/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/191024.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, October 24, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 213 Headlines 305 SMOKERS: Ziller Seeks Overtime Pay for Restaurant Staff AIRPORT RETAIL: Wilson Sues over Tip Pooling ALLERGAN INC: Zettlemoyer Sues over Misleading BIOCELL Disclosures ALTRIA GROUP: Pomerantz Law Files Class Action Lawsuit AMERICAN DIRECTIONS: Removes Hender Suit to E.D. California ANNIE'S HOMEGROWN: Mislabels Vanilla Ice Cream, Housell Suit Says APEX ENVIRONMENTAL: Sutton Files Class Suit in S.D. Ohio AT DAVIE LLC: Illegally Sent Unsolicited Text Msgs, Hill Says AXIOM DEBT: Canfield Sues Over Unauthorized Calls BAM! PIZZA: Hernandez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages BARBEQUE INTEGRATED: Elliot Seeks OT Pay for Hours Worked Over 40 BAUSCH HEALTH COMPANIES: BI-LO Hits Diabetes Meds Price-rigging BONITA SPRINGS LODGE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Auclair Says BP WEST: Consultant in Persian Suit May Receive FCO Materials CADENCE BANCORPORATION: Glancy Prongay Reminds of Nov. 15 Deadline CAPITAL ONE: Faces Mallh Suit in E.D. New York Over Data Breach CAPITAL ONE: Jacobs Suit Transferred to E.D. Virginia CAPITAL ONE: Most Wanted Motorsports Sues Over Data Breach CAPTAIN GEORGE'S: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages, Frykenberg Claims CCS FINANCIAL: Taylor Sues over Robocalls CENTERPLATE OF DELAWARE: Seeks Final OK of $5.4M Raquedan Suit Deal COASTAL CARPENTRY: Landon Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. COLE MT RIVERVIEW: Sued by Gomes Over Improper Towing of Vehicles CONN'S INC: Court Grants Leave to File Amended Edwards TCPA Suit CORECIVIC INC: Court Dismisses Ndambi FLSA Suit with Prejudice COVETRUS INC: Cops' Fund Hit Stock Drop From Merger Oversight COVETRUS INC: Schall Law Files Class Action Lawsuit CUYAHOGA, OH: Tarrify Sues over Tax Foreclosure Proceedings DAVID BRIAN BAILEY: Blair Seeks Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages DELTA DENTAL: Faces Simon and Simon Anti-trust Class Action DESIGNER BRANDS: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Austin Suit Claims DIRECTIONAL PROJECT: Dudley Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wage DISCOVER FINANCIAL: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Bonoan Claims DRILLING FLUID: West Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages DROPBOX INC: Faces Deinnocentis Suit Alleging IPO-Related Claims DUTCH GOLD: Faces Wolfe Suit in Eastern District of Pennsylvania ELDORADO RESORTS: Rosen Reminds Investors of Nov. 22 Deadline EPSON AMERICA: Sued by Mondigo for Disabling Printers Via Updates EQUESTRIAN SPORT: Stachurski Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages EZRIRX LLC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Barths Pharmacy Alleges FAIRLIFE, LLC: Abowd Sues over Mislabeled Milk Products FARMERS INSURANCE: Herzog Sues over Illegal Service Charge FCA US: Class of Vehicle Owners Certified in Victorino Suit FEDEX CORP: Farrell Seeks OT Pay for Package Handlers FEIZ ELECTRIC: Khalifehzadeth Sues Over Improper Minimum/OT Wages FORD MOTOR: Collins Sues Over Trucks' Faulty Tire Valves & Wheels GEICO GENERAL: Interlocutory Appeal in Green Suit Refused GLOBAL DISTRIBUTION: Certification of W-2 Technicians Class Sought GLOBAL RADAR: Sanders Seeks Final Approval of $3.65MM Settlement HEARTHSIDE FOOD: McVay Sues Over Improper Wages HENRY THAYER: Lisowski Files Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania HUMMINGBIRD FUNDS: Violates Alabama Usury Laws, Easley Says HUNGRY MAN INC: Castaneda Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. ILLINOIS: District Court Narrows Claims in Stewart's IDOC Lawsuit INFORMATICA LLC: Flynn Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay JEROME GOLDEN: Faces Jones Suit Alleging Violation of WARN Act JMZ PROPERTIES: Honeywell Files ADA Suit in S.D. Florida JOHN DOE: Brandi K. Stokes Files Civil Rights Suit in Texas JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Curry Sues over Talc Baby Powder Health Risks K1 HVAC INC: Denied Technicians Overtime Pay, Wage Statements KAAM ENTERPRISES: Morissette Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages LION OIL: Arkansas Ct. Denies Bid to Certify Class in Fuller Suit LONG ISLAND BAGEL: Guevara Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages LOWE'S HOME: Bid to Dismiss Houtman FLSA Suit Denied as Moot LUXOTTICA OF AMERICA: Vo Sues over Biometric Data Collection MASTER GROUP: Does not Properly Pay Drivers, Montemarano Suit Says MICROSOFT CORP: Khalid Appeals Dismissal of Antitrust Suit MILACRON HOLDINGS: Krieger Seeks More Info re Hillenbrand Merger MORGAN STANLEY: Chen Appeals Ruling in Harvey Suit to 9th Circuit MUHLENBERG COUNTY, KY: Violates FLSA and KWHA, Drake Suit Says MY FRENCH: Olsen Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York NASHVILLE TENNESSEE VENTURES: Fails to Pay OT Wages, McGill Says NATIONWIDE EXPRESS: Warfa Labor Suit Settlement Gets Prelim. OK PALMER ADMINISTRATIVE: Tompkins Sues over Automated Robocalls PATRIOT CAR: American Country Sues over Biometric Data Collection PILOT TRAVEL: Fails to Pay OT Wage Under NM Wage Act, Drasal Says PLAINS ALL AMERICAN: Newman Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wage PLI CHICAGO: Faces Glon Class Suit Alleging Violation of BIPA PRAIRIE PIZZA: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages to Delivery Drivers PROTALUS LLC: Saitta Files Class Action in Massachusetts PURDUE PHARMA: County of Kaua'i Opioid Suit Removed to D. Hawaii QG PRINTING: Deposition of Corporate Rep in Clark Labor Suit Okayed QUICK WEIGHT: Wriley Sues over Unwanted Misleading E-mails QUICKEN LOANS: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Ball Suit Claims QUINONEZ FOODSERVICE: Underpays Servers, Casas Suit Alleges RED LION HOTELS: Herbert Sues Over Unpaid Minimum Wages RESTORATION ROBOTICS: Bushansky Sues over Proposed Merger RUSHMORE SERVICE: Can Compel Arbitration in Jackson FDCPA Suit SAZON CUBAN: Leal-Rodriguez Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages SETERUS INC: Mich. Court Narrows Claims in Adams FDCPA Suit SMS PIPELINE: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages Under FLSA, Luker Says SOBRATO ORGANIZATION: Fails to Refund Security Deposit, Suit Says SPARK SPORTS: May Face Class Suit Over Rugby World Cup Coverage STATE COLLECTION: Thorson's Bid for Class Certification Stayed STERLING INVESTMENT: Coleman Hits Fund Mismanagement, Shady Sale SUBARU CORP: $6.2M Deal in Starlink Suit Has Interim Approval SUMMIT FUNDING: Faces Haug Suit in California Superior Court SURESCRIPTS: Intergrated Pharma Sues Over Anticompetitive Scheme SYDNEY OLYMPIC: Opal Developer Ecove Dragged Into Class Action TEACHERS FEDERAL: Faces Donnelly Suit in E.D. New York TENCENT MUSIC: Rosen Law Reminds Investors of Nov. 25 Deadline THERANOS: Founder's Unpaid Lawyers Quit THGPP LLC: Olsen Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York TOTAL GAS: City of Long Beach Alleges Stock Market Price-Fixing TOYOTA MOTOR: Muswaya Files Consumer Credit Suit in E.D. Texas TRAEGER PELLET: Yates Sues over Deceptive Wood Pellet Ads TWITTER INC: Doshier Suit Venue Moved to Calif. Northern District TXF LOGISTICS: Underpays Equipment Operators, Joe Alleges UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Ashford Says Registration Statement Misleading USA TECHNOLOGIES: Gouet Suit Transferred to E.D. Pennsylvania VANGUARD CONSTRUCTION: Zollo Seeks Proper Overtime Wages VIMEO INC: Faces Acaley Suit over Biometric Data Collection WAITR HOLDINGS: Schall Law Files Class Action Lawsuit WESTERN BEST LLC: Byars Sues Over Unpaid Overtime, Discrimination WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC: Musselwhite Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages WIDOW JANE: Boshnack Sues over Mislabeled Bourbon Whiskey WORLD ACCEPTANCE: Diaz Hits Misclassification, Denied Overtime Pay ********* 305 SMOKERS: Ziller Seeks Overtime Pay for Restaurant Staff ----------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTIAN ZILLER, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. 305 SMOKERS LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company, MIAMI SMOKERS LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company, and ANDRES BARRIENTOS, individually, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-24055-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Oct. 1, 2019), seeks unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, and the costs and reasonable attorneys' fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff and others similarly situated are current and former employees of Defendants who have worked as non-exempt restaurant and food preparation employees, however variously titled. They regularly worked in excess of 40 hours in one or more work weeks for Defendants within the three year statute of limitations period between October 2016 and the present. However, Defendants have failed to pay time and one-half wages for the overtime hours they worked.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Keith M. Stern, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF KEITH M. STERN, P.A. 80 S.W. 8th Street, Suite 2000 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 901-1379 E-mail: employlaw@keithstern.com AIRPORT RETAIL: Wilson Sues over Tip Pooling -------------------------------------------- SHARDE WILSON, the Plaintiff, vs. AIRPORT RETAIL MANAGEMENT, LLC, d/b/a CAFE INTERMEZZO, a Georgia Limited Liability Corporation, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-04408-MLB (N.D. Ga., Sept. 30, 2019), contends that the Defendant required Plaintiff to share her tips with other workers. Specifically, the Defendant required Plaintiff to tip out other "back of house," non-tipped employees such as dishwashers. The Defendant's dishwashers do not server or interact with customers. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a bartender from approximately October 2018 through the present. As a bartender, Plaintiff was responsible for crafting and serving beverages, explaining the menu and taking orders from guests, keeping the bar stocked and clean, and adhering to company standards for serving alcoholic beverages. The Plaintiff was also responsible for performing side work such as cutting lemons, making servers' drinks, and putting away liquor that comes in. The Plaintiff's side work accounted for approximately 50% of her weekly job duties. She typically worked 30-40 hours per week. At times she worked more than 40 hours per week. The Defendant paid Plaintiff an hourly wage less than federal minimum wage (approximately $5.60). In addition, Plaintiff earned tips as a bartender. The Defendant paid Plaintiff according to what is commonly referred to as the "tip credit." The Defendants' common policy violations have caused Plaintiff and the class members to receive less than minimum wage for all hours worked. Thus, the class members are similar with regard to their wages for the same reasons as Plaintiff, the lawsuit says. The Defendant owns and operates several restaurants known as Cafe Intermezzo with locations throughout Atlanta, Georgia as well as Tennessee and Texas. The Defendant employs several servers, bartenders, hosts, bussers, and runners.[BN] Counsel for the Plaintiffs are: Carlos Leach, Esq. THE LEACH FIRM, P.A. 1950 Lee Road, Suite 213 Winter Park, FL 32789 Telephone: (407) 574-4999 Facsimile: (833) 423-5864 E-mail: cleach@theleachfirm.com ALLERGAN INC: Zettlemoyer Sues over Misleading BIOCELL Disclosures ------------------------------------------------------------------ DANA ZETTLEMOYER., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. the Plaintiff, vs. ALLERGAN, INC. f/k/a INAMED CORPORATION, ALLERGAN USA, INC., and ALLERGAN plc., the Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-00866 (M.D. Tenn., Sept. 30, 2019), alleges that Allergan failed to comply with the conditions of Premarket Approval Applications (PMAs) and violated federal law by failing to fulfill its obligations to accurately and promptly report adverse events and continuing to sell recalled BIOCELL products. Allergan also did not report adverse events from its required post-market approval studies that would have suggested the recalled BIOCELL products have caused or contributed to deaths or serious bodily injury. After the FDA lifted the moratorium in 2006, Allergan continually received new information showing the connection between its textured breast implants and BIA-ALCL and that the risk associated with its BIOCELL breast implants was significantly greater than its competitors. 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 "a 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 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. Had Allergan complied with its obligations under federal law, the disclosure of the connection between BIOCELL breast implants and BIA-ALCL would have allowed patients including Plaintiff, and her treating physicians to make an informed decision regarding whether to use other implants, the lawsuit says. 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 McGhan Medical Corporation (McGhan), which later became Inamed Corporation (Inamed). In 2006, Allergan acquired Inamed.[BN] Counsel for the Plaintiff are: Jerry E. Martin, Esq. Seth M. Hyatt, Esq. BARRETT JOHNSON MARTIN & GARRISON, LLC Philips Plaza 414 Union Street, Suite 900 Nashville, TN 37219 Telephone: (6115) 244-2202 Facsimile: (615) 252-3798 E-mail: jmartin@barrettjohnston.com shyatt@barrettjohnston.com - and - Christina C. Sharp, Esq. Adam E. Polk, Esq. GIRARD SHARP LLP 601 California Street, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 981-4800 Facsimile: (415) 981-4846 E-mail: dsharp@girardsharp.com s apolk@girardsharp.com ALTRIA GROUP: Pomerantz Law Files Class Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------ Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Altria Group, Inc. (MO) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, for the Eastern District of New York, and indexed under 19-cv-05579, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired Altria securities between December 20, 2018 and September 24, 2019, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials. If you are a shareholder who purchased Altria within the class period, you have until December 2, 2019, to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased. Altria, through its subsidiaries, manufactures and sells cigarettes, smokeless products, and wine in the United States. The Company sells its tobacco products primarily to wholesalers, including distributors; large retail organizations, such as chain stores; and the armed services. On December 20, 2018, Altria issued a press release announcing that it had signed and closed a $12.8 billion investment in JUUL Labs, Inc. ("JUUL"), the purported U.S. leader in electronic vapor (colloquially called "e-vapor") products, including e-cigarettes (the "December 2018 Press Release"). According to the December 2018 Press Release, the service agreements related to the transaction would accelerate JUUL's mission to switch adult smokers to e-vapor products. Altria's investment represented a 35% economic interest in JUUL, valuing the company at $38 billion, with JUUL purportedly remaining fully independent. The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Altria had conducted insufficient due diligence into JUUL prior to the Company's $12.8 billion investment, or 35% stake, in JUUL; (ii) Altria consequently failed to inform investors, or account for, material risks associated with JUUL's products and marketing practices, and the true value of JUUL and its products; (iii) all of the foregoing, as well as mounting public scrutiny, negative publicity, and governmental pressure on e-vapor products and JUUL made it reasonably likely that Altria's investment in JUUL would have a material negative impact on the Company's reputation and operations; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. Following Altria's multi-billion dollar investment into JUUL, e-vapor products and JUUL increasingly became the subject of public and regulatory scrutiny throughout the country. Mounting skepticism, fear, and negative publicity in the media regarding e-cigarettes' safety led to increased scrutiny by government authorities into vaping products, and municipalities throughout the country began tightening sales practices related to those products. For example, on April 3, 2019, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") announced its investigation into nearly three dozen cases of people suffering from seizures after "vaping" (the act of consuming e-vapor products through inhalation). Between 2010 and 2019, the FDA said it received thirty-five reports of people, especially children and young adults, experiencing seizures after using e-cigarettes. On this news, Altria's stock price fell $2.71 per share, or 4.78%, to close at $53.98 per share on April 3, 2019. Then, on August 29, 2019, the Wall Street Journal reported that the U.S. Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") was investigating whether JUUL used influencers and other marketing practices to appeal e-cigarettes to minors. On this news, Altria's stock price fell $1.60 per share, or 3.49%, to close at $44.25 per share on August 29, 2019. Additionally, on August 30, 2019, both the FDA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ("CDC") announced that they were collaborating to investigate e-cigarette related cases of illnesses and "working tirelessly to investigate the distressing incidents of severe respiratory disease associated with use of e-cigarette products." On this news, Altria's stock price fell an additional $0.51 per share, or 1.15%, to close at $43.74 per share on August 30, 2019-a total loss of $2.11 per share, or 4.6%, since closing at $45.85 per share two trading days earlier on August 28, 2019. On September 11, 2019, news sources reported that the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump was preparing a ban on flavored e-cigarettes as federal agencies probed an outbreak of a lung problem that killed at least six people and reportedly led to the sickness of hundreds of others. President Trump and U.S. Health Secretary Alex Azar reportedly both confirmed that a ban is possible after the vaping issues are investigated. On September 12, 2019, during after-market hours, Reuters reported that, "[w]ithin weeks, New Jersey could become the latest state to restrict e-cigarette use, with the governor on Thursday launching a task force to find ways to curb vaping, linked by U.S. health officials to hundreds of respiratory illnesses and a half-dozen deaths." Additionally, that same day, the CDC reported that as of September 11, 2019, 380 confirmed cases, and probably cases of lung disease associated with vaping, had been reported by thirty-six states and the U.S. Virgin Islands, with six total deaths confirmed in six states. On this news, Altria's stock price fell $2.45 per share, or 5.51%, to close at $42.01 per share on September 13, 2019. On September 23, 2019, during after-market hours, news sources began reporting that federal prosecutors in California were conducting a criminal probe into JUUL. Finally, on September 25, 2019, Altria issued a press release announcing that Philip Morris had called off discussions of a $200 billion merger with Altria due to scrutiny of the vaping industry and the Company's 35% stake in market leader JUUL, which had announced the same day that it was the subject of another federal investigation. JUUL also announced its CEO would step down and the firm would stop all advertising in the U.S. On this news, Altria's stock price fell an additional $0.17 per share, or 0.42%, to close at $40.56 per share on September 25, 2019-a total loss of $0.32 per share, or 0.78%, since closing at $40.88 per share two trading days earlier on September 23, 2019. The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Paris, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomerantzlaw.com [GN] AMERICAN DIRECTIONS: Removes Hender Suit to E.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- The Defendants in the case of ALEXANDRA HENDER, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN DIRECTIONS WORKFORCE; AMERICAN DIRECTIONS GROUP, and Does 1 through 100, Defendants, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Shasta (Case No. 193030) to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on September 24, 2019. The clerk of court for the Eastern District of California assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-01951-KJM-DMC. American Directions Workforce is a survey research provider, serving research consultants, corporations and government to provide market research survey services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Saman M. Rejali, Esq. Christina N. Goodrich, Esq. K&L GATES LLP 10100 Santa Monica Boulevard, Eighth Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 552-5000 Facsimile: (310) 552-5001 E-mail: christina.goodrich@klgates.com saman.rejali@klgates.com ANNIE'S HOMEGROWN: Mislabels Vanilla Ice Cream, Housell Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Nancy Housell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Annie's Homegrown, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 7:19-cv-09670 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 18, 2019), seeks damages under consumer protection laws from the Defendant's misleading representations on their vanilla ice cream products' packaging. The Defendant sells ice cream products purporting to contain flavor from their natural characterizing flavor, vanilla, under their Annie's Homegrown brand ("Products"). The Products are misleading because they do not contain the amount, type and percentage of vanilla as a component of the flavoring in the product which is required and consistent with consumer expectations, the Plaintiff contends. The front label statements of "Vanilla Ice Cream" and "Organic Vanilla Ice Cream," shown in the below statement of identity and on the front label, are understood by consumers to identify a product where the characterizing flavor is vanilla, which contains a sufficient amount of vanilla and the flavor is supplied only from the vanilla plant. The representations of "vanilla ice cream" are unqualified and the labels and packaging do not disclose the addition of non-vanilla flavors as part of the Products. The Product's front label is misleading because it lacks any indication it is "flavored"--"naturally flavored" or "artificially flavored"--which gives consumers the impression they only contain flavor from the natural characterizing flavor of vanilla. The Defendant's listing of "natural flavor" is not another way to refer to the exclusively vanilla flavoring ingredients that consumers expect, and the law requires. These exclusively vanilla ingredients--vanilla flavoring, vanilla extract, etc.--differ only in that the former is at least 35 percent ethyl alcohol while the latter is less than this amount. If the Products contained any of the exclusively vanilla ingredients, there would not be a need to declare or identify "Natural Flavor" in the ingredient list. Additionally, it would be illogical to use a more expensive and higher quality ingredient (vanilla extract or vanilla flavoring) but designate it with a vague term perceived less favorably by consumers due to its opaque components, lower cost and ubiquity, the Plaintiff asserts. Had the Plaintiff and Class members known the truth about the Products, they would not have bought the Product or would have paid less for it. The Products contain other representations which are misleading and deceptive. As a result of the false and misleading labeling, the Products are sold at premium prices, approximately no less than $5.89, per 12 units contained in one package, excluding tax--compared to other similar products represented in a non-misleading way, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased one or more of the Products for personal use and consumption. Annie's Homegrown, Inc. manufactures, distributes, markets, labels and sells ice cream products purporting to contain flavor from their natural characterizing flavor, vanilla under their Annie's Homegrown brand.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Spencer Sheehan, Esq. SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 505 Northern Blvd., Suite 311 Great Neck, NY 11021 Telephone: (516) 303-0552 Facsimile: (516) 234-7800 E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com - and - Michael R. Reese, Esq. REESE LLP 100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor New York, NY 10025 Telephone: (212) 643-0500 Facsimile: (212) 253-4272 E-mail: mreese@reesellp.com APEX ENVIRONMENTAL: Sutton Files Class Suit in S.D. Ohio -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Apex Environmental LLC. The case is styled as James T Sutton on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Apex Environmental LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-04652-GCS-KAJ (S.D. Ohio, Oct. 18, 2019). The nature of suit is stated as Other Real Property. Apex Environmental, LLC provides waste management services. The Company offers landfill, disposal, construction, and demolition of waste.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel P Petrov, Esq. Thorman Petrov Group Co., LPA 50 E. Washington St. Cleveland, OH 44022 Phone: (216) 621-3500 Fax: (216) 621-3422 Email: dpetrov@tpgfirm.com AT DAVIE LLC: Illegally Sent Unsolicited Text Msgs, Hill Says ------------------------------------------------------------- ADRIANA HILL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AT DAVIE LLC d/b/a AQUA-TOTS SWIM SCHOOLS DAVIE, Case No. 0:19-cv-62490-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Oct. 6, 2019), alleges that the Defendant caused thousands of unsolicited text messages to be sent to the cellular telephones of the Plaintiff and Class Members, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, causing them injuries, including invasion of their privacy, aggravation, annoyance, intrusion on seclusion, trespass, and conversion. The Defendant is a Michigan limited liability company, with a principal address in Davie, Florida. The Defendant is an organization that specializes in the provision of swimming instructions and/or coaching to children and young adults for profit. To solicit new clients, the Defendant engages in unsolicited marketing with no regard for privacy rights of the recipients of those messages, the Plaintiff contends.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq. Thomas J. Patti, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 907-1136 Facsimile: (855) 529-9540 E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com tom@jibraellaw.com AXIOM DEBT: Canfield Sues Over Unauthorized Calls ------------------------------------------------- DANIEL CANFIELD, an individual, REGAN SMITH, an individual, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AXIOM DEBT LLC, a California limited liability company, Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-02015-MMA-JLB (S.D. Cal., Oct. 20, 2019), seeks to stop the Defendant's illegal practice of making unauthorized calls that play prerecorded voice messages to telephones of consumers nationwide, and to obtain redress for all persons injured by its conduct. As a primary part of marketing their products and services, the Defendant and their agents placed thousands of automated calls employing a prerecorded voice message to consumers' phones nationwide. Unfortunately, the Defendant did not obtain prior express written consent to place these calls and, therefore, are in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The TCPA targets unauthorized calls exactly like the ones alleged in this case, based on Defendant's use of a prerecorded voice called to consumers' cell phones without their consent. By placing the calls at issue, the Defendant has violated the privacy and statutory rights of the Plaintiffs and the Class and caused them to suffer actual and statutorily recognized harm, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs, therefore, seek an injunction requiring the Defendant to stop clogging consumers' cell phones with unwanted prerecorded messages, as well as an award of actual and statutory damages to the Class members, together with costs and reasonable attorneys' fees. Daniel Canfield is a natural person and is a citizen of Hennepin County, Minnesota. Regan Smith is a natural person and a citizen of Omaha, Douglas County, Nebraska. Axiom sells debt refinancing services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mark L. Javitch, Esq. JAVITCH LAW OFFICE 480 S. Ellsworth Ave. San Mateo, CA 94401 Telephone: 650-781-8000 Facsimile: 650-648-0705 E-mail: mark@javitchlawoffice.com BAM! PIZZA: Hernandez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- MARIA HERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. BAM! PIZZA MANAGEMENT, INC. d/b/a DOMINO'S PIZZA, RICHARD HAFNER, JOSEPH ROMANO, and BRIAN BAILEY individually, Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-02473-E (N.D. Tex., Oct. 18, 2019), is brought as a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime hours owed to the Plaintiff and similarly situated delivery drivers employed by the Defendants at their Domino's stores. The Defendants employ delivery drivers who use their own automobiles to deliver pizza and other food items to their customers. However, instead of reimbursing delivery drivers for the reasonably approximate costs of the business use of their vehicles, the Defendants use a flawed method to determine reimbursement rates that provides such an unreasonably low rate beneath any reasonable approximation of the expenses they incur that the drivers' unreimbursed expenses cause their wages to fall below the federal minimum wage during some or all workweeks, the Plaintiff alleges. She contends that the result of the Defendants' delivery driver reimbursement policy is a reimbursement of much less than a reasonable approximation of their drivers' automobile expenses. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from February 2018 to March 2019 as a delivery driver at their Domino's store. The Defendants operate several Domino's Pizza franchise stores.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Forester, Esq. FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC 400 N. St. Paul Street, Suite 700 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 210-2100 Facsimile: (214) 346-5909 E-mail: jay@foresterhaynie.com BARBEQUE INTEGRATED: Elliot Seeks OT Pay for Hours Worked Over 40 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Brigida Elliott, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Barbeque Integrated, Inc. and Sun Capital Partners, Inc., Ryan J. Esko Sr. and Nicole M. Milnthorpe, individually, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-62426 (S.D. Fla., September 30, 2019), seeks unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and all other applicable relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act, Massachusetts Minimum Wage Act and Massachusetts common law. Defendants operate as "Smokey Bones Bar & Fire Grill," where Elliot worked as a kitchen manager at their 431 Middlesex Rd., Tyngsborough, Massachusetts, location. Florida-based Barbeque Integrated, Inc., is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Sun Capital Partners, Inc. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Jay N. Michelman, Esq. MICHELMAN LAW OFFICES 1333 East Columbus Avenue Springfield, MA 01101 Telephone: (413) 737-1166 Facsimile: (413) 736-0429 Email: michelmanlaw@hotmail.com BAUSCH HEALTH COMPANIES: BI-LO Hits Diabetes Meds Price-rigging --------------------------------------------------------------- BI-LO, LLC and Winn-Dixie Logistics, Inc., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Bausch Health Companies Inc., Salix Pharmaceuticals, Ltd., Salix Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Santarus, Inc., Assertio Therapeutics, Inc., Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Lupin Ltd., Defendants, Case 19-cv-06138 (N.D. Cal., September 27, 2019) seeks to recover damages, interest, costs of suit and reasonable attorneys' fees resulting from anticompetitive foreclosure of Glumetza in violation of the Sherman Act. BI-LO, LLC and Winn-Dixie Logistics, Inc. purchased branded Glumetza from QK Healthcare, Inc. and is the assignee of the claims of QK Healthcare, Inc., which, during the class period, purchased branded Glumetza directly from Santarus, Salix, and/or Valeant and/or generic Glumetza directly from Lupin. Defendants are pharmaceutical companies involved in the manufacture of Glumetza, a diabetes medication used to prevent and control high blood sugar. Metformin is the generic bio-equivalent of Glumetza.[BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Shana E. Scarlett, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202 Berkeley, CA 94710 Telephone: (510) 725-3000 Facsimile: (510) 725-3001 Email: shanas@hbsslaw.com - and - Steve D. Shadowen, Esq. Matthew C. Weiner, Esq. HILLIARD & SHADOWEN LLP 1135 W. 6th Street, Suite 125 Austin, TX 78703 Telephone: (855) 344-3298 Facsimile: (361) 882-3015 Email: steve@hilliardshadowenlaw.com matt@hilliardshadowenlaw.com - and - Thomas M. Sobol, Esq. Lauren G. Barnes, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 55 Cambridge Parkway, Suite 301 Cambridge, MA 02142 Telephone: (617) 482-3700 Facsimile: (617) 482-3003 Email: lauren@hbsslaw.com tom@hbsslaw.com BONITA SPRINGS LODGE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Auclair Says ------------------------------------------------------------- JOANN AUCLAIR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BONITA SPRINGS LODGE 2753 BENEVOLENT AND PROTECTIVE ORDER OF ELKS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-00697-SPC-MRM (M.D. Fla., Sept. 23, 2019) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff Auclair was employed by the Defendant as hourly paid, non-exempt employee. Bonita Springs Lodge 2753 Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks of the United States Of America, Inc. is a Florida non-profit corporation. The Plaintiff is represented by: Bill B. Berke, Esq. BERKE LAW FIRM, P.A. 4423 Del Prado Blvd. S. Cape Coral, FL 33904 Telephone: (239) 549-6689 E-mail: billbberke@gmail.com BP WEST: Consultant in Persian Suit May Receive FCO Materials ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, PERSIAN GULF INC., Plaintiff, v. BP WEST COAST PRODUCTS LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:15-cv-01749-L-AGS (S.D. Cal.), Judge M. James Lorenz of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California (i) granted the Plaintiff's motion to reconsider the Magistrate Judge's July 3, 2019 discovery order, and (ii) ordered the Defendants to permit disclosure to consultant Cody Rosenfield of discovery materials designated as "confidential - for counsel only." The putative class action alleges violation of antitrust laws. Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the discovery order. The Defendants filed a joint opposition and the Plaintiff replied. The parties entered into a stipulated protective order. As relevant to Plaintiff's Motion, the Protective Order allows a party to designate discovery materials as "confidential - for counsel only ("FCO")." The Protective Order was signed prospectively and without prior review of the discovery materials because materials to be exchanged throughout the course of the litigation between the Parties may contain confidential commercial information, among other things. Accordingly, the initial FCO designations were left to the producing party to determine only if, in the good faith belief of such Producing Party and its counsel, the information is among that considered to be most sensitive by the designating party, including but not limited to highly sensitive commercial information. If materials were so designated, their sharing was limited to certain categories of individuals who agreed to be bound by the Protective Order. At issue in the dispute is disclosure of certain Defendants' FCO-designated materials to the Plaintiff's consultant Cody Rosenfield. The Plaintiff informed the Defendants it intended to disclose FCO-designated materials to Mr. Rosenfield. The Defendants objected on the grounds that they did not consider Mr. Rosenfield to be an expert, that for the same reason the Plaintiff would not be prejudiced by inability to disclose FCO-designated documents to him, and that he poses an undue risk of public disclosure of the FCO-designated documents notwithstanding his signing of Exhibit A to the Protective Order. On July 3, 2019, the Magistrate Judge held a hearing and denied the Plaintiff's motion. The issues raised in the Defendants' May 3 letter were argued before the Magistrate Judge and are raised in opposition to the Plaintiff's Motion. The issue raised by the Plaintiff's Motion is disclosure to its consultant, Cody Rosenfield, who is not affiliated with the Defendants' competitors. The Defendants are concerned that Mr. Rosenfield will disclose their sensitive business information because he had previously worked for and continues to have ties with consumer groups seeking greater transparency and more government oversight of their operations. They further contend that Mr. Rosenfield does not qualify as an expert on the issues of gasoline pricing because he lacks a graduate degree or any degree in finance or economics. Judge Lorenz finds that the Defendants have not shown that Mr. Rosenfield is more likely than other independent experts to violate the Protective Order, whether intentionally or inadvertently. As is apparent from the Plaintiff's complaint, Mr. Rosenfield has conducted extensive research into California gasoline market. His research and knowledge in this area were deemed sufficient for the Petroleum Market Advisory Committee of the California Energy Commission to include his presentation at its Feb. 8, 2016 meeting, which is relevant time for the action. Finally, it is apparent from the record that the Plaintiff has relied on Mr. Rosenfield's research of the California gasoline market since the inception of the case. Although it may well be true that the Plaintiff could locate another consultant regarding the gasoline market in general, finding one with detailed knowledge of the California market, the focus of the Plaintiff's claims, would be a much harder task. At this stage of litigation, forcing the Plaintiff to search for a comparable replacement would unduly impair the prosecution of its case. For the stated reasons, Judge Lorenz granted the Plaintiff's motion. The Court ruled that upon proof that Mr. Rosenfield signed Exhibit A to the Protective Order and on the terms provided in Paragraph 8(d) of the Protective Order, the Defendants will permit disclosure to Mr. Rosenfield of discovery materials designated as "confidential - for counsel only." A full-text copy of the District Court's Sept. 27, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/7cQiqG from Leagle.com. Persian Gulf Inc., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Alexandra S. Bernay -- xanb@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, Armen Zohrabian, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Carissa J. Dolan, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, LLP, Carmen A. Medici -- cmedici@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, David William Mitchell -- davidm@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Jennifer N. Caringal -- jcaringal@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman and Dowd LLP, Lonnie A. Browne, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, Patrick J. Coughlin -- patc@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Steven Wayne Pepich, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd & Jason S. Hartley, Hartley LLP. BP West Coast Products LLC, Defendant, represented by Michael P. Murtagh, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, Robert Andrew Sacks , Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, Diane Lee McGimsey, Sullivan and Cromwell LLP, Jackson Samuel Trugman, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP & Robert M.W. Smith, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP. Chevron U.S.A. Inc., Defendant, represented by Daniel Glen Swanson -- dswanson@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn and Crutcher, David S. Han -- dhan@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, Steven Eugene Sletten -- ssletten@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn and Crutcher & Abiel Garcia, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher. Tesoro Refining & Marketing Company LLC, Defendant, represented by Cheryl L. O'Connor, Jones Day, David Craig Kiernan -- dkiernan@jonesday.com -- Jones Day, Eric Patrick Enson, Jones Day, Rasha Gerges Shields, c/o Jones Day & Robert A. Mittelstaedt -- ramittelstaedt@jonesday.com -- Jones Day. Equilon Enterprises LLC, doing business as Shell Oil Products US, Defendant, represented by Colin Charles West -- colin.west@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis & Bockius, Kent Michael Roger -- kroger@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Susan J. Welch -- susan.welch@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Brian Ming Hom, Morgan Lewis & Bockius, Minna Lo Naranjo, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius & Rishi Pankaj Satia, Morgan Lewis & Bockius. ExxonMobil Refining & Supply Company, Defendant, represented by Charles Coleman Lifland -- clifland@omm.com -- O'Melveny and Myers, Dawn Sestito -- dsestito@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers, Frederick William Kosmo, Jr. -- fkosmo@wilsonturnerkosmo.com -- Wilson Turner Kosmo LLP, Hubert Kim, Wilson Petty Kosmo and Turner, Michelle Kaemmerling, Wright Lindsey & Jennings, pro hac vice & Robin Assaf Wofford -- rwofford@wilsonturnerkosmo.com -- Wilson Turner Kosmo LLP. Alon USA Energy, Inc., Defendant, represented by Carl W. Hittinger , Baker & Hostetler, pro hac vice, Jeanne-Michele Mariani, Baker Hostetler, pro hac vice, Jeffry William Duffy, Baker & Hostetler, pro hac vice, Michael R. Matthias, Baker & Hostetler LLP & Tyson Herrold, Baker & Hostetler, pro hac vice. Valero Marketing and Supply Company, Defendant, represented by Gerald E. Hawxhurst, Arya Towfighi, Hawxhurst Harris LLP & Kyle Foltyn-Smith, Crone Hawxhurst LLP. Phillips 66, Defendant, represented by Joshua D. Lichtman, Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP, Layne E. Kruse -- layne.kruse@nortonrosefulbright.com -- Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP, pro hac vice & Michelle L. Mello, Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP. CADENCE BANCORPORATION: Glancy Prongay Reminds of Nov. 15 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------------ Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the upcoming November 15, 2019 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the class action filed on behalf of Cadence Bancorporation (NYSE: CADE) investors who purchased securities between July 23, 2018 and July 22, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Lesley Portnoy, Esquire, at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com. On July 22, 2019, the Company disclosed that "higher credit costs including net charge-offs of $18.6 million and loan provisions of $28.9 million" negatively impacted its second quarter 2019 financial results. On this news, shares of Cadence fell $3.75 per share, or over 19%, to close at $15.86 per share on July 22, 2019, thereby injuring investors. The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls to assess credit risk; (2) that, as a result, certain of the Company’s loans posed an increased risk of loss; (3) that, as a result, the Company was reasonably likely to incur significant losses for certain loans; (4) that the Company’s financial results would suffer a material adverse impact; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants’ positive statements about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Cadence securities during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than November 15, 2019 to request appointment as lead plaintiff in this putative class action lawsuit. To be a member of the class action you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the class action. If you wish to learn more about this class action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to the pending class action lawsuit, please contact Lesley Portnoy, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased. Contact: Lesley Portnoy, Esq. Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles Tel: 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224 Website: www.glancylaw.com E-mail: shareholders@glancylaw.com lportnoy@glancylaw.com [GN] CAPITAL ONE: Faces Mallh Suit in E.D. New York Over Data Breach --------------------------------------------------------------- VICTOR MALLH and JONATHAN QUINTEVIS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION, CAPITAL ONE, N.A., CAPITAL ONE BANK (USA), N.A., AMAZON.COM, INC., and AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02932-AJT-JFA (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 18, 2019), is a nationwide class action lawsuit brought on behalf of all persons whose personal identifying financial information was provided to Capital One and was compromised as a result of a data breach disclosed on July 29, 2019. Social security numbers, as well as the other identifying information that was taken from the Defendants' databases, are among the most highly sensitive information that consumers possess. The theft of this information may allow a thief to impersonate a consumer and obtain access to nearly every account that consumer owns. The Plaintiffs and the Class are now subject to serious and real risk that highly confidential information they shared with Capital One, in reliance on Capital One's assurances of security, will be used to their detriment, the Plaintiffs assert. Although the Defendants knew about the data breach, they did not disclose the breach to the public until July 29, 2019, ten days after their investigation. As a result, the Plaintiffs and the Class remained ignorant that their sensitive information was compromised and were unable to take any actions to protect themselves. Despite a similar breach in 2014, when an employee gained unauthorized access to consumer accounts, the Defendants claimed they did not know about the breach, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs provided sensitive information to the Defendants and have been a credit card customer for Capital One. Capital One Financial Corporation, through its subsidiaries, including Capital One, N.A., and Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., is one of the largest credit card issuers in the United States. Capital One is also one of the top 10 largest banks based on deposits, serving approximately 45 million customer accounts.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Orin Kurtz, Esq. GARDY & NOTIS, LLP Tower 56 126 East 56th Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 905-0509 Facsimile: (212) 905-0508 E-mail: mgardy@gardylaw.com okurtz@gardylaw.com CAPITAL ONE: Jacobs Suit Transferred to E.D. Virginia ----------------------------------------------------- The class action styled as Jeffrey Jacobs individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Capital One Financial Corporation, Capital One, N.A., Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-03217 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on Oct. 18, 2019, and assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-02942-AJT-JFA. The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property. Capital One Financial Corporation is a bank holding company specializing in credit cards, auto loans, banking, and savings accounts, headquartered in McLean, Virginia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lisa Marie La Fornara, Esq. Lynn A. Toops, Esq. Richard E. Shevitz, Esq. COHEN & MALAD One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Phone: (317) 636-6481 Fax: (317) 636-2593 Email: llafornara@cohenandmalad.com ltoops@cohenandmalad.com rshevitz@cohenandmalad.com The Defendants are represented by: James J. Morrissey, Esq. Jeffrey D. Pilgrim, Esq. PILGRIM CHRISTAKIS 321 N. Clark St. 26th Floor Chicago, IL 60654 Phone: (312) 280-0441 Email: jmorrissey@pilgrimchristakis.com jpilgrim@pilgrimchristakis.com CAPITAL ONE: Most Wanted Motorsports Sues Over Data Breach ---------------------------------------------------------- MOST WANTED MOTORSPORTS LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION; AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC.; PAIGE A. THOMPSON, and DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02936-AJT-JFA (W.D. Wash., Oct. 19, 2019), is a class action lawsuit brought against the Defendants due to their failure to protect, or the theft of, the confidential information of the Plaintiff and many millions of other individuals and business entities. On July 29, 2019, it was revealed that AWS's and Capital One's failure to protect Capital One's customers' personal information resulted in the exposure of over 100 million individuals' Personal Information. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants failed to provide the level of data protection that they expressly promised, thus, exposing millions of individuals' Personal Information to an increased risk of misuse by unauthorized third parties. In order to apply for Capital One's banking services, an applicant must provide certain personal information. Capital One evidently stores this information indefinitely, on the "cloud," using AWS's cloud computing services. Defendant Ms. Thompson was able to exploit glaring vulnerabilities in AWS's systems to perpetrate the Data Breach at issue. Capital One expressly promises it is "committed to protecting your personal and financial information. If we collect identifying information from you, we will protect that information with controls based upon internationally recognized security standards, regulations, and industry-based best practices." Had Defendant Capital One informed its customers that it would use inadequate security measures, consumers (such as Plaintiff and members of the Class) would not have applied for credit cards with Capital One, says the complaint. Capital One's and AWS's failure to implement adequate security protocols jeopardized millions of consumers' Personal Information, fell well short of its promises, and diminished the value of the services provided. Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings suit on behalf of itself and all other similarly situated business entities, to seek redress for the Defendants' unlawful conduct. Most Wanted Motorsports LLC, a Kansas Limited Liability Company, applied for a Capital One Card in April of 2019, and was approved. Capital One is one of the largest banks in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Cari Campen Laufenberg, Esq. Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Esq. T. David Copley, Esq. KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-1900 Facsimile: (206) 623-3384 E-mail: claufenberg@kellerrohrback.com lsarko@kellerrohrback.com dcopley@kellerrohrback.com - and - Christopher Springer, Esq. KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. 801 Garden Street, Suite 301 Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Telephone: (805) 456-1496 Facsimile: (805) 456-1497 E-mail: cspringer@kellerrohrback.com - and - Cornelius P. Dukelow, Esq. ABINGTON COLE + ELLERY 320 South Boston Avenue, Suite 1130 Tulsa, OK 74103 Telephone: (918) 588-3400 Facsimile: (800) 969-6570 E-mail: cdukelow@abingtonlaw.com CAPTAIN GEORGE'S: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages, Frykenberg Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Dianna Frykenberg, On behalf of herself and those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Captain George's of South Carolina, LP; Captain George's of South Carolina, Inc.; Pitsilides Management, LLC; George Pitsilides; Sharon Pitsilides; and Doe Corporations 1-4; Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-02971-MGL (D.S.C, Oct. 18, 2019), seeks monetary, declaratory, and equitable relief arising from the Defendants' failure to compensate the Plaintiff and other employees with minimum wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act. Ms. Frykenberg typically worked 40 hours per week for the Defendants. She was required to work some of the time off the clock. When she was approaching 40 hours, the Defendants' managers instructed her and others to "manage their hours," which meant to clock out and keep working, she alleges. Ms. Frykenberg also contends that she tipped out 3% of her sales to the restaurant on each shift as "house tip out," and the Defendants distributed some or all of her tips to non-tipped employees, and/or employees not permitted to participate in the tip pool. She also alleges that unbeknownst to her, the Defendants also retained some of her tips themselves. Dianna Frykenberg worked as a server at the Myrtle Beach Captain George's restaurant from April 2013 to September 2018. The Defendants have operated the Myrtle Beach Captain George's restaurant.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Glenn V. Ohanesian, Esq. OHANESIAN & OHANESIAN 504 North Kings Highway P. O. Box 2433 Myrtle Beach, SC 29578 Telephone: 843-626-7193 Facsimile: 843-492-5164 E-mail: OhanesianLawFirm@cs.com - and - Andrew Biller, Esq. Andrew Kimble, Esq. Philip Krzeski, Esq. BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC 3825 Edwards Road, Suite 650 Cincinnati, OH 45209 Telephone: 513-715-8711 Facsimile: 614-340-4620 E-mail: akimble@billerkimble.com lroselle@billerkimble.com pkrzeski@billerkimble.com - and - C. Ryan Morgan, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 20 N. Orange Ave., 14th Floor Orlando, FL 32802-4979 Telephone: (407) 420-1414 Facsimile: (407) 245-3401 E-mail: rmorgan@forthepeople.com - and - Andrew Frisch, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 600 N. Pine Island Road, Suite 400 Plantation, FL 33324-1311 Telephone: 954-318-0268 Facsimile: 954-327-3013 E-mail: afrisch@forthepeople.com CCS FINANCIAL: Taylor Sues over Robocalls ----------------------------------------- The case captioned as ERICKA TAYLOR, individually and on behalf all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CCS FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-12045-JGD (D. Mass., Oct. 1, 2019), involves activities conducted by Defendant in contacting individuals believed to be its debtors through use of pre-recorded messages and automated calls in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff brings the action for injunctive relief and statutory damages arising from the illegal activities of Defendant, who contacted the putative class members despite the fact that they had no relationship with Defendant, the lawsuit says. Ericka Taylor is an individual citizen of the State of Ohio residing in the City of Cleveland. Credit Collection Services, known as CCS for short, is one of the largest debt collection agencies in the US.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the Proposed Class are: Anthony Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Telephone: (508) 221-1510 E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com - and - Gary M. Klinger, Esq. KOZONIS & KLINGER, LTD. 4849 N. Milwaukee Ave., Ste. 300 Chicago, IL 60630 Telephone: 312-283-3814 Facsimile: 773-496-8617 E-mail: gklinger@kozonislaw.com CENTERPLATE OF DELAWARE: Seeks Final OK of $5.4M Raquedan Suit Deal ------------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Monique Raquedan and Ronald Martinez and Defendant Centerplate of Delaware, Inc., jointly move the Court for final approval of the Parties' Third Amended Settlement Agreement filed in the lawsuit entitled RODRIGO RAQUEDAN, et al. v. CENTERPLATE OF DELAWARE, INC., et al., Case No. 5:17-cv-03828-LHK (N.D. Cal.). Among other things, the Settlement provides for a Maximum Settlement Amount of $5,450,000; a Class Representative Service Payment of $5,000 for each Plaintiff; a Class Counsel's Fees and Expenses Payment of up to $ 1,851,667; and an expected per-Class Member Settlement Share of $ 291.78. Pursuant to the Settlement terms and the Court's order granting preliminary approval, this Class was certified: All non-exempt employees of Centerplate who worked for Centerplate in the State of California at any time from May 24, 2013, to the earlier of (i) the date that the District Court grants preliminary approval of the Settlement, or (ii) March 31, 2019, excluding those individuals who already have resolved all the claims asserted in the Action, whether by settlement or adjudication. The Court will commence a hearing on November 21, 2019 at 1:30 p.m., to consider the Motion.[CC] Plaintiffs Rodrigo Raquedan, Monique Raquedan and Ronald Martinez are represented by: Shaun Setareh, Esq. Thomas Segal, Esq. Farrah Grant, Esq. SETAREH LAW GROUP 315 S. Beverly Drive, Suite 315 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (310) 888-7771 Facsimile: (310) 888-0109 E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com thomas@setarehlaw.com farrah@setarehlaw.com Defendant Centerplate of Delaware, Inc., is represented by: Jeffrey D. Wohl, Esq. Zina Deldar, Esq. Jana B. Fitzgerald, Esq. PAUL HASTINGS LLP 101 California Street, 48th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 856-7000 Facsimile: (415) 856-7100 E-mail: jeffwohl@paulhastings.com zinadeldar@paulhastings.com janafitzgerald@paulhastings.com COASTAL CARPENTRY: Landon Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against LAGRASSA, THOMAS J. The case is styled as LANDON, ALLISON O/B/O HERSELF AND OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff v. LAGRASSA, THOMAS J. DBA COASTAL CARPENTRY, Defendant, Case No. 616800/2019 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Suffolk Cty., Oct. 18, 2019). The case type is stated as "E-FILED CONTRACT CASE". COASTAL CARPENTRY is a privately held company in San Diego, CA doing business for 12 years.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: FORCHELLI DEEGAN TARRANA, LLP 333 EARLE OVINGTON BLVD, #1010 UNIONDALE, NY 11553 Phone: (516) 248-1700 COLE MT RIVERVIEW: Sued by Gomes Over Improper Towing of Vehicles ----------------------------------------------------------------- FRED GOMES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COLE MT RIVERVIEW FL LLC, Defendant, Case No. 97522767 (Fla. Cir., Hillsborough Cty., Oct. 18, 2019), arises from the Defendant's non-consensual towing of the Plaintiff's vehicles. The Plaintiff, as the owner of SFV LOGISTICS LLC, was the registered owner and/or lessee of a 2004 Volvo ("Vehicle 1"), VIN No. 4V4NC9TK24N348216 and of a Hyundai Steel Industrial Trailer ("Vehicle 2"), VIN No. 3H3V532C0DT20540. COLE MT RIVERVIEW FL LLC operated, managed, and/or was responsible for managing, the shopping center commonly known as Summerfield Crossing, located in Riverview, Hillsborough County, Florida ("Property"). Florida Statutes Section 715.07 governs non-consensual tows from private property throughout Florida, and the tow of the Plaintiff's vehicle is subject to the conditions and requirements of the statute. Prior to August 18, 2019, COLE MT entered into a towing agreement with TARGET RECOVERY TOWING authorizing TARGET R/T to non-consensually remove vehicles from the Property. On August 18, 2019, the Plaintiff parked Vehicle 1 with Vehicle 2 attached to Vehicle 1, at the Property. On August 18, 2019, TARGET R/T towed Vehicle 1 and Vehicle 2 from the Property to the TARGET R/T storage facility located at 11954 US Hwy 41 S, in Gibsonton, Florida. TARGET R/T non-consensually towed GOMES' vehicle from the Property pursuant to a contract and/or at the request, direction and/or with the prior consent of COLE MT. Prior to the non-consensual tow of the Vehicle, COLE MT failed to display Tow Away signs within 5 feet of any public right-of-way line at the Property. Additionally, COLE MT failed to display a Tow Away sign including the required notice language. COLE MT's failure to strictly comply with Florida Statutes Section 715.07 renders the tow of the Vehicles, and the tow of the vehicles belonging to the proposed members of the class improper, the Plaintiff alleges. Therefore, because COLE MT improperly caused GOMES' vehicle to be towed, COLE MT violated Florida Statutes Section 715.07 and is, therefore, liable to GOMES and the other signage class members for the cost of removal, transportation, and storage of their respective vehicles; any damages resulting from the removal, transportation, or storage of their vehicles; attorney's fees; and court costs, says the complaint. COLE MT is a Foreign Profit Corporation operating and/or managing the Summerfield Crossing Shopping Center located in Riverview, Hillsborough County, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Felipe B. Fulgencio, Esq. Courtney A. Umberger, Esq. Iasia B. Ward, Esq. FULGENCIO LAW, PLLC 105 S. Edison Avenue Tampa, FL 33606 Telephone: 813.463.0123 Facsimile: 813.670.1288 E-mail: Felipe@FulgencioLaw.com CU@FulgencioLaw.com IWard@FulgencioLaw.com CONN'S INC: Court Grants Leave to File Amended Edwards TCPA Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, FRANCINE EDWARDS, Plaintiff, v. CONN'S, INC. and CONN APPLIANCES, INC., Defendants. RAC ACCEPTANCE EAST, LLC d/b/a ACCEPTANCENOW, Intervenor, Case No. 2:18-cv-01998-APG-BNW (D. Nev.), Judge Andrew P. Gordon of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada (i) denied as moot Intervenor AcceptanceNOW's motion to compel arbitration; (ii) granted Edwards' motion for leave to file an amended complaint; and (iii) denied Conn Appliances' motions to dismiss, motion to stay, and motion to strike. Plaintiff Edwards brings a putative class action against Conn's and Conn Appliances for alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"). Edwards contends that Conn Appliances called her cellular phone on numerous occasions without her consent seeking payment for a laptop computer that she rented from AcceptanceNOW in one of Conn Appliances' stores. Conn Appliances moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that (1) the TCPA is an unconstitutional content-based restriction on speech, and (2) Edwards has not plausibly alleged Conn Appliances called her to collect a debt given that the debt is owed to AcceptanceNOW, not Conn Appliances. Conn Appliances also moved to dismiss the non-Nevada putative class members' claims for lack of personal jurisdiction. It moves to strike Edwards' proposed class definition as an improper failsafe that would overburden discovery proceedings, as well as paragraphs 76 through 81 of her complaint as irrelevant and prejudicial. And it moves to stay the case pending the outcome of the Ninth Circuit decision in Gallion v. Charter Communications, arguing the decision will determine the TCPA's constitutionality. Thereafter, Edwards moved to amend her complaint, arguing that the amendment would clarify her TCPA claims and add more factual detail. The United States may intervene in the case, depending on Judge Gordon's decision regarding the motion to amend. AcceptanceNOW (through RAC Acceptance East, LLC) moved to intervene in the case, which the Judge granted as unopposed. AcceptanceNOW then moved to compel arbitration, arguing it has a valid arbitration agreement with Edwards that covers the claims at issue. First, Judge Gordon finds no evidence that the proposed amended complaint was made in bad faith in an attempt to prolong litigation by adding new baseless theories. The proposed amended complaint asserts plausible claims of TCPA violations based on Edwards' allegations that Conn Appliances continued to call her without her consent and after she expressly told it to stop calling. Next, Judge Gordon finds that Edwards has plausibly alleged that Conn Appliances violated the TCPA. While Conn Appliances adamantly denies calling her, that is a question of fact that the Judge does not resolve at this stage of the proceedings. It is Edwards' first request to amend. Because discovery is stayed, the proposed amended complaint does not cause any undue delay. And Conn Appliances does not identify any prejudice. Accordingly, Judge Gordon granted Edwards' motion for leave to file an amended complaint. Conn Appliances moved to strike Edwards' proposed class definition as an improper failsafe that would overburden discovery proceedings. Because he granted Edwards' motion to amend her complaint, which includes new proposed class definitions, Judge Gordon denied this part of the motion as moot. Conn Appliances also moved to strike paragraphs 76 through 81 of the complaint, arguing that the material is impertinent and prejudicial. Those paragraphs are now reflected in the proposed amended complaint at paragraphs 121 through 126. Judge Gordon holds that the paragraphs provide information on the type of telephone dialer system Conn Appliances uses or at least has used in the past. The information strengthens the veracity of Edwards' claim that Conn Appliances called her using an ATDS. Determining whether an ATDS was used is relevant to whether a TCPA violation occurred. And while Conn Appliances argues that the information is prejudicial, it is doubtful that the amended complaint would be read to the jury. To the extent Conn Appliances argues prejudice unless the quote is attributed to the claimant's counsel, it will not be difficult to determine where the language came from: Edwards includes the transcript of the arbitration proceeding as an exhibit to her proposed amended complaint. Judge Gordon denied the motion because there is no basis to strike the allegations. A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 27, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/jqGjs6 from Leagle.com. Francine Edwards, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by William Craft Hughes -- firm@hughesellzey.com -- HUGHES ELLZEY, LLP, pro hac vice, Jarrett L. Ellzey, Hughes Ellzey, LLP, pro hac vice & Nicholas M. Porras, Law Offices of Nicholas M Porras. Conn Appliances, Inc. & Conn's, Inc., Defendants, represented by Eric J. Troutman -- eric.troutman@squirepb.com -- Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP, pro hac vice & Jennifer L. Braster -- jbraster@naylorandbrasterlaw.com -- Naylor & Braster. United States of America, Intervenor, represented by Joshua Charles Abbuhl, Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch U.S. Department of Justice. CORECIVIC INC: Court Dismisses Ndambi FLSA Suit with Prejudice -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned DESMOND NDAMBI et al., Plaintiff, v. CORECIVIC, INC., Defendant, Civil Action No. RDB-18-3521 (D. Md.), Judge Richard D. Bennett of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland (i) granted the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, and (ii) denied as moot the Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Certification and Issuance of Notice. The Plaintiffs are former Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") detainees who were held at the Cibola County Correctional Facility in New Mexico while awaiting civil immigration proceedings. They bring the purported class action against CoreCivic, who owns and operates the detention facility where Plaintiffs were held pursuant to an Intergovernmental Service Agreement between ICE and Cibola County. The Defendant operates a work program at Cibola where detainees are permitted to voluntarily perform work duties in the facility. The Plaintiffs participated in this work program at Cibola. They filed a complaint in the Court based on federal question, diversity, and supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections 13311, 13322, and 13673. They allege they were employees of CoreCivic under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and New Mexico Minimum Wage Act ("NMMWA") and were paid at a rate below that which is required by the FLSA and NMMWA and that the Defendant was unjustly enriched by these alleged violations. The Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) arguing that the Plaintiffs' claims should be dismissed as the Plaintiffs were not "employees" under the FLSA and NMMWA and, thus, not required to be paid minimum wage. The District Court considered the Defendant's dismissal motion, and the Plaintiffs' motion for certification. Judge Bennett finds that the Plaintiffs cannot be considered "employees" as defined by the FLSA or NMMWA. CoreCivic, under the Intergovernmental Service Agreement, was required to offer a voluntary work program for ICE detainees at Cibola. They were incarcerated detainees in the facility awaiting civil immigration proceedings and engaged in work offered by the Defendant on an entirely voluntary basis through the program. The economic reality of the Plaintiffs' situation is almost identical to a prison inmate and does not share commonality with that of a traditional employer-employee relationship. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs were not "employees" of the Defendant during their detention, the Judge maintains. As Plaintiffs cannot show that they were employees of Corecivic, they are not entitled to bring a claim against the Defendant under the FLSA or the NMMWA. As a result, the Plaintiffs' claims under the FLSA and NMMWA will be dismissed with prejudice, the Court rules. The Plaintiffs' claim of unjust enrichemnt against CoreCivic is entirely dependent on CoreCivic's alleged violation of the FLSA and NMMWA. As the Defendant's actions in the case were not in violation of the FLSA or NMMWA since the Plaintiffs were not "employees", the Plaintiffs' claim of unjust enrichment is not cognizable and will be dismissed with prejudice as well, the Court adds. As the Plaintiffs have no cognizable claims, it is not necessary for the Court to analyze the issue of conditional certification. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Certification and Issuance of Notice will be denied as moot, Judge Bennett rules. For the stated reasons, Judge Bennett granted the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, and dismissed with prejudice the Plaintiff's Complaint. A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 27, 2019 Memorandum Order is available at https://is.gd/ZTOb3o from Leagle.com. Desmond Ndambi, Mbah Emmanuel Abi & Nkemtoh Moses Awombang, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Joseph M. Sellers -- jsellers@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen Milstein Sellers and Toll PLLC, Matthew Owens -- mowens@lawmbg.com -- Miner Barnhill and Galland PC, pro hac vice, Benjamin J. Blustein -- bblustein@lawmbg.com -- Miner Barnhill and Galland PC, pro hac vice, Deanna N. Pihos -- dpihos@lawmbg.com -- Miner Barnhill and Galland PC, pro hac vice, Michael Hancock -- mhancoc@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen Milstein Sellers and Toll PLLC, pro hac vice, Nancy L. Maldonado -- nmaldonado@lawmbg.com -- Miner Barnhill and Galland PC, pro hac vice, Robert Andrew Free, Law Office of R. Andrew Free, pro hac vice, Robert S. Libman -- rlibman@lawmbg.com -- Miner Barnhill and Galland PC, pro hac vice & Stacy N. Cammarano -- scammarano@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen Milstein Sellers and Toll PLLC, pro hac vice. Ivan Chacon Chacon, Prudencio Ramirez, Javier Recinos, Honore Otayema Lomenoje & Bokole Umba Dieu, Plaintiffs, represented by Joseph M. Sellers, Cohen Milstein Sellers and Toll PLLC & Robert Andrew Free, Law Office of R. Andrew Free, pro hac vice. CoreCivic, Inc., Defendant, represented by Daniel Struck -- dstruck@strucklove.com -- Struck Love Bojanowski and Acedo PLC, pro hac vice, Jacob B. Lee -- jlee@strucklove.com -- Struck Love Bojanowski and Acedo PLC, pro hac vice, Kenneth M. Bernas -- maxwell.bernas@carrmaloney.com -- Carr Maloney P.C., Matthew D. Berkowitz -- matthew.berkowitz@carrmaloney.com -- Carr Maloney PC & Rachel N. Love -- rlove@strucklove.com -- Struck Love Bojanowski and Acedo PLC, pro hac vice. COVETRUS INC: Cops' Fund Hit Stock Drop From Merger Oversight ------------------------------------------------------------- City of Hollywood Police Officers' Retirement System, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Henry Schein, Inc., Covetrus, Inc., Benjamin Shaw and Christine T. Komola, Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-05530 (E.D. N.Y., September 30, 2019), seeks to recover compensable damages caused by violations of federal securities laws. Covetrus is a global, technology-enabled animal health business that provides a service and technology platform and supply chain infrastructure for the veterinary markets. It was formed through a spin-off and merger of the Animal Health Business of Henry Schein, Inc. with Vets First Choice, a privately-held company. Covetrus common stock trades on the NASDAQ. Covetrus allegedly overstated its capabilities with regard to inventory management and supply chain services, understated the costs of the integration of Henry Schein's Animal Health Business and VFC, including the timing and nature of those costs, understated Covetrus' separation costs from Henry Schein, and understated the impact on earnings from online competition and alternative distribution channels as well as the impact of the loss of a large customer in North America just prior to it separation from Henry Schein. In response to these disclosures, the Covetrus' stock price plummeted 40%, declining $9.30 per share, from $23.19 per share on August 12, 2019, to close at $13.89 per share on August 13, 2019 and dropped another 11%, to close at $12.35 per share in August 14, 2019. City of Hollywood Police Officers' Retirement System purchased and acquired Covetrus common stock and suffered damages as a result of these disclosures. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Steven B. Singer, Esq. SAXENA WHITE PA 10 Bank Street, 8th Floor White Plains, NY 10606 Tel: (914) 437-8551 Fax: (888) 631-3611 Email: ssinger@saxenawhite.com - and - Joseph E. White, III, Esq. SAXENA WHITE PA 150 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 600 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Tel: (561) 394-3399 Fax: (561) 394-3382 Email: jwhite@saxenawhite.com - and - David R. Kaplan, Esq. 12750 High Bluff Drive, Suite 475 San Diego, CA 92130 Telephone: (858) 997-0860 Facsimile: (858) 369-0096 Email: dkaplan@saxenawhite.com - and - Robert D. Klausner, Esq. KLAUSNER KAUFMAN JENSEN & LEVINSON 7080 Northwest 4th Street Plantation, FL 33317 Telephone: (954) 916-1202 Facsimile: (954) 916-1232 Email: bob@robertdklausner.com COVETRUS INC: 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 Covetrus, Inc. (NASDAQ:CVET) for violations of Secs. 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 8, 2019 and August 12, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are encouraged to contact the firm before November 29, 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. Covetrus overstated its skills and abilities in inventory management and supply chain services. The Company understated the costs associated with the integration of Henry Schein's Animal Health Business and VFC. The Company also downplayed the impact of online competition and alternate distribution channels on earnings performance. 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 Covetrus, investors suffered damages. Join the case to recover your losses. The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and focuses on securities class action lawsuits and shareholder rights litigation. Contact: Brian Schall, Esq. The Schall Law Firm Website: www.schallfirm.com Office: 310-301-3335 Cell: 424-303-1964 Email: info@schallfirm.com, brian@schallfirm.com [GN] CUYAHOGA, OH: Tarrify Sues over Tax Foreclosure Proceedings ----------------------------------------------------------- TARRIFY PROPERTIES, LLC, and DENISE GUTTA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02293 (N.D. Ohio, Oct. 1, 2019), contends that the County, acting within its governmental capacity and under color of state law, terminated and seized Plaintiffs' ownership interest in real estate under the auspices of tax foreclosure proceedings authorized by R.C. 323.65, et seq., but in doing so denied Plaintiffs and Class members their constitutional right to just compensation. The lawsuit contends that none of the property directly transferred by Defendant pursuant to R.C. 323.78 was taken in time of war or for any other public exigency imperatively requiring its immediate seizure, or for the purpose of making or repairing roads. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's actions, Plaintiffs and the Class have been damaged in the amount by which the value of each property so transferred exceeded the total amount of the impositions attributable to that property. In 2006, the Ohio General Assembly enacted R.C. section 323.65, et seq. which created an alternative means for county boards of revision to foreclose on real property with outstanding property tax liens if that real property is "abandoned," as defined by R.C. 323.65(A). Unlike traditional tax foreclosure proceedings, a board of revision tax foreclosure conducted pursuant to the Statute does not need to be instituted in court and is instead conducted by the board of revision itself. R.C. 323.66. Denise Gutta is a natural person who owned property located in Cuyahoga County, Ohio. The County is a body politic and corporate organized pursuant to, and possessed of such powers, rights, and privileges as are granted by the Charter of Cuyahoga County and the general law of the State of Ohio. The Cuyahoga County Board of Revision is an administrative board of the County, originally created pursuant to R.C. 5715.01(B) and Section 6.02 of the Cuyahoga County Charter to hear complaints and revise assessments of real property for taxation. Under the Charter, the members of the Board of Revision are (1) the County Executive, (2) the County executive's choice of either the county fiscal office or county treasurer, and (3) a member of the county council.[BN] Counsel for the Plaintiffs and the Putative Class are: Marc E. Dann, Esq. Brian D. Flick, Esq. Emily White, Esq. DANN LAW P.O. Box. 6031040 Cleveland, OH 44103 Telephone: (216) 373-0539 Facsimile: (216) 373-0536 E-mail: notices@dannlaw.com - and - Charles Gruenspan, Esq. CHARLES GRUENSPAN CO., LPA 601 Commerce Park Square Four 23240 Chagrin Blvd. Cleveland, OH 44122 Telephone: (216) 595-6300 Facsimile: (216) 595-6307 E-mail: cgruenspanlpa@gmail.com - and - Andrew M. Engel, Esq. ANDREW M. ENGEL CO., LPA 7925 Paragon Road Dayton, OH 45459 Telephone: (937) 221-9819 Facsimile: (937) 433-1510 E-mail: aengel@amengellaw.com - and - Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., Esq. Matthew C. De Re, Esq. ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C. 77 W. Washington Street, Suite 1220 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 440-0020 Facsimile: (312) 440-4180 E-mail: www.attorneyzim.com firm@attorneyzim.com DAVID BRIAN BAILEY: Blair Seeks Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Ashleigh Blair, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. David Brian Bailey, Bob Martin, Inc., Bailey Food and Beverage Group, LLC, CDBM Redlands, LLC, Doe Managers 1-3 and Does 4-100, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-01849 (C.D. Cal., September 27, 2019), seeks to recover minimum and applicable overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendants operate adult entertainment clubs under the name "The Library Gentlemen's Club," where Blair worked as an exotic dancer. She claims that she worked in excess of forty hours per week yet did not receive overtime pay and only was only compensated in the form of tips from club patrons. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: John P. Kristensen, Esq. Jesenia A. Martinez, Esq. Jacob J. Ventura, Esq. KRISTENSEN WEISBERG, LLP 12540 Beatrice Street, Suite 200 Los Angeles, CA 90066 Telephone: (310) 507-7924 Fax: (310) 507-7906 Email: john@kristensenlaw.com jesenia@kristensenlaw.com jacob@kristensenlaw.com DELTA DENTAL: Faces Simon and Simon Anti-trust Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- SIMON AND SIMON, PC d/b/a CITY SMILES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. DELTA DENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY; DELTACARE USA; DELTA USA INC.; DELTA DENTAL PLANS ASSOCIATION; DELTA DENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY ALABAMA; DELTA DENTAL OF ALASKA; DELTA DENTAL OF ARIZONA; DELTA DENTAL OF ARKANSAS; DELTA DENTAL OF CALIFORNIA; DELTA DENTAL OF COLORADO; DELTA DENTAL OF CONNECTICUT; DELTA DENTAL OF DELAWARE; DELTA DENTAL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA; DELTA DENTAL OF FLORIDA; DELTA DENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY GEORGIA; HAWAII DENTAL SERVICE; DELTA DENTAL OF IDAHO; DELTA DENTAL OF ILLINOIS; DELTA DENTAL OF INDIANA; DELTA DENTAL OF IOWA; DELTA DENTAL OF KANSAS; DELTA DENTAL OF KENTUCKY; DELTA DENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY–LOUISIANA; DELTA DENTAL OF MARYLAND; DELTA DENTAL OF MASSACHUSETTS; DELTA DENTAL OF MICHIGAN; DELTA DENTAL OF MINNESOTA; DELTA DENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY–MISSISSIPPI; DELTA DENTAL OF MISSOURI; DELTA DENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY–MONTANA; DELTA DENTAL OF NEBRASKA; DELTA DENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY–NEVADA; DELTA DENTAL OF NEW JERSEY; DELTA DENTAL OF NEW MEXICO; DELTA DENTAL OF NEW YORK; DELTA DENTAL OF NORTH CAROLINA; DELTA DENTAL OF NORTH DAKOTA; NORTHEAST DELTA DENTAL (OF MAINE, NEW HAMPSHIRE AND VERMONT); DELTA DENTAL OF OHIO; DELTA DENTAL OF OKLAHOMA; DELTA DENTAL OF OREGON; DELTA DENTAL OF PENNSYLVANIA; DELTA DENTAL OF PUERTO RICO; DELTA DENTAL OF RHODE ISLAND; DELTA DENTAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA; DELTA DENTAL OF SOUTH DAKOTA; DELTA DENTAL OF TENNESSEE; DELTA DENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY– TEXAS; DELTA DENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY–UTAH; DELTA DENTAL OF VIRGINIA; DELTA DENTAL OF WASHINGTON; DELTA DENTAL OF WEST VIRGINIA; DELTA DENTAL OF WISCONSIN; AND DELTA DENTAL OF WYOMING, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-06776 (N.D. Ill., Oct. 14, 2019) is an action against the nation's dominant dental insurer, Delta Dental. Plaintiff alleges that the Delta State Plans engaged in a market division conspiracy by dividing the U.S. dental insurance market into 39 territories and setting forth that within each Delta State Plan's territory, which is usually one state but in some cases encompasses multiple states, other Delta State Plans will not compete (the Market Division Conspiracy). This has reatly reduced or effectively eliminated competition in state-level markets for dental insurance. The Delta State Plans also conspired to fix and reduce the reimbursement rates that they pay to Delta Practices for services performed for Delta Patients (the Reimbursement Reduction Conspiracy). Given that the market division conspiracy has resulted in greatly reduced competition within each territory, the Delta State Plans are able to abuse their market power in order to force Delta Practices to accept these lower reimbursement rates, because such a large fraction of actual and potential patients have Delta insurance, so that a practice cannot practically refuse to accept Delta Patients, notes the complaint. The complaint relates that Delta DPA, which coordinates the Delta State Plans and receives its funding from them, also functions as a mechanism for operating the Market Division Conspiracy and Reimbursement Reduction Conspiracy. Each Delta State Plan has to sign a contract with the Delta DPA that governs its activities. The Delta Plan Contract requires the Delta State Plans to limit their income from non-Delta insurance plans (Non-Delta Limit Conspiracy). This ensures that Delta State Plans can't create non-Delta insurance plans that would compete effectively with Delta State Plans in other territories (in addition to not being able to have their Delta plans compete outside of their own territories). This further enables the Reimbursement Reduction Conspiracy. The Plaintiff asserts that the Market Division Conspiracy, Reimbursement Reduction Conspiracy, and Non-Delta Limit Conspiracy have greatly reduced state-level competition in the dental insurance market, and also have resulted in lower reimbursement rates for Delta Practices and higher premiums and worse coverage for Delta Patients. Without the Market Division Conspiracy, Reimbursement Reduction Conspiracy, and Non-Delta Limit Conspiracy, Delta State Plans would actively seek to sell insurance across state lines and territory lines, and would compete for patients and providers, and that competition would result in higher reimbursements for Delta Practices, and better coverage and lower premiums for Delta Patients. Delta's actions in the Market Division Conspiracy, Reimbursement Reduction Conspiracy, and Non-Delta Limit Conspiracy are actionable violations of the federal antitrust laws, asserts the complaint. Plaintiff seeks treble damages and injunctive relief, demanding a trial by jury of all issues so triable, under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, and Sections 4 and 16 of the Clayton Act. Plaintiff Simon and Simon, PC d/b/a City Smiles, is a dental practice located in Chicago, IL that serves Delta Patients as an in-network provider for Delta Dental of Illinois. Delta Dental Plans Association (Delta DPA) is an Illinois non-profit corporation based in Oak Brook, IL.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: April D. Lambert, Esq. John Radice, Esq. Daniel Rubenstein, Esq. RADICE LAW FIRM, P.C. 475 Wall Street Princeton, NJ 08540 Phone: (646) 245-8502 Fax: (609) 385-0745 Email: alambert@radicelawfirm.com jradice@radicelawfirm.com drubenstein@radicelawfirm.com DESIGNER BRANDS: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Austin Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- NICOLE R. AUSTIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DESIGNER BRANDS INC.; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-08187 (C.D. Cal., Sept. 20, 2019) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls. Designer Brands Inc. designs, produces, and retails footwear and accessories. The Company offers shoes, boots, sandals, sneakers, socks, handbags, and accessories. Designer Brands serves customers in the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Wilens, Esq. LAKESHORE LAW CENTER 18340 Yorba Linda Blvd., Suite 107-610 Yorba Linda, CA 92886 Telephone: (714) 854-7205 Facsimile: (714) 854-7206 E-mail: jeff@lakeshorelaw.org - and - Jeffrey P. Spencer, Esq. THE SPENCER LAW FIRM 2 Venture, Suite 220 Irvine, CA 92618 Telephone: (949) 240-8595 Facsimile: (949) 377-3272 E-mail: jps@spencerlaw.net DIRECTIONAL PROJECT: Dudley Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wage ----------------------------------------------------------------- JOEL DUDLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DIRECTIONAL PROJECT SUPPORT, INC., and WILLIAM GARDNER, Individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00984 (D.N.M., Oct. 18, 2019), is brought to recover overtime compensation from their former employers, the Defendants. The Defendants employ workers to help perform non-exempt oilfield services, but fail to provide them proper overtime pay, the Plaintiff alleges, citing violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act. The Plaintiff routinely worked over 40 hours per week. In fact, he was often required to work in excess of 70 hours in weeks covered by this lawsuit and for the Defendants. However, he was not paid overtime for doing so. The Defendants knew that the Plaintiff worked in excess of 40 hours per week and they allowed and directed him to do so. The Plaintiff contends that he is entitled to receive overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per work week and lawful minimum wage. He notes that the Defendants are aware of the FLSA's requirements and chose not to pay him lawfully. The Defendants willfully treated the Plaintiff as exempt from the FLSA and refused to pay him overtime pay and in accordance with the law, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was one of the Defendants' numerous frontline field employees, who primarily performed manual labor tasks, including in and around the Defendants' job sites outside in various oilfields. DPS is a horizontal directional drilling business and does business throughout New Mexico and the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Forester, Esq. FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC 400 N. St. Paul Street, Suite 700 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 210-2100 Facsimile: (214) 346-5909 E-mail: jay@foresterhaynie.com DISCOVER FINANCIAL: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Bonoan Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- VIANN BONOAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DISCOVER FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-06286 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 20, 2019) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls. Discover Financial Services operates as a credit card issuer and electronic payment services company. The Company issues credit cards and offers student and personal loans, as well as savings products such as certificates of deposit and money market accounts. Discover Financial Services manages automated teller machine networks. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary M. Klinger, Esq. KOZONIS & KLINGER, LTD. 4849 N. Milwaukee Ave., Ste. 300 Chicago, IL 60630 Telephone: (312) 283-3814 Facsimile: (773) 496-8617 E-mail: gklinger@kozonislaw.com - and - Aaron D. Radbil, Esq. GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC 401 Congress Avenue, Suite 1540 Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (512) 803-1578 Facsimile: (561) 961-5684 E-mail: aradbil@gdrlawfirm.com DRILLING FLUID: West Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- JESSIE WEST, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. DRILLING FLUID SOLUTIONS, L.L.C. d/b/a DRILLING FS, L.L.C., Defendant, Case No. 7:19-cv-00235 (W.D. Tex., Oct. 14, 2019) is a collective action and lawsuit on behalf of Plaintiff and all other similarly situated employees to recover unpaid overtime wages from Defendants under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. Drilling Fluid Solutions violated the FLSA by employing West and other similarly situated nonexempt employees "for a workweek longer than forty hours but refusing to compensate them for their employment in excess of forty hours at a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular rate at which they are or were employed." Drilling Fluid Solutions violated the FLSA by failing to maintain accurate time and pay records for West and other similarly situated nonexempt employees as required by the FLSA, says the complaint. Plaintiff West was employed by Drilling Fluid Solutions as a sit hand from June 2018 to March 2019. In March 2019, he was employed with Drilling Fluid Solutions as a Field Supervisor and continued in that position until September 2019. Drilling Fluid Solutions is an oilfield services company specializing in drilling fluid services for oil and gas drilling operations.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Melissa Moore, Esq. Curt Hesse, Esq. MOORE & ASSOCIATES Lyric Centre 440 Louisiana Street, Suite 675 Houston, TX 77002 Phone: (713) 222-6775 Facsimile: (713) 222-6739 DROPBOX INC: Faces Deinnocentis Suit Alleging IPO-Related Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- JASON MICHAEL DEINNOCENTIS, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. DROPBOX, INC., ANDREW W. HOUSTON, AJAY V. VASHEE, TIMOTHY J. REGAN, ARASH FERDOWSI, ROBERT J. MYLOD, JR., DONALD W. BLAIR, PAUL E. JACOBS, CONDOLEEZZA RICE, R. BRYAN SCHREIER, MARGARET C. WHITMAN, SEQUOIA CAPITAL XII, L.P., SEQUOIA CAPITAL XII PRINCIPALS FUND, LLC, SEQUOIA TECHNOLOGY PARTNERS XII, L.P., and SC XII MANAGEMENT, LLC, Case No. 5:19-cv-06348-BLF (N.D. Cal., Oct. 4, 2019), is brought on behalf of those who purchased Dropbox Class A common stock pursuant or traceable to the registration statement issued in connection with the Company's March 23, 2018 initial public offering, like the Plaintiff, asserting claims for damages under the Securities Act of 1933. Dropbox is most known for its eponymous file-sharing service. Dropbox allows users to store and share files over the Internet. Customers can upload photos, videos and other files from cameras, tablets, SD cards or smart phones using the Company's platform. As of December 31, 2017, Dropbox had accumulated over 500 million registered users, making it one of the largest dedicated file-sharing providers in the world. The Plaintiff alleges that certain statements that were filed as part of the Registration Statement were materially false and misleading at the time of the IPO, because, as was demonstrated internally by data analytics employed by the Company at the time of the IPO, the Company had materially overstated its ability to monetize its user base. In addition, the Registration Statement highlighted the rapid pace of Dropbox's revenue growth leading up to the IPO, while failing to disclose worsening revenue trends that were negatively impacting the Company at the time of the IPO and the operational and competitive headwinds causing these trends, according to the complaint. On August 27, 2019, Dropbox stock closed at $17.53 per share, representing a decline of more than 16% from the IPO price. Shockingly, the Plaintiff asserts, in connection with its second quarter 2019 earnings report, Dropbox claimed to have "more than 500 million registered users" as of June 2019, indicating that the Company had experienced essentially no significant registered user growth since December 31, 2017--months prior to the IPO. Dropbox is a Delaware corporation with principal executive offices located in San Francisco, California. The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company. The Sequoia Capital Defendants are related entities that are part of the Sequoia Capital venture capital firm located in Menlo Park, California. The Sequoia Capital Defendants were early investors in Dropbox and are controlling persons of Dropbox due to their large equity stake in the Company, certain shareholder agreements that they have entered into with the Company, and their influence over the Board of Directors, including through their representation on the Board by Defendant Schreier, a Sequoia Capital partner. Before and after the IPO, the Sequoia Capital Defendants controlled 25% of Dropbox.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jennifer Pafiti, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (310) 405-7190 E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com - and - Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. POMERANTZ, LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com - and - Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP Ten South La Salle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 377-1181 Facsimile: (312) 377-1184 E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com DUTCH GOLD: Faces Wolfe Suit in Eastern District of Pennsylvania ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dutch Gold Honey, Inc. The case is captioned as DANA WOLFE, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND ALL OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff, vs. DUTCH GOLD HONEY, INC., A PENNSYLVANIA CORPORATION, and TRUE SOURCE HONEY, LLC, A FOREIGN CORPORATION, the Defendant, Case No. 5:19-cv-04562-EGS (E.D. Pa., Oct. 1, 2019). The case is assigned to the Hon. Edward G. Smith. For over 70 years, Dutch Gold Honey, Inc., a family-owned and operated company from Lancaster, Pa., has focused on providing honey to its customers.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Mark C. Cavanaugh, Esq. DUGAN, BRINKMANN, MAGINNIS AND PACE 1880 John F. Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 1400 Philadelphia, PA 19103 E-mail: mccavanaugh@dbmplaw.com ELDORADO RESORTS: Rosen Reminds Investors of Nov. 22 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds purchasers of the securities of Eldorado Resorts, Inc. (NASDAQ: ERI) from March 1, 2019 through September 2, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period") of the important November 22, 2019 lead plaintiff deadline in the securities class action commenced by the firm. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Eldorado investors under the federal securities laws. To join the Eldorado class action, go to https://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1666.html or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF. According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) several of the Company's executive officers, including CEO Thomas Reeg, engaged in improper trading with respect to the securities of another publicly-traded company; and (2) as a result, Defendants' statements about Eldorado's business, operations and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than November 22, 2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to https://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1666.html or to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com. Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Contact: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 Website: www.rosenlegal.com E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com cases@rosenlegal.com [GN] EPSON AMERICA: Sued by Mondigo for Disabling Printers Via Updates ----------------------------------------------------------------- WILLIAM MONDIGO and RICHARD FAMIGLIETTI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. EPSON AMERICA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-02009-BEN-BGS (S.D. Cal., Oct. 18, 2019), seeks redress on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased an Epson Printer and suffered harm as result of Epson's anti-competitive, unfair, fraudulent, oppressive and illegal conduct. The Plaintiffs allege that Epson engaged, and continues to engage, in a systematic campaign of disabling Epson printers when the owner attempts to use non-Epson ink cartridges in an effort to improperly and illegally quash competition from third-party manufacturers. To carry out this scheme, Epson designed and delivered software and/or firmware Updates to Epson printers that purposely disabled those printers with non-Epson printer cartridges installed. For many users, these software updates effectively ruined their printers. For others, the updates forced them to purchase Epson ink cartridges, which are significantly more expensive than third-party cartridges. There is nothing inherently wrong with the third-party ink cartridges that causes them to fail or that precludes their use in Epson printers. Indeed, these cartridges function without issue on Epson printers that do not have the Updates installed. Epson never informed Epson printer owners that the Updates would prevent their printers from working if they had third-party ink cartridges installed, the Plaintiffs contend. To the contrary, the Epson Software License informs consumers that the software and/or firmware Updates will improve the printers and fix known issues. Epson's actions violate the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, the California Unfair Competition Law, the California False Advertising Law, and California Computer Penal Code (Unauthorized access to computers, computer systems and computer data), says the complaint. The Plaintiffs purchased and own an Epson WorkForce WF-3640 All-in-One Printer and an Epson XP-830 Small-in-One printer. Epson America, Inc. sells and markets Epson printers in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Edwin J. Kipela, Esq. (Eddie) Jae K. Kim, Esq. Eric D. Zard, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH, LLP 1350 Columbia Street, Suite 603 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: 619-762-1903 Facsimile: 619-756-6991 E-mail: ekilpela@carlsonlynch.com ekim@carlsonlynch.com ezard@carlsonlynch.com EQUESTRIAN SPORT: Stachurski Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------- EUGENE STACHURSKI, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. EQUESTRIAN SPORT PRODUCTIONS, LLC, and MARK J. BELLISSIMO, individually, Defendants, Case No. 9:19-cv-81394-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Oct. 14, 2019) is an action for unpaid overtime compensation, declaratory relief, and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants have violated the FLSA by failing to pay Plaintiff and those similarly situated employees time and one-half of their respective hourly rates for overtime hours worked. Plaintiff worked in excess of 40 hours during one or more work weeks during the relevant time periods but did not receive pay at one and one-half times his regular rate for hours worked in excess of 40 hours, says the complaint. Plaintiff worked for Defendants in the capacity of a technician from approximately January 2018 through July 2019. EQUESTRIAN SPORT PRODUCTIONS, LLC is a Florida Limited Liability Company doing business in Palm Beach County, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary A. Isaacs, Esq. Gary A. Isaacs, P.A. 712 U.S. Highway One, Suite 400 North Palm Beach, FL 33401 Phone: (561) 844-3600 Email: gai@fcohenlaw.com EZRIRX LLC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Barths Pharmacy Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- BARTHS PHARMACY INC., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EZRIRX, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-18201 (D.N.J., Sept. 23, 2019) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls. EzriRx LLC is a Delaware limited liability company. The Company's pharmacy marketplace allows pharmacies to compare drug prices offered by many suppliers. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew N. Fiorovanti, Esq. Michael J. Canning, Esq. GIORDANO HALLERAN & CIESLA 125 Half Mile Road, Suite 300 Red Bank, New Jersey 07701-6777 Telephone: (732) 741-3900 Facsimile: (732) 224-6599 E-mail: mcanning@ghclaw.com mfiorovanti@ghclaw.com - and - Ryan M. Kelly, Esq. ANDERSON + WANCA 3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500 Rolling Meadows, IL 60008 Telephone: (847) 368-1500 Facsimile: (847) 368-1501 E-mail: rkelly@andersonwanca.com FAIRLIFE, LLC: Abowd Sues over Mislabeled Milk Products ------------------------------------------------------- CHELSEA ABOWD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FAIRLIFE, LLC; MIKE McCLOSKEY; and SUE McCLOSKEY, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-04009-TWP-DLP (S.D. Ind., Sept. 24, 2019) alleges that the Defendants misrepresented the label of their milk products to be sourced from cows that are treated with extraordinary care. Defendants make an explicit "promise," in large bold lettering on all material labels of the milk products, that they provide "extraordinary animal care" (on the 11.5 once labels) or "extraordinary care and comfort for our cows" (on the 1.5 Liter labels). The "promise" is signed on the milk products' labels by Defendants Mike McCloskey and Sue McCloskey. However, the Defendants' "promise" is a sham. The Defendants' calves and cows do not receive "extraordinary care," but are instead methodically abused and ill-treated while they are present at the "flagship farm in Indiana". The Defendants exploited consumer desire for dairy products originating from farms that ensure increased levels of animal well-being by making their representations a central premise in their labeling strategy, in order to charge inflated prices and increase unit sales of their milk products. Fairlife, LLC is a brand of ultrafiltered milk distributed in Canada and the United States by The Coca-Cola Company. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan R. Frasher, Esq. 3209 W. Smith Valley Road, Suite 253 Greenwood, IN 46142 Telephone: (317) 300-8844 Facsimile: (317) 218-4501 E-mail: rfrasher@frasherlaw.com FARMERS INSURANCE: Herzog Sues over Illegal Service Charge ---------------------------------------------------------- LYNNE HERZOG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. FARMERS INSURANCE GROUP, the Defendant, Case No. 7:19-cv-09097-NSR (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 1, 2019), alleges that Defendant charges a $5 fee -- which it calls a "Service Charge" -- for its customers to receive a paper billing statement and/or pay by United States mail, in direct violation of New York law. Indeed, a portion of Defendant's website states "In addition to the convenience of receiving bills and billing reminders by email, enrolling in Paperless Billing may also reduce or eliminate service charges. Defendant's conduct is prohibited by New York General Business Law ("GBL"), and therefore constitutes a deceptive act and practice under GBL section 349. . Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings this putative class action on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated New York residents and former residents, and seeks compensatory damages from Defendant. Lynne Herzog is a citizen of New York who resides in Beacon, New York. For many years, Ms. Herzog has had insurance accounts with Defendant, and since at least 2016, Defendant has charged Ms. Herzog a fee to receive a paper billing statement and/or pay by United States mail, which Ms. Herzog has paid. Farmers Insurance Group is a provider of automobile, homeowners, renters, and life insurance in the United States.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Philip L. Fraietta, Esq. Frederick J. Klorczyk III, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 888 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: pfraietta@bursor.com fklorczyk@bursor.com FCA US: Class of Vehicle Owners Certified in Victorino Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Gonzalo P. Curiel grants the Plaintiff's renewed motion for class certification in the lawsuit styled CARLOS VICTORINO and ADAM TAVITIAN, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. FCA US LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Case No. 3:16-cv-01617-GPC-JLB (S.D. Cal.). According to the Order, the renewed motion for class certification was filed after the stay in the case was lifted when the Ninth Circuit issued its decision in Nguyen v. Nissan North Am., Inc., 932 F.3d 811 (9th Cir. 2019). The certified Class consists of: All persons who purchased or leased in California, from an authorized dealership, a new Class Vehicle primarily for personal, family, or household purposes. Because the Court grants class certification, the Court appoints Plaintiff Carlos Victorino as the Class Representative. The Court also appoints Capstone Law APC as Class Counsel. Plaintiff Carlos Victorino filed this putative first amended class action complaint (FAC) based on defects in the 2013-2016 Dodge Dart vehicles equipped with a Fiat C635 manual transmission that cause his vehicle's clutch to fail and stick to the floor. Defendant FCA US LLC is the manufacturer of his vehicle. The FAC alleges five causes of action: for violations of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, California's unfair competition law, a state law breach of implied warranty pursuant to the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, a federal law breach of implied warranty pursuant to the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, and unjust enrichment.[CC] FEDEX CORP: Farrell Seeks OT Pay for Package Handlers ----------------------------------------------------- SIRKERRA FARRELL, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. FEDEX CORPORATION, the Defendant, Case No. MID-L-006789-19 (N.J. Super, Oct. 1, 2019), seeks to redress 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. The Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of all persons presently and formerly employed by Defendant as package handlers and/or non-exempt hourly positions who worked in one of Defendant's New Jersey distribution centers and were subject to the wage and hour policies of Defendant at any point during the time period from two years preceding the date the action was initiated through the present. The Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a package handler. FedEx is an American multinational courier delivery services company headquartered in Memphis, Tennessee.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Matthew D. Miller, Esq. Carley A. Doyle, Esq. Justin L. Swidler, Esq. Richard S. Swartz, Esq. SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC 1101 Kings Highway N., Ste. 402 Cherry Hill, NJ 08034 Telephone: (856) 685-7420 Facsimile: (856) 685-7417 FEIZ ELECTRIC: Khalifehzadeth Sues Over Improper Minimum/OT Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- FARAMARZ KHALIFEHZADETH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FEIZ ELECTRIC, a California corporation; R.A.G. ELECTRIC, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. 19STCV35562 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Oct. 4, 2019), alleges that the Defendants have engaged in a systematic pattern of wage and hour violations under the California Labor Code and Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders by, among other things, failing to pay proper minimum and overtime wages. The Defendants were and are employers as defined in and subject to the Labor Code and IWC Wage Orders, whose employees, including the Plaintiff, were and are engaged throughout this county and the State of California. The Plaintiff is unaware of the true names or capacities of the Doe Defendants. The Defendants are a licensed electrical contracting company that provides electrical services throughout California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kashif Haque, Esq. Samuel A. Wong, Esq. Jessica L. Campbell, Esq. Ali S. Carlsen, Esq. AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC 9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92618 Telephone: (949) 379-6250 Facsimile: (949) 379-6251 E-mail: khaque@aegislawfirm.com swong@aegislawfirm.com jcampbell@aegislawfirm.com acarlsen@aegislawfirm.com FORD MOTOR: Collins Sues Over Trucks' Faulty Tire Valves & Wheels ----------------------------------------------------------------- JAMES COLLINS and KEN NEWMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01983-UNA (D. Del., Oct. 18, 2019), arises from the defective design and manufacture of the tire valve stems and wheels of 2017 and 2018 Ford F-350 trucks and their variants that are equipped with aluminum alloy wheels. The lawsuit is brought for common law warranty claims and claims under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, and the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law. The Firestone tire recall in the late 1990s, which was linked to more than 100 deaths from rollovers following tire tread-separation, prompted the United States Congress to enact legislation mandating the use of Tire Pressure Monitoring System ("TPMS") technology in all light motor vehicles (under 10,000 pounds) to help alert drivers of under-inflation events. This legislation mandated that by 2008 all new passenger car models must be equipped with a TPMS. Every wheel of the Class Vehicles has a valve stem which is affixed to a TPMS sensor and which is the point at which pressurized air may be added into the tire. The tire valve stems of the Class Vehicles are made of a steel alloy while the wheels of the Class Vehicles are made of an aluminum alloy. The contact between the steel valve stem and the aluminum wheel causes galvanic corrosion at the point of contact which corrodes the aluminum. This corrosion causes leaks, thereby, causing the tires to continuously lose air pressure. Low tire pressure caused by the Defect adversely affects the Class Vehicles' fuel economy, tire longevity, vehicle handling, and safety of the passengers and others. An instantaneous tire deflation or blowout can cause drivers to lose control of their vehicles. Low tire pressure is particularly harmful when using the Class Vehicles to haul or tow heavy loads, which the Class Vehicles are advertised as being capable of doing. The Plaintiffs contend that their vehicles experienced the Defect, forcing them to refill their tires frequently, often daily. The Plaintiffs complained to a Ford dealership numerous times, but the dealership did not remedy the root cause of the Defect and told them that any repair would not be covered by the warranty. The Plaintiffs have paid out of pocket for numerous repairs performed by third-party mechanics. The Plaintiffs' wheels are still discolored and corroded due to the original and replacement defective steel valve stems. By warranting, advertising, and selling the Class Vehicle with a defective tire valve stem and wheel, Defendant engages in deceptive and unfair trade practices and breaches the express and implied warranties the Plaintiffs and the proposed Class members relied upon in the purchase of the Class Vehicles. This case seeks protection and relief for the purchasers of the Class Vehicles for the harm they have suffered, and the safety risks they face, from the Defendant's unfair, unlawful, and deceptive trade practices, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs purchased and/or leased a 2017 or 2018 Ford F-350 equipped with aluminum wheels. The Defendant designs, manufactures, advertises, distributes, and sells vehicles throughout Delaware, the United States, and the world, including the Class Vehicles.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: P. Bradford deLeeuw, Esq. ROSENTHAL, MONHAIT & GODDESS, P.A. 919 North Market Street, Suite 1401 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 656-4433 - and - Daniel Levin, Esq. Nicholas Elia, Esq. LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN LLP 510 Walnut Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: 215-592-1500 Facsimile: 215-592-4663 E-mail: dlevin@lfsblaw.com nelia@lfsblaw.com - and - Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq. MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP 412 H Street N.E., Suite 302 Washington, DC 20002 Telephone: 202-470-3520 E-mail: nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com GEICO GENERAL: Interlocutory Appeal in Green Suit Refused --------------------------------------------------------- In the appellate case GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Appellant, v. YVONNE GREEN, WILMINGTON PAIN & REHABILITATION CENTER, and REHABILITATION ASSOCIATES, P.A. on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, Appellees, Case No. 389, 2019 (Del.), Judge Gary F. Traynor of the Supreme Court of Delaware refused GEICO's application for certification of an interlocutory appeal. Plaintiffs Green, Wilmington Pain, and Rehabilitation Associates filed a complaint, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, against GEICO. The Plaintiffs alleged that GEICO used two computerized models to deny valid personal injury protection ("PIP") claims of its insureds without evaluating the facts underlying the claims. They argued that the practice violated Delaware law and the terms of GEICO's insurance policies. After briefing and a hearing on the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, the Delaware Superior certified a class for the limited purpose of determining whether GEICO's use of the two different models was a breach of contract or bad faith breach of contract and to rule on a declaratory judgment, [Green v. GEICO Gen. Ins. Co., 2019 WL 4039609, at *12 (Del. Super. Ct. Aug. 27, 2019)]. The Superior Court ruled that it would not determine individual liability or damages. On Sept. 5, 2019, GEICO filed an application for certification of an interlocutory appeal. GEICO argued that the Superior Court's decision determined a substantial issue of material importance. As to the Rule 42(b)(iii) criteria, GEICO argued that the Superior Court decision: (i) involved a question of law decided for the first time in Delaware -- certification of a contested PIP class action; (ii) conflicted with decisions of the Superior Court, the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit; and (iii) related to the construction and application 21 Del. C. Section 2118 and Superior Court Civil Rule 23, which has not been settled, but should be, before an appeal from a final order. GEICO also contended that review of the interlocutory order could terminate the litigation and would serve the interests of justice. The Plaintiffs opposed the application for certification, arguing that GEICO's attacks on the Superior Court's analysis lacked merit and that the Superior Court's decision did not involve a novel question of law, did not conflict with other cases, and did not relate to the unsettled construction of 21 Del. C. Section 2118 or Rule 23. Finally, Plaintiffs contended that interlocutory review would not terminate the litigation or serve considerations of justice. On Sept. 23, 2019, the Superior Court granted the application for certification. It found that the class certification determined a substantial issue. As to the Rule 42(b)(iii) criteria, the Superior Court concluded that the class certification arguably related to the construction of a statute and that interlocutory review could terminate the class portion of the litigation and would serve the interests of justice. In the exercise of the Supreme Court's discretion and despite the Superior Court's granting of the application for certification, Judge Traynor has concluded that the application for interlocutory review does not meet the strict standards for certification under Supreme Court Rule 42(b). The case is not exceptional, review of the order will not terminate the litigation, and the potential benefits of interlocutory review do not outweigh the inefficiency, disruption, and probable costs caused by an interlocutory appeal. Therefore, the Supreme Court refused the interlocutory appeal. A full-text copy of the Delaware Supreme Court's Sept. 24, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/TOsD3F from Leagle.com. GLOBAL DISTRIBUTION: Certification of W-2 Technicians Class Sought ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the lawsuit titled RYAN GARY DENHAM, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. GLOBAL DISTRIBUTION SERVICES, INC. d/b/a AMERICA'S ALLIANCE d/b/a AMERICA'S CHOICE GARAGE DOOR SERVICE; GLOBAL DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES, INC.; LEAD DRIVER, LLC; EMPLOYEE RETENTION SERVICES, LLC; NEIGHBORHOOD GARAGE DOOR SERVICES, INC.; PETER JAMES STEPHENS, JR.; JASON ROMSZEWSKI; and KYOUNG LEE, Case No. 3:18-cv-01495-LAB-MDD (S.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff moves for conditional certification of collective action and issuance of notice pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Mr. Denham asks the Court to conditionally certify a collective action of similarly situated current and former non-exempt W-2 technicians, who worked for the Defendants in California and Arizona between three years prior to an order granting this Motion until the date the case is resolved pursuant to the FLSA and Hoffmann-La Roche, Inc. v. Sperling, 493 U.S. 165 (1989). The Court will commence a hearing on November 18, 2019, at 11:30 a.m., to consider the Motion.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd Slobin, Esq. Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq. SHELLIST LAZARZ SLOBIN LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 621-2277 Facsimile: (713) 621-0993 E-mail: tslobin@eeoc.net rprieto@eeoc.net - and - Melinda Arbuckle, Esq. SHELLIST LAZARZ SLOBIN LLP 402 West Broadway, Suite 400 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (214) 521-3605 E-mail: marbuckle@eeoc.net - and - Victoria Sherlin, Esq. BARON & BUDD, P.C. 11440 West Bernardo Court, Suite 265 San Diego, CA 92127 Telephone: (858) 251-7424 Facsimile: (214) 520-1181 E-mail: tsherlin@baronbudd.com GLOBAL RADAR: Sanders Seeks Final Approval of $3.65MM Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned SHAWANA SANDERS and KENYATTA WILLIAMS on their own behalf and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals v. GLOBAL RADAR ACQUISITION, LLC d/b/a GLOBAL HR RESEARCH, a foreign for-profit corporation, f/k/a RADAR POST-CLOSING HOLDING COMPANY, INC., f/k/a GLOBAL HR RESEARCH, INC., Case No. 2:18-cv-00555-UA-NPM (M.D. Fla.), move the Court for final approval of the parties' class action settlement. The principal terms of the Class Settlement Agreement and Release that the Court previously approved are: -- Certification, for settlement purposes only, of a Class of all natural persons residing in the United States, any U.S. territory, the District of Columbia, or Puerto Rico who were the subject of a consumer report furnished by Global HR for employment purposes to a client of A1 HR, Continuum, or Accesspoint between July 11, 2013 and January 11, 2019. While Defendants originally estimated the Settlement Class to number 20,878, the Settlement Administrator has confirmed that after receiving the Class List from Defendants, the Settlement Class consists of approximately 18,931 consumers; -- Defendant agrees to establish a gross settlement fund in the amount of $3,653,650, none of which will revert to Defendant except to potentially repay costs of settlement administration; -- Every Settlement Class member will be paid a pro rata portion of the net settlement fund without having to file a claim. The Parties originally estimated each Class Member would receive a payment of approximately $117.50, without further reduction for attorneys' fees or administration costs. With the revised, lower Class composition of 18,931, Class Members will receive more--approximately $129.25; -- Payment from the settlement fund of an attorneys' fees and costs award, if approved by the Court, not to exceed thirty-three percent of the gross settlement fund; -- Defendant will separately pay costs of associated with administration of the settlement, estimated to be seventy-five-thousand dollars ($75,000). Before any unclaimed funds are distributed to Court-approved cy pres recipients, Defendant may recoup these costs up to $75,000; and -- Payment from the settlement fund of service awards of $5,000 to each of the Named Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs also ask the Court for final certification of the Class, the confirmation of their appointment as Settlement Class Representatives and their attorneys as Settlement Class Counsel, and the granting of the proposed awards of attorneys' fees and costs under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In their complaint, the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant willfully violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act relating to its provision of consumer reports (commonly known as background checks) for employment purposes. Section 1681b(b)(1) of the FCRA requires that consumer reporting agencies ("CRAs") like the Defendant obtain from their customers certifications of compliance with 15 U.S.C. Sections 1681b(b)(2) and (b)(3) before the CRA may issue a background check. The Plaintiffs allege the Defendant failed to meet this requirement for multiple employers, causing violations of the FCRA with each report sold not only for the Plaintiffs, but for thousands of members of a putative class.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Craig C. Marchiando, Esq. CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C. 763 J. Clyde Morris Blvd., Suite 1-A Newport News, VA 23601 Telephone: (757) 930-3660 Facsimile: (757) 930-3662 E-mail: craig@clalegal.com - and - Marc R. Edelman, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 201 N. Franklin Street, Suite 700 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 223-5505 Facsimile: (813) 257-0572 E-mail: medelman@forthepeople.com - and - C. Ryan Morgan, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. P.O. Box 4979 Orlando, FL 33802 Telephone: (407) 420-1414 Facsimile: (407) 245-3401 E-mail: Rmorgan@forthepeople.com - and - Andrew Frisch, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 600 North Pine Island Road, Suite 400 Plantation, FL 33324 Telephone: 954-workers Facsimile: (954) 327-3013 E-mail: Afrisch@forthepeople.com HEARTHSIDE FOOD: McVay Sues Over Improper Wages ----------------------------------------------- Tanisha McVay, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Hearthside Food Solutions, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-02389 (N.D. Ohio, Aug. 1, 2019) is a complaint against Hearthside Food Solutions, LLC for its failure to pay employees overtime wages. Plaintiff seeks all available relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act. Defendant is a food manufacturer and employs thousands of similarly situated employees throughout the United States operating in excess of 30 production facilities throughout Illinois, California, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Ohio, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, and Washington. Plaintiff McVay worked as a packer from approximately February 2015 until October 16, 2017. Plaintiff asserts that he was not fully and properly paid in accordance with the minimum requirements of the FLSA for all of her compensable hours worked because Defendant did not properly calculate overtime based on their regular rate of pay, as defined by the FLSA, but instead calculated overtime based on their hourly rate of pay, resulting in unpaid overtime wages for the three years preceding the filing date of this Complaint and continuing until trial. Specifically, when Defendant paid Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees both their Base Hourly Wage and Additional Remuneration, Defendant failed to properly calculate their employees' regular rate of pay during workweeks when they worked over 40 hours in one or more workweeks for the purposes of overtime pay because Defendant did not include the Additional Remuneration in its regular rate calculations for overtime wages. Consequently, Defendant failed to properly compensate Named Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees the overtime wages they were due in accordance with the minimum requirements of the FLSA, says the complaint.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq. Coffman Legal, LLC 1550 Old Henderson Road, Ste. 126 Columbus, OH 43220 Phone: 614-949-1181 Fax: 614-386-9964 Email: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com - and - Daniel I. Bryant, Esq. BRYANT LEGAL, LLC 1550 Old Henderson Road, Suite 126 Columbus, OH 43220 Phone: (614) 704-0546 Facsimile: (614) 573-9826 Email: dbryant@bryantlegalllc.com HENRY THAYER: Lisowski Files Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against HENRY THAYER COMPANY, INC. The case is styled as CHRISTOPHER LISOWSKI individually and behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HENRY THAYER COMPANY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-01339-MJH (W.D. Pa., Oct. 18, 2019). HENRY THAYER COMPANY, INC. is the second oldest manufacturing company in the United States. The company manufactures THAYERS Slippery Elm Lozenges, THAYERS non-distilled organic Witch Hazel Astringent and Alcohol-Free Witch Hazel Toners, and Dry Mouth Sprays. All vegan and all natural.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steffan T. Keeton, Esq. The Keeton Firm LLC 100 S Commons, Ste 102 Pittsburgh, PA 15212 Phone: (443) 735-6750 Email: efiling@keetonfirm.com HUMMINGBIRD FUNDS: Violates Alabama Usury Laws, Easley Says ----------------------------------------------------------- LILLIAN EASLEY and all others similarly situated v. HUMMINGBIRD FUNDS, D/B/A BLUE TRUST LOANS; JOSEPH WILDCAT, SR.; NICOLE CHAPMAN-REYNOLDS; EDMUND PETERSON; CHRIS SOULIER; PATRICIA MARQUEZ; PHILLIP CHAPMAN, JR.; DAROLD LONDO; RANDY SOULIER; MELISSA DOUD; JESSI PHILLIPS LORENZO; & JUANITA HUGULEY A/K/A JUANITA GEORGE-HUGULEY, Case No. 1:19-cv-00740 (S.D. Ala., Oct. 4, 2019), alleges that the Defendants operate an illegal scheme hiding behind the facade of Native American tribes while they openly violate the usury laws of Alabama and other states. According to the Plaintiff, operating solely online and, therefore, available to anyone in Alabama or the United States with a computer and a bank account, Hummingbird Funds made a loan to her on March 26, 2019, with the principal amount of $600 and an annual interest rate of 609.72 per cent. The Plaintiff files this Class Action Complaint alleging violations of the Alabama Small Loan Act and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. Hummingbird Funds, doing business as Blue Trust Loans, is an Internet lender with a principal place of business in Hayward, Wisconsin. Blue Trust purports to be an entity organized under the laws of the Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians. Joseph Wildcat, Sr., is a citizen of Wisconsin employed as president of the Lac Du Flambeau Tribe of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians ("the LDF Tribe"), in Lac du Flambeau Wisconsin. Nicole Chapman-Reynolds is a citizen of Wisconsin employed as president of the board of directors of the Lac Du Flambeau Business Development Corporation ("LDF BDC"), in Lac Du Flambeau, Wisconsin. Juanita Huguley a/k/a Juanita George-Huguley is a citizen of Wisconsin employed as operations director of LDF Holdings, LLC ("LDF Holdings"). The other Individual Defendants are citizens of Wisconsin and are officers, employees or directors of the LDF BDC.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Earl P. Underwood, Jr., Esq. UNDERWOOD & RIEMER, P.C. 21 S. Section Street Fairhope, AL 36532 Telephone: (251) 990-5558 Facsimile: (251) 990-0626 E-mail: epunderwood@alalaw.com - and - Steven P. Gregory, Esq. GREGORY LAW FIRM, P.C 2700 Corporate Drive, Suite 200 Birmingham, AL 35242 Telephone (205) 799-0380 E-mail: steve@gregorylawfirm.us HUNGRY MAN INC: Castaneda Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned Agustin Castaneda, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated and aggrieved, Plaintiff, v. Hungry Man, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 19STCV26637 (Cal. Super., July 31, 2019), was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in September 30, 2019 under Case No. 19-cv-08441. Hender seeks unpaid overtime wages and interest, redress for failure to authorize or permit required meal periods, statutory penalties for failure to provide accurate wage statements, waiting time penalties in the form of continuation wages for failure to timely pay employees all wages due upon separation of employment, 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] Castaneda is represented by: Dale Alan Harris, Esq. Lin Zhan, Esq. Min Ji Gal, Esq. HARRIS & RUBLE 655 North Central Avenue, 17th Floor Glendale CA 91203 Tel: (323) 962-3777 Fax: (323) 962-3004 Email: aharris@harrisandruble.com mgal@harrisandruble.com lzhan@harrisandruble.com Hungry Man is represented by: Spencer C. Skeen, Esq. Cameron J. Davila, Esq. Tim L. Johnson, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 4370 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 990 San Diego, CA 92122 Telephone: (858) 652-3100 Facsimile: (858) 652-3101 Email: spencer.skeen@ogletree.com cameron.davila@ogletree.com tim.johnson@ogletree.com ILLINOIS: District Court Narrows Claims in Stewart's IDOC Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JAVAR STEWART, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. JACQUELINE LASHBROOK, MICHAEL D. SCOTT, KIMBERLY FERRARI, WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC., SALVADOR GODINEZ, and LOUIS SHICKER, Defendants, Case No. 3:16-CV-1321-NJR-MAB (S.D. Ill.), Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois (i) granted the Defendants' Motions to Dismiss; (ii) denied Wexford's alternative Motion to Strike; and (iii) dismissed without prejudice Count 5. The matter is before the Illinois District Court on the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Mark A. Beatty, which recommends the Illinois Court deny the partial motions to dismiss filed by Defendants Jaqueline Lashbrook, Salvador Godinez, and Louis Shicker ("IDOC Defendants"), and Defendants Wexford Health Sources, Inc., Kimberly Ferrari, and Michael D. Scott ("Wexford Defendants"). The Defendants timely objected to the Report and Recommendation. Plaintiff Stewart filed a response to those objections. Stewart, an inmate of the Illinois Department of Corrections ("IDOC"), filed a pro se complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 for claims arising from allegedly delayed medical treatment for a knee injury. He was subsequently appointed counsel, who filed an Amended Complaint, adding several Defendants and asserting a putative class action. Stewart's Amended Complaint was divided into five counts: Count 1: Claim for alleged violation of the Plaintiff's rights under the Eighth Amendment against Defendant Jacqueline Lashbrook; Count 2: Claim for alleged violation of the Plaintiff's rights under the Eighth Amendment against Defendant Kimberly Ferrari; Count 3: Claim for alleged violation of the Plaintiff's rights under the Eighth Amendment against Defendant Michael Scott Count 4: Claim for alleged violation of the Plaintiff's rights under the Eighth Amendment against Defendant Wexford Count 5: Claim for alleged violation of the putative class members' rights under the Eighth Amendment against Defendants Wexford and the State Defendants. Stewart's Amended Complaint, specifically Count 5, indicates that he will seek to move for class status to represent all inmates who are or will be under the direct care and medical supervision of the named Defendants and subjected to the policies and practices in the provision of medical care. The Defendants now seek dismissal of Count 5 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Alternatively, they seek to strike Count 5 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f). More specifically, the Defendants argue Count 5 should be dismissed because the members of Stewart's proposed class are already part of, and thus bound by, an "essentially identical" certified class in Lippert, et al. v. Baldwin, et al., pending in the Northern District of Illinois (Case No. 10-cv-4603). The Rule 23(b)(2) class in Lippert has been certified as representing all prisoners in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC) requiring medical care and treatment while incarcerated. Stewart's Amended Complaint claims that the lack of adequate care from the IDOC Defendants and Wexford Defendants has exposed all inmates to substantial risk of harm in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Specific to Count 5, Stewart asserts, on behalf of the putative class, that the Defendants failed to provide: (1) adequate staffing on weekends and holidays; (2) health care providers possessing the requisite education, training, and experience; (3) prompt referrals for off-site medical care; and (4) timely emergency treatment. Stewart prayed for a mandatory injunction requiring the Wexford Defendants and the IDOC Defendants to submit and implement a plan describing the measures they will take to provide constitutionally-adequate care and services. The Lippert class action also alleges that the health care provided to incarcerated individuals in the IDOC violates Eighth Amendment constitutional standards. Specifically, the Lippert class identifies nine IDOC policies and practices that put the class at a substantial risk of harm, in pertinent part: (1) failing to fill medical leadership and other medical staff vacancies; (2) permitting under-qualified medical professionals to treat prisoners; (3) failing to timely identify medical problems at reception and intrasystem transfer; and (6) delaying and denying specialty care. The Lippert class prayed for injunctive relief barring unconstitutional practices and requiring the IDOC to submit and implement a plan to address these violations. On June 12, 2019, Magistrate Judge Beatty entered a Report and Recommendation that recommends the Court deny the Defendants' Motions to Dismiss. He was unpersuaded by the Defendants' argument that the putative class action proposed in Count 5 is duplicative of the Lippert class, concluding that there were substantial differences between each class action. In particular, Magistrate Judge Beatty concluded that each action was: not filed by the same Plaintiff; not filed in the same district court; did not include the same defendants; and did not involve the same issues. In short, he concluded that the outcome in Lippert would not likely remedy the allegations of systemically-flawed staffing schedules of the IDOC which the class addresses. The IDOC Defendants filed a timely objection, exhibiting the Consent Decree from the Lippert case, and arguing that Lippert requires dismissal of Count 5 because the claims are covered and duplicative relief is sought. The Wexford Defendants also filed a timely objection, arguing similarly that the class is duplicative and should not be certified because Stewart is a member of the Lippert class. Stewart filed a timely response arguing that the grounds for attacking the proposed class is premature and that there are significant differences between the two classes. On review, Judge Rosenstengel finds that the parties are substantially similar. Although Lippert was not filed by Stewart, he is a member of the class that Lippert represents, being a prisoner in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections with serious medical needs. Judge Rosenstengel also finds that the fact that Lippert and the case were filed in different districts is not dispositive. Stewart relies on Hecker v. Petco Animal Supplies, Inc. to argue that dismissal is appropriate only when the case is filed in the same district by the same plaintiff. However, the Hecker case was a class action brought under Rule 23(b)(3) in which members had the right to opt-out because they were seeking individualized money damages, not class-wide relief. As noted, the class in Lippert consists of "all prisoners in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC) requiring medical care and treatment while incarcerated." Thus, it does not matter that the two cases were filed in different judicial districts; Stewart is a member of the Lippert class. Judge Rosenstengel continues to note that while the Wexford Defendants are not named Defendants in Lippert, Wexford -- a contracted vendor of the IDOC -- and its employees are still bound by the Lippert Consent Decree. The Consent Decree in Lippert, entered May 9, 2019, states: "Defendants represent that any vendor contract will require vendors to comply with all court orders, policies and procedures of IDOC." Finally, Rosenstengel finds the claims and relief available are also substantially similar. First, the specific claims brought forth for the putative class are essentially identical to that of Lippert. Second, the plaintiffs in both cases have requested injunctive relief barring unconstitutional practices and ask the Court to require the defendants to submit and implement a plan to address the violations. In this respect, Lippert is broad enough to provide efficient avenues of resolution for any claims that Count 5 addresses. Accordingly, Count 5 will be dismissed. For these reasons, Judge Rosenstengel sustained the Defendants' objections, and rejected the Report and Recommendation. The Defendants' Motions to Dismiss is granted. Wexford's Alternative Motion to Strike is denied. Count 5 is dismissed without prejudice, the Judge further ruled. The Clerk of Court is directed to substitute the Defendants in their official capacity. Because Defendants Rob Jeffreys and Steven Meeks are only named as Defendants in their official capacities in Count 5, they are also dismissed without prejudice. The action will now proceed on Counts 1-4 in Stewart's individual capacity. A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 27, 2019 Memorandum & Order is available at https://is.gd/nqxfXi from Leagle.com. Javar Stewart, Plaintiff, represented by Robert L. King , Korein Tillery. Jacqueline Lashbrook, Warden, Chief Administrator, Pinckneyville CC, Salvador Godinez, Added per Order 57 & Louis Shicker, Added per Order 57, Defendants, represented by Clayton J. Ankney, Illinois Attorney General's Office. Michael D. Scott, Physician Doctor, Pinckneyville CC, Kimberly Ferrari, Nurse & Wexford Health Sources Inc, Added per Order 57, Defendants, represented by Untress L. Quinn -- uquinn@sandbergphoenix.com -- Sandberg, Phoenix, et al., Natalie J. Kussart -- nkussart@sandbergphoenix.com -- Sandberg, Phoenix, et al. & Timothy R. Tevlin -- ttevlin@sandbergphoenix.com -- Sandberg, Phoenix, et al.. INFORMATICA LLC: Flynn Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay ----------------------------------------------------------- Joseph Flynn, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Informatica, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-06192, (N.D. Cal., September 30, 2019), seeks unpaid back wages at the applicable overtime rates, liquidated damages, costs and attorneys' fees, pre- and post-judgment interest and such other and further relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendant is a software company that makes and sells enterprise software solutions to businesses' information technology where Flynn worked as an inside sales representatives. Flynn claims to have worked between 45-48 hours per work week but was not paid overtime for hours in excess of 40. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew C. Helland, Esq. Daniel S. Brome, Esq. NICHOLS KASTER, LLP 235 Montgomery St., Suite 810 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 277-7235 Facsimile: (415) 277-7238 Email: helland@nka.com dbrome@nka.com - and - Michele R. Fisher, Esq. Jay Eidsness, Esq. NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP 4600 IDS Center, 80 South 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 256-3200 Facsimile: (612) 215-6870 Email: fisher@nka.com jeidsness@nka.com - and - Austin Kaplan, Esq. KAPLAN LAW FIRM, PLLC 406 Sterzing St. Austin, TX 78704 Telephone: (512) 553-9390 Telecopier: (512) 692-2788 Email: akaplan@kaplanlawatx.com JEROME GOLDEN: Faces Jones Suit Alleging Violation of WARN Act -------------------------------------------------------------- JOYCE JONES and MARGARET SCHNITZER, on behalf of themselves and a class of those others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE JEROME GOLDEN CENTER FOR BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, INC., Defendant, Case No. 9:19-cv-81422-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Oct. 20, 2019), is brought over the Defendant's alleged violation of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act of 1988. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant fails to provide them and all others similarly situated at least 60 days advance notice of their termination, as required by the WARN Act. The Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated employees were terminated as part of plant shutdowns or mass layoffs as defined by the WARN Act. The Defendant also failed to pay the Plaintiffs and other former employees their wages, salary, commissions, bonuses, accrued holiday pay, vacation, and other benefits, which would have accrued for 60 days following their terminations without notice and failed to make 403(b) contributions and provide them with health insurance coverage and other employee benefits, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant until termination without cause on October 3, 2019, and October 7, 2019. The Defendant was a business focusing on providing behavioral health care services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ryan D. Barack, Esq. KWALL BARACK NADEAU PLLC 304 S. Belcher Road, Suite C Clearwater, FL 33765 Telephone: (727) 441-4947 Facsimile: (727) 447-3158 E-mail: rbarack@employeerights.com JMZ PROPERTIES: Honeywell Files ADA Suit in S.D. Florida -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against JMZ PROPERTIES, INC. The case is styled as Cheri Honeywell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JMZ PROPERTIES, INC. a Florida corporation, Defendant, Case No. 9:19-cv-81421-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Oct. 18, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. JMZ PROPERTIES, INC. is a property management & residential leasing company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jessica Lynn Kerr, Esq. Jessica L.Kerr, P.A. dba The Advocacy Group 200 S.E. 6th Street, Suite 504 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954) 282-1858 Fax: (844) 786-3694 Email: service@advocacypa.com JOHN DOE: Brandi K. Stokes Files Civil Rights Suit in Texas ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Doe. The case is styled as Brandi K. Stokes as an individual and on behalf of all family members similarly situated, Plaintiff v. John Doe name(s) to be determined later; protected persons pursuant to the Geneva Conventions, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01021-RP (W.D. Tex., Oct. 18, 2019). The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandi K. Stokes P.O. Box 301916 Austin, TX 78703 Phone: (512) 206-0202 Fax: (512) 519-2013 PRO SE JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Curry Sues over Talc Baby Powder Health Risks ---------------------------------------------------------------- RANDI LYNN CURRY, the Plaintiff, vs. JOHNSON & JOHNSON and JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC., f/k/a JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC., Defendants Case No. 1:19-cv-01016-TDS-JEP (M.D.N.C., Oct. 1, 2019), alleges that Defendants continue to intentionally conceal and/or recklessly and/or grossly negligently fail to disclose to the public, including Plaintiff, the serious side effects of the Johnson's Baby Powder in order to ensure continued and increased sales. Curry is a citizen and resident of Forsyth County, North Carolina. She had been using Johnson's Baby Powder and Shower to Shower products. She had been diagnosed and had undergone treatment of her ovarian cancer. In 1893, Johnson & Johnson developed Johnson's Baby Powder as a daily use powder intended to eliminate friction and absorb unwanted excess moisture on the skin for both babies and women. According to the complaint, the Defendants continue to aggressively market the Products to consumers, without disclosing the true risk of side effects. The Defendants knew that the Products were defective and of an unreasonably dangerous nature, but continued to manufacture, produce, assemble, market, distribute, and sell the Products so as to maximize sales and profits at the expense of the health and safety of the Public, including Plaintiff, in conscious and/or reckless disregard of the foreseeable harm caused by the Products. According to the lawsuit, as a direct and proximate result of the Defendants' acts and omissions, Plaintiff has required and will require health care and services, and has incurred medical, health care, incidental, and related expenses. The Plaintiff is informed and believes, and further alleges, that Plaintiff and other members of the public will in the future be required to obtain further medical care and/or hospital care and medical services, the lawsuit says. Johnson & Johnson Consumer has been a wholly owned subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson under the complete dominion and control of Johnson & Johnson and functions as an agent and/or alter ego of its parent corporation. Johnson & Johnson Consumer formulated, manufactured, marketed, tested, promoted, sold, and distributed Johnsons Baby Powder. Talc, magnesium trisilicate, is an inorganic mineral mined from the earth. Imerys Talc America, Inc. mined the talc at issue in the case and supplied the Material Safety Data sheets, containing health and warning information, for talc. Talc is the main substance in talcum powders, and talcum powders is the main ingredient in Defendants' Johnson's Baby Powder, the product at issue in the case. Johnson's Baby Powder is composed almost entirely of talc.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: John D. Hurst, Esq. MOTLEY RICE LLC 50 Clay Street, Suite 1 Morgantown, WV 26501 Telephone: (304) 413-0457 Facsimile: (304) 413-0458 E-mail: jhurst@motleyrice.com K1 HVAC INC: Denied Technicians Overtime Pay, Wage Statements ------------------------------------------------------------- Dwayne Brummell, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. K1 HVAC Inc. and Krishnadat Sing, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-05488 (E.D. N.Y., September 27, 2019), seeks to recover the statutory minimum wage, overtime premium pay, redress for failure to provide a Notice and Acknowledgement of Payrate and Payday and accurate wage statements, attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York labor law. Defendants operate a heating, ventilation and air-conditioning repair and installation company located at 107-25 116th Street, Richmond Hill, New York where Brummell worked as an HVAC technician. He claims to be denied overtime premium pay for any hours he worked above 40 in a week. Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas B. Lipsky, Esq. Christopher H. Lowe, Esq. Milana Dostanitch, Esq. LIPSKY LOWE LLP 630 Third Avenue, Fifth Floor New York, NY 10017-6705 Tel: (212) 392-4772 Fax: (212) 444-1030 Email: doug@lipskylowe.com chris@lipskylowe.com KAAM ENTERPRISES: Morissette Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------- KARI MORISSETTE, and other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. KAAM ENTERPRISES, INC. d/b/a SUBWAY, and KHALID ABID, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-24228-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Oct. 14, 2019) is an action to recover money damages for unpaid overtime wages under the laws of the United States under the Fair Labor Standards Act. While employed by the Corporate Defendant, Plaintiff worked approximately an average of 55-60 hours per week without being compensated at the rate of not less than one and one-half times the regular rate at which she was employed. Specifically, the Defendant paid Plaintiff 28-30 hours by check and the rest in cash. Defendant never paid for any hour at time and one-half. The Corporate Defendant willfully and intentionally refused to pay Plaintiff overtime wages as required by the laws of the United States and remains owing Plaintiff these overtime wages since the commencement of Plaintiff’s employment with the Corporate Defendant, says the complaint. Plaintiff was employed by the Corporate Defendant as a cashier for the Corporate Defendant's business. Defendants are a Florida company and a Florida resident, having their main place of business in Miami-Dade County, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: R. Martin Saenz, Esq. SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC 20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 800 Aventura, FL 33180 Phone: (305) 503-5131 Facsimile: (888) 270-5549 Email: msaenz@saenzanderson.com LION OIL: Arkansas Ct. Denies Bid to Certify Class in Fuller Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, THURMAN FULLER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. LION OIL TRADING & TRANSPORTATION, LLC., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-1020 (W.D. Ark.), Judge Susan O. Hickey of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, El Dorado Division, denied the Plaintiffs' (i) motion for class certification, and (ii) motion for extension of time to respond. On May 15, 2019, the Plaintiffs, seven siblings who are each representing him or herself pro se, brought the action. The Plaintiffs seek, inter alia, to recover unpaid royalties from the Defendant that were allegedly paid to their other siblings, who are not parties to the case. On Aug. 14, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, seeming to request that the Court certifies a class consisting of themselves. On Aug. 28, 2019, the Defendant responded, indicating that it opposes the motion. On Sept. 9, 2019, Magistrate Judge Barry A. Bryant issued a Report and Recommendation, in which he recommends that the Court denies the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Plaintiffs have not filed objections to the Report and Recommendation, and the time to object has passed. On Sept. 25, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking a 60-day extension of time to respond to the Defendant's opposition to their class certification motion. Judge Hickey finds that the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and motion for extension of time were docketed as filed by all the Plaintiffs. However, only Plaintiff Clara Fuller, a non-lawyer as far as the Court can tell, signed the motions. She is not the Other Plaintiffs' attorney and her own signature does not suffice for them for purposes of Rule 11(a). Ordinarily in situations like this, the Court would direct the Clerk of Court to mail copies of the motions to all the Plaintiffs who have not signed them and grant them an opportunity to sign and return the motions. Judge Hickey will not do so in the instance because it would only serve to delay the resolution of the instant motions. Her analysis and rulings would be the same regardless of whether or not all the Plaintiffs have signed the pending motions. However, the Plaintiffs should ensure that all future filings in the case are signed by all the Plaintiffs to avoid any further issues under Rule 11(a). Turning to the Plaintiffs' motion for an extension of time, Judge Hickey finds that the Plaintiffs' class certification motion is not a summary judgment motion, so they are not entitled to file a reply brief unless the Court grants leave to do so. The Plaintiffs have not provided the Court with a proposed reply brief, nor have they discussed what specifically in the Defendant's response brief they wish to address or what issues they need sixty days' time to research. Judge Hickey sees no basis to grant the Plaintiffs leave to file a reply brief and, thus, she declines to do so. Finally, Magistrate Judge Bryant's findings concludes that the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification should be denied because the Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that Rule 23 class certification is proper in the case. The Plaintiffs have not filed objections to the Report and Recommendation and their time to object has passed. Judge Hickey has reviewed the filings and agrees with Magistrate Judge Bryant's recommendation that the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification should be denied. For these reasons and upon de novo review, Judge Hickey adopted the Report and Recommendation in toto. She denied the Plaintiffs' (i) motion for class certification, and (ii) motion for extension of time. A full-text copy of Judge Hickey's Sept. 27, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/lPesFE from Leagle.com. Thurman Fuller, Plaintiff, pro se. Grace Fuller, Plaintiff, pro se. Patricia Dockery, Plaintiff, pro se. Elizabeth Donell, Plaintiff, pro se. Louise Sawyer, Plaintiff, pro se. George Fuller, Plaintiff, pro se. Clara Fuller, Plaintiff, pro se. Lion Oil Trading & Transportation, LLC, Defendant, represented by G. Alan Perkins -- alan@ppgmrlaw.com -- PPGMR Law PLLC, William Ray Whitman -- rwhitman@bakerlaw.com -- Baker & Hostetler LLP & Monica Kristin Gerety -- kgerety@bakerlaw.com -- Baker & Hostetler LLP. LONG ISLAND BAGEL: Guevara Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- ELMER DAVID GUEVARA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LONG ISLAND BAGEL CAFE, LLC and RANDY DESTEFANO, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-05899 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 18, 2019), seeks equitable and legal relief for the Defendants' violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the New York Labor Law. The Defendants did not pay him additional compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 per week, the Plaintiff alleges. While employed with the Defendants, the Plaintiff contends he was a non-exempt employee pursuant to the FLSA and the NYLL, and was entitled to receive at least the minimum wage for all hours worked and overtime compensation for all hours worked in excess of 40 per week. However, the Plaintiff was not paid at least the minimum wage for all hours worked, and despite routinely working more than 40 hours per week, the Defendants failed to pay him overtime compensation of one and one-half times his regular rate of pay or the applicable minimum wage rate, whichever is greater, for the hours he worked in excess of 40 per week. The Defendants also failed to furnish to the Plaintiff a payroll notice at the time of his hire, or at any time thereafter, containing his rates of pay, the designated payday, or other information required by NYLL, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a prep-cook from March 2017 until June 7, 2019. Long Island Bagel is a domestic limited liability company with its principal place of business located at 248 Smithtown Blvd., in Nesconset, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Katherine Morales, Esq. KATZ MELINGER PLLC 280 Madison Avenue, Suite 600 New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 460-0047 E-mail: kymorales@katzmelinger.com LOWE'S HOME: Bid to Dismiss Houtman FLSA Suit Denied as Moot ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, Daniel Danford Harry Houtman, Plaintiff, v. Lowe's Home Centers LLC, Lowe's Companies Inc, Defendant, Civil Action No. 5:19-cv-00041-KDB-DCK (W.D. N.C.), Judge Kenneth D. Bell of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, Statesville Division, denied as moot the Defendants' Partial Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Collected and Class Action Complaint. The Magistrate Judge's Memorandum and Recommendation ("M&R") recommends that the Defendant's Motion be denied as moot. The parties have not filed an objection to the M&R, and the time for doing so has expired. Having carefully reviewed the Magistrate Judge's M&R, the relevant portions of the record and applicable legal authority, Judge Bell is satisfied that there is no clear error as to the M&R, to which no objection was made. Accordingly, Judge Bell Bell adopted the Magistrate Judge's M&R, and denied as moot the Defendants' Motion. A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 27, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/L7a1Z9 from Leagle.com. Daniel Danford, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin J. Stoops -- kstoops@sommerspc.com -- Sommers Schwartz, pro hac vice, Rod M. Johnston -- rjohnston@sommerspc.com -- Sommers Schwartz, P.C., pro hac vice & James Jenkins Mills -- jmills@bdppa.com -- Burns Day & Presnell, PA. Lowe's Companies Inc & Lowe's Home Centers, LLC, Defendants, represented by Benjamin Paul Fryer -- benjaminfryer@mvalaw.com -- Moore & Van Allen PLLC, Paul Javier Peralta -- paulperalta@mvalaw.com -- Rachael McMillan Coe -- rachaelcoe@mvalaw.com -- Moore & Van Allen & Scott M. Tyler -- scotttyler@mvalaw.com -- Moore & Van Allen, PLLC. LUXOTTICA OF AMERICA: Vo Sues over Biometric Data Collection ------------------------------------------------------------ AMANDA VO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LUXOTTICA OF AMERICA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2019CH10946 (Ill. Cir., Cook Cty., Sept. 20, 2019) alleges violation of the Biometric Information Privacy Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant collect, store, and use the Plaintiff's biometric identifiers and biometric information without informed written consent in violation of the Biometric Information Privacy Act. Luxottica Retail North America Inc. offers prescription glasses and sunglasses. The Company offers premium, luxury, and sports eyewear, while also providing a managed care package that includes medical and dental insurance. Luxottica Retail North America serves customers through a retail network throughout North America. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Myles P. McGuire, Esq. Evan Meyers, Esq. David L. Gerbie, Esq. MCGUIRE LAW, P.C. 55 W. Wacker, 9th Floor Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 893-7002 E-mail: mmcguire@mcgpc.com emeyers@mcgpc.com dgerbie@mcgpc.com MASTER GROUP: Does not Properly Pay Drivers, Montemarano Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ Vince Montemarano, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Master Group Enterprises, LLC, Brian Corradi, Master Pizza Franchise Group, LLC, Michael LaMarca, Doe Corporation 1-25; John Doe 1-25; Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02387 (N.D. Ohio, Oct. 14, 2019) is an action against Defendants seeking appropriate monetary, declaratory, and equitable relief based on Defendants' willful failure to compensate Plaintiff and similarly-situated individuals with minimum wages and overtime wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Ohio Constitution, Article II, Section 34a, and for unjust enrichment. Defendants repeatedly and willfully violated the Fair Labor Standards Act, Section 34a, and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act by failing to adequately reimburse delivery drivers for their delivery-related expenses. All delivery drivers at the Master Pizza stores, including Plaintiff, have been subject to the same or similar employment policies and practices. The Defendants have also failed to properly take a tip credit from Plaintiff's wages because, after accounting for unreimbursed expenses, Defendants have taken more of a tip credit than they informed Plaintiff they would be taking. Thus, Defendants have failed to pay Plaintiff minimum wage as required by law, says the complaint. Plaintiff worked at the Master Pizza store in Medina, Ohio as a delivery driver from August to September 2019. Defendants Master Pizza Franchise Group, LLC and Michael LaMarca operate approximately 10 Master Pizza stores in northeastern Ohio.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Biller, Esq. Biller & Kimble, LLC 4200 Regent Street, Suite 200 Columbus, OH 43219 Phone: (614) 604-8759 Facsimile: (614) 340-4620 Email: abiller@billerkimble.com - and – Andrew Kimble, Esq. Louise M. Roselle, Esq. Biller & Kimble, LLC 3825 Edwards Road, Suite 650 Cincinnati, OH 45209 Phone: 513-715-8711 Fax: 614-340-4620 Email: akimble@billerkimble.com lroselle@billerkimble.com MICROSOFT CORP: Khalid Appeals Dismissal of Antitrust Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Atm Shafiqul Khalid filed an appeal from a Court ruling in his lawsuit titled Atm Khalid, et al. v. Microsoft Corporation, Case No. 2:19-cv-00130-RSM, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle. The appellate case is captioned as Atm Khalid, et al. v. Microsoft Corporation, Case No. 19-35841, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. District Court Judge Ricardo S. Martinez granted Defendant Microsoft's Motion to Dismiss Khalid's amended complaint with leave to amend certain claims, as reported in the Class Action Reporter on Oct. 7, 2019. The Plaintiff worked at Microsoft from Jan. 9, 2012 until February 2015. As an initial matter, the Plaintiff sought to certify as a class of all Microsoft employees who signed an employment contract with Microsoft similar to the Employee Agreement signed by the Plaintiff (presented as "Count 7"). A pro se litigant may not serve as the representative of a class in a class action lawsuit under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. Accordingly, Judge Martinez did not consider the question of class certification. Having reviewed the Defendant's Motion, the Plaintiff's Response, the Defendant's Reply, and the remainder of the record, Judge Martinez granted the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. He (i) dismissed without prejudice with leave to amend Counts 1 and 2 (Sherman Act claims) and Count 3 (claim for extortion under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act); (ii) dismissed with prejudice Count 4 (forced labor), Count 5 (RICO claim for forced labor), Counts 6 and 12 (civil rights claims), Count 8 (fraud), and the Plaintiff's claim for declaratory relief on Fourteenth Amendment violation (Count 10); and dismissed without prejudice and with leave to amend the Plaintiff's remaining claims for declaratory relief (Counts 9 and 11). Among other things, with respect to the Plaintiffs' Anti-Trust Claims (Counts 1-2), the Judge found that (ii) the Plaintiff has not alleged a contract or conspiracy among multiple entities--instead, his complaint only names Microsoft and employees of Microsoft as the bad actors. The Plaintiff has likewise failed to state a claim under 15 U.S.C. Section 2 as he has provided no market analysis such as barriers to entry or hyper-competitive pricing that inhibits competitors from expanding their output in the cloud application market or the other identified markets. Finally, the injuries alleged by the Plaintiff are not within the scope of "antitrust injury" contemplated by Section 2, said the Court. As for Count 3, the Plaintiff's RICO claims predicated on extortion, the Judge found that the Plaintiff has not alleged sufficient facts to plausibly lead to his asserted RICO claim. The Plaintiff's complaint does not allege conduct by Microsoft that constitutes extortion under the Hobbs Act or Washington state law. Furthermore, he has failed to adequately allege an "enterprise" under RICO. Instead, the Plaintiff alleges that these various entities enjoy mutual benefits through their partnerships and explains how money flows between the various entities. These allegations do not set forth a viable RICO claim. The Judge also found that the broad and vague declaratory relief sought by the Plaintiff does not admit of specific relief through a decree of a conclusive character, as distinguished from an opinion advising what the law would be upon a hypothetical set of facts. Even if the Court narrows the broad language of the Plaintiff's request to apply to Microsoft's use and enforcement of its Employment Agreement, the Plaintiff has failed to sufficiently allege an actual dispute suitable for declaratory relief. On amendment, Plaintiff's complaint must request specific relief from the Court based on his own dispute with Microsoft--not broad relief based on hypothetical injuries to other Microsoft employees. The Court granted Plaintiff leave to amend his complaint so that he may be afforded an additional opportunity to plead a viable claim under the Sherman Act (Counts 1, 2), RICO (Count 3) and/or declaratory relief under Counts 9 and 11. The claims will be made on his own behalf and not on behalf of a putative class of Plaintiffs. The amended complaint will contain a concise statement of his claims setting forth the specific facts giving rise to a plausible inference that Microsoft is liable for the alleged violations. The Plaintiff was ordered to file a Second Amended Complaint within 30 days of the Order for Counts 1-3, 9 and 11. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Appellant Atm Shafiqul Khalid's opening brief is due on November 29, 2019; -- Appellee Microsoft Corporation's answering brief is due on December 30, 2019; -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief. Plaintiff-Appellant ATM SHAFIQUL KHALID, an individual and on behalf of similarly situated, of Redmond, Washington, appears pro se.[BN] Defendant-Appellee MICROSOFT CORPORATION, a Washington corporation, is represented by: Heidi Brooks Bradley, Esq. Tiffany Connors, Esq. LANE POWELL PC 1420 Fifth Avenue P.O. Box 91302 Seattle, WA 98111-9402 Telephone: (206) 223-7000 E-mail: bradleyh@lanepowell.com connorst@lanepowell.com MILACRON HOLDINGS: Krieger Seeks More Info re Hillenbrand Merger ---------------------------------------------------------------- JOSH KRIEGER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. MILACRON HOLDINGS CORP., IRA G. BOOTS, THOMAS J. GOEKE, JAMES F. GENTILCORE, TIMOTHY M. CROW, JAMES M. KRATOCHVIL, WATERS S. DAVIS IV, GREGORY J. GLUCHOWSKI, JR., DAVID REEDER and REBECCA LEE STEINFORT, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01943-UNA (D. Del., Oct. 14, 2019) is a class action brought by Plaintiff on behalf of himself and the other public holders of the common stock of Milacron Holdings Corp. against the Company and the members of the Company's board of directors for their violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, SEC Rule 14a-9, and Regulation G, in connection with the proposed merger between Milacron and Hillenbrand, Inc. On July 12, 2019, the Board caused the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with Hillenbrand, Inc., pursuant to which the Company's shareholders stand to receive $11.80 in cash and 0.1612 shares of Hillenbrand common stock for each share of Milacron stock they own. Upon completion of the merger, Milacron shareholders will own approximately 16% and Hillenbrand shareholders will own approximately 84% of the combined company. On September 10, 2019, in order to convince Milacron shareholders to vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction, the Board authorized the filing of a materially incomplete and misleading Form S-4 Registration Statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission, in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, notes the complaint. The materially incomplete and misleading S-4 violates both Regulation G and SEC Rule 14a-9, each of which constitutes a violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. On October 11, 2019, the Company filed a Form S-4/A Registration Statement that did not correct the materially incomplete and misleading nature of the S-4. While touting the fairness of the Merger Consideration to the Company's shareholders in the S-4, Defendants have failed to disclose certain material information that is necessary for shareholders to properly assess the fairness of the Proposed Transaction, thereby violating SEC rules and regulations and rendering certain statements in the S-4 materially incomplete and misleading. In particular, the S-4 contains materially incomplete and misleading information concerning: (i) the financial projections for the Company that were prepared by the Company and relied on by Defendants in recommending that Milacron shareholders vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction; and (ii) the summary of certain valuation analyses conducted by Milacron's financial advisor, Barclays Capital Inc. in support of its opinion that the Merger Consideration is fair to shareholders, on which the Board relied. It is imperative that the material information that has been omitted from the S-4 is disclosed prior to the forthcoming vote to allow the Company's shareholders to make an informed decision regarding the Proposed Transaction. For these reasons, Plaintiff asserts claims against Defendants for violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, based on Defendants' violation of: (i) Regulation G; and (ii) Rule 14a-9. Plaintiff seeks to enjoin Defendants from holding the shareholder vote on the Proposed Transaction and taking any steps to consummate the Proposed Transaction unless, and until, the material information is disclosed to Milacron shareholders sufficiently in advance of the vote on the Proposed Transaction or, in the event the Proposed Transaction is consummated, to recover damages resulting from Defendants’ violations of the Exchange Act, says the complaint. Plaintiff is a holder of Milacron common stock. Milacron manufactures, distributes, and services highly engineered and customized systems within the plastic technology and processing industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Van Gorder, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 3828 Kennett Pike, Suite 201 Wilmington, DE 19807 Phone: (302) 482-3182 Email: mvangorder@faruqilaw.com - and - Nadeem Faruqi, Esq. James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor New York, NY 10017 Phone: (212) 983-9330 Fax: (212) 983-9331 Email: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com jwilson@faruqilaw.com MORGAN STANLEY: Chen Appeals Ruling in Harvey Suit to 9th Circuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Proposed Intervenors Tracy Chen and Mathew Lucadano filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Brandon Harvey v. Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC, Case No. 3:18-cv-02835-WHO, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco. The District Court issued an order denying the Proposed Intervenors' Motion Seeking to Include Information in the Class Notice, as reported in the Class Action Reporter on Sept. 19, 2019. The Proposed Intervenors have filed an administrative motion seeking to include information about their lawsuit into the class notice issued in relation to preliminary approval of the proposed settlement in this case. Plaintiffs Tracy Chen and Matthew Lucadano are pursuing a parallel lawsuit, Chen v. Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC, Case No. 30-2014-00724866-CU-OE-CXC, in California Superior Court in Orange County, asserting civil penalty claims on behalf of Morgan Stanley FAs and the State of California pursuant to the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act. The Parties in the Harvey case opposd. Harvey argued that the Proposed Intervenor's motion is procedurally improper for three reasons: (i) they are not parties to this action and were only granted leave to file an amicus brief in opposition to the motion for preliminary approval, (ii) the motion is untimely, this issue should have been raised in the briefing or at the oral argument that took place on June 12, 2019 and (iii) an administrative motion is not the correct method of seeking the relief requested because Local Rule 7-11 reserves such motions for miscellaneous administrative matters" such as requests to exceed page limits or to file documents under seal. At minimum, Harvey contends, the Proposed Intervenors should be required to file a properly noticed motion after providing a satisfactory explanation why these concerns were not raised earlier. Harvey also argued that the motion should be denied on the merits because there is no authority for the Proposed Intervenors' request. Harvey also disputed the Proposed Intervenors' damages calculations as lacking foundation and highly speculative. MSSB argued that the Proposed Intervenor's motion should be denied on additional grounds as well. It contends that the purpose of providing information about parallel proceedings in a class notice is to provide individuals with the information necessary to opt out and pursue their own separate recovery in that separate proceeding. But here, potentially aggrieved employees under PAGA do not have the right to object or opt out of a PAGA settlement. The Parties' arguments on procedural grounds are all correct, ruled the District Court. An administrative motion is the incorrect vehicle for the Proposed Intervenors' motion and they had the opportunity to make their request in the amicus brief and at the hearing on the preliminary approval motion. Moreover, the Court agrees with the Parties on the merits. Potentially aggrieved employees do not have the right to opt out or object to a PAGA settlement. The appellate case is captioned as Brandon Harvey v. Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC, Case No. 19-16955, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Transcript must be ordered by October 31, 2019; -- Transcript is due on December 2, 2019; -- Appellants Tracy Chen and Mathew Lucadano's opening brief is due on January 9, 2020; -- Appellees Brandon Harvey and Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC's answering brief is due on February 10, 2020; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellee BRANDON HARVEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: James F. Clapp, Esq. Marita Murphy Lauinger, Esq. CLAPP & LAUINGER LLP 701 Palomar Airport Road, Suite 300 Carlsbad, CA 92011 Telephone: (760) 209-6565 E-mail: jclapp@clapplegal.com mlauinger@clapplegal.com - and - Jeffrey K. Compton, Esq. David S. Markun, Esq. MARKUN ZUSMAN & COMPTON, LLP 17383 West Sunset Boulevard Pacific Palisades, CA 90272-4181 Telephone: (310) 454-5900 E-mail: jcompton@mzclaw.com dmarkun@mczlaw.com - and - George Nemiroff, Esq. Edward Wynne, Esq. WYNNE LAW FIRM 80 E Sir Francis Drake Blvd., Suite 3G Larkspur, CA 94939-1709 Telephone: (415) 461-6400 Facsimile: (415) 461-3900 E-mail: gnemiroff@wynnelawfirm.com ewynne@wynnelawfirm.com Defendant-Appellee MORGAN STANLEY SMITH BARNEY LLC is represented by: Lynne C. Hermle, Esq. ORRICK HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE, LLP 1000 Marsh Road Menlo Park, CA 94025-1015 Telephone: (650) 614-7400 E-mail: lchermle@orrick.com - and - Andrew Livingston, Esq. ORRICK HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP 405 Howard Street San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 773-5588 E-mail: alivingston@orrick.com Movants-Appellants MATHEW LUCADANO and TRACY CHEN, Proposed Intervenors, are represented by: Mark Humenik, Esq. HABER POLK KABAT, LLP 423 S. Estate Drive Orange, CA 92869 Telephone: (949) 636-5754 E-mail: mhumenik@haberpolk.com - and - Christopher McNerney, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 245-1000 E-mail: cmcnerney@outtengolden.com - and - Jahan C. Sagafi, Esq. Relic Sun, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP One California Street, 12th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 638-8800 E-mail: jsagafi@outtengolden.com rsun@outtengolden.com - and - Laura Sullivan, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF LAURA SULLIVAN 423 South Estate Drive Orange, CA 92869 Telephone: (714) 744-1522 E-mail: laurasullivan@laurasullivanlaw.com MUHLENBERG COUNTY, KY: Violates FLSA and KWHA, Drake Suit Says -------------------------------------------------------------- LORETTA DRAKE AND, AND LONNIE DRAKE on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly-situated v. MUHLENBERG COUNTY FISCAL COURT, Case No. 4:19-cv-00137-JHM-HBB (W.D. Ky., Oct. 4, 2019), accuses the Defendant of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Kentucky Wages and Hours Act. The Defendant is a governmental entity and a subdivision of the Commonwealth of Kentucky. The Defendant operates a jail in Greenville, Muhlenberg County, Kentucky. The Defendant employs non-exempt employees at that jail, including Plaintiff Loretta Drake (Plaintiff Lonnie Drake was previously employed in a non-exempt position at the jail). The Plaintiffs bring this Complaint for the Defendant's violations of its statutory obligations to pay employees for work performed, including overtime work. Specifically, the Plaintiffs contend, the Defendant willfully engaged in a practice of not paying its employees for compensable work, including work performed before and after scheduled shifts and when employees would "switch shifts" with other employees or "cover" shifts for other employees.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mark N. Foster, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MARK N. FOSTER, PLLC P.O. Box 869 Madisonville, KY 42431 Telephone: (270) 213-1303 E-mail: Mfoster@MarkNFoster.com MY FRENCH: Olsen Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against My French Connection LLC. The case is styled as Thomas J. Olsen, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. My French Connection LLC doing business as: Oui Please, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-05887 (E.D. N.Y., Oct. 18, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. MY FRENCH CONNECTION LLC provides consulting, brand management, and expansion opportunities for French brands.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq. Lipsky Lowe LLP 630 Third Avenue New York, NY 10017-6705 Phone: (212) 392-4772 Fax: (212) 444-1030 Email: doug@lipskylowe.com NASHVILLE TENNESSEE VENTURES: Fails to Pay OT Wages, McGill Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- BETH MCGILL, TINA GIPSON, KARI NUENKE, EMILY NUENKE, and REBEL MOORE, Individually, and on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated current and former employees, Plaintiffs v. NASHVILLE TENNESSEE VENTURES, INC. a Tennessee Corporation, a/k/a NASHVILLE VENTURES, d/b/a HELP 4 TIMESHARE OWNERS, INTEGRITY SOLUTIONS GROUP, LLC, a New Mexico Limited Liability Company, JOHN STEVEN HUFFMAN, and JOHN PRESTON THOMPSON, Individually, Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-00922 (M.D. Tenn., Oct. 18, 2019), is brought as a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act to recover unpaid overtime compensation and other damages owed to the Plaintiffs and other current and former employees of the Defendants. The Plaintiffs and Class Members were always required to work in excess of 40 hours per week. The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants violated the FLSA by failing to compensate the Plaintiffs at the rate of time and one-half their regular rate of pay for all the hours worked over 40 hours in each workweek. The Plaintiffs are owed time and a half pay and liquidated damages for all hours worked over 40 and during the statutory period, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs were employed as hourly-paid Executive Branch Director and Case Managers. The Defendants' primary business, according to their Web site, is providing assistance to timeshare owners who "were fraudulently sold their timeshare properties." The Defendants provide assistance to timeshare owners in attempting to cancel timeshare contracts.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: J. Russ Bryant, Esq. Robert E. Turner IV, Esq. Nathaniel A. Bishop, Esq. Robert E. Morelli, III, Esq. JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER & HOLT 262 German Oak Drive Memphis, TN 38018 Telephone: (901) 754-8001 Facsimile: (901) 759-1745 E-mail: rbryant@jsyc.com rturner@jsyc.com nbishop@jsyc.com rmorelli@jsyc.com - and - Nina Parsley, Esq. PONCE LAW 400 Professional Park Drive Goodlettsville, TN 37072 E-mail: nina@poncelaw.com NATIONWIDE EXPRESS: Warfa Labor Suit Settlement Gets Prelim. OK --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, Abdullahi Warfa and Omar Omar, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the Minnesota Rule 23 Class, Plaintiffs, v. Nationwide Express, LLC, and Amazon Logistics, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-3103 (TNL) (D. Minn.), Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung of the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota granted the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Conditional and Class Certification and Preliminary Approval of Settlement. Magistrate Judge Leung has reviewed and considered all papers filed in connection with the motion. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e), for settlement purposes, only, the Magistrate Judge certified the Plaintiffs' claim for unpaid overtime under the Minnesota Fair Labor Standards Act as a class action on behalf of the class of all delivery drivers who performed services for Defendants through Nationwide Express, LLC at any time during the period of May 19, 2018 to March 13, 2019. Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b), for settlement purposes only, the Magistrate Judge also certified the lawsuit as a collective action for unpaid overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act, on behalf of the class of all delivery drivers who performed services for Defendants through Nationwide Express, LLC at any time during the period of May 19, 2018 to March 13, 2019. The Magistrate Judge further appointed Michele R. Fisher and Neil D. Pederson of Nichols Kaster PLLP and their firm as the class counsel to represent the settlement group. Because of the structure of the settlement, class and collective members who do not wish to be included in the settlement class need not submit any statement of exclusion. Any class or collective member who wishes to object to the proposed settlement or appear at the final approval hearing, must file or mail a notice of intent to object to the class counsel at the following address by Dec. 16, 2019 to: Michele R. Fisher Neil Pederson Nichols Kaster, PLLP 80 South 8th Street, Suite 4600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Email: intake@nka.com The Plaintiffs are required to file a letter with the Court supplementing the Memorandum of Law in Support of Unopposed Motion for Conditional and Class Certification and Preliminary Approval of Settlement by Jan. 6, 2020. The Plaintiffs need only supplement the previously filed memorandum to the extent new issues or information arises regarding the fairness, adequacy, or reasonableness of the settlement, but will update the Court as to whether any objections or requests for exclusion were received. They will also file a proposed order for final approval, as well as the requests for exclusion and objections to the Court at that time. The Court will hold a final approval hearing on Jan. 13, 2020 at 10:00 a.m. The parties are ordered to take all reasonable steps needed to comply with the following timeline: a. Accomplish mailing of notice due Oct. 24, 2019 b. Objections and requests for exclusion to the class counsel due Dec. 16, 2019 c. Requests for exclusion and objections to the Court and the defense counsel; and letter supporting previously filed memorandum due Jan. 6, 2020 due d. Final Approval Hearing - Jan. 13, 2020 at 10:00 a.m. A full-text copy of the District Court's Sept. 27, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/4cJCZi from Leagle.com. Abdullahi Warfa, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the Minnesota Rule 23 Class & Omar Omar, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the Minnesota Rule 23 Class, Plaintiffs, represented by Gregory S. Walz -- greg@walzlaw.com -- Walz Law Office, Michele R. Fisher -- fisher@nka.com -- Nichols Kaster, PLLP & Neil Daniel Pederson -- npederson@nka.com -- Nichols Kaster, PLLP. Nationwide Express, LLC, Defendant, represented by Keillen V. Curtis, Curtis Law Firm & Marcus A. Jarvis -- jarvislawfirm@msn.com -- Marcus-Jarvis Law Limited. Amazon Logistics, Inc., Defendant, represented by Brittany B. Skemp -- bskemp@bassford.com -- Bassford Remele, PA, Bryan R. Browning, Bassford Remele, Jonathan P. Norrie -- jnorrie@bassford.com -- Bassford Remele, Meredith Riccio -- meredith.riccio@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, pro hac vice & Stephanie L. Sweitzer -- stephanie.sweitzer@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, pro hac vice. PALMER ADMINISTRATIVE: Tompkins Sues over Automated Robocalls ------------------------------------------------------------- TOMMY J. TOMPKINS, JR, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plainitff, vs. PALMER ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES INC., the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00731 (S.D. Ala., Oct. 1, 2019), contends that the Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise, in part, by placing unsolicited calls to wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The complaint addresses the unlawful telemarketing campaigns conducted by the Defendant through automated robocalls made without any prior consent. Robocalling has plagued American consumers for years and it's getting much worse, the lawsuit says. Palmer Administrative is one of the nation's leading auto warranty providers.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Kenneth J. Riemer, Esq. UNDERWOOD & RIEMER, PC 2153 Airport Boulevard Mobile, AL 36606 Telephone: (251) 432 9212 Facsimile: (251) 990 0626 E-mail: kriemer@alalaw.com PATRIOT CAR: American Country Sues over Biometric Data Collection ----------------------------------------------------------------- AMERICAN COUNTRY INSURANCE COMPANY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PATRIOT CAR SERVICES, LLC d/b/a PATRIOT MEDICAL TRANSPORT; and CHRISTOPHER DIXON, Defendants, Case No. 2019CH10904 (Ill. Cir., Cook Cty., Sept. 20, 2019) alleges violation of the Biometric Information Privacy Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants disregarded their employees' statutorily protected privacy rights and unlawfully collects, stores, and uses their biometric data in violation of the Biometric Information Privacy Act. The Defendants failed to provide the Plaintiffs and the class in writing that their biometric information were being obtained, collected, captured and stored. The Defendants also failed to inform the Plaintiff and the class in writing of the specific purpose and length of term for which the biometric information was being collected, stored, and used. Patriot Car Services LLC was founded in 2015. The company's line of business includes providing local and suburban mass passenger transportation. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John J. Piegore, Esq. Edric S. Bautista, Esq. SANCHEZ DANIELS & HOFFMAN, LLP 333 West Wacker Drive, Suite 500 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 641-1555 E-mail: jpiegore@sanchezdh.com ebautista@sanchezdh.com PILOT TRAVEL: Fails to Pay OT Wage Under NM Wage Act, Drasal Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- STEVEN C. DRASAL, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. PILOT TRAVEL CENTERS, LLC, d/b/a PILOT FLYING J, Defendant, Case No. 6:19-cv-00981 (D.N.M., Oct. 18, 2019), alleges that the Defendant failed to pay its drivers in accordance with the guarantees and protections of the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant refuses to pay the Plaintiff for all of his work time. Specifically, the Defendant refuses to pay the Plaintiff an overtime premium for hours worked over forty in a workweek. The Plaintiff routinely worked 55-60 hours per week, but, because the Defendant did not pay him any overtime premium for hours worked over forty in a workweek, the Defendant failed and refused to pay him all of his wages due under the NM Wage Act, Mr. Drasal contends. Because there are other putative plaintiffs who are similarly situated to the Named Plaintiff with regard to the work performed and the Defendant's compensation policies, the Named Plaintiff brings his NM Wage Act claims as an opt-out class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant as a driver in December 2018. He remained in that role until he left employment with the Defendant in September 2019. The Defendant operates travel centers across the country, and provides travel-related services, including food and beverage services and fuel to both personal and professional drivers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel A. Verrett, Esq. MORELAND VERRETT, P.C. The Commissioners House at Heritage Square 2901 Bee Cave Road, Box L Austin, TX 78746 Telephone: (512) 782-0567 Facsimile: (512) 782-0605 E-mail: daniel@morelandlaw.com - and - Edmond S. Moreland, Jr., Esq. MORELAND VERRETT, P.C. 700 West Summit Dr. Wimberley, TX 78676 Telephone: 512 782 0567 Facsimile: 512 782 0605 E-mail: edmond@morelandlaw.com PLAINS ALL AMERICAN: Newman Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wage ----------------------------------------------------------------- KENNETH NEWMAN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. PLAINS ALL AMERICAN PIPELINE, L.P, Defendant, Case No. 7:19-cv-00244 (W.D. Tex., Oct. 18, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages owed under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Mr. Newman and the other workers like him, regularly worked for Plains in excess of 40 hours each week. The Plaintiff contends that these workers never received overtime for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a single workweek and were, instead, paid a day rate. This collective action seeks to recover the unpaid overtime wages and other damages owed to these workers, says the complaint. The Plaintiff has performed work for Plains as a coating inspector from February 2018 through August 2019. Plains owns and operates "an extensive network of pipeline transportation, terminals, storage and gathering assets in key crude oil and NGL producing basins, transportation corridors, and at major market hubs in the United States and Canada."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, 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 - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Telecopier: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com PLI CHICAGO: Faces Glon Class Suit Alleging Violation of BIPA ------------------------------------------------------------- TRACI GLON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PLI CHICAGO, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendant, Case No. 2019CH12079 (Ill. Cir., Cook Cty., Oct. 18, 2019), accuses the Defendant of violating Illinois' Biometric Information Privacy Act. Despite the substantial privacy risks created by the collection and storage of biometric data, and the decade-old prohibition on collecting and retaining biometric data in Illinois without informed consent, the Defendant uses a biometric time-tracking system that requires its employees to use their fingerprints as a means of authentication, the Plaintiff asserts. When the Defendant's Illinois employees begin their employment, the Defendant requires them to scan their fingerprints into an employee database. The Defendant's scanning and retention of employees' fingerprints without informed consent is clearly unlawful in Illinois, says the complaint. Traci Glon is a natural person and a citizen of the State of Illinois residing in DuPage County. The Defendant operates a card manufacturing facility located at 1120 Windham Pkwy., in Romeoville, Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ashley Keller, Esq. Alex J. Dravillas, Esq. KELLER LENKNER LLC 150 North Riverside Plaza, Suite 4270 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: 312.741.5220 E-mail: ack@kellerlenkner.com ajd@kellerlenkner.com PRAIRIE PIZZA: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages to Delivery Drivers ------------------------------------------------------------- LUIS MORENO, individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, v. PRAIRIE PIZZA, INC. d/b/a "Domino's", Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-00532 (W.D. N.C., Oct. 14, 2019) is a lawsuit brought as a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act, and class action under the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act, to recover unpaid minimum wages owed to Plaintiff and similarly situated delivery drivers employed by Defendants at its Domino's stores. The Defendant employs delivery drivers who use their own automobiles to deliver pizza and other food items to its customers. However, instead of reimbursing delivery drivers for the reasonably approximate costs of the business use of their vehicles, Defendant uses a flawed method to determine reimbursement rates that provides such an unreasonably low rate beneath any reasonable approximation of the expenses they incur that the drivers' unreimbursed expenses cause their wages to fall below the federal minimum wage during some or all workweeks, says the complaint. Plaintiff has been employed by Defendant most recently from 2012 to the present as a delivery driver at several of Defendant's Domino’s stores located in Charlotte, North Carolina and within this District. Defendant operates numerous Domino's Pizza franchise stores including in and around the Charlotte, North Carolina area.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jacob J. Modla, Esq. The Law Offices of Jason E. Taylor P.C. 454 South Anderson Rd., Suite 303 Rock Hill, SC 29730 Phone: 803-328-0898 Email: jmodla@jasonetaylor.com - and - J. Forester, Esq. FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC 400 N. St. Paul Street, Suite 700 Dallas, TX 75201 Phone: (214) 210-2100 Fax: (214) 346-5909 Email: jay@foresterhaynie.com PROTALUS LLC: Saitta Files Class Action in Massachusetts -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Protalus, LLC. The case is styled as Ronald Saitta Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. Protalus, LLC, Protalus USA, LLC, Protalus Holdings, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-12156-MLW (D. Mass., Oct. 18, 2019). The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. Protalus LLC is a privately held company in West Linn, OR and is a Single Location business, categorized under Boot and Shoe-Cut Stock and Findings Manufacturers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Pastor, Esq. Pastor Law Office, LLP 63 Atlantic Avenue, 3rd Floor Boston, MA 02110 Phone: (617) 742-9700 Fax: (617) 742-9701 Email: dpastor@pastorlawoffice.com PURDUE PHARMA: County of Kaua'i Opioid Suit Removed to D. Hawaii ---------------------------------------------------------------- The lawsuit styled COUNTY OF KAUA'I, A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I, for themselves individually, and on behalf of all similarly situated persons, and on behalf of the general public, as a class v. PURDUE PHARMA L.P.; PURDUE PHARMA INC.; PURDUE FREDERICK COMPANY, INC.; PURDUE PHARMACEUTICALS L.P.; TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL USA, INC.; CEPHALON, INC.; JOHNSON & JOHNSON; JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICA, INC. N/K/A JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; ORTHO MCNEIL-JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. N/K/A JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; ENDO HEALTH SOLUTIONS INC.; ENDO PHARMACEUTICALS INC.; ALLERGAN PLC F/K/A ACTAVIS PLC; ACTAVIS, INC. F/K/A WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; WATSON LABORATORIES, INC.; ACTAVIS LLC; ACTAVIS PHARMA, INC. F/K/A WATSON PHARMA, INC.; INSYS THERAPEUTICS, INC.; CARDINAL HEALTH, INC.; AMERISOURCE DRUG CORPORATION; AMERICAN MEDICAL DISTRIBUTORS, INC.; BELLCO DRUG CORP.; BLENHEIM PHARMACAL, INC.; EVEREADY WHOLESALE DRUGS LTD.; KINRAY, LLC; PSS WORLD MEDICAL, INC.; ROCHESTER DRUG COOPERATIVE, INC.; DARBY GROUP COPANIES, INC.; RAYMOND SACKLER FAMILY; MORTIMER SACKLER FAMILY; RICHARD S. SACKLER; JONATHAN D. SACKLER; MORTIMER D.A. SACKLER; KATHE A. SACKLER; ILENE SACKLER LEFCOURT; BEVERLY SACKLER; THERESA SACKLER; DAVID A. SACKLER; RHODES TECHNOLOGIES; RHODES TECHNOLOGIES INC.; RHODES PHARMACEUTICALS L.P.; RHODES PHARMACEUTICALS INC.; TRUST FOR THE BENEFIT OF MEMBERS OF THE RAYMOND SACKLER FAMILY; THE P.F. LABORATORIES, INC.; STUART D. BAKER; PAR PHARMACEUTICAL, INC.; PAR PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES, INC.; MALLINCKRODT PLC; MALLINCKRODT LLC; SPECGX LLC; MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; SANDOZ, INC.; WEST-WARD PHARMACEUTICALS CORP. N/K/A HIKMA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; NORAMCO, INC.; JOHN N. KAPOOR; ADNA, INC.; DISCOUNT DRUG MART, INC.; HBC SERVICE COMPANY; MORRIS & DICKSON CO., LLC; PUBLIX SUPERMARKETS, INC.; SAJ DISTRIBUTORS; VALUE DRUG COMPANY; SMITH DRUG COMPANY; CVS HEALTH CORPORATION; RITE AID OF MARYLAND, INC., D/B/A RITE AID MID-ATLANTIC CUSTOMER SUPPORT CENTER, INC.; RITE AID CORP.; WALGREENS BOOTS ALLIANCE, INC.; WALGREEN EASTERN CO.; WALGREEN, CO.; WAL-MART INC.; MIAMI-LUKEN, INC.; THE KROGER CO.; HENRY SCHEIN, INC.; AND HENRY SCHEIN MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC. and HAROLD CHARLES SPEARS, M.D., RUDOLPH B. PUANA, M.D., BIG ISLAND PAIN CENTER LLC, AND PUANA PAIN, LLC, Case No. 19-1-0075RGBV, was removed from the Circuit Court for the Fifth Circuit of the State of Hawaii, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii on Oct. 18, 2019. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-op-45862-DAP to the proceeding. This action is one of more than 2,000 opioid lawsuits filed by political subdivisions against manufacturers, distributors, and dispensers of prescription opioid medications. The Plaintiffs in these cases contend that the Defendants are liable for economic and non-economic harms they alleged were caused by the abuse of opioid medications. The County of Kauai's Complaint asserts claims for violation of Hawaii's Uniform Deceptive Trade Practice Act and Unfair or Deceptive Trade Practice Act, false advertising, public nuisance, fraud, unjust enrichment, negligence, and civil conspiracy.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Jeffrey S. Portnoy, Esq. Lisa K. Swartzfager, Esq. CADES SCHUTTE LLP Cades Schutte Building 1000 Bishop Street, Suite 1200 Honolulu, HI 96813-4212 Telephone: (808) 521-9200 Facsimile: (808) 521-9210 E-mail: jportnoy@cades.com lswartzfager@cades.com QG PRINTING: Deposition of Corporate Rep in Clark Labor Suit Okayed ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, PAUL CLARK, individually, and on behalf of other members of the public similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Q.G. PRINTING II, LLC, a Connecticut limited liability company; QUAD/GRAPHICS INC. a Wisconsin corporation and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00899-AWI-EPG (E.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California granted the Plaintiff's Motion to Modify Scheduling Order to Depose Defendant's Corporate Representative and for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint to the extent that he seeks to take a 30(b)(6) deposition of the Defendants' corporate representative(s). The proposed class action suit alleges various causes of action against the Defendants under the Private Attorneys General Act, California Labor Code Sections 2698, et seq. On Aug. 20, 2019, the Plaintiff filed the Motion to Modify Scheduling Order. The Court previously granted the Motion to the extent it sought leave to amend. It now addresses the Motion to the extent the Plaintiff seeks to take an untimely deposition of the Defendants' corporate representative(s) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6). The Plaintiff argues that the Defendants failed to produce class-wide data related to wage information until July 16, 2019, which hindered his ability to take a meaningful 30(b)(6) deposition by the June 28, 2019 class certification discovery deadline. The Defendants do not dispute the late production of records but maintain that the Plaintiff should have exercised more diligence in noticing a 30(b)(6) deposition. The parties also differ as to the effect of a prefatory paragraph in a July 19, 2019 stipulation that stated that the Plaintiff would take a 30(b)(6) deposition. There was, however, no request in the stipulation to extend the discovery cut-off to allow for a 30(b)(6) deposition. At oral argument, a dispute arose about whether the parties had discussed a 30(b)(6) deposition prior to August 2019, when the Plaintiff first sent draft notices of the 30(b)(6) deposition. The Defendants responded that it was "100% absolutely not the case" that any discussion of a 30(b)(6) deposition occurred prior to August 2019. On Sept. 23, 2019, at the Court's request, the Plaintiff filed supplemental documentation with the Court, which included a declaration from Beverly Allen Pike, an attorney of record for Plaintiff. Ms. Pike represented that there were verbal discussions between the parties after the suit was filed, in which the Plaintiff agreed not to notice the 30(b)(6) depositions until the named Plaintiffs were deposed. The Defendants do not deny the discussions the Pike declaration references or that a potential 30 (b)(6) deposition was discussed in the March 11, 2019 Joint Status Report. They nevertheless object to the deposition, arguing that it produced the policies, procedures, and timelines in a timely fashion; thus, at least according to the Plaintiff's representations in the March 11, 2019 Joint Status Report, nothing prevented a 30(b)(6) deposition from going forward. Magistrate Judge Grosjean finds that while the Plaintiff should have noticed the 30(b)(6) deposition sooner and requested a change to the schedule before the discovery cut-off, the deposition was ultimately delayed because the Defendants did not turn over class-wide data related to wage payment until July 2019 -- after the discovery deadline for class certification had passed. Indeed, Judge Grosjean finds that due to the late production from the Defendants, a 30(b)(6) deposition could not have been taken before the discovery cut-off. Furthermore, the Magistrate Judge finds that the Defendants misrepresented to the Court that there were no discussions of a 30(b)(6) deposition prior to the discovery cut-off. The March 11, 2019, Joint Status Report -- which the Defendants considered and approved prior to submission to the Court -- clearly demonstrates that the Plaintiff communicated its intent to notice a 30(b)(6) deposition to the Defendants before the discovery cut-off. Accordingly, for the reasons sstated, Magistrate Judge Grosjean grants the Plaintiff's Motion to the extent that Plaintiff seeks to take a 30(b)(6) deposition of the Defendants' corporate representative(s). The 30(b)(6) deposition is to occur as soon as possible, consistent with the schedule already set by the Court. A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 27, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/8dy26r from Leagle.com. Paul Clark, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Ari Yale Basser -- Ari.Basser@capstonelawyers.com -- Capstone Law, APC, Bevin Elaine Allen Pike -- Bevin.Pike@capstonelawyers.com -- Capstone Law APC, Joseph Hakakian -- Joseph.Hakakian@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Capstone Law APC & Orlando Villalba -- Orlando.Villalba@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Capstone Law APC. QG Printing II, LLC, a Conneciticut limited liability company & Quad/Graphics, Inc., a Wisconsin corporation, Defendants, represented by Gregory G. Iskander -- giskander@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C., James Phuc Van -- jpvan@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson & Andrew Hoon Woo -- awoo@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson PC. QUICK WEIGHT: Wriley Sues over Unwanted Misleading E-mails ---------------------------------------------------------- FELICIA WRILEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. QUICK WEIGHT LOSS CENTERS LLC, the Defendant, Case No. CACE-19-020202 (Fla. 17th Jud'l Cir., Oct. 2, 2019), contends that the Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise, in part, by sending spam e-mail marketing to computer users, in violation of the Florida's Electronic Mail Communications Act. The Defendant operates over 40 weight loss centers in Florida and Texas, selling programs, foods, and supplements to individuals attempting to lose weight. To solicit new customers, the Defendant engages in spam e-mail marketing with no regard for the rights of the recipients of those e-mails. Spam e-mails like the Defendant's undermine the integrity of electronic commerce in Florida and throughout the United States, the lawsuit contends, saying the Defendant caused thousands of misleading e-mails to be sent to Plaintiff and Class Members, causing them injuries, including lost productivity and resources, annoyance, consumption of valuable digital storage space and/or financial costs, the lawsuit says. The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt the Defendant's illegal conduct. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of himself and Class Members, and any other available legal or equitable remedies resulting from the Defendant's illegal actions.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: 954 400 4713 E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com - and - Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTIT-E, P.A. 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33 132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 Facsimile: (786) 623-0915 E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com - and - Scott Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, PA 19495 Biscayne Blvd No. 607 Aventura, FL 33 180 Telephone: 305-975-3320 E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com QUICKEN LOANS: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Ball Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- TANYA BALL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. QUICKEN LOANS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 6:19-cv-01836 (M.D., Fla., Sept. 23, 2019) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls. Quicken Loans Inc. is a mortgage lending company headquartered in the One Campus Martius building in the heart of the financial district of downtown Detroit, Michigan. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John A. Yanchunis, Esq. Patrick A. Barthle, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 201 N. Franklin St., 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 223-5505 Facsimile: (813) 222-2434 E-mail: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com pbarthle@forthepeople.com - and - William "Billy" Peerce Howard, Esq. THE CONSUMER PROTECTION FIRM 210 South MacDill Avenue South Tampa, FL, 33609 Telephone: (813) 500-1500 E-mail: Billy@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com QUINONEZ FOODSERVICE: Underpays Servers, Casas Suit Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------- CORINA CASAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. QUINONEZ FOODSERVICE LTD d/b/a CHACHO'S #1, d/b/a CHACHO'S #2, d/b/a CHACHO'S #3, d/b/a CHACHO'S #5, and d/b/a CHACHO'S, Defendant, Case No. 5:19-cv-01156 (W.D. Tex., Sept. 24, 2019) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff Casas was employed by the Defendants as server. Quinonez Foodservice LTD is a domestic Limited Partnership, which does business in Texas. The company's line of business includes the retail sale of prepared foods and drinks for on-premise consumption. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq. Todd Slobin, Esq. Mark G. Lazarz, Esq. Melinda Arbuckle, Esq. 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 621-2277 Facsimile: (713) 621-0993 E-mail: rprieto@eeoc.net tslobin@eeoc.net mlazarz@eeoc.net marbuckle@eeoc.net RED LION HOTELS: Herbert Sues Over Unpaid Minimum Wages ------------------------------------------------------- VIRGINIA HERBERT, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RED LION HOTELS CORPORATION, D/B/A RLH CORPORATION, D/B/A HOTEL RL AND MAINSAIL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-03779-RV-EMT (N.D. Fla., Oct. 18, 2019), is a collective action complaint asserting claims for unpaid minimum wages pursuant to the collective action provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. While working for the Defendants as a bartender, the Plaintiff was subjected to the Defendants' policy of taking a "tip credit" and, therefore, not paying her the regular federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour or the Florida minimum wage of $8.46 per hour, the Plaintiff asserts. However, the Defendants also required the Plaintiff to share a portion of her tips with the Defendants' managers, in violation of the "tip credit" provisions of the FLSA. In this manner, the Plaintiff did not receive all minimum wage pay she was owed for all hours that she worked, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a bartender from December 2018 to August 2019. Red Lion Hotels Corporation is the owner and operator of the Island Hotel in Fort Walton Beach, Florida, where the Plaintiff worked.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mary Bubbett Jackson, Esq. JACKSON+JACKSON 1992 Lewis Turner Blvd., Suite 1023 Fort Walton Beach, FL 32547 Telephone: (850) 200-4594 Facsimile: (888) 988-6499 E-mail: mjackson@jackson-law.net RESTORATION ROBOTICS: Bushansky Sues over Proposed Merger --------------------------------------------------------- STEPHEN BUSHANSKY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RESTORATION ROBOTICS, INC.; RYAN RHODES; FREDERIC MOLL; JEFFREY BIRD; GIL KLIMAN; CRAIG TAYLOR; SHELLEY THUNEN; and KEITH SULLIVAN, Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-06004-MMC (N.D. Cal., Sept. 24, 2019) is a class action brought by Plaintiff on behalf of himself and the public stockholders of Restoration Robotics, Inc. against Restoration Robotics and the members of its Board of Directors their violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the Securities and Exchange Commission. The action also seeks to enjoin the vote on a stock issuance in connection with a proposed transaction, pursuant to which Radiant Merger Sub, Ltd., a direct, wholly owned subsidiary of Restoration Robotics, will merge with and into Venus Concept Ltd., with Venus continuing as the surviving corporation and a direct wholly owned subsidiary of Restoration Robotics. On September 10, 2019, the Defendants filed a proxy statement/prospectus on Form 424B3 with the SEC. According to the complaint, the Proxy Statement, which recommends that Restoration Robotics stockholders vote in favor of the Stock Issuance, omits or misrepresents material information concerning, among other things: (i) Restoration Robotics' and Venus financial projections, relied upon by the Company's financial advisor, SVB Leerink LLC, in its financial analyses; (ii) the valuation analyses performed by Restoration Robotics' financial advisor SVB Leerink regarding the Proposed Transaction; and (iii) potential conflicts of interest faced by Company insiders and SVB Leerink. Defendants authorized the issuance of the false and misleading Proxy Statement in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Unless remedied, Restoration Robotics' public stockholders will be irreparably harmed because the Proxy Statement's material misrepresentations and omissions prevent them from making a sufficiently informed voting decision on the Stock Issuance. Restoration Robotics, Inc. designs and develops medical devices. The Company provides hair transplantation systems for follicular unit extraction and harvesting. Restoration Robotics serves physicians and patients in the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joel E. Elkins, Esq. WEISSLAW LLP 9107 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 450 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (310) 208-2800 Facsimile: (310) 209-2348 E-mail: jelkins@weisslawllp.com RUSHMORE SERVICE: Can Compel Arbitration in Jackson FDCPA Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ERIC JACKSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. RUSHMORE SERVICE CENTER, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 18-CV-4587(SJF)(AYS)(E.D. N.Y.), Judge Sandra J. Feuerstein of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted the Defendant's motion to compel arbitration and stay the action pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA"). On Aug. 15, 2018, Plaintiff Jackson commenced a putative class action against the Defendant, alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"). The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant violated the FDCPA by sending him a purportedly misleading collection letter, related to a credit card account ending in -5838 that was issued by First Premiere Bank ("FPB"), on Aug. 14, 2017. The Plaintiff alleges that the collection letter the Defendant sent to him was false, deceptive or misleading in violation of the FDCPA. At all relevant times, the Defendant was authorized and retained by FPB to collect on the Account after the Plaintiff defaulted in making the minimum payments due on the Account. The Plaintiff opened the Account on March 1, 2016 by completing an online application on FPB's website. Thereafter, pursuant to its normal course of business and regular business practices, FPB directed its vendor First Data Resources ("FDR") to mail the applicable credit card for the Account, together with the card agreement containing the terms and conditions governing the Account to the Plaintiff via first class United States mail sent to the address the Plaintiff had provided to FPB. The Plaintiff does not dispute that he received the credit card and, indeed, account statements reflecting his use of the Account establish that he received the mailing containing both the credit card and the Card Agreement. The Defendant submits "an exemplar Credit Card Contract and Account Opening Disclosures," bearing the notation "02/16," which contains the terms and conditions governing the Account that would have been sent to the Plaintiff at the same time the credit card was sent to him. In lieu of filing an answer to the complaint, the Defendant moves to compel arbitration and stay this action pursuant to the FAA. The only question at issue on the motion is whether a valid agreement to arbitrate exists between the parties. The Plaintiff's sole argument in opposition to the Defendant's motion to compel is that the Defendant has not made a prima facie showing that the Card Agreement containing the arbitration provision at issue was mailed to him and, thus, there is no presumption that he ever received it. Judge Feuerstein finds that the Defendant sufficiently demonstrated that the Card Agreement was mailed to the Plaintiff, and that the Plaintiff received it. The uncontroverted evidence demonstrating: (i) that the Plaintiff opened a credit card account with FPB, used the credit card issued by FPB to incur a debt and then defaulted on the payments thereunder; and (ii) that it was FPB's regular business practice to direct its vendor to mail a copy of the Card Agreement together with the credit card when an account was opened, and that it directed its vendor to do so with respect to the Plaintiff's Account, is sufficient to show that he received the Card Agreement and consented to its terms. Therefore, the Defendant has satisfied its burden of showing that a valid agreement to arbitrate exists between the parties. Since the Plaintiff does not oppose any other branch of the Defendant's motion and, in any event, the arbitration provision in the Card Agreement is clear that the Plaintiff waived his right to participate in a class action4; the Plaintiff's FDCPA claims clearly fall within the scope of the broad arbitration provision at issue; and it is undisputed that the Defendant has standing to enforce the arbitration agreement, the branch of the Defendant's motion seeking to compel arbitration of the Plaintiff's claims against it on an individual basis pursuant to Section 4 of the FAA is granted; the parties will proceed to arbitration in accordance with the terms of the Card Agreement; and the class action claims in the Plaintiff's complaint are dismissed in their entirety. Section 3 of the FAA requires courts to stay litigation of arbitral claims pending arbitration of those claims in accordance with the terms of the agreement. Accordingly, the branch of the Defendant's motion seeking to stay the action pursuant to Section 3 of the FAA is granted and the action is stayed pending the arbitration of the Plaintiff's claims. For the stated reasons, Judge Feuerstein granted the Defendant's motion to compel arbitration of the Plaintiff's claims against it on an individual basis and to stay the action pending the arbitration pursuant to the FAA. The parties will proceed to arbitration in accordance with the terms of the Card Agreement. The class action claims in the Plaintiff's complaint are dismissed in their entirety. The Plaintiff will submit his claims to arbitration within 30 days of the date of the Order. The action is stayed and administratively closed with leave to reopen on 10 days' notice within 30 days from the completion of the arbitration, but in no event later than Sept. 28, 2020. The Clerk of the Court will close the case. A full-text copy of the District Court's Sept. 27, 2019 Opinion & Order is available at https://is.gd/ew59iu from Leagle.com. Eric Jackson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Mitchell L. Pashkin. Rushmore Service Center, LLC, Defendant, represented by Joseph Slaughter -- SLAUGHTERJBALLARDSPAHR.COM -- Ballard Spahr LLP & Justin Ward Lamson -- LAMSONJWBALLARDSPAHR.COM -- Ballard Spahr LLP. SAZON CUBAN: Leal-Rodriguez Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------ DAURY LEAL-RODRIGUEZ, and other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. SAZON CUBAN CUISINE, L.L.C., RUBEN SEOANES and OSCAR SKLAR, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-24234-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Oct. 14, 2019) is an action to recover money damages for unpaid overtime wages under the laws of the United States. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff worked approximately an average of 48 hours per week without being compensated at the rate of not less than one and one half times the regular rate at which he was employed, asserts the complaint. Plaintiff was employed as a cook performing the same or similar duties as that of those other similarly situated cooks whom Plaintiff observed working in excess of 40 hours per week without overtime compensation, says the complaint. Plaintiff worked for Defendants' main place of business in Miami-Dade County, Florida. Sazon Cuban Cuisine is a cafe with Caribbean cuisine, a covered outdoor patio & weekend live entertainment.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: R. Martin Saenz, Esq. SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC 20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 800 Aventura, FL 33180 Phone: (305) 503-5131 Facsimile: (888) 270-5549 Email: msaenz@saenzanderson.com SETERUS INC: Mich. Court Narrows Claims in Adams FDCPA Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- In the case, TRACY ADAMS, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SETERUS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 18-12731 (E.D. Mich.), Judge Denise Page Hood of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Complaint. The Plaintiff owns a residential home located at 8890 Burlingame Avenue, SW, Byron Center, Michigan. The home is secured by a mortgage owned, backed, or controlled by Federal National Mortgage Association that is serviced by the Defendant. The Defendant acquired the servicing rights to the Plaintiff's Fannie Mae-owned loan from CitiMortgage when the loan was in a state of default. As a mortgage servicer, the Defendant contracts with Fannie Mae to collect payments, fees, and other amounts owed by the home owner and to provide other services to investors relating to the home owner's loan. Pursuant to its agreement with Fannie Mae, Seterus provides notices to the Plaintiff and consumers like the Plaintiff using a form letter that is identified in the Complaint as the "Michigan Final Letter." On Sept. 4, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a two-count Complaint alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") and the Michigan Regulation of Collection Practices Act ("MRCPA"). In its Motion to Dismiss Complaint, the Defendant contended that the Plaintiff lacks standing to assert her claims and, even if she has standing, she has failed to allege a violation of the FDCPA. The Defendant contended that any anxiety, stress, anger, frustration, and mental anguish suffered by the Plaintiff was solely caused by her own default and the Defendant's contractually-required notification of its right to accelerate and foreclose based on that default. The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff fails to plausibly allege that the anxiety was the direct result of its method of determining whether to accelerate a loan following receipt of a payment for less than the full amount due. Judge Hood rejects the Defendant's argument. Plaintiff has alleged that the injury she suffered (anxiety, stress, anger, frustration, and mental anguish) was attributable to the Defendant making false or misleading threats of acceleration and foreclosure in the Michigan Final Letter. The Defendant's argument that any injury suffered by the Plaintiff is attributable solely to her default on her mortgage and loan is misplaced in its motion to dismiss, the Court opines. Based on the Plaintiff's allegations, Judge Hood finds that the Plaintiff has alleged a concrete harm attributable (fairly traceable) to the Michigan Final Letter sent by the Defendant. The Judge concludes that the Plaintiff has standing to bring the cause of action. Judge Hood further finds that the Plaintiff has adequately alleged an FDCPA claim based on alleging that the Michigan Final Letter threatens foreclosure proceedings that the Defendant would not pursue if the Plaintiff paid less than the amount demanded in the Michigan Final Letter. However, for reasons argued by the Defendant, Judge Hood dismisses the Plaintiff's FDCPA claim to the extent she relies on allegations that the Michigan Final Letter's language that the Plaintiff would have "the right to bring a court action or assert in the foreclosure proceedings the nonexistence of a default or any other defense to acceleration" was deceptive and misleading. As the language expressly provides, a debtor can bring a court action "or" raise defenses in foreclosure proceedings. Accordingly, the Plaintiff's reliance on the alleged deceptiveness of the second clause of that sentence is not persuasive, the Court holds. Accordingly, Judge Hood (i) concludes that the Plaintiff may proceed with her FDCPA claim related to the accelerating foreclosure proceedings, including related class action claims; and (2) dismisses the Plaintiff's FDCPA claim related to the assertion of defenses in foreclosure. As for Count II - MRCPA Claim, Judge Hood (1) concludes that the Plaintiff may proceed with her MRCPA claim related to the accelerating foreclosure proceedings, including the class action claims thereunder; and (2) dismisses the Plaintiff's MRCPA claim related to the assertion of defenses in foreclosure. A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 27, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/x1pZgv from Leagle.com. Tracy Adams, Plaintiff, represented by Scott C. Harris -- scott@wbmllp.com -- Whitfield Bryson & Mason & Andrew J. McGuinness -- drewmcg@topclasslaw.com -- United Sta. Seterus, Inc., Defendant, represented by Ari M. Charlip -- ACharlip@dickinsonwright.com -- Dickinson Wright PLLC & James A. Martone -- JMartone@dickinsonwright.com -- Dickinson Wright PLLC. SMS PIPELINE: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages Under FLSA, Luker Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- CHARLES LUKER, Individually and For Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. SMS PIPELINE SERVICES, LLC d/b/a LIBERTY ENERGY SERVICES, Defendant, Case No. 5:19-cv-00136 (E.D. Tex., Oct. 18, 2019), is a collective action seeking to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages owed to the Plaintiff and Liberty's other similarly-situated workers. SMS Pipeline Services, LLC d/b/a Liberty Energy Services does not pay its day rate workers overtime as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Plaintiff alleges. Instead of paying overtime, Liberty pays all of its day rate workers a flat amount for each day worked without any overtime compensation whatsoever regardless of the number of hours worked in a workweek, the Plaintiff asserts. Liberty's day rate pay plan violates the FLSA because employees paid on a day rate basis are still entitled to overtime pay for hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Liberty as a Safety Inspector from May 2018 until October 2018. Liberty bills itself as "a world-class energy pipeline services consulting firm." Liberty services its oil and gas sector clientele throughout the United States and Canada.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. Taylor A. Jones, 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 tjones@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. Michael K. Burke, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Telecopier: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com mburke@brucknerburch.com SOBRATO ORGANIZATION: Fails to Refund Security Deposit, Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- ADAM D.K. ABELKOP, and KATHERINE G. MACDONALD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE SOBRATO ORGANIZATION; SI VI, LLC, and DOES 1 through 200, Defendants, Case No. 19CV355487 (Cal. Super., Santa Clara Cty., Sept. 23, 2019) is an action against the Defendants for failure to refund the Plaintiffs' security deposits at the termination of the rental contract. According to the Plaintiffs, the Defendants collect security deposits from their tenants with representations of intentions to refund such deposits according to law at the conclusion of the tenancy in accordance with California State Law. The Defendants, however, have no such intention and routinely refuse to return all or a substantial portion of the tenants' deposits asserting false, fraudulent, and spurious reasons. In furtherance of their fraudulent scheme to retain security deposits owed their former tenants, the Defendants knowingly, intentionally, and regularly make false allegations of damages to rental units, often exceeding the security deposits in issue, in an effort to shift the burden of ordinary wear and tear from the Defendants and onto their tenants. The Defendants retaliate against and resist complaining tenants' efforts to recover their security deposits by threatening collection action or by negotiating the return of a portion of the withheld security deposit in an effort to stave off civil action. The Sobrato Organization, LLC owns, develops, manages, and invests in real estate properties. Sobrato Organization serves customers in the State of California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexander J. Perez, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ALEXANDER J. PEREZ 58 West Portal Avenue, Suite 286 San Francisco, CA 94127 Telephone: (415) 785-7775 E-mail: perezlawoffice@att.net - and - Joshua H. Haffner, Esq. Michael K. Teiman (SBN: 3 19524) HAFFNER LAW, PC 445 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 2625 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Tel.: (213) 514-5681 E-mail: jhh@haffnerlawyers.com mt@haffnerlawyers.com SPARK SPORTS: May Face Class Suit Over Rugby World Cup Coverage --------------------------------------------------------------- Mark Longley, writing for New Zealand-based NewsHub, reports that a group of rugby fans who are unhappy with the streaming service Spark Sport has provided of the Rugby World Cup have threatened legal action. The group, called The People v Spark Sport, say they will take a class action lawsuit against Spark Sport for $250 million over failings of its streaming service. The group announced the class action on their Facebook page saying customers "who experience any minor or major issues with regards to Spark Sport App or Spark Services (inc Spark or Spark Sport customer service experiences) during the RWC campaign will be represented at no cost to those customers AFFECTED. "Customers that have not experienced issues may choose to 'opt out' of the lawsuit." Spark Sport's streaming of the All Black's first game of the tournament, a victory over South Africa, was plagued with issues, including intermittent periods of reduced video quality such as pixelation and buffering. Spark Sport moved the game to free-to-air and issued a statement afterwards apologising. "Midway through the first half we identified that the quality of the video stream was fluctuating for some customers," the company said in a statement. "We were uncomfortable at the quality of the experience our customers were getting and, as we always said we would, we moved quickly to provide them with an alternative means of watching the match. "We had prior established procedures with our partner TVNZ to enable live, free-to-air coverage at short notice." Spark CEO, Jolie Hodson added: "We are very disappointed that some New Zealanders did not get the experience they deserved last night during such an important match." Spark Sport says coverage of the tournament since then has been good but acknowledged some customers are still having problems. In a statement after Wales beat Georgia on September 30 the company said "vast majority" of viewers successfully streamed the latest Rugby World Cup match but a small lot did have issues "unrelated to the Spark Sport platform". "Spark Sport is pleased to confirm that the Wales v Georgia match streamed successfully both from a platform and broadband network perspective. "The vast majority of Spark Sport customers who watched Spark Sport live and on-demand had a great viewing experience." When it is filed the lawsuit would claim Spark Sport misled customers about its streaming product. In a satement to Newshub, Spark Sport said they had yet to be directly contacted with any information as to the basis of the claims to be alleged. The company also said it was comfortable they had satisfied their legal obligations. "The primary request from The People vs Spark Sport, has been for us to show all remaining matches simulcast on TVNZ. "While we have a contingency plan in place, we have a set of criteria around how we decide to activate this plan. "We have been clear since we announced this plan that Spark would only decide to switch to simulcast on TVNZ in the event of a significant failure of the Spark Sport platform or a widespread breakdown of streaming availability. "We activated the simulcast on Saturday, September 21, during the pool match between the All Blacks and South Africa, because we had identified a fault within our streaming delivery chain. "To give customers confidence in Spark Sport, we chose to continue to simulcast the next day's games on TVNZ Duke while we confirmed that the network configuration changes we made to the platform had resolved this fault. "Since that date, we have not had a significant failure or widespread breakdown of streaming availability, so we will not be simulcasting on TVNZ. "As we do with all our customers, we have repeatedly offered assistance to the owner of the Facebook page to resolve her personal streaming issues with Spark Sport. "She has decided to decline any support from Spark Sport. "We continue to strongly encourage customers who are unhappy to seek help from us directly and take advantage of our enhanced care measures," the statement said. [GN] STATE COLLECTION: Thorson's Bid for Class Certification Stayed -------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. William E. Duffin grants the Plaintiff's motion to stay further proceedings on the motion for class certification in the lawsuit entitled MICHAEL THORSON, ET AL. v. STATE COLLECTION SERVICE, INC., Case No. 2:19-cv-01463-WED (E.D. Wisc.). On October 7, 2019, the Plaintiff filed a class action complaint. At the same time, the Plaintiff filed what the Court commonly refers to as a "protective" motion for class certification. In this motion, the Plaintiff moved to certify the class described in the complaint but also moved the Court to stay further proceedings on that Motion. In Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011), the court suggested that class-action plaintiffs "move to certify the class at the same time that they file their complaint." "The pendency of that motion protects a putative class from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs." However, because parties are generally unprepared to proceed with a motion for class certification at the beginning of 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." Accordingly, the Plaintiff's motion to stay further proceedings on the motion for class certification is granted, rules the Court. The parties are relieved from the automatic briefing schedule set forth in Civil Local Rule 7(b) and (c). Moreover, for administrative purposes, it is necessary that the Clerk terminate the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. However, this Motion will be regarded as pending to serve its protective purpose under Damasco, Judge Duffin opines.[CC] STERLING INVESTMENT: Coleman Hits Fund Mismanagement, Shady Sale ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the case captioned Jason Coleman and Jessica Casey, on behalf of the RVNB Holdings, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan, and on behalf of a class of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Neil M. Brozen, Robert Peterson, Jr., Vasilia Peterson, Paul Generale, Mike Paxton, Nick Bouras and Sterling Investment Partners III, L.P., Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-00705 (E.D. Tex., September 27, 2019), seeks to restore their employee benefit plan and recover any profits made by breaching fiduciaries through the use of Plan assets; and to obtain other appropriate equitable and legal remedies in order to redress violations and enforce the provisions of Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, including the return of the wrongfully redeemed RVNB stock to the Plan. RVNB Holdings, Inc. provides moving and storage services with facilities throughout the United States and operates under the trade name "All My Sons Moving & Storage." Jason Coleman and Jessica Casey are employees of RVNB and participants of its employee benefit plan, a defined contribution plan. Defendants allegedly terminated the Plan and sold its shares of RVNB for less than fair market value in 2017. Neil M. Brozen is the trustee for the RVNB Holdings, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan. Said Plan was terminated and sold to Sterling Investment Partners. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas R. Ajamie, Esq. John S. Edwards, Jr., Esq. AJAMIE LLP Pennzoil Place - South Tower 711 Louisiana, Suite 2150 Houston, TX 77002 Tel: (713) 860-1600 Fax: (713) 860-1699 Email: tajamie@ajamie.com jedwards@ajamie.com - and - Gregory Y. Porter, Esq. Ryan T. Jenny, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER LLP 1055 Thomas Jefferson St., NW, Suite 540 Washington, DC 20007 Tel: (202) 463-2101 Fax: (202) 463-2103 Email: gporter@baileyglasser.com rjenny@baileyglasser.com SUBARU CORP: $6.2M Deal in Starlink Suit Has Interim Approval ------------------------------------------------------------- Denis Flierl, writing for Torque News, reports that customers are getting closer to receiving the $6.2 million dollars coming to them in the Subaru Starlink class-action lawsuit settlement. Attorneys from Chimicles Schwartz Kriner & Donaldson-Smith LLP have reported on Oct. 4, 2019, a New Jersey court has granted preliminary approval to the class action settlement reached with Subaru related to 2018 Subaru Outback, 2018 Crosstrek, 2018 Legacy, 2017-2018 Impreza, and 2018 BRZ. Seven plaintiffs (Chad Udeen, Mary Jane Jeffrey, Lydia Runkel, Michael Block, Gary Gilpin, Alicia Smith, and Susan Williams) allege the Subaru Starlink multimedia system can "freeze and malfunction because the head units fail, and updates offered by the automaker have allegedly failed to fix the systems (Starlink problems)." 2018 Subaru Outback Starlink The Starlink system consists of Harman Gen 3 audio and navigation head units, and the lawsuit alleges it's the head units that create safety concerns for Subaru drivers. What does the preliminary approval mean for customers? All individuals in the U.S. who purchased or leased one of these vehicles will be entitled to receive an extended warranty covering the Starlink system on their 2017-2018 Subaru Impreza, 2018 Outback, 2018 Legacy, 2018 Crosstrek, and 2018 BRZ vehicle. Class members will also be able to claim cash compensation of up to $300 if they had to have their infotainment systems repaired multiple times and/or $16/day spent without a functioning system while replacement head units were on backorder. Subaru Starlink connectivity All class members will be issued a formal notice within 60 days from the date of the preliminary approval order on October 4, 2019. This final approval to the settlement has not been granted yet, and another hearing is scheduled on February 3, 2020, in District Court for the District of New Jersey. What owners can do If you are experiencing problems with your Subaru Starlink system, the equipment is covered under the 3-Year/36,000-Mile Subaru Limited Warranty. Take your vehicle into a Subaru dealer and document your conversation and get written proof of your complaint with each visit. Subaru Starlink multimedia Stay tuned for additional information on the final Subaru Starlink settlement on your 2018 Subaru Outback, 2018 Crosstrek, 2018 Legacy, 2017-2018 Impreza, and 2018 BRZ vehicles on or near February 3, 2020. Bookmark the TN Subaru page and be sure to follow Subaru Starlink class-action lawsuit reports on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Subaru Report. Send us your Subaru news tips @SubaruLegitNews and we'll give you a shout out! Check back tomorrow for more Subaru news and updates. Watch Why Subaru Didn't Bring More Exterior Changes to the 2020 Outback video and subscribe to the Torque News YouTube channel for daily Subaru and automotive news analysis. [GN] SUMMIT FUNDING: Faces Haug Suit in California Superior Court ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Summit Funding Inc. The case is captioned as Teri Haug, individually and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Does 1-100 and Summit Funding Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 34-2019-00266270-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Oct. 2, 2019). Summit Funding is a direct seller servicer.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas Han, Esq. JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION 751 N Fair Oaks Ave, Ste 101 Pasadena, CA 91103-3069 Telephone: (818) 230-7502 Facsimile: (818) 230-7259 E-mail: dhan@justicelawcorp.com SURESCRIPTS: Intergrated Pharma Sues Over Anticompetitive Scheme ---------------------------------------------------------------- Intergrated Pharmaceutical Solutions LLC d/b/a Bartow Pharmacy and Medical Supply, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SURESCRIPTS, LLC; RELAYHEALTH; and ALLSCRIPTS HEALTHCARE SOLUTIONS INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-06778 (N.D. Ill., Oct. 14, 2019) is an action under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act to restrain anticompetitive conduct by Surescripts, the nation's largest provider of "e-prescribing" services, and to remedy the harms of its decade-long anticompetitive scheme. According to the complaint, Surescripts possesses monopoly power in two markets: (1) electronic prescription routing and (2) eligibility, collectively known as "e-prescribing" services. "Routing" is the transmission of prescription and prescription-related information from a prescriber (such as a physician) to a pharmacy, like Plaintiff here. Routing information is transmitted from the prescriber's electronic health record (EHR) system to the pharmacy's computer database to effectively deliver the "e-prescription" from physician to pharmacy on behalf of a patient. "Eligibility" is the transmission of a patient's formulary and pharmaceutical benefit information from the patient’s health care plan (usually the patient's health insurer or pharmacy benefit manager) to a prescriber physician's EHR system. Despite the explosive growth of routing and eligibility transactions--from nearly 70 million routing transactions in 2008 to more than 1.7 billion in 2017--Surescripts has maintained at least a 95% share, by transaction volume, in both the routing and eligibility markets. As such, pharmacies have no commercially reasonable alternative to Surescripts for these "e prescribing" services. And as a result, Surescripts has been able to charge pharmacies supracompetitive prices for almost ten years. Surescripts was able to maintain this dominant market position not through competition on the merits, but instead through a multifaceted scheme to exclude competitors. Surescripts has taken several anticompetitive steps to ensure that it--and it alone--controls routing service and pricing in the United States. The goal and effect of Surescripts' overarching scheme was to neutralize actual and nascent competitors before they could undermine Surescripts' ability to charge monopoly prices in the e-prescribing industry. As a result of Surescripts' unlawfully maintained dominance, pharmacies--such as Plaintiff here--have been forced to pay considerably more for their routing services than they otherwise would have paid in the presence of lawful competition. Due to Defendants' ongoing conduct, there is no meaningful competition in the markets for routing or eligibility, asserts the complaint. The decade-long monopolies in these markets have produced predictable effects: higher prices, reduced quality, stifled innovation, suppressed output, and stymied alternative business models. Pharmacies, like Plaintiff here, typically pay at least 17 cents per routing transaction under Surescripts' monopolistic regime, notes the complaint. These pennies add up for independent pharmacy Plaintiff here and members of the Class. In 2013, 1 billion new and refill prescriptions were routed to pharmacies electronically. In 2018, Surescripts claims it processed 1.9 billion e-prescriptions alone. Over a decade, that's billions of overcharge transactions and supracompetitive prices pulled from pharmacies that are trying to deliver timely, quality care to consumers nationwide. Had Surescripts' 1.9 billion e-prescriptions in 2018 been routed at competitive prices instead of monopoly prices, Plaintiff and the Class would have saved many millions of dollars in that year alone. And this scheme has been underway for almost a decade, says the complaint. Plaintiff Intergrated Pharmaceutical Solutions LLC d/b/a Bartow Pharmacy Medical Supply is a Florida limited liability corporation located at 1478 N. Wilson Ave, Bartow, FL 33830. Bartow Pharmacy Medical Supply has paid and continues to pay Surescripts e-prescription routing charges. Surescripts is a for-profit Delaware limited liability company, with its principal place of business at 2800 Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA 22202.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth A. Wexler, Esq. Justin N. Boley, Esq. Tyler J. Story, Esq. 55 West Monroe St., Ste. 3300 Chicago, IL 60603 Phone: (312) 346-2222 Fax: (312) 346-0022 Email: kaw@wexlerwallace.com jnb@wexlerwallace.com tjs@wexlerwallace.com - and - W. Joseph Bruckner, Esq. Robert K. Shelquist, Esq. Brian D. Clark, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP 100 Washington Avenue S., Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Phone: (612) 339-6900 Fax: (612) 339-0981 Email: wjbruckner@locklaw.com rkshelquist@locklaw.com bdclark@locklaw.com - and – D. Michael Campbell, Esq. MOODY LAW 575 North Broadway Ave. Bartow, FL 33830 Phone: (863) 733-9090 Fax: (863) 534-1001 Email: dmcampbell@campbelllaw.com SYDNEY OLYMPIC: Opal Developer Ecove Dragged Into Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Su-Lin Tan, writing for Financial Review, reports that the NSW government's Sydney Olympic Park Authority (SOPA) has dragged Opal Tower builder Icon and developer Ecove into the multi-million-dollar class action for compensation over the failed building. In July, owners launched the lawsuit against SOPA, the owner of the land on which Opal Tower sits, but have had to wait for the case to be heard before the NSW Supreme Court as SOPA launched cross claims against Icon and Ecove. Nine months since the tower was evacuated on Christmas Eve over cracking sounds, not only are owners still in limbo over compensation but many have not yet moved back to their units or been paid promised reimbursements for alternative accommodation. In July, owners sued SOPA and the NSW government as a single defendant, but last week, both Icon and Ecove were drawn into the case following lodged cross claims. More submissions and defences will now follow before court directions are heard again in early December. There has, however, been one win for the owners. Owners were able to obtain an order which stopped SOPA, Icon and Ecove from trying to "settle claims" outside of the case, effectively inducing owners to back out of the class action. The Australian Financial Review revealed builder Icon attempted to "settle" owners quietly in anticipation of being drawn into the class action. The move was slammed by owners as "sneaky". A court order now stops any of the defendants from initiating "settlements" with owners who are either in or have not participated in the class action. Icon was unsuccessful in opposing the order. [GN] TEACHERS FEDERAL: Faces Donnelly Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Teachers Federal Credit Union. The case is captioned as Annie Donnelly, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Teachers Federal Credit Union, the Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-05564 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 1, 2019). The suit demands $5 million damages. Teachers Federal is not-for-profit financial institution offering competitive rates on savings and loans, and a variety of convenience services for their members.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Annick M. Persinger., Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 483 Ninth Street, Suite 200 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (510) 254-6808 Facsimile: (202) 973-0950 E-mail: apersinger@tzlegal.com TENCENT MUSIC: Rosen Law Reminds Investors of Nov. 25 Deadline -------------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds purchasers of the securities of Tencent Music Entertainment Group (NYSE: TME) from December 12, 2018 through August 26, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period") of the important November 25, 2019 lead plaintiff deadline in the securities class action commenced by the firm. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Tencent Music investors under the federal securities laws. To join the Tencent Music class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1672.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR’S ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF. According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Tencent Music’s exclusive licensing arrangements with major record labels were anticompetitive; (2) consequently, sublicensing such content from Tencent Music was unreasonably expensive, in violation of Chinese antimonopoly laws; (3) these anticompetitive efforts were reasonably likely to lead to regulatory scrutiny; and (4) as a result, defendants’ statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than November 25, 2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1672.htmlor to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com. Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Contact: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com cases@rosenlegal.com Website: www.rosenlegal.com [GN] THERANOS: Founder's Unpaid Lawyers Quit --------------------------------------- Paige Leskin, writing for Business Insider, reports that three attorneys defending Elizabeth Holmes in federal court are trying to quit the case because they say the Theranos founder, once valued at $4.5 billion, hasn't paid them in over a year. The lawyers, who work at the law firm Cooley, have been representing Holmes against a federal class-action lawsuit brought on by former Theranos patients who allege their blood tests from the startup yielded inaccurate results and caused them to undertake unnecessary medical costs. However, the attorneys filed a motion last week to withdraw as counsel for Holmes, saying Holmes hasn't paid Cooley for its defense work "for more than a year." The law firm said that it doesn't expect Holmes to ever pay it for services, given her "current financial situation," and that it would be "unfair and unreasonable" for it to continue representing her, the documents said. The Mercury News first reported on the lawyers' motion to withdraw as counsel. The class-action suit was filed in 2016 in Phoenix, where Theranos operated several blood-testing "wellness centers" out of Walgreens stores in the area. Holmes, Walgreens, and Theranos, who are also named as defendants, have all denied wrongdoing in the case. No trial date has been set. The civil lawsuit in question is separate from the one involving criminal charges against Holmes that could result in jail time. In that case, the Department of Justice has charged Holmes and Theranos' former president, Sunny Balwani, with multiple counts of fraud. The charges stem from allegations that Holmes and Balwani, who hid that they were romantically involved for much of the time they headed Theranos, schemed to defraud the startup's investors, its doctors, and its patients while knowing that its test results were inaccurate and unreliable. The trial in the criminal case is set to begin in July 2020. Both Holmes and Balwani could face up to 20 years in prison, as well as a $250,000 fine plus restitution for each charge, the government has said. The lawyers defending Holmes in the criminal case did not respond to Business Insider's questions about whether they had been paid for their representation.[GN] THGPP LLC: Olsen Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against THGPP LLC. The case is styled as Thomas J. Olsen, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THGPP LLC doing business as: Glossybox, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-09623 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 18, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. GLOSSYBOX is an online subscription service, delivering beauty products directly to its users' doorstep.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq. Lipsky Lowe LLP 630 Third Avenue New York, NY 10017-6705 Phone: (212) 392-4772 Fax: (212) 444-1030 Email: doug@lipskylowe.com TOTAL GAS: City of Long Beach Alleges Stock Market Price-Fixing --------------------------------------------------------------- CITY OF LONG BEACH, individually and on behalf of and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TOTAL GAS & POWER NORTH AMERICA, INC.; TOTAL, S.A.; and TOTAL GAS & POWER, LTD. Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-08725 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 19, 2019) alleges that the Defendants engage in conduct that unreasonably restrained the markets for trading natural gas and natural gas-related contracts which set the monthly index prices for four major western U.S. trading hubs, published by Natural Gas Intelligence's Bidweek Survey and Mc-Graw-Hill Platts Inside FERC Gas Market Report, and by which Total Gas acquired and maintained monopoly power over the setting of such Monthly Index Prices between July 1, 2009 and July 31, 2012. According to the complaint, Total Gas entered into natural gas-related term contracts -- usually called "swap" contracts by FERC -- which settled based on the "Monthly Index Prices" which were calculated by Platts and NGI based on numerous next-month fixed price natural gas transactions at specific natural gas trading locations executed during the last five trading days of the month preceding the designated pricing month (known as "bidweek"), as reported to NGI and Platts. Total Gas then proceeded to intentionally manipulate the Monthly Index Prices in whichever way -- up or down -- that benefited the Monthly Index swap contracts it held relating to the specific location, by buying or selling, generally at a loss and at artificial money-losing prices, large quantities of the underlying next-month fixed price contracts for natural gas at that location during bidweek on which the next month's Monthly Index Prices for that location were calculated. Because of the large size of Total Gas's position in the Monthly Index swap contracts, Total Gas more than offset its losses on its money-losing purchases or sales of the underlying next-month fixed price gas contracts which it used to manipulate the Monthly Index Prices, by receiving significantly greater revenues under its swap contracts which settled based on the manipulated Monthly Index Prices. Total Gas & Power North America distributes natural gas. The Company offers natural gas, petcoke, and liquefied natural gas. Total Gas & Power North America serves customers worldwide. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey A. Klafter, Esq. KLAFTER OLSEN & LESSER LLP 2 International Drive. Suite 350 Rye Brook, NY 10573 Telephone: (914) 934-9200 - and - Solomon B. Cera, Esq. Pamela A. Markert, Esq. CERA LLP 595 Market Street, Suite 1350 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 777-2230 - and - Daniel J. Sponseller, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL J. SPONSELLER 409 Broad Street, Suite 200 Sewickley, PA 15143 Telephone: (412) 741-4422 TOYOTA MOTOR: Muswaya Files Consumer Credit Suit in E.D. Texas -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Toyota Motor Credit Corporation. The case is styled as Robert M. Muswaya individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Toyota Motor Credit Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-00768 (E.D. Tex., Oct. 18, 2019). The nature of suit is stated as Consumer Credit. Toyota Motor Credit Corporation (TMCC) provides automotive finance services. The Company offers dealer finance, term loans, and revolving credit services to vehicles and industrial equipment dealers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mohammed Omar Badwan, Esq. Sulaiman Law Group, Ltd. 2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200 Lombard, IL 60148 Phone: (630) 575-8181 Ext.114 Fax: (630) 575-8188 Email: mbadwan@sulaimanlaw.com - and - Joseph Scott Davidson, Esq. Sulaiman Law Group, Ltd 900 Jorie Boulevard, Suite 150 Oak Brook, IL 60523 Phone: (630) 575-8181 Ext. 116 Fax: (630) 575-8188 Email: jdavidson@sulaimanlaw.com TRAEGER PELLET: Yates Sues over Deceptive Wood Pellet Ads --------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL YATES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. TRAEGER PELLET GRILLS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, the Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-00723-(D. Utah, Oct. 1, 2019), contends that the Defendant wrongfully and unfairly deceived the public and its customers by misrepresenting that its wood pellets comprise one type of wood, when in fact the pellets comprise a different type of less expensive wood containing flavored oils to masquerade as more expensive, sought-after grilling woods. Over the past decade, barbecue culture has exploded, resulting in an entire industry focused on how to smoke prime rib, tri-tip, brisket, ribs, pork shoulder, and other prime cuts of meat "low and slow" to best infuse them with flavor. In marketing and selling its wood pellets, Defendant uniformly represents that its wood pellets comprise a specific type of wood. For example, Defendant markets and sells, "Hickory BBQ Wood Pellets" and "Mesquite BBQ Wood Pellets." The Defendants' representations about the wood pellets are false. Contrary to the Defendant's advertisements and product packaging, the Defendant's wood pellets do not comprise or even primarily comprise the identified wood. As a result of the Defendant's misrepresentations, Plaintiff and Class Members who purchased the wood pellets were injured and lost money, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Jared D. Scott, Esq. Heather M. Sneddon, Esq. Jason Greene, Esq. ANDERSON & KARRENBERG 50 West Broadway, #700 Salt Lake City, UT 84101-2035 Telephone: (801) 534-1700 E-mail: hsneddon@aklawfirm.com jscott@aklawfirm.com - and - Karl S. Kronenberger, Esq. Jeffrey M. Rosenfeld, Esq. Liana W. Chen, Esq. KRONENBERGER ROSENFELD, LLP 150 Post Street, Suite 520 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 955-1155 E-mail: karl@KRInternetLaw.com jeff@KRInternetLaw.com liana@KRInternetLaw.com TWITTER INC: Doshier Suit Venue Moved to Calif. Northern District ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Kristine G. Baker of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Western Division, transferred the case WILLIAM F. DOSHIER and DOTSTRATEGY, CO., Plaintiffs, v. TWITTER, INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-00700-KGB (E.D. Ark.), to the Northern District of California. The Plaintiffs filed their complaint initially in the Circuit Court of Faulkner County, Arkansas. Twitter removed the action to the Arkansas District Court on Sept. 21, 2018. Twitter then filed a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3) or, alternatively, to transfer venue. The Plaintiffs oppose the motion. Twitter asserts that venue is improper in the Arkansas District Court and that the District Court should either dismiss the case or transfer it to the Northern District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). Twitter contends that it is not a resident of Arkansas within the meaning of Section 1391(c). Further, it asserts that the acts forming the basis of the Plaintiffs' claims did not occur in the Eastern District of Arkansas. The Plaintiffs requested limited jurisdictional discovery regarding venue, but the District Court by separate order denied that request. Twitter is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California, and therefore resides outside of the Eastern District of Arkansas. It maintains that it has no employees or offices in Arkansas and that it does not own any real property in Arkansas. On the record before the Court, Judge Baker declines to find that Twitter has sufficient minimum contacts with the State of Arkansas to subject it to general jurisdiction in the State of Arkansas. Further, Twitter asserts that the acts forming the basis of the Plaintiffs' claims did not occur in the Eastern District of Arkansas. It maintains that the Plaintiffs do not and cannot allege that Twitter targets its platform at Arkansas and that, even if they could make such a showing, their claims do not arise out of any Twitter action purportedly targeting Arkansas. As a result, Twitter maintains that the Arkansas Court lacks specific jurisdiction and venue. On the record before the Arkansas Court, Judge Baker declines to find that the acts that the Plaintiffs allege form the basis of the litigation occurred in the Eastern District of Arkansas. She also determines that, based on the contacts alleged, the Arkansas Court cannot exercise specific personal jurisdiction over Twitter. Finally, Twitter contended that Section 1391(b)(3) does not apply because most of the alleged acts or omissions giving rise to the Plaintiffs' claims took place in the Northern District of California, where Twitter resides. The Judge agrees. As a result, venue is proper in that district, making Section 1391(b)(3) inapplicable. For all of these reasons, Judge Baker concludes that venue of the Doshier/Twitter case in the Eastern District of Arkansas is not proper under Section 1391 and that transfer is appropriate under Section 1406(a). Even if venue in the Eastern District of Arkansas is proper, the Judge concludes that transfer is appropriate under Section 1404(a). The Judge directed the Clerk to transfer the case immediately to the Northern District of California. A full-text copy of the District Court's Sept. 27, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/0TAqpP from Leagle.com. William F Doshier & dotStrategy Co, Plaintiffs, represented by David A. Hodges -- david@hodgeslaw.com -- David Hodges Law Office. Twitter Inc., Defendant, represented by Jeffrey R. Roeser -- rroeser@haltomdoan.com -- Haltom & Doan, LLP & Jennifer Haltom Doan -- jdoan@haltomdoan.com -- Haltom and Doan. TXF LOGISTICS: Underpays Equipment Operators, Joe Alleges --------------------------------------------------------- NASIR JOE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TXF LOGISTICS LLC; and CRAIG MARCUM, Defendants, Case No. 5:19-cv-01155 (W.D. Tex., Sept. 24, 2019) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff Joe was employed by the Defendants as equipment operator. TXF Logistics LLC is a licensed and bonded freight shipping and trucking company running freight hauling business from Pickerington, Ohio. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Merideth Q. McEntire, Esq. Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC 650 South Shackleford, Suite 411 Little Rock, AK 72211 Telephone: (501) 221-0088 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 E-mail: merideth@sanfordlawfirm.com josh@sanfordlawfirm.com UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Ashford Says Registration Statement Misleading ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Uber Technologies, Inc. et al. The action asserts strict liability claims under the Securities Act of 1993 against Uber. The Plaintiff brings the class action on behalf of all those who purchased or otherwise acquired Uber common stock pursuant or traceable to the registration statement and prospectus issued in connection with Uber's May 2019 initial public offering. In May 2019, the Defendants issued more than 207 millions shares of Uber common stock to the investing public at $45 per share, all pursuant to the Registration Statement. The lawsuit contends that the Registration Statement contained untrue statements of material fact and omitted to state material facts both required by governing regulations and necessary to make the statements made not misleading. The representation and purported risk disclosures were false and misleading because, in truth, by the time of the IPO: (i) Uber was already rapidly increasing subsidiaries for customers' rides and meals in a bid for market share, which caused the Company's sales and marketing expenses to swell; and (ii) defendants were cutting (or planned to cut) costs in key areas that undermined the Company's central growth opportunities. Uber is a technology company that provides a mobile application for ridesharing. The case is captioned as GERALD ASHFORD, Individually and on behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., DAKA KHOSROWSHAHI, NELSON CHAI, GLENN CEREMONY, RONALD SUGAR, URSULA BURNS, GARRETT, CAMP, MATT COHLER, RYAN GRAVES, ARIANNA HUFFINGTON, TRAVIS KALANICK, WAN LING MARTELLO, H.E. YASIR AL-RUMAYYAN, JOHN THAIN, DAVID TRUJILLO, MORGAN STANLEY & CO, LLC. GOLDMAN'S SACHS & CO., LLC; MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH, INC., BARCLAYS CAPITAL INC., CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS, LLC, ALLEN & COMPANY LLC, RBC CAPITAL MARKETS, LLC, SUNTRUST ROBINSON HUMPREY, INC, DEUTSCHE BANK SECURITIES INC., HSBC SECURITIES (USA) INC., SMBC NIKKO SECURITIES AMERICA, INC., MIZUHO SECURITIES USA LLC, NEEDHAM & COMPANY, LLC, LOOP CAPITAL MARKETS LLC, SIEBERT CISNEROS SHANK CO., LLC, ACADEMY SECURITIES, INC., BTIG, LLC, CANACORD GENUITY LLC, CASTLEOAK SECURITIES, L.P., COWEN AND COMPANY, LLC, EVERCORE GROUP, LLC, JMP SECURITIES, LLC, MACQUARIE CAPITAL (USA) INC., MISCHLER FINANCIAL GROUP, INC., OPPENHEIMER & CO., INC., RAYMOND JAMES & ASSOCIATES, INC., WILLIAM BLAIR & COMPANY, LLC, THE WILLIAMS CAPITAL GROUP, LP, TPG CAPITAL BD, LLC, and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. CG-19-579684 (Cal. Super., Oct. 1, 2019).[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: James I. Jaconate, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWSD LLP655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 231 1058 Facsimile: (619) 231 7423 E-mail: james@rgdlaw.com. - and - David W. Hall, Esq. HEDIN HALL LLP Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 766 3534 Facsimile: (415) 402 0058 E-mail: dhall@hedinhall.com - and - Brian Schall, Esq. SCHALL LAW FIRM 1880 Century Park East, Suite 404 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 301 3335 Facsimile: (310) 301 0192 E-mail: brian@schallfirm.com USA TECHNOLOGIES: Gouet Suit Transferred to E.D. Pennsylvania ------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled as STEPHANE GOUET, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. USA TECHNOLOGIES, INC., STEPHEN P. HERBERT, and PRIYANKA SINGH, the Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-04565-CFK (Filed Sept. 11, 2018), was transferred from the United States District for the District of New Jersey, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia) on Oct. 2, 2019. The Eastern District of Pennsylvania Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-04565-CFK to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Chas F. Kenney. The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of federal securities laws and pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. USA Technologies provides wireless networking, cashless transactions, asset monitoring, and other value-added services in the United States and internationally.[BN] Counsel for the Plaintiff are: Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 609 W. South Orange Avenue, Suite 2P South Orange, NJ 07079 Telephone: (973) 313-1887 Facsimile: (973) 833-0399 E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com VANGUARD CONSTRUCTION: Zollo Seeks Proper Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------- GERARDO ZOLLO on behalf of himself and other employees similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. VANGUARD CONSTRUCTION DEVELOPMENT AND COMPANY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-09477 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 14, 2019) is an action to remedy violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the New York Labor Law. Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief; his unpaid wages including overtime wages; penalties for notice and record keeping violations; statutory liquidated damages; pre-judgment interest; his reasonable attorney fees and costs; and all other appropriate legal and equitable relief. Zollo's work hours and work schedule each week varied considerably, based upon Vanguard's needs and the needs of the particular construction sites to which he was sent. He generally worked 5 or 6 days each week, between 8 and 16 hours each day; on a few occasions, he worked 19 or 20 hours in a single day. Typically, he worked between 40 and 70 hours each week. On a number of occasions, his weekly hours worked were above 80 or 90. Zollo did not receive required wage notices. Further, with only a few rare exceptions, Zollo's weekly pay stubs did not show the rate of pay or the number of hours compensated. This information was also not reported to him in any other form. Zollo was generally not paid overtime. By comparing his log book with his pay stubs, Zollo confirmed that he did not receive an overtime premium for his overtime hours worked, says the complaint. Plaintiff Zollo was employed by Vanguard as a laborer from July 18, 2016 to June 7, 2019. Vanguard is a general contractor and construction management company with dozens of commercial and other institutional construction projects throughout New York City.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony P. Consiglio, Esq. CARY KANE LLP 1350 Broadway, Suite 1400 New York, NY 10018 Phone: (212) 868-6300 Email: aconsiglio@carykane.com VIMEO INC: Faces Acaley Suit over Biometric Data Collection ----------------------------------------------------------- BRADLEY ACALEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VIMEO, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2019CH10873 (Ill. Cir., Cook Cty., Sept. 20, 2019) alleges violation of the Biometric Information Privacy Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant collect, store, and use the Plaintiff's biometric identifiers and biometric information without informed written consent in violation of the Biometric Information Privacy Act. Vimeo, LLC operates as a video sharing site. The Company enables its users to upload, share, and watch various categories of videos, as well as provides news, sports, and entertainment content online in an easily searchable format. Vimeo serves customers in the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Myles P. McGuire, Esq. Jad Sheikali, Esq. MCGUIRE LAW, P.C. 55 W. Wacker, 9th Floor Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 893-7002 E-mail: mmcguire@mcgpc.com jsheikali@mcgpc.com - and - Tina Wolfson, Esq. Brad King, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 10728 Lindbrook Drive Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 Facsimile: (310) 474-8585 E-mail: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com bking@ahdootwolfson.com - and – Frank S. Hedin, Esq. HEDIN HALL LLP 1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 900 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (786) 831-6555 WAITR HOLDINGS: 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 Waitr Holdings Inc. ("Waitr" or "the Company") (NASDAQ:WTRH) for violations of Secs. 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 May 17, 2019 through August 8, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"), and/or pursuant or traceable to Waitr's November 2018 going public transaction with Landcadia or in its May 2019 secondary public offering ("SPO"), are encouraged to contact the firm before November 29, 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. Waitr was not close to becoming a profitable business. The Company could not sustain itself at the low take rate of 15%. Waitr was not capable of driving efficiencies with its workforce to offer lower rates than competitors. In fact, the Company's software represented little to no competitive advantage in the market. 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 Waitr, investors suffered damages. Join the case to recover your losses. The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and focuses on securities class action lawsuits and shareholder rights litigation. Contact: Brian Schall, Esq. The Schall Law Firm Tel: 310-301-3335 Cell: 424-303-1964 Email: info@schallfirm.com Website: www.schallfirm.com [GN] WESTERN BEST LLC: Byars Sues Over Unpaid Overtime, Discrimination ----------------------------------------------------------------- Kizzy Byars, Danielle James, as individuals and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Western Best LLC, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-01690 (D. Nev., September 27, 2019), seeks redress for unpaid overtime wages, waiting time penalties, unpaid meal and rest breaks, hostile work environment, discrimination and retaliation and tortious constructive discharge. Western Best LLC operates as "The Chicken Ranch" where Plaintiffs are adult African-American females who worked as legal prostitutes. They claim to regularly work more than eight hours in a workday. Being on-call, they sometimes worked through their meal breaks. They also were subjected to highly offensive and derogatory language when referring to African-American and female employees. They were eventually retaliated against for asserting their rights. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan Alexander, Esq. RYAN ALEXANDER, CHTD. 3017 West Charleston Blvd., Ste. 58 Las Vegas, NV 89102 Phone: (702) 868-3311 Fax: (702) 822-1133 WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC: Musselwhite Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------ GREGORY MUSSELWHITE, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated employees, Plaintiff v. WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY, LLC, STONE & WEBSTER, INC., and STONE & WEBSTER SERVICES LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-01338-CB (W.D. Pa., Oct. 18, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages owed under the Fair Labor Standards Act. While working for Stone & Webster, Mr. Musselwhite alleges he was paid the same hourly rate for all hours worked (including those hours in excess of 40 hours in a single workweek) with no overtime compensation. The Plaintiff and other workers like him were not paid overtime as required by the FLSA for work they performed for the Defendants. Instead, he asserts, he and other workers were paid the same hourly rate for all hours worked, including those in excess of 40 in a workweek. Rather than receiving time and half as required by the FLSA, Mr. Musselwhite only received "straight time" pay for overtime hours worked and did not receive any compensation for the first eight hours or overtime, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Stone & Webster as a Source Inspector in Louisiana, Texas and Oregon from 2013 through April 2018. Stone & Webster provides nuclear engineering and consulting services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, 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 - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Telecopier: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com - and - Joshua P. Geist, Esq. GOODRICH & GEIST, P.C. 3634 California Ave. Pittsburgh, PA 15212 Telephone: (412) 766-1455 Facsimile: (412)766-0300 E-mail: josh@goodrichandgeist.com WIDOW JANE: Boshnack Sues over Mislabeled Bourbon Whiskey --------------------------------------------------------- MARC BOSHNACK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WIDOW JANE DISTILLERIES LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-08812 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 23, 2019) is a class action on behalf of purchasers of Widow Jane bourbon alleging that the Defendant is engaged in deceptive marketing practices. According to the Plaintiff, the Defendant deceptively markets the Product in order to trick consumers into believing that its bourbon is a product of New York when in fact the distillery, which is located in Brooklyn, does not make the Product, but rather purchases barrels of the bourbon from a distillery in Kentucky. The Product is not actually distilled with water from New York at all. It was distilled from Kentucky water in the state of Kentucky and New York water was added to the finished product after it was aged and removed from the barrels before bottling. The Defendant's reference to use of "pure limestone mineral water" from New York is particularly confusing to consumers in the context of bourbon. That is because limestone water has unique properties which make it ideal for distillation. However, limestone water adds no benefit when it is simply added to the bourbon after distillation has already taken place, as it was here with Widow Jane bourbon. Widow Jane's price is exorbitantly higher than its Kentucky counterparts due to Defendant's false and misleading marketing. The Defendant offers distillery, beer, spirits, and other alcoholic beverages. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yitzchak Kopel, Esq. Scott A. Bursor, Esq. Yitzchak Kopel, Esq. Alec M. Leslie, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 888 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-Mail: scott@bursor.com ykopel@bursor.com aleslie@bursor.com WORLD ACCEPTANCE: Diaz Hits Misclassification, Denied Overtime Pay ------------------------------------------------------------------ April Diaz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. World Acceptance Corporation and WFC Limited Partnership, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-00957, (W.D. Tex., September 30, 2018), seeks to recover overtime pay, liquidated damages and attorney fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Diaz worked as a branch manager for Defendant's Taylor, Texas branch. She claims to have routinely worked more than forty hours in a workweek but was not paid an overtime premium. World Acceptance Corporation is a small-loan consumer finance company offering short-term installment loans, medium-term larger installment loans, related credit insurance and ancillary products. WFC Limited Partnership is subsidiary of Defendant World Acceptance Corporation, established in Texas. [BN] Plaintiffs are represented by: Michele R. Fisher, Esq. Jay E. Eidsness, Esq. NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP 80 South Eighth Street, Suite 4600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 256-3200 Email: fisher@nka.com jeidsness@nka.com - and - Charles L. Scalise, Esq. Daniel B. Ross, Esq. ROSS LAW GROUP 1104 San Antonio Street Houston, TX 78701 Tel: (512) 474-7677 Fax: (512) 474-5306 Email: Charles@rosslawpc.com ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2019. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***