/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/191119.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, November 19, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 231 Headlines AAA CHEAP: Aldana Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay for Landscapers ACADIA PHARMA: Bid to Dismiss Nuplazid Complaint Pending ACME ELECTRIC: Guglielmo Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ACTELION PHARMACEUTICALS: Ct. Dismisses Baltimore's Antitrust Suit ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Court Wants Securities Complaint Revised ALNYLAM PHARMA: Bid to Dismiss Leavitt Class Suit Pending ALNYLAM PHARMA: Faces Chester County Employees Retirement Fund Suit AMERICAN NATIONAL: Arce Asks Tex. Appeals Court to Review Ruling ASC PROFILES: Faces Wicker Employee Suit in California Super. Ct. BEYER & ASSOCIATES: Illegally Collects Debt, Rodriguez Suit Says BOK FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Extended Overdraft Fees Suits BOK FINANCIAL: Municipal Securities Suit Underway in Oklahoma BOK FINANCIAL: New Jersey Class Action Stayed Until Dec. 17 BOK FINANCIAL: Oklahoma Suit over Demand Deposit Pacts Underway BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Continues to Defend CheckMate-026 Class Suit BUSTAMANTE REAL: Wright Sues Over Unsolicited Autodialed Calls BUTH-NA-BODHAIGE: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York CASPER'S ICE: Fat Boy Ice Cream Lacks Vanilla, Rogers Claims COGNIZANT TECH: Bid to Dismiss NJ Consolidated Class Suit Pending COLE HAAN: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York COLGATE-PALMOLIVE CO: Asks Court to Seal Declaration of B. Keough D'ONOFRIO GENERAL: Lopez Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages, Damages DAGER CORPORATION: Faces Northrip Suit in California Super. Court DENNY'S INC: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage Under FLSA, Rafferty Says DNC SERVICES: Pa Democratic State Panel Files Petition to Appeal ECOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT: Faces Rosenblatt & Meidenbaur Suits ELECTRONIC COMMODITIES: Guglielmo Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York EVERCORE INC: Bid to Dismiss Suit over Adeptus' 2014 IPO Pending FACEBOOK INC: Continues to Defend Facial Recognition Class Suit FACEBOOK INC: March 2018 Suit over Cyber-Attack Pending FACEBOOK INC: September 2018 Suit over Cyber-Attack Pending FCA US: Class in Victorino Product Liability Suit Certified FEDERAL SAVINGS: McDermott Seeks to Certify Loan Originators Class FLEX LTD: Motion to Dismiss Calif. Class Suit Due Dec. 4 FREE ENERGY: Trujillo Sues Over Unsolicited Autodialed Texts GLOBAL PAYMENTS: Peters, Wolf and Cheng Suits Voluntarily Dismissed GOOGLE LLC: AdTrader Moves to Certify 3 Classes and 1 Subclass GRIZZLY INDUSTRIAL: Guglielmo Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York GUESS INC: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York HOUSTON, TX: Appellate Court Upholds Dismissal of Perez Claims HYATT HOTELS: Still Defends Suits over Alleged Antitrust Matters INTERCONTINENTAL EXCHANGE: Briefing in LIBOR-Related Suit Ongoing IROBOT CORP: Faces Miramar Firefighters' Pension Fund Class Suit JOHNSON & JOHNSON: $117M Deal Over Pelvic Mesh Devices Approved JUST BRANDS: JustCBD Products Contain THC, Darrow Suit Claims KANDI TECHNOLOGIES: Court Dismisses Vatter Securities Class Suit KBR INC: Appeal in Suit Against Former Subsidiary Still Pending LAKE COUNTY, IL: Hardeman Files Class Certification Bid LAWLESS INC: Killion Seeks to Recoup Overtime Pay for Salespeople LB METALS: Brown Sues Over Illegal Collection of Biometric Data LEVINBOOK LAW: Baum Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York LIVE NATION: Settlement Reached in Dickey Class Action LULULEMON USA: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York MACQUARIE INFRASTRUCTURE: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Suit Pending MANDARICH LAW: Lee Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York MASIMO CORP: No Trial Date Yet in Physicians Healthsource Case MCKESSON CORP: RelayHealth Unit Faces 3 Class Suits in Illinois MCKESSON CORP: Trial in True Health Class Suit Set for Aug. 2020 MDL 2672: Puerto Rico Pension Fund Files Class Certification Bid MDL 2873: Aguon v. 3M Company Over AFFF Products Consolidated MDL 2886: Kenney v. Allura USA Over Siding Defects Consolidated MDL 2918: Barry v. Headway Tech Over HDD Assemblies Consolidated MDL 2918: Cimino v. Headway Over HDD Assemblies Consolidated MDL 2918: Fahey v. Headway Tech Over HDD Assemblies Consolidated MDL 2918: Kehilat v. NHK Spring Over HDD Assemblies Consolidated MDL 2918: La Barbera v. Headway Over HDD Assemblies Consolidated MDL 2918: Leff v. Headway Tech Over HDD Assemblies Consolidated MDL 2918: Zimmerman v. NHK Spring Over HDD Assemblies Consolidated MECHANICS BANK: Faces Kramer-Bolds Class Suit in California MENLO THERAPEUTICS: Consolidated Savelstrov Class Suit Ongoing MENN LAW FIRM: Cole Seeks Prelim. Nod of $5,000 Class Settlement MICHAEL'S TRANSPORTATION: Faces Del Rio Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. MIDLAND FUNDING: Navarroli Moves for Certification of FDCPA Class NESTLE USA: Cheslow Suit Removed From Super. Ct. to N.D. Calif. NORTH BEACH: Truffin Seeks Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages PALCO INC: Peel Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages PBF ENERGY: 2 Classes Certified in Goldstein Suit PBF ENERGY: Tentative Agreement Reached in Kendig Suit PHOENIX, AZ: Court Partly Grants Class Cert. Bid in Puente Suit POWER HOME: Reinert Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls PRIME INC: Parker Seeks to Recover Minimum Wage for Truck Drivers REALNETWORKS INC: Claims Period in Napster Case Ends Dec. 31 RECKITT BENCKISER: Carrigan Moves to Certify Class of Consumers SABRE CORP: NY Class Suit over Airline Ticket Prices Dismissed SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Court Certifies Class in Securities Class Action SANTANDER CONSUMER: Deka Class Action Still Stayed SEABOARD CORP: Continues to Defend Pork Buyers' Class Suit SOUTHWEST OFFSET: Faces Perez Suit Over Time-Shaving Practices SPROUTS FARMERS: Deal Reached for Majority of Phishing Scam Suits SQUEAKY KLEAN: Sosa Seeks Overtime Pay for Non-Exempt Laborers SUTHERLAND GLOBAL: Savage Seeks Damages for 401(k) Plan Losses SYNEOS HEALTH: Murakami Class Action Ongoing SYNEOS HEALTH: Vaitkuviene Class Action Stayed TRANS CONTINENTAL: Gottdiener Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York TWILIO INC: Paid $1.7 Million to Fund Flowers Settlement TWILIO INC: Settlement Reached in Bauman Suit over Spam Texts UBS AG: Starostenko Sues Over Doctoring of Account Statements WALMART INC: Legrier Files Fraud Class Suit in New York WESTERN UNION: 10th Cir. Appeal in Smallen Suit Still Ongoing WESTERN UNION: Class Suit v. Argentina Unit Still Ongoing WESTERN UNION: Frazier Suit Remains Stayed Pending Arbitration WILLIAMS CO: Settlement with KS & MO Class Wins Final Approval WORLD WRESTLING: Continues to Defend Wrestlers' Class Suits YTEL INC: Faces Williams Suit in N.D. Cal. Over TCPA Violation ********* AAA CHEAP: Aldana Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay for Landscapers --------------------------------------------------------------- DAVID ELIAS RODRIGUEZ ALDANA, JOSE E. RIVERA, and SANTIAGO GUTIERREZ GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AAA CHEAP TREE & LANDSCAPING OF L.I. INC., and THOMAS ALBINO, and ADAN SAGASTUME, as individuals, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-06084-AMD-VMS (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 29, 2019), seeks to recover damages for egregious violations of state and federal wage and hour laws arising out of the Plaintiffs' employment at AAA. The Defendants did not pay the Plaintiff time and a half (1.5) for hours worked over 40, a blatant violation of the overtime provisions contained in the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law, the Plaintiffs contend. The Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages and liquidated damages in an amount exceeding $100,000. The Plaintiffs also seek interest, attorneys' fees, costs, and all other legal and equitable remedies the Court deems appropriate. The Plaintiffs are or have been employed by the Defendants as tree climbers, tree trimmers, drivers, and grounds keepers, or other similarly titled. AAA is a landscaping company.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, PC 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Telephone: 718 263-9591 Facsimile: 718 263-9598 ACADIA PHARMA: Bid to Dismiss Nuplazid Complaint Pending -------------------------------------------------------- The defendants' motion to dismiss the amended class action complaint in the class action suit entitled, In re ACADIA Pharmaceuticals Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 18-cv-01647, remains pending. ACADIA Pharmaceuticals Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the hearing on the request was set to be heard on November 14, 2019. The motion to dismiss previously scheduled for September 5, 2019 was rescheduled for November 14, 2019. Between July 19 and August 3, 2018, following negative publicity about NUPLAZID, three purported Company stockholders filed putative securities class action complaints (captioned Staublein v. ACADIA Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Case No. 18-cv-01647, Stone v. ACADIA Pharmaceuticals Inc., Case No. 18-cv-01672, and Barglow v. ACADIA Pharmaceuticals Inc., Case No. 18-cv-01812) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California against us and certain of our current and former executive officers. Thereafter, several putative lead plaintiffs filed motions to consolidate the cases and to appoint a lead plaintiff. On January 3, 2019, the court consolidated the cases under the caption In re ACADIA Pharmaceuticals Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 18-cv-01647, and took the lead plaintiff motions under submission. On February 26, 2019, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel. Lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint on April 15, 2019. The consolidated complaint generally alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making materially false and misleading statements regarding our business, operations, and prospects by failing to disclose that adverse events and safety concerns regarding NUPLAZID threatened initial and continuing FDA approval, and by failing to disclose that we engaged in business practices likely to attract regulatory scrutiny. The consolidated complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint on June 7, 2019 and the lead plaintiff filed an opposition on July 23, 2019. Defendants' reply was due August 22, 2019. A hearing on the motion to dismiss previously scheduled for September 5, 2019 was rescheduled for November 14, 2019. ACADIA said, "Given the unpredictability inherent in litigation, we cannot predict the outcome of this matter. We are unable to estimate possible losses or ranges of losses that may result from this matter, and therefore we have not accrued any amounts in connection with this matter other than ongoing attorneys' fees." ACADIA Pharmaceuticals Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, focuses on the development and commercialization of small molecule drugs that address unmet medical needs in central nervous system disorders. The Company was founded in 1993 and is headquartered in San Diego, California. ACME ELECTRIC: Guglielmo Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Acme Electric Motor, Inc. The case is styled as Joseph Guglielmo, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Acme Electric Motor, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-10385 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 8, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Acme Electric Motor, Inc. retails tools and equipment. The Company provides air, electrical, hand, flooring, landscaping, reconditioned, power, plumbing tools, compressors, chainsaws, heating, cooling, insulation, dust management, snow blowers, and outdoor living products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Russel Craig Weinrib, Esq. Stein Saks PLLC 285 Passaic St., Suite 5 Hakensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: rweinrib@steinsakslegal.com ACTELION PHARMACEUTICALS: Ct. Dismisses Baltimore's Antitrust Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ The United States District Court for the District of Maryland issued a Memorandum Opinion granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss in case captioned MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ACTELION PHARMACEUTICALS, LTD., et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. GLR-18-3560. (D. Md.). Actelion is a pharmaceutical company that produces and sells Tracleer, the brand name for the drug bosentan, which is used to treat pulmonary artery hypertension. Plaintiff Mayor & City Council of Baltimore (the "City") filed its initial Complaint against Actelion on November 19, 2018. Upon the City and Government Employees Health Association's ("GEHA") unopposed Motion for Consolidation and Appointment of Interim Class Counsel, the Court consolidated Government Employee Health Association v. Actelion Pharmaceuticals, Ltd., et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-3571-GLR (D.Md. filed Nov. 20, 2018) with the present case on January 18, 2019. On January 25, 2019, the City and GEHA (collectively, the "Named Plaintiffs") filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial on behalf of the Named Plaintiffs and similarly situated individuals in thirty states and U.S. territories. In their forty-six-count Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs allege: unlawful refusals to deal and attempts to monopolize in violation of Sectio 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 2 (2018) (Count 1); violations of various state antitrust laws (Counts 2-26); and violations of various state consumer protections laws (Counts 27-46). Plaintiffs seek declaratory, injunctive, and equitable relief. Plaintiffs generally allege that members of the putative class purchased Tracleer within Maine, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Vermont, and that Actelion attempted to monopolize the trade or commerce of bosentan within those states. On February 25, 2019, Actelion moved to dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim. Plaintiffs filed an Opposition on March 27, 2019. On April 11, 2019, Actelion filed its Reply. Standard of Review The purpose of a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) is to test the sufficiency of a complaint, not to resolve contests surrounding the facts, the merits of a claim, or the applicability of defenses. A complaint fails to state a claim if it does not contain a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, or does not state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. A claim is facially plausible when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. In considering a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a court must examine the complaint as a whole, consider the factual allegations in the complaint as true, and construe the factual allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. But the court need not accept unsupported or conclusory factual allegations devoid of any reference to actual events or legal conclusions couched as factual allegations. Actelion advances several arguments for dismissing Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint. First, Actelion asserts that all but four of Plaintiffs' claims are time-barred by the relevant statutes of limitations. Second, Actelion maintains that Plaintiffs lack Article III standing to bring certain of their state claims. Statutes of Limitations Actelion argues that all but four of Plaintiffs' forty-six claims are time-barred because the relevant statutes of limitations are four years or less and Actelion's last alleged anti-competitive act its February 2014 settlement with the Generics took place more than four years before the filing of the initial Complaint. Plaintiffs concede that Actelion's anti-competitive behavior occurred only between 2009 and February 2014, but they argue that their injuries accrued when the Patent expired on November 20, 2015. Alternatively, Plaintiffs submit that a separate cause of action accrues each time they, as indirect purchasers, pay an unlawfully high price for Tracleer. The Court agrees with Actelion. A Sherman Act claim is barred unless commenced within four years after the cause of action accrued. A cause of action generally accrues when a defendant commits an act that injures a plaintiff's business. Even when defendants continue to perform overt acts in furtherance of an antitrust conspiracy within the statutory period, plaintiffs' injuries also must fall within the limitations period in order not to be time-barred. Plaintiffs' first argument that the cause of action accrued when the Patent expired on November 20, 2015 misses the mark. The expiration of the Patent is not an overt act by Actelion; rather, Actelion had no control over or involvement in the expiration of the Patent, which was set to expire by law. Even if the expiration of the Patent were an overt act by Actelion, Plaintiffs fail to allege how the expiration of the Patent alone caused them any injury. As such, Plaintiffs' cause of action did not accrue upon the expiration of the Patent on November 20, 2015. Turning to their second argument, Plaintiffs primarily rely on two cases to support the contention that a cause of action accrues each time they purchase Tracleer at an unlawfully high price: Klehr v. A.O. Smith Corp., 521 U.S. 179 (1997), and Berkey Photo Inc. v. Eastman Kodak Co., 603 F.2d 263 (2d Cir. 1979). These cases are inapposite. In Klehr, the Supreme Court noted that each sale to the plaintiff starts the statutory period running again in the context of a price-fixing conspiracy in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, not a refusal-to-deal claim. Likewise, Berkey Photo, which, in any event, is not controlling in this circuit addressed allegations that the defendant used its monopoly status to engage in predatory pricing. Though Plaintiffs allege that Actelion had the power to raise and/or maintain the price of bosentan at supra-competitive leves they do not allege that Actelion actually did so. Nor do Plaintiffs allege that Actelion engaged in illegal price fixing or predatory pricing. Plaintiffs merely allege that Actelion's scheme has forced Plaintiffs and other purchasers to pay higher prices for bosentan for far longer than they otherwise would have due to the absence of competition from the Generics. Instead, Plaintiffs' cause of action accrued upon Actelion's last overt anti-competitive act, which Plaintiffs identify as Actelion's settlement with the Generics in February 2014. The four-year statute of limitations for Plaintiffs' antitrust claims arising from the February 2014 settlement agreement ran until February 2018. Because the City filed its initial Complaint on November 19, 2018, Plaintiffs' claims under the Sherman Act9 and various state statutes are time-barred. Therefore, the Court will grant Actelion's Motion as to those counts. Standing In deciding whether a plaintiff has antitrust standing, a court must consider five factors: (1) the causal connection between an antitrust violation and harm to the plaintiffs, and whether that harm was intended (2) whether the harm was of a type that Congress sought to redress in providing a private remedy for violations of the antitrust laws (3) the directness of the alleged injury (4) the existence of more direct victims of the alleged antitrust injury and (5) problems of identifying damages and apportioning them among those directly and indirectly harmed. Actelion advances two reasons why Plaintiffs lack standing to bring their remaining state claims: (1) Plaintiffs do not allege that Actelion engaged in any conduct in Maine or Wisconsin, nor do they allege that the Named Plaintiffs purchased or paid for Tracleer in those states, as required under the Maine Antitrust Statute and Wisconsin Antitrust Act, and (2) Plaintiffs fail to allege that Actelion engaged in false or deceptive conduct at all, let alone in Minnesota and Vermont, as required by the Minnesota Consumer Fraud Act and Vermont Consumer Fraud Act. Plaintiffs respond that their allegations are sufficient and the Court's determination on standing in a multistate class action should be deferred until after class certification. The Court agrees with Actelion. Here, Plaintiffs generally allege that members of the putative class purchased Tracleer within Maine, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Vermont, and that Actelion attempted to monopolize the trade or commerce of bosentan within those states. Plaintiffs fail to allege, however, that the Named Plaintiffs suffered any specific harm in Maine, Wisconsin, Minnesota, or Vermont. Indeed, Plaintiffs only allege that the Named Plaintiffs suffered specific harm in Maryland, California, and Florida the states in which the Named Plaintiffs purchased Tracleer. The Court has already concluded that it will dismiss Plaintiffs' claims under the laws of Maryland, California, and Florida because the statutes of limitations on those claims have run. The Court therefore need not wait until the class certification stage to assess Plaintiffs' standing to bring claims under the laws of Maine, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Vermont, where the Named Plaintiffs have not pleaded any specific injury. Accordingly, the Court will grant Actelion's Motion to Dismiss as to those counts. The Court will grant Actelion's Motion to Dismiss. A full-text copy of the District Court’s September 30, 2019 Memorandum Opinion is available at https://preview.tinyurl.com/y6cznknv from Leagle.com. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, Plaintiff, represented by A. Luke Smith , Radice Law Firm PC, 143 W. Walnut Ln., Philadelphia, PA, 19144, pro hac vice, Donna M. Evans - devans@cohenmilstein.com - Cohen Milstein Sellers and Toll PLLC, pro hac vice, Gregory T. Arnold - grega@hbsslaw.com - Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice, Hannah Schwarzschild - hannahs@hbsslaw.com - Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice, John D. Radice , Radice Law Firm PC, 143 W. Walnut Ln., Philadelphia, PA, 19144, pro hac vice, Kristen A. Johnson - kristenj@hbssla w .com - Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice, Sharon K. Robertson - srobertson@cohenmilstein.com - Cohen Milstein Sellers and Toll PLLC, pro hac vice, Thomas Matthew Sobol - tom@hbsslaw.com - Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP & Joseph M. Sellers - jsellers@cohenmilstein.com - Cohen Milstein Sellers and Toll PLLC. Government Employees Health Association, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Consol Plaintiff, represented by E. David Hoskins , The Law Offices of E David Hoskins LLC, 16 E. Lombard Street, Suite 400, Baltimore, MD 21210-1807, Thomas Matthew Sobol , Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Gregory T. Arnold , Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice, Hannah Schwarzschild , Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice, Kristen A. Johnson , Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice & Sharon K. Robertson , Cohen Milstein Sellers and Toll PLLC, pro hac vice. Actelion Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Actelion Pharmaceuticals US, Inc. & Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Defendants, represented by Gregory Todd Lawrence - greg@lawcfl.com - Conti Fenn and Lawrence LLC, Damaris Hernandez - dhernandez@cravath.com - Cravath Swaine and Moore LLP, pro hac vice, Daniel John McCartin - Dan@lawcfl.com - Conti Fenn and Lawrence LLC & Katherine B. Forrest - kforrest@cravath.com - Cravath Swaine and Moore LLP, pro hac vice. ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Court Wants Securities Complaint Revised ---------------------------------------------------------- Align Technology, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the motion to dismiss the consolidated class action suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, has been granted with leave to amend. On November 5, 2018, a class action lawsuit against Align and three of its executive officers was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the Company's common stock between July 25, 2018 and October 24, 2018. The complaint generally alleges claims under the federal securities laws and seeks monetary damages in an unspecified amount and costs and expenses incurred in the litigation. On December 12, 2018, a similar lawsuit was filed in the same court on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the company's common stock between April 25, 2018 and October 24, 2018. On May 10, 2019, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint against Align and four of the company's executive officers alleging similar claims as the initial complaints on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of our common stock between April 25, 2018 and October 24, 2018. On June 24, 2019, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint. On October 29, 2019, that motion to dismiss was granted with leave to amend. Align believes these claims are without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself. Align is currently unable to predict the outcome of these lawsuits and therefore cannot determine the likelihood of loss nor estimate a range of possible loss. Align Technology, Inc., incorporated on April 3, 1997, designs, manufactures and markets a system of clear aligner therapy, intra-oral scanners and computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) digital services used in dentistry, orthodontics and dental records storage. The Company operates through two segments: Clear Aligner segment and Scanner and Services (Scanner) segment. The company is based in San Jose, California. ALNYLAM PHARMA: Bid to Dismiss Leavitt Class Suit Pending --------------------------------------------------------- Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the motion to dismiss the class action suit initiated by Caryl Hull Leavitt has been fully briefed. On September 26, 2018, Caryl Hull Leavitt, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a class action complaint for violation of federal securities laws against the company, its Chief Executive Officer and our former Chief Financial Officer in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. By stipulation of the parties and Order of the Court dated November 20, 2018, the action was transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. On May 8, 2019, the Court entered an order appointing a lead plaintiff, and on July 3, 2019, lead plaintiff filed a consolidated class action complaint, or the Complaint. In addition to the originally named defendants, the Complaint also names as defendants certain of the company's other executive officers, and purports to be brought on behalf of a class of persons who acquired the company's securities between September 20, 2017 and September 12, 2018 and seeks to recover damages caused by defendants' alleged violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The Complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants made materially false and misleading statements related to the efficacy and safety of our product, ONPATTRO. The plaintiff seeks, among other things, the designation of this action as a class action, an award of unspecified compensatory damages, interest, costs and expenses, including counsel fees and expert fees, and other relief as the court deems appropriate. All defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint in its entirety on July 31, 2019. The motion to dismiss was fully briefed on September 30, 2019. Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, focuses on discovering, developing, and commercializing RNA interference (RNAi) therapeutics. The company was founded in 2002 and is headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts. ALNYLAM PHARMA: Faces Chester County Employees Retirement Fund Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company has been named as a defendant in a class action suit initiated by Chester County Employees Retirement Fund. On September 12, 2019, the Chester County Employees Retirement Fund, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a purported securities class action complaint for violation of federal securities laws against the company, certain of the company's current and former directors and officers, and the underwriters of our November 14, 2017 public stock offering, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County. The complaint is brought on behalf of an alleged class of those who purchased the company's securities pursuant and/or traceable to its November 14, 2017 public stock offering. The complaint purports to allege claims arising under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and generally alleges that the defendants violated the federal securities laws by, among other things, making material misstatements or omissions concerning the results of the company's APOLLO Phase 3 clinical trial of patisiran. The plaintiff seeks, among other things, the designation of the action as a class action, an award of unspecified compensatory damages, rescissory damages, interest, costs and expenses, including counsel fees and expert fees, and other relief as the court deems appropriate. Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, focuses on discovering, developing, and commercializing RNA interference (RNAi) therapeutics. The company was founded in 2002 and is headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts. AMERICAN NATIONAL: Arce Asks Tex. Appeals Court to Review Ruling ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Bertha Arce filed an appeal from a decision in the lawsuit captioned Bertha Arce, Individually and as Representative of All Others Similarly Situated v. American National Insurance Company, Case No. 07-19-00362-CV, in the Texas Court of Appeals, Seventh Court of Appeals. The case type is stated as miscellaneous/other civil.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant Bertha Arce is represented by: Mark A. Ticer, Esq. Jennifer Johnson, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MARK A. TICER 10440 N. Central Expressway, Suite 600 Dallas, TX 75231 Telephone: (214) 219-4220 Facsimile: (214) 219-4218 ASC PROFILES: Faces Wicker Employee Suit in California Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against ASC Profiles LLC. The case is captioned as Kijana Wicker, On behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ASC Profiles LLC, a Delaware Company; Bluescope Buildings North America, Inc., a Delaware Corporation; Does 1-100; and Steelscape, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 34-2019-00267971-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Oct. 30, 2019). The suit alleges violation of employment-related laws. ASC Profiles manufactures building products. BlueScope Buildings provides innovative building solutions across the globe. Steelscape is a national supplier of metallic-coated and pre-painted metal. Aimed at servicing the construction industry, Steelscape’s products can be used for a wide range of applications, from metal buildings to architectural roofing to decking and framing.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel J. Park, Esq. JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION 751 N Fair Oaks Ave., Suite 101 Pasadena, CA 91103-3069 Telephone: (818) 230-7502 Facsimile: (818) 230-7259 E-mail: dpark@justicelawcorp.com BEYER & ASSOCIATES: Illegally Collects Debt, Rodriguez Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Melinda Rodriguez, individually on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BEYER & ASSOCIATES, LLC, Case No. 1:19-cv-01677 (E.D. Wis., Nov. 13, 2019), is brought under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act relating to the illegal practices of the Defendant, who used false, deceptive, and misleading practices in connection with its attempt to collect an alleged debt from the Plaintiff. At the top left of the Defendant's collection letter it read, "RE: Secure Parking - Milwaukee." In the first paragraph of the Letter it states: "This law firm represents the above Creditor and Parking Revenue Recovery Services, Inc. concerning the above PARKING NOTICE and BALANCE DUE which is IN COLLECTION." The Plaintiff contends it is unclear from the Letter, who the creditor is. By dialed to identify the creditor of the Debt, the Letter leaves the unsophisticated consumer in doubt about to whom the alleged debt it is owed and if it is legitimate, says the complaint. Melinda Rodriguez is a natural person, who was a citizen of Winnebago County, Wisconsin. Beyer regularly engages in the collection of defaulted consumer debts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Francis R. Greene, Esq. Philip D. Stern, Esq. Andrew T. Thomasson, Esq. STERN THOMASSON LLP 3010 South Appleton Road Menasha, WI 54952 Phone (973) 379-7500 Email: Philip@SternThomasson.com Andrew@SternThomasson.com Francis@SternThomasson.com BOK FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Extended Overdraft Fees Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- BOK Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that BOKF, NA still defends class actions suits in the U.S. District Court for New Mexico and the one appealed before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. On March 7, 2017, a plaintiff filed a putative class action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas alleging an extended overdraft fee charged by BOKF, NA is interest and exceeds permitted rates. On September 18, 2018, the District Court dismissed the Texas action and the plaintiff appealed the dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit which heard argument on October 8, 2019. On August 22, 2018, a plaintiff filed a second putative class action in the United States District Court for New Mexico making the same allegations as the Texas action. Management is advised by counsel that a loss is not probable in either the now dismissed Texas action or the New Mexico action and that the loss, if any, cannot be reasonably estimated. BOK Financial Corporation operates as the financial holding company for BOKF, NA that provides various financial products and services in Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico, Northwest Arkansas, Colorado, Arizona, and Kansas/Missouri. It operates through three segments: Commercial Banking, Consumer Banking, and Wealth Management. BOK Financial Corporation was founded in 1910 and is headquartered in Tulsa, Oklahoma. BOK FINANCIAL: Municipal Securities Suit Underway in Oklahoma ------------------------------------------------------------- BOK Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company's wholly owned subsidiary bank, BOKF, NA, continues to face a putative class action in Oklahoma initiated by bondholders representing a set of municipal securities. On March 14, 2017, BOKF, NA was sued in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma by bondholders in a second putative class action representing a different set of municipal securities. The bondholders in this second action allege two individuals purchased facilities from the principals who are the subject of the SEC New Jersey proceedings by means of the fraudulent sale of $60 million of municipal securities for which BOKF, NA also served as indenture trustee. The bondholders allege BOKF, NA failed to disclose that the seller of the purchased facilities had engaged in the conduct complained of in the New Jersey action. BOKF, NA properly performed all duties as indenture trustee of this second set of municipal securities, timely commenced proceedings against the issuer of the securities when default occurred, is cooperating with the SEC in actions against the two principals, is not a target of the SEC proceedings, and has been advised by counsel that BOKF, NA has valid defenses to the claims of these bondholders. BOK Financial said, "Management is advised by counsel that a loss is not probable and that the loss, if any, cannot be reasonably estimated." BOK Financial Corporation operates as the financial holding company for BOKF, NA that provides various financial products and services in Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico, Northwest Arkansas, Colorado, Arizona, and Kansas/Missouri. It operates through three segments: Commercial Banking, Consumer Banking, and Wealth Management. BOK Financial Corporation was founded in 1910 and is headquartered in Tulsa, Oklahoma. BOK FINANCIAL: New Jersey Class Action Stayed Until Dec. 17 ----------------------------------------------------------- BOK Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the New Jersey Federal District class action has been stayed until December 17, 2019. On August 26, 2016, BOKF, NA was sued in the United States District Court for New Jersey by two bondholders in a putative class action on behalf of all holders of the bonds alleging BOKF, NA participated in the fraudulent sale of securities by the principals. The New Jersey Federal District Action has been stayed until December 17, 2019. On September 14, 2016, BOKF, NA was sued in the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma by 19 bondholders alleging BOKF, NA participated in the fraudulent sale of securities by the principals. The Tulsa County District Court Action is pending on BOKF, NA's motion to dismiss. Four separate small groups of bondholders filed arbitration complaints with the Financial Institutions Regulatory Association (FINRA) respecting the bonds and other bonds for which BOKF, NA served as indenture trustee. BOKF, NA challenged the FINRA proceedings in the United States District Court of Nevada. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held BOKF, NA was not subject to FINRA jurisdiction. The four FINRA complaints were then dismissed. BOK Financial Corporation operates as the financial holding company for BOKF, NA that provides various financial products and services in Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico, Northwest Arkansas, Colorado, Arizona, and Kansas/Missouri. It operates through three segments: Commercial Banking, Consumer Banking, and Wealth Management. BOK Financial Corporation was founded in 1910 and is headquartered in Tulsa, Oklahoma. BOK FINANCIAL: Oklahoma Suit over Demand Deposit Pacts Underway --------------------------------------------------------------- BOK Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that BOKF NA continues to defend a putative class action suit in Oklahoma District Court for Tulsa County alleging that BOKF NA breached its Demand Deposit Agreements. On July 6, 2018, a plaintiff served a petition in a putative class action in the Oklahoma District Court for Tulsa County Oklahoma alleging BOKF NA breached its Demand Deposit Agreements by charging overdraft and not sufficient funds fees to deposit accounts on the day of the transaction triggering the fee and by the bank's debit hold process causing overdraft fees. "Management is advised by counsel that a loss is not probable and that the loss, if any, cannot be reasonably estimated." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. BOK Financial Corporation operates as the financial holding company for BOKF, NA that provides various financial products and services in Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico, Northwest Arkansas, Colorado, Arizona, and Kansas/Missouri. It operates through three segments: Commercial Banking, Consumer Banking, and Wealth Management. BOK Financial Corporation was founded in 1910 and is headquartered in Tulsa, Oklahoma. BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Continues to Defend CheckMate-026 Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Bristol-Myers Squibb Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that an amended complaint has been filed in the class action suit related to CheckMate-026 clinical trial in lung cancer. Since February 2018, two separate putative class action complaints were filed in the U.S. District for the Northern District of California and in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company, the Company's Chief Executive Officer, Giovanni Caforio, the Company's Chief Financial Officer, Charles A. Bancroft and certain former and current executives of the Company. The case in California has been voluntarily dismissed. The remaining complaint alleges violations of securities laws for the Company's disclosures related to the CheckMate-026 clinical trial in lung cancer. In September 2019, the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss, but allowed the plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint. In October 2019, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. The Company continues to believe these allegations are without merit and will continue to defend the matter. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company discovers, develops, licenses, manufactures, markets, distributes, and sells biopharmaceutical products worldwide. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company was founded in 1887 and is headquartered in New York, New York. BUSTAMANTE REAL: Wright Sues Over Unsolicited Autodialed Calls -------------------------------------------------------------- BRUCE WRIGHT, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BUSTAMANTE REAL ESTATE, INC., a Florida corporation, Defendant, Case No. 6:19-cv-02080 (M.D. Fla., Oct. 29, 2019), alleges that the Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise, in part, by making unsolicited, autodialed calls to wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, in order to solicit more business in representing different properties, Bustamante utilizes an autodialer. In the Plaintiff's case, Bustamante made an unsolicited autodialed call, and sent autodialed, unsolicited text messages after being specifically told not to call the Plaintiff again. These calls were made despite the Plaintiff having his phone number registered with the National Do Not Call Registry (DNC) to prevent such calls, the lawsuit says. The Plaintiff seeks to obtain injunctive and monetary relief for all persons injured by Bustamante's conduct. Bustamante is a real estate company that serves the entire central Florida market.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stefan Coleman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN, P.A. 201 S. Biscayne Blvd., 28th Floor Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (877) 333-9427 Facsimile: (888) 498-8946 E-mail: law@stefancoleman.com BUTH-NA-BODHAIGE: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Buth-Na-Bodhaige, Inc. The case is styled as Marcos Calcano on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Buth-Na-Bodhaige, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-10439 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 9, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Buth-Na-Bodhaige, Inc., doing business as The Body Shop, Inc., manufactures and retails cosmetics products. The Company offers bath, body care, skin care, make-up, hair care, and fragrance products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq. 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: nyjg@aol.com CASPER'S ICE: Fat Boy Ice Cream Lacks Vanilla, Rogers Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ Melissa Rogers, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Casper's Ice Cream Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-06064 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 29, 2019), targets the Defendant's fraudulent intent by its failure to accurately indicate that its Fat Boy vanilla ice cream products contained flavor from non-vanilla sources on the front label. The Defendant did so because it knows consumers prefer foods that are flavored from food ingredients instead of added flavor ingredients and contain enough of the characterizing food ingredients to flavor the Products, the Plaintiff contends. According to the complaint, Casper's Ice Cream manufactures, distributes, markets, labels and sells ice cream products purporting to contain flavor from their natural characterizing flavor, vanilla, under their Fat Boy Ice Cream brand (Products). The Products are labeled as containing vanilla ice cream between chocolate wafers (5.0 Fl. oz/147 mL) and are sold in packages of six and are available to consumers nationwide. The Products are misleading because they do not contain the amount, type and percentage of vanilla as a component of the flavoring in the product, which is required and consistent with consumer expectations, the lawsuit says. The Products' vanilla ice cream is not flavored only by vanilla, but contains flavors derived from non-vanilla sources, which is misleading to consumers, the Plaintiff asserts. The Plaintiff is represented by: Spencer Sheehan, Esq. SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 505 Northern Blvd., Suite 311 Great Neck, NY 11021 Telephone: (516) 303-0552 Facsimile: (516) 234-7800 E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com - and - Michael R. Reese, Esq. REESE LLP 100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor New York, NY 10025 Telephone: (212) 643-0500 Facsimile: (212) 253-4272 E-mail: mreese@reesellp.com COGNIZANT TECH: Bid to Dismiss NJ Consolidated Class Suit Pending ----------------------------------------------------------------- Cognizant Technology Solutions Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company's motion to dismiss a consolidated class action suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey remains pending. In 2016, three putative securities class action complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, naming the company and certain of its current and former officers as defendants. These complaints were consolidated into a single action and on April 7, 2017, the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint on behalf of a putative class of persons and entities who purchased our common stock during the period between February 27, 2015 and September 29, 2016, naming the company and certain of its current and former officers as defendants and alleging violations of the Exchange Act, based on allegedly false or misleading statements related to potential violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), the company's business, prospects and operations, and the effectiveness of its internal controls over financial reporting and its disclosure controls and procedures. The lead plaintiffs seek an award of compensatory damages, among other relief, and their reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint on June 6, 2017. On August 8, 2018, the Court issued an order which granted the motion to dismiss in part, including dismissal of all claims against current officers of the Company, and denied them in part. On September 7, 2018, the company filed a motion in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey to certify the August 8, 2018 order for immediate appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b). On October 18, 2018, the District Court issued an order granting the company's motion, and staying the action pending the outcome of the company's appeal petition to the Third Circuit. On October 29, 2018, the company filed a petition for permission to appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. On March 6, 2019, the Third Circuit denied the company's petition without prejudice. In an order dated March 19, 2019, the District Court directed the lead plaintiffs to provide the defendants with a proposed amended complaint. On April 26, 2019, lead plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint. The company filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint on June 10, 2019. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Cognizant Technology Solutions Corporation provides information technology consulting and technology services in North America, Europe, and Asia. The company was founded in 1994 and is based in Teaneck, New Jersey. COLE HAAN: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cole Haan LLC. The case is styled as Marcos Calcano on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Cole Haan LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-10440 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 9, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Cole Haan is a global men's and women's footwear and accessories brand that was founded in Chicago, Illinois in 1928.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq. 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: nyjg@aol.com COLGATE-PALMOLIVE CO: Asks Court to Seal Declaration of B. Keough ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as JAMIE RICHARDS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COLGATE-PALMOLIVE COMPANY, and DOES 1 through 10, Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-02934-JAR (E.D. Mo.), Colgate asks the Court on Oct. 29, 2019, for an order to seal declaration filed in support of notice of removal. Pursuant to Local Rule 13.05, Colgate-Palmolive asks for good cause shown that the Declaration of Brian Keough filed in support of Colgate's Notice of Removal, be placed under seal. The Declaration contain confidential information regarding retail and net sales of Lady Speed Stick Stainguard antiperspirant during the class period, including information obtained from the market research firm The Nielsen Company (US), LLC ("Nielsen"). Colgate asserts that Nielsen keeps this information confidential because it is proprietary and provided only to subscribers, and Colgate keeps this information confidential because it is contractually obligated to do so, and it gives Colgate a competitive advantage in the marketplace. Colgate-Palmolive is an American multinational consumer products company focused on the production, distribution and provision of household, health care, and personal care products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel F. Harvath, Esq. HARVATH LAW GROUP, LLC 75 W. Lockwood, Suite No. 1 Webster Groves, MO 63119 Telephone: (314) 550-3717 E-mail: dharvath@harvathlawgroup.com Defendant Colgate-Palmolive Company is represented by: Lisa A. Pake, Esq. Matthew A. Martin, Esq. HAAR & WOODS, LLP 1010 Market St., Suite 1620 St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 241-2224 Facsimile: (314) 241-2227 E-mail: lpake@haar-woods.com mmartin@haar-woods.com D'ONOFRIO GENERAL: Lopez Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages, Damages ----------------------------------------------------------------- ANGEL AMARO LOPEZ and JOSE TZUNUN TALE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. D'ONOFRIO GENERAL CONTRACTORS CORP. d/b/a D'ONOFRIO GENERAL CONSTRUCTION, YUKON ENTERPRISES INC., and JERRY D'ONOFRIO JR., as an individual, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-06078-LDH-PK (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 29, 2019), seeks to recover damages for egregious violations of state and federal wage and hour laws arising out of the Plaintiffs' employment by the Defendants. The Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages and liquidated damages in an amount exceeding $100,000. The Plaintiffs also seek interest, attorneys' fees, costs, and all other legal and equitable remedies this Court deems appropriate. Mr. Lopez was employed by the Defendants from May 2018 until February 2019. Mr. Tale was employed in July 2017 until February 2019. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants failed to pay their overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week at a wage rate of one and a half (1.5) times the regular wage to which they were entitled under New York Labor Law. Established in 1991, D'Onofrio General Contractors is a full service construction firm.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, PC 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Telephone: 718 263-9591 Facsimile: 718 263-9598 DAGER CORPORATION: Faces Northrip Suit in California Super. Court ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sacramento SCS Inc., et al. The case is captioned as Jocelyn Northrip and Savannah Perez on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Dager Corporation, Does 1-20, Sacramento SCS, Inc., and Supercuts, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, the Defendants, Case No. 34-2019-00267774-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Oct. 28, 2019). Sacramento SCS Inc. is in the Beauty Shops industry in Folsom, California. The suit alleges violation of employment-related laws. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Timothy B. Del Castillo, Esq. CASTLE LAW CALIFORNIA EMPLOYMENT COUNSEL 3200 Douglas Blvd., Suite 300 Roseville, CA 95661 Telephone: (916) 245-0122 DENNY'S INC: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage Under FLSA, Rafferty Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lindsay Rafferty, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated, known and unknown v. DENNY'S INC., a Florida corporation, Case No. 1:19-cv-24706-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Nov. 13, 2019), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act for the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff all earned minimum wages. According to the complaint, the Defendant has a policy and practice of paying its servers sub-minimum hourly wages, tip-credit wages without informing them of the tip-credit provisions of the FLSA. The Defendant violated the FLSA by enforcing this policy or practice even when it required those employees to perform non-tipped work that is unrelated to their tip occupation says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed as a server at the Defendant's Denny's restaurant. The Defendant owns and operates a chain of Denny's restaurants.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John R. Byrne, Esq. LEON COSGROVE, LLP 255 Alhambra Circle, Suite 800 Miami, FL 33134 Phone: (305) 740-1975 Email: jbyrne@leoncosgrove.com - and - Clifford P. Bendau, II, Esq. Christopher J. Bendau, Esq. BENDAU & BENDAU PLLC P.O. Box 97066 Phoenix, AZ 85060 Phone: (480) 382-5176 Fax: (480) 304-3805 Email: cliffordbendau@bendaulaw.com chris@bendaulaw.com - and – James L. Simon, Esq. Andrew J. Simon, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF SIMON & SIMON 6000 Freedom Square Dr. Independence, OH 44131 Phone: (216) 525-8890 Fax: (216) 642-5814 Email: jameslsimonlaw@yahoo.com - and – Edward W. Ciolko, Esq. Matthew D. Brady, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH, LLP 1133 Pen Ave., 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Phone: 412-322-9243 Facsimile: 412-231-0246 Email: eciolko@carlsonlynch.com - and - Gerald D. Wells, III, Esq. Robert J. Gray, Esq. CONNOLLY WELLS & GRAY, LLP 2200 Renaissance Blvd., Suite 275 King of Prussia, PA 19406 Phone: 610-822-3700 Facsimile: 610-822-3800 Email: gwells@cwglaw.com rgray@cwglaw.com DNC SERVICES: Pa Democratic State Panel Files Petition to Appeal ---------------------------------------------------------------- A Petition for Permission to Appeal was filed by the Defendants in the class action styled as Bethany Katz, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated, Plaintiff-Respondent v. PENNSYLVANIA DEMOCRATIC STATE COMMITTEE, DNC SERVICES CORP, DBA Democratic National Committee, Defendants-Petitioners, Case No. 19-8043 (3rd Cir., U.S. Ct. of Appeals, Nov. 7, 2019). The Pennsylvania Democratic State Committee (PADSC) is the governing body of the Pennsylvania Democratic Party. Founded in 1792, the Committee is responsible for directing and promoting the guiding principles and core values of the institution.[BN] The Plaintiff-Respondent is represented by: Joshua S. Boyette, Esq. Personal: 856-265-4620 Matthew D. Miller, Esq. Personal: 856-685-7420 Swartz Swidler 1101 Kings Highway North, Suite 402 Cherry Hill, NJ 08034 [NTC Retained] The Defendants-Petitioners is represented by: Jonathan D. Christman, Esq. Fox Rothschild 10 Sentry Parkway P.O. Box 3001, Suite 200 Blue Bell, PA 19422 Personal: 610-397-6500 [NTC Retained] - and - Thomas J. Barton, Esq. Drinker Biddle & Reath One Logan Square, Suite 2000 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Personal: 215-988-2834 [NTC Retained] - and - William Stafford, Esq. Perkins Coie 1201 Third Avenue Suite 4900 Seattle, WA 98101 Personal: 206-359-6217 [NTC Retained] ECOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT: Faces Rosenblatt & Meidenbaur Suits ------------------------------------------------------------ Ecology and Environment, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2019, for the fiscal year ended July 31, 2019, that the company has been named as a defendant in two class action suits related to its merger with WSP Global Inc. (WSP) entitled, Jordan Rosenblatt v. Ecology & Environment, Inc., et al. and Randall Meidenbauer v. Ecology & Environment Inc. et al., respectively. On August 28, 2019, Ecology's Board of Directors caused the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with WSP. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, shareholders of Ecology will receive $15.00 in cash and a special dividend of up to $0.50 for each share of Ecology common stock they own. On October 8 and 14, 2019, two complaints challenging the Merger were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned Jordan Rosenblatt v. Ecology & Environment, Inc., et al. and Randall Meidenbauer. v. Ecology & Environment Inc. et al., respectively. The Rosenblatt complaint was filed as a putative class action on behalf of the public shareholders of the Company, while the Meidenbauer complaint was filed as an individual action on behalf of the named plaintiff only. Both complaints name as defendants the Company and the members of the Company's Board of Directors. The Rosenblatt complaint generally alleges violations of federal securities laws with respect to purported disclosure deficiencies in the preliminary proxy statement for the Merger that the Company filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) on September 26, 2019, and the Meidenbauer complaint generally alleges violations of federal securities laws with respect to purported disclosure deficiencies in the definitive proxy statement for the Merger that the Company filed with the SEC on October 8, 2019. The complaints seek various forms of relief, including a preliminary injunction preventing the Company from proceeding with the stockholders meeting or the consummation of the Merger until the alleged material information omitted from the proxy statement is disclosed, rescission of the Merger if it is consummated, damages, attorneys' fees and expenses. Ecology and Environment said, "The defendants have not yet responded to the complaints but believe that the claims asserted against them are without merit." Ecology and Environment, Inc. (EEI) is a global broad-based environmental consulting firm. The Company offers consulting services in variety of sectors including energy, natural resource management and restoration, green programs, hazardous material services and health sciences. EEI serves both commercial and government clients. The company is based in Lancaster, New York. ELECTRONIC COMMODITIES: Guglielmo Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Electronic Commodities Exchange, L.P. The case is styled as Joseph Guglielmo, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Electronic Commodities Exchange, L.P., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-10397 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 8, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Electronic Commodities Exchange, L.P. (trade name Ritani) is in the Jewelry, Precious Stones and Precious Metals business.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Russel Craig Weinrib, Esq. Stein Saks PLLC 285 Passaic St., Suite 5 Hakensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: rweinrib@steinsakslegal.com EVERCORE INC: Bid to Dismiss Suit over Adeptus' 2014 IPO Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- Evercore Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the motion to dismiss the second amended complaint in the consolidated class action lawsuit against Evercore Group L.L.C. (EGL) remains pending. Beginning on or about November 16, 2016, several putative securities class action complaints were filed against Adeptus Health Inc. ("Adeptus") and certain others, including EGL as underwriter, in connection with Adeptus' June 2014 initial public offering and May 2015, July 2015 and June 2016 secondary public offerings. The cases were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas where a consolidated complaint was filed asserting, in part, that the offering materials issued in connection with the four public offerings violated the U.S. Securities Act of 1933 by containing alleged misstatements and omissions. On April 19, 2017, Adeptus filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy and was subsequently removed as a defendant. On November 21, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint, and the defendants filed motions to dismiss on February 5, 2018. On September 12, 2018, the defendants' motions to dismiss were granted as to the claims relating to the initial public offering and the May 2015 secondary public offering, but denied as to the claims relating to the July 2015 and June 2016 secondary public offerings. EGL underwrote approximately 293 shares of common stock in the July 2015 secondary public offering, representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $30,800, but did not underwrite any shares in the June 2016 secondary public offering. On September 25, 2018, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint relating only to the July 2015 and June 2016 secondary public offerings. On December 7, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, and the defendants filed briefs in opposition. On February 16, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint after having been granted leave to amend by the court. On March 4, 2019, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss as to the second amended complaint. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Evercore Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as an independent investment banking advisory firm in the United States, Europe, Latin America, and internationally. It operates through two segments, Investment Banking and Investment Management. The company was formerly known as Evercore Partners Inc. and changed its name to Evercore Inc. in August 2017. Evercore Inc. was founded in 1995 and is headquartered in New York, New York. FACEBOOK INC: Continues to Defend Facial Recognition Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Facebook, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company continues to defend a putative class action suit related to facial recognition feature that violates the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. On April 1, 2015, a putative class action was filed against the company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California by Facebook users alleging that the "tag suggestions" facial recognition feature violates the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act, and seeking statutory and punitive damages and injunctive relief. On April 16, 2018, the district court certified a class of Illinois residents, and on May 14, 2018, the district court denied both parties' motions for summary judgment. On May 29, 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted the company's petition for review of the class certification order and stayed the proceeding. On August 8, 2019, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the class certification order. The company plans to request that the U.S. Supreme Court review the decision of the Ninth Circuit. The district court has not yet scheduled a trial date, but it could be scheduled as early as the first quarter of 2020. Facebook said, "Although we believe this lawsuit is without merit, and we are vigorously defending it, we believe there is a reasonable possibility that the ultimate potential loss related to this matter could be material." Facebook, Inc., incorporated on July 29, 2004, is focused on building products that enable people to connect and share through mobile devices, personal computers and other surfaces. The Company also enables people to discover and learn about what is going on in the world around them, enables people to share their opinions, ideas, photos and videos, and other activities with audiences ranging from their friends to the public, and stay connected by accessing its products. The Company's products include Facebook, Instagram, Messenger, WhatsApp and Oculus. The company is based in Menlo Park, California. FACEBOOK INC: March 2018 Suit over Cyber-Attack Pending ------------------------------------------------------- Facebook, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company continues to defend a consolidated class action suit in connection with a third-party cyber-attack. Beginning on March 20, 2018, multiple putative class actions and derivative actions were filed in state and federal courts in the United States and elsewhere against the company and certain of its directors and officers alleging violations of securities laws, breach of fiduciary duties, and other causes of action in connection with the company's platform and user data practices as well as the misuse of certain data by a developer that shared such data with third parties in violation of our terms and policies, and seeking unspecified damages and injunctive relief. Beginning on July 27, 2018, two putative class actions were filed in federal court in the United States against the company and certain of its directors and officers alleging violations of securities laws in connection with the disclosure of the company's earnings results for the second quarter of 2018 and seeking unspecified damages. These two actions subsequently were transferred and consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California with the putative securities class action described above relating to the company's platform and user data practices. On September 25, 2019, the district court granted the company's motion to dismiss the consolidated putative securities class action, with leave to amend. The company believes these lawsuits are without merit, and it is vigorously defending them. In addition, the company's platform and user data practices, as well as the events surrounding the misuse of certain data by a developer, became the subject of U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC), SEC, state attorneys general, and other government inquiries in the United States, Europe, and other jurisdictions. In July 2019, the company entered into a settlement and modified consent order to resolve the FTC inquiry, which is pending federal court approval, and the company also entered into a final settlement to resolve the SEC inquiry. Facebook said, "Among other matters, our settlement with the FTC requires us to pay a penalty of $5.0 billion and to significantly enhance our practices and processes for privacy compliance and oversight. We have recognized the penalty in accrued expenses and other current liabilities on our condensed consolidated balance sheet as of September 30, 2019." Facebook, Inc., incorporated on July 29, 2004, is focused on building products that enable people to connect and share through mobile devices, personal computers and other surfaces. The Company also enables people to discover and learn about what is going on in the world around them, enables people to share their opinions, ideas, photos and videos, and other activities with audiences ranging from their friends to the public, and stay connected by accessing its products. The Company's products include Facebook, Instagram, Messenger, WhatsApp and Oculus. The company is based in Menlo Park, California. FACEBOOK INC: September 2018 Suit over Cyber-Attack Pending ----------------------------------------------------------- Facebook, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company continues to defend multiple putative class action suits in connection with a third-party cyber-attack. Beginning on September 28, 2018, multiple putative class actions were filed in state and federal courts in the United States and elsewhere against the company alleging violations of consumer protection laws and other causes of action in connection with a third-party cyber-attack that exploited a vulnerability in Facebook's code to steal user access tokens and access certain profile information from user accounts on Facebook, and seeking unspecified damages and injunctive relief. Facebook said, "We believe these lawsuits are without merit, and we are vigorously defending them. In addition, the events surrounding this cyber-attack became the subject of Irish Data Protection Commission (IDPC) and other government inquiries." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Facebook, Inc., incorporated on July 29, 2004, is focused on building products that enable people to connect and share through mobile devices, personal computers and other surfaces. The Company also enables people to discover and learn about what is going on in the world around them, enables people to share their opinions, ideas, photos and videos, and other activities with audiences ranging from their friends to the public, and stay connected by accessing its products. The Company's products include Facebook, Instagram, Messenger, WhatsApp and Oculus. The company is based in Menlo Park, California. FCA US: Class in Victorino Product Liability Suit Certified ----------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Southern District of California issued an Order granting Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for Class Certification in the case captioned CARLOS VICTORINO and ADAM TAVITIAN, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. FCA US LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendant. Case No. 16cv1617-GPC(JLB). (S.D. Cal.) Plaintiff Carlos Victorino filed a putative first amended class action complaint based on defects in the 2013-2016 Dodge Dart vehicles equipped with a Fiat C635 manual transmission that cause his vehicle's clutch to fail and stick to the floor. Defendant FCA US LLC is the manufacturer of his vehicle. The FAC alleges five causes of action for: violations of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA); California's unfair competition law (UCL); a state law breach of implied warranty pursuant to the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (Song-Beverly Act); a federal law breach of implied warranty pursuant to the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (MMWA); and unjust enrichment. Before the District Court is Plaintiff Carlos Victorino's renewed motion for class certification after the stay in the case was lifted when the Ninth Circuit issued its decision in Nguyen v. Nissan North Am., Inc., 932 F.3d 811 (9th Cir. 2019). In the renewed motion for class certification, Plaintiff has abandoned his prior class definition which included a nationwide implied warranty class and included used vehicles. Now, Plaintiff seeks to certify a class to include "All persons who purchased or leased in California, from an authorized dealership, a new Class Vehicle." In the present case, Plaintiff moves for class certification solely on the Song-Beverly claim and not the MMWA or the UCL claims. Accordingly, the District Court limits its ruling solely on the issue of whether a Song-Beverly class should be certified. Predominance under Rule 23(b)(3) Defendant's focal argument is that Plaintiff has not proven, with evidence, that common questions of law or fact predominate on the question of whether there is a defect in ALL class vehicles at the time of purchase on the claim for breach of implied warranty of merchantability. The fact that Plaintiff's vehicle has not yet exhibited the defect demonstrates that not all class vehicles have a defective reservoir hose. Consequently, Plaintiff's failure to prove there is a defect in all Class Vehicles renders his motion for class certification deficient on predominance as well as whether the defect caused the claimed damages, whether the proposed damage methodology fits his theory of liability and whether typicality and adequacy have been satisfied. In response, Plaintiff argues that common evidence shows that every Class Vehicle had a defective reservoir hose at the time of sale. Under Rule 23(b)(3), the plaintiff must demonstrate that the questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members. Predominance is satisfied when common questions present a significant aspect of the case and they can be resolved for all members of the class in a single adjudication. In addition, class damages must be sufficiently traceable to plaintiff's liability case. As a threshold matter, the District Court addresses both parties' argument that the Court made certain findings in prior orders that support their positions on whether predominance has been satisfied. Plaintiff argues that the Court concluded that ALL Class Vehicles contain the clutch defect while Defendant argues that the Court found that Plaintiff cannot prove that ALL the Class Vehicles have the defective clutch reservoir hose. The District Court disagrees with both parties' construction of its prior orders. On summary judgment, the Court, on June 14, 2017, stated that FCA recognized in its reply brief that Plaintiff's vehicle may have a reservoir hose that could leach plasticizer. Contrary to Plaintiff's argument, the Court did not conclude that FCA admitted that all Class Vehicles were equipped with a defective reservoir hose, but only that the Class Vehicles may be equipped with one. On May 10, 2018, on FCA's motion for reconsideration, the Court granted summary judgment on the CLRA, related UCL and unjust enrichment claims, which require a showing of the existence of a defect, because Plaintiff had not presented evidence that his vehicle suffered from a defective reservoir hose that leaked plasticizer. Based on this, Defendant argues that the Court concluded that not all Class Vehicles were defective at the time of sale. However, the Court only concluded that Plaintiff had not yet come forward with evidence that the clutch defect in his vehicle was caused by a defective reservoir hose that was leaking plasticizer for purposes of the CLRA and related claims and not on the breach of implied warranty claim. The fact that Plaintiff's vehicle has not yet manifested a defect is not a required showing on class certification and is a merits-based question. The Court declines to consider or rely on the parties' misconstruction of the Court's prior orders in ruling on the instant class certification motion and instead considers whether, on the existing record, Plaintiff has demonstrated that common issues of fact and law will predominate on the claim for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability. The Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (Song-Beverly Act) provides that every sale of consumer goods that are sold at retail in this state shall be accompanied by the manufacturer's and the retail seller's implied warranty that the goods are merchantable. Unless specific disclaimer methods are followed, an implied warranty of merchantability accompanies every retail sale of consumer goods in the state. An implied warranty of merchantability under the Song-Beverly Act requires that consumer goods are fit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are used. Here, the FAC alleges that the implied warranty included, among other things: (i) a warranty that the Class Vehicles and their Clutch Systems were manufactured, supplied, distributed, and/or sold by FCA were safe and reliable for providing transportation and (ii) a warranty that the Class Vehicles and their Clutch Systems would be fit for their intended use while the Class Vehicles were being operated. In his motion, Plaintiff argues that common issues predominate regarding whether the Class Vehicles are merchantable and whether the defect constitutes an unreasonable safety risk because all Class Vehicles were equipped with the same defectively designed Clutch System at the time of sale. In opposition, Defendant argues that Plaintiff has failed to prove with evidentiary support that common questions predominate on the issue of whether there was a defect in all Class Vehicles at the time of sale; therefore, individual questions will predominate over common ones. Defendant explains that this is not an issue concerning manifestation of a defect but whether each Class Vehicle had a defect at all. FCA asserts that this is also not an issue concerning a design defect that applies to all vehicles but a non-uniform manufacturing defect that affected only a limited number of Class Vehicles. FCA maintains that it has admitted that a limited number of the Class Vehicles were sold with a reservoir hose that were found to leach excessive plasticizer that could contaminate the clutch system and cause the pedal down issue. The parties present a factual dispute on the merits of whether there was a defect on all Class Vehicles at the time of sale and is not proper on a motion for class certification. The Court's role on class certification is to determine whether common issues of fact or law predominate over individual questions. On this question, Plaintiff does not need to prove the existence of a defect. In order to determine whether Rule 23(b)(3)'s predominance requirement is met, the Court need only consider Plaintiffs' theory of the case and the type of evidence that Plaintiffs will use to prove this theory. Since the beginning of the litigation, Plaintiff has alleged that the Class Vehicles contain a design defect that was inherent in all Class Vehicles at the time of sale. Plaintiff's expert has also opined that the defect was present at the time of sale in all Class Vehicles. Plaintiff's theory of the case is that the Class Vehicles had a defective Clutch System at the time of sale and was not remedied by the X62 Extended Warranty. Damages Plaintiff contends that his damages model comports with his theory of liability following the Ninth Circuit's ruling in Nguyen where the court found that the plaintiff's benefit-of-the-bargain damages model, similar to the one proposed by Victorino, is cognizable under the Song-Beverly Act and comported with his theory of liability. Plaintiff must present a damages model that is consistent with his liability case, and the court must conduct a rigorous analysis to determine whether that is so. Plaintiff must be able to show that his damages stemmed from the defendant's actions that created the legal liability. While a plaintiff must present the likely method for determining class damages, it is not necessary to show that this method will work with certainty at this time. Comcast demands that Plaintiff demonstrates, with evidence, that there is a class-wide method of determining damages that is consistent with his theory of liability. In Nguyen, the plaintiff alleged a defect in the manual transmission of his vehicle arguing that the CSC had a design flaw because of its material make-up, including aluminum/plastic, that did not effectively transfer heat. The plaintiff's theory of liability was that the defect was inherent in each of the Class Vehicles at the time of purchase, regardless of when and if the defect manifested" and was not based on the performance of the clutch system. Here, similarly, Plaintiff's theory is that all the Class Vehicles inherently had a defective Clutch System at the time of sale and the benefit of the bargain theory purports to measure the economic harm at the point of sale or before based on the difference in value between a defective and a defect-free Clutch System. This benefit of the bargain theory claims to measure the difference in the value represented and the value actually received, what the vehicle is worth with and without the defect and are susceptible of measurement across the entire class. In arriving at this measurement, Boyles proposes that payment in the amount of the cost necessary to cure the Clutch Defect would make Class Members whole and provide them with the benefit of their bargain. Therefore, under the ruling in Nguyen, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has presented a benefit of the bargain damages model that is consistent with his theory that all Class Vehicles were equipped with a defective reservoir hose at the time of sale. In sum, predominance has been satisfied under Rule 23(a)(3). Superiority under Rule 23(b)(3) Under Rule 23(b)(3), the plaintiff must also demonstrate that a class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy. Superiority requires a consideration of (A) the class members' interests in individually controlling the prosecution or defense of separate actions (B) the extent and nature of any litigation concerning the controversy already begun by or against class members (C) the desirability or undesirability of concentrating the litigation in the particular forum; and (D) the likely difficulties in managing a class action. The superiority requirement tests whether classwide litigation of common issues will reduce litigation costs and promote greater efficiency. Plaintiff asserts that the four factors to support superiority are met given the size of the class and the costs of litigating on an individual basis relative to the potentially small recovery. Defendant responds that numerous individual issues would require separate mini-trials and make the case unmanageable. However, as analyzed above, the Court concludes that common issues predominate and having class members file separate lawsuits will increase litigations costs and not be efficient. A determination whether a defect exists in all vehicles will not require individual determinations, and therefore, a class action is the superior method of efficiently and fairly adjudicating Plaintiff and the class members' claims in this case. Consequently, the Court finds the superiority requirement of Rule 23(b)(3) met. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) Numerosity and Commonality Plaintiff argues that the class is sufficiently numerous to satisfy Rule 23(a) and commonality has been met. Defendant does not challenge Plaintiff's argument that the putative class is sufficiently numerous nor that commonality has been satisfied. To establish numerosity, a plaintiff must show that the represented class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. Plaintiff states that over 2000 class vehicles were sold in California. Based on these numbers, the Court concludes that the numerosity element has been met. As to commonality, Rule 23(a)(2) requires Plaintiff to show there are questions of law or fact common to the class. Commonality requires the plaintiff to demonstrate that the class members have suffered the same injury. Plaintiff asserts that the common question on the breach of implied warranty is whether the defectively designed Clutch System renders the Class Vehicles unmerchantable. He argues that common evidence will show that the Class Vehicles were not fit for their ordinary purposes and that all Class Vehicles were unmerchantable when they were sold. He further contends that the existence of the Clutch Defect is also a common question as Defendant implemented the X62 Extended Warranty to apply to all Class Vehicles to address the alleged defect without distinguishing between models or model years. Defendants do not dispute Plaintiff's commonality argument under Rule 23(a)(2). Again, as it found in the prior order denying class certification, the Court agrees with Plaintiff and concludes that common questions apply to the entire class and commonality has been met. Typicality Under typicality, the Court must determine whether the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class. Plaintiff argues that his claims concern the purchase or lease of the Class Vehicle equipped with a defectively designed clutch system at the time of purchase and his and the proposed class' common injury is the overpayment of his Class Vehicle when he purchased it which is typical of the class. In response, Defendant argues that Victorino's self-serving statement that his claims are based on the purchase or lease of a new Class Vehicle equipped with a defectively designed Clutch System is not proof that his vehicle is equipped with a defective reservoir hose. FCA challenges to typicality is premised on its argument that Plaintiff has not provided any proof that his vehicle has a defective reservoir hose that leaches plasticizer, and therefore, his claim is not typical of the class. Because the Court rejected FCA's argument that Plaintiff did not have to prove that his vehicle has a defective reservoir hose on class certification, FCA's argument is without merit. Victorino as well as the proposed class members allege their Clutch Systems were defective when they purchased their vehicles and seek damages for breach of the implied warranty. Plaintiff's injuries and those of the class align as they all suffered the same injury, the overpayment of their vehicles, and typicality has been demonstrated. Adequacy As to adequacy, Rule 23(a)(4) provides that class representatives must fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. In analyzing whether Rule 23(a)(4) has been met, the Court must ask two questions: (1) do the named plaintiffs and their counsel have any conflicts of interest with other class members and (2) will the named plaintiffs and their counsel prosecute the action vigorously on behalf of the class? Plaintiff asks the Court to rely on its prior ruling finding adequacy. Defendant argues that adequacy is lacking because Plaintiff will be subject to unique defenses that will become the focus of the litigation. FCA admits that 164 of the proposed class members have a defective reservoir hose but Plaintiff is not one of them; therefore, he is not adequate because the defense against his claim will be focused on whether his vehicle was not merchantable due to a defective reservoir hose. Plaintiff's theory of liability is that he and all putative class members were harmed at the time of purchase irregardless if the defect manifested at that time. Whether Plaintiff's vehicle had manifested a defect is not relevant at this stage and his case rises or falls based on the common proof he claims he will introduce at trial. Therefore, the fact that Plaintiff's vehicle had not yet manifested a defect does not make the defense the focus of the litigation. The Court concludes that adequacy has been met. Accordingly, the District Court grants Plaintiff Victorino's renewed motion for class certification. The Court certifies a Class consisting of: All persons who purchased or leased in California, from an authorized dealership, a new Class Vehicle primarily for personal, family, or household purposes. Carlos Victorino is appointed as Class Representative, the Court further rules. A full-text copy of the District Court's October 17, 2019 Order at https://tinyurl.com/y25lpo35 from Leagle.com Carlos Victorino, individually, and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, represented by Cody R. Padgett - Cody.Padgett@CapstoneLawyers.com - Capstone Law APC, Mark Alan Ozzello - mcampbell@murphycampbell.com - Capstone Law, APC, Robert Kenneth Friedl - robert.friedl@capstonelawyers.com - Capstone Law APC, Tarek H. Zohdy - Tarek.Zohdy@CapstoneLawyers.com - Capstone Law APC & Trisha K. Monesi -Trisha.Monesi@CapstoneLawyers.com - Capstone Law, APC. Adam Tavitian, individually, and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, represented by Cody R. Padgett - Cody.Padgett@capstonelawyers.com - Capstone Law APC, Jordan L. Lurie - Jordan.Lurie@capstonelawyers.com - Pomerantz LLP, Robert Kenneth Friedl -robert.friedl@capstonelawyers.com - Capstone Law APC & Tarek H. Zohdy - Tarek.Zohdy@CapstoneLawyers.com - Capstone Law APC. FCA US LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendant, represented by Kathleen Ann Wisniewski , 505 N 7th St, St. Louis, MO 63101, Thompson Coburn LLP, 505 N 7th St, St. Louis, MO 63101, pro hac vice, Stephen Anthony D'Aunoy , Thompson Coburn LLP, 505 N 7th St, St. Louis, MO 63101, pro hac vice, Thomas L. Azar, Jr. , Thompson Coburn LLP, 505 N 7th St, St. Louis, MO 63101, pro hac vice, William M. Low , Higgs Fletcher & Mack LLP & Edwin Mendelson Boniske , Higgs Fletcher & Mack, LLP, 401 West A Street, Suite 2600, San Diego, CA 92101 FEDERAL SAVINGS: McDermott Seeks to Certify Loan Originators Class ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled MICHAEL MCDERMOTT and DOUGLAS FINNEGAN, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE FEDERAL SAVINGS BANK, JOHN T. CALK, and STEVE CALK, Case No. 14 CV 6657 (WFK)(SJB) (E.D.N.Y.), asks the Court for an order: 1. certifying a Rule 23 class consisting of the forty-nine (49) loan originators who worked for DE Capital, A Division of The Federal Savings Bank under the Marketing Services Agreement entered into between The Federal Savings Bank and Douglas Elliman Real Estate; 2. appointing Named Plaintiff Michael McDermott as Class Representative; 3. appointing the law firms of Neil H. Greenberg & Associates, P.C., Erik H. Langeland, P.C., and Stephan Zouras, LLP as Class Counsel; and 4. approving the Proposed Notice of Class Action and directing that such notice be distributed to the Class Members.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin M. Reilly, Esq. NEIL H. GREENBERG & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 4242 Merrick Road Massapequa, NY 11758 Telephone: (516) 228-5100 E-mail: nhglaw@nhglaw.com - and - James B. Zouras, Esq. STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP 100 North Riverside Plaza, Suite 2150 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 233-1550 E-mail: jzouras@stephanzouras.com - and - Erik H. Langeland, Esq. ERIK LANGELAND, P.C. 733 Third Avenue, 15th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 354-6270 E-mail: elangeland@langelandlaw.com FLEX LTD: Motion to Dismiss Calif. Class Suit Due Dec. 4 -------------------------------------------------------- Flex Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 27, 2019, that defendants have a December 4, 2019 deadline to move to dismiss the putative class action pending before the Northern District of California federal district court. On May 8, 2018, a putative class action was filed in the Northern District of California against the Company and certain officers alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5, promulgated thereunder, alleging misstatements and/or omissions in certain of the Company's financial results, press releases and the Securities and Exchange Commisssion (SEC) filings made during the putative class period of January 26, 2017 through April 26, 2018. On October 1, 2018, the Court appointed lead plaintiff and lead plaintiff's counsel in the case. On November 28, 2018, lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint alleging misstatements and/or omissions in certain of the Company's SEC filings, press releases, earnings calls, and analyst and investor conferences and expanding the putative class period through October 25, 2018. On April 3, 2019, the Court vacated its prior order appointing lead plaintiff and lead plaintiff's counsel and reopened the lead plaintiff appointment process. On September 26, 2019, the Court appointed a new lead plaintiff and lead plaintiff's counsel in the case. Lead plaintiff's deadline to file a further amended complaint is November 8, 2019, and Defendants' deadline to move to dismiss is December 4, 2019. Flex said, "Any existing or future lawsuits could be time-consuming, result in significant expense and divert the attention and resources of our management and other key employees, as well as harm our reputation, business, financial condition or results of operations." Flex Ltd. provides design, engineering, manufacturing, and supply chain services and solutions to original equipment manufacturers worldwide. It operates through High Reliability Solutions, Industrial and Emerging Industries, Communications & Enterprise Compute, and Consumer Technologies Group segments. The company was formerly known as Flextronics International Ltd. and changed its name to Flex Ltd. in September 2016. Flex Ltd. was founded in 1990 and is based in Singapore. FREE ENERGY: Trujillo Sues Over Unsolicited Autodialed Texts ------------------------------------------------------------ MICHAEL TRUJILLO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FREE ENERGY SAVINGS COMPANY, LLC, D/B/A QUALITY CONSERVATION SERVICES, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendant, Case No. 5:19-cv-02072 (C.D. Cal., Oct. 29, 2019), alleges that the Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise, in part, by sending unsolicited autodialed text messages to wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, part of QCS's marketing plan includes sending text messages en masse to consumers directing them to enroll to see if they qualify for energy saving programs by visiting QCS's website QCSCA.com/enroll. Unfortunately, QCS caused such text messages to be sent using an autodialer without first obtaining the necessary prior express consent. To make matters worse, consumers have received multiple text messages despite having registered their phone numbers on the Do Not Call registry, the lawsuit says. QCS is a for-profit company that provides energy-saving improvements to residences in California's Bay Area and the State's Greater Los Angeles Area.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Afshin Siman, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF AFSHIN SIMAN 74 6210 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 211 Los Angeles, CA 90048 Telephone: (424) 229-9778 E-mail: siman@simanlawfirm.com - and - Steven L. Woodrow, Esq. Patrick H. Peluso, Esq. WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC 3900 East Mexico Ave., Suite 300 Denver, CO 80210 Telephone: (720) 213-0675 Facsimile: (303) 927-0809 E-mail: swoodrow@woodrowpeluso.com ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com GLOBAL PAYMENTS: Peters, Wolf and Cheng Suits Voluntarily Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------------------- Global Payments Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the class action suits entitled, Peters v. Total System Services, Inc. et al. (Case No. 4:19-cv-00114) Wolf v. Total System Services, Inc., et al. (Case No. 4:19-cv-00115), and Cheng v. Total System Services, et al. (Case No: 1:19-cv-01513-UNA) have been voluntarily dismissed On May 27, 2019, Global Payments and Total System Services, Inc. ("TSYS") entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger ("Merger Agreement") providing for the merger of TSYS with and into Global Payments, with Global Payments as the surviving entity (the "Merger"). TSYS is a leading global payments provider, offering seamless, secure and innovative solutions across the payments spectrum - for issuers, merchants and consumers. Six putative class action lawsuits challenging the Merger were filed. Two of these lawsuits, captioned Peters v. Total System Services, Inc. et al. (Case No. 4:19-cv-00114) and Wolf v. Total System Services, Inc., et al. (Case No. 4:19-cv-00115), were filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia on July 18, 2019. The third lawsuit, captioned Drulias v. Global Payments Inc., et al. (Case No. 60774/2019) was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Westchester on July 19, 2019. The fourth lawsuit, captioned Hickey v. Total System Services, Inc., et al. (Civil Action No. 1:19-cv-03337-LMM) was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, on July 23, 2019. The fifth lawsuit, captioned, Cason v. Total System Services, Inc., et al. (Case No. 1:19-cv-07471) was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on August 9, 2019. The sixth lawsuit, captioned, Cheng v. Total System Services, et al. (Case No: 1:19-cv-01513-UNA) was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware on August 13, 2019. The complaints filed in the lawsuits assert, among other matters, claims for filing a materially incomplete registration statement with the SEC. Global Payments and TSYS released supplemental disclosures relating to the Merger in late August 2019, and the Peters lawsuit, the Wolf lawsuit and the Cheng lawsuit have been voluntarily dismissed. Global Payments Inc., incorporated in September, 2000, is a provider of payment technology services. The Company provides payment and digital commerce solutions. The Company operates through three segments: North America, Europe and Asia-Pacific. The company is based in Atlanta, Georgia. GOOGLE LLC: AdTrader Moves to Certify 3 Classes and 1 Subclass -------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled ADTRADER, INC., et al. v. GOOGLE LLC, Case No. 5:17-cv-07082-BLF (N.D. Cal.), seek an order certifying the DBM Advertiser Class, DBM-AdX Advertiser Subclass, AdX Advertiser Class, and AdWords Advertiser Class. Alternatively, the Plaintiffs seek an order certifying the DBM Advertiser Class, DBM-AdX Advertiser Sub-Class, AdX Advertiser Class, and AdWords Advertiser Class only as to the issue of Google's liability for breach of contract relevant to each class/sub-class. Plaintiffs AdTrader, Inc., Classic and Food EOOD, LML Consult Ltd., Ad Crunch Ltd., and Specialized Collections Bureau, Inc., define the four proposed classes for the specified claims: 1. The DBM Advertiser Class for breach of the DBM Agreement. The Plaintiffs ask that AdTrader, Classic, LML, and Ad Crunch be appointed class representatives for this class. The members of this class are defined as: All persons and entities: (1) whose Google DoubleClick Bid Manager advertiser accounts were subject to the DoubleClick Advertising Platform Agreement for the United States; (2) who were charged by Google through their DoubleClick Bid Manager accounts for clicks or impressions on advertisements appearing on the website of any third-party publisher; and (3) who did not receive refunds or credits from Google even though it withheld payment to that publisher for those clicks or impressions; 2. The DBM-AdX Advertiser Sub-Class for breach of the DBM Agreement, breach of the AdX Advertiser Agreement, violation of California's False Advertising Law ("FAL"), and violation of California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"). The Plaintiffs ask that AdTrader, Classic, LML, and Ad Crunch be appointed class representatives for this class. The members of this class are defined as: All persons and entities: (1) whose Google DoubleClick Bid Manager advertiser accounts were subject to the DoubleClick Advertising Platform Agreement for the United States; (2) whose Google DoubleClick Ad Exchange advertiser accounts were subject to the DoubleClick Ad Exchange Master Service Agreement for the United States; (3) who were charged by Google through their DoubleClick Bid Manager accounts for clicks or impressions on advertisements appearing on any Ad Exchange publisher website at any time during the applicable limitations period; and (4) who did not receive refunds or credits from Google even though it withheld payment to that publisher for those clicks or impressions in connection with any invalid activity or any breach of contract, including any policy violation; 3. The AdX Advertiser Class for breach of the AdX Advertiser Agreement, violation of the FAL and violation of the UCL. The Plaintiffs ask that AdTrader, Classic, LML, and Ad Crunch be appointed class representatives for this class. The members of this class are defined as: All persons and entities: (1) whose Google DoubleClick Ad Exchange advertiser accounts were subject to the DoubleClick Ad Exchange Master Service Agreement for the United States; (2) who were charged by Google through their Ad Exchange Buyer accounts for clicks or impressions on advertisements appearing on any Ad Exchange publisher website at any time during the applicable limitations period; and (3) who did not receive refunds or credits from Google even though it withheld payment to that publisher for those clicks or impressions in connection with any invalid activity or any breach of contract, including any policy violation; and 4. The AdWords Advertiser Class for breach of the AdWords Agreement, violation of the FAL, and violation of the UCL. The Plaintiffs ask that AdTrader, Classic, LML, Ad Crunch, and SCB be appointed class representatives for this class. The members for this class are defined as: All persons and entities: (1) whose Google AdWords advertiser accounts were subject to the Google Inc. Advertising Program Terms for the United States; (2) who were charged by Google through their AdWords accounts for clicks or impressions on advertisements appearing on any DoubleClick Ad Exchange publisher website at any time during the applicable limitations period; and (3) who did not receive refunds or credits from Google even though it withheld payment to that publisher for those clicks or impressions in connection with any invalid activity or any breach of contract, including any policy violation. Excluded from the proposed classes are Google's officers, directors, managerial employees, and their immediate families, as well as this Court and the Court's immediate family members. The Plaintiffs ask that Gaw Poe LLP be appointed class counsel for each class. The Court will commence a hearing on February 20, 2020, at 9:00 a.m., to consider the Motion.[CC] Plaintiffs AdTrader, Inc., Classic and Food EOOD, LML CONSULT Ltd., Ad Crunch Ltd., Fresh Break Ltd., and Specialized Collections Bureau, Inc., are represented by: Randolph Gaw, Esq. Mark Poe, Esq. Samuel Song, Esq. Victor Meng, Esq. Flora Vigo, Esq. GAW POE LLP 4 Embarcadero, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 766-7451 Facsimile: (415) 737-0642 E-mail: rgaw@gawpoe.com mpoe@gawpoe.com ssong@gawpoe.com vmeng@gawpoe.com fvigo@gawpoe.com GRIZZLY INDUSTRIAL: Guglielmo Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Grizzly Industrial, Inc. The case is styled as Joseph Guglielmo, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Grizzly Industrial, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-10390 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 8, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Grizzly Industrial, Inc. is a national retail and internet company providing a wide variety of high-quality woodworking and metalworking machinery, power tools, etc.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Russel Craig Weinrib, Esq. Stein Saks PLLC 285 Passaic St., Suite 5 Hakensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: rweinrib@steinsakslegal.com GUESS INC: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Guess, Inc. The case is styled as Marcos Calcano on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Guess, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-10441 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 9, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Guess is an American clothing brand and retailer. In addition to clothing for both men and women, Guess markets other fashion accessories such as watches, jewelry, perfumes, and shoes.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq. 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: nyjg@aol.com HOUSTON, TX: Appellate Court Upholds Dismissal of Perez Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Appeals of Texas, First District, Houston, upheld the trial court order dismissing of Perez' claims in the case captioned ELIZABETH C. PEREZ, Appellant, v. SYLVESTER TURNER, MAYOR, KARUN SREERAMA, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS AND ENGINEERING, AND THE CITY OF HOUSTON, Appellees, Case No. 01-16-00985-CV. (Tex. App.). The case is a suit contesting a City of Houston drainage fee ordinance. Elizabeth Perez sought a judgment declaring the Houston drainage fee ordinance invalid, an injunction against the assessment, collection, and expenditure of taxes and fees pursuant to the ordinance and reimbursement, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated persons or entities, of taxes and fees assessed and collected pursuant to the ordinance and paid under duress. On December 9, 2016, the trial court dismissed Perez's lawsuit for want of subject-matter jurisdiction. The trial court found that Perez's "purported constitutional claims" were not ripe for adjudication; that Perez had "no standing to challenge the validity, legality, and/or constitutionality of the assessment and/or collection of City of Houston drainage fees, the November 2010 Pay-As-You-Go charter amendment [Proposition I], and/or the April 2011 [D]rainage [Fee] [O]rdinance because she has suffered no particularized injury as a matter of law;" that she had "no standing to seek money damages and/or a refund as a taxpayer as a matter of law;" and that governmental immunity also barred her refund claim. Perez appealed. On review, the Appellate Court concludes that the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over any claims dependent on the Charter Amendment's having been declared void, and, thus, it properly dismissed those claims based on the City's plea to the jurisdiction. The Appellate Court opines that Perez cannot rely on the line of cases she cites in her brief on appeal, which provide for, as she characterizes it, "reimbursement of illegal fees and taxes . . . when the public entity compels compliance with a void law and subjects a person to punishment if he refuses or fails to comply." Those cases do not apply to a situation, like the one here, where the underlying law, here, the Drainage Fee Ordinance has not been declared invalid and no specific showing of any illegality of the fees collected has been made, the Appellate Court states. The Appellate Court further disagrees with Perez's argument that her pleadings and jurisdictional evidence are sufficient to establish her standing to pursue her claims for a judgment declaring the Drainage Fee Ordinance illegal. "We agree with the City that Perez has failed to plead or demonstrate that the City has actually expended a significant amount of specifically identified funds illegally. Accordingly, we conclude that Perez has failed to establish that she has taxpayer standing to challenge any illegal expenditures by the City as pleaded in this case. Because Perez lacks standing to pursue the claims she filed here, and her lack of standing is sufficient to support the trial court's grant of the City's plea to the jurisdiction, we need not address her remaining issues regarding governmental immunity and ripeness," the Appellate Court opines. A full-text copy of the Appellate Court's October 17, 2019 Opinion at https://tinyurl.com/y5ep8bwm from Leagle.com. Appellate panel consists of Justices Evelyn Keyes, Lloyd, and Kelly. Collyn A. Peddie , Lyric Centre440 Louisiana, Ste. 900, Houston, TX 77002-4205, Patricia L. Casey , One Briarlake Plaza Suite 150, 2000 W. Sam Houston Pkwy, Houston, TX 77042-3644, for Sylvester Turner, Mayor, Karun Sreerama, Director of Public Works and Engineering and The City of Houston, Appellee. Dylan Benjamen Russell , Galleria Tower II, 5051 Westheimer, Suite 1200, Houston, Texas 77056, Andy Taylor - ataylor@andytaylorlaw.com - Joseph O. Slovacek , Galleria Tower II, 5051 Westheimer, Suite 1200, Houston, Texas 77056, for Elizabeth C. Perez, Appellant. HYATT HOTELS: Still Defends Suits over Alleged Antitrust Matters ---------------------------------------------------------------- Hyatt Hotels Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company continues to defend class action suits alleging violation of antitrust laws. In March 2018, a putative class action was filed against the Company and several other hotel companies in federal district court in Illinois, Case No. 1:18-cv-01959, seeking an unspecified amount of damages and equitable relief for an alleged violation of the federal antitrust laws. In December 2018, a second lawsuit was filed against the Company by TravelPass Group, LLC, Partner Fusion, Inc., and Reservation Counter, LLC in federal district court in Texas, Case No. 5:18-cv-00153, for an alleged violation of federal antitrust laws arising from similar conduct alleged in the Illinois case and seeking an unspecified amount of monetary damages. The Company disputes the allegations in these lawsuits and will defend its interests vigorously. Hyatt Hotels said, "We currently do not believe the ultimate outcome of this litigation will have a material effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operation, or liquidity." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Hyatt Hotels Corporation, a hospitality company, develops, owns, operates, manages, franchises, licenses, or provides services to hotels, resorts, residential, and other properties. It operates through four segments: Owned and Leased Hotels, Americas Management and Franchising, ASPACManagement and Franchising, and EAME/SW Asia Management and Franchising. The company was formerly known as Global Hyatt Corporation and changed its name to Hyatt Hotels Corporation in June 2009. Hyatt Hotels Corporation was founded in 1957 and is headquartered in Chicago, Illinois. INTERCONTINENTAL EXCHANGE: Briefing in LIBOR-Related Suit Ongoing ----------------------------------------------------------------- Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that briefing on the motion to dismiss in the LIBOR-related class action suit is ongoing. On January 15, 2019 and January 31, 2019, two virtually identical purported class action complaints were filed by, respectively, Putnam Bank, a savings bank based in Putnam, Connecticut, and two municipal pension funds affiliated with the City of Livonia, Michigan in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against ICE and several of its subsidiaries, including ICE Benchmark Administration Limited ("IBA") (the "ICE Defendants"), as well as 18 multinational banks and various of their respective subsidiaries and affiliates (the "Panel Bank Defendants"). On March 4, 2019, a virtually identical complaint was filed on behalf of four retirement and benefit funds affiliated with the Hawaii Sheet Metal Workers Union. IBA is the administrator for various regulated benchmarks, including the ICE LIBOR benchmark that is calculated daily based upon the submissions from a reference panel (which includes the Panel Bank Defendants). On July 1, 2019, the various plaintiffs referenced above filed a consolidated amended complaint against the ICE and Panel Bank Defendants. The plaintiffs seek to litigate on behalf of a purported class of all U.S.-based persons or entities who transacted with a Panel Bank Defendant by receiving a payment on an interest rate indexed to a one-month or three-month USD LIBOR-benchmarked rate during the period February 1, 2014 to the present. The plaintiffs allege that the ICE and Panel Bank Defendants engaged in a conspiracy to set the LIBOR benchmark at artificially low levels, with an alleged purpose and effect of depressing payments by the Panel Bank Defendants to members of the purported class. As with the individual complaints, the consolidated amended complaint asserts a claim for violations of the Sherman and Clayton Antitrust Acts and seeks unspecified treble damages and other relief. The ICE and Panel Bank Defendants filed motions to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint on August 30, 2019 and briefing of these motions is not yet complete. ICE intends to vigorously defend the matter. Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. operates regulated exchanges, clearing houses, and listings venues for commodity, financial, fixed income, and equity markets in the United States, the United Kingdom, European Union, Asia, Israel, and Canada. Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. was founded in 2000 and is headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia. IROBOT CORP: Faces Miramar Firefighters' Pension Fund Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- iRobot Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 28, 2019, that the company has been named as a defendant in a putative class action suit entitled, Miramar Firefighters' Pension Fund v. iRobot Corporation, et al., No. 1:19-cv-09837. On October 24, 2019, purported Company shareholder Miramar Firefighters' Pension Fund filed a putative class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and certain of its directors and officers, captioned Miramar Firefighters' Pension Fund v. iRobot Corporation, et al., No. 1:19-cv-09837. The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder based on allegedly false and misleading statements and omissions concerning the Company's acquisitions of Sales on Demand Corporation and Robopolis SAS and the Company’s subsequent financial performance. The complaint seeks, among other things, unspecified compensatory damages, including interest, in connection with the Company's allegedly inflated stock price, attorneys' fees and costs, and unspecified equitable/injunctive relief. iRobot Corporation manufactures robots that vacuum and wash floors and perform battlefield reconnaissance and bomb disposal. The Company markets its products to consumers through retailers, the United States military, and other government agencies worldwide. JOHNSON & JOHNSON: $117M Deal Over Pelvic Mesh Devices Approved --------------------------------------------------------------- CBS News reports that Johnson & Johnson has agreed to a $117 million multi-state settlement over allegations it deceptively marketed its pelvic mesh products, which support women's sagging pelvic organs. Ohio's attorney general said October 17 an investigation found J&J, the world's biggest health products maker, violated state consumer protection laws by not fully disclosing the devices' risks. Numerous women have come forward claiming the hammock-like devices caused severe pain, bleeding and infections. The settlement, which covers 41 states and the District of Columbia, requires the company to fully disclose risks and stop making inaccurate safety claims. J&J said that the settlement doesn't include admission of any misconduct. More than 2 million women implanted the medical devices commonly used to repair weak or damaged tissue and provide support in the event of a pelvic organ prolapse, or POP. But then patients across Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom and the United States filed tens of thousands of cases against Johnson & Jonson and other pelvic mesh device makers on the devices. By 2017, more than 700 women in Australia filed a class-action suit against Johnson & Johnson. That same year a record jury verdict of $57 million against Johnson & Johnson was awarded to a Pennsylvania woman who was injured by the product. "I'm in excruciating pain when I'm standing, it hurts when I'm sitting," Ella Ebaugh, 51, told CBS Philadelphia at the time. This year, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in April also flagged the mesh products when Boston Scientific was ordered to stop selling and distributing the mesh products. The FDA said the company had not proven the efficacy or safety of the products. The settlement comes as J&J is swamped with thousands of other lawsuits claiming patients were harmed by products including baby powder, opioid painkillers and prescription drugs. The publicly traded consumer products and pharmaceutical giant has underperformed the S&P 500 stock index this year. An Oklahoma judge recently determined J&J should pay nearly $500 million to help address the state's opioid crisis. [GN] JUST BRANDS: JustCBD Products Contain THC, Darrow Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- Trevor Darrow, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Just Brands USA, Inc., SSGI Financial Services, Inc., and Just Brands, FL, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:2019cv07079 (N.D. Ill., Oct. 28, 2019), is brought on behalf of purchasers of "JustCBD" products in the state of Illinois alleging that the Defendants violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Trade Practices Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants' "JustCBD" products contain a label that there is "NO THC." However, the Defendants' "JustCBD" products contain THC. THC, or tetrahydrocannabinol, is the chemical responsible for most of marijuana's psychological effects. The World Health Organization says, "Cannabidiol (or CBD) is a naturally occurring cannabinoid found in cannabis plants. CBD is used by consumers for numerous medical conditions, including without limitation, epilepsy, insomnia, chronic pain, arthritis, and anxiety. The Defendants manufacture, label, distribute, and sell "JustCBD" products in the State of Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Fish, Esq. THE FISH LAW FIRM, P.C. 200 E. 5th Avenue, Suite 123 Naperville, IL 60563 Telephone: (630) 355-7590 Facsimile: (630) 778 0400 E-mail: dfish@fishlawfirm.com - and - Aaron Rapier, Esq. RAPIER LAW FIRM 1770 Park St., Suite 200 Naperville, IL 60563 Telephone: (815) 782 5478 Facsimile: (815) 327 3449 E-mail: arapier@rapierlawfirm.com KANDI TECHNOLOGIES: Court Dismisses Vatter Securities Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York issued an Opinion and Order granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the case captioned IN RE KANDI TECHNOLOGIES GROUP, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 17 Civ. 1944 (ER) (S.D.N.Y.). In this putative class action against Kandi Technologies Group, Inc., Co-Lead Plaintiffs, Gary Vatter and Gerald Klein assert causes of action pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 individually and on behalf of similarly situated shareholders. Current and/or former Kandi executives XiaoMing Hu, Bing Mei, XiaoYing Zhu and Cheng Wang are also named as defendants. The Consolidated Amended Complaint asserts claims for violations of Sections 10(b) (and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 78a et seq. Defendants Kandi, Xiaoming Hu, Bing Mei, Xiaoying Zhu, Cheng Wang filed a motion to dismiss the CAC pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to state a claim. LEGAL STANDARDS When ruling on a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), the Court must accept all factual allegations in the complaint as true and draw all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor. To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. A claim is facially plausible when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Heightened Pleading Standard under Rule 9(b) A complaint alleging securities fraud must satisfy the heightened pleading requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) and the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PSLRA) by stating the circumstances constituting fraud with particularity. These requirements apply whenever a plaintiff alleges fraudulent conduct, regardless of whether fraudulent intent is an element of a claim. Specifically, Rule 9(b) requires that a securities fraud claim based on misstatements must identify: (1) the allegedly fraudulent statements (2) the speaker (3) where and when the statements were made and (4) why the statements were fraudulent. In short, Plaintiffs' core allegations concern two sets of misrepresentations by Defendants. First, Plaintiffs aver that Defendants mislabeled hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of accounts receivable as cash activity and improperly included them in Kandi's statement of cash flows throughout the Class Period. Second, Plaintiffs aver that Defendants misrepresented that they had effective disclosure controls when they had failed to properly disclose related-party transactions and file separate financial statements for the JV Company as required by Regulation S-X. To state a private civil claim under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5, a plaintiff must plead that: (1) the defendant made a material misrepresentation or omission (2) with scienter, i.e., a wrongful state of mind (3) in connection with the purchase or sale of a security and (4) that the plaintiff relied on the misrepresentation or omission, thereby (5) causing economic loss. Scienter To satisfy the PSLRA's pleading requirements for scienter, a plaintiff must allege facts with particularity that would give rise to a strong inference that the defendant acted with the required state of mind. To allege the scienter of a corporate defendant, a plaintiff needs not name a specific individual who acted with the requisite scienter he needs only plead facts that create a strong inference that someone whose intent could be imputed to the corporation did so. The scienter of an employee acting within the scope of employment can be imputed to the employer. A plaintiff may establish scienter by alleging facts that either (1) show that the defendant had both the motive and opportunity to commit the alleged fraud or (2) constitute strong circumstantial evidence of conscious misbehavior or recklessness Where the plaintiff pleads scienter by conscious misbehavior or recklessness rather than motive, the strength of the circumstantial allegations must be correspondingly greater. Here, Defendants contend that Plaintiffs' allegations of scienter based on motive and opportunity are inadequate because they fail to allege a concrete and personal benefit to Defendants. The Court agrees. To adequately plead a strong inference of scienter based on motive and opportunity, a plaintiff must allege that defendants benefitted in some specific and personal way from the alleged fraud, usually with allegations of insider trading by corporate insiders. Here, the Individual Defendants were high-ranking corporate officers of Kandi at all relevant times, which gives rise to the presumption of an opportunity to commit fraud. However, Plaintiffs do not allege that the Individual Defendants sold any shares at any relevant time. Instead, Plaintiffs only plead a motive to artificially inflate and maintain the market price of Kandi securities, a motive that has been routinely rejected by courts in this Circuit. The court nevertheless bears in mind that the relevant inquiry for the Court is whether all of the facts alleged, taken collectively, give rise to a strong inference of scienter, not whether any individual allegation, scrutinized in isolation, meets that standard. Still, a plaintiff must plead a strong inference of scienter for each alleged misleading statement. Therefore, the Court considers Plaintiffs' allegations as a whole with respect to each set of misrepresentations by Defendants to determine whether they support a strong inference of scienter. Kandi's Accounts Receivable Here, Plaintiffs argue that that CAC adequately pleads strong circumstantial evidence of Defendants' knowledge of facts indicating that their classification of Kandi's accounts receivable was not accurate. Specifically, Plaintiffs identify the following: (1) a comment letter from SEC on November 12, 2013 that raised questions about Kandi's reported $80.8 million investment in the JV Company and its outstanding accounts receivable (2) Defendants' repeated disclosures of their weak internal controls in the 2013 10-K, the 2014 Q1 10-Q and 2014 Q2 10-Q and (3) that Wang, who was the CFO of Kandi, was deeply involved in Kandi's day-to-day operations. Accepting Plaintiffs' pleadings as true, they nevertheless fail to point to any specific fact that the Individual Defendants either knew or should have known that they were misclassifying the accounts receivable from the JV Company. Plaintiffs' only allegation concerning the SEC comment letter states that the letter raised questions about Kandi's outstanding accounts receivable. However, Plaintiffs' own pleadings show that Kandi only began to either receive or assign notes receivable in the year 2014.The SEC letter could not have provided contradictory facts to Defendants' later misclassification of notes receivable. As such, Plaintiffs' reliance on In re Bear Stearns Companies, Inc. Sec. Derivatives, & ERISA Litig., 763 F.Supp.2d 423 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) is misplaced as defendants did not dispute that the SEC memorandum provided contradictory facts to defendants' alleged misrepresentations in the complaint in that case. Plaintiffs have not made such allegations here. As such, Plaintiffs fail to specifically identify the reports or statements that contradict Defendants' alleged misrepresentations on this regard. Related Party Transactions Plaintiffs' allegations regarding Defendants' misrepresentations of their disclosures controls suffer similar defects. Here, the SEC comment letter in 2013 similarly could not provide any contradictory facts because Plaintiffs' own pleadings show that Kandi only supplemented corrective disclosures on related-party transactions in restating their financial statements for 2016, 2015 and 2014. Plaintiffs' allegations regarding Defendants' disclosures of their weak internal controls similarly fail to specifically identify any Individual Defendants' knowledge of facts that Kandi's disclosure controls were not effective. Plaintiffs' argument that Defendants' awareness of some weak aspects of their internal controls, without more, necessarily suggest their awareness of other internal control problems and their impact on Kandi's financial statements is unpersuasive. Therefore, Plaintiffs' allegations, viewed collectively, do not support a strong inference of scienter as compelling as any opposing inference. Because failure to plead a strong inference of scienter alone is a sufficient basis for dismissal, the Court grants Defendants' motion to dismiss on this basis. Falsity To survive a motion to dismiss, Plaintiffs must establish that Defendants made a statement that was `misleading as to a material fact. A violation of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 premised on misstatements cannot occur unless an alleged material misstatement was false at the time it was made. A statement believed to be true, but later shown to be false, is insufficient to establish actionable falsity. Here, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs plead falsity inadequately because they fail to plead that Defendants knew at the time that their alleged misrepresentations regarding their internal controls were misleading. Plaintiffs respond by arguing that Kandi's restatements constitute an admission of falsity. To begin with, the court in that case was merely addressing motions in limine to exclude evidence of restatements and did not make any determination on falsity. While a true statement, Plaintiffs' argument fails to address the defect in their pleadings regarding Defendants' knowledge that their assertions were false when made. Falsity is a failure to be truthful it is not a misapprehension, misunderstanding or mistake of fact at the time a statement was made. As such, Plaintiffs' factual allegations have not specifically shown that Defendants were aware of any facts contradicting the statements regarding internal controls when made. As such, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have failed to plausibly allege that Defendants' statements regarding internal controls were false when made. Plaintiffs' pleadings regarding Defendants' misclassifications of Kandi's notes receivable also fail for substantially the same reasons. Section 20(a) Claims Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act provides as follows: Every person who, directly or indirectly, controls any person liable under any provision of [the Exchange Act] or of any rule or regulation thereunder shall also be liable jointly and severally with and to the same extent as such controlled person to any person to whom such controlled person is liable, unless the controlling person acted in good faith and did not directly or indirectly induce the act or acts constituting the violation or cause of action. Defendants argue that because a claim under Section 20(a) is predicated on a primary violation of securities law, the Section 20(a) claims must be dismissed. It is axiomatic that liability for a Section 20(a) violation is derivative of liability for a Section 10(b) violation. In light of Plaintiff's failure to adequately plead a primary violation, the Section 20(a) claims against the Individual Defendants cannot stand. Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's Section 20(a) claim is therefore GRANTED. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motion, and close the case. A full-text copy of the District Court's September 30, 2019 Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y6oxn9qd from Leagle.com. Scott Cashen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph Alexander Hood, II - ahood@pomlaw.com - Pomerantz LLP, Jeremy Alan Lieberman - jalieberman@pomlaw.com - A, Pomerantz LLP & Murielle Jacqueline Steven -mjsteven@pomlaw.com - Pomerantz LLP. Gerald W. Klein, Consolidated Plaintiff, represented by Thomas James McKenna - tjmckenna@gme-law.com - Gainey McKenna & Egleston & Murielle Jacqueline Steven , Pomerantz LLP. Igor Tavrovsky, Consolidated Plaintiff, represented by Joseph Alexander Hood, II , Pomerantz LLP, Jeremy Alan Lieberman , Pomerantz LLP & Murielle Jacqueline Steven , Pomerantz LLP. Kandi Technologies Group, Inc., Xiaoming Hu, Bing Mei, Xiaoying Zhu & Cheng Wang, Defendants, represented by Richard Joseph lamar Lomuscio , Drinker Biddle & Reath, LLP, 1177 Avenue of The Americas Fl 41, New York, NY 10036-2714 & Ronald Zachary Ahrens – rahrens@riker.com -Riker, Danzig, Scherer, Hyland & Perretti LLP. KBR INC: Appeal in Suit Against Former Subsidiary Still Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- KBR, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the appeal in the class action suit initiated by former employees of the company's former Chadian subsidiary, Subsahara Services, Inc. (SSI), is still pending. In May 2018, former employees of the company's former Chadian subsidiary, Subsahara Services, Inc. (SSI), filed a class action suit claiming unpaid damages arising from the ESSO Chad Development Project for Exxon Mobil Corporation (Exxon) dating back to the early 2000's. Exxon is also named as a defendant in the case. The SSI employees previously filed two class action cases in or around 2005 and 2006 for alleged unpaid overtime and bonuses. The Chadian Labour Court ruled in favor of the SSI employees for unpaid overtime resulting in a settlement of approximately $25 million which was reimbursed by Exxon under its contract with SSI. The second case for alleged unpaid bonuses was ultimately dismissed by the Supreme Court of Chad. The current case claims $122 million in unpaid bonuses characterized as damages rather than employee bonuses to avoid the previous Supreme Court dismissal and a 5-year statute of limitations on wage-related claims. SSI's initial defense was filed and a hearing was held in December 2018. A merits hearing was held in February 2019. In March 2019, the Labour Court issued a decision awarding the plaintiffs approximately $34 million including a $2 million provisional award. SSI and Exxon have appealed the award and requested suspension of the provisional award which was approved on April 2, 2019. Exxon and SSI filed a submission to the Court of Appeal on June 21, 2019. The plaintiffs have not yet filed a submission to the Court of Appeals. KBR said, "At this time we do not believe a risk of material loss is probable related to this matter, and therefore we have not accrued any loss provisions. SSI is no longer an existing entity in Chad or the United States. Further, we believe any amounts ultimately paid to the former employees related to this adverse ruling would be reimbursable by Exxon based on the applicable contract." KBR, Inc. is a global engineering, construction, and services company supporting the energy, petrochemicals, government services, and civil infrastructure sectors. The Company offers a wide range of services through two business segments, Energy and Chemicals (E&C) and Government and Infrastructure (G&I). The company is based in Houston, Texas. LAKE COUNTY, IL: Hardeman Files Class Certification Bid ------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned TAPANGA HARDEMAN, DANIEL WILLIAMS, LEWIS MYLES, QUENTA LAMAR WASHINGTON, and LAVONTE MUREL v. COUNTY OF LAKE, OFFICE OF THE LAKE COUNTY SHERIFF, SHERIFF MARK CURRAN, CHIEF DAVID WATHEN, and JOHN DOE OFFICERS and SUPERVISORS, Case No. 1:17-cv-08729 (N.D. Ill.), Plaintiff Tapanga Hardeman submits her First Amended Complaint, moves the Court for an Order certifying this case to proceed as a Class Action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and moves the Court to appoint O'Connor Law Firm, LTD., as Class Counsel. Ms. Hardeman, both individually and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated, filed a Class Action Complaint on December 4, 2017. The Class Action Complaint is premised on the Defendants' violation of the Plaintiff's constitutional right to humane conditions of confinement in the Lake County Adult Correctional Facility ("the Jail"), actionable under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. Specifically, for a three-to-four-day period, the Defendants shutoff the Jail's water and provided inadequate alternative water sources for hydration, hygiene, and medical purposes, subjecting all detainees and inmates housed therein to inhumane conditions of confinement. The Plaintiff and all other putative Class Members were confined in the Jail between November 7, 2017, and November 10, 2017. At the time of their confinement, the Plaintiff and putative Class Members were being held as either pretrial detainees or post-conviction inmates. Beginning on November 7 and ending on November 10, 2017, all sources of running water available to the Class Members were turned off; the Plaintiff and the other individuals in the Jail were provided 5 or fewer bottles of drinking water per day, and were forced to use shared trashcans full of water for all personal health and hygiene needs (including but not limited to bathing, cleaning the surfaces within the cells, and rinsing accumulated urine and fecal waste from the inoperable toilets in the cells). Accordingly, the Plaintiff pled that Defendants violated the inmates' and detainees' constitutional right to humane conditions of confinement by shutting off the Jail's water, implementing policies that threatened the health, safety, and well-being of all class members, and unconstitutionally punishing detainees who requested relief from the inhumane conditions. The Plaintiff proposes organizing the Class into 2 subclasses, separated into (1) a class of pretrial detainees and (2) a class of post-conviction inmates. Alternatively, for purposes of calculating damages, the Court could split the 2 subclasses further by dividing the putative Class Members based on: (1) the individual's status as either a pretrial detainee or a post-conviction inmate; and (2) the number of days a putative Class Member spent in the inhumane conditions caused by the Defendants.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin W. O'Connor, Esq. O'CONNOR LAW FIRM, LTD. 19 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 1400 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 906-7609 Facsimile: (312) 263-1913 E-mail: koconnor@koconnorlaw.com LAWLESS INC: Killion Seeks to Recoup Overtime Pay for Salespeople ----------------------------------------------------------------- DWANE KILLION, behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LAWLESS INC. and RICHARD J. LAWLESS, JR., the Defendants, Case No. 1981CV03186 (Mass. Super., Oct. 30, 3019), seeks damages based on the Defendants' failure to pay wages, including overtime pay, for all hours worked above 40 hours in one week in violation of Massachusetts General Laws. The Plaintiff worked as a salesperson for the Defendants from February 2018 through February 2019. The Plaintiff, as well as other members of the Class, was compensated through a commission program. The Defendants' company-wide compensation structure for salespeople was based on a 100% commission/draw model. Employees' pay each week was based on a percentage of each sale made by the employee. The Defendants allegedly did not pay any additional compensation for such work beyond the draws and commissions, the lawsuit says. Lawless Inc. operate an automobile dealership located in Woburn, Massachusetts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Josh Gardner, Esq. Nicholas J. Rosenberg, Esq. GARDNER & ROSENBERG P.C. One State Street, Fourth Floor Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: 617-390-7570 E-mail: josh@gardnerrosenberg.com LB METALS: Brown Sues Over Illegal Collection of Biometric Data --------------------------------------------------------------- TORRION BROWN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff v. LB METALS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2019CH12577 (Ill. Cir., Oct. 29, 2019), seeks to stop the Defendant's unlawful collection, use, storage, and disclosure of the Plaintiff's and the proposed Class members' sensitive, private, and personal biometric data. While most establishments and employers use conventional methods for tracking time worked (such as ID badge swipes or punch clocks), the Defendant mandated and required that employees have finger(s) scanned by a biometric timekeeping device. Unlike ID badges or time cards--which can be changed or replaced if stolen or compromised--biometrics are unique, permanent biometric identifiers associated with each employee. This exposes the Defendant's employees, including the Plaintiff, to serious and irreversible privacy risks. For example, if a biometric database is hacked, breached, or otherwise exposed, such as in the recent Equifax, Uber, Facebook/Cambridge Analytica, and Marriott data breaches or misuses, employees have mo means by which to prevent identity theft, unauthorized tracking, and other improper or unlawful use of this highly personal and private information, the lawsuit says. Biometric identifiers include fingerprints, retina and iris scans, voiceprints, and scans of hand and face geometry. LB Metals is a DOT registered motor carrier.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandon M. Wise, Esq. Paul A. Lesko, Esq. PEIFFER WOLF CARR & KANE, APLC 818 Lafayette Ave., Floor 2 St. Louis, MO 63104 Telephone: 314 833-4825 E-mail: bwise@pwcklegal.com plesko@pwcklegal.com LEVINBOOK LAW: Baum Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Levinbook Law Firm, P.C. The case is styled as Sean Baum, Danielle Baum, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. The Levinbook Law Firm, P.C., Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-06353 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 8, 2019). The Plaintiffs filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Levinbook Law Firm, P.C., focuses on real estate transactions and collections, to recover commercial and consumer debt.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David M. Barshay, Esq. Barshay Sanders, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Phone: (516) 203-7600 Fax: (516) 281-7601 Email: dbarshay@barshaysanders.com LIVE NATION: Settlement Reached in Dickey Class Action ------------------------------------------------------ Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that a settlement has been reached in the class action suit entitled, Dickey v. Ticketmaster LLC, et al. In March 2019, the court granted the defendants' motion to compel arbitration of the Dickey lawsuit and stayed the matter. The parties reached a settlement in October 2019, and the case will be dismissed with prejudice shortly. The following putative class action lawsuits were filed against Live Nation and/or Ticketmaster in the United States and Canada: Vaccaro v. Ticketmaster LLC (Northern District of Illinois, filed September 2018); Ameri v. Ticketmaster LLC (Northern District of California, filed September 2018); Lee v. Ticketmaster LLC, et al. (Northern District of California, filed September 2018); Thompson-Marcial v. Ticketmaster Canada Holdings ULC (Ontario Superior Court of Justice, filed September 2018); McPhee v. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc., et al. (Superior Court of Quebec, District of Montreal, filed September 2018); Crystal Watch v. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc., et al. (Court of Queen's Bench for Saskatchewan, by amendments filed September 2018); Gaetano v. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc., et al. (Northern District of New York, filed October 2018); Dickey v. Ticketmaster LLC, et al. (Central District of California, filed October 2018); Gomel v. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc., et al. (Supreme Court of British Columbia, Vancouver Registry, filed October 2018); Smith v. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc., et al. (Ontario Superior Court of Justice, filed October 2018); Messing v. Ticketmaster LLC, et al. (Central District of California, filed November 2018); and Niedbalski v. Ticketmaster LLC, et al. (Central District of California, filed December 2018). In March 2019, the court granted the defendants' motion to compel arbitration of the Dickey lawsuit and stayed the matter. The parties reached a settlement in October 2019, and the case will be dismissed with prejudice shortly. In April 2019, the court granted the defendants' motion to compel arbitration of the Lee lawsuit and dismissed the case. Lee subsequently appealed the District Court's ruling to the Ninth Circuit. The Gaetano lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice by the plaintiff in April 2019. The Ameri lawsuit was dismissed in May 2019 in light of the parties' agreement to arbitrate the matter, and the Vaccaro lawsuit was settled and dismissed in June 2019. The Messing and Niedbalski lawsuits are stayed pending the outcome of the appeal in the Lee matter. The remaining lawsuits make similar factual allegations that Live Nation and/or Ticketmaster LLC engage in conduct that is intended to encourage the resale of tickets on secondary ticket exchanges at elevated prices. Based on these allegations, each plaintiff asserts violations of different state/provincial and federal laws. Each plaintiff also seeks to represent a class of individuals who purchased tickets on a secondary ticket exchange, as defined in each plaintiff's complaint. The complaints seek a variety of remedies, including unspecified compensatory damages, punitive damages, restitution, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees and costs. Live Nation said, "Based on information presently known to management, we do not believe that a loss is probable of occurring at this time, and believe that the potential liability, if any, will not have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, cash flows or results of operations. Further, we do not currently believe that the claims asserted in these lawsuits have merit, and considerable uncertainty exists regarding any monetary damages that will be asserted against us. We intend to vigorously defend these actions." Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. operates as a live entertainment company. It operates through Concerts, Sponsorship & Advertising, and Ticketing segments. The Company was incorporated in 2005 and is headquartered in Beverly Hills, California. LULULEMON USA: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lululemon USA Inc. The case is styled as Marcos Calcano on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Lululemon USA Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-10430 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 8, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Lululemon USA Inc. (lululemon athletica) is a technical athletic apparel company for yoga, running, training and most other sweaty pursuits.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq. 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: nyjg@aol.com MACQUARIE INFRASTRUCTURE: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Suit Pending ------------------------------------------------------------------ Macquarie Infrastructure Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company's motions to dismiss the consolidated class action complaint is still pending. On April 23, 2018, a complaint captioned City of Riviera Beach General Employees Retirement System v. Macquarie Infrastructure Corp., et al., Case 1:18-cv-03608 (VSB), was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. A substantially identical complaint captioned Daniel Fajardo v. Macquarie Infrastructure Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-03744 (VSB) was filed in the same court on April 27, 2018. Both complaints asserted claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder on behalf of a putative class consisting of all purchasers of MIC common stock between February 22, 2016 and February 21, 2018. The named defendants in both cases were the Company and four current or former officers of MIC and one of its subsidiaries, IMTT Holdings LLC. The complaints in both actions allege that the Company and the individual defendants knowingly made material misstatements and omitted material facts in its public disclosures concerning the Company's and International-Matex Tank Terminals (IMTT's) business and the sustainability of the Company's dividend to stockholders. On January 30, 2019, the Court issued an opinion and order consolidating the two cases, appointing Moab Partners, L.P. (Moab) as Lead Plaintiff and approving Moab's selection of lead counsel. On February 20, 2019, Moab filed a consolidated class action complaint. In addition to the claims noted above, the consolidated class action complaint also asserts claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 relating to the Company's November 2016 secondary public offering of common stock. The consolidated amended complaint also adds Macquarie Infrastructure Management (USA) Inc., Barclays Capital Inc. and seven additional current or former officers or directors of MIC as defendants. On April 22, 2019, the Company and the other defendants filed motions to dismiss the consolidated class action complaint in its entirety, with prejudice. Briefing concluded on July 22, 2019. Macquarie said, "The Company intends to continue to vigorously contest the claims asserted, which the Company believes are entirely meritless." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Macquarie Infrastructure Corporation owns and operates a portfolio of businesses that provide services to other businesses, government agencies, and individuals. It operates through: International-Matex Tank Terminals (IMTT), Atlantic Aviation, and MIC Hawaii segments. The company was founded in 2004 and is based in New York, New York. MANDARICH LAW: Lee Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mandarich Law Group, LLP. The case is styled as Myung Lee, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Mandarich Law Group, LLP, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-06355 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 8, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Mandarich Law Group is a debt collector law firm based in Chatsworth California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig B. Sanders, Esq. Barshay Sanders, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Phone: (516) 203-7600 Fax: (516) 281-7601 Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com MASIMO CORP: No Trial Date Yet in Physicians Healthsource Case -------------------------------------------------------------- Masimo Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 28, 2019, that a new trial date has not been set in the class action suit initiated by Physicians Healthsource, Inc. On January 2, 2014, a putative class action complaint was filed against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California by Physicians Healthsource, Inc. The complaint alleges that the Company sent unsolicited facsimile advertisements in violation of the Junk Fax Protection Act of 2005 and related regulations. The complaint seeks $500 for each alleged violation, treble damages if the District Court finds the alleged violations to be knowing, plus interest, costs and injunctive relief. On March 26, 2019, an amended complaint was filed adding Radha Geismann, M.D. PC as an additional named plaintiff. On June 17, 2019, the plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification. On September 10, 2019, the parties filed motions for summary judgment. On September 30, 2019, the Company filed its opposition to the motion for class certification, and the plaintiffs filed their reply on October 7, 2019. On October 15, 2019, the District Court issued a tentative order denying plaintiffs' motion for class certification and granting in part and denying in part the motions for summary judgment. On October 18, 2019, the District Court heard arguments on the motions. The District Court has not yet issued a final order on the motions. The trial date previously set for November 5, 2019 was continued by the District Court and a new trial date has not been set. Masimo said, "The Company believes it has good and substantial defenses to the class claims, but there is no guarantee that the Company will prevail. The Company is unable to determine whether any loss will ultimately occur or to estimate the range of such loss; therefore, no amount of loss has been accrued by the Company in the accompanying condensed consolidated financial statements. Masimo Corporation, a medical technology company, develops, manufactures, and markets noninvasive monitoring technologies worldwide. Masimo Corporation was founded in 1989 and is headquartered in Irvine, California. MCKESSON CORP: RelayHealth Unit Faces 3 Class Suits in Illinois --------------------------------------------------------------- McKesson Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company's subsidiary RelayHealth Corporation was served with three purported class action complaints filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois by six pharmacies. The complaints, filed in October 2019, allege that RelayHealth violated the Sherman Act by entering into an agreement with co-defendant Surescripts, LLC not to compete in the electronic prescription routing market, and by conspiring with Surescripts, LLC to monopolize that market, Powell Prescription Center, et al. v. Surescripts, LLC, et al., No. 1:19-cv-06627; Intergrated Pharmaceutical Solutions LLC v. Surescripts, LLC, et al., 1:19-cv-06778; Falconer Pharmacy, Inc. v. Surescripts LLC, et al., No. 1:19-cv-06627. The complaints seek treble damages and attorney fees and costs. McKesson Corporation provides pharmaceuticals and medical supplies in the United States and internationally. It operates in three segments: U.S. Pharmaceutical and Specialty Solutions, European Pharmaceutical Solutions, and Medical-Surgical Solutions. McKesson Corporation was founded in 1833 and is headquartered in Irving, California. MCKESSON CORP: Trial in True Health Class Suit Set for Aug. 2020 ---------------------------------------------------------------- McKesson Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the court has set a trial date of August 30, 2020, in the class action suit entitled, True Health Chiropractic Inc., et al. v. McKesson Corporation, et al., No. CV-13-02219 (HG). On May 17, 2013, the Company was served with a complaint filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California by True Health Chiropractic Inc., alleging that McKesson sent unsolicited marketing faxes in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 ("TCPA"), as amended by the Junk Fax Protection Act of 2005 or JFPA, True Health Chiropractic Inc., et al. v. McKesson Corporation, et al., No. CV-13-02219 (HG). Plaintiffs seek statutory damages from $500 to $1,500 per violation plus injunctive relief. True Health Chiropractic later amended its complaint, adding McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates as an additional named plaintiff and McKesson Technologies Inc. as a defendant. Both plaintiffs alleged that the Company violated the TCPA by sending faxes that did not contain notices regarding how to opt out of receiving the faxes. On July 16, 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification and on August 22, 2016, the court denied this motion, based, in part, on the grounds that identifying solicited faxes would require individualized inquiries as to consent. On August 13, 2019, the court denied defendants' motion for summary judgment on the issue of whether the provision of fax numbers through product registration and the End User License Agreement constituted prior express invitation or permission to receive the disputed faxes. Also on August 13, 2019, the court granted plaintiffs' renewed motion for class certification. The court has set a trial date of August 30, 2020. McKesson Corporation provides pharmaceuticals and medical supplies in the United States and internationally. It operates in three segments: U.S. Pharmaceutical and Specialty Solutions, European Pharmaceutical Solutions, and Medical-Surgical Solutions. McKesson Corporation was founded in 1833 and is headquartered in Irving, California. MDL 2672: Puerto Rico Pension Fund Files Class Certification Bid ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lead Plaintiff Puerto Rico Government Employees and Judiciary Retirement Systems Administration moves the Court for an order certifying the action captioned BRS v. Volkswagen AG, et al., Case No. 16-cv-3435 (N.D. Cal.), as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Bondholders Securities Action is part of the multidistrict litigation entitled IN RE: VOLKSWAGEN "CLEAN DIESEL" MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL No. 3:15-md-02672-CRB. The proposed Class consists of: all persons and entities ("Bondholders") who purchased or otherwise acquired Volkswagen's debt securities (the "VW Notes") exempt from registration with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") under Rule 144A of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933, 17 C.F.R. Section 230.144A ("Rule 144A"), between May 23, 2014, and September 22, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period"), and who were damaged thereby. The Lead Plaintiff also asks the Court to appoint it as the Class Representative, and to designate Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP as counsel for the certified Class. The action seeks to recover damages caused by the Defendants' violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, arising from Volkswagen's material omissions and failure to disclose in the Bond Offering Memoranda that the company was using an illegal defeat device in millions of diesel cars worldwide to cheat on emission tests and was at risk of losing billions of dollars as a result, which caused investors to purchase the VW Notes at artificially inflated prices.[CC] Lead Plaintiff Puerto Rico Government Employees and Judiciary Retirement Systems Administration is represented by: Ian D. Berg, Esq. Takeo A. Kellar, Esq. ABRAHAM, FRUCHTER & TWERSKY, LLP 11622 El Camino Real, Suite 100 San Diego, CA 92130 Telephone: (858) 764-2580 Facsimile: (858) 764-2582 E-mail: iberg@aftlaw.com tkellar@aftlaw.com - and - Mitchell M.Z. Twersky, Esq. ABRAHAM, FRUCHTER & TWERSKY, LLP One Penn Plaza, Suite 2805 New York, NY 10119 Telephone: (212) 279-5050 Facsimile: (212) 279-3655 E-mail: mtwersky@aftlaw.com MDL 2873: Aguon v. 3M Company Over AFFF Products Consolidated ------------------------------------------------------------- The case is captioned as 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 and Anthony Quinene, Plaintiffs v. 3M Company, formerly known as: 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; and The Chemours Company FC, L.L.C., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00141 (Oct. 3, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Guam to the the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina (Charleston) on Oct. 29, 2019. The District of South Carolina Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03057-RMG to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Honorable Richard M. Gergel. The lead case is Case No. 2:18-mn-02873-RMG. The Plaintiffs bring this action for medical monitoring and property damage as a result of their exposure to water contaminated with toxic chemicals resulting from the Defendants' harmful and defective products, aqueous firefighting foams ("AFFF") and other materials containing perfluorochemicals (PFCs), including perfluorooctanesulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related fluorochemicals that can degrade to perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") or PFOS, which were released onto the ground, into the environment and infiltrated the groundwater and the Plaintiffs' drinking/potable water. The Aguon case is being consolidated with MDL 2873 in RE: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams (AFFF) Products Liability Litigation. 3M Company conducts operations in electronics, telecommunications, industrial, consumer and office, health care, safety, and other markets. The Company businesses share technologies, manufacturing operations, marketing channels, and other resources. 3M serves customers worldwide.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael J. Berman, Esq. BERMAN, O'CONNOR AND MANN Bank Of Guam Building, Suite 503 111 Chalan Santo Papa Hagatna, GU 96910 Telephone: (671) 477-2778 Facsimile: (671) 477-4366 E-mail: mjberman@pacificlawyers.law MDL 2886: Kenney v. Allura USA Over Siding Defects Consolidated --------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled Karen Kenney, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Allura USA LLC; Plycem USA LLC, doing business as: Allura, Plycem USA; Elementia USA Inc.; Elementia S.A.B. de C.V., Defendant, Case No. 5:19-cv-01226 (Filed Oct 3, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina (Charleston) on Oct 29, 2019. The District of South Carolina Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03070-DCN to the proceeding. According to the complaint, the siding of the Plaintiff's and Class Members' homes suffers from an inherent defect resulting in the Siding cracking, splitting, warping, and breakage. The cracking splitting, warping, and breakage create paths for eventual water and moisture intrusion as a result. Despite the Defendants' representations that the Siding meets the applicable standards and building codes for performance and weather resistance, the Siding fails prematurely and is not suitable for use as an exterior building product, the Plaintiff alleges. As a result of the defect in the Siding, the Plaintiff and Class Members have incurred and will incur thousands of dollars in damages to replace the Siding. The Defendants' actions in connection with the manufacturing and distributing of the Siding evidences a lack of good faith, honesty in fact, and observance of fair dealing, so as to constitute unconscionable commercial practices in violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, the lawsuit says. The Kenney case is being consolidated with MDL 2886 in re: ALLURA FIBER CEMENT SIDING PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel Multidistrict Litigation on April 2, 2019. The Panel finds that these actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. All actions share factual questions concerning alleged defects in exterior fiber cement siding products manufactured and sold by common defendants Plycem USA, LLC, Elementia USA, LLC, and Elementia S.A.B. de C.V., which allegedly are close corporate affiliates and act as alter egos of one another. More specifically the actions commonly allege that (1) the Defendants' fiber cement siding products sold under the names Allura and Maxitile are defective because they have a propensity to crack, peel, warp, and break off soon after installation; (2) the Defendants misrepresent that the products have a service life of 50 years, but fail in less than five years; and (3) the Defendants uniformly misrepresent to customers that the problems are caused by improper installation, rather than a known product defect. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, especially with respect to class certification and Daubert motions; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel and the judiciary. In its April 2, 2019 Order, the MDL Panel conclude that the District of South Carolina is an appropriate transferee forum. One action on the motion is pending there, and the district is conveniently located for a number of parties and potential witnesses in the southeastern region of the country. The Defendants support this district if centralization is granted over their objection. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. David C. Norton. The lead case is Case No.2:19-mn-02886-DCN.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam R. Gonnelli, Esq. THE SULTZER LAW GROUP 85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 104 Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 Telephone: (845) 483-7100 Facsimile: (888) 749-7747 E-mail: gonnellia@thesultzerlawgroup.com - and - Frank S. Gattuso, Esq. GATTUSO & CIOTOLI, PLLC The White House 7030 East Genesee Street Fayetteville, NY 13066 Telephone: (315) 299-6350 Facsimile: (315) 446-7521 E-mail: fgattuso@gclawoffice.com The Defendants are represented by: Samuel David Harrison, Esq. PEPPER, HAMILTON LAW FIRM-PHILADELPHIA OFFICE 3000 Two Logan Square 18th and Arch Streets Philadelphia, PA 19103-2799 Telephone: (215) 981-4267 E-mail: harrisons@pepperlaw.com MDL 2918: Barry v. Headway Tech Over HDD Assemblies Consolidated ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled as Brian Barry, Plaintiff v. HEADWAY TECHNOLOGIES, INC., HUTCHINSON TECHNOLOGY INC., MAGNECOMP PRECISION TECHNOLOGY PUBLIC CO. LTD., NAT PERIPHERAL (DONG GUAN) CO., LTD., NAT PERIPHERAL (H.K.) CO., LTD., NHK SPRING CO. LTD., NHK INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, NHK SPRING (THAILAND) CO., LTD., NHK SPRING PRECISION (GUANGZHOU) CO., LTD., SAE MAGNETICS (H.K.) LTD., AND TDK CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 2:2019cv12582 (Filed Sept. 3, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Eastern of Michigan to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco) on Oct. 28, 2019. The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-07059-MMC to the proceeding. The suit alleges violation of anti-trust related laws. The lawsuit arises out of a global conspiracy among the Defendants and their co-conspirators to fix prices of and allocate market shares for hard disk drive (HDD) suspension assemblies. The Barry case is being consolidated with MDL 2918 in RE: HARD DISK DRIVE SUSPENSION ASSEMBLIES ANTITRUST LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Oct. 8, 2019. The actions in this litigation involve allegations that engaged in a conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain, or stabilize the price of hard disk drive suspension assemblies sold in the United States and abroad from May 2008 through at least April 2016. In its Oct. 8, 2019 Order, the MDL Panel conclude that the Northern District of California is an appropriate transferee forum. Defendant Headway Technologies, Inc., has its headquarters in this district, and third-party discovery is expected to take place from two hard disk drive manufacturers headquartered there. Thus, common documents and witnesses likely will be located in this district. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge Maxine M. Chesney. The lead case is Case No. 3:19-md-02918-MMC. TDK Corporation, formerly TDK Electronics Co., Ltd, is a Japanese multinational electronics company that manufactures electronic materials, electronic components, and recording and data-storage media. Its motto is "Contribute to culture and industry through creativity." Headway Technologies provides recording head products to the computer hard disk drive industry. The company provides solutions to the server, mobile, and desktop segments of the hard disk drive industry for customers throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brent John LaPointe, Esq. Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM 275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 686 1060 Facsimile: (212) 202 3827 E-mail: blapointe@rosenlegal.com lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com MDL 2918: Cimino v. Headway Over HDD Assemblies Consolidated ------------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit styled as VINNY CIMINO, Plaintiff v. HEADWAY TECHNOLOGIES, INC., HUTCHINSON TECHNOLOGY INC., MAGNECOMP PRECISION TECHNOLOGY PUBLIC CO. LTD., NAT PERIPHERAL (DONG GUAN) CO., LTD., NAT PERIPHERAL (H.K.) CO., LTD., NHK SPRING CO. LTD., NHK INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, NHK SPRING (THAILAND) CO., LTD., NHK SPRING PRECISION (GUANGZHOU) CO., LTD., SAE MAGNETICS (H.K.) LTD., AND TDK CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No.0:2019cv02406 (Filed Aug. 30, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco) on Oct. 28, 2019. The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-07057-MMC. The suit alleges violation of anti-trust related laws. The lawsuit arises out of a global conspiracy among Defendants and their co-conspirators to fix prices of and allocate market shares for hard disk drive (HDD) suspension assemblies. The Cimino case is being consolidated with MDL 2918 in RE: HARD DISK DRIVE SUSPENSION ASSEMBLIES ANTITRUST LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Oct. 8, 2019. The actions in this litigation involve allegations that engaged in a conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain, or stabilize the price of hard disk drive suspension assemblies sold in the United States and abroad from May 2008 through at least April 2016. In its Oct. 8, 2019 Order, the MDL Panel conclude that the Northern District of California is an appropriate transferee forum. Defendant Headway Technologies, Inc., has its headquarters in this district, and third-party discovery is expected to take place from two hard disk drive manufacturers headquartered there. Thus, common documents and witnesses likely will be located in this district. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge Maxine M. Chesney. The lead case is Case No. 3:19-md-02918-MMC. Headway Technologies provides recording head products to the computer hard disk drive industry. The company provides solutions to the server, mobile, and desktop segments of the hard disk drive industry for customers throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Vildan Teske, Esq. Marisa C. Katz, Esq. TESKE KATZ KITZER & ROCHEL PLLP 222 South Ninth Street, Suite 4050 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 746-1558 Facsimile: (651) 846-5339 E-mail: teske@tkkrlaw.com katz@tkkrlaw.com - and - George F. Farah, Esq. HANDLEY FARAH & ANDERSON PLLC 81 Prospect Street Brooklyn, NY 11201 Telephone: (212) 477-8090 Facsimile: (804) 300-1952 E-mail: gfarah@hfajustice.com - and - Mark A. Griffin, Esq. Raymond J. Farrow, Esq. KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98101-3052 Telephone: (206) 623-1900 Facsimile: (206) 623-3384 E-mail: mgriffin@kellerrohrback.com rfarrow@kellerrohrback.com MDL 2918: Fahey v. Headway Tech Over HDD Assemblies Consolidated ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled as Peter Sanchez and Brian Fahey, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. HEADWAY TECHNOLOGIES, INC., HUTCHINSON TECHNOLOGY INC., MAGNECOMP PRECISION TECHNOLOGY PUBLIC CO. LTD., NAT PERIPHERAL (DONG GUAN) CO., LTD., NAT PERIPHERAL (H.K.) CO., LTD., NHK SPRING CO. LTD., NHK INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, NHK SPRING (THAILAND) CO., LTD., NHK SPRING PRECISION (GUANGZHOU) CO., LTD., SAE MAGNETICS (H.K.) LTD., AND TDK CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 3:2019cv12407 (Filed Aug. 15, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco) on Oct. 28, 2019. The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-07061-MMC. The suit alleges violation of anti-trust related laws. The lawsuit arises out of a global conspiracy among Defendants and their co-conspirators to fix prices of and allocate market shares for hard disk drive (HDD) suspension assemblies. The Fahey case is being consolidated with MDL 2918 in RE: HARD DISK DRIVE SUSPENSION ASSEMBLIES ANTITRUST LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Oct. 8, 2019. The actions in this litigation involve allegations that engaged in a conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain, or stabilize the price of hard disk drive suspension assemblies sold in the United States and abroad from May 2008 through at least April 2016. In its Oct. 8, 2019 Order, the MDL Panel conclude that the Northern District of California is an appropriate transferee forum. Defendant Headway Technologies, Inc., has its headquarters in this district, and third-party discovery is expected to take place from two hard disk drive manufacturers headquartered there. Thus, common documents and witnesses likely will be located in this district. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge Maxine M. Chesney. The lead case is Case No. 3:19-md-02918-MMC. Headway Technologies provides recording head products to the computer hard disk drive industry. The company provides solutions to the server, mobile, and desktop segments of the hard disk drive industry for customers throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James P. Allen, Sr., Esq. ALLEN BROTHERS, PLLC 400 Monroe, Suite 620 Detroit, MI 48226 Telephone: (313) 962 7777 E-mail: jamesallen@allenbrotherspllc.com MDL 2918: Kehilat v. NHK Spring Over HDD Assemblies Consolidated ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled as KEHILAT ROMEMU CORP., on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HUTCHINSON TECHNOLOGY INC., MAGNECOMP PRECISION TECHNOLOGY PUBLIC CO. LTD., NAT PERIPHERAL (DONG GUAN) CO., LTD., NAT PERIPHERAL (H.K.) CO., LTD., NHK SPRING CO. LTD., NHK INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, NHK SPRING (THAILAND) CO., LTD., NHK SPRING PRECISION (GUANGZHOU) CO., LTD., SAE MAGNETICS (H.K.) LTD., AND TDK CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 3:2019cv12459 (Filed Aug. 21, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco) on Oct. 28, 2019. The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-07060-MMC. The suit alleges violation of anti-trust related laws. The lawsuit arises out of a global conspiracy among Defendants and their co-conspirators to fix prices of and allocate market shares for hard disk drive (HDD) suspension assemblies. The Kehilat case is being consolidated with MDL 2918 in RE: HARD DISK DRIVE SUSPENSION ASSEMBLIES ANTITRUST LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Oct. 8, 2019. The actions in this litigation involve allegations that engaged in a conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain, or stabilize the price of hard disk drive suspension assemblies sold in the United States and abroad from May 2008 through at least April 2016. In its Oct. 8, 2019 Order, the MDL Panel conclude that the Northern District of California is an appropriate transferee forum. Defendant Headway Technologies, Inc., has its headquarters in this district, and third-party discovery is expected to take place from two hard disk drive manufacturers headquartered there. Thus, common documents and witnesses likely will be located in this district. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge Maxine M. Chesney. The lead case is Case No. 3:19-md-02918-MMC. The Defendants sold HDD Suspension Assemblies in continuous and uninterrupted flow.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Bryan Clobes, Esq. Patrick E. Cafferty, Esq. Nyran R. Rasche, Esq. Christopher P.T. Tourek, Esq. CAFFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP 205 N. Monroe St. Media, PA 19063 Telephone: (215) 864 2800 Facsimile: (215) 864 2810 E-mail: bclobes@caffertyclobes.com pcafferty@caffertyclobes.com nrasche@caffertyclobes.com ctourek@caffertyclobes.com MDL 2918: La Barbera v. Headway Over HDD Assemblies Consolidated ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled as JOSEPH LA BARBERA, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HEADWAY TECHNOLOGIES, INC., HUTCHINSON TECHNOLOGY INC., MAGNECOMP PRECISION TECHNOLOGY PUBLIC CO. LTD., NAT PERIPHERAL (DONG GUAN) CO., LTD., NAT PERIPHERAL (H.K.) CO., LTD., NHK SPRING CO. LTD., NHK INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, NHK SPRING (THAILAND) CO., LTD., NHK SPRING PRECISION (GUANGZHOU) CO., LTD., SAE MAGNETICS (H.K.) LTD., AND TDK CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 0:19cv02570-SRN-DTS (Filed Sept. 24, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco) on Oct. 28, 2019. The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-07056-MMC. The suit alleges violation of anti-trust related laws. The lawsuit arises out of a global conspiracy among the Defendants and their co-conspirators to fix prices of and allocate market shares for hard disk drive (HDD) suspension assemblies. The La Barbera case is being consolidated with MDL 2918 in RE: HARD DISK DRIVE SUSPENSION ASSEMBLIES ANTITRUST LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Oct. 8, 2019. The actions in this litigation involve allegations that engaged in a conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain, or stabilize the price of hard disk drive suspension assemblies sold in the United States and abroad from May 2008 through at least April 2016. In its Oct. 8, 2019 Order, the MDL Panel conclude that the Northern District of California is an appropriate transferee forum. Defendant Headway Technologies, Inc., has its headquarters in this district, and third-party discovery is expected to take place from two hard disk drive manufacturers headquartered there. Thus, common documents and witnesses likely will be located in this district. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge Maxine M. Chesney. The lead case is Case No. 3:19-md-02918-MMC. The Defendants sold HDD Suspension Assemblies in continuous and uninterrupted flow. Headway Technologies provides recording head products to the computer hard disk drive industry. The company provides solutions to the server, mobile, and desktop segments of the hard disk drive industry for customers throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Shawn J. Wanta, Esq. BAILLON THOME JOZWIAK & WANTA LLP 100 South Fifth Street Suite 1200 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 252-3570 Facsimile: (612) 252-3571 E-mail: sjwanta@baillonthome.com - and - David P. McLafferty, Esq. MCLAFFERTY LAW FIRM, P.C. 923 Fayette Street Conchohocken, PA 19428 Telephone: (612) 940 4000 Facsimile: (612) 940 4007 E-mail: dmclafferty@mclaffertylaw.com MDL 2918: Leff v. Headway Tech Over HDD Assemblies Consolidated --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled as James Sallinger, Lauren Sallinger and Jordan Leff, Plaintiffs v. HEADWAY TECHNOLOGIES, INC., HUTCHINSON TECHNOLOGY INC., MAGNECOMP PRECISION TECHNOLOGY PUBLIC CO. LTD., NAT PERIPHERAL (DONG GUAN) CO., LTD., NAT PERIPHERAL (H.K.) CO., LTD., NHK SPRING CO. LTD., NHK INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, NHK SPRING (THAILAND) CO., LTD., NHK SPRING PRECISION (GUANGZHOU) CO., LTD., SAE MAGNETICS (H.K.) LTD., AND TDK CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 2:2019cv12759 (Filed Sept. 20, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco) on Oct. 28, 2019. The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-07062-MMC. The suit alleges violation of anti-trust related laws. The lawsuit arises out of a global conspiracy among Defendants and their co-conspirators to fix prices of and allocate market shares for hard disk drive (HDD) suspension assemblies. The Leff case is being consolidated with MDL 2918 in RE: HARD DISK DRIVE SUSPENSION ASSEMBLIES ANTITRUST LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Oct. 8, 2019. The actions in this litigation involve allegations that engaged in a conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain, or stabilize the price of hard disk drive suspension assemblies sold in the United States and abroad from May 2008 through at least April 2016. In its Oct. 8, 2019 Order, the MDL Panel conclude that the Northern District of California is an appropriate transferee forum. Defendant Headway Technologies, Inc., has its headquarters in this district, and third-party discovery is expected to take place from two hard disk drive manufacturers headquartered there. Thus, common documents and witnesses likely will be located in this district. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge Maxine M. Chesney. The lead case is Case No. 3:19-md-02918-MMC. The Defendants sold HDD Suspension Assemblies in continuous and uninterrupted flow. Headway Technologies provides recording head products to the computer hard disk drive industry. The company provides solutions to the server, mobile, and desktop segments of the hard disk drive industry for customers throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Paul F. Novak, Esq. Diana Gjonaj, Esq. Gregory Stamatopoulos, Esq. Tifanny Ellis, Esq. WEITZ & LUXENBERG P.C. 3011 West Grand Blvd., Suite 2150 Detroit, MI 48202 Telephone: (313) 800 4170 E-mail: pnovak@weitzlux.com dgonaj@weitzlux.com gstamatopolos@weitzlux.com - and - Peggy J. Wedgworth, Esq. Elizabeth McKenna, Esq. MILBERG PHILLIPS GROSSMAN LLP One Penn Plaza, 9th Floor New York, NY 10119 E-mail: pwedgworth@milberg.com emckenna@milberg.com MDL 2918: Zimmerman v. NHK Spring Over HDD Assemblies Consolidated ------------------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit styled as PAUL THOMAS ZIMMERMAN, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HUTCHINSON TECHNOLOGY INC., MAGNECOMP PRECISION TECHNOLOGY PUBLIC CO. LTD., NAT PERIPHERAL (DONG GUAN) CO., LTD., NAT PERIPHERAL (H.K.) CO., LTD., NHK SPRING CO. LTD., NHK INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, NHK SPRING (THAILAND) CO., LTD., NHK SPRING PRECISION (GUANGZHOU) CO., LTD., SAE MAGNETICS (H.K.) LTD., AND TDK CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 2:2019cv12636 (Filed Sept. 9, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco) on Oct. 28, 2019. The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-07058-MMC. The suit alleges violation of anti-trust related laws. The lawsuit arises out of a global conspiracy among the Defendants and their co-conspirators to fix prices of and allocate market shares for hard disk drive (HDD) suspension assemblies. The Zimmerman case is being consolidated with MDL 2918 in RE: HARD DISK DRIVE SUSPENSION ASSEMBLIES ANTITRUST LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Oct. 8, 2019. The actions in this litigation involve allegations that engaged in a conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain, or stabilize the price of hard disk drive suspension assemblies sold in the United States and abroad from May 2008 through at least April 2016. In its Oct. 8, 2019 Order, the MDL Panel conclude that the Northern District of California is an appropriate transferee forum. Defendant Headway Technologies, Inc., has its headquarters in this district, and third-party discovery is expected to take place from two hard disk drive manufacturers headquartered there. Thus, common documents and witnesses likely will be located in this district. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge Maxine M. Chesney. The lead case is Case No. 3:19-md-02918-MMC. The Defendants sold HDD Suspension Assemblies in continuous and uninterrupted flow.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul F. Novak, Esq. Diana Gjonaj, Esq. Gregory Stamatopoulos, Esq. Tiffany Ellis, Esq. WEITZ & LUXENBERG, P.C. 3011 West Grand Blvd., Suite 2150 Detriot, Michigan 48202 Telephone: (313) 800 4170 E-mail: pnovak@weitzlux.com dgonaj@weitzlux.com gstamatopoulos@weitzlux.com tellis@weitzlux.com - and - Brian D. Penny, Esq. Paul J. Scarlato, Esq. GOLDMAN SCARLATO & PENNY P.C. 161 Washington Street, Suite 1025 Conshohocken, PA 19428 Telephone: (484) 342 0700 E-mail: penny@lawgsp.com scarlato@lawgsp.com MECHANICS BANK: Faces Kramer-Bolds Class Suit in California ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mechanics Bank, et al. The case is captioned as Rebecca Kramer-Bolds, on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Defendant Does 1-100 and Mechanics Bank, Defendant, Case No. 34-2019-00267893-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Oct. 29, 2019). The suit alleges violation of employment-related laws. Mechanics Bank is a community banking financial institution headquartered in Walnut Creek, California. It was founded in 1905 and serves markets in Northern California. It operates in the San Francisco Bay and Sacramento areas. The Bank has over $3.5 billion in assets and over 500 associates at 30 retail branches.[BN] The Plaintiff is 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 MENLO THERAPEUTICS: Consolidated Savelstrov Class Suit Ongoing -------------------------------------------------------------- Menlo Therapeutics Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company continues to defend a consolidated class action styled as, Pavel Savelstrov v. Menlo Therapeutics, Inc., et al. On November 8, 2018, a putative securities class action complaint captioned Pavel Savelstrov v. Menlo Therapeutics, Inc., et al., Case No.18-CIV-06049, was filed in state court in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Mateo, against the Company, certain of its current executive officers and its directors, and certain underwriters in the Company's initial public offering. On January 28, 2019, a putative securities class action complaint captioned Hugh McKay v. Menlo Therapeutics, Inc., et al., Case No.19-CIV-00574, was filed in state court in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Mateo, against the Company, certain of its current executive officers and its directors, and certain underwriters in the Company's initial public offering. The complaints alleged violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 due to allegedly false and misleading statements in connection with the Company's initial public offering. The McKay action has been consolidated with the Savelstrov action and the claim for violations of Section 12(a)(2) has been dismissed. Menlo said, "The Company believes that the lawsuits are without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself. Accordingly, the Company cannot reasonably estimate any range of potential future charges, and the Company has not recorded any accrual for a contingent liability associated with these legal proceedings." Menlo Therapeutics Inc., a late-stage biopharmaceutical company, focuses on the development and commercialization of serlopitant for the treatment of pruritus associated with dermatologic conditions in the United States. Menlo Therapeutics Inc. was founded in 2011 and is headquartered in Redwood City, California. MENN LAW FIRM: Cole Seeks Prelim. Nod of $5,000 Class Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned KAITLYN COLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MENN LAW FIRM, LTD., Case No. 1:19-cv-00527-WCG-JRS (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff, on consent of the Defendant, asks the Court to enter an order, which: (i) preliminarily approves the parties' Class Settlement Agreement; (ii) certifies for settlement purposes the Settlement Class as defined in Paragraph 8 of the Agreement; (iii) appoints STERN THOMASSON LLP as Class Counsel; (iv) appoints the Plaintiff as representative of the Settlement Class; (v) sets dates for Class Members to seek exclusion from, or to object to, the Settlement; (vi) schedules a hearing for final approval of the Agreement; (vii) approves the mailing of notice to Class Members in the proposed form; and (viii) finds that mailing of such notice satisfies the requirements of due process. On April 12, 2019, the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of a class, filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin (the "Litigation"). The Litigation alleged Menn violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. Section 1692, et seq. by mailing consumers initial collection letters to collect defaulted medical debts which, inter alia, failed to accurately provide the information and rights required by Section 1692(g)(a), contradicted the consumer's dispute rights, and otherwise made false, deceptive, and misleading representations including, but not limited to, that the letters were mailed without meaningful attorney involvement. For the purposes of settlement, the Parties stipulate to certification of the Settlement Class, which is defined as: All persons to whom Menn Law Firm, Ltd. mailed an initial written communication to an address in the State of Wisconsin, between April 12, 2018 and May 3, 2019, in the form attached as Exhibit A to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint [Doc. 15], which was not returned as undeliverable. Menn's business records indicate there are 175 persons, who fit within the class definition and, therefore, are in the Settlement Class. Menn will create a class settlement fund of $5,000 ("Class Recovery"), which a Third-Party Settlement Administrator ("Administrator") will distribute pro rata to each Class Member whose Class Notice is not returned undeliverable and does not exclude him/herself from the Settlement. Class Members will receive their share of the Class Recovery by check which will be void sixty (60) days from the date of issuance. Subject to Court approval, Menn agrees to pay the Plaintiff $2,500 for her statutory damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Section 1692k(a)(2)(B), which also takes into account her services to the Settlement Class. In connection with Class Counsel's application for approval of attorney's fees and costs, the Parties stipulate that, if the Court grants the Final Order, then the Litigation is a "successful action" within the meaning of 15 U.S.C. Section 1692k(a)(3) notwithstanding that Menn does not admit liability. As such, and subject to court approval, Menn agrees Class Counsel shall be entitled to receive $39,000, which covers all fees and all expenses arising out of the Litigation. The award of fees, costs, and expenses to Class Counsel shall be in addition to, and shall not in any way reduce, the Class Recovery.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Francis R. Greene, Esq. Philip D. Stern, Esq. Andrew T. Thomasson, Esq. STERN THOMASSON LLP 150 Morris Avenue, 2nd Floor Springfield, NJ 07081 Telephone (973) 379-7500 E-mail: Francis@SternThomasson.com Philip@SternThomasson.com Andrew@SternThomasson.com MICHAEL'S TRANSPORTATION: Faces Del Rio Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Michael's Transportation Service, Inc. The case is captioned as Jacqueline Del Rio, on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Does 1-50 and Michael's Transportation Service, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 34-2019-00267968-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Oct 30, 2019). The suit alleges violation of employment-related laws. Michael's Transportation was founded in 1983. The company's line of business includes providing local bus charter services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Maralle Messrelian, Esq. THE SPIVAK LAW FIRM 16530 Ventura Blvd., Suite 203 Encino, CA 91436-4535 Telephone: (818) 208-9236 MIDLAND FUNDING: Navarroli Moves for Certification of FDCPA Class ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order determining that his Fair Debt Collection Practices Act action entitled NICHOLAS NAVARROLI, on behalf of himself and the class members v. MIDLAND FUNDING LLC; MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC. and ENCORE CAPITAL GROUP, INC., Case No. 1:18-cv-02047 (N.D. Ill.), may proceed as a class action against the Defendants. Mr. Navarroli seeks to certify a class defined as: (a) all individuals with Illinois addresses, (b) to whom a letter was sent on behalf of Defendants to collect a debt, (c) which debt was a credit card on which the last payment had been made more than 5 years prior to the letter, (d) which letter offered a settlement or a payment plan (e) and did not state that any payment may restart the statute of limitations, (f) which letter was sent on or after July 5, 2017 and on or before April 11, 2018. Based on the Defendants' records and discovery responses, there are 84,207 individuals, which meet the class definition. The Plaintiff also asks the Court to appoint Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC as counsel for the class and the Plaintiff as the Class Representative. The case arises out of the Defendants' practice of sending individuals form letters, which offer settlement or payment plans on time-barred credit card debts, without disclosing that making a payment, as requested, may restart the statute of limitations.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel A. Edelman, Esq. Cassandra P. Miller, Esq. EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC 20 S. Clark Street, Suite 1500 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 739-4200 Facsimile: (312) 419-0379 E-mail: dedelman@edcombs.com cmiller@edcombs.com NESTLE USA: Cheslow Suit Removed From Super. Ct. to N.D. Calif. --------------------------------------------------------------- Linda Cheslow and Steven Prescott, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NESTLE USA, INC., and DOES 1 THROUGH 100, inclusive, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Santa Cruz to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on Nov. 13, 2019. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:19-cv-07471 to the proceeding. The lawsuit alleges violation of the Unfair Competition Law, Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and False Advertising Law.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Dale J. Giali, Esq. Keri E, Borders, Esq. MAYER BROWN LLP 350 South Grand Avenue, 25th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-1503 Phone: (213)-229-9509 Fax: (213)-625-0248 Email: dgiali@mayerbrown.com kborders@mayerbrown.com NORTH BEACH: Truffin Seeks Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ KRISTOPHER TRUFFIN and VICTOR ARRUBARRENA, and other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. NORTH BEACH TAVERN LLC d/b/a NORMAN'S TAVERN, a Florida Limited Liability Company, JASON MAMANE, individually, and ALESSANDRO DOINO, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-24468-XXXX (Fla. Cir., Oct. 29, 2019), seeks damages exceeding $15,000, excluding attorneys' fees or costs, for unpaid wages and retaliation pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs began working for the Defendants on November 12, 2018, until January 18, 2019. Throughout the Plaintiffs' employment, the Plaintiffs worked in excess of 40 hours per week. The Defendants allegedly failed to compensate the Plaintiffs at the required minimum wage and/or overtime rate of one and a half times their regular rate for all hours worked in excess of 40 within a single work week, the lawsuit says. North Beach is a local tavern featuring craft beers and spirits, PNW wines, pizza and pub food.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason, Remer, Esq. Miriam Brooks, Esq. Manuel A. Antommattei, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC 44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 416-5000 Facsimile: (305) 416-5005 E-mail jremer@rgpattorneys.com mbrooks@rgpattorneys.com maa@rgpattorneys.com PALCO INC: Peel Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- Felisha Peel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PALCO, INC., Case No. 4:19-cv-00795-BSM (E.D. Ark., Nov. 13, 2019), is brought against the Defendant for violations of the minimum wage and overtime provision of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wages Act. The Defendant failed to pay the Plaintiff for all hours worked, the Plaintiff contends. The Defendant failed to pay all employees a minimum wage for all hours worked up to 40 in one week and to pay one and one-half times their regular ages for all hours worked over 40 in a week, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a home health care worked from 2017 until September 2019. The Defendant is a domestic, for-profit corporation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC One Financial Center 650 South Shackleford, Suite 411 Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: (501) 221-0088 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 Email: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com PBF ENERGY: 2 Classes Certified in Goldstein Suit ------------------------------------------------- PBF Energy Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the judge in Arnold Goldstein, et al. v. Exxon Mobil Corporation, et al., certified two limited classes of property owners, rejecting two other proposed subclasses based on negligence and on strict liability for ultrahazardous activities. On February 17, 2017, in Arnold Goldstein, et al. v. Exxon Mobil Corporation, et al., the company and PBF Energy Company LLC, and the company's subsidiaries, PBF Energy Western Region LLC and Torrance Refining Company LLC and the manager of the company's Torrance refinery along with Exxon Mobil Corporation were named as defendants in a class action and representative action complaint filed on behalf of Arnold Goldstein, John Covas, Gisela Janette La Bella and others similarly situated. The complaint was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles and alleges negligence, strict liability, ultrahazardous activity, a continuing private nuisance, a permanent private nuisance, a continuing public nuisance, a permanent public nuisance and trespass resulting from the February 18, 2015 electrostatic precipitator ("ESP") explosion at the Torrance refinery which was then owned and operated by ExxonMobil. The operation of the Torrance refinery by the PBF entities subsequent to the company's acquisition in July 2016 is also referenced in the complaint. To the extent that plaintiffs' claims relate to the ESP explosion, Exxon has retained responsibility for any liabilities that would arise from the lawsuit pursuant to the agreement relating to the acquisition of the Torrance refinery. On July 2, 2018, the Court granted leave to plaintiffs' to file a Second Amended Complaint alleging groundwater contamination. With the filing of the Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs' added an additional plaintiff. On March 18, 2019, the class certification hearing was held and the judge took the matter under submission. On April 1, 2019, the judge issued an order denying class certification. On April 15, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a Petition with the Ninth Circuit for Permission to Appeal the Order Denying Motion for Class Certification. The appeal is currently pending with the Ninth Circuit. On May 3, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a Motion with the Central District Court for Leave to File a Renewed Motion for Class Certification. On May 22, 2019, the judge granted Plaintiffs' motion. The company filed its opposition to the motion on July 29, 2019. The Plaintiffs' motion was heard on September 23, 2019. On October 15, 2019, the judge granted certification to two limited classes of property owners, rejecting two other proposed subclasses based on negligence and on strict liability for ultrahazardous activities. The certified subclasses relate to trespass claims for ground contamination and nuisance for air emissions. PBF Energy said, "We presently believe the outcome will not have a material impact on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows." PBF Energy Inc., together with its subsidiaries, engages in refining and supplying petroleum products. The company operates in two segments, Refining and Logistics. PBF Energy Inc. was founded in 2008 and is based in Parsippany, New Jersey. PBF ENERGY: Tentative Agreement Reached in Kendig Suit ------------------------------------------------------ PBF Energy Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the parties in Michelle Kendig and Jim Kendig, et al. v. ExxonMobil Oil Corporation, et al., PBF Energy Limited and Torrance Refining Company LLC along with ExxonMobil Oil Corporation and ExxonMobil Pipeline Company, have reached a tentative agreement in principle to settle the class action suit. On September 18, 2018, in Michelle Kendig and Jim Kendig, et al. v. ExxonMobil Oil Corporation, et al., PBF Energy Limited and Torrance Refining Company LLC along with ExxonMobil Oil Corporation and ExxonMobil Pipeline Company were named as defendants in a class action and representative action complaint filed on behalf of Michelle Kendig, Jim Kendig and others similarly situated. The complaint was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles and alleges failure to authorize and permit uninterrupted rest and meal periods, failure to furnish accurate wage statements, violation of the Private Attorneys General Act and violation of the California Unfair Business and Competition Law. Plaintiffs seek to recover unspecified economic damages, statutory damages, civil penalties provided by statute, disgorgement of profits, injunctive relief, declaratory relief, interest, attorney's fees and costs. To the extent that plaintiffs' claims accrued prior to July 1, 2016, ExxonMobil has retained responsibility for any liabilities that would arise from the lawsuit pursuant to the agreement relating to the acquisition of the Torrance refinery and logistics assets. On October 26, 2018, the matter was removed to the Federal Court, California Central District. A mediation hearing between the parties was held on August 23, 2019. From the mediation hearing, the parties have reached a tentative agreement in principle to settle. PBF Energy said, "Although the settlement resolution has not been finalized, we presently believe the outcome will not have a material impact on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows." PBF Energy Inc., together with its subsidiaries, engages in refining and supplying petroleum products. The company operates in two segments, Refining and Logistics. PBF Energy Inc. was founded in 2008 and is based in Parsippany, New Jersey. PHOENIX, AZ: Court Partly Grants Class Cert. Bid in Puente Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the District of Arizona issued an Order granting in part and denying in past Plaintiffs' Amended Motion for Class Certification in the case captioned Puente, et al., Plaintiffs, v. City of Phoenix, et al., Defendants, Case No. CV-18-02778-PHX-JJT (D. Ariz.). On August 22, 2017, President Donald Trump held a rally at the Phoenix Convention Center, and approximately 6,000 demonstrators--both pro-Trump and anti-Trump--gathered outside the Convention Center. Plaintiffs filed suit against Phoenix Police Department (PPD) and certain PPD members including Chief Williams, Field Force Commander Moore, Grenadier Team Leader McBride, and Grenadiers Scott, Turiano, Neville, Sticca, White, Howell, and Herr raising four claims: (1) a claim under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 for excessive use of force during a search or seizure under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments (2) a Section 1983 claim for infringement of Plaintiffs' freedom of speech and association rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments (3) a Section 1983 claim for due process violations under the Fourteenth Amendment and (4) a Section 1983 claim for equal protection violations under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. At issue is Plaintiffs' Amended Motion for Class Certification, the Defendants' Motion for Leave to Supplement the Class Certification Record, Motion to File Exhibit under Seal , and Motion for Leave to File a Sur-Reply, as well as Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike Portions of Defendants' Supplements or Alternatively for Leave to Respond to Defendants' Filings. LEGAL STANDARD Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) provides that a class action that is, an action in which one or more members of a class sue on behalf of all members of the class may proceed only if four prerequisites are met: (1) Numerosity: the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable (2) Commonality: there are questions of law or fact common to the class (3) Typicality: the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class and(4) Adequacy of Representation: the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. In the Complaint, Plaintiffs propose a damages class consisting of those persons who were present on August 22, 2017, at the Trump Protest area north of the Convention Center which was designated as the free-speech zone (the area for anti-Trump protestors bounded to the south by Monroe Street, 2nd Street to the west, and 3rd street to the east) and forced by PPD onto adjacent streets at any point between 8:25 and 10:00 P.M., who did not engage in any conduct justifying the Defendants' use of force against them, and who were subjected to the PPD's dispersal by the use of force, or other unlawful police activity arising from the police response to anti-Trump protestors. Proposed Damages Class Failsafe Class Definition Defendants argue that Plaintiffs' proposed damages class definition fails, somewhat ironically, because it is failsafe that is, it limits membership to plaintiffs described by their theory of liability in the class definition such that the definition presupposes success on the merits. Put another way, Defendants argue that, by limiting class membership to those who did not engage in any conduct justifying the Defendants' use of force against them, the class definition requires that the Court examine the merits of each individual's claim before it can determine whether the individual is a member of the class, which Defendants contend is unacceptable. As Defendants point out, Defining the class is of critical importance because it identifies the persons (1) entitled to relief (2) bound by a final judgment and (3) entitled under Rule 23(c)(2) to the best notice practicable in a Rule 23(b)(3) action. Thus, a class definition must be precise, objective, and presently ascertainable' before a class action can proceed. Plaintiffs and Defendants interpret the proposed damages class definition differently. Plaintiffs represent that they intended to define a class not by presupposing that they win the legal question at issue, but rather by limiting the class to individuals who did not engage in certain conduct. Defendants focus not on the conduct of the class members, but rather the conclusion that must be drawn from that conduct that it did not justify Defendants' use of force against them. Here, the Court finds the defect in Plaintiffs' proposed damages class definition to be somewhat akin to a defective complaint in which a claim relies on allegations couched as legal conclusions instead of non-conclusory allegations of fact. If the class definition were to focus on the individuals' conduct, as Plaintiffs intended, concerns about having to reach the merits of Plaintiffs' claims in identifying class members would no longer be present. Moreover, the conduct Defendants have identified as justifying their use of force was only two-fold: individuals attempting to breach the free speech zone barrier and individuals throwing objects (including CS gas cannisters) at PPD officers. Thus, a more precise, presently ascertainable, non-conclusory class definition that is consistent with the class definition Plaintiffs have chosen would be as follows: those persons who were present on August 22, 2017, at the Trump Protest area north of the Convention Center which was designated as the free-speech zone (the area for anti-Trump protestors bounded to the south by Monroe Street, 2nd Street to the west and 3rd street to the east) and forced by PPD onto adjacent streets at any point between 8:25 and 10:00 P.M., who neither threw objects nor attempted to breach the free speech zone barrier along Monroe Street, and who were subjected to the PPD's dispersal by the use of force, or other unlawful police activity arising from the police response to anti-Trump protestors. Numerosity, Commonality, Predominance, and Damages Plaintiffs generally describe their theory of liability as follows: PPD used indiscriminate force against the whole protest as opposed to individual protestors against whom such force was justified and declared an unlawful assembly based on the conduct of a few individuals who could and should have been isolated. This undifferentiated use of force and wholesale crowd dispersal violated the protestors' rights. In contrast, Defendants contend that the evidence shows that Plaintiffs' claims are riddled with individualized inquiries that cannot be answered on a classwide basis. Defendants point in particular to evidence that the PPD deployments of munitions, whether in the form of gas and chemical agents (Plaintiffs' proposed damages subclass (a)) or bullets and projectiles (Plaintiffs' proposed damages subclass (b)), were targeted at certain individuals and spread out over time and space. The Court now examines whether Plaintiffs have sufficiently demonstrated numerosity, commonality, and predominance with respect to each proposed damages subclass. Proposed Damages Subclass (a) - Gas/Chemical Agents Plaintiffs contend the evidence shows that the individuals exposed to gas or chemical agents number at least in the hundreds out of the estimated 6,000 protestors. They further argue that these individuals' claims for relief require resolving central, common questions as to Defendants' liability and that these common questions predominate over individual issues, satisfying Rules 23(a)(2) and 23(b)(3). A review of the video and other evidence reveals that a large number of individuals more than 40 appear to have been exposed to gas or chemical agents, even if in some instances it was inert smoke, and Plaintiffs therefore satisfy the numerosity requirement. As for commonality, the Court need not find that all questions of fact and law be common to the individual class members, t]he existence of shared legal issues with divergent factual predicates is sufficient, as is a common core of salient facts coupled with disparate legal remedies within the class. Defendants argue that their use of gas and chemical agents was by different grenadiers exercising individual judgment in response to certain actions by protestors, and each use was targeted at certain groups of individuals. The Court disagrees with Defendants that this case is similar to those and that the factual and legal questions as to PPD's use of gas/chemical agents are too individualized for class certification here. While the grenadiers report that they intended to target certain groups of individuals with their use of force, the very nature of the use of gas is that it is not contained to a certain individual or a small area. The video evidence shows that PPD's use of pepper balls, tear gas, and inert smoke caused large numbers of protestors to disperse. The Court also finds that Plaintiffs have satisfactorily demonstrated for the purposes of their Motion that Defendants' actions were likely command decisions, from the initial authorization to use gas and chemical agents, to the unlawful assembly and dispersal announcements, to the later ratification of PPD's actions by its Chief.5 Plaintiffs thus have shown that both factual and legal questions as to the propriety of Defendants' use of gas and chemical agents are common among the proposed class members and predominate over any individual questions. Typicality and Adequacy of Representation Returning to the remaining damages class proposed damages subclass (a) Plaintiffs have satisfactorily demonstrated typicality and adequacy of representation with respect to the named Plaintiffs. Gonzalez Goodman, Guillen, and Travis all claim they were exposed to Defendants' gas/chemical agents and subject to Defendants' dispersal order. Moreover, there is no argument before the Court that the named Plaintiffs have a conflict of interest or that counsel for Plaintiffs are not competent to represent the class. Plaintiffs have therefore shown typicality and adequacy of representation under Rules 23(a)(3) and (4). Because Plaintiffs have met the requirements of Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3), the Court will certify Plaintiffs' proposed subclass (a) of the damages class for a class action. Accordingly, the Court is granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs' Amended Motion for Class Certification. The Court certifies Plaintiffs' proposed subclass (a) of the damages class with the modification to the class definition described in this Order, as well as Plaintiffs' proposed injunctive relief class. The Court denies certification of Plaintiffs' proposed damages subclass (b). The Defendants' Motion for Leave to Supplement the Class Certification Record is granted and the Court directed the Clerk of Court to file on the docket the documents currently lodged at Docs. 139 and 140. The Court also grants the Motion to File Exhibit under Seal and directs the Clerk of Court to file under seal the document currently lodged under seal at Doc. 142. The Court denied as moot Defendants' Motion for Leave to File a Sur-Reply. The Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike Portions of Defendants' Supplements or Alternatively for Leave to Respond to Defendants' Filings is denied. A full-text copy of the District Court's September 30, 2019 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yym3mz7s from Leagle.com. Puente, an Arizona nonprofit corporation, Poder in Action, an Arizona nonprofit corporation, Ira Yedlin, individually and as class representatives, Janet Travis, individually and as class representatives, Cynthia Guillen, individually and as class representatives & Jacinta Gonzalez Goodman, individually and as class representatives, Plaintiffs, represented by Barrett S. Litt - blitt@kmbllaw.com - Kaye McLane Bednarski & Litt, pro hac vice, Dan Stormer , Hadsell Stormer & Renick LLP, 128 N. Fair Oaks Avenue, Suite 204, Pasadena, CA 91103, pro hac vice, Darrell Lavar Hill , ACLU, Po Box 17148, Phoenix, AZ, 85011-0148. Indra Neel Chatterjee - nchatterjee@goodwinlaw.com - Goodwin Procter, pro hac vice, John C. Washington , Schonbrun Seplow Harris and Hoffman LLP, 11543 W Olympic Blvd, Los Angeles, CA 90064-1508, pro hac vice, Julia W. Zhang - jzhang@goodwinlaw.com - Goodwin Procter, pro hac vice, Kathleen E. Brody , Mitchell Stein Carey Chapman PC, One Renaissance Square, 2 North Central Avenue, Suite 1450, Phoenix, AZ 85004, Paul L. Hoffman , Schonbrun Seplow Harris and Hoffman LLP, 11543 W Olympic Blvd, Los Angeles, CA 90064-1508, pro hac vice, Samantha K. McKean , Goodwin Procter LLP, 620 8th Ave, New York, NY 10018-1618, pro hac vice, Sean M. Galvin , Goodwin Procter LLP, , 620 8th Ave, New York, NY 10018-1618, pro hac vice, Shaleen Ameeta Shanbhag , Hadsell Stormer Renick & Dai LLP, 128 N. Fair Oaks Avenue, Pasadena, CA 91103, pro hac vice & Martin Lieberman , ACLU, Po Box 17148, Phoenix, AZ, 85011-0148. City of Phoenix, a municipal corporation, Jeri L Williams, individually and in their official capacities, Benjamin Moore, individually and in their official capacities, Douglas McBride, individually and in their official capacities, Robert Scott, individually and in their official capacities, Christopher Turiano, individually and in their official capacities, Glenn Neville, individually and in their official capacities, John Sticca, individually and in their official capacities, Lane White, individually and in their official capacities, Jeffrey Howell, individually and in their official capacities & George Herr, individually and in their official capacities, Defendants, represented by Bradley D. Holm , Phoenix City Attorneys Office, David B. Rosenbaum - drosenbaum@omlaw.com - Osborn Maledon PA, Gary Lee Popham, Jr. - glp@manningllp.com - Manning & Kass Ellrod Ramirez Trester LLP, Joshua Michael Whitaker - jwhitaker@omlaw.com - Osborn Maledon PA, Leslie Steve Tuskai , City of Phoenix Law Department, Mary Ruth OGrady , Osborn Maledon PA, 2929 N Central Ave, 21st Fl. | Phoenix, AZ 85012-2793, Mildred K. OLinn - mko@manningllp.com - Manning & Kass Ellrod Ramirez Trester LLP, pro hac vice & Nishan Joseph Wilde - njw@manningllp.com - Manning & Kass Ellrod Ramirez Trester LLP. POWER HOME: Reinert Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls ------------------------------------------------------------- LEAH REINERT, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. POWER HOME REMODELING GROUP LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-13186-AJT-RSW (E.D. Mich., Oct. 29, 2019), alleges that the Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise, in part, by placing telemarketing calls using an Automatic Telephone Dialing System to wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Power Home Remodeling is an American corporation headquartered in Chester, Pennsylvania, that provides services predominantly related to energy and cost-saving exterior remodeling products such as replacement windows, roofing and vinyl siding.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony I. Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Telephone: (617) 485-0018 Fascimile: (508) 318-8100 E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com - and - Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. TURKE & STRAUSS LLP 613 Williamson St., Suite 201 Madison, WI 53703 Telephone: (608) 237-1775 Facsimile: (608) 509-4423 E-mail: sam@turkestrauss.com - and - Jeremy M. Glapion, Esq. THE GLAPION LAW FIRM, LLC 1704 Maxwell Drive Wall, NJ 07719 Telephone: (732) 455-9737 Facsimile: (732) 965-8006 E-mail: jmg@glapionlaw.com PRIME INC: Parker Seeks to Recover Minimum Wage for Truck Drivers ----------------------------------------------------------------- TERESA PARKER, individually and on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PRIME INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-09269 (C.D. Cal., Oct. 28, 2019), targets Prime's systemic denial of minimum wage and compliant meal and rest periods in violation of the California Labor Code, the Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders, and the Unfair Competition Law. The case is assigned to Hon. Judge Otis D Wright, II. The case is a class action and law enforcement action brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals, who have worked for Prime Inc. as non-exempt, over-the-road truck drivers in California. The Drivers work away from home or weeks on end hauling freight in long-haul semis, either alone, or as part of a two-driver team, the Plaintiff says. Prime does not compensate and/or fully compensate the Drivers for much of the time they are on, near and/or confined to the truck, the lawsuit says. Prime is a large truckload motor shipping carrier in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua Konecky, Esq. Leslie Joyner, Esq. Nathan Piller, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP 2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400 Emeryville, CA 94608 Telephone: (415) 421 7100 Facsimile: (415) 421 7105 E-mail: jkonecky@schneiderwallace.com ljoyner@schneiderwallace.com npiller@schneiderwallace.com REALNETWORKS INC: Claims Period in Napster Case Ends Dec. 31 ------------------------------------------------------------ RealNetworks, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the claims period in the class action suit involving Napster ends December 31, 2019. In March 2016, Napster was notified of a putative consumer class action lawsuit relating to an alleged failure to pay so-called "mechanical royalties" on behalf of the plaintiffs and "other similarly-situated holders of mechanical rights in copyrighted musical works." On April 7, 2017, the plaintiffs and Napster agreed to settlement terms during a mediation session. The long form Settlement Agreement was executed effective on January 16, 2019. The damages payable under the Settlement Agreement will be calculated on a claims made basis, subject to an overall maximum of $10.0 million. RealNetworks said, "We have not recorded an accrual related to this settlement as of September 30, 2019 as the amount payable is not reasonably estimable. In May 2019, public notice was posted about the settlement informing purported class members that they can make claims or object to the settlement. The claims period ends on December 31, 2019, on which date (or shortly thereafter), Napster expects to know the total amount of damages payable in respect to validly made claims. Damages for valid claims are expected to be paid in the second quarter of 2020." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. In January this year, RealNetworks doubled its stake in Rhapsody International, which owns music streaming service Napster, from 42% to 84%, according to a report by GeekWire.com. RealNetworks, Inc. provides network-delivered digital media applications and services to manage, play, and share digital media. RealNetworks, Inc. was founded in 1994 and is headquartered in Seattle, Washington. RECKITT BENCKISER: Carrigan Moves to Certify Class of Consumers --------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled MAUREEN CARRIGAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. RECKITT BENCKISER, LLC, Case No. 1:18-cv-07073 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to certify an Illinois class for RB's alleged violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. The proposed Class is defined as: "all persons who purchased Move Free in the state of Illinois between May 28, 2015, and the date class notice is disseminated." Additionally, the Plaintiff asks to be appointed as Class Representative, and for Timothy G. Blood, Esq., and Thomas J. O'Reardon, II, Esq., of Blood Hurst & O'Reardon, LLP, to be appointed Class Counsel. The Plaintiff's case is a sister case to a certified class action pending against Defendant Reckitt Benckiser, LLC's ("RB") in the Northern District of California: Yamagata, et al. v. Reckitt Benckiser LLC, No. 17-cv-03529-VC (N.D. Cal.). As here, the Yamagata plaintiffs allege that RB falsely advertises that its glucosamine-based products—called "Move Free"--provide joint health benefits when, in fact, the products do not. In June 2019, the Yamagata court certified California and New York classes for violations of the consumer protection statutes in those states. Yamagata v. Reckitt Benckiser LLC, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117599 (N.D. Cal. June 5, 2019). As in Yamagata, certification is appropriate here because the central, predominating question at the heart of this litigation is whether the packaging of RB's Move Free products is likely to mislead a reasonable consumer, the Plaintiff contends. That question is common to all Class members and will be resolved through the presentment of evidence common to all Class members--mainly Move Free's packaging and evidence demonstrating that the products do not provide the promised joint health benefits.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy G. Blood, Esq. Thomas J. O'Reardon, II, Esq. BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON, LLP 501 West Broadway, Suite 1490 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 338-1100 Facsimile: (619) 338-1101 E-mail: tblood@bholaw.com toreardon@bholaw.com - and - Ben Barnow, Esq. Erich P. Schork, Esq. BARNOW AND ASSOCIATES, P.C. 205 West Randolph, Suite 1630 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 621-2000 Facsimile: (312) 641-5504 E-mail: b.barnow@barnowlaw.com e.schork@barnowlaw.com - and - Todd D. Carpenter, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH LLP 1350 Columbia Street, Suite 603 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 762-1910 Facsimile: (619) 756-6991 E-mail: tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com - and - Edwin J. Kilpela, Jr., Esq. CARLSON LYNCH LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 Facsimile: (412) 231-0246 E-mail: ekilpela@carlsonlynch.com SABRE CORP: NY Class Suit over Airline Ticket Prices Dismissed -------------------------------------------------------------- Sabre Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the court has dismissed the remaining claims in the class action suit related to airline ticket prices with prejudice. In July 2015, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against the company and two other Sabre global distribution system (GDSs), in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The plaintiffs, who sought to assert claims on behalf of a putative class of consumers in various states, generally alleged that the GDSs conspired to negotiate for full content from the airlines, resulting in higher ticket prices for consumers, in violation of various federal and state laws. The plaintiffs sought an unspecified amount of damages in connection with their state law claims, and they requested injunctive relief in connection with their federal claim. In July 2016, the court granted, in part, the company's motion to dismiss the lawsuit, finding that plaintiffs' state law claims were preempted by federal law, thereby precluding their claims for damages. The court declined to dismiss plaintiffs' claim seeking an injunction under federal antitrust law. In October 2018, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion for class certification with prejudice. The company subsequently settled with each of the individual plaintiffs for a nominal amount, and on September 26, 2019, the court dismissed the remaining claims in the case with prejudice. Sabre Corporation, through its subsidiary, Sabre Holdings Corporation, provides technology solutions to the travel and tourism industry worldwide. It operates in three segments: Travel Network, Airline Solutions, and Hospitality Solutions. The company was founded in 2006 and is headquartered in Southlake, Texas. SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Court Certifies Class in Securities Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------------ The United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma issued an Order granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification in IN RE SANDRIDGE ENERGY, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. CIV-12-1341-G (W.D. Okla.). Lead Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit alleging that Defendants SandRidge Energy, Inc. (SandRidge) and its senior executives Tom L. Ward, James D. Bennett, and Matthew K. Grubb had violated the federal securities laws in 2011 and 2012. Following dismissal of various claims, there remain pending allegations of violation of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 78j(a), as amended, and the Securities and Exchange Commission's Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Lead Plaintiffs request certification of a class consisting of all purchasers of SandRidge common stock between February 24, 2011 and November 8, 2012, inclusive, who were damaged thereby. Class Certification Standard Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 prescribes the requirements for class certification. Rule 23(a) requires the party seeking certification to demonstrate that: (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable (numerosity) (2) there is a question of law or fact common to the class (commonality) (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class (typicality) and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class (adequacy). Rule 23(a) Numerosity To satisfy the element of numerosity, Lead Plaintiffs must show that the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. This element, which is rarely disputed in securities fraud class actions, is not contested by Defendants and is clearly met here. Commonality To establish commonality, Lead Plaintiffs need only demonstrate a single question of law or fact common to the class. Here, Lead Plaintiffs' claims all depend upon at least one common contention, i.e., that Defendants made material misrepresentations as to the makeup of the Mississippian formation, that is of such a nature that it is capable of classwide resolution which means that determination of its truth or falsity will resolve an issue that is central to the validity of each one of the claims in one stroke. Defendants do not contest that this element has been met and the Court likewise finds it so. Typicality Rule 23(a)(3) requires that the claims or defenses of the representative parties be typical of the claims or defenses of the class. Defendants contend that two Lead Plaintiffs cannot make this showing due to varying defenses between them and the remainder of the class. Angelica Galkin The record reflects that Angelica Galkin, through her brokerage account, purchased more than two million shares of Sandridge stock after the allegedly fraudulent nature of Defendants' statements was revealed on November 8, 2012. Defendants cite cases to support their argument that these post-class-period purchases support Defendants raising a unique defense against Ms. Galkin and thereby render Ms. Galkin atypical. But other decisions have found that such post-disclosure purchases do not automatically make those plaintiffs unique and do not automatically defeat typicality Here, Defendants do not explain why the timing of Ms. Galkin's purchases automatically makes it unique other class members may also have purchased SandRidge common stock after partial adverse disclosures by the company. And even if Ms. Galkin is revealed to be the only class member that bought additional stocks after the disclosures, Defendants have not shown that this issue threatens to become the focus of the litigation or that she was not relying on the integrity of the market in the later purchases of the stock. St. Louis Trust St. Louis Trust has participated in eleven securities class actions since 2005, including ten where it was represented by current counsel Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP or a predecessor, and it sought to be appointed as a lead plaintiff in each. Defendants argue that this litigation history and the fund's longstanding relationship with its counsel will require St. Louis Trust to meet unique defenses and therefore St. Louis Trust should be found atypical. Lead Plaintiffs correctly point out, however, that Defendants rely on authority that predates the 1995 Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA) for this contention. The now-enacted PSLRA was designed to increase the likelihood that institutional investors will serve as lead plaintiffs. The Court finds persuasive a fellow district court's lack of undue concern over a plaintiff's continued relationship with a particular law firm. In sum, the cited factual distinctions and potential defenses do not defeat typicality here, as the claims of the class representatives and class members are based on the same legal theory and establishment of the class representatives' claims will establish the bulk of the elements of each class member's claim. Fair and Adequate Representation Defendants additionally argue that Lead Plaintiffs will not fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class as required by Rule 23(a)(4). The Tenth Circuit has identified two questions whose resolution determines the adequacy inquiry: (1) do the named plaintiffs and their counsel have any conflicts of interest with other class members? and (2) will the named plaintiffs and their counsel prosecute the action vigorously on behalf of the class? Defendants assert that Lead Plaintiffs are inadequate representatives because they lack sufficient knowledge and understanding of this lawsuit and have repeatedly abdicated all responsibility for litigation to their counsel. Having reviewed the relevant record, the Court does not find evidence to support the contention that Lead Plaintiffs have abandoned their responsibilities or given improper control to their law firm as a de facto plaintiff. Although the relevant individuals are fuzzy on some details on the litigation, their depositions reflect that they do possess reasonable understanding of this lawsuit and their expected role in it, including their monitoring responsibilities. Both of the institutional investors retain counsel independent of Robbins Geller to assist with this lawsuit and others. Lead Plaintiffs present a persuasive reply that Defendants' conflict-of-interest argument is moot and that even if the supposed conflict had arisen, it could have been remedied procedurally by the Court. And Defendants' omission of any direct challenge to the appointment of Robbins Geller as Class Counsel under Rule 23(g) undermines its challenge to adequate representation. Rule 23(b)(3) Because the requirements of Rule 23(a) have been met, the Court must determine whether Lead Plaintiffs have shown that the questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual class members and that a class actions is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy. Lead Plaintiffs' Damages Model As part of their certification request, Lead Plaintiffs have presented the expert report and damages calculations of Bjorn Steinholt. Defendants argue that Lead Plaintiffs have failed to show predominance under Rule 23(b)(3) because they have not proposed a method to measure damages on a classwide basis consistent with their theory of liability. According to Defendants, Mr. Steinholt's proposed damages model, an event-study framework, suffers from two deficiencies that render it inadequate. First, they argue, Mr. Steinholt's model cannot separate any damages attributable to the allegedly unlawful misrepresentations and omissions from those shareholder losses attributable to other unrelated events. Second, they assert that the model "inaccurately assumes that any purported inflation in SandRidge's share price remained constant throughout the proposed class period despite numerous changes that would have impacted the amount of price inflation under Plaintiffs' theory of liability. These may be tenable objections in the context of a Daubert challenge6 or a summary-judgment motion. For current purposes, however, the alleged flaws in Mr. Steinholt's damages model do not demonstrate that his model is entirely nonviable or that there would be material differences between each class member's damages determination that would require individualized inquiries. If Mr. Steinholt's model improperly fails to consider certain other losses or to account for inflation changes during the class period, it would seemingly be flawed in this manner as to every member of the class. The focus of the 23(b)(3) class certification inquiry predominance is not whether the plaintiffs will fail or succeed, but whether they will fail or succeed together. Defendants' attack on the damages model does not persuade the Court against finding predominance. Issues of Investor Knowledge For every securities-fraud claim, the complaint shall specify each statement alleged to have been misleading and the reason or reasons why the statement is misleading. And when allegations are made on information and belief the complaint shall state with particularity all facts on which that belief is formed. Defendants first argue that if such production data was publicly available, Lead Plaintiffs' claims must fail because that data would have been reflected in the price of the SandRidge stock, precluding a claim that the market was misled by the alleged misrepresentations. Lead Plaintiffs accurately argue that this amounts to Defendants raising a truth-on-the-market defense, which is inappropriate on a motion for class certification and more properly a matter for summary judgment or trial. Defendants alternatively contend that if such production data was publicly available, but not readily available and so not reflected in the stock price, the Court will be required to conduct individualized inquiries to gauge each investor's knowledge of this information and that the predominance requirement therefore cannot be met. The possibility that some investors had knowledge of this data, however, does not direct a finding that common issues do not prevail over those issues subject only to individualized proof. Defendants' cited authorities do not persuade the Court otherwise. Importantly, Lead Plaintiffs allege that Defendants affirmatively refuted findings based upon the public data. Further, with respect to the elements Lead Plaintiffs in this action must prove, any individualized investor knowledge of the public data would be most relevant to whether that knowledge precluded a particular investor from relying upon the alleged misrepresentation or omission in purchasing SandRidge Stock. Here, the record before the Court, including the allegations regarding data transmitted by SandRidge to the Oklahoma Tax Commission, does not support a finding that individual questions predominate over common ones or are more prevalent or important than the common, aggregation-enabling issues in the case. Having considered the arguments and the record, the Court finds that the questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members. For all these reasons, Lead Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification is GRANTED. Lead Plaintiffs' proposed class is certified under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3) to pursue the pending securities-fraud claims. With the exception of Vladimir Galkin, the Lead Plaintiffs--Laborers Pension Trust Fund for Northern Nevada, Construction Laborers Pension Trust of Greater St. Louis, and Angelica Galkin--shall continue as Class Representatives. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is appointed as Class Counsel pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g). A full-text copy of the District Court's September 30, 2019 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y2dlbpp4 from Leagle.com. James Glitz, on behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated & Rodger A Thornberry, on behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Darren B. Derryberry , Derryberry & Naifeh LLP, 4800 North Lincoln Boulevard, Oklahoma City, OK 73105, David A. Rosenfeld - DRosenfeld@rgrdlaw.com - Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Evan J. Kaufman - ekaufman@rgrdlaw.com- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac vice & Mario Alba - malba@rgrdlaw.com - Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP. Judith Greenberg, Charles Blackburn & Ted Odell, Plaintiffs, represented by Darren B. Derryberry , Derryberry & Naifeh LLP & Evan J. Kaufman , Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac vice. Sandridge Energy Inc, Defendant, represented by Amy H. Bond - abond@cov.com - Covington & Burling, C. Williams Phillips - cphillips@cov.com - Covington & Burling, Christopher Yuk Lun Yeung - cyeung@cov.com - Covington & Burling, Elisa S. Solomon - esolomon@cov.com - Covington & Burling, Evan G.E. Vincent - evan.vincent@crowedunlevy.com - Crowe & Dunlevy, Herbert Beigel , Law Offices of Herbert Beigel, Jordan S. Joachim- jjoachim@cov.com - Covington & Burling, Kiran A. Phansalkar - kphansalkar@cwlaw.com - Conner & Winters, Mark P. Gimbel - mgimbel@cov.com - Covington & Burling, Mitchell D. Blackburn - mblackburn@cwlaw.com - Conner & Winters & Swati R. Prakash , Covington & Burling. SANTANDER CONSUMER: Deka Class Action Still Stayed -------------------------------------------------- Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the securities class action suit entitled, Deka Investment GmbH et al. v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. et al., remains stayed. The Company is a defendant in a purported securities class action lawsuit (the Deka Lawsuit) in the United States District Court, Northern District of Texas, captioned Deka Investment GmbH et al. v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. et al., No. 3:15-cv-2129-K. The Deka Lawsuit, which was filed in August 26, 2014, was brought against the Company, certain of its current and former directors and executive officers and certain institutions that served as underwriters in the Company's initial public offering (IPO) on behalf of a class consisting of those who purchased or otherwise acquired our securities between January 23, 2014 and June 12, 2014. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the company's IPO registration statement and prospectus and certain subsequent public disclosures violated federal securities laws by containing misleading statements concerning the Company's ability to pay dividends and the adequacy of the Company's compliance systems and oversight. In December 2015, the Company and the individual defendants moved to dismiss the lawsuit, which was denied. In December 2016, the plaintiffs moved to certify the proposed classes. In July 2017, the court entered an order staying the Deka Lawsuit pending the resolution of the appeal of a class certification order in In re Cobalt Int'l Energy, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. H-14-3428, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91938 (S.D. Tex. June 15, 2017). In October 2018, the court vacated the order staying the Deka Lawsuit and ordered that merits discovery in the Deka Lawsuit be stayed until the court ruled on the issue of class certification. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc., a specialized consumer finance company, provides vehicle finance and third-party servicing in the United States. Its products and services include retail installment contracts and vehicle leases, as well as dealer loans for inventory, construction, real estate, working capital, and revolving lines of credit. The company was founded in 1995 and is headquartered in Dallas, Texas. Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. is a subsidiary of Santander Holdings USA, Inc. SEABOARD CORP: Continues to Defend Pork Buyers' Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Seaboard Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company continues to defend against antitrust class action litigation commenced by purchasers of pork products. On June 28, 2018, Wanda Duryea and 11 other indirect purchasers of pork products, acting on behalf of themselves and a putative class of indirect purchasers of pork products, filed a class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota against several pork processors, including Seaboard Foods LLC and Agri Stats, Inc., a company described in the complaint as a data sharing service. Subsequent to the filing of this initial complaint, additional class action complaints making similar claims on behalf of putative classes of direct and indirect purchasers were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. The complaints were amended and consolidated, for pre-trial purposes, into three consolidated putative class actions brought on behalf of (a) direct purchasers, (b) consumer indirect purchasers and (c) commercial and institutional indirect purchasers. The amended complaints named Seaboard Corporation as an additional defendant. The consolidated actions are styled In re Pork Antitrust Litigation. Subsequent to the original filings, a putative class member is proceeding with an individual direct action making similar claims, and others may do so in the future. The individual complaint was filed in the District of Minnesota. The complaints allege, among other things, that beginning in January 2009, the defendants conspired and combined to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize the price of pork products in violation of U.S. antitrust laws by coordinating their output and limiting production, allegedly facilitated by the exchange of non-public information about prices, capacity, sales volume and demand through Agri Stats, Inc. The complaints on behalf of the putative classes of indirect purchasers also include causes of action under various state laws, including state antitrust laws, unfair competition laws, consumer protection statutes, and state common law claims for unjust enrichment. The complaints also allege that the defendants concealed this conduct from the plaintiffs and the members of the putative classes. The relief sought in the respective complaints includes treble damages, injunctive relief, pre- and post-judgment interest, costs, and attorneys' fees on behalf of the putative classes. On August 8, 2019, the District Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss the class action cases, but ordered that plaintiffs have 90 days from the date of the order to file an amended complaint. As of this date, no such amended complaint has been filed, and the period for filing an amended complaint has not expired. The individual complaint also filed in the District of Minnesota was not before the Court when the defendants moved to dismiss the class cases and remains pending. On July 9, 2019, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico filed a similar class action complaint against Seaboard Foods LLC and Seaboard Corporation in the U.S. District Court of Puerto Rico making essentially the same contentions as set forth in the cases filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, but also alleging violations of Puerto Rican antitrust law. Seaboard intends to defend these cases vigorously. Seaboard said, "It is impossible at this stage either to determine the probability of a favorable or unfavorable outcome resulting from these suits, or to reasonably estimate the amount of potential loss or range of potential loss, if any, resulting from the suits." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Seaboard Corporation operates as a diverse agribusiness and transportation company worldwide. The company's Pork division produces and sells fresh pork products, such as loins, tenderloins, and ribs, as well as frozen pork products to further processors, food service operators, grocery stores, distributors, and retail outlets. Seaboard Corporation was founded in 1918 and is headquartered in Merriam, Kansas. SOUTHWEST OFFSET: Faces Perez Suit Over Time-Shaving Practices -------------------------------------------------------------- OSWALDO CUEVAS PEREZ, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SOUTHWEST OFFSET PRINTING CO., INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 trough 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV39114 (Cal. Super., Oct. 28, 2019), seeks to recover civil penalties under the California Labor Code and Private Attorneys General Act of 2004. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt employee from 2008 to Feb. 11, 2019, in California. The Plaintiff last worked as Lead in the Bindery Department. During his employment, the Defendants still utilize a timekeeping system, which resulted in the Plaintiff not being compensated for all hours actually worked, whether by time-shaving and/or rounding practice, the lawsuit says. The Defendants offer printing services, including pre-press, post-press, binding, mailing and fulfillment, and digital printing solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott M. Lidman, Esq. Elizabeth Nguyen, Esq. Milan Moore, Esq. LIDMAN LAW, APC 222 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 1550 El Segundo, CA 90245 Telephone (424) 322 4772 Facsimile:(424) 322 4775 E-mail: slidman@lidmanlaw.com enguyen@lidmanlaw.com mmoore@lidmanlaw.com - and - Paul K. Haines, Esq. HAINES LAW GROUP, APC 222 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 1550 El Segundo, CA 90245 Telephone: (424) 292 2350 Facsimile: (424) 292 2355 E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com SPROUTS FARMERS: Deal Reached for Majority of Phishing Scam Suits ----------------------------------------------------------------- Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 29, 2019, that the company has reached an agreement in principle to settle the majority of the class action suits related to "Phishing" Scam. In April 2016, four complaints were filed, two in the federal courts of California, one in the Superior Court of California and one in the federal court in the District of Colorado, each on behalf of a purported class of the company's current and former team members whose personally identifiable information ("PII") was inadvertently disclosed to an unauthorized third party that perpetrated an email "phishing" scam against one of our team members. The complaints allege that the company failed to properly safeguard the PII in accordance with applicable law. The complaints seek damages on behalf of the purported class in unspecified amounts, attorneys' fees and litigation expenses. After consolidation and transfer of the cases to the federal court in the District of Arizona, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation granted the company's motion to stay proceedings in the case pending a U.S. Supreme Court ruling on the question of whether arbitration agreements like those signed by each of the named plaintiffs are enforceable. On May 21, 2018, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis and upheld enforceability of arbitration agreements containing class action waivers, like the ones the named plaintiffs signed in this matter. On March 1, 2019, a number of individual plaintiffs filed arbitration demands. On May 15, 2019, certain other plaintiffs filed a second amended class action complaint in the District of Arizona, alleging that certain subclasses of team members are not subject to our arbitration agreement and attempts to pursue those team members’ claims in federal court. In late August 2019, the company reached an agreement in principle to settle the majority of these claims. Primary funding for the settlement will come from the company's cyber insurance policy, and the settlement will not have a material impact on our consolidated financial statements. A small group of less than fifteen (15) individual claimants will proceed with arbitration of their claims. Sprouts Farmers said, "We intend to defend the arbitrations vigorously, but it is not possible at this time to reasonably estimate the outcome of, or any potential liability from, the arbitrations." Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc., a healthy grocery store, provides fresh, natural, and organic food products in the United States. Its stores offer fresh produce, meat and seafood, deli and baked goods, packaged groceries, vitamins and supplements, bulk foods, dairy and dairy alternatives, frozen foods, beer and wine, and natural body care and household items. Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc. was founded in 2002 and is based in Phoenix, Arizona. SQUEAKY KLEAN: Sosa Seeks Overtime Pay for Non-Exempt Laborers -------------------------------------------------------------- JEFFERY MATOS SOSA, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SQUEAKY KLEAN SERVICES, INC., a Foreign Profit Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00226-AW-GRJ (N.D. Ga., Oct. 29, 2019), seeks to recover minimum wages and overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act. On April 1, 2017, the Defendants hired the Plaintiff to work as a non-exempt laborer to polish floors. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant on various projects cleaning, waxing, and polishing floors for the Defendant's clients throughout Florida, Tennessee, Kentucky, West Virginia, and Mississippi. From at least April 1, 2017, and continuing through May 30, 2019, the Defendant failed to compensate the Plaintiff at rate of one and one-half times his regular rate for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a single work week. The Plaintiff contends he should be compensated at the rate of one and one-half times his regular rate for those hours that he worked in excess of 40 hours per week as required by the FLSA. Due to the intentional, willful, and unlawful acts of the Defendant, the Plaintiff suffered and continues to suffer damages and lost compensation for time worked over 40 hours per week, the lawsuit says. The Defendant provides commercial janitorial and facility services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew R. Frisch, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 8151 Peters Road, 4th Floor Plantation, FL 33324 Telephone: (954) WORKERS Facsimile: (954) 3273013 E-mail: AFrisch@forthepeople.com SUTHERLAND GLOBAL: Savage Seeks Damages for 401(k) Plan Losses -------------------------------------------------------------- Ashley Savage, David Leidlein, Ronald Cohen, and James Sherburne, individually and as representatives of similarly situated persons, and on behalf of the Plan v. SUTHERLAND GLOBAL SERVICES, INC., CVAGS, LLC d/b/a CLEARVIEW GROUP, SHILPA KONDA, DIANE MOHORTER, LORI D'AMBORSIO, KATHLEEN DECANN, and JOHN DOES 1-20, Case No. 6:19-cv-06840 (W.D.N.Y., Nov. 13, 2019), seeks to recover damages for losses suffered by the Plan and the Plaintiffs' retirement savings, as well as injunctive and other equitable relief for the Plan, the Plaintiffs and other Plan participants and beneficiaries arising from the Defendants' violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. Sutherland Global Service, Inc. 401(k) Plan is a defined contribution, individual account, employee pension benefit plan. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants failed to properly minimize the reasonable fees and expenses of the Plan. The Defendants instead incurred expenses that were excessive, unreasonable and/or unnecessary. The Defendants failed to take advantage of the Plan's bargaining power to reduce fees and expenses. The Plaintiffs add that the Defendants impaired the participants' returns by offering actively manages retail class mutual funds as investments options instead of identical investor class mutual funds with low operating expenses. To the extent any fiduciary responsibilities were properly delegated, the Defendants failed to ensure that any delegated tasks were being performed prudently and loyally in accordance with ERISA, says the complaint. Through this conduct, the Defendants violated their fiduciary obligation under the ERISA and caused damages to the Plan and to the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs are participants and beneficiaries of the Plan. Sutherland Global Services provides process transformation services. It offers human resources management, operational analytics, robotic process automation, and cloud services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael J. Lingle, Esq. Annette M. Gifford, Esq. Adam T. Sanderson, Esq. THOMAS & SOLOMON LLP 693 East Avenue Rochester, NY 14607 Phone (585) 272-0540 Email: milingle@theemploymentattorneys.com agifford@theemploymentattorneys.com asanderson@theemploymentattorneys.com SYNEOS HEALTH: Murakami Class Action Ongoing -------------------------------------------- Syneos Health, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the class action suit entitled, Murakami v. Syneos Health, Inc. et al, No. 19-7377, is ongoing. On March 1, 2019, a complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf of a putative class of shareholders who purchased the Company's common stock during the period between May 10, 2017 and February 27, 2019. The action, captioned Murakami v. Syneos Health, Inc. et al, No. 19-7377 (D.N.J.), names the Company and certain of its executive officers as defendants and alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, based on allegedly false or misleading statements about its business, operations, and prospects. The plaintiffs seek awards of compensatory damages, among other relief, and their costs and attorneys' and experts' fees. On March 28, 2019, Lead Plaintiffs in the Vaitkuviene action filed a motion to intervene and to transfer this action to the Eastern District of North Carolina, and the Company filed its response on April 22, 2019. On April 30, 2019, a shareholder filed a motion seeking to be appointed lead plaintiff and approving the selection of lead counsel. On October 16, 2019, the Court ordered that Plaintiff, by November 8, 2019, file proof of service of the Complaint in Compliance with Rule 4, or otherwise show cause why the action should not be dismissed for failure to properly serve Defendants (the "Order to Show Cause"). The Court further ordered that the action is stayed and that both motions are administratively terminated pending the Court's resolution of the Order to Show Cause. The Company and the other defendants deny the allegations in the complaint and intend to defend vigorously against these claims. In the Company's opinion, the ultimate outcome of this matter is not expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. Syneos Health, Inc. operates as an integrated biopharmaceutical solutions company in North America, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, the Asia-Pacific, and Latin America. It operates through two segments, Clinical Solutions and Commercial Solutions. The company was formerly known as INC Research Holdings, Inc. and changed its name to Syneos Health, Inc. in January 2018. Syneos Health, Inc. was incorporated in 2010 and is headquartered in Morrisville, North Carolina. SYNEOS HEALTH: Vaitkuviene Class Action Stayed ---------------------------------------------- Syneos Health, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the class action suit entitled, Vaitkuviene v. Syneos Health, Inc., et al., has been stayed. On December 1, 2017, the first of two virtually identical actions alleging federal securities law claims was filed against the Company and certain of its officers on behalf of a putative class of its shareholders. The first action, captioned Bermudez v. INC Research, Inc., et al, No. 17-09457 (S.D.N.Y.), names as defendants the Company, Michael Bell, Alistair MacDonald, Michael Gilbertini, and Gregory S. Rush (the "Bermudez action"), and the second action, Vaitkuviene v. Syneos Health, Inc., et al, No. 18-0029 (E.D.N.C.), filed on January 25, 2018 (the "Vaitkuviene action"), names as defendants the Company, Alistair MacDonald, and Gregory S. Rush (the "Initial Defendants"). Both complaints allege similar claims under Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of the Company's common stock between May 10, 2017 and November 8, 2017 and November 9, 2017. The complaints allege that the Company published inaccurate or incomplete information regarding, among other things, the financial performance and business outlook for inVentiv's business prior to the Merger and with respect to the combined company following the Merger. On January 30, 2018, two alleged shareholders separately filed motions seeking to be appointed lead plaintiff and approving the selection of lead counsel. On March 30, 2018, Plaintiff Bermudez filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of the Bermudez action, without prejudice, and as to all defendants. On May 29, 2018, the Court in the Vaitkuviene action appointed the San Antonio Fire & Police Pension Fund and El Paso Firemen & Policemen's Pension Fund as Lead Plaintiffs and, on June 7, 2018, the Court entered a schedule providing for, among other things, Lead Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint by July 23, 2018 (later extended to July 30, 2018). Lead Plaintiffs filed their amended complaint on July 30, 2018, which also includes a claim against the Initial Defendants, as well as each member of the board of directors at the time of the INC Research - inVentiv Health merger vote in July 2017 (the "Defendants"), contending that the inVentiv merger proxy was misleading under Section 14(a) of the Act. Lead Plaintiffs seek, among other things, orders (i) declaring that the lawsuit is a proper class action and (ii) awarding compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial, including interest thereon, and reasonable costs and expenses incurred in this action, including attorneys' fees and experts' fees, to Lead Plaintiffs and other class members. Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint on September 20, 2018. Lead Plaintiffs filed a Response in Opposition to such motion on November 21, 2018, and Defendants filed a Reply to such response on December 5, 2018. On May 23, 2019, Lead Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Filings in Related Case regarding the New Jersey shareholder action filed on March 1, 2019 captioned Murakami v. Syneos Health, Inc. et al, No. 19-7377 (D.N.J.), and Defendants filed their response on May 31, 2019. On September 26, 2019, the Court ordered, among other things, that this action is stayed in light of the litigation filed on March 1, 2019, pending before the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Syneos Health said, "The Company and the other defendants deny the allegations in these complaints and intend to defend vigorously against these claims. In the Company's opinion, the ultimate outcome of this matter is not expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial position, results of operations, or cash flows." Syneos Health, Inc. operates as an integrated biopharmaceutical solutions company in North America, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, the Asia-Pacific, and Latin America. It operates through two segments, Clinical Solutions and Commercial Solutions. The company was formerly known as INC Research Holdings, Inc. and changed its name to Syneos Health, Inc. in January 2018. Syneos Health, Inc. was incorporated in 2010 and is headquartered in Morrisville, North Carolina. TRANS CONTINENTAL: Gottdiener Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Trans Continental Credit & Collection Corp. The case is styled as Toby Gottdiener, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Trans Continental Credit & Collection Corp., Defendant, Case No. 7:19-cv-10416 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 8, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Trans-Continental Credit & Collection Corp. (TCC) is a third-party collection agency that specializes in healthcare collections.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David M. Barshay, Esq. Barshay Sanders, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Phone: (516) 203-7600 Fax: (516) 281-7601 Email: dbarshay@barshaysanders.com TWILIO INC: Paid $1.7 Million to Fund Flowers Settlement -------------------------------------------------------- Twilio Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company made a payment of $1.7 million to fund the settlement in the class action suit entitled, Angela Flowers v. Twilio Inc. On February 18, 2016, a putative class action complaint was filed in the Alameda County Superior Court in California, entitled Angela Flowers v. Twilio Inc. The complaint alleges that the Company's products permit the interception, recording and disclosure of communications at a customer’s request and are in violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act. The complaint seeks injunctive relief as well as monetary damages. On January 2, 2018, the court issued an order granting in part and denying in part the plaintiff's class certification motion. The court certified two classes of individuals who, during specified time periods, allegedly sent or received certain communications involving the accounts of three of the Company's customers that were recorded. Following mediation, on January 7, 2019, the parties signed a long form settlement agreement, providing for a payment of $10.0 million into a common fund and injunctive relief involving certain updates to Twilio's Acceptable Use Policy and customer documentation. On January 15, 2019, the court entered an order granting preliminary approval of the settlement, and the parties signed an amended settlement agreement to conform to the court's order. The court entered a final order and judgment approving the settlement on June 17, 2019. Previously, the Company had a $1.7 million reserve on the condensed consolidated balance sheet for the estimated potential liability, net of insurance coverage. On August 30, 2019, Twilio made a payment of $1.7 million to fund the settlement. A final compliance hearing has been scheduled for February 25, 2020. Any additional loss related to this matter is not probable or estimable at this time. Twilio Inc. provides a cloud communications platform that enables developers to build, scale, and operate communications within software applications in the United States and internationally. The company's programmable communications cloud provides a set of application programming interfaces that enable developers to embed voice, messaging, and video capabilities into their applications. Twilio Inc. was founded in 2008 and is headquartered in San Francisco, California. TWILIO INC: Settlement Reached in Bauman Suit over Spam Texts ------------------------------------------------------------- Twilio Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the plaintiffs in the case, Jeremy Bauman v. David Saxe, et al., have filed an unopposed motion for settlement and an unopposed motion to dismiss the Company from the action without prejudice. On September 1, 2015, Twilio was named as a defendant in a First Amended Complaint in a putative class action captioned Jeremy Bauman v. David Saxe, et al. pending in the United States District Court, District of Nevada relating to the alleged sending of unsolicited text messages to the plaintiffs and putative class members. The Company filed a motion to dismiss, which was granted, and on September 20, 2016 the plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint with additional allegations that the Company violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), and the Nevada Deceptive Trade Practices Act ("NDTPA"), NRS 41.600(2)(e). On January 10, 2019, the court granted Plaintiffs' motion for class certification under the TCPA and denied plaintiff's request to certify a class under the NDTPA. On February 13, 2019, the court issued an order denying the Company's motion to dismiss as to Plaintiffs' TCPA claim and granting dismissal as to Plaintiffs' NDTPA claim. On February 22, 2019, the court stayed the case and directed all parties to mediation, which was conducted on May 15, 2019. On May 17, 2019, the original defendants (the "Saxe Defendants") and the Company entered an agreement, which among other things, obligates the Saxe Defendants to fully fund all monetary and non-monetary aspects of the settlement of the matter and to obtain the dismissal of the plaintiffs’ and the class’s claims against the Company with prejudice. On October 7, 2019, the plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion for settlement and an unopposed motion to dismiss the Company from the action without prejudice. Based on, among other things, the dismissal motion and the Company’s agreement with the Saxe Defendants, the Company does not believe a loss is reasonably possible or estimable. Twilio Inc. provides a cloud communications platform that enables developers to build, scale, and operate communications within software applications in the United States and internationally. The company's programmable communications cloud provides a set of application programming interfaces that enable developers to embed voice, messaging, and video capabilities into their applications. Twilio Inc. was founded in 2008 and is headquartered in San Francisco, California. UBS AG: Starostenko Sues Over Doctoring of Account Statements ------------------------------------------------------------- YURI STAROSTENKO and IRINA TSAREVA, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. UBS AG (A SWISS BANK), Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-0993-UA (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 28, 2019), accuses the Defendant of violating securities laws and the Sherman Act and seeks common law claims of unjust enrichment and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. According to the complaint, between June 2013 through April 2015, UBS AG conducted through its Bahamian subsidiary fraudulent schemes by unlawfully not carrying out actions as instructed by the Plaintiffs, by not sending or routing to and not representing or executing on national securities exchanges the Plaintiffs' orders to but (sell) equity securities traded publicly on these exchanges, which must yield priority, parity and precedence. As a result, the Defendant did not effect any transaction on any national securities exchange to their account with respect to which it acted as agent, the Plaintiffs assert. The fraudulent scheme involved illicit and unauthorized actions by UBS Bahamian subsidiary to steal directly from the Plaintiffs, by doctoring account statements and other records or financial information issued and delivered to the Plaintiffs, intended for the purpose to defraud the public, including the Plaintiffs, the lawsuit says. UBS Group AG is a Swiss multinational investment bank and financial services company founded and based in Switzerland. Co-headquartered in the cities of Zurich and Basel, it maintains a presence in all major financial centers as the largest Swiss banking institution in the world.[BN] WALMART INC: Legrier Files Fraud Class Suit in New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Walmart Inc. The case is styled as Jennifer Legrier, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Walmart Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-10433 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 8, 2019). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Walmart Inc. is an American multinational retail corporation that operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and grocery stores, headquartered in Bentonville, Arkansas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Spencer Sheehan, Esq. Sheehan & Associates, P.C. 505 Northern Boulevard, Suite 311 Great Neck, NY 11024 Phone: (516) 303-0552 Fax: (516) 234-7800 Email: Spencer@spencersheehan.com WESTERN UNION: 10th Cir. Appeal in Smallen Suit Still Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------------- The Western Union Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the appeal in the case Lawrence Henry Smallen and Laura Anne Smallen Revocable Living Trust et al. v. The Western Union Company et al., is still ongoing. On February 22, 2017, the Company, its President and Chief Executive Officer, its Chief Financial Officer, and a former executive officer of the Company were named as defendants in two purported class action lawsuits, both of which asserted claims under section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Securities and Exchange Commission rule 10b-5 and section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. On May 3, 2017, the two cases were consolidated by the United States District Court for the District of Colorado under the caption Lawrence Henry Smallen and Laura Anne Smallen Revocable Living Trust et al. v. The Western Union Company et al., Civil Action No. 1:17-cv-00474-KLM (D. Colo.). On September 6, 2017, the Court appointed Lawrence Henry Smallen and Laura Anne Smallen Revocable Living Trust as the lead plaintiff. On November 6, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint that, among other things, added two other former executive officers as defendants, one of whom subsequently was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs. The Amended Complaint asserts claims under section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Securities and Exchange Commission rule 10b-5 and section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and alleges that, during the purported class period of February 24, 2012, through May 2, 2017, the defendants made false or misleading statements or failed to disclose purported adverse material facts regarding, among other things, the Company's compliance with AML and anti-fraud regulations, the status and likely outcome of certain governmental investigations targeting the Company, the reasons behind the Company's decisions to make certain regulatory enhancements, and the Company's premium pricing. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on January 16, 2018, and on March 27, 2019, the Court dismissed the action in its entirety with prejudice and entered final judgment in the defendants' favor on March 28, 2019. On April 26, 2019, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. On June 24, 2019, plaintiffs filed their opening brief on appeal. Plaintiffs did not appeal the dismissal of one former executive officer and only appealed the district court's conclusion that the remaining defendants did not make statements concerning the Company's compliance programs with the requisite intent. Western Union said, "Due to the stage of this matter, the Company is unable to predict the outcome, or the possible loss or range of loss, if any, which could be associated with it. The Company and the individual defendants intend to vigorously defend themselves in this matter." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. The Western Union Company provides money movement and payment services worldwide. The company operates in two segments, Consumer-to-Consumer and Business Solutions. It serves primarily through a network of agents. The Western Union Company was incorporated in 2006 and is headquartered in Denver, Colorado. WESTERN UNION: Class Suit v. Argentina Unit Still Ongoing --------------------------------------------------------- The Western Union Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that Western Union Financial Services Argentina S.R.L. ("WUFSA"), a company subsidiary, continues to defend a class action suit in Argentina. In October 2015, Consumidores Financieros Asociacion Civil para su Defensa, an Argentinian consumer association, filed a purported class action lawsuit in Argentina's National Commercial Court No. 19 against the Company's subsidiary Western Union Financial Services Argentina S.R.L. ("WUFSA"). The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that WUFSA's fees for money transfers sent from Argentina are excessive and that WUFSA does not provide consumers with adequate information about foreign exchange rates. The plaintiff is seeking, among other things, an order requiring WUFSA to reimburse consumers for the fees they paid and the foreign exchange revenue associated with money transfers sent from Argentina, plus punitive damages. The complaint does not specify a monetary value of the claim or a time period. In November 2015, the Court declared the complaint formally admissible as a class action. The notice of claim was served on WUFSA in May 2016, and in June 2016 WUFSA filed a response to the claim and moved to dismiss it on statute of limitations and standing grounds. In April 2017, the Court deferred ruling on the motion until later in the proceedings. The process for notifying potential class members has been completed and the case is currently in the evidentiary stage. Western Union said, "Due to the stage of this matter, the Company is unable to predict the outcome or the possible loss or range of loss, if any, associated with this matter. WUFSA intends to defend itself vigorously." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. The Western Union Company provides money movement and payment services worldwide. The company operates in two segments, Consumer-to-Consumer and Business Solutions. It serves primarily through a network of agents. The Western Union Company was incorporated in 2006 and is headquartered in Denver, Colorado. WESTERN UNION: Frazier Suit Remains Stayed Pending Arbitration -------------------------------------------------------------- The Western Union Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the case entitled, Frazier et al. v. The Western Union Company et al., is still stayed pending arbitration. On April 26, 2018, the Company, its Western Union Financial Services, Inc. (WUFSI) subsidiary, its President and Chief Executive Officer, and various "Doe Defendants" (purportedly including Western Union officers, directors, and agents) were named as defendants in a purported class action lawsuit asserting claims for alleged violations of civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and the Colorado Organized Crime Act, civil theft, negligence, unjust enrichment, and conversion under the caption Frazier et al. v. The Western Union Company et al., Civil Action No. 1:18-cv-00998-KLM (D. Colo.). The complaint alleges that, during the purported class period of January 1, 2004 to the present, and based largely on the admissions and allegations relating to the Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA), the United States Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Consent Order, and the New York State Department of Financial Services (NYDFS) Consent Order, the defendants engaged in a scheme to defraud customers through Western Union's money transfer system. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on July 17, 2018. The amended complaint is similar to the original complaint, although it adds additional named plaintiffs and additional counts, including claims on behalf of putative California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, and New Jersey subclasses for alleged violations of the California Unfair Competition Law, the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, the Georgia Fair Business Practices Act, the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, and the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. On August 28, 2018, the Company and the other defendants moved to stay the action in favor of individual arbitrations with the named plaintiffs, which defendants contend are contractually required. On March 27, 2019, the Court granted that motion and stayed the action pending individual arbitrations with the named plaintiffs. To date, no such individual arbitration requests have been filed. Western Union said, "Due to the stage of the matter, the Company is unable to predict the outcome, or the possible loss or range of loss, if any, which could be associated with it. The Company and the other defendants intend to vigorously defend themselves in this matter." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. The Western Union Company provides money movement and payment services worldwide. The company operates in two segments, Consumer-to-Consumer and Business Solutions. It serves primarily through a network of agents. The Western Union Company was incorporated in 2006 and is headquartered in Denver, Colorado. WILLIAMS CO: Settlement with KS & MO Class Wins Final Approval -------------------------------------------------------------- The Williams Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the Nevada Federal District Court has approved the settlement with the Kansas and Missouri class members and a final judgment of dismissal with prejudice has been entered in the class actions related to alleged manipulation of published gas price indices. Direct and indirect purchasers of natural gas in various states filed individual and class actions against the company, its former affiliate WPX Energy, Inc. (WPX) and its subsidiaries, and others alleging the manipulation of published gas price indices and seeking unspecified amounts of damages. Such actions were transferred to the Nevada federal district court for consolidation of discovery and pre-trial issues. The company had agreed to indemnify WPX and its subsidiaries related to this matter. In the individual action, filed by Farmland Industries Inc., the court issued an order on May 24, 2016, granting one of the company's co-defendant's motion for summary judgment as to Farmland's claims. On January 5, 2017, the court extended such ruling to the company, entering final judgment in our favor. Farmland appealed. On March 27, 2018, the appellate court reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment, and on April 10, 2018, the defendants filed a petition for rehearing with the appellate court, which was denied on May 9, 2018. The case was remanded to the Nevada federal district court and subsequently has been remanded to its originally filed court, the Kansas federal district court. In the putative class actions, on March 30, 2017, the court issued an order denying the plaintiffs' motions for class certification. On June 13, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted the plaintiffs' petition for permission to appeal the order. On August 6, 2018, the Ninth Circuit reversed the order denying class certification and remanded the case to the Nevada federal district court. The company reached an agreement to settle two of the actions, and on April 22, 2019, the Nevada federal district court preliminarily approved the settlements, which are on behalf of Kansas and Missouri class members. The final fairness hearing on the settlement occurred August 5, 2019, and a final judgment of dismissal with prejudice was entered the same day. Two putative class actions remain unresolved, and they have been remanded to their originally filed court, the Wisconsin federal district court. Because of the uncertainty around the remaining pending unresolved issues, we cannot reasonably estimate a range of potential exposure at this time. However, it is reasonably possible that the ultimate resolution of these actions and our related indemnification obligation could result in a potential loss that may be material to our results of operations. In connection with this indemnification, we have an accrued liability balance associated with this matter, and as a result, have exposure to future developments. The Williams Companies, Inc. operates as an energy infrastructure company primarily in the United States. The Williams Companies, Inc. was founded in 1908 and is headquartered in Tulsa, Oklahoma. WORLD WRESTLING: Continues to Defend Wrestlers' Class Suits ----------------------------------------------------------- World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company continues to defend several class action suits initiated by its wrestlers. On October 23, 2014, a lawsuit was filed in the U. S. District Court for the District of Oregon, entitled William Albert Haynes III, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. This complaint was amended on January 30, 2015 and alleged that the Company ignored, downplayed, and/or failed to disclose the risks associated with traumatic brain injuries suffered by WWE's performers and seeks class action status. On March 31, 2015, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the first amended class action complaint in its entirety or, if not dismissed, to transfer the lawsuit to the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. Without addressing the merits of the Company's motion to dismiss, the Court transferred the case to Connecticut on June 25, 2015. The plaintiffs filed an objection to such transfer, which was denied on July 27, 2015. On January 16, 2015, a second lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, entitled Evan Singleton and Vito LoGrasso, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc., alleging many of the same allegations as Haynes. On February 27, 2015, the Company moved to transfer venue to the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut due to forum-selection clauses in the contracts between WWE and the plaintiffs and that motion was granted on March 23, 2015. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on May 22, 2015 and, following a scheduling conference in which the court ordered the plaintiffs to cure various pleading deficiencies, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on June 15, 2015. On June 29, 2015, WWE moved to dismiss the second amended complaint in its entirety. On April 9, 2015, a third lawsuit was filed in the U. S. District Court for the Central District of California, entitled Russ McCullough, a/k/a "Big Russ McCullough," Ryan Sakoda, and Matthew R. Wiese a/k/a "Luther Reigns," individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc., asserting similar allegations to Haynes. The Company again moved to transfer the lawsuit to Connecticut due to forum-selection clauses in the contracts between WWE and the plaintiffs, which the California court granted on July 10, 2015. On September 21, 2015, the plaintiffs amended this complaint, and, on November 16, 2015, the Company moved to dismiss the amended complaint. Each of these suits sought unspecified actual, compensatory and punitive damages and injunctive relief, including ordering medical monitoring. The Haynes and McCullough cases purport to be class actions. On February 18, 2015, a lawsuit was filed in Tennessee state court and subsequently removed to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, entitled Cassandra Frazier, individually and as next of kin to her deceased husband, Nelson Lee Frazier, Jr., and as personal representative of the Estate of Nelson Lee Frazier, Jr. Deceased, v. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. A similar suit was filed in the U. S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas entitled Michelle James, as mother and next friend of Matthew Osborne, minor child, and Teagan Osborne, a minor child v. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. These lawsuits contain many of the same allegations as the other lawsuits alleging traumatic brain injuries and further allege that the injuries contributed to these former talents' deaths. WWE moved to transfer the Frazier and Osborne lawsuits to the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut based on forum-selection clauses in the decedents’ contracts with WWE, which motions were granted by the respective courts. On November 23, 2015, amended complaints were filed in Frazier and Osborne, which the Company moved to dismiss on December 16, 2015 and December 21, 2015, respectively. On November 10, 2016, the Court granted the Company's motions to dismiss the Frazier and Osborne lawsuits in their entirety. On June 29, 2015, the Company filed a declaratory judgment action in the U. S. District Court for the District of Connecticut entitled World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. v. Robert Windham, Thomas Billington, James Ware, Oreal Perras and various John and Jane Does seeking a declaration against these former performers that their threatened claims related to alleged traumatic brain injuries and/or other tort claims are time-barred. On September 21, 2015, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss this complaint, which the Company opposed. The Court previously ordered a stay of discovery in all cases pending decisions on the motions to dismiss. On January 15, 2016, the Court partially lifted the stay and permitted discovery only on three issues in the case involving Singleton and LoGrasso. Such discovery was completed by June 1, 2016. On March 21, 2016, the Court issued a memorandum of decision granting in part and denying in part the Company’s motions to dismiss the Haynes, Singleton/LoGrasso, and McCullough lawsuits. The Court granted the Company's motions to dismiss the Haynes and McCullough lawsuits in their entirety and granted the Company's motion to dismiss all claims in the Singleton/LoGrasso lawsuit except for the claim of fraud by omission. On March 22, 2016, the Court issued an order dismissing the Windham lawsuit based on the Court's memorandum of decision on the motions to dismiss. On April 4, 2016, the Company filed a motion for reconsideration with respect to the Court's decision not to dismiss the fraud by omission claim in the Singleton/LoGrasso lawsuit and, on April 5, 2016, the Company filed a motion for reconsideration with respect to the Court dismissal of the Windham lawsuit. On July 21, 2016, the Court denied the Company's motion in the Singleton/LoGrasso lawsuit and granted in part the Company's motion in the Windham lawsuit. On April 20, 2016, the plaintiffs filed notices of appeal of the Haynes and McCullough lawsuits. On April 27, 2016, the Company moved to dismiss the appeals for lack of appellate jurisdiction, which motions were granted, and the appeals were dismissed with leave to appeal upon the resolution of all of the consolidated cases. The Company filed a motion for summary judgment on the sole remaining claim in the Singleton/LoGrasso lawsuit, which was granted on March 28, 2018. The Company also filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings against the Windham defendants. Lastly, on July 18, 2016, a lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, entitled Joseph M. Laurinaitis, et al. vs. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. and Vincent K. McMahon, individually and as the trustee of certain trusts. This lawsuit contains many of the same allegations as the other lawsuits alleging traumatic brain injuries and further alleges, among other things, that the plaintiffs were misclassified as independent contractors rather than employees denying them, among other things, rights and benefits under the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA), the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), federal tax law, and various state Worker's Compensation laws. This lawsuit also alleges that the booking contracts and other agreements between the plaintiffs and the Company are unconscionable and should be declared void, entitling the plaintiffs to certain damages relating to the Company's use of their intellectual property. The lawsuit alleges claims for violation of RICO, unjust enrichment, and an accounting against Mr. McMahon. The Company and Mr. McMahon moved to dismiss this complaint on October 19, 2016. On November 9, 2016, the Laurinaitis plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. On December 23, 2016, the Company and Mr. McMahon moved to dismiss the amended complaint. On September 29, 2017, the Court issued an order on the motion to dismiss pending in the Laurinaitis case and on the motion for judgment on the pleadings pending in the Windham case. The Court reserved judgment on the pending motions and ordered that within thirty-five (35) days of the date of the order the Laurinaitis plaintiffs and the Windham defendants file amended pleadings that comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court further ordered that each of the Laurinaitis plaintiffs and the Windham defendants submit to the Court for in camera review affidavits signed and sworn under penalty of perjury setting forth facts within each plaintiff's or declaratory judgment-defendant's personal knowledge that form the factual basis of their claim or defense. On November 3, 2017, the Laurinaitis plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint. The Company and Mr. McMahon believe that the second amended complaint failed to comply with the Court’s September 29, 2017 order and otherwise remained legally defective for all of the reasons set forth in their motion to dismiss the amended complaint. Also on November 3, 2017, the Windham defendants filed a second answer. On November 17, 2017, the Company and Mr. McMahon filed a response that, among other things, urged the Court to grant the motion for judgment on the pleadings against the Windham defendants and dismiss the Laurinaitis plaintiffs’ complaint with prejudice and award sanctions against the Laurinaitis plaintiffs' counsel because the amended pleadings failed to comply with the Court's September 29, 2017 order and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. On September 17, 2018, the Court granted the motion to dismiss filed by the Company and Mr. McMahon in the Laurinaitis case in its entirety, awarded sanctions against the Laurinaitis plaintiffs' counsel, and granted the Company’s motion for judgment on the pleadings against the Windham defendants. The plaintiffs have attempted to appeal these decisions. On November 16, 2018, the Company moved to dismiss all of the appeals, except for the appeal of the dismissal of the Laurinaitis case, for being filed untimely. On April 4, 2019, the Second Circuit issued an order referring the Company's motions to dismiss to the panel that will determine the merits of the appeals. The plaintiffs-appellants' opening brief was filed on July 8, 2019. The Company and Mr. McMahon filed their appellees' brief on October 7, 2019. The plaintiffs-appellants filed a reply brief on October 28, 2019. World Wrestling Entertainment said, "The Company believes all claims and threatened claims against the Company in these various lawsuits were prompted by the same plaintiffs' lawyer and that all are without merit. The Company intends to continue to defend itself against the attempt to appeal these decisions vigorously." World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc., an integrated media and entertainment company, engages in the sports entertainment business in North America, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, the Asia Pacific, and Latin America. It operates in three segments: Media, Live Events, and Consumer Products. The company was founded in 1980 and is headquartered in Stamford, Connecticut. YTEL INC: Faces Williams Suit in N.D. Cal. Over TCPA Violation --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ytel, Inc. The case is captioned as Laura C. De la Cabada and Debra Williams, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Ytel, Inc., a California corporation, Case No. 3:19-cv-07178-JSC (N.D. Cal., Oct 30, 2019). The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley. Ytel Inc. operates as a software company. The Company offers platform for cloud contact center, reporting, e-mail, messaging, dashboard, real-time provisioning, and other communications solutions. Ytel serves customers in the United States. The Plaintiffs are represented by: L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. Joseph I. Marchese, Esq. Philip Lawrence Fraietta, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Boulevard, Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com jmarchese@bursor.com pfraietta@bursor.com - and - Daniel Schneider, Esq. EDELSON PC 350 N LaSalle St., 14th Floor Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 589-6370 E-mail: dschneider@edelson.com ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2019. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***