/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/191011.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, October 11, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 204 Headlines 1-800 CONTACTS: Thompson Seeks Approval of $12-MM Deal With WAG/VD 5 STAR NUTRITION: Cranor Sues Over Illegal SMS Ad Blasts ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Smith Suit Asserts TCPA Violation AIX SPECIALTY: MSP Moves to Certify Class of Medicare Part C MAOs ALDI INC: Mediation Underway in Lacey-Salas Labor Suit ALLERGAN, INC: A.B. et al. Sue over Recalled Breast Implants ALNYLAM PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Suit over 35% Drop in Share Price AMERICAN MEDICAL: Dermody Data Breach Suit Transferred to MDL ANGMAR MEDICAL: Mayhew Seeks Certification of Class Under FLSA ASTRAZENECA: Conspired to Delay Release of Generic Seroquel XR BANK OF AMERICA: Tirado's Bid to Dismiss Denied Without Prejudice BENTON COUNTY, OR: County Urged to Exit Timber Suit BRIAD RESTAURANT: Andersen's Certification Bid Partly Granted CAPITAL ONE: Court Stays Zosiak Data Breach Suit CAPITAL ONE: Heath et al Sue over Data Breach CAPITAL ONE: Veverka's Data Breach Suit Underway CITY OF NORWALK: Underpays Administrative Secretaries, Coles Says COCA COLA BEVERAGES: Conklin Sues over Health Care Coverage COSTCO WHOLESALE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Mosley Suit Says CVS HEALTH: To Refund Purchasers of Algal-900 Memory Supplements DANNY'S FURNITURE: Guerrero Seeks Overtime & Minimum Wages DAVE & BUSTER'S: Smith Seeks Overtime Compensation for Employees DERMSTORE LLC: Parties Settle Reid's ADA Suit ENHANCED RECOVERY: Wilson Files FCRA Suit in Delaware ERIC SELLERS: Brooks in Curry Lawsuit Can Amend Complaint FEDEX CORPORATION: Farrell Files Wage and Hour Suit GAP, INC: Martinez Seeks Minimum & OT Pay for Store Staff GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Gruchacz Suit in District of New Jersey GENERAL MOTORS: Goldstein, et al. Sue Over Defective Cadillacs GLOBAL HEALTHCARE: Pilipenko Hits Unpaid Wages, Retaliation GOOD HEALTH INC: Calle Sues Over Denied OT Pay, Breaks, Pay Slips GREEN CITY SECURITY: Underpays Guards, Cokley Alleges GRUBB & ASSOCIATES: Russell's Bid to Certify Employees Class OK'd GTT COMMUNICATIONS: Schall Law Files Class Action Lawsuit HAN DYNASTY: Pan Moves for Certification of Class Under FLSA HEADWAY TECH: IT Worx Sues Over Hard Drive Spring Price-rigging HENLEY RESTAURANTS: Yepez Seeks OT Pay for Restaurant Staff HOUZZ, INC: Geenen Seeks OT Wages for Misclassified Employees IL FORNAIO: Failed to Pay OT Wages for Workers, Correa Says INVESTORS BANCORP: Elburn Sues Board for Breach of Fiduciary Duty LANDSKRONER LAW: Bradshaw Sues over Water Bill Refund Claims LEAZER GROUP: Perez Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing LET'S SHAKE: Perales Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages LION OIL: Court Tosses Class Certification Bid in Fuller Suit LIQUI-BOX: Zaman Suit Underway in California Superior Court LORD & TAYLOR: Fails to Pay Wages, Toon Says MACADO'S INC: Bartenders/Servers Class Certified in Spencer Suit MAGICK WOODS: Feliciano Biometric Data Suit Underway MARS PETCARE: Pet Owners Dispute "No Grains" Claim in Dogfood MCKESSON INC: Chris et al. Suit Underway in S.D. Georgia MDL 2311: Dealers Seek Ct. OK to Send Notice of $86-MM Settlements MDL 2905: Hamilton Livery Suit Consolidated MIDLAND FUNDING: Court Compels Arbitration in Lomeli FDCPA Suit MIDWEST FOODS: Curtis Hits Illegal Biometrics Data Collection MILACRON HOLDINGS: Sabatini Files Suit Over Sale to Hillenbrand MOWI ASA: Portland Hunt-Alpine Asserts Unfair Trade Practices NADINE WEST: Tatum-Rios Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: Appeals Ruling in Domiano Suit to S.C. of Pa. NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: Class of Employees Certified in Cowan Suit NINTENDO CO: Switch Lite Added to Joy-Con Drift Lawsuit OBALON THERAPEUTICS: Class Suit Survives Dismissal Bid OCALA, FL: ACLU Accused of Moral Posturing in Homeless Class Suit OHIO: Gallant's Bid to Withdraw Civil Claim Granted; Case Closed ORTHOPEDIC SPECIALTY: Fenwick Sues Over Illegal SMS Ad Blasts OVATION CREDIT: Inside Sales Reps Class Certified in Diggs Suit OVERSTOCK.COM INC: Faces Securities Class Action in Utah OVERSTOCK.COM: Company, 2 Executives Accused of Securities Fraud PACKERS SANITATION: Underpays Workers, Elkhouly Claims PAPA JOHN'S: Class of Delivery Drivers Certified in Thomas Suit PENN CREDIT: Guidry's TCPA Suit Transferred to M.D. Fla. PNY TECHNOLOGIES: Seeks More Time to Respond to Geske Suit PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS: Los Angeles Drops Lawsuit Over DWP System PROFESSIONAL ACCOUNT: Matke's Bid for Class Certification Stayed PROGRESSIVE NORTHERN: Curtis Seeks to Certify Class of Insureds PYRAMID EXCAVATION: Chesscher Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Carroll et al. Data Breach Suit Moved to NJ RECEIVABLES PERFORMANCE: Robinson Files FDCPA Class Action RGS FINANCIAL: Weinberg Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York SAKS FIFTH: Toon's Overtime Suit Underway in Massachusetts SEA WORLD PARKS: Stewart Suit Asserts Labor Code Violations SENSA INC: Court Denies Stoke's Bid for Class Certification SHAFER PROJECT: Lewis Seeks Overtime Pay for Coating Inspectors SHARP ELECTRONICS: Macone Sues Over Defective Microwaves SLIDE FIRE: Class Action Lawsuit Allowed to Move Forward SNOWVIEW MANAGEMENT: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York STARKIST CO: Class-Action Suit Payout Less Than Expected SUNDAY RILEY: Tatum-Rios Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York SUNRISE MEDICAL: Whalen Suit Transferred to New Jersey T & K SUPERMARKET: Grinblat ADA Suit Underway in E.D. New York TEXTRON INC: Oct. 21 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline TRENTON WATER WORKS: Team Yaede Explores Legal Action TUTCO LLC: Faulty Heaters Lack Safety Backup Switches, Toca Says UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Underpays Drivers, Capriole Suit Alleges UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Court Narrows Claims in Medical Society Suit UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Protective Order Entered in Ryan S. Suit US IMMIGRATION: Court Dismisses Amended Mejia-Mejia Suit VALARIS PLC: Oct. 21 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline VIEWRAY INC: Corwin Suit Hits Share Price Drop VISTAR TRANSPORTATION: Contreras Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. VITAMIN SHOPPE: Rosenblatt Files Suit Over Sale to Liberty Tax VOLKSWAGEN AG: German Class Suit Over Emissions Cheating to Begin WAITR HOLDINGS: Kahn Swick Files Class Action Lawsuit WENDY'S: Court Certifies Class in Tyus MWA Lawsuit WESCO AIRCRAFT: Kent Sues Over Sale to Wolverine Intermediate WESTGATE PREMIER: Fails to Pay Minimum & Overtime Pay, Cabuag Says Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal Still Pending over $13MM Verdict in Lopez ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bausch Health US Faces Gutierrez Talc Class Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: CenterPoint Energy Still Defends Asbestos Matters ASBESTOS UPDATE: Emerson Electric Had $324MM Liability at June 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Freeport-McMoRan Unit Still Defends Talc Suits ASBESTOS UPDATE: H.B. Fuller Settles 5 Suits, Claims for $232K ASBESTOS UPDATE: Manitex Int'l Still Faces PL Suits at June 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: NRG Energy Pays $26MM to Settle EME Liabilities ASBESTOS UPDATE: OfficeMax Still Responsible for Cases at June 29 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Old Republic Posts $109.1MM Reserves at June 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Scotts Miracle-Gro Still Faces Suits at June 29 ********* 1-800 CONTACTS: Thompson Seeks Approval of $12-MM Deal With WAG/VD ------------------------------------------------------------------ Iysha Abed, Daniel J. Bartolucci, Alexa Bean, William P. Duncanson, Tyler Nance, Leia Pinto, Jill Schulson, J Thompson, and Edward Ungvarsky, Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned J THOMPSON, et al., Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. 1-800 CONTACTS, INC., et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-01183-TC-DBP (D. Utah), move the Court for entry of an order: (i) granting preliminary approval of the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, dated September 17, 2019 ("Settlement Agreement" or "SA"), between the Plaintiffs and Defendants Vision Direct, Inc. ("Vision Direct"), Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. and Walgreen Co. ("Walgreens," collectively with Vision Direct referred to as "WAG/VD"); and (ii) certifying the Settlement Class defined as: [A]ll persons in the United States who made at least one online purchase of contact lenses from 1-800 Contacts, Inc. ("1-800") or WAG/VD from January 1, 2004 to the date of execution of the settlement agreement, who do not timely exclude himself, herself, or themselves from the Class. Excluded from the Settlement Class are Defendants, their parent companies, subsidiaries and affiliates, any alleged Advertising Agreement Counterparties, governmental entities and instrumentalities of government, states and their subdivisions, agencies and instrumentalities. The Plaintiffs have signed a settlement agreement with WAG/VD, which provides for a cash payment of $12 million to a class of online contact lens purchasers, along with WAG/VD's agreement to provide the Plaintiffs with cooperation. This is the third settlement agreement reached in this action. The Plaintiffs previously settled with Arlington Contact Lens Service, Inc. and National Vision (collectively, "AC Lens") and Luxottica of America, Inc. ("Luxottica"), and the Court granted preliminary approval to both of those settlements. With the WAG/VD settlement, six of the seven Defendants named in this action have agreed to settle for a total of $24.9 million. The sole remaining Defendant, 1-800 Contacts, had a market share substantially greater than the Settling Defendants combined, and orchestrated the challenged conduct at issue in the case. Other than the monetary component, the key terms of the WAG/VD settlement are substantially identical to the previously approved AC Lens and Luxottica settlement agreements.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Heather M. Sneddon, Esq. Jared Scott, Esq. ANDERSON & KARRENBERG 50 West Broadway, Suite 700 Salt Lake City, UT 84101 Telephone: (801) 534-1700 Facsimile: (801) 364-7697 E-mail: hsneddon@aklawfirm.com jscott@aklawfirm.com - and - David W. Mitchell, Esq. Brian O. O'Mara, Esq. Steven M. Jodlowski, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 231-1058 Facsimile: (619) 231-7423 E-mail: davidm@rgrdlaw.com bomara@rgrdlaw.com sjodlowski@rgrdlaw.com - and - Scott E. Gant, Esq. Melissa F. Zappala, Esq. BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP 1401 New York Ave., NW Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 237-2727 Facsimile: (202) 237-6131 E-mail: sgant@bsfllp.com mzappala@bsfllp.com - and - Carl Goldfarb, Esq. BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP 401 East Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 356-0011 Facsimile: (954) 356-0022 E-mail: cgoldfarb@bsfllp.com 5 STAR NUTRITION: Cranor Sues Over Illegal SMS Ad Blasts -------------------------------------------------------- Lucas Cranor, on behalf of himself, and other similarly situated employees, Plaintiff, v. 5 Star Nutrition, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-00908, (W.D. Tex., September 13, 2019), seeks statutory damages, punitive damages, costs and attorney fees for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. 5-Star Nutrition operates a chain of stores which sell vitamins and supplements. To promote its services, it engages in unsolicited SMS ads sent en masse via an auto dialer. Cranor did not give express consent to receive such texts, says the complaint. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Ben Bingham, Esq. BINGHAM & LEA, P.C. 319 Maverick Street San Antonio, TX 78212 Tel: (210) 224-1819 Fax: (210) 224-0141 - and - Keith J. Keogh, Esq. KEOGH LAW, LTD. 55 W. Monroe St, Suite 3390 Chicago, IL 60603 Tel: (312) 726-1092 Fax: (312) 726-1093 Email: Keith@KeoghLaw.com ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Smith Suit Asserts TCPA Violation ------------------------------------------------------ JAMES SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ABERCROMBIE & FITCH CO., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-09114 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 1, 2019) is a class action Complaint against Defendant regarding Defendant's violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Plaintiff brings this Complaint to: (1) stop Defendant's practice of sending text messages using an automatic telephone dialing system ("ATDS") to the cellular telephones of consumers nationwide without their prior express written consent; (2) stop Defendant's practice of sending text messages using an artificial or prerecorded message to the cellular telephones of consumers nationwide without their prior express written consent; (3) enjoin Defendant from continuing to send text messages using an ATDS to consumers who did not provide their prior express written consent to receive them; and (4) obtain redress for all persons injured by its conduct, says the complaint. Plaintiff James Smith is a resident of Bronx, New York, and a citizen of the State of New York. Abercrombie & Fitch Co. is a corporation organized under the laws of Delaware, with a principal place of business at 6301 Fitch Path, New Albany, Ohio 43054.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph I. Marchese, Esq. Philip L. Fraietta, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 888 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 Phone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 Email: jmarchese@bursor.com pfraietta@bursor.com AIX SPECIALTY: MSP Moves to Certify Class of Medicare Part C MAOs ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit titled MSP RECOVERY CLAIMS, SERIES LLC, a Delaware entity, SERIES 16-05-456, a series of MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC, and SERIES 16-11-509, a series of MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC v. AIX SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, a Delaware entity, Case No. 6:18-cv-01456-PGB-DCI (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify this proposed class: All Medicare Advantage Organizations, or their assignees, that provide benefits under Medicare Part C, in the United States of America and its territories, and that made payments for a Medicare beneficiary's medical items and services within the last six years from the filing of the complaint where Defendant: (1) is the primary payer by virtue of having a contractual obligation to pay for the items and services that are required to be covered by the policy of insurance of the same Medicare Beneficiaries that are also covered by a Medicare Advantage plan; and (2) failed to pay for the items or services or otherwise failed to reimburse Medicare Advantage Organizations, or their assignees, for the items and services that were provided for medical items and services related to the claims on behalf of the Medicare Beneficiaries. This class definition excludes (a) Defendant, its officers, directors, management, employees, subsidiaries, and affiliates; and (b) any judges or justices involved in this action and any members of their immediate families. The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint them as class representatives, and to appoint their counsel as class counsel to represent the interests of the class.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Steve I. Silverman, Esq. KLUGER, KAPLAN, SILVERMAN, KATZEN & LEVINE, P.L. Miami Center, 27th Floor 201 South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 379 9000 E-mail: ssilverman@klugerkaplan.com - and - Frank C. Quesada, Esq. MSP RECOVERY LAW FIRM 5000 SW 75 Avenue, Suite 300 Miami, FL 33155 Telephone: (305) 614-2222 E-mail: fquesada@msprecovery.com The Defendant is represented by: Angel A. Cortinas, Esq. Jonathan H. Kaskel, Esq. GUNSTER SunTrust Financial Centre 401 East Jackson Street, Suite 2500 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (305) 376-6000 E-mail: acortinas@gunster.com jkaskel@gunster.com ALDI INC: Mediation Underway in Lacey-Salas Labor Suit ------------------------------------------------------ Settlement talks are ongoing between Jennifer Lacey Salas and Aldi Inc. et al., to resolve a class action lawsuit. The case is pending before the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The case began in San Diego state court. ALDI Inc. and AI California LLC removed the case, as JENNIFER LACEY-SALAS, an individual, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs ALDI INC., a California corporation; AI CALIFORNIA LLC, an unknown business entity; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 19CV1269 MMA MDD (Filed June 7, 2019), from the Superior Court of California for the County of San Diego to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on July 10, 2019. The Southern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-01269 to the proceeding. The case was later moved to the Central District, Case No. 2:19-cv-06741, before the Hon. John A Kronstadt. The complaint asserts that Defendants violated the California Labor Code by failing to pay overtime wages, failing to provide required meal periods, failing to provide required rest periods, failing to provide accurate itemized statements, failing to reimburse employees for required expenses, and failing to provide wages when due. Judge Kronstadt has approved the Parties' Stipulation to Stay Discovery and Continue All Hearings and Deadlines Pending Mediation. The Stipulation provides that: (1) On or before Dec. 16, the parties shall file a joint report asto the procedural status of their settlement discussions. (2) The Rule 16(b)/26(f) Conference, scheduled for Sept. 23, has been continued to Dec. 23 at 11:30 a.m. The Joint Rule 16(b)/26(f) Report shall be filed on or before Dec. 9. (3) The hearing on Plaintiff's Motion to Remand to state court, scheduled for Sept. 23, is continued to Jan. 27, 2020, at 8:30 a.m. Any opposition to the Motion to Remand shall be filed on or before Dec. 20, and any reply in support of the Motion to Remand shall be filed on or before Jan. 10.[BN] Attorneys for the Defendants are: Laura Wilson Shelby, Esq. Leo Q. Li, Esq. Jennifer R. Nunez, 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: lshelby@seyfarth.com lli@seyfarth.com jnunez@seyfarth.com The Defendants are represented by: Leo Q Li, Esq. Mason R Winters, Esq. Seyfarth Shaw LLP Telephone: 310-277-7200 E-mail: lli@seyfarth.com mwinters@seyfarth.com ALLERGAN, INC: A.B. et al. Sue over Recalled Breast Implants ------------------------------------------------------------ A personal injury lawsuit against Allergan, Inc., over its breast implant products remains pending. The case is, A.B. and C.D., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. ALLERGAN, INC. f/k/a INAMED CORPORATION, ALLERGAN USA, INC., and ALLERGAN plc., the Defendants, Case No. 8:19-cv-01651 (C.D. Cal., Aug. 27, 2019), and seeks relief under the Unfair Competition Law as a result of Plaintiff's exposure to recalled BIOCELL products. Allergan manufactures and sells BIOCELL saline-filled and silicone-filled breast implants and tissue expanders. Allergan's BIOCELL line of implants are a type of textured breast implants and tissue expanders that were first introduced internationally in the early 1990s and in the United States beginning in 2006. The BIOCELL textured implants were originally developed in the 1980s and early 1990s by Santa Barbara-based McGhan Medical Corporation, which later became Inamed Corporation. In 2006, Allergan acquired Inamed and its Santa Barbara facilities became the new national research and development center for Allergan's "medical aesthetics" division, which included breast implants. In 2011, the Food and Drug Administration identified a potential link between textured breast implants and a rare form of lymphoma called breast-implant-associated anaplastic large-cell lymphoma, or BIA-ALCL. Following a request from the FDA, on July 24, 2019, Allergan announced it was issuing a worldwide recall of all BIOCELL textured breast implants and tissue expanders. The FDA made its request after receiving reports suggesting that BIOCELL implants and expanders were associated with hundreds of cases of BIA-ALCL around the world. In its notice to the public, the FDA reported receiving 573 cases of BIA-ALCL worldwide, including 33 deaths. The FDA further noted that it had seen "significant increase in known cases of BIA-ALCL since the agency's last update earlier this year -- an increase of 116 new unique cases and 24 deaths." Of the 573 known cases of BIA-ALCL, 481 (or about 84%) were attributed to Allergan products, and of the 33 reported deaths, "12 of the 13 patients for which the manufacturer of the implant is known are confirmed to have an Allergan breast implant." According to the FDA, the risk of BIA-ALCL is six times higher with Allergan's textured implants than textured implants from other manufacturers. BIA-ALCL is not breast cancer but rather a type of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, a cancer of the immune system. BIA-ALCL typically occurs in the scar tissue surrounding the implant. Left untreated, it will spread to surrounding tissue such as lymph nodes near the breast, and may be fatal. BIA-ALCL is typically treated with surgery meant to remove the implant and surrounding scar tissue although some patients will require chemotherapy, radiation therapy, or both. The main symptoms of BIA-ALCL are persistent swelling or enlargement of a patient's breast or surrounding tissue that develops a year or more after surgery (swelling is common immediately after surgery), lumps in the breast or armpit, pain, rash or redness, hardening of the breast, or changes in the shape or size of the breast. After Allergan's recall, a principal FDA deputy commissioner stated that: "Based on new data, our team concluded that action is necessary at this time to protect the public health" and that "once the evidence indicated that a specific manufacturer's product appeared to be directly linked to significant patient harm, including death, the FDA took action." The products subject to recall (recalled BIOCELL product) include Allergan Natrelle Saline-Filled Breast Implants (formerly called McGhan RTV Saline-Filled Mammary Implants), Allergan Natrelle Silicone-Filled Textured Breast Implants (formerly called Inamed Silicone-Filled Breast Implants), Natrelle 410 Highly Cohesive Anatomically Shaped Silicone-Filled Breast Implants, and Allergan tissue expanders for the breast implants that have BIOCELL texturing. In a July 30, 2019 letter to "Allergan Plastic Surgery Customers", Allergan's Senior Vice President, U.S. Medical Aesthetics, Carrie Strom stated that Allergan is creating a "Replacement Warranty" for patients "currently implanted" with BIOCELL textured implants that will provide smooth device replacements. The letter explained that the warranty program will run until July 24, 2021. The letter also said that "Allergan will not be providing surgical fee assistance" to any patients. On August 9, 2019, Allergan sent a letter informing patients, including Plaintiffs, that the recall of the BIOCELL products was due to a "higher occurrence of breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL) in patients who have, or have had, Allergan BIOCELL textured breast implants." Allergan's "recall" and "Replacement Warranty" therefore have a glaring shortcoming -- while it has agreed to provide smooth breast implants to replace the problematic textured breast implants, Allergan has declined to cover the surgical fees patients must incur to remove the recalled BIOCELL products. As a result of Allergan's conduct, including its refusal to pay for the removal of the recalled BIOCELL products, as well as the substantially increased risk of BIA-ALCL, Plaintiffs will be forced to expend substantial sums, such as for surgery to remove their implants, medical monitoring, and other medical expenses.[BN] Counsel for the Plaintiffs are: Christina C. Sharp, Esq. Adam E. Polk, Esq. Trevor T. Tan, Esq. GIRARD SHARP LLP 601 California Street, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 981-4800 Facsimile: (415) 981-4846 E-mail: dsharp@girardsharp.com apolk@girardsharp.com ttan@girardsharp.com ALNYLAM PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Suit over 35% Drop in Share Price ---------------------------------------------------------------- CHESTER COUNTY EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT FUND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALNYLAM PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; JOHN M. MARAGANORE; MICHAEL P. MASON; DENNIS A. AUSIELLO; MICHAEL W. BONNEY; JOHN K. CLARKE; MARSHA H. FANUCCI; STEVEN M. PAUL; DAVID E.I. PYOTT; PAUL R. SCHIMMEL; AMY W. SCHULMAN; PHILLIP A. SHARP; KEVIN P. STARR; GOLDMAN SACHS & CO. LLC; J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC; BARCLAYS CAPITAL INC.; CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES (USA) LLC; PIPER JAFFRAY & CO.; JMP SECURITIES LLC; NEEDHAM & COMPANY, LLC; CHARDAN CAPITAL MARKETS, LLC; and B. RILEY FBR, INC., Defendants, Case No. 655272/2019 (N.Y. Sup., New York Cty., Sept. 12, 2019) is a securities class action on behalf of all purchasers of Alnylam common stock in or traceable to Alnylam's November 14, 2017 follow-on public stock offering, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Act of 1933. According to the complaint, on May 5, 2017, Alnylam filed with the SEC its registration statement, which would later be utilized for the Offering. On or about November 13, 2017, Alnylam and the Underwriter Defendants priced the Offering at $125 per share, filed with the SEC on November 14, 2017 the final prospectus for the Offering, which incorporated by reference certain filings the Company had made with the SEC and formed part of the Registration Statement, and sold 6.44 million shares of Alnylam common stock to the investing public. The Registration Statement was negligently prepared and, as a result, contained untrue statements of material facts or omitted to state other facts necessary to make the statements made not misleading, and was not prepared in accordance with the rules and regulations governing its preparation. The statements were each materially false and misleading because they failed to disclose and misrepresented the following adverse facts that existed at the time of the Offering: (a) that Alnylam overstated the clinical findings regarding the safety of patisiran in the Phase III clinical study, particularly with regards to use in patients with cardiac manifestations; (b) that 2.7% of the patients in the patisiran arm of the Phase III clinical study experienced AV Block and received a pacemaker versus none in the placebo arm of the study; (c) that there was an imbalance in deaths between patients in the patisiran arm and the placebo arm of the study, with more fatalities in the patisiran arm; (d) that due to the lack of stronger evidence of safety in patients with cardiac manifestations, physicians may limit prescriptions of patisiran to patients with polyneuropathy only, not in patients with cardiac manifestations and polyneuropathy; (e) that as a result of the foregoing, patisiran will have a more limited market opportunity for use patients with cardiac manifestations; (f) that only 20% of the Phase III clinical study participants were from the U.S., which has a different genotype mix than other regions, and very few patients were included with the most common mutation in the U.S., Val122Ile, so the Phase III clinical findings may not be generalizable to the U.S. population; (g) that because liver transplant recipients and individuals who were currently receiving treatment with TTR stabilizers (and did not wish to stop such treatment) were excluded from the Phase III clinical trial, its findings may not be generalizable to such patients, and the safety and efficacy of treatment in these patient populations remains unknown; and (h) that as a result of the foregoing, at the time of the Offering, the Company's business and financial prospects were not what defendants had led the market to believe they were in the Registration Statement. The Offering was successful for the Company and the Underwriters Defendants who sold 6.44 million shares of Alnylam common stock to the investing public, raising $805 million in gross proceeds ($784.5 million net of underwriting fees and Offering costs). The price of Alnylam common stock has since plummeted and now trades at approximately $83 per share, a decline of more than 35% below the $125 per share price the common stock was sold at in the Offering. Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc. operates as an early-stage therapeutics company. The Company discovers and develops drug and medicines for the treatment of human disease. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. Mary K. Blasy, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: (631) 367-7100 Facsimile: (631) 367-1173 E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com mblasy@rgrdlaw.com AMERICAN MEDICAL: Dermody Data Breach Suit Transferred to MDL ------------------------------------------------------------- The case, DOUGLAS DERMODY, DANIELA GOYER and JOHN DOE, the Plaintiffs, vs. AMERICAN MEDICAL COLLECTION AGENCY, INC., OPTU360 SERVICES, INC., QUEST DIAGNOSTICS CLINICAL LABORATORIES INC., and DOES 1-10, the Defendants, Case No. 5:19-cv-01235-HNJ (N.D. Ala., Aug. 1, 2019), has been transferred to the District Court for the District of New Jersey and consolidated under MDL 2904 AMERICAN MEDICAL COLLECTION AGENCY, INC., CUSTOMER DATA SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION. The case alleges that Defendants failed to protect confidential information of millions of patients -- including financial information (e.g., credit card numbers and bank account information), medical information, personal information (including, but not limited to, Social Security Numbers), and/or other protected health information as defined by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA). the Defendants' wrongful disclosure has harmed Plaintiffs. On June 3, 2019, Quest publicly admitted in a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission that: "On May 14, 2019, American Medical Collection Agency (AMCA), a billing collections vendor, notified Quest and Optum360 LLC, [Quest's] revenue cycle management provider," of a massive data breach compromising the Sensitive Information of 11.9 million Quest patients, and most likely others (the Data Breach). John Doe appears via pseudonym due to serious privacy concerns. John Doe was diagnosed with HIV more than 20 years ago and has used Quest Diagnostics to handle his regular bloodwork examinations. Such a diagnosis is, inarguably, an incredibly sensitive, private and personal matter. The data breach made the basis of this lawsuit now poses the risk that John Doe will be exposed, publicly, as HIV-positive. Such exposure will cause permanent and irreversible damage to his reputation and standing in the community and cause him immeasurable emotional and psychological harm, the lawsuit says. Quest is the world's leading provider of medical diagnostic testing services. It performs medical tests that aid in the diagnosis or detection of diseases, and that measure the progress of or recovery from a disease.[BN] Attorney for the Plaintiffs & Putative Classes are: Eric J. Artrip, Esq. MASTANDO & ARTRIP, LLC 301 Washington Street, Suite 302 Huntsville, AL 35801 Telephone: (256) 532-2222 Facsimile: (256) 513-7489 E-mail: artrip@mastandoartrip.com Quest is represented by: Louis Frank Mendez, Esq. Bressler, Amery & Ross, P.C. Telephone: 205-719-0400 ANGMAR MEDICAL: Mayhew Seeks Certification of Class Under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit entitled Lynette Mayhew, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Angmar Medical Holdings, Inc., d/b/a Angels Care Home Health, Case No. 2:18-cv-02365-JWL-KGG (D. Kan.), the Plaintiffs seek conditional class certification pursuant to the collective action provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The request is not a motion for class certification pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, but the Motion is brought pursuant to the collective action provisions of the FLSA, the Plaintiffs assert. Under this statute and the case law interpreting it, individuals may bring "collective actions" on behalf of themselves and on behalf of those "similarly situated." However, in sharp contrast to Rule 23 class cases, collective actions under this statute are opt-in rather than opt-out. The proposed class is composed of: all current and former LVNs and LPNs, who worked under the Angmar umbrella at any time from September 25, 2016 to the Present. The Plaintiffs also seek an order: 1. requiring the expedited issuance of their proposed notice form to the class members, and setting a deadline of 90 days after the date of the Court's Order granting certification, for which putative class members can join this matter; 2. requiring the Defendant to provide to the Plaintiffs' counsel a list of all individuals, who meet the class description, including their current or last known address, phone number, and e-mail address, within 15 days of the issuance of the order; 3. requiring the Defendant to post notices and opt-in forms at work stations, and other conspicuous locations (such as bulletin boards or bulletin boards where job notices are posted) at the Defendant's locations for a period of 90 days where employees can see such notices; 4. tolling the statute of limitations period for the putative class members from the date of filing of the Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Class Certification until the close of the opt-in period; 5. designating Lynette Mayhew as class representative for the collective class; and 6. approving the Plaintiffs' counsel to act as class counsel in this matter.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael Hodgson, Esq. THE HODGSON LAW FIRM, LLC 3699 SW Pryor Rd. Lee's Summit, MO 64082 Telephone: (816) 600-0117 Facsimile: (816) 600-0137 E-mail: mike@thehodgsonlawfirm.com - and - Timothy R. West, Esq. BERTRAM & GRAF, L.L.C. 2345 Grand Boulevard, Suite 1925 Kansas City, MO 64108 Telephone: (816) 523-2205 Facsimile: (816) 523-8258 E-mail: tim@bertramgraf.com ASTRAZENECA: Conspired to Delay Release of Generic Seroquel XR -------------------------------------------------------------- SERGEANTS BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION HEALTH & WELFARE FUND, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP; ASTRAZENECA LP; ASTRAZENECA UK LIMITED; HANDA PHARMACEUTICALS, LLC; and PAR PHARMACEUTICAL, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-09094 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 1, 2019) is a case arising from Defendants' illegal scheme to delay competition in the United States and its territories for Seroquel XR, a prescription medication approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of: (1) schizophrenia; (2) acute depressive episodes of bipolar disorder; (3) acute manic or mixed episodes of bipolar disorder in conjunction with other medications; (4) long-term bipolar disorder in conjunction with other medications; and (5) major depressive disorder in conjunction with other medications for those patients who have not had an adequate response to antidepressant medications. Recognizing the huge market for this medication, in 2008, Handa became the first drug manufacturer to file an Abbreviated New Drug Application (No. 90-482) with the FDA seeking approval to market the 50mg, 150mg, 200mg, and 300mg strengths of generic extended-release quetiapine fumarate tablets, with Seroquel XR as its Reference Listed Drug. Handa sent AstraZeneca four separate paragraph IV notice letters between July and November 2008. Accord sent AstraZeneca two separate paragraph IV notice letters dated September 5, 2008 and January 23, 2009. In these letters, Handa and Accord each certified that they would seek final FDA approval to launch and market their generic extended-release quetiapine fumarate products prior to the expiration of U.S. Patent No. 5,948,437 (the "'437 Patent"), a follow-on patent, which supposedly covered Seroquel XR. Handa and Accord both claimed that the '437 Patent was invalid and/or would not be infringed by Handa's and Accord's respective proposed generic extended-release quetiapine fumarate products. AstraZeneca faced the distinct possibility of an adverse finding that Handa's proposed generic version of extended-release quetiapine fumarate did not infringe on the '437 Patent. To avoid that outcome, AstraZeneca induced Handa to drop its patent challenge and delay launching its generic version with a large "reverse payment." AstraZeneca's payment took the form of an agreement not to launch its own generic version of Seroquel XR (called an "authorized generic") during Handa's 180-day exclusivity period. On or about September 29, 2011, AstraZeneca and Handa entered into a settlement agreement concerning Handa's ANDA. In the absence of AstraZeneca's large and unjustified payment, Handa and AstraZeneca would have each launched generic versions of 50mg, 150mg, 200mg, and 300mg strengths of Seroquel XR much earlier, and in any event, well before Handa's November 1, 2016 Handa subsequently assigned this unlawful agreement to Par. Par performed the agreement, sold generic extended-release quetiapine fumarate at supracompetitive prices, and shared the illicit profits with Handa. By and through the Non-Compete Agreements, AstraZeneca, Handa/Par, and Accord agreed to divide ill-gotten revenues, both during the period in which Handa/Par and Accord agreed not to launch (i.e., prior to November 1, 2016), and during Handa/Par's and Accord's 180-day exclusivity periods during which AstraZeneca agreed not to launch an authorized generic version of Seroquel XR to compete with Handa/Par's and Accord's respective generic products, all of which resulted in anticompetitive overcharges to Plaintiff and members of the Class. The complaint alleges that the Defendants' unlawful conduct has prevented generic extended-release quetiapine fumarate manufacturers from entering the market with competing generic products and has cost Plaintiff and end payor purchasers hundreds of millions of dollars in overcharge damages. Sergeants Benevolent Association Health & Welfare Fund is located in New York and was established for the purpose of providing prescription drug benefits to active and retired New York City Police Department Sergeants and their dependents. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP is a Delaware limited partnership having its principal place of business at 1800 Concord Pike, Wilmington, Delaware 19803.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Elizabeth Metcalf, Esq. Peter Safirstein, Esq. SAFIRSTEIN METCALF LLP The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5960 New York, NY 10118 Phone: (212) 201-2845 Email: EMetcalf@SafirsteinMetcalf.com PSafirstein@SafirsteinMetcalf.com BANK OF AMERICA: Tirado's Bid to Dismiss Denied Without Prejudice ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned GLORIA A. TIRADO, individually and as the representative of a call of similarly-situated persons, Plaintiff, v. BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Defendant. Case No. 18-cv-5677. (N.D. Ill.), the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order on the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Complaint. Plaintiff's complaint asserts two (and in the alternative a third) claims on behalf of Plaintiff and a nationwide class: common law breach of contract (Count I), in the alternative, unjust enrichment (Count II) -- and a violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, 815 ILCS 505/2 ("the ICFA") (Count III). On October 26, 2010, Plaintiff Tirado entered into a mortgage with Envoy Mortgage, Ltd for her home in Chicago. The mortgage was insured through the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), which rendered it subject to certain regulations of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. The mortgage was assigned to Defendant Bank of America in June 2012. On May 3, 2017, Defendant served Plaintiff (through her son) with a complaint of foreclosure alleging that she had defaulted on her mortgage on November 1, 2016. Throughout the foreclosure proceedings, Plaintiff continued to live at the mortgaged residence. After foreclosure proceedings had been initiated, Defendant conducted seven inspections of the property. Defendant charged Plaintiff for each of these inspections; altogether Plaintiff was charged $155.00 in inspection fees. Upon reviewing the matter, the District Court ruled that Defendant's motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in part: 1. The motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim is granted and Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint no later than October 25, 2019. 2. The motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction is denied at this time without prejudice to raising a similar jurisdictional argument in response to any amended complaint. The case is set for further status on November 6, 2019 at 9:00 a.m. A full-text copy of the District Court's September 26, 2019 Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y67ytvrx from Leagle.com Gloria A. Tirado, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, represented by Patrick J. Solberg - psolberg@andersonwanca.com - Anderson + Wanca & Jeffrey Alan Berman - jberman@andersonwanca.com - Anderson Wanca. Bank of America, National Association, Defendant, represented by Joseph Laurence Motto – jmotto@winston.com - Winston & Strawn LLP & Ryan Marc Dunigan – rdunigan@winston.com - Winston & Strawn LLP. BENTON COUNTY, OR: County Urged to Exit Timber Suit --------------------------------------------------- Bennett Hall, writing for Corvallis Gazette-Times, reports that four former Benton County, Oregon commissioners have formally asked the current members of the Board of Commissioners to pull out of a class action lawsuit against the state over timber revenues, but the action may be purely symbolic at this point. Ex-Commissioners Bob Speaker, Linda Modrell, Barbara Ross and Kent Daniels sent a letter to the board on Sept. 17, 2019, urging it to withdraw from a class action lawsuit filed by Linn County in March 2016 on behalf of 15 counties and more than 100 smaller taxing districts. The suit seeks $1.4 billion in damages from the state and the Oregon Department of Forestry for failing to maximize logging revenues from 650,000 acres of state forest trust lands. The lawsuit was highly controversial in Benton County, with opponents arguing that state forest lands should be managed for environmental, recreational and other values as well as financial returns from timber harvesting. On Jan. 24, 2017, a divided Board of Commissioners voted 2-1 to stay in the class action lawsuit. But now, with the suit set to go to trial this month, the ex-commissioners want Benton County to pull out. "As former Benton County commissioners who were responsible for establishing county policies on these issues in the 1980s, 1990s and 2000s, we feel the county's current position in support of the Linn County lawsuit does not reflect the historic policy positions of Benton County with respect to natural resource management and does not represent the values of current Benton County citizens," the letter reads in part. Speaker, who served on the board from 1996 to 2000, said on September 27 that two of the current commissioners -- Chair Annabelle Jaramillo, who cast the lone vote to opt out of the suit in 2017, and Pat Malone, who was elected to the commission in 2018 -- had expressed a willingness to revisit the issue. Speaker said he had approached Jaramillo and Malone in early August and hoped the matter would be put on the board's agenda, but so far that hasn't happened. He plans to be at the board's noon meeting on October 1. "We'll urge them to address the issue in open session," Speaker said. But according to Roger Nyquist, chair of the Linn County Board of Commissioners, the question is academic at this point. "Just as a practical matter, the time to opt out has long since passed," Nyquist said. In fact, the judge in the case set a deadline for class members to withdraw from the lawsuit by Jan. 25, 2017, the day after the Benton commissioners voted to stay in. Benton County Counsel Vance Croney said there might still be some wiggle room, although he acknowledged that Nyquist is probably right. "Technically, any class party can petition the court to be let out of a class action lawsuit," Croney said. "However, practically, given that we are within a month of the trial, it's unlikely the court would grant a request to be let out of the lawsuit." Speaker said he and his fellow ex-commissioners recognize that time is running out, but they'd still like to see Benton County express a dissenting opinion. "At a minimum, if it's too late to get out of the suit, (we'd like to) at least get a statement that the current board doesn't support the suit," Speaker said. Trial in the $1.4 billion timber lawsuit is scheduled to begin Oct. 24 in Linn County Circuit Court before Judge Daniel Murphy. If the suit is successful, Benton County could receive an estimated $30 million in damages, which it would share with seven local taxing districts. With or without Benton County's support, Nyquist said he likes Linn County's odds of prevailing in court. "Both case law and the dozens of decisions the court has made in this case would indicate that our chances are good," he said. "It's still regrettable that it's come to this point, but this is where we are."[GN] BRIAD RESTAURANT: Andersen's Certification Bid Partly Granted ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned JEFFREY ANDERSEN, an individual, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. BRIAD RESTAURANT GROUP, LLC, Defendant. Case No. 2:14-cv-00786-GMN-BNW. (D. Nev.), the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada issued an order: (i) denying Defendant's Second Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment; and (ii) granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Class. The case arises out of the Defendant's alleged violations of Nevada's Minimum Wage Amendment (MWA). During all relevant times, Defendant owned and operated eight TGI Friday's restaurants in Nevada. Plaintiff Andersen worked as a server at one of Defendant's restaurants. Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of other similarly situated employees of the Restaurants for whom Defendant allegedly failed to offer MWA-compliant health benefits plans. In September 2017, the Court granted Defendant's summary judgment on Plaintiff's wage-violation claim, reasoning that Defendant's health plan was consistent with the MWA and its regulations. Plaintiff appealed the decision and during the appeal's pendency, the Nevada Supreme Court issued its decision in MDC Rests., LLC v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Court, 419 P.3d 148 (Nev. 2018) ("MDC II"). In light of that holding, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit remanded the case for consideration. At present, the District Court considers Defendant's Second Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment. Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment presents a purely legal issue: whether the MDC II, MDC Rests., LLC v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Court, 419 P.3d 148 (Nev. 2018) (MDC II) decision applies retroactively. Defendant argued that because MDC II overruled Western Cab, W. Cab Co. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 390 P.3d 662, 670-71 (Nev. 2017) (Western Cab), a decision which Defendant claims it modeled it health benefits practices after the Nevada Supreme Court would hold that equitable considerations dictate that MDC II applies only prospectively. Therefore, Defendant contended that Western Cab supplies the relevant legal standard, and the Court's prior Order remains on solid ground. Preliminarily, the District Court is unpersuaded by Defendant's central premise that MDC II overturned Western Cab. By its express language, MDC II distinguished rather than overturned Western Cab. In sum, the District Court predicts that the Nevada Supreme Court would follow its reasoning in Nevada Yellow Cab Corp. v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Court, 383 P.3d 246 (Nev. 2016) ("Yellow Cab") and hold that MDC II clarified what the Nevada Constitution requires and did not create new law. On this basis, the District Court denies Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. As to the Motion to Certify, the District Court is satisfied that Plaintiff's proposed class meets the requirements set forth in Rule 23(a) and (b). As such, the Court grants in part and denies in part Plaintiff's Motion to Certify. Plaintiff moved to certify a proposed class encompassing "[a]ll current and former employees of Defendant at its Nevada locations who were paid less than $8.25 per hour at any time since May 19, 2012, but were not provided with qualifying health benefits pursuant to Nev. Const. art. XV, sec. 16." A full-text copy of the District Court's September 26, 2019 Order is available at available at https://tinyurl.com/y2wn6yx5 from Leagle.com Erin Hanks, Plaintiff, represented by Bradley Scott Schrager - bschrager@wrslawyers.com - Wolf, Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman & Rabkin, Daniel Bravo - dbravo@wrslawyers.com - Wolf, Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman, & Rabkin, LLP & Don Springmeyer - dspringmeyer@wrslawyers.com - Wolf, Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman and Rabkin, LLP Briad Restaurant Group, LLC, Defendant, represented by Kathryn B. Blakey - kblakey@littler.com - Littler Mendelson, Montgomery Y. Paek - mpaek@littler.com - Littler Mendelson, Neil C. Baker- nbaker@littler.com - Littler Mendelson, Rick D. Roskelley - rroskelley@littler.com - Littler Mendelson, PC & Roger L. Grandgenett - rgrandgenett@littler.com - Littler Mendelson, PC. CAPITAL ONE: Court Stays Zosiak Data Breach Suit ------------------------------------------------ KEVIN ZOSIAK, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION, CAPITAL ONE, N.A., and CAPITAL ONE BANK (USA), N.A., the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02265 (D. Colo., July 30, 2019), alleges that Defendants failed to protect the confidential information of millions of consumers and small businesses -- including financial information (e.g., bank account numbers, fragments of transaction history, self-reported income, and credit scores), and/or personal information (e.g., Social Security Numbers, names, addresses, phone numbers, email addresses, and dates of birth). Defendants' wrongful disclosure harmed Plaintiff and the Class, believed to include approximately 106 million card customers and applicants. Zosiak is an individual residing in Stamford, Connecticut, who has been a credit card customer for Capital One and whose Sensitive Information was compromised in the Data Breach, the lawsuit says. Capital One is a national bank with its principal place of business in McLean, Virginia. In an August 29 Order, Judge James E. Boasberg ordered that the Defendants' Motion to Stay is granted, and the case is stayed until the Judicial Panel on Multi-district Litigation rules on consolidation and transfer.[BN] Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Proposed Class are: Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq. Bart D. Cohen, Esq. NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP, P.C. 1211 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Floor New York, NY 10036-8718 Telephone: (917) 438-9189 E-mail: lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com bcohen@nussbaumpc.com - and - Adam Frankel, Esq. GREENWICH LEGAL ASSOCIATES, LLC 881 Lake Avenue Greenwich, CT 06831 Telephone: (203) 622-6001 E-mail: adam@grwlegal.com CAPITAL ONE: Heath et al Sue over Data Breach --------------------------------------------- The case, MARSHALL HEATH, SHERRY BLACKBURN, ISABEL DELEON, ASHLEY GRANT, and LEANA YANCEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. CAPITAL ONE, N.A. and CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION and CAPITAL ONE BANK (USA), N.A., the Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-00555 (E.D. Va., Aug. 2, 2019), seeks monetary damages, restitution and declaratory relief from Defendants arising from a data breach announced to the public on July 29, 2019. The sensitive financial and personal data of an unknown number of customers was compromised as a result of Capital One's failure to adequately secure individual's personal and financial information on its systems. According to Capital One, 106 million people had their personal information stolen, including 100 million U.S. residents and 6 million Canadian residents who had, or applied for, Capital One accounts. The breach exposed 40,000 Social Security numbers and about 80,000 linked bank account numbers. The scope of the breach is massive. The bank says it became aware of it on July 19, the lawsuit says. Capital One is a bank holding company specializing in credit cards, auto loans, banking, and savings accounts, headquartered in McLean, Virginia. Capital One is ranked 10th on the list of largest banks in the United States by assets.[BN] CAPITAL ONE: Veverka's Data Breach Suit Underway ------------------------------------------------ A case against Capital One and its affiliates remains pending. The case is captioned, CHRIS VEVERKA, the Plaintiff, vs. CAPITAL ONE, N.A. and CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION and CAPITAL ONE BANK (USA), N.A., the Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-03461-MMB (E.D. Pa., July 31, 2019), and seeks monetary damages, restitution and declaratory relief from Defendants arising from a data breach announced to the public on July 29, 2019. From approximately March 12 to July 17 of 2019, the sensitive financial and personal data of an unknown number of customers was compromised as a result of Capital One's failure to adequately secure individual's personal and financial information on its systems. According to Capital One, 106 million people had their personal information stolen, including 100 million U.S. residents and 6 million Canadian residents who had, or applied for, Capital One accounts. The breach exposed 40,000 Social Security numbers and about 80,000 linked bank account numbers. The scope of the breach is massive. The bank says it became aware of it on July 19, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the Class are: Richard M. Golomb, Esq. Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq. GOLOMB & HONIK, P.C. 1835 Market Street, Suite 2900 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 985-9177 Facsimile: (215) 985-4169 CITY OF NORWALK: Underpays Administrative Secretaries, Coles Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- HOPE COLES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CITY OF NORWALK; NORWALK BOARD OF EDUCATION; and NORWALK PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISTRICT, Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-01437 (D. Conn., Sept. 12, 2019) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff Coles was employed by the Defendant as administrative secretary. Norwalk is a suburban city in Los Angeles County, California, United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan Daughterty, Esq. DAUGHTERTY LAW GROUP, LLC 260 Madison Avenue, 8th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (646) 859-1647 COCA COLA BEVERAGES: Conklin Sues over Health Care Coverage ----------------------------------------------------------- JEREMY CONKLIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, vs Plaintiff, vs. COCA COLA BEVERAGES FLORIDA, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 93517814 (Fla. 13th Jud'l Cir, Hillsborough Cty., Aug. 1, 2019), alleges that Defendant failed to provide required notices of their right to continued health care coverage under the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA). The Defendant, the plan sponsor of the "Coca Cola Beverages Florida Employee Benefit Plan" has repeatedly violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 by failing to provide participants and beneficiaries in the Plan with adequate notice, as prescribed by COBRA, of their right to continue their health coverage upon the occurrence of a "qualifying event" as defined by the statute, the lawsuit says. As a result of these violations, which threaten Class Members' ability to maintain their health coverage, Plaintiff seeks all benefits available to him under the Plan and ERISA. The Plan provides medical benefits to employees and their beneficiaries, and is an employee welfare benefit plan within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. section 1002(1) and a group health plan within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. section 1167(1). Coca-Cola Beverages Florida in Tampa, Florida, is the third largest independently owned and operated Coca-Cola bottler in the United States.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Brandon J. Hill, Esq. Luis A. Cabassa, Esq. 1110 North Florida Ave., Suite 300 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: 813 224-0431 Facsimile: 813 229-8712 E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com jcornell@wfclaw.com rcooke@wfclaw.com gnichols@wfclaw.com tsoriano@wfclaw.com lcabassa@wfclaw.com COSTCO WHOLESALE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Mosley Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------- ASIA MOSLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION; and DOES 1 through 10, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-07935 (C.D. Cal., Sept. 12, 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 Mosley was employed by the Defendants as hourly paid, non-exempt employee. Costco Wholesale Corporation operates wholesale membership warehouses in multiple countries. The Company sells all kinds of food, automotive supplies, toys, hardware, sporting goods, jewelry, electronics, apparel, health, and beauty aids, as well as other goods. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Katherine Odenbreit, Esq. Kevin Mahoney, Esq. Atoy Wilson, Esq. MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC 249 E. Ocean Blvd., Ste. 814 Long Beach, CA 90802 Telephone: (562) 590-5550 Facsimile: (562) 590-8400 E-mail: kmahoney@mahoney-law.net kodenbreit@mahoney-law.net awilson@mahoney-law.net CVS HEALTH: To Refund Purchasers of Algal-900 Memory Supplements ----------------------------------------------------------------- Cspinet.org reports that CVS will pay refunds to certain consumers who purchased its Algal-900 DHA supplements, which the company marketed as memory aids, thereby resolving a federal class action lawsuit against the company brought on behalf of consumers by the Center for Science in the Public Interest's litigation unit and two other law firms in 2016. Marketing for the supplement claimed that the pills were "clinically shown" to improve memory, even though the Federal Trade Commission concluded in 2014 that the study that the company relied upon could not be used to make such claims. The settlement class consists of all persons and entities that between November 15, 2008 and September 30, 2016 resided and purchased any of the products at issue in the United States. Consumers who are members of the settlement class with proof of purchase can obtain full refunds, according to the terms of the settlement approved Thursday by United States Magistrate Judge Steven M. Gold. Members of the class without proof of purchase, but with purchases linked to CVS Extra Care accounts, may receive store credit. And even members of the class without proof of purchase or purchases linked to Extra Care cards can receive one specified refund per person upon filing a claim, according to the settlement. Consumers have until December 12, 2019 to submit a claim at www.cvsdhasettlement.com. The agreement also bars CVS from making claims that Algal-900 is "clinically shown to improve memory" or that it provides "clinically proven memory improvement" for two years. High-quality clinical studies have found that taking DHA, the omega-3 fatty acid in Algal-900, works no better than a placebo at improving cognitive function, according to CSPI. "This is a great result for purchasers of CVS's Algal-900 DHA supplement, many of whom can get all their money back," said CSPI associate litigation director Matthew Simon, who worked on the case. "And we hope the resolution of this litigation sends a clear signal to the rest of the supplement industry, where too many companies are making promises they can't deliver." The case was brought in United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. Besides Simon, plaintiffs were represented by Michael R. Reese, Esq. of Reese LLP, Steven A. Skalet, Esq. -- sskalet@findjustice.com -- of Mehri & Skalet, PLLC, Craig L. Briskin, Esq. now at Justice Catalyst Law, and former CSPI litigation director Maia Kats, Esq. -- mkats@kaplanfox.com -- now of Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLC, who played a primary role in conceiving, bringing, and litigating this case. [GN] DANNY'S FURNITURE: Guerrero Seeks Overtime & Minimum Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit against Danny's Furniture Inc et al., is underway. The case is, WILIFE VRENA DE GUERRERO, on behalf of herself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class, the Plaintiff, vs. DANNY'S FURNITURE INC. d/b/a DANNY'S FURNITURE, DANNY'S FURNITURE II INC. d/b/a MADDY'S FURNITURE, DEE & DEE DISCOUNT STORE INC. d/b/a DEE & DEE DISCOUNT STORE, IN & OUT FURNITURE STORE INC d/b/a DANNY'S FURNITURE, and MAHMOUD ELBANA, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-07284-JPO (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 6, 2019), and seeks recover unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid minimum wages, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the New York Labor Law and the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff brings claims for relief as a collective action on behalf of all non-exempt employees including but not limited to stockers, assistants, sales representatives, customer service workers, and cashiers, employed at each of the Corporate Defendants in New York State. Based on Plaintiff's actual experiences at all locations she worked at and direct observations and conversations with other employees of Corporate Defendants, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and Class members similarly were not paid proper minimum wage or overtime compensation for all hours worked, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class are: C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th Street, Eighth Floor New York, NY 10011 Telephone: 212-465-1188 Facsimile: 212-465-1181 DAVE & BUSTER'S: Smith Seeks Overtime Compensation for Employees ---------------------------------------------------------------- NYDIAH SMITH and HOLLY SIROTTA, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly aggrieved, the Plaintiffs, vs, DAVE & BUSTER'S MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 19STCV27030 (Cal Super., Aug. 1, 2019), seeks to recover civil penalties and any other available relief under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of the California Labor Code. The Plaintiffs and others similarly aggrieved are current and former employees who worked for Defendants in California as non-exempt, hourly employees and who received at least one wage statement during their employment. The Plaintiffs and aggrieved employees were not paid for all hours worked, because all hours worked were not recorded. The Defendants allegedly knew or should have known that Plaintiffs and other aggrieved employees were entitled to receive certain wages for overtime compensation and that they were not receiving certain wages for overtime compensation, the lawsuit says. Defendants operate a chain of arcade-restaurants that offers to its patrons a casual dining experience combined with games in approximately 41 states, including California. Defendants' menu offers a wide array of food and alcoholic beverages that patrons may consume while playing arcade games, watching sports, and attending private parties and events on the premises.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs and on behalf of all others similarly aggrieved, are: Carney R. Shegerian, Esq. Anthony Nguyen, Esq. Cheryl A. Kenner, Esq. SHEGERIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. 225 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 700 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone Number: (310) 860 0770 Facsimile Number: (310) 860 0771 E-mail: CShegerian@Shegerianlaw.com ANguyen@Shegerianlaw.com CKenner@Shegerianlaw.com DERMSTORE LLC: Parties Settle Reid's ADA Suit --------------------------------------------- Plaintiff has advised the federal district court that a settlement has been reached with the defendant in the case, VALENTIN REID, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. DERMSTORE LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-07196-AJN (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 1, 2019). On Sept. 26, the Court entered an order of dismissal. "It having been reported to this Court that this case has been settled, Dkt. No. 15, it is hereby ORDERED that the above-captioned action is discontinued without costs to any party and without prejudice to restoring the action to this Court's calendar if the application to restore the action is made within sixty (60) days. To be clear, any application to reopen must be filed within thirty days of this Order; any application to reopen filed thereafter may be denied solely on that basis. All scheduled conferences are hereby adjourned. Within the thirty-day period provided for in this Order, the parties may submit to the Court their own Stipulation of Dismissal for the Court to So Order. Pursuant to Rule 5.A. of the Court's Individual Practices in Civil Cases, the Court will not retain jurisdiction to enforce a settlement agreement unless the terms of the agreement are made part of the public record," Judge Alison J. Nathan said. The Plaintiff brought this civil rights action against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its goods and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Founded in 1999, Dermstore is the second largest skin care and beauty e-commerce site in the United States, carrying a range of skin care, hair care, and beauty products.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: David Force, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: dforce@steinsakslegal.com ENHANCED RECOVERY: Wilson Files FCRA Suit in Delaware ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Enhanced Recovery Company, LLC. The case is styled as Malika Wilson individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Enhanced Recovery Company, LLC, John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01882-UNA (D. Del., Oct. 7, 2018). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Enhanced Recovery Company LLC provides business process outsourcing services that include recovery, outsourcing, and market research primarily for Fortune 500 companies in the United States and internationally.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Antranig Garibian, Esq. GARIBIAN LAW OFFICES PC 1010 Bancroft Parkway, Suite 22 Wilmington, DE 19805 Phone: (215) 326-9179 Email: ag@garibianlaw.com ERIC SELLERS: Brooks in Curry Lawsuit Can Amend Complaint --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned JARMOND CURRY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Warden ERIC SELLERS, et al., Defendants, Case No. 5:17-cv-00424-MTT-CHW. (M.D. Ga.) is a consolidated case composed of nine lawsuits challenging the conditions of confinement at the Special Management Unit (SMU) at Georgia Diagnostic and Classification Prison (GDCP). The nine suits are Rodriguez v. Chatman (5:15-cv-2); McCoy v. Chatman (5:15-cv-175); Coleman v. Danforth (5:15-cv-267); Brooks v. Bryson (5:15-cv-276); Emberson v. Chatman (5:15-cv-331); Diaz v. Chatman (5:15-cv-338); Ruffin v. McCloud (5:15-cv-384); Connelly v. Sellers (5:17-cv-416); and Curry v. Sellers (5:17-cv-424). Pursuant to Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Curry v. Sellers was designated as the lead case, with all other cases designated as member cases. The following thirteen motions are currently pending in the action: Plaintiff Rodriguez's (1) motion for reconsideration of the order vacating an entry of default (id., Doc. 32), (2) motion for joinder, class certification, and appointment of class counsel (id., Doc. 33), (3) motion for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order ("TRO") (id., Doc. 34), and (4) motion to amend the complaint (id., Doc. 35); Plaintiff McCoy's (5) motion to amend the complaint (id., Doc. 36); Plaintiff Coleman's (6) motion for appointment of an expert witness (id., Doc. 37) and (7) motion for a physical and mental examination (id., Doc. 38); Plaintiff Brooks's (8) motion to amend the complaint (id., Doc. 39), (9) motion for a "liberty deprivation hearing" (id., Doc. 40), and (10) motion for leave to interview witnesses (id., Doc. 41); Plaintiff Emberson's (11) motion to appoint counsel (id., Doc. 45) and (12) renewed motion to appoint counsel (id., Doc. 51); and Plaintiff Diaz's (13) motion to appoint counsel (id., Doc. 46). Upon review, District Judge Marc T. Treadwell of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, Macon Division, denied all the Motions, except Plaintiff Brook's motion to amend. Plaintiff Brooks has requested the addition of a claim for monetary damages against Defendants Bryson, Chatman, Jacobs, Logan, McCloud, Powell, and Ward to his existing Eighth Amendment claim concerning "systemic food deprivation and malnutrition in the SMU." Brooks raised the food-service and malnutrition claim for the first time in his first motion to amend, see Brooks v. Bryson (5:15-cv-276), Doc. 15, which was granted. Brooks now claims that he inadvertently omitted from his amended complaint both the section articulating the requested relief and the section naming Bryson, Chatman, Jacobs, Logan, McCloud, Powell, and Ward as the parties responsible for the alleged violation. Defendants Bryson, Chatman, Jacobs, Logan, McCloud, Powell, and Ward have already filed an answer to Brooks's food-service and malnutrition claim, and will therefore suffer no prejudice from continuing to defend against the claim for monetary damages. Accordingly, the District Court grants Plaintiff Brooks's motion to amend complaint. A full-text copy of the District Court's September 26, 2019 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y6o3msoq from Leagle.com JARMOND CURRY, Plaintiff, pro se. HJALMAR RODRIGUEZ, JR, Plaintiff, pro se. RICKY BERNARD MCCOY, Plaintiff, pro se. COREY LEWIS COLEMAN, Plaintiff, pro se. FRED DALTON BROOKS, Plaintiff, pro se. BUELL DAVID EMBERSON, Plaintiff, pro se. VICTOR DIAZ, Plaintiff, pro se. ANTONIO WELLINGTON RUFFIN, Plaintiff, pro se. PATRICK LEE CONNELLY, Plaintiff, pro se. Warden ERIC SELLARS, GDCP, MELINDA DAVIS, Regional Director, GDCP, SHEPARD, Assistant Regional Director, GDCP, MICHAEL CANNON, Superintendent, GDCP & J GOODY, Correctional Counselor, GDCP, Defendants, represented by ELIZABETH MCRARY CROWDER & AMY L. MACRINA , Georgia Department of Law. WILLIAM POWELL, Deputy Warden, GDCP & JUNE BISHOP, Deputy Warden, GDCP, Defendants, represented by ELIZABETH MCRARY CROWDER , MATTHEW F. BOYER & AMY L. MACRINA , Georgia Department of Law. FEDEX CORPORATION: Farrell Files Wage and Hour Suit --------------------------------------------------- SIRKERRA FARRELL, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. FEDEX CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. MID-L-006789-19 (N.J. Super. Ct., Middlesex Cty., Oct. 1, 2019) seeks redress for Defendant's violations of the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law. The Plaintiff asserts that Defendant failed to pay her and other similarly situated individuals at least one and one-half times their regular rates for all hours worked more than 40 hours in a workweek due to Defendant's policy of not including time spent in security screenings as hours worked. As a result of Defendant's unlawful actions, the Plaintiff and those similarly situated have suffered damages, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a package handler for around three or four months ending in June 2019. FEDEX is a courier delivery services company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew D. Miller, Esq. Carley A. Doyle, Esq. Justin L. Swidler, Esq. Richard S. Swartz, Esq. SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC 1101 Kings Highway N., Suite 402 Cherry Hill, NJ 08034 Phone: (856) 685-7420 Fax: (856) 685-7417 GAP, INC: Martinez Seeks Minimum & OT Pay for Store Staff --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit against Gap, Inc., remains pending. The case is, SOLEDAD S. MARTINEZ, an individual; on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. GAP, INC.; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. CGC-19-578033 (Cal. Super., July 30, 2019), and alleges that the Defendants failed to pay minimum wages; failed to pay overtime wages; failed to provide rest breaks; failed to provide meal breaks; failed to furnish timely and accurate wage statements; and failed to pay all wages upon separation under the California Labor Code. The Plaintiff was regularly subjected to security checks without compensation pursuant to the Defendant's unlawful policy and practice. The Defendant also engages in other unfair practices in violation of California law, including failing to provide timely meal and rest breaks, and failing to compensate for any such missed breaks. The Defendant's conduct has caused Plaintiff and Class members damages including, but not limited to, loss of wages and compensation. Gap, Inc. operates a chain of clothing stores throughout California. The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant for several years as a non-exempt employee at the Defendant's store located at Vintage Faire Mall, 3401 Dale Rd, Modesto, CA 95356, until approximately January 2017.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Joshua H. Haffner, Esq. Grafiam G. Lambert, Esq. HAFFNER LAW PC 445 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2625 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 514-5681 Facsimile: (213) 514-5682 E-mail: jhh@haffnerlawyers.com gl@haffnerlavvyers.com GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Gruchacz Suit in District of New Jersey ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against General Motors LLC. The case is captioned as TONYA GRUCHACZ, On Behalf of herself and All Other Persons Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-16303-BRM-DEA (D.N.J., Aug. 2, 2019). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Brian R. Martinotti. According to a Stipulation and Order signed by Judge Brian R. Martinotti: -- General Motors' motion to dismiss is to be filed by Oct. 28; -- Plaintiff's opposition is to be filed by Dec. 4; and -- General Motors' reply is to be filed by Dec. 23. General Motors is an American multinational corporation headquartered in Detroit that designs, manufactures, markets, and distributes vehicles and vehicle parts, and sells financial services, with global headquarters in Detroit's Renaissance Center.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Bruce Daniel Greenberg, Esq. LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC 570 Broad Street, Suite 1201 Newark, NJ 07102 Telephone: (973) 623-3000 E-mail: bgreenberg@litedepalma.com - and - Joseph Lopiccolo, Esq. POULOS LOPICCOLO PC 1305 South Roller Road Ocean, NJ 07757 Telephone: (732) 757-0165 E-mail: lopiccolo@pllawfirm.com GENERAL MOTORS: Goldstein, et al. Sue Over Defective Cadillacs -------------------------------------------------------------- Matt Goldstein, Percy Sutton, Julian Wilder, Lana Savage, Gladys Tubbs, Kendra Piazza and Rafael Martinez, individually, and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs, v. General Motors LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-01778 (S.D. Cal., September 16, 2019), seeks actual and punitive damages, injunctive relief, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs and such other and further relief resulting from Defendant's unjust enrichment and breach of implied warranty under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and various state consumer protection statutes. Plaintiffs allege that the 2013-2017 Cadillac ATS, SRX and XTS vehicles and 2014-2017 Cadillac CTS, ELR and Escalade vehicles are equipped with a navigation/radio touch screen display that spontaneously delaminate, bubble or crack, thus, preventing the driver from accessing climate control, navigation, the back-up camera and audio/Bluetooth/communications. [BN] Plaintiffs are represented by: Mark A. Ozzello, Esq. Tarek H. Zohdy, Esq. Cody R. Padgett, Esq. Trisha K. Monesi, Esq. CAPSTONE LAW APC 1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 556-6824 Facsimile: (310) 943-0396 Email: Mark.Ozzello@capstonelawyers.com Tarek.Zohdy@capstonelawyers.com Cody.Padgett@capstonelawyers.com Trisha.Monesi@capstonelawyers.com - and - Russell D. Paul, Esq. Amey J. Park, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Tel: (215) 875-3000 Fax: (215) 875-4604 Email: rpaul@bm.net apark@bm.net GLOBAL HEALTHCARE: Pilipenko Hits Unpaid Wages, Retaliation ----------------------------------------------------------- INNA PILIPENKO, and all others similarly situated; Plaintiff, v. GLOBAL HEALTHCARE ADVISORS, LLC, an active Delaware limited liability company; and LAWRENCE CARTER, individually; Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-24054-UU (S.D. Fla., Oct. 1, 2019) is a lawsuit brought as a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act against Defendants to recover minimum wage and overtime compensation owed to Plaintiff and similarly situated employees. According to the complaint, the Defendant has a policy and practice of failing to pay Plaintiff and similarly situated employees minimum wage for all hours worked and overtime compensation for all hours worked in excess of 40 in a given workweek. Additionally, when Plaintiff asked Mr. Carter when she would be paid for hours worked, he told Plaintiff she was being insubordinate and then ultimately terminated her. Thus, the Defendant retaliated against Plaintiff under the FLSA, says the complaint. Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a non-exempt, Executive Assistant. Defendants operate a healthcare consulting/advisory company in Miami Dade County, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael L. Elkins, Esq. MLE LAW 633 S. Andrews Ave., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 3330 I Phone: (954) 401-2608 Email: melkins@mlelawfirm.com - and - Joshua M. Entin, Esq. ENTIN LAW GROUP, P.A. 633 S. Andrews Ave., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 3330 l Phone: (954) 761-7201 Email: josh@entinlaw.com GOOD HEALTH INC: Calle Sues Over Denied OT Pay, Breaks, Pay Slips ----------------------------------------------------------------- Erika Calle, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Good Health, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 19STCV30055, (Cal. Super., August 27, 2019), seeks monetary damages and restitution, penalties/premium pay for missed meal and rest periods, restitution and restoration of sums owed and property unlawfully withheld, reimbursement of business-related expenses, payment of final wages upon termination, statutory penalties, declaratory and injunctive relief, interest, attorneys' fees and costs under California labor code and applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Orders. Good Health, Inc. operates Premier Pharmacy Services where Calle worked as a non-exempt employee. Good Health allegedly failed to compensate them for all hours worked, missed meal periods and/or rest breaks. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas Han, Esq. Shunt Tatavos-Gharajeh, Esq. Daniel J. Park, Esq. JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION 411 North Central Avenue, Suite 500 Glendale, CA 91203 Tel: (818) 230-7502 Fax: (818) 230-7259 GREEN CITY SECURITY: Underpays Guards, Cokley Alleges ----------------------------------------------------- SHANNON COKLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GREEN CITY SECURITY LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-03448 (S.D. Tex., Sept. 13, 2019) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff Cokley was employed by the Defendant as security guard. Green City Security LLC is engaged in providing security services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John Neuman, Esq. Beatriz Sosa-Morris, Esq. SOSA-MORRIS NEUMAN, PLLC 5612 Chaucer Drive Houston, TX 77005 Telephone: (281) 885-8630 Facsimile: (281) 885-8813 E-mail: jneuman@smnlawfirm.com bsosamorris@smnlawfirm.com GRUBB & ASSOCIATES: Russell's Bid to Certify Employees Class OK'd ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Pamela Lynn Reeves issued a memorandum and order in the lawsuit titled JESSICA BROOKE RUSSELL, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. GRUBB & ASSOCIATES, INC., and JOSEPH GRUBB, Case No. 3:18-cv-00463-PLR-HBG (E.D. Tenn.): -- granting the Plaintiff's objections to the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") filed by United States Magistrate Judge Bruce H. Guyton; -- agreeing with and otherwise adopting the R&R after a careful review of the record; -- granting the Plaintiff's motions for conditional certification of collective action and for equitable tolling for the reasons stated in the R&R; and -- granting the Defendants' motion for leave to file a document under seal. Judge Guyton filed the R&R regarding the disposition of the Plaintiff's motions for conditional certification of collective action and equitable tolling. Judge Guyton recommends that the Court grant the Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Certification, Plaintiff's Motion for Equitable Tolling and Defendants' Motion for Leave to File Document Under Seal. The Plaintiff filed an objection to the timing of the equitable tolling period set by the R&R. In accordance with the Order, Judge Reeves ruled that: (1) the case is conditionally certified for current and former companionship employees employed by Defendants from January 1, 2015 through December 31, 2017; (2) the Defendants are ordered to produce the names, addresses, and dates of employment for all persons potentially covered by the collective action within twenty (20) days of entry of this Order; (3) if the parties have not yet reached an agreement regarding the notice and opt-in forms, the Plaintiff is ordered to file their proposed notice and opt-in form within five (5) days of this Order, and the Defendants are permitted to respond or file a competing notice and opt-in form within five (5) days of the Plaintiff's filing; (4) the claims of putative opt-in plaintiffs are tolled as of April 10, 2018 to a date thirty days after this Court's approval of a notice and opt-in form; and (5) The Clerk of Court is ordered to seal the submitted exhibits so that they may be viewed only by counsel for the parties and the Court.[CC] GTT COMMUNICATIONS: Schall Law Files Class Action Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------- The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm, announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against GTT Communications, Inc. ("GTT" or "the Company") (NYSE:GTT) for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Investors who purchased the Company's securities between February 26, 2018 and July 1, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are encouraged to contact the firm before September 30, 2019. We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law Firm, 1880 Century Park East, Suite 404, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at 424-303-1964, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by email at brian@schallfirm.com. The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member. According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. GTT experienced significant delays in integrating Interoute Communications Holdings S.A.'s ("Interoute") systems and legacy processes into the Company's client management database. Interoute had made selling cloud services a strategic priority, but a considerable percentage of Interoute sales reps were not able to effectively sell GTT's cloud networking services. In fact, Interoute had allowed underperforming sales reps to remain on staff. Based on these facts, the Company's public statements were false and materially misleading throughout the class period. When the market learned the truth about GTT, investors suffered damages. Join the case to recover your losses. The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder rights litigation. Contact: Brian Schall, Esq. The Schall Law Firm Office: 310-301-3335 Cell: 424-303-1964 Email: info@schallfirm.com, Website: www.schallfirm.com, brian@schallfirm.com [GN] HAN DYNASTY: Pan Moves for Certification of Class Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------ The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled JUNYOU PAN and MAISHENG ZHANG, Individually and on behalf of all other employees similarly situated v. HAN DYNASTY OF UNIVERSITY CITY INC d/b/a "Han Dynasty", NEW HAN DYNASTY INC d/b/a "Han Dynasty", MINHAN JIANG, JING ZHANG and Angel Doe (Last Name Unknown), Case No. 2:19-cv-02411-GAM (E.D. Pa.), move the Court for an order for conditional collective action certification for the purpose of providing notice to putative collective class members under the Fair Labor Standards Act.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jian Hang, Esq. HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 136-20 38th Avenue, Suite 10G Flushing, NY 11354 Telephone: (718) 353-8588 Facsimile: (718) 353-6288 E-mail: jhang@hanglaw.com HEADWAY TECH: IT Worx Sues Over Hard Drive Spring Price-rigging --------------------------------------------------------------- IT Worx, Inc., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Headway Technologies, Inc., Hutchinson Technology Inc., Magnecomp Precision Technology Public Co., Ltd., NAT Peripheral (Dong Guan) Co., Ltd., NAT Peripheral (H.K.) Co., Ltd, NHK Spring Co. Ltd., NHK International Corporation, NHK Spring (Thailand) Co., Ltd., NHK Spring Precision (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd., SAE Magnetics (H.K.) Ltd. and TDK Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-02406, (D. Minn., August 30, 2019), seeks damages, injunctive relief and other relief pursuant to the Sherman Act, federal antitrust laws, state antitrust, unfair competition, consumer protection laws and the laws of unjust enrichment. Defendants are manufacturers of hard disk drive suspension assemblies. IT Worx purchased at least one HDD suspension assembly indirectly from at least one Defendant and claims that they conspired to fix prices of and allocate market shares for these suspension assemblies. Suspension assemblies are a component of hard disk drives and are installed in a variety of electronic products. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: David M. Cialkowski, Esq. Alia M. Abdi, Esq. Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq. ZIMME1MAN REED, LLP 1100 IDS Center 80 South 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Tel: 612-341-0400 Fax: 612-341-0844 Email: alia.abdi@zimmreed.com david.cialkowski@zimmreed.com brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com - and - Joseph DePalma, Esq. LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC 570 Broad Street, Suite 1201 Newark, NJ 07102 Telephone: (973) 623-3000 E-mail: jdepalma@litedepalma.com - and - Mindee J. Reuben, Esq. Steven J. Greenfogel, Esq. LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC 1835 Market Street, Suite 2700 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Tel: (973) 877-3819 (267) 314-7980 Fax: (973) 623-0858 Email: mreuben@litedepalma.com sgreenfogel@litedepalma.com - and - J. Nathan Duggins III, Esq. Scott C. Gayle, Esq. TUGGLE DUGGINS P.A. 100 N. Greene Street, Suite 600 Greensboro, NC 27401 Telephone: (336) 271-5232 Facsimile: (336) 274-6590 Email: NDuggins@tuggleduggins.com SGayle@tuggleduggins.com HENLEY RESTAURANTS: Yepez Seeks OT Pay for Restaurant Staff ----------------------------------------------------------- A McDonald's franchisee is facing a class action lawsuit over labor law violations. The case is, ANELIZ YEPEZ, an individual and on behalf of others similarly situated, and as an aggrieved employee under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, the Plaintiff, vs. HENLEY RESTAURANTS, INC. dba MCDONALD'S, a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 19CV352021 (Cal. Super., July 31, 2019), and alleges that the Defendants failed to provide required meal periods, failed to provide required rest periods, failed to pay overtime wages, failed to pay minimum wage, failed to pay all wages due to discharged and quitting employees, failed to furnish accurate itemized statements, and failed to indemnify employees for necessary expenditures incurred in discharge of duties under the California Labor Code. The Plaintiff and other persons similarly situated, performed work for Henley Restaurants in the County of Santa Clara. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants' unlawful actions, the plaintiff and class members have suffered, and continue to suffer, from loss of earnings, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff Aneliz Yepez individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, and as an aggrieved employee under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, are: Matthew J. Matern, Esq. Dalia Khalili, Esq. Andrew J. Sokolowski, Esq. Shooka Dadashzadeh, Esq. MATERN LAW GROUP, PC 1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 Telephone: (310) 531-1900 Facsimile: (310) 531-1901 E-mail: mmatern@maternlawgroup.com dkhali li@maternlawgroup.com asokolowski@maternlawgroup.com shooka@maternlawgroup.com HOUZZ, INC: Geenen Seeks OT Wages for Misclassified Employees ------------------------------------------------------------- CAITLIN GEENEN, an individual, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. HOUZZ, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, the Defendants, Case No. 19CV352332 (Cal. Super., Aug. 2, 2019), alleges that Defendants failed to pay overtime wages, failed to provide accurate itemized wage statements,and failed to reimburse business expenses under the California Labor Code. The Defendants employed Plaintiff and other persons as non-exempt and misclassified exempt employees. The Defendants employed Plaintiff from about August 10, 2015 through December 6, 2018. The Plaintiff and class members were not paid at least minimum wage for all hours worked, the lawsuit says. The Plaintiff and other current and former employees harm as a result of their acts and omissions. Houzz sells home renovation and design products and services.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Craig M. Nicholas, Esq. Alex Tomasevic, Esq. NICHOLAS & TOMASEVIC, LLP 225 Broadway, 19th Floor San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 325-0492 Facsimile: (619) 325-0496 E-mail: cnicholas@nicholaslaw.org atomasevic@nicholaslaw.org - and - Nicholas J. Ferraro, Esq. FERRARO EMPLOYMENT LAW, INC. 2305 Historic Decatur Road, Suite 100 San Diego, CA 92106 Telephone: (619) 693-7727 Facsimile: (619) 930-5401 E-mail: nick@ferraroemploymentlaw.com IL FORNAIO: Failed to Pay OT Wages for Workers, Correa Says ----------------------------------------------------------- LAZARO CORREA individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. IL FORNAIO (AMERICA) CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 19CV352260 (Cal. Super., Aug. 2, 2019), alleges that Defendants failed provide required meal periods, failed to provide required rest periods, failed to pay overtime wages, failed to pay minimum wages, failed to pay all wages due to discharged and quitting employees, and failed to maintain required records under the California Labor Code. The Plaintiff and other persons similarly situated, performed work for Defendants in the County of Santa Clara. As a direct and proximate result of the unlawful actions of the Defendants, the Plaintiff and class members have suffered, and continue to suffer, from loss of earnings, the lawsuit says. Il Fornaio is a chain of 20 Italian-themed fine dining restaurants operating primarily in California in the United States.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Matthew J. Matern, Esq. Mikael H. Stahle, Esq. MATERN LAW GROUP, PC 1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 Telephone: (310) 531-1900 Facsimile: (310) 531-1901 E-mail: mmatern@maternlawgroup.com mstahle@maternlawgroup.com INVESTORS BANCORP: Elburn Sues Board for Breach of Fiduciary Duty ----------------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT ELBURN, derivatively on behalf of INVESTORS BANCORP, INC. and individually and on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated stockholders of INVESTORS BANCORP, INC., Plaintiff, v. INVESTORS BANCORP, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Nominal Defendant, and ROBERT C. ALBANESE, DENNIS M. BONE, DOREEN R. BYRNES, DOMENICK A. CAMA, PETER H. CARLIN, WILLIAM V. COSGROVE, KEVIN CUMMINGS, JAMES J. GARIBALDI, MICHELE N. SIEKERKA, PAUL N. STATHOULOPOULOS, AND JAMES H. WARD III, Defendants, Case No. 2019-0774 (Chancery Ct., Del., Sept. 26, 2019) is an action asserting claims for breach of fiduciary duty against the Company's board of directors and unjust enrichment against Kevin Cummings, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board, and Domenick A. Cama, President and Chief Operating Officer. On behalf of himself and all other similarly situated stockholders of Investors Bancorp, Plaintiff also brings against the Board a claim for breach of the fiduciary duty of candor. This action seeks to hold the Board accountable for granting equity awards to "replace" previously ill-gotten equity awards that were forfeited in a settlement that resolved a lawsuit against the Board. These "replacement" awards were not in the best interests of the Company and its stockholders, the Plaintiff asserts. Rather, the awards were part of an undisclosed quid pro quo that enabled a majority of the Board's directors to retain millions of dollars in equity awards that they were otherwise destined to lose at a then-impending entire fairness trial. This quid pro quo is not a matter of speculation. To the contrary, the directors acknowledged that Cummings and Cama were provided with "assurances" of "replacement grants" to secure Cummings and Cama's agreement to the settlement that benefited the majority of the Board, the complaint relates. In addition to seeking to recover the "replacement" awards granted to Cummings and Cama, Plaintiff also seeks to overturn the Company's most recent director election, in which Defendants Robert C. Albanese, Cama, James J. Garibaldi, and James H. Ward III were reelected to the Board at the 2019 Annual Meeting of Stockholders. That election was tainted by Defendants' failure to disclose that the Board granted Cummings and Cama their "replacement" awards, notes the Plaintiff. As the directors themselves previously argued strenuously to this Court, stockholders had a right to know about Cummings and Cama's replacement grants. Indeed, disclosure of the "replacement" awards might have caused a reasonable stockholder to question the independence of the directors standing for reelection as well as their fitness to continue to serve on the Board, says the complaint. Plaintiff Robert Elburn is, and has been continuously, a stockholder of Investors Bancorp since May 7, 2014. Investors Bancorp is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at 101 JFK Parkway in Short Hills, New Jersey.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven J. Purcell, Esq. Douglas E. Julie, Esq. Robert H. Lefkowitz, Esq. Kaitlyn T. Devenyns, Esq. PURCELL JULIE & LEFKOWITZ LLP 708 Third Avenue, 6th Floor New York, NY 10017 Phone: 212-725-1000 - and - David A. Jenkins, Esq. Neal C. Belgam, Esq. SMITH KATZENSTEIN & JENKINS LLP 1000 West Street, Suite 1501 Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: 302-652-8400 Email: daj@skjlaw.com ncb@skjlaw.com LANDSKRONER LAW: Bradshaw Sues over Water Bill Refund Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ DENNIS BRADSHAW, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, a municipal entity; MICHAEL FEUER, in his individual and official capacity; JAMES CLARK, in his individual and official capacity; THOMAS PETERS, in his individual and official capacity; THE LANDSKRONER LAW FIRM, LTD. dba LANDSKRONER GRIECO MERRIMAN, LLC, a limited liability company; JACK LANDSKRONER, an individual; LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL J LIBMAN APC, a California Professional Corporation; MICHAEL J. LIBMAN, an individual, the Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-06661-CAS-PLA (C.D. Cal., July 31, 2019), alleges professional misconduct "at an almost unfathomable level" by the Defendants, most of whom are attorneys, or law corporations involved in the practice of law. When the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power ("LADWP") switched to a new billing system, it began billing hundreds of thousands of ratepayers incorrect amounts. However, rather than simply refund consumers and resolve the problem, attorneys at the Los Angeles City Attorney's Office, along with outside counsel, instead decided to eliminate ratepayers' claims through a class action. Bradshaw rents a house in the City of Los Angeles and an LADWP customer. He is a citizen of the State of Nevada. The City of Los Angeles is a public entity organized and existing under the laws of the State of California. In September 2013, LADWP implemented a Customer Care and Billing software platform (CC&B System), which had been developed and implemented by PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP, to bill customers for water, electricity, and other utility services as well as to administer solar-power accounts. The CC&B System was inherently and fundamentally flawed, causing over-billing and other billing problems for LADWP's customers. However, the Defendants chose to prophylactically sanitize the problem and prevent any true legal exposure. Although Los Angeles' outside counsel initially planned to represent a ratepayer in a class action against the company that developed the billing system, PwC, they instead passed the ratepayer off to an attorney so that he could file a class action against the City of Los Angeles. The attorneys who were given this ratepayer almost immediately filed the class action, Jones v. City of Los Angeles, and almost as quickly settled it with the City. However, at no time did the attorneys disclose their conflict of interest or that they were plotting with the City for a quick settlement. As a result, the ratepayers lost their ability to obtain a fair settlement from the City and the attorneys went on to obtain tens of millions of dollars in fees and benefits. The truth only came to light by happenstance, when the company that developed the billing system, which is involved in litigation with the City, learned that the City had originally intended that the plaintiff in the class action was originally supposed to sue PwC, rather than the City. As a result of Defendants' conduct, Plaintiff and other LADWP ratepayers who were Jones class members have suffered significant damages. In an October 7 docket entry, the case has been randomly reassigned from Magistrate Judge Paul L. Abrams to Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Chooljian for all further proceedings, following Judge Abrams' recusal. In an October 4 order, Judge Virginia A. Phillips approved a Stipulation that extended the Defendants' time to respond to the initial complaint to November 1.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Filippo Marchino, Esq. Damon Rogers, Esq. Thomas E. Gray, Esq. THE X-LAW GROUP, P.C. 625 Fair Oaks Ave, Suite 390 South Pasadena, CA 91030 Telephone: (213) 599-3380 Facsimile: (213) 599-3370 E-mail: FM@xlawx.com DR@xlawx.com TG@xlawx.com LEAZER GROUP: Perez Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing ------------------------------------------------------- MANUEL PEREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. THE LEAZER GROUP, INC. a North Carolina corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-24058-FAM (S.D. Fla., Oct. 1, 2019) is an action brought against the Defendant to secure redress for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. To gain an advantage over its competitors and increase its revenue, Defendant engages in unsolicited telemarketing, with no regard for consumers' privacy rights. This case arises from Defendant's transmission of prerecorded messages to the cellular telephones of Plaintiff and others, promoting Defendant's services and goods. The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's illegal conduct which has resulted in the invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of thousands of individuals. Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of himself and members of the class, and any other available legal or equitable remedies, says the complaint. Plaintiff is a natural person who was a resident of Miami-Dade County, Florida. Defendant is an insurance agency that specializes in mortgage life insurance and the senior market.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. Garrett O. Berg, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 1205 Miami, FL 33132 Phone (305) 479-2299 Facsimile (786) 623-0915 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com gberg@shamisgentile.com - and - Scott Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, PA 19495 Biscayne Blvd. #607 Aventura, FL 33180 Phone: (305) 975-3320 Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com LET'S SHAKE: Perales Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------- MARK PERALES, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. LET'S SHAKE, LLC, and SSCP MANAGEMENT, INC., Defendants, Case No. 5:19-cv-01178 (W.D. Tex., Oct. 1, 2019) is an action brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act, for declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and costs, including a reasonable attorney's fee, as a result of Defendants' failure to pay Plaintiff and other hourly employees lawful overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. Plaintiff worked more than 40 hours per week in at least one pay period while working for Defendants. The Defendants have deprived Plaintiff and all others similarly situated of a proper overtime premium for all of the hours they worked in excess of 40 hours in a week, says the complaint. Plaintiff worked for Defendants and/or Defendants' predecessor companies as a cook and was promoted to associate manager during this tenure with Defendants from June or July of 2015 to June or July of 2019. Defendants operate multiple franchise business locations within the State of Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Merideth Q. McEntire, Esq. Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC One Financial Center 650 South Shackleford Road, Suite 411 Little Rock, AR 72211 Phone: (501) 221-0088 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 Email: merideth@sanfordlawfirm.com josh@sanfordlawfirm.com LION OIL: Court Tosses Class Certification Bid in Fuller Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Susan O. Hickey adopts a report and recommendation issued in the lawsuit styled THURMAN FULLER, et al. v. LION OIL TRADING & TRANSPORTATION, LLC, Case No. 1:19-cv-01020-SOH-BAB (W.D. Ark.). Accordingly, Judge Hickey denied the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and motion for extension of time. On September 9, 2019, the Honorable Barry A. Bryant, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas, issued the Report and Recommendation. Judge Bryant recommends that the Court deny the Plaintiffs' pending motion for class certification. The Plaintiffs have not filed objections to the Report and Recommendation, and the time to object has passed. On May 15, 2019, the Plaintiffs, seven siblings who are each representing him or herself pro se, brought this action. The Plaintiffs seek, inter alia, to recover unpaid royalties from the Defendant that were allegedly paid to the Plaintiffs' other siblings, who are not parties to this case. On August 14, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, seeming to request that the Court certify a class consisting of themselves. On August 28, 2019, the Defendant responded, indicating that it opposes the motion. On September 25, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking a sixty-day extension of time to respond to the Defendant's opposition to their class certification motion. In her order, Judge Hickey notes that Judge Bryant finds that certification of a class under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is appropriate only when the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable, and that the Plaintiffs' motion concedes that "joinder of all plaintiffs is practical," which defeats their request. Thus, Judge Bryant concludes that the motion should be denied because the Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that Rule 23 class certification is proper in this case. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs' conclusory assertions that Rule 23's requirements are satisfied are insufficient and, with no other argument or evidence, they have not carried their burden of affirmatively demonstrating that class certification is appropriate. Moreover, Judge Hickey opines, class certification is likewise inappropriate in this case because the Plaintiffs appear to seek to certify a class consisting solely of themselves, which is unnecessary because they are all already named plaintiffs in this case. Thus, the Plaintiffs can all currently litigate their claims against the Defendant without need for class certification.[CC] LIQUI-BOX: Zaman Suit Underway in California Superior Court ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Liqui-Box Corporation. The case is captioned as Sajida Zaman, on behalf of all other similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Does 1-50, and Liqui-Box Corporation, an Ohio Corporation, the Defendants, Case No. 34-2019-00262122-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Aug 2, 2019). The case alleges employment-related issues. Liqui-Box manufactures bag-in-box flexible packaging and pouches to serve a wide variety of global industries, including dairy, beverage, food and non-food markets.[BN] LORD & TAYLOR: Fails to Pay Wages, Toon Says -------------------------------------------- TROY TOON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. LORD & TAYLOR LLC; LORD & TAYLOR HOLDINGS LLC; and JOHN DOES, the Defendants, Case No. 19-2473F (Mass. Super., Aug. 2, 2019), seeks damages based on Defendants' failure to pay wages under the Massachusetts Wage Law. Lord & Taylor operates high-end retail stores in Massachusetts. The Plaintiff worked as a salesperson for Lord & Taylor from approximately October 2015 through October 2016. According to the complaint, employees are entitled to overtime pay for all hours worked above 40 hours in one week. Retail employees are entitled to premium pay for work performed on Sundays and certain holidays. Lord & Taylor's company-wide compensation structure for salespeople was based on a 100% commission/draw model. Employees' pay each week was based on a percentage of the goods sold by each salesperson. To the extent an employee's pay for any given week fell below a certain threshold, Lord & Taylor would advance the employee a "draw" on future commissions. Pursuant to this pay policy, draws and commissions were ostensibly applied to hours worked over 40 hours per week, and to hours worked on Sundays and holidays. Lord & Taylor did not pay any additional compensation for such work beyond the draws and commissions, the lawsuit says.[BN] MACADO'S INC: Bartenders/Servers Class Certified in Spencer Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Norman K. Moon grants the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional class certification with notice to potential plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned JEFFREY SPENCER, JR., et al. v. MACADO'S, INC., et al., Case No. 6:18-cv-00005-NKM-RSB (W.D. Va.). The class is defined as: All current and former hourly-paid tipped employees, classified as bartenders or servers, of Defendants in the United States who work (or have worked) at Defendants' restaurants at any time within the last three years of the date of this order up to and including the date of final judgment in this matter. The Plaintiffs also asked the Court to facilitate notice to putative opt-in plaintiffs. The Court, hence, orders these: 1. Defendants shall provide Plaintiffs with the names, last known residential addresses, phone numbers, and dates of employment by Defendants within the last three years of any potential class member; 2. Defendants shall also post notice, once approved by the Court, to putative class members at all Defendants' locations, enclose such notices in paystubs, and mail such notice to all putative class members; 3. Defendants shall place such notice, once approved by the Court, immediately adjacent to the time clock used by tipped employees at each of Macado's restaurant locations. If placement in this fashion causes the text of the notice to be visible to and readable by customers, then Defendants may instead post such notice in an employee-only area of each Macado's restaurant in a location frequented by both servers and bartenders. In such instances, Defendants shall provide notice to the Court and to Plaintiffs of its deviation from placing notice by its time clock; and 4. Defendants may submit for the Court's consideration their own proposed notice or objections to Plaintiffs' proposal within 14 days of this order. The Plaintiffs' motion insofar as it asks the Court to equitably toll the FLSA's statute of limitations as it applies to putative opt-in plaintiffs is granted. The statute of limitations for any putative opt-in plaintiff shall be tolled from February 8, 2019, until September 27, 2019. The Plaintiffs' motion insofar as it asks the Court to deem opt-in forms filed on the day they are postmarked is denied. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send a certified copy of this order to all counsel of record.[CC] MAGICK WOODS: Feliciano Biometric Data Suit Underway ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit against Magick Woods, Inc., remains pending. The case is captioned, GABRIEL FELICIANO individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. MAGICK WOODS, INC., A Delaware Corporation, the Case No. 2019CH08873 (Ill. Cir., July 30, 2019), and seeks to put a stop to its unlawful collection, use, and storage of Plaintiffs and the putative Class members' sensitive biometric data. When employees first begin their jobs at Magick, they are required to scan their fingerprint in its biometric time tracking system as a means of authentication, instead of using onlykey fobs or other identification cards. While there are tremendous benefits to using biometric time clocks in the workplace, there are also serious risks. Unlike key fobs or identification cards-which can be changed or replaced if stolen or compromised-fingerprints are unique, permanent biometric identifiers associated with the employee. This exposes employees to serious and irreversible privacy risks. For example, if a fingerprint database is hacked, breached, or otherwise exposed, employees have no means by which to prevent identity theft and unauthorized tracking. 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, such as fingerprints. Despite this law, Magick disregarded its employees' statutorily protected privacy rights and unlawfully collects, stores, and uses their biometric data in violation of the BIPA, the lawsuit says. Magick is a manufacturer of bath vanities and kitchen cabinets. Magick Woods Export Private Limited, in Chennai, India is a wholly owned subsidiary of Magick Woods Ltd., Canada and both are affiliated with the Defendant.[BNS] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: David Fish, Esq. John Kunze, Esq. THE FISH LAW FIRM, P.C . 200 East Fifth Avenue, Suite 123 Naperville, IL 60563 Telephone: 630 355 7590 Facsimile: 630 778 0400 E-mail: admin@fishlawfirm.com dfish@fishlawfirm.com jkunze@fishlawfirm.com MARS PETCARE: Pet Owners Dispute "No Grains" Claim in Dogfood ------------------------------------------------------------- Arnold Fishon, Lilly Perez and Tana Parker, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated and aggrieved, Plaintiff, v. Mars Petcare US, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-00816 (M.D. Tenn., September 16, 2019), seeks damages and equitable relief resulting from breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, unjust enrichment and for violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and the New York Deceptive Trade Practices Act. Mars Petcare manufactures, distributes, markets and sells IAMS Proactive Health Sensitive Skin and Stomach Grain-Free Recipe with Chicken and Peas dogfood. Defendant represents that IAMS Food is "grain free" and contains "no soy." However, Plaintiffs claim that independent testing has revealed that IAMS Food does in fact contain both corn and soy. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory F. Coleman, Esq. Adam A. Edwards, Esq. Lisa A. White, Esq. Justin G. Day, Esq. GREG COLEMAN LAW PC 800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Telephone: (865) 247-0080 Facsimile: (865) 522-0049 Email: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com adam@gregcolemanlaw.com lisa@gregcolemanlaw.com justin@gregcolemanlaw.co - and - Gary E. Mason, Esq. Danielle L. Perry, Esq. John Hunter Bryson, Esq. WHITFIELD BRYSON &MASON LLP 900 W. Morgan Street Raleigh, NC 27603 Tel: (919) 600-5000 Fax: (919) 600-5035 Email: gmason@wbmllp.com dperry@wbmllp.com hunter@wbmllp.com - and - Jonathan Shub, Esq. KOHN, SWIFT & GRAF, P.C. 1600 Market Street, Suite 2500 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Tel: (215) 238-1700 Email: jshub@kohnswift.com - and - Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq. GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, LPA One West Fourth Street, 18th Floor Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 Phone: (513) 345-8291 Fax: (513) 345-8294 Email: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com - and - Charles E. Schaffer, Esq. LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN LLP 510 Walnut Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 592-1500 Email: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com - and- Philip Friedman, Esq. FRIEDMAN LAW OFFICES 2001 L Street NW, Suite 400 Washington, DC 20036 Tel: (202)-293-4175 MCKESSON INC: Chris et al. Suit Underway in S.D. Georgia -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit against McKesson, Inc., et al., is ongoing. The case is captioned as Chris, Nathan, and John Doe, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. McKesson, Inc. and David Cifu, the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00189-RSB-CLR (S.D. Ga., Aug. 1, 2019). The suit alleges violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge R. Stan Baker. McKesson is the oldest and largest healthcare company in the nation, serving more than 50% of U.S. hospitals and 20% of physicians. The company delivers one-third of all medications used daily in North America with operations in more than 16 countries.[BN] Attorneys the Plaintiffs are: Shannon Dyer Challender, Esq. 504 Oxford Dr. Richmond Hill, GA 31324 Telephone: (636) 357-9809 E-mail: shannonchallender@gmail.com MDL 2311: Dealers Seek Ct. OK to Send Notice of $86-MM Settlements ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Automobile Dealership Plaintiffs in the multidistrict litigation styled IN RE: AUTOMOTIVE PARTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Master File No. 12-md-02311 (E.D. Mich.), move the Court for approval to disseminate class notice for a series of preliminarily approved settlements in their lawsuits and to conduct a hearing for final approval of the Settlements, and application for an interim award of expenses, attorneys' fees, and class representative service awards. The motion is filed under Case No. 2:13-cv-02202-MOB. The Settlements constitute the fourth round ("Round Four") of Dealership Plaintiffs settlements in this MDL. The Round Four Settlements at issue in this Motion total more than $86 million. The Automobile Dealership Plaintiffs and the Settling Defendants do not request a hearing for this Motion. The Settling Defendants do not oppose this Motion. The Settlements provide cash benefits to automobile dealerships that purchased certain parts and/or purchased new vehicles containing those parts in jurisdictions that the Dealership Plaintiffs contend allow antitrust indirect purchasers to seek money damages: Arizona, Arkansas, California, District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin (the "Included States"). The Dealership Plaintiffs move the Court to approve the form and plan for dissemination of notice to the Dealership Plaintiff settlement classes. At a final approval hearing, the Dealership Plaintiffs will ask the Court to consider: (1) the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the Settlements; (2) a request for a reimbursement of incurred litigation expenses; (3) a request for an award of attorneys' fees; and (4) a request for service awards for the named Dealership Plaintiffs. The Dealership Plaintiffs propose this schedule: * Mailing of Postal Notice and Email Notice, Establishment of Settlement Website--15 days from Order allowing dissemination of notice; * Commence Placement of Publication Notice--As soon as possible after Order allowing dissemination of notice; * Deadline for filing Opt-Outs or objections to Settlements--November 22, 2019; * Deadline for appearance of Counsel regarding objections--November 29, 2019; * Deadline for Counsel to file notice of intent to appear at Final Approval Hearing--November 29, 2019; * Final Approval Hearing--December 10, 2019 at 10:00 a.m.; and * Proof of Claim deadline--April 17, 2020.[CC] The Dealership Plaintiffs are represented by: Gerard V. Mantese, Esq. MANTESE HONIGMAN, P.C. 1361 E. Big Beaver Road Troy, MI 48083 Telephone: (248) 457-9200 E-mail: gmantese@manteselaw.com - and - Shawn M. Raiter, Esq. LARSON KING, LLP 2800 Wells Fargo Place 30 East Seventh Street St. Paul, MN 55101 Telephone: (651) 312-6500 Facsimile: (651) 312-6618 E-mail: sraiter@larsonking.com - and - Jonathan W. Cuneo, Esq. CUNEO, GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP 4725Wisconsin Ave. NW, Suite 200 Washington, DC 20016 Telephone: (202) 789-3960 E-mail: jonc@cuneolaw.com - and - Don Barrett, Esq. BARRETT LAW GROUP, P.A. P.O. Box 927 404 Court Square Lexington, MS 39095 Telephone: (662) 834-2488 Facsimile: (662)834-2628 E-mail: dbarrett@barrettlawgroup.com MDL 2905: Hamilton Livery Suit Consolidated ------------------------------------------- The case, HAMILTON LIVERY LEASING LLC on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC., a California corporation; HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA, a California corporation; FCA US LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; MITSUBISHI MOTORS AMERICA, INC., a Delaware corporation; AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., a California corporation; TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., Inc., a California Corporation; ZF TRW AUTOMOTIVE HOLDINGS CORP., a Delaware corporation, the Defendants, Case No. 8:19-cv-01459-JAK-FFM (C.D. Cal., July 30, 2019), has been transferred to MDL No. 2905: In Re: ZF-TRW Airbag Control Units Products Liability Litigation. The Plaintiff sues over defective airbag control units ("ACUs") designed and supplied by Defendant ZF-TRW, which are part of airbag systems equipped in vehicles manufactured by Defendants Kia, Hyundai, FCA, Mitsubishi, Honda, and Toyota. ACUs are designed and manufactured to sense a vehicle crash, determine whether airbag deployment is necessary, and deploy appropriate airbags and other supplemental restraints where needed. ACUs contain an electronic component -- an application specific integrated circuit ("ASIC") -- which monitors signals from other crash sensors in vehicles. When the ASIC functions properly, the ACU detects the severity of a crash, deploys the airbag, if necessary, and engages seatbelt pretensioners. The defect in the ACU occurs because the ACIS becomes over stressed by excess electrical energy generated during the crash. As a result of this electrical overstress ("EOS") condition that causes the malfunction of the ASIC in the ACUs, the airbags equipped in the Class Vehicles do not properly deploy during a crash ("ACU Defect"). Rather than deploying airbags, which protect vehicle occupants from bodily harm during accidents, the defective ACUs may fail to send a signal to deploy airbags. ACU malfunctions greatly increase the risk of serious injury and death to vehicle occupants in the event of a collision. The Defendants became aware of the ACU Defect as early as 2011, however, they failed to disclose and actively concealed Class the dangers and risks posed by the Vehicles or the ACU Defect, exposing millions of consumers to serious and life-threatening safety risks. The ACU Defect creates a dangerous condition that gives rise to a clear, substantial, and unreasonable danger of injury or death. The Defendants put profits ahead of safety by continuing to manufacture and equip vehicles with the defective ACUs year after year, even though they knew or should have known that the ACUs were defective. The car manufacturers that purchased ZF-TRW's defective ACU's knew or should have known of the common uniform design defect of the ZF-TRW ACUs. The Plaintiff and Class members were harmed and suffered actual damages. The Plaintiff and Class members did not receive the benefit of their bargain. Rather, they purchased or leased vehicles that are of a lesser standard, grade, and quality than represented, and they did not receive vehicles that met the ordinary and reasonable customer expectations regarding safety. Purchasers and lessees of the Class Vehicles paid more, either through a higher purchase price or higher lease payments, than they would have had the ACU Defect been disclosed. Plaintiff and Class members were deprived of a safe, defect-free ACU installed in their vehicles, and Defendants unjustly benefitted from their delay in recalling their defective products, the lawsuit says.[BN] Counsel for the Plaintiff are: Rosemary M. Rivas, Esq. Rosanne L. Mah, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 44 Montgomery Street, Suite 650 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 373-1671 Facsimile: (415) 484-1294 E-mail: rrivas@zlk.com rmah@zlk.com MIDLAND FUNDING: Court Compels Arbitration in Lomeli FDCPA Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division issued an Order granting Defendants' Motion to Compel Arbitration in the case captioned JAIME PRIETO LOMELI, Plaintiff, v. MIDLAND FUNDING, LLC, et al., Defendants. Case No. 19-CV-01141-LHK. (N.D. Cal.) Plaintiff Jamie Lomeli brought the putative class action against Midland Funding, LLC (Midland), Midland Credit Management, Inc. (MCM), Hunt & Henriques (H&H), Michael Scott Hunt, and Janalie Ann Henriques, alleging that Defendants committed violations of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), in connection with Defendants' efforts to collect a consumer debt from Plaintiff. In 2004, Plaintiff opened a Shell credit card with Citibank, N.A. Defendants aver that the card was subject to a written card agreement, which set forth the terms and conditions for the credit card account. According to Defendants, it is Citibank's regular business practice to send the applicable card agreement to the customer when the account is opened. The Card Agreement contains three provisions relevant to the instant motions: (1) an arbitration agreement, (2) a choice of law provision, and (3) an assignment clause. At some point, Plaintiff allegedly incurred a debt on his credit card. He subsequently defaulted on the debt. On May 25, 2016, Midland Funding, LLC ("Midland Funding"), purchased Plaintiff's debt from Citibank. Defendants proffer what they assert is the Purchase and Sale Agreement (the "Purchase Agreement") assigning Plaintiff's account to Midland Funding and containing the terms of the transaction. The Purchase Agreement states that Citibank "agrees to sell, assign and transfer" to Midland Funding "all right, title and interest of Bank in and to the Accounts." According to Defendants, Midland Credit Management, Inc. ("MCM") is "the servicer and authorized agent for Midland Funding and manages debts that Midland Funding purchases," which Plaintiff does not dispute. H&H is a company "engaged in the collection of outstanding financial obligations." At some point after Plaintiff defaulted, H&H was retained by Midland Funding for the purpose of collecting Plaintiff's outstanding credit card debt. On or about October 16, 2017, Midland Funding filed suit against Plaintiff in Santa Clara Superior Court in order to collect Plaintiff's debt. Defendants state that H&H filed the suit on Midland Funding's behalf. In connection with that suit, Emily Walker executed a Declaration in Lieu of Testimony as an officer for Midland Funding, where she indicated that her business address is 16 McLeland Road Suite 101, St. Cloud, Minnesota. Defendants now seek to enforce the arbitration agreement contained in the Card Agreement, which they claim covers Plaintiff's account. In response, Plaintiff makes three principle arguments against arbitration. First, Plaintiff challenges the authenticity of the document that Defendants have proffered as the Card Agreement, as well as its connection to Plaintiff's account. Second, Plaintiff argues that Midland Funding and the H&H Defendants are not entitled to enforce the arbitration provision. Third, Plaintiff contends Defendants have constructively waived any rights they had under the arbitration agreement. On review, the Court finds that Defendants have satisfactorily established the authenticity of the Card Agreement as the terms governing Plaintiff's account. The Court therefore concludes that the arbitration provision contained therein the validity of which Plaintiff does not dispute is a valid agreement to arbitrate. Moreover, the Court finds that South Dakota has a substantial relationship to this dispute and application of South Dakota law would not be contrary to any fundamental policy of California. South Dakota law provides the substantive contract law principles. Lastly, the Court therefore finds that Midland Funding has the right to compel arbitration under the Card Agreement. The Court also has little problem finding that the inquiries in the matter are intertwined when arbitration of Plaintiff's claims against the Midland Defendants will be determinative of Plaintiff's claims against the H&H Defendants. The Court holds that the H&H Defendants, like Midland Funding, are entitled to invoke the arbitration clause. Like the H&H Defendants, MCM is neither a signatory nor an assignee. The Court is satisfied that its analysis regarding the parties' intent and the applicability of equitable estoppel as to the H&H Defendants has equal force here, and confirms MCM's right to compel arbitration. Plaintiff contended that Defendants waived their right to arbitrate the instant case by bringing the debt collection action in California Superior Court rather than arbitrating that action. In response, Defendants convincingly argued that the act of filing the debt collection action in state court was not inconsistent with the right to arbitrate, the Court opined. The Court finds that the Plaintiff has not met the heavy burden of proving waiver. Accordingly, the District Court grants Defendants' motions to compel arbitration. A full-text copy of the District Court's September 26, 2019 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y5h62uer from Leagle.com Jaime Prieto Lomeli, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew C. Salmonsen - matthew.salmonsen@sjconsumerlaw.com - Consumer Law Center, Inc., Raeon Rodrigo Roulston - raeon.roulston@sjconsumerlaw.com - Consumer Law Center, Inc. & Fred W. Schwinn - fred.schwinn@sjconsumerlaw.com - Consumer Law Center, Inc. Midland Funding, LLC & Midland Credit Management, Inc., Defendants, represented by Ethan Geoffrey Ostroff - ethan.ostroff@troutman.com - Troutman Sanders LLP, pro hac vice & Jessica Rose Ellis Lohr - jessica.lohr@troutman.com - Troutman Sanders LLP. Hunt & Henriques, Michael Scott Hunt & Janalie Ann Henriques, Defendants, represented by Kurt Darrow Bridgman - kbridgman@vmbllp.com - Vogl, Meredith, and Burke, Eunji Cho , Low, Ball & Lynch, 55 Montgomery St., San Francisco, CA & Michael Shannon Burke - mburke@vmbllp.com - Vogl Meredith & Burke LLP. MIDWEST FOODS: Curtis Hits Illegal Biometrics Data Collection ------------------------------------------------------------- Armand Curtis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Midwest Foods Manufacturing, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2019CH10621 (Ill. Cir., September 13, 2019), seeks an injunction requiring Defendants to cease all unlawful activity related to the capture, collection, storage and use of biometrics, as well as statutory damages together with costs and reasonable attorneys' fees for violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. Curtis worked for Midwest at its Illinois facility. Plaintiff was required to "clock-in" and "clock-out" using a timeclock that scanned fingerprints. Plaintiffs alleges that Midwest improperly collected and stored employees' fingerprint data without informed consent. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: David J. Fish, Esq. Kim Hilton, Esq. John Kunze, Esq. THE FISH LAW FIRM, P.C. 200 E. 5th Ave., Suite 123 Naperville, IL 60563 Tel: (630) 355-7590 Fax: (630) 778-0400 Email: dfish@fishlawfirm.com kunze@fishlawfirm.com jkunze@fishlawfirm.com MILACRON HOLDINGS: Sabatini Files Suit Over Sale to Hillenbrand --------------------------------------------------------------- ERIC SABATINI, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. MILACRON HOLDINGS CORP., IRA G. BOOTS, TIMOTHY M. CROW, WATERS S. DAVIS, JAMES F. GENTILCORE, GREGORY J. GULCHOWSKI, JR., THOMAS J. GOEKE, JAMES M. KRATOCHVIL, DAVID W. REEDER, REBECCA LEE STEINFORT, HILLENBRAND, INC., and BENGAL DELAWARE HOLDING CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01846-UNA (D. Del., Oct. 1, 2019) is an action stemming from a proposed transaction announced on July 12, 2019, pursuant to which Milacron Holdings Corp. will be acquired by Hillenbrand, Inc. and Bengal Delaware Holding Corporation. On July 12, 2019, Milacron's Board of Directors caused the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with Hillenbrand. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Milacron's stockholders will receive $11.80 in cash and 0.1612 shares of Parent common stock for each share of Milacron common stock they own. On September 10, 2019, defendants filed a Form S-4 Registration Statement with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the Proposed Transaction. According to the complaint, the Registration Statement omits material information with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the Registration Statement false and misleading. First, says the complaint, the Registration Statement omits material information regarding the Company's and Hillenbrand's financial projections. With respect to the Company's financial projections, the Registration Statement fails to disclose: (i) all line items used to calculate EBIT and EBITDA; (ii) the Other EBITDA Adjustments; (iii) projections for year 2024; and (iv) a reconciliation of all non-GAAP to GAAP metrics. Second, the Registration Statement omits material information regarding the analyses performed by the Company's financial advisor in connection with the Proposed Transaction, Barclays Capital Inc. With respect to Barclays' Discounted Cash Flow Analysis of Milacron, the Registration Statement fails to disclose: (i) unlevered free cash flow for year 2024 and all underlying line items; (ii) the range of terminal values for Milacron; (iii) the individual inputs and assumptions underlying the range of after-tax discount rates of 10.0% to 12.0% and the perpetuity growth rates ranging from 1.5% to 2.5%; (iv) Milacron's net debt; and (v) the fully diluted number of shares of Milacron common stock. Third, the Registration Statement omits material information regarding potential conflicts of interest of Barclays. The Registration Statement fails to disclose the amount of compensation Barclays received for the past services it provided to Milacron. The omission of all these material information renders the Registration Statement false and misleading, including, these sections of the Registration Statement: (i) Background of the Merger; (ii) Milacron Board of Directors' Recommendation and Reasons for the Merger; (iii) Opinion of Milacron's Financial Advisor; and (iv) Certain Unaudited Prospective Financial Information, says the complaint. Accordingly, the Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the Registration Statement. Plaintiff is the owner of Milacron common stock. Milacron is engaged in the manufacture, distribution, and service of highly engineered and customized systems within the plastic technology and processing industry.[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 MOWI ASA: Portland Hunt-Alpine Asserts Unfair Trade Practices ------------------------------------------------------------- Portland Hunt-Alpine Club, LLC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Mowi ASA (fka Marine Harvest ASA), Marine Harvest USA, LLC, Marine Harvest Canada, Inc., Ducktrap River of Maine LLC, Grieg Seafood ASA, Grieg Seafood BC Ltd., Ocean Quality AS, Ocean Quality North America Inc., Ocean Quality USA Inc., Ocean Quality Premium Brands, Inc., SalMar ASA, Leroy Seafood Group ASA, Leroy Seafood USA Inc., and Scottish Sea Farms Ltd. Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-00446-JAW (D. Me., Oct. 1, 2019) is a lawsuit arising from the unlawful coordination of the price of farm-raised Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) and salmon products which were sold by Defendants between July 1, 2015 and the present in violation of federal antitrust law and various state antitrust and unfair competition, consumer protection and unfair trade practices, and unjust enrichment laws. The salmon market is susceptible to manipulation by the major salmon producers in Norway. Salmon is sold on the spot market and through annual contracts. Only one percent of Norway's salmon production is sold on the spot market, but those spot prices set the baseline for the longer term contract prices. Since 2015, salmon buyers in Europe have complained that Norway's salmon producers, including Mowi, have been rigging the spot market by using subsidiary companies, including Mowi's Polish subsidiary, Morpol (which is a fish processor and distributor and the world's leading producer of smoked salmon products) to drive up the spot price. As a result of the conspiracy, Defendants' prices--and profits--for salmon have been increased since mid-2015. The Defendants frequently and falsely asserted that cost increases justified their price increases, but their own data disproves their purported justification, notes the complaint. These price increases, and the Defendants' coordinated behavior that caused them, have come at the expense of Plaintiff and the Class, who have paid more for farm-raised salmon than they otherwise would have in the absence of Defendants' collusion, says the complaint. Plaintiff Portland Hunt-Alpine Club, LLC is a business located at 75 Market Street Portland ME 04101 that purchased Farm-Raised Salmon, once or more, other than directly from Defendants. Mowi ASA (f/k/a Marine Harvest ASA) touts itself as a "global corporate brand" of one of the largest seafood companies in the world and the largest producer of Atlantic salmon.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Taylor Asen, Esq. BERMAN & SIMMONS 129 Lisbon Street Lewiston, ME 04240 Phone: 207-560-0692 Email: tasen@bermansimmons.com - and - Adam J. Zapala, Esq. COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP 840 Malcolm Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Phone: (650) 697-6000 Facsimile: (650) 697-0577 Email: azapala@cpmlegal.com - and - Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq. Michelle J. Looby, Esq. GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC 120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (612) 333-8844 Facsimile: (612) 339-6622 Email: dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com mlooby@gustafsongluek.com - and - Don Barrett, Esq. Katherine Barrett Riley, Esq. David McMullan, Esq. BARRETT LAW GROUP, P.A. P.O. Box 927 404 Court Square Lexington, MS 39095 Phone: (662) 834-2488 Email: dbarrett@barrettlawgroup.com kbriley@barrettlawgroup.com dmcmullan@barrettlawgroup.com - and - Shawn M. Raiter, Esq. LARSON KING, LLP 2800 Wells Fargo Place 30 East Seventh Street St. Paul, MN 55101 Phone: (651) 312-6518 Email: sraiter@larsonking.com - and - Samuel J. Dubbin, P.A., Esq. DUBBIN & KRAVETZ, LLP 1200 Anastasia A venue Coral Gables, FL 33134 Phone: (305) 371-4700 Email: sdubbin@dubbinkravetz.com - and - Jonathan W. Cuneo, Esq. Daniel Cohen, Esq. Jennifer Kelly, Esq. Blaine Finley, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP 4725 Wisconsin Ave., NW, Suite 200 Washington, DC 20016 Phone: (202) 789-3960 Email: jonc@cuneolaw.com danielc@cuneolaw.com jkelly@cuneolaw.com bfinley@cuneolaw.com NADINE WEST: Tatum-Rios Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nadine West, Inc. The case is styled as Lynette Tatum-Rios Individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Nadine West, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-09283 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 7, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Nadine West is a monthly or bi-weekly clothing subscription company that caters to women of all clothing sizes.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq. Lipsky Lowe LLP 630 Third Avenue Fifth Floor New York, NY 10017 Phone: (212) 392-4772 Fax: (212) 444-1030 Email: doug@lipskylowe.com NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: Appeals Ruling in Domiano Suit to S.C. of Pa. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, et al., filed with the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania a petition for allowance of appeal in the matter styled as Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, et al. v. Tony Domiano Auto Dealerships, Inc., et al., Case No. 527 MAL 2019. The Appellate Court case is caption: Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, Harleysville Worcester Insurance Company, and Harleysville Preferred Insurance Company, Petitioners v. Tony Domiano Auto Dealerships, Inc., Jill Sparks, Anne Trapper, Anthony J. Brown, Richard E. Wallace, and John Tanis Administrator of the Estate of Eleanor Tanis, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated, and Dennis Ross Jessica Leonard, Clyde Brzenski, Anna Gerhard and Joseph Skorets, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Respondents, Case No. 776 MDA 2019, in the Pennsylvania Superior Court. The civil case is from the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas, Civil Division.[BN] NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: Class of Employees Certified in Cowan Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Sarah D. Morrison issued an opinion and order in the lawsuit titled MYRA COWAN v. NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE CO., Case No. 2:19-cv-01225-SDM-CMV (S.D. Ohio): -- denying the Defendant's motion to strike and dismiss all "Consent to Join Wage Claim" forms without prejudice; and -- granting in part and denying in part, the Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Class Certification and Court-Supervised Notice to Putative Class Members Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) (Fair Labor Standards Act). The Court conditionally certifies this FLSA class: All non-exempt employees who worked at one of Nationwide's call centers or service centers anywhere in the United States and/or worked from home and provided direct customer support and assistance through phone or e-mail systems, at any time three years prior to the date of this Court's Order through the final disposition of this matter. The Court denies the Plaintiff's Motion to the extent it seeks approval of her proposed Notice and Consent form. Within 14 days, counsel shall confer and submit a joint draft of a revised proposed notice to potential plaintiffs about this collective action and a proposed opt-in consent form with modifications to morrison_chambers@ohsd.uscourts.gov. The Court will resolve any new disputes noted in the draft in an order granting final approval of the notice and opt-in consent form. Within 30 days of the issuance of this Opinion and Order, the Defendant shall identify all putative class members by providing a list in electronic and importable format of the full names, dates of employment, positions of employment, locations of employment, last known mailing addresses, and e-mail addresses of all current and former employees fitting the class description to the Plaintiff's counsel. After receiving the putative class members' contact information from the Defendant and upon final approval of a notice and consent form by the Court, the Plaintiff shall send the Notices and Consent forms via U.S. mail and e-mail within 21 days. The putative class members shall then have 60 days from the date that the Plaintiff sends the Notices to join this litigation.[CC] NINTENDO CO: Switch Lite Added to Joy-Con Drift Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------- Owen S. Good, writing for Polygon.com, reports that the Joy-Con drift lawsuit brought against Nintendo has added the Nintendo Switch Lite -- barely a week old -- to its claims that defective design ruined the thumbsticks for the consoles. The lawsuit now includes allegations culled from social media, YouTube and Reddit that says the thumbsticks on the Switch Lite are drifting after 20 hours of play. The suit, originally filed in federal court in July, seeks class action status. "I beat Link's Awakening over the weekend on my original Switch Lite system, I had only put like 20 something hours on it, and it started to show joy-con drift," wrote one player cited in the complaint, on September 24. "Why is this happening earlier on than with the earlier Switch?" "I can't believe it, my Nintendo Switch Lite is already drifting," said another. "I was playing BOTW and the camera kept moving without touching the analogue stick. I tried to calibrate and update the controllers but it was still the same." The firm of Chimicles Shwartz Kriner & Donaldson-Smith brought the lawsuit, which lists 18 plaintiffs in 16 different states, after a brief investigation this summer. That followed complaints and anecdotes about Joy-Con drift almost since the console's launch in March 2017. Joy-Con drift is when a thumbstick for the Switch's stock controller continues to register input even though it isn't being moved. This can cause significant gameplay problems. The lawsuit asserts federal claims of fraud and breach of warranty, as well as violations of state consumer protection laws. Nintendo's brief public response doesn't address any specific claims in the lawsuit but does acknowledge the company is aware that "some Joy-Con controllers are not responding correctly." The company has asked anyone affected by this to get in touch with its support department. At the end of July, Nintendo was offering free repairs with no questions asked, according to an internal memo obtained and published by Vice.[GN] OBALON THERAPEUTICS: Class Suit Survives Dismissal Bid ------------------------------------------------------ Johnson Fistel, LLP is investigating potential claims on behalf of Obalon Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ: OBLN) against certain of its officers and directors. Specifically, a class action lawsuit pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California against Obalon and certain of its officers and directors recently survived, in part, despite Defendants' attempts to have the case dismissed. The case arises from certain allegedly materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's financial condition and adherence to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. If you are a current, long-term shareholder of Obalon, you may have standing to hold Obalon harmless from the alleged harm caused by the officers and directors of the Company by making them personally responsible. You may also be able to assist in reforming the Company's corporate governance to prevent future wrongdoing. If you are interested in learning more about your legal rights and remedies, please contact Jim Baker (jimb@johnsonfistel.com) at 619-814-4471. If you email, please include your phone number. Johnson Fistel, LLP is a nationally recognized shareholder rights law firm with offices in California, New York and Georgia. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in shareholder derivative and securities class action lawsuits. For more information about the firm and its attorneys, please visit http://www.johnsonfistel.com.Attorney advertising. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. Contact: Jim Baker, Esq. Johnson Fistel, LLP Tel: 619-814-4471 Email: jimb@johnsonfistel.com [GN] OCALA, FL: ACLU Accused of Moral Posturing in Homeless Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ocala-News reports that the city attorney accused the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Southern Legal Counsel of "moral posturing" during September 24's Ocala City Council meeting. City attorney Patrick Gilligan, Esq. made the remarks at the end of the meeting reference to a recent class action lawsuit filed against the city of Ocala. Gilligan spoke at length against what he suggested was an attempt at "usurpation of council's legislative prerogative." The named plaintiffs (Patrick McArdle, Courtney Ramsey, and Anthony Cummings) filed the complaint on September 19 "on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated," alleging that specific policies and initiatives of the city of Ocala and Mayor Kent Guinn have been an effort to "force homeless people to leave town." "I take this personally, because it was a usurpation of council's legislative prerogative. There's a moral posturing to it," said Gilligan. He described the complaint as being filled with "vitriol" for the mayor and accused the organizations of trying to attack the mayor's reputation. "They don't politic council to say here's what we need to do, here's the money we need to spend. Do it the old fashioned way. They don't do that. They don't put up candidates to go run against you guys, and the various city council members, because that's their agenda. They don't do that. They issue press releases that impugn the character of our mayor, and I think impugn the character of our council," said Gilligan. He went on to suggest that the situation was akin to the growth of homeless communities in Los Angeles, using a doctor's characterization of the issue as "slow motion manslaughter." "What they're suggesting to us through the lawsuit is, you fund all of this, they don't know what the price tag is, you fund all this, you do all this, and if you don't do it, you simply let these people do whatever they want out in public wherever they want to be, and then you have Los Angeles. Then you have the slow-moving manslaughter. I don't see that as moral. I don't see that as caring for your fellow human being," added Gilligan. His concerns were ultimately echoed by the mayor. "We need to really fight this suit, because if we don't, then what Pat described is exactly what's going to happen. We can't be another Los Angeles or San Francisco. We've spent millions and millions of dollars, and the public has spent millions and millions of dollars to do a lot of great things in this city. And we can't let it turn into that," said Mayor Guinn. Both Gilligan and Guinn indicated that although they could not offer an adequate alternative solution, the complaint did not do so either. In the complaint, the plaintiffs allege that the "lack of adequate alternatives" are creating situations where the homeless have no choice but to sleep in the woods, on streets, sidewalks, parks, or other outdoor areas around Ocala. According to the complaint, the three plaintiffs have cumulatively spent 210 days in jail and been assessed over $9,000 in fines, fees, and costs due to the City's enforcement of its "'open lodging' ordinance and practice of trespassing homeless people from public places." The complaint additionally attacks the mayor's "broken windows" policy and suggests it is a method of "driving homeless people out of the city." It accuses the city of issuing trespass warnings to ban homeless individuals from public places (including public parks) in "circumstances when the individual committed no criminal violation." "Is there a solution? Yeah, I think there is. That's why when I got elected one of the first things we did was create Open Arms Village," said Guinn. Open Arms Village is a community that provides services to homeless individuals in the community. The program currently offers 20 beds for single men facing homelessness. "The answer is not to just allow them to sleep anywhere they want to, out on Citizens Circle, out on City Hall, and anywhere else in town that they want," added Guinn. [GN] OHIO: Gallant's Bid to Withdraw Civil Claim Granted; Case Closed ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned Jeremy P. Gallant v. Ronald Erdos, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00039-MRB-SKB (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Michael R. Barrett grants the Petition to Withdraw the Civil Claim filed by Plaintiff Jeremy P. Gallant. The Plaintiff states that his civil claim has been rendered moot by virtue of his transfer from the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility (SOCF) to the Toledo Correctional Facility (TOCI), and he includes a declaration given pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1746. Accordingly, Judge Barrett rules, the Plaintiff's Petition for Class Certifications, Petition for Legal Representation and Request for Judicial Corrections are all denied as moot and the Clerk is directed to terminate this case from the active docket of the Court.[CC] ORTHOPEDIC SPECIALTY: Fenwick Sues Over Illegal SMS Ad Blasts ------------------------------------------------------------- Jaline Fenwick, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Orthopedic Specialty Institute, PLLC, Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-62290 (S.D. Fla., September 16, 2019), seeks statutory damages and any other available legal or equitable remedies for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Orthopedic Specialty Institute offers rehabilitation services including Platelet-Rich-Plasma and Adult Mesenchymal Stem cell therapies. It engaged in unsolicited telemarketing directed towards prospective customers and transmitted multiple text messages with intent to encourage its recipients to avail of its services, asserts the complaint. At no point in time did Fenwick provide them with his express written consent to be contacted using an automated dialer. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 400-4713 Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com - and - Michael Eisenband, Esq. EISENBAND LAW, P.A. 515 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 120 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 533-4092 Email: MEisenband@Eisenbandlaw.com OVATION CREDIT: Inside Sales Reps Class Certified in Diggs Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Marcia Morales Howard granted the Plaintiff's expedited motion to conditionally certify collective action in the lawsuit captioned VERNON DIGGS, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated v. OVATION CREDIT SERVICES, INC., TERRY D. CORDELL, and AMY MYERS, Case No. 3:18-cv-00367-MMH-MCR (M.D. Fla.). Judge Howard granted the Plaintiff's expedited Motion to Conditionally Certify Collective Action and Facilitate Notice to Potential Class Members to the extent the Plaintiff seeks conditional certification of the putative class identified in the Motion. In particular, Mr. Diggs sought an order "conditionally certifying a class of current and [former] [inside sales representatives] or Credit Analysts who worked for Defendants for the three year period prior to the filing of the Complaint in this case to the present." The Court directs the parties to meaningfully confer, by Oct. 25, 2019, either in person or by extensive telephone conference, and to file a joint proposed class notice form for distribution to putative class members. By that same date, if the parties have not been able to resolve all of the Defendants' objections, then the parties shall file a joint brief to the Court stating each side's positions regarding any remaining objections still in dispute. The Court defers ruling on Mr. Diggs' request for Court approval of the Proposed Notice until after the parties have meaningfully conferred on the issue. Mr. Diggs initiated this putative collective action on March 16, 2018, by filing a two-count Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial against the Defendants. In the Complaint, he alleges that the Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to compensate him and other similarly situated employees for their overtime hours (Count One) and by failing to pay him and other similarly situated employees a minimum wage (Count Two).[CC] OVERSTOCK.COM INC: Faces Securities Class Action in Utah -------------------------------------------------------- BENJAMIN HA, Individually And On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. OVERSTOCK.COM INC., GREGORY J. IVERSON and PATRIC BYRNE, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-00709-DAK (D. Utah, Sept. 27, 2019) is a federal class action on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Overstock.com Inc. between May 9, 2019, and September 23, 2019, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. According to the complaint, the Defendants published a series of materially false and misleading statements which defendants knew and/or deliberately disregarded were false and materially misleading at the time of such publication, and which omitted to reveal material information necessary to make defendants' statements, in light of such material omissions, not materially false and misleading. The Company had been on a long streak of losing money, and had not reported a net quarterly profit since 4Q:16, the complaint relates. In part, the Company was locked in a hopeless struggle for market share against a competitor, Wayfair.com, that had committed to losing billions of dollars to gain control over the market. Realizing the market dynamics made it nearly impossible for Overstock to return to profitability, Overstock embarked on a blockchain strategy several years ago that was designed to profit on new markets for crypto currency. In fact, it was recently reported that, for the last several years, defendant Byrne spent no fewer than 220 days a year on the road, "spreading his blockchain gospel, despite the fact that Overstock was hemorrhaging cash." The complaint notes that Defendants issued a series of press releases and made statements in SEC filings and during Conference Calls for analysts and investors that promoted the Company's transition to crypto currency exchange service provider, and extolled the benefits that this would purport to provide to investors. What defendants did not disclose, however, were the extreme risks and foreseeable volatility that was likely to result if and when Defendants' true intentions behind their "tZERO Dividend Offering" were ever discovered. In fact, as investors belatedly discovered beginning on September 16, 2019, defendants had engineered the tZERO offering as revenge upon short sellers and tried to create a short squeeze by offering a digital token dividend that would not be registered and could not be resold for at least 6 months. The lock-up period created by the issuance of an unregistered security effectively resulted in the inability of short sellers to deliver the security upon the surrender of their shares. Thus, the Defendants were motivated to, and did conceal, the true operational and financial condition of Overstock, and materially misrepresented and failed to disclose the conditions that were adversely affecting the Company throughout the Class Period, because it (i) enabled them to deceive the investing public regarding Overstock's business, operations, management and the intrinsic value of Overstock common stock; (ii) enabled defendants to artificially inflate the price of Overstock common stock; (iii) enabled defendant Byrne to sell over $100 million of his privately held Overstock shares while in possession of material adverse non-public information about the Company; (iv) enabled defendants to sell additional shares of Overstock in the market to create a cash fund necessary to support its crypto projects (in the face of them being abandoned by investment partners); and (v) caused Plaintiff and other members of the Class to purchase Overstock common stock at artificially inflated prices, says the complaint. Plaintiff BENJAMIN HA purchased the common stock of Overstock at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period. Overstock operated an internet website selling household furniture and accessories, such as bed and bath and kitchen products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Heather M. Sneddon, Esq. Jared D. Scott, Esq. Jason E. Greene, Esq. ANDERSON & KARRENBERG, P.C. 50 West Broadway, Suite 700 Salt Lake City, UT 84101-2035 Phone: (801) 534-1700 Facsimile: (801) 364-7697 Email: hsneddon@aklawfirm.com jscott@aklawfirm.com jgreene@aklawfirm.com - and - Lewis Kahn, Esq. KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC 1100 Poydras Street, Suite 3200 New Orleans, LA 70163 Phone: 504-455-1400 Facsimile: 504-455-1498 Email: lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com OVERSTOCK.COM: Company, 2 Executives Accused of Securities Fraud ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kollen Post, writing for Coin Telegraph, reports that a new complaint filed in Utah accuses Overstock.com, former CEO Patrick Byrne and former CFO Greg Iverson of securities fraud. Filed on Friday, Sept. 27, 2019, the complaint requests a trial by jury, alleging that Byrne designed Overstock.com's digital asset-based dividend as a means of punishing short sellers, which other outlets have alleged previously. On the subject, and in language more dramatic than many legal filings, the complaint reads: "While defendant Byrne had previously, at different times, launched into public tirades over short selling and naked short selling, the tZERO Dividend was his secret plot to finally obtain hegemony over them -- and it almost worked." Punishing short sellers In July, Overstock.com began offering a special dividend called "Digital Voting Series A-1 Preferred Stock," which would trade on the company's own blockchain platform. However, and unusually, investors would not be able to trade the dividend at all for six months. The complaint explains the mechanism of tampering with Overstock.com's stock price: "While shares traded to a Class Period high of $26.89 each on September 13, 2019, they traded to as low as $15.50 by September 18, 2019, three trading days later, after investors learned that the tZERO dividend was designed to be a short squeeze." As Cointelegraph reported at the time, Byrne managed to sell his 13% share in Overstock.com for $90 million in the days leading up to Sept. 18. The complaint claims that Overstock.com, Byrne and Iverson violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act governing antifraud provisions of securities swaps, and that Byrne alone violated Section 20(a) of the same act by virtue of his status as controlling person. Both Byrne and Iverson resigned from their positions at Overstock.com recently, Byrne on Aug. 22 and Iverson on Sept. 17. Byrne's resignation was particularly dramatic, with him claiming that it was due to scandal surrounding a relationship with alleged spy Maria Butina and involvement with federal agencies. News of Byrne's resignation came as a shock to the crypto community, given his long history of support for Bitcoin and blockchain technologies. Indeed, September 27's complaint reads that: "In fact, it was recently reported that, for the last several years, defendant Byrne spent no fewer than 220 days a year on the road, 'spreading his blockchain gospel, despite the fact that Overstock was hemorrhaging cash.'" [GN] PACKERS SANITATION: Underpays Workers, Elkhouly Claims ------------------------------------------------------ ABDELRAHMAN ELKHOULY, on behalf of all other similarly situated aggrieved employees, the Plaintiffs, vs. PACKERS SANITATION SERVICES, LTD., LLC; and DOES 1 through 100, Inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 19STCV27396 (Cal. Super., Aug. 5, 2019), alleges that Defendants failed to pay all wages due to illegal rounding; failed to provide all meal periods; and failed to authorize and permit all paid rest periods. The Defendants were joint employers of Plaintiffs in that they were operating as joint enterprises and both suffered and permitted Plaintiffs to work for each and both of them. According to the Industrial Welfare Commission Order, the Defendants are required to pay all aggrieved employees for all hours worked, meaning the time during which an employee is subject to the control of an employer including all the time the employee is suffered or permitted to work, whether or not required to do so. Packers Sanitation Services provides contract cleaning and night sanitation services. The company offers meat and poultry contract cleaning, as well as written food sanitation procedures, training and technical assistance, and safety management services. Packers Sanitation Services serves customers in the United States and Canada.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff Abdelrahman Elkhouly, on behalf of all other similarly situated aggrieved employees, are: Bruce Kokozian, Esq. KOKOZIAN LAW FIRM, APC 9440 South Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 510 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone (323) 857-5900 PAPA JOHN'S: Class of Delivery Drivers Certified in Thomas Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Michael R. Barrett grants the Plaintiff's Motion to Conditionally Certify an FLSA Collective Action and to Authorize Notice in the lawsuit entitled Derrick Thomas v. Papa John's International, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-00411-MRB (S.D. Ohio). The FLSA collective class is defined as: All non-owner, non-employer delivery drivers who worked for Defendants at any "It's Only" Papa John's Pizza location from June 16, 2014 to present. Judge Barrett directs the Plaintiff to file an amended notice consistent with the court's findings herein within 14 days of entry of this Order. The Franchisee Defendants shall provide to the Plaintiff's counsel a computer-readable list of the names and contact information of all putative collective members within 14 days of entry of this Order. The Plaintiff's counsel may transmit, at the Plaintiff's cost, notice of the lawsuit to putative collective members via electronic mail and first-class U.S. mail or equivalent means. The Putative collective members may opt-in to the lawsuit within 45 days after mailing. Plaintiff Derrick Thomas brought this lawsuit on behalf of himself and other delivery drivers at nine Papa John's stores located in Cincinnati owned and operated by It's Only Downtown Pizza, Inc., It's Only Pizza, Inc., It's Only Papa's Pizza LLC, and/or Michael Hutmier (the "Franchisee Defendants"). The Plaintiff also brings claims against the franchisor of the Papa John's restaurants, Papa John's International, Inc. ("PJI"), under a theory of joint-employer liability. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants maintained policies and practices which caused Plaintiff's and similarly situated delivery drivers' wages to fall below minimum wage in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and Ohio law.[CC] PENN CREDIT: Guidry's TCPA Suit Transferred to M.D. Fla. -------------------------------------------------------- The case, TERRANCE GUIDRY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. PENN CREDIT CORPORATION, the Defendant, Case No. 6:19-cv-00997-MJJ-CBW (W.D. La., July 31, 2019), has been transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida. The lawsuit contends that the Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise, in part, by placing unsolicited telephone calls to wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff brings this class action for damages and other equitable and legal remedies resulting from the unlawful conduct of Defendant in negligently or knowingly and/or willfully placing calls to the cellular telephones belonging to Plaintiff and putative Class Members for non-emergency purposes, using an automatic telephone-dialing system without their prior express consent, in violation of the TCPA. The Plaintiff has been a Metro PCS subscriber since at least December 2017 and holder of cellular telephone number 337-XXX-4748 since that time. Plaintiff was the called party and recipient of Defendant's calls. Between August 2018 and October 2018, Defendant placed, or caused to be placed, at least two telephone calls to Plaintiff's cellular telephone number using an automatic telephone dialing system or pre-recorded or artificial voice, the lawsuit says. According to the complaint, Defendant's robocalls, as received by Plaintiff, did not provide him an opportunity to opt out of, or request the cessation of Defendant’s calls.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Rene F. Rocha III, Esq. John A. Yanchunis, Esq. Jonathan B. Cohen, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, PA 909 Poydras Street, Suite 1625 New Orleans, LA 70112 Telephone: 305 989-8688 E-mail: rrocha@forthepeople.com jyanchunis@forthepeople.com jcohen@forthepeople.com Defendant Penn Credit is represented by: Blake Edward Oakes, Esq. Oakes Law Firm Telephone: 504-367-3479 E-mail: blake@oakeslaw.com PNY TECHNOLOGIES: Seeks More Time to Respond to Geske Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against PNY Technologies, Inc. The case is captioned as Cassandra Geske on behalf of herself and a ll others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. PNY Technologies, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-05170 (N.D. Ill., July 31, 2019). The suit alleges fraud and seeks $9.9 million in damages. The case is assigned to the Hon. Ronald A. Guzman, but later reassigned to the Hon. Steven C. Seeger. PNY Technologies is an American manufacturer of flash memory cards, USB flash drives, solid state drives, memory upgrade modules, portable battery chargers, computer locks, cables, chargers, adapters, as well as consumer and professional graphics cards. * * * A Standing Order dated Sept. 23 was entered in the case docket. The Standing Order applies to all civil cases reassigned to the calendar of District Judge Steven C. Seeger. All previously-set status or motion hearing dates are vacated. Any trials set for September 23, 2019 through October 31, 2019 are cancelled and will be re-set by the Court. Unless otherwise ordered, all other previously-set deadlines and schedules remain intact. The Court will set a date for a reassignment status conference after the parties have filed the joint status report. The Court will address already-pending motions at that conference. The parties are directed not to notice or re-notice any motions, with the exception of emergency motions, before appearing at the reassignment status conference. All emergency motions arising before September 30, 2019 should be noticed before the emergency judge. For all emergency motions arising after September 30, 2019, but before the date of the reassignment conference, the parties are directed to contact chambers at (312) 435-5588. Emergency matters must be true emergencies, meaning that a delay in hearing them would cause serious and irreparable harm to one or more of the parties. To help the Court learn about the case, counsel shall confer, prepare, and file a joint status report by October 1, 2019. If defense counsel has not yet filed an appearance, plaintiff's counsel should prepare the status report. The report shall contain the information requested in the Initial Status Report For Reassigned Case. PNY had asked the Court for more time to file its answer. A hearing on that request was initially set for Sept. 25. Following the Court's Standing Order, the hearing date was stricken. This matter will be set for hearing at a later date.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Brenton Jeremy Goodman, Esq. LEVIN, PAPANTONIO, THOMAS MITCHELL, RAFFERTY & PROCTOR, P.A 316 S. Baylen Street, Suite 600 Pensacola, FL 32502 Telephone: (850) 435-7170 E-mail: bgoodman@levinlaw.com - and - D. Gregory Blankinship, Esq. Matthew D. Schultz, Esq. William F. Cash, III, Esq. FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP 445 Hamilton Avenue, Suite 605 White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: (914) 298-3290 E-mail: gblankinship@fbfglaw.com mschultz@levinlaw.com bcash@levinlaw.com Defendant PNY Technologies, Inc. is represented by: Ronald Y Rothstein, Esq. Amelia Rose Garza-mattia, Esq. Sean H. Suber, Esq. Winston & Strawn LLP Telephone: 312-558-5600 E-mail: rrothstein@winston.com agarzamattia@winston.com ssuber@winston.com PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS: Los Angeles Drops Lawsuit Over DWP System ----------------------------------------------------------------- Los Angeles Daily News reports that dogged by an FBI probe leading to witnesses unwilling to testify in the case, the city of Los Angeles is dropping its lawsuit against consulting firm PricewaterhouseCoopers over the botched rollout of a Department of Water and Power billing system that caused many customers to receive wildly inflated bills. In a statement first reported by the Los Angeles Times, city attorney spokesman Rob Wilcox said key witnesses in the city's case -- David Wright, the former head of DWP, and Paul Paradis, an attorney who formerly did consulting work for the City Attorney's Office on the issue -- invoked their 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination, impairing the city's ability to proceed with its lawsuit. "In 2015, the city alleged fraud against PwC in procuring the significant billing system contract from DWP, and, in 2018, withstood PwC's attempt to dismiss the case through the summary judgment when the court agreed the case could move forward," Wilcox said. Wilcox said the city's claims were set for trial early next year, but DWP's ability to prove damages "has been severely undermined by the unavailability of key witnesses who have invoked their 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination." Wright and Paradis are also key figures in an ongoing FBI investigation of the city's handling of the DWP billing rollout and the ensuing legal battles. "Unable to overcome the current circumstances, the city is dismissing its case," Wilcox stated. The city was trying through the legal action to recoup potentially hundreds of millions of dollars resulting from the 2013 overbilling fiasco. Dismissing the lawsuit could leave the city, and DWP ratepayers, on the hook for those costs and other litigation stemming from the billing rollout. A 2018 DWP document estimated that the associated costs to comply with the settlement could be as much as $300 million, The Times reported. Consumer Watchdog President Jamie Court told The Times that the decision to dismiss the case is an effort to "silence" the investigation. He also questioned whether it was politically motivated, given that City Attorney Mike Feuer has publicly said he is considering running for mayor in 2022. "The city shouldn't be allowed to dismiss this case before there's full disclosure. Ratepayer money is being left on the table," Court said, according to The Times. The city sued PricewaterhouseCoopers in 2015 over the company's handling of the DWP billing system rollout. The botched rollout led to many customers receiving over-inflated bills, prompting a class-action lawsuit and a $67 million settlement. But the city's lawsuit against PricewaterhouseCoopers was eclipsed by more recent allegations of fraud and double-dealing by attorneys hired by Feuer to sue the consulting firm, The Times reported. The allegations culminated with a July FBI raid of the DWP's headquarters and the city attorney's office. PricewaterhouseCoopers' attorney, Daniel Thomasch, Esq. told The Times on September 26 that the consulting firm intends to pursue monetary sanctions against the city for litigation misconduct. The firm's "defense has revealed that the DWP perpetrated a fraud on the court, on (PricewaterhouseCoopers), and on the DWP's own customers, in its attempt to cover up its own failures," Thomasch said. Also on September 26, the city filed court documents seeking to freeze legal fees given to two attorneys who worked on the class-action lawsuit brought against the DWP over the billing errors, The Times reported. The filing marks the first time that the city moved to recoup money following revelations about the alleged misconduct by attorneys. Wilcox said in his statement, "As the first step toward returning to the ratepayers' attorney fees paid to Jack Landskroner, former class counsel in the DWP billing cases, the city, in conjunction with current class counsel, took legal action to freeze those fees and compel Mr. Landskroner to establish what, if any, amounts he should be entitled to retain." According to Los Angeles Superior Court documents, the next status hearing related to Landskroner and other matters has been scheduled at 11 a.m. Nov. 26. [GN] PROFESSIONAL ACCOUNT: Matke's Bid for Class Certification Stayed ---------------------------------------------------------------- U.S. Magistrate Judge William E. Duffin granted the Plaintiff's motion to stay further proceedings on the motion for class certification in the lawsuit entitled DEBORAH MATKE v. PROFESSIONAL ACCOUNT MANAGEMENT, INC., Case No. 2:19-cv-01408-WED (E.D. Wisc.). On September 27, 2019, the Plaintiff filed a class action complaint. At the same time, she filed what the court commonly refers to as a "protective" motion for class certification. In this motion the plaintiff moved to certify the class described in the complaint but also moved the court to stay further proceedings on that motion. In Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011), the court suggested that class‐action plaintiffs "move to certify the class at the same time that they file their complaint." Id. "The pendency of that motion protects a putative class from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs." Id. However, because parties are generally unprepared to proceed with a motion for class certification at the beginning of a case, the Damasco court suggested that the parties "ask the district court to delay its ruling to provide time for additional discovery or investigation." Id. Hence, Judge Duffin granted the Plaintiff's motion to stay further proceedings on the motion for class certification. The parties are relieved from the automatic briefing schedule set forth in Civil Local Rule 7(b) and (c). Moreover, Judge Duffin noted, for administrative purposes, it is necessary that the Clerk terminate the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. However, this motion will be regarded as pending to serve its protective purpose under Damasco.[CC] PROGRESSIVE NORTHERN: Curtis Seeks to Certify Class of Insureds --------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled RACHEL CURTIS, Individually and on Behalf of Persons Similarly Situated v. PROGRESSIVE NORTHERN INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 5:17-cv-01076-PRW (W.D. Okla.), asks the Court to certify this class: All entities and adult persons domiciled or residing in the State of Oklahoma who were covered by an automobile policy from Defendant containing collision and/or comprehensive coverage which resulted in a total loss utilizing the Mitchell Workcenter Total Loss (WCTL) system from July 1, 2010 to the date of notice of class certification. Ms. Curtis also asks the Court to appoint her as Class Representative, and to appoint Brad West, Esq., and Shawn Spencer, Esq., of The West Law Firm and Jason Waddell, Esq., of Jason Waddell, PLLC as Class Counsel. Progressive uniformly uses an automated computer program from Mitchell International called Work Center Total Loss (WCTL) to value first party total loss vehicle claims, according to the Motion. Progressive's use of WCTL routinely provides lower base values than those from generally recognized industry sources, such as National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA), Ms. Curtis alleges. She contends that Progressive's use of WCTL violates Oklahoma law, breaches her contract with Progressive, and amounts to a breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, for which she seeks recovery.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason Waddell, Esq. JASON WADDELL, PLLC 222 NW 13th St. Oklahoma City, OK 73103 Telephone: (405) 232-5291 Facsimile: (405) 708-7871 E-mail: Jason@JasonWaddellLaw.com - and - Terry W. West, Esq. Bradley D. West, Esq. J. Shawn Spencer, Esq. THE WEST LAW FIRM 124 W. Highland - P.O. Box 698 Shawnee, OK 74802-0698 Telephone: (405) 275-0040 Facsimile: (405) 275-0052 E-mail: brad@thewestlawfirm.com shawn@thewestlawfirm.com The Defendant is represented by: Brad L. Roberson, Esq. ROBERSON, KOLKER, COOPER & GOERES, P.C. 119 N Robinson Ave., 11th Floor Renaissance Bldg. Oklahoma City, OK 73102-4620 Telephone: (405) 606-3333 - and - Zachary A. McEntyre, Esq. Julia C. Barrett, Esq. Matt Brigman, Esq. Fisher K. Law, Esq. KING & SPALDING LLP 1180 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 1600 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 572-4600 E-mail: zmcentyre@kslaw.com jbarrett@kslaw.com mbrigman@kslaw.com fklaw@kslaw.com PYRAMID EXCAVATION: Chesscher Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Chesscher, on his own behalf and on behalf of other similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, v. Pyramid Excavation and Construction, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-00749 (W.D. Mo., September 13, 2019), seeks unpaid overtime compensation and related penalties, costs and attorneys' fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Pyramid predominantly provides construction services in the region, and across the country where Chesscher worked as a laborer. He claims to have worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek but was not compensated for his overtime hours. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: John J. Ziegelmeyer III, Esq. HKM EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEYS LLP 1501 Westport Road Kansas City, MO 64111 Tel: (816) 875-3332 Email: jziegelmeyer@hkm.com Website: www.hkm.com - and - Michael Hodgson, Esq. THE HODGSON LAW FIRM, LLC 3699 SW Pryor Rd. Lee's Summit, MO 64082 Tel: (816) 600-0117 Email: mike@thehodgsonlawfirm.com QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Carroll et al. Data Breach Suit Moved to NJ -------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned JOHN CARROLL, GABRIEL MOLINA, and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs. vs. QUEST DIAGNOSTICS INCORPORATED, dba QUEST HEALTH, INC., THE QUEST COMPANIES, AMERICA MEDICAL COLLECTION AGENCY, OPTUM OPTUM360, OPTUM, INC. AND UNITED HEALTH GROUP, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-07100 (S.D.N.Y., July 30, 2019), has been transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey The lawsuit alleges that Defendants failed to: -- properly secure and safeguard protected health information, as defined by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act ("HIPAA"), medical information, and other personally identifiable information (collectively, "PII"); -- provide timely, accurate, and adequate notice to Plaintiff and other Class Members that the integrity of their PII had been compromised; and -- provide timely, accurate, and adequate notice to Plaintiff and other Class Members of the nature and scope of the PII that was exposed. On June 3, 2019, Quest publicly announced that approximately two weeks earlier on May 14, its billing collections vendor AMCA advised Quest of "unauthorized activity on AMCA's web payment page" which compromised the PII of approximately 11.9 million Quest patients. The exposed PII included "financial information (e.g., credit card numbers and bank account information), medical information and other personal information (e.g., Social Security 3 Numbers)" ("Data Breach"). Quest further revealed that the exposure occurred between August 1, 2018, and March 30, 2019. Despite the breadth and sensitivity of the PII that was exposed and the attendant consequences to patients as a result thereof, Defendants failed to disclose the Data Breach for nearly two months from the time it was first discovered, further exacerbating harm to patients. Moreover, to date, Defendants have not disclosed the full extent and nature of the Data Breach, nor offered anything to its patients to address and compensate the harm they have suffered. The Data Breach was a direct result of Defendants' failure to implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect Patient PII. The Defendants disregarded the rights of Plaintiff and Class Members by intentionally, willfully, recklessly, or negligently failing to take adequate and reasonable measures to ensure its data systems were protected against unauthorized intrusions; failing to disclose that it did not have adequately robust computer systems and security practices to safeguard Patient PII; failing to take standard and reasonably available steps to prevent the Data Breach; failing to monitor and timely detect the Data Breach; and failing to provide Plaintiff and Class Members prompt and accurate notice of the Data Breach. As a result of Defendants' failure to implement and follow basic security procedures, Patient PII is now in the hands of thieves. Plaintiff and Class Members have had to spend, and will continue to spend, significant amounts of time and money in an effort to protect themselves from the adverse ramifications of the Data Breach and will forever be at a heightened risk of identity theft and fraud, the lawsuit says.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Leigh Smith, Esq. MILBERG PHILLIPS GROSSMAN LLP One Pennsylvaia Plaza, Suite 1920 New York, NY 10119-0165 Telephone: (212) 894 5300 Facsimile: (212) 868 1229 E-mail: lsmith@milberg.com RECEIVABLES PERFORMANCE: Robinson Files FDCPA Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against RECEIVABLES PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT LLC. The case is styled as Tyisha N. Robinson individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RECEIVABLES PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-18751 (D. N.J., Oct. 7, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Receivables Performance Management or RPM is a collections agency founded in 2002, and is headquartered in Lynnwood, Washington. This debt collector operates in virtually every industry, including bankcards, utilities, telecommunications, healthcare, and retail.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig B. Sanders, Esq. Barshay Sanders, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Phone: (516) 203-7600 Fax: (516) 281-7601 Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com RGS FINANCIAL: Weinberg Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against RGS Financial, Inc. The case is styled as Alexander J. Weinberg individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RGS Financial, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-05661 (E.D. N.Y., Oct. 7, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. RGS Financial, Inc. provides financial services. The Company offers business process outsourcing, third party debt collection, asset location, consulting, and data security services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig B. Sanders, Esq. Barshay Sanders, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Phone: (516) 203-7600 Fax: (516) 281-7601 Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com SAKS FIFTH: Toon's Overtime Suit Underway in Massachusetts ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit against Saks Fifth Avenue is ongoing in Massachusetts. The case is captioned, TROY TOON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, the Plaintiff, v. SAKS FIFTH AVENUE LLC, and JOHN DOES, the Defendants, Case No. 19-2447H (Mass. Super., July 31, 2019), and seeks damages based Defendants' failure to pay wages pursuant to the Massachusetts Wage Law. Saks operates a high-end clothing retail store on Boylston Street in Boston. The Plaintiff worked as a salesperson for Saks from approximately February 2017 through January 2019. Saks's company-wide compensation structure for salespeople was based on a 100% commission/draw model. Employees' pay each week was based on a percentage of the goods sold by each salesperson. To the extent an employee's pay for any given week fell below a certain threshold, Saks would advance the employee a "draw" on future commissions. Pursuant to this pay policy, draws and commissions were ostensibly applied to hours worked over 40 hours per week, and to hours worked on Sundays and holidays. Saks did not pay any additional compensation for such work beyond the draws and commissions. The Plaintiff worked more than 40 hours in a at least one week during the class. The Plaintiff worked on at least one Sunday or covered holiday during the period. Saks did not base its pay to Plaintiff, or members of the Class, on the amount of overtime hours, or the amount of hours worked on Sundays and holidays, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Josh Gardner, Esq. Nicholas J. Rosenberg, Esq. GARDNER & ROSENBERG P.C. One State Street, Fourth Floor Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: 617-390-7570 E-mail: iosh@gardnerrosenbera.com SEA WORLD PARKS: Stewart Suit Asserts Labor Code Violations ----------------------------------------------------------- SHANNON STEWART, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. SEA WORLD PARKS & ENTERTAINMENT, INC., a Delaware Corporation; SEA WORLD LLC; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 37-2019-00052073-CU-OE-CTL (Cal. Super. Ct., San Diego Cty., Oct. 1, 2019) is a class action brought by Plaintiff individually and on behalf of current and former employees of Defendants for violations of the California Labor Code. The complaint relates that Defendants have failed to comply with California's strict wage and hour laws and regulations. Specifically, Plaintiff and Defendants' other non-exempt employees in California have been subjected to unlawful rounding off of their work time. The Defendants' policies and practices required Plaintiff and the Class members to round down their time to their detriment. Rather than paying Plaintiff and the Class members for all hours and minutes they actually worked, Sea World has maintained a timekeeping system whereby if an employee clocks in up to seven minutes early or clocks out up to seven minutes late, the employee has been paid for only their scheduled work time. The Defendants' willful actions have resulted in the systematic underpayment of wages to Plaintiff and Defendants' other non-exempt employees, including underpayment of overtime pay to Plaintiff and non-exempt employees, over the relevant time period, says the complaint. The Defendants' unlawful, unfair and deceptive employment and wage practices cheat Plaintiff and other members of the proposed Classes out of their lawful compensation, as required by California law. Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as an animal trainer and animal keeper from approximately 2006 to June 2019. SEAWORLD PARKS & ENTERTAINMENT, INC. is theme park and entertainment company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David C. Hawkes, Esq. BLANCHARD, KRASNER & FRENCH 800 Silverado St., 2nd Floor La Jolla, CA 9203 7 Phone: (858) 551-2440 Facsimile: (858) 614-7008 Email: dhawkes@bkflaw.com - and - David A. Huch, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF DA YID A. HUCH 3281 E. Guasti Rd., Ste. 700 Ontario, CA 91761 Phone: (909) 212-7945 Facsimile: (909) 614-7008 Email: david.a.huch@gmail.com SENSA INC: Court Denies Stoke's Bid for Class Certification ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as JOSE CONDE, et al., the Plaintiffs, vs. SENSA, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 14-CV-51 JLS (S.D. Cal.)(WVG), the Court entered an order denying Plaintiff Susan Grace Stokes' renewed motion for class certification of: "all persons in the United States who purchased the Sensa Weight-Loss System on or after August 22, 2012 excluding purchases made directly from Sensa, Inc. and Sensa Products, LLC." Alternatively, Stokes seeks to certify a Florida class comprising "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." The Court said, "Although the Ninth Circuit previously had intimated that certification is improper where there is 'no definable class,' Lozano, 504 F.3d at 730, it recently declined to interpret Rule 23 to require a showing of ascertainability. Consequently, despite the Court's previous conclusion that Ms. Stokes had failed to demonstrate that her proposed class was ascertainable, and Defendants' renewed contention to that effect, the Court concludes that Ms. Stokes need not make a showing as to ascertainability." The Defendants contend that the proposed Florida class cannot be certified because it "suffers from all the defects detailed above that apply to the proposed nationwide class, except for the 'state law differences' predominance issue." Having concluded that Ms. Stokes has failed to meet the Rule 23(b)(3) requirements, the Court agrees with the Defendants. Further, "the desirability of concentrating this litigation in the [Southern] District of California is unclear because the purported class members are not residents of this state." The Court therefore denied Stokes' Renewed motion as to the alternative Florida class.[CC] SHAFER PROJECT: Lewis Seeks Overtime Pay for Coating Inspectors --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit against Shafer Project Resources, Inc., remains pending. The case is, MICHAEL LEWIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. SHAFER PROJECT RESOURCES, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00183-DLH-CRH (D. N.D., Sept. 3, 2019), and seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages from Shafer Project under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Shafer employs workers, like Lewis, to carry out its work. Lewis, and the other workers like him, were typically scheduled for 10-12 hour shifts, 6-7 days a week. From approximately November 2017 until July 2019, Lewis worked for Defendant as a Pipeline and Coating Inspector. But Shafer does not pay all of these workers overtime for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a single workweek. Instead of paying overtime as required by the FLSA, Defendant pays these workers a day-rate, the lawsuit says. Shafer is an energy services support company specializing in providing project managers, designers, inspectors, safety consultants and administrative personnel to the energy industry. Shafer operates throughout the United States.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: William R. Liles, Esq. Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. William R. Liles, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: 713-352-1100 Facsimile: 713-352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com wliles@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C. 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: 713-877-8788 Facsimile: 713-877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com SHARP ELECTRONICS: Macone Sues Over Defective Microwaves -------------------------------------------------------- THOMAS MACONE, individually and on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SHARP ELECTRONICS CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-12021 (D. Mass., Sept. 25, 2019) is an action brought to remedy Sharp's unlawful conduct in connection with the design, manufacture, marketing, advertising, selling, warranting and servicing of defective microwaves. According to the complaint, the Defendant sold the Microwaves without warning consumers that the Microwaves are likely to overheat and could result in buzzing, overheating of the magnetron, scorching of the waveguide, smoking, and ultimate failure. The damage to the Microwaves, resulting from the Defect, is not a result of misuse of any kind, such as overcooking or prolonged heating by the owner because it takes less than 30 seconds for the magnetron tube to overheat, notes the complaint. As a direct and proximate result of Sharp's concealment of the Defect, its failure to warn customers about the Defect before their purchase of the Microwaves, its inability or refusal to replace the defective Microwaves with non-defective Microwaves, and its failure to recall the Product or remedy the Defect, Plaintiff and other similarly situated customers purchased and used Sharp's defective Microwaves when they otherwise would not have made such purchases or would not have paid as much for the defective Microwaves, says the complaint. Plaintiff is a resident and citizen of Stoneham, Middlesex County, Massachusetts who purchased the Microwave based on the drawer feature, but also based on Sharp's reputable name and representations that the Microwaves were of high quality. Sharp is one of the largest technology companies in the world. It designs, manufactures and sells a variety of technological products, including kitchen appliances such as microwaves.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Katherine Aizpuru, Esq. Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq. Andrea Gold, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 1828 L Street, NW, Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20036 Phone: (202) 973-0900 Facsimile: (202) 973-0950 Email: hzavareei@tzlegal.com kaizpuru@tzlegal.com agold@tzlegal.com - and – Harper T. Segui, Esq. Daniel K. Bryson, Esq. WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON, LLP 900 W. Morgan Street Raleigh, NC 27603 Phone: 919-600-5000 Email: dan@wbmllp.com harper@wbmllp.com - and - Gregory F. Coleman, Esq. Rachel Soffin, Esq. Lisa A. White, Esq. Adam A. Edwards, Esq. GREG COLEMAN LAW, PC First Tennessee Plaza 800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Phone: (865) 247-0080 Facsimile: (865) 522-0049 Email: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com rachel@gregcolemanlaw.com lisa@gregcolemanlaw.com adam@gregcolemanlaw.com SLIDE FIRE: Class Action Lawsuit Allowed to Move Forward -------------------------------------------------------- Gabriella Benavidez, writing for Fox 5 Vegas News, reports that a Las Vegas judge has allowed a class-action lawsuit against Slide Fire Solutions, LP to move forward in Nevada District Court on behalf of a 1 October shooting victim, according to court documents. The suit was initially filed on Oct. 6, 2017, but on Sept. 17, 2018, the court granted Slide Fire's motion to dismiss without prejudice, allowing the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint. According to court documents, the amended complaint was filed in District Court on Sept. 26. The suit alleges that Slide Fire unlawfully marketed and sold bump stocks to Stephen Paddock before he committed the largest mass shooting in modern U.S. history. Slide Fire filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, which was granted and denied in part. The court ruled that the plaintiffs had "plausibly alleged a claim for negligence against Slide Fire," court documents said. The claim was allowed to proceed. The plaintiffs alleged that Slide Fire had violated the Nevada Deceptive Trade Practices Act by falsely representing the safety and nature of its products, such as suggesting that bump stocks were approved by the Bureau of Alcohol, Firearms and Explosive, court documents said. The court held that Slide Fire knowingly broke the law applicable to the sale or marketing of firearms and the shooting by proxy, based on the plaintiffs' allegations, according to court documents. Slide Fire was provided no defense under the Lawful Commerce in Arms Act against the plaintiffs' claims, court documents showed. The company claimed there was no legal basis to establish that it "had a legal duty to market a bump stock solely as a device to help individuals with limited mobility," court documents said. The plaintiffs allege in their claim that Slide Fire had obtained a favorable evaluation from the ATF by representing bump stocks as a way to help a person with limited mobility in their hands. In 2010, Slide Fire said it sent a letter to the ATF, explaining how bump stocks can assist with mobility. According to court documents, when ATF reviewed the device, it concluded the device did not need to be regulated as a firearm under the National Firearms or Gun Control acts. Under the misrepresentation to the ATF claim, the plaintiffs allege that Slide Fire "represented the true purpose behind bump stocks -- to convert a semi-automatic weapon into one with the capability of a fully automatic weapon," court documents said. If that claim had been expressed in Slide Fire's letter to the ATF, the plaintiffs said the agency would have enacted stricter regulations for bump stocks. Slide Fire retorted that its marketing of bump stocks wasn't a considering in its 2010 letter to the ATF approving the sale and manufacturing, according to court documents. However, the court ruled there was no plausible argument against Slide Fire on negligent affliction of emotional distress (NIED), distress under a theory of bystander liability, negligent products liability, strict products liability, false advertising under the Lanham Act, deceptive trade practices under Nevada law, private nuisance and negligent entrustment of a dangerous instrument claims. According to court documents, these claims against Slide Fire were dismissed without prejudice. Under the NIED claim, the court determined the plaintiffs did not allege a relationship "between the victims and themselves," court documents said. Nevada law imposes strict limitations on relationships that may give rise to claim of NIED bystander liability. The court said it also concluded that the direct victim needed to be able to assert a negligence claim that includes emotional distress as part of the damage suffered, as well as intentional wrongdoing. According to court documents, while the claim was dismissed, it did not "foreclose recovery of emotional distress with plaintiff's negligence claim." [GN] SNOWVIEW MANAGEMENT: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Snowview Management Corporation. The case is styled as Lawrence Young Individually And On Behalf Of All Other Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. Snowview Management Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-09246 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 7 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Snowview Management Corp was founded in 1989. The company's line of business includes operating public hotels and motels.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Darryn Solotoff, Esq. Law Office of Darryn G Solotoff PLLC 100 Quentin Roosevelt Boulevard, Ste. 280 Garden City, NY 11530 Phone: (516) 317-2453 Fax: (516) 706-4692 Email: ds@lawsolo.net STARKIST CO: Class-Action Suit Payout Less Than Expected -------------------------------------------------------- Christine Blank, writing for Seafoodsource.com, reports that consumers who are part of a class-action lawsuit that Starkist Co. agreed to settle in 2015 will get less than the tuna supplier originally agreed to pay. The lawsuit, which claimed that StarKist was underfilling its five-ounce cans by a few tenths of an ounce, was settled out of court, with Starkist admitting no fault. As a result of the suit, residents of the United States who bought certain tuna products could obtain either USD 25.00 (EUR 22.84) in cash or USD 50.00 (EUR 45.68) worth of coupons for Starkist tuna. However, payouts have been reduced to USD 2.38 (EUR 2.18) in cash per individual or USD 5.03 (EUR 4.60) in StarKist coupons, ABC 11 reported. The significantly lower payout is due to the fact that more than 2.5 million people signed up for payment, which is 12 times more than Starkist anticipated, according to the news station. The distribution of settlement proceedings occurred on September 20, according to the Hendricks versus Starkist website. "The appeals have been resolved, and the settlement is now final," the site said. Earlier this month, StarKist was ordered to pay a criminal fine of USD 100 million (EUR 90.3 million) for its role in a separate lawsuit involving tuna price-fixing. StarKist's attorneys had been pushing to have the fine lowered to USD 50 million (EUR 45.1 million), calling the decision "life or death" for the company, while prosecutors had been pushing for a full fine based on the company's recent investment in TechPack Solutions, an India-based can and bottle technology firm. [GN] SUNDAY RILEY: Tatum-Rios Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sunday Riley Modern Skincare, LLC. The case is styled as Lynette Tatum-Rios Individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Sunday Riley Modern Skincare, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-09285 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 7, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Sunday Riley Modern Skincare, LLC is in the Cosmetics, Perfumes, and Hair Products business.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq. Lipsky Lowe LLP 630 Third Avenue Fifth Floor New York, NY 10017 Phone: (212) 392-4772 Fax: (212) 444-1030 Email: doug@lipskylowe.com SUNRISE MEDICAL: Whalen Suit Transferred to New Jersey ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit against Sunrise Medical Laboratories, Inc., is proceeding in New Jersey federal district court. The case was originally captioned as, Kelley Whalen, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Sunrise Medical Laboratories, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-04378-PKC-RLM (E.D.N.Y., July 30, 2019), and assigned to the Hon. Judge Pamela K. Chen in New York. The case was transferred pursuant to Rule 7.1 of the Rules of Procedure of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. Sunrise Medical Laboratories Inc. was founded in 1972. The company's line of business includes providing professional analytic or diagnostic services for the medical profession.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Brian Phillip Murray, Esq. Garth Avery Spencer, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 230 Park Avenue, Suite 530 New York, NY 10169 Telephone: (212) 682-5340 Facsimile: (212) 884-0988 E-mail: bmurray@glancylaw.com gspencer@glancylaw.com T & K SUPERMARKET: Grinblat ADA Suit Underway in E.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit remains pending against T & K Supermarket LLC. The case is captioned as Semyon Grinblat individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. T & K Supermarket LLC, Average Realty LLC, and John Doe 1-X, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-04472-AMD-RER (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 3, 2019). The suit alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Ann M Donnelly. Summons were served on August 14 against the Defendants.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Grinblat, Esq. 817 Broadway, Fourth Fl. New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (347) 796-0712 Facsimile: (212) 202-5130 E-mail: michael.grinblatesq@gmail.com TEXTRON INC: Oct. 21 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline ------------------------------------------------ ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds investors of pending deadlines in the following securities class action lawsuits: Textron Inc. (TXT) Class Period: 1/31/2018 - 10/17/2018 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: October 21, 2019 SECURITIES FRAUD To learn more, visit https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/view-textron-inc-securities-litigation-2 Valaris plc (f/k/a Ensco Rowan plc) (VAL) Class Period: 4/11/2019 - 7/31/2019 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: October 21, 2019 SECURITIES FRAUD To learn more, visit https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/view-valaris-plc-securities-litigation If you purchased shares of the above companies and would like to discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact us toll-free (844) 367-9658 or visit the case links above. If you wish to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the class action, you must petition the Court on or before the Lead Plaintiff Motion deadline. About ClaimsFiler ClaimsFiler has a single mission: to serve as the information source to help retail investors recover their share of billions of dollars from securities class action settlements. At ClaimsFiler.com, investors can: (1) register for free to gain access to information and settlement websites for various securities class action cases so they can timely submit their own claims; (2) upload their portfolio transactional data to be notified about relevant securities cases in which they may have a financial interest; and (3) submit inquiries to the Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC law firm for free case evaluations. [GN] TRENTON WATER WORKS: Team Yaede Explores Legal Action ----------------------------------------------------- Sulaiman Abdur-Rahman, writing for the Trentonian, reports that a former Hamilton Township councilman wants his town to sue Trenton Water Works following the utility's latest boil water advisory and equipment malfunction. "I want to see a class-action lawsuit against this facility," Vinnie Capodanno, a Hamilton Republican, said September 27 of TWW. "I'm sick and tired of their excuses." Wracked by a recent history of problems, Trenton Water Works experienced an equipment failure on Sept. 27 impacting its routine disinfection process and forcing the city to issue a boil-water advisory. "Please continue to boil your water or use bottled water until you are notified that the water quality is satisfactory," TWW advised the five-municipality customer base in Trenton, Hamilton, Ewing, Lawrence, and Hopewell Township. "This advisory will remain in effect until repairs are completed and testing shows the water quality to be safe." Central pumping station equipment malfunctioned at TWW Friday morning, but the problem "was fixed in about a half-hour," Mayor Reed Gusciora said September 27 afternoon in an interview with The Trentonian. "I am hopeful we can lift the advisory. I am just waiting for the results to come back. We want to give all of our customers the full transparency." Boil advisories are issued whenever a public water system experiences problems in chlorination or water treatment. Boiling kills bacteria and other organisms in the water. TWW was expected to lift its boil-water advisory on September 28 pending lab test results. Capodanno, a former Democrat who served on Hamilton's governing body from 2000 to 2004, is now running for town council as a Republican aligned with Hamilton's GOP incumbent Mayor Kelly Yaede, who hopes to win re-election this November. After Capodanno demanded a class-action lawsuit, Yaede's office issued a news release September 27 afternoon saying she "has asked Hamilton Township's Municipal Attorney to begin the process of providing her with possible legal actions that the Municipal Government can consider to take against Trenton Water Works and/or the State of New Jersey, which regulates Trenton Water Works and drinking water quality." Yaede also sent a letter to Catherine McCabe, commissioner of New Jersey's Department of Environmental Protection, "requesting that the NJ DEP does its due diligence in investigating" whether there was a causal link between TWW's chlorination levels and the Legionnaires' disease outbreak associated with Hamilton's Alvin E. Gershen senior housing complex. When informed about Capodanno's lawsuit threat, Gusciora defended TWW's public water system. "I don't know what he would be suing for," Gusciora said September 27, adding the boil-water advisory "has demonstrated that the actual system works." "The system worked as it is supposed to," Gusciora said in a separate press statement. "There was an equipment malfunction and TWW detected lower than usual levels of chlorine in the water during the early morning. The issue was addressed within minutes and we notified NJ DEP. DEP wanted us to be precautious and send out the advisory until testing is finished, and we get the green light. We will be keeping everyone informed as we remediate the situation to maintain our full transparency." Gusciora had "a couple conversations" with Hamilton's mayor, he said, describing those conversations as "cordial." "I just told her in the end don't beat us up too bad; she laughed," he said of Yaede. "I understand area mayors and the concerns of their residents." Troubled history Trenton Water Works is a city-owned asset that provides drinking water to the capital city and parts of Ewing, Lawrence, Hamilton and Hopewell townships. The public water system in recent years has come under fire for accruing record levels of water quality violations stemming from staffing shortages and years of mismanagement. TWW generated 13 violations last year and 11 violations in 2017, the worst performing years on record for the public water system. Mayor Yaede has been particularly critical of Trenton's public water system after the city slowly issued a boil water advisory on Jan. 15, 2018, a date when the water became temporarily unsafe to drink under the tenure of then-Mayor Eric Jackson. Gusciora, who took office in July 2018, has vowed to improve the operations and maintenance of TWW, but the utility this year has netted at least eight violations, according to DEP's Drinking Water Watch database. TWW experienced an equipment failure earlier this year and then subsequently failed to conduct grab samples of the water supply as required by state law, resulting in two violations of noncompliance. In that incident, the monitoring equipment failed at 12:40 a.m. May 4 and continued for about 17 hours, according to DEP. TWW treats and delivers potable drinking water as a public utility and therefore is required by the New Jersey Safe Drinking Water Act to conduct continuous monitoring of turbidity for each individual filter site. In other words, Trenton is legally obligated to keep a watchful eye on TWW's water clarity. But TWW was so troubled when Gusciora took office that he willingly signed an Administrative Consent Order (ACO) with the state DEP requiring the city to pay a $13,000 fine for not providing documents regarding lead service line replacement. The cause of September 27's equipment malfunction is under investigation, but the chlorination snafu resulted from a "mechanical error, not a human error," Gusciora said. "It is unfortunate, but there are times when glitches happen in any system." After overseeing numerous system upgrades, Dr. Shing-Fu Hsueh resigned as Trenton's water director effective Sept. 13 and was succeeded by interim director Steven Picco. "Over the course of this last year under Dr. Hsueh," Gusciora said, "we have made many system upgrades and we continue to make improvements. We strive to deliver a better product and from time to time these things (boil-water advisories) are going to happen. We hope to make them minimal in the future." [GN] TUTCO LLC: Faulty Heaters Lack Safety Backup Switches, Toca Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- MARIO TOCA, on behalf of himself and all others Similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TUTCO, LLC, RHEEM MANUFACTURING COMPANY and WATSCO, INC. Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-23949-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Sept. 23, 2019), arises from the Defendants' failure to include a safety backup switch on electric heat kits, manufactured and/or sold individually or as an integrated part of a heating, ventilation, and air condition system. The action seeks to remedy violations of applicable law in connection with the Defendants' marketing, advertising, manufacture, sale, and servicing of the Heaters, which are component heating devices used to generate heat in HVAC systems. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants have knowingly concealed material facts regarding the Heaters, including the failure to include safety backup switches--known as a non-self-resetting thermal cutoff ("NSRTs"), an inexpensive backup safety device that accounts for foreseeable conditions that often lead to the Heaters overheating and catching fire and/or igniting adjacent material, rendering them unusable in the manner, to the extent, and for the purpose for which the Heaters were advertised, marketed, and sold as a result of the defect. The Defendants knew and were aware, prior to marketing and selling the Heaters, that the Heaters were inherently defective in that they did not include NSRTs and, hence, were a safety hazard, the Plaintiff alleges. As a result of the design defects that afflict the Heaters, the Plaintiff and other class members have overpaid for the Heaters because the value of the Heaters was diminished at the time they were sold to consumers, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased for installation at his business property a RHEEM manufactured HVAC system, which incorporated a TUTCO-manufactured Heater in or about 2015. The Defendant designs, manufactures, and distributes Heaters throughout the United States, including the state of Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John A. Yanchunis, Esq. Patrick A. Barthle, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 223-5505 E-mail: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com pbarthle@forthepeople.com - and - Joel R. Rhine, Esq. Christopher B. Barbour, Esq. RHINE LAW FIRM, PC 1612 Military Cutoff Road, Suite 300 Wilmington, NC 28403 Telephone: (910) 772-9960 Facsimile: (910) 772-9062 E-mail: jrr@rhinelawfirm.com cbb@rhinelawfirm.com UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Underpays Drivers, Capriole Suit Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------- JOHN CAPRIOLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES; and DARA KHOSROWSHAHI, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-11914-IT (D. Mass., Sept. 12, 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 Capriole was employed by the Defendants as driver. On Oct. 4, Judge Indira Talwan granted a Joint Motion for Extension of Time, providing that: -- Defendants' deadline to file their Opposition to Plaintiffs' Preliminary Injunction Motion: Thursday, October 17, 2019. -- Defendants' deadline to file their Motion to Compel Arbitration: Thursday, October 17, 2019. -- Plaintiffs' deadline to file his Reply in support of his Preliminary Injunction Motion: Thursday, October 31, 2019. -- Plaintiffs' deadline to file his Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Compel Arbitration: Thursday, October 31, 2019. -- Defendants' deadline to file their Reply in support of their Motion to Compel Arbitration: Thursday, November 7, 2019. -- Hearing on Preliminary Injunction Motion and Motion to Compel Arbitration set for 12/4/2019 2:30 p.m. in Courtroom 9 before Judge Talwani. Uber Technologies, Inc. provides ride hailing services. The Company develops applications for road transportation, navigation, ride sharing, and payment processing solutions. Uber Technologies serves customers worldwide. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq. Adelaide H. Pagano, Esq. Anne Kramer, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 Facsimile: (617) 994-5801 E-mails: sliss@llrlaw.com apagano@llrlaw.com akramer@llrlaw.com UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Court Narrows Claims in Medical Society Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, THE MEDICAL SOCIETY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, on behalf of its members, et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 16-CV-5265 (JPO) (S.D. N.Y.), Judge J. Paul Oetken of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. Plaintiffs Medical Society of the State of New York, the Society of New York Office Based Surgery Facilities, and Columbia East Side Surgery, P.C. bring the putative class action under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), against Defendants UnitedHealth Group, United HealthCare Services, Inc., United HealthCare Insurance Company, United HealthCare Service, LLC, Optum Group, LLC, Optum, Inc., and Oxford Health Plans, LLC. United is an insurer and administrator of employer-sponsored health benefit plans, which are governed by ERISA. For all of its plans, United serves as the claims administrator, whereby it is responsible for determining whether any given claim is covered by the corresponding United Plan and effectuating any resulting benefit payment. The case involves the benefits provided under United's plans for outpatient surgery. In New York State, outpatient surgical procedures can legally be performed in three kinds of settings: hospitals, ambulatory surgical centers ("ASC"), and office-based surgery ("OBS") practices. In general, health insurers reimburse healthcare providers for two types of fees in connection with outpatient surgical services: a "professional fee" to compensate for the medical provider's "time and expertise," and a "facility fee" to compensate for the expense of using the location where the service was performed. In sum and substance, the Plaintiffs allege that United refuses to pay facility fees to out-of-network office-based surgery providers, which the Plaintiffs contends is contrary to the terms of United's health benefits plans and the requirements of ERISA. Plaintiff Columbia East Side Surgery, P.C. operated as an OBS practice from 2013 to 2016, and is solely owned by Dr. Darrick Antell. Columbia was properly accredited as an OBS practice under New York law during that time, and it provided out-of-network outpatient surgeries to patients covered by United's plans. Often these patients assigned to Columbia their benefits claims for these surgeries, authorizing Columbia to seek reimbursement from United through legal recourse if necessary. Columbia alleges that United's denial of its claims for facility fees is not an isolated practice, but rather the result of a policy that affects the proposed class of United plan beneficiaries and assignees. Indeed, as United's representatives admit, United's standard reimbursement policy, absent plan language to the contrary, is to treat providers of outpatient surgical services in New York State that lack an Article 28 license as non-facilities that are not eligible to charge facility fees for which United-administered plans provide benefits. The Plaintiffs contend that this policy is unlawful under ERISA because it was implemented for financial concerns and is unrelated to plan language. Moreover, they allege that the policy is inequitably applied to out-of-network OBS providers, but not those that are in-network. Looking to the language of the United plans at issue, the Plaintiffs allege that they should be interpreted to include OBS providers within the definition of the "facilities" that are entitled to provide outpatient surgical services and receive facility fees for such services. Consequently, they assert that by applying a blanket policy that fails to interpret these plan terms at all -- much less interpret them correctly -- United has violated ERISA in denying the claims of all the proposed class members. Plaintiff Columbia brings a claim on behalf of its four patients and the proposed class for United's failure to pay benefits in violation of ERISA Section 502(a)(1)(B), 29 U.S.C. Section 1132(a)(1)(B). The other Associational Plaintiffs -- the Medical Society of the State of New York ("MSSNY") and the Society of New York Office Based Surgery Facilities ("NYOBS") -- are organizations that represent the interests of health care providers, and whose members include Dr. Antell and other physicians who own out-of-network OBS practices. Together, Columbia, MSSNY, and NYOBS, on behalf of themselves and the proposed class, bring a second claim for injunctive and declaratory relief from United's refusal-to-pay policy under ERISA Section 502(a)(1)(B) or Section 502(a)(3), 29 U.S.C. Sections 1132(a)(1)(B), (a)(3). The Plaintiffs have moved for certification of a class under Rule 23(b)(1) or Rule 23(b)(2) and under Rule 23(b)(3). The proposed class seeks a declaratory judgment, an injunction prohibiting United from continuing to deny all facility fee claims from OBS practices, and either an order directing United to reprocess the denied claims or an award of benefits for those claims. The proposed class consists of any United Plan member, or member's valid assignee, whose claim for facility fees for services rendered by an out-of-network OBS provider accredited under Section 230-d was denied, where such claim was (1) submitted under a Plan governed by ERISA; (2) denied during the applicable statute of limitations; and (3) denied on the basis that the OBS provider was not certified under Article 28 of the New York Public Health Law. The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint Columbia, MSSNY, and NYOBS as the class representatives and to appoint Zuckerman Spaeder LLP and Buttaci Leardi & Werner LLC as the co-lead class counsel. United opposes the class certification in its entirety, challenging the Plaintiffs' ability to certify a class under three of the requirements of Rule 23(a), and each subsection of Rule 23(b). Judge Oetken concludes that the Plaintiffs seek to certify a class under Rule 23(b)(3) so that the Court has the ability to award the class members benefits in the event that their facility fee claims were unlawfully denied. But the Court can only award benefits that are covered by the class members' respective plans, and to determine whether benefits are covered the Court must interpret the language of those plans. In the circumstances of the case, this interpretative exercise would necessarily devolve into "a series of mini-trials" to establish each class member's entitlement to benefits. Given the centrality of issues of plan interpretation to determining liability for the class's benefit claims, the Judge concludes that these individualized questions would predominate at trial. Accordingly, because the Plaintiffs have not adequately demonstrated that the predominance requirement is satisfied, their request to certify a class under Rule 23(b)(3) is denied. However, Judge Oetken ruled that a class composed of "any United Plan member, or member's valid assignee, whose claim for facility fees for services rendered by an out-of-network OBS provider accredited under Section 230-d was denied," is certified for purposes of seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. He appointed Columbia, MSSNY, and NYOBS as the representatives of the certified class, and appointed Zuckerman Spaeder LLP and Buttaci Leardi & Werner LLC as the co-lead class counsel. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the motion at Docket Number 142. A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 11, 2019 Opinion and Order is available at https://is.gd/pGozTv from Leagle.com. The Medical Society of the State of New York, on behalf of its members & Society of New York Office Based Surgery Facilities, on behalf of its members, Plaintiffs, represented by Anant Kumar -- akumar@zuckerman.com -- Zuckerman, Spaeder LLP, Cyril V. Smith -- csmith@zuckerman.com -- Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, Jason Samuel Cowart -- jcowart@zuckerman.com -- Zuckerman, Spaeder LLP, John William Leardi -- jwleardi@buttacilaw.com -- Buttaci & Leardi, LLC, Nell Peyser -- npeyser@zuckerman.com -- Zuckerman, Spaeder LLP & Donn Brian Hufford -- dbhufford@zuckerman.com -- Zuckerman Spaeder LLP. Columbia East Side Surgery, P.C., both directly and as the representative of PATIENTS C, D, E and F, Plaintiff, represented by Anant Kumar, Zuckerman, Spaeder LLP, Cyril V. Smith, Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, Nell Peyser, Zuckerman, Spaeder LLP & Donn Brian Hufford, Zuckerman Spaeder LLP. UnitedHealth Group Inc., United HealthCare Services, Inc., United HealthCare Insurance Company, United HealthCare Service LLC, Optum Group, LLC, Optum, Inc. & Oxford Health Plans LLC, Defendants, represented by Anton Metlitsky -- ametlitsky@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers, LLP, Brian David Boyle -- bboyle@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Danielle Carim Gray, O'Melveny & Myers, LLP, Gregory Frederick Jacob -- gjacob@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers LLP & Sloane Ackerman -- sackerman@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers LLP. United HealthCare Service LLC, United HealthCare Insurance Company, Optum, Inc., Optum Group, LLC, UnitedHealth Group Inc., Oxford Health Plans LLC & United HealthCare Services, Inc., Counter Claimants, represented by Anton Metlitsky, O'Melveny & Myers, LLP, Brian David Boyle, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Danielle Carim Gray, O'Melveny & Myers, LLP, Gregory Frederick Jacob, O'Melveny & Myers LLP & Sloane Ackerman, O'Melveny & Myers LLP. Columbia East Side Surgery, P.C., both directly and as the representative of PATIENTS C, D, E and F, Counter Defendant, represented by Anant Kumar, Zuckerman, Spaeder LLP, Cyril V. Smith, Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, John William Leardi, Buttaci Leardi & Werner LLC, Nell Peyser, Zuckerman, Spaeder LLP, Paul Donald Werner, Buttaci & Leardi, LLC & Donn Brian Hufford, Zuckerman Spaeder LLP. Society of New York Office Based Surgery Facilities, on behalf of its members & The Medical Society of the State of New York, on behalf of its members, Counter Defendants, represented by Anant Kumar, Zuckerman, Spaeder LLP, Cyril V. Smith, Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, Jason Samuel Cowart, Zuckerman, Spaeder LLP, John William Leardi, Buttaci Leardi & Werner LLC, Nell Peyser, Zuckerman, Spaeder LLP, Paul Donald Werner, Buttaci & Leardi, LLC & Donn Brian Hufford, Zuckerman Spaeder LLP. UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Protective Order Entered in Ryan S. Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Magistrate Judge Karen Scott of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Southern Division entered a Stipulated Protective Order in the case captioned RYAN S., individually on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. UNITEDHEALTH GROUP, et al., Defendants. Case No. 8:19-cv-01363-JVS-KES. (C.D. Cal.) The case involves individual and putative class allegations by Plaintiff Ryan S. that Defendants UnitedHealth Group, Inc., United HealthCare Services, Inc., United Healthcare Insurance Company, UHC of California, United HealthCare Services, LLC, and United Behavioral Health, OptumInsight, Inc., Optum Services, Inc., and Optum, Inc., violated ERISA and the terms of the ERISA-governed health benefit plans in which Plaintiff and putative class members were enrolled in various ways in connection with the processing, adjudication, and payment of requests for mental health and substance use benefits under the terms of Plaintiff's and putative class members' benefit plans. The parties agree that discovery in the action action is likely to involve the disclosure of protected health information ("PHI") under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 ("HIPAA"), including Substance Abuse Information under 42 C.F.R. Part 2, by reference to other publicly available information, or through verification of such identification by another person ("Protected Substance Abuse Information"), as well as information that may not constitute PHI or Substance Abuse Information but is nonetheless confidential, proprietary, trade secret, sensitive, or private. The Stipulated Protective Order provides that the parties agree that Defendants will redact personally identifying information about the absent putative class members prior to producing Protected Substance Abuse Information to the extent practicable, including member names, addresses, dates of birth, social security numbers, and member or subscriber ID numbers. The parties recognize that the name of the members' health plan; the date(s) and location of treatment; and date(s) of benefit coverage determination(s) may be relevant to the parties' assessment of this case, and therefore agree that such information will not be redacted prior to production. The parties believe that, as redacted, this discovery no longer constitutes Protected Substance Abuse Information, and reflects reasonable efforts to limit disclosure of PHI to the minimum necessary to accomplish the intended purpose of such disclosure in this litigation. However, nothing in this Stipulated Protective Order shall be construed as prohibiting the disclosure of other PHI to the extent that the parties agree such disclosure is reasonably necessary for the purpose of the litigation. In the event that Protected Substance Abuse Information or other PHI is disclosed within the unredacted portions of the discovery information, individual notice to the putative class members is deemed to be impractical and inadvisable and good cause for the order exists. The parties hereby request, and the Court hereby enters, an order authorizing disclosure of such information subject to the criteria and procedures specified in 42 C.F.R. Sec. 2.64. The parties further agree, and the Court finds, that this Order is a Qualified Protective Order within the meaning of 45 C.F.R. Sec. 164.512(e). To further protect such Protected Substance Abuse Information and other PHI, any disclosure of this information shall be designated as "HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL — ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY" with the associated protections and restrictions set forth in the Stipulated Protective Order. Any party wishing to attach or reference individually-identifying information obtained from such Protected Substance Abuse Information (including but not limited to a member's health plan name, treatment facility or program name, and/or dates of treatment) in connection with any motion or other paper filed with the Court must file such information under seal. Any willful violation of the Order may be punished by civil or criminal contempt proceedings, financial or evidentiary sanctions, reference to disciplinary authorities, or other appropriate action at the discretion of the Court. A full-text copy of the District Court's September 26, 2019 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yyzabaf4 from Leagle.com Ryan S., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Damon D. Eisenbrey - deisenbrey@callahan-law.com - Callahan and Blaine APLC, Daniel J. Callahan - dan@callahan-law.com - Callahan and Blaine APLC, Edward Susolik - es@callahan-law.com - Callahan and Blaine APLC, Elizabeth Hopkins - ehopkins@kantorlaw.net - Kantor and Kantor LLP, Lisa S. Kantor - lkantor@kantorlaw.net - Kantor and Kantor LLP & Richard T. Collins - rcollins@callahan-law.com - Callahan and Blaine APLC. UnitedHealth Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation, United HealthCare Services, Inc., a Minnesota corporation, United Healthcare Insurance Company, a Connecticut corporation, UHC of California, a California corporation, United Healthcare Services, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company & United Behavioral Health, Inc., a California corporation, Defendants, represented by Jennifer S. Romano - jromano@crowell.com - Crowell and Moring LLP, Mana Elihu Lombardo - melombardo@crowell.com - Crowell and Moring LLP & Andrew John William Holmer - AHolmer@crowell.com - Crowell and Moring LLP. Optuminsight, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Optum Services, Inc., a Delaware corporation & Optum, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendants, represented by Andrew John William Holmer , Crowell and Moring LLP. US IMMIGRATION: Court Dismisses Amended Mejia-Mejia Suit -------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Paul Friedman of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued an Opinion granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint captioned BEATA MARIANA DE JESUS MEJIA-MEJIA, Plaintiff, v. U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, et al. Defendants. Civil Action No. 18-1445 (PLF). (D.D.C.) Plaintiff Beata Mariana De Jesus Mejia-Mejia and her seven-year-old son, D.M., are citizens of Guatemala who entered the United States to seek asylum on May 19, 2018. U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents immediately detained them. Several days later, officials separated the pair and took D.M. to a shelter for unaccompanied minors. Ms. Mejia-Mejia passed her credible fear interview, an early stage in the asylum process, and was released from detention on June 15, 2018. On June 19, Ms. Mejia-Mejia filed both a civil complaint and a motion for a temporary restraining order seeking immediate reunification with D.M. On June 22, 2018, the Office of Refugee Resettlement voluntarily released D.M. to Ms. Mejia-Mejia. Ms. Mejia-Mejia asserts nine causes of action arising from defendants' decision to forcibly separate her from D.M. during their pre-asylum detention. Ms. Mejia-Mejia seeks the following relief: (i) a declaratory judgment that defendants' conduct violated the Administrative Procedure Act's prohibition against arbitrary and capricious final agency actions (2), and that the conduct violated Ms. Mejia-Mejia's right to due process and equal protection under the U.S. Constitution (Counts I, II, III, and IV) (ii) a permanent injunction prohibiting the defendants sued in their official capacities from separating Ms. Mejia-Mejia and her son where there is no court finding of danger to D.M. in Ms. M.'s custody (Count V) (iii) compensatory and punitive damages from Jeff Sessions and Scott Lloyd in their individual capacities for violating Ms. Mejia-Mejia's constitutional rights (Counts VI, VII, and VIII) and (iv) attorneys' fees (Count IX). The two defendants sued in their individual capacities -- former Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Scott Lloyd, former director of the Office of Refugee Resettlement -- filed their motion to dismiss in November 2018. The also asserted absolute and qualified immunity. On review, the Court finds that Plaintiff fails to state a claim against the Defendants sued in their individual capacities. Furthermore, the Court notes that it lacks jurisdiction over claims against Defendants in their official capacities. As to Ms. Mejia-Mejia's request for a permanent injunction, the Court notes that Ms. Mejia-Mejia's claims against the defendants sued in their official capacities have become moot. Conditions have changed materially since Ms. Mejia-Mejia initiated this case -- defendants have reunited Ms. Mejia-Mejia with her son. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss Counts I, II, III, IV, and V for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Because the Court is also dismissing Counts VI, VII, and VIII against the defendants sued in their individual capacities, Ms. Mejia-Mejia has not prevailed on any of her substantive claims and is not entitled to attorneys' fees. Count IX, therefore, will also be dismissed. A full-text copy of the District Court's September 26, 2019 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/y6yr5jhq from Leagle.com BEATA MARIANA DE JESUS MEJIA-MEJIA, Plaintiff, represented by John M. Shoreman , MCFADDEN & SHOREMAN, LLC, 1050 Connecticut Ave NW Ste 1000, Washington, DC, 20036-5334, Andrew Tate - atate@ndh-law.com - NEXUS DERECHOS HUMANOS ATTORNEYS, INC., pro hac vice, Dallas S. LePierre - Dlepierre@Ndh-Law.Com - NEXUS DERECHOS HUMANOS ATTORNEYS, INC., pro hac vice & Mario B. Williams , NEXUS DERECHOS HUMANOS ATTORNEYS, INC., pro hac vice. U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES & U.S. OFFICE OF REFUGEE RESETTLEMENT, Defendants, represented by Jeremy S. Simon , U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA & Sarah B. Fabian , U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Office of Immigration Litigation. THOMAS HOMAN, Acting Director of ICE, KIRSTJEN NIELSEN, Secretary of DHS, L. FRANCIS CISSNA, Director of USCIS, KEVIN K. MCALEENAN, Acting Commissioner of CBP & ALEX M. AZAR, II, Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, Defendants, represented by Sarah B. Fabian , U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Office of Immigration Litigation. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, Attorney General of the United States & SCOTT LLOYD, Director of the Office of Refugee Resettlement, Defendants, represented by Paul Christopher Quast , DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Torts Branch, Civil Division & Sarah B. Fabian , U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Office of Immigration Litigation. VALARIS PLC: Oct. 21 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline ------------------------------------------------ ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds investors of pending deadlines in the following securities class action lawsuits: Textron Inc. (TXT) Class Period: 1/31/2018 - 10/17/2018 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: October 21, 2019 SECURITIES FRAUD To learn more, visit https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/view-textron-inc-securities-litigation-2 Valaris plc (f/k/a Ensco Rowan plc) (VAL) Class Period: 4/11/2019 - 7/31/2019 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: October 21, 2019 SECURITIES FRAUD To learn more, visit https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/view-valaris-plc-securities-litigation If you purchased shares of the above companies and would like to discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact us toll-free (844) 367-9658 or visit the case links above. If you wish to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the class action, you must petition the Court on or before the Lead Plaintiff Motion deadline. About ClaimsFiler ClaimsFiler has a single mission: to serve as the information source to help retail investors recover their share of billions of dollars from securities class action settlements. At ClaimsFiler.com, investors can: (1) register for free to gain access to information and settlement websites for various securities class action cases so they can timely submit their own claims; (2) upload their portfolio transactional data to be notified about relevant securities cases in which they may have a financial interest; and (3) submit inquiries to the Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC law firm for free case evaluations. [GN] VIEWRAY INC: Corwin Suit Hits Share Price Drop ---------------------------------------------- Cort Corwin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Viewray, Inc., Scott Drake, Ajay Bansal and James F. Dempsey, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-02115 (N.D. Ohio, September 13, 2019), seeks to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. ViewRay designs, manufactures, and markets radiation therapy systems sold in the United States and internationally, in-house and through distributors. It allegedly failed to disclose to its investors, including Corwin, that that demand for ViewRay systems had declined due in part to changes being made to Medicare reimbursement approaches for purchases of new ViewRay systems and that ViewRay's reported backlog was overstated due to the inclusion of orders with insufficient surety as to permit for their inclusion in the reported backlog. On August 8, 2019, after the close of trading, ViewRay disclosed operational issues and slashed its previously-issued full fiscal year 2019 financial guidance. In response to this news, the price of ViewRay common stock price declined by more than 50%, or $3.64 per share, to close down at $3.10 per share on August 9, 2019, on unusually high trading volume of more than 26.6 million shares trading, or nearly 16 times the average volume over the preceding ten trading days. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph F. Murray, Esq. MURRAY MURPHY MOUL + BASIL LLP 1114 Dublin Road Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 488-0400 Fax: (614) 488-0401 Email: murray@mmmb.com - and - Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. Mary K. Blasy, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Tel: (631) 367-7100 Fax: (631) 367-1173 Email: srudman@rgrdlaw.com mblasy@rgrdlaw.com - and - Michael I. Fistel, Jr., Esq. JOHNSON FISTEL, LLP 40 Powder Springs Street Marietta, GA 30064 Telephone: (470) 632-6000 Email: michaelf@johnsonfistel.com VISTAR TRANSPORTATION: Contreras Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned Edward A. Contreras, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated and aggrieved, Plaintiff, v. Vistar Transportation, LLC, Performance Transportation, LLC and Does 1 through 50, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV26949 (Cal. Super., August 2, 2019), was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on September 13, 2019 under Case No. 19-cv-07972. Contreras 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, failure to maintain time-keeping records, injunctive relief and other equitable relief, reasonable attorney's fees, costs and interest under California Labor Code and applicable Industrial Wage Orders. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J. Matern, Esq. Launa Adolph, Esq. MATERN LAW GROUP, PC 1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 Telephone: (310) 531-1900 Facsimile: (310) 531-1901 E-mail: mmatern@maternlawgroup.com ladolph@maternlawgroup.com Defendants are represented by: Matthew Charles Kane, Esq. MCGUIREWOODS LLP 1800 Century Park East, 8th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067-1501 Tel: (310) 315-8200 (310) 315-8210 E-mail: mkane@mcguirewoods.com VITAMIN SHOPPE: Rosenblatt Files Suit Over Sale to Liberty Tax -------------------------------------------------------------- JORDAN ROSENBLATT, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. VITAMIN SHOPPE, INC., ALEXANDER W. SMITH, DEBORAH M. DERBY, DAVID H. EDWAB, MELVIN L. KEATING, GUILLERMO MARMOL, HIMANSHU H. SHAH, TIMOTHY J. THERIAULT, SING WANG, and SHARON M. LEITE, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01848-UNA (D. Del., Oct. 1, 2019) is an action stemming from a proposed transaction announced on August 8, 2019, pursuant to which Vitamin Shoppe, Inc. will be acquired by Liberty Tax, Inc. and Valor Acquisition, LLC. On August 7, 2019, Vitamin Shoppe's Board of Directors caused the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with Liberty Tax. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Vitamin Shoppe's stockholders will receive $6.50 in cash for each share of Vitamin Shoppe common stock they own. On September 30, 2019, Defendants filed a proxy statement with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the Proposed Transaction. The complaint alleges that the Proxy Statement omits material information with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the Proxy Statement false and misleading. First, the Proxy Statement omits material information regarding the Company's financial projections. The Proxy Statement fails to disclose, for each set of projections: (i) all line items used to calculate (a) adjusted gross profits, (b) adjusted SG&A, (c) EBIT, and (d) EBITDA; and (ii) 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, BofA Merrill Lynch. With respect to BofA's Discounted Cash Flow Analysis, the Proxy Statement fails to disclose: (i) the terminal values for the Company; (ii) BofA's basis for applying exit adjusted EBITDA multiples of 2.5x to 4.0x; (iii) the individual inputs and assumptions underlying the discount rates ranging from 8.50% to 10.50%; and (iv) net debt. Third, the Proxy Statement fails to disclose the Individual Defendants' basis for determining to cease negotiations with "Party H" on September 23, 2019, as opposed to providing Party H with additional time to obtain financing, in light of Party H's substantial offer to acquire the Company for $7.25 per share. The Company's stockholders are entitled to an accurate description of the process leading up to the Proposed Transaction, says the complaint. The omission of the above-referenced material information renders the Proxy Statement false and misleading, including, inter alia, the following sections of the Proxy Statement: (i) Background of the Merger; (ii) Recommendation of the Board of Directors and Reasons for the Merger; (iii) Certain Unaudited Prospective Financial Information; and (iv) Opinion of Vitamin Shoppe's Financial Advisor. Accordingly, the Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violate Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the Proxy Statement. Plaintiff is the owner of Vitamin Shoppe common stock. Vitamin Shoppe is an omni-channel, specialty retailer of nutritional products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian D. Long, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220 Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 295-5310 Facsimile: (302) 654-7530 Email: bdl@rl-legal.com gms@rl-legal.com - and - 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 VOLKSWAGEN AG: German Class Suit Over Emissions Cheating to Begin ----------------------------------------------------------------- Uwe Hessler, writing for DW, reports that four years after Volkswagen's Dieselgate scandal broke, more than 400,000 Germans are part of a fresh legal action against the carmaker. But some lawyers warn against joining Germany's first-ever class action lawsuit. According to the German Justice Ministry, some 446,000 plaintiffs have joined the class action lawsuit, which is jointly organized by the Federation of German Consumer Organizations (vzbv) and the country's largest motoring club, ADAC. In November 2018, Parliament paved the way for the introduction of the American-style legal framework into German law by adopting the so-called Musterfeststellungsklage, which translates into Model Declaratory Proceedings. The decision was prompted by Volkswagen's diesel emissions manipulations unveiled in 2015 which are said to affect around 11 million cars around the world, 2.4 million of which were bought by Germans. But while consumers for example in the United States and Australia were able to pursue their claims of compensation collectively, affected VW customers here had been barred from this until 2018, and had to pursue their claims on an individual basis. VW has been in hot water since US regulators showed in 2015 that the company had installed so-called defeat devices in its cars, enabling them to perform within emissions guidelines during testing, even if they emitted much higher levels of hazardous exhausts during normal driving conditions. New law On Monday (September 30) the Braunschweig Higher Regional Court [was to] begin hearing first VW customers, who are seeking refunds on the full purchase price of their car, in the best-case scenario. The cars they bought range from Volkswagen's key brand VW to subsidiaries Audi, Seat and Skoda, and were all equipped with exhaust-gas manipulated diesel motors of the EA 189 type. VW has rejected the aim of the lawsuit, arguing that customers have no such claim because the cars remained perfectly functional. The carmaker has also repeatedly stressed that the software fixes it has offered have removed the problem of illegal emissions levels. In a statement released on September 20, the vzbv consumer group said the sheer number of people signing up shows that the suit is important to them. It noted that the legal action has halted the statute of limitations for the claims of hundreds of thousands of VW diesel car owners. As a matter of fact, the new law allows people to be heard in court, who might otherwise have been afraid to do so due to financial concerns. Nevertheless, some lawyers are advising VW diesel owners to withdraw from the lawsuit and take individual action against the carmaker. The risk of losing out Law firms, including Dr Hoffman and Partners in Nuremberg, warned this summer that the Braunschweig court will only determine whether Volkswagen owes consumers damages, in principle. This was, however "of little use to the individual plaintiff," the lawyers said in a statement. "At best, they will only see their preliminary questions on consumer-related matters clarified ... and will not receive any money for a long time," Dr. Hoffman and Partners warned. Even if the lawsuit were to be successful in court, the lawyers added, the plaintiffs would then have to take their individual damage claims to court by themselves. In the event of a legal defeat, however, claims can no longer be asserted before another, possibly more "consumer-friendly" court, they said. More than 26,000 German VW customers so far have taken their own course of action, with most of the cases ending in a settlement. There are however signs that German courts increasingly back customers' claims for full compensation. Two weeks ago, judges at the Higher Regional Court in Frankfurt said that the buyer of a VW car with an illegal defeat device was deliberately and "contra bonos mores" damaged by the carmaker, which subsequently required full reimbursement of the car's purchase price. Framed as "preliminary legal view," which is not binding on lower courts but could guide their deliberations, the opinion came after an owner of a VW car appealed a ruling in favor of the auto giant. Since admitting to Dieselgate in 2015, the scandal has cost VW some EUR30 billion (32.8 billion) for fines, compensation, buybacks and refits, Frank Witter, VW Group board member responsible for finance, said recently. Much of that sum has poured out to 500,000 customers in the US. But the carmaker has "provisionally" booked another EUR1 billion for legal risks, saying additional costs "could not be ruled out." [GN] WAITR HOLDINGS: Kahn Swick Files Class Action Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------- Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., have filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana on behalf of shareholders who purchased, acquired and/or otherwise held securities of Waitr Holdings Inc. f/k/a Landcadia Holdings, Inc. (NasdaqGS: WTRH) between May 17, 2018 and August 8, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"), including, but not limited to, those who acquired Waitr shares in connection with its November 2018 going public transaction with Landcadia or in its May 2019 Secondary Offering. What You May Do If you purchased, acquired or held securities of Waitr and would like to discuss your legal rights you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact KSF Managing Partner Lewis Kahn toll-free at 1-877-515-1850 or via email (lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com), or visit http://ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-wtrh/to learn more. If you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this class action, you must petition the Court no later than 60 days from today. About the Lawsuit Waitr, an online food ordering and delivery services company was formed through a going public transaction by Waitr Inc. and Landcadia Holdings, Inc. on November 15, 2018, after which time its shares began publicly trading on the Nasdaq under the symbol "WTRH." On August 8, 2019, after market close, the Company revealed abysmal financial and operational results for the second quarter of 2019, including the resignation of its CEO, co-Founder Christopher Meaux; that its integration of BiteSquad.com, LLC, acquired in January 2019, was not proceeding according to plan; that the Company was laying off personnel; and that losses were running far ahead of plan and at a rate that eclipsed historical growth trends. Following this news, the price of Waitr shares fell 50%. Waitr's market capitalization was $134 million, down from $910 million on March 13, 2019. About Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC KSF, whose partners include former Louisiana Attorney General Charles C. Foti, Jr., is one of the nation's premier boutique securities litigation law firms. KSF serves a variety of clients -- including public institutional investors, hedge funds, money managers and retail investors -- in seeking recoveries for investment losses emanating from corporate fraud or malfeasance by publicly traded companies. KSF has offices in New York, California and Louisiana. Contact: Lewis Kahn, Esq. Managing Partner Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC Tel: 1-877-515-1850 1100 Poydras St., Suite 3200 New Orleans, LA 70163 Email: lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com [GN] WENDY'S: Court Certifies Class in Tyus MWA Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the District of Nevada issued an Order granting Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion to Certify Class in the case captioned LATONYA TYUS, an individual, on behalf of herself and all similarly situated individuals, et al., Plaintiffs, v. WENDY'S OF LAS VEGAS, INC.; CEDAR ENTERPRISES, INC. Defendants. Case No. 2:14-cv-00729-GMN-VCF. (D. Nev.) The case arises out of Defendants' alleged violations of Nevada's Minimum Wage Amendment (MWA). During all relevant times, Defendants owned and operated approximately 30 Wendy's Restaurants in Nevada and Plaintiffs are either current or former employees of Defendants' Restaurants. Plaintiffs move to certify a proposed class encompassing of all current and former employees of Defendants at their Nevada locations who were paid less than $8.25 per hour but were not provided with qualifying health benefits pursuant to Nev. Const. art. XV, sec. 16, at any time since May 9, 2012. Defendants oppose the certification bid. Numerosity In the case, based upon Defendants' answers to Plaintiffs' interrogatories, Plaintiffs state that the number of employees allegedly paid at an unlawful rate is at the very least approximately 3,153 employees between May 9, 2012, and March 10, 2016. The Court can safely conclude that the potential class is sufficiently numerous such that joinder of each member would be impracticable. Commonality The Court finds that the commonality element is satisfied because this case involves both common legal and factual questions affecting all class members. First, the class members share the common facts of being paid below the upper-tier minimum hourly wage of $8.25 and subject to a common insurance benefits policy. Defendants' pleadings and answers to interrogatories reveal that these facts pervade the class, not just certain individuals, because Defendants admit to paying employees the lower-tier wage of less than $8.25 based on the same health benefits plan offered throughout the coverage years. Because of the evidence that Defendants had a uniform policy, and that Plaintiffs' proposed class is tailored to including only those employees who were allegedly damaged by this uniform policy, commonality sufficiently exists. Typicality Here, Plaintiffs allege an injury that emanates from Defendants' uniform policy impacting all class members. Defendants' responses to Plaintiffs' interrogatories reveal this uniformity, stating that Defendants employed a total of 3,153 employees that were paid less than $8.25 per hour and that the reason for this pay amount was that Defendant offered such employees qualifying health insurance benefits. This evidence not only shows how Plaintiffs' injuries are typical of that with the class members, but also how Defendants appear to advance a defense that is equally typical to Plaintiffs and the class, the Court notes. Further, in conjunction with the commonality analysis above, the fact that each class member would be subject to individualized damage awards does not defeat typicality. Adequacy of Representation The Court need only find one class representative to be adequate and the Court finds it to be met through Latonya Tyus. First, nothing in the record suggests a conflict of interest between Tyus or any named Plaintiff and counsel. Second, Defendants present no evidence that Tyus lacks a willingness to prosecute this case. Tyus has a basic understanding about the claim here, as shown in her testimony on the wage tiers under the MWA and the requirement that employers pay $8.25 unless there is qualifying health insurance. Though Defendants point to several misstatements by Tyus about when her claim arose, those misstatements do not reveal her to be startlingly unfamiliar with this case or blindly relying on counsel. The Court further finds that class counsel, having thirty-five years of legal experience and overseeing class action and complex high damages litigation for his firm, will competently and vigorously prosecute the instant case with the assistance of Tyus and other named Plaintiffs. Therefore, the adequacy of representation requirement is satisfied. Predominance Defendants first argue that Plaintiffs cannot satisfy the predominance requirement of Rule 23(b)(3) because the proposed class definition is improperly fail-safe. The Court is not persuaded that Plaintiffs' proposed definition is impermissibly fail-safe and should preclude certification. Accordingly, the common factual circumstances, common wage policy, and common benefits plans at issue here guide the Court to find that common issues predominate over the individualized inquiries in this matter. Superiority Plaintiffs first argue that a class is the superior method to litigate this case because of the relatively small amount of damages at stake for each individual, Indeed, since the claim here seeks recovery for minimum wage violations, the potential recovery for each claimant would be greatly disproportionate to litigation costs if each employee were to bring their claim individually, the Court notes. The Court thus finds that the superiority element satisfied here. For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that class certification is warranted. A full-text copy of the District Court's September 26, 2019 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y4vmv58w from Leagle.com Latonya Tyus, David Hunsicker, Collins Kwayisi, Lee Jones, Raissa Burton, Jeremy McKinney & Florence Edjeou, Plaintiffs, represented by Bradley Scott Schrager - bschrager@wrslawyers.com - Wolf, Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman & Rabkin, Daniel Bravo - dbravo@wrslawyers.com - Wolf, Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman, & Rabkin, LLP & Don Springmeyer - dspringmeyer@wrslawyers.com - Wolf, Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman and Rabkin, LLP Terron Sharp, Plaintiff, pro se. Linda Davis, Plaintiff, pro se. Wendy's of Las Vegas, Inc. & Cedar Enterprises, Inc., Defendants, represented by - Kathryn B. Blakey - kblakey@littler.com- Littler Mendelson, Montgomery Y. Paek - mpaek@littler.com - Littler Mendelson, Neil C. Baker - nbaker@littler.com - Littler Mendelson, Rick D. Roskelley - rroskelley@littler.com - Littler Mendelson, PC & Roger L. Grandgenett - rgrandgenett@littler.com -, Littler Mendelson, PC. WESCO AIRCRAFT: Kent Sues Over Sale to Wolverine Intermediate ------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL KENT, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. WESCO AIRCRAFT HOLDINGS, INC., RANDY J. SNYDER, DAYNE A. BAIRD, THOMAS M. BANCROFT III, PAUL E. FULCHINO, JAY L. HABERLAND, SCOTT E. KUECHLE, ADAM J. PALMER, ROBERT D. PAULSON, JENNIFER M. POLLINO, TODD RENEHAN, and NORTON A. SCHWARTZ, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01750-UNA (D. Del., Sept. 17, 2019) is an action stemming from a proposed transaction announced on August 9, 2019, pursuant to which Wesco Aircraft Holdings, Inc. will be acquired by Wolverine Intermediate Holding II Corporation and Wolverine Merger Corporation. Parent and Merger Sub are indirect subsidiaries of funds managed and advised by Platinum Equity Advisors, LLC. On August 8, 2019, Wesco's Board of Directors caused the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with Wolverine. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Wesco's stockholders will receive $11.05 in cash for each share of Wesco common stock they own. On September 13, 2019, defendants filed a proxy statement with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the Proposed Transaction, which scheduled a stockholder vote on the Proposed Transaction for October 24, 2019. The complaint alleges that the Proxy Statement omits material information with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the Proxy Statement false and misleading. First, the Proxy Statement omits material information regarding the Company's financial projections. The Proxy Statement fails to disclose, for each set of projections: (i) all line items used to calculate (a) adjusted net income, (b) adjusted EBITDA, (c) free cash flow, and (d) unlevered free cash flow; and (ii) 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 advisors in connection with the Proposed Transaction, Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC and J.P. Morgan Securities LLC. With respect to MS's Discounted Cash Flow Analysis, the Proxy Statement fails to disclose: (i) all line items used to calculate unlevered free cash flow; (ii) the value of the tax benefit from the amortization of intangible assets for the life of such assets; (iii) the individual inputs and assumptions underlying the discount rates ranging from 6.9% to 8.4% and the perpetual growth rate of 1.5%; (iv) the terminal values of the Company; and (v) the outstanding shares of Wesco common stock on a fully diluted basis. Third, the Proxy Statement omits material information regarding potential conflicts of interest of MS and JPM. The omission of these material information renders the Proxy Statement false and misleading, including, inter alia, the following sections of the Proxy Statement: (i) Background of the Merger; (ii) Recommendation of the Board of Directors and Reasons for the Merger; (iii) Fairness Opinion of Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC; (iv) Fairness Opinion of J.P. Morgan Securities LLC; and (v) Certain Financial Projections. The Proxy Statement also fails to disclose the timing and nature of the past services MS provided to the Company, Platinum, and their affiliates. Lastly, the Registration Statement fails to disclose whether the Company entered into any non-disclosure agreements that contained "don't ask, don't waive" provisions that are or were preventing other potential acquirors from requesting waivers of standstill provisions to submit offers to acquire the Company, says the complaint. Accordingly, the plaintiff alleges that the Defendants violate Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the Proxy Statement. Plaintiff is the owner of Wesco common stock. Wesco is one of the world's leading distributors and providers of comprehensive supply chain management services to the global aerospace industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian D. Long, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220 Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 295-5310 Facsimile: (302) 654-7530 Email: bdl@rl-legal.com gms@rl-legal.com - and - 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 WESTGATE PREMIER: Fails to Pay Minimum & Overtime Pay, Cabuag Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ DARLENE CABUAG, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. WESTGATE PREMIER HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC., a California corporation; AMBERWOOD GARDENS, an unknown business entity; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 19CV352173 (Cal. Super., Aug. 1, 2019), alleges that Defendants failed to pay overtime, meal period premiums, rest period premiums, minimum wages, and final wages under the California Labor Code. The Defendants hired Plaintiff and the other class members, classified them as hourly-paid or non-exempt employees, and failed to compensate them for all hours worked and missed meal periods and/or rest breaks. The Defendants directly hired and paid wages and benefits to Plaintiff and the other Plaintiff and the other class members worked over eight hours in a day, and/or 40 hours in a week during their employment with the Defendants, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Edwin Aiwazian, Esq. LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC 410 West Arden A venue, Suite 203 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 265-1020 Facsimile: (818) 265-1021 Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal Still Pending over $13MM Verdict in Lopez ----------------------------------------------------------------- Tyson Foods, Inc. is still awaiting the Court's ruling on an appeal from a US$13 million verdict in an asbestos-related case against a subsidiary, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 29, 2019. The Company states, "The Hillshire Brands Company was named as a defendant in an asbestos exposure case filed by Mark Lopez in May 2014 in the Superior Court of Alameda County, California. Mr. Lopez was diagnosed with mesothelioma in January 2014 and is now deceased. Mr. Lopez's family members asserted negligence, premises liability and strict liability claims related to Mr. Lopez's alleged asbestos exposure from 1954-1986 from the Union Sugar plant in Betteravia, California. The plant, which was sold in 1986, was owned by entities that were predecessors-in-interest to The Hillshire Brands Company. "In August 2017, the jury returned a verdict of approximately US$13 million in favor of the plaintiffs, and a judgment was entered. We have appealed the judgment and all briefing has been completed." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/oJAN4z ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bausch Health US Faces Gutierrez Talc Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Bausch Health Companies Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that its subsidiary Bausch Health US, LLC, is defending itself against a proposed class action in California state court styled, Gutierrez, et al. v. Johnson & Johnson, et al., Case No. 37-2019-00025810-CU-NP-CTL, related to talcum powder products allegedly violating the California Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Proposition 65). The Company states, "On February 11, 2019, plaintiffs filed a pre-suit notice letter with the California Attorney General notifying the Attorney General's office of their intent to file suit after 60 days against the Company and certain of its subsidiaries, alleging they committed violations of the California Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Proposition 65) by manufacturing and distributing Shower to Shower(R) that they allege contained talc contaminated with asbestos, a listed carcinogen. That notice letter was served on the Company on February 22, 2019. By statute, a private lawsuit may not be filed until at least 60 days have passed following service of this pre-suit notice letter. "In April 2019, rather than filing a lawsuit against Bausch Health US, the plaintiffs moved for leave to amend their complaint in a pending Proposition 65 lawsuit (Luna, et al. v. Johnson & Johnson, et al., case 2:18-cv-04830-GW-KS) against Johnson & Johnson in federal court in California to add Bausch Health US as a defendant. Plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit without prejudice. The court has ordered that the case be dismissed without prejudice. "On April 15, 2019, a plaintiff filed a pre-suit notice letter with the California Attorney General notifying the Attorney General's office of their intent to file suit after 60 days against the Company and certain of its subsidiaries, alleging they committed violations of Proposition 65 by manufacturing and distributing Shower to Shower(R) that they allege contained silica, arsenic, lead and chromium (hexavalent compounds), which they allege are known to cause cancer and/or reproductive toxicity. That notice letter was served on the Company on April 18, 2019. While the statutory 60 days have passed before a private lawsuit may be filed, no lawsuit has been filed to date. "On June 19, 2019, plaintiffs filed a proposed class action in California state court against Bausch Health US and Johnson & Johnson (Gutierrez, et al. v. Johnson & Johnson, et al., Case No. 37-2019-00025810-CU-NP-CTL), asserting claims for purported violations of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, False Advertising Law and Unfair Competition Law in connection with their sale of talcum powder products that the plaintiffs allege violated Proposition 65. This lawsuit was served on Bausch Health US on June 28, 2019. Plaintiffs seek damages, disgorgement of profits, injunctive relief, and reimbursement/restitution. The Company and Bausch Health US intend to defend this lawsuit vigorously." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/ClUY3R ASBESTOS UPDATE: CenterPoint Energy Still Defends Asbestos Matters ------------------------------------------------------------------ CenterPoint Energy, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the Company, CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC, and CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp. are from time to time named, along with numerous others, as defendants in lawsuits filed by a number of individuals who claim injury due to exposure to asbestos. The Company states, "Some facilities owned by the Registrants or their predecessors contain or have contained asbestos insulation and other asbestos-containing materials. The Registrants are from time to time named, along with numerous others, as defendants in lawsuits filed by a number of individuals who claim injury due to exposure to asbestos, and the Registrants anticipate that additional claims may be asserted in the future. Although their ultimate outcome cannot be predicted at this time, the Registrants do not expect these matters, either individually or in the aggregate, to have a material adverse effect on their financial condition, results of operations or cash flows." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/f4eDxo ASBESTOS UPDATE: Emerson Electric Had $324MM Liability at June 30 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Emerson Electric Co. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that it has liabilities of US$324 million for asbestos litigation, included in other liabilities, at June 30, 2019. The Company also recorded US$117 million for asbestos-related insurance receivables, which was included in other assets, at June 30, 2019. A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/9eEj8b ASBESTOS UPDATE: Freeport-McMoRan Unit Still Defends Talc Suits --------------------------------------------------------------- Freeport-McMoRan Inc. (FCX) disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that its indirect wholly owned subsidiary is still a target in cases related to asbestos contamination matters. The Company states, "...[T]here has been a significant increase in the number of cases alleging the presence of asbestos contamination in talc-based personal care products and in cases alleging exposure to talc products that are not alleged to be contaminated with asbestos. The primary targets have been the producers of those products, but defendants in many of these cases also include talc miners. Cyprus Amax Minerals Company (CAMC), an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of FCX, and Cyprus Mines Corporation (Cyprus Mines), a wholly owned subsidiary of CAMC, are among those targets. Cyprus Mines was engaged in talc mining from 1964 until 1992 when it exited its talc business by conveying it to a third party in two related transactions. Those transactions involved (i) a transfer by Cyprus Mines of the assets of its talc business to a newly formed subsidiary that assumed all pre-sale and post-sale talc liabilities, subject to limited reservations, and (ii) a sale of the stock of that subsidiary to the third party. In 2011, the third party sold that subsidiary to Imerys Talc America (Imerys), an affiliate of Imerys S.A." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/MTfNga ASBESTOS UPDATE: H.B. Fuller Settles 5 Suits, Claims for $232K -------------------------------------------------------------- H.B. Fuller Company reported that for the nine months ended August 31, 2019, five asbestos-related lawsuits and claims were settled for US$232,000, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended August 31, 2019. The Company states, "We have been named as a defendant in lawsuits in which plaintiffs have alleged injury due to products containing asbestos manufactured more than 30 years ago. The plaintiffs generally bring these lawsuits against multiple defendants and seek damages (both actual and punitive) in very large amounts. In many cases, plaintiffs are unable to demonstrate that they have suffered any compensable injuries or that the injuries suffered were the result of exposure to products manufactured by us. We are typically dismissed as a defendant in such cases without payment. If the plaintiff presents evidence indicating that compensable injury occurred as a result of exposure to our products, the case is generally settled for an amount that reflects the seriousness of the injury, the length, intensity and character of exposure to products containing asbestos, the number and solvency of other defendants in the case, and the jurisdiction in which the case has been brought. "A significant portion of the defense costs and settlements in asbestos-related litigation is paid by third parties, including indemnification pursuant to the provisions of a 1976 agreement under which we acquired a business from a third party. Currently, this third party is defending and paying settlement amounts, under a reservation of rights, in most of the asbestos cases tendered to the third party. "In addition to the indemnification arrangements with third parties, we have insurance policies that generally provide coverage for asbestos liabilities, including defense costs. Historically, insurers have paid a significant portion of our defense costs and settlements in asbestos-related litigation. However, certain of our insurers are insolvent. We have entered into cost-sharing agreements with our insurers that provide for the allocation of defense costs and settlements and judgments in asbestos-related lawsuits. These agreements require, among other things, that we fund a share of settlements and judgments allocable to years in which the responsible insurer is insolvent. "We do not believe that it would be meaningful to disclose the aggregate number of asbestos-related lawsuits filed against us because relatively few of these lawsuits are known to involve exposure to asbestos-containing products that we manufactured. Rather, we believe it is more meaningful to disclose the number of lawsuits that are settled and result in a payment to the plaintiff. To the extent we can reasonably estimate the amount of our probable liabilities for pending asbestos-related claims, we establish a financial provision and a corresponding receivable for insurance recoveries. "Based on currently available information, we have concluded that the resolution of any pending matter, including asbestos-related litigation, individually or in the aggregate, will not have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition or cash flow." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/i6Y16q ASBESTOS UPDATE: Manitex Int'l Still Faces PL Suits at June 30 -------------------------------------------------------------- Manitex International, Inc. remains a defendant in several multi-defendant asbestos-related product liability lawsuits, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019. Manitex states, "In certain instances, the Company is indemnified by a former owner of the product line in question. In the remaining cases the plaintiff has, to date, not been able to establish any exposure by the plaintiff to the Company's products. The Company is uninsured with respect to these claims but believes that it will not incur any material liability with respect to these claims." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/D3xH4u ASBESTOS UPDATE: NRG Energy Pays $26MM to Settle EME Liabilities ---------------------------------------------------------------- NRG Energy, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that it has settled its asbestos liabilities as a result of its acquisition of Edison Mission Energy (EME). NRG Energy states, "The Company, through certain of its subsidiaries, has settled the indemnification claims brought by Commonwealth Edison Company and Exelon Generation Company LLC (collectively, "ComEd") as a result of the Company's acquisition of EME. Pursuant to a settlement agreement dated as of May 29, 2019, the Company paid US$26 million to ComEd, which was previously accrued. In addition, ComEd released all claims that were or could have been asserted in its claims in the EME bankruptcy case and certain of the Company's subsidiaries released all permissive and compulsory counter claims they could have asserted in response to the ComEd claims." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/YQbKvm ASBESTOS UPDATE: OfficeMax Still Responsible for Cases at June 29 ----------------------------------------------------------------- OfficeMax retains its responsibility for all pending and future asbestos-related proceedings related to a former operation, according to Office Depot, Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 29, 2019. The Company states, "OfficeMax is named as a defendant in a number of lawsuits, claims, and proceedings arising out of the operation of certain paper and forest products assets prior to those assets being sold in 2004, for which OfficeMax agreed to retain responsibility. Also, as part of that sale, OfficeMax agreed to retain responsibility for all pending or threatened proceedings and future proceedings alleging asbestos-related injuries arising out of the operation of the paper and forest products assets prior to the closing of the sale. The Company has made provision for losses with respect to the pending proceedings. "Additionally, as of June 29, 2019, the Company has made provision for environmental liabilities with respect to certain sites where hazardous substances or other contaminants are or may be located. For these liabilities, our estimated range of reasonably possible losses was approximately US$10 million to US$20 million. "The Company regularly monitors its estimated exposure to these liabilities. As additional information becomes known, these estimates may change, however, the Company does not believe any of these OfficeMax retained proceedings are material to the Company's financial position, results of operations or cash flows." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/g6qJps ASBESTOS UPDATE: Old Republic Posts $109.1MM Reserves at June 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Old Republic International Corporation recorded gross asbestosis and environmental claim reserves of US$109.1 million as of June 30, 2019, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019. The Company's net asbestosis and environmental claim reserves amounted to US$76.0 million as of June 30, 2019. A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/3S0BO4 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Scotts Miracle-Gro Still Faces Suits at June 29 ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 29, 2019, that it is "vigorously defending" against claims related to asbestos-containing products. Scotts Miracle-Gro states, "The Company has been named as a defendant in a number of cases alleging injuries that the lawsuits claim resulted from exposure to asbestos-containing products, apparently based on the Company's historic use of vermiculite in certain of its products. In many of these cases, the complaints are not specific about the plaintiffs' contacts with the Company or its products. The cases vary, but complaints in these cases generally seek unspecified monetary damages (actual, compensatory, consequential and punitive) from multiple defendants. "The Company believes that the claims against it are without merit and is vigorously defending against them. No accruals have been recorded in the Company's consolidated financial statements as the likelihood of a loss is not probable at this time; and the Company does not believe a reasonably possible loss would be material to, nor the ultimate resolution of these cases will have a material adverse effect on, the Company's financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. "There can be no assurance that future developments related to pending claims or claims filed in the future, whether as a result of adverse outcomes or as a result of significant defense costs, will not have a material effect on the Company's financial condition, results of operations or cash flows." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/9qackc ********* 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 ***