/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/191008.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, October 8, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 201 Headlines 22ND CENTURY: Bull Suit Moved to Western District of New York 44 LAMB LLC: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Young Suit Alleges 6001 INC: Rinehart Hits Unpaid Minimum Wages, Confiscated Tips ALDI INC: Parham Sues Over Misleading Product Labels ALEXA ENTERPRISES: Underpays Delivery Drivers, Whitehead Alleges AMAZON.COM INC: Edmundson Files Suit Over Recalled Products ASSET RECOVERY: Fantacone Suit Moved to N.D. New York ATHELAS INSTITUTE: Underpays Vocational Instructors, Bowen Says ATLANTIC HOUSING: Jorge Seeks Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ATX INC: McKinnes et al. Seek OT Pay for Delivery Associates AVM ENTERPRISES: Bid to Certify Class in Gorss TCPA Suit Denied BAUSCH HEALTH: FWK Sues Over Diabetes Meds Price-fixing BLACKOUT INVESTIGATIONS: Johnson Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages BLUE BOTTLE: Holt Sues over Redemption of Gift Card BROMLEY FOODS: Miller Seeks Unpaid Wages, Damages C.Q. INSULATION: Underpays Installers, Washington Suit Alleges CACH LLC: Court Narrows Claims in Amended Sanders FDCPA/FCRA Suit CALIFORNIA: Ringgold Files Petition for Writ; Reply Due Oct. 18 CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed CARRIZO OIL: Faces Barucic Suit over Proposed Merger CARSON SMITHFIELD: Gruttadauria Sues Over Vague Collection Letter CASTLE BRANDS: Stursma Class Suit Seeks to Enjoin Sale to Pernod CHEFS' WAREHOUSE: Class Certification Denied in Robinson Case CLEVELAND COUNTY, NC: 4th Circuit Appeal Filed in Conner Labor Suit COOK COUNTY, IL: Peoples Suit Asserts Civil Rights Violation DASH LUBE: Moreno Moves to Certify Two Classes of Technicians DBTG CHAMBERS: Penate et al. Seek OT Pay for Delivery Workers DIAL SENIOR: Nordstrom Sues Over Unlawful Biometric Data Collection DOCTOR'S ASSOCIATES: Can't Compel Arbitration in Arnaud TCPA Suit EAE CORP: Fails to Pay Minimum and Overtime Wages, Lucas Claims EBONY MEDIA: Former Workers Seek Unpaid Final Wages, Reimbursements EQUIFAX INC: Carpenter Suit Moved to Northern District of Georgia FEDLOAN SERVICING: Moves to Decertify TCPA Class in Silver Suit FENSTER-MARTENS: Metro Cardiovascular Sues over Fax Ads FIELDWORK INC: Johnson Sues Over Unlawful Use of Biometric Data FLORIDA: Suit vs. Law Enforcement Dept. Moved to N.D. Fla. GALVESTON COUNTY, TX: Judges Appeal Decision in Booth Suit GENERAL MOTORS: Broadnax Sues over Defective 2011 Chevrolet Cruze GENOMIC HEALTH: Faces Rice Suit Over Merger With Exact Sciences GILDAN APPAREL: Traynor ADA Suit Underway in New York GIORGIO ARMANI: Website not Accessible to Blind, Farr Says HAYT HAYT: Court Certifies Class in Barenbaum FDCPA Suit HOME DEPOT: Freeman Illegal Credit Check Row Removed to M.D. Fla. INTERMOUNTAIN HEALTHCARE: Smith Sues Over Unfair Refund Policies JUUL LABS: Misrepresents Nicotine Content, C.B. Suit Claims JUUL LABS: N.C. Sues over Sale of Electronic Vaping Devices KEYSTONE INDUSTRIAL: Redmond Hits Unlawful Use of Biometric Data KEYSTONE MANAGEMENT: Fails to Pay Wages, Domeich et al. Allege KIDD COFFEE: Ex-Employees Seek to Recover OT Wages & Withheld Tips KOHLBERG VENTURES: Asks S.C. to Dismiss Wojciechowski Suit LAMB WESTON: Bid for Judgment on Pleadings in Kennard Suit Denied MESHLOGISTICS INC: Underpays Forklift Operators, Escareno Alleges MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces Feist Suit in Eastern Dist. of Pennsylvania MIDLAND FUNDING: Can Compel Arbitration in Johnson FDCPA/AFDCA Suit MONSANTO COMPANY: Wise Seeks to Recover Roundup-Related Damages N.C.W.C., INC: George Sues over Spam e-Mails NATIONAL TIRE: McGahee Seeks Unpaid Overtime Premium NATURCHEM, INC: Underpays Spray Technicians, Breece et al. Say NCAA: Noiel Sues Over Disregard for Student-Athletes' Safety NELNET DIVERSIFIED: 10th Cir. Appeal Filed in Peterson FLSA Suit NERIUM INTERNATIONAL: Fifth Circuit Appeal Filed in Jia Suit NHK SPRING: Zimmerman Alleges HDD Price-Fixing NOAH RESTAURANT: Moodie Seeks Proper Overtime Wages NORTHERN LEASING: Chorba Suit Moved to S.D. New York OHIO: Appellate Court Upholds Denial of Dunlop Summary Judgment Bid OLLIE'S BARGAIN: Stirling Hits Share Drop Over Supply Chain Issue OMNOVA SOLUTIONS: Thompson Suit Challenges Sale to Synthomer PLAZA PATISSERIE: Poulmentis Seeks to Recover Minimum & OT Wages POOL WATER: Duenas Seeks Minimum & Overtime Wages PRESIDIO INC: Rosenblatt Files Suit Over BCEC Merger Deal REDFIN INC: Cook Labor Suit Hits Non-payment of Overtime Work RESURGENT CAPITAL: Schwebel Sues Over Violation FDCPA RMJC, JNC: Filshill Seeks Minimum Wages for Exotic Dancers SAN ANTONIO, TX: Ramirez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Faces Goins Suit Alleging FEHA Violation SANTA CLARA CORRECTIONAL: Allen Suit Dismissed with Leave to Amend SENSA PRODUCTS: Renewed Bid to Certify Class in Conde Suit Denied SOCAL EDISON: Kenny et al. Sue to Recover Overpayments SOUTHEASTERN LANDSCAPE: Montes Seek OT Pay for Landscapers SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Garay Labor Suit Removed to N.D. Cal. ST LOUIS, MO: Protesters File Suit Over Illegal Arrests SUNDIAL GROWERS: Huang Files IPO-Related Class Action SUNROAD CV AUTO: Fails to Pay Prope Wages, Kyriakides Alleges TOTAL MERCHANT: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Abante Rooter Claims TRUDO REALTY: Faces Johnson Suit Alleging FLSA and BIPA Violation TWO RIVERS: Faces Paulson Files Securities Class Action ULTA SALON: Rowe Appeals Class Cert. Denial to Ninth Circuit WINCO FOODS: Mitchell Seeks 9th Cir. Review of FCRA Suit Ruling XEROX CORP: Court Denies Class Certification in Shareholder Suit YD WINDOW: Richardson Seeks Overtime & Minimum Wages ********* 22ND CENTURY: Bull Suit Moved to Western District of New York ------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled as MATTHEW BULL, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. 22ND CENTURY GROUP, INC., HENRY SICIGNANO III, and JOHN T. BRODFUEHRER, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00409 (Filed Jan. 21, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York (Buffalo) on Sept. 20, 2019. The Western District of New York Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-01285-EAW to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Elizabeth A. Wolford. The case is a class action on behalf of persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded 22nd Century securities between February 18, 2016 and October 25, 2018, inclusive. The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. 22nd Century is a company that purportedly has the technology and plant breeding expertise to regulate the level of nicotine (and other nicotinic alkaloids) in tobacco plants. The Company has touted how it is able to grow tobacco with |"up to 97% less nicotine than conventional tobacco."[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Phillip Kim, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM 275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 686-1060 Facsimile: (212) 202-3827 E-mail: pkim@rosenlegal.com The Defendants are Represented by: Jonathan Hale Friedman, Esq. FOLEY & LARDNER 90 Park Avenue New York, NY 10016-1301 Telephone: (212) 338-3416 Facsimile: (212) 687-2329 E-mail: jfriedman@foley.com 44 LAMB LLC: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Young Suit Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- LAWRENCE YOUNG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 44 LAMB LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-08432 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 9, 2019) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's website, http://www.thelambsclub.com/is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. 44 Lamb LLC owns and operates a restaurant business. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Darryn G. Solotoff, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF DARRYN SOLOTOFF PLLC 100 Quentin Roosevelt Blvd, #208 Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: (516) 695-0052 Facsimile: (516) 706-4692 E-mail: ds@lawsolo.net - and - Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, New York 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: nyjg@aol.com danalgottlieb@aol.com 6001 INC: Rinehart Hits Unpaid Minimum Wages, Confiscated Tips -------------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTINA RINEHART, on Behalf of Herself and Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. 6001 INC., d/b/a TD'S SHOWCLUB, JAMES ZANZUCCHI, TIMOTHY ZANZUCCHI, FRANK ZANZUCCHI, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00898 (D. N.M., Sept. 26, 2019) is an action brought as a Fair Labor Standards Act collective action for Defendants' practice of failing to pay Plaintiff any wages which violates the FLSA's minimum wage provision, and Defendants' practice of charging house fees and confiscating tips which violates the FLSA because for at least one workweek in the relevant statutory period, these practices caused Plaintiff to be paid below the minimum wage. The Defendants required and/or permitted Plaintiff Christina Rinehart to work as an exotic Plaintiff at their adult entertainment club but refused to compensate her at the applicable minimum wage, says the complaint. In fact, the Defendants refused to compensate her whatsoever for any hours worked. Plaintiff's only compensation was in the form of tips from club patrons, and even tips was partly confiscated by the club. The Defendants took money from Plaintiff in the form of "house fees" or "rent". Plaintiff was also required to divide tips with Defendants' managers and employees who do not customarily receive tips. The Defendants misclassify Plaintiffs, including Plaintiff, as independent contractors so that they do not have to compensate her at the federally mandated minimum wage rate, asserts the complaint. Plaintiff Christina Rinehart is an exotic dancer and a former employee for Defendants. She resides in Sandoval County. Defendants operate an adult entertainment club in New Mexico.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel M. Faber, Esq. 4620C Jefferson Lane NE Albuquerque, NM 87109 Phone: (505) 830-0405 Fax: (505) 830-0405 Email: dan@danielfaber.com - and - David Hodges, Esq. KENNEDY HODGES, L.L.P. 4409 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200 Houston, TX 77006 Phone: (713) 523-0001 Facsimile: (713) 523-1116 ALDI INC: Parham Sues Over Misleading Product Labels ---------------------------------------------------- Eric Parham, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Aldi Inc. Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-08975 (S.D. N.Y., Sept. 26, 2019) seeks damages under that State's Consumer Protection Statutes from Defendant's misleading representations on their products' packaging. Aldi Inc. manufactures, distributes, markets, labels and sells almondmilk beverages purporting to be characterized by vanilla under the Friendly Farms brand ("Products"). The Products are sold in sizes including 64 FL OZ (1.5 L or ½ gallon) in regular and unsweetened varieties. The Products' front labels and/or advertising makes direct representations with respect to their primary recognizable and characterizing flavor, by the word "VANILLA" and/or vignette. The complaint alleges that the unqualified, prominent and conspicuous representations as "Vanilla" is false, deceptive and misleading because they contain flavors other than vanilla, as revealed by "Natural Flavors" on the ingredient list. If the "natural flavors" on the ingredient list only consisted of vanilla flavoring or vanilla extract, these higher value ingredients would be declared by their common or usual names instead of the opaque and ubiquitous "natural flavor." Had Plaintiff and Class members known the truth about the Products, they would not have bought the Products or would have paid less, says the complaint. Plaintiff purchased one or more of the Products for personal use, consumption or application based on the above representations, for no less than the price indicated.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Spencer Sheehan, Esq. Sheehan & Associates, P.C. 505 Northern Blvd., Suite 311 Great Neck, NY 11021 Phone: (516) 303-0552 Facsimile: (516) 234-7800 Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com - and - Michael R. Reese, Esq. REESE LLP 100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor New York, NY 10025 Phone: (212) 643-0500 Facsimile: (212) 253-4272 Email: mreese@reesellp.com ALEXA ENTERPRISES: Underpays Delivery Drivers, Whitehead Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- STEVEN WHITEHEAD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALEXA ENTERPRISES, INC. d/b/a PAPA JOHN'S PIZZA-NORTHERN KENTUCKY d/b/a PAPA JOHN'S d/b/a PAPA JOHN'S PIZZA; ALEXA ENTERPRISES INC. II d/b/a PAPA JOHN'S d/b/a PAPA JOHN'S PIZZA; and KEVIN ELLIS, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-00122-DLB-CJS (E.D. Ky., Sept. 9, 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 Whitehead was employed by the Defendants as delivery driver. Alexa Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Papa John's Pizza-Northern Kentucky, d/b/a Papa John's Pizza, d/b/a Papa John's, is a for-profit corporation organized under Kentucky law. The Company owns and operates numerous Papa John's pizza stores in and around Boone County, Kentucky.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David O'Brien Suetholz, Esq. BRANSTETTER STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC 515 Park Avenue Louisville, KY 40208 Telephone: (502) 636-4333 E-mail: davids@bsjfirm.com - and - Joey P. Leniski, Jr., Esq. BRANSTETTER STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC 223 Rosa L. Parks Ave, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 E-mail: joeyl@bsjfirm.com AMAZON.COM INC: Edmundson Files Suit Over Recalled Products ----------------------------------------------------------- Ryan Edmundson, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Amazon.com, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-05835 (N.D. Ill., August 29, 2019), seeks statutory damages, punitive damages, costs and attorney fees for violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act and the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act. Edmundson purchased numbing cream and disposable razors from Amazon that were previously recalled. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Heather L. Blaise, Esq. BLAISE & NITSCHKE, P.C. 123 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 250 Chicago, IL 60606 Tel: (312) 448-6602 Fax: (312) 803-1940 Email: hblaise@blaisenitschkelaw.com ASSET RECOVERY: Fantacone Suit Moved to N.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled as Joseph Fantacone, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. ASSET RECOVERY SOLUTIONS, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 007588/2019, was removed from the Onondaga Supreme Court to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York - Main Office (Syracuse) on Sept. 20, 2019. The Northern District of New York Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:19-cv-01168-FJS-ML to the proceeding. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Act. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Frederick J. Scullin, Jr. Asset Recovery Solutions, LLC is a full service asset recovery management company that is committed to establishing unmatched standards of performance.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Simon Goldenberg, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF SIMON GOLDENBERG PLLC 818 East 16 Street, Ste Ground Floor Brooklyn, NY 11230 Telephone: (347) 640-4357 E-mail: simon@goldenbergfirm.com The Defendant is represented by: Ellen Silverman, Esq. HINSHAW, CULBERTSON LAW FIRM-NY OFFICE 800 Third Avenue, 13th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 471-6229 Facsimile: (212) 935-1166 E-mail: esilverman@hinshawlaw.com ATHELAS INSTITUTE: Underpays Vocational Instructors, Bowen Says --------------------------------------------------------------- BRYAN BOWEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ATHELAS INSTITUTE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02628-DKC (D. Md., Sept. 10, 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 Bowen was employed by the Defendant as vocational instructor. Athena Institute Inc. operates as a non profit organization. The Organization offers residential, educational, consultation, case management, and support services. Athena Institute serves communities in the State of Maryland. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin L. Davis, III, Esq. Kelly A. Burgy, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF PETER T. NICHOLL 36 South Charles Street, Suite 1700 Baltimore, MD 21201 Telephone: (410) 244-7005 Facsimile: (410) 244-8454 E-mail: bdavis@nicholllaw.com kaburgy@nicholllaw.com ATLANTIC HOUSING: Jorge Seeks Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Anita Jorge, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Atlantic Housing Foundation, Inc., and Michael Nguyen, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-62152, (E.D. Tex., August 28, 2019) seeks to recover unpaid compensation and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Atlantic Housing is a non-profit organization that supports, acquires, constructs, rehabilitates and operates qualified affordable housing for low-income persons and families, elderly and mentally or physically disabled persons where Jorge is currently employed as a Residential Coordinator. She claims to have worked more than 40 hours per week without overtime compensation within the last three years, and without receiving minimum and overtime wages. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Dorotha M. Ocker, Esq. OCKER LAW FIRM, PLLC P.O. Box 192 Addison, TX 75001 Tel. (214) 390-5715 Facsimile: (469) 277-3365 Email: dmo@ockerlawfirm.com ATX INC: McKinnes et al. Seek OT Pay for Delivery Associates ------------------------------------------------------------ DARTISHA MCKINNES and STEVE FLEMMING, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. ATX INC., a Michigan corporation, BENSON OGHOUFO, an individual, ANTONIO GEORGE, an individual, jointly and severally, the Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-12748-SJM-MJH (E.D. Mich., Sept. 20, 2019), seeks to recover overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants employed Plaintiffs as hourly "Delivery Associates" responsible for delivering packages from an Amazon warehouse in Romulus, Michigan to Amazon's customers located throughout Metropolitan Detroit. The Plaintiffs worked in excess of 40 hours per week but Defendants maintained a number of illegal compensation policies pursuant to which they failed and refused to pay Plaintiffs (and their other Delivery Associates) for all hours worked. ATX Inc. is a dynamic technology company. The company offers its services to the Cable Television, Broadcast, Satellite and Telephone Industries globally.[BN] Counsel for the Plaintiffs are: Kevin J. Stoops, Esq. Charles R. Ash, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, Suite 1700 Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: 248-355-0300 E-mail: kstoops@sommerspc.com crash@sommerspc.com AVM ENTERPRISES: Bid to Certify Class in Gorss TCPA Suit Denied --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, GORSS MOTELS INC., Plaintiff, v. A.V.M. ENTERPRISES, INC., and JOHN DOES 1-5, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-CV-01078 (KAD) (D. Conn.), Judge Kari A. Dooley of the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut denied Gorss' Motion for Class Certification. The case, initiated by Gorss, is one of several putative class actions brought against product suppliers to Wyndham Hotel Group and its franchisees by Gorss. Gorss contended that A.V.M. Enterprises violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, as amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005 ("TCPA") when it sent unsolicited facsimile advertisements to Wyndham franchisees. Gorss is the former corporate owner of a Super 8-branded motel and Wyndham franchisee. Since 2009, A.V.M. has been one of only a handful of approved suppliers of certain goods and products for some of Wyndham's franchisees, including franchisees of the Super 8-brand. Like other approved suppliers, Wyndham worked with A.V.M. to create advertisements for broadcasting to Wyndham franchisees via fax. Gorss alleges in its Complaint that A.V.M. sent two fax advertisements to it and other Wyndham franchisees, one on June 15, 2015 and another on May 16, 2016. The putative class consists of Gorss as well as the other persons or entities who purportedly received the Faxes. Gorss identifies 3,419 unique fax numbers that received the June 15, 2015 fax and 2,762 unique fax numbers that received the May 16, 2016 fax. Gorss alleges that the sending of the Faxes violated the TCPA because, inter alia, the Faxes were "unsolicited" advertisements. It further asserts that the Faxes failed to contain "opt out" language required under by the so-called "Solicited Fax Rule," which was promulgated, and later repealed, by the Federal Communications Commission. Pending before the Court is Gorss' Motion for Class Certification. The issue for the Court is whether the questions identified by Gorss as common to all the proposed class members and for which generalized proof is available "predominate" or are "more substantial" than the questions identified by A.V.M. that would require proof individualized to each class member. Judge Dooley agrees with A.V.M. that the question of whether each class member consented to receive the Faxes at issue must be examined on an individualized basis and that the question is more substantial than any questions which might be answered with generalized proof. As such, it is the individualized inquiry that will predominate in the adjudication of Gorss' claims rendering class certification inappropriate. Alternatively, Gorss contends that even if the Faxes were not "unsolicited," they still violated the Solicited Fax Rule, rendering consent a non-issue. The Court previously rejected this argument and held that the decision by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in Bais Yaakov of Spring Valley v. F.C.C., invalidating the Solicited Fax Rule is binding on the Court. The Judge does not revisit that determination. For these reasons, Judge Dooley denied Gorss' Motion for Class Certification. A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 10, 2019 Memorandum of Decision is available at https://is.gd/eTj19W from Leagle.com. Gorss Motels Inc., a Connecticut corporation, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons, Plaintiff, represented by Ryan Michael Kelly -- rkelly@andersonwanca.com -- Anderson & Wanca & Aytan Y. Bellin -- Aytan.Bellin@bellinlaw.com -- Bellin & Associates LLC. A.V.M. Enterprises, Inc., a Tennessee corporation, Defendant, represented by Eric L. Samore -- esamore@salawus.com -- Smith Amundsen, LLC, pro hac vice, Erin A. Walsh, Smith Amundsen, LLC, pro hac vice, Yesha S. Hoeppner -- ewalsh@salawus.com -- Smith Amundsen, LLC, pro hac vice, Eric Charles Shinaman -- yhoeppner@salawus.com -- Litchfield Cavo LLP & Melicent B. Thompson -- thompson@litchfieldcavo.com -- Litchfield Cavo LLP. BAUSCH HEALTH: FWK Sues Over Diabetes Meds Price-fixing ------------------------------------------------------- FWK Holdings, LLC, Plaintiff, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. Bausch Health Companies Inc., Salix Pharmaceuticals, Ltd., Salix Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Santarus, Inc., Assertio Therapeutics, Inc., Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Lupin Ltd., Defendants, Case 19-cv-05426 (N.D. Cal., August 29, 2018) seeks to recover damages, interest, costs of suit and reasonable attorneys' fees resulting from anticompetitive foreclosure of Glumetza in violation of the Sherman Act. FWK is the assignee of antitrust claims possessed by Frank W. Kerr Company and brings this action as successor-in-interest to Kerr's claims arising from its purchase of Glumetza and generic metformin directly from one or more of the Defendants at supra-competitive prices. Defendants are pharmaceutical companies involved in the manufacture of Glumetza, a diabetes medication used to prevent and control high blood sugar. Metformin is the generic bio-equivalent of Glumetza. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: A.J. De Bartolomeo, Esq. TADLER LAW LLP 505 14th Street, Suite 1110 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (212) 631-8689 Facsimile: (212) 273-4375 Email: ajd@tadlerlaw.com - and - Steve D. Shadowen, Esq. HILLIARD & SHADOWEN LLP 1135 W. 6th Street, Suite 125 Austin, TX 78703 Telephone: (855) 344-3298 Facsimile: (361) 882-3015 Email: steve@hilliardshadowenlaw.com BLACKOUT INVESTIGATIONS: Johnson Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Doneika Johnson, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. Blackout Investigations & Security Services Inc., Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-02487, (D. Md., August 28, 2019 ), seeks to recover unpaid wages and overtime wages under the Maryland Wage and Hour Law and the Maryland Wage Payment and Collections Law. Blackout Investigations is a security agency that employed Johnson as a security guard. Blackout Investigations allegedly failed to pay Johnson overtime premium compensation for her overtime work. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Brian J. Markovitz, Esq. JOSEPH, GREENWALD & LAAKE, P.A. 6404 Ivy Lane, Suite 400 Greenbelt, MD 20770 Phone: (301) 220-2200 Email: bmarkovitz@jgllaw.com - and - R. Andrew Santillo, Esq. WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC Twining Office Center, Suite 211 715 Twining Road Dresher, PA 19025 Phone: (215) 884-2491 Email: asantillo@winebrakelaw.com BLUE BOTTLE: Holt Sues over Redemption of Gift Card --------------------------------------------------- ADAM HOLT, on behalf of himself, General Public, and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs, BLUE BOTTLE COFFEE, INC., and DOES through 20, the Defendants, Case No. 19CV355132 (Cal. Super., Sept. 16, 2019), alleges that Defendant failed to provide cash to consumers wishing to redeem a gift card with a cash value less than $10.00, or alternatively, failed to maintain a policy and/or practice of complying with Civil Code section 1749.5(b)(2). Over a decade ago, the California Legislature determined that gift card were increasingly popular as a means of gift-giving, but consumers were not able to redeem the full value of the gift cards they received. In reaction to this inequity, California State Senator Ellen M. Corbett authored Senate Bill 250, stating consumers with small values on their gift cards often cannot buy anything sold by the gift card seller with the remaining value on the card, and they cannot get change for the value. Senator Corbett indicated that consumers should be relieved from this, the lawsuit notes. The Defendant owns and operates cafes in California, and sells coffee, coffee brewing equipment, and other coffee related products. In addition to the products it sells, Blue Bottle Coffee also sells gift cards, which can be used to buy products from Defendant's stores.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff are: Phillip R. Poliner, Esq. Neil B. Fineman, Esq FINEMAN POLINER LLP 155 North Riverview Drive Anaheim Hills, CA 92808-1225 Telephone: (714) 620 1125 Facsimile: (714) 701 0155 E-mail: Phillip@FinemanPoliner.com Neil@FinemanPoliner.com BROMLEY FOODS: Miller Seeks Unpaid Wages, Damages ------------------------------------------------- SEAN MILLER, an individual, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BROMLEY FOODS, INC.; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV34138 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Sept. 26, 2019) is a class action seeking monetary relief against Defendants on behalf of himself and the putative class to recover, among other things, unpaid wages, liquidated damages, restitution, interest, attorneys' fees, costs, and penalties pursuant to the Labor Code. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have engaged in a systematic pattern of wage and hour violations under the California Labor Code, the Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders, and California Business and Professions Code that have damaged Plaintiff and Class Members, and contribute to Defendants' deliberate unfair competition. Plaintiff asserts that Defendants fail to pay all wages (including minimum, regular, and overtime wages); fail to provide lawful meal periods or compensation in lieu thereof; fail to authorize or permit rest breaks or provide compensation in lieu thereof; fail to provide accurate itemized wage statements; fail to pay all wages due upon separation of employment; and fail to reimburse business expenses. Plaintiff is a California citizen and resides in Los Angeles County, California who was employed by Defendants as a non-exempt employee during the Class Period. Defendants operate and are doing business as Jack In The Box fast food franchises throughout California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jose R. Garay, Esq. JOSE GARAY, APLC 249 E. Ocean Blvd. #814 Long Beach, CA 90802 Phone: (949) 208-3400 Facsimile: (562) 590-8400 Email: jose@garaylaw.com - and - Daniel J. Hyun, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL J. HYUN 1100 West Town and Country Road, Suite 1250 Orange, California 92868 Phone: (949) 596-4782 Facsimile: (949) 528-2596 Email: dh@danielhyunlaw.com C.Q. INSULATION: Underpays Installers, Washington Suit Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- VICTOR WASHINGTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situate, Plaintiff v. C.Q. INSULATION, INC., Defendants, Case No. 8:19-cv-02245-VMC-SPF (M.D. Fla., Sept. 9, 2019) is an action against the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. The Plaintiff Washington was employed by the Defendant as installer. C.Q. Insulation Inc was founded in 1997. The company's line of business includes providing plastering, drywall, and insulation services and installation. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandon J. Hill, Esq. WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A. 1110 North Florida Ave., Suite 300 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 337-7992 Facsimile: (813) 229-8712 E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com jcornell@wfclaw.com rcooke@wfclaw.com CACH LLC: Court Narrows Claims in Amended Sanders FDCPA/FCRA Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned Lara M. Sanders v. CACH, LLC, et al., Civil Action No. 19-996 (SDW) (JAD) (D. N.J.), Judge Susan D. Wigenton of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Lara M. Sanders' Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(6). In July 2017, Defendant CACH commenced a debt-collection action against the Plaintiff in the Superior Court of New Jersey, alleging that the Plaintiff had incurred credit card debt in the amount of $15,372. On Dec. 4, 2017, they allegedly settled the state-court action for $1,000, and the parties executed a stipulation of discontinuance with prejudice. On Dec. 6, 2017, CACH accepted the settlement check as a complete resolution of any further collection activities. In a letter dated Jan. 30, 2018, Defendant Resurgent Capital notified the Plaintiff that her account with CACH "was settled in full on 12/06/2017." Despite the parties' settlement agreement, the Plaintiff alleges that between Jan. 10, 2018 and Feb. 7, 2018, the Defendants continued to report that she owed a debt. She further alleges that the Defendants failed to disclose that at all relevant times, CACH was in bankruptcy and that Resurgent Capital and Resurgent Holdings were the actual creditors and collectors of the debt at issue. On Jan. 23, 2019, the Plaintiff brought the instant suit against the Defendants as a putative-class action. On May 30, 2019, she filed an Amended Complaint alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") and of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, and breach of contract. On June 13, 2019, the Defendants filed the instant Motion to Dismiss. The Plaintiff opposed the motion. The Defendants argue that any alleged violations of 15 U.S.C. Sections 1692e(10) and (14) that occurred in October 2017 or on Jan. 10, 2018 are barred by the FDCPA's one-year statute of limitations. Judge Wigenton finds that it does not appear to be in dispute as the Plaintiff clarifies in her opposition brief that the essential dates for liability are Feb. 7, 2018 and Feb. 13, 2018. Therefore, inasmuch as they relate to CACH's reports from February 2018, the Plaintiff may proceed with her Section 1692e claims. The Judge finds, however, that the Plaintiff has not pled sufficient facts to suggest that Resurgent Holdings made any representations in connection with the debt at issue. Resurgent Holding's relationship to CACH and the debt at issue is unclear from the pleadings. As such, the Plaintiff has failed to state a claim against Resurgent Holdings. Should discovery show that Resurgent Holdings should be named in the action, the Amended Complaint may be amended again thereafter. The Plaintiff does not allege that the Defendants sent any communications that would trigger FDCPA's notice requirements. The Defendants' only alleged communication "with the consumer" was Resurgent Capital's Jan. 30, 2018 letter, which verified that the debt at issue had been settled. Therefore, the Plaintiff's Section 1692g(a) claim will be dismissed. Finally, because the Plaintiff has not sufficiently pled cognizable damages, the Judge dismissed her breach of contract claim. The Judge opines that the Plaintiff has not sufficiently alleged any actual damages that are causally related to the breach. There is no indication that her credit score was damaged or that she suffered economic loss associated with counsel fees from defending against the Defendants' allegedly erroneous collection actions. Based on the foregoing, Judge Wigenton granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Specifically, she granted the motion as to the Plaintiff's Section 1692g(a) claims, breach of contract claim, and claims against Resurgent Holdings. A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 10, 2019 Letter Opinion is available at https://is.gd/yFlDud from Leagle.com. LARA M. SANDERS, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff, represented by LAWRENCE KATZ, LAW OFFICES OF LAWRENCE KATZ. CACH, LLC, RESURGENT HOLDINGS, LLC & RESURGENT CAPITAL SERVICES, L.P., Defendants, represented by MONICA M. LITTMAN -- mlittman@finemanlawfirm.com -- FINEMAN, KREKSTEIN & HARRIS, PC & RICHARD J. PERR -- rperr@finemanlawfirm.com -- FINEMAN KREKSTEIN & HARRIS, PC. CALIFORNIA: Ringgold Files Petition for Writ; Reply Due Oct. 18 --------------------------------------------------------------- Nina Ringgold filed with the Supreme Court of United States a petition for a writ of mandamus in the matter entitled In re THE LAW OFFICES OF NINA RINGGOLD AND ALL CURRENT CLIENTS THEREOF on their own behalves and all similarly situated persons, Petitioners, Case No. 19-359. Response is due on October 18, 2019. According to Ms. Ringgold, the filing is on petition for writ of mandamus to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and to a lower court judge acting as a single-judge district court. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Aug. 16, 2019, Ms. Ringgold filed an appeal before the Supreme Court of United States from a lower court decision in NINA RINGGOLD; et al., the Petitioners, v. JERRY BROWN, in his Individual and Official Capacity as Governor of the State of California and in his Individual and Official Capacity as Former Attorney General of the State of California et al., the Respondents, Case No. 17-16269 (9th Cir.). The Hon. Elena Kagan, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States and Circuit Justice for the Ninth Circuit, has granted the Petitioners' application for more time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from July 29, 2019 to August 28, 2019. Pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 2101 (c) and Rules 13 (5), 22, and 30 (3) of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States, the Petitioners requested an extension of 30 days to file a petition for writ of certiorari to August 28, 2019. Absent an extension of time, the petition would be due on July 29, 2019. The judgment sought to be reviewed is that of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit dated April 30, 2019. The Petitioners argued that an extension is needed because multiple parties and entities will be proceeding under Rule 12.4 with respect to identical or closely related questions that arise from a federal class action appeal involving the Voting Rights Act, as reauthorized by the Voting Rights Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006. The case seeks a special judicial election in the State of California during the 2020 General Election. Some of the same persons involved in the federal voting rights case have pending cases in the state court.[BN] Petitioners The Law Offices of Nina Ringgold, et al., are represented by: Nina R. Ringgold, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF NINA R. RINGGOLD 17901 Malden St., No. 361 Northridge, CA 91325-3817 Telephone: (818) 773-2409 E-mail: nrringgold@aol.com One of the Plaintiff's attorneys certifies that notice was sent to these attorneys of record: Catherine Woodbridge, Esq. OFFICE OF THE CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERAL 1300 I Street, Suite 125 Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: (916) 210-7526 Facsimile: (916) 322-8288 E-mail: catherine.woodbridge@doj.ca.gov - and - Landon D. Bailey, Esq. BAILEY PLC 980 9th Street, 16th Floor Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: (916) 713-2580 E-mail: landon@baileyplc.com CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARLENE KANEHL, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. CAPITAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LP, the Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-01381-WED (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff ask the Court for an order certifying a class, appointing the Plaintiff as class representative, and appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as Class Counsel, and for such other and further relief as the Court may deem appropriate. The Plaintiff furthers ask that the Court stay this class certification motion until an amended motion for class certification is filed, and that the Court grant the parties relief from the local rules' automatic briefing schedule and requirement that Plaintiffs file a brief and supporting documents in support of this motion. To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the certification motion. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) ("The pendency of that motion [for class certification] protects a putative class from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs."). While the Seventh Circuit has held that the specific procedure described in Campbell-Ewald cannot force the individual settlement of a class representative's claims, the same decision cautions that other methods may prevent a plaintiff from representing a class. Fulton Dental, LLC v. Bisco, Inc., 860 F.3d 541, 545-46 (7th Cir. 2017).[CC] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. John D. Blythin, Esq. Jesse Fruchter, Esq. Ben J. Slatky, Esq. ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482-8000 Facsimile: (414) 482-8001 E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com meldridge@ademilaw.com jfruchter@ademilaw.com bslatky@ademilaw.com CARRIZO OIL: Faces Barucic Suit over Proposed Merger ---------------------------------------------------- The case, ERTAN BARUCIC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CARRIZO OIL & GAS, INC.; S.P. JOHNSON IV; STEVEN A. WEBSTER; F. GARDNER PARKER; FRANCES ALDRICH SEVILLA-SACASA; THOMAS L. CARTER, JR.; ROBERT F. FULTON; ROGER A. RAMSEY; and FRANK A. WOJTEK, Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-03405 (S.D. Tex., Sept. 10, 2019), alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, seeks to enjoin the vote on a proposed transaction, pursuant to which Carrizo Oil & Gas, Inc. will be acquired by Callon Petroleum Company. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants filed a materially incomplete and misleading Registration Statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission and disseminated it to Carrizo's stockholders. The Registration Statement misrepresents or omits material information that is necessary for the Company's stockholders to make an informed decision whether to vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction. The Registration Statement omits material information regarding the Company's and Callon's financial projections provided by each of Carrizo's and Callon's management and relied upon by the Company's financial advisors, RBC Capital Markets, LLC and Lazard Frères & Co. LLC, for their analyses, as well as the analyses performed by RBC and Lazard. The Registration Statement fails to disclose Carrizo's and Callon's unlevered free cash flows and/or after-tax free cash flows over the projection period and the underlying line items utilized by RBC and Lazard in their analyses. The Registration Statement further fails to disclose the Post-Merger Projections for the combined company, prepared by Carrizo management and utilized by RBC for purposes of its fairness opinion. Carrizo Oil & Gas, Inc. explores for and produces natural gas and crude oil. The Company develops and exploits onshore properties. Carrizo Oil & Gas serves customers in the State of Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Zemel, Esq. ZEMEL LAW LLC 1373 Broad Street, Suite 203-C Clifton, NJ 07013 Telephone: (862) 227-3106 E-mail: dz@zemellawllc.com CARSON SMITHFIELD: Gruttadauria Sues Over Vague Collection Letter ----------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Gruttadauria, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff, v. Carson Smithfield, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-04922 (E.D. N.Y., August 28, 2019), seeks redress for violations of the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act. Carson Smithfield operates a debt collection agency. It attempted to collect a debt owed to Merrick Bank Corporation via a collection letter that vaguely describes a conflicting dispute process, the complaint asserts. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Mitchell L. Pashkin, Esq. 775 Park Avenue, Suite 255 Huntington, NY 11743 Tel: (631) 335-1107 CASTLE BRANDS: Stursma Class Suit Seeks to Enjoin Sale to Pernod ---------------------------------------------------------------- MIKE STURSMA, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. CASTLE BRANDS INC., MARK ANDREWS III, JOHN F. BEAUDETTE, HENRY C. BEINSTEIN, PHILLIP FROST, RICHARD M. KRASNO, RICHARD J. LAMPEN, STEVEN D. RUBIN, and MARK ZEITCHICK, Case No. 1:19-cv-08649 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 17, 2019), seeks to enjoin the expiration of a tender offer on a proposed transaction, pursuant to which Castle Brands will be acquired by Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc. through its wholly-owned subsidiary Rook Merger Sub, Inc. Austin Nichols is the United States holding company of Pernod Ricard S.A. ("Pernod"). Austin Nichols is a Delaware corporation and affiliate of Pernod. Merger Sub is a Florida corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of Austin Nichols. Pernod is the number two worldwide producer of wines and spirits with consolidated sales of EUR8,987 million in FY18. Created in 1975 by the merger of Ricard and Pernod, Pernod, which owns 16 of the Top 100 Spirits Brands, holds one of the most prestigious and comprehensive brand portfolios in the industry, including Absolut Vodka, Ricard pastis, Ballantine's, Chivas Regal, Royal Salute, and The Glenlivet Scotch whiskies. On August 28, 2019, Castle Brands and Pernod issued a joint press release announcing that they had entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") to sell Castle Brands to Pernod. Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, Pernod will acquire all outstanding shares of Castle Brands for $1.27 in cash per share of Castle Brands' common stock (the "Offer Price"). Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, Austin Nichols, through Merger Sub, commenced the Tender Offer on September 11, 2019. The Tender Offer is scheduled to expire at 12:00 midnight, New York City time, today, October 8, 2019. The Proposed Transaction is valued at approximately $223 million. The Plaintiff, a stockholder of Castle Brands, asserts that the filed Recommendation Statement, which recommends that Castle Brands stockholders tender their shares in favor of the Proposed Transaction, omits or misrepresents material information concerning, among other things: (i) Castle Brands management's projections, utilized by the Company's financial advisors, Perella Weinberg Partners L.P. ("Perella") and Houlihan Lokey Capital, Inc. ("Houlihan") in their financial analyses; (ii) the data and inputs underlying the financial valuation analyses that support the fairness opinions provided by Perella and Houlihan; (iii) the background leading to the Proposed Transaction; and (iv) potential conflicts of interest faced by the Company's financial advisors, Perella and Houlihan. The failure to adequately disclose such material information constitutes a violation of Sections 14(d), 14(e) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 as Castle Brands stockholders need such information in order to make a fully informed decision, the Plaintiff contends. Castle Brands is a Florida corporation with its principal executive offices located in New York City. Castle Brands is a developer and international marketer of premium and super-premium brands, including Jefferson's, Jefferson's Presidential Select, Jefferson's Reserve, Jefferson's Ocean Aged at Sea Bourbon, Jefferson's Wine Finish Collection and Jefferson's Wood Experiments, Goslings Rums, Goslings Stormy Ginger Beer, Knappogue Castle Whiskey, Clontarf Irish Whiskey, Pallini Limoncello, Boru Vodka, Brady's Irish Cream, The Arran Malt Single Malt Scotch Whisky, The Robert Burns Scotch Whisky and Machrie Moor Scotch Whisky. The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard A. Acocelli, Esq. WEISSLAW LLP 1500 Broadway, 16th Floor New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 682-3025 Facsimile: (212) 682-3010 E-mail: racocelli@weisslawllp.com CHEFS' WAREHOUSE: Class Certification Denied in Robinson Case ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, SHAON ROBINSON, Plaintiff, v. THE CHEFS' WAREHOUSE, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 15-cv-05421-RS (N.D. Cal.), Judge Richard Seeborg of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (i) granted CW's motion for partial summary judgment against Saul Prado, (ii) denied CW's motion for partial summary judgment against James Roberts, and (iii) denied the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. CW describes itself as a "premier distributor of specialty food products" catering to chefs in restaurants, hotels, culinary schools, bakeries, and other food establishments. It employs delivery drivers operating from each facility. CW asserts that except during training, drivers typically drive by themselves with very little management oversight, and they generally spend no less than 90-95% of their work day on the road. CW has a written meal and rest break policy that complies with the law. The complaint is premised however on the theory that, in actual practice, drivers are put under such time pressures to complete their deliveries within certain windows that they are effectively precluded, or at least strongly discouraged, from taking meal and rest breaks. CW denies that its drivers cannot or do not take the requisite breaks. It explains that while it provides its drivers with meal and rest breaks in compliance with California law, the timing of breaks varies from day-to-day and employee-to-employee depending on the delivery routes, daily activities (i.e. traffic, problems with the truck, etc.) and most of all, individual preferences. CW also asserts the practices in Southern California and Northern California for ensuring compliance with the meal and rest break policy differ in certain respects. The putative class action was originally filed by Shaon Robinson, who sought to represent a class of delivery drivers employed by Defendant CW. Sean Clark subsequently joined as a named Plaintiff. Thereafter, a motion for class certification brought by Robinson and Clark was denied because, among other reasons, they both had signed declarations in a prior action stating they understood CW's policies regarding meal and rest breaks, accurate timekeeping, and reporting any violations of those policies. Although theoretically Robinson and Clark might have been able to offer explanations as to why those declarations did not foreclose their claims in this action, the declarations at a minimum presented CW a potentially compelling basis to defend. As such, neither Robinson nor Clark were similarly-situated to putative class members who did not sign declarations in the prior action, requiring denial of the motion to certify. It is not the first time CW has been sued for an alleged failure to provide meal and rest breaks. In 2012, an action filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court entitled Gustavo Chicas v. The Chefs' Warehouse West Coast, LLC advanced the same categories of wage and hour claims as alleged in the instant case, except for failure to reimburse business expenses. Named Plaintiffs Robinson and Clark were members of the Chicas class, and the declarations they signed in that action precluded them from serving as named plaintiffs as to the claims advanced. The class representative Plaintiffs now proposed in the action are Roberts, a former driver in Northern California and Prado, a southern California diver. CW seeks summary judgment against both Prado and Roberts, based on separate motions and arguments. The Plaintiffs, in turn, seek class certification. CW seeks partial summary judgment against Roberts on the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fifteenth claims for relief in the operative Fifth Amended Complaint. Those are all the claims asserted by Roberts except the Seventh claim for relief, "Failure to Reimburse Expenses," which apparently relates to cell phone usage, and which CW does not seek to adjudicate at this time. Judge Seeborg holds that CW's insistence that to survive summary judgment Roberts was required to identify from memory specific dates on which he allegedly missed meal and/or rest breaks is not tenable. While the evidence to which CW points may be offered to impeach Roberts and to undermine his credibility, it is not sufficient to warrant entry of judgment in CW's favor as a matter of law. From this, the Judge finds that CW would have the court conclude as a matter of law that Roberts' managers simply told him to complete and submit his timesheets and never told Roberts to falsify them. A trier of fact, however, could conclude that an instruction to just put something in there was tantamount to directing Roberts to submit false time sheets, and it certainly could support an inference that the timesheets are not completely reliable. CW is not entitled to summary judgment against Roberts. CW seeks partial summary judgment as to Plaintiff Prado's meal and rest period claims, and the claims that derive therefrom, on the grounds that California's meal and rest period laws are preempted by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984, and its Regulations ("MCSA"), with respect to drivers in Prado's circumstances. Specifically, in December 2018, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration ("FMCSA") issued a final order stating that the federal regulations governing the hours of service of drivers of commercial motor vehicles ("HOS") preempts California's meal and rest break laws and these laws may not be applied to drivers subject to the HOS regulations. The Judge finds that the claims of the putative class members are not subject to the pending motion for summary judgment against Prado is not controversial. What the Plaintiffs appear not to recognize, however, is that if the claims against Prado are dismissed, that is fatal to class certification of those claims, unless Roberts can serve as an adequate representative of Southern California class members as well as those in Northern California. CW has also shown that his rest and meal period claims are preempted. And the Plaintiffs have not explained why permitting recovery on any such theories would not impermissibly render the preemption a nullity. Accordingly, the motion will be granted. As to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, the Judge finds that the class certification does not appear appropriate for a number of interrelated reasons. First, Prado's claims are preempted, which both eliminates him as a viable class representative and supports an inference that the claims of many of the other putative class members may also be preempted. That, in turn, implicates both commonality and numerosity. Second, although the Plaintiffs question the enforceability of the class action waivers, litigating that issue likely will also require individual inquiries. Finally, while CW's opposition to class certification arguably goes too far in attempting to defeat the merits of the Plaintiffs' claims, the Plaintiffs appear to have, at best, individualized and anecdotal evidence that drivers did not always get their rest and meal breaks, despite clear company policy to the contrary, and the implementation of a number of procedures designed to ensure compliance. Accordingly, Judge Seeborg denies the motion for partial summary judgment against Roberts and the motion for class certification. The Judge however granted the motion for partial summary judgment against Prado. A further case management conference will be held on Oct. 10, 2019, with a joint case management conference statement to be filed one week in advance. A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 10, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/T6wEeu from Leagle.com. Shaon Robinson, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated, and the general public, Plaintiff, represented by Cody Thomas Stroman, Hoffman Employment Lawyers, PC, Leonard Thomas Emma -- lemma@employment-lawyers.com -- -- Emma Law, P.C. & Stephen Noel Ilg -- silg@employment-lawyers.com -- ILG Legal Office, PC. The Chefs' Warehouse, Inc., A Delaware Corporation & Chefs' Warehouse West Coast, LLC, a California limited liability company, Defendants, represented by Julia Yenha Trankiem -- jtrankiem@reedsmith.com -- Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP, Michele Jane Beilke -- mbeilke@reedsmith.com -- Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP, Sonya Devorah Goodwin -- sgoodwin@reedsmith.com -- Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP & Susan S. Joo, Hunton Andrews & Kurth LLP. CLEVELAND COUNTY, NC: 4th Circuit Appeal Filed in Conner Labor Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Sara B. Conner filed an appeal from a Court ruling in her lawsuit styled Sara Conner v. Cleveland County, NC, Case No. 1:18-cv-00002-MR-WCM, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina at Asheville. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff seeks conditional certification of this collective action and authorization to send an initial and a reminder Court-supervised Notice to all current and former full-time EMS personnel, who work or have worked a 24-hours on/48-hours off hour schedule for Defendant anytime during the period of January 2, 2015, to December 31, 2017. Ms. Conner also seeks certification of a class of similarly situated "24-hours on/48-hours off" personnel for a North Carolina state law breach of contract claim under Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The appellate case is captioned as Sara Conner v. Cleveland County, NC, Case No. 19-2012, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant SARA B. CONNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Philip J. Gibbons, Jr., Esq. Craig Lorne Leis, Esq. GIBBONS LEIS, PLLC 14045 Ballantyne Corporate Place Charlotte, NC 28277 Telephone: (704) 612-0038 E-mail: phil@gibbonsleis.com craig@gibbonsleis.com Defendant-Appellee CLEVELAND COUNTY, a/k/a Cleveland County Emergency Medical Services, is represented by: Grant B. Osborne, Esq. WARD & SMITH, PA P. O. Box 2020 Asheville, NC 28802-2020 Telephone: (828) 348-6017 E-mail: gbo@wardandsmith.com COOK COUNTY, IL: Peoples Suit Asserts Civil Rights Violation ------------------------------------------------------------ JONATHAN PEOPLES, individually and on behalf of a class of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. THOMAS J. DART, SHERIFF OF COOK COUNTY, and COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS, Defendants, Case No. 2019CH11197 (Circuit Ct. Cook Cty., Ill., Sept. 26, 2019) seeks relief for Defendants' violation of Plaintiff's rights and privileges secured under United States and Illinois law. The named Plaintiff also seeks an award of attorneys' fees and costs, and such other relief as this Court deems equitable and just. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the Class were unlawfully detained and incarcerated without legal authority under Defendants' policy, custom, or practice. The Defendants have a policy and practice of detaining and re-incarcerating people after they are sentenced to time served without any legal justification to do so. As a direct and proximate result of such policy, custom, or practice, hundreds or thousands of free people have been wrongly incarcerated for extended periods of time in Cook County Jail and the Illinois Department of Corrections' Stateville Correctional Center. This exhibits deliberate indifference to fundamental civil rights and liberty interests, and is violative of the United States Constitution, the Illinois Constitution, Section 1983 of the United States Code, and Illinois common law, says the complaint. Plaintiff Jonathan was unlawfully detained and re-incarcerated by Defendants after pleading guilty and being sentenced to time served, from February 15, 2019 to February 19, 2019, despite there being no legal justification for his detention. Defendant Dart is the chief executive of the Cook County Sheriffs Office.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven A. Hart, Esq. Brian Eldridge, Esq. Kyle Pozan, Esq. HART MCLAUGHLIN & ELDRIDGE, LLC 22 W. Washington Street, Suite 1600 Chicago, IL 60602 Phone: (312) 955-0545 Fax: (312) 971-9243 Email: shart@hmelegal.com beldridge@hmelegal.com kpozan@hmelegal.com - and - Daniel M. Kotin, Esq. TOMASIK KOTIN KASSERMAN, LLC 161 N. Clark Street, Suite 3050 Chicago, Illinois 60601 Phone: (312) 605-8800 Fax: (312) 605-8808 Email: dan@tkklaw.com - and - Jeffrey M. Moskowitz, Esq. J. MOSKOWITZ LAW LLC 53 W. Jackson Boulevard, Suite 1401 Chicago, IL 60604 Phone: (847) 630-6363 Email: jmoskowitzlaw@gmail.com DASH LUBE: Moreno Moves to Certify Two Classes of Technicians ------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled ROBERTO MORENO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DASH LUBE, GHARDASH ENTERPRISES, INC., KAYLA CORP, collectively d/b/a as Jiffy Lube, PAYAM RYAN GHARDASH and POYA PAUL GHARDASH, Case No. 3:18-cv-01922-DMS-AHG (S.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff moves for an order granting class certification as to: * the Fifth Cause of Action of the Complaint, on behalf of this class: All current and former hourly service technicians who worked for Defendants at any of their Jiffy Lube automotive oil change shops at any time from August 17, 2017 through judgment; and * the Second, Third, Sixth and Eighth Cause of Action of the Complaint, on behalf of this class: All current and former hourly service technicians who worked for Defendants at any of their Jiffy Lube automotive oil change shops at any time from August 17, 2014 through judgment Mr. Moreno also asks the Court to appoint him Roberto Moreno as class representative, to appoint JCL Law Firm, APC and Sommers Schwartz, P.C. as class counsel, and to authorize the issuance of class notice with the opportunity to opt out in the form of a notice to be supplied to the Court.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jean-Claude Lapuyade, Esq. JCL LAW FIRM, APC 10200 Willow Creek Road, Suite 150 San Diego, CA 92131 Telephone: (619) 599-8292 Facsimile: (619) 599-8291 E-mail: jlapuyade@jcl-lawfirm.com - and - Jason J. Thompson, Esq. Rod M. Johnston, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, Suite 1700 Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 Facsimile: (248) 436-8453 E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com rjohnston@sommerspc.com DBTG CHAMBERS: Penate et al. Seek OT Pay for Delivery Workers ------------------------------------------------------------- GUSTAVO A. PENATE, JOSE SANTIAGO SANTIAGO, MIGUEL ANGEL PLACIDO BAZAN, and RODOLFO MACEDA MARTINEZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. DBTG CHAMBERS LLC (D/B/A DIRTY BIRD TO GO) and JOSEPH CIRIELLO, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-08767 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 20, 2019), alleges that Plaintiffs worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage compensation for the hours that they worked. The Plaintiffs were ostensibly employed as delivery workers. However, they were required to spend a considerable part of their work day performing non-tipped duties up until approximately July 2017. Their daily non-tipped duties included but was not limited to dishwashing, mopping, sweeping, taking out trash, carrying down and stocking delivered items in the basement, bringing up food and ingredients from the basement for the cooks, cleaning the cooks work area, cleaning tables, cleaning the kitchen, preparing seasonings and sauces for the cooks and cutting vegetables, the lawsuit says. The Defendants own, operate, or control two fried chicken restaurants, one located at 155 Chambers Street, New York, NY 10007 and the other at 204 W. 14 th Street, New York, NY 10011.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 E-mail: Faillace@employmentcompliance.com DIAL SENIOR: Nordstrom Sues Over Unlawful Biometric Data Collection ------------------------------------------------------------------- JENNIFER NORDSTROM, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. DIAL SENIOR MANAGEMENT, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2019CH11108 (Circuit Ct., Cook Cty. Ill., Sept. 25, 2019) is a Class Action Complaint pursuant to the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure against Defendants, its subsidiaries and affiliates, to redress and curtail Defendant's unlawful collection, use, storage, and disclosure of Plaintiffs sensitive biometric data. While many employers use conventional methods for tracking time worked (such as ID badge swipes or punch clocks), Defendant's and its affiliated facilities' employees are required to have their fingerprints scanned by a biometric timekeeping device. Unlike ID badges or time cards - which can be changed or replaced if stolen or compromised - fingerprints are unique, permanent biometric identifiers associated with each employee. This exposes Defendant's employees to serious and irreversible privacy risks, says the complaint. Plaintiff Janice Johnson is a natural person and a resident of the State of Illinois. Dial is a retirement community management corporation that manages independent living, assisted living, and memory care facilities in five states, including Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan F. Stephan, Esq. James B. Zouras, Esq. Andrew C. Ficzko, Esq. STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP 100 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 2150 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (312) 233-1550 Fax: (312) 233-1560 Email: rstephan@stephanzouras.com jzouras@stephanzouras.com aficzko@stephanzouras.com DOCTOR'S ASSOCIATES: Can't Compel Arbitration in Arnaud TCPA Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, LUIS ARNAUD, Plaintiff, v. DOCTOR'S ASSOCIATES INC., d/b/a SUBWAY, Defendant, Case No. 18-CV-3703 (NGG) (SJB) (E.D. N.Y.), Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York denied the Defendant's motion to compel arbitration of the Plaintiff's claim and stay proceedings in the action pending completion of the arbitration. Plaintiff is a resident of Bronx Country who made a purchase in a Subway restaurant. He was informed that he can avail of a free item if he took an electronic survey following his restaurant visit. He took the survey, which asked personal info like his telephone number. The Plaintiff brought the class action in June 2018 on behalf of himself and all Subway consumers in the U.S. who have allegedly received unsolicited and unconsented-to commercial text messages to their mobile phones from Defendant Subway. He claims that the Defendant has violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") by using an automated telephone texting system to send unsolicited and unauthorized marketing text messages to the cellular phones of the Plaintiff and the class members. He find the messages unwanted and a nuisance. He seeks an order certifying the class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, declaring that the Defendant's conduct violates the TCPA, and awarding statutory and treble damages for each violation of the TCPA. The Defendant sought to compel arbitration of the Plaintiff's claim and stay proceedings pending completion of the arbitration. They argued that the Plaintiff is bound by the arbitration provision in the Terms of Use because notice was provided to him and he manifested his assent to the Terms of Use. On review, the Court finds that an agreement to arbitrate does not exist between the parties. Judge Garaufis denies the Defendant's motion for arbitration. The parties are directed to contact Magistrate Judge Sanket J. Bulsara's chambers to discuss next steps in the case. A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 10, 2019 Memorandum & Order is available at https://is.gd/zGBGpI from Leagle.com. Luis Arnaud, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Anne Seelig -- anne@leelitigation.com -- Lee Litigation Group, PLLC, William M. Brown -- will@leelitigation.com -- Lee Litigation Group, PLLC & C.K. Lee -- cklee@leelitigation.com -- Lee Litigation Group, PLLC. Doctor's Associates Inc., doing business as Subway, Defendant, represented by Ian Charles Ballon -- Ballon@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Justin Albano MacLean -- macleanj@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Lori Chang -- changl@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig, pro hac vice & William Andrew Wargo -- wargow@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig, LLP. EAE CORP: Fails to Pay Minimum and Overtime Wages, Lucas Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- ANTONIO JULIAN LUCAS, MARTIN CANDELARIO TEPEPA, RICARDO RAMOS LUNA, and SEBASTIAN CALEL ZAPETA, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs v. EAE CORP. d/b/a SIDEWALK BAR & RESTAURANT, 94-96 AVENUE A REALTY CORP., PINCHAS MILSTEIN, JONA SZAPIRO, and AMNON LUCY KEHATI, Jointly and Severally, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-08920 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 25, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime premium pay owed to the Plaintiffs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiffs also bring claims for unpaid spread-of-hours premiums, and failure to provide proper wage notices and wage statements pursuant to NYLL and the supporting regulations. For their work, throughout the relevant time period, the Plaintiffs allege they were not paid minimum wages for all hours worked and were not paid overtime premiums for hours worked over 40 in a given workweek, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs are former line cooks, food preps, dishwashers, and porters at Defendants' bar and restaurant located in Manhattan, New York. EAE Corp. is an active New York Corporation doing business as "Sidewalk Bar & Restaurant" with its principal place of business at 94 Avenue A, in New York City.BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brent E. Pelton, Esq. Taylor B. Graham, Esq. PELTON GRAHAM LLC 111 Broadway, Suite 1503 New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 385-9700 Facsimile: (212) 385-0800 EBONY MEDIA: Former Workers Seek Unpaid Final Wages, Reimbursements ------------------------------------------------------------------- JOSHUA DAVID MARDICE, JASMINE WASHINGTON, JUAN MIRANDA, PRESTON NORMAN, CHRISTINA SANTI, SANDEEP SINGH and RICKEY TURNER, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. EBONY MEDIA OPERATIONS, LLC, CVG GROUP, LLC, MICHAEL GIBSON, in his individual and professional capacities, and ELIZABETH BURNETT, in her individual and professional capacities, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-08910 (S.D. N.Y., Sept. 25, 2019) is an action brought to redress Defendants' wrongs against Defendants pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, New York Labor Law, California Labor Code, Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act, and Illinois Minimum Wage Law, as well as all applicable regulations thereunder. Defendants own and operate Ebony and Jet Magazine, two of the most prominent publications covering the Black perspective on societal issues over the last approximately 70 years. According to the complaint, since both magazines were acquired by CVG, a private equity firm, Defendants have betrayed the magazines' employees and readers--many of whom are Black and have long revered the magazines for giving them a voice when much of the mainstream media failed to do so--through the inequitable treatment of their employees. Specifically, following CVG's June 2016 acquisition, Defendants have engaged in a consistent pattern and practice of laying off their staff and failing to pay them their final wages, which has resulted in prior litigation, public vitriol, and the viral social media hashtag, "#EbonyOwes." Plaintiffs are merely the latest victims of this pattern and practice, notes the complaint. From approximately May 19, 2019 through June 14, 2019, Defendants laid off much of their staff and predictably failed to pay them anywhere from one to four weeks' worth of earned wages. Further, Defendants failed to reimburse these employees for unlawful deductions from their wages for purported 401(k) retirement account contributions that were never actually paid into those accounts. Additionally, upon terminating the employees, Defendants failed to honor their contractual promises (and, in some cases, statutory obligations) to reimburse the employees for work-related expenses and pay out their unused accrued vacation days, says the complaint. Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants from January 2, 2018 through June 14, 2019.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Innessa Melamed Huot, Esq. Alex J. Hartzband, Esq. Patrick J. Collopy, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor New York, NY 10017 Phone: (212) 983-9330 Fax: (212) 983-9331 Email: ihuot@faruqilaw.com ahartzband@faruqilaw.com pcollopy@faruqilaw.com EQUIFAX INC: Carpenter Suit Moved to Northern District of Georgia ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled as Dustin Carpenter and Jasmine Dennis all other persons similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. Equifax Information Services LLC and Equifax Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 0:19-cv-02218, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta) on Sept. 20, 2019. The Northern District of Georgia Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-04242-TWT to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. Equifax Information Services LLC provides data solutions. The company offers financial, consumer and commercial data, and analytical solutions.[BN] Attorneys for the Defendants are: Christopher J. Haugen, Esq. Joseph W. Lawver, Esq. MESSERLI & KRAMER, P.A. 100 South Fifth Street 1400 Fifth Street Towers Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 672-3730 Facsimile: (612) 672-3777 FEDLOAN SERVICING: Moves to Decertify TCPA Class in Silver Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The Defendant in the lawsuit titled NEIL SILVER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency, dba FedLoan Servicing, Case No. 4:14-cv-00652-PJH (N.D. Cal.), moves to decertify the Plaintiff's proposed class. The Plaintiff has proposed a class under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, defined as "All persons within the United States who received any calls from Defendant, or its agent(s) and/or employee(s), to said person's cellular telephone, through the use of any automatic telephone dialing system and/or prerecorded or artificial voice, within the four years prior to the filling [sic] of the Complaint." PHEAA is one of the organizations approved by the U.S. Department of Education to service federal student loans. PHEAA contends that it moves to decertify the proposed class because the Plaintiff cannot satisfy any of the four requirements of Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, nor can Plaintiff satisfy one of the requirements of Rule 23(b). In this putative TCPA class action, Plaintiff Neil Silver claims PHEAA called his cell phone multiple times both with an Automated Telephone Dialing System ("ATDS") and with a recorded voice, without his consent. However, discovery thus far in the case demonstrates that the Plaintiff has no evidence that PHEAA dialed him with an ATDS or a recorded voice, and in fact the Plaintiff consented to any such contacts in any event, the Defendant asserts. More importantly for purposes of the instant motion, PHEAA says it can conclusively demonstrate that its consumer communication processes painstakingly confirm the consent of borrowers to be contacted by an auto dialer or recorded voice before any such contact is initiated. The Court will commence a hearing on December 4, 2019, at 9:00 a.m., to consider the Motion.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 324 S. Beverly Drive, Suite 725 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (877) 206-4741 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com - and - Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. Matthew M. Loker, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: ak@kazlg.com ml@kazlg.com - and - Joshua B. Swigart, Esq. HYDE & SWIGART 2221 Camino Del Rio, Suite 101 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (619) 233-7770 Facsimile: (619) 297-1022 E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com Defendant PENNSYLVANIA HIGHER EDUCATION ASSISTANCE AGENCY, DBA FEDLOAN SERVICING is represented by: Donald E. Bradley, Esq. MUSICK, PEELER & GARRETT LLP 650 Town Center Drive, Suite 1200 Costa Mesa, CA 92626-1925 Telephone: (714) 668-2400 Facsimile: (714) 668-2490 E-mail: d.bradley@musickpeeler.com FENSTER-MARTENS: Metro Cardiovascular Sues over Fax Ads ------------------------------------------------------- METRO CARDIOVASCULAR CONSULTANTS, LTD., individually and as the representatives of a class of similarly situated persons and entities, the Plaintiff, vs. FENSTER-MARTENS HOLDING COMPANY, ENTERPRISE MEDICAL RECRUITING and KEN WARSHAW; the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-06295 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 20, 2019), contends that the Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise, in part, by sending unsolicited facsimile advertisement, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. On March 12, 2019, Defendants sent or caused to be sent an unsolicited facsimile advertisement to Plaintiff's Facsimile Number. The Plaintiff did not consent to, request or otherwise solicit the Facsimile, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: James C. Vlahakis, Esq. SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD 2500 South Highland Avenue #200 Lombard, IL 60148 Telephone: (630) 581-5456 E-mail: jvlahakis@sulaimanlaw.com FIELDWORK INC: Johnson Sues Over Unlawful Use of Biometric Data --------------------------------------------------------------- JANICE JOHNSON, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FIELDWORK, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2019CH11092 (Ill. Cir., Cook Cty., Sept. 25, 2019), seeks to redress and curtail the Defendant's unlawful collection, use, storage, and disclosure of the Plaintiff's sensitive and proprietary biometric data, in violation of the Biometric Information Privacy Act. When the Defendant hires an employee, including the Plaintiff, he or she is enrolled in its employee databases using a scan of his or her fingerprint. The Defendant uses the employee databases to monitor the time worked by its employees. Unlike ID badges or time cards--which can be changed or replaced if stolen or compromised--fingerprints are unique, permanent biometric identifiers associated with each employee. The Plaintiff contends this exposes the Defendant's employees to serious and irreversible privacy risks. Notwithstanding the clear and unequivocal requirements of the law, the Defendant has disregarded the Plaintiff's and other similarly-situated employees' statutorily protected privacy rights and unlawfully collected, stored, disseminated, and used Plaintiff's and other similarly-situated employees' biometric data, in violation of BIPA, the Plaintiff asserts. The Defendant improperly discloses the Plaintiff's and other similarly-situated employees' fingerprint data to other, currently unknown, third parties, including third parties that host biometric data in their data center(s). The Defendant lacks retention schedules and guidelines for permanently destroying the Plaintiff's and other similarly-situated employees' biometric data and has not and will not destroy their biometric data as required by BIPA, says the complaint. Plaintiff Janice Johnson is a natural person and a resident of the State of Illinois. Fieldwork is a market research firm headquartered in Chicago, Illinois that operates focus group facilities within Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan F. Stephan, Esq. Teresa M. Becvar, Esq. STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP 100 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 2150 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 233-1550 Facsimile: (312) 233-1560 E-mail: rstephan@stephanzouras.com tbecvar@stephanzouras.com FLORIDA: Suit vs. Law Enforcement Dept. Moved to N.D. Fla. ----------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled as JOHN DOES No. 1-69 on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, the Petitioner, vs. RICK SWEARINGEN, Commissioner of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, in official capacity, the Defendant, Case No. 6:18-cv-01731, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida (Tallahassee) on Sept. 20, 2019. The Northern District of Florida Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:19-cv-00467-RH-MJF to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Robert L Hinkle. The Plaintiffs seek to permanently enjoin the Defendants from enforcement of Florida's Sexual Offender Registration and Notification Act.[BN] The Petitioner is represented by: Shon J. Douctre, Esq. PRIVATE COUNSEL, LLC 733 W Colonial Dr Orlando, FL 32804 Telephone: (407) 849-2949 Facsimile: (407) 849-2951 E-mail: sdouctre@gmail.com - and - Terence Estes-Hightower, Esq. ESTES-HIGHTOWER, PLLC 16770 Imperial Valley Dr., Suite 235 Houston, TX 77060 Telephone: (214) 334-2260 Facsimile: (832) 916-2410 E-mail: teri.ehpllc@gmail.com Attorneys for the Defendant are: Karen Ann Brodeen, Esq. OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL-TALLAHASSEE FL 400 S Monroe St. Tallahassee, FL 32399 Telephone: (850) 414-3665 Facsimile: (850) 488-4872 E-mail: karen.brodeen@myfloridalegal.com GALVESTON COUNTY, TX: Judges Appeal Decision in Booth Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Defendants Lonnie Cox, Anne B. Darring, John Ellisor, Patricia Grady, Kerry Neves and Jared Robinson filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Aaron Booth v. Galveston County, et al., Case No. 3:18-CV-104, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Galveston. The Appellants are Judicial District Court Judges in Galveston County. The appellate case is captioned as Aaron Booth v. Galveston County, et al., Case No. 19-40785, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Galveston County also filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the lawsuit. That appellate case is styled Aaron Booth v. Galveston County, Case No. 19-90009. The lawsuit concerns Galveston County's pretrial detention system. Mr. Booth was arrested and charged with felony drug possession in Galveston County in April 2018. After his arrest, Booth claims his bail was set at $20,000 in accordance with the County's standard operating procedures. Mr. Booth was dissatisfied with this bail determination because he believed that the County's standard operating procedure resulted in arrestees being routinely detained before trial solely due to their inability to pay bail in violation of the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the United States Constitution.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellee AARON BOOTH, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, is represented by: Andrew David Bergman, Esq. Christopher Odell, Esq. Hannah DeMarco Sibiski, Esq. ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER, L.L.P. 700 Louisiana Street Houston, TX 77002-2755 Telephone: (713) 576-2430 E-mail: andrew.bergman@arnoldporter.com christopher.odell@arnoldporter.com hannah.sibiski@arnoldporter.com - and - Brandon Buskey, Esq. Twyla Jeanette Carter, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION 125 Broad Street New York, NY 10004-2400 Telephone: (212) 284-7364 E-mail: bbuskey@aclu.org tcarter@aclu.org - and - Andre Segura, Esq. Trisha Trigilio, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF TEXAS 5225 Katy Freeway Houston, TX 77007 Telephone: (713) 942-8146 E-mail: asegura@aclu.org ttrigilio@aclutx.org The Defendants-Appellants are represented by: Adam Arthur Biggs, Esq. OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 300 W. 15th Street William P. Clements Building Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (512) 463-2120 E-mail: adam.biggs@oag.texas.gov - and - Francesca Andrea Di Troia, Esq. Dominique G. Stafford, Esq. Enrique Manuel Varela, Esq. OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL P.O. Box 12548 Austin, TX 78711-2548 Telephone: (512) 475-2468 E-mail: enrique.varela@oag.texas.gov GENERAL MOTORS: Broadnax Sues over Defective 2011 Chevrolet Cruze ----------------------------------------------------------------- ANGELIQUE BROADNAX, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GENERAL MOTORS, LLC; and DOES 1 THROUGH 10, Inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV32036 (Cal. Super., Sept. 10, 2019) contends that the Defendants' 2011 Chevrolet Cruze contained or developed defects, including but not limited to, cooling system defects; engine defects; defects causing the illumination of the check engine light ("CEL"); defects causing the RPMs to race, surge, and/or rev on acceleration; defect causing storage of Fault Code P0171; defects causing fuel trim lean; defect causing Fault Code P0496; defects requiring the performance of TSB #03-06-04-030h; defects causing the purge valve to be stuck open; defects requiring replacement of the purge valve; defects causing a muffled rattle noise from the right side on start-up; defects causing loss of coolant; defects causing water pump leak(s); defects causing oil to accumulate at the back of the engine around the bellhousing; defects causing cooling system leaks; defects causing overheating; defects requiring replacement of water pump; defects causing Vehicle's hesitation on start up; defects causing engine shut down when coming to a stop; defects causing stalling; defects causing engine fluid leaks; defects causing the Vehicle to not turn over, crank, and/or start; defects causing oil leak(s); and/or any other defects enumerated in the Vehicle's repair history. The defects substantially impair the use, value, or safety of the Vehicle. General Motors LLC was incorporated in 2009 and is based in Wilmington, Delaware. General Motors LLC operates as a subsidiary of General Motors Company. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tionna Dolin, Esq. STRATEGIC LEGAL PRACTICES A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 1840 Century Park East, Suite 430 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 929-4900 Facsimile: (310) 943-3838 E-mail: tdolin@slpattomey.com GENOMIC HEALTH: Faces Rice Suit Over Merger With Exact Sciences --------------------------------------------------------------- JOSEPH RICE, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. GENOMIC HEALTH, INC., KIMBERLY J. POPOVITS, JULIAN C. BAKER, GINGER L. GRAHAM, DR. HENRY J. FUCHS, DR. FELIX J. BAKER, GEOFFREY M. PARKER, and DR. FRED E. COHN, Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-05929 (N.D. Cal., Sept. 23, 2019), is brought as a class action on behalf of public holders of the common stock of Genomic Health, Inc. against the Defendants for their violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, in connection with the proposed merger between Genomic and Exact Sciences Corporation. On July 28, 2019, the Board of Directors caused the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger, pursuant to which the Company's shareholders stand to receive (a) $27.50 in cash, without interest, plus (b) a fraction of a share of Exact Sciences common stock equal to the quotient obtained by dividing $44.50 by the average of the volume weighted average prices per share of Exact Sciences common stock on The Nasdaq Stock Market on each of the 15 consecutive trading days ending immediately prior to the closing of the merger, for each share of Genomic stock they own (the "Merger Consideration"). If the Exact Sciences stock price is equal to or less than $98.79 or equal to or greater than $120.75, a two-way collar mechanism will apply, pursuant to which (i) if the Exact Sciences stock price is equal to or greater than $120.75, the exchange ratio will be fixed at 0.36854 and (ii) if the Exact Sciences stock price is equal to or less than $98.79, the exchange ratio will be fixed at 0.45043. Upon completion of the merger, Genomic shareholders will own approximately 8.7% to 10.4% and Exact Science shareholders will own approximately 89.6% to 91.3% of the combined company. On August 30, 2019, in order to convince Genomic 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. While touting the fairness of the Merger Consideration to the Company's shareholders in the S-4, the 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 the Defendants in recommending that Genomic shareholders vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction; and (ii) the summary of certain valuation analyses conducted by Genomic's financial advisor, Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC in support of its opinion that the Merger Consideration is fair to shareholders, on which the Board relied. 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, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a holder of Genomic common stock. Genomic is a global provider of genomic based diagnostic tests that address both the overtreatment and optimal treatment of early and late stage cancer.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin Heikali, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 10866 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1470 Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (424) 256-2884 Facsimile: (424) 256-2885 E-mail: bheikali@faruqilaw.com GILDAN APPAREL: Traynor ADA Suit Underway in New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gildan Apparel USA Inc. The case is captioned as Yaseen Traynor, the Plaintiff, vs. Gildan Apparel USA Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-06939-KPF (S.D.N.Y., July 25, 2019). The suit alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Katherine Polk Failla. Defendant's time to answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint has been extended to October 16, 2019, according to a ruling by Judge Failla. Judge Failla also has directed the counsel for all parties to appear for an initial pretrial conference with the Court on November 14, 2019, at 4:00 p.m., in Courtroom 618 of the Thurgood Marshall Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, New York, New York. Gildan Activewear Inc. is a Canadian manufacturer of branded clothing.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: David Paul Force, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 E-mail: dforce@steinsakslegal.com GIORGIO ARMANI: Website not Accessible to Blind, Farr Says ---------------------------------------------------------- Judge Andre Birotte, Jr. has approved a Stipulation extending to October 28, 2019, Giorgio Armani Corporation's time to answer the complaint captioned as, JAMES FARR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. GIORGIO ARMANI CORPORATION., a New York corporation; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-06446-AB-SS (C.D. Cal., July 25, 2019). The lawsuit alleges that the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website at https://www.armani.com/us/armanicom to be fully and equally accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. 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. The Defendants' denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of Plaintiffs' rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act and California's Unruh Civil Rights Act. The 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, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff and Proposed Class are: Bobby Saadian, Esq. Thiago Coelho, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM 3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 381-9988 Facsimile: (213) 381-9989 HAYT HAYT: Court Certifies Class in Barenbaum FDCPA Suit -------------------------------------------------------- In the case, DANIEL BARENBAUM, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. HAYT, HAYT & LANDAU, LLC, Defendant, Civil Action No. 18-4120 (E.D. Pa.), Judge Berle M. Schiller of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (i) denied HHL's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; (ii) granted Barenbaum's motion for summary judgment with respect to Count II of the Complaint; (iii) granted HHL's motion for summary judgment with respect to Counts I and III; and (iv) granted Barenbaum's motion for class certification. In 2014, Barenbaum failed to make payments on his Credit One credit card, and after several months, Credit One charged off his account with a balance of $1,011.39. Credit One then sold the charged off account to Sherman Originator III, LLC; Sherman, in turn, sold the account to Midland Funding, LLC. Midland retained the law firm Hayt, Hayt, & Landau (HHL) to help collect Barenbaum's debt. HHL obtained a default judgment against Barenbaum on behalf of Midland in the Court of Common Pleas in Bucks County, Pennsylvania. Seeking to recover the judgment, HHL mailed post-judgment interrogatories to Barenbaum in June 2016 which included an offer to resolve the judgment through installment payments in lieu of responding to the questions. In June 2018, after Barenbaum failed to respond to the written discovery request, HHL sent Barenbaum a "Notice of Deposition in Aid of Execution." At the top of the Notice was the name and address of the "Law Offices of Hayt, Hayt, & Landau, LLC" and the caption "Midland Funding LLC, Plaintiff vs. Daniel Barenbaum, Defendant(s)." The Notice directed Barenbaum to appear and testify at a deposition on July 6, 2018 at the Bucks County Bar Association and to produce documents to assist in the discovery of his income, assets, and property that could satisfy Midland's judgment. Before the Court were several motions: HHL's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; cross-motions for summary judgment; and Daniel Barenbaum's motion for class certification. Judge Schiller finds that HHL's argument in its Motion to Dismiss overlooks the fact that Barenbaum has brought a class action claim. While the FDCPA limits statutory damages available in individual actions to $1,000, a plaintiff asserting claims on behalf of a class has the opportunity for greater financial recovery than he would otherwise obtain in an individual action. That is because the FDCPA specifically permits a named class plaintiff to recover not only the statutory damages available to him in an individual action but also, a pro-rata share of the common fund that is generated for the benefit of the class. Because Barenbaum still has the prospect of recovering additional funds as a named class Plaintiff, he has not reached his maximum recovery and thus, still has a personal stake in the outcome of the case. Barenbaum's claims are not moot and thus, Judge Schiller denies HHL's Motion to Dismiss. Turning to the cross-motions for summary judgment, Barenbaum claimed that HHL has violated several provisions of the FDCPA: first 15 U.S.C. Section 1692d, which prohibits debt collectors from engaging in any conduct the natural consequence of which is to harass, oppress, or abuse any person in connection with the collection of a debt; second Section 1692e, which prohibits debt collectors from using false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt; and finally Section 1692f, which provides that debt collectors may not use unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect any debt. Both Barenbaum and HHL have now moved for summary judgment. Judge Schiller finds that the natural consequence of HHL's conduct was not to harass, oppress, or annoy; and thus summary judgment will be granted in favor of HHL on the Section 1692d claim. Similarly, Barenbaum failed to provide additional evidence of HHL's conduct in violation of the FDCPA beyond that which supports his claim under Section 1692e. As a result, the Judge will grant summary judgment to HHL on Barenbaum's Section 1692f claim. However, he will grant summary judgment in favor of Barenbaum on his Section 1692e claim. Viewed from the perspective of the least sophisticated debtor, HHL's Notice was false, deceptive, and misleading. Finally, examining the Motion for Class Certification, Barenbaum sought to certify a class consisting of (1) all consumers residing in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (2) who received a 'Notice of Deposition In Aid Of Execution' from the Defendant (3) on an obligation owed or allegedly owed to Midland Funding, LLC, (4) during the time period of Sept. 25, 2017 to Sept. 24, 2018, and (5) who thereafter appeared as directed at the date, time and location noticed for the Deposition. As for the Rule 23(a) requirements, the Judge finds that (i) a class consisting of 328 individuals is numerous enough to make joinder of all members impracticable; (ii) the unique defenses HHL posits do not suggest Barenbaum's individual circumstances or operative legal theories are atypical of the proposed class; (iii) Barenbaum is an adequate class representative; and (iv) Barenbaum's attorneys have the experience and qualifications to handle the litigation. The Judge further finds that ascertainability and predominance Rule 23(b)(3) Requirements are met. As to superiority requirement, the Judge finds that the class action is the superior means by which to adjudicate the controversy. First, the class members do not have a significant interest in individually controlling the prosecution of separate actions. Second, the Court is not aware of any similar pending litigation. Third, concentrating the litigation in a class action is desirable. Finally, the case presents no likely difficulties in managing a class action. For these reasons, Judge Schiller denies HHL's motion to dismiss. He grants Barenbaum's motion for summary judgment with respect to Count II of the Complaint, alleging that HHL violated 15 U.S.C. Section 1692e, and denied with respect to Counts I and III alleging HHL violated 15 U.S.C. Section 1692d and Section 1692f respectively. The Judge grants HHL's motion for summary judgment with respect to Counts I and III of the Complaint and denied with respect to Count II. Finally, he grantes Barenbaum's motion for class certification. A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 10, 2019 Memorandum is available at https://is.gd/1Atwc8 from Leagle.com. DANIEL BARENBAUM, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff, represented by ARI H. MARCUS -- Ari@MarcusZelman.com -- MARCUS & ZELMAN LLC & YITZCHAK ZELMAN -- Yzelman@MarcusZelman.com -- MARCUS ZELMAN LLC. HAYT, HAYT & LANDAU, LLC, Defendant, represented by SHANNON P. MILLER -- smiller@MauriceWutscher.com -- Maurice Wutscher LLP. HOME DEPOT: Freeman Illegal Credit Check Row Removed to M.D. Fla. ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned Tina Freeman, on behalf of herself and all similarly-situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. Home Depot USA, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 93731586, filed in the 13th Judicial Circuit Hillsborough on August 27, 2019, was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida under Case No. 19-cv-02170. Freeman seeks redress for violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act of 1970, claiming that Home Depot secured a consumer report and/or background check without her consent. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Brandon J. Hill, Esq. WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, PA 1110 N Florida Ave., Ste. 300 Tampa, FL 33602-3343 Tel: (813) 224-0431 Fax: (813) 229-8712 Email: bhill@wfclaw.com Home Depot is represented by: Allison Wiggins, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 111 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1750 Orlando, FL 32801 Tel: (407) 393-2948 Email: awiggins@littler.com INTERMOUNTAIN HEALTHCARE: Smith Sues Over Unfair Refund Policies ---------------------------------------------------------------- LINDA SMITH, as appointed Personal Representative for JANE DOE, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INTERMOUNTAIN HEALTHCARE, INC. and SELECTHEALTH, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-00670-EJF (D. Utah, Sept. 23, 2019), is seeking relief under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 on behalf of the Plaintiff's daughter and all other similarly situated individuals, who were subjected to the Defendants' discriminatory reimbursement policies for covered mental health services. Up until April 18, 2019, when she tragically took her own life, the Plaintiff's daughter, Jane Doe, suffered from chronic and severe mental illnesses. From December 30, 2016, through April 8, 2017, Jane was psychiatrically hospitalized at the Menninger Clinic Professionals in Crisis Unit due to severe mental illnesses. Thereafter, Jane received residential mental health treatment at The Austen Riggs Center from April 10, 2017, through August 7, 2017, and from September 13, 2017, through April 27, 2018. Up until April 15, 2017, Jane worked for Defendant Intermountain Healthcare. Jane was insured under the Intermountain Life and Health Benefit Plan, which Intermountain Healthcare, in its capacity as Plan Sponsor, established for its employees and the employees of its affiliates, including Defendant SelectHealth, Inc. Jane remained covered by the Plan through July 31, 2018. Among the various coverage options available, Jane chose the Select Med Plus Medical Plan. The Plan expressly covers mental health treatment for Jane's psychiatric conditions. The Plan also expressly covers residential mental health treatment rendered by non- participating (also referred to as "out-of-network") facilities, both in- and outside of Utah. Both the Menninger Clinic and Austen Riggs are non-participating facilities. The Plan is a non-grandfathered, large-group, self-funded health plan governed by the ERISA and the Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008. The Federal Parity Act also amended ERISA to require health plans to disclose, upon request, the treatment limitations imposed on mental health benefits and to analyze their compliance with the parity provision. The Defendants failed to update their own out-of-network fee schedule to account for increases in their in-network rates, such that they systematically underpaid out-of-network mental health services. The Defendants only admitted to this systematic failure after Jane discovered it during the course of her internal appeals of the Defendants' under-reimbursements. SelectHealth interpreted the Plan definition of "Allowed Amount" for claims as permitting it to set reimbursement rates for out-of-network mental health services by "generally" matching them to "target" rates paid for in-network mental health services. However, after granting itself broad discretion in setting reimbursement rates, SelectHealth proceeded to exercise that self-granted discretion unreasonably, by reimbursing out-of-network, inpatient mental health services policy far less than in-network rates for those same services. In setting reimbursement rates, the Defendants applied discriminatory methodologies for mental health benefits that were incomparable to and more stringent than those for medical/surgical benefits, the Plaintiff contends. Thus, the Defendants reimbursed inpatient mental health services, which are provided at an acute level of care, at the same rate they paid for skilled nursing facilities, an intermediate level of care for medical/surgical services, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is the court-appointed Personal Representative of the late Jane Doe, who tragically took her own life on April 18, 2019. Intermountain Healthcare is the largest private employer in Utah.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew W. Stavros, Esq. Austin B. Egan, Esq. STAVROS LAW P.C. 8915 South 700 East, Suite 202 Sandy, UT 84070 Telephone: 801.758.7604 Facsimile: 801.893.3573 E-mail: andy@stavroslaw.com austin@stavroslaw.com - and - Meiram Bendat, Esq. PSYCH-APPEAL, INC. 8560 West Sunset Boulevard, Suite 500 West Hollywood, CA 90069 Telephone: (310) 598-3690 Facsimile: (888) 975-1957 E-mail: mbendat@psych-appeal.com - and - D. Brian Hufford, Esq. Jason S. Cowart, Esq. ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP 485 Madison Avenue, 10th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 704-9600 Facsimile: (212) 704-4256 E-mail: dbhufford@zuckerman.com jcowart@zuckerman.com - and - Andrew N. Goldfarb, Esq. ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP 1800 M Street, NW, Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 778-1800 Facsimile: (202) 822-8106 E-mail: agoldfarb@zuckerman.com JUUL LABS: Misrepresents Nicotine Content, C.B. Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- C.B. individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC.; ALTRIA GROUP, INC; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-00600-JWD-EWD (M.D. La., Sept. 11, 2019) contends that despite making numerous revisions to its packaging since 2015, the Defendants did not add nicotine warnings until forced to do so in August of 2018. The original JUUL product labels had a California Proposition 65 warning indicating that the product contains a substance known to cause cancer, and a warning to keep JUULpods away from children and pets, but contained no warnings specifically about the known effects, or unknown long-term effects, of nicotine or vaping/inhaling nicotine salts. Many of the Defendants' advertisements, particularly prior to November 2017, also lacked a nicotine warning. Furthermore, the Defendants misrepresent the nicotine content of JUULpods by representing it as 5% strength when the JUUL products contain more by volume. The Defendants's "5% strength" statement misrepresents the most material feature of its product -- the nicotine content -- and has misled consumers to their detriment. If the Defendants did not know when it released JUULpods in 2015 that its "5% strength" representation was misleading, it quickly learned that there was widespread confusion about the pods' nicotine content. The Defendants did nothing to stop or correct this confusion about the nicotine content of its JUULpods. The Defendants "5% strength" statement is also misleading because JUULpods routinely contain more than even the 59mg/mL the Defendant claims on its website. At least two independent studies testing multiple varieties of JUULpods have found significantly higher concentrations of nicotine than the Defendants' label represents. JUUL Labs, Inc. manufactures electronic cigarettes. The Company offers products such as device kits, JUULpods, and accessories in different flavors. JUUL Labs serves customers in the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy Dylan Moore, Esq. MOORE & OGLETREE, PLLC 1640 Lelia Drive, Ste. 105 Jackson, MS 39216 Telephone: (601) 345-2900 Facsimile: (601) 300-3131 E-mail: tmoore@mooreandogletree.com JUUL LABS: N.C. Sues over Sale of Electronic Vaping Devices ----------------------------------------------------------- N.C., a Minor, by his Father and Natural Guardian Thomas Carcone, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. JUUL LABS, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-08779-JMF (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 23, 2019), alleges that JUUL Labs intended that its concealment and/or omission of the material facts concerning the harmful and dangerous nature of its products be relied on so that Plaintiff and the members of the proposed class and other consumers would buy JUUL Labs' products. Through its marketing and promotional efforts, including a strong social media presence on platforms popular with young people, JUUL vaping devices and JUULpods were N.C.'s first real and consistent exposure to nicotine. N.C. understood from JUUL Labs' marketing and promotional efforts that the JUULpods he was using would not be harmful to his health and were not addictive. At no time has he understood or appreciated the amount of nicotine he was taking in. And he is not alone: "Two-thirds of JUUL users ages 15 through 24 "do not know that JUUL always contains nicotine." Beginning at the age of 15, N.C. began "JUULing." JUULing refers to the use of specific electronic vaping devices made by Defendant JUUL Labs. The user loads a "JUULpod," filled with a flavored liquid containing nicotine and other chemicals, into the JUUL vaping device. Powered by a battery that is charged through a USB port, the JUUL vaping device heats the liquid, converting the liquid into a vapor that the user breathes in through the mouth like someone smoking a cigarette. The Surgeon General and other governmental and health authorities have "singled out" JUUL Labs and its products for fueling the "epidemic" of "youth vaping," they being largely responsible for driving the "largest ever recorded [increase in substance abuse] in the past 43 years for any adolescent substance use outcome in the U.S." As a direct and proximate result of JUUL Labs' conduct, N.C. (i) is addicted to nicotine; (ii) has been exposed to toxic chemicals like formaldehyde and propylene glycol, among others; (iii) has experienced adverse physiological, emotional, and mental changes; and (iv) has sustained economic harm that would not have resulted had JUUL Labs informed him of the consequences of using its products. JUUL Labs,the lawsuiyt says. Since its launch in 2015, JUUL Labs has become the dominant manufacturer in the electronic nicotine delivery system market in the United States. In 2018, JUUL Labs amassed more than $1 billion in revenue, up 700% from 2017. Also in late 2018, leading U.S. cigarette manufacturer Altria bought a 35% stake in JUUL Labs for $12.8 billion.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Andrew D. Schlichter, Esq. Jerome J. Schlichter, Esq. Kristine K. Kraft, Esq. Scott H. Morgan, Esq. SCHLICHTER, BOGARD & DENTON, LLP 100 South 4th Street, Suite 1200 St. Louis, MO 63012 Telephone: (314) 621-6115 Facsimile: (314) 621-6151 E-mail: aschlichter@uselaws.com jschlichter@uselaws.com kkraft@uselaws.com smorgan@uselaws.com KEYSTONE INDUSTRIAL: Redmond Hits Unlawful Use of Biometric Data ---------------------------------------------------------------- BEN REDMOND, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff, v. KEYSTONE INDUSTRIAL SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2019CH11150 (Circuit Ct. Cook Cty., Ill., Sept. 26, 2019) is a Class Action Complaint individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated against Defendant to stop Defendant's unlawful collection, use, storage, and disclosure of Plaintiff's and the proposed Class's sensitive, private, and personal biometric data. Unlike ID badges or time cards, which can be changed or replaced if stolen or compromised , biometrics are unique, permanent biometric identifiers associated with each employee. This exposes Defendant's employees, including Plaintiff, to serious and irreversible privacy risks. Recognizing the need to protect its citizens from situations like these, Illinois enacted the Biometric Information Privacy Act, specifically to regulate companies that collect and store Illinois citizens' biometrics. Notwithstanding the clear and unequivocal requirements of the law, Defendant disregards employees' statutorily protected privacy rights and unlawfully collects, stores, and uses employees' biometric data in violation of BIPA, asserts the complaint. Plaintiff and the Class members may be aggrieved because Defendant may have improperly disclosed employees' biometrics to third-party vendors in violation of BIPA. Plaintiff and the putative Class are aggrieved by Defendant's failure to destroy their biometric data when the initial purpose for collecting or obtaining such data has been satisfied or within three years of employees' last interactions with the company, says the complaint. Plaintiff worked for Defendant in Illinois. Keystone Industrial Services, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with places of business in Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandon M. Wise, Esq. Paul A. Lesko, Esq. PEIFFER WOLFCARR & KANE, APLC 818 Lafayette Ave., Floor 2 St. Louis, MO 63104 Phone: 314-833-4825 Email: bwise@pwcklegal.com plesko@pwcklegal.com KEYSTONE MANAGEMENT: Fails to Pay Wages, Domeich et al. Allege -------------------------------------------------------------- LUIS DOMENICH, and VICTOR VALVERDE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KEYSTONE MANAGEMENT, INC.; and BELMONT VENTURES, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-08353 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 9, 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 Domenich was employed by the Defendants as building superintendent. The Plaintiff Valverde was employed as handyman. Keystone Management, Inc. is engaged in the business of renting, buying, selling and appraising real estate. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter H. Cooper, Esq. CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC 10 Grand Central, 155 East 44th Street-6th Floor Telephone: (212) 209-3933 Facsimile: (212) 209-7102 E-mail: pcooper@jcpclaw.com KIDD COFFEE: Ex-Employees Seek to Recover OT Wages & Withheld Tips ------------------------------------------------------------------ JEANNE SANBORN, KATIE BARNETT, AND BRITTANY MORTON, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated v. THE KIDD COFFEE COMPANY, LTD, and KIDD COFFEE CINCINNATI LLC and KIDD COFFEE, LTD, and SMOOTH KIDD COFFEE LLC and LANE KIDD, Case No. 1:19-cv-00792-SJD (S.D. Ohio, Sept. 17, 2019), seeks to recover overtime compensation and unlawfully withheld tips pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs are former employees of the Defendants. Plaintiff Jeanne Sanborn also brings an individual action to recover damages for her wrongful termination by the Defendants, which termination was in retaliation for her opposition to their illegal pay practices. The Kidd Coffee Company, LTD, Kidd Coffee Cincinnati LLC, Kidd Coffee, LTD, and Smooth Kidd Coffee LLC are Ohio limited liability companies. Lane Kidd is the owner and manager of the Kidd Coffee Defendants. The Defendants operate coffee shops located in several marquee downtown office buildings in Cincinnati, Ohio.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Stephen E. Imm, Esq. Matthew S. Okiishi, Esq. FINNEY LAW FIRM, LLC 4270 Ivy Pointe Blvd., Suite 225 Cincinnati, OH 45245 Telephone: (513) 943-6650 Facsimile: (513) 943-6669 E-mail: stephen@finneylawfirm.com matt@finneylawfirm.com KOHLBERG VENTURES: Asks S.C. to Dismiss Wojciechowski Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Defendant Kohlberg Ventures, LLC, filed with the Supreme Court of United States a petition for a writ of certiorari in the matter styled KOHLBERG VENTURES, LLC, Petitioner v. PETER WOJCIECHOWSKI, on behalf of himself and purported on behalf of all others similarly situated (putative class not certified), Respondent, Case No. 19-355. Response is due on October 17, 2019. The question presented is: Under federal rules of res judicata, when a lawsuit is dismissed with prejudice by agreement, should a term of the agreement that purports to allow the plaintiff to file a subsequent lawsuit against non-parties be sufficient, standing alone and without express court authorization, to permit the plaintiff to bring the same settled and dismissed claim in a separate lawsuit against new defendants based on the liability theory that all defendants had acted as a "single employer," or otherwise acted as a "single enterprise"? Kohlberg prays for a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Kohlberg contends that the Supreme Court should reverse the Ninth Circuit and affirm the District Court's dismissal of the lawsuit based on res judicata. The appellate case in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit was styled as Wojciechowski v. Kohlberg Ventures, LLC, No. 17-15966, . The District Court case was titled Wojciechowski v. Kohlberg Ventures, LLC, Case No. 16-cv-06775, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The Order granting motion to dismiss was entered on April 11, 2017. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Judge Ronald M. Gould of the Ninth Circuit reversed the District Court's dismissal of the case. Opinion reversing dismissal was entered on May 8, 2019. The Appeals Court considered whether a prior action brought by Plaintiff-Appellant Wojciechowski against nonparties to the case bars the action against Defendant-Appellee Kohlberg, under the doctrine of claim preclusion. Wojciechowski was formerly employed by ClearEdge Power, LLC. He was terminated without notice. Six days later, ClearEdge Power, LLC -- along with its owner, ClearEdge Power, Inc. -- filed for bankruptcy. Mr. Wojciechowski filed an adversary class action against the ClearEdge entities in the bankruptcy court. He alleged that the two ClearEdge entities were a "single employer" under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, and that the entities violated that act when they fired him and other employees without 60 days' advance notice. Wojciechowski settled that action. Per the settlement agreement, the class released all claims it had against "(i) Defendants ClearEdge, Power, Inc. and ClearEdge Power, LLC and their respective estates," and "(ii) each of the Defendants' current and former shareholders, officers, directors, employees, accountants, attorneys, representatives and other agents, and all of their respective predecessors, successors and assigns, excluding any third parties which may or may not be affiliated with Defendants ClearEdge Power, Inc. and ClearEdge Power LLC, including, but not limited to Kohlberg Ventures, LLC." Kohlberg was not involved in the bankruptcy proceedings or in settlement negotiations. The bankruptcy court approved the settlement agreement and closed the case soon after. The ClearEdge estates paid a portion of the class members' WARN Act wages and benefits. Mr. Wojciechowski then filed the putative class action. He alleged that Kohlberg, as a "single employer" with the ClearEdge entities, violated the WARN Act when it fired him without advance notice. He sought an award for the balance of the Class' WARN Act wages and benefits, that is, what the class is owed under the Act less the amount received from the ClearEdge estates. Kohlberg moved to dismiss Mr. Wojciechowski's claim on the basis of claim preclusion. The district court granted Kohlberg's motion. Relevant in the appeal, the district court held that Kohlberg could not be bound by the settlement agreement--and the provision preserving the class' claims against Kohlberg--because Kohlberg was not a party to the adversary proceeding and did not agree to allow Wojciechowski to split his claim.[BN] Defendant-Petitioner Kohlberg Ventures, LLC is represented by: George J. Tichy, II, Esq. Michael F. McCabe, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 333 Bush Street, 34th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 433-1940 E-mail: gtichy@littler.com mmccabe@littler.com - and - Daniel L. Thieme, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 600 University Street, Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-3300 E-mail: dthieme@littler.com LAMB WESTON: Bid for Judgment on Pleadings in Kennard Suit Denied ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ANGELA KENNARD, Plaintiff, v. LAMB WESTON HOLDINGS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-04665-YGR (N.D. Cal.), Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California denied the Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings. Under the putative class action, Kennard alleges that the Defendant unlawfully and unfairly packaged its Alexia brand sweet potato fries with sea salt product in opaque containers that contain more than 50% empty space. In January 2019, the Defendant moved to dismiss Kennard's Second Amended Complaint ("SAC"). The Court granted in part and denied in part the Motion to Dismiss, noting that the SAC was based on two theories of liability: (1) consumer deception, namely, that the Alexia product packages were misleading because consumers expected more sweet potato fries than were actually included, and (2) slack fill, namely that the Alexia product packaging was unlawful because it violated the California Fair Packaging and Labeling Act's ("CFPLA") regulation against nonfunctional slack fill, specifically Business & Professions Code section 12606.2. The Court analyzed the Plaintiff's claims based on both theories. Specifically: -- The Court dismissed the Plaintiff's claims with prejudice to the extent they were based on a consumer deception theory. -- The Court denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss to the extent the Plaintiff's claims were based on a nonfunctional slack fill theory of liability. The Defendant now asserted that it is entitled to judgment on the pleadings on the ground that the Plaintiff has not and cannot establish Article III or statutory standing on the remaining Unfair Competition Law (UCL) and Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) claims because the Second Amended Complaint's injury allegations rely on a consumer deception theory that this Court previously rejected. As an initial matter, Judge Rogers notes that the Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings is essentially a motion for reconsideration of the Court's order granting in part and denying in part its motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint, filed absent leave of Court. The Judge cautions the Defendant that appropriate procedures must be used to seek relief from the Court. Taking the allegations as true, the Judge holds that the Plaintiff spent money she otherwise would have saved but for the Defendant's act of including nonfunctional slack fill in its product packaging. Whether the Plaintiff actually suffered an economic loss as a result of the nonfunctional slack fill is a factual inquiry to be resolved at a later stage in the litigation. At this junction, however, the Plaintiff's allegations are sufficient to withstand defendant's motion, the Court opines. For the foregoing reasons, Judge Rogers denies the Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings. A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 10, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/FrUSH8 from Leagle.com. Angela Kennard, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Richard Hidehito Hikida, Esq., Pacific Trial Attorney, APC & Scott J. Ferrell -- sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com -- Pacific Trial Attorneys. Lamb Weston Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, represented by Amanda L. Groves -- agroves@winston.com -- Winston & Strawn LLP & Shawn R. Obi -- sobi@winston.com -- Winston Strawn LLP. MESHLOGISTICS INC: Underpays Forklift Operators, Escareno Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- BENJAMIN ESCARENO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MESHLOGISTICS, INC.; DECTON, INC.; and DOES 1 through 250, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV32274 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles, Sept. 11, 2019) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs The Plaintiff Escareno was employed by the Defendants as forklift operator. Meshlogistics, Inc. provides warehouse management services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary R. Carlin, Esq. Brent S. Buchsbaum, Esq. Laurel N. Haag, Esq. Claudette H. Villicana, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF CARLIN & BUCHSBAUM LLP 301 East Ocean Boulevard, Suite 1550 Long Beach, CA 90802 Telephone: (562) 432-8933 Facsimile: (562) 435-1656 E-mail: claudette@carlinbuchsbaum.com MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces Feist Suit in Eastern Dist. of Pennsylvania ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit Management, Inc. The case is captioned as LINDSEY FEIST INDIVIDUALLY, AND ON BEHALF ALL OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED CONSUMERS, the Plaintiff, vs. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-03266-JS (E.D. Pa., July 25, 2019). The suit alleges violation of Fair Debt Collection Act. The case is assigned to the Hon. JUDGE Juan R. Sanchez. Midland Credit was founded in 1953. The company's line of business includes extending credit to business enterprises for relatively short periods. Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Nicholas J. Linker, Esq. ZEMEL LAW LLC 1373 Broad St., Suite 203-C Clifton, NJ 07013 Telephone: (862) 227-3106 E-mail: nl@zemellawllc.com MIDLAND FUNDING: Can Compel Arbitration in Johnson FDCPA/AFDCA Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, LAURA K. CAMPBELL, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL A. JACOB, II; JACOB LAW GROUP, PLLC; JEFFERSON CAPITAL SYSTEMS, LLC, Defendants. JEANNETTE WELCH, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL A. JACOB, II; JACOB LAW GROUP, PLLC; MIDLAND FUNDING, LLC; MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC. Defendants. LILLIE BROWNLEE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL A. JACOB, II; JACOB LAW GROUP, PLLC; MIDLAND FUNDING, LLC; MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC. Defendants. BETTY JOHNSON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL A. JACOB, II; JACOB LAW GROUP, PLLC; MIDLAND FUNDING, LLC; MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC. Defendants, Consolidated Case Nos. 4:19-cv-179-JM, 5:19-cv-105, 4:19-cv-208, 4:19-cv-267 (E.D. Ark.), Judge James M. Moody, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Western Division, granted Midland's motion to compel arbitration and to strike class allegations of Plaintiff Betty Johnson. Plaintiff Johnson filed the action alleging that Defendants Mr. Jacob, Jacob Law Group, PLLC ("JLG"), Midland Funding and and Midland Credit Management ("MCM") attempted to collect consumer debts from her and the putative class members through standardized, form debt collection complaints filed in Arkansas state courts that fraudulently and falsely averred that Midland Funding holds in due course a claim pursuant to a defaulted Citibank N.A. credit card account. The Plaintiff asserts that Midland is not a holder in due course of Citibank accounts and that the representation violates the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), and the Arkansas Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (AFDCA). On July 30, 2014, Plaintiff Johnson opened a Citibank Sears credit card account with an account number ending in 876. In 2016, the card agreement governing the Plaintiff's account was amended and a copy was mailed to her. She failed to make the required payments on the Account and on Feb. 6, 2017, the account was charged-off. The Cardholder Agreement is governed by South Dakota law and contains arbitration provision. In April 2017, Midland Funding purchased the Account from Citibank as part of a portfolio of charged-off debts. Citibank sold and Midland acquired all rights title and interest of the Bank in and to the Account. The Defendants argue that the assignment of Citibank's right, title, and interest in the Account was expressly contemplated by the Cardholder Agreement. They argue the assignment included the assignment of the right to arbitration. Berfore the Court is the motion to compel arbitration and to strike class allegations of Johnson filed on behalf of Midland. JLG joined the motion and filed a supporting brief. The Plaintiff does not claim to have rejected the Arbitration Provision. However, she argues that the 2016 Cardholder Agreement is more narrowly written than the 2012 Cardholder Agreement and specifically excludes the references to claims made by predecessors, successors or assignees in the definition of claims subject to arbitration. The Plaintiff contends that the omission of assignees, successors and their agents from the arbitration provision precludes those persons from enforcing the arbitration agreement. Relying in large part on Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela, the Plaintiff argues that the right to enforce the arbitration provision was not assigned to Midland and neither Midland or JLG have the right to require arbitration. In Lamps Plus, the Supreme Court held that the FAA bars a court order compelling class arbitration if the arbitration agreement is ambiguous about the availability of class arbitration Emphasizing the difference between class wide arbitration and individual arbitration the Court concluded that the statute requires more than ambiguity to ensure that the parties "actually agreed to arbitrate on a classwide basis." Judge Moody disagrees, as argued by Plaintiff, that the holding in Lamps Plus precludes the assignment of the agreement to arbitrate in the case. The Court states that Citibank sold and transferred its rights under the agreement to Midland Funding, and that included the right to arbitration. Furthermore, Citibank sold and Midland Funding bought all right, title and interest of the Bank in and to the Account. Because Citibank sold all of its rights under the agreement to Midland, this caused Midland to substitute for Citibank in the arbitration provision, accordingly, the omission of successors or assigns in the 2016 cardholder agreement is not a legal bar to Midland's enforcement of the arbitration provision, the Court opines. JLG may also compel arbitration, the Judge confers. Midland Funding, its affiliate, MCM and JLG as an agent of Midland in the collection of the debt are all entitled to enforce the terms of the Arbitration Provision. These Defendants' right to enforce the terms of the Arbitration Provision includes the right to enforce the Class Action prohibition. For these reasons, Judge Moody granted the Defendants' motion to compel arbitration and to strike the Plaintiff's class allegations. The Court will administratively terminate Plaintiff Johnson's cause of action in the consolidated case and in her individual case No. 4:19CV00267, pending the arbitration of the claims. A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 10, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/YYYbfr from Leagle.com. Betty Johnson, On Behalf of Herself and all Others Similarly Situated, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Cathleen M. Combs, Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC, pro hac vice, Corey Darnell McGaha , Crowder McGaha, LLP, Daniel A. Edelman, Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC, pro hac vice & William Thomas Crowder -- crowdermcgaha.com -- Crowder McGaha, LLP. Michael A Jacob, II & Jacob Law Group PLLC, Defendants, represented by Elizabeth Fletcher -- elizabeth.fletcher@mrmblaw.com -- Munson, Rowlett, Moore & Boone, P.A. Jefferson Capital Systems LLC, Defendant, represented by Bryan C. Shartle -- bshartle@sessions.legal -- Sessions, Fishman, Nathan & Israel LLC, pro hac vice, Spencer M. Schulz, Sessions, Fishman, Nathan & Israel LLC, pro hac vice & Keith Martin McPherson, Watts, Donovan & Tilley, P.A. Midland Credit Management Inc & Midland Funding LLC, Consol Defendants, represented by Aria B. Allan, Balch & Bingham LLP, pro hac vice, Jason B. Tompkins, Balch & Bingham LLP, pro hac vice & Michael Norris Shannon -- mshannon@qgtlaw.com -- Quattlebaum, Grooms & Tull PLLC. MONSANTO COMPANY: Wise Seeks to Recover Roundup-Related Damages --------------------------------------------------------------- Tanja Wise acting on behalf of the estate of John Fleck (deceased), a California consumer; Amy Stickley acting on behalf of the estate of John Stickley (deceased), a New Jersey consumer; Anna Rice acting on behalf of the estate of Harold Rice (deceased),a Florida consumer; Antonio Martinez Jr. acting on behalf of Antonio Martinez (incapacitated), a California consumer; Barbara Childers acting on behalf of the estate of Twila June Angelo (deceased), a Texas consumer; Barbara Embry acting on behalf of the estate of Bobby Joe Embry (deceased), a Alabama consumer; Barbara Hughes acting on behalf of the estate of David Hughes (deceased), a Wisconsin consumer; Beatriz Velasquez acting on behalf of the estate of Ramon Velasquez (deceased), a Texas consumer; Beth Wisener acting on behalf of the estate of Michael Wisener (deceased), a New Jersey consumer; Betty Ketner acting on behalf of the estate of Landis Ketner (deceased), a Florida consumer; Brenda Bates-Gross acting on behalf of the estate of Lester Gross (deceased), a Indiana consumer; Brenda Price acting on behalf of Dexter Price (incapacitated), a Utah consumer; Carol Pearce acting on behalf of the estate of Jim Pearce (deceased), a Kansas consumer; Carolyn Rackley acting on behalf of Sammie Rackley (incapacitated), a North Carolina consumer; Charles Chainey acting on behalf of the estate of Anita Chainey (Deceased), a Illinois consumer; Cheryl Smeal acting on behalf of the estate of Richard Smeal (deceased), a New York consumer; Christine Pesce acting on behalf of the estate of Joseph Grippo (deceased), a New Jersey consumer; Ciera Gore acting on behalf of the estate of John Griffin (deceased), a South Carolina consumer; Cynthia Floyd acting on behalf of the estate of Kenneth Rhea (deceased), a Georgia consumer; David Klingelhoefer acting on behalf of Chase Klingelhoefer (incapacitated), a Texas consumer; Diane Grabemeyer acting on behalf of the estate of Harold Grabemeyer (deceased), a Michigan consumer; Donna Kiewel acting on behalf of the estate of Kenneth D. Kiewel (deceased), a South Dakota consumer; Elena Iglesias Patrizio acting on behalf of the estate of Julia Iglesias (deceased), a Florida consumer; Elizabeth Mauro acting on behalf of the estate of Cindy Malzan (deceased), a New York consumer; Evelyn Edwards acting on behalf of the estate of Eddie Haynes (deceased), a Louisiana consumer; George Eghinis acting on behalf of the estate of Ekaterini Eghinis (deceased), a Maryland consumer; Gloria Stewart acting on behalf of the estate of Wilson Stewart Jr. (deceased), a Texas consumer; Jacqueline Huff acting on behalf of the estate of Lawrence Huff (deceased), a California consumer; Joan Trombetti acting on behalf of the estate of Louis Trombetti (deceased), a New York consumer; John Hink acting on behalf of the estate of Richard Hink (deceased), a Minnesota consumer; Joyce McIntire acting on behalf of the estate of Fredrick McIntire (deceased), a Ohio consumer; Kathy Haynes acting on behalf of the estate of Kathleen Beaudry (deceased), a Michigan consumer; Laurie Gemma acting on behalf of the estate of Michael Petrarca, a Rhode Island consumer; Lillie Russell acting on behalf of the estate of Willie Floyd Russell (deceased), a Georgia consumer; Linda Louden acting on behalf of the estate of James Louden (Deceased), a Kentucky consumer; Louis Bonus acting on behalf of Jean Bonus (incapacitated), a New Jersey consumer; Marie Foster acting on behalf of the estate of James Bruce Foster (deceased), a Georgia consumer; Mary Fleming acting on behalf of the estate of Blake Fleming, a Georgia consumer; Maureen York acting on behalf of the estate of Donald Jerie (deceased), a New Jersey consumer; Patricia Coulson acting on behalf of the estate of Danny Coulson (deceased), a Oklahoma consumer; Patsy Shears acting on behalf of the estate of Ileene Shears (deceased), a Texas consumer; Reba Debacker acting on behalf of the estate of Jeffrey Allan Debacker (deceased), a Michigan consumer; Ruth Graber acting on behalf of the estate of James H. Graber (deceased), a Indiana consumer; Sharon Bohl acting on behalf of the estate of Louis Bohl (deceased), a Minnesota consumer; Shirley Smith acting on behalf of the estate of Cora Lee Stephens, a Tennessee consumer; Stephanie Black acting on behalf of the estate of Charisse Allison, a Louisiana consumer; Sylvia Walton acting on behalf of the estate of Alan R Walton (deceased), a North Carolina consumer; Sylvia Woods acting on behalf of the estate of David Woods (deceased), a Minnesota consumer; Thomas Yoder acting on behalf of the estate of Brian Yoder (deceased), a Texas consumer; Todd Wubbenhorst acting on behalf of the estate of Betty Mae Wubbenhorst (deceased), a California consumer;Valerie Esser acting on behalf of the estate of James Kurtz (deceased), a Florida consumer; Ernie Leal acting on behalf of Janice Yost (incapacitated), a Oregon consumer; Sharon DeMore acting on behalf of the estate of Charles DeMore, a Pennsylvania consumer; Plaintiffs v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-05942 (N.D. Cal., Sept. 24, 2019), seeks to recover damages for the injuries sustained by the Plaintiffs as the direct and proximate result of the wrongful conduct and negligence of the Defendant in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distributing, labeling, and selling of the herbicide Roundup, containing the active ingredient glyphosate. Glyphosate is the active ingredient in Roundup. Glyphosate is a broad spectrum herbicide used to kill weeds and grasses known to compete with commercial crops grown around the globe. Glyphosate is a "non-selective" herbicide, meaning it kills indiscriminately based only on whether a given organism produces a specific enzyme, 5-enolpyruvylshikimic acid-3-phosphate synthase, known as EPSP synthase. Monsanto claims on its website that "regulatory authorities and independent experts around the world have reviewed numerous long-term/carcinogenicity and genotoxicity studies and agree that there is no evidence that glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup brand herbicides and other glyphosate-based herbicides, causes cancer, even at very high doses, and that it is not genotoxic." The Defendant's statements proclaiming the safety of Roundup and disregarding its dangers misled the Plaintiffs, according to the complaint. Despite the Defendant's knowledge that Roundup was associated with an elevated risk of developing cancer, the Defendant's promotional campaigns focused on Roundup's purported "safety profile." The Plaintiffs maintain that Roundup and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsustainable to be marketed and sold in commerce and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The Plaintiffs' injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were unavoidable, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs are citizens and residents in states other than Missouri and Delaware, who sustained personal injuries by their exposure to Roundup. The Defendant designs, researches, manufactures, tests, advertises, promotes, markets, sells, distributes the herbicide Roundup.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Daniel C. Burke, Esq. BERNSTEIN LIEBHARD, LLP. 10 East 40th Street New York, NY 10016 Telephone: 212-779-1414 Facsimile: 212-779-3218 E-mail: dburke@bernlieb.com dweck@bernlieb.com N.C.W.C., INC: George Sues over Spam e-Mails -------------------------------------------- MONICA GEORGE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. N.C.W.C., INC. and PALMER ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, INC., the Case No. 6:19-cv-01828-RBD-EJK (M.D. Fla., Sept. 20, 2019), contends that, to solicit new customers, Defendants engage in spam e-mail marketing with no regard for the rights of the recipients of those e-mails. The Defendants caused thousands of misleading e-mails to be sent to Florida causing injuries to the Plaintiff and Class Members, including lost productivity and resources, annoyance, consumption of valuable digital storage space and/or financial costs, the lawsuit says. The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendants' illegal conduct, and statutory damages on behalf of herself and Class Members any other available legal or equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of Defendants under Florida's Electronic Mail Communications Act. NCWC markets auto service warranties on behalf of Palmer and Palmer provides warranty coverage to policies sold by NCWC. NCWC has operated under various names including Dealer Services, Got Warranty, Warranty World, Liberty Automotive Protection, and Dealer Service Marketing Co. Palmer has operated under carious names including Liberty Administrative Services and Heritage Administrative Services. Both NCWC and Palmer share the same President, Michael Shaftel, and operate jointly and under the direction and control of Shaftel.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Michael Eisenband, Esq. EISENBAND LAW, P.A. 515 E Las Olas Blvd. Suite 120 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954)-533-4092 E-mail: MEisenband@Eisenbandlaw.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 NATIONAL TIRE: McGahee Seeks Unpaid Overtime Premium ---------------------------------------------------- SCOTT MCGAHEE, MARK PIERSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. NATIONAL TIRE & BATTERY; TBC CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-02289-X (N.D. Tex., Sept. 25, 2019) is a collective/class action brought by Plaintiffs challenging acts committed by Defendants against Plaintiffs, and those similarly situated, which amounts to violations of federal and state wage and hour laws under the Fair Labor Standards Act, and for violations of Title Two of the Texas Labor Code. The Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated, with an overtime premium for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek; failed to pay the statutorily required overtime rate of time-and-a-half for hours worked beyond 40 in a workweek; and failed to pay for off-the-clock work during their meal break periods in violation of the FLSA and the TLC, says the complaint. Plaintiff McGahee is a person who was employed by Defendants as a Service Manager. Plaintiff Pierson is a person who was employed by Defendants as a Lead Technician and Mechanic. Defendant NTB is a for-profit corporation, which operates, maintains, and manages approximately 96 service properties within the state of Texas and 700 service properties throughout the country.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jay D. Ellwanger, Esq. David W. Henderson, Esq. Esha Rajendran, Esq. Ellwanger Law LLLP 400 South Zang Blvd., Suite 1015 Dallas, TX 75208 Phone: (737) 808-2260 Email: jellwanger@equalrights.law dhenderson@equalrights.law erajendran@equalrights.law NATURCHEM, INC: Underpays Spray Technicians, Breece et al. Say -------------------------------------------------------------- RONNIE BREECE; GERALD CHAPPELL; PATRICK MAY, and GARY MORAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. NATURCHEM, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-02552-JMC (D.S.C., Sept. 10, 2019) is an action against the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as spray technicians. NaturChem, Inc. provides vegetation management services. The Company offers aquatic weed and brush control, invasive exotic weed control, industrial vegetation management, and storm water management solutions. NaturChem serves customers in the United States. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kenneth M. Suggs, Esq. Gerald D. Jowers, Jr., Esq. JANET JANET & SUGGS, LLC 500 Taylor Street, Suite 301 Columbia, SC 29201 Telephone: (803) 726-0050 Facsimile: (803) 727-1059 E-mail: ksuggs@jjsjustice.com gjowers@jjsjustice.com - and - Tim J. Becker, Esq. Jennell K. Shannon, Esq. JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC 444 Cedar Street, Suite 1800 Saint Paul, MN 55101 Telephone: (612) 436-1800 Facsimile: (612) 436-1801 E-mail: tbecker@johnsonbecker.com jshannon@johnsonbecker.com NCAA: Noiel Sues Over Disregard for Student-Athletes' Safety ------------------------------------------------------------ CARY NOIEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-04043-JRS-DML (S.D. Ind., Sept. 26, 2019) seeks to obtain redress for injuries sustained a result of Defendant's reckless disregard for the health and safety of generations of East Texas State University (now known as Texas A&M - Commerce) student-athletes. According to the complaint, despite knowing for decades of a vast body of scientific research describing the danger of traumatic brain injuries ("TBIs") like those Plaintiff experienced, Defendant failed to implement adequate procedures to protect Plaintiff and other Commerce football players from the long-term dangers associated with them. They did so knowingly and for profit. As a direct result of Defendant's acts and omissions, Plaintiff and countless former Commerce football players suffered brain and other neurocognitive injuries from playing NCAA football. As such, Plaintiff brings this Class Action Complaint in order to vindicate those players' rights and hold the NCAA accountable. Plaintiff Cary Noiel is a natural person and citizen of the State of Texas. The NCAA is the governing body of collegiate athletics that oversees twenty-three college sports and over 400,000 students who participate in intercollegiate athletics, including the football program at Hampton.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeff Raizner, Esq. RAIZNER SLANIA LLP 2402 Dunlavy Street Houston, TX 77006 Phone: 713.554.9099 Fax: 713.554.9098 Email: efile@raiznerlaw.com - and - Jay Edelson, Esq. Benjamin H. Richman, Esq. EDELSON PC 350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor Chicago, IL 60654 Phone: 312.589.6370 Fax: 312.589.6378 Email: jedelson@edelson.com brichman@edelson.com - and - Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq. EDELSON PC 123 Townsend Street, Suite 100 San Francisco, CA 94107 Phone: 415.212.9300 Fax: 415.373.9435 Email: rbalabanian@edelson.com NELNET DIVERSIFIED: 10th Cir. Appeal Filed in Peterson FLSA Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Andrew Peterson filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Peterson v. Nelnet Diversified Solutions, Case No. 1:17-CV-01064-NYW, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado - Denver. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Sept. 25, 2019, the District Court issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order granting the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment in the case. Plaintiff Andrew Peterson initiated this action by filing a Complaint asserting a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), for unpaid overtime wages on behalf of himself and all current and former Account Managers and Call Center Representatives. Mr. Peterson alleged that Nelnet violated the FLSA by failing to pay him and other call center representatives premium overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of forty hours in a workweek. In his original Complaint, Mr. Peterson asserted claims for: (1) violation of the FLSA on behalf of himself and the collective (2) violation of Colorado Minimum Wage Order on behalf of himself and a Rule 23 class of individuals (Second Cause of Action) and (3) violation of the Colorado Wage Act on behalf of himself and a Rule 23 class of individuals (Third Cause of Action). The appellate case is captioned as Peterson v. Nelnet Diversified Solutions, Case No. 19-1348, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant ANDREW PETERSON, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons, is represented by: Brian Gonzales, Esq. BRIAN D. GONZALES LAW OFFICES 2580 East Harmony Road, Suite 201 Fort Collins, CO 80528 Telephone: (970) 214-0562 E-mail: Bgonzales@ColoradoWageLaw.com - and - Dustin Thomas Lujan, Esq. 1603 Capitol Avenue, Suite 310 A559 Cheyenne, WY 82001 Telephone: (402) 420-1400 - and - Brody J. Ockander, Esq. Jonathan V. Rehm, Esq. REHM, BENNETT, MOORE, REHM & OCKANDER PC 9202 West Dodge Road, Suite 203 Omaha, NE 68116 Telephone: (800) 736-5503 E-mail: bockander@rehmlaw.com jrehm@rehmlaw.com - and - Michael Palitz, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. 800 Third Avenue, Suite 2800 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (800) 616-4000 E-mail: mpalitz@shavitzlaw.com - and - Logan Pardell, Esq. Alan L. Quiles, Esq. Gregg Shavitz, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. 951 Yamato Road, Suite 285 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Telephone: (561) 447-8888 E-mail: lpardell@shavitzlaw.com aquiles@shavitzlaw.com gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com Defendant-Appellee NELNET DIVERSIFIED SOLUTIONS, LLC is represented by: Richard Benenson, Esq. Anna-Liisa Mullis, Esq. Nicholas Robert Santucci, Esq. Martine Tariot Wells, Esq. BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK PC 410 17th Street, Suite 2200 Denver, CO 80202-4437 Telephone: (303) 223-1100 E-mail: rbenenson@bhfs.com amullis@bhfs.com nsantucci@bhfs.com mwells@bhfs.com - and - Charles F. Kaplan, Esq. PERRY & NEBLETT PA 2550 South Bayshore Drive, Suite 11 Miami, FL 33133 Telephone: (305) 856-8408 - and - Daniel F. Kaplan, Esq. PERRY GUTHERY HAASE AND GESSFORD, PC, LLO 233 South 13th Street, Suite 1400 Lincoln, NE 68508 Telephone: (402) 476-9200 E-mail: dkaplan@perrylawfirm.com NERIUM INTERNATIONAL: Fifth Circuit Appeal Filed in Jia Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Plaintiffs Helen Jia and Sarah Sormillon filed an appeal from a Court ruling in their lawsuit styled Helen Jia, et al. v. Nerium International, L.L.C., et al., Case No. 3:17-CV-3057-S, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. The appellate case is captioned as HELEN JIA, as individual, SARAH SORMILLON, an individual and all those similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. NERIUM INTERNATIONAL, L.L.C., a Texas Limited Liability Company, NERIUM SKINCARE, INCORPORATED, a Texas Corporation, NERIUM BIOTECHNOLOGY, INCORPORATEDDEF, NATURAL TECHNOLOGY, INCORPORATED, doing business as Naturtech, JEFF OLSON, an individual, RENEE OLSON, an individual, AMBER OLSON ROURKE, an individual, MICHAEL SHOUHED, an individual, DOES 1-10, Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 19-11048, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The lawsuit arises from alleged violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Oct. 3, 2019, District Court Judge Karen Gren Scholer granted in part and denied in part Defendants Nerium, Jeff Olson, Renee Olson, and Amber Olson Rourke's Motion to Reopen Case and for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction Staying Class Arbitration. On Dec. 19, 2017, the Defendants moved for an order compelling Plaintiffs Jia and Sormillon to arbitrate their claims on an individual basis in the arbitration proceedings which are already underway before the American Arbitration Association ("AAA"). On Sept. 18, 2018, the Court granted the motion to compel arbitration and provided that the arbitrator will decide whether a given claim must be arbitrated and that any challenges to the enforceability or scope of the Arbitration Policy must be decided by the arbitrator. After the Court administratively closed the case pending arbitration, the Plaintiffs allegedly filed three arbitrations before the AAA. Their third demand was for, among other things, a determination as to the arbitrability of the claims on a class basis. In the first two arbitrations, the Defendants moved for a summary adjudication of the class waiver provision, seeking a determination that the Plaintiffs' claims needed to be arbitrated individually. On June 24, 2019, Arbitrator James J. Juneau entered an order in the first of the two cases denying the Defendants' motion for a summary adjudication of the class waiver provision as moot, because Jia was no longer asserting any claims in the arbitration proceeding on a class-wide, class action or multiple complaining-party basis. The Arbitrator did not overrule the Defendants' objections to class arbitration, instead finding that these should more properly be raised and adjudicated separately in the proceeding where the Plaintiffs were asserting class action claims. As to the Plaintiffs' third demand for arbitration, the Defendants objected to the filing of the class arbitration as administratively improper on April 26, 2019. The AAA responded to the Defendants' argument by letter on July 9, 2019, stating that the Plaintiffs met the filing requirements by filing a demand for class arbitration but that the parties' contentions have been made a part of the file and will be forwarded to the arbitrator upon appointment, at which time the parties may submit their jurisdictional or arbitrability arguments to the arbitrator for determination. Thereafter on Aug. 8, 2019, the AAA reaffirmed the positions articulated in its July 9, 2019, letter, and the Defendants filed the present Motion . The Defendants ask the Court to reopen the case to either (1) clarify the Court's Sept. 18, 2018, order granting the Defendants' motion to compel arbitration on an individual basis, or, in the alternative, (2) issue a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction staying the class arbitration. Nerium International sells consumer goods. The Company sells its products through a network of independent business owners.[BN] The Plaintiffs-Appellants are represented by: Joe Kendall, Esq. KENDALL LAW GROUP, L.L.P. 3811 Turtle Creek Dallas, TX 75219 Telephone: 214-744-3000 E-mail: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com The Defendants-Appellees are represented by: Jonathan Robert Mureen, Esq. SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS, L.L.P. 2000 McKinney Avenue Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: 214-758-1515 E-mail: jon.mureen@squirepb.com - and - Joshua A. Huber, Esq. BLANK ROME, L.L.P. 717 Texas Avenue Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: 713-632-8640 E-mail: jhuber@blankrome.com NHK SPRING: Zimmerman Alleges HDD Price-Fixing ---------------------------------------------- PAUL THOMAS ZIMMERMAN, individually and on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NHK SPRING CO. LTD.; NHK INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION; TDK CORPORATION; NAT PERIPHERAL (HONG KONG) CO., LTD.; NAT PERIPHERAL (DONG GUAN) CO., LTD.; NHK SPRING (THAILAND) CO., LTD.; MAGNECOMP PRECISION TECHNOLOGY PUBLIC CO. LTD.; SAE MAGNETICS (H.K.) LTD; HUTCHINSON TECHNOLOGY INC.; and JOHN DOES 1-10 Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-12636-DML-EAS (E.D. Mich., Sept. 9, 2019) is an action alleging that the Defendants' unlawful agreement to eliminate competition, fix prices, and allocate markets for hard disk drive suspension assemblies ("HDD Suspension Assemblies") sold in the U.S. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants, manufacturers, and suppliers of HDD Suspension Assemblies, engaged in a years-long conspiracy to unlawfully raise the prices of HDD Suspension Assemblies to artificial levels and allocate markets for such products. The conspiracy engaged in by Defendants and their co-conspirators was an unreasonable restraint of interstate and foreign trade and commerce in violation of state antitrust, unfair competition, and consumer protection laws. As a direct result of the anticompetitive and unlawful conduct alleged herein, Plaintiff and members of the Class paid artificially inflated prices for HDD Suspension Assemblies and have been injured in their business and property for the period beginning at least as early as May 2008 and continuing until at least April 2016. NHK SPRING CO., LTD. manufactures springs for automobiles and electronic equipment. The Company's products are used for suspension, engine valves, seats, and hard disk drives(HDD). [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul F. Novak, Esq. Diana Gjonaj, Esq. Gregory Stamatopoulos, Esq. Tiffany Ellis, Esq. WEITZ & LUXENBERG, P.C. 3011 West Grand Blvd., Suite 2150 Detroit, MI 48202 Telephone: (313) 800-4170 E-mail: pnovak@weitzlux.com dgjonaj@weitzlux.com gstamatopoulos@weitzlux.com tellis@weitzlux.com - and - Brian D. Penny, Esq. Paul J. Scarlato, Esq. GOLDMAN SCARLATO & PENNY, P.C. 161 Washington Street, Suite 1025 Conshohocken, PA 19428 Telephone: (484) 342-0700 E-mail: penny@lawgsp.com scarlato@lawgsp.com NOAH RESTAURANT: Moodie Seeks Proper Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------- PAULINA B. MOODIE, and other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. NOAH RESTAURANT LLC, d/b/a SANTORINI GREEK RESTAURANT and CHRISTOS MAMMAS, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-23991-KMM (S.D. Fla., Sept. 26, 2019) is an action to recover money damages for unpaid minimum and overtime wages under the laws of the United States pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. During her time of employment with Defendants, Plaintiff worked regularly in excess of 40 hours every week. She worked a minimum of 42.5 hours in low season and a minimum of 50 hours in high season. However, in many weeks, Plaintiff was paid less than 40 regular hours and she was not paid for all her overtime hours. Sometimes Plaintiff was paid only a fraction of her overtime hours, notes the complaint. Moreover, when the Defendant paid some overtime hours to Plaintiff, they unlawfully calculated Plaintiff's overtime rate on the direct minimum cash wage, not on the full minimum wage as provided by the FLSA, the complaint adds. Plaintiff was hired as a non-exempted, full time, hourly bartender from September 24, 2018, to June 19, 2019, or 38 weeks. NOAH RESTAURANT LLC is a retail business operating as a Greek restaurant. Defendant operates under the name of SANTORINI GREEK RESTAURANT located at 101 Ocean Drive, Miami Beach 33139.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Phone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com NORTHERN LEASING: Chorba Suit Moved to S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled as Stephen L. Chorba, the Plaintiff, vs. Northern Leasing Systems Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 0:19-cv-60452, was transferred from U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Foley Square) on Sept. 20, 2019. The Southern District of New York Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-08731-GBD to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge George B. Daniels. Northern Leasing provides credit card processing equipment leasing services to merchants.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Etan Mark, Esq. George Thomas Breur, Esq. Joshua Adam Migdal, Esq. MARK MIGDAL & HAYDEN 80 SW 8th Street, Suite 1999 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 374-0440 E-mail: etan@markmigdal.com george@markmigdal.com josh@markmigdal.com Attorneys for the Defendant are: Scott E. Silberfein, Esq. MOSES & SINGER LLP The Chrysler Building 405 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10174 Telephone: (212) 554-7845 E-mail: ssilberfein@mosessinger.com - and - Daniel P. Dietrich, Esq. GUNSTER, YOAKLEY & STEWART, P.A 401 E. Jackson Street, Suite 2500 TAMPA, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 739-6970 E-mail: ddietrich@gunster.com OHIO: Appellate Court Upholds Denial of Dunlop Summary Judgment Bid ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the appellate case captioned Matthew J. Dunlop, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 19AP-58 (Ohio App.), Judge Lisa L. Sadler of the Court of Appeals of Ohio for the Tenth District, Franklin County, affirmed the judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas denying Dunlop's motion for summary judgment and granting Ohio Department of Job and Family Services' ("ODJFS") motion for summary judgment. It is Dunlop's third appeal before the Ohio Appeals Court arising from his complaint against ODJFS in regard to child support payments that were withheld by his employer in an amount in excess of the wage garnishment order. In May 2011, Dunlop sued ODJFS in the Court of Claims of Ohio with a complaint nearly identical to the instant case. The Court of Claims dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, finding Dunlop's claims equitable in nature. The Court affirmed that decision in Dunlop I, and the Supreme Court of Ohio declined to take further review of the matter. Just after filing his complaint in the Court of Claims, Dunlop filed the instant class action complaint, on behalf of himself and similarly situated individuals he estimates to number in excess of 100,000, alleging claims of conversion, equitable restitution, constructive trust, breach of fiduciary duty and wrongful disposition against ODJFS and 300 John Doe Defendants, and seeking actual money damages, equitable restitution and/or disgorgement of improperly obtained funds, a constructive trust over all funds improperly obtained by ODJFS, injunction, and declaratory relief. Dunlop alleges that each John Doe Defendant is a joint venture, partner, subsidiary, parent, agent, representative, franchisee or alter ego of ODJFS, has a unity of interest with ODJFS, and is legally, equitably or otherwise responsible in some manner for the damages alleged. The complaint alleges that ODJFS knowingly collects more money than he, and persons like him, have been ordered to pay in child support and then passes that money on to others (such as ex-spouses and/or the federal government in certain public assistance cases) and/or retains the over-collected funds. The complaint states under current ODJFS policies, overpaid child support may not be recouped while an active child support order is in place and that greater than 114,000 open child support accounts with ODJFS show a credit balance. Dunlop alleges that Ohio's system of recoupment does not comport with federal regulations requiring prompt refund of amounts improperly withheld. On June 25, 2012, ODJFS filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6), which the trial court initially denied on April 15, 2014. On April 20, 2016, ODJFS asked the trial court to reconsider its decision based on new authority, Cullinan v. Ohio Dept. of Job & Family Servs. On July 13, 2016, the trial court granted ODJFS' motion for reconsideration and dismissed the complaint pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6). Dunlop appealed and in Dunlop II, the Court concluded that considering its limited standard of review and the distinctions between the appeal and Cullinan v. Ohio Dept. of Job & Family Servs., it agrees with Dunlop that the trial court erred in determining appellant's complaint was not sufficient to state a claim for wrongful collection or retention of funds to survive ODJFS's Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss. On remand, the parties each filed motions for summary judgment on all claims. On Dec. 31, 2018, the trial court granted ODJFS' motion for summary judgment and denied Dunlop's motion for summary judgment. In doing so, the trial court found that similarly to Cullinan, ODJFS did not act wrongfully in receiving and remitting appellant's child support payments, and, therefore, Dunlop could not establish a claim for equitable restitution. Dunlop filed a timely appeal. He assigns the following as trial court error: a. The Court of Common Pleas does not have original subject matter jurisdiction over his claims against Defendant-Appellee ODJFS. Thus, the trial court's ruling on the parties' summary judgment motions are void. b. Assuming arguendo the common pleas court has subject matter jurisdiction over Mr. Dunlop's claims, the trial court erred by denying Dunlop's Motion for Summary Judgment. c. Assuming arguendo the common pleas court has subject matter jurisdiction over Mr. Dunlop's claims, the trial court erred by granting ODJFS' Motion for Summary Judgment. As for Dunlop's first assignment of error, Judge Sadler finds it without merit because res judicata bars relitigation of the issue within the procedural posture of the case. The Court had authority in Dunlop I to pass on whether the Court of Claims erred in finding it lacked jurisdiction over appellant's claims. Dunlop appealed its decision, and the Supreme Court declined jurisdictional review. Dunlop does not dispute the present complaint contains essentially the same claims and the same parties as the case he brought in the Court of Claims. Therefore, the Judge finds res judicata applies to bar Dunlop from attempting to relitigate subject-matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Judge overruled Dunlop's first assignment of error. The Judge disagrees with Dunlop's contention in his third assignment of error that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of ODJFS. The Judge finds on independent review and viewing the evidence most strongly in favor of Dunlop that no evidence shows ODJFS acted in violation of a duty or otherwise acted wrongfully in collecting and remitting the child support payments in this case. Accordingly, the Judge overrrules Dunlop's third assignment of error. Moreover, the Judge disagrees with Dunlop's contention in his second assignment of error that the trial court erred in denying his motion for summary judgment. The Judge finds that Dunlop did not meet his burden in moving for summary judgment pursuant to Civ.R. 56(C). Accordingly, the Judge also overrules Dunlop's second assignment of error. Having overruled the Appellant's three assignments of error, Judge Sadler affirms the judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas. A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 10, 2019 Decision is available at https://is.gd/PTskME from Leagle.com. On brief: The Tyack Law Firm Co., L.P.A., Jonathan T. Tyack -- jon@tyacklaw.com -- and Holly B. Cline -- holly@tyacklaw.com -- for appellant. Argued: Holly B. Cline. On brief: Carpenter Lipps & Leland LLP, Michael H. Carpenter -- carpenter@carpenterlipps.com -- and Jennifer A.L. Battle -- battle@carpenterlipps.com -- for appellee. OLLIE'S BARGAIN: Stirling Hits Share Drop Over Supply Chain Issue ----------------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT STIRLING, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. OLLIE'S BARGAIN OUTLET HOLDINGS, INC., MARK BUTLER, JAY STASZ, and JOHN SWYGERT, Case No. 1:19-cv-08647 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 17, 2019), alleges that the Defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by failing to disclose to investors, including the Plaintiff, that the Company suffered a supply chain issue that impacted the initial inventory available at new stores, and that, as a result, the Company lacked sufficient inventory to meet demand at certain store locations. On August 28, 2019, Ollie's reported that comparable store sales decreased 1.7% during second quarter 2019. In addition, Ollie's disclosed that a "bottleneck issue" had existed in its supply chain "for most all of Q2" and was not corrected until "the last week of the quarter." On this news, shares of Ollie's fell $21.41, or over 27%, to close at $56.36 on August 29, 2019, on unusually high trading volume, according to the complaint. Ollie's is incorporated under the laws of Delaware with its principal executive offices located in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company. Ollie's is an extreme value retailer that offers brand name merchandise at dramatically reduced prices.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 230 Park Ave., Suite 530 New York, NY 10169 Telephone: (212) 682-5340 Facsimile: (212) 884-0988 E-mail: lportnoy@glancylaw.com - and - Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq. Robert V. Prongay, Esq. Charles H. Linehan, Esq. Pavithra Rajesh, Esq. 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 - and - Ira M. Press, Esq. Thomas W. Elrod, Esq. KIRBY MCINERNEY LLP 250 Park Avenue, Suite 820 New York, NY 10177 Telephone: (212) 371-6600 Facsimile: (212) 751-2540 E-mail: ipress@kmllp.com telrod@kmllp.com OMNOVA SOLUTIONS: Thompson Suit Challenges Sale to Synthomer ------------------------------------------------------------ JOHN THOMPSON, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. OMNOVA SOLUTIONS INC., DAVID J. D'ANTONI, JOSEPH M. GINGO, JANET PLAUT GIESSELMAN, MICHAEL J. MERRIMAN, JAMES A. MITAROTONDA, ANNE P. NOONAN, STEVEN W. PERCY, LARRY B. PORCELLATO, ALLAN R. ROTHWELL, WILLIAM R. SEELBACH, SYNTHOMER PLC, SPIRIT USA HOLDINGS INC., and SYNTHOMER USA LLC, Case No. 1:19-cv-01748-UNA (D. Del., Sept. 18, 2019), stems from a proposed transaction, pursuant to which OMNOVA will be acquired by Synthomer plc, Spirit USA Holdings Inc., and Synthomer USA LLC, a Delaware corporation. On July 3, 2019, OMNOVA's Board of Directors caused the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with Synthomer. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, OMNOVA's stockholders will receive $10.15 in cash for each share of OMNOVA common stock they own. The Plaintiff, an owner of OMNOVA common stock, alleges that the Proxy Statement filed in connection with the Proposed Transaction omits material information with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the Proxy Statement false and misleading under Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Plaintiff contends that the Proxy Statement fails to disclose: (i) all line items used to calculate EBITDA; (ii) unlevered free cash flow for all sets of projections and all underlying line items; and (iii) a reconciliation of all non-GAAP to GAAP metrics. OMNOVA is an Ohio corporation and maintains its principal executive offices in Beachwood, Ohio. The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company. OMNOVA is a global innovator of performance-enhancing chemistries and surfaces used in products for a variety of commercial, industrial, and residential applications. Synthomer plc ("Parent") is a public limited company incorporated under the Laws of England and Wales and a party to the Merger Agreement. Synthomer USA LLC, a Delaware corporation ("Parent US Sub") is a Delaware limited liability company, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Parent, and a party to the Merger Agreement. Spirit USA Holdings Inc. ("Merger Sub") is an Ohio corporation, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Parent, and a party to the Merger Agreement.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian D. Long, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 295-5310 Facsimile: (302) 654-7530 E-mail: bdl@rl-legal.com gms@rl-legal.com - and - Richard A. Maniskas, Esq. RM LAW, P.C. 1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300 Berwyn, PA 19312 Telephone: (484) 324-6800 Facsimile: (484) 631-1305 E-mail: rm@maniskas.com PLAZA PATISSERIE: Poulmentis Seeks to Recover Minimum & OT Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- NICHOLAS POULMENTIS, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. PLAZA PATISSERIE, INC. (D/B/A AKROTIRI SEA FOOD TAVERNA), CHRISTOS KOUVAROS, and TATIANA DIMAKIS, Case No. 1:19-cv-05284 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 17, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. Plaza Patisserie, Inc. (d/b/a Akrotiri Sea Food Taverna) is a domestic corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York. The Individual Defendants serve or served as owners, managers, principals, or agents of the Defendant Corporation. The Defendants owned, operated, or controlled a Greek Restaurant, located at 29-20 30th Ave., in Astoria, New York, under the name "Akrotiri Sea Food Taverna," where the Plaintiff worked. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 E-mail: Michael@Faillacelaw.com POOL WATER: Duenas Seeks Minimum & Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------- MARIO DUENAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. POOL WATER PRODUCTS, a corporation; and DOES 1-20, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 19STCV33470 (Cal. Super., Sept. 20, 2019), alleges that Defendants failed to pay minimum wage; failed to pay overtime wages; failed to provide meal periods; failed to provide rest periods; failed to furnish accurate wage statements; failed to maintain required records; failed to pay ah wages due to discharged and quitting employees; and unfair business practices. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants at its facility in Van Nuys, California as a driver from approximately February 2019 to July 7, 2019. The Plaintiff was a non-exempt employee, paid in whole or in part on an hourly basis. Pool Water Products is a water products vendor to businesses throughout the United States.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Vache A. Thomassian, Esq. Caspar Jivalagian, Esq. KJT LAW GROUP LLP 230 North Maryland Avenue, Suite 306 Glendale, CA 91206 Telephone: 818 507-8525 E-mail: vache@kjliavvgroup.com caspar@kjliawgroup.com - and - Christopher A. Adams, esq. ADAMS EMPLOYMENT COUNSEL 4740 Calle Carga Camarillo, CA 93012 Telephone: 818 425-1437 E-mail: ca@AdamsEmploymentCounsel.com PRESIDIO INC: Rosenblatt Files Suit Over BCEC Merger Deal --------------------------------------------------------- JORDAN ROSENBLATT, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. PRESIDIO, INC., BOB CAGNAZZI, HEATHER BERGER, CHRISTOPHER L. EDSON, SALIM HIRJI, STEVEN LERNER, MATTHEW H. NORD, PANKAJ PATEL, MICHAEL REISS, and TODD H. SIEGEL, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01811-UNA (D. Del., Sept. 26, 2019) is an action stemming from a proposed transaction announced on August 14, 2019, pursuant to which Presidio, Inc. will be acquired by BCEC -- Port Holdings (Delaware) LP ("Parent") and Port Merger Sub, Inc. Parent and Merger Sub are affiliates of funds advised by BC Partners Advisors L.P. On August 14, 2019, Presidio's Board of Directors caused the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with BCEC, which was amended on September 25, 2019. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Presidio's stockholders will receive $16.60 in cash for each share of Presidio common stock they own. On September 10, 2019, defendants filed a proxy statement with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the Proposed Transaction. However, the Proxy Statement omits material information with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the Proxy Statement false and misleading, says the complaint. First, the Proxy Statement omits material information regarding the Company's financial projections. The Proxy Statement fails to disclose: (i) for each set of projections, all line items used to calculate (a) total adjusted EBITDA, (b) pro forma adjusted net income, (c) pro forma diluted earnings per share, and (d) unlevered free cash flow; (ii) unlevered free cash flow for the "Budget Projections"; and (iii) a reconciliation of all non-GAAP to GAAP metrics. Second, the Proxy Statement omits material information regarding the analyses performed by the Company's financial advisor in connection with the Proposed Transaction, LionTree Advisors LLC. With respect to LionTree's Discounted Cash Flow Analysis, the Proxy Statement fails to disclose: (i) all line items used to calculate unlevered free cash flow; (ii) LionTree's basis for applying a range of exit multiples of 7.0x to 9.0x; (iii) the individual inputs and assumptions underlying the discount rates ranging from 8.2% to 10.2%; (iv) the terminal values for the Company; and (v) the number of fully diluted outstanding shares of Company common stock. Third, the Proxy Statement fails to disclose the timing and nature of all communications regarding future employment and directorship of the Company's officers and directors, including who participated in all such communications. Accordingly, plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the Proxy Statement. Plaintiff is the owner of Presidio common stock. Presidio is a North American IT solutions provider focused on Digital Infrastructure, Cloud, and Security solutions to create secure infrastructure platforms for commercial and public sector customers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq. Brian D. Long, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220 Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 295-5310 Facsimile: (302) 654-7530 Email: sdr@rl-legal.com bdl@rl-legal.com gms@rl-legal.com - and - Richard A. Maniskas, Esq. RM LAW, P.C. 1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300 Berwyn, PA 19312 Phone: (484) 324-6800 Facsimile: (484) 631-1305 Email: rm@maniskas.com REDFIN INC: Cook Labor Suit Hits Non-payment of Overtime Work ------------------------------------------------------------- Devin Cook, on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Redfin, Inc. and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. CGC-19-578774 (Cal. Super., August 28, 2019), seeks unpaid overtime wages and interest thereon, redress for failure to authorize or permit required meal periods, statutory penalties for failure to provide accurate wage statements, waiting time penalties in the form of continuation wages for failure to timely pay employees all wages due upon separation of employment, reimbursement of business-related expenses, injunctive relief and other equitable relief, reasonable attorney's fees, costs and interest under California Labor Code, Unfair Competition Law and the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act. Redfin operates as an online real estate brokerage company handling tours, pricing analysis, negotiations, inspections and closings and features listings directly from broker databases as well as for-sale-by-owner and foreclosure properties. Cook worked for Redfin as an Associate Agent. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Richard Edward Quintilone, II, Esq. Andrew H. Haas, Esq. Alejandro Quinones, Esq. QUINTILONE AND ASSOCIATES 22974 El Toro Road, Suite 100 Lake Forest, CA 92630−4961 Tel: (949) 458−9675 Fax: (949) 458−9679 Email: req@quintlaw.com ahh@quintlaw.com axq@quintlaw.com RESURGENT CAPITAL: Schwebel Sues Over Violation FDCPA ------------------------------------------------------ Avrohom Schwebel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Resurgent Capital Services, LP, LVNV Funding, LLC and John Does 1-25, Defendant, Case No. 7:19-cv-08821 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 23, 2019), is a class action brought on behalf of a class of consumers alleging violation of the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act. Prior to April 5, 2019, an obligation was allegedly incurred to Credit One Bank, N.A. Defendant LVNV, a debt collector and the subsequent owner of the Credit One Bank, N.A. debt, contracted the Defendant Resurgent to collect the alleged debt. On April 5, 2019, Defendant Resurgent sent the Plaintiff an initial contact notice regarding the alleged debt owed to Defendant LVNV. The first paragraph states that the Defendant Resurgent has "initiated a review of the inquiry we recently received." This implies that the account is already under review, yet the bottom paragraph says that the consumer can dispute the debt within 30 days. The Plaintiff contends that the language is misleading and confusing to the consumer because one paragraph leads him to believe that their account is already under review and that he does not need to dispute the debt and another paragraph says he has thirty days to dispute his debt. The Plaintiff alleges he incurred an informational injury because the Defendants falsely describe the requirements for a dispute, thus leaving the consumer confused as to the proper procedures to dispute his debt. The Defendants' false statement overshadowed Plaintiff's right to have the debt validated since it misleads him to believe that his account is under review and is no further dispute is needed. As a result of the Defendants' deceptive, misleading and unfair debt collection practices, the Plaintiff has been damaged, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a resident of the State of New York, County of Rockland. Resurgent is a company that uses the mail, telephone, and facsimile and regularly engages in business the principal purpose of which is to attempt to collect debts alleged to be due another.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raphael Deutsch, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: rdeutsch@steinsakslegal.com RMJC, JNC: Filshill Seeks Minimum Wages for Exotic Dancers ---------------------------------------------------------- VICTORIA FILSHILL, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. RMJC, JNC. D/B/A SHOW AND TEL SHOWBAR; KEVIN STONE, and RAYMOND MILES, Individually, the Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-03252-HB (E.D. Pa., July 25, 2019), alleges that Defendants misclassified dancers as independent contractors and failed to compensate Plaintiff at the federally mandated minimum wage rate, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage. The Defendants required Plaintiff to work as an exotic dancer at its adult entertainment club, but refused to compensate her at the applicable minimum wage. In fact, Defendants refused to compensate Plaintiff whatsoever for any hours worked. The Plaintiff's only compensation was in the form of tips from club patrons. Moreover, Plaintiff was required to divide her tips with Defendants and other employees who do not customarily receive tips, the lawsuit adds.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Jonathan W. Chase, Esq. RUPPERT MANES NARAHARI 1628 JFK Blvd, Suite 1650 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 475 3504 Facsimile: (215) 734 2466 E-mail: jc@rmn-law.com - and - Gabriel A. Assaad, Esq. KENNEDY HODGES, L.L.P. 4409 Montrose Blvd., Ste. 200 Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (713) 523-0001 Facsimile: (713) 523-1116 E-mail: gassaad@kennedyhodges.com SAN ANTONIO, TX: Ramirez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------- JENNIFER M. RAMIREZ ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs v. CITY OF SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS, Defendant, Case No. 5:19-cv-01166 (W.D. Tex., Sept. 26, 2019) is a lawsuit seeking damages against Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, as amended. Plaintiff on behalf of herself and all similarly situated employees, seeks to recover unpaid overtime, statutory liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs. RAMIREZ and other similarly situated employees worked more than 40 hours in at least one workweek during the 3 years before this Complaint was filed. The Defendant did not pay RAMIREZ one and one-half her regular rate for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek, says the complaint. Plaintiff RAMIREZ has been employed by the Defendnat since November 13, 2006. In 2010, RAMIREZ began serving in a GIS Analyst position. CITY OF SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS is a municipality and may be served through its City Clerk, Leticia Vacek, at City Hall, 100 Military Plaza, San Antonio, Texas 78205.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Melissa Morales Fletcher, Esq. THE MORALES FIRM, P.C. 6243 W. Interstate 10, Suite 132 San Antonio, TX 78201 Phone: (210) 225-0811 Facsimile: (210) 225-0821 Email: Melissa@themoralesfirm.com SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Faces Goins Suit Alleging FEHA Violation ------------------------------------------------------------ RAPHAEL GOINS, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Defendant, Case No. CGC-19-579505 (Cal. Super., Sept. 24, 2019), alleges violations of the Fair Employment and Housing Act. Mr. Goins accuses the City of violating FEHA based on his physical disabilities and engagement in protected activities, namely his requests for reasonable accommodation. He seeks damages for himself and injunctive relief for himself and others similarly situated arising from the Defendant's failure to establish and maintain procedures designed to ensure prompt and appropriate responses to requests for reasonable accommodation and failure to train staff to proficiency regarding an employee's rights and an employer's responsibilities under the FEHA. On June 5, 2012, the Plaintiff injured his left shoulder while opening the Garden Gate at the de Young Museum, resulting in limitations at various times in working, lifting, pushing, and pulling. At all relevant times, the Plaintiff was an individual with physical disabilities that at various times limited his ability to engage in the major life activities of working, lifting, pushing, and pulling, as defined in Government Code Section 12926. The Defendant knew of the Plaintiff's physical disabilities through his disclosures, his health care providers' notes and/or certifications, and workers compensation documentation. The Plaintiff is an individual with mental disabilities that at various times limited his ability to engage in the major life activities of working, sleeping, social interactions, and coping with stressful situations, as defined in Government Code Section 12926, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant as a part-time Class 8226 Museum Guard at the Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco on November 1, 2003. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO is a public entity, and the entity named as the Plaintiff's employer on his W2s. Plaintiff Raphael Goins, of San Francisco, California, appears pro se.[BN] SANTA CLARA CORRECTIONAL: Allen Suit Dismissed with Leave to Amend ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, SEAN ALLEN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SANTA CLARA COUNTY CORRECTIONAL PEACE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-02230-MCE-CKD (E.D. Cal.), Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District California granted the Defendants' two Motions to Dismiss filed pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Through the present class action, the Plaintiffs seek to recover so-called "fair share" fees on behalf of themselves and on behalf of a putative class of all former and current public employees represented by Defendant Santa Clara County Correctional Peace Officers Association. According to the Plaintiffs, those fees were involuntarily collected under Janus v. AFSCME Council 31, to pay for collective bargaining activities in violation of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. In addition, Plaintiff Allen contends his constitutional rights were further violated when, post-Janus, the Union deducted membership dues from two of his paychecks. Finally, the Plaintiffs contend that California's exclusive representation laws further violate their constitutional rights. The Defendants lodged two Motions to Dismiss the Allen action. On review, Judge England holds that the Plaintiffs' first cause of action for refund of unconstitutionally compelled payments fails because the Defendants are entitled to a good faith defense. The thoughtful analysis in Hernandez v. AFSCME California is directly on point. The Ninth Circuit has held that private parties may be entitled to a good-faith defense to a claim under Section 1983 where they did their best follow the law and had no reason to suspect that there would be a constitutional challenge to their actions. Thus, the union is entitled to the good-faith defense as a matter of law. Faced with this good-faith defense, the Plaintiffs seek to avoid it by characterizing their demand for a refund as an equitable claim for restitution rather than a legal claim for damages. Even if this distinction is well taken, the Judge holds that the Plaintiffs' refund claim fails for two independent reasons. First, they cannot simply plead around defenses by labeling the proposed remedy as equitable rather than legal. Instead, the Court must look to the substance of the remedy sought rather than the label placed on that remedy. Second, the Court would reach the same conclusion in a suit in equity. The essence of equity jurisdiction is that federal courts have the flexibility to mould each decree to the necessities of the particular case. The Plaintiffs has argued that a defendant is never allowed to enrich itself by keeping property it took in violation of another's constitutional rights. The Judge finds that the union Defendants are private parties who were not responsible for passing the legislation that is now unconstitutional. Instead, they relied on the type of statute the Supreme Court explicitly approved of in Abood [v. Detroit Bd. of Educ.], 431 U.S. [209,] 222-23 [(1977)]. Accordingly, the Judge dismisses the Plaintiffs' claims. Nor is Plaintiff Allen entitled to relief on the second cause of action for violation of California Government Code Section 1157.12(b). It is unclear to the Judge how the union's de minimis deduction and return of funds from two paychecks -- funds that were apparently not expended toward the union's collective bargaining purposes in any event -- give rise to a constitutional violation. Regardless, those funds were returned, and Mr. Allen's claim is thus moot, the Court finds. Judge England grants the Defendants' Motions to Dismiss with leave to amend. Not later than 20 days following the date his Memorandum and Order is electronically filed, the Plaintiffs may (but are not required to) file an amended complaint. If no amended complaint is timely filed, the action will be deemed dismissed with prejudice upon no further notice to the parties. A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 10, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/S7Btjm from Leagle.com. Sean Allen, Stanley Graham, Bradley Taylor, Juanita Wiggins, James Kirkland, Eric Liddle & Antonio Richardson, Plaintiffs, represented by Bradley A. Benbrook -- brad@benbrooklawgroup.com -- Benbrook Law Group, Jonathan F. Mitchell, Mitchell Law, PLLC, pro hac vice & Talcott J. Franklin -- tal@talcottfranklin.com -- Talcott Franklin P.C., pro hac vice. Santa Clara County Correctional Peace Officers Association, Defendant, represented by Isaac Sean Stevens -- istevens@mastagni.com -- Mastagni Holstedt, APC. County of Santa Clara, Defendant, represented by Nancy J. Clark, Office of the County Counsel. Xavier Becerra, Defendant, represented by Anthony Paul O'Brien, Attorney General's Office for the State of California. William D. Brice, Movant, represented by Steven R. Burlingham, Gary, Till, Burlingham & Lynch. SENSA PRODUCTS: Renewed Bid to Certify Class in Conde Suit Denied ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JOSE CONDE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SENSA, et al., Defendants, Case No. 14-CV-51 JLS (WVG) (S.D. Cal.), Judge Janis L. Sammartino of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California denied Stokes' Renewed Motion for Class Certification. On January 7, 2014, several complaints were filed against Sensa Products LLC regarding its marketing of a line of weight loss products that consumers were instructed would result in weight loss if sprinkled on their food. A first complaint was filed by the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") against Sensa, Adam Goldenberg, and Dr. Hirsch, alleging unfair or deceptive practices and false advertisements. The FTC and the FTC Defendants entered into a stipulated judgment for $46.5 million, later reduced to $26.5 million because of Sensa's deteriorating financial condition. As part of the settlement, the FTC Defendants also were restrained from, among other things, falsely representing that any product causes weight loss. Following extensive publicization of the FTC settlement, the FTC mailed over 477,000 refund checks totaling over $26 million to consumers who had bought Sensa's products. A second complaint, filed on the same date of the FTC complaint, was commenced by Jose Conde in the instant putative class action against Sensa, alleging causes of action for violation of California's False Advertising Law ("FAL"); violation of California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"); and violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"). Two related cases were filed subsequently -- Delaney et al. v. Sensa, filed Sept. 8, 2014, and Stokes v. Sensa, filed Oct. 1, 2014. On Oct. 17, 2014, Sensa filed for bankruptcy. Nonetheless, on Nov. 3, 2014, the Delaney Plaintiffs moved the Court for an order consolidating the three cases, which the Court granted the motion on April 13, 2015. After consolidation, on May 13, 2015, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint against Sensa; Dr. Alan Hirsh; and General Nutrition Corp. and General Nutrition Centers, Inc. ("GNC"), alleging causes of action for violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act; breach of express warranty; breach of implied warranties; violation of the CLRA; violation of the FAL; violation of the unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent/deceptive prongs of the UCL; violation of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act; violation of Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law; and negligent misrepresentation. On Sept. 11, 2015, the Delaney Plaintiffs and GNC settled, and Ms. Delaney dismissed without prejudice the class claims against GNC. Following the settlement and dismissal of GNC, only Ms. Stokes moved on Nov. 16, 2015, to file an amended complaint. The Court granted the request on Dec. 28, 2015, and, on Jan. 14, 2016, Ms. Stokes filed an amended complaint against Sensa and various other companies and individuals, dropping the cause of action under Pennsylvania law and adding a cause of action for alter ego/veil piercing to hold the other Defendants liable for the conduct of Sensa. On Nov. 1, 2016, Ms. Stokes filed the operative Third Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint against Sensa. Generally, she alleges that Sensa produced various weight-loss products, which were "tastant crystals" or "sprinkles" that users would sprinkle on their food. Originally, as marketed by Sensa, the products would allow users to "lose up to 30lbs or more in just 6 months" without requiring the user to diet or exercise. In connection with the FTC action, in late 2013 or early 2014, Sensa Products changed the 'lose up to 30lbs or more in just 6 months' statement to '9.5 pounds in 6 months' and/or '10 pounds in 3+ months.' The Plaintiff stated she relied on the labeling for the Class Products and alleges the Products are ineffective, the Products have not been "clinically shown" to cause weight loss, and the system is not "supported by impressive clinical results." Ms. Stokes further alleged that Sensa, IBH, and TSI operated as a single enterprise. She therefore sought to recover against IBH and TSI, who remain solvent. On Feb. 9, 2018, Ms. Stokes sought certification of a nationwide class defined as all persons in the United States who purchased Defendants' Sensa Weight-Loss System on or after Aug. 22, 2012. After a September 2018 hearing, the Court denied without prejudice Ms. Stokes' motion, finding that Ms. Stokes had not met her burden in establishing that: (1) the class is ascertainable, (2) common issues predominate over individual issues, and (3) the class action is superior to other methods. Concluding that the identified deficiencies might be curable, the Court granted Ms. Stokes leave to file a renewed motion. Ms. Stokes filed the instant motion on Feb. 21, 2019. She now seeks to certify a nationwide class defined as all persons in the United States who purchased the Sensa Weight-Loss System on or after Aug. 22, 2012 excluding purchases made directly from Sensa, Inc. and Sensa Products, LLC. Alternatively, Ms. Stokes seeks to certify a Florida class comprised of all persons who purchased the Sensa Weight-Loss System in Florida on or after August 22, 2012 excluding purchases made directly from Sensa, Inc. and Sensa Products, LLC. Judge Sammartino again finds that Plaintiff Stokes has not met her burden in establishing that common issues predominate over individual issues and the class action is superior to other methods. The Judge therefore denies Ms. Stokes' Renewed Motion for Class Certification. The parties are ordered to meet and confer and, within seven days of the electronic docketing of the Order to file a joint status report. A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 10, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/2EuUGc from Leagle.com. Mollie Delaney et al. are represented by Julia A. Luster, Esq. -- jaluster@seyfarth.com -- Lawrence Timothy Fisher, Esq. -- ltfisher@bursor.com -- and Annick Marie Persinger, Esq. -- apersinger@bursor.com -- BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. Susan Grace Stokes is represented by Brian Philip Murray, Esq. -- BMurray@glancylaw.com -- Lee Albert, Esq. -- LAlbert@glancylaw.com -- Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq. -- LGlancy@glancylaw.com -- and Mark Samuel Greenstone, Esq. -- MGreenstone@glancylaw.com -- GLANCY BINKOW AND GOLDBERG LLP -- Julia A. Luster, Esq. -- jaluster@seyfarth.com -- Lawrence Timothy Fisher, Esq. -- ltfisher@bursor.com -- and Annick Marie Persinger, Esq. -- apersinger@bursor.com -- BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. -- Edmond E. Koester, Esq. -- ekoester@cyklawfirm.com -- COLEMAN YOVANOVICH AND KOESTER PA. Don Ressler, Adam Goldenberg, Kristen Chadwick, Scott Whittier, Stacey Kivel, Elizabeth Francis, Jeff Campbell, Jason Morano, Katelyn O'Reilly, Michael Shay, Cody Congleton, IB Holding, LLC, also known as Intelligent Beauty Holding, LLC & TechStyle, Inc., formerly known as JustFab, Inc. formerly known as Just Fabulous, Inc., Defendants, represented by Valentine Antonavich Shalamitski -- vas@msk.com -- Mitchell Silberberg Knupp LLP. John Drew, Defendant, represented by Stephen Hibbard -- sdhibbard@jonesday.com -- Jones Day. SOCAL EDISON: Kenny et al. Sue to Recover Overpayments ------------------------------------------------------ BLAIR KENNY, and JAVAD VALLEIE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 19STCV32263 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Sept. 11, 2019) seeks to recover overpayments improperly collected by the Defendant. The Plaintiffs alleges in the complaint that the Defendants failed to accurately assign customers to Baseline Regions based on maps submitted to and approved by the California Public Utilities Commission. The Defendant has improperly shifted customers living within the borders of zones with higher energy allotments into adjacent zones with lower energy allotments. As a result of the Defendant's conduct, numerous consumers in Southern California have been locked in a cycle of overpayment for electricity. Southern California Edison Company provides energy production and distribution services. The Company generates electricity through its hydroelectric, coal, and nuclear power plants, as well as distributes electricity. Southern California Edison serves customers in the United States and Canada. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rafey Balabanian, Esq. Lily Hough, Esq. Daniel Schneider, Esq. EDELSON PC 123 Townsend St, Suite 100 San Francisco, CA 94107 Telephone: (415) 212-9300 Facsimile: (415) 373-9435 E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com lhough@edelson.com dschneider@edelson.com SOUTHEASTERN LANDSCAPE: Montes Seek OT Pay for Landscapers ---------------------------------------------------------- JOSE MONTES, Individually and on Behalf of All Those Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. SOUTHEASTERN LANDSCAPE CORP. and DAVID M. CSUKA, Jointly and Severally, the Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-00215-RWS (N.D. Ga., Sept. 22, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid overtime premium pay pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants employ landscapers such as Plaintiff to install grass, arrange plants, and clean debris from worksites. The Plaintiff was not paid overtime wages, despite working in excess of 40 hours per week throughout his employment. The exact number of employees who have suffered the same unpaid overtime wage injury as Plaintiff, and have yet to receive redress is unknown at this time, the lawsuit says. The Defendants operate a landscaping company called Southeastern Landscaping Corp., based out of Hoschton, Georgia.[BN] Brandon A. Thomas, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF BRANDON A. THOMAS, PC 1 Glenlake Parkway, Suite 650 Atlanta, GA 30328 Telephone: (678) 330-2909 Facsimile: (678) 638-6201 E-mail: brandon@overtimeclaimslawyer.com SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Garay Labor Suit Removed to N.D. Cal. --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned Marco Garay, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Southwest Airlines Corp. and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. RG18926106 (Cal. Super., October 25, 2018), was removed to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on August 29, 2019 under Case No. 19-cv-05452. Garay seeks unpaid overtime wages and interest, redress for failure to authorize or permit required meal periods, statutory penalties for failure to provide accurate wage statements, waiting time penalties in the form of continuation wages for failure to timely pay employees all wages due upon separation of employment, reimbursement of business-related expenses, injunctive relief and other equitable relief, reasonable attorney's fees, costs and interest under California Labor Code, Unfair Competition Law and the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Shaun Setareh, Esq. William M. Pao, Esq. SETAREH LAW GROUP 9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 907 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (310) 888-7771 Facsimile: (310) 888-0109 Email: shaun@setarehlaw.com william@setarehlaw.com Southwest is represented by: Richard H. Rahm, Esq. Angela J. Rafoth, Esq. C. Robert Harrington, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 333 Bush Street, 34th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 433-1940 Facsimile: (415) 399-8490 Email: rrahm@littler.com arafoth@littler.com rharrington@littler.com ST LOUIS, MO: Protesters File Suit Over Illegal Arrests ------------------------------------------------------- ALICIA STREET, RONALD HARRIS, FUDAIL MCCAIN, ASHLEY THEIS, and NICOLE WARRINGTON, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated persons v. LT. COL. LAWRENCE O'TOOLE, et al., in their individual capacities and CITY OF ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI, Case No. 4:19-cv-02590 (E.D. Mo., Sept. 17, 2019), arises from arrests made relating to protests after the 2017 Stockley Verdict. The other Officer Defendants are LT. COL. GERALD LEYSHOCK, MAJ. KENNETH KEGEL, CAPTAIN ERIC LARSON, CAPTAIN STEVEN MUELLER, LT. KIMBERLY ALLEN, LT. SCOTT BOYHER, LT. DANIEL CHITWOOD, LT. DONNA GARRETT, LT. DARLA GRAY, LT. BILL KIPHART, LT. CHRISTI MARKS, LT. MICHAEL MAYO, LT. TIMOTHY SACHS, SGT. CHRISTY ALLEN, SGT. KEITH BARRETT, SGT. RONALD BERGMANN, SGT. MICHAEL BINZ, SGT. MICHAEL BOLL, SGT. JAMES BUCKERIDGE, SGT. JOE CARRETERO, SGT. ANTHONY CARUSO, SGT. JAMES CLARK, SGT. JAMES CLARK, SGT. ADAM DUKE, SGT. KELLY FISHER, SGT. BRANDT FLOWERS, SGT. NICOLE GENTILINI, SGT. SAMUEL GILMAN, SGT. PATRICK HAUG, SGT. RICHARD HELLMEIER, SGT. RODNEY HICKMAN, SGT. RANDY JEMERSON, SGT. JUSTIN JOHNSON, SGT. MATTHEW KARNOWSKI, SGT. ROBERT LAMMERT, SGT. JOE LANKFORD, SGT. ROBERT LASCHOBER, SGT. TOM LONG, SGT. KYLE MACK, SGT. MIKE MANDLE, SGT. MICHAEL MARKS, SGT. ORLANDO MORRISON, SGT. JAMES MURPHY, SGT. DENNIS NEAL, SGT. PATRICIA NIJKAMP, SGT. KENNETH NIZICK, SGT. DONALD RE, SGT. BRIAN ROSSOMANNO, SGT. BRADLEY ROY, SGT. JOHN SABIN, SGT. DANIEL SCHULTE, SGT. BRIAN SEPPI, SGT. TIMOTHY TURNER, SGT. SCOTT VALENTINE, SGT. DONNELL WALTERS, SGT. SCOTT WEIDLER, SGT. NICHOLAS WEITE, SGT. CAROLYN WIENER, SGT. ANTHONY WOZNIAK, DET. JAMES BAIN, DET. KEVIN BENTLY, DET. JASON BRANDHORST, DET. MATTHEW BURLE, DET. DANIEL CHAMBLIN, DET. MICKEY CHRIST, DET. TRACY COLE , DET. GASTON COLEMAN, DET. DEANDRE DAVIS, DET. JESSE DYSON, DET. BRUCE EDMOND, DET. RICHARD EDWARDS, DET. AMON FIGGS, DET. SHAVISTE GRANDBERRY, DET. TRACY HALLQUIST, DET. GEORGE HENRY, DET. JANIKA HUMPHREY, DET. MARILYN JOHNSON, DET. DENEANE JONES, DET. PAUL KOSEDNAR, DET. DOUGLAS MCCLEAN, DET. TERRON MURPHY, DET. MICHAEL SHAW, DET. JAMES STAGGE, DET. THOMAS STRODE, DET. KEATON STRONG, DET. KELLI SWINTON, DET. JARRED THACKER, DET. STEPHEN WALSH IV, DET. BRANDON WEBB, DET. NIJAUH WOODARD, DET. MARQUISE WREN, DET. BRANDON WYMS, OFF. GERALD ADAMS, OFF. ALFRED ALLMON, OFF. JON AMESQUITA, OFF. JOHN ANDERSON, OFF. ERICA ANDERSON, OFF. KEVIN BAMBRICK, OFF. JERMAINE BANKS, OFF. BRYAN BARTON, OFF. BENJAMIN BAYLESS, OFF. MATTHEW BEDELL, OFF. JACOB BIAS, OFF. MARCUS BIGGINS, OFF. JAMES BINDER, OFF. ANNA BIONDOLILLO, OFF. TIMOTHY BOCKSKOPF, OFF. MATTHEW BOESTER, OFF. TAMARRIS BOHANNON, OFF. DUSTIN BOONE, OFF. CHRISTOPHER BRAMLEY, OFF. BRIAN BREWER-MOORE, OFF. LUCAS BROCKMEYER, OFF. RYAN BUSCEMI, OFF. MICHAEL CALCATERRA, OFF. BENJAMIN CEHIC, OFF. MICHAEL CHELI, OFF. BRIAN B CHELI, OFF. KRISTIN CHELUCCI, OFF. PAUL CHESTER, OFF. RUSSELL CHRISTIAN, OFF. MARCO CHRISTLIEB, OFF. BRANDON CLARK, OFF. DANIEL CLAUSS, OFF. THEARN CLEMENTS, OFF. KANISHA COLEMAN, OFF. ANTHONY COLL, OFF. BAILEY COLLETTA, OFF. JULIUS CONNER, OFF. ROBERT COOPER, OFF. DAVID CROCKER, OFF. IAN CSAPO, OFF. NADJA CURT, OFF. KEVIN DANG, OFF. STEVEN DAUGHERTY, OFF. PATRICK DAUT, OFF. JEREMY DAVIS, OFF. EMILY DAVIS, OFF. ROLAND DEGREGORIO, OFF. BRIAN DEMATTEIS, OFF. WILLIAM DOUGLAS, OFF. NATHAN DRESCH, OFF. JODIE EATON, OFF. RICHARD EAVES, OFF. SAM EDWARDS, OFF. MATTHEW EERNISSE, OFF. STEVEN FANZ, OFF. BRENT FINCHER, OFF. STEVEN FISCHER, OFF. ZACHARIAH FOLTZ, OFF. SEAN FORTUNE, OFF. GLENNON FRIGERIO, OFF. GREGORY FROST, OFF. AARON GADDIS, OFF. LUIS GARIBAY, OFF. ADAM GARIBAY, OFF. JAZMON DOMINIQUE GARRETT, OFF. JOHN GENTILINI, OFF. RYAN GIBBONS, OFF. EDWARD GONZALES, OFF. BRIAN GONZALES, OFF. DERECK GREEN, OFF. SHAWN GRIGGS, OFF. KATHLEEN GUTJAHR, OFF. JONATHAN HAIRE, OFF. TOM HALFHILL, OFF. JOSHUA HALL, OFF. NICHOLAS HARBAUGH, OFF. THOMAS HARGER, OFF. JAMES HARRIS III, OFF. ZEME'Z HARRIS, OFF. BENJAMIN HAWKINS, OFF. AMBER HAWKINS, OFF. HENRY HAYDEN, OFF. NICHOLAS HAYDEN, OFF. BRIAN HAYES, OFF. RANDY HAYS, OFF. ANDREW HEIMBERGER, OFF. ERIN HEIN, OFF. NICK HENDERSON, OFF. ERIC HENRY, OFF. MICHAEL HINES, OFF. TIMOTHY HOLLMAN, OFF. NICHOLAS HOLT, OFF. DUSTIN HOSKINS, OFF. TAYLOR HOSNA, OFF. CARLUS INGRAM, OFF. MATTHEW JAMES, OFF. JEREMY JOHNSON, OFF. REGINALD JONES, OFF. COURTNEY JORDAN, OFF. MICHAEL JOYNER, OFF. JOSH KAMPER, OFF. JOSEPH KERTH, OFF. ZOHAIB KHAN, OFF. DANIEL KIM, OFF. DAVID KING, OFF. AUSTIN KING, OFF. JEREMIAH KOERPER, OFF. STEVE KORTE, OFF. RYAN KOTASKA, OFF. FRANCIS KOZIACKI, OFF. DAVID KRAPF, OFF. ABBY KRULL, OFF. JARED KRUMM, OFF. STEVEN LANDERS, OFF. AMY LAZ, OFF. LAWRENCE LAZEWSKI, OFF. TRENTON LEE, OFF. NICHOLAS LEE, OFF. BRIAN LEMONS, OFF. RYAN LINDHORST, OFF. JEFFREY LONG, OFF. RONALD LUDWIG, OFF. ALAN MALONE, OFF. JOSEPH MARCANTANO, OFF. JOSHUA MARTIN, OFF. SEAN MARTINI, OFF. NICHOLAS MARTORANO, OFF. KEVIN MATAYA, OFF. DAMON MAXWELL, OFF. COLLIN MCANANY, OFF. JOSHUA MCBEE, OFF. MATTHEW MCCOMY, OFF. LUKE MCDONNELL, OFF. JANE MCKIBBEN, OFF. TIMOTHY MCNAMARA, OFF. ALEXANDER MESNAGE, OFF. MICHAEL MISSEL, OFF. JOSEPH MORRELL, OFF. JOSHUA MORRISON, OFF. JOHN MOTON, OFF. NICHOLAS MUEHLHEAUSLER, OFF. AARON MUENDLEIN, OFF. SEAN MURPHY, OFF. RYAN MURPHY, OFF. BRIAN MURPHY, OFF. BIANCA MYERS, OFF. CHRISTOPHER MYERS, OFF. EDWARD NAPIER, OFF. CHRISTOPHER NAREZ, OFF. COURTNEY NASH, OFF. PERRIN NEWMAN, OFF. MICHAEL NIETHE, OFF. CARIANNE NOGA, OFF. JOHN O'BRIEN, OFF. MICHAEL O'CALLAGHAN, OFF. UZOMA ONWUMERE, OFF. NICOLA ORLANDO, OFF. STEPHE ORTINAU, OFF. DANIEL OSORIO, OFF. ERIC PARRISH, OFF. JAMIE PARTEE, OFF. AUSTIN PATTON, OFF. KEITH PAULITSCH, OFF. MARK PFIEFFER, OFF. JOSEPH PIERCE, OFF. LAQUAN PIERCE, OFF. JAIMIE PITTERLE, OFF. OLIVER POGGIOLI, OFF. CHRISTINA POWDERLY, OFF. JACK RANDOLPH, OFF. AHMAN RASOOL, OFF. PATRICK RIORDAN, OFF. CORNELL ROBINSON, OFF. MEGAN RODGERS, OFF. JOSEPH RODRIGUEZ, OFF. STEPHANIE ROGERS, OFF. ROSA ROJAS, OFF. MICHAEL RONZIO, OFF. GEOFFREY ROSE, OFF. MICHAEL ROSS, OFF. JOSEPH ROSS , OFF. DAVID RUDOLPH, OFF. GARY RUFFIN, OFF. TERRENCE RUFFIN, OFF. TREVOR RUSSELL, OFF. RONALD RUST, OFF. STEVEN SAITO, OFF. OHMED SAMIH, OFF. KYLE SANTA, OFF. JOSEPH SCALZO, OFF. GREGORY SCHAFFER, OFF. RICHARD SCHICKER, OFF. ANDREW SCHMICK, OFF. JOSEPH SCHMITT, OFF. APRIL SCHNETZER, OFF. STEPHEN IV SCHROEDER, OFF. CHRISTOPHER SEGER, OFF. JONATHAN SELBERT, OFF. JONATHAN SENF, OFF. MATTHEW SHAW, OFF. KEITH SHELTON, OFF. MATTHEW SHOULTS, OFF. QUINCY SILVER, OFF. TAWANNA SIMMS, OFF. KORI SIMON, OFF. MITCHEL SIMPHER, OFF. ELIJAH SIMPSON, OFF. SISAVATH SINGHARATH, OFF. ASHLEY SMITH, OFF. QUINCY SMITH, OFF. JACOB STEIN, OFF. WILLIAM STEVENSON, OFF. SAMUEL STEWART, OFF. JOSLYN STONE, OFF. THOMAS STRECKFUSS, OFF. BRIAN STREHL, OFF. NATHAN STRICKLAND, OFF. STEVEN STROHMEYER, OFF. ROBERT STUART, OFF. JOSEPH TATE, OFF. SOLOMON THURMAN, OFF. ANTON TREIS, OFF. ROBERT TRIM, OFF. WILLIAM TRIPLETT, OFF. CHAD TULLOCK, OFF. ANTHONY VALENZA, OFF. JONATHAN VANARSDALE, OFF. PHILIP VONDERHEYDT, OFF. ERICH VONNIDA, OFF. NHONG VORACHACK, OFF. PAUL WACTOR, OFF. CHARLES WALL, OFF. RAMELLE WALLACE, OFF. MARTINOUS VASHON III WALLS III, OFF. BRADLEY WALWORTH, OFF. JEANINE WATERS, OFF. MATTHEW WELLE, OFF. DUANE WELLS, OFF. RANDALL WELSCH, OFF. LINDSEY WETHINGTON, OFF. ANDRE WHITE, OFF. CRISTINA WIDBIN, OFF. JOANN WILLIAMS , OFF. DARNELL WILLIS, OFF. LOUIS WILSON, OFF. ANDREW WISMAR, OFF. JAMES WOOD, OFF. JAMES WOOTEN, OFF. SAMUEL ZOUGLAS, OFF. RICHARD ZURMUEHLEN, and OFF. JAMES ZWILLING. On September 15, 2017, after a four-day bench trial, a Missouri circuit court judge acquitted Officer Jason Stockley of the first-degree murder of Anthony Lamar Smith. This acquittal shocked many in the St. Louis community as an audio recording submitted into evidence in the trial captured Officer Stockley saying "we're killing this motherfucker, don't you know" in reference to Mr. Smith. Following the announcement of the Stockley Verdict, public protests began at multiple locations in St. Louis and surrounding communities. To many in the St. Louis community, Officer Stockley's acquittal was yet another example of white St. Louis-area police officers killing African-American citizens with impunity, the Plaintiffs assert. They add that in the view of the protestors, the acquittal further supported their view that the American criminal justice system does not believe that Black lives matter. On September 17, 2017, officers from the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department ("SLMPD") illegally seized and subjected the Named Plaintiffs and other protesters to violence without probable cause and in contravention of the U.S. Constitution and Missouri law, according to the complaint. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant Officers either directly violated the Named Plaintiffs and the putative class's civil rights or conspired to do the same. They add that the Defendant Officers unlawfully battered, arrested, prosecuted, and inflicted emotional distress on the Named Plaintiffs and the putative class and/or conspired to do the same. Defendant the City of St. Louis, Missouri, is a first-class city, and a political subdivision of the State of Missouri duly organized under the Constitution of Missouri. SLMPD is an instrumentality of the City of St. Louis, Missouri, organized and controlled pursuant to the Statutes of the State of Missouri.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Javad M. Khazaeli, Esq. James R. Wyrsch, Esq. Kiara N. Drake, Esq. KHAZAELI WYRSCH LLC 911 Washington Avenue, Suite 211 St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 288-0777 Facsimile: (314) 400-7701 E-mail: james.wyrsch@kwlawstl.com javad.khazaeli@kwlawstl.com kiara.drake@kwlawstl.com SUNDIAL GROWERS: Huang Files IPO-Related Class Action ----------------------------------------------------- YIMIN HUANG, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. SUNDIAL GROWERS INC., TORSTEN KUENZLEN, JAMES KEOUGH, EDWARD HELLARD, GREG MILLS, GREGORY TURNBULL, LEE TAMKEE, ELIZABETH CANNON, COWEN AND COMPANY, LLC, BMO NESBITT BURNS INC., RBC DOMINION SECURITIES INC., BARCLAYS CAPITAL CANADA INC., CIBC WORLD MARKETS INC., and SCOTIA CAPITAL INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-08913 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 25, 2019), is a securities class action brought on behalf of persons, who purchased or otherwise acquired Sundial securities pursuant and/or traceable to Sundial's Registration Statement issued in connection with Sundial's August 1, 2019 initial public stock offering, seeking to recover compensable damages caused by the Defendants' violations of the Securities Act of 1933. On or about July 30, 2019, Sundial filed with the SEC an amended registration statement on Form F-1 (Registration No. 333-232573), which was signed by the Individual Defendants and was declared effective on August 1, 2019. On August 1, 2019, Sundial filed with the SEC the final prospectus for the IPO of common stock on Form 424B4 (the "Prospectus"), which forms part of the Registration Statement, and sold 11 million shares of Sundial common stock to the investing public at $13 per share for gross proceeds of approximately $134.4 million, excluding $8.58 million in commissions paid to the Underwriter Defendants. The Registration Statement represented that Sundial was a producer of "high-quality cannabis in small batches" and that "we produce high-quality, consistent cannabis" and that the Company's operating model results in "strong customer loyalty." These representations were untrue statements of material fact because, before the IPO, due to material quality issues, Zenabis Global Inc., a Sundial customer, had returned or rejected a total of 554 kg of cannabis (approximately 1,221 pounds) to Sundial, according to the complaint. Indeed, the cannabis shipped by Sundial to Zenabis was low quality and was returned to Sundial because it contained visible mold, parts of rubber gloves and other non-cannabis material. Moreover, the Registration Statement purported to warn investors about risks of failure of Sundial's quality control systems, contamination of, or damage to, its cannabis inventory, while failing to disclose that a material failure had already occurred. These representations in the Registration Statement contained untrue statements of material fact because, before the IPO, Sundial's quality control systems had already been negatively impacted as Sundial had already experienced a material failure or deterioration of such quality control systems, and Sundial's quality control systems failed to operate effectively and successfully. Indeed, at the time of the IPO, Sundial failed to disclose that: (1) Sundial failed to supply saleable cannabis in line with contractual obligations to Zenabis; and (2) due to material quality issues, Zenabis had to return or reject a total of 554 kg of cannabis from Sundial, valued at approximately U.S. $1.9 million (C$2.5 million). Since the IPO, and as a result of the disclosure of material adverse facts omitted from Sundial's Registration Statement, Sundial's stock price has fallen substantially below its IPO price, damaging Plaintiff and Class members, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased Sundial shares pursuant and/or traceable to the IPO and was damaged thereby. Sundial purports to be a producer and marketer of premium cannabis for the adult-use market.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Phillip Kim, Esq. Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 275 Madison Ave., 34th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 686-1060 Facsimile: (212) 202-3827 E-mail: pkim@rosenlegal.com lrosen@rosenlegal.com SUNROAD CV AUTO: Fails to Pay Prope Wages, Kyriakides Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- ANGEL KYRIAKIDES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SUNROAD CV AUTO, INC. dba TOYOTA CHULA VISTA; SUNROAD DEALERSHIPS CORPORATION; SUNROAD HOLDING CORPORATION; SUNROAD CV MOTORS, LLC; SUNROAD AUTO, LLC; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 37-2019-00047879-CU-OE-CTL (Cal. Super., Sept. 10, 2019) is an action against the Defendants 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 was employed by the Defendants as Kyriakides as non-exempt employee. Sunroad CV Auto, Inc. dba Toyota Chula Vista is engaged in car delearship. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William B. Sullivan, Esq. Eric K. Yaeckel, Esq. Ryan T. Kuhn, Esq. Andrea J. Torres-Figueroa, Esq. SULLIVAN LAW GROUP, APC 2330 Third Avenue San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 702-6760 Facsimile: (619) 702-6761 E-mail: helen@sullivanlawgroupapc.com yaeckel@sullivanlawgroupapc.com ryan@sullivanlawgroupapc.com atorres@sullivanlawgroupapc.com TOTAL MERCHANT: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Abante Rooter Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- ABANTE ROOTER AND PLUMBING, INC., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TOTAL MERCHANT SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-05711 (N.D. Cal., Sept. 11, 2019) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls. Total Merchant Services LLC provides a full service credit card merchant account and processing services. The Company offers terminal equipment, competitive processing rates, cash advances, check processing services, and gift card programs. Total Merchant Services serves customers in the United States and Canada. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard T. Drury, Esq. Rebecca Davis, Esq. LOZEAU DRURY LLP 410 12th Street, Suite 250 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (510) 836-4200 Facsimile: (510) 836-4205 E-mail: richard@lozeaudrury.com rebecca@lozeaudrury.com - and - Steven L. Woodrow WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC 3900 East Mexico Ave., Suite 300 Denver, CO 80210 Telephone: (720) 213-0675 Facsimile: (303) 927-0809 E-mail: swoodrow@woodrowpeluso.com TRUDO REALTY: Faces Johnson Suit Alleging FLSA and BIPA Violation ----------------------------------------------------------------- TAZJANAE JOHNSON, on behalf of herself and all other plaintiffs similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRUDO REALTY, LLC and CHRISTOPHER CATON Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-06371 (N.D., Ill., Sept. 25, 2019), accuses the Defendants of failing to pay overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law and the Chicago Ordinance on Minimum Wage. To avoid paying workers minimum wage and overtime, the Defendants misclassify workers, including Plaintiff, as independent contractors, according to the complaint. The workers, however, are not independent contractors, the Plaintiff argues. The Defendants intentionally did not pay Plaintiff and similarly situated employees proper overtime wages of one and one-half time their regular rate of pay for all hours worked above forty hours in a work week and also failed to pay them their minimum wages. The Plaintiff also brings individual and class claims under the Biometric Information Privacy Act. She contends that the Defendants continue to collect, store, and use workers biometric data in violation of the BIPA. Trudo similarly failed to provide employees with a written, publicly available policy identifying its retention schedule, and guidelines for permanently destroying employees' fingerprints when the initial purpose for collecting or obtaining the fingerprints is no longer relevant, as required by the BIPA. An employee who leaves their job does so without any knowledge of when their biometric identifiers will be removed from Trudo's databases--or if they ever will be, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants within the past three years as an employee, although they attempted to misclassify her as an independent contractor. Trudo is a Chicago-based real estate firm with approximately 50 employees who work for it.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David J. Fish, Esq. Kimberly Hilton, Esq. John Kunze, Esq. Thalia Pacheco, Esq. THE FISH LAW FIRM, P.C. 200 East Fifth Avenue, Suite 123 Naperville, IL 60563 TWO RIVERS: Faces Paulson Files Securities Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- JOHN PAULSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. TWO RIVERS WATER AND FARMING COMPANY, a Colorado corporation; JOHN R. MCKOWEN, an individual; WAYNE HARDING, an individual; and TIMOTHY BEALL, an individual, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02639 (D. Colo., Sept. 16, 2019) is a class action under the Colorado Securities Act and Colorado common law on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of GrowCo, a Colorado corporation, from January 2015 until March 2017. Two Rivers is a Colorado corporation with its business beginning in the development of irrigated farmland, associated water rights, and infrastructure. In 2014, Two Rivers formed GrowCo, as a wholly owned subsidiary, to capitalize on Colorado's burgeoning marijuana industry. GrowCo, Inc. constructs and leases state of the art, computer controlled, greenhouses that enables licensed marijuana growers with the ability to grow a higher quality more natural product at lower costs than can be produced in the artificial growing environment created in converted warehouses. GrowCo is not a licensed marijuana grower or retailer. GrowCo does not "touch the plant" and only provides growing infrastructure for licensed marijuana tenants. On May 11, 2015, GrowCo filed a Notice of Exempt Offering with the SEC, for a securities offering of $5 million in debt securities and warrants. Sales of securities in this offering by GrowCo and Defendants began on March 16, 2015. On September, 7, 2016, GrowCo amended its previous filing to change the acting CEO from Defendant McKowen to Defendant Harding. At the same day, GrowCo, filed a Notice of Exempt Offering with the SEC to offer $7 million in senior exchange notes due July 1, 2021. Sales of securities in this offering by GrowCo and Defendants began on March 16, 2016. On March 9, 2017, GrowCo filed an amendment to the previous notice stating that the offering had been terminated as of March 9, 2017. As part of the Securities Offerings, GrowCo and Defendants prepared and distributed to prospective investors documents including sales presentations, memoranda of terms, exchange note purchase agreements, exchange agreements, investor questionnaires, and other documents ("the Offering Documents") which purported to make material disclosures to investors about GrowCo and the Securities Offerings. The purpose of the GrowCo Securities Offerings was to raise money from investors across the country to support the operations of Defendant Two Rivers, GrowCo, a GrowCo affiliate. However, the GrowCo Securities Offerings' Offering Documents contained material omissions regarding McKowen, the founder of GrowCo and Two Rivers and the key driving force behind the two entities and the Securities Offerings, notes the complaint. The Defendants were aware of, or recklessly disregarded, the omissions and were aware of their materially false and misleading nature. The Defendants had a duty to conduct adequate due diligence as to the information in the Offering Documents before offering and selling the GrowCo securities to investors and were reckless in offering and selling the GrowCo securities to investors without disclosing the facts surrounding Defendant McKowen's background, the complaint asserts. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' material omissions, Plaintiff and the class members purchased GrowCo securities from Defendants and suffered losses. Defendants are liable to Plaintiff and the class members for damages as a result of their misconduct in an amount to be determined at the hearing of this case, says the complaint. Plaintiff John Paulson is an investor in GrowCo, and purchased securities in GrowCo during the Class Period.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steve A. Miller, Esq. Steve A. Miller, P.C. 1625 Larimer Street, Suite 2906 Denver, CO 80202 Phone: (303) 892-9933 Fax: (303) 892-8925 Email: Sampc01@gmail.com - and - Paul J. Scarlato, Esq. Christian A. Pfeiffer, Esq. GOLDMAN SCARLATO & PENNY P.C. 8 Tower Bridge, Suite 1025 161 Washington Street Conshohocken, PA 19428 Phone: (484) 342-0700 Email: scarlato@lawgsp.com pfeiffer@lawgsp.com - and - Alan L. Rosca, Esq. GOLDMAN SCARLATO & PENNY, PC 23250 Chagrin Blvd. Suite 100 Beachwood, OH 44122 Phone: (484) 342-0700 Email: rosca@lawgsp.com - and - J. Barton Goplerud, Esq. Brian O. Marty, Esq. SHINDLER ANDERSON GOPLERUD & WEESE PC 5015 Grand Ridge Dr, Ste 100 West Des Moines, IA 50265 Phone: (515) 223-4567 Fax: (515) 223-8887 Email: goplerud@sagwlaw.com marty@sagwlaw.com ULTA SALON: Rowe Appeals Class Cert. Denial to Ninth Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------ Plaintiffs Victoria Rowe and Paulina Scarpino filed an appeal from a Court ruling entered in their lawsuit titled Victoria Rowe, et al. v. Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Frag., et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-01074-PA-JC, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Los Angeles. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Sept. 18, 2019, the Hon. Judge Percy Anderson entered an order on Aug. 30, 2019, denying certification of a class defined as: "all brand representatives that have worked in Ulta stores in the state of California from four years prior to the filing of the complaint to the date of preliminary approval or judgment, whichever is earlier." The Plaintiffs have failed to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that they can meet Rule 23(b)(3)'s predominance requirement, according to the order. The Court, therefore, denies the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. The appellate case is captioned as Victoria Rowe, et al. v. Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Frag., et al., Case No. 19-80125, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN] Plaintiffs-Petitioners VICTORIA ROWE and PAULINA SCARPINO, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated individuals, are represented by: Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq. Anne Kramer, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com akramer@llrlaw.com - and - Adam M. Rose, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT STARR 23901 Calabasas Road Calabasas, CA 91302 Telephone: (818) 225-9040 E-mail: adam@starrlaw.com Defendant-Respondent, ULTA SALON COSMETICS & FRAGRANCE, INC. is represented by: David D. Jacobson, Esq. David D. Kadue, Esq. Jinouth Desiree Vasquez Santos, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW, LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500 Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021 Telephone: (310) 277-7200 Facsimile: (310) 201-5219 E-mail: djacobson@seyfarth.com dkadue@seyfarth.com jvasquezsantos@seyfarth.com WINCO FOODS: Mitchell Seeks 9th Cir. Review of FCRA Suit Ruling --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Gloria Mitchell filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the lawsuit titled Gloria Mitchell v. Winco Foods, LLC, Case No. 1:16-cv-00076-BLW, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho, Boise. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit seeks redress for, and to put an end to, the Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, specifically its failure to provide proper notices and disclosures to its job applicants and employees. WinCo is a privately-held supermarket chain based in Boise, Idaho. The Company was founded in 1967 and now has over 100 store locations in Idaho, Arizona, California, Nevada, Oregon, Texas, Utah, and Washington. WinCo also operates at least 5 distribution centers throughout the United States. The appellate case is captioned as Gloria Mitchell v. Winco Foods, LLC, Case No. 19-35802, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Transcript must be ordered by October 18, 2019; -- Transcript is due on November 18, 2019; -- Appellant Gloria Mitchell's opening brief is due on December 30, 2019; -- Appellee Winco Foods, LLC's answering brief is due on January 30, 2020; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant, GLORIA MITCHELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Patrick Harry Peluso, Esq. Steven Lezell Woodrow, Esq. WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC 3900 E. Mexico Avenue, Suite 300 Denver, CO 80210 Telephone: (720) 213-0676 E-mail: ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com swoodrow@woodrowpeluso.com - and - Eric B. Swartz, Esq. JONES & SWARTZ PLLC 623 W Hays Street Boise, ID 83702 Telephone: (208) 489-8989 E-mail: eric@jonesandswartzlaw.com Defendant-Appellee, WINCO FOODS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, is represented by: Kaitlyn Burke, Esq. Rick D. Roskelley, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON PC 3960 Howard Hughes Parkway Las Vegas, NV 89169 Telephone: (702) 862-8800 E-mail: rroskelley@littler.com XEROX CORP: Court Denies Class Certification in Shareholder Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Barry R. Ostrager of the New York County Supreme Court denied the Plaintiffs' (i) motion for class certification, (ii) motion for approval of the settlement, and (iii) motion for an award of attorney's fees to their counsel in the XEROX CORPORATION CONSOLIDATED SHAREHOLDER LITIGATION, Docket No. 650766/2018, Motion Seq. No. 017/018/022 (N.Y. Sup.). On Jan. 31, 2018, the Boards of Directors of Fujifilm and Xerox unanimously agreed to a transaction that would, among other things, make Fujifilm a 50.1% owner of Xerox. On Feb. 13, 2018, Darwin Deason, the second largest individual shareholder of Xerox, initiated an action to enjoin the Transaction. On March 2, 2018, Deason filed a second suit to enjoin Xerox from enforcing the Advance Notice Bylaw deadline for the nomination of directors to be elected at the 2018 Annual Meeting. At or about this same period of time, four purported class actions were filed on behalf of Pension Funds for the Asbestos Workers, the Iron Workers, and Carpenters, as well as by Robert Lowinger, each of which also sought to enjoin the Transaction on the ground that, by approving the Transaction, the Xerox Board of Directors had breached its fiduciary duties to the Xerox shareholders. On March 9, 2018, these four putative class actions were consolidated under the caption In Re Xerox Corporation Consolidated Shareholder Litigation, Index No. 650766/18. On May 13, 2018, the counsel for the purported class resubmitted the Memorandum of Understanding pursuant to which the counsel for the purported class agreed to the releases for all the directors in exchange for no consideration other than the terms of the private Deason settlement. The release contemplated by the Memorandum of Understanding would release the resigning and continuing directors from any liability relating to the change in control of the Xerox Board and any liability arising out of the termination of the Fuji Transaction. The Memorandum of Understanding recited that neither Xerox nor Deason would oppose, and Xerox would fund, an award of counsel fees of $7.5 million to the counsel for the class Plaintiffs, provided the Court approved the class settlement. Before the Court were three motions filed by the counsel for the purported class in the consolidated shareholder action. The motions sought certification of a class and appointment of class representatives, approval of a class settlement, and an award of attorneys' fees of $7.5 million. The motions were opposed by Xerox shareholder Carmen Ribbe, and comments from some of the 34 prospective class members who opted out of the settlement were read into the record when the motions were heard on Sept. 6, 2019. After careful consideration of the competing arguments, Judge Ostrager declines to certify the class or approve the proposed settlement and the award of attorney's fees. He declines to certify the class, as he cannot find on the record presented that "the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class as CPLR 901(a)(4) requires for class certification." Moreover, the Judge concludes that the proposed settlement is not in the best interests of the shareholders as it achieves no material benefit for shareholders other than Icahn and Deason. On the contrary, the proposed settlement releases any claims shareholders may have concerning the change of control orchestrated by Deason and Icahn and any liability for the subsequently filed Fuji case. The benefit to Xerox as a company is also questionable in light of the $1 billion lawsuit by Fuji that remains pending. The settlement is thus disapproved, the Court rules The Judge further finds that purported class representatives are inadequate representatives for the class, and the purported class counsel have not rendered any benefit to the purported class to justify the $7.5 million fee they seek. Since the purported class counsel conferred no benefit on the Xerox shareholders, there is no basis for any award of counsel fees, the Court states. Accordingly, Judge Ostarger denied the Plaintiffs' motions for class certification and settlement approval. The counsel will appear before the Court in the action and the related derivative action, Ribbe v. Jacobson, on Nov. 19, 2019 at 11:30 a.m. for a conference to determine how to proceed. A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 10, 2019 Decision and Order is available at https://is.gd/JnuXHw from Leagle.com. YD WINDOW: Richardson Seeks Overtime & Minimum Wages ---------------------------------------------------- The case captioned HOLLY RICHARDSON, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. YD WINDOW, INC., a California Corporation and DOES 1-10 inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. STK-CV-VOE-2019-9664 (Cal. Super., July 25, 2019), alleges that Defendants failed to pay overtime and minimum wages pursuant to the California Labor Code. During her employment, the Plaintiff worked more than 8 hours per day and 40 hours per week. Specifically Defendants employed an impermissible rounding policy when recording Plaintiff's and its other non-exempt employees' time worked, the lawsuit says. Yd Window, Inc. is in the jalousies business.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: William J. Gorham III, Esq. Nicholas f. dcardigli, Esq. Vladimir J. Kozina, Esq. MAYALL HURLEY P.C. 2453 Grand Canal Boulevard Stockton, CA 95207-8253 Telephone: (209) 477 3833 Facsimile: (209) 473 4818 E-mail: wgorham@mayallaw.com nscarding@mayallaw.com vjkozin@mayallaw.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 ***