaintiff's health insurance premiums to increase. The Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") originally approved opioid treatment for short-term post-surgical or trauma-related pain, and for palliative (end-of-life) care. Later, the labels were extended to reach treatment of patients with "chronic pain," or pain lasting more than three months. Following the label extension, the companies who manufactured and sold this class of drugs in the United States experienced a boom in their business. However, with this boom came a scourge which infected the country in the form of a public health epidemic caused by widespread addiction to opioids like OxyContin, as well as generic forms of oxycodone and hydrocodone. The scourge is now commonly known as the "opioid epidemic." More of a modern plague, the opioid epidemic continues to mushroom, despite widespread media attention, many states taking action, and a national government response. During the creation of this epidemic, Smith knew of the dangerous addictive qualities and high rates of loss and misappropriation ("diversion rates") of the opioids it shipped. Smith's role in the opioid epidemic has created a public health crisis in Illinois. Smith's failure to halt and report suspicious orders created an oversupply of prescription opioids and has provided a source for the illicit use or sale of opioids, which has created a population of addicted and dependent patients in Illinois. When those patients can no longer afford or legitimately obtain opioids, they often turn to the street to buy prescription opioids or even heroin. In addition to the societal impact of deaths, overdoses, and rampant addiction, Smith's conduct has created higher demand--and thus higher prices--for opioids, as well as the need for expensive medical treatment for a number of covered health conditions, resulting in increased insurance costs for Illinois residents. This behavior by Smith has allowed massive amounts of opioids to be diverted from legitimate channels of distribution into the illicit black market, fueling the opioid epidemic. Smith created an environment in which drug diversion can flourish. For years, Smith has had the ability to substantially reduce the death toll and adverse economic consequences of opioid diversion, but has instead opted to pursue corporate revenues. Smith's misconduct has fueled opioid addiction, opioid-related deaths, and emergency medical treatments, all while generating huge sales of opioids at inflated prices, says the complaint. Plaintiff Eric Hestrup is a natural person and resident and citizen of the State of Illinois. Defendant H.D. Smith, LLC f/k/a H. D. Smith Wholesale Drug Co. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Illinois. H. D. Smith Wholesale Drug Co. was a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business located in Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ashley Keller, Esq. Seth Meyer, Esq. KELLER LENKNER LLC 150 North Riverside Plaza, Suite 4270 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: 312.741.5220 Email: ack@kellerlenkner.com sam@kellerlenkner.com - and - William S. Consovoy, Esq. J. Michael Connolly, Esq. CONSOVOY MCCARTHY PARK PLLC 1600 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 700 Arlington, VA 22201 Phone: 703.243.9423 Email: will@consovoymccarthy.com mike@consovoymccarthy.com - and - James Young, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 76 South Laura Street, Suite 1100 Jacksonville, FL 32202 Phone: 904.398.2722 Email: jyoung@ForThePeople.com - and – Juan Martinez, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Phone: (813) 223-5505 Email: juanmartinez@ForThePeople.com HELIUS MEDICAL: Sept. 9 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set ---------------------------------------------------------- Gainey McKenna & Egleston on July 10 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Helius Medical Technologies, Inc. ("Helius" or the "Company") (Nasdaq: HSDT) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of those who purchased or acquired the securities of Helius between November 9, 2017 and April 10, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The Complaint alleges that 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 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. On January 25, 2019, the Company announced that it had received a request for additional data and information from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (the "FDA") related to the Company's request for de novo classification and 510(k) clearance of its Portable Neuromodulation Stimulator (PoNS™) device. On this news, shares of Helius fell $0.48, or nearly 6%, to close at $7.13 per share on January 25, 2019, thereby injuring investors. Then, on April 10, 2019, Helius announced that the FDA denied 510(k) clearance of the PoNS device because the Company had not provided sufficient clinical data to show the device was effective. On this news, shares of Helius fell $4.11, or more than 66%, to close at $2.10 per share on April 10, 2019, thereby injuring investors further. 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. Please visit our website at http://www.gme-law.comfor more information about the firm [GN] HONDA MOTOR: Class Suit Over Faulty Acura RDX Vehicles Filed ------------------------------------------------------------ Owners of 2019 and 2020 Acura RDX vehicles in mid-July 2019 filed a class-action lawsuit against Honda alleging the automaker knowingly sold vehicles equipped with defective infotainment systems which it refuses to fix, according to Hagens Berman. The lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California states the defect renders many of the infotainment system features – including safety-related systems such as the backup camera – inoperable and frequently freezes or crashes entirely. Owners also report regular failure of the car's Bluetooth connection to Android and Apple phones. The defect has manifested in the vehicles almost immediately after consumers leave the dealership in their new RDX, and owners have vocally taken to online forums and reported the defect to the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA). If you purchased or leased a 2019 or 2020 Acura RDX vehicle, find out more about the lawsuit and your rights. "This poses a safety risk because when the system malfunctions, unexpected audio or video errors can cause the driver to become distracted," the suit states. "Honda and its dealers fail to take responsibility for a clearly broken technology component in the affected Acura RDX vehicles," said Steve Berman, managing partner of Hagens Berman and attorney representing Acura owners in the class action. "We intend to hold Honda fully accountable for ignoring this serious defect and for failing to deliver on its promises to consumers." Attorneys say that Honda knew about the defect through various sources including pre-release design, manufacturing and testing data; warranty claims data; consumer complaints made directly to Honda and those collected by the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration, and/or posted on public online forums; testing done in response to those complaints and aggregate data; and complaints from authorized dealers. Acura RDX owners have voiced frustration concerning the defective infotainment system: "Enjoyed it while I had it, but after driving less than 25 miles and owning for under 3 hours, the Infotainment center flashed between the home screen and ‘touchpad is not available.'" "I regard this as a safety and driver distraction issue that can lead to collisions." "Almost EVERY single day I have an issue with this infotainment system. Radio unavailable. Tuner not found, Messages shriek. Yesterday it was ‘Device not connected' which I have had before." "The whole screen freezes on a regular basis... It's very distracting as its totally unexpected. I usually try to play with it trying to get it to work again...NOT SAFE." The lawsuit against Honda seeks both monetary reimbursement for those who purchased or leased an affected Acura RDX, and seeks action from the court barring Honda from continuing to sell vehicles with the defective infotainment system. The affected Acura models were also slated to include Android Auto and Apple CarPlay connectivity as standard features. Honda released promotional materials to dealers touting the features, yet when sales began in 2018 only Apple CarPlay was available. After a year of empty promises from the automaker, owners and lessees are still waiting to receive the feature Honda promised, according to the lawsuit. The suit's named plaintiffs from 12 states report the infotainment system sporadically freezing, shutting off and becoming inoperative while driving. Plaintiffs with Android phones are left with glitch-riddled workarounds just to listen to music in their vehicles: ". . . Defendant's promise to release Android Auto 'soon' was an important consideration for him in choosing to purchase the Vehicle. It has been 10 months since Plaintiff Banh purchased the Vehicle and still no software update has been released containing Android Auto. Plaintiff Banh has been forced to use an adaptor, USB stick, and MP3 player to listen to music. But the Vehicle's infotainment system often has trouble identifying these sources during start up, which causes the screen to display 'initializing . . . not found.' The problem can sometimes be resolved by unplugging and then re-plugging the source. But even then, the system's Bluetooth connection frequently drops during telephone calls." The plaintiffs in the case state that had they been aware of the faulty infotainment system and lack of Android Auto software in the affected Acura models they purchased, they either would not have paid as much for them, or would not have bought them at all. Find out more about the class-action lawsuit against Honda on behalf of Acura RDX owners. Contact: Steve Berman,Esq. Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro Website: www.hbsslaw.com Email: steve@hbsslaw.com [GN] HYATT HOTELS: Customers File Class Action Over "Resort Fees" ------------------------------------------------------------ Courthouse News Service reported that a federal class action claims that Hyatt Hotels defrauded customers by hiding so-called "resort fees" in its advertised prices, costing its customers "hundreds of millions of dollars." A copy of the Complaint is available at: https://is.gd/TpsLQg HYUNDAI MOTOR: Fails to Pay for Emissions Warranties, Boyd Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- RUEBEN BOYD, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 19CECG02596 (Cal. Super., Fresno Cty., July 17, 2019), arises out of Hyundai's alleged failure to properly identify and pay for all of the parts and labor that should correctly be covered under California Code of Regulations, regarding emissions warranties for Partial Zero Emissions Vehicles, and under Hyundai's Hybrid System emissions warranty. The Plaintiff's claims apply to all 2011-2020 Hyundai Sonata Hybrid vehicles, to all 2016-2020 Hyundai Sonata Hybrid PHEV vehicles, and to all other Hyundai Partial Zero Emissions Vehicles with California emissions warranties that are the same or similar to the identified Sonata vehicles. Hyundai is a California corporation, doing business in the state of California. Hyundai sells Partial Zero Emissions Vehicles and Hybrid Vehicles, including the Class Vehicles, in the state of California. The true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants are currently unknown to the Plaintiff.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jordan L. Lurie, Esq. Ari Y. Basser, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (310) 432-8492 E-mail: jllurie@pomlaw.com abasser@pomlaw.com - and - Robert L. Starr, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT L. STARR 23901 Calabasas Road, Suite 2072 Calabasas, CA 91302 Telephone: (818) 225-9040 E-mail: robert@starrlaw.com ICEBREAKER NATURE CLOTHING: Reid Sues over ADA Violations --------------------------------------------------------- A class action complaint has been filed against Icebreaker Nature Clothing, Inc. for alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). The case is captioned Valentin Reid, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. Icebreaker Nature Clothing, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-06545-GBD (S.D.N.Y., July 15, 2019). This civil rights-related lawsuit is assigned to Hon. Judge George B. Daniels. Headquartered in Auckland, New Zealand, Icebreaker is a merino wool outdoor and natural performance outdoor clothing brand. In 2018, it was purchased by VF Corporation, a NYSE-listed business entity. The company also sells its products online through its website, https://www.icebreaker.com/ [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Paul Force, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 E-mail: dforce@steinsakslegal.com INSIGHT GLOBAL: Prather Seeks to Recoup Overtime Pay Under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------------- MARCUS PRATHER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. INSIGHT GLOBAL, LLC, Case No. 2:19-cv-00849-DSC (W.D. Pa., July 17, 2019), seeks to recover alleged unpaid overtime wages and other damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act. Insight Global, LLC, is a Delaware limited liability corporation doing business throughout the United States, including in Pennsylvania. Insight Global maintains a corporate office in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Insight Global is an employment and staffing company operating throughout the United States and internationally, including in Pennsylvania.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C. 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com - and - Joshua P. Geist, Esq. GOODRICH & GEIST, P.C. 3634 California Ave. Pittsburgh, PA 15212 Telephone: (412) 766-1455 Facsimile: (412) 766-0300 E-mail: josh@goodrichandgeist.com INTER-LOCAL PENSION FUND: Judge Shuts Down Class Suit vs Teamsters ------------------------------------------------------------------ John Breslin, writing for Cook County Record, reports that former union members have lost their claim that the trustees of a retirement fund failed in their fiduciary duty regarding an employee benefits plan. The members, who were attempting to initiate a class action against an arm of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, did not manage to state a proper claim, according to Judge John Tharp of the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of Illinois. In an action that turned on claims that trustees of the Inter-Local Pension Fund of the Graphic Communications Conference violated provisions of the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) in collecting contributions to the pension fund from multiple union organizations. In an opinion issued June 26, Tharp agreed the plaintiffs had standing to sue under the federal law, as they were alleging the union failed to enforce contributions to the fund,causing some members to have paid less into the pot, harming the retirement fund members. But on the merits of the actual claim, the judge said the terms of the agreement under which the fund was organized allowed "different preapproved segments or groups within a union to contribute to the Fund at different levels." "The trustees cannot have breached their fiduciary duties merely by failing to require different segments within Local 458M to contribute at the same rate," Tharp concluded. The case relates to Local 458M, which included Bell Litho employees as members. It dates back to 2008 when the union local voted to increase the weekly contribution rate to the retirement fund from 6 to 8 percent. Under the benefits plan, employers made no contribution, and members were paid a certain monthly amount at and after retirement. A dispute arose when the contract expired in 2016. Questions were raised over how much was being held in the fund, and how many members were paying the full 8 percent. The union, for instance, admitted certain members who had come into the union as the result of the merger were not paying into the fund, despite contractual rules seeming to require all union members to pay into the fund through payroll deductions. The plaintiffs and co-workers agreed to renew the old contract terms "excepting the language regarding fund contribution rates." Local 458M replied by stating that members were required to pay contributions or be expelled from the union. The plaintiffs alleged the local and fund was unable to answer questions over how many members paid the full amount. [GN] JACKSON MEMORIAL: Portales Seeks Overtime Pay for Nurses -------------------------------------------------------- JOSE R. PORTALES SANCHEZ, and similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiffs, vs. PUBLIC HEALTH TRUST OF MIAMI DADE COUNTY, d/b/a JACKSON MEMORIAL HOSPITAL a Florida Public Health Trust, the Defendant, Case No. 0:19-cv-61820-XXXX (S.D. Fla., July 20, 2019 ), seeks to recover unpaid back wages, and an additional equal amount as liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. According to the complaint, Portales and similarly situated individuals were paid on an hourly basis. The Defendant deducted at least 4 hours per week from his hourly pay for lunch breaks. However, Portales was rarely able to take lunch breaks because of requirements of his job. Portales complained about not being paid for these breaks and was fired as a result. Portales often worked more than 40 hours per week but were not paid time and half for those hours worked over 40 hours per week. Mr. Portales was an employee of Jackson memorial from in or about 2016 through May 14, 2018. He worked as a registered nurse for the Defendant. Jackson memorial is a Florida public health trust created pursuant to Florida Statutes section 154.07.[BN] Attorney for the Plaintiff is: Gary A. Costales, Esq. GARY A. COSTALES, P.A. 1200 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1440 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 375-9510 Facsimile: (305) 375-9511 JARROW FORMULAS: Shanks Seeks to Certify Class ---------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as COLLIN SHANKS, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated, and the general public, the Plaintiff, vs. JARROW FORMULAS, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-09437-PA-AFM (C.D. Cal.), the plaintiff will move the Court for an Order on August 26, 2019, to certify a class of: "all persons who, since November 6, 2014, purchased in the United States (or alternatively in California, if the Court does not certify a nationwide class), for personal or household use, and not for resale or distribution, any 16 oz. or 32 oz. Jarrow Organic Extra Virgin or Jarrow Regular Coconut Oil whose label did not bear a disclosure statement of the type required by 21 C.F.R. 101.13(h)."[CC] Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Proposed Class are: Jack Fitzgerald, Esq. Trevor M. Flynn, Esq. Melanie Persinger, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF JACK FITZGERALD, PC Hillcrest Professional Building 3636 Fourth Avenue, Suite 202 San Diego, CA 92103 Telephone: (619) 692-3840 Facsimile: (619) 362-9555 E-mail: jack@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com trevor@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com melanie@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com - and - Paul K. Joseph, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF PAUL K. JOSEPH, PC 4125 W. Pt. Loma Blvd. No. 309 San Diego, CA 92110 Telephone: (619) 767-0356 Facsimile: (619) 331-2943 E-mail: paul@pauljosephlaw.com JOHN HEATH: Illinois Court Denies Motion to Compel Arbitration -------------------------------------------------------------- John S. Yi, Esq. -- john.yi@dbr.com -- and Michael P. Daly, Esq. -- michael.daly@dbr.com -- of Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, in an article for The National Law Review, report that the Northern District of Illinois recently denied a motion to compel arbitration in a putative class action, and in doing so found that the defendants failed to show that the plaintiff had agreed to arbitrate the dispute when navigating through one of the defendants' websites. See Anand v. Heath, et al., No. 19-0016, 2019 WL 2716213 (N.D. Ill. June 28, 2019). The Defendants include Fluent, Inc., John C Heath, Lexington Law Firm, Progrexion Marketing, Inc., Reward Zone USA, LLC The plaintiff in Anand registered and completed a survey for a gift card on a website owned and operated by a subsidiary of one of the defendants. As part of her registration, she submitted her contact information, including her telephone number. After she received allegedly unsolicited telemarketing calls, the plaintiff filed a putative class action and two of the defendants moved to compel arbitration pursuant to the website's terms and conditions. The Website When the plaintiff navigated through the website at issue, she encountered a "Continue" button directly below the words "I understand and agree to the Terms & Conditions which includes mandatory arbitration and Privacy Policy." The terms and conditions and the privacy policy were hyperlinked on the screen as shown in the image below: Although the defendants presented no evidence that the plaintiff clicked on the "Terms and Conditions" hyperlink, they argued that the plaintiff had nevertheless accepted that agreement by virtue of clicking on the "Continue" button. The Decision In denying the motion to compel arbitration, the court found that the plaintiff "was not placed on reasonable notice that she was manifesting assent to the terms and conditions by clicking the 'Continue' button." The court began by noting that the agreement at issue here was a variation of a hybrid-wrap agreement—that is, a type of agreement that presents a user with a hyperlink to the terms and conditions and a prompt to manifest acceptance of those terms. It explained that courts generally enforce these types of agreements so long as "the button required to perform the action manifesting assent … is located directly next to a hyperlink to the terms and a notice informing the user that, by clicking the button, the user is agreeing to those terms." But this case was different, it reasoned, because the website did not include language explaining that clicking on the "Continue" button meant accepting the terms and conditions. It also found that the proximity of the hyperlink to the button in and of itself was not sufficient to show that the plaintiff knew that she was accepting the terms of the conditions. The Takeaway The court's ruling reinforces that businesses should carefully consider how hyperlinks to terms and conditions and the language used to manifest assent to these terms are presented on their websites. Indeed, notwithstanding that a reasonable consumer would most likely understand the implication of clicking "Continue" here, it appears that a few extra words—for example, adding "By clicking Continue" before "I understand and agree to the Terms & Conditions which includes mandatory arbitration and Privacy Policy" -- would have changed the outcome under this court's analysis. Language stating in no uncertain terms that continued navigation through a website is conditioned upon acceptance of linked terms and conditions can be critical for some courts in determining whether a hybrid-wrap agreement is enforceable. [GN] JP MORGAN: 3rd Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Blake Suit --------------------------------------------------- In the case, CHRISTOPHER BLAKE; JAMES ORKIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Appellants, v. JP MORGAN CHASE BANK NA; CHASE BANK USA NA; JP MORGAN CHASE & CO; CROSS COUNTRY INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 18-2368 (3d Cir.), Judge Stephanos Bibas of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court's dismissal of the Plaintiffs' Complaint. Before banks will enter into a home mortgage, they usually expect a 20% down payment. But many home buyers cannot pay that much up front. Banks are willing to lend to these buyers on a condition: that they buy mortgage insurance to protect against default. The mortgage insurers, in turn, often reinsure these mortgages. Typically, they assign part of the risk to a reinsurer in exchange for giving up part of the insurance premiums. Ideally, reinsurance thus spreads risk and lets people buy homes who otherwise could not. But Blake and Orkis allege that this system was rife with abuse. Each bought a home and took out a mortgage from JP Morgan. Because they paid less than 20% up front, they had to buy mortgage insurance. JP Morgan referred each of them to specific mortgage insurers, who then reinsured with Cross Country Insurance. But Cross Country is a subsidiary of JP Morgan. So according to Blake and Orkis, this was a classic kickback scheme: JP Morgan referred home buyers to mortgage insurers in exchange for kickbacks, funneled through its subsidiary as insurance premiums. Any reinsurance, they claim, was just a cover for the kickback scheme. Blake and Orkis claim that the kickbacks violate 12 U.S.C. Section 2607 of the Real Estate Settlement and Procedures Act ("RESPA"). This section of the Act has a one-year statute of limitations. And that limitations period runs from the date of the occurrence of the violation. The case turns in part on defining the violation that triggers the statute of limitations. Blake and Orkis were not the first to make these claims. In 2011, a group of plaintiffs filed a class-action suit against JP Morgan in California, bringing the same claims as Blake and Orkis -- Samp v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. Though Blake and Orkis were not named plaintiffs, they belonged to Samp's putative class of all those who took out mortgages from JP Morgan in or after 2004. But the District Court in California dismissed that case as untimely in May 2013. The Samp plaintiffs appealed. In November 2013, several of the Samp plaintiffs' lawyers changed their litigation strategy. They filed a new class action, with Blake and Orkis as the named plaintiffs, in federal district court in Pennsylvania. The very next day, they asked the Ninth Circuit to dismiss their Samp appeal. Two days after that, the court granted that motion and put an end to Samp. Blake and Orkis picked up where Samp left off. They too sought to represent a class of those who took out mortgages from JP Morgan in or after 2004. But they themselves had taken out their mortgages in 2005 and 2006, at least seven years before they filed their complaint in 2013. So JP Morgan moved to dismiss their suit as barred by the Act's one-year statute of limitations. Blake and Orkis had to bridge at least a seven-year gap. They tried to bridge it in two ways. First, they claimed that the Act makes each kickback a violation with its own limitations period -- a separately accruing wrong. And they claimed that their mortgage insurers paid a kickback to JP Morgan (through Cross Country) each time they paid an insurance premium. They continued to pay these premiums for years after their mortgages closed. So under that theory, their suit would be timely up to one year after the last kickback. But Blake and Orkis concede that they had paid no premiums in the year before their complaint. The statute of limitations would thus have expired in the year or two before they filed their own suit in 2013. Blake and Orkis's lawyers, however, filed Samp in December 2011. So second, Blake and Orkis argued that the filing of Samp tolled the limitations period for their claims. They reasoned that they were members of Samp's putative class and were bringing the same claims as in Samp. And because Samp continued until November 2013, they claimed that American Pipe tolling would extend their limitations period until then and make their suit timely. In other words, Blake and Orkis needed both theories to make their suit timely. They needed the separate-accrual rule to justify starting the limitations period for some kickbacks at the end of 2010. And they needed American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah tolling to span the period from 2011 to 2013, when they filed their own suit. The District Court agreed with the first theory, but not the second. It held that each kickback is a separately accruing wrong with its own limitations period. But it also held that American Pipe tolling does not apply to a second class action filed before the end of the first one. So the District Court held that the suit was untimely and dismissed it. Blake and Orkis appealed. Judge Bibas explains that statutes of limitations can be tricky. What events trigger them may present thorny questions. And when courts may toll them can involve judgment calls. Because of the way that Blake and Orkis have brought their class action, the case presents both kinds of issues. And they need to win on both to make their suit timely. He finds that in 2005 and 2006, Blake and Orkis took out mortgages from JP Morgan to buy homes. Then in 2013, they filed a class action against JP Morgan under the Real Estate Settlement and Procedures Act, alleging a scheme to refer homeowners to mortgage insurers in exchange for streams of kickbacks. But the Act has a one-year statute of limitations that runs from the date of the violation. So Blake and Orkis need to bridge the gap from when they closed their mortgages in 2005 and 2006 to when they sued in 2013. They raise two theories, each of which bridges only half the gap. First, Blake and Orkis argue that each kickback separately violates the Act and has its own limitations period. In other words, they argue that the Act follows the separate-accrual rule. JP Morgan disagrees, arguing that the Act's statute of limitations runs only from the mortgage closing, not from each later kickback. But the Act's plain text makes each kickback a violation, so the limitations period accrues separately from the date of each kickback. That theory gets them only halfway there. The kickbacks ended more than a year before they sued, so the Act's one-year limitations period would still bar their claims. To make their 2013 suit timely, Blake and Orkis next try to piggyback on a different class action filed in 2011 that raised the same claims against JP Morgan. As members of that putative class, they say that the Court should toll the limitations period under American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah. But in China Agritech, Inc. v. Resh, the Supreme Court reasoned that a timely class action should never toll other class actions under American Pipe. Blake and Orkis try but fail to distinguish China Agritech. So they are not entitled to American Pipe tolling, and their suit is untimely. Judge Bibas thus affirmed. A full-text copy of the Court's June 19, 2019 Opinion is available at https://is.gd/T8kJZP from Leagle.com. Natalie Lesser -- nlesser@ktmc.com -- Donna Siegel Moffa -- dmoffa@ktmc.com -- Terence S. Ziegler -- tziegler@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, 280 King of Prussia Road, Radnor, PA 19087, Counsel for Appellant. Jonathan S. Massey -- jmassey@masseygail.com -- Massey & Gail, 1000 Maine Avenue, S.W., Suite 450, Washington, DC 20024, Matthew P. Previn, Buckley, 1133 Avenue of the Americas, Suite 3100, New York, NY 10036, Counsel for Appellee. Brian T. Burgess -- bburgess@goodwinlaw.com -- Thomas M. Heffernon -- thefferon@goodwinlaw.com -- David L. Permut -- dpermut@goodwinlaw.com -- Matthew S. Sheldon -- msheldon@goodwinlaw.com -- Goodwin Proctor, 901 New York Avenue, N.W., Suite 900 East, Washington, DC 20001, Counsel for Amicus Appellee. JPMORGAN CHASE: Grant Suit Asserts ERISA Breach ----------------------------------------------- Larry M. Grant, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. JPMORGAN CHASE & CO., Defendant, Case No. 8:19-cv-01808-WFJ-SPF (13th Judicial Circuit Ct., Hillsborough Cty., Fla.., July 24, 2019) is a complaint for monetary damages brought pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"). Defendant is a foreign corporation with its headquarters in New York, but is registered to do business in the State of Florida. Plaintiff Larry M. Grant worked for Defendant for almost six years as a Merchant Services Specialist and was also a participant in Defendant's health plan. According to the complaint, the Defendant violated the ERISA, as amended by the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 ("COBRA"), by failing to provide Named Plaintiff and the putative class members he seeks to represent, with a COBRA notice that complies with the law. Despite having knowledge of and access to the Department of Labor's Model COBRA form, Defendant chose not use the model form. Plaintiff suffered a tangible injury in the form of economic loss, specifically the loss of insurance coverage and incurred medical bills, due to Defendant's deficient COBRA election notice. And, not only did Plaintiff lose his insurance coverage, after Plaintiff lost his insurance he incurred medical bills resulting in further economic injury. The defendant's deficient COBRA notice also caused Plaintiff an informational injury when Defendant failed to provide them with information to which they were entitled to by statute, namely a compliant COBRA election notice containing all information required, says the complaint.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: LUIS A. CABASSA BRANDON J. HILL, ESQ. WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A. 1110 North Florida Ave., Suite 300 Tampa, FL 33602 Main No: 813-224-0431 Direct Dial: 813-337-7992 Facsimile: 813-229-8712 Email: lcabassa@wfclaw.com bhill@wfclaw.com jcornell@wfclaw.com recooke@wfclaw.com twells@wfclaw.com - and - Chad Andrew Justice, Esq. JUSTICE FOR JUSTICE LLC 1205 N Franklin St, Suite 326 Tampa, FL 33602 Phone: 813-566-0550 Facsimile: 813-566-0770 Email: chad@getjusticeforjustice.com KELLER WILLIAMS: St. John & Penuela Sue over Unwanted Phone Calls ----------------------------------------------------------------- DANNA ST JOHN and LUIS PENUELA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. KELLER WILLIAMS REALTY, INC., a Texas corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 6:19-cv-01347 (M.D. Fla., July 22, 2019), contends that the Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise, in part, by sending unsolicited telephone calls to wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. In response to these calls, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief requiring Defendant to cease directing its realtors to violate and/or ratifying its realtors’ violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by placing unsolicited calls to consumers' cellular telephone numbers using prerecorded messages and an automatic telephone dialing system and otherwise calling telephone numbers registered on the DNC, as well as an award of statutory damages to the members of the Classes and costs, the lawsuit says. Keller Williams is one of the largest real estate franchises in the world.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs and the putative Classes are: Avi R. Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN P.A. 400 NW 26th Street Miami, FL 33127 Telephone: (305) 469-5881 E-mail: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com - and - Stefan Coleman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN, P.A. E-mail: law@stefancoleman.com 201 S. Biscayne Blvd, 28th Floor Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (877) 333-9427 LAND HOME: Faces Lopez Suit in California Superior Court -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Land Home Financial Services Inc. The case is captioned as Lopez, Maria, On behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated and on behalf of aggrieved employees pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act, the Plaintiffs, vs Does 1-100 and Land Home Financial Services Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 34-2019-00260479-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., July 12, 2019). The suit alleges employment-related violation. Land Home offers diversified funding options to homebuyers, mortgage brokers, builders, manufactured/modular home and real estate agents.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are: Douglas Han,Esq. JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION 751 N Fair Oaks Ave, Ste 101 Pasadena, CA 91103-3069 Telephone: (818) 230-7502 Facsimile: (818) 230-7259 E-mail: dhan@justicelawcorp.com LEX 1751: Villegas Seeks Minimum & OT Wages for Laundromat Workers ------------------------------------------------------------------ ERNESTA VILLEGAS, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. LEX 1751 INC (D/B/A A1 LAUNDROMAT), FORTUNE ONE, INC. (D/B/A AAA LAUNDROMAT), NEKASA, INC. (D/B/A AAA LAUNDROMAT), AAA LAUNDRY SERVICES, INC. (D/B/A AAA LAUNDROMAT), KLEENER KING GROUP INC. (D/B/A AAA LAUNDROMAT), FAROOQ IMRAN, ABIDA IMRAN, and NEIL KAPRE, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-06782 (S.D.N.Y., July 22, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff was employed as a clothes washer, ironer and folder at the Laundromat. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage and overtime compensation for the hours that she worked. Rather, the Defendants failed to maintain accurate record-keeping of the hours worked, failed to pay Plaintiff appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium, the lawsuit says. Defendants own, operate, or control three laundromats, located at 1751 Lexington Ave., New York, NY 10029 under the name "A1 Laundromat".[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 E-mail: Faillace@employmentcompliance.com LG ELECTRONICS: Class Suit Over Faulty Fridges Expands to Utah -------------------------------------------------------------- Matt Gephardt, writing for KUTV 2News, reports that LG refrigerators have been failing "en masse." That's the allegation in a lawsuit filed against the appliance giant. A class action lawsuit claims there is a "latent defect" with LG linear compressors which causes them to prematurely fail. "Despite its knowledge of the compressor defect, LG sold and continues to sell the LG refrigerators without alerting purchasers to the problem." Simon S. Grille, Esq. -- sgrille@girardsharp.com -- is a lawyer with California based Girard Sharp, the law firm bringing the suit. He told Get Gephardt that it's a "nationwide case ... which includes a Utah subclass." LG declined to comment on the new legal challenge except to say, "it would be inaccurate to describe this as nationwide." LG declined to elaborate. LG has previously told Get Gephardt that LG fridges fail due to "various factors." "The good news is that LG refrigerators come with a five-year labor and 10-year limited warranty on the linear compressor," its spokesperson previously said. Over the past year, Get Gephardt has been reporting on consumers in Utah whose relatively new LG fridges stopped working. Worse, they have struggled to get their fridges repaired under warranty in a timely manner LG has previously told Get Gephardt that LG fridges fail due to "various factors." "The good news is that LG refrigerators come with a five-year labor and 10-year limited warranty on the linear compressor," its spokesperson previously said. Get Gephardt reported in April how the compressor on Dave Pickle's three-year-old LG refrigerator stopped working. It was eventually repaired under warranty, but between trying to find available parts and a serviceman available to do the job, Pickle says it took too long. "It was like a full month and it was ridiculous," he said. Last December, Sherry Knight told Get Gephardt her nine-month-old fridge stopped working. She says repairmen told her repairs could take several months. "The more appliance places I call, the more I realize that this is a bigger issue than just my fridge," she said. Get Gephardt has also reported on the messy break up between Utah appliance repair company Appliance Service by Paul and LG. Owner Paul Dodge said his company was struggling to keep up with the plethora of LG fridge service calls leading him to make the decision to sever ties with LG. LG declined to comment on the break up for the original broadcast story but, after it aired, claimed LG initiated the break up. [GN] LOBSTER PLACE: Lopez Seeks Unpaid Overtime Premium -------------------------------------------------- INES LOPEZ, on behalf of herself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class, Plaintiff, v. THE LOBSTER PLACE INC. d/b/a THE CULL & PISTOL MANHATTAN LOBSTER PLACE, LLC d/b/a THE LOBSTER PLACE SEAFOOD MARKET and IAN MACGREGOR, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-06880 (S.D. N.Y., July 24, 2019) is a Class and Collective Action Complaint against Defendants pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff seeks to recover from Defendants unpaid wages due to time shaving, unpaid overtime wages, unpaid accrued vacation time, unpaid spread of hours premium, improperly deducted meal credits, statutory penalties, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs. From the start of Plaintiff INES LOPEZ's employment with Defendants through December 2013, she was regularly scheduled to work 40 hours per week for five days a week. From January 2014 through December 2015, Plaintiff was regularly scheduled to work 50 hours per week for five days a week. The Defendants knowingly and willfully operated their business with a policy of failing to pay Plaintiff, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and Class members for all hours worked due to a policy of time shaving. The Defendants unlawfully failed to compensate Plaintiff, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and Class members their proper overtime at one and a half the regular rate for all hours worked, resulting in unpaid overtime premium, says the complaint. Plaintiff INES LOPEZ was hired by Defendants to work as a food preparer in April 2013. Plaintiff was promoted to a line cook in January 2014. Plaintiff was promoted to sous chef in January 2016. On April 9, 2019, Plaintiff resigned. Defendants collectively own and operate two businesses operating inside Chelsea Market, named "The Cull & Pistol", and "The Lobster Place Seafood Market".[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10011 Phone: 212-465-1188 Fax: 212-465-1181 MARICOPA COUNTY, AZ: Court Denies Bids to Dismiss Briggs Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, Deshawn Briggs, et al., Plaintiffs, v. William Montgomery, et al., Defendants, Case No. CV-18-02684-PHX-EJM (D. Ariz.), Magistrate Judge Eric J. Markovich of the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona denied (i) Defendants Maricopa County and Maricopa County Attorney William Montgomery's Motion to Dismiss; and (ii) Defendant Treatment Assessment Screening Center, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss. The Plaintiffs filed their first amended class action complaint ("FAC") on Oct. 12, 2018. They allege civil rights claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1983 and the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and seek monetary damages and injunctive relief. The Plaintiffs are four named individuals who represent themselves and a class of similarly situated people. Their allegations concern a marijuana deferred prosecution program ("MDPP") operated by the Maricopa County Attorney's Office ("MCAO") and Treatment Assessment Screening Center ("TASC"). The Plaintiffs also allege Defendant Montgomery, the elected County Attorney ("CA") for Maricopa County, is liable in his official capacity for his role in operating and administering the diversion program, and that Montgomery is the final policymaker for Maricopa County on matters relating to diversion programs. The Plaintiffs allege that Defendants jointly operate a possession of marijuana diversion program that penalizes the poor because of their poverty. They state five claims for relief: 1) wealth-based discrimination in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment by Plaintiffs Briggs and Pascale and others similarly situated against all Defendants for monetary damages; 2) wealth-based discrimination in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment by Plaintiff Stephens and others similarly situated against all Defendants for injunctive relief, and by Plaintiff Collier on her own behalf against Defendant TASC for injunctive relief; 3) wealth-based discrimination in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment by Plaintiff Collier against all Defendants for damages and against Defendant TASC for injunctive relief; 4) unreasonable search and seizure in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments by Plaintiffs Briggs and Pascale and others similarly situated against all Defendants for damages; and 5) unreasonable search and seizure in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments by Plaintiff Stephens and others similarly situated against all the Defendants for injunctive relief, and by Plaintiff Collier on her own behalf against Defendant TASC for injunctive relief. On Nov. 20, 2018, Defendant TASC filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). (Doc. 36). It alleges that: "(1) TASC cannot be liable for any of the harm the Plaintiffs allege; (2) even if TASC could be liable to the Plaintiffs, the Plaintiffs' substantive claims (alleging violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments) fail as a matter of law; and (3) even if the Plaintiffs had a substantive claim for relief, Plaintiff Briggs' claims are time-barred. TASC further states that at a minimum, the Plaintiffs should be required to amend their complaint to clarify their claims and eliminate immaterial allegations in compliance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. Also on Nov. 20, 2018, the County Defendants filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). They allege that dismissal is warranted for the following reasons: (1) Because the County Attorney acts as a State official, not a County official, when he establishes and implements a marijuana deferred prosecution program, the Plaintiffs' Section 1983 Monell liability claims/requests for relief against the County and County Attorney must be dismissed [Counts 1-5]; (2) 11th Amendment sovereign immunity bars Section 1983 damages claims against the County Attorney in his capacity as a State official; further, the County Attorney in his capacity as a State official is not a person for purposes of Section 1983. The Plaintiffs' Section 1983 damages claims against him thus must be dismissed [Counts 1, 3 and 4]; (3) Because the County Attorney's policies and practices in establishing and implementing a marijuana deferred prosecution program are prosecutorial functions, absolute prosecutorial immunity bars the Plaintiffs' Section 1983 damages claims against the County Attorney [Counts 1, 3 and 4], requiring concomitant dismissal of the Plaintiffs' redundant Section 1983 damages claims asserted against the County; (4) Plaintiff Briggs' claims [Counts 1 and 4] are statutorily time-barred; and (5) For the reasons set forth in Part IV of TASC's Motion to Dismiss, he Plaintiffs fail to state claims for relief for alleged wealth discrimination under the 14th Amendment's Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses or for alleged unreasonable search and seizure under the 4th Amendment, as a matter of law [Counts 1-5]. The County Defendants join in parts IV and V of Defendant TASC's motion to dismiss. Judge Markovich holds that accepting the Plaintiffs' allegations as true, as the Court must on a motion to dismiss, the Plaintiffs have sufficiently pled a Section 1983 claim for entity liability against TASC based on the three challenged policies. First, Plaintiffs have sufficiently pled that TASC acted under color of state law via its agreement with MCAO to operate the MDPP. Second, the FAC alleges both formal and informal policies. Finally, the Plaintiffs do not challenge the establishment of the program generally -- they challenge the three specific policies, and the Plaintiffs have pled that none of these policies were set by state law -- they were jointly enacted by the CA/MCAO and TASC. Next, the Judge holds that the FAC states claims against TASC as a private entity, not individual TASC employees, making qualified immunity inapplicable. TASC's main argument in its motion is that none of the three policies that Plaintiffs challenge exist, and if they do, the responsibility falls on the shoulders of the CA. But there is no evidence before the Court at this time suggesting that the CA closely supervises TASC in its day to day operations, such as meeting with program participants, collecting payments, or administering urine screens. Further, the principles that supported an extension of qualified immunity in Filarsky v. Delia and Young v. Cty. of Hawaii are not present in the case. Based on TASC's lack of argument on the issue, and because the case is still in the early stages and discovery may reveal evidence sufficient to warrant a punitive damages award, the Judge declines to dismiss the Plaintiff's punitive damages claim at this time. The Judge also finds that the Plaintiffs have adequately pled a claim under the Fourth Amendment sufficient to survive the Defendants' motion to dismiss. Discovery will reveal evidence that will enable the finder of fact to determine whether the government's interest does outweigh the Plaintiffs' privacy interests, whether the special needs exception applies, and whether the Plaintiffs' consent to the urine screens as part of the MDPP's terms made the searches permissible. Finally, the Judge concludes that (i) CA acts as a local policymaker for purposes of the challenged conduct in the suit; (ii) the FAC has adequately pled policymaking authority by the county sufficient to survive the motion to dismiss; and (iii) Plaintiff Briggs' claims are not barred by the statute of limitations. Judge Markovich concludes that complaints under the Civil Rights Act are to be liberally construed. He cannot say with certainty at this early stage in the litigation that the Plaintiffs can prove no set of facts which would entitle them to relief. Accordingly, he denied the motions to dismiss. The efendants will file their responsive pleadings within 14 days of the date of the Order. A full-text copy of the Court's June 18, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/fzG5WW from Leagle.com. Deshawn Briggs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Mark Pascale, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Taja Collier & McKenna Stephens, Plaintiffs, represented by Akeeb Dami Animashaun, Civil Rights Corps, Joshua David R. Bendor -- jbendor@omlaw.com -- Osborn Maledon PA, Katherine Chamblee-Ryan, Civil Rights Corps & Timothy Joel Eckstein -- teckstein@omlaw.com -- Osborn Maledon PA. William Montgomery, in his official capacity as County Attorney of Maricopa County & County of Maricopa, Defendants, represented by Ann Thompson Uglietta, Maricopa County Attorneys Office - Civil Services Division, Jennifer Gail Lockerby, Maricopa County Attorneys Office - Civil Services Division & Joseph James Branco, Maricopa County Attorneys Office. Treatment Assessment Screening Center Incorporated, Defendant, represented by Kelly Ann Kszywienski -- kkszywienski@swlaw.com -- Snell & Wilmer LLP & Robert Arthur Henry -- bhenry@swlaw.com -- Snell & Wilmer LLP. MATCHESFASHION INC: Reid Sues over Civil Rights Violations ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action complaint has been filed against Matchesfashion, Inc. for alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. The case is captioned Valentin Reid, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. Matchesfashion, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-06548-PAE-KHP (S.D.N.Y., July 15, 2019). This civil rights-related lawsuit is assigned to Hon. Judge Paul A. Engelmayer. Matchesfashion describes itself as a modern luxury shopping destination for the confident global fashion customer. The company sells clothing, bags and accessories from over 450 established and innovative designers, including Prada, Gucci and Balenciaga to Saint Laurent, Halpern and Wales Bonner. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Paul Force, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 E-mail: dforce@steinsakslegal.com MATTERPORT INC: Kenner Sues over False Advertising -------------------------------------------------- A class action complaint has been filed against Matterport, Inc. for alleged violations of the Seller Assisted Marketing Plan (SAMP) Act, California's Unfair Competition Law, and California's False Advertising Law in connection with its false enticement of a lucrative business opportunity. The case is captioned GEORGE KENNER, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. MATTERPORT, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, Inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 19CV350887 (Cal. Super., Santa Clara Cty., July 15, 2019). Plaintiff brings this proposed class action pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 382 and corresponding California Rules of Court governing class actions on behalf of all California purchasers of Matterport's 3D scanner equipment at any time from four years prior to the commencement of this action until the commencement of trial. While Matterport has engaged in business as a SAMP entity for several years, it never complied with any aspect of the SAMP Act, did not provide required disclosures, did not honor any geographic limitations, saturated an ill-defined and non-lucrative market, and did not register with the California Office of Attorney General. Headquartered in Sunnyvale, California, Matterport is engaged in business throughout California and engages in soliciting contracts for SAMP related to its 3D Camera products and Cloud Storage services through what is referred to by the company as the Matterport Service Partner program. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy D. Cohelan, Esq. Isam C. Khoury, Esq. J. Jason Hill, Esq. COHELAN KHOURY & SINGER 605 "C" Street, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 595-3001 Facsimile: (619) 595-3000 E-mail: tcohelan@ckslaw.com ikhoury@ckslaw.com jhill@ckslaw.com MDL 2433: Bid to Apply Tort Reform Act to Swartz's Claims Denied ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, IN RE: E. I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY C-8 PERSONAL INJURY LITIGATION. This document relates to: Angela and Teddy Swartz v. E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-136, Civil Action No. 2:13-md-2433 (S.D. Ohio), Judge Edmund A. Sargus, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, denied the Defendant's Motion to Apply the Ohio Tort Reform Act or, in the Alternative, for Certification to the Ohio Supreme Court. Defendant E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Co.'s release of C-8 into the environment, the resulting Leach class action, and Leach Settlement Agreement are well-documented on the Court's docket. DuPont began releasing C-8 into the environment around the Washington Works plant in the 1950s and contaminated the water supply in several water districts in Ohio and West Virginia. Mrs. Swartz and her husband filed the first Post-Settlement Case scheduled for trial in the multidistrict litigation. Mrs. Swartz alleges that she is a member of the Leach class (i.e., for at least one year prior to Dec. 4, 2004, she consumed drinking water containing .05 ppb or greater of C-8 attributable to releases from Washington Works), and that she suffered from kidney cancer, which is a Probable Link Disease, (i.e., for Mrs. Swartz it is more likely than not that there is a link between her exposure to C-8 and her kidney cancer). DuPont moves for the Court to apply the Ohio Tort Reform Act to the Swartz's claims. It raises three issues related to the Ohio Tort Reform Act in its motion: (1) Application of the Ohio Tort Reform Act to the Swartz's claims, (2) Whether an Exception for Catastrophic Injury Applies, and (3) Certification of the Issues to the Ohio Supreme Court. The Plaintiffs argue that, in the event the Tort Reform Act applies to Mrs. Swartz's claims, an exception to the Act applies to her. DuPont argues that where it is clear that the statutory exceptions are inapplicable, courts have not hesitated to decide the issue prior to trial. The Plaintiffs, however, contend that they have at a minimum provided sufficient evidence to the Court to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Mrs. Swartz's injuries resulted in permanent and substantial physical injury. Judge Sargus agrees. Courts have found this type of evidence sufficient for submission to a jury to determine whether it constitutes permanent and substantial physical injury. The Defendants ask that if the Court is "disinclined to reach the result" for which they move, the Court should certify the question of whether the Ohio Tort Reform applies to Mrs. Swartz's claim. Judge Sargus holds that in the instant action, the Court can resolve the issue with the available research materials at hand. Indeed, the Court has addressed this issue at length several times, finding Ohio law supports the conclusions it has reached. Thus, certification would entail more delay and expense than is acceptable in the action. Accordingly, the Judge declines to certify the Tort Reform issue to the Ohio Supreme Court. Based on the foregoing, the Judge denied the Defendant's Motion to Apply the Ohio Tort Reform Act or, in the Alternative, for Certification to the Ohio Supreme Court. A full-text copy of the Court's June 18, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/3HUhpK from Leagle.com. Thomas Yakubik, Ronald Bachtel, Cheryl Durst, Robert Durst, Larry Turley, Linda Turley, Sharon Arnott, Kathy Willis & Troy Willis, Plaintiffs, represented by David G. Utley, Collins, Roche, Utley & Garner, LLC, 875 Westpoint Parkway, Suite 500, Cleveland, Ohio 44145, Jon C. Conlin, Cory Watson Crowder & DeGaris, Michael A. London, Douglas & London, PC, 59 Maiden Ln, 6th Floor, New York, NY 10038, pro hac vice, Ethan T. Vessels, Fields, Dehmlow & Vessels LLC, 309 2nd St., Marietta, OH 45750-2921 & Gregory Harold Collins, Collins, Roche, Utley & Garner, 875 Westpoint Parkway, Suite 500, Cleveland, Ohio 44145 Betty Bragg, Lotie Cline, Linda Davis, Crystal Forshey, Vicky Lightfritz, Willard Lightfritz, Kathy Lowe, Kit McPeek-Stalnaker, Thomas Eugene Molden, Jack Offenberger, Kay Sheridan, Herbert Short, John Wright & Amber Wriston, Plaintiffs, represented by Debra Anne Nelson dnelson@debranelsonlaw.com -- The Nelson Law Firm, LLC, Jon C. Conlin, Cory Watson Crowder & DeGaris, 875 Westpoint Parkway, Suite 500, Cleveland, Ohio 44145, Michael A. London, Douglas & London, PC, pro hac vice, Nina M. Towle, Cory Watson Attorneys, pro hac vice & Richard A. Wright, Cory Watson Attorneys, 875 Westpoint Parkway, Suite 500, Cleveland, Ohio 44145, pro hac vice. E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, Defendant, represented by Damond R. Mace -- damond.mace@squirepb.com -- Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP, Aaron Todd Brogdon -- aaron.brogdon@squirepb.com -- Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP, Aneca E. Lasley -- aneca.lasley@squirepb.com -- Squire Sanders (US) LLP, C. Craig Woods -- craig.woods@squirepb.com -- Squire Patton Boggs (US)LLP, Clifford F. Kinney, Jr. -- ckinney@spilman.com -- Spilman Thomas & Battle, PLLC, pro hac vice, D. Patrick Long -- patrick.long@squirepb.com -- Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP,David J. Millstone, pro hac vice, John K. Sherk -- jsherk@shb.com -- SHOOK, HARDY & BACON LLP, pro hac vice, Kevin T. Van Wart -- kevin.vanwart@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis, pro hac vice. MDL 2741: Munkres v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated ------------------------------------------------------------- Terrill J. Munkres, Individually and as Anticipated Executor of the Estate of Billy G. Munkres, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY and JOHN DOES 1-50, a Delaware Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv- 1174 (Filed May 3, 2019) was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco) on July 22, 2019. The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-04161-VC to the proceeding. The suit seeks to recover damages suffered by the Plaintiffs, as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiffs maintain that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. Billy G. Munkres' injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable. The Plaintiffs bring this action for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA). As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma. Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products, including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide, Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax. The Munkres 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 Plaintiffs are represented by: Eric D. Holland, Esq. HOLLAND LAW FIRM 300 North Tucker, Suite 801 St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: 314-241-8111 Facsimile: 314-241-5554 E-mail: eholland@allfela.com - and - Melanie H. Muhlstock, Esq. PARKER WAICHMAN LLP 6 Harbor Park Drive Port Washington, NY 11050 Telephone (516) 723-4631 Facsimile (516) 723-4731 E-mail: mmuhlstock@yourlawyer.com MDL 2741: Smith v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated ----------------------------------------------------------- IRENE M. SMITH and DAVID B. SMITH, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY and JOHN DOES 1-50, a Delaware Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-1175 (Filed May 3, 2019) was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco) on July 22, 2019. The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-04164-VC to the proceeding. The suit seeks to recover damages suffered by the Plaintiffs, as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiffs maintain that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. Irene M. Smith's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable. The Plaintiffs bring this action for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA). As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma. Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products, including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide, Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax. The Munkres 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 Plaintiffs are represented by: Eric D. Holland, Esq. HOLLAND LAW FIRM 300 North Tucker, Suite 801 St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: 314-241-8111 Facsimile: 314-241-5554 E-mail: eholland@allfela.com - and - Melanie H. Muhlstock, Esq. PARKER WAICHMAN LLP 6 Harbor Park Drive Port Washington, NY 11050 Telephone (516) 723-4631 Facsimile (516) 723-4731 E-mail: mmuhlstock@yourlawyer.com MILFORD NISSAN: Pepper Seeks Overtime Wages for Sales Employees --------------------------------------------------------------- The case, THOMAS PEPPER, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. MILFORD NISSAN CORP. and JEFFREY BATTA, the Defendants, Case No. 19-2007 (Mass. Super., July 12, 2019), alleges that Defendants failed to pay overtime wages and Sunday Premium Pay, as required by state law. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and putative class members are former and current employees of the Defendants engaged in the sale of automobiles and related products. They work on Sundays and in excess of 40 hours per week, but are not paid overtime for their overtime hours nor Sunday Premium Pay for their work on Sundays in violation of Massachusetts law. Milford Nissan is a company operating a car dealership and selling vehicles in Massachusetts.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Nicholas F. Ortiz, Esq. Raven Moeslinger, Esq. Stephanie C. Ozahowski, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF NICHOLAS F. ORTIZ, P.C. 99 High Street, Suite 304 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 338-9400 E-mail: rm@mass-legal.com nfo@mass-legal.com sco@mass-legal.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Hitchens Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup -------------------------------------------------------------- RAYMOND HITCHENS, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-02119 (E.D. Mo., July 23, 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. The 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: 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: Jones-Basler et al Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------------------ The case, CAITLIN JONES-BASLER, JOHNNY QUINONEZ, VANESSA MOORE, Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, a Delaware Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-00953 (Filed on May 24, 2019), was transferred from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California to the United States District Court for 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-03536-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. With a principal place of business in St. Louis, Missouri, Monsanto Company is a multinational agricultural biotechnology corporation that is regarded as the world's leading producer of glyphosate. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gerald Singleton, Esq. Mark F. Fleming, Esq. John C. Lemon, Esq. Erika L. Vasquez, Esq. SINGLETON LAW FIRM, APC 450 A Street, 5th Floor San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 771-3473 Facsimile: (619) 255-1515 E-mail: gerald@slffirm.com mark@slffirm.com john@slffirm.com erika@slffirm.com - and - Timothy A. Scott, Esq. Nicolas O. Jimenez, Esq. SCOTT TRIAL LAWYERS, APC 1350 Columbia Street, Suite 600 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 794-0451 Facsimile: (619) 652-9964 E-mail: tas@scotttriallawyers.com noj@scotttriallawyers.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Mason Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal. ----------------------------------------------------- The case, ELIZABETH MASON, Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-01421 (Filed on May 24, 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-03548-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. With a principal place of business in St. Louis, Missouri, Monsanto Company 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: Noe Estate Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal. ---------------------------------------------------------- The case, THE ESTATE OF WILLIAM NOE, through Personal Representative, TERESA NOE, Individually, Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 6:19-cv-00135 (Filed on May 31, 2019), was transferred from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky 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-03538-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. With a principal place of business in St. Louis, Missouri, Monsanto Company is a multinational agricultural biotechnology corporation that is regarded as the world's leading producer of glyphosate. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jillian M. Scheyer, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF JILLIAN M. SCHEYER 2656 Crescent Springs Rd. Crescent Springs, KY 41017 Telephone: (859) 803-7949 E-mail: jill@jmslaw.org - and - Jason Edward Ochs, Esq. OCHS LAW FIRM, PC 690 US 89, Ste. 206 PO Box 10944 Jackson Hole, WY 83001 Telephone: (307) 234.3239 E-mail: jason@ochslawfirm.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Osborne Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup ------------------------------------------------------------- JAMES OSBORNE, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-02127 (E.D. Mo., July 23, 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. The 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: 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: Ponzini Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------- The case, LARRY PONZINI, Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY CORPORATION and BAYER U.S., LLC. Defendants, Defendant, Case No. 5:19-cv-00747 (Filed on May 16, 2019), was transferred from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alamaba 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-03535-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. With a principal place of business in St. Louis, Missouri, Monsanto Company is a multinational agricultural biotechnology corporation that is regarded as the world's leading producer of glyphosate. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric J. Artrip, Esq. MASTANDO & ARTRIP, LLC 301 Washington Street, Suite 302 Huntsville, AL 35801 Telephone: (256) 532-2222 Facsimile: (256) 513-7489 E-mail: artrip@mastandoartrip.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Prinses' Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal. -------------------------------------------------------- The case, CURTIS A. PRINS, and ALTHEA A. PRINS, Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00648 (Filed on May 16, 2019), was transferred from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Alabama 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-03568-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. With a principal place of business in St. Louis, Missouri, Monsanto Company is a multinational agricultural biotechnology corporation that is regarded as the world's leading producer of glyphosate. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Willard J. Moody, Jr., Esq. Jonathan A. Hogins, Esq. THE MOODY LAW FIRM 500 Crawford Street, Suite 200 Portsmouth, VA 23704 Telephone: (757) 393-6020 Facsimile: (757) 399-3019 E-mail: will@moodyrrlaw.com jhogins@moodyrrlaw.com - and - Jennifer A. Moore, Esq. Ashton Rose Smith, 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 ashton@moorelawgroup.com MOON RIDGE: Morris Moves for Class Certification Under WARN Act --------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned DAWN MORRIS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. MOON RIDGE FOODS, LLC, and HERITAGE FOODS HOLDINGS, LLC, and VERO FOODS, LLC, Case No. 6:18-cv-03219-SRB (W.D. Mo.), moves the Court for an order certifying a class pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the specific statutory provision contemplating class treatment of claims under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act. The proposed class is comprised of: all former employees who worked at or reported to the facility located at 5305 Highway H Pleasant Hope, MO 65725 (the "Facility") until they were allegedly laid off, furloughed and/or terminated, without cause on their part, on or about January 11, 2018, within thirty days of that date or thereafter, as part of, or as the reasonably expected consequence of, the mass layoff and/or plant closing occurring on or about January 11, 2018, or thereafter, and who do not file a timely request to opt-out of the class ("Class"). Ms. Morris also asks the Court to appoint her as Class Representative, to appoint The Gardner Firm, P.C., Lankenau & Miller, LLP and Rouse, Frets, White, Goss, Gentile, Rhodes, P.C. as Class Counsel and to approve the form and manner of Notice to the Class.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mary E. Olsen, Esq. M. Vance McCrary, Esq. THE GARDNER FIRM, PC 182 St. Francis Street, Suite 103 Mobile, AL 36602 Telephone: (251) 433-8100 Facsimile: (251) 433-8181 E-mail: molsen@thegardnerfirm.com vmccrary@thegardnerfirm.com - and - Randall L. Rhodes, Esq. Christopher L. Kurtz, Esq. ROUSE FRETS WHITE GOSS GENTILE RHODES, P.C. 5250 W. 116th Place, Suite 400 Leawood, KS 66211 Telephone: (913) 387-1600 Facsimile: (913) 928-6739 E-mail: rrhodes@rousepc.com ckurtz@rousepc.com - and - Stuart J. Miller, Esq. LANKENAU & MILLER, LLP 132 Nassau Street, Suite 1100 New York, NY 10038 Telephone: (212) 581-5005 Facsimile: (212) 581-2122 E-mail: sjm@lankmill.com NAVIGANT CYMETRIX: Chicas Suit Moved to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled as Amaris Chicas, on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Navigant Cymetrix Corporation, a Delaware corporation, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the, Defendant, Case No. 19STCV19239, was removed from the Los Angeles Superior Court, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California (Western Division - Los Angeles) on July 12, 2019. The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-06021-JFW-PLA to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge John F. Walter. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Navigant Healthcar, a comprehensive revenue cycle management company, provides healthcare organizations and hospital-affiliated physician practices with custom revenue cycle solutions and consulting services.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Alexandra Rochelle McIntosh, Esq. Chaim Shaun Setareh, Esq. William Matthew Pao, Esq. STEAREH LAW GROUP 315 South Beverly Drive Suite 315 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (310) 888-7771 Facsimile: (310) 888-0109 E-mail: alex@setarehlaw.com shaun@setarehlaw.com william@setarehlaw.com Attorneys for Navigant Cymetrix Corporation are: Thomas E. Hill, Esq. Christina Theresa Tellado, Esq. Samuel J Stone, Esq. HOLLAND AND KNIGHT LLP 400 South Hope Street 8th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 896-2400 Facsimile: (213) 896-2450 E-mail: thomas.hill@hklaw.com christina.tellado@hklaw.com samuel.stone@hklaw.com NETFLIX, INC: Securities Statements Misleading, Wallerstein Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- JOHAN WALLERSTEIN, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NETFLIX, INC., REED HASTINGS, AND SPENCER NEUMANN, the Defendants, Case No. 5:19-cv-04195-LHK (N.D. Cal., July 22, 2019), seeks to recover compensable damages caused by Defendants' alleged 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 case is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded securities of Netflix between April 17, 2019 and July 17, 2019, both dates inclusive. On April 16, 2019, after market hours, Netflix published its letter to shareholders which reported on the first quarter of 2019. The letter to shareholders included forecasts for the second quarter of 2019. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Netflix would not be able to gain its expected target number of new subscribers in the second quarter of 2019; (2) Netflix would also lose subscribers from the United States in the second quarter of 2019; and (3) as a result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On July 17, 2019, after the market closed, Netflix released a letter to shareholders which revealed that Netflix missed its expected target for number of new subscribers. On this news, shares of Netflix plummeted $47.34 per share, or over 13%, from over the next two trading days to close at $315.10 per share on July 19, 2019, damaging investors. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, the lawsuit says. Netflix, Inc. is an American media-services provider and production company headquartered in Los Gatos, California, founded in 1997 by Reed Hastings and Marc Randolph in Scotts Valley, California.[BN] Counsel for the Plaintiff are: Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 785-2610 Facsimile: (213) 226-4684 E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com NEW HAMPSHIRE: Certification of Involuntary Detainees Class Sought ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned JOHN DOE, CHARLES COE, JANE ROE, and DEBORAH A. TAYLOR AS GUARDIAN OF SCOTT STEPHEN JOHNSTONE, individually and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. JEFFREY A. MEYERS, Commissioner of the New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services, in his official capacity, and SOUTHERN NEW HAMPSHIRE MEDICAL CENTER, CONCORD HOSPITAL, ST. JOSEPH'S HOSPITAL, and MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, and DAVID D. KING, Administrative Judge of the New Hampshire Circuit Court, in his official capacity, Necessary Third-Party Pursuant to Rule 19(a), Case No. 1:18-cv-01039-JD (D.N.H.), ask the Court to: (1) certify the proposed class of: all person "who are currently being, have been, or will be involuntarily detained in a non-DRF hospital under RSA 135-C:27–33 without having been given a probable cause hearing by the State of New Hampshire within three days (not including Sundays and holidays) of the completion of an involuntary emergency admission certificate"; (2) approve Plaintiffs John Doe, Charles Coe, Jane Roe, and Deborah A. Taylor as class representatives; and (3) appoint the Plaintiffs' counsel to represent the class. There is a systemic pattern and practice in New Hampshire where people who may be experiencing mental health crises are involuntarily detained in hospital emergency rooms without the State providing them with any due process, appointed counsel, or opportunity to contest their detention. This practice is known as "psychiatric boarding," the Plaintiffs allege. As of October 31, 2018, approximately 46 adults and 4 children were being involuntarily "boarded" in emergency rooms under RSA 135-C:27–33 while awaiting admission to a Designated Receiving Facility ("DRF"), the Plaintiff say.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gilles R. Bissonnette, Esq. Henry R. Klementowicz, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF NEW HAMPSHIRE 18 Low Avenue Concord, NH 03301 Telephone: (603) 224-5591 E-mail: gilles@aclu-nh.org henry@aclu-nh.org - and - Theodore E. Tsekerides, Esq. Lara E. Veblen Trager, Esq. Aaron J. Curtis, Esq. Aaron J. Shaddy, Esq. WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP 767 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10153 Telephone: (212) 310-8000 Facsimile: (212) 310-8007 E-mail: theodore.tsekerides@weil.com lara.trager@weil.com aaron.curtis@weil.com aaron.shaddy@weil.com NEW ORLEANS, LA: Caluda Class Certification Bid, Complaint Tossed ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as ROBERT J. CALUDA, APLC, ET AL., the Plaintiffs. vs. THE CITY OF NEW ORLEANS, ET AL., the Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-02497-SM-JCW (E.D. La.), the Hon. Judge Susie Morgan entered an order on July 19, 2019: 1. granting motion to dismiss, filed by Defendants Linebarger, Goggan, Blair & Sampson, L.L.P. and United Governmental Services of Louisiana, Inc. pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; 2. dismissing with prejudice Plaintiffs' claims against Linebarger, Goggan, Blair & Sampson, L.L.P. and United Governmental Services of Louisiana, Inc.; and 3. denying as moot Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Plaintiffs brought the claim against Linebarger and UGSL seeking money they paid to the City, and the City subsequently paid to Linebarger and UGSL. The Plaintiffs argued Linebarger and UGSL were not authorized by law to engage in collection activities because they did not register as debt collectors with the state.[CC] NEW YORK: Sued Over Religious Exemption Vaccination Law ------------------------------------------------------- Zachary Keyser and Ben Sales, writing for Jerusalem Post, report that the first of multiple foreseeable lawsuits attempting to reverse a recent bill passed throughout the state of New York that eliminates religious exemptions from school vaccination rules was filed in Albany, New York. In April, the city declared a public health emergency over a measles outbreak, mandating people in four Williamsburg zip codes to vaccinate. The city also announced it would be closing schools in Williamsburg that allow unvaccinated students to attend. Nine of the 10 schools closed thus far are in Williamsburg. The 10th is in the borough of Queens. “Religious rights are fundamental. It is unconstitutional for the state to deprive people of such important rights when religious animus has played a key role," said one of the lawyers representing the case, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., also chairman of the anti-vaccination nonprofit Children's Health Defense group. The lawsuit, filed by fifty-five families, is attempting to seek class-action status, claiming the law is "unconstitutional and violates religious freedom." Lawyers include Michael Sussman, most notable for representing a group of parents who sued Rockland County for excluding their unvaccinated children from New York schools, and Kennedy, notably the chairman of an anti-vaccination group, as stated earlier. Sussman and Kennedy are seeking a "temporary restraining order" against the recently passed bill -- naming the state of New York, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo and New York Attorney General Letitia James as defendants. [GN] NUDGE LLC: Court Dismisses Just Us RICO Suit Without Prejudice -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JUST US REALTORS, LLC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. NUDGE, LLC, BUYPD, LLC, INCOME PROPERTY USA, LLC, INSIDER'S CASH, LLC, RYAN POELMAN, GUARDIAN LAW, LLC, AMERICAN LEGAL & ESCROW, LLC, INVICTUS LAW, LLC, and BLAIR R. JACKSON, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-00128-TC-CMR (D. Utah), Judge Tena Campbell of the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, Central Division, granted the Defendants' four motions to dismiss the case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), but allowed Just Us Realtors to file a motion to amend with a proposed amended complaint to cure the pleading deficiencies. Plaintiff Just Us Realtors filed the case, a putative class action, against a number of individuals and limited liability corporations that sold and financed real estate through investor training seminars. Just Us Realtors, which bought a house through the seminars, alleges that the Defendants misrepresented the ownership and value of the real estate it offered for sale and fraudulently induced it and other investors to overpay for property. It brings claims under the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO") and state law. The Defendants in the case fall into one of three categories depending on their role in the alleged scheme to sell real estate: (1) the "Property Defendants": Nudge, LLC; Buy PD, LLC; Income Property USA, LLC; and Ryan Poelman; (2) the "Cash Defendant": Insider's Cash, LLC; and (3) the "Attorney Defendants": Blair R. Jackson and three law firms he allegedly controls or represents—Invictus Law, LLC; Guardian Law, LLC; and American Legal & Escrow, LLC. According to the complaint, the Property Defendants canvassed the United States for sellers of distressed real estate. Rather than buy the real estate outright, the Property Defendants entered into contingency agreements to buy the real estate themselves only after securing customers who would buy the same real estate at a significant markup. And to recruit their customers, the Property Defendants organized real estate investment training seminars sponsored by Scott and Amie Yancey from the television show "Flipping Las Vegas." At the initial free training seminars, the Property Defendants offered attendees the chance to pay for additional seminars that culminated with the "Buying Summit" -- an event in Las Vegas at which the Property Defendants would offer "exclusive access" to buy the distressed properties, which they called "turnkey" "performing assets." Just Us Realtors filed the case as a class action, alleging violations of RICO as well as state law claims of civil conspiracy, breach of fiduciary duty (and aiding and abetting the breach), and fraud against each Defendant. The Defendants have arranged themselves into four groups for the purpose of defending the lawsuit: (1) American Legal & Escrow, Invictus Law, and Mr. Jackson ("Jackson Defendants"); (2) Insider's Cash; (3) Nudge, BuyPD, Income Property USA, and Mr. Poelman ("Poelman Defendants"); and (4) Guardian Law. Each group has filed a motion to dismiss pursuant Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The Defendant groups all raise essentially the same arguments concerning the sufficiency of Just Us Realtors' Complaint -- that Just Us Realtors has not pled sufficient facts to support RICO or state law claims, and has not pled the alleged fraud with particularity under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b). Judge Campbell finds that Just Us Realtors has adequately pled the existence of an enterprise composed of every Defendant but Invictus Law. According to the facts alleged in the complaint, the Defendants worked together as "strategic partners" for the purpose of selling and financing real estate. BuyPD and Income Property USA -- both controlled by Mr. Poelman -- advertised and offered the real estate for sale, Insider's Cash financed the sales, and Guardian Law and American Legal & Escrow -- both controlled by Mr. Jackson -- facilitated the closing process. Tgether, these Defendants formed an enterprise distinct from each person and company. The Judge then finds that Just Us Realtors has failed to allege that Invictus Law participated in the enterprise. Just Us Realtors claims that Invictus Law helped conceal the Defendants' allegedly fraudulent scheme when its attorney, Bill Knowlton, sent Just Us Realtors and other Buying Summit attendees the 2016 email on behalf of BuyPD in which it sought to address growing concerns about the Summit. The allegations suggest only after-the-fact legal representation, not that Invictus Law participated in the operation of the larger enterprise to sell real estate at the Buying Summit. For this reason, the RICO claim against Invictus Law must be dismissed. As to pattern of racketeering activity claim, the Judge finds that the complaint does contain some concrete allegations of wire use. Ms. Hoard received two emails in April of 2015 -- one from American Legal & Escrow, and another from Mr. Payne, who represented BuyPD. But, even assuming that Just Us Realtors had adequately pled the existence of a fraudulent scheme, these communications would amount to just one predicate act committed by each of these Defendants. Just Us Realtors has not adequately alleged that any of the individual Defendants committed at least two RICO predicate acts, whether mail, wire, or travel fraud. As a consequence, its RICO claims must be dismissed. Just Us Realtors has also adequately alleged injury to its business, as well as causation. It spent tens of thousands of dollars to purchase the St. Louis house at an inflated price. Because of the Defendants' misrepresentations about the value of the house, it took out a balloon-payment bridge loan that it could not refinance. As for causation, Just Us Realtors alleges -- and facts support -- that had Ms. Hoard and/or Mr. Foster known the truth about the house, they would not have permitted Defendants to consummate the real estate transaction. While Just Us Realtors' RICO claims are deficient in other respects, it has adequately pled damages and causation. Because Just Us Realtors has failed to plead RICO claims against the Defendants, the Court lacks federal question jurisdiction over the case. The Judge further finds that Just Us Realtors has not pled sufficient facts to infer damages in excess of $75,000. She cannot, at this time, infer amounts in controversy that warrant diversity jurisdiction or CAFA jurisdiction. Since Just Us Realtors has not pled a basis for original or supplemental jurisdiction over any of the state law claims, the Judge must dismiss the entire complaint. Just Us Realtors requested leave to amend its complaint in its opposition brief, but the Court's local rules prohibit motions from being made in a response or reply memorandum. DUCivR 7-1(b)(1)(A). Instead, Just Us Realtors may file a separate motion for leave to amend its complaint within 28 days of the date of the Order, and include with its motion a proposed amended complaint. For the foregoing reasons, Judge Campbell granted the Defendants' Motions to Dismiss, and Just Us Realtors' complaint is dismissed without prejudice. Just Us Realtors may file a motion to amend its complaint, along with a proposed amended complaint, within 28 days of the date of the Order. A full-text copy of the Court's June 19, 2019 Order and Memorandum Decision is available at https://is.gd/96ev1j from Leagle.com. Just Us Realtors, on Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew W. Hutton, HUTTON LAW GROUP, Jon V. Harper -- jharper@jonharperlaw.com -- HARPER LAW PLC & M. Denise Dalton, HARPER LAW PLC. Nudge LLC, BuyPD, Income Property USA & Ryan Poelman, Defendants, represented by Graden P. Jackson -- gjackson@strongandhanni.com -- STRONG & HANNI & H. Scott Jacobson, Jr. -- sjacobson@strongandhanni.com -- STRONG & HANNI. Insiders Cash, Defendant, represented by Matthew C. Barneck -- matthew-barneck@rbmn.com -- RICHARDS BRANDT MILLER NELSON & John Edward Keiter, Jr., RICHARDS BRANDT MILLER NELSON. Guardian Law, Defendant, represented by G. James Christiansen -- jchristiansen@goodwin.com -- GUARDIAN LAW. American Legal & Escrow, Invictus Law & Blair R. Jackson, Defendants, represented by Adam M. Pace -- amp@scmlaw.com -- SNOW CHRISTENSEN & MARTINEAU & Keith A. Call -- kcall@scmlaw.com -- SNOW CHRISTENSEN & MARTINEAU. OCWEN LOAN: Stromberg Renews Bid for Approval of $575,000 Deal -------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled BONNIE LYNNE STROMBERG, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC, MORGAN STANLEY PRIVATE BANK, N.A., RBS CITIZENS, N.A., and DOE DEFENDANTS 1-55, Case No. 3:15-cv-04719-JST (N.D. Cal.), renews her motion for an order: 1. granting preliminary approval of the Stipulation and Settlement Agreement pursuant to which the parties proposed to settle this action on a class wide basis; 2. finding that final approval of the proposed Settlement under Rule 23(e)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and certification of the class for purposes of judgment on the proposed Settlement is likely; 3. directing Notice to the Settlement Class in the form and manner set forth in the Settlement Agreement or in such other form and manner determined by the Court to be appropriate pursuant to Rules 23(c)(2) and (e)(1); and 4. scheduling a fairness hearing consistent with the time frame and process set forth in the Settlement Agreement and this Motion. As renegotiated, the settlement is a common fund settlement in the amount of $575,000 that would resolve the entirety of the class claims asserted in this case (there were originally "Doe" defendants also named and the putative class claims against them were dismissed). It is a direct-pay settlement; in other words, there are no claims forms to be filled out--if the Settlement is ultimately approved, the 867 Settlement Class Members will get directly paid by check. There is also no reversion: any funds that ultimately might remain (due, for example, to uncashed settlement checks) will (if approved) get paid to a cy pres recipient, Self-help Enterprises, a non-profit agency that provides counseling, among other services, to homeowners and potential homeowners in California, an appropriate cy pres recipient inasmuch as the claims in this case relate to homeownership and mortgages in California and inasmuch as none of the parties have any relationship with Self-help Enterprises. Assuming that the entirety of the requested attorneys' expenses and fee request is approved, as is the named Plaintiff case contribution award, the 867 borrowers in the Settlement Class will each receive approximately $334 per loan, or 67% of the full recovery of the $500 maximum to which they would be entitled if the Plaintiff were to prevail at trial. In the event that the Court does not approve the entirety of the fee and cost request or the case contribution award, the unapproved amounts will be included in the distribution to the Settlement Class members. Additionally, the costs of claims administration are estimated to be under $10,000, which is an exceedingly small amount for a class settlement administration, much less for a settlement of over half a million dollars. The amount of reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses awarded by the Court, up to a maximum of $275,000, and the amount of any case contribution award to the Plaintiff approved by the Court, up to a maximum of $5,000. The Court will commence a hearing on September 11, 2019, at 2:00 p.m., to consider the Motion.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Schneider, Esq. Mark T. Johnson, Esq. Kyle G. Bates, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP 2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400 Emeryville, CA 94608 Telephone: (415) 421-7100 Facsimile: (415) 421-7105 E-mail: tschneider@schneiderwallace.com mjohnson@schneiderwallace.com kbates@schneiderwallace.com - and - Todd S. Collins, Esq. Eric Lechtzin, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 Facsimile: (215) 875-4604 E-mail: tcollins@bm.net elechtzin@bm.net - and - Seth R. Lesser, Esq. KLAFTER OLSEN & LESSER LLP Two International Drive, Suite 350 Rye Brook, NY 10573 Telephone: (914) 934-9200 Facsimile: (914) 934-9220 E-mail: slesser@klafterolsen.com - and - Charles Delbaum, Esq. NATIONAL CONSUMER LAW CENTER 7 Winthrop Square, 4th Floor Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: 617-542-8010 Facsimile: 617-542-8033 E-mail: cdelbaum@nclc.org PETERSON'S HARLEY-DAVIDSON: Sued over Unsolicited Text Messages --------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN SCHAMY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. PETERSON'S HARLEY-DAVIDSON SOUTH, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-23015-XXXX (S.D. Fla., July 19, 2019), contends that the Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise, in part, by sending unsolicited text messages to wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Defendant is a Harley Davidson motorcycle dealership. To promote its services, Defendant engages in unsolicited marketing, harming thousands of consumers in the process. The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant’s illegal conduct, which has resulted in the invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of thousands of individuals. Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of himself and members of the class, and any other available legal or equitable remedies.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. Garrett O. Berg, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 1205 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: 305-479-2299 E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com gberg@shamisgentile.com - and - Scott Edelsberg, Esq. Jordan D. Utanski, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, PA 19495 Biscayne Blvd. No. 607 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: 305-975-3320 E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com utanski@edelsberglaw.com PFIZER INC: Judge Refuses to Certify Class in Robitussin Case ------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reported that a federal judge declined to certify a class, but denied Pfizer summary judgment on claims it charged more for Maximum Strength Robitussin cough syrup than for Regular Strength Robitussin, when the former had a lower concentration of active ingredients than the latter. A copy of the Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at: https://is.gd/ZzkH6Y PLAN B WELLNESS: Arneaud Suit Asserts TCPA Breach ------------------------------------------------- BRANDON ARNEAUD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PLAN B WELLNESS CENTER LLC, Defendant, Case No. 0:19-cv-61880-XXXX (S.D. Fla., July 25, 2019) is a putative class action under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"). In efforts to drum-up business, Defendant would often send 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 TCPA, notes the complaint. These messages were sent using mass-automated technology through a third-party company hired by Defendant to send marketing text messages on Defendant's behalf en masse. Accordingly, Defendant knowingly and willfully violated the TCPA, causing injuries to Plaintiff and members of the putative class, including invasion of their privacy, aggravation, annoyance, intrusion on seclusion, trespass, and conversion, says the complaint. Plaintiff is a natural person who was a resident of Broward County, Florida. Defendant owns and operates a medical marijuana dispensary business in Detroit, Michigan, that sells and markets products both on-line, as well as in-person.[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 Phone: 954-907-1136 Fax: 855-529-9540 Email: jibrael@jibraellaw.com tom@jibraellaw.com PORT RESOURCES: 1st Cir. Affirms Treble Damages Award to Giguere ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the cases, DAVID GIGUERE, on his own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, Appellee/Cross-Appellant, KELLON ALEXIS; SYLVIA OUELLETTE; LINDA PERRY; LEE SOUTHWICK; KIMBERLY FARRELL; MARY FEELEY; LINDSAY GAGNE; JERRY GARCIA; CRYSTAL JACKMAN; RYAN JARRELL; RENEE JORDAN; CHRISTINE POORE; BRIE GAIA REED; NEVERLY RUDA; ZU-CHYUN SPEAKER; RENOVAT BARAGENGANA; ROBERT BISSELL; THERESA BISSELL; LONG CAO; DARREN CHEVRIER; KENNETH COLE; CYNTHIA COOKINGHAM; SUSAN DESJARDINS; JOHN FARRELL; ROBERT BROGDEN; DEBRA DOW; PAIGE HARRIS; SUSAN MacDONALD; ERIC NKURUNZIZA; EULADE NKURUNZIZA, Plaintiffs, v. PORT RESOURCES INC., Defendant, Appellant/Cross-Appellee, Case Nos. 18-2073, 18-2163 (1st Cir.), Judge Sandra Lynch of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the district court's award of treble damages to Plaintiff Giguere as a remedy for Port Resources' Wages Act violation. The Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") sets federal minimum-wage, maximum-hour, and overtime guarantees. When an employer fails to meet these requirements, the FLSA gives employees a private right of action to recover their due. Giguere, a former Port Resources employee, sued Port Resources, alleging that its sleep-time policy violated the FLSA; the Maine Wages and Medium of Payment Act; and the Maine Minimum Wage Law. The district court conditionally granted collective action status for the FLSA claim, and 30 individual employees besides Giguere opted in. Giguere brought his Maine claims only on his own behalf. Both parties moved for summary judgment. Port Resources, disputes that such wages are owed. Under its sleep-time policy, Port Resources did not pay employees like Plaintiff Giguere for eight hours each night, even though the employees were on duty during that time. The district court found that this policy was unlawful, Giguere v. Port Res., Inc. (Giguere I), and so awarded back wages to the collective-action Plaintiffs and treble damages to Giguere, Giguere v. Port Res., Inc. (Giguere II). Both parties appealed. Finding no error in the district court's carefully reasoned opinions, Judge Lynch affirmed. She finds that Section 785.23 advances that purpose by carefully distinguishing between "live-in" employees, who are essentially at home on the employer's premises, and nonresidential employees, who are not. And DOL's interpretation of that regulation, as the Court has construed it, provides a useful frame of reference -- the workweek -- to analyze that distinction. Applying that interpretation, the Judge holds that Port Resources has not carried the burden necessary to invoke section 785.23. She affirmed the district court's finding that Port Resources' sleep-time policy violated the FLSA. The Judge also finds that district court properly awarded Giguere treble damages as a remedy for Port Resources' Wages Act violation. The Wages Act provides a remedy for unpaid work, while the Minimum Wage Law provides a remedy for underpaid work. And because this is the case, Port Resources' superfluity argument is meritless. Costs are awarded to Giguere. A full-text copy of the Court's June 19, 2019 Opinion is available at https://is.gd/klu22B from Leagle.com. PRO TREE: $78,500 Settlement Reached in Hernandez Suit ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit styled as FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated persons, known and unknown, the Plaintiff, vs. PRO TREE SERVICE, INC., and JOHN ANDREW BAIO, individually, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-04503 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order: 1. granting motion for preliminary approval of the stipulation of settlement; 2. approving class certification and collective action certification of the class of: "all hourly employees employed by Defendants between June 28, 2015 and June 28, 2018"; 3. approving notice of class action, proposed settlement and hearing; 4. authorizing notice to the class; 5. setting a date for the fairness hearing; and 6. entering proposed order of preliminary approval. The Defendant has agreed to fund a Total Settlement Amount of $78,500. The Plaintiff alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act, for Defendants' failure to pay Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees at time and a half their regular rate for all time worked in excess of 40 hours in individual work weeks.[CC] Attorney for the Plaintiff is: Christopher J. Williams, Esq. NATIONAL LEGAL ADVOCACY NETWORK 53 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 1224 Chicago, IL 60604 PUTNAM COUNTY, TN: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Rich Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ TERRY RICH, individually and on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. PUTNAM COUNTY, TENNESSEE, Case No. 2:19-cv-00056 (M.D. Tenn., July 17, 2019), is brought as a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 because of the Defendant's alleged unlawful deprivation of the Plaintiff's rights to overtime compensation. Mr. Rich is an employee of the Putnam County Emergency Medical Services Department. He seeks a declaratory judgment under 28 U.S.C. Section 2201 and compensation, damages, equitable relief, and other relief available under the FLSA. Putnam County is a political subdivision organized under the laws of the state of Tennessee, with the power to sue and be sued in its own name. The Defendant has been a "public agency" and "employer" within the meaning of the FLSA. The Defendant operates an EMS Department, which is distinct and separate from the Fire and Police Departments. The Defendant's EMS Department provides emergency medical services to the citizens, residents and visitors of Putnam County.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles P. Yezbak, III, Esq. N. Chase Teeples, Esq. YEZBAK LAW OFFICES PLLC 2002 Richard Jones Road, Suite B-200 Nashville, TN 37215 Telephone: (615) 250-2000 Facsimile: (615) 250-2020 E-mail: yezbak@yezbaklaw.com teeples@yezbaklaw.com - and - Gregory K. McGillivary, Esq. Hillary D. LeBeau, Esq. McGILLIVARY STEELE ELKIN LLP 1101 Vermont Ave., N.W., Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 833-8855 Facsimile: (202) 452-1090 E-mail: gkm@mselaborlaw.com hdl@mselaborlaw.com RAYTHEON COMPANY: Lowinger Files Suit Over UTC Merger Deal ----------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT LOWINGER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. RAYTHEON COMPANY, THOMAS A. KENNEDY, TRACY A. ATKINSON, ROBERT E. BEAUCHAMP, ADRIANE M. BROWN, STEPHEN J. HADLEY, LETITIA A. LONG, GEORGE R. OLIVER, DINESH C. PALIWAL, ELLEN M. PAWLIKOWSKI, WILLIAM R. SPIVEY, MARTA R. STEWART, JAMES A. WINNEFELD, JR., and ROBERT O. WORK, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01376-UNA (D. Del., July 24, 2019) is an action brought as a class action by Plaintiff on behalf of himself and the other public holders of the common stock of Raytheon against the Company and the members of the Company's board of directors for violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") in connection with the proposed sale of Raytheon. On June 9, 2019, the Board caused the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with Light Merger Sub Corp. ("Merger Sub"), a wholly- owned subsidiary of United Technologies Corporation ("UTC"). Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, Raytheon shareholders will receive 2.3348 fully paid and nonassessable shares of UTC common stock (and, if applicable, cash in lieu of fractional shares). The consummation of the Proposed Merger is subject to certain closing conditions, including the approval of the stockholders of Raytheon. The Company expects the Proposed Merger to close in the first half of 2020. On July 17, 2019, in order to convince Raytheon's shareholders to vote in favor of the Proposed Merger, the Board authorized the filing of a joint registration statement, which was filed with the SEC, by UTC, on Form S-4. The Registration Statement is materially incomplete and misleading, in violation of the Exchange Act. While Defendants, in the S-4, tout the fairness of the Merger Consideration to the Company's stockholders, they have failed to disclose material information that is necessary for Raytheon's stockholders to properly assess the fairness of the Proposed Merger, thereby rendering certain statements in the S-4 incomplete and misleading. It is imperative that the material information that has been omitted from the S-4 is disclosed to the Company's stockholders prior to the forthcoming stockholder vote so that they can properly exercise their corporate suffrage rights. For these reasons, Plaintiff asserts claims against Defendants for violations of the Exchange Act. Plaintiff seeks to enjoin Defendants from holding the stockholder vote on the Proposed Merger and taking any steps to consummate the Proposed Merger unless and until the material information is disclosed to Raytheon's stockholders sufficiently in advance of the vote on the Proposed Merger or, in the event the Proposed Merger is consummated, to recover damages resulting from the Defendants' violations of the Exchange Act, says the complaint. Plaintiff is, and at all relevant times has been, a Raytheon stockholder. Raytheon develops technologically advanced and integrated products, services and solutions in its core markets: integrated air and missile defense; electronic warfare; command, control, communications, computers, cyber, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance; space systems; effects; and cyber.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian D. Long, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220 Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 295-5310 Facsimile: (302) 654-7530 Email: bdl@rl-legal.com gms@rl-legal.com - and - Jeffrey S. Abraham, Esq. Michael J. Klein, Esq. ABRAHAM, FRUCHTER & TWERSKY, LLP One Penn Plaza, Suite 2805 New York, NY 10119 Phone: (212) 279-5050 Facsimile: (212) 279-3655 Email: jabraham@aflaw.com mklein@aflaw.com REDDY BUILDERS: Santana Seeks OT Wages for Construction Workers --------------------------------------------------------------- HERNANDEZ SANTANA ODILON, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. REDDY BUILDERS INC. (D/B/A REDDY BUILDERS), MADHU CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION (D/B/A MADHU CONSTRUCTION), and SEKHAR REDDY, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-04185 (E.D.N.Y., July 2019), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the New York Labor Law, including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. Mr. Santana is a former employee of the Defendants. He was employed as a painter and a sheet rock installer at the construction corporations. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage and overtime compensation for the hours that he worked. Rather, the Defendants failed to maintain accurate record-keeping of the hours worked and failed to pay Plaintiff appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium. Furthermore, the Defendants repeatedly failed to pay Plaintiff Santana wages on a timely basis. Defendants' conduct extended beyond Plaintiff Santana to all other similarly situated employees, the lawsuit says. The Defendants own, operate, or control two construction companies, located at 90-28 209th Street, Queens Village, New York 11428 under the names "Reddy Builders" and "Madhu Construction".[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 E-mail: Faillace@employmentcompliance.com REVENUE FRONTIER: Court Certifies Class in Clough TCPA Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, Robert W. Clough, II on behalf of himself and other similarly situated v. Revenue Frontier, LLC et al, Case No. 17-cv-411-PB (D. N.H.), Judge Paul Barbadoro of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire granted Clough's motion for class certification. Robert W. Clough, II, filed the action on behalf of himself and similarly situated individuals under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), against Revenue Frontier, LLC, Supreme Data Connections, LLC, and William Adomanis. The complaint alleges that the Defendants violated the TCPA by sending unsolicited text messages advertising the services of National Tax Experts, Inc., to Clough and other recipients using an automatic telephone dialing system ("ATDS"). On June 14, 2017, Clough received a text message on his cellular telephone. He learned that the text message was a solicitation for National Tax Experts, Inc. ("NTE"). NTE, however, did not send the text message itself. Instead, it hired a company called Airtime Media, LLC to promote NTE's tax relief services and generate inbound customer calls. Airtime Media, in turn, hired Revenue Frontier as a lead generator for the NTE campaign. Revenue Frontier then engaged W4, LLC to promote NTE's services on behalf of Revenue Frontier. W4 is an affiliate network that has agreements with independent contractors known as "affiliates" or "publishers" who use various methods to promote products and services and to encourage customers to visit websites or call telephone numbers to purchase products or services. In the case, W4 arranged for its affiliate, U.E.G. Inc., to promote NTE's services via text messages. U.E.G. then hired Supreme Data Connections, LLC to send text messages for the NTE campaign. Defendant Adomanis is Supreme Data's manager and registered agent. During the discovery process, Supreme Data produced a list of text messages it sent for the NTE campaign. Clough's expert witness Anya Verkhovskaya analyzed the list and concluded that 18,937 wireless numbers received 18,971 texts messages. Another expert witness, Randall Snyder, has opined that the platform utilized to send the texts (the SDC Messaging Application employing the Sendroid software) qualifies as an ATDS. Clough alleges that he did not consent to the receipt of any text message promoting tax debt relief services. The Defendants have yet to produce any evidence that calls Clough's allegation into question. Nor have the Fefendants identified any evidence that the other recipients of the 18,971 text messages consented to receive them. Clough has moved to certify a Plaintiff class and appoint his attorneys as the class counsel. Clough proposes to certify the class of (1) all persons in the United States who are the users or subscribers of the approximately 18,937 cellular telephones identified in Anya Verkovshkaya's report (2) to which cellular telephone numbers a text message was sent (3) using the SDC Messaging Application, employing the Sendroid software (4) within four years of the filing of the complaint. The Defendants object, arguing that Clough lacks Article III standing and cannot meet the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. Judge Barbadoro concludes that Clough has standing to sue and the proposed class satisfies the requirements of Rule 23. Accordingly, he granted lough's motion for class certification. Clough is appointed as the Lead Plaintiff and his counsel as the lead counsel. A full-text copy of the Court's June 19, 2019 Memorandum and Order is available at https://is.gd/ZlgoNq from Leagle.com. Robert W. Clough, II, Plaintiff, represented by Alex M. Washkowitz -- alex@cwlawgrouppc.com -- CW Law Group, PC, pro hac vice, Edward A. Broderick -- ted@broderick-law.com -- Broderick & Paronich, PC, pro hac vice, Jeremy A. Cohen -- Jeremy@cwlawgrouppc.com -- CW Law Group, PC, pro hac vice, Matthew P. McCue -- mmccue@massattorneys.net -- Matthew P. McCue, PC, pro hac vice & Roger B. Phillips -- roger@phillipslawoffice.com -- Phillips Law Office. Revenue Frontier, LLC, Defendant, represented by Ari N. Rothman -- anrothman@Venable.com -- Venable LLP, Daniel S. Blynn -- dsblynn@Venable.com -- Venable LLP, pro hac vice, Justin B. Nemeroff -- jbnemeroff@Venable.com -- Venable LLP, pro hac vice, Shahin O. Rothermel -- sorothermel@Venable.com -- Venable LLP, pro hac vice, Arnold Rosenblatt -- a.rosenblatt@clrm.com -- Cook Little Rosenblatt & Manson PLLC & Kathleen M. Mahan -- k.mahan@clrm.com -- Cook Little Rosenblatt & Manson PLLC. Supreme Data Connections, LLC, Defendant, pro se. William Adomanis, Defendant, pro se. Revenue Frontier, LLC, Cross Claimant, represented by Ari N. Rothman, Venable LLP, Daniel S. Blynn, Venable LLP, Justin B. Nemeroff, Venable LLP, Shahin O. Rothermel, Venable LLP & Arnold Rosenblatt, Cook Little Rosenblatt & Manson PLLC. Robert W. Clough, II, Cross Defendant, represented by Alex M. Washkowitz, CW Law Group, PC, Edward A. Broderick, Broderick & Paronich, PC, Jeremy A. Cohen, CW Law Group, PC, Matthew P. McCue, Matthew P. McCue, PC, pro hac vice & Roger B. Phillips, Phillips Law Office. Revenue Frontier, LLC, Counter Claimant, represented by Ari N. Rothman, Venable LLP, Daniel S. Blynn, Venable LLP, Justin B. Nemeroff, Venable LLP, Shahin O. Rothermel, Venable LLP & Arnold Rosenblatt, Cook Little Rosenblatt & Manson PLLC. Robert W. Clough, II, Counter Defendant, represented by Alex M. Washkowitz, CW Law Group, PC, Edward A. Broderick, Broderick & Paronich, PC, Jeremy A. Cohen, CW Law Group, PC, Matthew P. McCue, Matthew P. McCue, PC, pro hac vice & Roger B. Phillips, Phillips Law Office. ROSEMARY HOSPITALITY: Florez Seeks Minimum & Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- STEPHANIE FLOREZ, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. THE ROSEMARY HOSPITALITY, INC., a California Corporation, DARREL THOMAS ADAMS, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 19STCV25067 (Cal. Super., July 19, 2019), alleges the Defendants violated numerous wage and hour laws. According to the complaint, the Defendants have misclassified the Plaintiff and others similarly situated as independent contractors and, in doing so, have violated the California Labor Code by: (1) failing to pay for all hours worked, including overtime hours worked; (2) failing to timely provide and/or authorize meal breaks; (3) failing to timely provide and/or authorize rest breaks; (4) failing to pay earned wages upon discharge incurring waiting time penalties; (5) failing to provide timely, accurate wage statements and payroll records; (6) failing to comply with California Sick Pay requirements; and (7) unlawful and unfair business practices. Attorneys for the Plaintiff and all putative class members are: Nazo Koulloukian, Esq. KOUL LAW FIRM 3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1710 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 761-5484 Facsimile: (818) 561-3938 E-mail: nazo@koullaw.com SAMARCO MINERACAO: Court Dismisses Banco Safra Suit With Prejudice ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, BANCO SAFRA S.A. - CAYMAN ISLANDS BRANCH, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. SAMARCO MINERACAO S.A., BHP BILLITON LIMITED, BHP BILLITON PLC, BHP BILLITON BRASIL LTDA., and VALE S.A., Defendants, Case No. 16 Civ. 8800 (RMB) (S.D. N.Y.), Judge Richard M. Berman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted with prejudice the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's Third Complaint. The Decision & Order resolves the motion of the Defendants to dismiss the Plaintiff's Third Complaint, dated March 21, 2018. The Third Complaint -- as were the Plaintiff's first and second complaints -- was filed as a class action by Banco Safra. The Plaintiff is an offshore branch of Banco Safra S.A., a Brazilian bank, and was established under the laws of the Cayman Islands. Samarco is a Brazilian mining company that owns and operates iron ore mines and pellet processing facilities in the Brazilian states of Minas Gerais and Espirito Santo. It is a private company that is co-owned by BHP Brasil and Vale, all three of which are headquartered in Brazil. Banco Safra purports to bring the action on behalf of all purchasers of debt securities issued by Samarco [Samarco Bonds] during the Class Period [Oct. 31, 2012 to Nov. 30, 2015], who purchased such securities in domestic U.S. transactions. The Samarco Bonds purchased by Banco Safra were initially offered only outside the United States and Banco Safra acquired the overwhelming majority of bonds in the secondary market. Banco Safra alleges that the Defendants violated U.S. federal securities laws, particularly Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. It also brings state claims against the Defendants for common law fraud, aiding and abetting fraud, and negligent misrepresentations under New York State law. Banco Safra alleges that thes class action arises out of what is widely regarded as the worst environmental disaster in Brazil's history, which occurred on Nov. 5, 2015 when Samarco's Fundao "tailings" clam burst, "releasing more than 16,000 Olympic swimming pools' worth of wastewater generated by Samarco's mining operations in Minas Gerais. Banco Safra claims that during the Class Period, the Defendants misled investors about the safety of the Samarco's mining operations, including the Funclao dam and the tailings deposited at the dam, Samarco's iron ore production and related matters. In sum, the case is a case by a Brazilian/Cayman Island Plaintiff against Brazilian Defendants regarding Brazilian bonds and claims which relate to a Brazilian catastrophe. The bonds were never listed on a U.S. exchange and were principally offered and sold outside the United States. It is difficult to perceive a domestic transaction under Morrison and its Second Circuit progeny. The instant complaint is the Plaintiff's third attempt sufficiently to plead a domestic U.S. transaction. Banca Safra filed its first complaint on Nov. 14, 2016. On March 6, 2017, Banco Safra on its own initiative filed its second complaint which amended its First Complaint by adding "Exhibit A." Exhibit A purports to "bolster" the Plaintiff's pleading of a domestic transaction by listing purchases and sales of Samarco Bonds, and including for each listed transaction the name and address of the U.S. Counterparty/Broker-dealer, the trade date, and the purchase or sale price in U.S. dollars. The Second Complaint states that a set forth in Exhibit A, the Lead Plaintiff purchased Samarco bonds in domestic (U.S.) transactions during the Class Period and was damaged thereby. On June 26, 2017, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Second Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure arguing, principally, that the Plaintiff has not adequately alleged a U.S. domestic securities transaction, and thus its federal securities claims must be dismissed under Morrison v. Nat'l Australia Bank. On Aug. 1, 2017, Banco Safra filed its opposition to the Defendants' motion. On Aug. 31, 2017, tge Defendants filed a reply. On March 7, 2018, the Court denied without prejudice the Defendants' motion to dismiss and directed the Plaintiff to "submit a final amended complaint" by March 21, 2019. The Plaintiff filed its Third Complaint on March 21, 2018. With respect to the Defendants' challenge over domesticity, the Plaintiff included in the Third Complaint the allegations which had been set forth in the Morpurgo Declaration. On May 21, 2018, the Defendants jointly moved to dismiss the Third Complaint, arguing that the Plaintiff's various changes (additions) to their earlier complaints still fail to satisfy the domestic transaction criteria of Morrison. On June 18, 2018, the Plaintiff filed its opposition. On July 3, 2018, the Defendants submitted their reply memorandum. Helpful oral argument was held on Oct. 5, 2018. Judge Berman holds that the Plaintiff fails to allege a domestic U.S. securities transaction. He has found no case -- and the Plaintiff has not cited any which holds that reporting to TRACE is sufficient to allege that irrevocable liability was incurred or title transferred in the United States. As the Defendants correctly point out, nothing in the TRACE regulations states that non-U.S. transactions cannot be reported, or that Banco Safra was precluded from reporting its purchases and sales of Samarco Bonds to TRACE even if they were not domestic transactions. The Defendants argue persuasively that the Plaintiff's Federal claims should all be dismissed with prejudice because the Plaintiff's third attempt to plead federal securities claims does not cure the numerous deficiencies in their prior filings. The changes in the Third Complaint are a failed effort to plead a domestic securities transaction. The Judge holds that the Plaintiff's "repeated failures to cure" preclude further amendment. The Plaintiff has had two opportunities to amend its First Complaint. And the Plaintiff was on notice from the Court that its Third Complaint was its last opportunity sufficiently to allege a domestic transaction. For the reasons stated, Judge Berman granted with prejudice the Defendants' motion to dismiss. The Plaintiff's state claims are dismissed without prejudice to their being filed in state court. A full-text copy of the Court's June 18, 2019 Decision and Order is available at https://is.gd/JGqz4M from Leagle.com. Banco Safra S.A. Cayman Islands Branch, Lead Plaintiff, represented by Jeremy Alan Lieberman -- jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP & Emma Gilmore, Pomerantz LLP. Banco Safra S.A. - Cayman Islands Branch, Plaintiff, represented by Adam G. Kurtz, Emma Gilmore , Pomerantz LLP, Joseph Alexander Hood, II -- ahood@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP & Jeremy Alan Lieberman, Pomerantz LLP. Samarco Mineracao S.A., Defendant, represented by Mark Stewart Cohen -- mcohen@cohengresser.com -- Cohen & Gresser, LLP & Nathaniel P.T. Read -- nread@cohengresser.com -- Cohen & Gresser, LLP. BHP Billiton Limited, BHP Billiton PLC & BHP Billiton Brasil Ltda., Defendants, represented by Brendan Peter Cullen, Sullivan & Cromwell & Kate Linsley Doniger, Sullivan & Cromwell. Vale S.A., Defendant, represented by Christopher Michael Joralemon, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, Mark Adam Kirsch, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP & Randy M. Mastro, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP. SARBANAND FARMS: CSI Visa Needs License to Supply Farmworkers ------------------------------------------------------------- Don Jenkins, writing for Capital Press, reports that the Washington State Department of Labor and Industries has sided with blueberry pickers on July 11 in a federal lawsuit against Sarbanand Farms and a Mexican company that helped the workers get visas. L&I argues in a court brief that CSI Visa Processing of Durango, Mexico, should have obtained a Washington license to supply farmworkers. If L&I's position holds, CSI, Sarbanand and the farm's parent company, Munger Brothers of California, potentially face more than $1 million in damages for violating the state's Farm Labor Contractor Act. The act is intended to protect transitory farmworkers from being abused or unpaid. According to court records, an L&I official told the company more than once that it didn't need a license. A higher-level department official, in a court deposition, said that was bad advice. L&I now joins Columbia Legal Services in asking U.S. District Judge John Coughenour to let the state Supreme Court decide whether CSI violated the law, even if workers were initially sent to work in California, not Washington. Washington's high court has ruled against agricultural employers in several recent cases, including ones that originated as federal class-action lawsuits. In this case, Sarbanand allegedly threatened and intimidated workers, and illegally fired about 70 who staged a one-day strike in 2017. Sarbanand and Munger deny the allegations. Workers walked out after a colleague was taken from the farm in an ambulance. He later died at a hospital. L&I ruled the death was not workplace-related, but the farm came under scrutiny. L&I fined Sarbanand for late meals and missed rest breaks. Two workers claimed violations of federal anti-trafficking laws. Coughenour approved making their claim a class-action suit involving about 600 workers. L&I's filing was the latest in the run-up to a trial set for next year on the core allegation of mistreatment. In a pre-trial ruling in June, Coughenour decided CSI should have had a farm labor contractor's license for 103 workers it helped go directly from Mexico to Washington. However, he dismissed claims based on the 553 workers who first went to a Munger farm or cold storage facility in California and transferred later in the season to Washington. Coughenour's ruling reduced the potential penalties against the defendants for violating the Farm Labor Contractors Act to roughly $250,000 from $1.5 million. Columbia Legal Services and Seattle law firm Schroeter Goldmark and Bender have moved for Coughenour to either reconsider his decision or let the Supreme Court decide. That's the position L&I supports. L&I "sees the potential for farm labor contractors to circumvent Washington law by first sending workers to other states before they work in Washington," the department's brief states. CSI calls itself the largest H-2A processing company in Mexico. It argues it doesn't do what farm labor contractors do, including recruiting workers, and that its work stops at the border. Munger picked most of the workers, while 67 applied through CSI's website, according to court records. The link to apply was mentioned on CSI's Facebook page. CSI's compliance officer, Roxana Marcias, declared in court documents that she checked with an L&I agricultural employment standards specialist in 2014 or 2015 and again in 2017. Both times the L&I official said CSI didn't need and couldn't get a license because it was a foreign company operating outside the U.S., according to Marcias. [GN] SEE'S CANDIES: Judge Refuses to Certify Workers' Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Law360 reports that a California state judge declined to certify a proposed class action accusing chocolatier See's Candies of effectively denying workers their meal and rest breaks by making them run stores solo. [GN] SKY BLUE EXPRESS: Kumar Seeks Unpaid Wages for Employees -------------------------------------------------------- VINOD KUMAR, on behalf of himself and other employees, and on behalf of the State of California and the Labor and Workforce Development Agency, the Plaintiffs, vs. SKY BLUE EXPRESS, INC, a California Corporation, JAMES LIU, an individual, and DOES 1 through 100, INCLUSIVE, the Defendants, Case No. 19STCV25060 (Cal. Super., July 19, 2019), seeks unpaid wages, injunctive, declaratory, and other equitable relief, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the California Labor Code. According to the complaint, the Defendants willfully and improperly classified and treated Plaintiff and other current and former employees as independent contractors when they should properly have been classified and treated as employees. Sky Blue is a licensed and bonded freight shipping and trucking company running freight hauling business from Rowland Heights, California.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Marcus J. Bradley, Esq. Kiley L. Grombacher, Esq. BRADLEY/GROMBACHER, LLP 2815 Townsgate Road, Suite 130 Westlake Village, CA 91361 Telephone: (805)270-7100 Facsimile: (805) 270-7589 E-mail: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com - and - Elanar Levine, Esq. Brian Levine, Esq. LEVINE LAW GROUP, APC 15303 Ventura Blvd., Suite 900 Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Telephone: 818 990 3400 Facsimile: 818 855 8040 SMITH-PALLUCK: Renteria Sues over Unsolicited Telephone Calls ------------------------------------------------------------- JOSE RENTERIA, indvidually and on behalf of all and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff. vs. SMITH-PALLUCK ASSOCIATES CORP. d/b/a LAS VEGAS ATHLETIC CLUBS, the Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-01261 (D. Nev., July 22, 2019), contends that the Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise, in part, by sending unsolicited telephone calls to wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Beginning on or about May of 2019, the Plaintiff received multiple calls from the Defendant on his cellular phone. LVAC made these calls in the hopes of contacting an individual named "Ruben Hernandez," who is not Plaintiff; nor is someone who Plaintiff knows. The Plaintiff never provided consent to be contacted by LVAC on his cell phone (or any other number for that matter). After being contacted by LVAC he informed LVAC that they had the wrong number, and that he was not Ruben Hernandez. However, LVAC continued to contact and dial the Plaintiff’s cell phone, the lawsuit says.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David H. Krieger, Esq. George Haines, Esq. Shawn Miller, Esq. HAINES & KRIEGER, LLC 8985 S. Eastern Avenue, Suite 350 Henderson, NE 89123 Telephone: (702) 880-5554 Facsimile: (702) 9385-5518 E-mail: dkrieger@hainesandkrieger.com - and - Matthew I. Knepper, Esq. Miles N. Clark, Esq. KNEPPER & CLARK LLC 10040 W. Cheyenne Ave., Suite 170-109 Las Vegas, NV 89129 Telephone: (702) 825-6060 Facsimile: (702) 447-8048 E-mail: matthew.knepper@knepperclark.com miles.clark@knepperclark.com SONOS, INC: Removes Steiner Suit to Central Dist. of California --------------------------------------------------------------- Sonos, Inc. removed the case captioned as MATTHEW STEINER, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. SONOS, INC., and DOES 1-10, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. 19STCV21795 (Filed May 30, 2019), from the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County, to U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on July 21, 2019. The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-06289. Mr. Steiner alleged that Sonos intentionally caused thousands of its CR100 controllers to fail by implementing a software update on those controllers in 2018 in violation of the Unfair Business Practices Act, the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.[BN] Attorneys for the Defendant are: Neal Ross Marder, Esq. Joshua A. Rubin, Esq. Hyongsoon Kim, Esq. AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 600 Los Angeles, CA 90067-6022 Telephone: 310.229.1000 Facsimile: 310.229.1001 SPA NAIL: Li Suit Transferred to Northern Dist. of New York ----------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled as WEIDONG LI, on his own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. SPA NAIL 9, INC. d/b/a Spa Nail 9; DI YANG a/k/a Peter Yang, AMY YANG, and ANDY DOE, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-06118 (June 30, 2019), Was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York (Albany) on July 19, 2019. The Northern District of New York Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-00873-TJM-CFH to the proceeding. The suit is assigned to the Hon. Judge Thomas J. McAvoy. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have willfully and intentionally committed widespread violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law by engaging in pattern and practice of failing to pay its employees, including Plaintiff, minimum wage for each hour worked and overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 each workweek. Attorneys for the Plaintiff, proposed FLSA Collective and potential Rule 23 Class are: John Troy, Esq. TROY LAW, PLLC 41-25 Kissena Blvd No. 119 Flushing, NY 11355 Telephone: 1 718 762 1324 SQUARETRADE, INC: Bid to Certify Class under Advisement ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as DAVID M. SWINTON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. SQUARETRADE, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-00144-SMR-SBJ (S.D. Iowa), the Hon. Judge Stephanie M. Rose entered an order on July 22, 2019, taking under advisement Plaintiff's motion to certify class and motion for attorney's fees and incentive award. The parties should submit the materials requested in this Order by no later than August 21, 2019. The parties may submit one or, if they wish to divide the issues amongst themselves, separate briefs, Judge Rose says.[CC] SUMMER HILL, NY: Court Dismisses Cayuga County from Ward Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Gary L. Sharpe of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York granted Cayuga County's motion to dismiss the case, MATTHEW WARD, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated parties, Plaintiff, v. TOWN OF SUMMER HILL, et al., Defendants, Case No. 5:18-cv-1053 (GLS/ATB) (N.D. N.Y.). Ward, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated parties, commenced the putative class action against Defendants Town of Summer Hill and the County, bringing claims under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act ("CERCLA"), the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ("RCRA"), and New York common law. Ward's allegations concern groundwater and property contamination from the Summer Hill Landfill. Ward is the owner and resident of real property at 6053 Filmore Road in Sempronius, New York, and the Landfill is located on approximately 23 acres of land in or near Summer Hill, New York. Ward's groundwater and property are contaminated with hazardous substances from the Landfill, including but not limited to arsenic, benzene, chromium, lead, and napthalene. These contaminants were discovered in soil and water samples. Ward alleges the following. The Town and the County have owned, operated, maintained, and otherwise controlled the Landfill for approximately 20 years. The Landfill operations are reported to have begun in approximately 1963 and are reported to have ended in approximately 1982. A portion of the Landfill was originally operated as a municipal solid waste landfill or a sanitary waste landfill. Other portions received other forms of waste, both hazardous and non-hazardous, including household, commercial, generator, and industrial solid wastes. Landfill waste remains visible, exposed, and disturbed; outbreaks of water that has percolated through waste solids and extracted soluble and insoluble matter from such waste have been observed. Ward filed his complaint on Sept. 4, 2018. He brings claims under (1) CERCLA, and (2) RCRA, as well as New York common law claims for (3) negligence, (4) private nuisance, (5) trespass, and (6) willful and wanton misconduct. The Town filed an answer and counterclaim on Nov. 2, 2018. Pending is the County's motion to dismiss. The County argues that Ward's allegations are insufficient to state a CERCLA claim. Specifically, it contends that Ward has failed to sufficiently allege that it is a responsible party under CERCLA such that it is subject to liability. Judge Sharpe agrees with the County that Ward has failed to set forth a prima facie case under CERCLA. Ward argues that he can demonstrate that the County exercised sufficient control over the Landfill to trigger liability under CERCLA because of the extensive management and control exerted by the County during the periods of the Landfill's operation. But Ward's complaint contains no such allegations. Even if the Judge were to assume that Ward's exhibits are public records and consider them, they do not save his CERCLA claim. It is unclear if the meeting minutes that comprise the first exhibit are even referring to the Landfill. Next, County argues that Ward merely mimics without any specificity the statutory definitions of liable persons under RCRA without alleging how the County or its actions falls within one of the definitions for liable persons. The Judge agrees with the County. Ward's "operator" argument is rejected for the reasons explained. Again, even assuming the court can properly consider Ward's exhibits, Ward fails to explain what information is gleaned or how such information shows that the County is liable under RCRA. For all of these reasons, the County is correct that Ward's conclusory allegations do not state a RCRA claim. For the reasons argued by the County, the Judge agrees that Ward has failed to state a claim under New York common law for negligence, private nuisance, trespass, or willful and wanton misconduct. That is, these claims are based on the same bald, conclusory allegations upon which Ward based his CERCLA and RCRA claims. Perhaps also in recognition of his complaint's deficiencies, Ward respectfully requests the ability to amend his complaint to sufficiently advise the Defendants of the grounds for their liability in the instant action. Ward ignored the applicable rules. He failed to file a cross-motion pursuant to N.D.N.Y. L.R. 7.1(c), and he also failed to comply with 7.1(a)(4). Moreover, the Court is not required to grant leave to amend if amendment would be futile. Ward's one-sentence request to amend in his response is thus denied. The County makes additional arguments regarding the Burford abstention doctrine. As adequate grounds exist on which to grant its motion to dismiss, the Judge need not and does not reach these abstention arguments. Finally, Ryan L. McCarthy filed Ward's response to the County's motion to dismiss, as well as a supporting affirmation. McCarthy has not filed a notice of appearance in the case as required by N.D.N.Y. L.R. 83.2(a). McCarthy is ordered to do so. For the foregoing reasons, Judge Sharpe granted the County's motion to dismiss. Ward's claims against the County are dismissed with prejudice ICE. The Clerk terminate the County from the action. Pursuant to N.D.N.Y. L.R. 83.2(a), Ryan L. McCarthy file a notice of appearance in the case. The parties will contact Magistrate Judge Andrew T. Baxter to schedule further proceedings in accordance with the Memorandum-Decision and Order. The Clerk provide a copy of the Memorandum-Decision and Order to the parties. A full-text copy of the Court's June 19, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/SteXdY from Leagle.com. Matthew Ward, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated parties, Plaintiff, represented by Melody Domenica Westfall -- scalfone@scalfonelaw.com -- Scalfone Law PLLC. Town of Summer Hill, Defendant, represented by Thomas R. Smith -- smithtr@bsk.com -- Bond Schoeneck & King, PLLC & Suzanne O. Galbato -- sgalbato@bsk.com -- Bond Schoeneck & King, PLLC. Town of Summer Hill, Counter Claimant, represented by Thomas R. Smith , Bond Schoeneck & King, PLLC & Suzanne O. Galbato , Bond Schoeneck & King, PLLC. Matthew Ward, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated parties, Counter Defendant, represented by Melody Domenica Westfall, Scalfone Law PLLC. SUN HAVEN: Website not Accessible to Blind, Dominguez Says ---------------------------------------------------------- YOVANNY DOMINGUEZ AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiffs, v. SUN HAVEN MOTEL CORP., the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-06732 (S.D.N.Y., July 19, 2019), asserts claims under the Americans With Disabilities Act ("ADA"), New York State Human Rights Law, and New York City Human Rights Law against Defendant. Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby and in conjunction with its physical location, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the ADA. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using his computer. The Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or "visually-impaired" to refer to all people with visual impairments who meet the legal definition of blindness in that they have a visual acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200. Some blind people who meet their definition have limited vision. Others have no vision. Based on a 2010 U.S. Census Bureau report, approximately 8.1 million people in the United States are visually impaired, including 2.0 million who are blind, and according to the American Foundation for the Blind's 2015 report, approximately 400,000 visually impaired persons live in the State of New York. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff is being deterred from patronizing the Defendant's physical location due to Defendant's discrimination by failing to maintain access to the Website for visually-impaired consumers. The Plaintiff intends to return to Defendant's Website and hotel location once Defendant ceases its on-going discriminatory practices, the lawsuit says. Because Defendant's Website WWW.OCEANVISTARESORT.COM is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers because it violates the ADA and fails to identify and describe accessible features in the hotel and guest rooms offered through its reservations service on its Website in enough detail to reasonably permit individuals with disabilities such as the Plaintiff to assess independently whether a given hotel or guest room meets his or her accessibility needs, it violates the provisions of the ADA.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Bradly G. Marks, Esq. THE MARKS LAW FIRM, PC 175 Varick St., 3 rd Floor New York, NY 10014 Telephone: (646) 770-3775 Facsimile: (646) 867-2639 E-mail: brad@markslawpc.com - and - Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: 212-228-9795 Facsimile: 212-982-6284 E-mail: nyjg@aol.com danalgottlieb@aol.com T-MOBILE CENTRAL: City of Springfield's Suit Remanded to State Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Henry Edward Autrey of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, remanded the case, CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, MISSOURI, et al., Plaintiffs, v. T-MOBILE CENTRAL LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:18cv2015 HEA (E.D. Mo.), to the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri. The Plaintiff brought the action in Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri against the Defendants for delinquent taxes and other relief. The Plaintiffs are the Cities which impose municipal business license taxes on telephone companies doing business in the Plaintiff Cities. The Defendants are telephone companies which do business in the Cities and are allegedly required to pay the Cities' license taxes. They previously entered into a class action settlement agreement with the Cities of Grandview, Lee's Summit, and Webster Groves. The settlement agreement was approved by the Circuit Court of the County of St. Louis, Missouri. The Settlement Agreement requires the Defendants to pay the Cities' license taxes. The Plaintiffs allege the Defendants have not done so. The Petition contains the following 19 counts: Counts I-IV seek delinquent local taxes, interest, and penalties. Counts V-VIII seek rulings that the Defendants have violated Missouri State statutes and subjected the Cities to undue and unreasonable prejudice and disadvantage. Counts IX-XII seek declaratory judgments regarding the Defendants' obligations to pay local license taxes and the enforcement of those taxes. Counts XIII-XVI seek an accounting of the Defendants' gross receipts to determine the extent of Defendants' alleged underpayment of taxes. Counts XVII-XIX allege breach of contract claims for the Defendants' alleged violations of the class action settlement agreement. The Settlement Agreement contains a forum selection clause wherein the parties agreed that the Circuit Court of the County of St. Louis Missouri will retain jurisdiction, after entry of the Order and Judgment of Dismissal with respect to enforcement of the terms of this Settlement, and all Parties and Class Members submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court with respect to the enforcement of the Settlement and any dispute with respect thereto. Further, the settlement agreement defined "Court" as the Circuit Court of the Count of St. Louis, Missouri. The Plaintiffs filed the action on Nov. 2, 2018 in the Circuit Court of the County of St. Louis. The Defendants removed based on the Court's diversity of citizenship jurisdiction. The Plaintiffs move to remand based on the forum selection clause contained in the settlement agreement. The Defendants oppose remand arguing that the forum selection clause is insufficient to waive their removal rights. Judg Autrey is particularly mindful that to arrive at the position advocated by the Defendants would be to render the express terms of the Agreement essentially meaningless. the Such a result would be unjust to Plaintiffs and not in keeping with the clear expectations of the parties. Stated another way, it is not reasonable to conclude that contract language making the Circuit Court of St. Louis County the "exclusive" venue for disputes relating to the Agreement means no more than the exclusive venue until the case is removed to federal court. The Judge will not unnecessarily strain the plain language of the Agreement to reach that interpretation. Based on the foregoing, and all the files, records and proceedings, the Settlement Agreement sets out the parties' clear and unequivocal intent to litigate all claims and issues in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri. The motion to remand is well taken. Accordingly, Judg Autrey granted the Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand. The Clerk of Court is directed to furnish a certified copy of the Order to the clerk of the Circuit Court of St. Louis County. A full-text copy of the Court's June 19, 2019 Opinion, Memorandum and Order is available at https://is.gd/osJBtPs from Leagle.com. City of Springfield, Missouri, City of Grandview, Missouri, City of Lee's Summit, Missouri & City of Webster Groves, Missouri, Plaintiffs, represented by David Alvin Streubel -- dave@municipalfirm.com -- CUNNINGHAM AND VOGEL & Margaret Claire Eveker -- maggie@municipalfirm.com -- CUNNINGHAM AND VOGEL. T-Mobile Central, LLC, T-Mobile US, Inc. & T-Mobile USA, Inc., Defendants, represented by Jonathan B. Potts -- jonathan.potts@bclplaw.com -- BRYAN CAVE LLP, Lindsay Erin Wuller -- lindsay.wuller@bclplaw.com -- BRYAN CAVE LLP & Mark B. Leadlove -- mbleadlove@bclplaw.com -- BRYAN CAVE LLP. TENCENT AMERICA: Kizak Suit Asserts TCPA Violation -------------------------------------------------- HEIDI KIZAK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. TENCENT AMERICA, LLC, a California company, Defendant, Case No. 5:19-cv-04249 (N.D. Cal., July 24, 2019) seeks to stop Tencent from violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, and to otherwise obtain injunctive and monetary relief for all persons injured by Tencent's conduct. The complaint asserts that the Defendant sent autodialed text messages to consumers (including those who have registered their phone numbers on the national Do Not Call registry ("DNC")) after they have expressly requested that Tencent stop contacting them. Tencent is a technology company that owns and operates the app WeChat. WeChat is an all-in-one messaging, social media, gaming, and mobile payment app used by millions worldwide. Plaintiff Kizak is a resident of Mercer County, Pennsylvania.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David S. Ratner, Esq. DAVID RATNER LAW FIRM, LLP 33 Julianne Court Walnut Creek, CA 94595 Phone: (917) 900-2868 Email: david@davidratnerlawfirm.com - and - Avi R. Kaufman, Esq. Rachel Kaufman, Esq. Kaufman P.A. 400 NW 26th Street Miami, FL 33127 Phone: (305) 469-5881 Email: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com rachel@kaufmanpa.com TJX COMPANIES: Removes Schuchard Suit to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- THE TJX Companies et al., removed the case styled as VLADIMIR SCHUCHARD, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. THE TJX COMPANIES, INC., a Delaware corporation; HOMEGOODS, INC., a Delaware corporation; T.J. MAXX OF CA, LLC, a Virginia limited liability company; MARSHALLS OF CA, LLC, a Virginia limited liability company; MARSHALLS OF MA, INC., a Massachusetts corporation; SIERRA TRADING POST, INC., a Wyoming corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 19STCV14308 (Filed April 25, 2019), from the Los Angeles Superior Court, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on July 22, 2019. The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-06299 to the proceeding. The complaint alleges violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.[BN] Attorneys for the Defendants are: Pamela Q. Devata, Esq. John W. Drury, Esq. Eric Suits, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 233 South Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 460-5000 Facsimile: (312) 460-7000 E-mail: pdevata@seyfarth.com drury@seyfarth.com esuits@seyfarth.com TRISH MCEVOY: L. Tatum-Rios Files ADA Suit in New York ------------------------------------------------------ Trish McEvoy Ltd. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Lynette Tatum-Rios, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Trish McEvoy Ltd., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-06869 (S.D. N.Y., July 23, 2019). Trish McEvoy Ltd. is engaged in beauty products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq. Lipsky Lowe LLP 630 Third Avenue Fifth Floor New York, NY 10017 Tel: (212) 392-4772 Fax: (212) 444-1030 Email: doug@lipskylowe.com TROPICANA PRODUCTS: Bid to Certify Advertising Suit Classes Denied ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, IN RE: TROPICANA ORANGE JUICE MARKETING AND SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION MDL 2353 This Document Relates To: ALL CASES, Civ. No. 2:11-07382 (D. N.J.), Judge William J. Martini of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey denied the Plaintiff's Motion for Certification of Modified Class, Appointment of Class Representatives, and Appointment of Class Counsel. The case is about orange juice. Defendant Tropicana is a manufacturer of products derived from citrus, including a category of products of pasteurized, not-from-concentrate orange juice marketed as Tropicana Pure Premium ("TPP"). Plaintiff Angelena Lewis is a purchaser of at least one TPP product. The Plaintiff alleges that Tropicana deceptively markets TPP as "100% pure and natural orange juice," "100% pure orange juice," "100% orange juice," "pasteurized orange juice," "pasteurized," "pure," "natural," "fresh," and "grove to glass," when, in fact, it is none of those things. Instead, she alleges that the Defendant removes solids and oils from the extracted juice, treats the mixture, and then adds oils, colors, or flavoring in violation of FDA standards and consumer protection laws. Based on these allegations, Lewis, now proceeding as the sole named Plaintiff, asserts claims under New York and California law on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated. Before the Court is the Plaintiff's Renewed Motion. The Renewed Motion is the Plaintiff's third attempt to move for class certification. On Jan. 22, 2018, the Court denied certification in a written opinion. It found that the then-named Plaintiffs had met the Rule 23(a) requirements for certification but failed to meet the requirements set forth under Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3). Five months later, the Plaintiff filed the Renewed Motion. Although the Defendant contested briefing the Renewed Motion prior to summary judgment, on Dec. 28, 2019, Court issued a written opinion finding that the Plaintiff should be permitted to pursue class certification first. In the Renewed Motion, Lewis seeks certification under Rule 23(b)(3) of two classes that she argues correct the deficiencies found in the Opinion Denying Certification. Lewis, a California resident who purchased TPP at least once at a Costco Wholesale Store in California, sets forth the two modified classes as follows: a. All consumers who were or are members of a Costco Wholesale Store in the State of California and who purchased Tropicana Pure Premium Orange Juice at a Costco Wholesale store in the State of California between Jan. 1, 2008 and the present ("California Class"). b. All consumers who were or are members of a Costco Wholesale Store in the State of New York and who purchased Tropicana Pure Premium Orange Juice at a Costco Wholesale store in the State of New York between Jan. 1, 2008 and the present ("New York Class"). Lewis seeks to represent both classes in four claims against the Defendant: (i) violation of New York General Business Law ("NYGBL") §Section 349; (ii) violation of NYGBL Section 350; (iii) violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"); and (iv) violation of the Unfair Competition Law ("UCL") California Business & Professional Code Sections 17200 et seq. In her brief, the Plaintiff principally argues that the proposed new classes cured the deficiencies the Court previously noted in the Opinion Denying Class Certification, and thus the Court implicitly "already found" that Rule 23(a) and 23(b) are satisfied for the new classes. There was no oral argument. Judge Martini concludes that the Plaintiff's Renewed Motion for Class Certification must denied. First, the Plaintiff is not an adequate representative of the New York Class. Second, the Plaintiff's claims based on the phrases "100% pure and natural orange juice," "100% pure," "100% natural," "100% juice" "fresh," "grove to glass," "squeezed from fresh oranges," "straight-from-the-orange," and the Orange/Straw Image do not satisfy predominance or ascertainability. Third, while the claims based on the "pasteurized" or "pasteurized orange juice" labels satisfy ascertainability and predominance as to uniformity, those claims fail predominance as to materiality. Fourth, the Plaintiff's damages model does not match her theory of liability as to any of the challenged labels. Accordingly, the new proposed classes cannot be certified, and the Plaintiff's Motion for Certification of Modified Class, Appointment of Class Representatives, and Appointment of Class Counsel, is denied. An appropriate order follows. A full-text copy of the Court's June 18, 2019 Opinion is available at https://is.gd/PV50MA from Leagle.com. MICHAEL MARTINUCCI & ANGELENA LEWIS, on Behalf of Themselves and all Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, represented by ANTONIO VOZZOLO, VOZZOLO LLC, DONALD A. ECKLUND -- DEcklund@carellabyrne.com -- CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C., LINDSEY H. TAYLOR -- LTaylor@carellabyrne.com -- CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, YITZCHAK KOPEL -- ykopel@bursor.com -- BURSOR & FISHER PA & JAMES E. CECCHI -- JCecchi@carellabyrne.com -- CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. Bernadette Salerno, Aleksander Simic, Yxia Olivares & Dezzi Rae Marshall, Plaintiffs, represented by DONALD A. ECKLUND, CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C., YITZCHAK KOPEL, BURSOR & FISHER PA & JAMES E. CECCHI, CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. John Albert Veal, Jr, Plaintiff, represented by ANDREW S. HERRING, DAVIS & NORRIS LLP & YITZCHAK KOPEL, BURSOR & FISHER PA. TROPICANA PRODUCTS, INC., a division of PepsiCo, Inc., Defendant, represented by LIZA M. WALSH -- lwalsh@walsh.law -- WALSH PIZZI O'REILLY FALANGA LLP, CHRISTINE INTROMASSO GANNON -- cgannon@walsh.law -- WALSH PIZZI O'REILLY FALANGA LLP, JOSEPH L. LINARES -- jlinares@walsh.law -- WALSH PIZZI O'REILLY FALANGA LLP & LUCAS CODY TOWNSEND -- ltownsend@gibsondunn.com -- GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP. PEPSICO, INC., Defendant, represented by LIZA M. WALSH, WALSH PIZZI O'REILLY FALANGA LLP. UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Can't Compel Arbitration in Text Messaging Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, IN RE UBER TEXT MESSAGING, Case No. 18-cv-02931-HSG (N.D. Cal.), Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California denied Uber's motion to compel arbitration and stay the action. Plaintiffs Wanda Rogers and Christopher Ziers brought the putative class action against Defendant Uber, alleging that it violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") when it sent them unsolicited text messages. Lucius Manning originally brought the putative class action against Uber in May 2018, claiming that it sent him unauthorized and unwanted text messages. Manning's case was eventually consolidated with two other similar cases; Manning and two of the other original Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their claims, leaving only Rogers and Ziers as the Plaintiffs. Rogers alleged that she has never used the Uber app and has never driven for Uber. Nevertheless, she claimed that Uber sent numerous unsolicited text messages to her cell phone, even after she asked Uber to stop. Ziers alleged that he has never used the Uber app and has never driven for Uber but that Uber sent him numerous unsolicited text messages, even after he attempted to opt out. The Plaintiffs asserted that Uber's actions violated the TCPA (entitling them to statutory damages of $500 per violation), as well as California's Unfair Competition Law. The Plaintiffs brought their claims on behalf of two putative nationwide classes: the "Autodialed No Consent Class" and the "Replied Stop Class." On Dec. 17, 2018, Uber moved to compel Ziers to arbitrate his claims, arguing that he was contractually obligated to do so. In addition, it asked the Court to stay the entire action to conserve judicial resources, avoid inconsistent outcomes, and to inform the Court's subsequent disposition of the claims. Uber proffered that its records showed that Ziers registered for an Uber account on June 23, 2016, using a smartphone with an Android operating system. According to Uber, because Ziers completed the Uber registration process, he necessarily agreed to Uber's terms and conditions. The terms and conditions in force at the time required arbitration of all disputes and prohibited class actions. The Court held a hearing on the motion to compel arbitration and stay the action on March 14, 2019 after which it took the motion under submission. Uber moved to compel Ziers to arbitrate his TCPA claims, as it contends was required by the terms and conditions to which Ziers agreed when he completed the Uber registration process. Judge Gilliam will proceed in three steps: first, he will review the admissibility of the proffered evidence; second, he will determine whether it or an arbitrator should adjudicate Ziers' challenge to contract formation; and third, he will decide whether Uber has proven that an agreement was formed. The Judge finds that, based on the record before him, the documents labeled UBER0000001-06 have not been authenticated. Snippets from a database, reproduced without any context, explanation, or supporting testimony, are not properly authenticated evidence. However, because hefinds that, even if Uber had authenticated these documents, they would not dispel the genuine dispute of material fact, he will continue to reference them in the Order. Next, he finds that Uber is correct that Ziers does not contest the enforceability of the delegation clause. Rather, Ziers is challenging Uber's assertion that he entered into a contract in the first place. This threshold question -- whether an agreement existed -- is one properly for the Court, without reference to any delegation provision. Moreover, Ninth Circuit precedent is clear: "challenges to the very existence of the contract are properly directed to the court." Accordingly, it is the Court's duty, not an arbitrator's, to determine whether an agreement was formed. Finally, the Judge finds that Uber's motion to compel necessarily fails because there is a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether an agreement was formed. Though Uber's original evidence may have been sufficient to compel arbitration, it is not the only evidence before the Court. Because Uber bears the burden of proving the existence of the agreement to arbitrate, and all inferences must be drawn in Ziers' favor, the Judge cannot grant the motion to compel based on the present record. At bottom, Uber says its documents confirm that Ziers completed the registration process, while Ziers avers that he did not. This genuine dispute of fact over whether an agreement to arbitrate was formed requires the Court to deny the motion to compel arbitration. Though the Judge denies Uber's motion to compel at this juncture, he does so without prejudice to its refiling. Uber may refile its motion after conducting additional discovery or may file a motion to conduct an evidentiary hearing or other proceeding under 9 U.S.C. Section 4. Uber also moved to stay the entire action. Because theJudge denied the motion to compel arbitration, there is no basis to stay the case as to either Ziers or Rogers. Accordingly, Uber's motion to stay is denied. Further, Uber moved to stay the action pending a decision on the motion to compel arbitration. Because the motion to compel has now been decided, the motion to stay is denied as moot Because there is a genuine dispute of fact as to whether Ziers and Uber entered into an arbitration agreement, Judge Gilliam denied the motion to compel arbitration and stay the action. Rather than hold an evidentiary hearing at this time, he denied the motion without prejudice to its renewal following further discovery. In addition, the Judge denied as moot the motion to stay pending a decision. Finally, he set a further case management for July 30 at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 2, Fourth Floor, Oakland, CA to discuss a case schedule; a case management statement is due by July 23. A full-text copy of the Court's June 18, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/pPZRaX from Leagle.com. Lucius Manning, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by David S. Ratner -- david@davidratnerlawfirm.com -- David Ratner Law Firm, Avi Kaufman -- kaufman@kaufmanpa.com -- Kaufman P.A., pro hac vice & Simon Seiver Grille, Girard Sharp LLP. Wanda Rogers & Christopher Ziers, Plaintiffs, represented by James Everett Richardson, Girard Sharp LLP, pro hac vice & Simon Seiver Grille, Girard Sharp LLP. Andrew Katzman, Plaintiff, represented by Simon Seiver Grille, Girard Sharp LLP. Carla Vario, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Patrick Harry Peluso, Woodrow & Peluso, LLC, Rebecca Leah Davis, Lozeau Drury LLP, Richard Toshiyuki Drury, Lozeau Drury LLP, Steven Lezell Woodrow, Woodrow & Peluso, LLC, Taylor True Smith, Woodrow and Peluso, LLC & Simon Seiver Grille, Girard Sharp LLP. Uber Technologies Inc., a Delware corporation, Defendant, represented by Tiffany Cheung -- tcheung@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster LLP, Adam James Hunt -- adamhunt@mofo.com -- Morrison Foerster LLP, pro hac vice & Lucia X. Roibal -- lroibal@mofo.com -- Morrison Foerster LLP. USI SOLUTIONS: Faces Santos Suit in Northern District of Illinois ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against USI Solutions, Inc. The case is captioned as Glennpaul Santos Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. USI Solutions, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-04618 (N.D. Ill., July 9, 2019). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Virginia M. Kendall. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Act. USI Solutions, Inc is a creditor's rights firm that specializes in debt collection.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Rusty A. Payton, Esq. 20 North Clark Street, Suite 3300 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (773) 682-5210 E-mail: info@payton.legal VIDA MEDICAL: Lopez Seeks OT Wages for Medical Assistants --------------------------------------------------------- XAREN LOPEZ, and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C 216(b), the Plaintiff, vs. VIDA MEDICAL NETWORK, LLC, a Florida Corporation, VIDA MEDICAL CENTERS OF MIAMI CORP. a Florida Corporation, SANDY LOPEZ, individually, ENRIQUE LOPEZ, individually, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-23002-DPG (S.D. Fla., July 19, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation and wrongful termination, as well as an additional amount as liquidated damages, costs and reasonable attorney's fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed as a non-exempt Receptionist/Medical Assistant, initially earning $9.50 per hour and eventually earning $11.50 per hour. The Plaintiff routinely worked in excess of 40 hours per week. Specifically, she worked Monday through Friday from 7:00 am to 6:00 pm, and once a month on Saturdays from 8:00 am to 1:00 pm. Although Plaintiff actually worked from 7:00 am to 6:00 pm, Defendants forced her to sign a document stating that she only worked from 8:00 am to 5:00 pm. Notwithstanding, Vida, Sandy Lopez, and Enrique Lopez willfully and intentionally failed/refused to pay to Plaintiff the federally required overtime wages for all hours she worked over 40 hours, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Monica Espino, Esq. ESPINO LAW 2655 S. Le Jeune Road, Suite 802 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: 305.704.3172 Facsimile: 305.722.7378 E-mail: me@espino-law.com legal@espino-law.com VISION PRECISION: Removes Martinez Suit to E.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- Vision Precision Holdings, LLC removes case styled MAYRELI MARTINEZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public, v. VISION PRECISION HOLDINGS, LLC and DOES 1-100, the Defendants, Case No. BCV-19-101374 (Filed May 17, 2019), from the Superior Court of California, County of Kern, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on July 21, 2019. The Eastern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-at-00536 to the proceeding. The complaint alleges that Defendants failed to pay all straight time wages; pay all overtime wages; provide meal periods; authorize and permit rest periods; and pay all wages due at time of termination of employment.[BN] Attorneys for the Defendant are: Michele Haydel Gehrke, Esq. Anne Cherry Barnett, Esq. Mara D. Curtis, Esq. REED SMITH LLP 101 Second Street, Suite 1800 San Francisco, CA 94105-3659 Telephone: 415 543 8700 Facsimile: 415 391 8269 E-mail: mgehrke@reedsmith.com abamett@reedsmith.com mcurtis@reedsmith.com brnhernandez@reedsmith.com WALLY'S DELI: Vazquez Seeks Overtime Pay for Grocery Employees -------------------------------------------------------------- Efrain Rescalvo Vazquez, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Wally's Deli & Grocery Corp. and Derhim Nasser, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-06797 (S.D.N.Y., July 22, 2019), seeks unpaid wages from Defendants for overtime work for which they did not receive overtime premium pay as required by law, and liquidated damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. Throughout his employment, Mr. Vazquez worked six or seven shifts per week that lasted in excess of 10 hours from start to finish, and yet defendants willfully failed to pay him one additional hour’s pay at the minimum wage for each such day. The Plaintiff and other similarly situated persons are current and former employees of Wally's Deli & Grocery.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: David Stein, Esq. SAMUEL & STEIN 38 West 32nd Street, Suite 1110 New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (212) 563-9884 E-mail: dstein@samuelandstein.com WALMART: Workers Must Pursue Sex Bias Claims in 79 Lawsuits ----------------------------------------------------------- Patrick Dorrian and Erin Mulvaney, writing for Bloomberg Law, report that two groups of women who brought separate cases against Walmart for alleged systemic sex discrimination must pursue their claims in 79 individual lawsuits, a federal judge in Florida ruled. All 79 women worked at different stores, held different positions, and worked during different time periods, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida said July 12. They also all worked under different supervisors and under different employment policies. Some of those policies were created and implemented prior to 2004, the court said, granting Walmart's motion to sever in each case. Both cases stem from the proposed massive sex bias class action of approximately 1.5 million women that the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated in its landmark 2011 Wal-Mart Stores Inc. v. Dukes decision. The retail giant has managed to fend off allegations of pay discrimination brought by thousands of women for more than a decade. The Dukes ruling was seen as a major win for the defense bar against class actions. It said the plaintiffs didn't identify a common policy to link their cases. The decision influenced strategies for future class actions filed against major companies. Smaller regional class actions against Walmart were filed in the wake of that decision, including the two cases in Florida. Many of those classes were shot down as courts questioned the timeliness of the claims or the certification requirements for each class. Walmart also settled with the named plaintiffs in a number of cases. A new strategy has emerged as well, with attorneys who represent these women filing individual lawsuits. Since February 2019, at least 13 individual lawsuits have been brought against the retailer. Attorneys with Cohen, Milstein, Sellers & Toll represent the women in the individual lawsuits, as well as the class actions. Many of the old complaints remain the same, but the strategy and the named plaintiffs are new, even if they were part of the originally certified Dukes class. The women in the two Florida cases seek to join their various claims. But it's not enough that they all allege discrimination based on sex in pay and promotions, gender stereotyping, and a failure by Walmart to effectively uphold workplace anti-bias laws, Judge Robert N. Scola Jr. said. None of their claims arise out of the same transaction or occurrence, and there's no common policy, job practice, or set of facts that applies to all of the women in each case, the court said. Similar issues of employer liability alone aren't enough to warrant joining the women's claims in either case, Scola said. The allegations in the two lawsuits only consist of "a brief summary of the alleged discriminatory practices," Scola said. For some women, a full page of specific details is included, but for others, there are "as few as three brief sentences of allegations," he said. In a statement provided to Bloomberg Law, a Walmart spokesman said, "We are pleased the Court ended yet another attempt by these lawyers to group dozens of plaintiffs into one suit against us. As we have said, if these plaintiffs believe they have been treated unfairly, they deserve to have their timely, individual claims heard in court — but not in some package the law does not recognize. The Court has laid out a process where each plaintiff can file an individual complaint to hear allegations that are more than 15 years old. We will thoughtfully address each case as we continue to defend the company." Scott Wagner & Associates P.A. and Cohen, Milstein, Sellers & Toll PLLC represent the women. Greenberg Traurig and Littler Mendelson P.C. represent Walmart. The attorneys for the workers didn't respond to requests for comment. The cases are Radtka v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 2019 BL 258467, S.D. Fla., No. 19-80153, 7/12/19 and Price v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 2019 BL 258445, S.D. Fla., No. 19-80152, 7/12/19. [GN] WARMLIVING HEALTH: Wilbon Seeks Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------- MICHELLE P. WILBON, 5659 Shawnee Dr. Lyndhurst, OH 44124, On behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. WARMLIVING HEALTH CARE, LLC c/o Statutory Agent Salima Gharbaoui 7155 Pearl Rd., Ste. 204 Middleburg Hts., OH 44130; and SALIMA GHARBAOUI, 7155 Pearl Rd., Ste. 204 Middleburg Hts., OH 44130, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01661 (N.D. Ohio, July 22, 2019), challenges the policies and practices of Defendants that violate the Fair Labor Standards Act and the laws of the State of Ohio. As a result of Defendants' violations of the FLSA, the Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective were injured in that they did not receive wages due to them. They should have been paid overtime wages in the amount of 150% of their "regular rate" for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek, the lawsuit says. WarmLiving is a home health agency providing home health aides.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Kevin M. McDermott II, Esq. Joseph F. Scott, Esq. Ryan A. Winters, Esq. Kevin M. McDermott II, Esq. SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC The Caxton Building 812 Huron Rd. E., Suite 490 Cleveland, OH 44115 Telephone: (216) 912-2221 Facsimile: (216) 350-6313 E-mail: jscott@ohiowagelawyers.com rwinters@ohiowagelawyers.com kmcdermott@ohiowagelawyers.com WELLS FARGO: Ronquillo Seeks Overtime Wages for Branch Managers --------------------------------------------------------------- RENE RONQUILLO, an individual, the Plaintiff, vs. WELLS FARGO BANK, And DOES 1 through 50 inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 37-2019-00037469-CU-OE-CTL (Cal. Super., July 19, 2019), alleges that Defendants failed to pay wages, failed to provide meal and rest breaks, failed to provide accurate wage statements, and failed to make payments within the required time under the California Labor Code. The Plaintiff brings this action against Defendants for engaging in a uniform policy and systematic scheme of wage abuse against their salary paid employees in California. This scheme involved, inter alia, misclassifying the Branch Managers, including Plaintiff as "exempt" managerial/executive employees for purposes of the payment of overtime compensation when, in fact, they were "non-exempt" non-managerial employees according to California law. Wells Fargo is an American multinational financial services company headquartered in San Francisco, California, with central offices throughout the United States.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Matthew Righetti, Esq. John Glugoski, Esq. RIGHETTI GLUGOSKI, P.C. 456 Montgomery Street, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 983-0900 Facsimile: (415) 397-9005 WESTERN RANGE: 9th Cir. Flips Dismissal of Castillo Claims ---------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ABEL CANTARO CASTILLO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WESTERN RANGE ASSOCIATION, Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 18-15398 (9th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal of Castillo's claims. Appellant Castillo, a nonimmigrant guestworker shepherd employed by Appellee Western Range Association ("WRA") through the H-2A visa program, appeals the dismissal of his claims for lack of federal question jurisdiction, and for failure to satisfy the jurisdictional requirements of the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"). The Court finds that the district court erred in applying a two-year statute of limitations to Cantáro's breach of contract claims. It erred by instead applying the "gravamen of the action" test to determine that the two-year minimum wage claim statute of limitations applied to Cantáro's claims for breach of the explicit terms of a written employment contract. The Nevada Supreme Court has applied this test in the context of personal injury cases pleaded as breach of implied contract. However, it has not applied it to breach of contract claims. Although the district court did not analyze whether Cantáro met CAFA's requirements under the six-year statute of limitations, the Appellate Court holds that the district court clearly erred in determining that Cantáro failed to meet the requirements under even a two-year statute of limitations. CAFA provides federal jurisdiction over class actions where: (1) the class has more than 100 members; (2) the parties are minimally diverse; and (3) the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million. Minimal diversity is not at issue in the appeal. The Court also finds that nothing in the record suggests WRA secured DOL certifications and subsequently failed to employ herders. Further, Cantáro omitted from the class size estimate himself and any other shepherds certified as California herders but working in Nevada. Therefore, the district court clearly erred to the extent it determined that Cantáro failed to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the WRA class included more than 100 members. It further finds that the district court clearly erred in determining that Cantaro failed to satisfy CAFA's $5 million amount in controversy requirement. The amount in controversy exceeds $5 million even under the 56-hour work week accepted by the district court as a reasonable estimate. The court committed clear error for failing to recalculate the amount in controversy before concluding that the preponderance lies with the Defendants. Finally, because the Court holds that the district court possessed diversity jurisdiction under CAFA, it need not address federal question jurisdiction. Based on the foregoing, the Court reversed and remanded. A full-text copy of the Court's June 19, 2019 Memorandum is available at https://is.gd/e5DsqU from Leagle.com. WILL COUNTY, IL: Simon Lee's Class Certification Bid Denied ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as Simon A. Lee, the Plaintiff, v. County of Will, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-04244 (N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge John Z. Lee entered an order on July 22, 2019: 1. denying Plaintiff's applications for leave to proceed in forma pauperis; and 2. denying Plaintiff's motion for class certification without prejudice. To proceed with this case, Plaintiff must either: (1) pay the $400.00 filing fee upfront; or (2) show good cause in writing why he cannot pay the filing fee as explained in this order. His failure to comply with this order by August 26, 2019, will result in the summary dismissal of this case without prejudice, the Court says.[CC] [*] DLA Piper Releases Roundup of Class Action Developments ----------------------------------------------------------- Keara Gordon, Esq. -- keara.gordon@dlapiper.com -- Isabelle Ord, Esq. -- isabelle.ord@dlapiper.com -- Anthony David Gill, Esq. -- anthony.gill@dlapiper.com -- Christopher Young, Esq., Colleen Carey Gulliver, Esq., and David Priebe, Esq., of DLA Piper, in an article for Mondaq, report that in 2018 and the first half of 2019, there were a number of important developments in class actions. Among these developments: * The United States Supreme Court moved to strengthen arbitration agreements and class action waivers generally * Courts continued to grapple with the application of personal jurisdiction principles in class actions * Increased focus on the problems of certifying a class that contains uninjured class members * Spokeo jurisprudence continues to evolve * The Supreme Court releases its highly anticipated decision in China Agritech v. Resh addressing equitable tolling under American Pipe * Five amendments to Rule 23 improved notice and settlement procedures * Global class actions and collective redress procedures continue gathering force. In this roundup of recent developments in class actions, we take a top-level look at class action litigation and consider the trends, issues, and strategies that businesses face in the months to come. A copy of the Roundup is available at https://is.gd/TG0Y9T [GN] ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2019. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***