/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/190911.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, September 11, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 182 Headlines ADDISON HOSPITALITY: Duncan Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York AMAZON.COM INC: Ababseh Files Suit in W.D. Washington AMAZON.COM INC: Emerson Firm Files Class Suit Over Data Breach AMAZON.COM INC: Faces Class Suit Over Sale of Unsafe Products AMERICAN ALLIANCE: Faces Cervantes Suit Over Policy Disputes AMETROS FINANCIAL: Sharp Files Fraud Class Suit in N.D. Alabama BAYBRIDGE SZECHUAN: Worker Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay, Damages BENRUBI GALLERY: Mendez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York BIG BISCUIT COMPANY: Gutierrez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages BILL HAMILTON: Padilla Supplements Bid for Class Certification BITFORMS INC: Mendez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York CAFE BUON GUSTO: Perez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages CAPITAL ONE: Faces Tadler Suit in Eastern District of New York CAPITAL ONE: Summer, et al Sue over Consumer Data Breach CARBONITE INC: Faces Feng Suit Over Share Price Drop CASO INC: Valentina Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages CHICAGO, IL: Santiago Seeks to Certify 2 Classes of Vehicle Owners CHICAGO: Thulius et al Seek Turnover of Funds from Uncashed Checks D & D MANUFACTURING: Sued over Biometric Data Collection DG RETAIL: Flores Seeks to Recover Unpaid Back Wages Under FLSA DOMETIC CORP: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class in Papasan Suit E.C. RUFF MARINE: Locasio Seeks Proper Overtime Rate EL PORTON BAR: Urzua Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages FABI INC: Failed to Pay Overtime Wages, Jaramillo Suit Says FIRE ISLAND HOTEL: Duncan Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York FIRST STUDENT: Does not Pay Split Shift Wages, Lopez Suit Asserts GALLERIA CA DOOR: Mendez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York GENERAL ELECTRIC: Court Narrows Claims in Securities Suit GITHUB INC: Emerson Firm Files Class Action Lawsuit GOOGLE LLC: LGBTQ Plaintiffs Sue for Censorship, Discrimination GRANITE CONSTRUCTION: Greene Hits Share Price Drop GREENPORTER LAND: Duncan Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York HAT CLUB: Website not Accessible to Blind Persons, Nixon Says HEALTHPLANONE LLC: $448K Quintana FLSA Suit Settlement Has Approval HEWLETT PACKARD: McLees Sues over Issuance of DXC Shares HOMELAND SECURITY: Valladares Suit over Alien Detention Terminated INCASE DESIGNS CORP: Mallh Sues over Consumer Product Warranty JUST BRANDS: Hit With Class Suit Over Amount of CBD in Products KAY & JAMES INC: Ventura Seeks Minimum Wage, OT Pay KSE RETAIL SALES: Duncan Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York L'OREAL USA: Consumers Appeal Dismissed Faulty Dispenser Case LABORATORY CORP: Appeal in Davis Class Action Still Pending LABORATORY CORP: Bid to Dismiss North Carolina Suit Still Pending LABORATORY CORP: Bid to Nix Sequenom Merger-Related Suit Pending LABORATORY CORP: Continues to Defend Haro Class Suit in California LABORATORY CORP: Settlement Reached in Sealock Suit LYFT INC: Mackintosh Alleges Economic Espionage LYFT INC: Underpays Drivers, Brunner Suit Alleges MCNEIL GROUP: Harbour's Joint Bid for Class Certification Granted METLIFE INC: Gavitt Seeks Return of Insurance Premiums Collected MIDLAND CREDIT: Castle Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois MIDWAY RENT: Cal. App. Affirms Judgment in Adhav Suit MIRAK CHEVROLET: Leverone Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages MODERNIZE INCORPORATED: Fisher Files TCPA Suit in Arizona NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Class Certification Sought in Allende Suit NETAPP INC: Kessler Topaz Files Securities Class Suit NEWREZ LLC: Best Sues over Debt Collection Practices PALL CORPORATION: Lundy Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages PAYLESS CAR WASH: Fails to Pay Overtime Under FLSA, Garcia Claims PIONEER CREDIT: Council Sues over Unsolicited Telephone Calls PODESTA PACKING: Sepulveda Sues over Time Rounding System PREMIUM MERCHANT: Hardin Sues Over TCPA Violation RAZBAN ENTERPRISES: Underpays Delivery Drivers, Day Suit Alleges REGAL AUTOMOTIVE: Grant Moves for Certification of TCPA Class RUDOLPH TECHNOLOGIES: Stein Files Suit Over Nano Merger Deal SAREPTA THERAPEUTICS: Pomerantz Law Files Class Action Suit SCION GROUP: Cristales Sues Over SMS Ad Blasts SELLSTATE RESULTS: Mailhot Files Suit Over Unsolicited Marketing SFX ENTERTAINMENT: Settlement in Class Suit vs. Directors Reached SHENANDOAH VALLEY: Doe Appeals W.D. Va. Decision to 4th Circuit SHOP MA: Faces Nixon ADA Suit in Southern District of New York SMITTY'S SUPPLY: Buford Files PI Suit in E.D. Arkansas TRUMP CORP: Court Narrows Claims in RICO Suit VOLKSWAGEN AG: Class Suit Over Gas Fuel Economy Claims Settled VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Vehicle Owners Get $98MM Settlement WEST KENDALL: Gomez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site YOUNG LIVING ESSENTIAL: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ********* ADDISON HOSPITALITY: Duncan Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Addison Hospitality Group LLC. The case is styled as Eugene Duncan AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff v. Addison Hospitality Group LLC, 35th Street Ventures LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-08127 (S.D. N.Y., Aug. 30, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Addison Hospitality Group LLC operates a restaurant, bar and lounge located at 346 West 40th Street.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq. The Marks Law Firm PC 175 Varick Street 3rd Floor New York, NY 10014 Phone: (646) 770-3775 Fax: (646) 867-2639 Email: bmarkslaw@gmail.com AMAZON.COM INC: Ababseh Files Suit in W.D. Washington ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Amazon.com Inc. The case is styled as Amjed Ali Ababseh, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Amazon.com Inc., Amazon Web Services, Inc., Capital One, Capital One, NA, Capital One Bank (USA) NA, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-01397 (W.D. Wash., Aug. 30, 2019). The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. Amazon.com, Inc., is an American multinational technology company based in Seattle, Washington, that focuses on e-commerce, cloud computing, digital streaming, and artificial intelligence.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Duncan Calvert Turner, Esq. BADGLEY MULLINS TURNER PLLC 19929 BALLINGER WAY NE, STE 200 SEATTLE, WA 98155 Phone: (206) 621-6566 Email: dturner@badgleymullins.com - and - John G Emerson, Esq. EMERSON SCOTT LLP 830 APOLLO LANE HOUSTON, TX 77058-2610 Phone: (281) 488-8854 Phone: (206) 621-6566 Email: jemerson@emersonfirm.com - and - Stephen R Basser, Esq. BARRACK RODOS & BACINE 600 W BROADWAY, STE 1700 SAN DIEGO, CA 92101 Phone: (619) 230-0800 Phone: (206) 621-6566 Email: sbasser@barrack.com AMAZON.COM INC: Emerson Firm Files Class Suit Over Data Breach -------------------------------------------------------------- Emerson Firm, PLLC, announces that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court, Western District of Washington at Seattle, Amjed Ali Ababseh v. Capital One Financial Corporation, Capital One, N.A., Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon Web Services, Inc., and GitHub, Inc., Civil Action No. 2:19-cv-1397, on behalf of 100 million or more Capital One customers in the US whose personal and financial information was compromised in the data breach announced by Capital One on July 29, 2019. This is one of the largest-ever data breaches of financial services firm. Capital One explained that a hacker stole the personal and financial information that Capital One had collected and stored. The hacker posted this information on GitHub.com. This data was made publicly available. The hacker was a former Amazon employee and the lawsuit alleges that the failure of the Amazon defendants to take adequate and reasonable measures to protect their data systems from hacklers, among other allegations, resulted in substantial harm and injuries to consumers across the US. Capital One is a bank holding company that specializes in credit cards and offering credit, including car loans and bank accounts. Capital One solicits potential customers to provide them with sensitive personal and financial information through applications for credit cards and other financial products. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all Capital One customers whose personal and financial information was compromised. Plaintiff is represented by the Houston-based firm of Emerson Firm, PLLC with offices in Houston, Texas and Little Rock, Arkansas, and represents consumers throughout the nation. Emerson Firm, PLLC and its predecessor firms have devoted their practice to complex commercial litigation for more than thirty-eight years and have recovered more than a billion dollars for consumers in class actions throughout the United States. If you have a Capital One account or applied for a Capital One account since 2005 then your data may have been compromised in this breach. Please contact us immediately to protect your rights. It makes no difference what state you reside in. IMPORTANT: Please contact plaintiff's counsel, Emerson Firm, PLLC via e-mail to Tanya Autry, Esq. -- tautry@emersonfirm.com -- or John G. Emerson, Esq. -- jemerson@emersonfirm.com A copy of the complaint is available from the Court or from Emerson Firm, PLLC. [GN] AMAZON.COM INC: Faces Class Suit Over Sale of Unsafe Products ------------------------------------------------------------- Matt Naham, writing for Law & Crime, reports that a class action lawsuit filed against Amazon.com, Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, alleged that the company has engaged in deceptive business practices by "selling banned, unsafe, mislabeled and/or recalled products on its website, thereby endangering the health, safety and welfare of the consuming public." Plaintiff Ryan Edmunson, "individually and on behalf of the proposed class," claims that Amazon violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act and the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act by "consistently abus[ing] its market power to sell thousands of banned, unsafe, mislabeled and/or recalled products to the unknowing consuming public." The lawsuit follows a Wall Street Journal report from Aug. 23 that found "4,152 items for sale on Amazon.com Inc.'s site that have been declared unsafe by federal agencies, are deceptively labeled or are banned by federal regulators—items that big-box retailers' policies would bar from their shelves." "Among those items," the Journal reported, "at least 2,000 listings for toys and medications lacked warnings about health risks to children." Edmunson's attorneys said that their client purchased two items "to his detriment" (Numb-ify Numbing Cream 5% Lidocaine Extra Strength Anesthetic and Gillette Venus Simply 3 Disposable Razors) from a third-party seller through Amazon, items that were both recalled by the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission. One detail of the Journal story that the lawsuit seems to be taking advantage of was a July holding in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which said a Pennsylvania customer could sue Amazon. Per the Journal: The court said Amazon could be considered a seller under Pennsylvania law, in part because the company had no vetting process to ensure that third-party sellers were accessible and available for consumers to sue if they were harmed by an item, leaving consumers with no recourse in many cases. The court also held Amazon had considerable control over third-party sellers and could prevent sales of unsafe items. Amazon has asked the appeals court to review the decision. The plaintiff claims that Amazon cannot waive the class action claim because provisions that would allow that do not apply. The reasons given: "Plaintiff contends that such provisions are not enforceable as to Plaintiff given AMAZON'S non-compliance with its own conditions of use and/or are void as against public policy given AMAZON'S fraudulent and/or deceptive business practices operating to the detriment of consumers." The plaintiff/proposed class is seeking a temporary restraining order and permanent injunction to stop Amazon from selling recalled products and to make the company remove all such products from its website. They also want Amazon to put a statement on its website "regarding their plan to cease and desist sale of recalled products." In addition, the plaintiff(s) seek a jury trial, and for the court to enter a judgment including possible compensatory damages, punitive damages, and attorneys' fees. Law&Crime reached out to Amazon for comment. Amazon declined to comment at this time. [GN] AMERICAN ALLIANCE: Faces Cervantes Suit Over Policy Disputes ------------------------------------------------------------ JESUS CERVANTES, JESUS EDUARDO CERVANTES, and DANIELA FLORES v. JANET L. SYDER and AMERICAN ALLIANCE CASUALTY COMPANY, Case No. 2019L009379 (Ill. Cir., Cook Cty., Aug. 23, 2019), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated seeking declaratory judgment to resolve a controversy concerning coverage under an insurance policy issued by American Alliance. On August 27, 2017, the Plaintiffs were involved in a vehicular accident when the driver of the vehicle allegedly stolen from Defendant Janet L. Syder failed to stop, collided into the rear end of the Plaintiffs' vehicle, causing them injuries. The driver of the vehicle allegedly stolen from Defendant Janet L. Syder hit and ran from the scene. The Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Janet L. Syder was uninsured and that the Plaintiffs sought coverage under their insurance, American Alliance's uninsured motorist policy. American Alliance denied relief to the Plaintiffs' claim. American Alliance is an insurance company with its principal place of business and corporate headquarters in Cook County, Illinois, and was duly licensed to underwrite policies of automobile insurance, and to sell such policies and coverage to members of the public, in the State of Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert A. Langendorf, Esq. ROBERT A. LANGENDORF, P.C. 134 N LaSalle, Suite 1515 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 782-5933 E-mail: robert@langendorfpc.com AMETROS FINANCIAL: Sharp Files Fraud Class Suit in N.D. Alabama --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ametros Financial Corporation. The case is styled as Joshua Sharp on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Ametros Financial Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-01440-AKK (N.D. Ala., Aug. 30, 2019). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Ametros Financial Corporation provides medicare set-aside post-settlement administration services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Wilson Mitchell, Esq. MITCHELL, BURDINE & BERNAUER 1905 Bruin Drive Florence, AL 35630 Phone: (256) 767-4900 Fax: (256) 767-4995 Email: jwm82256@aol.com BAYBRIDGE SZECHUAN: Worker Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay, Damages ------------------------------------------------------------- Dounfuh Lan, individually and on behalf all other employees similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Baybridge Szechuan Restaurant Inc. and Joseph Yu-Sing Chan, Defendants, Case No. 713960/2019 (N.Y. Sup., August 13, 2019), seeks unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid "spread-of-hours" premium, compensation for failure to provide wage notices at the time of hiring and failure to provide paystubs, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest and attorneys' fees and costs to the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law including monetary damages and other relief. Baybridge Szechuan Restaurant Inc. operates as "Baybridge Szechuan Restaurant," a restaurant located at 208-06 Cross Island Pkwy, Bayside, NY 11360 where Lan worked as a cook. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Jiajing Fan, Esq. HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 136-20 38th Avenue, Suite 10G Flushing, NY 11354 Tel: (718)353-8588 Email: jfan@hanglaw.com BENRUBI GALLERY: Mendez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Benrubi Gallery LLC. The case is styled as Himelda Mendez AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff v. Benrubi Gallery LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-08134 (S.D. N.Y., Aug. 30, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Benrubi Gallery, founded in 1987 by the late Bonni Benrubi, is a photography gallery in the United States with a focus on 20th Century and contemporary works.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq. The Marks Law Firm PC 175 Varick Street 3rd Floor New York, NY 10014 Phone: (646) 770-3775 Fax: (646) 867-2639 Email: bmarkslaw@gmail.com BIG BISCUIT COMPANY: Gutierrez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- ARMANDO GUTIERREZ, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. THE BIG BISCUIT COMPANY, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-02527 (D. Kan., Aug. 30, 2019) is an action brought as a collective action pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act against Defendant for unpaid minimum wage and overtime compensation, and related penalties and damages. The Defendant's practices and policies have resulted in Defendant willfully failing to properly pay straight time and overtime due and owing to Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated employees in violation of the FLSA, says the complaint. Plaintiff previously worked as a server for Defendant from approximately December 2017 until approximately December 2018. The Big Biscuit owns and operates The Big Biscuit restaurants in Kansas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Hodgson, Esq. THE HODGSON LAW FIRM, LLC 3609 SW Pryor Rd. Lee's Summit, MO 64082 Phone: 816.600.0117 Facsimile: 816.600.0137 Email: mike@thehodgsonlawfirm.com - and - Heather J. Schlozman, Esq. Mark V. Dugan, Esq. DUGAN SCHLOZMAN LLC 8826 Santa Fe Drive, Suite 307 Overland Park, KS 66212 Phone: (913) 322-3528 Facsimile: (913) 904-0213 Email: heather@duganschlozman.com mark@duganschlozman.com BILL HAMILTON: Padilla Supplements Bid for Class Certification -------------------------------------------------------------- At the Court's behest, the Plaintiffs submitted a supplemental briefing in the lawsuit styled JUAN PADILLA, an individual, et al. v. BILL HAMILTON, an individual, BILL HAMILTON ROOFING, INC a California Corporation, Case No. 5:18-cv-03845-SVK (N.D. Cal.). In the Declaration of Bill Hamilton submitted as EFC No. 58, he declared that he had 12 employees sign settlement agreements, the Plaintiffs note. All the employees worked at some point as piece workers for the Defendants between January 1, 2014, and January 1, 2016. The employees settled all claims they had with the Defendants on April 19, 2019, for $100 a piece. The Plaintiffs contend these agreements are void pursuant to California Labor Code Section 206.5. The Plaintiffs assert that the Defendants owed the piece workers wages at the time they paid the release because they owed them for non productive time under California Labor Code Section 226.7. The California Industrial Commission Wage Orders and California Labor Code Section 226.7 require employers to provide employees with a paid ten minute period break per fours worked, the Plaintiffs explain. According to the briefing, in 2013, the California Supreme Court decided that piece workers must be paid separately at an hourly rate of pay for all non productive time, citing Bluford v. Safeway Inc. (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 864 [157 Cal. Rptr. 3d 212]. The court in Blueford certified a class on the basis Safeway did pay truck drivers because their piece work pay did not separately pay them for their time during their rest breaks. Finally, the Plaintiffs also contend that the Defendants have cast some doubt on the number of piece workers. The Defendants are claiming between 20 and 26, however, there is evidence of 41 piece workers, the Plaintiffs allege. The Plaintiffs argue that based upon the case law the ascertainable wages had to paid before a release could be signed. The Plaintiffs add that like Bluford the Defendants failed to pay ascertainable wages and the class should be certified.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James Dal Bon, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JAMES DAL BON 606 N. 1st St. San Jose, CA 95113 Telephone: (408) 466-5845 E-mail: jdb@wagedefenders.com - and - Victoria Booke, Esq. BOOKE & AJLOUNY 606 N. 1st St. San Jose, CA 95112 Telephone: (408) 286-7000 E-mail: vbooke@bookelaw.com BITFORMS INC: Mendez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bitforms, Inc. The case is styled as Himelda Mendez AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff v. Bitforms, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-08133 (S.D. N.Y., Aug. 30, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Bitforms gallery is a gallery in New York City devoted to new media art practices.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq. The Marks Law Firm PC 175 Varick Street 3rd Floor New York, NY 10014 Phone: (646) 770-3775 Fax: (646) 867-2639 Email: bmarkslaw@gmail.com CAFE BUON GUSTO: Perez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- PEDRO PEREZ, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CAFE BUON GUSTO CORP. and SAFI-G, INC. d/b/a CAFFE BUON GUSTO and NASSER GHORCHIAN and NICHOLAS MORMANDO, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-04936 (E.D. N.Y., Aug. 29, 2019) is a class action brought on behalf of Plaintiff and all similarly situated dishwashers, bussers, prep cooks, cooks, and deliverymen to recover unpaid minimum wages, spread of hours and overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Caffe Buon Gusto Restaurants have been the subject of several prior wage and hour lawsuits in the Southern District of New York. Throughout Perez's employment, he always worked over 40 hours per week. Throughout Perez's employment with Defendants as a non-exempt employee, he was not paid overtime in compliance with the FLSA and NYLL. Instead, Plaintiff was only paid for the first 40 hours he worked each week. The Defendants also did not provide Perez with an Annual Wage Notice in accordance with the NYLL, says the complaint. Plaintiff Perez worked as a dishwasher, food prep and deliveryman at The Caffe Buon Gusto Restaurants' Brooklyn location from approximately January 1996 through June 2019. Defendants have operated The Caffe Buon Gusto Restaurants since at least 1988.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jacob Aronauer, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JACOB ARONAUER 225 Broadway, 3rd Floor New York, NY 10007 Phone: (212) 323-6980 Email: jaronauer@aronauerlaw.com - and - Vincent Bauer, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF VINCENT E. BAUER 475 Madison Avenue, 17th Floor New York, NY 10017 Phone: (212) 575-1517 Email: vbauer@vbauerlaw.com CAPITAL ONE: Faces Tadler Suit in Eastern District of New York -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Capital One Financial Corporation. The case is captioned as Penelope Tadler individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals,the Plaintiff, vs. Capital One Financial Corporation; Capital One, National Association; and Capital One Bank (USA), National Association, the Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-04782-ENV-PK (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 20, 2019). The suit seeks $5 million in damages. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Eric N. Vitaliano. Capital One Financial Corporation is a bank holding company specializing in credit cards, auto loans, banking, and savings accounts, headquartered in McLean, Virginia. Capital One is ranked 10th on the list of largest banks in the United States by assets.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Brian Phillip Murray, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 230 Park Avenue, Suite 530 New York, NY 10169 Telephone: (212) 682-5340 Facsimile: (212) 884-0988 E-mail: bmurray@glancylaw.com - and - Paul C. Whalen, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF PAUL C. WHALEN, P.C. 768 Plandome Road Manhasset, NY 11030 Telephone: (516) 426-6870 Facsimile: (212) 658-9685 E-mail: pcwhalen@gmail.com CAPITAL ONE: Summer, et al Sue over Consumer Data Breach -------------------------------------------------------- STEVEN SUMMER and KATELYN VITA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC. and CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION, the Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-01304-RAJ (W.D. Wash., Aug. 19, 2019), alleges that Defendants failed to protect confidential information of Plaintiffs and millions of other consumers from theft by a malicious hacker. On July 29, 2019, Capital One announced that the sensitive personal information ("SPI") of more than 100 million United States citizens had been stolen from its servers, including names, addresses, zip codes, phone numbers, email addresses, dates of birth, self-reported income, credit scores, credit limits, balances, payment history, contact information, and some transaction data for 2006-2018, as well as bank account numbers and Social Security numbers for approximately 220,000 people who applied for credit card products at Capital One between 2005 and "early" 2019 were affected. The Defendants, through their actions and/or failures to act, unlawfully breached duties to Plaintiffs and the Class by failing to implement standard industry protocols, to exercise 10 reasonable care to secure and keep private the SPI entrusted to it, to notify Plaintiffs and the Class of the breach as soon as Defendant was made aware of it, and to take any necessary steps to immediately end the ongoing breach once Defendants became aware of it, the lawsuit says. AWS, a subsidiary of Amazon.com, Inc., is the second-largest cloud computing services provider in the United States by revenue. In 2018, it had more than $25 billion in revenue. Capital One, as of 2017, was the fifth-largest credit card issuer in the United States. Between them, the two are responsible for the transmission of millions of peoples' sensitive personal information each and every day.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class are: Dan Drachler, Esq. Henry Avery, Esq. ZWERLING, SCHACHTER & ZWERLING, LLP 1904 Third Avenue, Suite 1030 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 223-2053 Facsimile: (206) 343-9636 E-mail: ddrachler@zsz.com havery@zsz.com - and - Fred T. Isquith, Esq. Matthew M. Guiney, Esq. Carl V. Malmstrom, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP 270 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 545-4600 E-mail: isquith@whafh.com guiney@whafh.com malmstrom@whafh.com CARBONITE INC: Faces Feng Suit Over Share Price Drop ---------------------------------------------------- WILLIAM FENG, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. CARBONITE, INC., MOHAMAD S. ALI, and ANTHONY FOLGER, Case No. 1:19-cv-11808-LTS (D. Mass., Aug. 23, 2019), is a securities class action brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and those who purchased or acquired Carbonite securities between February 7, 2019, and July 25, 2019, seeking remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Throughout the Class Period, according to the complaint, the Defendants made false and/or misleading statements relating to Carbonite's Server Backup VM Edition, which was of poor quality and technologically flawed and was receiving poor reviews and complaints from customers. On July 25, 2019, Carbonite announced that it was withdrawing its Server Backup VM Edition product from the marketplace and consequently dramatically lowered its financial projections for fiscal 2019 and 2020, which resulted to the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities. Carbonite is a Delaware corporation with its principal executive offices located in Boston, Massachusetts. The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of Carbonite. Carbonite, a software company, provides cloud-based backup services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daryl Andrews, Esq. Glen DeValerio, Esq. ANDREWS DEVALERIO LLP 265 Franklin Street, Suite 1702 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 936-2796 E-mail: daryl@andrewsdevalerio.com glen@andrewsdevalerio.com - and - Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com - and - Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 377-1181 Facsimile: (312) 377-1184 E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com - and - Peretz Bronstein, Esq. BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 697-6484 Facsimile: (212) 697-7296 E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com CASO INC: Valentina Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ ILARRETA MORILLA REBECA VALENTINA, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CASO INC. (D/B/A MAMA'S EMPANADAS), JAVIER GARCIA , and YANIRA POLANCO, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-04962 (E.D. N.Y., Aug. 29, 2019) is an action on behalf of Plaintiff, and other similarly situated individuals, for unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, and for violations of the N.Y. Labor Law, and the "spread of hours" and overtime wage orders of the New York Commissioner of Labor, including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. Plaintiff Rebeca worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of hours compensation for the hours that she worked, notes the complaint. Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked and failed to pay Plaintiff Rebeca appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium. Further, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff Rebeca the required "spread of hours" pay for any day in which she had to work over 10 hours a day. The Defendants maintained a policy and practice of requiring Plaintiff Rebeca and other employees to work in excess of 40 hours per week without providing the minimum wage and overtime compensation required by federal and state law and regulations, says the complaint. Plaintiff Rebeca was employed as a cashier at the Defendants' restaurant. Defendants own, operate, or control a restaurant, located at 32-41 Steinway St. Store B, Astoria, NY 11103 under the name "Mama's Empanadas".[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Phone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 CHICAGO, IL: Santiago Seeks to Certify 2 Classes of Vehicle Owners ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned ANDREA SANTIAGO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CITY OF CHICAGO, a Municipal Corporation, Case No. 1:19-cv-04652 (N.D. ILL.), moves the Court to enter an order certifying this case as a class action, appointing her as class representative and appointing her lawyers as class counsel. Ms. Santiago seeks to represent these classes: * All individuals and entities who had their vehicle towed by the City of Chicago due to it being considered "abandoned" by the City (the "Tow Class"); and * All individuals and entities who had their vehicle towed by or through the Department of Streets and Sanitation pursuant to Chapter 9-92 of the Municipal Code of Chicago that were disposed of by the City (the "Vehicle Disposal Class"). The Plaintiff brings this action to challenge the Defendant's practice of taking vehicles with no warning or opportunity to contest the claim of abandonment prior to the seizure. While the City allegedly sends a notice of impoundment to the owner after it has already been impounded, it fails to send the required additional notice when the City intends on disposing of the vehicle. As a result, thousands of cars are in effect stolen from citizens of Chicago and sold without proper notice and due process, the Plaintiff alleges.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Myron M. Cherry, Esq. Jacie C. Zolna, Esq. Benjamin R. Swetland, Esq. Jeremiah Nixon, Esq. Jessica C. Chavin, Esq. MYRON M. CHERRY & ASSOCIATES LLC 30 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2300 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 372-2100 E-mail: mcherry@cherry-law.com jzolna@cherry-law.com bswetland@cherry-law.com jnixon@cherry-law.com jchavin@cherry-law.com CHICAGO: Thulius et al Seek Turnover of Funds from Uncashed Checks ------------------------------------------------------------------ John Thulis and James Webb, the Plaintiffs, vs. City of Chicago, the Defendant, Case No. 2019CH09581 (Ill. Cir., Aug. 19, 2019), seeks to recover damages against the Defendant for knowingly concealing, or knowingly and improperly avoiding an obligation to report and transmit money or property to the State under the State's Unclaimed Property Act, the Illinois Interest Act, and the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices. The claims are based on the City's failure to report and turn over to the Illinois State Treasurer money from issued checks that have gone uncashed for years. According to the lawsuit, the underlying purpose of the Unclaimed Property Acts is two fold -- to enable persons owed money to have a way to learn of it and recover it, and give the State the benefit of cash float in the period before the funds are claimed rightfully. The City received an indefinite "float" and the payees have virtually no way to learn that they have money owed them, the lawsuit says. Chicago, on Lake Michigan in Illinois, is among the largest cities in the U.S.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are: Clinton A. Krislov, Esq. Kenneth Goldstein, Esq. KRISLOV & ASSOCIATES, LTD 20 Wacker Drive, Suite 1300 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 606-0500 E-mail: clint@krislov law .com ken@krislov law .com - and - Myron M. Cherry, Esq. Jacie C. Zolna, Esq. MYRON M. CHERRY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. 30 N. LaSalle St., Suite 2300 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 372-2100 E-mail: mcherry@cherry-law.com jzolna@cherry-law.com D & D MANUFACTURING: Sued over Biometric Data Collection -------------------------------------------------------- BRUNO DAVID CARDENAS AGUILAR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. D & D MANUFACTURING, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2019CH09352 (Ill. Cir., Cook Cty., Aug. 14, 2019) alleges violation of the Biometric Information Privacy Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint, prior to taking the Plaintiff's biometric, the Defendant did not inform the Plaintiff in writing that his biometrics were being collected, stored, used, or disseminated, or publish any policy specifically about the collection, retention, use, deletion, or dissemination of biometrics. The Defendant did not seek, and the Plaintiff never provided, any written consent relating to the collection, use, storage, or dissemination of his biometrics. D & D Manufacturing Co Inc was founded in 1964. The company's line of business includes manufacturing turbines and turbine generator sets. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William P.N. Kingston, Esq. Jad Sheikali, Esq. MCGUIRE LAW, P.C. 55 Wacker Drive, 9th Fl. Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 893-7002 Facsimile: (312) 275-7895 E-mail: wkingston@mcgpc.com jsheikali@mcgpc.com DG RETAIL: Flores Seeks to Recover Unpaid Back Wages Under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------------- ABDIAS FLORES on behalf of himself, and all other plaintiffs similarly situated, known and unknown v. DG RETAIL, LLC D/B/A/ DOLLAR GENERAL AND KAIYAH KING, INDIVIDUALLY, Case No. 1:19-cv-05670 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 23, 2019), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, the Cook County Minimum Wage Ordinance of the Municipal Code of Cook County and the Chicago Minimum Wage Ordinance seeking to recover unpaid back wages. DG Retail, LLC, doing business as Dollar General, is a retail store that sells grocery and other generic consumer goods to customers and which has various locations in the Chicagoland area and the Northern District of Illinois. Kaiyah King is a manager of DGR's location at 4524 S. Ashland Avenue, in Chicago, Illinois, where the Plaintiff previously worked.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John William Billhorn, Esq. BILLHORN LAW FIRM 53 West Jackson Blvd., Suite 401 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 853-1450 E-mail: jbillhorn@billhornlaw.com DOMETIC CORP: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class in Papasan Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, Catherine Papasan and others, Plaintiffs, v. Dometic Corporation, Defendant, Civil Action No. 16-22482-Civ-Scola (S.D. Fla.), Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida denied the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. The operative complaint is the Plaintiffs' Consolidated Class Action Complaint. According to the Complaint, Dometic manufactures gas absorption refrigerators designed for use in recreational vehicles ("RVs"). The Plaintiffs allege that Dometic's refrigerators have a design defect that results in excessive corrosion on the inside of the gas absorption refrigerator's boiler tubes. The Plaintiffs allege that the corrosion causes the boiler tubes to internally "corrode, crack, and ultimately expel flammable ammonia, hydrogen gas, and carcinogenic sodium chromate at high pressure." They allege that the leaked gas can ignite, but even if it does not ignite, the corrosion eventually ruins the refrigerator's functionality. They each own an allegedly defective Dometic refrigerator. The Plaintiffs now move for class certification based on the allegations that they each received an unmerchantable refrigerator and were damaged by overpaying for a defective product. In other words, they are not seeking class certification based on a fire, damage to property, or a broken refrigerator, but rather on a theory of economic loss at the point of purchase. According to the Plaintiffs, because the Defendant concealed material facts regarding the defect and continuing safety risk to every class member, every class member was induced at the point of sale to purchase their refrigerators at a premium price that they otherwise would not have paid. The Complaint asserts claims for violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, breaches of implied warranty, unjust enrichment, and various state laws. The Motion seeks certification of nine subclasses, based on the various states in which the Plaintiffs purchased their refrigerators: All persons who purchased in [insert one of nine states] Dometic Gas Absorption Refrigerator models RM 2620; RM/DM2652; RM/DM2662; RM/DM2663: RM3762 & DMR/DMC7-Series; RM 2820: DM2852 & DM2862; RM3862 & RM3863; RM3962: NDM1062; RM 1350: 1350WIM; NDA 1402: and 1402IMS built between Jan. 1, 1997 and the present. Given the overlap between a standing and merits analysis in the case, Judge Scola holds that the Plaintiffs have established standing. However, he finds that the proposed classes are not ascertainable. The Plaintiffs have failed to proffer any evidence that Dometic's records, including Dometic's recall efforts, would be useful to identify class members. Prior recalls do not provide a feasible method of identifying potential class members. Even if they could rely on Dometic's prior recalls, they would need to explain to the Court how they are going to use the recall protocol to identify the class members. Merely asserting that the Defendant's prior recalls show that there are feasible ways to determine class inclusion is insufficient to meet the ascertainability requirement. The Plaintiffs have not provided the Court with any proposals demonstrating how self-identification would work, much less a plan that would be administratively feasible and not otherwise problematic. Therefore, the Judge will deny the motion, and does not reach the parties' other arguments. Bases on the foregoing, Judge Scola denied the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. In light of the Plaintiffs' assertion of jurisdiction only under CAFA2 and the Order denying class certification, the Judge further dismissed the case without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Finally, although the parties' submissions relating to the motion were filed under seal, the Order contains no confidential information, trade secrets or other information that justifies sealing of the Order. The Clerk is directed to close the case. All pending motions are denied as moot. A full-text copy of the Court's July 24, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/AAirec from Leagle.com. Catherine Papasan, Plaintiff, represented by Jeff D. Friedman -- jefff@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP. Catherine Papasan, Plaintiff, represented by Terrence Allen Beard, Law Offices of Terrence A. Beard, Ashley A. Bede -- ashleyb@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice, Steve W. Berman -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice & Thomas Eric Loeser -- toml@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP. Nelson Goehle, Plaintiff, represented by Jeff D. Friedman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Terrence Allen Beard, Law Offices of Terrence A. Beard, Ashley A. Bede, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice, Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice & Thomas Eric Loeser, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP. Andrew Young, Plaintiff, represented by Jeff D. Friedman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Terrence Allen Beard, Law Offices of Terrence A. Beard, Ashley A. Bede, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice, Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice & Thomas Eric Loeser, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP. Jimmy Byers, Plaintiff, represented by Jeff D. Friedman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Terrence Allen Beard, Law Offices of Terrence A. Beard, Ashley A. Bede, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice, Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice & Thomas Eric Loeser, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP. Christopher Johnston, Plaintiff, represented by Jeff D. Friedman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Terrence Allen Beard, Law Offices of Terrence A. Beard, Ashley A. Bede, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice, Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice & Thomas Eric Loeser, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP. Richard Vollberg, Plaintiff, represented by Jeff D. Friedman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Terrence Allen Beard, Law Offices of Terrence A. Beard, Ashley A. Bede, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice, Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice & Thomas Eric Loeser, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP. Leah Vollberg, Plaintiff, represented by Jeff D. Friedman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Terrence Allen Beard, Law Offices of Terrence A. Beard, Ashley A. Bede, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice, Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice & Thomas Eric Loeser, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP. Sid Garrett, Plaintiff, represented by Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP. Marjorie Goehle, Plaintiff, represented by Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP. Dometic Corporation, Defendant, represented by Peter Allen Wald -- peter.wald@lw.com -- Latham & Watkins LLP, Adam L. Rosenbloom -- adam.rosenbloom@lw.com -- Latham & Watkins LLP, Emily Rose Goebel, Latham & Watkins LLP, Marcy Christina Priedeman -- marcy.priedeman@lw.com -- Latham & Watkins LLP & Robert Christian Collins, III -- robert.collins@lw.com -- Latham and Watkins LLP, pro hac vice. E.C. RUFF MARINE: Locasio Seeks Proper Overtime Rate ---------------------------------------------------- KRISTEN LOCASCIO and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. E.C. RUFF MARINE, INC., a Florida profit corporation, ED RUFF JR., individually, and MARLENE HARDEN, individually, Defendants, Case No. 0:19-cv-62190-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Aug. 30, 2019) is an action arising under the Fair Labor Standards Act to recover all wages owed to Plaintiff and those similarly situated to Plaintiff, during the course of their employment. During Plaintiff's employment, the Defendants refused to compensate Plaintiff at the proper overtime rate of time-and-one-half her regular hourly rate, as required by the FLSA, for hours she worked in excess of 40 per week, asserts the complaint. The Defendants have unlawfully deprived Plaintiff, and all other employees similarly situated, of federal wage compensation during the course of their employment, it adds. Plaintiff began working for Defendants in January 2019 as a billing assistant until approximately April 19, 2019. E.C., is a Florida profit corporation that specializes in marine servicing and has been operating in the State of Florida since at least 2000.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jordan Richards, Esq. Mellissa Scott, Esq. USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS–JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC 805 East Broward Blvd. Suite 301 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954) 871-0050 Email: jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com melissa@jordanrichadrspllc.com jake@jordanrichardspllc.com stephanie@jordanrichardspllc.com mike@usaemploymentlawyers.com EL PORTON BAR: Urzua Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- ELDIGADT URZUA and ANTONIA RAMOS ANASTACIO, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. EL PORTON BAR & RESTAURANT CORP. (D/B/A EL PORTON), EL PORTON BAR & RESTAURANT NO. 2 CORP. (D/B/A EL PORTON BAR), RAFAEL MERLIN, and MEYLEN ENG, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-08090 (S.D. N.Y., Aug. 29, 2019) seeks unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, and for violations of the N.Y. Labor Law, and the "spread of hours" and overtime wage orders of the New York Commissioner of Labor, including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. Plaintiffs worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of hour's compensation for the hours that they worked, says the complaint. Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked and failed to pay Plaintiffs appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium. Furthermore, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs the required "spread of hours" pay for any day in which they had to work over 10 hours a day, adds the complaint. Plaintiffs were employed as waitresses and bartenders at the Defendants' restaurants. Defendants own, operate, or control two Mexican restaurants, located at 3151 Broadway, New York, New York 10027 under the name "El Porton" and at 576 Southern Blvd, The Bronx, NY 10455 under the name "El Porton Bar".[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Phone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 FABI INC: Failed to Pay Overtime Wages, Jaramillo Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------- DIEGO JARAMILLO, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, known and unknown, Plaintiff, v. FABI, INC. d/b/a/ FORNO ROSSO, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-05850 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 30, 2019) is a lawsuit arising under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Cook County Minimum Wage Ordinance, for Defendant's failure to pay overtime wages to Plaintiff and other similarly situated persons for all time worked in excess of 40 hours in individual work weeks. In one or more work weeks during his employment by Defendant, Plaintiff worked more than 40 hours. However, Defendant did not pay Plaintiff at a rate of one-and-one-half times his regular rate of pay for all time he worked in excess of 40 hours per week, says the complaint. Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a busboy from approximately November 1, 2018 to May 10, 2019. Defendant is an Illinois corporation doing business within this judicial district.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas M. Werman, Esq. Michael M. Tresnowski, Esq. Jaqueline Villanueva, Esq. Werman Salas P.C. 77 West Washington, Suite 1402 Chicago, IL 60602 Phone: (312) 419-1008 Email: dwerman@flsalaw.com mtresnowski@flsalaw.com jvillanueva@flsalaw.com FIRE ISLAND HOTEL: Duncan Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fire Island Hotel, LTD. The case is styled as Eugene Duncan AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff v. Fire Island Hotel, LTD, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-08130 (S.D. N.Y., Aug. 30, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Fire Island Hotel, LTD is a casual hotel in Ocean Bay Park lies 5 miles from Fire Island Lighthouse and 9 miles from Captree State Park, set in a former lifeboat station dating from the early 1900s.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq. The Marks Law Firm PC 175 Varick Street 3rd Floor New York, NY 10014 Phone: (646) 770-3775 Fax: (646) 867-2639 Email: bmarkslaw@gmail.com FIRST STUDENT: Does not Pay Split Shift Wages, Lopez Suit Asserts ----------------------------------------------------------------- Norma Lopez, Cindy Mitchell, and Vada Neice, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FIRST STUDENT, INC., FIRST STUDENT MANAGEMENT, LLC, FIRST AMERICA, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 1920396 (Super. Ct., San Bernardino Cty., Aug. 30, 2019) asserts a claim brought on behalf of Class Members for unpaid split shift wages, damages, interest wages statement penalties, and attorneys' fees and costs, under Labor Code Sections 226, 1194, 1194.2, and 1197, and Code of Civil Procedure Section 1021.5. First Student requires Attendants to work split shifts. However, First Student fails to pay Attendants split shift wages as required by Wage Order 9-2001 and the California Labor Code. First Student also fails to include split shift wages on Plaintiffs' and Class Members' wage statements, says the complaint. Plaintiffs are Attendants who have been employed by First Student at its California facilities. First Student is a private contractor providing bus transportation services for students in various school districts throughout California.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: HUNTER PYLE, ESQ. VINCENT CHEN, ESQ. HINTER PYLE LAW 428 Thirteenth Street, Eleventh Floor Oakland, CA 94612 Phone: (510) 444-4400 Facsimile: (510) 444-4410 Email: hunter@hunterpylelaw.com vchen@hunterpytclaw.com GALLERIA CA DOOR: Mendez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Galleria Ca Door New York, LLC. The case is styled as Himelda Mendez AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff v. Galleria Ca Door New York, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-08131 (S.D. N.Y., Aug. 30, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Galleria Ca' d'Oro is an international contemporary art gallery curated and organized by Gloria Porcella.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq. The Marks Law Firm PC 175 Varick Street 3rd Floor New York, NY 10014 Phone: (646) 770-3775 Fax: (646) 867-2639 Email: bmarkslaw@gmail.com GENERAL ELECTRIC: Court Narrows Claims in Securities Suit --------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York issued an Opinion and Order granting in part and denying in part Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the case captioned SJUNDE AP-FONDEN and THE CLEVELAND BAKERS AND TEAMSTERS PENSION FUND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, et al., Defendants. No. 17-CV-8457 (JMF). (S.D.N.Y.). In this putative class action, Lead Plaintiff Sjunde AP-Fonden and Plaintiff the Cleveland Bakers and Teamsters Pension Fund, two pension funds, bring claims against General Electric Company and six current or former GE executives. Plaintiffs allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5. Because Plaintiffs in this case allege securities fraud, they must also satisfy the heightened pleading requirements of both Rule 9(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires that the circumstances constituting fraud be stated with particularity and the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PSLRA), which requires that scienter that is, a defendant's intention to deceive, manipulate, or defraud also be pleaded with particularity. The Plaintiffs' principal claims are that GE fraudulently concealed huge liabilities in its LTC insurance portfolio and weakening performance in its power division in violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5. The PSLRA also requires a plaintiff to plead scienter, that is, a defendant's intention to deceive, manipulate, or defraud with particularity. To satisfy that requirement, a complaint must, with respect to each act or omission alleged to constitute securities fraud, state with particularity facts giving rise to a strong inference that the defendant acted with the required state of mind. Defendants argue that, in light of the foregoing standards, each set of Plaintiffs' claims fails as a matter of law. They also contend that any claims that were alleged for the first time in the Third Amended Complaint and that are premised on misstatements or omissions made before July 25, 2013, five years before the TAC was filed are barred by the statute of repose governing securities fraud violations. The Court will begin with the statute of repose issue before addressing Defendants' other arguments. The Statute of Repose Congress has enacted an unqualified bar to securities actions instituted 5 years after [the] violation forming the basis of the action, giving defendants total repose after that period. The statute of repose begins running from the date of each alleged statement or omission, and is not subject to equitable tolling. Applying those standards here, the Court must dismiss Plaintiffs' claims that are based on statements or omissions predating July 25, 2013 and were not asserted in one of the seven complaints filed and consolidated into the operative complaint. That means that the following claims must be and are dismissed: (1) all claims based on the table in the Management Discussion & Analysis section of GE's 2012 Form 10-K and Q1 2013 Form 10-Q (2) all claims based on statements made in GE's April 19, 2013 Form 8-K, all claims based on statements made at the May 31, 2013 Sanford C. Bernstein Strategic Decisions Conference and (4) all claims based on statements made by Defendants Sherin or Hauser before July 25, 2013, including in the 2012 Form 10-K, the Q1 2013 Form 10-Q, and the July 19, 2013 Form 8-K. Plaintiffs' only argument to the contrary is that because an earlier-filed motion to intervene timely raised claims based on other statements made in GE's 2012 Form 10-K and Q1 2013 Form 10-Q, then any claim based on any statement in those filings was timely made even if asserted for the first time in a later complaint after the statute of repose had run. Plaintiffs cite no authority for this position, however, and there is no principled basis to adopt it. Securities fraud claims arise from, among other things, specific statements of a material fact and specific material omissions not from the documents in which those statements are contained. The statute of repose for such claims begins running from the time that each allegedly fraudulent statement or omission is made. In sum, the statute of repose bars Plaintiffs' claims based on statements, omissions, or misrepresentations made before July 25, 2013, and which were not timely raised in an earlier complaint or motion to intervene. Those claims are therefore DISMISSED with prejudice. Statements Relating to GE's LTC Insurance Portfolio With that, the Court turns to Plaintiffs' claims based on alleged misrepresentations and omissions relating to GE's LTC insurance portfolio. Plaintiffs' basic thesis is that GE knew about massive exposure in its deteriorating LTC insurance portfolio; knew that its reserves were inadequate for these liabilities and lacked actuarial models that would allow it to properly assess the sufficiency of its reserves and concealed these problems from investors in public statements and regulatory filings. For the reasons below, the Court finds that Plaintiffs fail to state a claim for securities fraud based on any LTC-related statement or omission. The MD&A Table Plaintiffs first allege that GE misled investors by excluding its LTC liabilities from the insurance liabilities line item of a table in the Management Discussion & Analysis (MD&A) section of its Class Period 10-Ks, which purported to provide a snapshot of GE's total contractual liabilities. Viewed in context and together with the rest of the Form 10-K, however, GE's reported insurance liabilities figures were not misleading. The table expressly disclosed that it excluded long-term care, variable annuity and other life insurance contracts which put readers on notice that some portion of GE's insurance liabilities were not included in the table figure. Plaintiffs are arguably on firmer ground in contending that GE's failure to include LTC liabilities in its insurance liabilities line item violated Item 303(a)(5) of Regulation S-K. But even if GE did violate Item 303, that violation did not give rise to a securities fraud claim. Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 prohibit omissions of material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading. Here, for the reasons already discussed, GE's omission of LTC liabilities from its MD&A table was not misleading because it fully disclosed its total insurance liabilities in Note 11. In the alternative, the fact that GE disclosed the entirety of its insurance liabilities elsewhere in its Form 10-Ks defeats any finding that GE acted with the requisite scienter in omitting the liabilities from its tables. That is, the disclosure of those liabilities and the explicit directions to readers as to how to find those disclosures strongly undercuts any inference that GE had the intention to deceive, manipulate, or defraud investors by omitting LTC liabilities from its MD&A tables during the Class Period. At bottom, Plaintiffs' complaint is that GE should have more clearly presented its LTC liabilities in its Class Period Form 10-Ks. GE's presentations are certainly not going to win any awards for clarity. But disclosure of an item of information is not required simply because it may be relevant or of interest to a reasonable investor. Instead, disclosure is required only when necessary to make statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading. Because GE's failure to disclose its LTC liabilities in its Class Period MD&A table would not be misleading to an ordinary investor. Plaintiffs' claims predicated on those statements or omissions must be and are DISMISSED. LTC Reserves Next, Plaintiffs argue that Defendants' statements about its insurance reserves assets set aside to cover future claims payments. There is no dispute that, because there is no objective standard for setting reserves. Accordingly, they are actionable only if (1) Defendants did not hold the belief they professed in the opinion (2) if the opinion contained an embedded statement of fact that was untrue or (3) if the statement omits material facts about the issuer's inquiry into or knowledge concerning the opinion and those facts conflict with what a reasonable investor would take from the statement itself. Plaintiffs' arguments about GE's LTC reserves run together somewhat, but they ultimately press two distinct theories: first, that Defendants themselves did not subjectively believe their statements about LTC reserves were true and second, that the statements were misleading because they indicated to investors that GE had an adequate basis to make estimates when, in fact, they did not rest on a meaningful factual inquiry nor have any reasonable basis in fact. Even taken together, however, these facts fall short of satisfying Plaintiffs' burden to plausibly allege that any Defendant did not believe their LTC reserve statements were true. That is, even if Defendants knew that the models used to set the reserves were fraught with serious issues, given the nature of those issues a lack of validation caused by insufficient documentation, use of inappropriate modeling software, subpar actuarial practices, and so on the facts alleged do not come close to the facts in other cases where courts have found that a defendant affirmatively disbelieved (or recklessly credited) a statement of opinion. Instead, this case is closer to those in which defendants allegedly possess[ed] facts which should have led them" to make further inquiry, but which, without more, do not sufficiently allege that the individuals" disbelieve their stated opinions. Compounding this deficiency is the dearth of specific allegations about both how pervasive these problems were e.g., how many models there were overall, how many were defective, what roles they played in modeling GE's insurance reserves, and what issues they were subject to and which Defendants knew how much about them. The fact that some Defendants may have known of some issues with respect to an unspecified number of models in lower-level GE Capital insurance subsidiaries, as Plaintiffs allege, does not show that any particular Defendant did not believe in the accuracy of GE's insurance reserve estimates. Nor do Plaintiffs adequately plead that GE's statements about its LTC reserves were misleading because they signaled to investors that GE had done its homework in arriving at the estimates, when in reality they did not rest on a meaningful factual inquiry nor have any reasonable basis in fact. Whether an opinion is misleading by omission always depends on context, as a reasonable investor does not expect that every fact known to a defendant supports its opinion statement. In either case, the alleged deficiencies are insufficient to establish that the opinion was misleading when made. Plaintiffs fail to plausibly allege they did not do so the statements of LTC reserves are not actionable, and Plaintiffs' claims based on them must be and are DISMISSED. Violations of GAAP and Regulation S-K Next, Plaintiffs argue that Defendants violated Item 303 of Regulation S-K and various GAAP provisions by failing to make certain disclosures in GE's financial statements. Plaintiffs do not attempt to demonstrate scienter by establishing that Defendants had the motive and opportunity to commit fraud. As evidence of scienter, Plaintiffs also point to the abrupt resignations of high-level executives, including Immelt, Bornstein, Sherin, and Laxer, GE's eventual nine-billion-dollar reserve adjustment, the suspicious timing of GE's reversion to more comprehensive disclosures regarding LTC liabilities in its 2017 Form 10-K; and the SEC's investigation into GE's LTC insurance business. But even taken together, these facts do not support a strong inference that Defendants' failures to disclose were done with conscious recklessness. Engaging in the comparative inquiry called for by the PSLRA, the Court concludes that an alternative inference that Defendants did not realize the brewing storm in their LTC portfolio, masked in part by out-of-date actuarial assumptions and sloppy practices, and then made disclosures and adjustments as they learned about the scale of the problem is more compelling than the inference of fraud. This conclusion is principally founded on one ineluctable fact: GE's annual deficiency testing showed positive results through and including 2016. That conclusion that Plaintiffs fail to plausibly allege conscious misbehavior or recklessness is further reinforced by the timing and number of disclosures that Defendants did make. As other courts have observed, a company's incremental strategy of taking successive write-downs during a class period contradicts an inference of scienter. Plaintiffs' remaining, more general allegations based on the size of the alleged fraud, the changes to GE's reporting practices, the SEC's investigation, and the resignations of GE executives do not nudge them across the line. Instead, Plaintiffs' own allegations, namely, that GE's annual deficiency testing returned positive results year after year foreclose a strong inference that Defendants were consciously reckless as to whether their failure to make disclosures under GAAP and SEC rules would mislead investors. Indeed, those allegations suggest that Defendants had little reason to think trends or uncertainties in the LTC industry would have a material negative impact on GE's financial position. Accordingly, Plaintiffs' LTC-related GAAP and Regulation S-K claims must be and are DISMISSED. GAAP Violations The next set of claims can be addressed quickly. Plaintiffs argue that GE's failure to account for its unsound and unsustainable business practices in recognizing revenue" violated at least five, but perhaps as many as eight, related GAAP provisions. The uncertainty regarding exactly how many provisions are at issue highlights the defect in these claims: They are pled so skeletally that they do not satisfy even Rule 8's relatively lenient thresholds, much less the heightened standards imposed by Rule 9 and the PSLRA. For instance, one paragraph states that GE's undisclosed, unsustainable and unsound practices, which it did not account for in recognizing revenue or making cumulative catch-up adjustments, was a violation of ASC 605-10-S99, yet it does not bother even to state what ASC-605-10-S99 says. The remaining allegations recite different accounting standards in some detail or baldly assert that GE violated those standards, but make no effort to link the standards to any specific act, practice, statement, or lapse by GE, or even to any other allegations in the Complaint. The allegations here fail to state a claim for relief and are, therefore, DISMISSED. Item 303 Violations Next, Plaintiffs allege that GE violated Item 303 of SEC Regulation S-K by failing to disclose trends or uncertainties known to GE and likely to have a material impact on GE's financial position. From a review of the Complaint and Plaintiffs' memorandum of law in opposition to Defendants' motion, three main allegations of trends, demands, commitments, events or uncertainties stand out: first, GE's reliance on unsustainable business practices to renegotiate LTSAs in order to generate positive cumulative catch-up adjustments, second, the deteriorating power industry and decreased GE asset usage at the root of GE's struggles; and third, GE's use of factoring to generate cash and mask the growing disparity between revenue and cash flow. The Court will address each alleged theory of Item 303 liability in turn. GE's failure to disclose the first trend does not support Item 303 liability because Plaintiffs' theory of fraud does not ultimately hang together. Throughout the Complaint, Plaintiffs state that GE employed a host of unsustainable business practices in order to trigger positive cumulative catch-up adjustments. But a careful reading of the Complaint indicates that only one of these practices de-scoping in which GE eliminated the GE-sourced labor requirement in LTSAs, thereby raising the profit margin over the life of the contracts produced cumulative catch-up revenue. Nor do GE's failures to disclose two of the unsustainable practices on their own de-scoping and deferral of payments constitute violations of Item 303. The Complaint does not allege facts showing that either of those practices was reasonably likely or that any Defendant thought them reasonably likely to have a material impact on GE's financial position, liquidity, or revenues. Accordingly, Plaintiffs fail to plead a violation of Item 303 based on GE's unsustainable contract renegotiation practices. Next, Plaintiffs argue in their memorandum of law that GE failed to disclose the deteriorating power industry and customers' migration to sustainable energy sources and resulting decreased asset usage. As Defendants observe, however, these allegations are not actually in the Complaint. At most, Paragraph 410 of the Complaint alleges that GE failed to disclose that it had been relying on unsustainable business practices to renegotiate LTSAs with customers to conceal that GE Power was struggling. But that is too generalized and oblique to give fair notice of much more specific Item 303 violations concerning trends in the deteriorating power industry and customers' migration to sustainable energy sources. The Court therefore declines to consider the argument. Finally, Plaintiffs allege that GE failed to disclose that GE Power generated cash by monetizing receivables through extensive factoring of LTSAs. Here, Plaintiffs hit the mark. The Complaint details, through allegations by former employees with firsthand knowledge among other things, that GE was factoring everything in its Power and Renewable Divisions, including as many LTSAs as it could. The same allegations support a strong inference that GE and at least some of the Individual Defendants were at least consciously reckless regarding whether their failure to provide adequate Item 303 disclosures would mislead investors about material facts. If credited, the allegations in the Complaint show that, throughout the Class Period, the management of GE Power and GE Capital were organizing and, a fortiori, knew about global efforts to factor as many LTSAs as they could. If credited, the Complaint shows also that Bornstein who signed GE's financial statements both knew of the practice and acknowledged that GE was in deep with regard to factoring. In short, Plaintiffs plausibly allege that Bornstein and GE through Bornstein and other executives whose knowledge or intent may be imputed to it knew facts suggesting that GE's financial disclosures would be misleading without disclosure of its widespread use of factoring, amounting to at least a reckless disregard of a known or obvious duty to disclose. In sum, Plaintiffs' factoring-based Item 303 claim survives against GE and Bornstein for GE's 2015 filings and beyond, but is dismissed as to all other Defendants. The remaining Item 303-based claims are dismissed in their entirety. Remaining Claims Remaining are Plaintiffs' certification claims and its control person claims under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. First, Plaintiffs allege that Immelt, Sherin, and Bornstein falsely certified that they had reviewed GE's internal controls and found them effective.Similarly, Plaintiffs allege that those Defendants made certifications pursuant to Sarbanes-Oxley that falsely stated that GE's financial statements were prepared in accordance with GAAP and in all material respects fairly represented the financial position of the company. As to internal controls, the Complaint does not allege specific facts concerning the purportedly deficient internal controls, including how they were deficient, when and why, so that claim must be dismissed. As for the claims about GAAP, for the same reasons that Plaintiffs' standalone GAAP-based claims fail, Plaintiffs either fail to adequately allege that GE violated GAAP or fail to adequately allege that Immelt, Sherin, or Bornstein acted with scienter in certifying that the LTC-related information in GE's financial statements comported with GAAP. Accordingly, these claims must be and are dismissed. That leaves Plaintiffs' Section 20(a) control person claims. To state a claim of control person liability under Section 20(a), a plaintiff must show (1) a primary violation by the controlled person (2) control of the primary violator by the defendant and (3) that the defendant was, in some meaningful sense, a culpable participant in the controlled person's fraud. For all but two of their claims, Plaintiffs have failed to plead a primary violation, and it follows that the corresponding Section 20(a) claims must also be dismissed. As for Section 20(a) liability with respect to the two primary violation claims that survive, that is, Plaintiffs' claims regarding statements about factoring in GE's 2016 Form 10-K and GE's failure to disclose factoring in its Class Period financial statements, all Defendants muster is a conclusory assertion, on the last page of their brief, that Plaintiffs have not alleged with particularity that any Defendants culpably participated in the alleged fraud. That may well be right. But given the parties' paltry briefing on what is required to make out a Section 20(a) claim, an issue that has vexed even district courts graced with better briefing, Defendants' motion to dismiss the surviving Section 20(a) claims is denied. Accordingly, the Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted, except as to (1) Plaintiffs' Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 claims concerning (a) factoring in GE's 2016 Form 10-K and (b) GE's failure to disclose factoring in its Class Period financial statements, which survive against GE and Bornstein; and (2) for now, Plaintiffs' Section 20(a) claims against each Individual Defendant. The full-text copy of the District Court's August 29, 2019 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/y4b978bj from Leagle.com. Tampa Maritime Association-International Longshoremen's Association Pension Plan, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher J. Keller -- ckeller@labaton.com -- Labaton Sucharow, LLP & Francis Paul McConville -- fmcconville@labaton.com -- Labaton & Sucharow LLP. Deka International S.A., Deka Investment GmbH & International Fund Management S.A., Plaintiffs, represented by Daniel Lawrence Berger -- DBERGER@GELAW.COM -- Grant & Eisenhofer P.A. & Caitlin M. Moyna -- cmoyna@gelaw.com -- Grant & Eisenhofer P.A. Cleveland Bakers and Teamsters Pension Fund, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Sharan Nirmul -- snirmul@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP. Jeffrey R. Immelt, Jeffrey S. Bornstein, John L. Flannery, General Electric Company, Jamie Miller, Keith S. Sherin, Jan R Hauser & Richard A Laxer, Defendants, represented by Blake Thomas Denton -- blake.denton@lw.com -- Latham & Watkins LLP, Miles Norman Ruthberg -- miles.ruthberg@lw.com -- Latham & Watkins LLP, Sean M. Berkowitz -- sean.berkowitz@lw.com -- Latham & Watkins LLP & William J. Trach -- william.trach@lw.com -- Latham & Watkins LLP. The Cleveland Bakers and Teamsters Pension Fund, Intervenor Plaintiff, represented byDaniel Lawrence Berger, Grant & Eisenhofer P.A. Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP, Interested Party, represented by Thomas Livezey Laughlin, IV -- tlaughlin@scott-scott.com -- Scott Scott, L.L.P. GITHUB INC: Emerson Firm Files Class Action Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------- Emerson Firm, PLLC announces that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court, Western District of Washington at Seattle, Amjed Ali Ababseh v. Capital One Financial Corporation, Capital One, N.A., Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon Web Services, Inc., and GitHub, Inc., Civil Action No. 2:19-cv-1397, on behalf of 100 million or more Capital One customers in the US whose personal and financial information was compromised in the data breach announced by Capital One on July 29, 2019. This is one of the largest-ever data breaches of financial services firm. Capital One explained that a hacker stole the personal and financial information that Capital One had collected and stored. The hacker posted this information on GitHub.com. This data was made publicly available. The hacker was a former Amazon employee and the lawsuit alleges that the failure of the Amazon defendants to take adequate and reasonable measures to protect their data systems from hacklers, among other allegations, resulted in substantial harm and injuries to consumers across the US. Capital One is a bank holding company that specializes in credit cards and offering credit, including car loans and bank accounts. Capital One solicits potential customers to provide them with sensitive personal and financial information through applications for credit cards and other financial products. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all Capital One customers whose personal and financial information was compromised. Plaintiff is represented by the Houston-based firm of Emerson Firm, PLLC with offices in Houston, Texas and Little Rock, Arkansas, and represents consumers throughout the nation. Emerson Firm, PLLC and its predecessor firms have devoted their practice to complex commercial litigation for more than thirty-eight years and have recovered more than a billion dollars for consumers in class actions throughout the United States. If you have a Capital One account or applied for a Capital One account since 2005 then your data may have been compromised in this breach. Please contact us immediately to protect your rights. It makes no difference what state you reside in. IMPORTANT: Please contact plaintiff's counsel, Emerson Firm, PLLC via e-mail to Tanya Autry, Esq. -- tautry@emersonfirm.com -- or John G. Emerson, Esq. -- jemerson@emersonfirm.com A copy of the complaint is available from the Court or from Emerson Firm, PLLC. [GN] GOOGLE LLC: LGBTQ Plaintiffs Sue for Censorship, Discrimination --------------------------------------------------------------- Divino Group LLC, Chris Knight, Celso Dulay, Cameron Stiehl, Briaandchrissy LLC, Bria Kam, Chrissy Chambers, Chase Ross, Brett Somers and Lindsay Amer, and individual, Plaintiffs, v. Google LLC, YouTube, LLC and Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-04749 (N.D. Cal., August 13, 2019), seeks damages and equitable and declaratory relief on behalf of all persons similarly situated and to seek redress for unlawful restraint of speech, breach of consumer contract rights and for violation of the freedom of speech and association of the California Constitution, and California's Unruh Civil Rights Act. Plaintiffs are lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, transsexual or queer (LGBTQ) content creators, viewers, users, and/or online consumers of YouTube who accuse the latter of censoring of the LGBTQ content based on its sexual orientation and political identity and viewpoint. YouTube is a streaming video site owned by Google LLC. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Peter Obstler, Esq. BROWNE GEORGE ROSS LLP 101 California Street, Suite 1225 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 391-7100 Facsimile: (415) 391-7198 Email: pobstler@bgrfirm.com - and - Eric M. George, Esq. Debi A. Ramos, Esq. 2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2800 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 274-7100 Facsimile: (310) 275-5697 Email: egeorge@bgrfirm.com dramos@bgrfirm.com GRANITE CONSTRUCTION: Greene Hits Share Price Drop -------------------------------------------------- Douglas Greene, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Granite Construction Incorporated, James H. Roberts and Jigisha Desai, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-04744, (N.D. Cal., August 13, 2019) seeks to recover compensatory damages, reasonable costs and expenses incurred in this action, including counsel fees and expert fees and such other and further relief under the Exchange Act. Granite focuses on heavy-civil infrastructure projects and power-related facilities. Greene alleges that Granite failed to disclose that it had assumed certain risks in connection with its heavy civil joint venture projects bid between 2012 and 2014 and was reasonably likely to incur additional costs in connection with certain project disputes. In July 29, 2019, after the market closed, Granite disclosed that second quarter 2019 financial results were negatively impacted by non-cash charges related to four legacy, unconsolidated heavy civil joint venture projects. On this news, its stock price fell $7.98 per share, or nearly 18%, to close at $36.49 per share on July 30, 2019. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq. Robert V. Prongay, Esq. Charles H. Linehan, Esq. Pavithra Rajesh, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 Email: info@glancylaw.com GREENPORTER LAND: Duncan Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Greenporter Land LLC. The case is styled as Eugene Duncan AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff v. Greenporter Land LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-08126 (S.D. N.Y., Aug. 30, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Greenporter is a 3-star, privately owned boutique hotel located in the heart of the North Fork's wine country, in Greenport, Long Island.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq. The Marks Law Firm PC 175 Varick Street 3rd Floor New York, NY 10014 Phone: (646) 770-3775 Fax: (646) 867-2639 Email: bmarkslaw@gmail.com HAT CLUB: Website not Accessible to Blind Persons, Nixon Says ------------------------------------------------------------- DONALD NIXON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. HAT CLUB, L.L.C., the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-07806-PGG (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 20, 2019), alleges that Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website at www.hatclub.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its goods and services offered thereby and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using his computer. 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 this 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 2.1 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. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Jonathan Shalom, Esq. SHALOM LAW, PLLC. 124-04 Metropolitan Avenue Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Telephone: (718) 971-9474 E-mail: Jshalom@JonathanShalomLaw.com HEALTHPLANONE LLC: $448K Quintana FLSA Suit Settlement Has Approval ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, Peggy Quintana, Plaintiff, v. HealthPlanOne LLC, Defendant, Case No. CV-18-02169-PHX-RM (D. Ariz.), Judge Rosemary Marquez of the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona (i) granted in part the Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion and Memorandum for Approval of the Parties' FLSA Collective Action Settlement, (ii) granted in part the Plaintiff's Motion for Award of Attorneys' Fees, Reimbursement of Costs and Expenses, and Award of Collective Representative Service Payments; and (iii) denied the Defendants' Stipulated Request for a Telephonic Status Conference. Plaintiff Quintana filed the operative Collective Action Complaint on Jan. 2, 2019. The Plaintiff, who was the Defendant's employee, alleges on behalf of herself and a collective of 1,117 similarly situated persons that the Defendant failed to pay overtime in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). Specifically, the Plaintiff alleges that she and other employees at the Defendant's call centers were required to perform work before and after scheduled shift times, for which they were not paid. Specifically, the Plaintiff estimates that she and other similarly situated employees performed between 10 and 15 minutes of unpaid overtime work each day. Throughout the pendency of the action, seven additional Plaintiffs have consented to join the lawsuit. The Parties engaged in a full-day mediation but were unsuccessful at settling their claims at that time. On Jan. 31, 2019, the Court issued a Scheduling Order setting deadlines for the first phase of FLSA discovery. Meanwhile, the Defendant sought to compel arbitration of the dispute, but on Feb. 2, 2019, before the Motion to Compel was fully briefed, the Parties notified the Court that a settlement had been reached. The instant motions followed. Pending before the Court is the Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion and Memorandum for Approval of the Parties' FLSA Collective Action Settlement, and the Plaintiff's Motion for Award of Attorneys' Fees, Reimbursement of Costs and Expenses, and Award of Collective Representative Service Payments. Also before the Court is the Defendant's Stipulated Request for a Telephonic Status Conference. The unopposed motion seeks (1) approval of the proposed settlement agreement on behalf of the Plaintiff and a collective, (2) certification of a collective action for settlement purposes only, (3) approval of the notice of collective action settlement, and (4) appointment of (a) the Plaintiff's attorneys as the collective action counsel, (b) the Plaintiff as collective representative, and (c) Analytics, LLC as the third-party administrator. The Parties agreed to settle this matter for $447,500, which includes settlement payments to eligible claimants; attorneys' fees and costs directly related to the case; and individual service payments to the Plaintiff and the seven Opt-in Plaintiffs. The settlement, which the Parties characterize as an outstanding recovery for the Collective Members, was reached after some discovery and a full day of mediation. From this gross total, the parties indicate that there are $196,819 in fees, incentives, and administrative costs. Once those costs are subtracted out, each collective member is to receive a pro rata share of the award based upon their fraction of the total overtime workweeks by all collective members. Third-party administrator Analytics is to be responsible for contacting settlement plaintiffs with information regarding the settlement and joining the settlement collective, and then distributing the award amongst the members. The Settlement Agreement provided for $134,250 in attorneys' fees as well as reimbursement to the Plaintiff's attorneys for costs up to $18,000, requested separately in the concurrently pending Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Costs. The Plaintiff's motion indicates that the Parties have agreed to give Plaintiff Quintana $9,000, and each of the seven Opt-in Plaintiffs $3,000, to acknowledge their involvement in the matter. Because Judge Marquez does not find that a telephonic status conference would assist in the resolution of the pending motions, she will deny the request for a telephonic status conference. The Judge granted in part (i) the Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion and Memorandum for Approval of the Parties' FLSA Collective Action Settlement, and (ii) the Plaintiff's Motion For Award of Attorneys' Fees, Reimbursement of Costs and Expenses, and Award of Collective Representative Service Payments. She denied the Defendants' Stipulated Request for a Telephonic Status Conference. The Settlement Agreement creating a settlement fund of $447,500 is approved, with the following particulars: (1) Service awards totaling $20,000 are to be distributed from the settlement fund as follows: (a) $6,000 to Plaintiff Quintana; (b) $2,000 to Plaintiff Angela Dunaway; (c) $2,000 to Plaintiff D Force; (d) $2,000 to Plaintiff Karl Kurtz; (e) $2,000 to Plaintiff Robyn Brooks; (f) $2,000 to Plaintiff Robert Espinoza; (g) $2,000 to Plaintiff Jeremy Parker; and (h) $2,000 to Plaintiff Aaron Nelson; (2) Attorneys' Fees are awarded in the amount of $134,250, to be paid from the settlement fund. (3) Costs are awarded in the amount of $14,356.73, to be paid from the settlement fund. (4) Plaintiff Peggy Quintana is appointed the Collective Action Representative. (5) The Plaintiff's counsel, Attorneys Ryan and Bormes, are appointed the Collective Action Counsel. (6) Analytics, LLC is appointed the Third Party Claims Administrator and will administer the settlement funds as detailed in the Settlement Agreement. (7) The Jugde approved the settlement payments to be made to each Collective Member who submits a timely and valid Claim Form. The Collective Members will have 60 days after the date of mailing of the Notice and Claim Forms to submit their Claim Form and to participate in the settlement. (8) Except as provided herein, the settling Parties are to bear their own attorneys' fees and costs. The action and all claims contained therein -- including, without limitation, all class claims and all settled claims against Released parties, are dismissed with prejudice. However, the Order will not impact the rights of any persons who do not participate in this settlement. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. A full-text copy of the Court's July 24, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/xkq1ue from Leagle.com. Peggy Quintana, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Catherine Patricia Sons, Law Office of James X Bormes PC, James X. Bormes, Law Office of James X. Bormes PC, Michelle Ray Matheson -- mmatheson@mathesonlegal.com -- Matheson & Matheson PLC & Thomas M. Ryan, Law Office of Thomas M. Ryan PC. HealthPlanOne LLC, Defendant, represented by Annelise Mari Dominguez -- khoskins@grsm.com -- Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani LLP & Kami Marie Hoskins -- adominguez@grsm.com -- Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani LLP. HEWLETT PACKARD: McLees Sues over Issuance of DXC Shares -------------------------------------------------------- JASON MCLEES, Individually and 0n Behalf 0f All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. HEWLETT PACKARD ENTERPRISE COMPANY; DXC TECHNOLOGY COMPANY; RISHI VARNA; TIMOTHY C. STONESIFER; JEREMY K. COX; MUKESH AGHI; AMY E. ALVING; DAVID HERZOG; SACHIN LAWANDE; J. MICHAEL LAWRIE; JULIO A. PORTALATIN; PETER RUTLAND; MANOJ P. SINGH; WHITMAN; and MARGARET C. ROBERT F. WOODS, the Defendants, Case No. 19-CV-353132 (Cal. Super., Aug. 20, 2019), is a securities class action on behalf of all persons who acquired DXC common stock pursuant to a Form S-4 registration statement, a Form 424B3 prospectus, and additional materials, incorporated by reference issued in connection with the April 2017 transaction by which HPE's Enterprise Services business segment was spun off and merged with CSC to form DXC. HPE is a technology company based in San Paulo, California. In April 2017, HPE conducted the merger spinning off its Enterprise Services business segment, merging it with CSC, and forming the company now known as DXC. DCX performs information technology consulting services for business nationwide. In connection with the Merger, DXC -- then known as Everett SpinCo, Inc. -- issued over 140 million new shares of DXC common stock to former CSC shareholders. Each former shareholder of CSC common stock received one share of new DXC common stock in exhange for each share of CSC common stock held immediately prior to Merger. Through this exchange, former CSC shareholders received 141, 298, 797 shares of DXC common stock, representing 49.9% of outstanding DXC common stock shares. All of these new shares of DXC common stocks were registered, issued, and solicited pursuant to the Offering Materials. The Offering Materials contained untrue statements of material fact and omitted material facts both required by governing regulations and necessary to make the statements made not misleading. The Offering Materials are replete with reference to purported "net synergies" and other "strategic and financial benefits" from the Merger, claiming more than $1 billion in immediate "synergies as a result of the incoming management team's detailed "workforce optimization" plan.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: David W. Hall, Esq. HEDIN HALL LLP Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 766-3534 Facsimile: (415) 402-0058 E-mail: dhall@hedinhall.com - and - Daniel C. Girard, Esq. Adam E. Polk, Esq. GIRARD SHARP LLP 601 California Street, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 981-4800 Facsimile: (415)981-4846 E-mail: dgirard@girardsharp.com apolk@girardsharp.com - and - Eric H. Gibbs, Esq. Davis Stein, Esq. GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP 505 14th Street, Suite 1110 Oakland, CA 94162 Telephone: (510) 350-9700 Facsimile: (510) 350-9701 E-mail: ehg@classlawgroup.com ds@classlawgroup.com HOMELAND SECURITY: Valladares Suit over Alien Detention Terminated ------------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Brian R. Martinotti of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey denied, without prejudice, the application of plaintiff Margarito Hernandez Valladares to proceed in forma pauperis in his lawsuit captioned as, MARGARITO HERNANDEZ VALLADARES, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY (DHS) et al, Case No. 2:19-cv-13029-BRM (D.N.J., May 28, 2019). The case was terminated, effective June 11, 2019, following the Court's order. The case is a petition for writ of habeas corpus. The Plaintiff appeared pro se, asserting claims for alien detention. "It is further Ordered that the Clerk shall administrative terminate this case, without filing the complaint or assessing a filing fee; Plaintiff is informed that administrative termination is not a 'dismissal' for purposes of the statute of limitations, and that if the case is reopened, it is not subject to the Statute of limitations time bar if it was originally filed timely, etc.," the Court said. The Department of Homeland Security includes customs, border, and immigration enforcement, emergency response to natural and manmade disasters, anti-terrorism work and cybersecurity. [BN] INCASE DESIGNS CORP: Mallh Sues over Consumer Product Warranty -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action complaint has been filed against InCase Designs Corp. for alleged violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. The case is captioned Victor Mallh, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. InCase Designs Corp., Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-06414-DSF-SK (C.D. Cal., July 24, 2019). This lawsuit is assigned to Hon. Judge Dale S. Fischer. Based in Chino, California, InCase Designs Corp. designs, manufactures, and distributes bags. Its products include shoulder bags, laptop backpacks, messengers, duffels, and travel rollers. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John M Kennedy, Esq. FORTIS LLP 650 Town Center Drive Suite 1530 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (714) 839-3800 Facsimile: (714) 795-2995 E-mail: jkennedy@fortislaw.com - and – Catherine E Anderson, Esq. GISKAN SOLOTARAFF ANDERSON AND STEWART LLP 11 Broadway Suite 2150 New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 847-8315 Facsimile: (626) 520-3237 E-mail: canderson@gslawny.com - and - Peter E Garrell, Esq. FORTIS LLP 650 Town Center Drive Suite 1530 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (714) 839-3800 Facsimile: (714) 795-2995 E-mail: pgarrell@fortislaw.com JUST BRANDS: Hit With Class Suit Over Amount of CBD in Products --------------------------------------------------------------- Carrie Bradon, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a New York man alleges the makers of a CBD oil brand overstate the amount of CBD in their products. Jesse S. Gaddis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a complaint on Aug. 16, 2019, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida against Just Brands USA Inc., Just Brands FL LLC and SSGI Financial Services Inc., alleging breach of express warranty, breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, unjust enrichment, fraud and other counts. The plaintiff alleges in November 2018, he purchased JustCBD Liquid Honey Tincture and Rainbow Ribbons Gummies. He alleges the Liquid Honey Tincture is advertised as containing 100 milligrams of CBD, but independent testing determined the product only contains 48.92 milligrams. He also alleges some of the defendants' products contain a non-detectable quantity of CBD when they are advertised as containing the ingredient. "By misrepresenting the true quantity of CBD in their CBD products, defendants are able to charge a substantial price premium on account of these fictitious CBD quantity claims," the suit states. The plaintiff is seeking a trial by jury, attorneys' fees and just enrichment, all amounts awarded and just relief. The plaintiff is represented by Scott A. Bursor of Bursor & Fisher P.A. in Miami and Neal J. Deckant and Frederick J. Klorczyk III of Bursor & Fisher P.A. in Walnut Creek, California. [GN] KAY & JAMES INC: Ventura Seeks Minimum Wage, OT Pay --------------------------------------------------- A class action complaint has been filed against Kay & James, Inc. for alleged violations of the California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions Code. The case is captioned OSMAN VENTURA, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. KAY & JAMES, INC., a California corporation, dba J & S MACHINE WORKS.; and DOES 1 through 100, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV25743 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., July 24, 2019). Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant failed to pay all minimum, regular and overtime wages, as well as meal and rest period premium wages. Plaintiff also asserts that the Defendants maintained inaccurate payroll records and issued inaccurate wage statements to Plaintiff and other non-exempt employees. Kay & James, Inc. is engaged in the business of manufacturing cooking equipment. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul K. Haines, Esq. Tuvia Korobkin, Esq. Stacey M. Shim, Esq. HAINES LAW GROUP, APC 222 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 1550 El Segundo, CA 90245 Telephone: (424) 292-2350 Facsimile: (424) 292-2355 E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com tkorobkin@haineslawgroup.com sshim@haineslawgroup.com KSE RETAIL SALES: Duncan Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against KSE RETAIL SALES LLC. The case is styled as Eugene Duncan AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff v. KSE RETAIL SALES LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-08129 (S.D. N.Y., Aug. 30, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Kse Retail Sales LLC (trade name Harrows) is in the Outdoor and Garden Furniture business.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq. The Marks Law Firm PC 175 Varick Street 3rd Floor New York, NY 10014 Phone: (646) 770-3775 Fax: (646) 867-2639 Email: bmarkslaw@gmail.com L'OREAL USA: Consumers Appeal Dismissed Faulty Dispenser Case ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case docketed as Mary Tullie Critcher, Twoana Clark-Sheppard, Victoria Marynovsky, Patricia Belbot, Jessica Petrie, Linda Feiges, Georgette C. Fournier and Sarah McQueary, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs, vs. L'Oreal USA, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-5639 (S.D. N.Y., June 21, 2019), Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on August 12, 2019 under Case No. 19-2474. Said case was dismissed on July 12, 2019. Case is a consumer class action claiming that L'Oréal's packaging of it products prevents consumers from completely consuming its contents due to a design flaw of its bottle design and dispenser in violation of various state consumer protection laws and common law. L'Oréal USA is a manufacturer and seller of cosmetic products offered for sale to consumers throughout the United States through various large retailers and pharmacies. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Laurence D. King, Esq. Matthew B. George, Esq. KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP 350 Sansome Street, Suite 400 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 772-4700 Facsimile: (415) 772-4707 Email: lking@kaplanfox.com mgeorge@kaplanfox.com - and - Ralph E. Labaton, Esq. KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP 850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor New York, NY 10022 Tel: (212) 687-1980 Fax: (212) 687-7714 Email: rlabaton@kaplanfox.com - and - Karen E. Snyder, Esq. Paul D. Snyder, Esq. SNYDER LAW FIRM LLC 13401 Mission Road, Suite 207 Leawood, KS 66209 Telephone: (913) 685-3900 Facsimile: (913) 440-0724 Email: ksnyder@snyderlawfirmllc.com psnyder@snyderlawfirmllc.com - and - Matthew L. Dameron, Esq. Amy R. Jackson, Esq. WILLIAMS DIRKS DAMERON LLC 1100 Main Street, Suite 2600 Kansas City, MO 64105 Tel: (816) 945-7110 Fax: (816) 945-7118 Email: matt@williamsdirks.com amy@williamsdirks.com L'Oreal USA, Inc. is represented by Joanna Marie Doherty, Esq. GORDON & REES LLP 18 Columbia Turnpike, Suite/Floor 220 Florham Park, NJ 07932 Tel: (973) 549−2500 Fax: (973) 377−1911 Email: jmdoherty@gordonrees.com - and - Justin Daniel Lewis, Esq. GORDON & REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI LLP (CA) 101 West Broadway, Suite 2000 San Diego, CA 92101 Tel: (619) 696−6700 Fax: (619) 696−7124 Email: jlewis@grsm.com - and - Michael D. Scully, Esq. GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI LLP (SAN DIEGO) 101 West Broadway, Suite 2000 San Diego, CA 92101 Tel: (619)−696−6700 Fax: (619)−696−7124 Email: mscully@grsm.com - and - Peter George Siachos, Esq. GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI 18 Columbia Turnpike N. Florham Park, NJ 07932 Tel: (973) 549−2500 Fax: (973) 377−1911 Email: psiachos@gordonrees.com LABORATORY CORP: Appeal in Davis Class Action Still Pending ----------------------------------------------------------- Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the appeal in the class action suit entitled, atty Davis v. Laboratory Corporation of America, et al., is still pending. On August 31, 2015, the Company was served with a putative class action lawsuit, Patty Davis v. Laboratory Corporation of America, et al., filed in the Circuit Court of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit for Hillsborough County, Florida. The complaint alleges that the Company violated the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act by billing patients who were collecting benefits under the Workers' Compensation Statutes. The lawsuit seeks injunctive relief and actual and statutory damages, as well as recovery of attorney's fees and legal expenses. In April 2017, the Circuit Court granted the Company's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. The Plaintiff has appealed the Circuit Court's ruling to the Florida Second District Court of Appeal. The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings operates as an independent clinical laboratory company worldwide. It operates through two segments, LabCorp Diagnostics and Covance Drug Development. The company was founded in 1971 and is headquartered in Burlington, North Carolina. LABORATORY CORP: Bid to Dismiss North Carolina Suit Still Pending ----------------------------------------------------------------- Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company's motion to dismiss the consolidated Bouffard and Anderson class action suit, is still pending. On March 10, 2017, the Company was served with a putative class action lawsuit, Victoria Bouffard, et al. v. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. The complaint alleges that the Company's patient list prices unlawfully exceed the rates negotiated for the same services with private and public health insurers in violation of various state consumer protection laws. The lawsuit also alleges breach of implied contract or quasi-contract, unjust enrichment, and fraud. The lawsuit seeks statutory, exemplary, and punitive damages, injunctive relief, and recovery of attorney's fees and costs. In May 2017, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint and Strike Class Allegations; the Motion to Dismiss was granted in March 2018 without prejudice. On October 10, 2017, a second putative class action lawsuit, Sheryl Anderson, et al. v. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. The complaint contained similar allegations and sought similar relief to the Bouffard complaint, and added additional counts regarding state consumer protection laws. On August 10, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint, which consolidated the Bouffard and Anderson actions. On September 10, 2018, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint and Strike Class Allegations, which remains pending. The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings operates as an independent clinical laboratory company worldwide. It operates through two segments, LabCorp Diagnostics and Covance Drug Development. The company was founded in 1971 and is headquartered in Burlington, North Carolina. LABORATORY CORP: Bid to Nix Sequenom Merger-Related Suit Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the motion to dismiss the consolidated class action suit entitled, In re Sequenom, Inc. Shareholder Litig., Lead Case No. 16-cv-02054-JAH-BLM, is pending. Prior to the Company's acquisition of Sequenom, Inc. (Sequenom) between August 15, 2016, and August 24, 2016, six putative class-action lawsuits were filed on behalf of purported Sequenom stockholders (captioned Malkoff v. Sequenom, Inc., et al., No. 16-cv-02054- JAH-BLM, Gupta v. Sequenom, Inc., et al., No. 16-cv-02084-JAH-KSC, Fruchter v. Sequenom, Inc., et al., No. 16-cv-02101- WQH-KSC, Asiatrade Development Ltd. v. Sequenom, Inc., et al., No. 16-cv-02113-AJB-JMA, Nunes v. Sequenom, Inc., et al., No. 16-cv-02128-AJB-MDD, and Cusumano v. Sequenom, Inc., et al., No. 16-cv-02134-LAB-JMA) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California challenging the acquisition transaction. The complaints asserted claims against Sequenom and members of its board of directors (the Individual Defendants). The Nunes action also named the Company and Savoy Acquisition Corp. (Savoy), a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, as defendants. The complaints alleged that the defendants violated Sections 14(e), 14(d)(4) and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by failing to disclose certain allegedly material information. In addition, the complaints in the Malkoff action, Asiatrade action, and the Cusumano action alleged that the Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to Sequenom shareholders. The actions sought, among other things, injunctive relief enjoining the merger. On August 30, 2016, the parties entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in each of the above-referenced actions. On September 6, 2016, the Court entered an order consolidating for all pre-trial purposes the six individual actions described above under the caption In re Sequenom, Inc. Shareholder Litig., Lead Case No. 16-cv-02054-JAH-BLM, and designating the complaint from the Malkoff action as the operative complaint for the consolidated action. On November 11, 2016, two competing motions were filed by two separate stockholders (James Reilly and Shikha Gupta) seeking appointment as lead plaintiff under the terms of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. On June 7, 2017, the Court entered an order declaring Mr. Reilly as the lead plaintiff and approving Mr. Reilly's selection of lead counsel. The parties agree that the MOU has been terminated. The Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint on July 24, 2017, and the Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss, which remains pending. On March 13, 2019, the Court stayed the action in its entirety pending the U.S. Supreme Court's anticipated decision in Emulex Corp. v. Varjabedian. On April 23, 2019, however, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the writ of certiorari in Emulex as improvidently granted. The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings operates as an independent clinical laboratory company worldwide. It operates through two segments, LabCorp Diagnostics and Covance Drug Development. The company was founded in 1971 and is headquartered in Burlington, North Carolina. LABORATORY CORP: Continues to Defend Haro Class Suit in California ------------------------------------------------------------------ Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Alma Haro v. Laboratory Corporation of America, et al. On September 21, 2018, the Company was served with a putative class action lawsuit, Alma Haro v. Laboratory Corporation of America, et al., which was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles. Plaintiff alleges that employees were not properly paid overtime compensation, minimum wages, meal and rest break premiums, did not receive compliant wage statements, and were not properly paid wages upon termination of employment. Plaintiff asserts these actions violate various California Labor Code provisions and constitute an unfair competition practice under California law. The lawsuit seeks monetary damages, civil penalties, and recovery of attorney's fees and costs. The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings operates as an independent clinical laboratory company worldwide. It operates through two segments, LabCorp Diagnostics and Covance Drug Development. The company was founded in 1971 and is headquartered in Burlington, North Carolina. LABORATORY CORP: Settlement Reached in Sealock Suit --------------------------------------------------- Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that a settlement has been reached in the class action suit entitled, John Sealock, et al. v. Covance Market Access Services, Inc. On September 7, 2017, the Company was served with a putative class action lawsuit, John Sealock, et al. v. Covance Market Access Services, Inc., filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint alleged that Covance Market Access Services, Inc. violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York labor laws by failing to provide overtime wages, failing to pay for all hours worked, and failing to provide accurate wage statements. The lawsuit sought monetary damages, civil penalties, injunctive relief, and recovery of attorney's fees and costs. In November 2017, the Company filed a Motion to Strike Class Allegations, which was denied. In December 2017, the Plaintiff filed a Motion for Conditional Certification of a Collective Action, which was granted in May 2018. In December 2018, Plaintiff filed, and the Court granted, a second motion to conditionally certify an expanded class to a nationwide class action. This matter has been settled in principle and the settlement is subject to judicial review and approval. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings operates as an independent clinical laboratory company worldwide. It operates through two segments, LabCorp Diagnostics and Covance Drug Development. The company was founded in 1971 and is headquartered in Burlington, North Carolina. LYFT INC: Mackintosh Alleges Economic Espionage ----------------------------------------------- A class action complaint has been filed against Lyft, Inc. et al. for alleged violations of several federal and state laws including the Consumer Protection Act, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, and the California Business and Professional Code, and for economic espionage and for unjust enrichment in trade secret misappropriation. The case is captioned Adam John Mackintosh, Individually, and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, vs. Lyft, Inc., Uber Technologies Inc., Uber Health, LLC., AH Capital Management, LLC AKA Andreesen Horowitz Corporations, Ben Horowitz, John Zimmer, Logan Green, Josef Arvin Acebedo, Louis Darnell Pritchett, Jerry Wang, and Potential Does 10-500, Individuals, Defendants, Case No. 34-2019-00261236 (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., July 24, 2019). Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants have misappropriated Plaintiff's corporate secrets, who have used it to grow improperly in healthcare causing more harm than good. This class action complaint is seeking for an injunction, treble damages, punitive damages, pain and suffering, and disgorgement of unjust enrichment, obtained by Defendants without legal entitlement, who are synonymously monopolizing transportation, creating a duopoly, fueled by an insurance scheme, using investor cash that unlawfully suppresses competition. Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants wrongfully targeted Plaintiff's company, iHug -- the pioneer of the first ever, "Rideshare for Healthcare" in the United States. iHug has claimed to be the safest transportation option that was CPR and Basic Life Support Certified for the healthcare system, a world-class operation that was in its infancy. According to the lawsuit, the Plaintiff executed on his "$1,200,000,000,000 trillion-dollar healthcare opportunity", so he could one day deploy a new digital Ai healthcare system. The lawsuit claims "the new digital Ai healthcare system is calculated to be worth over $25,800,000,000,000 Trillion-Dollars" and this "immediately placed a target on Plaintiff's back after Defendants were provided intelligence on such valuable intellectual property." iHug was silently infiltrated by Defendants in a covert, militaristic operation, as similarly described in a written letter by Richard Jacobs, a former Uber employee and United States Defense Intelligence Agency Officer. Jacobs disclosed Defendants internal departments, including but not limited to Threat Operations, Global Intelligence, and Strategic Services Groups, where they were instructed to infiltrate and suppress competition. Defendants allegedly manipulate and incentivize its Drivers, who have "common motive to collude," to infiltrate iHug through deceptive business practices and fraud, tortiously interfering with iHug's contractual relations. Lyft, Inc., Uber Technologies, Inc., and Uber Health, LLC are Delaware corporations with corporate headquarters and primary place of business in the San Francisco, California. Uber is a major rideshare operator, transporting fifteen-million passengers a day world-wide, offering services in over 600 cities. AH Capital Management, LLC also known as, Andreessen Horowitz, is a Delaware corporation with corporate headquarters and primary place of business in Menlo Park. It is a world-renowned investment venture firm who's invested in Lyft. [BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. Adam John Mackintosh 10923 Progress Court Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 E-mail: legal@ihughealth.com LYFT INC: Underpays Drivers, Brunner Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------- D. BRUNNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LYFT, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-04808 (N.D. Cal., Aug. 14, 2019) is an action against the Defendant for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, and reimburse necessary business expenses. The Plaintiff Brunner was employed by the Defendant as driver. Lyft, Inc. operates a peer-to-peer marketplace for on-demand ridesharing in the United States and Canada. The company was formerly known as Zimride, Inc. and changed its name to Lyft, Inc. in 2013. Lyft, Inc. was incorporated in 2007 and is headquartered in San Francisco, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jahan C. Sagafi, Esq. Laura Iris Mattes, Esq. Adam Koshkin, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP One California St, 12th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 638-8800 Facsimile: (415) 638-8810 E-mail: jsagafi@outtengolden.com imattes@outtengolden.com akormb@outtengolden.com - and - Rachel Bien, Esq. 601 S Figueroa St., Suite 4050 OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (323) 673-9900 Facsimile: (646) 509-2058 E-mail: shkin@outtengolden.com - and - Katharine Chao, Esq. Christian Schreiber, Esq. SCHREIBER & CHAO LLP 201 Filbert Street, Suite 201 San Francisco, CA 94133 Telephone: (415) 484-0980 Facsimile: (415) 658-7758 E-mail: kathy@osclegal.com christian@osclegal.com MCNEIL GROUP: Harbour's Joint Bid for Class Certification Granted ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Edmund A. Sargus, Jr., granted the Parties' Joint Stipulation to Pre-Discovery Conditional Class Certification and Court-Supervised Notice to Potential Opt-In Plaintiffs Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) in the lawsuit entitled WILLIAM HARBOUR, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. MCNEIL GROUP, INC DBA PINNACLE METAL PRODUCTS, Case No. 2:19-cv-01545-EAS-CMV (S.D. Ohio). The Court approves the Notice of Unpaid Overtime Wages Lawsuit and Consent to Join attached to the Parties' Joint Stipulation.[CC] METLIFE INC: Gavitt Seeks Return of Insurance Premiums Collected ---------------------------------------------------------------- George Gavitt, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-01516, (S.D. N.Y., August 13, 2017), seeks injunctive relief, restitution and disgorgement of all premiums collected by Metropolitan Life in the form of insurance premiums pursuant to California's Business & Professions Code. Gavitt purchased disability insurance coverage from Met Life under the terms of group disability policies offered through their private sector employers for certain Short-Term Disability coverage. He claims that they were sold a product, and payed premiums, for an insurance product which provided essentially no increased value despite employees choosing to opt out of a State Disability Insurance Program coverage since it is duplicative of the state's Short-Term Disability policy and paid for through state taxes.[BN] Plaintiff is represented by: C. Keith Greer, Esq. GREER & ASSOCIATES, A.P.C. 16855 West Bernardo Drive, Suite 255 San Diego, CA 92128 Tel: (858) 613-6677 Fax: (858) 613-6680 Email: Keith.Greer@greerlaw.biz - and - Lisa J. Damiani, Esq. DAMIANI LAW GROUP APC 1059 Tenth Avenue San Diego, CA 92101 Tel: (619) 239-0170 Fax: (619) 239-0216 Email: ljdamiani@damianilawgroup.com MIDLAND CREDIT: Castle Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit Management, Inc. The case is styled as Bonnie Castle individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-05855 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 30, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Midland Credit Management, Inc. was founded in 1953. The company's line of business includes extending credit to business enterprises for relatively short periods.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James C. Vlahakis, Esq. Sulaiman Law Group, Ltd. 2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200 Lombard, IL 60148 Phone: (630) 575-8181 x116 Email: jvlahakis@sulaimanlaw.com MIDWAY RENT: Cal. App. Affirms Judgment in Adhav Suit ----------------------------------------------------- In the case, ASHISH ADHAV et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. MIDWAY RENT A CAR, INC., et al., Defendants and Respondents, Case No. B285586 (Cal. App.), Judge Gregory J. Weingart of the U.S. Court of Appeals of California for the Second District, Division One, affirmed the trial court's judgment in favor of the Defendants. Plaintiffs Adhav and Cullen Dickson rented cars from defendant Midway and opted to purchase insurance coverage in connection with those rentals. Because Midway is not an insurance company, Midway purchased master insurance policies from Defendants KnightBrook Insurance Co. and National Specialty Insurance Co. to make such optional insurance coverage available to its customers. Midway was the insured but was authorized to extend coverage to its customers under the policies. These policies, and the rates they charged Midway, were approved by the California Department of Insurance ("DOI") as required by California law. Many of the policies were structured to include a $25,000 per claim self-insured retention (essentially, a deductible) for which Midway was responsible in case of a customer loss. KnightBrook and National Specialty became liable only if the loss exceeded the self-insured retention. Shifting some of the risk of loss to Midway in this manner lowered the premium Midway paid to the insurers. In light of the self-insured retention, administrative costs in connection with adjusting claims (for which it was responsible), and other factors including presumably some profit margin, Midway charged customers purchasing optional insurance more than the premium it paid to KnightBrook and National Specialty. The Plaintiffs chose to rent cars from Midway based on convenience, location, and overall cost—not based on anything insurance related. They understood they were not obligated to purchase insurance from Midway. The insurance rates Midway charged customers were set forth in the rental agreement and known to Plaintiffs before they opted to purchase the coverage. The insurance rates paid by Plaintiffs were comparable to rates charged by other rental car companies, and in some instances lower. The Plaintiffs received the benefit of the coverage they purchased, did not experience any covered losses, and there is no dispute concerning any adjustment of a claimed loss. The Plaintiffs nevertheless brought a class action against Midway, asserting they were economically harmed by unlawful and fraudulent business practices. They also named as Defendants KnightBrook, National Specialty and their managing general agent Knight Management Insurance Services ("KMIS"). How did the Defendants injure the Plaintiffs, one might ask. The Plaintiffs assert various Insurance Code provisions required Midway to disclose to them what rate Midway was paying the Insurer Defendants, and further to charge the Plaintiffs that same rate (despite this meaning Midway would offer insurance at a loss given the self-insured retention). The Plaintiffs contend the Insurer Defendants were liable because, although they never received anything beyond the premium owed by Midway, the Insurance Code required funds collected by Midway from customers purchasing insurance be imputed to the Insurer Defendants. The Plaintiffs argue the result of this imputation was that the Insurer Defendants constructively "received" a premium in excess of that authorized by the DOI. The Plaintiffs claimed these business practices caused them harm because they paid more than what Midway paid its insurers, despite the fact they received the benefit of coverage based not only on the premium paid to the Insurer Defendants, but also on Midway's self-insured retention. They further sought an injunction to prohibit these alleged unlawful and fraudulent practices. The trial court disagreed with the Plaintiffs' arguments, finding their claims were based on Insurance Code provisions inapplicable to Plaintiffs' interactions with Midway. It further found the Plaintiffs failed to establish any illegal or fraudulent business practice, or any economic injury. Following a bench trial, it entered judgment in favor of the Defendants. The Plaintiffs timely appealed. The Plaintiffs assert that section 381, subdivision (f) required Midway and the Insurer Defendants disclose to them the premium Midway paid to the Insurer Defendants, and the failure to do so was a fraudulent omission under the UCL. Given the specific disclosure provisions in the Rental Car Agents Act, Judge Weingart rejects the Plaintiffs' argument that Troyke v. Farmers Group, Inc. mandated disclosure to them of the premium amount. Troyke addresses a classic insurer-insured scenario, in which the insurer is statutorily obligated to provide the insured a policy which states the premium. The Insurer Defendants complied with this statutory mandate by providing their insured Midway with a policy stating the premium. The Judge also perceives no conflict between Proposition 103 and the Rental Car Agents Act requiring the Court declares the licensing or disclosure regime set forth in the Rental Car Agents Act unconstitutional. Proposition 103 addresses the obligations of insurers, including general agents of insurers. The Rental Car Agents Act, in contrast, addresses the obligations of limited rental car agents offering only specific types of insurance in connection with car rentals. The Plaintiffs next argue rental car customer payments to Midway for insurance coverage should be imputed to the Insurer Defendants, meaning the Insurer Defendants thus charged and collected more than the statutorily approved rate. Neither the Insurance Code nor case law supports the argument, the Judge holds. First, the facts do not support the Plaintiffs' contention that Midway's agency was sufficiently robust to make Midway a general agent and therefore impute the funds received by Midway to the Insurer Defendants as premium. Second, the true economic substance in the case did not involve the Insurer Defendants acting in a way that would make amounts paid to Midway properly attributable to the Insurer Defendants. The trial court did not find the Insurer Defendants were involved with or directed how Midway paid claims, or find facts suggesting the operations of Midway and the Insurer defendants were highly tangled or inextricably intertwined. Moving beyond the Insurer Defendants, the Plaintiffs' final argument is Midway was required to charge no more than the premium it paid to the Insurer Defendants. The Judge finds no support in the record for this claim. Midway did not charge in excess of the approved rate, because what the Plaintiffs identify as the approved rate related to the insurance relationship between Midway and the Insurer Defendants, not the relationship between Midway and its rental car customers. Finally, the Judge finds that nothing before the trial court suggested Midway was charging disproportionately high or deceptive rates for insurance. Midway disclosed its fees for insurance coverage to its customers and charged prices comparable to what its competitors charged. The Rental Car Agents Act gives the DOI authority to promulgate regulations regarding disclosure, including concerning price as well as any limitations of the insurance purchased from a rental car agent. The trial court noted, as does the Court, that the Commissioner has not prescribed any regulations concerning the price for insurance coverage charged by car rental agents. To the extent the DOI wants to mandate disclosure of the underlying rate paid by the rental car company to its insurer (as the Plaintiffs suggest), or impose other regulation pursuant to section 1758.86, subdivision (b)(3), nothing in the Court's opinion restricts the DOI's authority to do so. Based on the foregoing, Judge Weingart affirmed the judgment. The Respondents are to recover their costs on appeal. A full-text copy of the Court's July 24, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/Ycxyxj from Leagle.com. Kearney Littlefield, Thomas A. Kearney -- tak@kearneylittlefield.com -- Prescott W. Littlefield -- pwl@kearneylittlefield.com; Catherine Burke Schmidt; Ringler Law Corporation, Jerome L. Ringler; Esner, Chang & Boyer, Stuart B. Esner and Shea S. Murphy , for Plaintiffs and Appellants. Molino & Berardino, Steven R. Berardino -- sberardino@molinolawfirm.com -- and Michelle Cooper -- mcooper@molinolawfirm.com -- for Defendant and Respondent Midway Rent A Car, Inc. Michelman & Robinson, Mona Z. Hanna and Jennifer A. Mauri, for Defendants and Respondents National Specialty Insurance Company, KnightBrook Insurance Company and Knight Management Services, LLC. MIRAK CHEVROLET: Leverone Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- MARGARET LEVERONE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MIRAK CHEVROLET, INC., EDWARD MIRAK, and MARY LOUISE LONGO, Defendants, Case No. 19-2538 (Commonwealth of Mass., Aug. 29, 2019) is a Class Action Complaint against Defendants seeking damages based on the failure to pay wages. According to the complaint, the Defendants' company-wade compensation structure for salespeople was based on a commission/draw model. Employees' pay each week was based on a percentage of each sale made by the employee. To the extent an employee s pay for any given week fell below a certain threshold, Defendants would advance the employee a "draw" on future commissions. Pursuant to this pay policy, draws and commissions were ostensibly applied to hours worked over 40 hours per week, and to hours worked on Sundays and holidays. However, the Defendants did not pay any additional compensation for such work beyond the draws and commissions. Specifically, Plaintiff worked more than 40 hours in at least one week during the class period. Plaintiff worked on at least one Sunday or covered holiday during the class period. Yet, the Defendants did not base their pay to Plaintiff, or members of the Class, on the amount of overtime hours, or the amount of hours worked on Sundays and holidays, says the complaint. Plaintiff worked as a salesperson for Defendants from approximately March 2018 through March 2019. Defendants operate a car dealership located in Arlington. Massachusetts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Josh Gardner, Esq. Nicholas J. Rosenberg, Esq. GARDNER & ROSENBERG P.C One State Street, Fourth Floor Boston, MA 02109 Phone: 617-390-7570 Email: josh@gardnerrosenberg.com MODERNIZE INCORPORATED: Fisher Files TCPA Suit in Arizona --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Modernize Incorporated. The case is styled as Nick Fisher individually and on behalf of a nationwide class of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. Modernize Incorporated, Unknown Parties, John Doe Home Improvement Providers, Nos. 1-10; and John Doe Defendant Lead-Generators, Nos. 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-05070-DGC (D. Ariz., Aug. 30, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Modernize Incorporated provides educational content to inspire ideas and connect customers with their network of contractors to get projects done.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James C. Vlahakis, Esq. Sulaiman Law Group, Ltd. 2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200 Lombard, IL 60148 Phone: (630) 575-8181 x116 Email: jvlahakis@sulaimanlaw.com NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Class Certification Sought in Allende Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Gina Allende moves the Court to certify the class described in the complaint of the lawsuit styled GINA ALLENDE, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. NATIONWIDE CREDIT & COLLECTION INC., Case No. 2:19-cv-01251 (E.D. Wisc.), and further asks that the Court both stay the motion for class certification and to grant the Plaintiff (and the Defendant) relief from the Local Rules setting automatic briefing schedules and requiring briefs and supporting material to be filed with the Motion. Dicta in the Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, left open the possibility that a defendant facing a class action complaint could moot a class representative's case by depositing funds equal to or in excess of the maximum value of the plaintiff's individual claim with the court and having the court enter judgment in the plaintiff's favor prior to the filing of a class certification motion, the Plaintiff asserts, citing Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016). To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the certification motion. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) ("The pendency of that motion [for class certification] protects a putative class from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs."). While the Seventh Circuit has held that the specific procedure described in Campbell-Ewald cannot force the individual settlement of a class representative's claims, the same decision cautions that other methods may prevent a plaintiff from representing a class, the Plaintiff tells the Court, citing Fulton Dental, LLC v. Bisco, Inc., No. 16-3574, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 10839 *9-10 (7th Cir. June 20, 2017). The Plaintiff asserts that one defendant has attempted a similar tactic by sending a certified check to the proposed class representative. Bonin v. CBS Radio, Inc., No. 16-cv-674-CNC (E.D. Wis.); see also Severns v. Eastern Account Systems of Connecticut, Inc., Case No. 15-cv-1168, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23164 (E.D. Wis. Feb. 24, 2016). The Plaintiff is obligated to move for class certification to protect the interests of the putative class, the Plaintiff avers. As the Motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when short motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended motion is filed, the Plaintiff contends. The Plaintiff also asks to be appointed as class representative, and for the appointment of Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP, as class counsel.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: John D. Blythin, Esq. Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. Jesse Fruchter, Esq. Ben J. Slatky, Esq. ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482-8000 Facsimile: (414) 482-8001 E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com meldridge@ademilaw.com jfruchter@ademilaw.com bslatky@ademilaw.com NETAPP INC: Kessler Topaz Files Securities Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, reminds that an investor securities fraud class action lawsuit has been filed against NetApp, Inc. (NASDAQ:NTAP) ("NetApp") on behalf of those who purchased or otherwise acquired NetApp securities between May 22, 2019 and August 1, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). NetApp investors who purchased securities during the Class Period may, no later than October 15, 2019, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class. Investors who wish to discuss this securities fraud class action lawsuit or request additional information about this litigation are encouraged to contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check attorneys James Maro, Jr. or Adrienne Bell at (844) 887-9500 (toll free) or online at: www.ktmc.com/netapp-inc-securities-class-action According to the complaint, NetApp provides a range of hybrid cloud data services that simplify management of applications and data across cloud and on-premises environments to accelerate digital transformation. The Class Period commences on May 22, 2019, when NetApp announced fourth quarter and full year 2019 financial results. According to the complaint, on August 1, 2019, after the market closed, NetApp reported preliminary first quarter 2020 net revenue between $1.22 and $1.23 billion, below previous guidance between $1.315 to $1.465 billion, and earnings per share between $0.30 and $0.35, below previous guidance between $0.56 and $0.64. Additionally, NetApp lowered its 2020 outlook and expected net revenue to decline between 5% and 10% year-over-year. Following this news, NetApp's share price fell as much as $11.67, or over 20%, to close at $46.04 per share on August 2, 2019. The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, the defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) NetApp was unable to close large deals within the quarter and that the deals were pushed out to subsequent quarters or downsized; (2) as a result, NetApp's revenue would be materially impacted; (3) as a result, NetApp would lower its fiscal 2020 guidance; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, the defendants' positive statements about NetApp's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. NetApp investors may, no later than October 15, 2019, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, or other counsel, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed as a lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check prosecutes class actions in state and federal courts throughout the country involving securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duties and other violations of state and federal law. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check is a driving force behind corporate governance reform, and has recovered billions of dollars on behalf of institutional and individual investors from the United States and around the world. The firm represents investors, consumers and whistleblowers (private citizens who report fraudulent practices against the government and share in the recovery of government dollars). The complaint in this action was not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check. For more information about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, please visit www.ktmc.com. [GN] NEWREZ LLC: Best Sues over Debt Collection Practices ---------------------------------------------------- DAWUD J. BEST, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. NEWREZ LLC; FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCATION, a/k/a Fannie Mae; and BROCK & SCOTT, PLLC, Defendants, Case No. 8:19-cv-02331 (D. Md., Aug. 14, 2019) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. Newrez LLC New Penn Financial, LLC provides financial services. The Company offers originating and selling mortgage loans and homes on buying, lending, and rental basis. New Penn Financial serves in the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey W. Styles, Esq. Dawud J. Best, Esq. WASHINGTON LEGAL GROUP, LLC 1666 K Street, NW, Suite #440 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 503-1708 E-mail: jstyles@washlegal.com PALL CORPORATION: Lundy Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- ALVIN LUNDY, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PALL CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 8:19-cv-02202 (M.D. Fla., Aug. 30, 2019) is an action for damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), for Defendant's illegal, intentional, and systematic scheme to deprive its hourly workers of straight time and overtime compensation for all of the hours that they worked in violation of state and federal law. Although Defendant knew, by virtue of its time-keeping system, the exact amount of hours that Plaintiff and the other similarly-situated employees worked, Defendant altered its time-keeping system to reflect an inaccurate summary of the amount of hours that Plaintiff and other similarly-situated employees actually worked in an attempt to evade paying them all of the compensation that Defendant owes to them, asserts the complaint. The Defendant has willfully engaged in a pattern of violating the FLSA, by failing to pay employees proper overtime compensation for all hours worked in excess of forty in a workweek, according to the complaint. Plaintiff and other similarly-situated employees are victims of Defendant's widespread, repeated, and systematic illegal policies and practices that have resulted in violations of their rights under the FLSA, says the complaint. Plaintiff began working for Defendant as a Machinist in January 2019, and he continues to work in this capacity. Defendant is a foreign corporation organized under the laws of New York and operates a manufacturing facility in Pasco County, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: PATRICK K. ELLIOTT, ESQ. THE LAW OFFICE OF PATRICK K. ELLIOTT, PLLC 100 S. Ashley Drive, Suite 600 Tampa, FL 33602 Direct Dial: (813) 379-3090 Facsimile: (813) 433-5126 Email: elliottp@employmentandconsumerlaw.com assistant@employmentandconsumerlaw.com PAYLESS CAR WASH: Fails to Pay Overtime Under FLSA, Garcia Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- OSCAR GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PAYLESS CAR WASH, INC. d/b/a STATE STREET HAND CAR WASH & DETAIL CENTER, and SAJJAD AHMED, Case No. 1:19-cv-05692 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 23, 2019), alleges that the Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law by failing to pay the Plaintiff one and one-half times his regular rate of pay for hours worked in excess of 40 per individual workweek, as well as minimum wage for all hours worked. Payless is an Illinois corporation doing business in the State of Illinois. The Defendant is located in Chicago, Illinois. The Individual Defendant is the President and Secretary of Payless. The Defendants previously employed the Plaintiff as a car wash attendant at their facility located at 1701 S. State Street, in Chicago, Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alejandro Caffarelli, Esq. Alexis D. Martin, Esq. CAFFARELLI & ASSOCIATES LTD. 224 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 300 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 763-6880 E-mail: acaffarelli@caffarelli.com amartin@caffarelli.com PIONEER CREDIT: Council Sues over Unsolicited Telephone Calls ------------------------------------------------------------- Joyce Council, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Pioneer Credit Recovery, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-03743-SCJ (N.D. Ga., Aug. 20, 2019), contends that the Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise, in part, by placing unsolicited telephone calls to wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff informed Defendant that it was calling the wrong number and that Ms. Smith could not be reached at Plaintiff's number. Despite informing Defendant on more than one occasion that it was calling the wrong number and to stop calling, Defendant's calls to Plaintiff's cellular telephone number continued. The Defendant also left multiple prerecorded voice messages on Plaintiff's cellular telephone voicemail, the lawsuit says. The Defendant states that it "handles billions of dollars in portfolios, recovering a broad spectrum of debt for multiple levels of government." Defendant has a public Utility Commission of Texas Automatic Dial Announcing Device permit, no. 040302, which it last renewed in October 2018.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the Proposed Class are: Shireen Hormozdi, Esq. CROSS LAW FIRM 1770 Indian Trail Lilburn Road, Suite 175 Norcross, GA 30093 Telephone: 678-395-7795 Facsimile: 866-929-2434 E-mail: shireen@norcrosslawfirm.com - and - Gary M. Klinger, Esq. KOZONIS & KLINGER, LTD. 4849 N. Milwaukee Ave., Ste. 300 Chicago, Illinois 60630 Telephone: 312.283.3814 Facsimile: 773.496.8617 E-mail: gklinger@kozonislaw.com - and - Michael L. Greenwald, Esq. GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC 7601 N. Federal Highway, Suite A-230 Boca Raton, Florida 33487 Telephone: 561.826.5477 Facsimile: 561.961.5684 E-mail: mgreenwald@gdrlawfirm.com PODESTA PACKING: Sepulveda Sues over Time Rounding System --------------------------------------------------------- RUBEN SEPULVEDA, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiif, vs. PODESTA PACKING LLC, a California limited liability company; FRED PODESTA FARMS, LP, a California liability partnership; CALIFORNIA CHERRIES, a business entity, form unknown; CALIFORNIA CHERRY GOWERS AND INDUSTRIES FOUNDATION, a domestic non-profit; FRED PODESTA, an individual; and DOES 1-50, Inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. STK-VOE-2019-10758 (Cal. Super., Aug. 19, 2019), alleges that Defendants failed to pay earned wages including minimum and overtime wages under the California Labor Code. According to the complaint, the Defendant implemented a time rounding system that systematically deprived the Plaintiff and the class members of compensable hours worked because it resulted in understating hours worked due to the rounding. Fred Podesta is the owner, operator and/o manager of Podesta Packing LLC.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Zachary Crosner, Esq. Michael Crosner, Esq. David Wastson, Esq. CROSNER LEGAL, P.C. 433 N. Camden Dr., Suite 400 Beverley Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (310) 496 5818 Facsimile: (818) 700 9973 PREMIUM MERCHANT: Hardin Sues Over TCPA Violation ------------------------------------------------- TENLEY HARDIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PREMIUM MERCHANT FUNDING ONE, LLC, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-07552 (C.D. Cal., Aug. 30, 2019) is a Class Action Complaint for damages, injunctive relief, and any other available legal or equitable remedies, resulting from the illegal actions of Defendants, in negligently, knowingly, and/or willfully contacting Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), thereby invading Plaintiff' privacy. On October of 2018, Plaintiff received a text message from Defendants on her cellular telephone. During this time, Defendants began to use Plaintiff's cellular telephone for the purpose of sending Plaintiff spam advertisements and/or promotional offers, via text messages, including a text message sent to and received by Plaintiff on October 11, 2018. These text messages placed to Plaintiff's cellular telephone were placed via an "automatic telephone dialing system," as defined by the TCPA as prohibited by the TCPA. Plaintiff was never a customer of Defendants and never provided his cellular telephone number Defendants for any reason whatsoever. Accordingly, Defendants and their agents never received Plaintiffs prior express consent to receive unsolicited text messages, says the complaint. Plaintiff TENLEY HARDIN is a citizen and resident of the city of Venice, State of California. QUICK CAPITAL FUNDING, LLC is a finance lender company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C. 21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Phone: (323) 306-4234 Fax: (866) 633-0228 Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com RAZBAN ENTERPRISES: Underpays Delivery Drivers, Day Suit Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- ANTHONY DAY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. RAZBAN ENTERPRISES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01170 (W.D. Tenn., Aug. 14, 2019) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff Day was employed by the Defendant as delivery driver. Razban Enterprises, Inc. owns and operates Domino's franchises in Western Tennessee. The Company offers and sells pizza. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C. Ryan Morgan, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 20 N. Orange Ave., 14th Floor Orlando, FL 32802-4979 Telephone: (407) 420-1414 Facsimile: (407) 245-3401 E-mail: RMorgan@forthepeople.com - and - Brian C. Winfrey, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 810 Broadway, Suite 105 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 928-9890 Facsimile: (615) 928-9917 Email:bwinfrey@forthepeople.com REGAL AUTOMOTIVE: Grant Moves for Certification of TCPA Class ------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled MONIFA GRANT, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. REGAL AUTOMOTIVE GROUP, INC., Case No. 8:19-cv-00363-SDM-JSS (M.D. Fla.), moves to certify this class: The 5,997 persons within the United States who, on October 4, 2017 and/or October 5, 2017, were delivered the following prerecorded voicemail to their cellular telephone: Hi my name is Ken Halworth, General Manager with Regal Honda. I'm sorry I missed you and didn't get a chance to speak to you personally. I'm calling with some great news. Your approved for a loan up to $40,000 and an interest rate as low as 1.9%. Because of your preferred credit status, were going to give you a free smartwatch or a free three-day two-night cruise for two with five-star dining included aboard a Carnival or Royal Caribbean cruise line absolutely free. Just for coming in this Friday or Saturday October 6th and 7th. Please feel free to call me back, my names Ken and make an appointment to see me. You can reach me at area code 863-588-4020. That number again is 863-588-4020. Thanks so much, I look forward to speaking to you, my names Ken and I look forward to seeing you on the showroom floor. Have a great day. Monifa Grant moves to (1) certify the class with respect to the claims for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act; (2) to designate the Plaintiff as class representative; and (3) to designate the law firms of Shamis & Gentile, P.A., IJH Law, Hiraldo P.A., Edelsberg Law, P.A., and Eisenband Law P.A. as class counsel.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ignacio J. Hiraldo, Esq. IJH LAW 1200 Brickell Ave., Suite 1950 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (786) 496-4469 E-mail: ijhiraldo@ijhlaw.com - and - Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 400-4713 E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com - and - Scott Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, PA 19495 Biscayne Blvd., #607 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (305) 975-3320 E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com - and - Michael Eisenband, Esq. EISENBAND LAW, P.A. 515 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 120 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 533-4092 E-mail: MEisenband@Eisenbandlaw.com - and - Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com RUDOLPH TECHNOLOGIES: Stein Files Suit Over Nano Merger Deal ------------------------------------------------------------- WILLIAM STEIN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. RUDOLPH TECHNOLOGIES, INC., DAVID B. MILLER, MICHAEL P. PLISINSKI, JOHN R. WHITTEN, DANIEL H. BERRY, THOMAS G. GREIG, LEO BERLINGHIERI, VITA A. CASSESE, and JEFFREY A. AUKERMAN, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01615-UNA (D. Del., Aug. 29, 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 Rudolph Technologies, Inc. against the Company and the members of the Company's board of directors for their violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, in connection with the proposed merger between Rudolph and Nanometrics Incorporated ("Nano"). On June 23, 2019, the Board caused the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger, pursuant to which the Company's shareholders stand to receive 0.8042 shares of Nano common stock for each share of Rudolph stock they own. Upon completion of the merger, Rudolph shareholders will own approximately 50% and Nano shareholders will own approximately 50% of the combined company. On August 15, 2019, in order to convince Rudolph shareholders to vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction, the Board authorized the filing of a materially incomplete and misleading Form S-4 Registration Statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission, in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, asserts the complaint. The materially incomplete and misleading S-4 violates both Regulation G and SEC Rule 14a-9, each of which constitutes a violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, it adds. While touting the fairness of the Merger Consideration to the Company's shareholders in the S-4, Defendants have failed to disclose certain material information that is necessary for shareholders to properly assess the fairness of the Proposed Transaction, thereby violating SEC rules and regulations and rendering certain statements in the S-4 materially incomplete and misleading. In particular, the S-4 contains materially incomplete and misleading information concerning: (i) the financial projections for the Company that were prepared by the Company and relied on by Defendants in recommending that Rudolph shareholders vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction; and (ii) the summary of certain valuation analyses conducted by Rudolph's financial advisor, Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC in support of its opinion that the Merger Consideration is fair to shareholders, on which the Board relied, notes the complaint. It is imperative that the material information that has been omitted from the S-4 is disclosed prior to the forthcoming vote to allow the Company's shareholders to make an informed decision regarding the Proposed Transaction. For these reasons, Plaintiff asserts claims against Defendants for violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Plaintiff is a holder of Rudolph common stock. Rudolph designs, develops, manufactures and supports process control tools that perform macro defect inspections and metrology, lithography systems, and process control analytical software used by semiconductor and advanced packaging device manufacturers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Van Gorder, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 3828 Kennett Pike, Suite 201 Wilmington, DE 19807 Phone: (302) 482-3182 Email: mvangorder@faruqilaw.com - and - Nadeem Faruqi, Esq. James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor New York, NY 10017 Phone: (212) 983-9330 Fax: (212) 983-9331 Email: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com jwilson@faruqilaw.com SAREPTA THERAPEUTICS: Pomerantz Law Files Class Action Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ:SRPT) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, for the Southern District of New York, and indexed under 19-cv-08122, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise, acquired publicly traded Sarepta securities between September 6, 2017 and August 19, 2019, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials. If you are a shareholder who purchased Sarepta securities during the class period, you have until October 29, 2019, to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased. Sarepta purports to focus on the discovery and development of ribonucleic acid ("RNA")-based therapeutics, gene therapy, and other genetic medicine approaches for the treatment of rare diseases. Sarepta's products pipeline includes, among other drug candidates, golodirsen for the treatment of duchenne muscular dystrophy ("DMD"). Golodirsen purportedly binds to exon 53 of dystrophin pre-mRNA, which results in exclusion or skipping of exon during mRNA processing in patients with genetic mutations. On September 6, 2017, pre-market, Sarepta announced positive muscle biopsy results from its 4053-101 study, a Phase 1/2 first-in-human study conducted in Europe to assess the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and efficacy of golodirsen in twenty-five male subjects with confirmed deletions of the DMD gene amenable to skipping exon 53 (the "4053-101 Study"). According to Sarepta, the 4053-101 Study comprised two parts. In Part 1, twelve patients were randomized to receive a dose titration of golodirsen (eight patients) or placebo (four patients). At the end of Part 1 (dose titration), all twelve patients continued on golodirsen and an additional thirteen patients started golodirsen (Part 2). In Part 2, all twenty-five patients were treated for an additional forty-eight weeks at the time of muscle biopsy. The analysis included biopsies of the bicep muscle at baseline and on-treatment at the Part 2 Week 48 time point. On February 14, 2019, Sarepta announced that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's ("FDA") Division of Neurology (the "FDA Neurology Division") had accepted the Company's New Drug Application ("NDA") "seeking accelerated approval for golodirsen (SRP-4053) and provided a regulatory action date of August 19, 2019." According to Sarepta, the Company completed its NDA at the end of 2018 as part of a rolling submission and requested priority review, which was granted. Additionally, the NDA included data from the 4053-101 Study. The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding Sarepta's business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) golodirsen posed significant safety risks to patients; (ii) consequently, the NDA package for golodirsen's accelerated approval was unlikely to receive FDA approval; and (iii) as a result, Sarepta's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On August 19, 2019, post-market, Sarepta announced receipt of a Complete Response Letter ("CRL") from the FDA regarding the Company's NDA seeking accelerated approval of golodirsen for the treatment of DMD. Sarepta disclosed that "[t]he CRL generally cites two concerns: the risk of infections related to intravenous infusion ports and renal toxicity seen in pre-clinical models of golodirsen and observed following administration of other antisense oligonucleotides." On this news, Sarepta's stock price fell $18.24 per share, or 15.16%, to close at $102.07 per share on August 20, 2019. The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Paris, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomerantzlaw.com CONTACT: Robert S. Willoughby, Esq. Pomerantz LLP Email: rswilloughby@pomlaw.com [GN] SCION GROUP: Cristales Sues Over SMS Ad Blasts ---------------------------------------------- Janelle Cristales and Marianna Carvajal, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. The Scion Group, LLC, Case No. 19-cv-04950, (D. Ariz., August 13, 2019), Defendants, seeks damages and remedies pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Scion Group operates residential communities in 53 campus markets across the country, including in Tempe, Arizona where Plaintiffs resided in the Cottages of Tempe. They claim to have received advertising and marketing text messages on their cellular telephone number despite opting out. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Aaron D. Radbil, Esq. GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC 401 Congress Avenue, Suite 1540 Austin, TX 78701 Tel: (512) 803-1578 Fax: (561) 961-5684 Email: aradbil@gdrlawfirm.com SELLSTATE RESULTS: Mailhot Files Suit Over Unsolicited Marketing ---------------------------------------------------------------- DAVID MAILHOT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SELLSTATE RESULTS REALTY, INC. d/b/a SELLSTATE PARTNERS REALTY, Defendant, Case No. 0:19-cv-62184-RS (S.D. Fla., Aug. 30, 2019) is a putative class action under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, arising from Defendant's violations of the TCPA. To solicit new clients, Defendant engages in unsolicited marketing with no regard for privacy rights of the recipients of those messages, asserts the complaint. The Defendant caused thousands of unsolicited text messages to be sent to the cellular telephones of Plaintiff and Class Members, causing them injuries, including invasion of their privacy, aggravation, annoyance, intrusion on seclusion, trespass, and conversion. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's illegal conduct. Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of himself and Class Members, and any other available legal or equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of Defendant. Plaintiff is a natural person who was a resident of Indian River County, Florida. Defendant is a real estate brokerage based in Coral Springs, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: 954.400.4713 Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com - and - Michael Eisenband, Esq. EISENBAND LAW, P.A. 515 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 120 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: 954.533.4092 Email: MEisenband@Eisenbandlaw.com SFX ENTERTAINMENT: Settlement in Class Suit vs. Directors Reached ----------------------------------------------------------------- Entities who purchased or otherwise acquired SFX Entertainment, Inc. common stock are being notified that a proposed settlement has been reached in the case GUEVOURA FUND LTD., On Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. ROBERT F.X. SILLERMAN, D. GEOFFREY ARMSTRONG, JOHN MILLER and MICHAEL JOHN MEYER, Defendants (S.D.N.Y. Case Nos. 1:15-cv-07192-CM and 1:18-cv-09784-CM). The notice is for all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired SFX Entertainment, Inc. ("SFX") common stock during the period between February 25, 2015 and November 17, 2015, inclusive ("Class Period"). "The purpose of this Summary Publication Notice is to inform you of the proposed Settlement of the above-entitled actions (the "Action") against defendants D. Geoffrey Armstrong, John Miller, Michael John Meyer, and Robert F.X. Sillerman ("Sillerman") (collectively, "Director Defendants")," according to the notice. A Settlement hearing will be held before the Honorable Colleen McMahon, Chief United States District Judge, at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007, at 10:00 o'clock a.m. on December 13, 2019 in order: (1) to determine whether the proposed Settlement consisting of $6,750,000.00 (U.S.) in cash to be caused by the Director Defendants to be paid by their directors' and officers' insurance carriers ("Director Defendants' Contribution") and from Defendant Sillerman an allowed general unsecured dischargeable claim in the amount of $750,000.00, not subject to objection, reduction or setoff, in favor of Lead Plaintiff and the Class Members, in Defendant Sillerman's bankruptcy proceeding ("Sillerman Contribution") should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate to the Class and the proposed Final Judgment entered; (2) to determine whether the proposed Plan of Allocation for the proceeds of the Settlement is fair and reasonable, and should be approved by the Court; (3) to determine whether the application by Lead Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees not to exceed, in the aggregate, thirty-three and one third percent (33 1/3%) of the Director Defendants' Contribution and thirty-three and one third percent (33 1/3%) of the Sillerman Contribution, or portion(s) of the Sillerman Contribution paid, if and/or when paid into the Settlement Fund, plus reimbursement of Lead Counsel's reasonable out-of-pocket litigation and notice and settlement administration expenses should be approved; (4) to determine whether an award of reasonable costs and expenses to Lead Plaintiff directly relating to its representation of the Class should be approved; and (5) to rule upon such other matters as the Court may deem appropriate. "If you purchased or otherwise acquired SFX common stock from February 25, 2015 through and including November 17, 2015, and are not otherwise excluded from the Class, you are a Class Member." "Excluded from the Class are the officers and directors of SFX during the Class Period (including the Director Defendants, Mitchell Slater, Andrew Bazos, Joseph Rascoff, Edward Simon, Pasquale Manocchia, Howard Tytel, and Sheldon Finkel), members of their immediate families, any entity in which they have or had a controlling interest, and their respective legal representatives, heirs, successors or assigns; the named plaintiffs in the Action denominated: Altimeo Invesissement, Altimeo Optimum, et al. v. Robert F.X. Sillerman, et al., Index No. 651084/2016 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. N.Y. Co.); and any Class Members who do not timely and properly request exclusion from the Class. Class Members who do not timely and properly request exclusion from the Class will be bound by the Final Judgment of the District Court. If you are a Class Member, in order to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim postmarked no later than December 27, 2019, establishing that you are entitled to recovery. A Proof of Claim is being sent with this Notice. If you are a Class Member and need an additional Proof of Claim, copies may be obtained by telephoning the Claims Administrator at 1-844-961-0313 or by downloading the form on the internet at www.SFXSecuritiesLitigation.com " "If you do not wish to be included in the Class, you do not wish to participate in the Settlement and you do not wish to receive a distribution from the Net Settlement Fund, you may request to be excluded, in the manner set forth in the full Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class Action, Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Expenses, and Final Settlement Hearing ("Notice"), no later than November 12, 2019. If you are a Class Member and do not timely and validly request exclusion from the Class, and you wish to object to the Settlement, the Plan of Allocation, Lead Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees and/or reimbursement of expenses, and/or Lead Plaintiff's request for an award of reasonable costs and expenses, you may submit a written objection. If you are a Class Member and do not timely and validly request exclusion from the Class, your rights may be affected by the Settlement of this litigation, including the release and extinguishment of claims you may possess relating to your purchase or acquisition of SFX common stock during the Class Period. You also may, but are not required to, appear at the Settlement Hearing. You must file and serve your written objection, in the manner specifically set forth in the Notice, no later than November 12, 2019. " A copy of the full Notice may be accessed at http://www.SFXSecuritiesLitigation.com/and for additional information, you may contact JND Legal Administration, the Claims Administrator, at the following address or email: Guevoura Fund Ltd. v. Sillerman, et al. c/o JND Legal Administration PO Box 91202 Seattle, WA 98111-9302 Email: info@SFXSecuritiesLitigation.com SHENANDOAH VALLEY: Doe Appeals W.D. Va. Decision to 4th Circuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff John Doe, by and through his next friend, Nelson Lopez, filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the lawsuit titled John Doe, et al. v. Shenandoah Valley Juvenile Center Commission, Case No. 5:17-cv-00097-EKD-JCH, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia at Harrisonburg. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the District Court issued a Memorandum Opinion granting in part and denying in part the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff John Doe 1 filed suit for declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, seeking to protect the rights and interests of himself and a putative class of unaccompanied alien children (UACs) detained at the juvenile detention center (Center) operated by Defendant Shenandoah Valley Juvenile Detention Center Commission (Commission). The appellate case is captioned as John Doe, et al. v. Shenandoah Valley Juvenile Center Commission, Case No. 19-1910, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant JOHN DOE, by and through his next friend, NELSON LOPEZ, on behalf of himself and all persons similarly situated, is represented by: Theodore A. Howard, Esq. WILEY REIN, LLP 1776 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-0000 Telephone: (202) 719-7120 Facsimile: (202) 719-7049 E-mail: thoward@wileyrein.com - and - Hannah E.M. Lieberman, Esq. WASHINGTON LAWYERS' COMMITTEE 700 14th Street, NW Washington, DC 20036-0000 Telephone: (202) 319-1000 Facsimile: (202) 319-1010 E-mail: Hannah_Lieberman@washlaw.org Defendant-Appellee SHENANDOAH VALLEY JUVENILE CENTER COMMISSION is represented by: Jason Alan Botkins, Esq. LITTEN & SIPE LLP 410 Neff Avenue Harrisonburg, VA 22801-0000 Telephone: (540) 434-5353 E-mail: jason.botkins@littensipe.com - and - Harold Edward Johnson, Esq. WILLIAMS MULLEN P. O. Box 1320 Richmond, VA 23218-1320 Telephone: (804) 420-6447 E-mail: hjohnson@williamsmullen.com SHOP MA: Faces Nixon ADA Suit in Southern District of New York -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Shop Ma, Inc. The case is captioned as Donald Nixon, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff vs. Shop Ma, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-07809-GBD (S.D.N.Y, Aug 20, 2019). The suit alleges violation of Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge George B. Daniels.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Jonathan Shalom, Esq. SHALOM LAW, PLLC 124-04 Metropolitan Avenue Kew Gardens, NY 11374 Telephone: (516) 807-1748 E-mail: jshalom@jonathanshalomlaw.com SMITTY'S SUPPLY: Buford Files PI Suit in E.D. Arkansas ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Smitty's Supply Inc. The case is styled as Sean Buford, On Behalf of Himself and all Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. Smitty's Supply Inc., Tractor Supply Company, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00082-BRW (E.D. Ark., Aug. 30, 2019). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. Smitty's Supply, Inc. manufactures and distributes lubricants and related products. The Company offers antifreeze, brake fluids, chemicals, gear oils, greases, heavy duty engine oils, power steering fluids, and synthetic oils.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bryan T. White, Esq. William Carr, Esq. White, Graham, Buckley, & Carr, L.L.C. 19049 East Valley View Parkway Independence, MO 64055 Phone: (816) 373-9080 Fax: (816) 373-9319 Email: bwhite@wagblaw.com bcarr@wagblaw.com - and - Christopher D. Jennings, Esq. Johnson Firm 610 President Clinton Avenue, Suite 300 Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: 372-1300 Email: chris@yourattorney.com - and - Dirk Hubbard, Esq. Thomas V. Bender, Esq. Horn Aylward & Bandy, LLC 2600 Grand Boulevard, Suite 1100 Kansas City, MO 64108 Phone: (816) 421-0700 Fax: (816) 421-0899 Email: dhubbard@hab-law.com tbender@hab-law.com - and - John G. Emerson, Jr., Esq. Emerson Scott LLP 830 Apollo Lane Houston, TX 77058 Phone: (281) 488-8854 Email: jemerson@emersonfirm.com TRUMP CORP: Court Narrows Claims in RICO Suit --------------------------------------------- In the case, JANE DOE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE TRUMP CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Case No. 18 Civ. 9936 (LGS) (S.D. N.Y.), Judge Lorna G. Schofield of the U.S. District Court of the Southern District of New York granted in part Defendants Donald J. Trump, The Trump Corp., Donald Trump, Jr., Eric Trump and Ivanka Trump's motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint. The case concerns an alleged fraudulent scheme to promote certain third-party companies offering multi-level marketing and training programs. The Complaint asserts racketeering and conspiracy claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"). It also asserts various state law claims. For over a decade, the Defendants operated a complex enterprise through which they promoted third-party companies offering consumer-facing business opportunities and training programs. The companies included two "multi-level marketing" programs, ACN Opportunity, LLC ("ACN") and TTN, LLC (doing business as "The Trump Network"), and a "live-seminar program," Business Strategies Group, LLC (doing business as "The Trump Institute"). In 2005, the Defendants agreed to promote and endorse ACN. ACN is a company offering products and services through independent salespeople known as "Independent Business Owners," or "IBOs." In order to sell these products and services, IBOs must pay an initial sign-up fee and an annual renewal fee. From 2013 until 2016, these fees were $499 and $149, respectively. IBOs can earn commissions for selling ACN products and services, and can receive additional bonuses when they meet certain sales targets. IBOs can also earn money by recruiting others to sign up as IBOs. When an existing IBO recruits a new IBO, the recruit becomes part of the existing IBO's "downline," and the existing IBO becomes part of the recruit's "upline." IBOs can receive a commission on the sales generated by members of their downline. Key to ACN's recruiting operation are small group events hosted by IBOs in their own homes or at local hotels and event spaces. These meetings are the primary mechanism through which consumers are recruited to become IBOs. ACN also stages ticketed multi-day events, often billed as "Training Events" or "International Conventions." These events function as motivational rallies and are a substantial source of revenue for ACN. In exchange for financial inducements that were never disclosed to the public, the Defendants promoted and endorsed ACN in promotional videos, in print and online media, at ACN events and in episodes of The Celebrity Apprentice, a television program hosted by Trump that featured Ivanka Trump and Donald Trump, Jr. Through these channels, the Defendants deliberately misled consumers regarding the nature of ACN's business. First, the Defendants misled consumers into believing that ACN offered a reasonable probability of commercial success. They accomplished this by misrepresenting (a) the risk inherent in the ACN business opportunity, (b) the profitability to consumers of the ACN business opportunity and multi-level marketing programs in general and (c) the market for ACN's products and services. Second, Trump falsely represented that the reason he supported ACN was because it offered a reasonable probability of commercial success. He never disclosed that he was being paid millions of dollars for his endorsement. Third, the Defendants falsely represented that Trump's endorsement was predicated on appropriate due diligence, inside information and personal experience with ACN. ACN's association with Trump and the Trump brand was "extremely powerful in the minds of investors." In published testimonials, "IBOs attributed their decision to join ACN to Trump's endorsement." ACN was not the only third-party company to be promoted and endorsed by the Defendants. In the mid-2000s, a company affiliated with Defendants, Trump University, LLC, entered into a licensing agreement with Business Strategies Group, LLC to form "The Trump Institute." The Trump Institute was a live-seminar program that purported to teach Trump's "secrets to success" in the real estate industry. In 2009, the Defendants entered into a licensing agreement with Ideal Health, a multi-level marketing company. Pursuant to this agreement, Ideal Health was officially rebranded "The Trump Network." As they had done with ACN, the Defendants disseminated a series of knowingly false statements regarding The Trump Institute and The Trump Network: (1) that the programs offered consumers a reasonable probability of commercial success, (2) that Trump endorsed the programs because they offered a reasonable probability of commercial success and (3) that Trump's endorsements were predicated on extensive due diligence, inside information and personal experience. Defendants Trump, The Trump Corp., Donald Trump, Jr., Eric Trump and Ivanka Trump move to dismiss the Complaint for failure to state a claim and lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Judge Schofield granted in in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss. The Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted with respect to the RICO claims (Counts I and II), and their motion is denied with respect to the state law claims (Counts III through VIII). The RICO claims are dismissed because the Complaint does not sufficiently plead that the Defendants' conduct was the proximate cause of the Plaintiffs' losses. Accordingly, the substantive RICO and RICO conspiracy claims, Counts I and II, are dismissed. The Defendants' motion to dismiss the state law claims is denied because the Court has subject matter jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"). Among other things, the amount in controversy element is satisfied because the Complaint asserts that the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million, and the Defendants have not demonstrated to a legal certainty that the Plaintiff could not recover the amount alleged or that the damages alleged were feigned to satisfy jurisdictional minimums. The Complaint alleges that there are at least tens of thousands of putative class members, each of whom, like the Plaintiffs, suffered at least $500 in damages. Moreover, Plaintiff Doe asserts actual damages of approximately $5,500. If only 910 class members asserted similar damages (out of approximately 200,000 IBOs), the jurisdictional amount would be met. The Judge denied as moot (i) the Plaintiffs' motion to strike, and (ii) the Defendants' motion for oral argument. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close the motion at Docket Nos. 83 and 87. A full-text copy of the Court's July 24, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/JwCqA3 from Leagle.com. Jane Doe, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Luke Loe, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Richard Roe, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated & Mary Moe, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Alexander J. Rodney -- arodney@kaplanhecker.com -- Kaplan Hecker & Fink LLP, Andrew G. Celli -- acelli@ecbalaw.com -- Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady, LLP, David Benjamin Berman, Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady LLP, Emily Carrie Cole, Kaplan & Company, LLP, John Charles Quinn, Kaplan Hecker & Fink LLP, Joshua Adam Matz, Kaplan Hecker & Fink LLP, Katherine R. Rosenfeld, Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady, LLP, Matthew D. Brinckerhoff, Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady, LLP, Matthew J. Craig, Kaplan Hecker & Fink LLP, Ogilvie Andrew Fraser Wilson, Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady, LLP & Roberta Ann Kaplan -- rkaplan@kaplanhecker.com -- Kaplan Hecker & Fink LLP. The Trump Corporation, Donald J. Trump, in his personal capacity, Donald Trump, Jr., Eric Trump & Ivanka Trump, Defendants, represented by Joanna Calne Hendon -- jhendon@spearsimes.com -- Spears & Imes LLP, Andrew Lawrence Kincaid, U.S. District Court, District of Mexico & Cynthia Chen -- cchen@spearsimes.com -- Spears & Imes LLP. VOLKSWAGEN AG: Class Suit Over Gas Fuel Economy Claims Settled -------------------------------------------------------------- Zach Butler, writing for TFL Car, reports that while Dieselgate still lingers in our collective minds, as does the massive fine implications, Volkswagen just announced a settlement of a class action lawsuit surrounding fuel economy claims for its gasoline engines. Approximately 98,000 of these 2013-2017 model year cars were sold or leased in the United States, had a discrepancy of one mile per gallon in their fuel economy ratings. As part of the settlement, Volkswagen will compensate class members who file a claim. Eligible owners will receive payments ranging from $5.40 to $24.30 for each month they've owned or leased the vehicle. Volkswagen says it will also adjust its Greenhouse Gas credits to account for any excess credits it received from the fuel economy discrepancy. The adjustment is subject to approval from the Environmental Protection Agency. The court also has to give its preliminary approval, and Volkswagen will not admit any wrongdoing or liability under the terms of the settlement. [GN] VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Vehicle Owners Get $98MM Settlement ----------------------------------------------------- Nathan Bomey, writing for USA Today, reports that owners of nearly 100,000 Volkswagen, Audi, Porsche and Bentley vehicles will get almost $100 million after their parent company agreed to compensate them for overstating the fuel economy performance of their vehicles. Each vehicle will qualify for a maximum of $518.40 to $2,332.80, according to plaintiffs attorneys involved in the class-action settlement. It's difficult to say how much the settlement is worth for each individual owner. That's because anyone who owned each qualifying vehicle at any point is eligible for the settlement. "We are very pleased to reach a settlement that provides owners and lessees full compensation for having driven vehicles that did not obtain the represented fuel economy," said David Stellings, Esq., a Lieff Cabraser lawyer who represented the plaintiffs, in a statement. "This is a great resolution for the class." The Environmental Protection Agency said that Volkswagen Group, which controls the four brands, had overstated the average fuel economy on involved vehicles by an average of 1 mile per gallon. The settlement involves a wide range of models from the 2013 through 2017 model years, most of which were Porsche, Audi and Bentley vehicles, including the Porsche Cayenne and Audi A8L. Payouts will range from $5.40 to $24.30 for every month someone owned or leased the vehicle. Owners will be required to file a claim to receive compensation after a court signs off. The settlement comes after the EPA reached similar settlements in recent years with several other automakers that overstated average gas mileage, including BMW, Ford and Hyundai. As a consequence of an EPA investigation, Volkswagen will forfeit certain federal emissions credits. But the company did not admit liability as a result of the settlement. "Volkswagen is committed to providing customers with transparent fuel economy data for our vehicles, in line with U.S. labeling requirements," Pietro Zollino, Volkswagen spokesman, said in a statement. The EPA said it discovered during its investigation into Volkswagen's diesel emissions scandal that the automaker had installed software that enabled gasoline vehicles to perform better during federal tests than in real life. The software was used on about 1 million vehicles. Of those, 98,000 are included in the settlement after the EPA found that they had incorrect fuel economy ratings due to the software. The full list of vehicles getting their fuel economy performance restated can be found at http://epa.gov/recalls/fuel-economy-label-updates[GN] WEST KENDALL: Gomez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site --------------------------------------------------------- ANDRES GOMEZ v. WEST KENDALL IMPORTS, LLC, Case No. 1:19-cv-23555-CMA (S.D. Fla., Aug. 23, 2019), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Mr. Gomez, a blind individual, brings this civil rights class action against the Defendant for offering and maintaining an Internet Web site that is not fully accessible and independently usable by visually impaired individuals. West Kendall Imports, LLC, is Florida Profit Limited Liability Company, with its principal place in Miami Lakes, Florida. The Defendant either directly or through its subsidiaries and/or partners and affiliates, owns, operates and/or maintains a vehicle dealership located in Miami, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Perez, Esq. Beverly Virues, Esq. GARCIA-MENOCAL & PEREZ, P.L. 4937 S.W. 74th Court Miami, FL 33155 Telephone: (305) 553-3464 Facsimile: (305) 553-3031 E-mail: ajperez@lawgmp.com bvirues@lawgmp.com YOUNG LIVING ESSENTIAL: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Young Living Essential Oils, LC. The case is styled as Linda Slade individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. Young Living Essential Oils, LC, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-08116 (S.D. N.Y., Aug. 30, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Young Living is a multi-level marketing company based in Lehi, Utah that sells essential oils and other related products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Shaked, Esq. Shaked Law Group P.C. 44 Court Street, Suite 1217 Brooklyn, NY 11201 Phone: (917) 373-9128 Fax: (718) 504-7555 Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com ********* 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 ***