/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/191108.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, November 8, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 224 Headlines 3M COMPANY: Guam Residents Sue over Contaminated Water 7-ELEVEN INC: Thorne Alleges Violation under Disabilities Act AACRES CA: Faces Perkins Employment Suit in California Super. Ct. AARGON AGENCY: Harrison Alleges Violation under FDCPA ABODE SYSTEMS: Guglielmo Files Suit in New York under ADA ADAM GINSBERG: Bittlingmeyer Seeks to Stop Illegal Phone Calls ADIDAS AMERICA: Calcano Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act AECOM INC: Murchison Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. AERO AG HOLDINGS: Calcano Files ADA Suit in New York ALBUQUERQUE, NM: Page Lawsuit Dismissed Without Prejudice ALEPH OBJECTS: Hergenreder Wants to Collect Wages Under WARN Act ALTRIA GROUP: Klein Law Reminds Investors of Class Action ALTRIA GROUP: Rosen Law Reminds Investors of Dec. 2 Deadline ALTRIA GROUP: Vincent Wong Notes of Dec. 2 Plaintiff Deadline AMAG INC: Accused by Gill Suit of Misrepresenting Makena's Worth AMERICAN EAGLE OUTFITTERS: Calcano Files Class Suit in New York AMERIMEX COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Hernandez Class Action in California ARBY'S FRANCHISOR: Lopez Files Class Suit Under Disabilities Act AUTO WAX: Masias-Pena Seeks to Recover Minimum and Overtime Wages BARCLAYS BANK: UBS Appeals Decision in Sonterra Antitrust Suit BILLY REID: Tucker Alleges Violation under Disabilities Act BLAZIN WINGS: Lopez Files ADA Suit in New York BLOOM ENERGY: Issued Misleading Public Statements, Bolouri Says BOB'S DISCOUNT FURNITURE: Thorne Alleges Violation under ADA BRIDGESTONE INVESTMENT: 9th Cir. Denies Bid for Mandamus Relief BSH HOME APPLIANCES: Guglielmo Files Class Suit under ADA C & J: Tucker Asserts Breach of ADA in New York CADENCE BANCORPORATION: Schall Law Files Class Action Lawsuit CAPITAL ONE: Faces Evans Suit Over Unauthorized Credit Inquiries CHEVRON CORPORATION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Clayborne Alleges CJS SOLUTIONS: Court Denies Bid to Strike Rule 68 Offer of Judgment COLLECTION BUREAU: Bid to Strike Class Claims in Roskelley Denied CORPORATE AMERICA: Court OKs CUMIS' Motion to Dismiss in Terry Suit COVETRUST INC: Vincent Wong Notes of Nov. 29 Plaintiff Deadline CREDIT SUISSE: XIV Investor Appeals Decision in Securities Suit DCM DASH ONE: Miller Files Class Suit in California DELTA PACKING: Fails to Pay Minimum & Overtime Wages, Perez Says DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Claims in Third Amended Lewis Suit Trimmed DR.'S OWN INC: Sisk Files Class Suit in California DSW SHOE: Morrison Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California EPISCOPAL HEALTH: Dumay Suit Removed to Eastern Dist. of New York ESPARZA ENTERPRISES: Balcarcel Files Suit in California FCA US: Bid to File 2nd Amended Gilvin Suit Recommended for Denial FIDELITY NATIONAL: Improperly Charges Closing Fees, Haines Claims FINISH LINE INC: Calcano Files Class Suit under Disabilities Act FORSTER & GARBUS: Leboeuf Seeks to Certify Class FRONTPOINT SECURITY: Guglielmo Suit Alleges ADA Violation GARY SMILEY: Can Compel Arbitration in Goss FDCPA Suit, Court Rules GBJ INC: Underpays Drivers, Crider Suit Alleges GEICO GENERAL: Interlocutory Appeal in Green Suit Denied GROCERY-TAQUERIA MEXICANA: Garcia Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages GYRO KING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Chevez Suit Alleges HI-TECH PHARMACEUTICALS: Ottesen Sues Over DMHA in Supplements IBM CORP: Comin Seeks to Recover Damages for Withheld Commissions ILLINOIS: Court Dismisses Nasello Medicaid Lawsuit JMR REST CORP: Enciso Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages LIDDLE & LIDDLE: Faces Perchlak Suit Alleging Violation of FDCPA MATCH GROUP: Crutchfield Sues over 2% Drop in Share Price MAXAR TECHNOLOGIES: Faces McCurdy Securities Suit in California MDL 2472: Warner Chilcott Appeals Class Cert. Ruling to 1st Cir. MDL 2779: FieldTurf's Bid to Dismiss Artificial Turf Suit Denied MDL 2904: Aponte v. LabCorp. Over Data Breach Consolidated MEREDITH CORPORATION: Vincent Wong Notes of Lead Plaintiff Deadline MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces Davis Suit Alleging Violation of FDCPA MIDLAND CREDIT: Morgan Files FDCPA Class Action in Indiana MISSOURI: Court Affirms Partial Summary Judgment in Hootselle Suit MYRIAD GENETICS: Klein Law Reminds Investors of Class Action NY FINE INTERIORS: Criollo Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages OLIVELA INC: Guglielmo Files Class Suit under Disabilities Act PANDA EXPRESS: Thorne Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act PARNELL & PARNELL: Pounders Files FDCPA Suit in Alabama PEARSON PLC: Geroge D. Files Class Suit in Minn. PERRIGO COMPANY: Koppell Sues Over High Levels of NDMA in Tablets QUINCY BIOSCIENCE: Denial of Bid to Dismiss Engert Suit Endorsed SAFESPEED LLC: Marso Files Suit in Kansas under ADA SCIPLAY CORP: Gibbs Investigates Securities Law Violations SCIPLAY CORPORATION: Faces Good Suit Alleging IPO-Related Claims SLACK TECHNOLOGIES: Ordered to Start D'Ottavio Claims Prosecution SMILEDIRECTCLUB INC: Andres Sues over 44% Drop in Share Price SONIM TECHNOLOGIES: Rosen Law Reminds Investors of Dec. 6 Deadline SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA TELCO: Bernstein Sues over Unsolicited Calls SOVEREIGN SERVICES: Underpays Valet Supervisors, Avila Suit Says SPECTRA360 INC: Flo-Tech Files TCPA Suit in Illinois STATE FARM: Court Narrows Claims in Amended Connectors Suit STUMP PRINTING: Guglielmo Files Suit under ADA ULTA SALON: Faces Rowe Employment Suit in California Super. Court UNITED STATES: Attorney General Faces Suit in D. Arizona USHEALTH ADVISORS: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Berg Suit Claims VENUS FASHION: Jones Suit Seeks Stop Unsolicited Marketing Texts VIVINT SOLAR: Rosen Law Files Class Action Lawsuit VOLVO CARS: XC90s Not Compatible With Android Auto, Levine Says WELLS FARGO: Herrera Files Class Action in Pa. WERNER MEDIA: Guglielmo Files Suit in New York under ADA WEST ELM: Lopez Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Holdings Had $288MM Accrual at June 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lennox Int'l. Paid $1.5MM for Lawsuits in 3Q 2019 ASBESTOS UPDATE: PPG Industries Had 675 Open Claims at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Had $1.35-Bil. Net Reserves at Sept. 30 ********* 3M COMPANY: Guam Residents Sue over Contaminated Water ------------------------------------------------------ RAYMOND AGUON; JOHNNY ARCEO; BENNY BAZA; WILLIAM CASTRO; DAVID G. CEPEDA; GREYORIO CRUZ; MICHAEL CUASITO; FRANCISCO C. DUENAS; DELFINO V. GARCIA; STEVE HAGEN; ALFRED C. IGNACIO; JAMES T. LINNEL; MARK MERFALEN; ANDREW R. MESA; VAN W. MURER; RUDY PACO; VICENTE PEREZ; MICHAEL ROBERTO; RANDY SABLAN; LEWIS SANTOS; RAY TAITAGUE; EDWARD TERLAJE; ANTHONY QUINENE; individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs vs. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co.); TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP; CHEMGUARD, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND CO.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, L.L.C., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00141 (D. Guam, Oct. 3, 2019) is an action for medical monitoring and monetary damages resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals perfluorooctane sulfonate ("PFOS"), perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA"), or other per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances (collectively with PFOS and PFOA, "PFAS") or from exposure to groundwater, surface water, and affected areas contaminated with PFOS and/or PFOA from AFFF products and chemical feedstock used in AFFF that were manufactured, designed, sold, supplied and distributed by each of the Defendants, individually or through their predecessors or subsidiaries. According to the complaint, the Defendants were aware of the toxic nature of PFOS and PFOA and the harmful impact these substances have on human health. Nevertheless, the Defendants knowingly and willfully manufactured, designed, marketed, sold, and distributed AFFF products and/or chemical feedstocks containing PFOS and PFOA when they knew or reasonably should have known that these harmful compounds would be released into the air, soil, and groundwater during firefighting training exercises and in firefighting emergencies, and would threaten the health and welfare of firefighters and other individuals exposed to these dangerous and hazardous chemicals. 3M Company operates as a diversified technology company worldwide. The company's Industrial segment offers tapes; coated, non-woven, and bonded abrasives; adhesives; ceramics; sealants; specialty materials; purification products; closure systems for personal hygiene products; acoustic systems products; automotive components; and abrasion-resistant films, and paint finishing and detailing products. The company was founded in 1902 and is headquartered in St. Paul, Minnesota. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James L. Ferraro, Esq. Janpaul Portal, Esq. James L. Ferraro, Jr., Esq. Dick M. Ortega, Esq. 600 Brickell Avenue, 38th Floor Miami, FL 33131 Telephone (305) 375-0111 E-mail: jlf@ferrarolaw.com jpp@ferrarolaw.com jjr@ferrarolaw.com dmo@ferrarolaw.com - and - Michael J. Berman, Esq. BERMAN O'CONNOR & MANN 111 W Chalan Santo Papa Ste 503 Hagatna, Guam 96910 Telephone: (671) 477-2778 Facsimile: (671) 477-4366 E-mail: mjberman@pacificlawyers.law 7-ELEVEN INC: Thorne Alleges Violation under Disabilities Act ------------------------------------------------------------- 7-Eleven, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Braulio Thorne, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 7-Eleven, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-10072 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 30, 2019). 7-Eleven Inc. is a Japanese-American international chain of convenience stores, headquartered in Dallas, Texas. The chain was founded in 1927 as Tote'm Stores until it was renamed in 1946.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq. 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Tel: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: nyjg@aol.com AACRES CA: Faces Perkins Employment Suit in California Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Aacres CA, LLC, et al. The case is captioned as Gail Perkins, Andrea Williams, and Cayanne Willis-Walker, On behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Aacres CA, LLC, Does 1-100, and Embassy Management, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 34-2019-00267245-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Oct. 21, 2019). The suit alleges violation of employment related laws. Aacres CA provides supported living, 24-7 residential home supports and competency restoration services in Los Angeles, San Diego and Sacramento.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Edwin Aiwazian, Esq. LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC 410 Arden Ave., Suite 203 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 265-1020 Facsimile: (818) 265-1021 E-mail: edwin@lfjpc.com AARGON AGENCY: Harrison Alleges Violation under FDCPA ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Aargon Agency, Inc. The case is styled as Genevieve Harrison, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Aargon Agency, Inc. and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 5:19-cv-02073 (C.D. Cal., Oct. 29, 2019). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Act. Aargon Agency Inc is a debt collection agency.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Aaron Stieglitz, Esq. Law Offices of Jonathan Stieglitz 11845 West Olympic Boulevard Suite 800 Los Angeles, CA 90064 Tel: (323) 979-2063 Fax: (323) 488-6748 Email: jonathan.a.stieglitz@gmail.com ABODE SYSTEMS: Guglielmo Files Suit in New York under ADA --------------------------------------------------------- Abode Systems, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Joseph Guglielmo, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Abode Systems, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-10055 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 30, 2019). Abode Systems, Inc. designs and produces security systems. The Company offers door and window sensors, motion sensing camera, automation engines, fire detectors, and home automation systems.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Russel Craig Weinrib, Esq. Stein Saks PLLC 285 Passaic St., Suite 5 Hakensack, NJ 07601 Tel: (201) 282-6500 Email: rweinrib@steinsakslegal.com ADAM GINSBERG: Bittlingmeyer Seeks to Stop Illegal Phone Calls -------------------------------------------------------------- CARLY BITTLINGMEYER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ADAM GINSBERG INTERNATIONAL INC., and ADAM GINSBERG, Case No. 0:19-cv-62554-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Oct. 14, 2019), arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt the Defendants' illegal conduct in calling her cellphone to solicit their services to her, namely, a series of seminars promoting their "Internet Mastery" Amazon training program, as well the promise of a trip to Cancun for all attendees, without her prior express consent, written or otherwise. Adam Ginsberg International, Inc., is a California corporation, with a principal address of in Los Angeles, California. Adam Ginsberg is a resident of California. The Defendants direct, market, and conduct substantial business activities in Florida.[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 ADIDAS AMERICA: Calcano Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act ---------------------------------------------------------- Adidas America, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Marcos Calcano, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Adidas America, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-10060 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 30, 2019). Adidas America Inc designs and markets apparel products. The Company provides shoes, apparel, and accessories for men, women, boys, girls, and infants and toddlers, as well as offers sports collections including basketball, football, and training shoes.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq. 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Tel: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: nyjg@aol.com AECOM INC: Murchison Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against AECOM Inc. The case is styled as Timothy Murchison, on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AECOM Inc., Does 1-20, Defendants, Case No. 34-2019-00268065-CU-WT-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Oct. 31, 2019). The case type is stated as "Wrongful Termination". AECOM is an American multinational engineering firm.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lisa L Bradner, Esq. AERO AG HOLDINGS: Calcano Files ADA Suit in New York ---------------------------------------------------- Aero AG Holdings, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Marcos Calcano, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Aero AG Holdings, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-10056 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 30, 2019). Aero AG Holdings, LLC operates in the footwear industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq. 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Tel: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: nyjg@aol.com ALBUQUERQUE, NM: Page Lawsuit Dismissed Without Prejudice --------------------------------------------------------- Judge James A. Parker of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico dismissed without prejudice the case WILFRED ALEXANDER PAGE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ALBUQUERQUE MUNICIPAL MENTAL HEALTH COURT, BRETT LOVELACE, CHARLES BROWN, YVONNE ARCHULETTA, DORA RUBIO, and KIM KENNEDY, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00763-JAP-JHR (D. N.M.), for lack of jurisdiction. The Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, alleges that the Defendants violated his 5th and 14th Amendment rights in August 2019 during proceedings in Mental Health Court because his Public Defender was not present and no other legal aid or representation of any kind was given or offered. He objected to the sanction of 16 hours of community service. The Defendants are Mental Health Court Judges and staff. The Court construes the Complaint as a civil action under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 for deprivation of constitutional rights. Judge Parker denied the Plaintiff's request that a class action lawsuit be considered to rectify the severe violations towards not only myself but Et Al at least 25 Mental Health Court Inductees such as himself, because the Plaintiff, who is not an attorney admitted to practice in the Court, may not assert claims on behalf of others. The Plaintiff filed his Complaint using the form "Complaint for a Civil Case Alleging Negligence." The form instructs the Plaintiff to state briefly and precisely what damages or other relief the he asks the Court to order. The Plaintiff did not state precisely what damages or other relief he seeks. Instead, he simply asked that the Court "rectify the severe violations." On Aug. 23, 2019, the Court ordered the Plaintiff to file a supplement to his Complaint by Sept. 6, 2019 stating precisely what damages or other relief he wants the Court to order and notified him that failure to timely file a supplement may result in dismissal of the case. The Plaintiff did not file a supplement by the Sept. 6 deadline. As the party seeking to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court, the Plaintiff bears the burden of alleging facts that support jurisdiction. Judge Parker holds that the District Court does not have diversity jurisdiction in the case. The Complaint states that the Plaintiff and the Defendants are citizens of New Mexico. Consequently, there is no properly alleged diversity jurisdiction. Nor is there any properly alleged federal question jurisdiction because the Defendants are state court judges and staff involved in the judicial process, and the Plaintiff has not alleged an ongoing violation of federal law and is not seeking prospective relief. For these reasons, Judge Parker dismissed Page's Complaint without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. A full-text copy of the District Court's Oct. 8, 2019 Memorandum Opinion & Order is available at https://is.gd/B6e1GK from Leagle.com. Wilfred Alexander Page, Plaintiff, pro se. ALEPH OBJECTS: Hergenreder Wants to Collect Wages Under WARN Act ---------------------------------------------------------------- ZACHARY HERGENREDER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. ALEPH OBJECTS, INC., Case No. 1:19-cv-02914 (D. Colo., Oct. 14, 2019), seeks to collect unpaid wages and benefits for 60 calendar days pursuant to the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act of 1988. The Plaintiff was an employee of the Defendant until he was terminated as part of, or as a result of a mass layoff and/or plant closing ordered by the Defendant on October 11, 2019, and thereafter. As such, he contends, the Defendant is liable under the WARN Act for the failure to provide him and the other similarly situated former employees at least 60 days' advance written notice of termination, as required by the WARN Act. The Defendant was a Colorado corporation, which maintained a facility at 626 W 26th St., in Loveland, Colorado.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mary E. Olsen, Esq. M. Vance McCrary, Esq. THE GARDNER FIRM, PC 182 Saint Francis Street, Suite 103 Mobile, AL 36602 Telephone: (251) 433-8100 Facsimile: (251) 433-8181 E-mail: molsen@thegardnerfirm.com vinccrary@thegardnerfirm.com - and - Stuart J. Miller, Esq. LANKENAU & MILLER, LLP 132 Nassau Street, Suite 1100 New York, NY 10038 Telephone: (212) 581-5005 Facsimile: (212) 581-2122 E-mail: sjm@lankmill.com ALTRIA GROUP: Klein Law Reminds Investors of Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- The Klein Law Firm announces that a class action complaint has been filed on behalf of shareholders of Altria Group, Inc. (MO). There is no cost to participate in the suit. If you suffered a loss, you have until the lead plaintiff deadline to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Altria Group, Inc. (MO) Class Period: December 20, 2018 to September 24, 2019 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 2, 2019 The lawsuit alleges Altria Group, Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose during the class period 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. Learn about your recoverable losses in MO: http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/altria-group-inc-loss-submission-form?id=3980&from=1. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. If you suffered a loss during the class period and wish to obtain additional information, please contact J. Klein, Esq. by telephone at 212-616-4899 or visit the webpages provided. J. Klein, Esq. represents investors and participates in securities litigations involving financial fraud throughout the nation. Contact: J. Klein, Esq. Empire State Building 350 Fifth Avenue 59th Floor New York, NY 10118 Telephone: (212) 616-4899 Fax: (347) 558-9665 Website: www.kleinstocklaw.com Email: jk@kleinstocklaw.com [GN] ALTRIA GROUP: Rosen Law Reminds Investors of Dec. 2 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------ Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds purchasers of the securities of Altria Group, Inc. from Dec. 20, 2018 through Sept. 24, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period") of the important Dec. 2, 2019 lead plaintiff deadline in the securities class action. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Altria investors under the federal securities laws. To join the Altria class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1683.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) Altria had conducted insufficient due diligence into JUUL prior to the Company's $12.8 billion investment, or 35% stake, in JUUL; (2) 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; (3) 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 (4) as a result, Altria's public statements were materially false and misleading 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 December 2, 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-1683.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 Information: 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] ALTRIA GROUP: Vincent Wong Notes of Dec. 2 Plaintiff Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announce that class actions have commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in the following companies. If you suffered a loss you have until the lead plaintiff deadline to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff. There will be no obligation or cost to you. Meredith Corporation (MDP) If you suffered a loss, contact us at: http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/meredith-corporation-loss-submission-form?prid=3974&wire=1 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 5, 2019 Class Period: January 31, 2018 to September 5, 2019 Allegations against MDP include that: (1) the Time, Inc. acquisition was not as profitable as the Company had claimed; (2) the Company would incur additional costs for strategic investments to improve the Time business; (3) as a result, the Company's earnings would be materially and adversely impacted; and (4) 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. Altria Group, Inc. (MO) If you suffered a loss, contact us at: http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/altria-group-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=3974&wire=1 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 2, 2019 Class Period: December 20, 2018 to September 24, 2019 Allegations against MO include 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. Covetrus, Inc. (CVET) If you suffered a loss, contact us at: http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/covetrus-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=3974&wire=1 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 29, 2019 Class Period: February 8, 2019 to August 12, 2019 Allegations against CVET include that: (i) the Company had overstated its capabilities with regard to inventory management and supply chain services; (ii) Covetrus had understated the costs of the integration of Henry Schein's Animal Health Business and VFC, including the timing and nature of those costs; (iii) Covetrus had understated its separation costs from Henry Schein; and (iv) the Company 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 the Company's separation from Henry Schein. To learn more contact Vincent Wong, Esq. either via email vw@wongesq.com or by telephone at 212.425.1140. Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and violations of shareholder rights. Contact: Vincent Wong, Esq. 39 East Broadway Suite 304 New York, NY 10002 Tel. 212.425.1140 Fax. 866.699.3880 E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com [GN] AMAG INC: Accused by Gill Suit of Misrepresenting Makena's Worth ---------------------------------------------------------------- Carolyn Gill, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AMAG, INC., Case No. 2:19-cv-02681-DDC-JPO (D. Kan., Nov. 4, 2019), accuses the Defendant of misrepresentations under the Kansas Consumer Protection Act in connection with its marketing, sale, and manufacturing of the drug Makena, a hydroxyprogesterone caproate. Makena was and is marketed as an effective hormonal medication that reduces the risks for pregnant mothers of giving birth before term. The "New Drug Application" or NDA seeking accelerated approval for Makena was approved by the FDA on February 3, 2011. However, the data used to support Makena's fast-track application and subsequent approval was insufficient to make a proper determination of the risks of Makena, the Plaintiff contends. The FDA relied heavily on a single clinical trial published in 2003 by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. However, the governments' Statistical Review and Evaluation found that reliance on the 2003 NICHD study only was insufficient to establish the efficacy of the drug in preventing preterm births, says the complaint. The Plaintiff, who was prescribed, purchased and injected with Makena, asserts that she suffered an ascertainable loss caused by the Defendant's misrepresentations because she paid a premium price for Makena when the product was worth zero to close to zero based on its actual attributes. AMAG is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Waltham, Massachusetts. AMAG currently holds the exclusive rights to Makena.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard M. Paul, III, Esq. Ashlea Schwarz, Esq. Sean Cooper, Esq. PAUL LLP 601 Walnut Street, Suite 300 Kansas City, MO 64106 Phone: 816-984-8100 Email: Rick@PaulLLP.com Ashlea@PaulLLP.com Sean@PaulLLP.com AMERICAN EAGLE OUTFITTERS: Calcano Files Class Suit in New York --------------------------------------------------------------- American Eagle Outfitters, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Marcos Calcano, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. American Eagle Outfitters, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-10062 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 30, 2019). American Eagle Outfitters, Inc., now known as simply American Eagle, is an American lifestyle clothing and accessories retailer, headquartered in the Southside Works Neighborhood of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq. 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Tel: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: nyjg@aol.com AMERIMEX COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Hernandez Class Action in California ------------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Amerimex Communications Corp. The case is styled as Karina Hernandez, individually and on behalf of other individuals similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Amerimex Communications Corp. a Georgia Corporation, Defendant, Case No. BCV-19-103076 (Cal. Super, Kern County, Oct. 29, 2019). The case type is stated as Other Employment - Civil Unlimited. Amerimex Communications Corp. was founded in 1998. The company's line of business includes providing telephone voice and data communications services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marcus J. Bradley, Esq. Bradley/Grombacher, LLP 2815 Townsgate Rd, Suite 130 Westlake Village, CA 91361 Tel: 866-586-5060 ARBY'S FRANCHISOR: Lopez Files Class Suit Under Disabilities Act ---------------------------------------------------------------- Arby's Franchisor, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Victor Lopez and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Arby's Franchisor, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-10074 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 30, 2019). Arby's is the second-largest sandwich restaurant brand in the world with more than 3,400 restaurants in eight countries.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq. The Marks Law Firm PC 175 Varick Street 3rd Floor New York, NY 10014 Tel: (646) 770-3775 Fax: (646) 867-2639 Email: bmarkslaw@gmail.com AUTO WAX: Masias-Pena Seeks to Recover Minimum and Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Luis R. Masias-Pena, Maikel E. Velazquez-Hernandez, Yoandris Gomez-Bautista, Alain Batista Aguilera, and other similarly situated individuals v. AUTO WAX OF SOUTH FLORIDA INC., and JAVIER MALDONADO, Case No. 1:19-cv-24559-KMM (S.D. Fla., Nov. 4, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs allege they worked over 40 hours per week without being compensated overtime at time-and-one-half their regular rate, or their proper minimum wages. The Defendants did not properly compensate the Plaintiffs for hours that they worked in excess of 40 per week, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants at Honda Dealerships. The Defendants are Florida companies and are Florida residents.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: R. Martin Saenz, Esq. SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC 20900 NE 30th Avenue, Suite 800 Aventura, FL 33180 Phone: (305) 503-5131 Facsimile: (888) 270-5549 Email: msaenz@saenzanderson.com BARCLAYS BANK: UBS Appeals Decision in Sonterra Antitrust Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant UBS AG filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the consolidated lawsuit styled SONTERRA CAPITAL MASTER FUND, LTD., RICHARD DENNIS, and FRONTPOINT EUROPEAN FUND, L.P., on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. BARCLAYS BANK PLC, et al., Case No. 15-CV-3538 (VSB), in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Foley Square). The appellate case is titled as Sonterra Capital Master Fund Ltd., et al. v. Barclays Bank PLC, et al., Case No. 19-3187, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Oct 17, 2019, the Plaintiffs appeal to the Second Circuit from the District Court's August 16, 2019 Opinion and Order, and August 16, 2019 Judgment, dismissing their consolidated cases, and all other orders entered in the case that were adverse, either in whole or in part, to the Plaintiffs. That appellate case is captioned as Sonterra Capital Master Fund, et al. v. Barclays Bank PLC, et al., Case No. 19-2979. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Oct. 1, 2019, District Court Judge Vernon S. Broderick (i) denied FrontPoint's motion to substitute Fund Liquidation Holdings, LLC ("FLH"), individually, and as assignee of and attorney-in-fact for FrontPoint, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(a)(3); and (ii) granted UBS' request that FrontPoint's claims be dismissed in their entirety. Plaintiff FrontPoint brings the putative antitrust class action lawsuit against Defendant UBS for allegedly conspiring with other financial institutions to manipulate the London Interbank Offered Rate ("LIBOR") for British Pound Sterling. The action arises out of alleged manipulation and price fixing of the Sterling LIBOR by numerous financial institutions, which allegedly harmed purchasers and sellers of financial instruments that were in some way connected to LIBOR. In 2007, FrontPoint -- a Delaware limited partnership -- entered into swap transactions with UBS, the price of which was allegedly affected by UBS's manipulation of Sterling LIBOR.[BN] Defendant-Appellant UBS AG is represented by: Eric J. Stock, Esq. Jefferson E. Bell, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166 Telephone: (212) 351-4000 E-mail: estock@gibsondunn.com jbell@gibsondunn.com BILLY REID: Tucker Alleges Violation under Disabilities Act ----------------------------------------------------------- Billy Reid, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Henry Tucker, on Behalf Of Himself and All Other Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. Billy Reid, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-10030 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 29, 2019). Billy Reid, Inc. designs apparels, bags, and accessories. The company offers shirts, knits, sweaters, tees, shots, trousers, ties, and shorts for men; and tops, dresses, jackets, and bottoms for women. It also provides accessories, bags, and footwear. The company offers its products online.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq. 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Tel: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: nyjg@aol.com BLAZIN WINGS: Lopez Files ADA Suit in New York ---------------------------------------------- Blazin Wings, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Victor Lopez and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Blazin Wings, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-10075 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 30, 2019). Blazin Wings, Inc. is an American casual dining restaurant and sports bar.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq. The Marks Law Firm PC 175 Varick Street 3rd Floor New York, NY 10014 Tel: (646) 770-3775 Fax: (646) 867-2639 Email: bmarkslaw@gmail.com BLOOM ENERGY: Issued Misleading Public Statements, Bolouri Says --------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Bolouri, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BLOOM ENERGY CORPORTATION, KR SHRIDHAR, RANDY FURR, L. JOHN DOERR, SCOTT SANDELL, EDDY ZERVIGON, COLIN L. POWELL, PETER TETI, and MARY A. AYOTE, Case No. 5:19-cv-07259 (N.D. Cal., Nov. 4, 2019), is brought on behalf of all persons and entities other than the Defendants, who purchased or otherwise acquired Bloom securities pursuant and/or traceable to Bloom's Registration Statement issued in connection with its initial public offering, or purchased the publicly traded securities of Bloom. The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensable damages caused by the Defendants' violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 arising from their filing of materially false and misleading public statements in support of the IPO. On July 24, 2018, Bloom filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission an amended registration statement on Form S-1, which was signed by the Individual Defendants and was declared effective by the SEC the same day. On July 26, 2018, Bloom filed the SEC the final prospectus for the IPO on Form 424B4, which forms part of the Registration Statement, and sold 18 million shares of Bloom Class A common stock to the investing public at $15 per share for gross proceeds of approximately $284.3 million, net of underwriting discounts, commissions, and estimated offering costs. The Registration Statement emphasized that the Bloom's servers delivered "clean" energy and reduced carbon emissions. The Registration Statement were materially false and/or misleading because they misinterpreted and failed to disclose adverse facts pertaining to the Company's business, operational and financial results, which were known to the Defendants or recklessly disregarded by them, the Plaintiff alleges. Specifically, the Defendants made false and/or misleading statements by failing to disclose that: Bloom's technology produced emissions comparable to that a modern natural gas plant; Bloom's estimates of useful life for its energy servers and fuel cells were inaccurate; Bloom used misleading accounting to mask the effect of future servicing expenses; consequently, Bloom will potentially be liable for up to $2.2 billion in undisclosed servicing liabilities; and as a result, the Defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased Bloom securities at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, according to the complaint. Bloom designs, manufactures, and sells solid-oxide fuel cell systems for on-site power generation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 275 Madison Ave., 34th Floor New York, NY 10016 Phone: (212) 686-1060 Fax: (212) 202-3827 Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com BOB'S DISCOUNT FURNITURE: Thorne Alleges Violation under ADA ------------------------------------------------------------ Bob's Discount Furniture, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Braulio Thorne, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Bob's Discount Furniture, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-10100 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 30, 2019). Bob's Discount Furniture is an American furniture store headquartered in Manchester, Connecticut. Bob's Discount Furniture was founded in 1991 with its first store in Newington, Connecticut and is ranked 12th in sales among United States furniture stores according to Furniture Today's list of Top 100 Furniture Stores.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq. 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Tel: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: nyjg@aol.com BRIDGESTONE INVESTMENT: 9th Cir. Denies Bid for Mandamus Relief --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, In re BRIDGESTONE INVESTMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, BRIDGESTONE INVESTMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO, Respondent, KALMAN ISAACS; et al., Real Parties in Interest, Case No. 19-70031 (9th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied Bridgestone's petition for writ of mandamus. In the securities class action suit, Bridgestone petitions for writ of mandamus following the district court's selection of Glen Littleton as the Lead Plaintiff. Bridgestone argued that the selection violated the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA"). On review, the Ninth Court holds that the district court did not clearly err in selecting a lead plaintiff so mandamus relief is not warranted. Consistent with the PSLRA, the district court ordered the potential lead plaintiffs by the amount of losses they alleged. Bridgestone and Littleton were ranked third and fourth respectively. Beginning at the top of the list, the district court considered whether the potential lead having the largest asserted loss, Tempus International Fund, satisfied the adequacy and typicality requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. After it found that Tempus did not, the district court continued down the list sequentially, checking each Plaintiff for adequacy and typicality, and ultimately stopped at Littleton: the potential Lead Plaintiff having the largest asserted loss that also satisfied Rule 23's requirements. The procedure was consistent with the PSLRA, the Ninth Circuit opines. Bridgestone's attempt to cast the process as freewheeling relies heavily on questions posed by the district court during a preliminary hearing on the selection motion. But nothing in the district court's information-gathering statements supplants its subsequent order faithfully applying the PSLRA. Nor did the district court clearly err in finding Bridgestone was entangled with a unique defense and therefore atypical, the Ninth Circuit states. At this stage, the question is whether Bridgestone must prepare to meet defenses that are not typical of the defenses which may be raised against other members of the proposed class. There is no evidence that the other Plaintiffs are subject to the same rebuttal argument. And, given that the call options make up a significant amount of Bridgestone's asserted loss, it is likely to be vigorously challenged by defendants. Thus, it was not clear error for the district court to conclude that a major focus of litigation against Bridgestone will concern a defense unique to it, the Ninth Circuit states. Based on the foregoing, the Ninth Circuit denied the petition for writ of mandamus. A full-text copy of the Ninth Circuit's Oct. 8, 2019 Memorandum is available at https://is.gd/NkHPni from Leagle.com. BSH HOME APPLIANCES: Guglielmo Files Class Suit under ADA --------------------------------------------------------- BSH Home Appliances Corporation is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Joseph Guglielmo, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BSH Home Appliances Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-10065 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 30, 2019). BSH Home Appliances Corporation manufactures home appliances.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Russel Craig Weinrib, Esq. Stein Saks PLLC 285 Passaic St., Suite 5 Hakensack, NJ 07601 Tel: (201) 282-6500 Email: rweinrib@steinsakslegal.com C & J: Tucker Asserts Breach of ADA in New York ----------------------------------------------- C. & J. Clark Retail, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Henry Tucker, on Behalf Of Himself and All Other Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. C. & J. Clark Retail, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-10031 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 29, 2019). C&J Clark International Ltd. (Clarks) is a world-leading manufacturer and retailer of footwear.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq. 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Tel: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: nyjg@aol.com CADENCE BANCORPORATION: Schall Law Files Class Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------- The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm, announces that it is investigating claims on behalf of investors of Cadence Bancorporation (NYSE:CADE) 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. The investigation focuses on whether the Company issued false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose information pertinent to investors. Cadence announced on July 22, 2019, that the Company's financial results for the second quarter of 2019 were "negatively impacted by higher credit costs including net charge-offs of $18.6 million and loan provisions of $28.9 million." Based on these issues, Cadence missed its second-quarter earnings expectations. Based on this news, shares of Cadence fell by more than 22% on the same day. 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. The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder rights litigation. Contact: Brian Schall, Esq. The Schall Law Firm Tel: 310-301-3335 Cell: 424-303-1964 Website: www.schallfirm.com Email: info@schallfirm.com, brian@schallfirm.com [GN] CAPITAL ONE: Faces Evans Suit Over Unauthorized Credit Inquiries ---------------------------------------------------------------- JUSTIN EVANS, Individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION, Case No. 3:19-cv-01985-MMA-JLB (S.D. Cal., Oct. 14, 2019), seeks to enjoin the Defendant's violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act relating to its systematic unauthorized credit inquiries. Mr. Evans alleges that the Defendant acquired his credit information through an unauthorized inquiry of his "consumer report[s]" as that term is defined by the FCRA. He alleges that despite the fact that his financial obligation to the Defendant was discharged as of May 23, 2017, the Defendant submitted an unauthorized account review credit report inquiry to Trans Union. He argues that the Defendant's inquiry for his consumer report information, without his consent, falls outside the scope of any permissible use or access included in the FCRA. Capital One is a Virginia corporation located in Mclean, Virginia. The Defendant is authorized to and regularly conducts business in the state of California. The Defendant is a credit furnisher subject to the FCRA.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yana A. Hart, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101 San Diego, CA 92108-3609 Telephone: (619) 233-7770 Facsimile: (619) 297-1022 E-mail: yana@kazlg.com - and - Daniel G. Shay, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL G. SHAY 2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 308 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (619) 222-7429 Facsimile: (866) 431-3292 E-mail: danielshay@tcpafdcpa.com CHEVRON CORPORATION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Clayborne Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- HAWN CLAYBORNE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CHEVRON CORPORATION; CHERNE CONTRACTING CORPORATION; NEWTRON, LLC; THE NEWTRON GROUP, LLC; and DOES 1-100, Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-06313-DMR (N.D. Cal., Oct. 2, 2019) is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, and reimburse necessary business expenses. The Plaintiff Clayborne was employed by the Defendants as hourly paid, non exempt employee. Chevron Corporation is an integrated energy company with operations in countries located around the world. The Company produces and transports crude oil and natural gas. Chevron also refines, markets, and distributes fuels, as well as is involved in chemical and mining operations, power generation, and energy services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jahan Sagafi, Esq. Moira Heiges-Goepfert, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP One California Street, 12th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 638-8800 Facsimile: (415) 638-8810 E-mail: jsagafi@outtengolden.com mhg@outtengolden.com - and - Steven Elster, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF STEVEN ELSTER 785/E2 Oak Grove Road, No. 201 Concord, CA 94518 Telephone: (925) 324-2159 E-mail: steve.elster.law@gmail.com CJS SOLUTIONS: Court Denies Bid to Strike Rule 68 Offer of Judgment ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, Timothy C. Borup, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. The CJS Solutions Group, LLC, d/b/a/The HCI Group, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-1647 (PAM/DTS) (D. Minn.), Magistrate Judge David T. Schultz of the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota denied Borup's Motion to Strike or Otherwise Invalidate Defendant's June 12, 2019 Rule 68 Offer of Judgment. Borup alleges that HCI misclassified him and other "at the elbow" consultants as independent contractors and accordingly failed to provide appropriate overtime pay. He asserts two causes of action: (1) a violation of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), filed on behalf of himself and a putative FLSA collective, and (2) a violation of the Minnesota Fair Labor Standards Act, filed on behalf of himself and a putative Minnesota class. The case has proceeded at something short of breakneck speed. Stays, the result of both stipulation and the revelation of an undisclosed, related case in the Southern District of New York, as well as discovery issues, have stalled the normal case progression. On June 12, 2019, HCI served Borup with a Rule 68 Offer of Judgment on his individual claim. The pertinent terms of the Offer provide that Judgment be entered in the Plaintiff's favor in the case for a total sum of $10,000, as well as any amount for costs of suit, attorneys' fees, and any and all other accrued costs that might be recoverable against the Defendant in the action, to be determined by the Court. The Offer includes all valid claims for damages that the Plaintiff has alleged against the Defendant, as well as compensation for costs and reasonable attorneys' fees accrued up to the date of the Offer. The Offer further requires that as a condition of the Offer, the Plaintiff agrees to execute a mutually agreeable Settlement Agreement and Release for the purpose of releasing any and all claims against the Defendant. Before the 14-day period to accept HCI's Offer of Judgment elapsed, Borup filed the present Motion to Strike or otherwise invalidate the Offer. That period elapsed, however, before the hearing on the Motion took place. Because Borup did not accept the Offer within the 14 days, it is considered unaccepted and withdrawn. Borup moves to strike or otherwise invalidate the purported Rule 68 Offer of Judgment HCI made on June 12, 2019. Relying on authority from the District and from other circuits and districts, Borup argues that -- whatever the mechanism used -- the Court must invalidate HCI's offer of judgment as premature in the context of a putative class and collective action. Offering competing authority, HCI contends the Court must wait to decide the issue later, if it has to decide it at all. Judge Schultz holds that although a Rule 68 offer of judgment offered solely to the named Plaintiff in a putative class and collective action does not neatly square with the rules governing those types of actions, there is no reason to declare HCI's offer ineffective as the concern Borup raises does not exist and so will not come to roost. Judge Schultz also will not grant Borup's motion not because the Court lacks the power to do so or because the matter is unripe. Rather, the sword of Damocles dangling over Borup's head does not present the disproportionately coercive threat he claims -- or that HCI likely hoped it would. Finally, Borup does not face the threat of a disproportionate liability for costs that animates his request for immediate relief. The upshot is that Borup will not face a meaningfully greater shift in costs than he would had he brought the action solely on his own behalf. As such, HCI's Rule 68 Offer of Judgment does not create the conflict of interest that has troubled those courts to have considered the issue before. Absent this conflict, there is no basis for granting Borup the immediate relief he requests. His motion will be denied. Based on the foregoing, Judge Schultz denies Borup's Motion to Strike. A full-text copy of the District Court's Oct. 8, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/DyPTTy from Leagle.com. Timothy C. Borup, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Kelly A. Lelo -- klelo@larsonking.com -- Larson King, LLP, T. Joseph Snodgrass -- jsnodgrass@larsonking.com -- Larson King, LLP & Thomas A. Jacobson, Swenson Lervick Syverson Anderson Trosvig Jacobson, PA, 710 Broadway, P.O. Box 787, Alexandria, MN 56308 The CJS Solutions Group, LLC, doing business as The HCI Group, Defendant, represented byClaire B. Deason, Littler Mendelson, P.A., Corey Christensen -- cchristensen@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson P.C. & Jacqueline E. Kalk -- jkalk@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, PC. COLLECTION BUREAU: Bid to Strike Class Claims in Roskelley Denied ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, KEITH ROSKELLEY, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. COLLECTION BUREAU, INC., an Idaho corporation and MARK L. CLARK, an individual, and MARK L. CLARK, PLLC, an Idaho professional limited liability company, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00561-CWD (D. Idaho), Magistrate Judge Candy W. Dale of the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho (i) denied the Defendants' Motion to Strike Class Allegations; (ii) denied as moot the Defendants' Motion for Protective Order to Stay Discovery Pending Resolution of Defendants' Motions; (iii) granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Complaint. Keith Roskelley alleges that on March 19, 2018, Collection Bureau filed a complaint against him and his adult daughter, Amanda Roskelley, in Idaho state court, claiming that they owed $5 to Primary Health Medical Group, $46.13 to Saltzer Clinics, $200 to Idaho Plumbing Company, and $11.55 to Primary Health Medical Clinic. The summons and complaint were delivered to Amanda Roskelley at her residential address in Boise on March 3, 2018. However, Roskelley has resided in, and still resides in, Meridian and never resided with his 28-year-old daughter at her residence in Boise. Roskelley denies he had any responsibility to pay his daughter's medical debts, but that nonetheless, CBI wrongfully sued him together with his daughter in the collection action. Roskelley contends he did not know of the collection complaint filed against him until October 2018, when Roskelley received notice from his employer that CBI was garnishing his wages. He asserts the wage garnishment notice was his first notice that a collections complaint had been filed, and judgment had been entered against him. He retained local attorney Ryan Ballard for assistance with setting aside the default judgment based upon improper service. According to Roskelley, CBI filed an unopposed motion to set aside the default judgment entered against him, averring that Roskelley is not responsible for the debts. The state court granted the motion. Shortly after the collection action was resolved, on Dec. 20, 2018, Roskelley filed the complaint before the Court alleging that Defendants Collection Bureau, Mark L. Clark, PLLC, and Mark L. Clark ("CBI") are debt collectors who employ policies that cause the Defendants to violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") in two ways: (1) by filing lawsuits against debtors who are not responsible to pay each debt at issue; and (2) serving only one defendant before seeking a default judgment, even if the co-defendant resides at a different address. Roskelley claims these violations occur because of CBI's practice of suing people with the same last name, based upon an assumption they are spouses, to collect a debt that only one of the individuals owes. Roskelley brings the matter as a potential class action on behalf of the following persons similarly situated: Each person named as a defendant in a collection action filed by CBI in Idaho courts within one year prior to the filing of the action, who does not appear in the records provided to CBI by the original creditor for each alleged debt as person responsible for the alleged debt. The complaint contains two FDCPA claims asserted under 15 U.S.C. Section 1692e and 15 U.S.C. Section 1692f, which prohibit debt collectors from using false, deceptive or misleading representations or means in connection with the collection of any debt, and from using any unfair or unconscionable means to collect any debt, respectively. In support of its Motion to Strike, CBI submitted the declaration of Mark L. Clark, setting forth facts that establish CBI's decision to link the separate collection accounts of Keith and Amanda Roskelley was a mistake, based upon an incorrect assumption that the two were husband and wife such that community assets were available to satisfy the debts. This mistake was then perpetuated when CBI served the summons and complaint upon Amanda Roskelley at her residence, because CBI assumed she was Keith Roskelley's spouse and they resided together. Clark stated also that, once the judgment against Keith Roskelley was set aside, Mr. Roskelley acknowledged liability for two of the four CBI accounts described in the collection complaint and he paid CBI the balance due for those two accounts. Mr. Roskelley does not deny these facts, although he objects to the Court's consideration of the Clark Declaration to the extent Clark sets forth his findings related to his review of CBI's business records to locate other instances when CBI sued individuals sharing the same last name together in one collection action. The Motion to Amend complaint seeks to add two Plaintiffs, Kevin McGee and John Hennefer, whom Roskelley contends were subject to the same debt collection practices as he was. Roskelley asserts that CBI sued Mr. McGee and Mr. Hennefer for recovery of debts they did not individually incur. He argues Mr. McGee and Mr. Hennefer fall within the proposed class, because neither appeared in the records provided to CBI by the creditor for each alleged debt as the person responsible for the alleged debt. He contends it was improper to sue Mr. McGee and Mr. Hennefer together in the same action as their wife for their wife's consumer debts. In opposition to the motion to amend, CBI submitted the second declaration of Mark Clark, which attaches copies of the complaints CBI filed in the state district court in Ada County against the McGees and the Hennefers. CBI argues Mr. McGee and Mr. Hennefer were properly sued together with their spouse, because the debts were incurred while the couples were married. CBI contends Mr. McGee and Mr. Hennefer were properly named as defendants together with their spouse to the extent CBI sought to satisfy the debts from community property. Roskelley, on the other hand, argues that a creditor is not permitted to name, and sue, a non-debtor for alleged debts incurred by his or her spouse, and that both Mr. McGee and Mr. Hennefer therefore fall within the proposed class. After careful examination, the Court understands Roskelley's class action claim faults CBI for assuming individuals who share the same last name are married and, based upon that assumption, proceeding to name the two individuals as defendants in the same lawsuit even if only one of the individuals incurred the debt. CBI argues it does so because it seeks to satisfy debts owed by one or the other spouse from community property. Keith Roskelley and his daughter represent one proposed subset in this group, as they are related (father and daughter) and share the same last name. CBI assumed they were married, and sued them both in the same action, individually and as husband and wife, to recover two debts owed by Keith, and two debts owed by Amanda. Two other (and potentially more) subsets exist in the proposed class -- married couples who incurred individual debts, like Mr. and Mrs. McGee; and divorced spouses who incurred individual debts prior to the entry of the divorce decree, like Mr. and Ms. Hennefer, but who were sued together, both individually and as husband and wife, after their divorce was final. In each case, CBI assumed the individual debtors were married, and joined them in the same lawsuit. With regard to Mr. and Mrs. McGee, CBI was correct. But with respect to the Roskelleys and the Hennefers, CBI was not correct in assuming the two debtors were married at the time the collection suits were filed. Magistrate Judge Dale first examines the motion to amend the complaint, because it asks the Court to determine a question of law permeating the entirety of the action -- whether Idaho law permits a creditor to sue and obtain a judgment against both members of a marital community for a debt incurred by only one spouse. CBI argues the proposed amendment to add Mr. McGee and Mr. Hennefer is futile, because Idaho law permits creditors to sue married individuals, individually and as husband and wife, to the extent the creditor seeks to satisfy the debt or debts from community property. Thus, CBI argues it correctly sued the two Hennefers together and also the two McGees together; based on this, they are not proper plaintiffs nor representative of the class, rendering the proposed amendment futile. The Magistrate concludes that out of the two potential Plaintiffs, only one may be a proper Plaintiff based upon the proposed class definition. The Hennefers were divorced at the time CBI instituted its collection action. Accordingly, it appears Mr. Hennefer was not a proper party defendant in an action to recover debts that Ms. Hennefer owed, much in the same way that Mr. Roskelley was not a proper party defendant in an action seeking recovery of debts his daughter owed, based upon the assumption the debtors were married. It was not improper, however, to name Mr. and Mrs. McGee as party defendants in one suit to the extent CBI sought recovery of debts incurred by one or both spouses from community property. They were married at the time the debts were incurred, and remained married at the time the collection action was filed. Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge granted in part the Motion to Amend to allow the addition of Mr. Hennefer as a Plaintiff in the matter. The Judge makes no determination as to the merits of Roskelley's claims, and declines to address the Defendants' additional arguments, directed at the same. Because the matter is in early stages of development, the Magistrate Judge finds it would be premature to address the Defendants' numerosity, commonality and other arguments, and to rule that the case should not proceed as a class action, especially given the opportunity exists to amend the class descriptions at the close of discovery. Should the Court reach the question of certifying a class, and later find that Roskelley has not or cannot adequately identify a class or classes which he can properly represent, the Court may reconsider its preliminary decision to allow the case to proceed as a class action. CBI's Motion to Strike, or in the alternative to deny class certification, is denied. Having now considered the Motion to Amend and the Motion to Strike, the Magistrate Judge denied the Motion to Stay as moot. To the extent the parties require a protective order to address the Defendants' claims that production of documents related to Roskelley's class claims may violate the privacy interests of nonparties, she will consider a proposal for the same. And last, because of Mr. Hennefer's addition as a party plaintiff and the substitution of local counsel under the circumstances, the Magistrate will conduct a status conference with the parties for the purpose of discussing discovery and other deadlines. A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 8, 2019 Memorandum Decision & Order is available at https://is.gd/HE7L9j from Leagle.com. Keith Roskelley, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Beth E. Terrell -- bterrell@terrellmarshall.com -- Terrell Marshall Law Group PLLC, pro hac vice, Blythe H. Chandler -- bchandler@terrellmarshall.com -- Terrell Marshall Law Group, PLLC, pro hac vice, Benjamin Andrew Schwartzman -- info@aswdpllc.com -- Andersen Schwartzman Woodard Dempsey, PLLC, Jennifer Schrack Dempsey, Andersen Schwartzman Woodard Dempsey, PLLC & Wade L. Woodard, Andersen Schwartzman Woodard Dempsey, PLLC. Collection Bureau, Inc., a Idaho corporation, Mark L. Clark, PLLC, an Idaho professional limited liability company & Mark L Clark, an individual, Defendants, represented by Ryan Mayes Fawcett & Jeffrey I. Hasson, Hasson Law, LLC, pro hac vice. CORPORATE AMERICA: Court OKs CUMIS' Motion to Dismiss in Terry Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, DONALD E. TERRY, SR., et al., Plaintiffs, v. CORPORATE AMERICA FAMILY CREDIT UNION et al., Defendants, Civil No. JKB-19-1065 (D. Md.), Judge James K. Bredar of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland granted (i) CUMIS' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim for relief, and (ii) CUMIS' unopposed motion to seal Exhibits B and C to its motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs Donald E. Terry, Sr., and Shemika Terry, who are father and daughter, respectively, filed suit against Corporate America Family Credit Union ("CAFCU") and CUMIS Insurance Society Incorporated, doing business as CUNA Mutual Group ("CUMIS") in Baltimore City Circuit Court. The Terrys asserted class action allegations on behalf of the following class: All persons with loans from CAFCU, whose loans are secured by the borrower's personal vehicle, and who purchased Guaranteed Asset Protection ("GAP") coverage from CUNA in conjunction with their CAFCU loan. In addition to declaratory and injunctive relief, the Plaintiffs seek actual damages, forgiveness of all loan deficiencies claimed by CAFCU following inadequate CUNA GAP coverage payouts, reimbursement of sums paid by Class members on alleged deficiencies, punitive damages in an amount determined by the trier of fact, an award of their reasonable attorneys' fees and costs in the matter, plus such other and further appropriate relief. Based upon minimal diversity pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act, the case was removed to the Maryland District Court. After both the Defendants filed answers, a scheduling order was entered, pursuant to which the Terrys were granted leave to file an amended complaint. The amended complaint asserted five counts: (i) Count I — Illinois Consumer Fraud Act; (ii) Count II — Illinois Deceptive Trade Practices Act; (iii) Count III — Breach of Contract; (iv) Count IV — Declaratory Judgment; and (v) Count V — Tortious Interference with Contract. All counts are brought against both the Defendants except for the last count, tortious interference with contract, which is only against CUMIS. CAFCU has filed an answer to the amended complaint. Now before the Court is CUMIS's Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim for relief as well as the Plaintiffs' opposition thereto, and CUMIS's reply. Also pending is CUMIS's unopposed Motion to Seal Exhibits B and C to its motion to dismiss. Judge Bredar finds that the first and second elements, existence of a contract between the Terrys and CAFCU and CUMIS's knowledge of the contract, have been plausibly pled. Assuming arguendo the Plaintiffs have also plausibly pled that CAFCU breached the GAP contract and that the Terrys incurred damages from a breach -- elements four and five, Judge Bredar nevertheless does not find that the Plaintiffs have provided sufficient factual content to support an inference that CUMIS intentionally induced CAFCU to breach or otherwise render impossible the performance of the GAP contract without justification by CUMIS. The Complaint resorts to "naked assertions devoid of further factual enhancement," by merely alleging that CUMIS calculates GAP benefits to minimize debt forgiveness, thereby inducing CAFCU to breach its contractual obligations, the District Court finds. The Terrys' allegations that CUMIS instructed CAFCU to adjust the beginning value of the vehicle from $19,500 to $18,250 and employed a different formula for amortizing the car loan from the one used by CAFCU do not allow a reasonable inference that CUMIS acted unjustifiably in its role as administrator of the GAP contract or that it intended either to cause injury to the Terrys or to obtain a benefit at the expense of the Terrys. The complaint fails to state a claim for relief on count five, Judge Bredar opines. The District Court states that although the two exhibits at issue were submitted to support CUMIS's motion to dismiss, they were irrelevant to the Court's disposition of the motion and were not even consulted by the Court. The governmental interest in protecting trade secrets is well established. No benefit can be found to unsealing of these two exhibits. Hence, the Judge will grant the motion. Accordingly, Judge Bredar granted CUMIS' Motion to Dismiss and unopposed Motion to Seal. A full-text copy of the District Court's Oct. 8, 2019 Memorandum is available at https://is.gd/n419QC from Leagle.com. Donald E. Terry, Sr. & Shemika Terry, Plaintiffs, represented by Thomas Joseph Minton -- tminton@charmcitylegal.com -- Goldman and Minton PC. Corporate America Family Credit Union, Defendant, represented by Michael Kevin Hourigan -- mhourigan@fsb-law.com -- Ferguson Schetelich and Ballew PA. COVETRUST INC: Vincent Wong Notes of Nov. 29 Plaintiff Deadline --------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announce that class actions have commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in the following companies. If you suffered a loss you have until the lead plaintiff deadline to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff. There will be no obligation or cost to you. Meredith Corporation (MDP) If you suffered a loss, contact us at: http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/meredith-corporation-loss-submission-form?prid=3974&wire=1 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 5, 2019 Class Period: January 31, 2018 to September 5, 2019 Allegations against MDP include that: (1) the Time, Inc. acquisition was not as profitable as the Company had claimed; (2) the Company would incur additional costs for strategic investments to improve the Time business; (3) as a result, the Company's earnings would be materially and adversely impacted; and (4) 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. Altria Group, Inc. (MO) If you suffered a loss, contact us at: http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/altria-group-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=3974&wire=1 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 2, 2019 Class Period: December 20, 2018 to September 24, 2019 Allegations against MO include 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. Covetrus, Inc. (CVET) If you suffered a loss, contact us at: http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/covetrus-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=3974&wire=1 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 29, 2019 Class Period: February 8, 2019 to August 12, 2019 Allegations against CVET include that: (i) the Company had overstated its capabilities with regard to inventory management and supply chain services; (ii) Covetrus had understated the costs of the integration of Henry Schein's Animal Health Business and VFC, including the timing and nature of those costs; (iii) Covetrus had understated its separation costs from Henry Schein; and (iv) the Company 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 the Company's separation from Henry Schein. To learn more contact Vincent Wong, Esq. either via email vw@wongesq.com or by telephone at 212.425.1140. Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and violations of shareholder rights. Contact: Vincent Wong, Esq. 39 East Broadway Suite 304 New York, NY 10002 Tel. 212.425.1140 Fax. 866.699.3880 E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com [GN] CREDIT SUISSE: XIV Investor Appeals Decision in Securities Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff XIV Investor Group filed an appeal from a court ruling in the consolidated securities lawsuit styled Rajan Chahal, Shaolei Qiu, and Glenn Eisenberg, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs and XIV Investor Group, Movant v. Credit Suisse Group AG, David R. Mathers, Tidjane Thiam, Credit Suisse AG, Credit Suisse International, Janus Henderson Group PLC, Janus Index & Calculation Services LLC, and Janus Distributors, LLC, DBA Janus Henderson Distributors, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-2268, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Oct. 23, 2019, in the cases, SET CAPITAL LLC, et al., Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated Plaintiff, v. CREDIT SUISEE GROUP AG, CREDIT SUISSE AG, CREDIT SUISSE INTERNATIONAL, TIDJANE THIAM, DAVID R. MATHERS, JANUS HENDERSON GROUP PLC, JANUS INDEX & CALCULATION SERVICES LLC, and JANUS DISTRIBUTORS LLC d/b/a JANUS HENDERSON DISTRIBUTORS, Defendants. GLENN EISENBERG, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. CREDIT SUISSE AG and JANUS INDEX & CALCULATION SERVICES LLC, Defendants. SHAOLEI QIU, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. CREDIT SUISSE GROUP AG and JANUS INDEX & CALCULATION SERVICES LLC, Defendants, Case Nos. 18 Civ. 2268 (AT) (SN), 18 Civ. 2319 (AT) (SN), 18 Civ. 4045 (AT) (SN) (S.D. N.Y.), Judge Analisa Torres granted the Defendants' motions to dismiss. The consolidated case arises out of the collapse of a complex investment vehicle known as VelocityShares Daily Inverse VIX Short Term Exchange Traded Notes ("XIV notes" or "XIV ETNs"). XIV notes provided a mechanism by which investors could profit from low volatility in the stock market. In purchasing an exchange traded note ("ETN"), investors agree to pay money to the institution sponsoring the ETN in return for a payment when the note matures, the amount of which is determined by the value of a market index. In the case, the value of XIV notes was derived from the VIX Futures Index, an index that aggregates the price of "VIX futures," which in turn track a measure of market volatility. To allow investors to bet against market volatility, the value of XIV notes was inverse to the value of the VIX Futures Index, such that when the VIX futures contracts underlying the VIX Futures Index decreased in value by 1%, the XIV notes' value increased by 1%, and vice versa. Credit Suisse AG issued and sold the notes, and Janus Henderson Distributors, LLC placed and marketed them. Several Plaintiffs filed suit against Credit Suisse AG (the issuer), Credit Suisse International (one of the calculation agents), Credit Suisse Group AG (their holding company), Tidjane Thiam (Credit Suisse Group's CEO), David R. Mathers (Credit Suisse Group's CFO); and Janus Henderson Distributors, LLC (the marketer), Janus Index & Calculation Services LLC (the other calculation agent), and Janus Henderson Group plc (their holding company). Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) and the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act ("PSLRA"), the suits were consolidated, and the Plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint. The appellate case is captioned as Rajan Chahal, Shaolei Qiu, and Glenn Eisenberg, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs and XIV Investor Group, Movant-Appellant v. Credit Suisse Group AG, David R. Mathers, Tidjane Thiam, Credit Suisse AG, Credit Suisse International, Janus Henderson Group PLC, Janus Index & Calculation Services LLC, and Janus Distributors, LLC, DBA Janus Henderson Distributors, Defendants-Appellees, Case 19-3466, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN] The Plaintiff-Appellant is represented by: Michael B. Eisenkraft, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC 88 Pine Street New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 838-7797 Facsimile: (212) 838-7745 E-mail: meisenkraft@cohenmilstein.com The Defendants-Appellees are represented by: David G. Januszewski, Esq. Peter J. Linken, Esq. Herbert Scott Washer, Esq. CAHILL GORDON & REINDEL LLP 80 Pine Street New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 701-3352 Facsimile: (212) 378-4137 E-mail: djanuszewski@cahill.com plinken@cahill.com DCM DASH ONE: Miller Files Class Suit in California --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against DCM Dash One Inc. The case is styled as Diana Miller, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DCM Dash One Inc, a Corporation doing business in California, Defendant, Case No. 19STCV38951 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles County, Oct. 30, 2019). The case type is stated as Other Employment. Dcm Dash One Inc is in the Labor Contractors (Employment Agency) business.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin Lo, Esq. Law Offices of Justine Lo 22939 Hawthorne Blvd, Ste 202 Torrance, CA 90505 Tel: (424) 355-8535 DELTA PACKING: Fails to Pay Minimum & Overtime Wages, Perez Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Alejandra Perez, Araceli Magdaleno, Martin Prudencio Diaz, Jaime Espinoza, Martin Mendoza Carrillio, Saul Toleno, Luis Torres, Felix Rafael, Nicolas Bolanos, Marisol Cuevas R., Augosto Pablo Chales, and Miguel Andres, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. DELTA PACKING COMPANY OF LODI, a California Corporations, JONNY DIAZ FLORES, PABLO DIAZ FLORES, LUCIANO DIAZ BERNABE, individuals, and DOES ONE through TWENTY inclusive, Case No. 2:19-at-01041 (E.D. Cal., Nov. 4, 2019), is brought against the Defendants for their violations of the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act, and the California Labor Code, including the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act and applicable Wage Orders. The Defendants violated the wages and hours laws by failing to pay all wages owed, including piece-rate wages, minimum and overtime rates, to provide separate compensation for rest and recovery period, and to provide proper rest periods and meal periods or pay additional compensation in lieu thereof, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs were non-exempt employees of the Defendants. The Defendants operated an agricultural operation in San Joaquin County, California.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Stan S. Mallison, Esq. Hector R. Martinez, Esq. Matthew S. Turnbull, Esq. Liliana Garcia, Esq. Natalia Ramirez Lee, Esq. MALLISON & MARTINEZ 1939 Harrison Street, Suite 730 Oakland, CA 94612-3547 Phone: (510) 832-9999 Facsimile: (510) 832-1101 Email: Stanm@TheMMLAwFirm.com Hectorm@TheMMLAwFirm.com Matt@TheMMLAwFirm.com Lgarcia@TheMMLAwFirm.com Nramirezlee@TheMMLAwFirm.com DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Claims in Third Amended Lewis Suit Trimmed ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case KAYLA DIONNE LEWIS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Defendant, Civil Action No. 15-352 (RBW) (D. D.C.), Judge Reggie B. Walton of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted in part and denied in part the Defendant District of Columbia's Motion to Dismiss the Third Amended Complaint. Named Plaintiffs Kayla Lewis and Felton Hill commenced the putative class action against the Defendant, the District of Columbia, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 (2018), alleging constitutional violations arising from their arrests and subsequent detentions. The District Court discussed the factual background of the case in its Memorandum Opinion issued on June 27, 2016, see Lewis v. District of Columbia ("Lewis I"), 195 F.Supp.3d 53, 56-57 (D.D.C. 2016) (Walton, J.), and it will not reiterate those facts again here. The Court will, however, discuss the procedural posture of the case, which is relevant to the resolution of the pending motion. In Lewis v. District of Columbia ("Lewis I"), the Court granted in part and denied in part the District's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint. It granted the District's motion to dismiss Hill's claims pertaining to the length of his detention because he had not asserted a constitutional deprivation. The Court concluded that the only reason proffered by Hill for the Court to find an unreasonable delay -- that the judicial officer affirmatively concluded at his initial appearance that the government lacked probable cause to effect the arrest -- was belied by the transcript of that proceeding, and that Hill failed to offer any other reason for the Court to find an unreasonable delay in his release. Regarding Lewis's claims pertaining to the length of her detention, the Court denied the District's motion to dismiss and concluded that, because the District concede[d] that it held her for more than 48 hours without a judicial finding of probable cause, and ultimately acknowledged that it was ordered to release Lewis after failing to submit evidence substantiating probable cause, these concessions alone are sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss. The Court also denied the District's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' claim that the District violated their Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights by subjecting them to blanket strip searches at the District of Columbia Jail after presentment. The current operative complaint in the case -- the Third Amended Complaint, which was filed on March 12, 2018 -- asserts three claims that challenge the District's policies regarding probable cause determinations and detainee strip searches. Specifically, the Plaintiffs claim that the District (1) violated their Fourth Amendment rights under Gerstein v. Pugh, by holding them after presentment after the administrative steps incident to their arrests had been completed without an affirmative finding of probable cause ("Count One"); (2) violated the Fourth Amendment rights of Lewis under County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, by holding her for more than 48 hours after her arrest without a finding of probable cause by a judicial officer ("Count Two"); and (3) violated the Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights of the Plaintiffs by subjecting them to blanket strip searches at the District of Columbia Jail after presentment (after the administrative steps incident to their arrests had been completed) without an affirmative finding of probable cause ("Count Three"). On March 26, 2018, the District filed its motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint. It argues that (1) Counts One and Two should be dismissed because they are premised on official acts by judges for the Superior Court for the District of Columbia who are not policymakers for the District, and as such, the Plaintiffs cannot establish municipal liability under Section 1983; (2) Count One should be dismissed as to Hill because his detention of less than 48 hours does not give rise to a Fourth Amendment violation; and (3) Count One should be dismissed as to Lewis because it is duplicative of her allegations in Count Two -- namely, that she was unreasonably held for over 48 hours without a finding of probable cause by a judicial officer to allow the 'perfection' of the Gerstein affidavit. Because the Third Amended Complaint largely mirrors the Amended Complaint on the matter, compare Amended Complaint for Judgment and Money Damages and Injunctive Relief and Equitable Relief and Declaratory Relief and Jury Demand, and because the District has not presented any new arguments to warrant a different ruling, Judge Walton, for the same reasons indicated in Lewis I, must deny the District's motion to dismiss on the basis of its argument that the Third Amended Complaint does not establish a basis for finding municipal liability under Section 1983. Next, Hill's proffered reason for the Court to find an unreasonable delay is insufficient to resurrect his claim regarding the length of his detention. Therefore, the Judge concludes that Hill has not sufficiently alleged that the Magistrate Judge's deferral of his probable cause determination resulted in an unreasonable delay and thus must again grant the District's motion to dismiss Hill's claim challenging the length of his detention. The Judge agrees with the District's third argument that Lewis cannot maintain both Counts One and Two against the District. Because Count One is indistinguishable from Count Two, Lewis is doing nothing more than pursuing the same claim in separate counts. However, instead of dismissing Count One as the District suggests, the Judge will dismiss Count Two since Count Two does not present any legal or factual theories that are not already subsumed in Count One. Finally, the Judge grants the District's motion to dismiss Count Three of the Third Amended Complaint to the extent that the Plaintiffs rely on the Fifth Amendment to maintain their strip search claim. He opines that Fourth Amendment, in prohibiting unreasonable searches, is clearly the explicit textual source of constitutional protection against the governmental conduct alleged in the case. Therefore, because the Plaintiffs' strip search claim is "covered by" the Fourth Amendment's guarantee to be free from an unreasonable search, the Plaintiffs' challenge to the reasonableness of the strip searches is properly analyzed under the Fourth Amendment, not the Fifth. Based on the foregoing, Judge Walton concludes that Hill has failed to allege sufficient facts in support of his claim regarding the length of his detention. He further concludes that Count Two is duplicative of Count One and that Count Two is therefore dismissed. He also concludes that the Plaintiffs cannot maintain their claim regarding the District's alleged blanket strip searches under the Fifth Amendment. Accordingly, the Judge granted in part and denied in part the District's Motion to Dismiss the Third Amended Complaint. A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 8, 2019 Memorandum Opinion is available at https://is.gd/e53QS3 from Leagle.com. KAYLA DIONNE LEWIS, On behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Michael P. Bruckheim -- michael@brucklaw.com -- BRUCKHEIM & PATEL, LLC & William Charles Cole Claiborne, III, CLAIBORNELAW. FELTON HILL, On behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by William Charles Cole Claiborne, III, CLAIBORNELAW. GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Defendant, represented by Fernando Amarillas, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Michael A. Tilghman, OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL & Scott Patrick Kennedy, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. JESSIE K. LIU, THE HONORABLE, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY ONLY, Defendant, represented by Denise M. Clark, U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. DR.'S OWN INC: Sisk Files Class Suit in California -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dr.'s Own, Inc. The case is styled as Renee Sisk, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Dr.'s Own, Inc, a Delaware Corporation and Good Feet Worldwide LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-02079-BEN-MSB (S.D. Cal., Oct. 30, 2019). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Contract: Other filed as a Diversity Action. The company's line of business includes the manufacturing of surgical appliances and supplies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John J. Nelson, Esq. FINKELSTEIN & KRINSK LLP 555 West C Street, Suite 1760 San Diego, CA 92101 Tel: (619) 238-1333 Fax: (619) 238-5425 Email: jjn@classactionlaw.com DSW SHOE: Morrison Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned Jill Morrison, individually, and on behalf of all other members of the general public similarly situated and on behalf of other aggrieved employees pursuant to the California Private Attorneys General Act v. DSW SHOE WAREHOUSE, INC., a Missouri Corporation; DESIGNER BRANDS, INC., a California Corporation, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 19STCV26422, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Nov. 4, 2019. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-09477 to the proceeding. The complaint alleges eleven causes of action, which are: (1) Unpaid Overtime; (2) Unpaid Meal Period Premiums; (3) Unpaid Rest Periods Premium; (4) Unpaid Minimum Wages; (5) Final Wages Not Timely Paid; (6) Wages Not Timely Paid During Employment; (7) Non-Compliant Wage Statements; (8) Failure to Keep Requisite Payroll Records; (9) Unreimbursed business Expenses; (10) Violation of California business & Professions Code; and (11) Violation of California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Brian Sinclair, Esq. Peter Hering, Esq. RUTAN & TUCKER 611 Anton Boulevard, Suite 1400 Costa Mesa, CA 92626-1931 Phone: 714-641-5100 Fax: 714-546-9035 Email: bsinclair@rutan.com phering@rutan.com EPISCOPAL HEALTH: Dumay Suit Removed to Eastern Dist. of New York ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned Lorrell Dumay, Dian Dumay, and Jodi Wolfson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. EPISCOPAL HEALTH SERVICES INC., Case No. 715629/2019, was removed from the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Queens County, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on Nov. 4, 2019. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-06213 to the proceeding. The Plaintiffs purport to assert seven causes of action against the Defendant: (1) negligent handling of Plaintiffs' Sensitive Information; (2) negligent hiring and training of employees; (3) breach of implied contract; (4) breach of fiduciary duty; (5) violation of New York General Business Law; and (6) a cause of action for an injunction requiring the Defendant to implement certain cybersecurity and email protocols.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jeremiah Frei-Pearson, Esq. Todd S. Garber, Esq. John Sardesai-Grant, Esq. Andrew C. White, Esq. FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP, FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP 445 Hamilton Ave., Suite 605 White Plains, NY 10601 Phone (914) 298-3290 Email: jfrei-pearson@fbfglaw.com tgarber@fbfglaw.com jsardesaigrant@fbfglaw.com awhite@fbfglaw.com - and - Paul M. Sod, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF PAUL M. SOD 337R Central Avenue Lawrence, NY 11559 Phone (516) 295-0707 Email: paulmsod@gmail.com The Defendants are represented by: Paul Ferrillo, Esq. William A. Wargo, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166 Phone: (212) 801-9200 Fax: (212) 801-6400 Email: FerrilloP@gtlaw.com WargoW@gtlaw.com ESPARZA ENTERPRISES: Balcarcel Files Suit in California ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Esparza Enterprises, Inc a California corporation. The case is styled as Marleny Balcarcel, an individual on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Esparza Enterprises, Inc, Defendant, Case No. BCV-19-103107 (Cal. Super., Kern County, Oct. 30, 2019). The case type is stated as Other Employment - Civil Unlimited. Esparza Enterprises, Inc is a Farm Labor Contractor.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Yeremian, Esq. David Yeremian & Associates 535 N Brand Blvd #705 Glendale, CA 91203 Tel: +1 818-230-8380 FCA US: Bid to File 2nd Amended Gilvin Suit Recommended for Denial ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned MELISSA GILVIN, Plaintiff, v. FCA USA, LLC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-107 (S.D. Ohio), Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division, recommended that the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a second amended complaint be denied. The Plaintiffs reside in Clermont County, Ohio. Defendant FCA distributes, markets, and sells FCA motor vehicles to persons in Ohio. Defendant ISG is an agent of FCA. In May 2016, the Plaintiffs leased a new 2016 Ram 1500 truck which was sold, manufactured or distributed by FCA. They leased the motor vehicle from Jeff Wyler, Eastgate Auto Mall in Batavia, Ohio, at which time they received a written statement of their rights under the Ohio Lemon Law. Upon initially leasing the truck, the Plaintiffs did not pay the costs of the taxes, security deposit, or title fees. They claim that their vehicle was out of service by reason of repair for a cumulative total of 30 or more calendar days. They further assert that their motor vehicle was possessed substantially the same nonconformity, which was subject to repair three or more times, and the nonconformity either continued to exist or was recurring. According to the Plaintiffs, FCA, their agents and/or their authorized dealer, were unable to conform the Plaintiffs motor vehicle to any applicable express warranty by repairing or correcting the nonconformity after a reasonable number of repair attempts In January 2017, the Plaintiffs were forwarded to Defendant FCAC's agent, ISG, to facilitate an informal dispute resolution to the nonconforming motor vehicle issue. During the informal negotiations, ISG made a "refund" offer to the Plaintiffs. ISG explained to the Plaintiffs that, as a matter of course, the amount of an offer made for the return of a vehicle included a deduction for the costs for taxes, title fees, and security deposits if the consumer had not paid the costs of these items at the outset of the consumer's dealings with FCA US LLC. The Plaintiffs were told that since FCA US LLC had paid the costs of taxes, title fees, and security deposits (or simply waived these costs), they were not included in the offer being made. After ISG explained that FCA was entitled to these costs, ISG gave the Plaintiffs a few days to either accept the settlement offer or ISG would close the case. The Plaintiffs did not accept the settlement offer from ISG. Thereafter, the Plaintiffs initiated the action for alleged violations of Ohio's Lemon Law. Notably, the Plaintiffs originally filed the action in the Court of Common Pleas for Clermont County, Ohio in January 2018. They seek relief for, inter alia, damages in excess of $25,000 for the refund of the full purchase price of their nonconforming motor vehicles. In addition to compensatory damages, the Plaintiffs also seek punitive damages, attorneys' fees, and injunctive and declaratory relief. They also seek to bring the action on behalf of themselves as well as two classes of persons. Thereafter, the Defendants filed a notice of removal with the Court on Feb. 14, 2018. Their notice of removal asserted jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d)(2), which is commonly referred to as the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"), as well as diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(a). The Plaintiffs then sought to remand the matter back to state court. The Defendants also asked the Court to dismiss the Plaintiffs' claims. The Plaintiffs' motion to remand was denied. The Defendants motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part. Namely, the Plaintiffs' class allegations relating to a "fail-safe" class were dismissed and Defendant Ally Financial was dismissed from the action. The Plaintiffs now move for leave to amend their Amended Complaint to modify class definitions that were deemed to be fail-safe classes, add a subclass to include consumers who financed their motor vehicle purchase through former Defendant Ally, and add again, formally, as a Defendant in the case, Ally, based on clarified allegations and new information provided by Plaintiffs. Defendant FCA contends that the Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend should be denied because they made the voluntary choice to sit and wait until after a final, nonappealable Order was entered by the Court dismissing their class allegations, and they admit that they waited hoping that the Court's final Order would provide them with some guidance for repleading. Under Sixth Circuit law, Defendant FCA contends that the Plaintiffs' wait-and-see approach was improper. The Plaintiffs simply cannot wait for a final adverse ruling before seeking leave to amend so that they can use the district court as "as a sounding board to discover holes in their arguments." Magistrate Judge Bowman agrees. Additionally, the Plaintiffs' proposed amendments are also futile. It is axiomatic that a plaintiff must be a member of the class defined in the complaint for the class to be legally viable. In the Plaintiffs' proposed amendment, the Plaintiffs are not members of the defined class and therefore cannot be an adequate representative. In addition, the Plaintiffs' proposed second amended complaint asserts that they have suffered financial hardship because Ally has not cancelled the lease associated with the alleged nonconforming vehicle. But Ally has not received the "full purchase price" for the vehicle or consented to a new lease. As such, Ally asserts that it has not violated Ohio Lemon Law by failing to cancel the Plaintiffs' lease because the express conditions precedent to Ally having an obligation to do so have indisputably not happened. Notably, a proposed amended complaint is "futile" and thus leave to file it should be denied when the statute at issue "does not provide for a private right of action" for the plaintiff against the proposed defendant. Magistrate Judge holds that the statute does not provide a private right of action against the "lessor" of a vehicle under Ohio Lemon Law, such as Ally. For the reasons stated, Magistrate Judge Bowman recommends that the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a second amended complaint be denied. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), any party may serve and file specific, written objections to the Report & Recommendation ("R&R") within 14 days of the filing date of the R&R. That period may be extended further by the Court on timely motion by either side for an extension of time. All objections will specify the portion(s) of the R&R objected to, and will be accompanied by a memorandum of law in support of the objections. A party will respond to an opponent's objections within 14 days after being served with a copy of those objections. Failure to make objections in accordance with this procedure may forfeit rights on appeal. A full-text copy of the District Court's Oct. 8, 2019 Report & Recommendation is available at https://is.gd/AvSy8s from Leagle.com. Melissa Gilvin & Jamie Gilvin, Plaintiffs, represented by Kristopher David Burgess -- kristopher@theburgessfirm.com -- T. David Burgess Co., L.P.A & Daniel T. Monk, T. David Burgess Co., L.P.A., pro hac vice. FCA US LLC, Defendant, represented by Carolyn Ann Taggart -- ctaggart@porterwright.com -- Porter Wright Morris & Arthur, LLP, Terrance Michael Miller -- tmiller@porterwright.com -- Porter Wright Morris & Arthur, Kathy Wisniewski -- kwisniewski@thompsoncoburn.com -- Thompson Coburn LLP, pro hac vice & Stephen Anthony D'Aunoy -- sdaunoy@thompsoncoburn.com -- Thompson Coburn LLP, pro hac vice. Impartial Services Group, also known as Stericycle Expert Solutions, Defendant, represented by Alex S. Rodger, STRAUSS TROY CO., LPA. Ally Financial Inc., Defendant, represented by Joel E. Sechler -- sechler@carpenterlipps.com -- Carpenter & Lipps LLP. FIDELITY NATIONAL: Improperly Charges Closing Fees, Haines Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- John P. Haines, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE OF FLORIDA, INC., Case No. 98336447 (Fla. Cir., Pinellas Cty., Nov. 4, 2019), arises from closing fees improperly charged and collected by the Defendant from buyers of real estate in the state of Florida. The Plaintiff entered into a real estate purchase and sale contract with the owner of certain real estate located in Pinellas, Florida. Pursuant to the terms of the Contract, the Plaintiff agreed to pay cash for the Seller's Property. The Defendant was the designated Closing Agent for the procurement of title insurance and to perform closing services in connection with the transaction. The Defendant performed Closing Services for which the Defendant charged a fee. The Contract provided that the Closing Services Fee would only be charged to, and collected from, the Seller. Because the sale was a cash transaction, there was no lender's policy, endorsement or related loan closing services required to be paid by the Plaintiff, the Buyer. The closing fee of $350 was improperly charged by the Defendant to the Plaintiff despite explicit language in the Contract that "Seller shall pay for Owner's Policy and Charges," which included the Defendant's Closing Services Fee, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is an individual residing in Pinellas County, Florida. The Defendant is in the business of selling credit health savings and/or health insurance policies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua H. Eggnatz, Esq. EGGNATZ PASCUCCI 7450 Griffin Rd., Suite 230 Davie, FL 33314 Email: jeggnatz@justiceearned.com - and - Seth M. Lehrman, Esq. EDWARDS POTTINGER LLC 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: 954-524-2820 Facsimile: 954-524-2822 Email: seth@epllc.com - and – Richard B. Feinberg, Esq. FLORIDA LEGACY LAW, LLC 600 Cleveland Street, Suite 313 Clearwater, FL 33755 Phone: 727 231-6400 Email: ricfeinberg@hotmail.com FINISH LINE INC: Calcano Files Class Suit under Disabilities Act ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Finish Line, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Marcos Calcano, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. The Finish Line, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-10064 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 30, 2019). Finish Line is an American retail chain that sells athletic shoes and related apparel and accessories. The company operates 660 stores in 47 states, mostly in enclosed shopping malls, as well as Finish Line-branded athletic shoe departments in more than 450 Macy's stores.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq. 150 E. 18 St. Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Tel: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: nyjg@aol.com FORSTER & GARBUS: Leboeuf Seeks to Certify Class ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit styled as MYRLE S. LEBOEUF, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. FORSTER & GARBUS LLP, the Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-00845-WBV-JVM (E.D. La.), Ms. Leboeuf asks the Court for an order: 1. certifying a class pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act consisting of: "all persons (a) with a Louisiana address, (b) to whom Forster & Garbus LLP mailed an initial written communication not known to be returned as undeliverable, (c) in connection with the collection of a consumer debt, (d) between February 4, 2018 and February 4, 2019, (e) that included a minimum amount due date that was within 30 days of the date of the initial written communication"; 2. appointing her as the class representative; and 3. appointing her counsel as class counsel.[CC] Counsel for Plaintiff and the proposed class are: James L. Davidson, Esq. GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC 7601 N. Federal Highway, Suite A-230 Boca Raton, FL 33487 Telephone: (561) 826-5477 Facsimile: (561) 961-5684 E-mail: jdavidson@gdrlawfirm.com - and - Katherine Z. Crouch, Esq. Crouch Law, LLC 2372 St. Claude Avenue, Suite 224 New Orleans, LA 70117 Telephone: (504) 982-6995 Facsimile: (888) 364-5882 E-mail: katherine.crouch@crouchlawnola.com FRONTPOINT SECURITY: Guglielmo Suit Alleges ADA Violation --------------------------------------------------------- Frontpoint Security Solutions, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Joseph Guglielmo, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Frontpoint Security Solutions, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-10076 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 30, 2019). Frontpoint home security systems offer customized wireless alarm system and automation solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Russel Craig Weinrib, Esq. Stein Saks PLLC 285 Passaic St., Suite 5 Hakensack, NJ 07601 Tel: (201) 282-6500 Email: rweinrib@steinsakslegal.com GARY SMILEY: Can Compel Arbitration in Goss FDCPA Suit, Court Rules ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, KARICE GOSS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. GARY A. SMILEY, Defendant, Case No. 18 C 7407 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Gary Feinerman of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, granted Smiley's motion to compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA"). Plaintiff Karice Goss brings the putative class action under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), alleging that Smiley sent her a collection letter threatening to charge unlawful late fees. Goss defaulted on a debt incurred on a AAA Checkmate consumer loan account. Smiley, an attorney, sent Goss a collection letter on AAA Checkmate's behalf. On this and other matters that AAA Checkmate referred to Smiley, AAA decided whether Smiley could file suit on any given claim, AAA had the final word regarding whether, and for how much Smiley may settle any claims on its behalf, and AAA decided whether to withdraw any given claim from Smiley.0. Smiley's letter to Goss stated, in relevant part: "Because of interest, late charges, attorney fees, if any, and other charges that may vary from day to day, the amount due on the day you pay may be greater." In the operative complaint, Goss alleges under the FDCPA that the statement was false and misleading because late fees could not accrue given the acceleration of Goss' debt under an acceleration provision in the Consumer Loan Agreement governing her relationship with AAA Checkmate. Smiley moved to compel arbitration under the FAA. In moving to compel arbitration, Smiley invokes the Consumer Loan Agreement's arbitration provision. Smiley demanded arbitration, and Goss refused. Judge Feinerman concludes that because Goss' FDCPA claim falls within the arbitration provision's scope' because Smiley may enforce the provision; and because Smiley has not waived his right to arbitrate, Smiley's motion to compel arbitration is granted. If Goss wishes to pursue her claim against Smiley, she must do so in arbitration. Judge Feinerman stayed the suit pending resolution of the arbitration. If Goss does not expeditiously take the steps necessary to commence arbitration, the suit will be dismissed. A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 8, 2019 Memorandum Opinion & Order is available at https://is.gd/tMxKhu from Leagle.com. Karice Goss, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Celetha Chatman, Community Lawyers Group, Ltd. & Michael Jacob Wood -- info@communitylawyersgroup.com -- Community Lawyers Group, Ltd. Gary A. Smiley, Attonrney At Law, Defendant, represented by Eric D. Kaplan -- ekaplan@kpglaw.com -- Kaplan Papadakis & Gournis, LLP & Stacie Elaine Barhorst -- sbarhorst@kpglaw.com -- Kaplan Papadakis & Gournis PC. GBJ INC: Underpays Drivers, Crider Suit Alleges ----------------------------------------------- JASON CRIDER, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GBJ, INC. d/b/a AFC TRANSPORTATION; ECHO TOUR & CHARTERS, L.P. d/b/a ECHO TRANSPORTATION; and TBL GROUP, INC., Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-03793 (S.D. Tex., Oct. 2, 2019) is an action against the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. The Plaintiff Crider was employed by the Defendants as driver. GBJ, Inc., doing business as AFC Transportation provides transportation services. The Company offers airport transfer, school bus, transit services, sightseeing tour, and other solutions. AFC Transportation serves customers in the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Josef F. Buenker, Esq. THE BUENKER LAW FIRM 2060 North Loop West, Suite 215 Houston, TX77018 Telephone: (713) 868-3388 Facsimile: (713) 683-9940 E-mail: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com GEICO GENERAL: Interlocutory Appeal in Green Suit Denied -------------------------------------------------------- In the case, GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. YVONNE GREEN, WILMINGTON PAIN & REHABILITATION CENTER, and REHABILITATION ASSOCIATES, P.A. on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs Below, Appellees, Case No. 389, 2019 (Del.), Justice Gary F. Traynor of the U.S. Supreme Court of Delaware refused GEICO's application for certification of an interlocutory appeal. Plaintiffs Yvonne 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 Court 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. 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. It 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. It 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, they 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. On review, Justice Traynor holds that applications for interlocutory review are addressed to the sound discretion of the Delaware Supreme Court. In the exercise of the Supreme Court's discretion and despite the Superior Court's granting of the application for certification, Justice Traynor 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, the Justice opines. For these reasons, Justice Traynor refused the interlocutory appeal. A full-text copy of the Delaware Supreme Court's Oct. 8, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/TOsD3F from Leagle.com. GROCERY-TAQUERIA MEXICANA: Garcia Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- MARISELA FLORES GARCIA, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. GROCERY-TAQUERIA MEXICANA CORP. (D/B/A GROCERY LA MEXICANA), RAUL SAAVEDRA MORENO, and ANA MARIA PANTLE PALMA, Case No. 1:19-cv-09482 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 14, 2019), alleges that the Plaintiff previously worked for the Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime pay and spread of hours compensation, as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. Grocery-Taqueria Mexicana Corp. (d/b/a Grocery La Mexicana) is a domestic corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York. The Individual Defendants serve or served as owners, managers, principals, or agents of the Defendant Corporation. The Defendants own, operate, or control a Mexican Restaurant, located at 118 E 183rd St., in The Bronx, New York, under the name "Grocery La Mexicana."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 E-mail: Michael@Faillacelaw.com GYRO KING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Chevez Suit Alleges --------------------------------------------------------- JESSICA CHEVEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GYRO KING, LLC; GYRO KING, INC.; GYRO KING 3, LLC; GYRO KING 4, LLC; and DANISH ALI, Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-03801 (S.D. Tex., Oct. 3, 2019) is an action against the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. The Plaintiff Chevez was employed by the Defendants as hourly paid, non exempt employee. Gyro King, LLC is engaged in the restaurant business. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Josef F. Buenker, Esq. THE BUENKER LAW FIRM 2060 North Loop West, Suite 215 Houston, TX 77018 Telephone: (713) 868-3388 Facsimile: (713) 683-9940 E-mail: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com - and - Vijay Pattisapu, Esq. THE BUENKER LAW FIRM 2060 North Loop West, Suite 215 Houston, TX77018 Telephone: (713) 868-3388 Facsimile: (713) 683-9940 E-mail: vijay@buenkerlaw.com HI-TECH PHARMACEUTICALS: Ottesen Sues Over DMHA in Supplements -------------------------------------------------------------- Allison Ottesen, Sean Allen, and Lauren Accardi, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HI-TECH PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., Case No. 4:19-cv-07271 (N.D. Cal., Nov. 4, 2019), asserts claims for fraud, breach of warranty, and violations of the consumer protection laws of California and New York on behalf of purchasers of the Defendant's supplements containing the stimulant DMHA. DMHA is illegal and not generally recognized among experts to be safe under the conditions of its intended use, the Plaintiffs contend. The Defendant is breaking the law by manufacturing and distributing supplements that contain the stimulant DMHA and failing to disclose that they contain an ingredient that is illegal and not recognized as safe, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs are purchasers of the supplements manufactured by the Defendant. The Defendant manufactures, distributed, and sold the supplements thought the United States.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Phone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 Email: ltfisher@bursor.com - and - Scott A. Bursor, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 2665 S. Bayshore Dr., Suite 220 Miami, FL 33133-5402 Phone: (305) 330-5512 Facsimile: (305) 676-9006 Email: scott@bursor.com IBM CORP: Comin Seeks to Recover Damages for Withheld Commissions ----------------------------------------------------------------- Mark Comin, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION, Case No. 3:19-cv-07261-JCS (N.D. Cal., Nov. 4, 2019), seeks to recover damages from the Defendant's wrongful withholding of sales commissions and to stop its deceptive and unlawful practices in how it structures and administers commission for all of its employees. The Defendant employs thousands of sales representatives and managers throughout California, who earn sales commissions. However, the Defendant does not provide those employees with a written, signed, enforceable contract regarding their commissions. Instead, the Defendant provides its sales representatives with a letter that expressly states it is not a contract or promise by the Defendant to pay any sales commissions. As a result, it has been sued over two dozen times around the country for failing to pay sales representatives the commissions they were due, says the complaint. Mr. Comin worked for IBM from January 2001 to February 2018. IBM is a global technology company that provides hardware, software, cloud-based services, and cognitive computing.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alex R. Straus, Esq. TENSOR LAW, P.C. 2716 Ocean Park Blvd. Santa Monica, CA 90405 Phone: 310-450-9689 Fax: 310-496-3176 Email: astraus@tensorlaw.com ILLINOIS: Court Dismisses Nasello Medicaid Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------- Judge Robert W. Gettleman of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, entered an order dismissing the case MARY NASELLO, KATHERINE STEPHENS, VIRGINIA AYDELOTTE, KAREN S. STANFORD, RALPH HERMAN LAKE, BERT LOUIS MESTEL, BECKY A. LONG, JULIA A. BAKER, LUCY M. EMERICK, and DELORES E. O'DEAR, individually and as the representatives of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs, v. THERESA A. EAGLESON, in her official capacity as Director of the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services, and GRACE B. HOU, in her official capacity as Director of the Illinois Department of Human Services, Defendants, Case No. 18 C 7597 (N.D. Ill.). The Plaintiffs are all nursing home residents with serious medical conditions that require 24-hour medical care. Although not providing any specifics, the complaint alleges that each Plaintiff has one or more medical conditions that substantially limits one or more major life activities. The Plaintiffs are all financially needy, falling within the requirements for Medicaid assistance. Each has been approved for Medicaid Long Term Care Benefits. Each had incurred medical expenses prior to becoming eligible for Medicaid and for which they remain financially liable. They claim that under Medicaid regulations these "prior" expenses should be offset from the calculation of their income for purposes of determining the amount they must contribute to the cost of their nursing home care. The Plaintiffs have brought a four-count amended putative class action complaint against Defendants Eagleson, Director of the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services and Hou, Director of the Illinois Department of Human Services, alleging that the Defendants have violated the Medicaid Act, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Supremacy Clause by failing to deduct the Plaintiffs' pre-eligibility medical expenses when calculating their income for purposes of determining their patient pay amount for long term care. Count I seeks a declaration that the Defendants' practice of refusing to allow what the Plaintiffs interchangeably call "deviated liability" or "deviated income" of non-covered medical expenses incurred prior to eligibility for Medicaid benefits for Illinois nursing home residents violates the Medicaid Act, and an order that the Defendants adopt a process by which they will bring the calculation of patient liability into compliance with federal law. Count II alleges that the Defendants are violating Medicaid's "reasonable promptness" requirement. Count III alleges that defendants' actions violate the ADA and Rehabilitation Acts. In Count IV, the Plaintiffs seek a temporary and permanent injunction. The Defendants have moved under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Judge Gettleman opines that Count I fails to identify which provision of the federal law is violated, and, as the Defendants point out, the Declaratory Judgment Act provides only a form of relief, not an independent claim for relief. The Plaintiffs appear to be attempting to bring a private action to enforce Section 1396a(a)(17) and/or Section 1396a(r)(1)(A), either directly or pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. Neither provision, however, allows a private right of action. Count II fails to state a claim, Judge Gettleman states. The Judge opines that in Count II, the Plaintiffs attempt to assert a claim under Section 1396a(a)(8), which requires a state plan to provide that all individuals wishing to make an application for medical assistance under the plan will have the opportunity to do so, and that such assistance will be furnished with reasonable promptness to all eligible individuals. As the Defendants note, courts have held that this section is privately enforceable, but the Plaintiffs' complaint contains no allegation that any of them have been denied any medical assistance. They complain about the costs of those benefits, not that the benefits have not been furnished promptly. In Count III, the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants have violated the ADA and Rehabilitation Acts by failing to inform them of their right to an off-set and by failing to provide sufficient time to comprehend and challenge the Defendants' failure to off-set income. Judge Gettleman holds that the crux of the Plaintiffs' complaint is that the Defendants failed to follow federal Medicaid law when calculating post-eligibility income. Nothing in the complaint alleges or, more importantly, raises a right to relief above the speculative level, that the state calculates post-eligibility income differently for individuals with a disability than it does individuals without a disability. As a result, Count III is dismissed. Finally, because the Plaintiffs have not alleged a substantive violation of federal law, Count IV, which seeks injunctive relief, is also dismissed, the Court holds. For the reasons stated, Judge Gettleman grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss. A full-text copy of the District Court's Oct. 8, 2019 Memorandum Opinion & Order is available at https://is.gd/6ZR696 from Leagle.com. Ralph Herman Lake, Dolores E. O'Dear, Bert Louis Mestel, Karen S. Stanford, Becky A. Long, Virginia Aydelotte, Mary Nasello, Lucy M. Emerick, Katherine Stephens & Julia A. Baker, Plaintiffs, represented by Kimberly M. Watt, Sb2, Inc. Thresa A. Eagleson, in her official capacity as Director of the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services & Grace B. Hou, in her official capacity as Director of the Illinois Department of Human Services, Defendants, represented by Michael T. Dierkes -- mdierkes@kirkland.com -- Illinois Attorney General's Office. JMR REST CORP: Enciso Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Santiago Hernandez Enciso, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JMR REST CORP. d/b/a RORY DOLAN'S RESTAURANT, BARS & CATERERS, AND RORY DOLAN, as an individual, Case No. 1:19-cv-10250 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 4, 2019), seeks to recover damages for the Defendants' egregious violations of the overtime provision of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. Although the Plaintiff worked for 72 or more hours per week during his employment, the Defendants did not pay him time and a half for hours worked over 40, which is a blatant violation of the overtime provisions contained in the FLSA and NYLL, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from July 2017 until January 2018. JMR REST CORP. d/b/a RORY DOLAN'S RESTAURANT, BARS & CATERERS is a corporation organized under the laws of New York with a principal executive office in Yonkers, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 80—02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Phone: 718-263-9591 Fax: 718-263-9598 LIDDLE & LIDDLE: Faces Perchlak Suit Alleging Violation of FDCPA ---------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Perchlak, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Liddle & Liddle, a Professional Corporation, Case No. 2:19-cv-09461 (C.D. Cal., Nov. 4, 2019), accuses the Defendant of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Defendant is a debt collector and regularly collects or attempts to collect, directly or indirectly, debts owed or due, or asserted to be owed or due, another. In connection with the collection of a certain debt, the Defendant sent the Plaintiff two letters dated August 7, 2019, entitled "Three Day Notice to Pay Rent or Quit" and "Sixty Day Notice To Quit." The Plaintiff ordinarily pays his rent to "Angie Franco Real Estate Options." The Defendant's letters are signed "Attorneys for: Maria Mata, as Trustee of Maria Aurora L. Mara Revocable Living Trust, Owner/lessors." Read as a whole, the Defendant's letters do not effectively communicate the name of the creditor to whom the Plaintiff's debt is owed and, therefore, violate the FDCPA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a natural person allegedly obligated to pay a debt.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Russell S. Thompson, IV, Esq. THOMPSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP, PLLC 5235 E. Southern Ave., D106-618 Mesa, AZ 85206 Phone: 602-388-8898 Facsimile: 866-317-2674 Email: rthompson@ThompsonConsumerLaw.com MATCH GROUP: Crutchfield Sues over 2% Drop in Share Price --------------------------------------------------------- PHILLIP R. CRUTCHFIELD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MATCH GROUP, INC.; AMANDA W. GINSBERG; and GARY SWIDLER, Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-02356-C (N.D. Tex., Oct. 3, 2019) is a class action on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Match securities between August 6, 2019 and September 25, 2019, inclusive. The Plaintiff seeks to pursue claims against the Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and 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 used fake love interest ads to convince customers to buy and upgrade subscriptions; (2) that the Company made it difficult and confusing for consumers to cancel their subscriptions; (3) that, as a result, the Company was reasonably likely to be subject to regulatory scrutiny; (4) that the Company lacked adequate disclosure controls and procedures; 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. On September 25, 2019, the Federal Trade Commission announced that it had sued Match.com for, among other things, using artificial love interest ads to deceive consumers into buying or upgrading subscriptions, failing to resolve disputed charges, and intentionally making it difficult to cancel subscriptions. On this news, the Company's share price fell $1.39 per share, or nearly 2%, to close at $71.44 per share on September 25, 2019, on unusually high trading volume. Match Group, Inc. provides internet based services. The Company owns and operates several online dating web sites including okcupid, plentyoffish, tinder, and hinge, as well as a number of other brands. Match Group serves clients worldwide. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joe Kendall, Esq. KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC 3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 1450 Dallas, TX 75219 Telephone: (214) 744-3000 Facsimile: (214) 744-3015 E-mail: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com - and - Charles H. Linehan, Esq. Pavithra Rajesh, Esq. 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 MAXAR TECHNOLOGIES: Faces McCurdy Securities Suit in California --------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL MCCURDY, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. MAXAR TECHNOLOGIES LTD., HOWARD L. LANCE; ANIL WIRASEKARA; ANGELA LAU; ROBERT L. PHILLIPS; DENNIS H. CHOOKASZIAN; LORI B. GARVER; JOANNE O. ISHAM; C. ROBERT KEHLER; BRIAN G. KENNING; ERIC ZAHLER; and JEFFREY R. TARR, Defendants, Case No. 19CV357070 (Cal. Super., Oct. 21, 2019), asserts strict liability claims under the Securities Act of 1933. In October 2017, Maxar merged with imagery company DigitalGlobe. In connection with the merger, Maxar issued approximately 21 million shares of Maxar common stock directly to shareholders of DigitalGlobe pursuant to an F-4 registration statement and prospectus filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The Registration Statement allegedly contained material misrepresentation and omissions. It failed to disclose, among other things, that Maxar was already likely to discontinue or suffer an impairment on its GEO communications satellite business, and that Maxar's financial results and trends were, therefore, inflated. The Registration Statement also described certain risk factors as if they were possibilities in the future rather than events that were already occurring, according to the complaint. On Oct. 31, 2018, Maxar disclosed the truth, announcing a $432 million net loss, largely attributable to impairment and losses in its GEO communication satellite business. Maxar's stock plummeted 45% in a day, and it has continued to decline. Maxar's stock price fell to about 93% less than it was the time of the Merger, the lawsuit says. Michael McCurdy owned DigitalGlobe stock before the Merger and acquired maxar stock pursuant to the misleading Registration Statement in the Merger. Maxar is a space technology company that specializes in the manufacture of satellites and provision of satellites-related services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel C. Girard, Esq. Adam E. Polk, Esq. GIRARD SHARP LLP 601 California Street, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 981 4800 Facsimile: (415) 981 4846 E-mail: Apolk@girardsharp.com dgirard@girardsharp.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 MDL 2472: Warner Chilcott Appeals Class Cert. Ruling to 1st Cir. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants Warner Chilcott (US), LLC, Warner Chilcott Company, LLC, Warner Chilcott Public Limited Company, Warner Chilcott Sales (US), LLC, Watson Laboratories, Inc. and Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the multidistrict litigation entitled IN RE LOESTRIN 24 FE ANTITRUST LITIGATION, MDL No. 1:13-md-02472-WES-PAS, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Oct. 1, 2019, the Hon. William E. Smith granted in part and denied in part the End-Payor Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification in the MDL. For reasons that will be fully explained in a forthcoming Opinion, the District Court granted in part and denied in part the Motion, insofar as the Court certifies a Third-Party Payor ("TPP") Class, but does not certify an EPP class inclusive of consumers. In the forthcoming Opinion, the District Court said it will rule on the Defendants' Motion to Exclude the Opinion and Testimony of EPPs' Expert Gary L. French; EPPs' Motion to Exclude the Testimony and Opinions of James W. Hughes, Ph.D.; Defendants' Motion to Exclude the Opinions and Testimony of Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs' Experts Eric Miller, Laura Craft, and Myron Winkelman; EPPs' Motion to Exclude the Opinions and Testimony of Mr. Timothy Kosty and Dr. Bruce Strombom; and Defendants' Renewed Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as to Claims in EPPs' Second Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint. The Court certified the following "TPP Class": All Third-Party Payor entities in the United States and its territories that indirectly purchased, paid and/or provided reimbursement for some or all of the purchase price for Loestrin 24 Fe and/or its AB-rated generic equivalents in any form, and/or Minastrin 24 Fe and/or its AB-rated generic equivalents in any form, for consumption by their members, employees, insureds, participants, or beneficiaries, other than for resale, during the period September 1, 2009 through and until the anticompetitive effects of Defendants' unlawful conduct cease. For purposes of the Class definition, entities "purchased" Loestrin 24 Fe, Minastrin 24 Fe, or their generic equivalents if they indirectly purchased, paid and/or reimbursed for some or all of the purchase price. Expressly excluded from the TPP Class are these entities: a. Defendants and their subsidiaries, or affiliates; b. All federal or state governmental entities, excluding cities, towns or municipalities with self-funded prescription drug plans; c. All entities who purchased Loestrin 24 Fe or its AB-rated generic equivalent, and/or Minastrin 24 Fe or its AB-rated generic equivalent, for purposes of resale or directly from Defendants or their affiliates; d. Fully insured health plans (i.e., Plans that purchased insurance from another third-party payor covering 100% of the Plan's reimbursement obligations to its members); and e. Pharmacy Benefit Managers. The appellate case is captioned as City of Providence, et al. v. Warner Chilcott Public Limited, et al., Case No. 19-8026, in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.[BN] Plaintiffs-Respondents PROVIDENCE, RI, individually and on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, et al., are represented by: Michael Morris Buchman, Esq. Michelle C. Clerkin, Esq. John Andrew Ioannou, Esq. MOTLEY RICE LLC 777 3rd Ave., 27th Flr New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 577-0040 E-mail: mbuchman@motleyrice.com mclerkin@motleyrice.com jioannou@motleyrice.com - and - Robert J. McConnell, Esq. Donald Alan Migliori, Esq. MOTLEY RICE LLC 55 Cedar St., Suite 100 Providence, RI 02903 Telephone: (401) 457-7700 E-mail: bmcconnell@motleyrice.com dmigliori@motleyrice.com - and - Donna M. Evans, Esq. Sharon K. Robertson, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 88 Pine St., 14 Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 838-7797 E-mail: devans@cohenmilstein.com srobertson@cohenmilstein.com - and - Laura Hayes, Esq. Kristen A. Johnson, Esq. Thomas M. Sobol, Esq. Edward Notargiacomo, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 55 Cambridge Parkway, Suite 301 Cambridge, MA 02142 Telephone: (617) 482-3700 E-mail: lhayes@hbsslaw.com kristenj@hbsslaw.com tom@hbsslaw.com ed@hbsslaw.com - and - Bonnie A. Kendrick, Esq. Douglas Robert Plymale, Esq. David Scott Scalia, Esq. DUGAN LAW FIRM LLC 365 Canal St., Suite 1000 New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 648-0180 E-mail: bonnie@dugan-lawfirm.com dplymale@dugan-lawfirm.com dscalia@dugan-lawfirm.com - and - David F. Sorensen, Esq. Ellen T. Noteware, Esq. BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C. 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 E-mail: dsorensen@bm.net enoteware@bm.net - and - Jeffrey M. Padwa, Esq. DARROWEVERETT LLP 1 Turks Head Pl., Suite 1200 Providence, RI 02903-0000 Telephone: (401) 453-1200 E-mail: Jpadwa@darroweverett.com - and - Matthew Charles Weiner, Esq. Hilliard & Shadowen LLP 1135 W 6th St., Suite 125 Austin, TX 78703 Telephone: (845) 323-8036 E-mail: matt@hilliardshadowenlaw.com Defendants-Petitioners WARNER CHILCOTT PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY, et al., are represented by: Danielle Audette, Esq. Demetra Frawley, Esq. Michael J. Gallagher, Esq. Bryan D. Gant, Esq. Daniel Grossbaum, Esq. Michael E. Hamburger, Esq. Stefan M. Mentzer, Esq. Robert A. Milne, Esq. Kristen O'Shaughnessy, Esq. Jack E. Pace, III, Esq. Martin Toto, Esq. WHITE & CASE LLP 1221 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020-1905 Telephone: (212) 819-8902 E-mail: daudette@whitecase.com demetra.frawley@whitecase.com mgallagher@whitecase.com bgant@whitecase.com dan.grossbaum@whitecase.com mhamburger@whitecase.com smentzer@whitecase.com rmilne@whitecase.com kristen.oshaughnessy@whitecase.com jpace@whitecase.com mtoto@whitecase.com - and - Noah Austin Brumfield, Esq. Peter J. Carney, Esq. Eileen M. Cole, Esq. David Courchaine, Esq. Alyson M. Cox, Esq. Amanda Lee Czocher, Esq. John Mark Gidley, Esq. Matthew Sterrett Leddicotte, Esq. Holly Letourneau, Esq. Celia Anne McLaughlin, Esq. Jaclyn Phillips, Esq. Emily Renzelli, Esq. WHITE & CASE LLP 701 13 St., NW Washington, DC 20005-3807 Telephone: (202) 626-3698 E-mail: nbrumfield@whitecase.com pcarney@whitecase.com ecole@whitecase.com dcourchaine@whitecase.com alyson.cox@whitecase.com lee.czocher@whitecase.com mgidley@whitecase.com mleddicotte@whitecase.com hletourneau@whitecase.com cmclaughlin@whitecase.com jaclyn.phillips@whitecase.com emily.renzelli@whitecase.com - and - Angela Daker, Esq. Zachary Dickens, Esq. Christopher Swift-Perez, Esq. WHITE & CASE LLP 200 S Biscayne Blvd., Suite 4900 Miami, FL 33131-2352 Telephone: (305) 995-5297 E-mail: adaker@whitecase.com zdickens@whitecase.com cswift-perez@whitecase.com - and - Katherine Dyson, Esq. Lauren M. Papenhausen, Esq. WHITE & CASE LLP 75 State St. Boston, MA 02109-1814 Telephone: (617) 979-9330 E-mail: kate.dyson@whitecase.com lauren.papenhausen@whitecase.com - and - Don Zhe Nan Wang, Esq. WHITE & CASE LLP 3000 El Camino Real 5 Palo Alto Sq., 9th Floor Palo Alto, CA 94306 Telephone: (650) 213-0391 E-mail: don.zhenan.wang@whitecase.com - and - Nicole J. Benjamin, Esq. Patricia K. Rocha, Esq. John A. Tarantino, Esq. William K. Wray, Jr., Esq. ADLER POLLOCK & SHEEHAN PC 1 Citizens Plaza, 8th Floor Providence, RI 02903-1345 Telephone: (401) 274-7200 E-mail: nbenjamin@apslaw.com procha@apslaw.com jtarantino@apslaw.com wwray@apslaw.com MDL 2779: FieldTurf's Bid to Dismiss Artificial Turf Suit Denied ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Michael A. Shipp of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey denied FieldTurf's Motion to Dismiss the Second Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint in IN RE: FIELDTURF ARTIFICIAL TURF MARKETING AND SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION, Civil Action No. 3:17-md-2779 (MAS) (TJB) (D. N.J.). After the cases were centralized before the New Jersey District Court, the Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint, which included named Plaintiffs Carteret, Newark, and Hudson of New Jersey; Fremont and Santa Ynez of California; Levittown of New York; and Neshannock of Pennsylvania. The First Complaint proposed a nationwide class, comprising all persons or entities in the United States and its territories who purchased one or more Duraspine Turf fields for their own use and not for resale. On behalf of the nationwide class, the Plaintiffs brought claims for fraud, fraudulent concealment, fraud in the inducement, and unjust enrichment in the alternative. The First Complaint also proposed 47 subclasses -- one for each of 46 states and one for the District of Columbia -- comprising all persons or entities who purchased one or more Duraspine Turf fields for their own use and not for resale within the state or who purchased one or more Duraspine Turf fields for their own use and not for resale and reside in the state. On behalf of each subclass, the Plaintiffs sought to bring claims for breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranties, and breach of the consumer protection laws of the respective jurisdiction. Because the Plaintiffs resided in and purchased Duraspine Turf fields in California, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania, 43 proposed subclasses had no named Plaintiff as a member. FieldTurf moved to dismiss portions of the First Complaint on two bases. First, FieldTurf sought to dismiss all statutory claims in the 43 jurisdictions where the Plaintiffs did not reside or suffered no injury. Second, it sought to dismiss the Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claims as precluded by the Plaintiffs' breach of express warranty claims. The Court deferred consideration of the Plaintiffs' standing for the nationwide class, holding the inquiry inappropriate prior to class certification. It followed the line of cases holding that named plaintiffs in a class action need not have standing to assert all claims under all state statutes of all putative class members so long as at least one named plaintiff is a member of every class and has standing to assert each of his or her claims. The Court, however, dismissed the 43 subclasses and their respective claims because it was clear from the face of the complaint that none of the Plaintiffs could represent any of the subclasses, as the Plaintiffs were not members of any of the subclasses. The Court denied FieldTurf's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' claims for unjust enrichment and granted them leave to amend the complaint. The Plaintiffs filed a Second Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint with the same claims for the same nationwide class as the First Complaint, including claims for unjust enrichment. The Second Complaint does not propose 47 subclasses for each jurisdiction, but a single Subclass of the National Class on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased one or more Duraspine Turf fields for their own use and not for resale within the same 47 jurisdictions identified in the First Complaint, or who purchased one or more Duraspine Turf fields for their own use and not for resale and reside in these jurisdictions. Unlike the First Complaint, where each state statutory claim was brought on behalf of the respective State] Class, the Second Complaint brought each state statutory claim on behalf of all members of the National Class and/or the Subclass that purchased Duraspine Turf fields in each state and on behalf of the Subclass. Judge Shipp finds that whether the Subclass is duplicative of the nationwide class is also immaterial at this stage and is an issue better addressed at class certification. FieldTurf cites Brewer v. General Nutrition Corp., in support of dismissing the Subclass based on its redundancy. But Brewer addressed the redundancy issue at the class certification stage, which supports the Judge's conclusion that these issues should not be decided prior to class certification. He , accordingly, denies FieldTurf's motion to dismiss claims brought on behalf of the Subclass. FieldTurf urges the Court to reconsider its decision denying its motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claims in light of the recent decision of the Southern District of New York. It offers no new evidence, no new controlling law from the New Jersey state legislature or the New Jersey state courts, and no illustration of manifest injustice. Because none of the traditional extraordinary circumstances apply, the Judge declines to revisit its prior decision denying FieldTurf's motion to dismiss the unjust enrichment claims because it is the law of the case. For the reasons set forth, Judge Shipp denied FieldTurf's Motion to Dismiss. A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 8, 2019 Memorandum Opinion is available at https://is.gd/va6aQ2 from Leagle.com. BOROUGH OF CARTERET, Plaintiff, represented by CURTIS M. PLAZA -- cplaza@riker.com -- RIKER, DANZIG, SCHERER, HYLAND & PERRETTI, LLP, JEFFREY ALLEN BEER, JR. -- jbeer@riker.com -- RIKER DANZIG SCHERER HYLAND & PERRETTI LLP, LANCE J. KALIK -- lkalik@riker.com -- RIKER DANZIG SCHERER HYLAND & PERRETTI, LLP, MICHAEL M. DICICCO , Maggs & McDermott, LLC, RYAN SETH MALC , BATHGATE WEGENER & WOLF PC, ANGELICA M. ORNELAS -- aornelas@girardsharp.com -- GIRARD SHARP LLP, DANIEL C. GIRARD -- dgirard@girardsharp.com -- GIRARD SHARP LLP & CHRISTOPHER A. SEEGER -- cseeger@seegerweiss.com -- SEEGER WEISS LLP. STATE-OPERATED SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF NEWARK, Plaintiff, represented by CURTIS M. PLAZA , RIKER, DANZIG, SCHERER, HYLAND & PERRETTI, LLP, JEFFREY ALLEN BEER, JR. , RIKER DANZIG SCHERER HYLAND & PERRETTI LLP, LANCE J. KALIK , RIKER DANZIG SCHERER HYLAND & PERRETTI, LLP, MICHAEL M. DICICCO , Maggs & McDermott, LLC, RYAN SETH MALC , BATHGATE WEGENER & WOLF PC & CHRISTOPHER A. SEEGER , SEEGER WEISS LLP. COUNTY OF HUDSON, RANNEY SCHOOL & RICHARD GENTILE, Plaintiffs, represented by MICHAEL D. CRITCHLEY , Critchley, Kinum & DeNoia, LLC & CHRISTOPHER A. SEEGER , SEEGER WEISS LLP. SANTA YNEZ VALLEY UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT, a political subdivision of the State of California, Plaintiff, represented by ALEXANDER ROBERTSON, IV , ROBERTSON & ASSOCIATES LLP, Daniel K. Bryson , Whitfield Bryson and Mason LLP, pro hac vice, Mark Joe Uyeno , Robertson and Associates LLP, PATRICK M. WALLACE , WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP, pro hac vice & CHRISTOPHER A. SEEGER , SEEGER WEISS LLP. NESHANNOCK TOWNSHIP SCHOOL DISTRICT, 17-4391, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by ALEXANDER ROBERTSON, IV , ROBERTSON & ASSOCIATES LLP, D. Aaron Rihn , Robert Peirce & Associates, P.C. & CHRISTOPHER A. SEEGER , SEEGER WEISS LLP. FIELDTURF USA, INC., a Florida Corporation, FIELDTURF, INC., a Canadian Corporation, FIELDTURF TARKETT SAS, a French Corporation & TARKETT INC., a Canadian Corporation, Defendants, represented by CORREY ANN KAMIN -- ckamin@sc-harris.com -- Harris St. Laurent LLP, DIANE P. SULLIVAN -- diane.sullivan@weil.com -- WEIL GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP, ALLISON HEATHER SEMAYA -- allison.semaya@weil.com -- WEILL GOTSHAL AND MANGES, HARRIS MICHAEL FISCHMAN -- hfischman@paulweiss.com -- PAUL WEISS RIFKIND WHARTON & GARRISON LLP & LARA BUESO BACH -- lara.bach@weil.com -- WEIL GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP. MDL 2904: Aponte v. LabCorp. Over Data Breach Consolidated ---------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled as JOANN APONTE, PAMELA DRISKELL, LEO GALLAGHER-KOWIT, JEFFREY GRUSHKA, KIMMIE MARTIN, KIM PARROTT, GARY SCHWALL, CATLIN STANFORD, KERRY STEED, TODD STONE, and MEGAN STOREY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA HOLDINGS, doing business as: LABCORP; LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA, doing business as: LABCORP; and AMERICAN MEDICAL COLLECTION AGENCY INC., the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00824 (Filed Aug. 12, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (Newark) on Oct. 21, 2019. The District of New Jersey Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-19149 to the proceeding. The Aponte case is being consolidated with MDL 2904 in re: AMERICAN MEDICAL COLLECTION AGENCY, INC., CUSTOMER DATA SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on July 31, 2019. These actions arise out of a data security breach on the systems of American Medical Collection Agency (AMCA), a breach that reportedly compromised patient data that various medical diagnostic testing companies had provided to AMCA for billing and collection purposes, including Quest Diagnostics, Inc. (Quest), Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings (LabCorp), Bio-Reference Laboratories, Inc. (Bio-Reference), and others. Quest, LabCorp, and Bio-Reference publicly announced the breach in early June 2019, and the putative class actions now before the Panel soon followed. In its July 31,2019 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions in this MDL involve common factual questions in all actions unquestionably arise from the same recently-disclosed breach of AMCA's systems from August 2018 through March 2019, through which an unauthorized user allegedly gained access to patients' personal and financial information, including social security numbers and credit card and bank account information, and patients' medical information. Thus, discovery and motions concerning AMCA's data security practices, how the unauthorized access occurred, and the investigation into the breach will be substantially the same in all actions. The Panel conclude that the District of New Jersey is an appropriate transferee district. All defendants and plaintiffs in over a dozen actions support this district, where four actions on the motion and seven potential tag-along actions are pending. Defendants Quest and Bio-Reference have their headquarters there, and AMCA is located nearby in Elmsford, New York. Thus, common documents and witnesses likely will be located in or near this district. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge Madeline Cox Arleo. The lead case is 2:19-md-02904-MCA-MAH.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Charles E. Schaffer, Esq. LFSB LAW 510 Walnut Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 592-1500 Facsimile: (215) 592-4663 E-mail: CSCHAFFER@LFSBLAW.COM - and - Gary E. Mason, Esq. WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON, LLP 1625 Massachusetts Ave., NW, Suite 605 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 640-1160 Facsimile: (202) 429-2290 - and - Daniel Kent Bryson, Esq. WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON, LLP 900 West Morgan Street Raleigh, NC 27603 Telephone: (919) 600-5000 Facsimile: (919) 600-5035 E-mail: dan@wbmllp.com MEREDITH CORPORATION: Vincent Wong Notes of Lead Plaintiff Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announces that class actions have commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in the following companies. If you suffered a loss you have until the lead plaintiff deadline to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff. There will be no obligation or cost to you. Meredith Corporation (MDP) If you suffered a loss, contact us at: http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/meredith-corporation-loss-submission-form?prid=3974&wire=1 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 5, 2019 Class Period: January 31, 2018 to September 5, 2019 Allegations against MDP include that: (1) the Time, Inc. acquisition was not as profitable as the Company had claimed; (2) the Company would incur additional costs for strategic investments to improve the Time business; (3) as a result, the Company's earnings would be materially and adversely impacted; and (4) 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. Altria Group, Inc. (MO) If you suffered a loss, contact us at: http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/altria-group-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=3974&wire=1 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 2, 2019 Class Period: December 20, 2018 to September 24, 2019 Allegations against MO include 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. Covetrus, Inc. (CVET) If you suffered a loss, contact us at: http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/covetrus-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=3974&wire=1 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 29, 2019 Class Period: February 8, 2019 to August 12, 2019 Allegations against CVET include that: (i) the Company had overstated its capabilities with regard to inventory management and supply chain services; (ii) Covetrus had understated the costs of the integration of Henry Schein's Animal Health Business and VFC, including the timing and nature of those costs; (iii) Covetrus had understated its separation costs from Henry Schein; and (iv) the Company 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 the Company's separation from Henry Schein. To learn more contact Vincent Wong, Esq. either via email vw@wongesq.com or by telephone at 212.425.1140. Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and violations of shareholder rights. Contact: Vincent Wong, Esq. 39 East Broadway Suite 304 New York, NY 10002 Tel. 212.425.1140 Fax. 866.699.3880 E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com [GN] MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces Davis Suit Alleging Violation of FDCPA ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit Management, Inc. The case is captioned as Brian K. Davis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01490-DAD-JLT (E.D. Cal., Oct. 21, 2019). The suit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Dale A. Drozd. Midland Credit was founded in 1953. The company's line of business includes extending credit to business enterprises for relatively short periods.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicholas Michal Wajda, Esq. WAJDA LAW GROUP, APC 6167 Bristol Parkway, Suite 200 Culver City, CA 90230 Telephone: (310) 997-0471 Facsimile: (866) 286-8433 E-mail: nick@wajdalawgroup.com MIDLAND CREDIT: Morgan Files FDCPA Class Action in Indiana ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit Management, Inc. The case is styled as Amy Morgan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-04401-JMS-DML (S.D. Ind., Oct. 30, 2019). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Midland Credit Management, Inc. is a financial institution in San Diego, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Constantine Vlahakis, Esq. SULAIMAN LAW GROUP LTD. 2500 South Highland Avenue, Suite 200 Lombard, IL 60148 Tel: (630) 575-8181 Fax: (630) 575-8188 Email: jvlahakis@sulaimanlaw.com MISSOURI: Court Affirms Partial Summary Judgment in Hootselle Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case THOMAS HOOTSELLE, JR., et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and MISSOURI CORRECTIONS OFFICERS ASSOCIATION, Respondents, v. MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Appellants, Case No. WD82229 (Mo. App.), Judge Mark D. Pfeiffer of the Court of Appeals of Missouri for the Western District affirmed (i) the judgment of the Circuit Court of Cole County, Missouri, granting partial summary judgment to the class Plaintiffs corrections officers and their collective bargaining representative, Missouri Corrections Officers Association ("MCOA") on their breach of contract claim as to the issue of the compensability of the officers' pre- and post-shift required tasks; and (ii) the amended judgment awarding past damages in favor of the officers in accordance with the jury verdict; and granting declaratory judgment ordering DOC to compensate the officers for the pre- and post-shift tasks at issue prospectively. The Missouri Department of Corrections ("DOC") executed a labor agreement ("CBA") with MCOA in 2007 and again in 2014. In addition, DOC promulgated a Procedure Manual. These collective documents govern various rights and duties of the officers and DOC. The CBA and Manual are both consistent in the stated purpose of ensuring compliance with the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The CBA states that the DOC "will comply with the FLSA," and the Manual states that it is intended to ensure departmental compliance with FLSA rules. In 2012, the officers brought a class action against DOC alleging, among other things, breach of contract for failure to pay for pre- and post-shift activities performed, and for declaratory judgment regarding their right to compensation for these activities in the future under the contract. The circuit court certified a class of more than 13,000 current and former corrections officers in February of 2015, and subsequently amended the class definition in September of 2015. The daily pre- and post-shift activities which in the aggregate added an additional 30 minutes to the officers' daily work routine, and for which they alleged they were not being compensated include: (i) electronically logging their arrival or departure from the facility by either scanning a Bar Coded or Radio Frequency Identification, and/or manually signing in or initialing a paper entry/exit record, and/or submitting to biometric identification such as a finger print or palm scanning instrument, or a combination of these things; (ii) utility officers may be required to report to the Central Observation Post to receive assignments; (iii) passing through security gates/entry-egress points, including passing through a metal detector on arrival and through an airlock when entering and exiting the security envelope; (iv) presenting themselves before a custody supervisor who communicated to the officers their daily post/duty assignment; (v) picking up or returning equipment such as keys or radios from electronic key boxes or key/radio issue rooms; (vi) walking to and from the entry/egress points to duty post and possibly waiting in line if one has formed for any of the above activities; (vii) in the case of vehicle patrol officers, inventorying the vehicle patrol's issued weapons, ammunition, and equipment prior to and at the end of each shift; and (viii) passing of pertinent information from one shift to another. The circuit court granted the officers' motion for partial summary judgment on their breach of contract claim in August 2018, finding there was no genuine dispute of material fact regarding the existence and terms of the contract, that the officers had performed pursuant to the contract, that DOC had breached the contract, and that the officers had been damaged by DOC's failure to compensate the officers as required pursuant to the contract. The suit then proceeded to a jury trial solely to determine the officers' damages, and the jury returned a verdict against DOC for past damages of $113,714,632. The court entered an amended judgment reflecting the jury's past damages award, as well as granting declaratory judgment for the officers as to the parties' contractual rights and obligations pursuant to the contract moving forward. DOC timely appeals. DOC's first three points on appeal assert the granting of summary judgment in favor of the class Plaintiffs and denying summary judgment for DOC on the Plaintiffs' breach of contract claim were erroneous because (Points I and II) the class members' pre- and post-shift activities are "preliminary" and "postliminary" activities, the time spent on them is de minimis, and they are therefore not compensable under FLSA or under state laws or contracts that incorporate FLSA standards; and (Point III) the private Plaintiffs may not pursue a statutory or regulatory claim against the state under the guise of a breach of contract claim. Judge Pfeiffer denied Points I and II. Given DOC's undisputed knowledge of, and expectation for, the officers' requirement to utilize their training to guard against prisoner fights and escape attempts during shift changes, he concludes that the preliminary and postliminary activities of the officers are not "pre" or "post" at all; instead, these shift change activities are "integral and indispensable" to the officers' "principal activities" for which they are hired by DOC, that is, guarding against and protecting the public from prison riots and escape attempts. According to Supreme Court precedent, these activities are, indeed, part of the officers' "principal activities" of employment by DOC and must be compensated pursuant to FLSA. The Judge also denied Point III. He finds that the officers' present breach of contract claim depends on the contract's provisions as to "hours worked" and "physically worked" and provisions regarding DOC's compliance with FLSA. Whether or not those contractual terms are interpreted by reference to FLSA, the officers' claim is a breach-of-contract claim under state law, and it is not preempted by FLSA. Point IV is denied as well. At a hearing in which one of the issues related to a motion to strike expert witness testimony was the issue of DOC's late expert witness disclosure, the circuit court noted its frustration with DOC's late disclosure, expressed disbelief that DOC would not have thought it important to have their expert witness "on line and ready to go" years earlier, and noted disdain for DOC's admission that the 1,000 pages of expert witness supporting documentation should have been produced months earlier and prior to the close of discovery. The circuit court subsequently issued its ruling striking DOC's proffered expert witness testimony. On this record, the Judge refuses to conclude that the circuit court's ruling was an abuse of discretion. In DOC's fifth point on appeal, it claims that refusing to decertify the class of the Plaintiffs was an abuse of discretion because individual questions predominated and a class action was not superior to other available methods of adjudication. Among other things, the Judge holds that a court has abused its discretion in refusing to decertify a class only where that decision is based on an erroneous application of the law or the evidence provides no rational basis for certifying the class. DOC challenges only the requirements of Rule 52.08(b)(3) that the questions of law or fact common to the members of the class predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and that a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy. In light of the foregoing, Judge Pfeiffer affirmed the judgment. A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 8, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/R4Rci4 from Leagle.com. Gary K. Burger, Jr., St. Louis, MO, Attorney for Respondents. Eric S. Schmitt, Attorney General; D. John Sauer, Solicitor General; Julie Marie Blake and Peter T. Reed, Deputy Solicitors; and Mary L. Reitz, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, MO, Attorneys for Appellant. MYRIAD GENETICS: Klein Law Reminds Investors of Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ The Klein Law Firm announces that a class action complaint has been filed on behalf of shareholders of Myriad Genetics, Inc. (MYGN). There is no cost to participate in the suit. If you suffered a loss, you have until the lead plaintiff deadline to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Myriad Genetics, Inc. (MYGN) Class Period: September 2, 2016 to August 13, 2019 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 26, 2019 The complaint alleges that during the class period Myriad Genetics, Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Myriad's product, GeneSight, lacked evidence or information sufficient to support the tests in their current form, including their purported benefits; (ii) the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") had requested changes to GeneSight and questioned the validity of the test's purported benefits; (iii) Myriad had been in ongoing discussions with the FDA regarding the FDA's requested changes to GeneSight; (iv) Myriad's acquisition of Counsyl-and thereby, Foresight-caused the Company to incur the risk of suffering from lower reimbursement for its expanded carrier screening tests, which had the potential to, and actually did, materialize into a material negative impact on the Company's revenue; and (v) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. Learn about your recoverable losses in MYGN: http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/myriad-genetics-inc-loss-submission-form?id=3980&from=1. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. If you suffered a loss during the class period and wish to obtain additional information, please contact J. Klein, Esq. by telephone at 212-616-4899 or visit the webpages provided. J. Klein, Esq. represents investors and participates in securities litigations involving financial fraud throughout the nation. Contact: J. Klein, Esq. Empire State Building 350 Fifth Avenue 59th Floor New York, NY 10118 Telephone: (212) 616-4899 Fax: (347) 558-9665 Website: www.kleinstocklaw.com Email: jk@kleinstocklaw.com [GN] NY FINE INTERIORS: Criollo Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- MARCO CRIOLLO on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NY FINE INTERIORS INC., NY FINE INTERIORS & WOODWORK INC., and DAMIAN CEJNOG, Case No. 1:19-cv-05794 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 14, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid wages, overtime wages, liquidated damages, interest and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the New York Labor Law. Mr. Criollo worked for the Defendants as cabinet maker from June 2018 until February 14, 2019. He alleges that he regularly worked 57 hours a week but the Defendants refused to pay him for every hour he worked in excess of 40 hours at the overtime premium rate. NY Fine Interiors Inc. is a domestic business corporation duly organized under, and existing by virtue of, the laws of the State of New York, and having its principal place of business in Maspeth, New York. NY Fine Interiors & Woodwork Inc. is a domestic business corporation duly organized under, and existing by virtue of, the laws of the State of New York, and having its principal place of business in Howard Beach, New York. Damian Cejnog is the owner, member, majority shareholder, officer, director, and/or manager of each Corporate Defendant. The Corporate Defendants are contractors engaged in the business of manufacturing and installing upmarket custom-made cabinetry and woodwork.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Wisniewski, Esq. ROBERT WISNIEWSKI P.C. 40 Wall Street, Suite 2833 New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 267-2101 E-mail: rw@rwapc.com OLIVELA INC: Guglielmo Files Class Suit under Disabilities Act -------------------------------------------------------------- Olivela Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Joseph Guglielmo, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Olivela Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-10087 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 30, 2019). Olivela, Inc., is a luxury fashion and beauty retail company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Russel Craig Weinrib, Esq. Stein Saks PLLC 285 Passaic St., Suite 5 Hakensack, NJ 07601 Tel: (201) 282-6500 Email: rweinrib@steinsakslegal.com PANDA EXPRESS: Thorne Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act -------------------------------------------------------- Panda Express, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Braulio Thorne, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Panda Express, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-10101 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 30, 2019). Panda Express is a fast food restaurant chain which serves American Chinese cuisine. With over 2,200 locations, it is the largest Asian segment restaurant chain in the United States, where it was founded and is mainly located.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq. 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Tel: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: nyjg@aol.com PARNELL & PARNELL: Pounders Files FDCPA Suit in Alabama ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Parnell & Parnell, P.A. The case is styled as John Pounders, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Parnell & Parnell, P.A., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00834-ECM-SMD (M.D. Ala., Oct. 29, 2019). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Parnell & Parnell, P.A. is a law firm in Montgomery, Alabama.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Panvini, Esq. Thompson Consumer Law Group PLLC 5235 E Southern Avenue / D106-618 Mesa, AZ 85206 Tel: (602) 388-8875 Fax: (866) 317-2674 Email: JPanvini@consumerlawinfo.com PEARSON PLC: Geroge D. Files Class Suit in Minn. ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pearson, PLC, d/b/a Pearson Clinical Assessments. The case is styled as George D., individually and as legal guardian of his minor child G.D., individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Pearson, PLC, d/b/a Pearson Clinical Assessments and NCS Pearson, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 0:19-cv-02814 (D. Minn., Oct. 30, 2019). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Fraud filed as a Diversity Action. Pearson's clinical assessments provide valuable insights for professionals in psychology, education, speech language pathology and occupational therapy.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Melissa S. Weiner, Esq. Pearson Simon & Warshaw, LLP 800 LaSalle Avenue, Suite 2150 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Tel: (612) 389-0600 Fax: (612) 389-0610 Email: mweiner@pswlaw.com PERRIGO COMPANY: Koppell Sues Over High Levels of NDMA in Tablets ----------------------------------------------------------------- Stacey Koppell and Dan Zhovtis, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. PERRIGO COMPANY PLC, PERRIGO RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, CVS HEALTH CO., and WAL-MART STORES, INC., Case No. 1:19-cv-10253 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 4, 2019), arises from Perrigo's manufacturing and distribution, and CVS and Walmart's sale of, ranitidine-based over-the-counter medication that contain dangerously high levels of N-nitrosodimethylamine, a carcinogenic and liver-damaging impurity. Ranitidine is an over-the-counter medication that is designed to decrease the amount of acid created by the stomach. CVS and Walmart sell ranitidine medication manufactured and distributed by Perrigo under the brand names CVS Health Acid Reducer (CHAR) and Equate Ranitidine Tablets. The Plaintiffs contend that Perrigo's manufacturing process has caused the CHAR and Equate medication to contain dangerously high levels of NDMA. NDMA is not listed as an ingredient in either the CHAR or Equate ranitidine products because the presences of NDMA manifested from a manufacturing defect in the creation of the medications, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs, who purchased and consumed CHAR and Equate medication, bring this action to recover damages and restitution for: breach of express warranty, breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, violation of New York's General Business Law, violation of the Virginia Consumer Protection Act, unjust enrichment, fraudulent concealment, fraud and conversion. The Defendants have been engaged in the manufacturing, distribution, and sale of defective ranitidine throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joseph I. Marchese, Esq. Andrew J. Obergfell, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 888 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 Phone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 Email: jmarchese@bursor.com aobergfell@bursor.com - and - Neal J. Deckant, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Phone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 Email: ndeckant@bursor.com QUINCY BIOSCIENCE: Denial of Bid to Dismiss Engert Suit Endorsed ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned MAX ENGERAT, JACK PURCHASE, AND RONALD ATKINSON, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs, v. QUINCY BIOSCIENCE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-CV-183-LY (W.D. Tex.), Magistrate Judge Susan Hightower of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, Division, recommended that the District Court deny the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Class Action Complaint. Defendant Quincy Bioscience, LLC, a foreign limited liability company organized under the laws of Wisconsin, manufactures, markets, sells, and distributes Prevagen, a dietary supplement made with the protein apoaequorin. Its advertising and labeling state that Prevagen will "improve memory within 90 days" and support a "sharper mind," "clearer thinking," and "healthy brain function." Plaintiffs Engert, Purchase, and Atkinson are Texas residents who acquired and consumed Prevagen. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant's advertisements regarding Prevagen are false and misleading and designed to dupe consumers into purchasing a supplement that has no effect whatsoever on the brain. They allege that the Defendant made and continues to make numerous false statements regarding Prevagen on its website, through its commercials, on the packing, and on the bottle itself. They allege that Prevagen does not work as represented and contend that Defendant has repeatedly made, and continues to make, false statements about its ability to improve memory and affect the brain. On Feb. 25, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed the class action lawsuit against the Defendant, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, alleging claims under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act ("DTPA"); breach of express and implied warranties; and a violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. The Plaintiffs brought the action on behalf of the "Texas Class," consisting of all citizens of Texas who, within the last four years prior to the filing of the Complaint, purchased the Defendant's product Prevagen, as well as the "National Class," consisting of all citizens of the United States who, within the last four years prior to the filing of this Complaint, purchased the Defendant's product Prevagen. They seek to recover their economic losses, treble damages, exemplary damages, attorney's fees, costs and interests, and all other relief to which they and the Class Members are entitled. On June 21, 2019, the Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing that the Plaintiffs fail to state a claim because the clinical trial on which Defendant premised its advertisements for Prevagen conclusively demonstrates that the Defendant's marketing statements about Prevagen were both truthful and fully substantiated. Alternatively, it argues that all of the Plaintiffs' claims fail to meet the pleading requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b). Magistrate Judge Hightower finds that the results of a private corporation's study on a supplement produced by that company and posted on that company's website is not a matter of public record. Nor is the Study admissible under Rule 201(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence. The Study fails to satisfy either requirement. Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge will not consider the Study in ruling on the Motion to Dismiss. The Magistrate Judge says that even if she did consider the Study in ruling on the Motion to Dismiss, she would not find that the Study precludes all of the Plaintiffs' claims in the case, as the Defendant argues. While the Defendant claims that the Study conclusively proves that its advertisements regarding Prevagen are accurate, the Plaintiffs argue the opposite and claim that the Study is unreliable and does not support Defendant's claims regarding Prevagen. Thus, the reliability of the Study is a disputed issue of fact and therefore not appropriate for determination in a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. Accordingly, the Defendant's argument that all of the Plaintiffs' claims should be dismissed based on the Study is meritless, the Magistrate Judge holds. Addressing the Defendant's alternative argument that the Plaintiffs have failed to state plausible claims for relief in the case, the Magistrate Judge finds that the Plaintiffs have pled their claims with sufficient specificity to give the Defendant notice of the theory of misconduct it must defend against, and no more is required at this stage. Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' DTPA claim be denied. As to the breach of express warranty claim, the Magistrate Judge finds that the only argument that the Defendant has made with regard to the Plaintiffs' breach of express warranty claim is that the Study precludes the claim. As she stated, this argument fails. Like the Plaintiffs' breach of express warranty claim, the sole argument made by the Defendant against this claim is that the statements made by the Defendant are true as evidenced in the Study. Again, the Defendant's argument is without merit. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs have stated a plausible claim of breach of implied warranty under Texas law. The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act confers federal question jurisdiction over breach of warranty claims where the amount in controversy exceeds $50,000, exclusive of interest and costs. The Defendant's sole argument against the Plaintiffs' claim under the Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act is that it fails because their state law claims fail. Because the Plaintiffs' state warranty claims do not fail, this argument is without merit, the Magistrate Judge states. Finally, the Defendant argues that the Plaintiffs cannot bring a lack of substantiation claim in the case because only the government can bring such claims. However, as the Plaintiffs clarify in their Response, the Magistrate Judge finds that the Plaintiffs' FAC does not raise a lack of substantiation claim in the case; nor are they attempting to bring a claim under the FTC Act. Accordingly, this argument is also without merit, the Magistrate Judge states. Based on the foregoing, Magistrate Judge Hightower recommends that the District Court deny the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Class Action Complaint. The parties may file objections to the Report and Recommendation. A full-text copy of the Magistrate Judge's Oct. 8, 2019 Report & Recommendation is available at https://is.gd/89Xuj2 from Leagle.com. Max Engert, on behalf of themself and all others similarly situated, Jack Purchase, on behalf of themself and all others similarly situated & Ronald Atkinson, on behalf of themself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by David Wayne Hodges, Kennedy Hodges, L.L.P. & Don Foty -- DFoty@kennedyhodges.com -- Kennedy Hodges LLP. Quincy Bioscience, LLC, Defendant, represented by Geoffrey W. Castello -- gcastello@kelleydrye.com -- Kelley Drye & Warren LLP, Glenn T. Graham -- ggraham@kelleydrye.com -- Kelley Drye & Warren LLP, pro hac vice, Jaclyn M. Metzinger -- jmetzinger@kelleydrye.com -- Kelley Drye & Warren LLP, Jeffrey S. Jacobson -- jeffrey.jacobson@dbr.com -- Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP & William Creeger Petit, Kelley Drye & Warren, LLP. SAFESPEED LLC: Marso Files Suit in Kansas under ADA --------------------------------------------------- SafeSpeed, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Andrew Marso, individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. SafeSpeed, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-02671-KHV-KGG (D. Kan., Oct. 30, 2019). SafeSpeed is a provider of red light enforcement systems that are used with the goal of providing safer roadways for communities.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy E. Koehler, Esq. FoulstonSiefkin LLP - Wichita 1551 North Waterfront Parkway, Suite 100 Wichita, KS 67206-4466 Tel: (316) 267-6371 Email: jkoehler@foulston.com SCIPLAY CORP: Gibbs Investigates Securities Law Violations ---------------------------------------------------------- SciPlay Corporation shares have fallen dramatically since the company's IPO in May 2019. Gibbs Law Group is investigating a potential SciPlay Class Action Lawsuit on behalf of investors who lost money in SciPlay Corporation (NASDAQ: SCPL) stock. To speak with an attorney regarding this class action lawsuit investigation, click here or call (888) 410-2925. SciPlay Corporation, Scientific Games' mobile and web gaming arm, is a developer and publisher of digital games. In May 2019, SciPlay conducted its initial public offering, selling 22 million shares priced at $16 a share and raising $352 million in new capital. Since the IPO, SciPlay's share price has fallen over 44%, dropping as low as $8.55 per share on October 18, 2019. This drop has caused significant harm to investors. What Should SciPlay Investors Do? If you invested in SciPlay Corporation, visit our website or contact our securities team directly at (888) 410-2925 to discuss how you may be able to recover your losses. Our investigation concerns whether SciPlay Corporation and certain of its officers and/or directors have violated federal securities laws. Gibbs Law Group represents individual and institutional investors throughout the country in securities litigation to correct abusive corporate governance practices, breaches of fiduciary duty, and proxy violations. The firm has recovered over a billion dollars for its clients against some of the world's largest corporations, and our attorneys have received numerous honors for their work, including "Best Lawyers in America," "Top Plaintiff Lawyers in California," "California Lawyer Attorney of the Year," "Top Class Action Attorneys Under 40," "Consumer Protection MVP," and "Top Cybersecurity/ Privacy Attorneys Under 40." Contact: CONTACT: EILEEN EPSTEIN PHONE: 510.350.9728 EMAIL: EJE@CLASSLAWGROUP.COM [GN] SCIPLAY CORPORATION: Faces Good Suit Alleging IPO-Related Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- John Good, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SCIPLAY CORPORATION, JOSHUA J. WILSONS, MICHAEL D. CODY, MICHAEL F. WINTERSCHEIDT, BARRY L. COTTLE, GERALD D. COHEN, JAY PENSKE, M. MENDEL PINSON, WILLIAM C. THOMPSON, JR., FRANCES F. TOWNSEND, MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INCORPORATED, J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, DEUTSCHE BANK SECURITIES INC., GOLDMAN SACHS & CO. LLC, MACQUARIE CAPITAL (USA) INC., RBC CAPITAL MARKETS, LLC, STIFEL, NICHOLAUS & COMPANY, INCORPORATED, WEDBUSH SECURITIES INC., and SCIENTIFIC GAMES CORPORATION, (Nev. Dist., Clark Cty., Nov. 4, 2019), is brought on behalf of all persons, who purchased SciPlay Class A common stock in or traceable to the Company's initial public offering that it completed on May 7, 2019, asserting strict liability claims under the Securities Act of 1933. On April 5, 2019, the Company filed its Registration Statement on Form S-1 for the IPO. In the IPO, the Defendants sold twenty-two million SciPlay shares of Class A common stock at $16 per share. The Plaintiff alleges that the Registration Statement was negligently prepared, and, as a result, contained untrue statements of material fact, omitted material facts, necessary to make the statements contained therein not misleading, and failed to make necessary disclosure required under the rules and regulations governing the preparation of such documents. In particular, Item 303 of SEC Regulation S-K, required disclosure of any known events or uncertainties that had caused, or were reasonably likely to cause SciPlay's disclosed financial information not to be indicative of future results. The Statement fails to disclose the Company's platform was experiencing technical issues. As of market close on October 29, 2019, the price of SciPlay stock was trading below $9 per share, which is more than 40% below the IPO price, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased shares of the Company's Class A common stock pursuant and traceable to the IPO. SciPlay develops, market, and operate a portfolio of social games played on various mobile and web platforms.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David C. O'Mara, Esq. COMP O'MARA LAW 316 E. Bridger Avenue, 2nd Floor Las Vegas, NV 89101 Phone: (775) 323-1321 Facsimile: (775) 323-4082 Email: david@omaralaw.com - and - Brian J. Robbins, Esq. Stephen J. Oddo, Esq. Jonathan D. Bobak, Esq. ROBBINS LLP 5040 Shoreham Place San Diego, CA 92122 Phone: (619) 525-3990 Facsimile: (619) 525-3991 Email: brobbins@robbinsllp.com soddo@robbinsllp.com jbobak@robbinsllp.com SLACK TECHNOLOGIES: Ordered to Start D'Ottavio Claims Prosecution ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, GINO D'OTTAVIO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, v. SLACK TECHNOLOGIES, Defendant/Counter-Claimant, Case No. 1:18-cv-09082-NLH-AMD (D. N.J), Judge Noel L. Hillman of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey ordered Slack to commence prosecution of its claims against the Plaintiff consistent with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. D'Ottavio filed a putative class action alleging that Slack transmitted dozens of unsolicited commercial text messages to him on his cellular telephone, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), thereby invading his privacy. Slack filed an answer to the Plaintiff's complaint denying his claims and lodging a counterclaim, claiming that he abused a feature on Slack's website to deliberately send himself the texts at issue. On April 15, 2019, the Court granted the Plaintiff's motion to dismiss his claims against Slack, but denied without prejudice Slack's motion for sanctions, as well as the Plaintiff's counsel's motion to withdraw as the counsel. On July 3, 2019, the Court granted the Plaintiff's counsel's motion to withdraw. Because Slack's counterclaim remained pending for separate adjudication, in that same Order, the Court directed that within 20 days, the Plaintiff was to either (1) enter his appearance pro se; or (2) obtain new counsel. To date, the Plaintiff has failed to respond to the Court's Order, and has not otherwise contacted the Court. Therefore, Judge Hillman ordered Slack to commence prosecution of its claims against the Plaintiff. A full-text copy of the District Court's Oct. 8, 2019 Memorandum Opinion & Order is available at https://is.gd/Y9ImJ1 from Leagle.com. GINO D'OTTAVIO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by YITZCHAK ZELMAN -- Yzelman@MarcusZelman.com -- Marcus Zelman, LLC & ARI HILLEL MARCUS -- Ari@MarcusZelman.com -- MARCUS ZELMAN LLC. SLACK TECHNOLOGIES, Defendant, represented by MARK S. MELODIA -- Mark.Melodia@hklaw.com -- HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP, PAUL JEFFREY BOND -- Paul.Bond@hklaw.com -- HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP & ZALIKA T. PIERRE -- Zalika.Pierre@hklaw.com -- Holland & Knight LLP. SLACK TECHNOLOGIES, Counter Claimant, represented by MARK S. MELODIA, HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP, PAUL JEFFREY BOND, HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP & ZALIKA T. PIERRE, Holland & Knight LLP. GINO D'OTTAVIO, Counter Defendant, represented by ARI HILLEL MARCUS, MARCUS ZELMAN LLC. SMILEDIRECTCLUB INC: Andres Sues over 44% Drop in Share Price ------------------------------------------------------------- RICHARD ANDRE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SMILEDIRECTCLUB, INC.; DAVID KATZMAN; KYLE WAILES; STEVEN KATZMAN; JORDAN KATZMAN; ALEXANDER FENKELL; RICHARD SCHNALL; SUSAN GREENSPON RAMMELT; J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC; CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC.; BOFA SECURITIES, INC.; JEFFERIES LLC; UBS SECURITIES LLC; CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES (USA) LLC; GUGGENHEIM SECURITIES, LLC; STIFEL NICOLAUS & COMPANY, INCORPORATED; WILLIAM BLAIR & COMPANY, L.L.C.; and LOOP CAPITAL MARKETS LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-12883-NGE-APP (E.D. Mich., Oct. 2, 2019) is a class action on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired SmileDirectClub Class A common stock pursuant or traceable to the registration statement and prospectus issued in connection with the Company's September 2019 initial public offering. The Plaintiff pursues claims against the Defendants under the Securities Act of 1933. On September 13, 2019, the Company filed its prospectus on Form 424B4 with the SEC, which forms part of the Registration Statement. In the IPO, the Company sold approximately 58.5 million shares of Class A common stock at a price of $23.00 per share. The Company received proceeds of approximately $1.27 billion from the Offering, net of underwriting discounts and commissions. The proceeds from the IPO were purportedly to be used for employee incentive bonuses, certain equity arrangements, and general corporate purposes. On September 24, 2019, a class action complaint was filed by dentists, orthodontists, and consumers against SmileDirectClub, alleging false advertising, fraud, negligence, and unfair and deceptive trade practices. The complaint disputed the accuracy of several statements in the Registration Statement and highlighted that the Company is subject to litigation for operating as a dentist without proper licensing in several states, as well as other litigation. On this news, the Company's share price fell $1.47, or nearly 9%, to close at $15.68 per share on September 24, 2019, on unusually heavy trading volume. The price stock continued to decline over the next two trading sessions by $2.74, or over 17%, to close at $12.94 per share on September 26, 2019, on unusually heavy trading volume. By the commencement of this action, the Company's stock was trading as low as $12.94 per share, a nearly 44% decline from the $23 per share IPO price. The Registration Statement was false and misleading and omitted to state material adverse facts. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that administrative personnel, rather than licensed doctors, provided treatment to the Company's customers and monitored their progress; (2) that, as a result, the Company's practices did not qualify as teledentistry under applicable standards; (3) that, as a result, the Company was subject to regulatory scrutiny for the unlicensed practice of dentistry; (4) that the efficacy of the Company's treatment was overstated; (5) that the Company had concealed these deceptive marketing practices prior to the IPO; and (6) 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. SmileDirectClub, Inc. designs and manufactures dental equipment. The Company supplies invisible aligners and braces to get straight teeth. SmileDirectClub serves customers worldwide. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: E. Powell Miller, Esq. Marc L. Newman, Esq. Sharon S. Almonrode, Esq. THE MILLER LAW FIRM 950 W. University Dr., Suite 300 Rochester, MI 48307 Telephone: (248) 841-2200 Facsimile: (248) 652-2852 - and - Robert V. Prongay, Esq. Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq. Charles H. Linehan, Esq. Pavithra Rajesh, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 SONIM TECHNOLOGIES: Rosen Law Reminds Investors of Dec. 6 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------------ Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds purchasers of the securities of Sonim Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ: SONM) pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement and related prospectus (collectively, the "Registration Statement") issued in connection with Sonim's May 2019 initial public stock offering (the "IPO" or the "Offering") of the important December 6, 2019 lead plaintiff deadline in the securities class action. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Sonim investors under the federal securities laws. To join the Sonim class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1687.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, the Registration Statement contained false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Sonim's XP8 was experiencing material software challenges; (2) these software issues adversely affected how the device's Qualcomm chipset, which supported Band 14 access, connected to AT&T's carrier network configuration; (3) Sonim's XP5 and XP3 devices were experiencing material software defects that adversely affected their optimization with certain accessories; (4) as a result, Sonim was reasonably likely to delay the launch of new products; (5) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial results would be materially and adversely impacted; and (6) as a result, defendants' statements about Sonim'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 December 6, 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-1687.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 Website: www.rosenlegal.com Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com, pkim@rosenlegal.com, cases@rosenlegal.com [GN] SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA TELCO: Bernstein Sues over Unsolicited Calls ---------------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT BERNSTEIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA TELEPHONE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 5:19-cv-01888 (C.D. Cal., Oct. 2, 2019) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls. Southern California Telephone Company is a California-based Competitive Local Exchange Carrier, providing telecom solutions to customers. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Susan S. Brown, Esq. SUSAN BROWN LEGAL SERVICES 388 Market Street, Suite 1300 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 712-3026 E-mail: susan@susanbrownlegal.com SOVEREIGN SERVICES: Underpays Valet Supervisors, Avila Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- ELI AVILA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SOVEREIGN SERVICES OF HOUSTON, INC.; RAY KARR; and HARRY KARR, Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-3785 (S.D. Tex., Oct. 2, 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 Avila was employed by the Defendants as a valet supervisor. Sovereign Services of Houston, Inc. is a Texas corporation. The company provides valet and parking services for special events, restaurants, shopping malls, hospitals and hotels. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Josef F. Buenker, Esq. THE BUENKER LAW FIRM 2060 North Loop West, Suite 215 Houston, TX 77018 Telephone: (713) 868-3388 Facsimile: (713) 683-9940 E-mail: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com - and - Thomas H. Padgett, Jr. THE BUENKER LAW FIRM 2060 North Loop West, Suite 215 Houston, TX 77018 Telephone: (713) 868-3388 Facsimile: (713) 683-9940 E-mail: tpadgett@buenkerlaw.com SPECTRA360 INC: Flo-Tech Files TCPA Suit in Illinois ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Spectra360, Inc. The case is styled as Flo-Tech Mechanical Systems, Inc., individually and as the representatives of a class of similarly situated persons and entities, Plaintiff v. Spectra360, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-07112 (N.D. Ill., Oct. 29, 2019). The docket notes that the case was filed pursuant to Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Spectra360 is a Total Talent Management firm that specializes in contract, temp to hire and direct hire placements with a focus in several different industries.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James C. Vlahakis, Esq. Sulaiman Law Group, Ltd. 2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200 Lombard, IL 60148 Tel: (630) 575-8181 Email: jvlahakis@sulaimanlaw.com STATE FARM: Court Narrows Claims in Amended Connectors Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- In the case, THE CONNECTORS REALTY GROUP CORPORATION, DARRYL WILLIAMS, and ANTOINE NASH, Plaintiffs, v. STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 19C743 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Charles P. Kocoras of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, granted in part and denied in part State Farm's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' amended class action complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Connectors is an Illinois corporation that manages and owns residential and commercial real estate. Williams, an African-American male, was Connectors' owner and sole shareholder. State Farm is an insurance company authorized to do business in Illinois. At all relevant times, Connectors owned a property at 622-624 West 79th Street, Chicago, Illinois 60620. The Premises includes two commercial spaces, six apartment units, and a basement. To insure the Premises, Connectors contacted State Farm at some time before Jan. 5, 2017. State Farm inspected the Premises and determined that it was fully occupied, that all of the operating systems -- including heat, electrical, plumbing, and boilers -- were fully operational, and that the Premises met State Farm's standards for insurability. State Farm recommended that the Premises be insured for a replacement value amount of $400,000. On Jan. 5, 2017, State Farm executed and delivered to Connectors its Insurance Policy No. 93-GQ-Z610-71 for property and liability insurance on the Premises. Under the terms of the Connectors Policy, State Farm insured against loss and damage to the Premises, including water damage, equipment breakdown, theft, vandalism, and loss of income for one year from the date of the loss. The Connectors Policy provides that loss will be payable 30 days following receipt of a proof of loss statement. The complaint avers that State Farm maintains data regarding loss experience on its homeowners and small business insurance organized by ZIP Code for the City of Chicago. State Farm uses the ZIP Code data to "redline" claims from majority-black ZIP Codes on the South and West Sides of Chicago by processing such claims as presumptively fraudulent through its Special Investigations Unit. This policy results in the denial and unreasonable delay of payment for legitimate claims from black-majority ZIP Codes. The complaint cites to an analysis performed by R. Hasegawa and A. Wyner at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania using statistical evidence from the Illinois Department of Insurance. The analysis concluded that the odds that a property insurance claim remains outstanding and unpaid at the end of the calendar year in a ZIP Code with a 75% black population is 23% higher than a claim made in a ZIP Code with a 25% black population with comparable median incomes. The analysis was based on data from property insurance claims made upon all companies authorized to write homeowner's insurance in the State of Illinois. State Farm has the largest market share of the homeowner's insurance market in the City of Chicago. The Plaintiffs filed their initial complaint on Feb. 5, 2019, alleging claims for breach of contract and violations of 42 U.S.C. Section 1981. On June 25, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, adding claims for breach of the duty to defend and indemnify and violations of the Fair Housing Act ("FHA") and 42 U.S.C. 1982. On July 19, 2019, State Farm filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). State Farm moves the Court to dismiss the amended complaint for several reasons: (1) the Plaintiffs do not state a claim for violations of 42 U.S.C. Sections 1981, 1982; (2) the Plaintiffs do not state a claim for FHA violations; (3) the breach of contract claim in Count VIII is time barred; (4) State Farm has no duty to defend or indemnify under Connectors' Policy; and (5) the Court should decline supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. Judge Kocoras granted in part and denied in part State Farm's motion to dismiss. He dismissed Counts IX, X, XI, XII, XIII, and XV. The remaining counts on behalf of Connectors may proceed. Among other things, given that the Plaintiff has agreed to the dismissal of Count IX, the Judge granted the motion to dismiss the claim. He also dismissed the federal claims related to Nash, leaving only a state law breach of contract count and a claim for attorney's fees under Illinois law. Given that these claims do not form part of the same case or controversy as those on behalf of Connectors, the Judge declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Nash's state law claims. As such, he granted the motion to dismiss Counts X and XV (Breach of Duty to Defend and Indemnify). Also, with respect to Nash, the Judge agrees with State Farm that the pleadings are insufficient. Nash alleges that State Farm processed his theft claim as fraudulent as a result of his bankruptcy filing. He asserts that a staff called him a liar, gave him a hard time regarding his financial documents, and subjected him to an examination under oath. However, Nash does not plead any facts to support the existence of racial animus on behalf of State Farm, nor does he connect any such animus to his treatment. Even if the Defendants' actions were improper, they were not necessarily racially motivated. Absent that factual support, the Judge must dismiss Counts XII and XIII (Violations of 42 U.S.C. Sections 1981 and 1982) for failure to state a claim. Finally, the Judge concludes that State Farm rightly notes the deficiencies in the analysis performed by R. Hasegawa and A. Wyner, stating that the data, nature, and methodology of the analysis are unclear and call into question the validity of the analysis's conclusion. Without a sufficient pleading regarding a statistical disparity in State Farm's claims, the Judge cannot find that Nash has stated a claim under a disparate impact theory. Therefore, he granted the motion to dismiss Count XI (disparate impact). A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 9, 2019 Memorandum Opinion is available at https://is.gd/A2yXgw from Leagle.com. The Connectors Realty Group Corporation, Darryl Williams & Antoine Nash, Plaintiffs, represented by Kenneth G. Anspach, Anspach Law Office. State Farm Fire & Casualty Company, Defendant, represented by Mariangela M. Seale -- mseale@rshc-law.com -- Riley Safer Holmes & Cancila LLP, Sondra A. Hemeryck -- shemeryck@rshc-law.com -- Riley Safer Holmes & Cancila LLP & Sarah Elizabeth Finch -- sfinch@rshc law.com -- Riley Safer Holmes & Cancila. STUMP PRINTING: Guglielmo Files Suit under ADA ---------------------------------------------- Stump Printing Co Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Joseph Guglielmo, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Stump Printing Co Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-10092 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 30, 2019). Stump Printing Co Inc. offers promotion, event, and party supplies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Russel Craig Weinrib, Esq. Stein Saks PLLC 285 Passaic St., Suite 5 Hakensack, NJ 07601 Tel: (201) 282-6500 Email: rweinrib@steinsakslegal.com ULTA SALON: Faces Rowe Employment Suit in California Super. Court ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc. The case is captioned as Victoria Rowe and Paula Scarpino, On behalf of all similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs v. Does 1-10 and Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 34-2019-00267231-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Oct 21, 2019). The suit alleges violation of employment related laws. Ulta Beauty Inc., formerly known as Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance Inc., is an American chain of beauty stores in the United States, headquartered in Bolingbrook, Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Adam Morris Rose, Esq. 23901 Calabasas Rd., No. 2072 Calabasas, CA 91302 Telephone: (818) 225-9040 Facsimile: (818) 225-9042 E-mail: adam@starrlaw.com UNITED STATES: Attorney General Faces Suit in D. Arizona -------------------------------------------------------- A.I.I.L., individually and on behalf of herself and her minor children, J.A.H.I. and M.E.H.I.; L.L.H.O., individually and on behalf of herself and her minor child, K.E.O.H.; J.L.V.A., individually and on behalf of himself and his minor child, D.S.V.H.; J.I.S., individually and on behalf of himself and his minor child, B.L.S.P.; and J.J.P.B., individually and on behalf of himself and his minor child, A.E.P.F., Plaintiffs v. JEFFERSON BEAUREGARD SESSIONS III, Former Attorney General of the United States; GENE HAMILTON, Counselor to the Attorney General; JOHN F. KELLY, Former White House Chief of Staff and Former Secretary of the United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS); STEPHEN MILLER, Senior Advisor to the President; KIRSTJEN NIELSEN, Former Secretary of DHS; KEVIN K. MCALEENAN, Acting Secretary of DHS and Former Commissioner of United States Customs and Border Protection (CBP); MARK MORGAN, Acting Commissioner of CBP; THOMAS HOMAN, Former Director of United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE); RONALD D. VITIELLO, Former Acting Director of ICE; Matthew Albence, Acting Director of ICE; L. FRANCIS CISSNA, Former Director of United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS); CARLA PROVOST, Chief of CBP U.S. Border Control; ALEX AZAR, Secretary of the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS); MARGARET WYNNE, Former HHS Counselor for Human Services Policy; E. SCOTT LLOYD, Former Director of the United States Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR); JOHN/JANE DOE DHS Defendants; and JOHN/JANE DOE HHS/ORR Defendants, Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00481-JAS (D. Ariz., Oct. 3, 2019) alleges violation of the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that the Defendants have developed, adopted, implemented, enforced, sanctioned, encouraged, condoned, and acquiesced to a pattern, practice, or custom of violating the clearly established Fifth Amendment due process rights of Plaintiffs and Class Members by forcibly separating and then delaying reunification of families while in immigration detention, depriving family members in whole or in part of the ability to communicate by phone or otherwise while separated, and failing to maintain personal information n regarding detainees in immigration custody that was necessary for the reunification of Plaintiffs and Class Members.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Marty Lieberman, Esq. ACLU FOUNDATION OF ARIZONA 3707 N. 7th Street, Suite 235 Phoenix, AZ 85014 Telephone: (602) 650-1854 E-mail: mlieberman@acluaz.org - and - Lee Gelernt, Esq. Judy Rabinovitz, Esq. Anand Balakrishnan, Esq. Daniel A. Galindo, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION IMMIGRANTS' RIGHTS PROJECT 125 Broad St., 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 549-2660 E-mail: lgelernt@aclu.org jrabinovitz@aclu.org abalakrishnan@aclu.org dgalindo@aclu.org - and - Alexander A. Reinert, Esq. 55 Fifth Avenue, Room 1005 New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 790-0403 E-mail: areinert@yu.edu - and - Geoffrey R. Chepiga, Esq. Jacqueline P. Rubin, Esq. Emily Goldberg, Esq. Hallie S. Goldblatt, Esq. Steven C. Herzog, Esq. PAUL WEISS RIFKIND WHARTON & GARRISON LLP 1285 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019-6064 Telephone: (212) 373-3000 E-mail: gchepiga@paulweiss.com jrubin@paulweiss.com egoldberg@paulweiss.com hgoldblatt@paulweiss.com sherzog@paulweiss.com USHEALTH ADVISORS: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Berg Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- BARBARA BERG, individually and on behalf of all, others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. USHEALTH ADVISORS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-24097-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Oct. 3, 2019) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls. USHEALTH Advisors, LLC offers life, specified disease, sickness, accident, and disability insurance solutions for self-employed individuals, families, small business owners, and employees. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 400-4713 E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com VENUS FASHION: Jones Suit Seeks Stop Unsolicited Marketing Texts ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lathisa Jones, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. VENUS FASHION, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 3:19-cv-01282-TJC-JBT (M.D. Fla., Nov. 4, 2019), is brought against the Defendant to secure redress for its violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. To promote its services, the Defendant engages in unsolicited marketing, harming thousands of consumers in the process. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt the Defendant's illegal conduct, which has resulted in the invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of thousands of individuals. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of herself and members of the class, and any other available legal or equitable remedies. The Plaintiff is a natural person, who was a resident of Wayne County, Michigan. Beginning July 2019 and continuing up through August 2019, the Defendant sent telemarketing text messages to the Plaintiff's cellular telephone. The Defendant is a clothing and swimsuit retailer.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. Garrett O. Berg, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 1205 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com gberg@shamisgentile.com - and - Scott Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, PA 20900 NE 30th Ave, Suite 417 Aventura, FL 33180 Phone: (305) 975-3320 Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com VIVINT SOLAR: Rosen Law Files Class Action Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Vivint Solar, Inc. (VSLR) from March 5, 2019 through September 26, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Vivint investors under the federal securities laws. To join the Vivint class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1697.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) the Company engaged in fraudulent practices, including forging customer contracts; (2) as a result, the Company's reported sales and megawatts installed were overstated; (3) these practices were reasonably likely to lead to regulatory scrutiny: (4) as a result, the Company's earnings would be materially and adversely impacted; and (5) as a result, Vivint's public statements were materially false and misleading 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 December 11, 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-1697.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 Website: www.rosenlegal.com Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com, pkim@rosenlegal.com, cases@rosenlegal.com [GN] VOLVO CARS: XC90s Not Compatible With Android Auto, Levine Says --------------------------------------------------------------- Frederick Scott Levine and Douglas W. Murphy, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated v. VOLVO CARS OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC; and VOLVO CAR USA, LLC, Case No. 2:19-cv-19821-CC-JBC (D.N.J., Nov. 4, 2019), arises from Volvo's ubiquitous misrepresentations in its marketing of the non-compatible Volvo XC90s that those cars feature compatibility with Android Auto, when in fact, they were not. In its public relations and marketing campaign for the Volvo XC90, Volvo touted an in-car technology user interface, which it called "Sensus." Volvo stated in its press releases and marketing materials that a significant, cutting edge feature of Sensus was that it was or would be compatible with the coveted Google application, Android Auto. Volvo's representations that the Sensus system in the Volvo XC90 was or would soon be compatible with Android Auto as a "standard," "included" feature were false and misleading, the Plaintiffs allege. By making ubiquitous misinterpretation that the Sensus system in the non-compatible Volvo XC90s was or would be compatible with Android Auto, Volvo engaged in deceptive act in violation of New Jersey's Consumers Fraud Act, the Florida Deceptive and unfair Trade Practices Act; and breached express warranties, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs purchased Volvo XC90s from the Defendants. The Defendants are the current exclusive distributors of Volvo automobiles in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Barbara Hart, Esq. David Harrison, Esq. Anthony M. Christina Esq. LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C. 44 South Broadway, Suite 1100 White Plains, NY 10601 Phone: (914) 997-0500 Fax: (914) 997-0035 Email: bhart@lowey.com dharrison@lowey.com achristina@lowey.com - and - Edward F. Haber, Esq. Patrick J. Vallely, Esq. SHAPIRO HABER & URMY LLP Seaport East Two Seaport Lane Boston, MA 02210 Phone: (617) 439-3939 Email: ehaber@shulaw.com pvallely@shulaw.com WELLS FARGO: Herrera Files Class Action in Pa. ---------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. The case is styled as Armando Herrera, Monica Herrera, Deana Lucero, Vanity Arrington, Nichole Dartis, Frederick Brown, Janet Corpes, Terri Jones, Ria Marteins, Greta Carter and Janet Atkins each individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. doing business as: Wells Fargo Dealer Services, INC. and Wells Fargo & Company, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-mc-00654-YK (M.D. Pa., Oct. 29, 2019). Wells Fargo has filed a motion to modify the subpoena, and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania filed a motion to file document under seal in the case. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Allison L Ebeck, Esq. McGuireWoods LLP 260 Forbes Avenue, Suite 1800 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Tel: (412) 667-6061 Fax: (412) 402-4161 Email: aebeck@eckertseamans.com WERNER MEDIA: Guglielmo Files Suit in New York under ADA -------------------------------------------------------- Werner Media Partners LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Joseph Guglielmo, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Werner Media Partners LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-10085 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 30, 2019). Werner Media Partners LLC manufactures mattresses and bedsprings.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Russel Craig Weinrib, Esq. Stein Saks PLLC 285 Passaic St., Suite 5 Hakensack, NJ 07601 Tel: (201) 282-6500 Email: rweinrib@steinsakslegal.com WEST ELM: Lopez Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act -------------------------------------------------- West Elm, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Victor Lopez and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. West Elm, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-10079 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 30, 2019). West Elm offers modern furniture and home decor featuring inspiring designs and colors.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq. The Marks Law Firm PC 175 Varick Street 3rd Floor New York, NY 10014 Tel: (646) 770-3775 Fax: (646) 867-2639 Email: bmarkslaw@gmail.com Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Holdings Had $288MM Accrual at June 30 ------------------------------------------------------------- Crown Holdings, Inc. disclosed in the Exhibit 99.1 of its Form 8-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on October 22, 2019, that as of June 30, 2019, Crown Cork's accrual for pending and future asbestos-related claims and related legal costs was US$288 million, including US$236 million for unasserted claims. The Company states, "Crown Cork, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Crown, is one of many defendants in a substantial number of lawsuits filed throughout the United States by persons alleging bodily injury as a result of exposure to asbestos. In 1963, Crown Cork acquired a subsidiary that had two operating businesses, one of which is alleged to have manufactured asbestos-containing insulation products. Crown Cork believes that the business ceased manufacturing such products in 1963. "Crown recorded pre-tax charges of less than US$1 million, US$3 million and US$21 million to increase its accrual for asbestos-related liabilities in 2018, 2017 and 2016. As of June 30, 2019, Crown Cork's accrual for pending and future asbestos-related claims and related legal costs was US$288 million, including US$236 million for unasserted claims. Crown determines its accrual without limitation to a specific time period. Assumptions underlying the accrual include that claims for exposure to asbestos that occurred after the sale of the subsidiary's insulation business in 1964 would not be entitled to settlement payouts and that state statutes described under Note O included in Crown's consolidated financial statements, including Texas and Pennsylvania statutes, are expected to have a highly favorable impact on Crown Cork's ability to settle or defend against asbestos-related claims in those states and other states where Pennsylvania law may apply. "During the year ended December 31, 2018, Crown Cork received approximately 2,000 new claims, settled or dismissed approximately 1,500 claims, and had approximately 56,000 claims outstanding at the end of the period. Of these outstanding claims, approximately 16,500 claims relate to claimants alleging first exposure to asbestos after 1964 and approximately 39,500 relate to claimants alleging first exposure to asbestos before or during 1964, of which approximately 13,000 were filed in Texas, 1,500 were filed in Pennsylvania, 6,000 were filed in other states that have enacted asbestos legislation and 19,000 were filed in other states. The outstanding claims at December 31, 2018 also exclude approximately 19,000 inactive claims. Due to the passage of time, Crown considers it unlikely that the plaintiffs in these cases will pursue further action. The exclusion of these inactive claims had no effect on the calculation of Crown's accrual as the claims were filed in states where Crown's liability is limited by statute. Crown devotes significant time and expense to defend against these various claims, complaints and proceedings, and there can be no assurance that the expenses or distractions from operating Crown's businesses arising from these defenses will not increase materially. "On October 22, 2010, the Texas Supreme Court, in a 6-2 decision, reversed a lower court decision, Barbara Robinson v. Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc., No. 14-04-00658-CV, Fourteenth Court of Appeals, Texas, which had upheld the dismissal of an asbestos-related case against Crown Cork. The Texas Supreme Court held that the Texas legislation was unconstitutional under the Texas Constitution when applied to asbestos-related claims pending against Crown Cork when the legislation was enacted in June of 2003. Crown believes that the decision of the Texas Supreme Court is limited to retroactive application of the Texas legislation to asbestos-related cases that were pending against Crown Cork in Texas on June 11, 2003 and therefore continues to assign no value to claims filed after June 11, 2003. "Crown Cork made cash payments of US$21 million in 2018 and US$30 million in each of the years, 2017 and 2016 for asbestos-related claims including settlement payments and legal fees. These payments have reduced and any such future payments will reduce the cash flow available to Crown Cork for its business operations and debt payments. "Asbestos-related payments including defense costs may be significantly higher than those estimated by Crown Cork because the outcome of this type of litigation (and, therefore, Crown Cork's reserve) is subject to a number of assumptions and uncertainties, such as the number or size of asbestos-related claims or settlements, the number of financially viable responsible parties, the extent to which state statutes relating to asbestos liability are upheld and/or applied by the courts, Crown Cork's ability to obtain resolution without payment of asbestos-related claims by persons alleging first exposure to asbestos after 1964, and the potential impact of any pending or future asbestos-related legislation. Accordingly, Crown Cork may be required to make payments for claims substantially in excess of its accrual, which could reduce Crown's cash flow and impair its ability to satisfy its obligations. "As a result of the uncertainties regarding its asbestos-related liabilities and its reduced cash flow, the ability of Crown to raise new money in the capital markets is more difficult and more costly, and Crown may not be able to access the capital markets in the future." A full-text copy of the Form 8-K is available at https://is.gd/tqkNwN ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lennox Int'l. Paid $1.5MM for Lawsuits in 3Q 2019 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Lennox International Inc. has recorded US$1.5 million expense, net of probable insurance recoveries, for known and future asbestos-related litigation for the three months ended September 30, 2019, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019. The Company states, "We are involved in a number of claims and lawsuits incident to the operation of our businesses. Insurance coverages are maintained and estimated costs are recorded for such claims and lawsuits, including costs to settle claims and lawsuits, based on experience involving similar matters and specific facts known. "Some of these claims and lawsuits allege personal injury or health problems resulting from exposure to asbestos that was integrated into certain of our products. We have never manufactured asbestos and have not incorporated asbestos-containing components into our products for several decades. A substantial majority of these asbestos-related claims have been covered by insurance or other forms of indemnity or have been dismissed without payment. The remainder of our closed cases have been resolved for amounts that are not material, individually or in the aggregate. Our defense costs for asbestos-related claims are generally covered by insurance. However, our insurance coverage for settlements and judgments for asbestos-related claims varies depending on several factors and are subject to policy limits. We may have greater financial exposure for future settlements and judgments." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/9kyH7P ASBESTOS UPDATE: PPG Industries Had 675 Open Claims at Sept. 30 --------------------------------------------------------------- PPG Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that it is aware of approximately 675 open and active asbestos-related claims pending against the Company and certain of its subsidiaries. The Company states, "These claims consist primarily of non-PC Relationship Claims and claims against a subsidiary of PPG. The Company is defending the remaining open and active claims vigorously. "Since April 1, 2013, a subsidiary of PPG has been implicated in claims alleging death or injury caused by asbestos-containing products manufactured, distributed or sold by a North American architectural coatings business or its predecessors which was acquired by PPG. All such claims have been either served upon or tendered to the seller for defense and indemnity pursuant to obligations undertaken by the seller in connection with the Company's purchase of the North American architectural coatings business. The seller has accepted the defense of these claims subject to the terms of various agreements between the Company and the seller. The seller's defense and indemnity obligations in connection with newly filed claims ceased with respect to claims filed after April 1, 2018. "PPG has established reserves totaling approximately US$180 million for asbestos-related claims that would not be channeled to the Trust which, based on presently available information, we believe will be sufficient to encompass all of PPG's current and potential future asbestos liabilities. These reserves include a US$162 million reserve established in 2009 in connection with an amendment to the PC plan of reorganization. These reserves, which are included within Other liabilities on the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheets, represent PPG's best estimate of its liability for these claims. PPG does not have sufficient current claim information or settlement history on which to base a better estimate of this liability in light of the fact that the Bankruptcy Court's injunction staying most asbestos claims against the Company was in effect from April 2000 through May 2016. PPG will monitor the activity associated with its remaining asbestos claims and evaluate, on a periodic basis, its estimated liability for such claims, its insurance assets then available, and all underlying assumptions to determine whether any adjustment to the reserves for these claims is required. "The amount reserved for asbestos-related claims by its nature is subject to many uncertainties that may change over time, including (i) the ultimate number of claims filed; (ii) the amounts required to resolve both currently known and future unknown claims; (iii) the amount of insurance, if any, available to cover such claims; (iv) the unpredictable aspects of the litigation process, including a changing trial docket and the jurisdictions in which trials are scheduled; (v) the outcome of any trials, including potential judgments or jury verdicts; (vi) the lack of specific information in many cases concerning exposure for which PPG is allegedly responsible, and the claimants' alleged diseases resulting from such exposure; and (vii) potential changes in applicable federal and/or state tort liability law. All of these factors may have a material effect upon future asbestos-related liability estimates. As a potential offset to any future asbestos financial exposure, under the PC plan of reorganization PPG retained, for its own account, the right to pursue insurance coverage from certain of its historical insurers that did not participate in the PC plan of reorganization. While the ultimate outcome of PPG's asbestos litigation cannot be predicted with certainty, PPG believes that any financial exposure resulting from its asbestos-related claims will not have a material adverse effect on PPG's consolidated financial position, liquidity or results of operations." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/AXks3P ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Had $1.35-Bil. Net Reserves at Sept. 30 ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Travelers Companies, Inc. has net asbestos reserves of US$1.35 billion at September 30, 2019, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019. Travelers Companies states, "The Company believes that the property and casualty insurance industry has suffered from court decisions and other trends that have expanded insurance coverage for asbestos claims far beyond the original intent of insurers and policyholders. The Company has received and continues to receive a significant number of asbestos claims. Factors underlying these claim filings include continued intensive advertising by lawyers seeking asbestos claimants and the focus by plaintiffs on defendants who were not traditionally primary targets of asbestos litigation. The focus on these defendants is primarily the result of the number of traditional asbestos defendants who have sought bankruptcy protection in previous years. The bankruptcy of many traditional defendants has also caused increased settlement demands against those policyholders who are not in bankruptcy but remain in the tort system. Currently, in many jurisdictions, those who allege very serious injury and who can present credible medical evidence of their injuries are receiving priority trial settings in the courts, while those who have not shown any credible disease manifestation are having their hearing dates delayed or placed on an inactive docket. Prioritizing claims involving credible evidence of injuries, along with the focus on defendants who were not traditionally primary targets of asbestos litigation, contributes to the claims and claim adjustment expense payment patterns experienced by the Company. The Company's asbestos-related claims and claim adjustment expense experience also has been impacted by the unavailability of other insurance sources potentially available to policyholders, whether through exhaustion of policy limits or through the insolvency of other participating insurers. "The Company continues to be involved in disputes, including litigation, with a number of policyholders, some of whom are in bankruptcy over coverage for asbestos-related claims. Many coverage disputes with policyholders are only resolved through settlement agreements. Because many policyholders make exaggerated demands, it is difficult to predict the outcome of settlement negotiations. Settlements involving bankrupt policyholders may include extensive releases which are favorable to the Company, but which could result in settlements for larger amounts than originally anticipated. Although the Company has seen a reduction in the overall risk associated with these disputes, it remains difficult to predict the ultimate cost of these claims. As in the past, the Company will continue to pursue settlement opportunities. "In addition to claims against policyholders, proceedings have been launched directly against insurers, including the Company, by individuals challenging insurers' conduct with respect to the handling of past asbestos claims and by individuals seeking damages arising from alleged asbestos-related bodily injuries. It is possible that the filing of other direct actions against insurers, including the Company, could be made in the future. It is difficult to predict the outcome of these proceedings, including whether the plaintiffs would be able to sustain these actions against insurers based on novel legal theories of liability. The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to any such claims and has received favorable rulings in certain jurisdictions. "Because each policyholder presents different liability and coverage issues, the Company generally reviews the exposure presented by each policyholder at least annually. Among the factors which the Company may consider in the course of this review are: available insurance coverage, including the role of any umbrella or excess insurance the Company has issued to the policyholder; limits and deductibles; an analysis of the policyholder's potential liability; the jurisdictions involved; past and anticipated future claim activity and loss development on pending claims; past settlement values of similar claims; allocated claim adjustment expense; the potential role of other insurance; the role, if any, of non-asbestos claims or potential non-asbestos claims in any resolution process; and applicable coverage defenses or determinations, if any, including the determination as to whether or not an asbestos claim is a products/completed operation claim subject to an aggregate limit and the available coverage, if any, for that claim. "Net asbestos paid loss and loss expenses in the first nine months of 2019 and 2018 were US$150 million and US$161 million, respectively. Net asbestos reserves were US$1.35 billion at both September 30, 2019 and September 30, 2018." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/euANOZ ********* 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 ***